• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mark Roberts Interview on Skeptic Zone

Funniest thing about the Bill Manning citation is that truthers never read to the bottom of that article, which has this link:

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Arti...n=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=130026

Where the journal states:

Yes, it was the terrorist pilots who slammed two jetliners into the Twin Towers. It was the ensuing fire, however, that brought the towers down. Make no mistake about it: This high-rise collapse was no "fluke." The temperatures experienced and heat release rates achieved at the World Trade Center could be seen in future high-rise fires.
Click to expand...

But hey, anything to put words in people's mouths and add another stick to the bonfire of "overwhelming evidence" used to convince people. :rolleyes:
 
mchapman said:
When will Mark Roberts be providing evidence for some of his more ridiculous claims, like the claim that there weren't many cameras at the pentagon in 2001?

Why does Mark Roberts seem to think that the destruction of steel at ground zero is fine? Bill Manning didn't think it was fine. Yes, I know Bill Manning was talking about it from a fire safety standpoint, not explosives.
Click to expand...

I am quoting my own post so I can highlight the bit that adversity1 was unable to comprehend while his knee jerked.
 
mchapman said:
I am quoting my own post so I can highlight the bit that adversity1 was unable to comprehend while his knee jerked.
Click to expand...

Right, and if he's only talking about fire safety, then what would he have to do with any of you? You trust him to cast doubt on destruction of evidence but when he and his journal offer their expert opinion that the collapse of the towers was completely realistic via two planes, you ignore him. This is all that you truthers can do, use use use. You find something that fits for the moment, grab it and deploy it as something that adds to the cloud of doubt you've created.
 
mchapman said:
When will Mark Roberts be providing evidence for some of his more ridiculous claims, like the claim that there weren't many cameras at the pentagon in 2001?
Click to expand...
Hello, mchapman. Welcome to the forums. Please point out where I made this claim.

Why does Mark Roberts seem to think that the destruction of steel at ground zero is fine?
Click to expand...
Please point out where I said or implied any such thing, and be prepared to do the same with any subsequent claims you make about me. That's known as having evidence to support your statements. Fair enough?
 
Last edited:
mchapman said:
When will Mark Roberts be providing evidence for some of his more ridiculous claims, like the claim that there weren't many cameras at the pentagon in 2001?

Why does Mark Roberts seem to think that the destruction of steel at ground zero is fine? Bill Manning didn't think it was fine. Yes, I know Bill Manning was talking about it from a fire safety standpoint, not explosives.
Click to expand...
out of the woodwork off topic terrorist apologist invade, unarmed, no evidence
 
Gravy said:
Hello, mchapman. Welcome to the forums. Please point out where I made this claim.
Click to expand...

Do you not read your own work? You made that claim on page 10 of this document:

911myths.com/911TruthOrgCritiqueMay06.pdf

where you stated, without a source, that:

The Pentagon uses “live” perimiter security, mostly men in vehicles. In 2001 there were very few security cameras pointing at the building
Click to expand...

So, could you please tell us exactly how many is "very few" and where did you get this information?
 
mchapman said:
Do you not read your own work? You made that claim on page 10 of this document:

911myths.com/911TruthOrgCritiqueMay06.pdf

where you stated, without a source, that:

So, could you please tell us exactly how many is "very few" and where did you get this information?
Click to expand...
Ah, right. I wrote that for Les Jamieson in the first month I was doing this stuff, and didn't include a citation. More information is on the Pentagon section of my website:

As for the question, "Where are all those Pentagon video cameras?" one answer is that the Pentagon primarily uses live security – human beings – for its perimeter security. (Since 9/11 more cameras may have been installed. I don’t have information on that.) Here's a post on the BAUT forum from a Pentagon employee who was there on 9/11. An excerpt:
"Why isn't there more video? Without telling too much of what I know of Pentagon security, you would be surprised how few cameras there are outside the building. Humans actively patrolling a building's perimeter are a tad more effective than dozens of monitors which may or may not be watched at any given moment."​
Excerpt from statement of FBI Agent Jacqueline McGuire, who viewed all the videotapes collected as evidence:
fifty-six (56) of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon.....I personally reviewed the remaining twenty-nine (29) videotapes. I determined that sixteen (16) of these video tapes did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon.....Out of the remaining thirteen (13) videotapes, which did show the Pentagon crash site, twelve (12) videotapes only showed the Pentagon after. I determined that only one videotape showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 Source​
Longer video clips from the Pentagon parking lot cameras

Citgo Video (Doesn't show plane)

Doubletree hotel video (15 mins, shows fireball, doesn't show plane)
Click to expand...
You'll find extensive information about steel collection, examination, and disposal on this page of my site, as well as in the NIST and FEMA reports.

I'll ask you what I've asked others in this thread:

Can you briefly state your position about what happened on 9/11 and what evidence would change your mind?

And, can you name some of the significant claims that the "truth" movement gets right?
 
Last edited:
You disappoint me. I was expecting maybe a link to a pentagon document, or perhaps a news story but no.....your source is a post on an internet forum.

I think that tells us everything we need to know about Mark Roberts' "research".

So what exactly was Bill Manning so upset about? Did you not ask the guy who was involved in the decision to destroy the steel why that decision was made?
 
Can you briefly state your position about what happened on 9/11 and what evidence would change your mind?

And, can you name some of the significant claims that the "truth" movement gets right?
Click to expand...

It is not as simple as claims they have gotten right. Most truther claims are claims that not enough investigation has been done.

For example, I don't claim as a fact that Mahmood ahmed wired 100,000 to Atta, but I would like to see it investigated further than "Oh it was an indian newspaper so probably false"

My position on 9/11 is that there are many aspects of it unexplained, or events within it that are so unusual they require more investigation.
 
mchapman said:
My position on 9/11 is that there are many aspects of it unexplained, or events within it that are so unusual they require more investigation.
Click to expand...

Every single professional investigator and law enforcement official on the planet seems to be in disagreement with your assessments, so I guess you're out of luck.

But hey, keep expressing your personal incredulity on Internet forums. I'm sure that will get your new investigation off the ground.
 
Last edited:
mchapman said:
My position on 9/11 is that there are many aspects of it unexplained, or events within it that are so unusual they require more investigation.
Click to expand...
Name one, with evidence to support a new investigation.

Did you fail to understand the research already done? Why do you have no evidence, or idea what happen on 9/11? Why can't you specify what is wrong with the volumes of evidence already available?

A new investigation? What make you think you will grow the skills to understand a new investigation?

Do you think you are the one who needs to learn the skills to understand what has been done to date? Do you think a getting a PhD in the next 7 years would help you stop wallowing in hearsay and lies?
 
Last edited:
My all time favorite Gravy claim is when he told the loose change boys he physically touched the once molten aluminum that had previously dripped out from the WTC impact areas.

That one is a classic for sure.
 
mchapman said:
You disappoint me. I was expecting maybe a link to a pentagon document, or perhaps a news story but no.....your source is a post on an internet forum.

I think that tells us everything we need to know about Mark Roberts' "research".
Click to expand...
I provided a source for one explanation of why there might be few cameras outside the Pentagon, and I confirmed that he worked at the Pentagon (which was widely known at BAUT anyway). This isn't an issue that interests me in the least, nor does it affect in any way what happened at the Pentagon, so I spent no more time on it.

Many times I've encouraged truthers to do their own research about this, since it does interest them. If you are one of those people, I encourage you to satisfy your curiosity to the best of your ability.

So what exactly was Bill Manning so upset about?
Click to expand...
In your haste to find a mistake by me you skipped over the answer to your question on page 16 of that May, 2006 paper of mine. (Note that this also refutes your claim that I seem to think the destruction of steel was "fine.")

The quote from Fire Engineering is, as usual, taken out of context. Its author, Bill Manning, was justifiably angry that more steel was not preserved, because he wanted fire safety engineers like himself to be able to study it in order to better answer these questions:

"Can the fire service really handle high rise fires adequately? What part did lightweight steel trusses, some reported to have been in excess of 50 feet long, play in the collapse? How effective was the modern sprayed-on steel "fireproofing" employed at the WTC? How relevant to today's fires are the criteria established for the ASTM E-119 fire resistance test developed in the 1920's? When should the defend-in-place strategy for the WTC be used and not used for large high-rise fires? What can be done to make communication by radio possible in high-rise buildings?" (Fire Engineering, February, 2002)

Manning’s concern was saving lives in high rise fires. The FEMA and NIST reports addressed these issues, of course, but Manning’s concerns were perhaps more specific. He did not, and does not, support the “controlled demolition” theory, or any conspiracy theory, at all.
Click to expand...
You can read Manning's June, 2002 Fire Engineering editorial in which he states his gratitude that the investigation was expanded far beyond FEMA's cursory job – something that virtually everyone involved agreed needed to be done.

You could also have found this information with a quick internet search. You could have asked Bill Manning these questions yourself. Why didn't you?

Did you not ask the guy who was involved in the decision to destroy the steel why that decision was made?
Click to expand...
I have already pointed you to the resources to answer this question. I created my website so that I do not have to answer the same questions over and over. I hope you find it a valuable resource.
 
Sizzler said:
My all time favorite Gravy claim is when he told the loose change boys he physically touched the once molten aluminum that had previously dripped out from the WTC impact areas.
Click to expand...


Without a source I can only assume you are mistaken, because below is a statement by Mark in which he does not claim an origin for the aluminum that you have attributed to him.

Gravy said:
I have held peices of cooled molten aluminum from the south tower in my hand. And not from the bottom of the debris pile, either.
Click to expand...

Sizzler said:
That one is a classic for sure.
Click to expand...


Careful with those memories, pal...
 
mchapman said:
It is not as simple as claims they have gotten right. Most truther claims are claims that not enough investigation has been done.
Click to expand...
It's not a trick question. Truthers have been investigating this themselves for years, and have made hundreds of specific claims about the events of 9/11. If you can, please name some significant claims that they get right.

For example, I don't claim as a fact that Mahmood ahmed wired 100,000 to Atta, but I would like to see it investigated further than "Oh it was an indian newspaper so probably false"
Click to expand...
What effort have you made to answer your questions? You understand that the answers aren't just going to magically appear in your mailbox, right?

So if this is important to you, what have you done to learn about it?

Have you read the 9/11 Commission report and its staff monograph on terrorist financing? I'd like an answer to these questions, please.

Further, you linked to my paper at 911myths.com. Had you taken an interest you could have read Mike Williams' extensive treatment of this subject there.

My position on 9/11 is that there are many aspects of it unexplained, or events within it that are so unusual they require more investigation.
Click to expand...
Please don't play games. Specifically what do you believe is unexplained, and what efforts have you made to seek explanations?
What documents and reports and books have you read?
What sites have you visited to find answers?
Whom have you contacted?

And I ask you again: what evidence would change your mind about the specific things you think are unexplained?
 
Last edited:
What I find most amusing about this thread is the way the CTists carry on as if the entire 9/11 sub-forum at JREF will completely disintegrate if they can find just one thing wrong with things Gravy has said in the past. From what I have seen, if anyone, CTist or otherwise, finds something Gravy has gotten wrong, he corrects it and thanks them. The nerve!

I guess it makes sense when compared to the way the CTists seem to think that a single contradiction in or between any of the reports known to date means that the entire body of evidence can be dismissed.

1) Find contradiction.
2) Claim inside job.
3) ???
4) Profit!
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Without a source I can only assume you are mistaken, because below is a statement by Mark in which he does not claim an origin for the aluminum that you have attributed to him.






Careful with those memories, pal...
Click to expand...

The pieces of WTC aluminum I handled had characteristics of having cooled while falling in the air (I suppose falling through water is also a possibility). The curator said to me "I bet you can't guess what this is," but I guessed right away. This was before I knew of the conspiracy nonsense or the video of molten material coming from the south tower.
Click to expand...

He revealed this "fact" to the loose change boys in one of their debates. I don't feel like digging it up. Like the quote above, Gravy doesn't directly say where it came from, but he does mention the South Tower and dripping molten metal in the same breath. Perhaps another one of his propaganda techniques.

Too funny in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom