Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[qarnos]

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.

Whaaaaat?!?!!??!

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

LastChild, let's try a bit of rational analysis here. The two planes hit the towers twelve floors apart, so there's a minimum value for the uncertainty about which floor the planes might hit at. Both collapses started on the impact floors, so for a demo using explosives the impact floors have to be wired. In other words, for the WTC towers to be brought down by explosives, every possible floor the planes could have hit had to be wired, so that the collapse could start in the right place. The planes could have hit any floor down to about 50 (lower floors were masked by other buildings, eg. the WFC and WTC7), so floors 50 to about 100 had to be wired, and each one had to have enough explosives to bring the whole building down. Therefore, the conspiracy theory requires many, many times the amount of explosives needed just to bring the building down, just to cope with the uncertainty about where the planes will hit.

And that's without going into the standard truther freefall mantra, which requires even more explosives for no other reason than to make the towers fall suspiciously fast. Jim Hoffman estimated 250 tons of high explosive in each tower, which is a totally ******* crazy number.

The plane crashes, on the other hand, can only damage the structure where they hit, so that's where the collapse starts.

Remember, there are different starting assumptions here. The truth movement claims that the planes couldn't have initiated the collapse at all. The conventionally accepted view of events is that they could, and that no explosives were needed. Throw away that latter assumption, and then you quickly end up with ridiculous requirements for explosives. It's a classic case of Ryan Mackey's inflationary model of conspiracy theories.

Dave

 

[westprog]

LastChild, let's try a bit of rational analysis here. The two planes hit the towers twelve floors apart, so there's a minimum value for the uncertainty about which floor the planes might hit at. Both collapses started on the impact floors, so for a demo using explosives the impact floors have to be wired. In other words, for the WTC towers to be brought down by explosives, every possible floor the planes could have hit had to be wired, so that the collapse could start in the right place. The planes could have hit any floor down to about 50 (lower floors were masked by other buildings, eg. the WFC and WTC7), so floors 50 to about 100 had to be wired, and each one had to have enough explosives to bring the whole building down. Therefore, the conspiracy theory requires many, many times the amount of explosives needed just to bring the building down, just to cope with the uncertainty about where the planes will hit.

And that's without going into the standard truther freefall mantra, which requires even more explosives for no other reason than to make the towers fall suspiciously fast. Jim Hoffman estimated 250 tons of high explosive in each tower, which is a totally ******* crazy number.

The plane crashes, on the other hand, can only damage the structure where they hit, so that's where the collapse starts.

Remember, there are different starting assumptions here. The truth movement claims that the planes couldn't have initiated the collapse at all. The conventionally accepted view of events is that they could, and that no explosives were needed. Throw away that latter assumption, and then you quickly end up with ridiculous requirements for explosives. It's a classic case of Ryan Mackey's inflationary model of conspiracy theories.

Dave

There are a number of alternative explanations - each of which is equally silly.

The pilot could have been sufficiently skilled that he was able to aim the plane precisely two floors above the explosives.

A lot of the floors were wired with explosives, but they only detonated those immediately below the impact.

Naturally the child won't address any of these possibilities. Just Asking Questions is a posture which precludes thinking.

 

[twinstead]

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.

Correct. Nothing worse than some ideologue trying to shove his world view down our throats with NO evidence to back it up. They believe whatever they are told as long as it supports their position and then expect us to believe them because they say it with 'conviction'.

And worse, they complain WE are the ones who are sheep. LOL

 

[pomeroo]

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"?

Why do you lie?

You, like other conspiracy liars, find it impossible to fit the collapse of WTC 7 into your imaginary conspiracy. Let me help: it can't be done.


Nobody knows the source of the anthrax. Stop pretending that you do.

Uh, "Angel is next"? The reason you know this quote is that you're referring to an interview with Bush himself. You throw out something totally meaningless and act as though you've presented support for your deranged fantasy.

Grow up.

 

[Swing Dangler]

I

n 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.

Actually Ryan, you are wrong. JREF's leading debunker thinks it will take vast amounts of explosives....

Mark Robert’s claim-“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. From his hit piece against WR”

But thanks though, RMackey, for debunking Roberts with your post. Now if he would correct that passage in his paper like a good little debunker we might be able to move on to the next error. I guess there is nothing more entertaining than a debunker debunking a fellow debunker.

 

[DGM]

I
Actually Ryan, you are wrong. JREF's leading debunker thinks it will take vast amounts of explosives....



But thanks though, RMackey, for debunking Roberts with your post. Now if he would correct that passage in his paper like a good little debunker we might be able to move on to the next error. I guess there is nothing more entertaining than a debunker debunking a fellow debunker.

Another thing to keep in mind (and it's silly that it needs to be said) is that demolitions charges are LOUD and are used when a structure is to be brought down, not long before. When a building is brought down with explosives, it is extensively pre-weakened to minimize the amount of explosives needed. 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. There isn't a single shred of evidence to support the hypothesis that explosives were used in the towers.

Wasn't Mark talking about CD's in general in that quote?

Why do you try to lie to skeptics?

 

[Dave Rogers]

But thanks though, RMackey, for debunking Roberts with your post. Now if he would correct that passage in his paper like a good little debunker we might be able to move on to the next error. I guess there is nothing more entertaining than a debunker debunking a fellow debunker.

Actually, Swing, there's a rather important point you've missed here.

Mark Robert’s claim-“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. From his hit piece against WR”

Note the bolded text. The pre-weakening is an important part of a controlled demolition in that it reduces the amount of explosives necessary. Far more important, however, is that shaped charges are used, and that these must be placed in close contact with the steel members to be severed. The effectiveness of shaped charges falls off drastically if they are moved any distance away from the object to be cut; for example, if charges have to be placed outside drywall insulation that serves as fireproofing. Therefore, although a conventional controlled demolition might need relatively small amounts of explosives, if you include Mark's modifiers in bold above, that's how "truly staggering amounts" of explosives are required. As usual, you need to read the whole quote you're referring to.

I suggest you look up shaped charges, and methods of defeating them. Spaced armour, where a thin pre-detonating layer sets off a shaped charge before it reaches a tank, does a good job of stopping shaped charge HEAT rounds, and in WW2 the Germans used wire mesh screens for this. Drywall insulation would do a very nice job too; all you need is to separate the explosive from the steel by a very short distance and most of the effectiveness is lost and far greater amounts of explosive will be needed to give the same effect. Therefore, with the qualifying adjectival clauses included, Mark's statement is entirely correct.

Dave

 

[Swing Dangler]

Actually, Swing, there's a rather important point you've missed here.
Note the bolded text. The pre-weakening is an important part of a controlled demolition in that it reduces the amount of explosives necessary. Far more important, however, is that shaped charges are used, and that these must be placed in close contact with the steel members to be severed. The effectiveness of shaped charges falls off drastically if they are moved any distance away from the object to be cut; for example, if charges have to be placed outside drywall insulation that serves as fireproofing. Therefore, although a conventional controlled demolition might need relatively small amounts of explosives, if you include Mark's modifiers in bold above, that's how "truly staggering amounts" of explosives are required. As usual, you need to read the whole quote you're referring to.

I suggest you look up shaped charges, and methods of defeating them. Spaced armour, where a thin pre-detonating layer sets off a shaped charge before it reaches a tank, does a good job of stopping shaped charge HEAT rounds, and in WW2 the Germans used wire mesh screens for this. Drywall insulation would do a very nice job too; all you need is to separate the explosive from the steel by a very short distance and most of the effectiveness is lost and far greater amounts of explosive will be needed to give the same effect. Therefore, with the qualifying adjectival clauses included, Mark's statement is entirely correct.

Dave

Ok good point!

Except he is conflict with Van Romero's assessment on how much explosives it would take. Van of course doesn't mention pre-weakening at all, only a small amount of explosives placed in strategic areas. And before you bring up the recant of his thoughts on what would bring the towers, you might want to link to where he or for that matter any CD expert states the amount of explosives it would take. I'm going to stand by Romero's original professional assessment of the amount of explosives it would take unless he has stated it would take staggering amounts of explosives. His analysis of how much explosives it would take has no bearing of course on his opinion on how the towers collapsed which we all know changed.

I think you can separate the two assessments and still have an accurate description on the amount of explosives it would take: a small amount.

 

[The Big Dog]

Swing:

"I'm going to stand by Romero's original professional assessment of the amount of explosives it would take unless he has stated it would take staggering amounts of explosives. His analysis of how much explosives it would take has no bearing of course on his opinion on how the towers collapsed which we all know changed."

THAT is as good an example of desperation cherry picking as I've ever seen! Hey, any port in a storm there, hey Swing? Your hero has admitted he was completely wrong about the WTC, yet you cling to one comment in his initial statement (which was based on his review of video only as I recall), because he did not expressly disavow that comment?

I am reminded of a person who once threatened to report one of my posts because I chided him on his backsliding. He said that the buildings were "not subject to massive fire and smoke" but later claimed what he really meant was to exclude from his statement the areas of the towers that WERE subject to massive fire and smoke. In other words, the buildings were not on fire except those parts of the building that were on fire.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ok good point!

And yet you immediately try to sidestep it.

Except he is conflict with Van Romero's assessment on how much explosives it would take. Van of course doesn't mention pre-weakening at all, only a small amount of explosives placed in strategic areas.

These strategic areas, though, have to be in close contact with the steel support members for the shaped charge effect. If you read Mark's entire quote, you can see he's adding a condition that Van Romero wouldn't have considered: the condition that the charges cannot be placed close enough to the columns for any shaped charge effect. As a demolition professional, why would Van Romero consider such a scenario? He doesn't have to place his charges without anybody noticing.

I think you can separate the two assessments and still have an accurate description on the amount of explosives it would take: a small amount.

If, and only if, they can function as shaped charges in contact with the columns. Mark excludes that scenario in his comment, therefore taken as a whole, his statement is thoroughly reasonable. Stand by Van Romero's estimate as much as you like, it's not based on the conditions explicitly stated in the quote you're disputing.

The only estimate of explosive requirements I've seen that didn't involve shaped charge effects was Jim Hoffman's estimate of 250 tons per tower. That, I would argue, is a "truly staggering amount".

Dave

 

[Swing Dangler]

And yet you immediately try to sidestep it.
These strategic areas, though, have to be in close contact with the steel support members for the shaped charge effect. If you read Mark's entire quote, you can see he's adding a condition that Van Romero wouldn't have considered: the condition that the charges cannot be placed close enough to the columns for any shaped charge effect. As a demolition professional, why would Van Romero consider such a scenario? He doesn't have to place his charges without anybody noticing.
If, and only if, they can function as shaped charges in contact with the columns. Mark excludes that scenario in his comment, therefore taken as a whole, his statement is thoroughly reasonable. Stand by Van Romero's estimate as much as you like, it's not based on the conditions explicitly stated in the quote you're disputing.
The only estimate of explosive requirements I've seen that didn't involve shaped charge effects was Jim Hoffman's estimate of 250 tons per tower. That, I would argue, is a "truly staggering amount".
Dave

If you read Mark's entire quote, you can see he's adding a condition that Van Romero wouldn't have considered: the condition that the charges cannot be placed close enough to the columns for any shaped charge effect.

Seriously how can you place yourself in a position to determine what the explosive demolition expert, Van Romero, thinks or doesn't think?

I will stand by an demolition expert's statement and you can stand by a tour guide's statement. Fair enough?

 

[R.Mackey]

Actually Ryan, you are wrong. JREF's leading debunker thinks it will take vast amounts of explosives....

Supposing that you are correct about what Gravy believes, rather than simply quote-mining and misinterpreting as usual, then the conclusion is that Gravy has made a mistake in this respect.

Big deal.

I think I understand what he's really saying. But even giving you every possible benefit of the doubt, you've proved nothing of any significance.

I should also point out that we have no "leading debunker," although I have been and remain indebted to Gravy's work. If that's the best you can do to discredit him, then you should really consider listening to what he has to say, and dropping your own unsupportable beliefs.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Seriously how can you place yourself in a position to determine what the explosive demolition expert, Van Romero, thinks or doesn't think?

Fair point. I'd ask you the same thing, though: how can you place yourself in a position to determine whether Van Romero's statement was relevant to Mark's scenario?

I will stand by an demolition expert's statement and you can stand by a tour guide's statement. Fair enough?

The two are not in any way incompatible. I'm happy to stand by both.

Dave

 

[The Big Dog]

"Originally Posted by Swing Dangler. I will stand by an demolition expert's statement and you can stand by a tour guide's statement. Fair enough?"

"The two are not in any way incompatible. I'm happy to stand by both." Dave

Ditto.

 

[Malmoesoldier]

So, as I said before, it isn't us who think "vast quantities" were needed. It's the Truth Movement

It would only require approximately a thousand pounds of high-energy explosives in each Tower to bring them down in that way.

The biggest errors in Gravys paper is the evidence that he dont mention.

SOME examples

* The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (although they never bothered to tell the American people about that fact)

* The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building.

* Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House.

* A former FBI translator who Senators Leahy and Grassley, among others, have claimed is credible, and who the administration has gagged for years without any logical basis -- has stated that "this administration knowingly and intentionally let many directly or indirectly involved in that terrorist act [September 11th] go free – untouched and uninvestigated"

* The FBI long ago found and analyzed the "black box" recorders from the airplanes which hit the Twin Towers, but has consistently denied that they were ever found.
* CIA destroyed videotapes of interrogations of alleged Al Qaeda members. And the 9/11 Commission claimed that it obtained most of its information about the attacks from these interrogations.

* The former head of the fire science and engineering division of the agency now investigating the world trade center disaster, who is a professor of fire protection engineering, wrote that evidence necessary to determine the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Centers was being destroyed.

* In addition, the official investigators themselves were denied access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the world trade center. The blueprints for the world trade center are apparently STILL being withheld from reporters and the public. The most important steel to the investigation that could explain the collapse of the towers was destroyed without any investigation.

* Dozens of FBI and defense intelligence agents were threatened with arrest by the federal government if they got in the way of al-qaeda operations.

* Bill clinton let bin laden slip away.

WHY NOT TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT 9-11

 

[Swing Dangler]

Supposing that you are correct about what Gravy believes, rather than simply quote-mining and misinterpreting as usual, then the conclusion is that Gravy has made a mistake in this respect.Big deal.I think I understand what he's really saying. But even giving you every possible benefit of the doubt, you've proved nothing of any significance. I should also point out that we have no "leading debunker," although I have been and remain indebted to Gravy's work. If that's the best you can do to discredit him, then you should really consider listening to what he has to say, and dropping your own unsupportable beliefs.

Ryan, Ryan, Ryan, please examine the thread's title again. The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread started by a debunker. Discredit? Nope, just pointing out errors of his. I'm not "proving" anything, Ryan. I'm simply following the title of the thread, that is all. And it appears you support this exposure of yet another Mark Robert's factual error. I'm sure he will appreciate your thoughts on his error and then maybe we can all become better "debunkers."

I should also point out that we have no "leading debunker," although I have been and remain indebted to Gravy's work

.
Uh oh! Do I detect a hint of jealousy?

 

[Lurker]

In a discussion I had with a truther, he maintained that teh collapse could not have occurred by plane/fire. He posited that for the collapse to have occurred as we observed it, that each floor below the impact zone had to be wired with explosives. Then, as the building fell, each floor went off successively to create the collapse we observed.

I beleive he did say that at some point there would be enough weight and momentum that further floors would not need to be wired.

My understanding was that this was a major tenet of truthers, that multiple floors were required to be wired with explosives, not just one or two. If it is just one or two, they come dangerously close to saying that the mass above the impact zone was enough for collapse continuation which then questions whether explosives are needed at all. No, truthers I talked to explicitly said MANY floors were required to be wired.

Lurker

ETA: My point is that many explosives would be required to fit a standard truther scenario of myriad floors wired . Perhaps not so much would be required if one beleives that the weight of the top would be enough to collapse the WTC once collapse initiation at one floor has started. That is the crux of my point.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Swing:

"I'm going to stand by Romero's original professional assessment of the amount of explosives it would take unless he has stated it would take staggering amounts of explosives. His analysis of how much explosives it would take has no bearing of course on his opinion on how the towers collapsed which we all know changed."

THAT is as good an example of desperation cherry picking as I've ever seen! Hey, any port in a storm there, hey Swing? Your hero has admitted he was completely wrong about the WTC, yet you cling to one comment in his initial statement (which was based on his review of video only as I recall), because he did not expressly disavow that comment?

Really? Then you could surely point to the source where Romero's changes his estimates of the amount of explosives it would take changes from a "small amount" to a "staggering amount of explosives"? I mean you have that quote somewhere right? .....hello? Are you still there? ....

He was completely wrong? Really?

Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building. Source: Van Romero

Dave-I'd ask you the same thing, though: how can you place yourself in a position to determine whether Van Romero's statement was relevant to Mark's scenario?

Fair question. I would state because the removal of the support of one floor was needed for global collapse to ensue, it wouldn't take staggering amounts of explosives, only a small amount placed in strategic places without the conditions Mark places on his non-expert analysis.

 

[Brainster]

Done.

Kudos, Justin. I have revised the post at SLC to note that you have acknowledged the error. We appreciate the transparency.