• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

Swing Dangler said:
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.
Click to expand...

These explosives... they would have to be not only impact proof, but fireproof as well. Additionally, they would have to be placed perfectly where the planes hit and the subsequent structural damage was observed.

And no one would have been able to see them?

And when did they supposedly go off? In any video of the collapse initiation, you can see the building just give up- you do not see explosives or floors being knocked out.

Your non-expert analysis seems to have some "big holes".

"Just asking questions."
 
Swing Dangler said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then why is it so hard to believe that the crash of a large airliner at 500mph and resulting damage and raging fires on multiple floors was needed for global collapse to ensue?

If it wouldn't take staggering amounts of explosives, why wouldn't it take what the vast majority of experts around the world say it took for collapse to ensue?
 
Back on the rail...Ladies and Gentlemen the next error...

“In a previous section we saw that the reports of a collapse on the 65th floor, or somewhere in the 60s, occurred not just after flight 175 hit the south tower, but just after the south tower collapsed. Because Rodriguez misunderstands the timing of that morning's events, he does not connect the "boom, boom" noises with the collapse of the south tower.”
Rodriguez then recalls being turned back by a Port Authority officer on the 39th floor after learning the floors above had collapsed as far up as the 45th floor.Source

Instead, Rodriguez would have us believe that twenty-one floors of one of the world's largest office buildings collapsed right above his head, and the momentum of those 21 falling floors was somehow arrested at the 44th floor, and not a window was broken, and he and the first responders weren't blown off their feet or killed by hurricane-force winds and dust and debris, and, in fact, no one else in the world has ever noticed this incredible event” Source: Mark Roberts Hit Piece
Click to expand...

This assertion is a complete error: “Rodriquez would have us believe that 21 floors of one of the worlds larget office buildings collapsed right above his head”….but for the astute reader who doesn’t have reading comprehension problems, Rodriquez doesn’t want you to believe that. The source of this information is from the author of the interview, not a direct quote by William R. That is WHAT HE IS TOLD by a Port Authority officer. But the deceptive Mr. Roberts wants you to believe that WR is promoting this idea of a partial pancake collapse. Mr. Roberts could clear this up and contact WR directly as a follow up question. But instead he asserts that William wants us to believe that. By doing so, Mark can try to make William look foolish and unbelievable.

But Mark will state this is what one source has William R. reporting:
"And all of a sudden we hear “Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! And on the radio, 'We lost 65!' Meaning that the 65th floor collapsed floor by floor by floor, up to the 44th floor, the skylobby. Five flights away." At 33:55 of this video”

If you were just told that by a Port Authority worker as relayed in the quote above why is there any reason to doubt it?

Again, this is NOT William R. wanting you the reader or viewer to believe this, this is simply a recollection of what he was told.
I can't speak for Willie R of course, but I would anticipate that he doesn't believe there was a partial collapse, but at the time if you were told by the Port Authority what reason would there to disbelieve the statement?

But not in the deceptive world of Mark Roberts.
 
Swing Dangler said:
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.
Click to expand...

(emphasis added)

How do you reconcile this with Gordon Ross' position?
 
Swing-y

"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?"

No he changed it from a "small amount of explosives" to

"A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.
"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

But I guess in completely destroying your pet theory he did not say staggering amount of explosives. So score one for the SwingMeister!

By the way, Phyrric Victory, let me show you one.
 
Swing Dangler said:
This assertion is a complete error: “Rodriquez would have us believe that 21 floors of one of the worlds larget office buildings collapsed right above his head”….but for the astute reader who doesn’t have reading comprehension problems, Rodriquez doesn’t want you to believe that. The source of this information is from the author of the interview, not a direct quote by William R. That is WHAT HE IS TOLD by a Port Authority officer. But the deceptive Mr. Roberts wants you to believe that WR is promoting this idea of a partial pancake collapse. Mr. Roberts could clear this up and contact WR directly as a follow up question. But instead he asserts that William wants us to believe that. By doing so, Mark can try to make William look foolish and unbelievable.

But Mark will state this is what one source has William R. reporting:
"And all of a sudden we hear “Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! And on the radio, 'We lost 65!' Meaning that the 65th floor collapsed floor by floor by floor, up to the 44th floor, the skylobby. Five flights away." At 33:55 of this video”

If you were just told that by a Port Authority worker as relayed in the quote above why is there any reason to doubt it?

Again, this is NOT William R. wanting you the reader or viewer to believe this, this is simply a recollection of what he was told.
I can't speak for Willie R of course, but I would anticipate that he doesn't believe there was a partial collapse, but at the time if you were told by the Port Authority what reason would there to disbelieve the statement?

But not in the deceptive world of Mark Roberts.
Click to expand...
Swing:
How is a mistake if Rodriguez approves of it. He has been asked for corrections and he says he has none. Why do you disagree with Rodriguez himself?
 
DGM said:
Why don't you start a new thread and try to provide proof for your accusations.
Click to expand...

Are you telling me that you know THAT little about 9-11, really?. Huge list of facts is what it is. Maybe you know that little because you dont care about the truth?. i will give you some sources and dont respond before you know that its all true.

http://books.google.com/books?id=3I...YWasgOR3sCaDA&sig=KxPuuLu_6sRaDbk536CE7StD-4A

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/w...HmfZyvV1r92x3FPDmp6hyg&oref=slogin&oref=login

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=new

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03EEDF173CF934A35756C0A9629C8B63

http://web.archive.org/web/20040509021515/http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-nws-tape07.html

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/11/con05439.html

http://www.thememoryhole.org/spy/edmonds_letters.htm

http://antiwar.com/edmonds/?articleid=2960

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E0DA1531F936A15751C1A9679C8B63

http://www.infowars.com/saved pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=3206180&postcount=281
 
LastChild said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's because the truthers say they see "squibs" on the towers as they collapse, which "must" be explosive charges.

You're not listening:

It's the TRUTHERS who say that the buildings could NOT collapse the way NIST claims. It is THEM who say that the structure was too strong and that explosives HAD to have been used.

I'm saying it isn't so. Remove a floor or two, and you've got a nice, devastating global collapse.
 
S.Dangler, I'm sorry to say that I find your ... would "fisking" be the right term? ... about as dull as anything I've read here. Your "de-debunking," if I may use the term, has a very quick MEGO factor. (= My Eyes Glaze Over. The factor, I believe, is expressed in time units, as in, "The MEGO factor of the boss's speech at the Christmas party was 7 seconds.")

Pick up the pace. Make it snappy. Let's have a smoking gun, such as a videorecording of G.Ravy lounging by the pool at a swanky hotel with an attractive blonde in each hand (blonde being of any gender or species required), swilling champagne with a straw straight from the bottle, and stating, "I plan to make a ton of verifiably false statements. Now, where's the next blonde of any gender or species required?"

Thanks.
 
Zlaya said:
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"?
Click to expand...

Don't you think the "big picture" is made up of those individually-debunked elements ?
 
Malmoesoldier said:
Are you telling me that you know THAT little about 9-11, really?. Huge list of facts is what it is. Maybe you know that little because you dont care about the truth?. i will give you some sources and dont respond before you know that its all true.

http://books.google.com/books?id=3I...YWasgOR3sCaDA&sig=KxPuuLu_6sRaDbk536CE7StD-4A

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/w...HmfZyvV1r92x3FPDmp6hyg&oref=slogin&oref=login

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=new

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03EEDF173CF934A35756C0A9629C8B63

http://web.archive.org/web/20040509021515/http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-nws-tape07.html

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/11/con05439.html

http://www.thememoryhole.org/spy/edmonds_letters.htm

http://antiwar.com/edmonds/?articleid=2960

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E0DA1531F936A15751C1A9679C8B63

http://www.infowars.com/saved pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=3206180&postcount=281
Click to expand...
I'm sorry I forgot I was only supposed to read the 'cherry picks' and not the complete articles. Isn't that how it works? The rest is just propaganda, right Malmoe?
 
Belz... said:
Don't you think the "big picture" is made up of those individually-debunked elements ?
Click to expand...

Interesting.

It certainly does appear that in truther world, a "big picture" can become a living thing totally apart from all its supporting appendages with the ability to survive on its own even if every single one of those appendages are cut away.
 
Gravy said:
Justin, you've made a bad start here, and now you're trying to move the goalposts. That won't work here. Present your evidence NOW that officials told workers at Ground Zero that the air there was safe to breathe, or retract your claim here and at Loose Change.

