Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[T.A.M.]

I am sure, given Sunder's qualifications, and given he was speaking on behalf of NIST, that when the complete paper is out, Mark will revise his paper to indicate this...of course, the wording of the paper may be important...do they rule it out, or simply say it was unlikely, etc...

I have no personal reason to doubt that Mark will revise his page on this once the NIST Final report on WTC7 comes out.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

911myths also states that Leslie Robertson was chief engineer of towers, when it was John Skilling. Robertson clearly worked under Skilling.

source please, or is this just opinion?

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

I don't know let's ask him.

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


Now it's your turn:

Will you revise your view on controlled demolition.

Thank you for quoting so that Gravy will read my post.

It is not my turn. Gravy has not addressed this yet. I did not post a paper suggesting that the WTC was a CD.

When I post a paper about 9/11, feel free to start a thread and we will discuss any inaccuracies.

 

[LastChild]

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.

What's the original source of that quote?

 

[DGM]

Thank you for quoting so that Gravy will read my post.

It is not my turn. Gravy has not addressed this yet. I did not post a paper suggesting that the WTC was a CD.

When I post a paper about 9/11, feel free to start a thread and we will discuss any inaccuracies.

Your welcome:

Do you think you should change your "argument" about CD? I know you have not produced a paper but you do argue in favor quite strongly.

 

[T.A.M.]

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.

I am "picking on the new kid" because:

(A) He comes in here like a touted expert, making proclamations. He is the one who has used the word "unscientific" and that is what I am calling him on. I have no doubt that people have "problems" with the NIST report. After reading comments from some of the more honest scientists such as Greening, I actually believe there are areas of the report that could have used further investigation. I also trust the likes of R.Mackey and his opinions on the report. So, NO, not all of the NIST criticism is the rambling of truthers, but a VAST MAJORITY of it is exactly that, uneducated, uninformed, paranoid ramblings...

(B) I could care less about his grammar, punctuation, and proofreading, unless it is very glaringly poor.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

Your welcome:

Do you think you should change your "argument" about CD? I know you have not produced a paper but you do argue in favor quite strongly.

Please quote me arguing strongly in favor of CD. I argue strongly that official collapse theories, for example, are contradictory, lacking, and often implausible. That's not the same as arguing in favor of CD.

 

[RedIbis]

I am "picking on the new kid" because:

(A) He comes in here like a touted expert, making proclamations. He is the one who has used the word "unscientific" and that is what I am calling him on. I have no doubt that people have "problems" with the NIST report. After reading comments from some of the more honest scientists such as Greening, I actually believe there are areas of the report that could have used further investigation. I also trust the likes of R.Mackey and his opinions on the report. So, NO, not all of the NIST criticism is the rambling of truthers, but a VAST MAJORITY of it is exactly that, uneducated, uninformed, paranoid ramblings...

(B) I could care less about his grammar, punctuation, and proofreading, unless it is very glaringly poor.

TAM

Both points are well taken. I would just suggest that there isn't so much focus on the ramblings, and perhaps a bit more focus on the legitimate concerns some of us have raised. I know it's easy to attack the "twoofers", but this strategy is a poor defense of the official theories.

And I'm the first to admit that my focus on grammar and proofreading is a bit obsessive.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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.

As opposed to you twoofers who try to compare buildings of completely different designs and completely different damage circumstances? Stop being dishonest.

And yes the debris clearly DID fall faster than the top of the building. While you may live in denial and pretend it's obscured by dust, this is simply NOT TRUE. Although it's pretty ironic coming from a group that claims to know the exact collapse time being free fall when the bottom of the collapse cannot be seen.

How does he know more about the scientific method than Jones? Because ALL of Jone's methods have been scientifically proven as fraud. There's no debating this. How is it that you think that because jones is a scientist that he is therefore correct? You don't seem to hold this standard for the millions of other REAL scientists who all disagree with Jones. So your requirement for his credibility is simply that he is telling you what you want to hear, not that he makes actual valid scientific arguments. In fact I doubt you even understand his claims beyond something that confirms your pre-determined beliefs. Have you even READ any of the threads that show WHY his findings are absurd? Clearly you haven't. When he makes claims such as there being thermate based on the level of sulfer found and the levels of sulfer not only don't match that of his claims, but the key ingredient of thermate found is 0%, that's called FRAUD. A 1st grader could understand this flaw. But yet you don't. Because you probably didn't even bother to read any of Jone's findings. All you know is "scientist+conspiracy=must be right". And man of the people on this forum who have pointed out these errors in Jone's work are FAR FAR FAR FAR more qualified than Dr Jones and have far better credentials than Dr Jones. But you probably aren't even aware that Jones field of expertise is not in the proper field of study, he's a physicist, not a structural engineer. Not that that prevents him from being knowledgable, his work shows that. But since all that matters to people like you are credentials and not someone's actual work, then you fail on that point as well.

And how can anyone take Dave G seriously? Please stop diluting yourself. The bottom line is that you clearly have a pre-determined conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job based on your political beliefs and dislike for the current political party and simply base your conclusions on whomever will help you confirm your opinion so you can pretend your opinion is factual.

 

[funk de fino]

What's the original source of that quote?

Do not defend Ballone, it makes you look silly

You do know he was charged with stealing things also?

 

[chillzero]

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?

To prevent getting this thread off topic again, perhaps you could start a new thread based on what I have quoted above, and explain exactly what you think happens when a plane crashes.

Do you think that to say a plane is totally destroyed means it simply vanishes, and so does everything that was within it?

Do you consider a plane to be destroyed if, for example, it is split into many many pieces, and the contents strewn around? Or is that not destroyed?

If you wish to respond appropriately, then you need to identify specifics about what Mark Roberts has been incorrect about, and show evidence of how he is incorrect. That's what this thread is about.

 

[DGM]

Please quote me arguing strongly in favor of CD. I argue strongly that official collapse theories, for example, are contradictory, lacking, and often implausible. That's not the same as arguing in favor of CD.

I'm sorry if I misunderstand your believes.

So you argue that it couldn't happen the way that is generally accepted but offer no alternative explanation? I can't recall too many times that you have argued against a "truther's" point of view. I have also seen you steadfastly defend Willie Rodriguez who does support the CD theory.

Maybe you would be better understood if you explain what you do stand for.

 

[Corsair 115]

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?

Because a human body is not an aircraft, and an aircraft is not a human body. Different materials, different structures, different properties, and thus different reactions to exerted forces.

 

[Belz...]

Please quote me arguing strongly in favor of CD. I argue strongly that official collapse theories, for example, are contradictory, lacking, and often implausible. That's not the same as arguing in favor of CD.

No, of course not...

 

[Gravy]

You compare building collapses during construction as a comparision to 9-11.

Where do I do that?

In using pic of collapse you say that debris "clearly falling faster than the rest of the building."

Many photos and videos show large debris hitting the ground 300, 400, 500 feet and more before the collapse wave. This isn't rocket science, lisabob.

You have called Steven Jones science the worst you have seen, how do you know more about the scientific method than Jones?

Specifically what do I get wrong in my critiques of Jones? (I know you won't answer, but I'll give this the old college try.)

How can any reasonable person take your opinion over somebody like David Griscom?

I ask no one to believe my opinions. Specifically what do I get wrong?

You make statements, gets documents & pics from goverment sources why should we trust anything that comes from such a obviously corrupt source?

Specifically what do I get wrong? Show your evidence.

Why doesn't 911 myths have a scientific back & forth like journalof911studies?

Feel free to suggest that to the person who runs that site, Mike Williams.

911myths also states that Leslie Robertson was chief engineer of towers, when it was John Skilling. Robertson clearly worked under Skilling.

1) Why are you telling me what 911myths says?

2) Leslie Robertson was the Engineer of Record for the Twin Towers, not John Skilling. If you do your homework, you'll avoid looking like a fool.

 

[LastChild]

Do not defend Ballone, it makes you look silly

You do know he was charged with stealing things also?

I'm not defending anyone I'm asking. Someone asked me for the source of something and I produced it. Now I'm asking. Where is the original source of that quote. Who was that told to?

"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."

 

[Gravy]

I have heard Roberts say that plane was totally destroyed.

Yes. The insurance adjuster wrote it off as a total loss.

I have heard Roberts disregard evidence as wrong and produce pics that he says prove him right.

Prove it.

One more thing Roberts says plane that hit pentagon crashed going down when all "evidence"(light poles down, videos) show plane travelling horizontal.

Completely ridiculous.

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.

You made that nonsense up. That seems to be a habit with you. You really should stop doing that. Remember that this forum is populated by critical thinkers who don't suffer fools gladly.

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Now cut the crap, stop your pathetic whining and spewing of falsehoods, and get to work.

 

[Gravy]

I'm not defending anyone I'm asking. Someone asked me for the source of something and I produced it. Now I'm asking. Where is the original source of that quote. Who was that told to?

"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."

Ah, I see Google isn't working for you. That's unusual. Tell you what: an ex-roommate of mine is good friends with one of Google's founders. I'll give her a ring and see if she can run your problem by him. It is a holiday weekend, though, so your fix may have to wait until Wednesday. Is that okay?

 

[pomeroo]

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.

William Rice is a guy in his eighties who has read absolutely nothing on 9/11 that wasn't produced by loons. His ignorance of the basic issues is staggering. Hugo Bachmann and Jorg Schneider reject the fantasy movement's moonshine about explosives in the Towers. For reasons that remain inexplicable, they lend their names to baseless nonsense regarding the collapse of building 7. Pegelow works on oil rigs. I assume the others are members of Richard Gage's circus of frauds. Why do you suppose these clowns refuse to debate rationalists?

 

[AZCat]

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.

Please take care in reading my posts in the future. I was responding to your claims that there were scientists who stated that the NIST report was unscientific. You respond with the claim that there are people (including you) who "find problems with the nist (sic) report".

Either you are incapable of reading my posts properly or you are moving the goalposts (a typical truther tactic).

Let me reiterate: If someone thinks the NIST report is unscientific, that person is a moron or hasn't read it. We get both types here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having problems with the NIST report. There are plenty of academics and professionals who have suggested or investigated improvements to the methods used by the NIST. To consider the report unscientific, on the other hand, is to dismiss the whole process, one where a large group of knowledgeable professionals took on a complex and daunting problem and largely succeeded in taming it.