• 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

JEROME DA GNOME said:
That is not a FACT.
Click to expand...
Jerome, Jones has no peer-reviewed papers about 9/11, which is the topic at hand. Nor does any other truther, as you know. Here you can read physicist Dave Rogers' comments on why Jones' main paper would not pass peer review.
 
Gravy said:
Jerome, Jones has no peer-reviewed papers about 9/11, which is the topic at hand. Nor does any other truther, as you know. Here you can read physicist Dave Rogers' comments on why Jones' main paper would not pass peer review.
Click to expand...

Ohh, I know that fact.


I did have my "debunker" quotes on.;)
 
lisabob2 said:
I have been trying to find out what kind of qualifications Roberts has.
His logic at his websites seems to indicate he has no scientific experience. I have heard Roberts call Steven Jones science on 9-11 tha "worse science he has seen" strange that somebody with no scientific experience has such a different opinion than somebody like David Griscom who has vast experience (185 peer reviewed papers) Griscom says Jones work is very well done. So we have Roberts with no qualifications and Griscom wth great qualifications, who should we believe has a better understanding of the scientific method? As a matter of fact Jones has had many peer reviewed papers himself. Does Roberts? I can't find any.
Click to expand...
You have discovered another idiot on 9/11 issues. Funny how so called experts in one field let their political bias make them liars on 9/11. Yes, your hero (or is that you) David Griscom is nuts like Jones on topics on 9/11. Does Griscom hates Bush so much he is willing to lie on 9/11? Why is Griscom supporting the lies of Jones and others on 9/11? You are asking the wrong people why your so called expert lies on 9/11. You need to ask him.

Roberts is able to research and use his own knowledge he gathered on 9/11 to make clear rational statements on the lies people publish on 9/11. Do you lack the knowledge and are you ignorant on 9/11? It is so easy to see the lies of 9/11 truth. Why do you believe people who present zero evidence to support their idea on 9/11?

Your new hero says -
does NOT contradict Dr. Griffin's compilation of evidence that they were brought down by controlled demolition.
Click to expand...
But Dr. Griffin's work is all hearsay. Do you understand hearsay. Dr. Griffin is a fraud on 9/11, he sells his bogus books on 9/11 to make money off of dumb people. Are you dumb enough to buy into the lies generated from no evidence of 9/11 truth?

You my friend seem to be fooled easy by the extremely few expert who have given up rational thoughts on 9/11 to become 9/11 truth experts who make up lies about 9/11. Plus next time do not include experts who rant about politics in their papers when you want someone who is creditable.

To tell you the truth, I can get more pilots, engineers and scientist to back Roberts work than you can get to back Griscom's work.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
He was clear that he wasn't 100ft and Gravy was wrong about getting that info from him.

This bassackward strategy Gravy employs suggests that he gets to keep a claim unless his error is corrected. This is ridiculous. If his claim is refuted and he has no source, he should remove it from his paper.
Click to expand...
Oh please ceramic bird, Cry me a river!
Got my credit card in hand.
Willing to donate $100 to Rodriguez' pocket (which is what Rodriguez' "charity" is anyway) if you can make him come here and prove that everything mark has wrote about him is a lie.he is a member here so i see no problem.
Pure and simple.
So what do u say red?
 
Swing Dangler said:
The confusion I wanted to see cleared up is why he stated he didn't talk with the buildings owner, yet the buildings owner on two separate occasions said they did.
Click to expand...

He didn't say he didn't talk with him, he said he didn't consult him about the decision. Sounds like hair splitting? Then let's take an example.

Suppose David Ray Griffin joins JREF, and sends you a PM saying "Swing, I think your comments have merit, and I'm planning to join in the debate to support your point of view." You reply saying, "It's OK, I can handle it, but your contribution would be welcome." DRG then wades in and starts arguing your corner. One of us says, "Did Swing Dangler put you up to this?" DRG replies, "No, I made the decision to post here without consulting anyone, though I informed him I was planning to do so." Is he lying?

Now suppose, instead, he just says, "No, I made the decision to post here without consulting anyone," but leaves out the bit about telling you beforehand. Now is he lying?

Then suppose you post saying, "Actually, before he first posted I gave him my view that his conbtribution would be welcome". Have you just proved he was lying?

I'm sure you can find a way to answer "yes" to some of these questions, but an honest person probably wouldn't.

Dave
 
Swing Dangler said:
Dave, go back and read the press release. Compare that to the article I linked to. There is no lie only updated information based upon the press release. Move on....
Click to expand...

Swing, if you think it's honest to "update" a quote based on cherry-picking a subsequent press release, then you're morally bankrupt. And if you think it was simply Kevin Ryan incorporating more recent information as an "update", why didn't he incorporate the other information from the press release, that the entire conversation was about withdrawing firefighters from danger? He selectively and deliberately changed the quote to try to incriminate Silverstein, and you're no less aware of that than anyone else here.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Swing, if you think it's honest to "update" a quote based on cherry-picking a subsequent press release, then you're morally bankrupt.
Click to expand...
Dave you are one of the few members that I can respect based upon your comments and treatment of me personally and I thank you for that. Morally bankrupt? I'm sorry but I can only accept that as an ad hom attack.

And if you think it was simply Kevin Ryan incorporating more recent information as an "update", why didn't he incorporate the other information from the press release, that the entire conversation was about withdrawing firefighters from danger?
Click to expand...
You do have a point with this. However, based upon FEMA, Hayden, etc there were no manual fire fighting operations going on so I suspect this is why Kevin did not include that information.

He selectively and deliberately changed the quote to try to incriminate Silverstein, and you're no less aware of that than anyone else here.
Click to expand...
This is where we disagree of course. He changed the quote due to updated information from Silverstein's office.

He didn't say he didn't talk with him, he said he didn't consult him about the decision. Sounds like hair splitting?
Click to expand...
They consulted Dave at least according to Silverstein on two separate occasions.
I will provide an elementary example as you did with me.

Dave you take your car to the mechanic and describe the problem. Terrible sounds are coming from the engine. The mechanic decides to fix the engine. He calls you back to describe the problem, how much it will cost, the time it will take, the warranty, etc. Then he asks if you would like the work to be completed or not. You gave permission and the mechanic made the decision.

But in your world, you take your car in tell the mechanic there is a terrible sound coming from the engine. Four hours later, you show up and their is a new engine, 4 new tires, a new exhaust system, and a $6000 bill that you are expected to pay. You gave nothing and the mechanic made the decision.
Click to expand...
 
Ladies and gentlemen....the next error...

The flight data and cockpit voice recorders from the WTC planes were not recovered. Workers were advised to be on the lookout for them. Source: Mark's Paper
Click to expand...
.

Does this "fact" stand up to scrutiny? Only if you support the FBI's and NIST statements and call two firefighters liars.

Apparently the black boxes were found at the site. You can read the accont by firefighters Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi here. http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html
N.Y. City firefighters, Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi, claimed in 2004 that they had found three of the four boxes, and that Federal agents took them and told the two men not to mention having found them.

A source at the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency that has the task of deciphering the date from the black boxes retrieved from crash sites-including those that are being handled as crimes and fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI-says the boxes were in fact recovered and were analyzed by the NTSB."Off the record, we had the boxes," the source says. "You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here."
Click to expand...

Mark Roberts is in a predicament. By stating the black boxes were not found via the statements of the FBI and NTSB he is accusing Mr. Bellone and Mr. De Masi of lying.
But why would two firefighters, heroes in most peoples eyes, lie about something as important as this?

I'm curious though as to why Mark would leave this important account out of his 9/11 Aircraft Parts and Contents Recovered in NYC .

Mark does do a great job of listing accounts of all of the trivial things that were found by people on the scene, including seat cushions, tickets, airplane parts (sorry no planers), etc, but fails to include the accounts of Bellone and De Masi. Why? Fallacy of Omission? Poor research? Or is it to support the official theory and the statements of Federal Agencies?

I will recant this comment if Mr. Bellone and Mr. De Masi have retracted their original story.
 
Swing,
The house does not like the odds that the list of errors you are amassing will be corrected by Mark.

In fact the house set the odds for just this example at a whopping 25-1. There's Stundiedollars to made here people. All Mark has to do is admit the error and change his paper. The house thinks otherwise.
 
Swing Dangler said:
Dave you are one of the few members that I can respect based upon your comments and treatment of me personally and I thank you for that. Morally bankrupt? I'm sorry but I can only accept that as an ad hom attack.
Click to expand...

No, it's not an ad hominem. Ad hominem would be to say "You are morally bankrupt, therefore your views are not worth considering." What I'm saying is that I find your defense of what can only reasonably be interpreted as deliberate lying to be morally repugnant.

Swing Dangler said:
This is where we disagree of course. He changed the quote due to updated information from Silverstein's office.
Click to expand...

Canyou really not see that changing the quote is lying? And you yourself just admitted that he was selective about what changes he made, so now your sole defense of Ryan is a comment on his motives which you yourself admit to be a guess. Not good enough.

Swing Dangler said:
Dave you take your car to the mechanic and describe the problem. Terrible sounds are coming from the engine. The mechanic decides to fix the engine. He calls you back to describe the problem, how much it will cost, the time it will take, the warranty, etc. Then he asks if you would like the work to be completed or not. You gave permission and the mechanic made the decision.

But in your world, you take your car in tell the mechanic there is a terrible sound coming from the engine. Four hours later, you show up and their is a new engine, 4 new tires, a new exhaust system, and a $6000 bill that you are expected to pay. You gave nothing and the mechanic made the decision.
Click to expand...

A breathtaking non sequitur. The mechanic, in your example, doesn't have the authority to work on my car without me granting it. Are you suggesting that the Fire Commander on site at WTC7 didn't have the authority to order his men not to fight the fires unless Silverstein granted him that authority?

Dave
 
RedIbis said:
Swing,
The house does not like the odds that the list of errors you are amassing will be corrected by Mark.

In fact the house set the odds for just this example at a whopping 25-1. There's Stundiedollars to made here people. All Mark has to do is admit the error and change his paper. The house thinks otherwise.
Click to expand...

Red, I don't expect anything to be corrected by Mark especially if a "truther" points it out.
Based upon the "new" Gravy video and all of these debunker papers, this whole JREF thing is turning into a pissing competition on who can be the best debunker while ignoring anything that contradicts their debunk.

BTW, what are Stundiedollars?
 
Last edited:
Swing Dangler said:
Red, I don't expect anything to be corrected by Mark especially if a "truther" point it out.
Based upon the "new" Gravy video and all of these debunker papers, this whole JREF thing is turning into a pissing competition on who can be the best debunker while ignoring anything that contradicts their debunk.

BTW, what are Stundiedollars?
Click to expand...

A fictitious currency that his helpful in designating the extreme unlikeliness that Mark will address these legitimate criticisms.

Fictitious as they are, it might not be long before they have greater value than our own deflating currency.
 
Dave Rogers said:
A breathtaking non sequitur. The mechanic, in your example, doesn't have the authority to work on my car without me granting it. Are you suggesting that the Fire Commander on site at WTC7 didn't have the authority to order his men not to fight the fires unless Silverstein granted him that authority?
Dave
Click to expand...

Dave, there were no firefighting operations. See FEMA and Hayden's comments. On the other hand if it were giving permission to demolish the building, then it makes complete sense just as in the example I linked to a page or two ago where firefighters consulted with the buildings owner before deciding to have the building demolished.
RedIbis BTW, what are Stundiedollars?
A fictitious currency that his helpful in designating the extreme unlikeliness that Mark will address these legitimate criticisms.

Fictitious as they are, it might not be long before they have greater value than our own deflating currency.
Click to expand...
Great! More fiat currency. Does the Bank of Stundie have a plunge protection team to keep its system from descending into a great depression? ;)
 
Swing Dangler said:
.

Does this "fact" stand up to scrutiny? Only if you support the FBI's and NIST statements and call two firefighters liars.

Apparently the black boxes were found at the site. You can read the accont by firefighters Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi here.

Mark Roberts is in a predicament. By stating the black boxes were not found via the statements of the FBI and NTSB he is accusing Mr. Bellone and Mr. De Masi of lying.
But why would two firefighters, heroes in most peoples eyes, lie about something as important as this?
Click to expand...

Firstly, Mr Roberts does deal with this claim, here:

htt p://w ww.loosechangeguide.com/lcg5.html (take out spaces)

Secondly, Bellone is described as a volunteer at Ground Zero, not a firefighter, who was later 'charged with grand larceny, criminal impersonation and possession of stolen property, but the charges were later dropped after Bellone returned the items.':

htt p:// preview.tinyurl.com/345ata (take out spaces)

I'm sure his help was much appreciated at GZ, but being a volunteer doesn't make your subsequent claims unquestionable gospel truth.
 
Swing, I cannot believe you brought up Bellone before doing your homework

Is he a firefighter like you have claimed? No arguing about semantics on this one either please

Who corroborates his story and why did it appear in 2004?

Think about it. These two men found three of the four blackboxes from the huge clean up site that hundreds were poring over? 75% of the boxes found by these two men and no-one else?

Every swing and miss you make only drags you further down the road to being a liar to try and defend your predjudices. You have been hoodwinked again.
 
Apparently Bellone only saw one of the possible boxes

bellone honorary firefighter said:
There was the one that I saw, and two others were recovered in different locations - but I wasn’t there for the other two,” Bellone said. He said the FBI agents left with the boxes.
Click to expand...

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001139.html

de Masi drove a vehicle for the agents he claimed found the boxes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom