You have no excuse for not having visited
my website, since the link was given at the start of the podcast. Nor have you pointed out where or when I repeated anything like you claim I did.
Here are some sections of my site for you to consider before you judge if I have merely repeated government slogans. Let me know in a few years, after you've read the material, if you've changed your mind. You'll need to email me then, since you're going on ignore now. Best wishes in your studies.
I've visited your website on many occasions and I read your paper on WTC7 a couple of months after it was published at the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories. In the paper you don't really attempt to explain how the building collapsed. Your goal was to cast dispersions against the 9/11 Truth Movement for asking questions about it.
Nevertheless, I did show that those promoting the official story came to conclusions before any of the evidence was in. Jerome Hauer was on national television the day of 9/11 telling us what happened. Carol Valentine has some obscure website that practically no one reads.
@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. Unfortunately many here (on both sides of discussions) seem to take reasoned discourse as being some sort of contest to see whose original position will dominate, refusing to give ground in any area no matter how strong or reasonable the argument against them.
Exactly. Political parties and conservatives and liberals engage in the same tactics all the time. Conservative Republicans are racist, sexist, homophobic bigots etc. Liberal Democrats are all Commie loving America haters. As Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said of the 1994 Republican Congress, "
It's not 'spic' or '******' anymore. They say, 'Let's cut taxes." And Rush Limbaugh used call environmentalists watermelons. "
They're green on the outside but red on the inside."
Mark Roberts has already decided that the 9/11 Truth Movement is comprised of moral reprobates so for emotional reasons he will never accept any evidence they offer. Many conservatives, such as Jonah Goldberg, supported the war in Iraq because the primary opposition came from the far left and Bush haters. "Well, I can't give credence to anything those crazy people say, so I'll support the war."
So explain to me why other buildings are ignored by the movement but the prime focus is WTC7?
The primary focus of the 9/11 Truth Movement is on WTC1,2 and 7. For some reason this also seemed to by the primary concern of NIST as well.
"
What are the main objectives of the investigation? The primary objectives of the NIST-led technical investigation of the WTC disaster are to determine:
why and how the WTC 1 and 2 (the WTC towers) collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft, and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;"
NIST Factsheet.
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?
I've stated on several occasions what it would require to falsify my beliefs that 9/11 was not an inside job. A steel-frame high-rise would have to be destroyed with impact damage and fire the same way WTC1,2 and 7 were destroyed. This would include destroying a building from the top-down to match the destruction of WTC 1 and 2(crush-down/crush-up). And destroying a steel-frame high-rise from the bottom-up to match the destruction of WTC7(implosion).
Shyam Sunder said that the NIST report on WTC7 was robust science. So I'm sure in the future we'll see demolition companies use the principles of thermal expansion to demolish steel-frame high-rises.
p.s. I suppose the Randi Forums will not allow the n-word even if one is quoting a Democratic Congressman.