You're a man, not a boy, and you raised this issue. It is rude of you to have to be asked repeatedly to back up your own claims. This isn't about what you want to be true. It's about what the evidence says. When the honorable person jumps to conclusions that aren't warranted by the evidence, he says, "Oops, looks like I jumped the gun on that one. I apologize." That's part of the maturing and learning process. It needn't be painful.

A scholar and truth movement leader should not have to be lectured about these basic principles of evidence and inquiry.

Is there anything unfair about my request?
Click to expand...

Here you go Justin...j
From the Union of Concerned Scientists

Other news reports suggest that the EPA was not fully forthcoming about the air quality at ground zero. EPA scientist Cate Jenkins argues that the agency plainly lied in its public declarations. Jenkins told CBS News in September 2006 that the EPA knew "this dust was highly caustic, in some cases as caustic and alkaline as Drano."9 In September 2006, CNN reported that an October 5, 2001 letter from the EPA to the New York City Health Department warned of threats to worker safety from exposure to hazardous materials.10 Yet this knowledge failed to affect the EPA's unworried public statements.

The EPA's September 18, 2001 news release stated that "EPA's primary concern is to ensure that rescue workers and the public are not being exposed to elevated levels of potentially hazardous contaminants in the dust and debris."11 Yet despite this, a 2006 study by Mount Sinai Hospital in New York found that "seven out of ten World Trade Center rescue and wreckage workers had new or worsened lung problems after the attacks."12 The New York City Department of Health has a database of 71,000 people exposed to dust and debris at Ground Zero—a database created in response to hundreds of people's complaints of breathing and lung problems. The health of these individuals may have been saved if not for the government's willingness to place politics above sound science in the aftermath of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks.

From the EPA:

"EPA is greatly relieved to have learned that there appears to be no significant levels of asbestos dust in the air in New York City," said Administrator Whitman. "We are working closely with rescue crews to ensure that all appropriate precautions are taken. We will continue to monitor closely."

Mark, perhaps you should try debunking the The Union of Concerned Scientists instead of Justin.
 
16.5 said:
Swing-y

"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?"
No he changed it from a "small amount of explosives" to
"A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.
"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
But I guess in completely destroying your pet theory he did not say staggering amount of explosives. So score one for the SwingMeister!
By the way, Phyrric Victory, let me show you one.
Click to expand...

Good one! You left something out.
Did Romero change his analysis on the amount of explosives it would take to bring down the building? You know a small amount? You posted what the amount he thought was in the building not the amount it would take to bring it down.

I of course realize his change of heart, but does that change his expert opinion on the amount of explosives? Link please? Source at least?

Do you think it would have take a truly staggering amount of explosives to accomplish this:

"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.
Click to expand...
I think we can rule out the transformer as I'm not aware of any that were on the impact floors...but that "other source of combustion"..did he explain that other source of combustion would be a staggering amount of explosives?
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
I'm sorry I forgot I was only supposed to read the 'cherry picks' and not the complete articles. Isn't that how it works? The rest is just propaganda, right Malmoe?
Click to expand...

If an article or whatever states an fact or statement what then has that fact or statement to do with something else in the article or document?. do you know the difference in the color blue and red? are they the same color?. The points i made is proved with evidence, please dont respond until you know this, you keep responding in this very weird way and never care about the evidence. Are you saying that you cant take statements or facts from a book and then ignore the rest of the 1000+ pages?, isnt those two statements or facts the statements and facts that was writen in the book? you are weird man.
 
Malmoesoldier said:
If an article or whatever states an fact or statement what then has that fact or statement to do with something else in the article or document?. do you know the difference in the color blue and red? are they the same color?. The points i made is proved with evidence, please dont respond until you know this, you keep responding in this very weird way and never care about the evidence. Are you saying that you cant take statements or facts from a book and then ignore the rest of the 1000+ pages?, isnt those two statements or facts the statements and facts that was writen in the book? you are weird man.
Click to expand...

So let me get this right, you're saying that I can take from your posting ....

never care about the evidence
Click to expand...

...and ignore everything else, and I can then use this statement as proof that malmoesoldier never cares about evidence?

Cool.
 
uk_dave said:
So let me get this right, you're saying that I can take from your posting ....



...and ignore everything else, and I can then use this statement as proof that malmoesoldier never cares about evidence?

Cool.
Click to expand...

If a politician says "I think everybody should have an RFID chip in their body" then it is a fact that he said that, you dont need to quote the rest of the book/document because it has nothing to do with that statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom