Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[Swing Dangler]

How did you manage to miss the fact that the paper you've cited is called

World Trade Center Building 7 ​

and the Lies of the "9/11 Truth Movement"

​

And how did you manage to miss the fact that the link in the index to that particular page is titled:

No evidence of explosives use on WTC 7 exterior columns

I didn't miss that fact at all of course.

Why? Because I also find statements like this within the paper:

There is anecdotal evidence of molten metal in the basements of WTC buildings 1, 2, 6, and perhaps 7 in the days and weeks after 9/11.

or

A commonly repeated 9/11 conspiracy theory is that an incendiary, thermite or thermate, rather than an explosive, was used to cut the huge steel columns, causing the WTC buildings to collapse....
For now, perhaps we should leave the final word on this issue to Brent Blanchard of Protec, from his paper A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint:

Not exactly the focus on WTC 7 alone, now is it, hence my critique of the title of the page in question. Next?

 

[Pookster]

What factual reason can you offer to support the contention that he is lying or mistaken?

I haven't seen the 2004 quote you're referring to yet. Can you quote and provide a reference to it?

And remember, I can use that same stretch of credulity argument in reference to a hijacker's paper passport. ie. which is stretches the credulity more?
Black box versus paper passport?

Sure you could, and I'd agree. If I said one person out of hundreds found 75% of the terrorists' passports, it'd definitely be a major stretch of credulity too. One person finding one black box would be quite plausible though. But 75% of them? In that debris pile? Pfffft. He's gonna have to substantiate that somehow. But you haven't provided his quote yet from 2004. I could be arguing with a strawman.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, It has been fun and all. It has also been an utter disaster for the Twoofers. I just thought I’d remind the Truth movement (at least the ones who have not put me on ignore) of the OP:

“What I would like to see is independent confirmation of an error that Mark Roberts has made. That is, I want to see just exactly where he's gone wrong. It's very simple, really; just say "Mark Roberts said X (link), but the truth is actually Y(link)."

It seems like we’ve gotten away from that. For example, what I had expected was when somebody posted a Gravy statement like:

“No evidence of explosives use on WTC exterior columns.”

What I expected was:

“Here is evidence of the use of explosives on WTC exterior columns.”

Did we get anything remotely like that in this thread? I’ll let you be the judge.

 

[Pookster]

I didn't miss that fact at all of course.

Why? Because I also find statements like this within the paper:

or


Not exactly the focus on WTC 7 alone, now is it, hence my critique of the title of the page in question. Next?

Given that the Towers played a role in the collapse of WTC 7, why would you think the focus couldn't include them at times in the paper when they apply to a discussion of WTC 7?

You need to back away from the keyboard and take a break. Seriously. This kind of argument is truly pathetic.

Edited to add: Just how is this a "factual" error anyways? Please, do explain.

 

[lisabob2]

Are you capable of anything besides giving a textbook example of argumentum ad verecundiam? Please indicate specifically what Steven Jones gets right or what Mark Roberts gets wrong. Has Griscom written anything about 9/11 (something scientific, preferably) or is he for name-dropping purposes only?

I am checking out qualifications of the people who make statements. I also check out what they put out there. In my opinion somebody who has experience and has shown to follow proper scientific methods is more trusting that somebody who makes personal attacks instead of addressing the issues. Can anybody reasonably trust somebody's opinion on the scientific method when they have no qualifications? Jones has repeatedly said official investigations have not followed proper scientific method. Now James Quintiere from nist says nist investigation was "blocked from seeking answers" which confirms Jones. Quintiere wants new independent investigation. So Jones & Quintiere agree on nist investigation being poor.

 

[twinstead]

I am checking out qualifications of the people who make statements. I also check out what they put out there. In my opinion somebody who has experience and has shown to follow proper scientific methods is more trusting that somebody who makes personal attacks instead of addressing the issues. Can anybody reasonably trust somebody's opinion on the scientific method when they have no qualifications? Jones has repeatedly said official investigations have not followed proper scientific method. Now James Quintiere from nist says nist investigation was "blocked from seeking answers" which confirms Jones. Quintiere wants new independent investigation. So Jones & Quintiere agree on nist investigation being poor.

But, Jones and Quintiere want a new investigation for diametrically opposed reasons. Quintiere does NOT suspect the towers were CD, and in fact accuses NIST of being too conservative; he would certainly agree however with their premise.

Jones is a throughly discredited biased pseudo-investigator who thinks the WTC was brought down by thermite and that NIST is lying.

You realize that if you want to tie in Quintiere with Jones this would require 2 separate investigations, right? Quintiere's issues with NIST in no way, shape, or form lend any credence to Jones' 'research'.

 

[lisabob2]

So you can name some errors Mark has made?

-Gumboot

In Roberts website 911myths there are numerous illogicall arguments used. The biggest & easiest one to see is the use of building collapses he uses. He uses buildings that collapsed during construction phases as comparision, which makes no sense. Roberts calls Jones' science the "worse he has seen" but David Griscom calls it well done. Griscom has over 185 peer reviewed papers. James Quintiere from Nist says nist investigation was "blocked from seeking answers" while Roberts has been calling nist investigation complete & very scientific, which according to Quintiere is completly wrong.
Having read much of nist report I don't see how any reasonable person could miss the problems with it. I have no qualifications to speak of, so I have read both sides of issues of 9-11. I also have been checking out the qualifications of both sides. Apart from the few engineers like Bazant, Greening, & few others I don't find people listing their qualifications like the truth movement especially websites like ae911truth.org or journalof911studies.com . Journal actually has some scientific debate between opposing sides, which is refreshing after seeing all the personal attacks at other sites, especially the "debunkers" who seem to use it as their main argument.

 

[RedIbis]

Since NIST has given its recent conference call, updating the timetable for its report on WTC 7, Mark Roberts should revise the following:

From Roberts' paper: Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?

Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?

Short answer: we don’t know. The final NIST WTC 7 report should shed more light on this issue, which is an important one.

Short answer: yes we do, and Shyam Sunder states that the fires were not caused by fuel on the premises.

19:00 mark at http://origin.eastbaymedia.com/~nist/asx/nist-wtc-121807.asx

The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by “normal bldg fires”

“not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines”

“or from fuel fires due to fuel that was in the D(?) tanks that was in the bldg.”

 

[lisabob2]

What does Mark Roberts get wrong? Please explain in detail.

Roberts calls the nist report scientific & complete. According to nist's own James Quintiere the nist investigation was "blocked from seeking answers" Quintiere wants new independent investigation. So Roberts trusting of a unscientific investigation which got answers by "blocking search for answers" is a big issue. Having read most of nist report I can see many issues that raises questions. So without a proper investigation almost all of Roberts assertions are without any backing. After a proper investigation than we can have answers. Or at least have reasonable theories, backed by scientific answers.

 

[SDC]

In Roberts website 911myths there are numerous illogicall arguments used. The biggest & easiest one to see is the use of building collapses he uses. He uses buildings that collapsed during construction phases as comparision, which makes no sense. Roberts calls Jones' science the "worse he has seen" but David Griscom calls it well done. Griscom has over 185 peer reviewed papers. James Quintiere from Nist says nist investigation was "blocked from seeking answers" while Roberts has been calling nist investigation complete & very scientific, which according to Quintiere is completly wrong.
Having read much of nist report I don't see how any reasonable person could miss the problems with it. I have no qualifications to speak of, so I have read both sides of issues of 9-11. I also have been checking out the qualifications of both sides. Apart from the few engineers like Bazant, Greening, & few others I don't find people listing their qualifications like the truth movement especially websites like ae911truth.org or journalof911studies.com . Journal actually has some scientific debate between opposing sides, which is refreshing after seeing all the personal attacks at other sites, especially the "debunkers" who seem to use it as their main argument.

I'm sorry to say it, but this is simply silly. As you have been told, Quintiere doesn't agree with Jones. I suspect you are not active in the world of scholarship; well, publications are nice, but they have to be in the right field. (I have a PhD and numerous publications in different fields than engineering or physics and am not such a fool as to suggest I have technical qualifications.) "Bazant, Greening and few others" include the people who worked with NIST, or Pop Mech, who are well qualified and active in the relevant fields.

I suspect you regard as "personal attacks" as meaning anyone whose statements you don't like. It's best to complain after you've been attacked, by the way, not in advance. That's bad form.

Where have you been all these years, by the way? Have you used the search function on this site? Followed all the discussions, conversations, and arguments, touching on an enormous range of related topics? (Also cats, but never mind that.)

 

[lisabob2]

Mark Roberts (aka Gravy) has at least one qualification that I can vouch for: he is not a moron.

Alas, about Jones and Griscom I can't say the same.

Mark Roberts is not a moron. But what qualifications does he has that would give his opinion more weight than somebody who has 185 peer reviewed papers and is one of the worlds most sourced scientist? Are you calling David Griscom & Steven Jones morons? You see that entirely avoids the issues and is just a personal attack which has no use. Anybody who thinks nist investigation was scientific is completly wrong, according to James Quintiere and many other Scientist. Roberts uses Nist report quite a bit. So useing a unscientific investigation he attacks other real scientists who say that we need a real scientific investigation. Nist's own James Quintiere says new independent investigation is needed. Which is exactly the point, no scientific investigation has been done yet. But Roberts has been using nist report as his main source of info.
So who is being smarter here? The scientist who say we need a real investigation or the Person who has been using unscientific investigations to attack people who are more educated & more quallified than him?

 

[AZCat]

Mark Roberts is not a moron. But what qualifications does he has that would give his opinion more weight than somebody who has 185 peer reviewed papers and is one of the worlds most sourced scientist? Are you calling David Griscom & Steven Jones morons?

Yes, I am. Education and peer-reviewed papers cannot prevent someone from being stupid.

You see that entirely avoids the issues and is just a personal attack which has no use. Anybody who thinks nist investigation was scientific is completly wrong, according to James Quintiere and many other Scientist.

You are taking Quintiere out of context, as others have already pointed out. Anybody who claims the NIST investigation wasn't scientific either hasn't read it or is a moron.

Roberts uses Nist report quite a bit. So useing a unscientific investigation he attacks other real scientists who say that we need a real scientific investigation. Nist's own James Quintiere says new independent investigation is needed. Which is exactly the point, no scientific investigation has been done yet. But Roberts has been using nist report as his main source of info.
So who is being smarter here? The scientist who say we need a real investigation or the Person who has been using unscientific investigations to attack people who are more educated & more quallified than him?

Your argument is predicated on the assumption that the NIST investigation was not actually a scientific investigation. This is incorrect. Because it was a scientific investigation (according to anybody who is not a moron), Mark Roberts is justified in using it as evidence in his arguments.

 

[The Big Dog]

Lisabob:

"Are you calling David Griscom & Steven Jones morons?"

Jones? Yes, absolutely. Ever read his Jesus came to America article?

Now that being said, please allow me to briefly direct your attention to the posting guidelines. You have seven posts, all saying virtually the same thing. That is known as spamming. Please stop it. Thank you.

 

[johnny karate]

Mark Roberts is not a moron. But what qualifications does he has that would give his opinion more weight than somebody who has 185 peer reviewed papers and is one of the worlds most sourced scientist? Are you calling David Griscom & Steven Jones morons? You see that entirely avoids the issues and is just a personal attack which has no use. Anybody who thinks nist investigation was scientific is completly wrong, according to James Quintiere and many other Scientist. Roberts uses Nist report quite a bit. So useing a unscientific investigation he attacks other real scientists who say that we need a real scientific investigation. Nist's own James Quintiere says new independent investigation is needed. Which is exactly the point, no scientific investigation has been done yet. But Roberts has been using nist report as his main source of info.
So who is being smarter here? The scientist who say we need a real investigation or the Person who has been using unscientific investigations to attack people who are more educated & more quallified than him?

Gravy doesn't need qualifications in order for his papers to be credible. Why? Because despite what you are alleging, his papers do not consist of investigating, conjecture, or theory. His papers are merely a collection of data culled from other sources. He is not offering opinion, he is offering a record of events.

And please, please stop citing Dr. Quintiere as someone who thinks the NIST report is flawed. He does not. Dr. Quintiere is a fire safety specialist. He feels that NIST was remiss in addressing certain fire safety issues. And nothing more. He agrees with their conclusions, and overall agrees with their methodology. I'm sure you find this piece of information new and amazing, but it has already been addressed here ad nauseum. Welcome to six months ago.

If you want to establish any credibility on this forum, I recommend you start thinking for yourself instead of just parroting something you read on a conspiracy website.

Tell us specifically what you think is wrong with the NIST report and we will address that, but to write off a very technical 10,000 page report that you clearly haven't read and probably wouldn't understand anyway, is very foolish and immature.

 

[lisabob2]

I'm sorry to say it, but this is simply silly. As you have been told, Quintiere doesn't agree with Jones. I suspect you are not active in the world of scholarship; well, publications are nice, but they have to be in the right field. (I have a PhD and numerous publications in different fields than engineering or physics and am not such a fool as to suggest I have technical qualifications.) "Bazant, Greening and few others" include the people who worked with NIST, or Pop Mech, who are well qualified and active in the relevant fields.

I suspect you regard as "personal attacks" as meaning anyone whose statements you don't like. It's best to complain after you've been attacked, by the way, not in advance. That's bad form.

Where have you been all these years, by the way? Have you used the search function on this site? Followed all the discussions, conversations, and arguments, touching on an enormous range of related topics? (Also cats, but never mind that.)

Quintiere does agree on the main issue with Jones, a new scientific investigation is needed. Quintiere has said this. Jones Has said this. Jones has all along pointed out the unscientific methods that were used. Quintiere supports this. Quintiere does not believe explosives were used but that isn't the point. Without a real scientific investigation no theory now is backed by facts & evidence. Quintiere has pointed out that they were blocked from seeking answers during nist investigation.
I regard attacking the person instead of discusing the issues as personal attacks. I do not mind being proven wrong, or right for that matter. I have gone pass the stage in life when I thought I was always right and anybody who disagreed with me was wrong.
I find discussing issues, especially debateing them interesting & a good way to learn, everybody can teach you something, just need to have a open mind

 

[Arus808]

Quintiere does agree on the main issue with Jones, a new scientific investigation is needed.

AND THAT IS THE ONLY THING!

HOwever its FOR VERY DIFFERENT REASONS!


do you put your hands over your eyes, where it is EXPLAINED why QUINTIERE wants a new investigation?

 

[lisabob2]

Yes, I am. Education and peer-reviewed papers cannot prevent someone from being stupid.


You are taking Quintiere out of context, as others have already pointed out. Anybody who claims the NIST investigation wasn't scientific either hasn't read it or is a moron.


Your argument is predicated on the assumption that the NIST investigation was not actually a scientific investigation. This is incorrect. Because it was a scientific investigation (according to anybody who is not a moron), Mark Roberts is justified in using it as evidence in his arguments.

Quintiere has said investigation was blocked from seeking answers. And Quintiere says new independent investigation needs to happen. What is taken out of context?
How can nist investigation be scientific when it was block from seeking answers? Ignoring evidence & facts is not scientific. Again calling people names because they disagree with you is avoiding issues. Check out journalof911studies.com and read the scientific debate between Greening & Ross. no name calling, all about the numbers & mathamatical equations. Thats how scientist debate, thats how issues are handled.

 

[Arus808]

Quintiere has said investigation was blocked from seeking answers. And Quintiere says new independent investigation needs to happen. What is taken out of context?

not for the REASONS you think he wants a new investigation and why he belivees it was blocked (they weren't blocked by the way, Quintierre has his own agenda as to why he wants a new investigation, and that was DEALT with in the thread about him - use the search function to find it)

 

[lisabob2]

Gravy doesn't need qualifications in order for his papers to be credible. Why? Because despite what you are alleging, his papers do not consist of investigating, conjecture, or theory. His papers are merely a collection of data culled from other sources. He is not offering opinion, he is offering a record of events.

And please, please stop citing Dr. Quintiere as someone who thinks the NIST report is flawed. He does not. Dr. Quintiere is a fire safety specialist. He feels that NIST was remiss in addressing certain fire safety issues. And nothing more. He agrees with their conclusions, and overall agrees with their methodology. I'm sure you find this piece of information new and amazing, but it has already been addressed here ad nauseum. Welcome to six months ago.

If you want to establish any credibility on this forum, I recommend you start thinking for yourself instead of just parroting something you read on a conspiracy website.

Tell us specifically what you think is wrong with the NIST report and we will address that, but to write off a very technical 10,000 page report that you clearly haven't read and probably wouldn't understand anyway, is very foolish and immature.

I posted once and I have responded to replys of my post. Isn't that what these posts are for? I did not read Jones article about Jesus. What does that prove him a moron? I have just been reading up on 9-11 stuff.
It sounds to me like you are having a problem discusing this issue, you don't have to debate issues with me if you don't want to. I find it interesting that you call two scientist morons because you disagree with them.

 

[beachnut]

I posted once and I have responded to replys of my post. Isn't that what these posts are for? I did not read Jones article about Jesus. What does that prove him a moron? I have just been reading up on 9-11 stuff.
It sounds to me like you are having a problem discusing this issue, you don't have to debate issues with me if you don't want to. I find it interesting that you call two scientist morons because you disagree with them.

Nope, Jesus does not make Jones a dope or a moron. But his comments on 9/11 about thermite 4 years after the act and making up lies is moronic. Jones is a dolt on 9/11, if you have some evidence to support him, you can do something he can't.

Bring up some proof of thermite on 9/11 used to bring down the WTC and you have a Pulitzer Prize, stop acting dumb and bring facts or confess you are unable to think for yourself so you believe people who make up junk about 9/11.

Jones has repeatedly said official investigations have not followed proper scientific method.

Please point out the areas of the investigation that Jones says are wrong. But you can not let Jones lie about thermite. Jones says the WTC were exploded by people unknown; That is a nut case idea and you have zero evidence to support JONES or his ideas. Put up some evidence to support Jones' ideas. You can not! You have nothing. Why are you fact less on 9/11 and clearly ignorant that Jones' themite was made up 4 years after 9/11. 4 years and then he makes up lies; WHY? Why is Jones telling lies?

You must be upset a person who seems to be a lay person is smarter on 9/11 than a Jones who has nut case ideas on 9/11. What is pathetic, you are fooled by a few so called "experts", and you have no clue why they are wrong, or able to support them. Pathetic.