Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[Pookster]

No what I read was that he was made an honorary firefighter I guess because of all the hours he worked down at groundzero. Is that why he's a fraud?

He wasn't even an honorary firefighter. He lied about that. Yes, that is at least part of why he is a fraud. God knows what else he's lied about regarding 9/11.

"It wasn’t until two years later that we began getting complaints about him," Tinney said. "We have one honorary firefighter and that is a child from the Make-A-Wish Foundation. Aside from the child, it is normally the chiefs and those above who are made honorary firefighters and he (Bellone) isn’t one. He’s saying he was made an honorary firefighter by New York Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta. That’s a fallacy."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2788173&postcount=8

Try again.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

What could possibly be on teh FDR that would possibly be incriminating? Another reason why eyewitness testimony is not always reliable. There was also a woman who was claiming that she was getting phone calls from her husband buried under the rumble on the 12th. Turned out she was lying. People lie. That's the problem with relying ONLY on witness testimony.

I also find it interesting how one of the firefighters claims to have been involved with the cleanup of the Columbia shuttle disaster. Gee, we have a shuttle break up over the SW, let's call a firefighter in NYC. Sounds like a really honest guy.

 

[lisabob2]

Roberts uses fact and evidence to support his conclusions. Jones uses nothing! Jones just makes it up. If you can not go to the journal of 9/11 truth and see it is a SHAM, you need some help.

As already said use the search function and read for a few days before you expose more ignorance on the topic of 9/11.

Please pick an error Roberts has made, that is the thread topic, not Jones. If you want to discuss how you can support the liars who write and publish their papers on 9/11 at journal of 9/11 truth, please start a thread. But the journal of 9/11 truth was started because no one would publish the lies of Jones. Roberts does not lie, if you find an error he can correct it unlike Jones who just keeps making up lies.

I have heard Roberts say that plane was totally destroyed. Then bodies were found strapped to their seats. How is that possible? could a human body survive in a plane that was destroyed almost completly? I have heard Roberts disregard evidence as wrong and produce pics that he says prove him right. What proof does he have that pictures & documents released from Goverment or any agency is not tampered with or just plain fake? None. Think about it, if there is a conspiracy, then anything goverment or media produces cannot be trusted. So you need a open investigation by independent
scientists. One more thing Roberts says plane that hit pentagon crashed going down when all "evidence"(light poles down, videos) show plane travelling horizontal. since flying a 757 or 767 at altitudes below 1000 feet at high speeds is impossible, it would shake and be uncontrollable, according to Boeing engineers & Pilots. The jets cannot reach high speeds until they are above a certain height.

 

[lisabob2]

As an engineer I see the Journal of 9/11 Studies as a fraud and politically biased tripe. Don't you? You must not be an engineer, are you? So you seem to be a truther, unable to find and use facts to make rational conclusion on 9/11.

Jones made up thermite. He says this was cut by thrermite or RDX. He discoverdd thermite is not used for CD, so he added RDX cause it is! Good job, at least he can learn while he tells lies.
[qimg]http://www.beachymon.com/photo/jonelie1.jpg[/qimg]
He is making it up, it was cut during clean up, not on 9/11. Jones is a liar.
[qimg]http://www.beachymon.com/photo/jonelie2.jpg[/qimg]
Nope, these were also cut during clean up after 9/11. More made up junk by Jones. Little damage to surrounding buildings! What! Nuts, 19 acres were messed up and major damage to many buildings happened. What a nut! Did you read his stuff? Are you paying attention to this pathetic tripe.


Now Jones is saying the terrorist flew the planes to avoid the pre planted explosives. Jones is saying the building was pre wired with radio controlled explosives and the terrorist pilots hit exact points! LOL Jones is fruit loops nuts on this, I would love to explain but if you can not get it on your own, you may not be able to think rationally. But if you are holding information now is the time to expose your facts to support Jones the dolt on 9/11 studies! Come on and show your stuff.

See, you came to say Roberts is not qualified, and now the world will see you and Jones are not qualified or able to make rational conclusion on 9/11. Roberts is. So unless you have an error to expose of Roberts, you need to move your junk to another thread!

This debunks Jones on 9/11 until you can prove the columns cut during clean up are really evidence for Jones (do you see your problem?) I assume now you will bring up an error by Roberts?

those pics are not evidence of anything but damage at ground zero. Jones said the core columns pic is curious but more test would have to be done on the core column. He did not jump to any conclusions about that pic. He has done scientific tests that he says suggest thermate was used and his hypothesis was that it or some other incenderary was used to weaken the steel columns. What scientific tests were done to prove him wrong?

 

[DGM]

I have heard Roberts say that plane was totally destroyed. Then bodies were found strapped to their seats. How is that possible? could a human body survive in a plane that was destroyed almost completly? I have heard Roberts disregard evidence as wrong and produce pics that he says prove him right. What proof does he have that pictures & documents released from Goverment or any agency is not tampered with or just plain fake? None. Think about it, if there is a conspiracy, then anything goverment or media produces cannot be trusted. So you need a open investigation by independent
scientists. One more thing Roberts says plane that hit pentagon crashed going down when all "evidence"(light poles down, videos) show plane travelling horizontal. since flying a 757 or 767 at altitudes below 1000 feet at high speeds is impossible, it would shake and be uncontrollable, according to Boeing engineers & Pilots. The jets cannot reach high speeds until they are above a certain height.

What is stopping you and the "truth" movement from doing this investigation? I know why but do you?

 

[T.A.M.]

I have heard Roberts say that plane was totally destroyed. Then bodies were found strapped to their seats. How is that possible? could a human body survive in a plane that was destroyed almost completly? I have heard Roberts disregard evidence as wrong and produce pics that he says prove him right. What proof does he have that pictures & documents released from Goverment or any agency is not tampered with or just plain fake? None. Think about it, if there is a conspiracy, then anything goverment or media produces cannot be trusted. So you need a open investigation by independent
scientists. One more thing Roberts says plane that hit pentagon crashed going down when all "evidence"(light poles down, videos) show plane travelling horizontal. since flying a 757 or 767 at altitudes below 1000 feet at high speeds is impossible, it would shake and be uncontrollable, according to Boeing engineers & Pilots. The jets cannot reach high speeds until they are above a certain height.

1. You heard???

2. The government photos and evidence is fake? Well there in lies the paranoid disclaimer that allows village idiots to become truthers. If it does not agree with the Conspiracy Theory, then clearly it was fake or tampered with.

3. There are a number of pilots and aircraft Technicians on this forum who would contest your proclamation that a 757/767 can't fly below 1000 feet.

TAM

 

[funk de fino]

I have heard Roberts say that plane was totally destroyed. Then bodies were found strapped to their seats. How is that possible? could a human body survive in a plane that was destroyed almost completly?

You are getting mixed up with the different crash sites

I have heard Roberts disregard evidence as wrong and produce pics that he says prove him right. What proof does he have that pictures & documents released from Goverment or any agency is not tampered with or just plain fake? None. Think about it, if there is a conspiracy, then anything goverment or media produces cannot be trusted. So you need a open investigation by independent
scientists.

Same old crap. Anything that is produced is fake regardless of where it came from. Give it a rest.

One more thing Roberts says plane that hit pentagon crashed going down when all "evidence"(light poles down, videos) show plane travelling horizontal. since flying a 757 or 767 at altitudes below 1000 feet at high speeds is impossible, it would shake and be uncontrollable, according to Boeing engineers & Pilots. The jets cannot reach high speeds until they are above a certain height.

Now you are just lying. please stop it. You are ignorant about aircraft and there are many pilots and technicians who know more that you on this site who say you are wrong. If you keep repeating this mistake then you are lying. There are many videos on youtube of aircraft like these flying at fast speeds at low levels. None of them crashed. The ones on 911 did.

If you are going to continue with this feeble attampt at being a truther at least read some of the threads on this site first and stop rehashing the same old crap. You are poor at this even by truther standards

 

[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.

I am not a moron. I find problems with nist report. David Griscom is not a moron and he finds problems with nist report. Gordon Ross is not a moron,Hugo Bachmann, PhD
Jörg Schneider,James R. Carr, PhD, PE ,Mario Fontana,Ted Muga,William Rice,Charles N. Pegelow all are very highly educated people and not morons all have issues with the unscientific nist report.
No call me a moron but when highly eduacted people agree on something it takes more than somebody who calls people morons on posts to make me change my mind.

 

[funk de fino]

those pics are not evidence of anything but damage at ground zero. Jones said the core columns pic is curious but more test would have to be done on the core column. He did not jump to any conclusions about that pic. He has done scientific tests that he says suggest thermate was used and his hypothesis was that it or some other incenderary was used to weaken the steel columns. What scientific tests were done to prove him wrong?

Those pics are evidence of the dishonesty and ignorance of the 911 movement in that they use them in there fantasy about what happened and say thermite cut them when they were actually cut during the clean up operation by guys with torches. The claims that they were cut by thermite are bunk

 

[lisabob2]

No your not wrong. He wants more emphasis on fire proofing and fire safety (mostly code issues). He does say that the building would have collapsed with no fire proofing removed by the impacts. That's the type of thing he wants looked into for code improvements.

Quintiere says that A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated.
He wants a new independent review of nist report, so when I said investigation I used the wrong word. But cleary Quintiere has issues with nist report. Issues that many people who have read it also have.

 

[RedIbis]

I'd appreciate it if this thread can be restricted to discussion of factual errors I've made. Thanks.

Here's hoping three times is a charm:

In Part III of WTC Lies, you have a page entitled: "Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?"

What follows is an impressive one page presentation, complete with numerous fuel tanker pics, compiled to convince the reader that diesel could have in fact sustained the fires which brought the bldg down.

This past week on this recorded conference call, available here Sunder quite clearly states 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.”

So Mark, will you change your paper? eliminate the page? Reconsider your hypothesis that diesel fuel fed fires caused the collapse of the bldg?

 

[funk de fino]

I am not a moron.

Stop acting like one then

I find problems with nist report. David Griscom is not a moron and he finds problems with nist report.

You do not undertsand it and I guarantee you have not read it all

Gordon Ross is not a moron,Hugo Bachmann, PhD
Jörg Schneider,James R. Carr, PhD, PE ,Mario Fontana,Ted Muga,William Rice,Charles N. Pegelow all are very highly educated people and not morons all have issues with the unscientific nist report.

Not at one time maybe but there ideas on 911 are moronic. Ross comes from the same town i was born in and he is an embarrassment to the city.

No call me a moron but when highly eduacted people agree on something it takes more than somebody who calls people morons on posts to make me change my mind.

There are more highly educated people on here who disagree with your moron crowd. Your logic stinks. The fact you cannot spell the word educate says it all really.

 

[DGM]

Quintiere says that A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated.
He wants a new independent review of nist report, so when I said investigation I used the wrong word. But cleary Quintiere has issues with nist report. Issues that many people who have read it also have.

Seeing that you refuse to read either report theres no sense arguing with you. You can believe whatever you want. By the way have you bought all the "truther" DVD's for Christmas yet. I heard they need some more cash.

 

[twinstead]

Here's hoping three times is a charm:

In Part III of WTC Lies, you have a page entitled: "Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?"

What follows is an impressive one page presentation, complete with numerous fuel tanker pics, compiled to convince the reader that diesel could have in fact sustained the fires which brought the bldg down.

This past week on this recorded conference call, available here Sunder quite clearly states 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.”

So Mark, will you change your paper? eliminate the page? Reconsider your hypothesis that diesel fuel fed fires caused the collapse of the bldg?

This also goes against any possible CD theory you or any others may have. Are you going to adjust your theory accordingly?

 

[T.A.M.]

I am not a moron. I find problems with nist report. David Griscom is not a moron and he finds problems with nist report. Gordon Ross is not a moron,Hugo Bachmann, PhD
Jörg Schneider,James R. Carr, PhD, PE ,Mario Fontana,Ted Muga,William Rice,Charles N. Pegelow all are very highly educated people and not morons all have issues with the unscientific nist report.
No call me a moron but when highly eduacted people agree on something it takes more than somebody who calls people morons on posts to make me change my mind.

If you are alleging that the NIST report was not scientific, then I have to agree with AZCat...you either have NO IDEA what scientific means, or you are using the term "unscientific" incorrectly, and need to reclarify/restate.

Some of those other people you have mentioned, while perhaps having IQs and Education to remove them from the "moron" category, are blinded by hate for the USG, and blinded by paranoia, to the point where their opinions are useless through bias.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

lisabob2:

point out he problems you have with the NIST report then...prove it to us. Show us where it is wrong and why.

And be careful, enough people here have read the works of Hoffman and others sufficiently to tell if you are just quoting his "analysis" or that of another truther...

Give us your own assessment of the report...I wanna know?

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

This also goes against any possible CD theory you or any others may have. Are you going to adjust your theory accordingly?

That's a well played card, but this thread is about Mark's errors. Do you think Mark should eliminate or revise that page?

Whose theory do you accept, Mark Roberts' or NIST's Sunder's?

 

[lisabob2]

OK, everyone. This thread is for Xena, Swing, RedIbis, and any other Truther who wants to jump in here.

For the purposes of this thread, we'll assume that I am a fencesitter on all things 9/11. I stand willing to be persuaded on any matter.

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)."

I will accept no opinion pieces; I'm a skeptic after all. I want to see verifiable facts. Anything posted will be checked for accuracy and context.

Go to it. I'm waiting.

You compare building collapses during construction as a comparision to 9-11. In using pic of collapse you say that debris "clearly falling faster than the rest of the building." How clearly is it when you can't see top of building because of huge dust clouds? the debris could be stuff that started falling before collapse or it could have been blown out by explosions and started again before collapse. You have called Steven Jones science the worst you have seen, how do you know more about the scientific method than Jones? He has looked at evidence, done tests, and came to a hypothsis, how is that "the worst science you have seen? That in itself a useless statement especially since with no qualifications yourself how much weight should we give your opinion?
How can any reasonable person take your opinion over somebody like David Griscom? You make statements, gets documents & pics from goverment sources why should we trust anything that comes from such a obviously corrupt source?
Why doesn't 911 myths have a scientific back & forth like journalof911studies? Have you read Greening & Ross at journal? Thats how we should be debate the issues, no name calling no personal attacks, just opinions on the evidence and complicated mathamatical equations. Thats how mature educated people discuss issues. 911myths also states that Leslie Robertson was chief engineer of towers, when it was John Skilling. Robertson clearly worked under Skilling.

 

[DGM]

I don't know let's ask him.

Gravy do you plan to revise your paper to reflect this new statement.

Originally Posted by RedIbis
Here's hoping three times is a charm:

In Part III of WTC Lies, you have a page entitled: "Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?"

What follows is an impressive one page presentation, complete with numerous fuel tanker pics, compiled to convince the reader that diesel could have in fact sustained the fires which brought the bldg down.

This past week on this recorded conference call, available here Sunder quite clearly states 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.”

So Mark, will you change your paper? eliminate the page? Reconsider your hypothesis that diesel fuel fed fires caused the collapse of the bldg?

Now it's your turn:

Will you revise your view on controlled demolition.

 

[RedIbis]

lisabob2:

point out he problems you have with the NIST report then...prove it to us. Show us where it is wrong and why.

And be careful, enough people here have read the works of Hoffman and others sufficiently to tell if you are just quoting his "analysis" or that of another truther...

Give us your own assessment of the report...I wanna know?

TAM

TAM, you know better. There are long, detailed threads on the shortcomings of the NIST report. And you're right, a lot of people here are very familiar with Hoffman, as well as NIST. Is all criticism of the NIST report simply the ramblings of "truthers"? Nope, this criticism is damn legitimate.

You're just picking on the new kid. Some of which may be deserved considering the almost complete lack of proper grammar, punctuation and proofreading.