Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[apathoid]

So then you disagree with this...



And you agree how explosives can use gravity the same way the plane crash did? In fact that's what they do in demolition no? Make up your debunker minds.

RMackey laid it out in plain English and it apparently went right over your head. You just do not get it.

It's your(as in the Truth movement) contention that enough explosives were needed to pulvervise 99.9% of the concrete, vaporize steel, cut the steel in 30 ft sections, eject debris upwards and outwards, etc..etc..etc..etc. We are simply responding to that as if it were true just to show you how ridiculous the amount of explosives needed is. You see, you are trying some bizarre from of equivocation in which you faulting us for going along with your claims just for the sake of argument.

Further, debunkers here and elsewhere have repeatedly informed Truthers that they are just plain wrong and that gravity was enough to cause what was observed - and even provided to the necessary calculations to the effect. No explosives were needed, much less enough explosives "powerdize the 99.9% of the concrete".

Now, why does it take so much explosives for a standard demoliton when just enough for one or two floors would do? Because if they wired up just a single floor at the top of the building, you'd destroy all of the surrounding buildings(a la 9/11) as well as the one you've just demoed. It seems counter-intuitive that more explosives means less collateral damage to adjacent buildings - but that is the case.

 

[LastChild]

RMackey laid it out in plain English and it apparently went right over your head. You just do not get it.

It's your(as in the Truth movement) contention that enough explosives were needed to pulvervise 99.9% of the concrete, vaporize steel, cut the steel in 30 ft sections, eject debris upwards and outwards, etc..etc..etc..etc. We are simply responding to that as if it were true just to show you how ridiculous the amount of explosives needed is. You see, you are trying some bizarre from of equivocation in which you faulting us for going along with your claims just for the sake of argument.

Is that what was being said here? Watch out somethings not going over your head genius.

“It would take truly staggering amounts of explosives to bring down the towers without pre-weakening them and without lengthy and direct access to bare steel columns for the placement of precision demolition charges.”

Do you agree with that?

Further, debunkers here and elsewhere have repeatedly informed Truthers that they are just plain wrong and that gravity was enough to cause what was observed - and even provided to the necessary calculations to the effect. No explosives were needed, much less enough explosives "powerdize the 99.9% of the concrete".

Again is that what is being said here...?

“It would take truly staggering amounts of explosives to bring down the towers without pre-weakening them and without lengthy and direct access to bare steel columns for the placement of precision demolition charges.”

Now, why does it take so much explosives for a standard demoliton when just enough for one or two floors would do? Because if they wired up just a single floor at the top of the building, you'd destroy all of the surrounding buildings(a la 9/11) as well as the one you've just demoed. It seems counter-intuitive that more explosives means less collateral damage to adjacent buildings - but that is the case.

Really? Are you sure just wiring the top floor would destroy an entire building as well as the surrounding ones? Now you're just making crap up.

Maybe you should take all this up with Gravy. You two seem to disagree. Try to get all your debunker garbage straight will you guys?

 

[Minadin]

I think you're forgetting about the control part of controlled demolitions, LC. There's any number of ways to cause a building to collapse in an uncontrolled fashion.

I agree with what Apathoid and R. Mackey are telling you above.

 

[The Big Dog]

"Maybe you should take all this up with Gravy. You two seem to disagree."

First, you intentionally misquoted him. He did not say "the top floor" champ. He said a floor at the top of the building, "(a la 9/11)." Moreover, both comments are fully consistent, but you seem a little too busy trying to get your wisecracks in to care about it.

"Try to get all your debunker garbage straight will you guys?"

Sure, just tell us when you guys have settled on the Truth. I'm guessing it is going to be space beams, with a side helping of fake video, and a little mind control for afters? Right, Child?

 

[apathoid]

“It would take truly staggering amounts of explosives to bring down the towers without pre-weakening them and without lengthy and direct access to bare steel columns for the placement of precision demolition charges.”

Care to provide some sort of context for that quote? Also, it could be argued that the amount of explosives needed to sever every single column on a single floor of the WTC is indeed "staggering".

For a standard CD industry style demolition that doesn't damage or destroy nearly every building in the vicinity, yes I'd be inclined to agree that ridiculous amounts of explosives are required. However, if you used explosives to sever every column, say on the 82 floor, my guess is you'd have a building collapse looking something like what happened on 9/11 - but then again, I'm no structural engineer.

Really? Are you sure just wiring the top floor would destroy an entire building as well as the surrounding ones? Now you're just making crap up.

Like I said, I'm no engineer, but after reading Greening and Bazant on the progressive collapse/momentum transfer, it would seem quite likely that the lower portion of the building would behave the same way as it did when the upper portions crushed the lower portions, one floor at a time, just like on 9/11. The mechanism is similar, but obviously not identical. Also, as 16.5 said, I did not say the top floor.

Maybe you should take all this up with Gravy. You two seem to disagree. Try to get all your debunker garbage straight will you guys?

There is no disagreement as I am not making a claim. Try reading and understanding what's being written.

Is that what was being said here? Watch out somethings not going over your head genius.

Obviously, I was talking about truther claims in general with regard to explosives, not any one specific claim. You see, there as many different claims as there are truthers who spout them..

 

[ref]

I only have Rodriguez's email address. It came from his account.

Ok. I was hoping the entire list could also see the response to Willie. Not just his version of events. Well, the way he promotes your paper, some are bound to read the paper anyway

 

[GStan]

CT: There were lots of big bombs.
NWO: There is no evidence of that.
CT: But look how the buildings fell.
NWO: That can happen without any bombs.
CT: AHA!!! Take that debunkers!

 

[SDC]

Considering S.Dangler's ever longer and more convoluted posts, I decided to cheat: I said and he quoted me:
Quote:
SDC-With regard to the Van Romero comment per S.Dangler... Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
1/ You used him as your source of expert information.
2/ You then acknowledged that he had retracted his statements.
3/ Which means #1 is not valid. He corrected himself.

Then he said:

Can you source where Van Romero changed his mind about the amount of explosives it would take to bring the Tower's down not what caused the towers to come down?
Thanks for the link!

End of snappy counterpoint.

Since Romero changed his mind about how the towers came down, the second point -- about amount of explosives used -- is, simply, moot. There is nothing to source.

 

[beachnut]

jaq - standard 9/11 truth stuff - no facts, just talk

Is that what was being said here? Watch out somethings not going over your head genius.

Do you agree with that?

Again is that what is being said here...?

Really? Are you sure just wiring the top floor would destroy an entire building as well as the surrounding ones? Now you're just making crap up.

Maybe you should take all this up with Gravy. You two seem to disagree. Try to get all your debunker garbage straight will you guys?

not a single fact, just junk - what error were you talking about?

 

[pomeroo]

I follow it fine thank you.



Really? All of them? Who are we talking about that claims vast amounts of explosives would be needed to take down the towers?



Someone did. That’s what I was replying to. It’s never been said every floor would need to be wired by teams of demo experts that would take months?



Right back at you. Not all CT believers say the towers weren’t hit by something. I don’t know any who think something didn’t initially happen at the top of those towers. So how would follow-up explosive devices negate whatever happen in the Initial damage?



I’m not confused thank you. I know when someone is talking out of both sides of their mouth.



I don’t belong to any club. Do you?



The only thing you assume is something that serves your argument. It makes no sense. If a plane can cause enough damage at the top of a building to produce a global collapse then there is no need for vast amounts of explosives wired on every floor if that’s what you claim. Make up your mind. Again these are your arguments not mine.



Then stop saying or endorsing garbage like this…



Did the plane need that? Would explosives negate gravity?



Yeah you know all about reductio ad absurdum don’t you?



I’m not sure which claim you are referring to. Are you endorsing all debunker claims? Do they all concur?



Never was unclear. How about you?

You are astonishingly obtuse, even by fantasist standards.

 

[Gravy]

Are those crickets or katydids?

Well, I'm sure Justin is busy with school. I also emailed Avery this afternoon:

Hi, Dylan.

Justin Martell pointed out this LC thread, which begins with a quote of mine about no one telling Ground Zero workers that the air there was safe to breathe. For some reason you found that to be a despicable comment.

I take it then that you can produce evidence that officials did tell Ground Zero workers that the air was safe to breathe there? Justin hasn't been able to do so, and I haven't come across it in my extensive readings on this subject. I'd appreciate this information so I can retract my statement and add the info to my site. If you don't have such evidence, your retraction is expected, but I don't need to tell you that.

Sincerely,
Mark

P.s.: my quote in your post is incorrect. Justin had altered it and has apologized for doing so. He changed the quote back to its original form in the first ost in that thread.

Oh, and will you tell those kids on your site that the U.S. military isn't a branch of government, for crying out loud?

I heard back from William Rodriguez. He said he corrected his email to indicate that my John Schroeder paper was an "open letter" and not email. He said he was leaving the word offensive in, although he didn't say what offended him. He also said he was not going to correct his other lies.

I wrote a lengthy reply to him, which you can read here. I'll post the rest of my emails to him on that page when I get a chance, to show that I'm dealing with him honestly and openly.

 

[qarnos]

Justin Martell pointed out this LC thread, which begins with a quote of mine about no one telling Ground Zero workers that the air there was safe to breathe. For some reason you found that to be a despicable comment.

What's truly despicable is the way the truthers use the first responders as a shield against criticisms of their conspiracy fantasy.

 

[LastChild]

"Maybe you should take all this up with Gravy. You two seem to disagree."

First, you intentionally misquoted him. He did not say "the top floor" champ. He said a floor at the top of the building, "(a la 9/11)." Moreover, both comments are fully consistent, but you seem a little too busy trying to get your wisecracks in to care about it.

Oh my bad. BTW was the WTC the top floor? I mean that is what we are talking about here right Champ?

"Try to get all your debunker garbage straight will you guys?"

Sure, just tell us when you guys have settled on the Truth. I'm guessing it is going to be space beams, with a side helping of fake video, and a little mind control for afters? Right, Child?

Really I thought you believed in a plane crash into a few floors can do it but the only way explosives could do it is if every floor was wired.

Or that the only way to successfully conspire to take down the WTC would be if thousands of people were involved. But of course according to you 19 hijacker can conspire all on their own and successfully or was it all of Al Queda? How did all of Al Queda keep it quiet? Which is it anyway? God it’s hard to get your story straight champ.

Where’s that WTC report? What’s taking so long? Didn't Bazant have his report out in two days? Was Bazant’s all wrong?

Fill me in will ya? Champ? You know the REAL truth don’t ya?

Champ?

 

[JamesB]

Or that the only way to successfully conspire to take down the WTC would be if thousands of people were involved. But of course according to you 19 hijacker can conspire all on their own and successfully or was it all of Al Queda? How did all of Al Queda keep it quiet? Which is it anyway? God it’s hard to get your story straight champ.

They didn't they have talked about it on numerous occassions, Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin al Shib, Zacarias Moussaouii and Salim Ahmed Hamdan have all said that Al Qaeda was involved in one way or another.

As opposed to absolutely zero insider who have said that the US was behind it.

Not to mention all the other evidence, such as the presence of Arabs on the flights, credit card bills, training at flight schools etc.

 

[dbalsdon]

Really I thought you believed in a plane crash into a few floors can do it but the only way explosives could do it is if every floor was wired.

Even to replicate the initial damage the plane's did, it would require a lot of explosives.

 

[dbalsdon]

And even then, the buildings might've still stood. After all, it was the plane damage AND the fires which brought the building's down, not just one on its own.

 

[Crungy]

RMackey laid it out in plain English and it apparently went right over your head. You just do not get it.

It's not too difficult to fly over a four year olds noggin'.

It's amazing how how well written and crystal clear RMackey's post was and how the lil' kid replied to each point with a complete lack of understanding of what Mr. Mackey was trying to teach him. It's like watching a 4 year old stick his tounge out at you. Oh well. If the lil' kid advances to first grade next year, maybe he'll learn some basic critical thinking skills.

 

[AZCat]

Where’s that WTC report? What’s taking so long? Didn't Bazant have his report out in two days? Was Bazant’s all wrong?

Perhaps a moment's reflection will bring you the realization that scope is significant when determining the difference in duration.

 

[stateofgrace]

God it’s hard to get your story straight champ.

Isn't that just LC and your story is what exactly, champ? Opps forgot you are just asking questions aren’t you champ? You have no story.

You know champ the questions that you will never answer but imply that your fellow countrymen planned, committed and covered up mass murder, champ?

Got any proof champ? No maybe not, better sing the twoofer line, better buy into it hook line and sinker hey, champ? Better to demonise your fellow countrymen than accept facts hey champ? Better to try desperately to defend cold bloodied mass murderers than even venture a definitive statement hey champ?

 

[Gravy]

LastChild, unless you have evidence that refutes a factual statement of mine, kindly take your juvenile nonsense elsewhere.