You don't believe or have been spewing any of that crap I'm refuting?
Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread
- Thread starter jhunter1163
- Start date
You don't believe or have been spewing any of that crap I'm refuting?
Just out of curiosity, how does it serve your evil cause to respond to someone who is vastly more knowledgeable and far more more intelligent than you with a mindless, reflexive incoherency?
By getting him or you or any other debunker to respond to me the stupidity behind your claim to know the truth is revealed. You have nothing. You all keep claiming to put me on ignore but you always come back for more. Why is that? I mean if I'm just mindless and incoherent then what do I matter?
Do you have doubts about what you claim to be the truth pomeroo? Isn't that why I bother you or are you afraid I might sway someone with my mindless incoherency?
What is it?
Last edited:
Evil fascinates me. Like Dante, I believe it is bound up with stupidity (in the Inferno, Satan appears as a grunting brute immured in ice) and irrationality. Of course it is impossible for you to sway anybody. You are unintelligent and uninformed by twoofer standards, the lowest standards imaginable. I don't put anybody on "ignore" because I don't think that such an option should be available on a public forum: should two like-minded posters be permitted to ignore everyone else and talk exclusively to each other?
There can be no doubts about the absurdity of your imaginary conspiracy. I have shown, using simple math, why your fantasy is wildly implausible. You are incapable of grasping the demonstration, but, again, you are obtuse. A mountain of evidence exists showing who perpetrated the atrocity and how the buildings fell. Your hatred of America is insufficient to stand reality on its head.
Last edited:
No not really. The 'trooooooooooofers' bring up questions, to a government that has shown a history of false flag terrorism, regarding the biggest terror event of 21st century.
You debunkers, on the other hand, divert attention, and look like fools in the process.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
LChild:
"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."
There you go! You are finally getting it there! You are correct, IF it were Controlled Demolition, the floors would have to be wired, and the ONLY way to do a Controlled Demolition would be to employ many, many people to conspire to do the work. That is why Controlled Demolition is nonsense, but it is not the ONLY reason, but I really feel you have had a breakthrough here. You've debunked CD! Great job.
Now, of course, you are a little lost on how Al Queda and NIST work, but baby steps, Champ!
"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."
There you go! You are finally getting it there! You are correct, IF it were Controlled Demolition, the floors would have to be wired, and the ONLY way to do a Controlled Demolition would be to employ many, many people to conspire to do the work. That is why Controlled Demolition is nonsense, but it is not the ONLY reason, but I really feel you have had a breakthrough here. You've debunked CD! Great job.
Now, of course, you are a little lost on how Al Queda and NIST work, but baby steps, Champ!
Last edited:
Done.
I am. Finals are about to begin. However, when break starts this week I would like to discuss this topic more in depth. You can hold me to that. Also Mark, I'd soon like to discuss the recent email conversation you and I had recently in which you, instead of answering my question, decided to spin it around on me and turn it into something I did not say at all.
It was the general attitude and the reason the thread was made in the first place. If it will satisfy you, your Blueberry Tartness, I will change the sentence to "The forum's users have created a thread which insinuates that no one will be able to point out a single mistake made by Mark Roberts." Would that be better?
Steven Lupo Grossi
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2007
- Messages
- 468
I don't agree with the twoofers, but the premise of this thread does seem a bit fallacious. Just because someone hasn't made any errors, does not mean they have proven what they set out to prove.
Example:
I wish to prove that the earth is flat.
7 + 4 = 11
5^2 = 25
Blue paint + Yellow paint = Green paint
A bachelor is an unmarried man.
Now, can anyone point to any errors I've made?
Did I prove the earth is flat?
Just sayin . . .
Example:
I wish to prove that the earth is flat.
7 + 4 = 11
5^2 = 25
Blue paint + Yellow paint = Green paint
A bachelor is an unmarried man.
Now, can anyone point to any errors I've made?
Did I prove the earth is flat?
Just sayin . . .
Totovader
Game Warden
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 3,321
Nor does it prove that the conspiracists are complete and utter morons.
That is proven by their claims, not their unwillingness to address the facts.
AZCat
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,672
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Huh? I make errors all the time, Steven. The purpose of the thread, if I understand it correctly, was to encourage people who were taking content-free potshots at me to post substantive, evidence-based critiques instead.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Thank you.
Good luck with exams!
