Mark Roberts Interview on Skeptic Zone

[Hyperviolet]

Wait.
Why on Earth would Mr Rodriguez want to give raging anti-Semites a heads-up about this interview?

 

[DC]

why the focus on WTC7? Jews. There is no other reason

BS

 

[MarkyX]

BS

So explain to me why other buildings are ignored by the movement but the prime focus is WTC7?

 

[Gravy]

I'm perfectly open to arguments that anti-Semites were not influential in starting the 9/11 "truth" movement. But for all the whining, no one here has attempted to make such an argument. I presented my evidence, and even pointed out that within hours of this thread starting, a prominent "truth" movement leader stepped up to aid notorious anti-Semites (who, by the way, get nothing about 9/11 right).

@tanabear: The point you’ve made, that it was poor form to highlight the worst elements of the ‘truth movement’ as being notable when the exact same can be done with extremist ‘skeptics’, is a perfectly fair one and Mr. Roberts character would no doubt go up in the estimation of many people if he could acknowledge this.

You should listen to the portion of the interview where I take "a lot of" debunkers to task for their behavior.

"The exact same?" Please point out where these "extremist" skeptics have been influential to 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers. Where are their popular websites, their books, their DVDs, their speaking tours, their conferences? How have they caused the debunkers to get anything wrong?

The "debunking" movement, if one wants to call it that, was not started in large or small part by people who express race or ethnic hatred and get everything wrong.

You may also want to consider my statement about the "truth" movement's rank-and-file members:

"This is a religious movement. It didn't, I think, start out that way. I think it started with a lot of people who had questions that they at least believed were legitimate, and lots of things were confusing and take some study and research. But it became, quickly, a religious movement. As I said, not a single significant claim correct. It takes a special kind of person to stick with that."

If I'm wrong about that, I encourage the truthers participating here to state what evidence would change their minds.

 

[chillzero]

So explain to me why other buildings are ignored by the movement but the prime focus is WTC7?

Perhaps you could take it to any of the gazillion other threads already on WTC7?

 

[Walter Ego]

What's A Little Holocaust Denial Among Friends?

My latest video seems appropriate here. It was in fact inspired by this thread.

Take a gander at truthers rushing to the defense of Holocaust denier Eric Williams at a truther confab in Chandler, Arizona, last year. Williams was the organizer of the conference until the ***** hit the fan thanks to wiseacre journalist Steve Lemons of the Phoenix New Times and Pat. C. (Brainster on this forum) of the Screw Loose Change blog. Pat was in the room too but is not in the video.

The video features local nutter Kent "Cow Killer" Knudson and Uncle James Fetzer singing the praises of Eric Hufschmid.

By the company they keep, ye shall know them.

 

[RedIbis]

If I'm wrong about that, I encourage the truthers participating here to state what evidence would change their minds.

Twoofie Twoofer or not, nearly anyone with an ounce of skepticism would ask to see evidence of the now infamous Column 79. I apologize to CZ who is obviously trying to keep this thread focused and not veering off into well covered territory, but how are we to address Gravy's largely rhetorical and disingenuous challenges?

 

[MarkyX]

Perhaps you could take it to any of the gazillion other threads already on WTC7?

Chill, I'm not focusing on WTC7 specifically. I'm proving a point that anti-semitism is a huge part of the movement and the one of the many outcomes of this is their special attention towards WTC7 and its owner.

 

[Gravy]

- Eric was interviewed on 9/11 mysteries, another popular 9/11 denier film.

The 9/11 Mysteries website also sells Hufschmid's 9/11 books and DVDs.

Further, of all the books about free speech issues they could choose to sell, the one they offer is about neo-Nazi Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel: "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][SIZE=-1]A story that spans more than 20 years, and a vastly different view of World War II."

[/SIZE][/FONT]Zundel is the one whose rantings "truth" movement leader Kevin Barrett thinks are worthy of consideration.

ETA: For some reason the Larry Silverstein section of the 9/11 Mysteries website is titled "Larry Silverbird."

And let's not for get that on 9/11/06, a thousand black-shirted "patriots" gathered outside Larry Silverstein's office. From the account of one truther that day:

...Some Jew looking dude in a suit came up to me and asked “where are you from?” I said “PA”, and he said “you should go back to PA, *******” and walked away. It took me by suprise, and I started laughing, I thought about saying “you should go back to Israel” but instead just shouted to him “you have a nice day too sir” and smiled.

...then the movement began walking to 120 Broadway, where Larry Silverstiens office is. The police blocked off 2 lanes of traffic and the Truth Movement gathered in the middle of the street. Alex Jones got on the megaphone again and started speaking about WTC 7 and other things. In the hour or so we were there, we chanted “Pull it! pull it! pull it!” and “murderer! murderer! murderer!” among other sayings like “911 was an inside job, we have the proof, so face the truth!”

... Another thing I couldn’t help but notice was the respect, concern, and love that the 9/11 Truth Movement represented."

Bolding mine.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22545_The_Mind_of_a_Truther&only

 

[Gravy]

Twoofie Twoofer or not, nearly anyone with an ounce of skepticism would ask to see evidence of the now infamous Column 79.

Who is "disingenuous" again? Anyone with an ounce of knowledge would know that that column, like all the other WTC 7 columns, wasn't saved. No one asked that they be saved for forensic engineering purposes. No one has presented any evidence that those decisions were made due to any malice or conspiracy.

Requesting that a nonexistent column be examined doesn't do much to refute my claim that you're part of a religious movement. Is there any evidence that might exist that would convince you that 9/11 was not an inside job, RedIbis?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

There are many people opposed to the political ideology of Zionism (which has profound impact in international affairs) who have no negative views of either the Jewish people as a race (who, apart from the prominent Zionists, have no special influence on world affairs) or the Jewish religion (which has next to no relevance politically).

I don't think you quite understand what's going on here in CT land... I don't think there's anyone here who is not aware of that distinction. The problem is within the context of the 9/11 Truth Movement. A number of truthers understand that anti-Zionism is less offensive than anti-semitism so they choose to label themselves as "anti-Zionists"... yet continue to spit venom at prominent, yet seemingly random Jews.

 

[Gravy]

An additional point I’d like to make, which generated very irrational and boorish cries of ‘racism’ in the aforementioned thread is that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are not synonyms.

I made that point in post 14 of this thread. From my 2006 commentary:

There are several prominent anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers in the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. I don’t mean the people who believe the very common conspiracy theory that radical Zionists in Israel and/or in the US government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks to get the US to wage war against the foes of Israel. And it’s important not to automatically label as anti-Semitic, people who disagree with Israeli policy or with a Zionist political agenda. That said, I’m not aware of a single Holocaust denier or anti-Semite who’s prominent on the 9/11 myth-debunking side. But there are several people on the CT side who hold such views. These include...

 

[technoextreme]

Perhaps you could take it to any of the gazillion other threads already on WTC7?

It's a legitimate point to bring up in this context. Albeit, I don't know if his implication has to do with antisemitism or the fact that the other buildings completely screw up their narrative of fire couldn't have brought down WTC 7. In fact I was ready to bring the same point up before he did. There was plenty of evidence that fire brought down those buildings on the same day it happened. All you have to do is look at pictures of the other buildings that were destroyed.

 

[RedIbis]

Who is "disingenuous" again? Anyone with an ounce of knowledge would know that that column, like all the other WTC 7 columns, wasn't saved.No one asked that they be saved for forensic engineering purposes.

And the fact that you accept that unquestioningly, especially since it is at the very center of the NIST collapse theory, is a bit strange for a so-called skeptic.

No one has presented any evidence that those decisions were made due to any malice or conspiracy.

I didn't say they were. I'm questioning the validity of a collapse theory that has no physical evidence to back it up. You are not.

Requesting that a nonexistent column be examined doesn't do much to refute my claim that you're part of a religious movement.

Requesting empirical evidence is the exact opposite of blind faith. Not requesting such evidence is slavish religious adherance.

Is there any evidence that might exist that would convince you that 9/11 was not an inside job, RedIbis?

The point you're dancing around is that I'm calling on NIST to provide the physical evidence that supports their unprecedented collapse theory. Isn't the burden of proof on the one who makes the claim?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Saying that because someone agrees with NIST findings mean they accept it unquestionably is a pretty desperate argument even for a 9/11 denier. but to be expected from a group of people who unconditionally accept an inside job and have never to date been able to present any evidence of such.

Ibis doesn't really question a controlled demolition for which there is no evidence of, yet questions the fire induced collapse for which there is evidence of and simultaneously claims there isn't evidence of. Hence the term denier. He then goes on to say he requests empirical evidence to which he has been provided by NIST, yet requires no empirical evidence for a controlled demolition. So Ibis makes his requirements impossible to sustain, yet has no problem with his conspiracy theories that he supports failing to meet his own requirements.

That's what being a hypocrite is about. And this whole anti-semitism thing? Often time the argument against the government or a person that is being discussed is based on them supposedly being Jewish or a zionist. Silverstien for example. Were it not for him being Jewish, there would be no such arguments about him using the term pull it". And while some try to skirt the issue of curbing it to simply "zionism", it's still hatred and bigotry no matter how you try to disguise it.

 

[Bananaman]

For God's sake, redIbis, just say what you think happened. It would make things a lot easier than sitting there like an old woman nitpicking at rubbish.

Bananaman.

 

[technoextreme]

The point you're dancing around is that I'm calling on NIST to provide the physical evidence that supports their unprecedented collapse theory. Isn't the burden of proof on the one who makes the claim?

And they have plenty of proof which goes back to the whole ignoring every single other building besides 1,2, and 7. I mean come on. Go look at the fire damage pictures of 5 and then try tilting at windmills with me.

 

[Gravy]

And the fact that you accept that unquestioningly, especially since it is at the very center of the NIST collapse theory, is a bit strange for a so-called skeptic.

False. I bothered to do what I've never seen a truther do: learn about this issue. You can learn about these things in the debris cleanup section of my website. I have even corresponded by email, telephone, and in person with people who were directly involved with making these decisions. As I said in my Richard Gage debate, Dave Peraza, the structural engineer in charge of all debris removal, told me, unsolicited:

“By the way, some of the conspiracy theories state that the steel was sent to the scrap yards, presumably to destroy evidence of the conspiracy. I participated in the decision, ultimately made by DDC, to not retain the majority of the steel. I guess I was part of the conspiracy!”

I have seen zero evidence that any of the facts I've uncovered about this issue are wrong or that any of the people I've corresponded with are anything but honest and professional.

You can disagree, RedIbis, but the burden of proof of 9/11 conspiracies remains where it's always been: on the shoulders of the conspiracy theorists. Waiting for the rest of the world to adopt and fight for your beliefs is irrational. It's 2008. You've been doing this for years and still haven't learned that?

Let's be clear about what just transpired here.

Gravy: What evidence would convince you that your beliefs about 9/11 conspiracies are wrong?

RedIbis: Nonexistent evidence.

My point about "truthers" existing in a fantasy world stands, and I'm done with you.

 

[johnny karate]

And the fact that you accept that unquestioningly, especially since it is at the very center of the NIST collapse theory, is a bit strange for a so-called skeptic.

Pretty strange for the entire engineering community too, since none of them are questioning the NIST collapse theory. But hey, a non-professional from the Internet has hand-waved the theory away, so it must be wrong.

Seriously Red, you're already embarrassing yourself in one thread about this topic. Are you so lacking in shame that you feel the need to advertise your ignorance in another?

 

[Brannagyn]

Cl1mh4224rd: “I don't think there's anyone here who is not aware of that distinction.”

Really?

Johnnyclueless: “And while some try to skirt the issue of curbing it to simply "zionism", it's still hatred and bigotry no matter how you try to disguise it.”

And this is the problem, some people really don’t seem to get how the two are totally separate. For those people, take my own case in point.

Zionism: Don’t like it, much as I don’t like white separatism of the extreme black power views of Louis Farakhan. I don’t like non-integrationist ideologies, ethnic democracies or Communitarianism for similar reasons.

Israel: Have a lot against its humanitarian record and think it wields far too much influence over the US. Have a high opinion of its intelligence and military services yet, ironically, my Israeli friends, post-service, fervently dislike the thing I admire most about their country.

Jews: Have several Jewish friends. Don’t really go for their home cooking. Love a large number of Jewish comedians. Other than that its not an issue.

@Johnnyclueless: Please explain to me the exact nature of my bigotry and hate.

Mark Roberts: “If you can point out where these "extremist" skeptics have been influential to 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers, I'll gladly look at your evidence. Where are their popular websites, their books, their DVDs, their conferences? How have they caused the debunkers to get anything wrong?”

I can understand that you differentiate between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism but by lumping outright racists in with anyone sharing an opinion with them on 9/11 issues you’re doing the latter group a huge disservice.

I’ve already stated it’s a false dichotomy, its counter-productive to demark two opposing groups of ‘truthers' and ‘skeptics’ when by far the vast majority of people with any interest in the subject (though possibly not those who regularly post on dedicated forums) have feet in both camps (which, to state the painfully obvious, is figurative).

By far the majority of ‘skeptics’ here seem to envision a single 'truth movement' coalesced around self-promoters such as Alex Jones and Dylan Avery. Without having any conception of my views on, or knowledge of, the issues in question the majority here will probably label me part of the group simply because I’m arguing against the consensus.

All well and good, but if you take that view you have to be willing to take everybody else onto your side. Every group that argues against any 9/11 CT’s becomes part of the ‘debunking camp’. This includes the government and the mainstream media, both of whom are in clear support of the vast majority of ‘debunker’ views and who continuously pushed the link between the 9/11 attacks and Iraq in the run up to, during and after the invasion.

Oh wait, perhaps you disagree with them on this point? Maybe you debunked that connection yourself?

No good I’m afraid, if you’re a “You’re with us or you’re with the truthers” kind of guy. If you feel the ‘truth movement’ exists as a whole, and has to take responsibility for the presence within it of extremist racists, then you’ll find the debunking camp has extremists of its own who have made far more harmful claims.

Or you could avoid the labeling issue entirely by avoiding attempting to link totally disparate parties together because their views align on certain issues.

If you were simply trying to highlight the nature of people like Willis Carto and his ilk, I’d be first in line to sign up. As I’ve said, I don’t like ethnic separatism and have far less tolerance for supremacism. If there’s a thread on fringe elements tying their flag to the 9/11 truth wagon I’d honestly love to read it and learn more about such people.

That said I think, despite what you’ve said, many here do have a problem differentiating anti-semetism and anti-zionism. In itself this wouldn’t be such a big deal except for the nature of the black and white division most here make between ‘skeptic’ and ‘truther’. I’m sure it makes it more entertaining for many to imagine they’re waging a war against the barbarians but the world simply doesn’t work in such a simplistic fashion.

The charge of anti-Semetism is a powerful one, much more forceful than simple allegations of racism and it seems to be used with surprising frequency in discussions here despite the fringe status of its actual proponents. As far as I remember it, there was a far greater cross-over between the anti-war and 9/11 truth movement than there ever was with extremist racists (though to be fair I’m largely basing this on my purely peripheral awareness of these racist elements and the clear connection between the other groups) but of course ‘anti-war’ is not as effective an epithet.

There is, of course, as little reason to link the ‘truth movement’ to the positive goals of the anti-war groups as there is the negative goals of the anti-semetic groups. Each group (or each set of individuals) should be addressed on a separate basis.