There's nothing to discuss. If you haven't figured out by now how to rephrase the question, and why you need to, then I suggest you spend more time on that. It ain't rocket science, Justin.
No, just as wrong isn't better. Why do yo make these assumptions? You know what you could have done instead?
So, I haven't seen your retraction of your claim about what I got wrong yet. Please post that in both forums at your earliest convenience.
Last edited:
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Yes, that was my challenge to Les Jamieson after six months of confronting him at Ground Zero. And he couldn't name a single thing I got wrong. Did I say I issued that challenge to the world? Well-researched corrections to my work are always welcome. What's the big deal?
Justin, shouldn't you be concerned with establishing truth, rather than obsessing about me?
See above. That's absolutely correct. Not a single one of the Ground Zero creeps ever named anything I got wrong, while I corrected hundreds of their errors.
You know what else not a single one of them ever knew? NIST's simple explanation of the tower collapses, although their main claim was that the towers couldn't have collapsed as they did.
What do you think about that, Justin? Truth movement leaders like Les Jamieson and Luke Rudkowski who rant out there every single week, but who couldn't be bothered to read one paragraph in NIST's FAQ or listen to and remember my explanations. Not once.
"Truth Movement"
ETA: by the way, what happened to all that footage you shot of me at Ground Zero on 9/11/06? It seemed like you got about 20 minutes of interview with me and conversations between me and others. I'm in hours and hours of truther videos, but only a few minutes has ever been made public, mostly the Loose Change crew's video of me arguing with Alex Jones. A nice guy named Fletcher interviewed me twice for a truther documentary he was making, but I guess that never was finished. Can I buy the footage from you? I'd be interested to see it.
Last edited:
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Let's have a look at this. I said,
You replied,
That's right, to my request to take your childish act elsewhere, you replied with actual gibberish. I expected nothing less. Now take your sad, ignorant, content-free act elsewhere.
You replied,
That's right, to my request to take your childish act elsewhere, you replied with actual gibberish. I expected nothing less. Now take your sad, ignorant, content-free act elsewhere.
Ok, chum, let's try it again
In your previous post to this one, you stated that you "will never understand" the argument, yet you then say you follow it fine.
You seem to be singularly confused.
Let me try a different approach.
As I stated previously, no "debunker" nor scientist nor knowledgeable person believes it would take "vast amounts of explosives" to destroy a WTC Tower. This is because we follow the work of Bazant & Zhou, and we accept that all one would have to do is destroy a single floor (at or about the 98th floor or lower) to cause a complete collapse. The WTC Towers were quite large and constructed of steel, and dynamiting an entire floor would take some doing, but this is hardly impossible. Particularly if you don't care about controlling the debris field.
In my whitepaper, I estimate a minimum amount of explosives -- about 150 pounds, assuming ideal placement and extensive weakening of structural members prior to triggering. Of course, this idea is absurd as an explanation for September 11th, because there's no possible way for a precision demolition to survive the impact and fire, which it would have to do in order to collapse from the impact floors. Also, it's likely that had the columns been weakened, the Tower would have collapsed on contact, making the demolition moot. Still, the point is that we do not require vast amounts of explosives.
I also suggest a more robust demolition scenario involving a single, very large, well armored and fireproofed explosive charge that could conceivably survive the impact and fire. I estimate such a charge at roughly 3,000 pounds of explosive, much larger but still not beyond the realm of imagination. This scenario also didn't happen, of course, since this would not give us the characteristic inward bowing and failure of the perimeter walls, and would have been clearly audible as well as detected on seismographs. Yet again, the point is that vast explosives are not required. My estimates are based on simple reasoning and are subject to refinement, but they're in the right ballpark. And they're credible.
The only people who require vast amount of explosives are, once again, the Truth Movement. For example, consider the case of Dr. Griffin, who as author of several books, "fact checker" for Loose Change: Final Cut, and inspiration for the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is clearly a mainstream figure. While he never, ever clearly articulates his hypothesis, we can demonstrate easily that he believes in both a huge number of explosives and a huge quantity of explosives.
From his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking, page 185, Dr. Griffin expresses his belief that the steel columns were mainly cut into 20 to 50 foot sections, and that this was done by explosives. This implies that explosives were placed at roughly every third floor throughout the entire structure, and presumably on every single column as well. This places a lower limit on the number of charges Dr. Griffin believes in at over 7,000. Not very feasible.
From the same book, page 188, Dr. Griffin states that the gravitational energy contained in the Towers could not possibly generate the pulverization and dust seen. This energy is equivalent to at least 60,000 pounds of TNT equivalent. If this isn't enough energy, and Dr. Griffin insists that there were enough explosives to make a qualitative difference in the collapses, then he must believe that over 60,000 pounds of explosives per Tower were in place. That is, indeed, a "vast quantity of explosives."
So, as I said before, it isn't us who think "vast quantities" were needed. It's the Truth Movement. They simply aren't competent or focused enough to finish their own thoughts, requiring us to fill in the blanks and point out the absurdities for them, as I have done above.
Now do you understand?
In your previous post to this one, you stated that you "will never understand" the argument, yet you then say you follow it fine.
You seem to be singularly confused.
Let me try a different approach.
As I stated previously, no "debunker" nor scientist nor knowledgeable person believes it would take "vast amounts of explosives" to destroy a WTC Tower. This is because we follow the work of Bazant & Zhou, and we accept that all one would have to do is destroy a single floor (at or about the 98th floor or lower) to cause a complete collapse. The WTC Towers were quite large and constructed of steel, and dynamiting an entire floor would take some doing, but this is hardly impossible. Particularly if you don't care about controlling the debris field.
In my whitepaper, I estimate a minimum amount of explosives -- about 150 pounds, assuming ideal placement and extensive weakening of structural members prior to triggering. Of course, this idea is absurd as an explanation for September 11th, because there's no possible way for a precision demolition to survive the impact and fire, which it would have to do in order to collapse from the impact floors. Also, it's likely that had the columns been weakened, the Tower would have collapsed on contact, making the demolition moot. Still, the point is that we do not require vast amounts of explosives.
I also suggest a more robust demolition scenario involving a single, very large, well armored and fireproofed explosive charge that could conceivably survive the impact and fire. I estimate such a charge at roughly 3,000 pounds of explosive, much larger but still not beyond the realm of imagination. This scenario also didn't happen, of course, since this would not give us the characteristic inward bowing and failure of the perimeter walls, and would have been clearly audible as well as detected on seismographs. Yet again, the point is that vast explosives are not required. My estimates are based on simple reasoning and are subject to refinement, but they're in the right ballpark. And they're credible.
The only people who require vast amount of explosives are, once again, the Truth Movement. For example, consider the case of Dr. Griffin, who as author of several books, "fact checker" for Loose Change: Final Cut, and inspiration for the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is clearly a mainstream figure. While he never, ever clearly articulates his hypothesis, we can demonstrate easily that he believes in both a huge number of explosives and a huge quantity of explosives.
From his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking, page 185, Dr. Griffin expresses his belief that the steel columns were mainly cut into 20 to 50 foot sections, and that this was done by explosives. This implies that explosives were placed at roughly every third floor throughout the entire structure, and presumably on every single column as well. This places a lower limit on the number of charges Dr. Griffin believes in at over 7,000. Not very feasible.
From the same book, page 188, Dr. Griffin states that the gravitational energy contained in the Towers could not possibly generate the pulverization and dust seen. This energy is equivalent to at least 60,000 pounds of TNT equivalent. If this isn't enough energy, and Dr. Griffin insists that there were enough explosives to make a qualitative difference in the collapses, then he must believe that over 60,000 pounds of explosives per Tower were in place. That is, indeed, a "vast quantity of explosives."
So, as I said before, it isn't us who think "vast quantities" were needed. It's the Truth Movement. They simply aren't competent or focused enough to finish their own thoughts, requiring us to fill in the blanks and point out the absurdities for them, as I have done above.
Now do you understand?
Last edited:
OOOOO EVIL muslim islamosfascist jihadists who want to kill us all.
Like the ones we use to attack in iran, bosnia and serbia, working for CIA??
Man, they really turned around and started hating our FAT AMERICAN DOLLARS (that are evaporating in value every instance), yet are still working for us attacking iran.
Last edited:
9/11 was a False Flag Operation / Provocation / Event.
One can debunk individual strawmen arguments, yet ignore the big picture of what caused 9/11 patsies to act in this false flag op, and especailly of how things transspired after 9/11. Remember the WTC 7? Antrax Attacks? "Angel is next"?
And one can chant 'false flag' until one is blue in the face, but without some evidence to back it up, it is and will always be just the desperate fantasy of someone who wants to believe.