Mark Roberts Interview on Skeptic Zone

[applecorped]

maybe you will think twice about making sweeping claims that you are unwilling to back up.

Who is responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

 

[mchapman]

The US invaded Malaysia?

If there's any part of this you don't understand, I'll be glad to explain it to you:

During a Broadcast on National News, Channel 3, at Primetime, it was stated that “The Mindset of the Malaysian people has been changed forever on the 9/11 events after seeing the latest evidence.”

Yes, but I consider that a good thing.

Is there something wrong with free speech changing peoples minds?

 

[mchapman]

Who is responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

I don't know. Why do you ask?

 

[Gravy]

Gravy is, as usual, at least a year ahead of you.

Very, very poor choice of an exemplar.

ETA: I'd forgotten he was a Leo Wanta subscriber. Wow. And this is the guy you pick??

Sander Hicks is just another amiable kook, a catch-basin for all conspiracy theories. And, as I point out in the post you linked to, I've never once heard a NYC conspiracy theorist cite his work.

 

[Gravy]

Yes, but I consider that a good thing.

Is there something wrong with free speech changing peoples minds?

You consider it a good thing when people believe 100% false information? When "In Plane Site," the "pod" movie, is influential? When Muslims don't believe that Muslims were behind the 9/11 attacks?

If Muslims weren't behind the attacks, then who was, mchapman? Present your evidence.

 

[Totovader]

Even if I were prepared to, it is impossible for me to falsify your statement.

That is not true, I have made it incredibly easy for you to do so. My statement is entirely falsifiable- to be honest I should have even been a bit more careful. I said that all conspiracists: a) hate jews and make false claims, or b) make false claims.

If you were a jerk- you could simply have picked up some random and irrelevant fact like Sander Hicks saying "It's a beautiful day outside" which- of course- would make you look like a fraud, but would- technically- debunk my statement.

Instead, though, all you really need to do in order to maintain credibility and debunk my claim is provide one single example of a conspiracist who has made a claim which proves a conspiracy and is backed up by evidence. You have dodged that requirement for obvious reasons.

If your position was correct- you can imagine how easy this would be. There have been hundreds of thousands of claims- from the most minute of details to the largest of conspiracy theories... all you would have to do is pick one. Hell, if your position was even mostly correct, you could pick one at random and have it be qualified to attack my statement.

Since your position is incorrect, you are struggling to avoid culpability.

Flip that token over and you can see that you can pick even a random claim from the scientific position and find that it is researched, supported by evidence, and widely accepted. That consistency not only relies on sound scientific evidence, but a healthy dose of consensus on the major issues.

Conspiracists have no consensus beyond the claim that "the 'official story' is wrong".

If I produce true claims made by people, that does not eliminate the possibility that they have made other false claims.

True, but entirely and completely irrelevant. Other false claims has nothing to do with debunking my argument- since I said that all conspiracists make false claims. (Again, to give me a bit of breathing room, we are talking about 9/11 conspiracy theorist claims about the 9/11 conspiracy theories. "The sky is blue" obviously is not what I'm looking for).

I asked for one. You have provided none.

If you honestly believed the statement you just made, then your whining about being unable to address my criteria would mean that you believe that Sander Hicks has been right about every single claim he has made, ever since you attempted to use him as an example. Either that or you were lying in your statement above.

Which is it?

The burden of proof is entirely with you. If you are unprepared to list a false claim for every conspiricist, then maybe you will think twice about making sweeping claims that you are unwilling to back up.

Again- and for the last time- I have qualified my statement. Claiming that I need to list every single argument ever made in order to satisfy your unreasonable requirements is not an appropriate rebuttal. You are stalling in order to avoid actually substantiating your position.

I have backed up my statement and provided you with a very clear requirement for falsification. Although I'm leaving myself open for a quick "gotcha"- it's pretty clear to me that you are so terrified of actually being able to back up your counter-argument, that you will simply fall back on more fallacies to avoid the crux of the issue. You're apparently so entirely unprepared to even provide a single verifiable claim by a conspiracist that you are left with no alternative but to repeat yourself over and over and over and over again- as if your fallacy will suddenly become acceptable.

It won't. Either provide a single example, or admit that you have none.

 

[mchapman]

You consider it a good thing when people believe 100% false information? When Muslims don't believe that Muslims were behind the 9/11 attacks.

Why?

Well you haven't shown his information is 100% false.

Another witness to basement explosions has just died in an extremely suspicious suicide.

I don't believe that Muslims alone were responsible for the 911 attacks.

 

[Totovader]

Can you name any prominent experts of the "official story" that base their conclusion on this supposed "racism"? If not, then this is simply a tu quoque- though I don't speak for Gravy, I personally believe that the anti-Semitism is a symptom of the irrationality of conspiracism and leads to conspiracist ideology.

Furthermore, are these "racists" in a higher majority among the scientific community- or is it simply the case that since the vast majority of experts, witnesses, and laymen believe the scientific version of the events- that there is likely to be a mix of people in there who also happen to be racist?

In other words- one is a symptom of the other, but your example is simply a statistical occurrence.

*Bump^4 for mchapman

Are you prepared to answer this, or not?

 

[applecorped]

I don't know. Why do you ask?

Because you're on a 9/11 conspiracy theory forum.

 

[mchapman]

That is not true, I have made it incredibly easy for you to do so. My statement is entirely falsifiable- to be honest I should have even been a bit more careful. I said that all conspiracists: a) hate jews and make false claims, or b) make false claims.

If you were a jerk- you could simply have picked up some random and irrelevant fact like Sander Hicks saying "It's a beautiful day outside" which- of course- would make you look like a fraud, but would- technically- debunk my statement.

Instead, though, all you really need to do in order to maintain credibility and debunk my claim is provide one single example of a conspiracist who has made a claim which proves a conspiracy and is backed up by evidence. You have dodged that requirement for obvious reasons.

If your position was correct- you can imagine how easy this would be. There have been hundreds of thousands of claims- from the most minute of details to the largest of conspiracy theories... all you would have to do is pick one. Hell, if your position was even mostly correct, you could pick one at random and have it be qualified to attack my statement.

Since your position is incorrect, you are struggling to avoid culpability.

Flip that token over and you can see that you can pick even a random claim from the scientific position and find that it is researched, supported by evidence, and widely accepted. That consistency not only relies on sound scientific evidence, but a healthy dose of consensus on the major issues.

Conspiracists have no consensus beyond the claim that "the 'official story' is wrong".



True, but entirely and completely irrelevant. Other false claims has nothing to do with debunking my argument- since I said that all conspiracists make false claims. (Again, to give me a bit of breathing room, we are talking about 9/11 conspiracy theorist claims about the 9/11 conspiracy theories. "The sky is blue" obviously is not what I'm looking for).

I asked for one. You have provided none.

If you honestly believed the statement you just made, then your whining about being unable to address my criteria would mean that you believe that Sander Hicks has been right about every single claim he has made, ever since you attempted to use him as an example. Either that or you were lying in your statement above.

Which is it?



Again- and for the last time- I have qualified my statement. Claiming that I need to list every single argument ever made in order to satisfy your unreasonable requirements is not an appropriate rebuttal. You are stalling in order to avoid actually substantiating your position.

I have backed up my statement and provided you with a very clear requirement for falsification. Although I'm leaving myself open for a quick "gotcha"- it's pretty clear to me that you are so terrified of actually being able to back up your counter-argument, that you will simply fall back on more fallacies to avoid the crux of the issue. You're apparently so entirely unprepared to even provide a single verifiable claim by a conspiracist that you are left with no alternative but to repeat yourself over and over and over and over again- as if your fallacy will suddenly become acceptable.

It won't. Either provide a single example, or admit that you have none.

You have already been shown to be lying once about a claim you said I made. Nobody is believing your latest protestations, least of all me.

You can try and wriggle out of it all you want. Your claim, your burden. Get to it.

 

[Gravy]

There are no influential holocaust deniers in the truth movement.

No? Then answer this: who organized the biggest "truth" conference of 2007?

Why does it matter who willy tours with?

Why does it matter who the 9/11 hero who claims the US government did it, travels with, speaks with, and gets support from? You're kidding, right? Specifically what about my post about his talks to Muslims do you not understand?

 

[Gravy]

Well you haven't shown his information is 100% false.

Yes, I have. If you disagree, post your analysis of my work in one of the existing threads about this subject. You may want to speak to Rodriguez first, though. He was the first person to receive my paper about him, and he's been invited to comment on it since. He hasn't attempted to refute a single point. Not one. See my repeated emails to him, linked above, in which I encourage him to respond.

If you cannot refute my work, stop whining. It's my observation that whiners are universally disliked.

I don't believe that Muslims alone were responsible for the 911 attacks.

Without evidence, your belief isn't worth a fart in a henhouse. Do you understand this?

Please explain clearly what evidence would change your mind.

To be highly certain of something, with a very low order of evidence, or in contradiction to a mountain of evidence, is a sign that something is wrong with your mind. –Sam Harris

 

[Totovader]

You have already been shown to be lying once about a claim you said I made. Nobody is believing your latest protestations, least of all me.

You can try and wriggle out of it all you want. Your claim, your burden. Get to it.

What are you babbling about now?

What claim did I make that you are saying was a proven lie- you will definitely need to back that up. Your pathetic desperation to avoid the issue is starting to get a bit out of control.

Using your absolutely ridiculous criteria for proof, you will need to provide a statement from every single person on the planet, besides you which shows that "nobody is believing [my] latest protestations"

There is no need for me to "wiggle out" of this argument- I am completely confident that your attempts to shift the burden of proof and other tactics to avoid the issue are the result of your inability to defend your position. I am also fairly confident that rational people will be able to see that your pathetic excuses are nothing more than a cover for your ignorance on the issues and the individuals making conspiracy theory claims.

 

[beachnut]

This isn't the first time Mark Roberts has done this sort of thing. In his wtc7 paper he makes sure he points out that steven jones is a mormon who wrote a paper about Jesus coming to america. Totally irrelevant to his 911 claims.

In that podcast he described hero Willie Rodriguez as a failed magician. All pathetic Ad Hom fallacies that make Mark Roberts research about as credible as any holocaust deniers'.

Yes you are right the paper is about Jesus, the Christ, and the thermite rant was made up pure junk, an insane idea; made up 4 years after 9/11 with no evidence! You got Mark now.

You support the idiot idea Thermite? Jones spews 9/11 statements based on pure bias and his ideas are pure lies and false. Pick some more failed ideas.



Your extreme paranoia is showing in other posts. How can you be so full of junk ideas? ... no evidence, Cool

 

[CHF]

They don't blindly accept the word of holocaust deniers.

Yes they do, mchapman.

They accept the word of Holocaust deniers on such blind faith that most twoofers don't even know when they're citing Holocaust deniers!

And even after they find out who they're citing they keep doing it.

There are no influential holocaust deniers in the truth movement.

Why does it matter who willy tours with?

Would you care if debunkers toured with Holocaust deniers?

Damn right you would.

 

[Gravy]

Would you care if debunkers toured with Holocaust deniers?

Damn right you would.

The hypocrisy staggers the mind.

 

[mchapman]

Yes they do, mchapman.

They accept the word of Holocaust deniers on such blind faith that most twoofers don't even know when they're citing Holocaust deniers!

And even after they find out who they're citing they keep doing it.







Would you care if debunkers toured with Holocaust deniers?

Damn right you would.

Debunkers could tour with whoever they liked and I would still evaluate their evidence without prejudice.

You didn't answer my question. Why do you care who Rodriguez tours with? He would still be just as wrong about 911, right?

 

[applecorped]

So the truth movement is reduced to denying that some of them associate with anti-semites.

I wonder where the truth movement will be in another seven years?

 

[CHF]

Debunkers could tour with whoever they liked and I would still evaluate their evidence without prejudice.

What nonsense!

When the Popular Mechanics "hit piece" came out the TM dismissed the whole article with some bullcrap about the PM editor being the brother/cousin of the Director of Homeland Security.

That was ALL the TM needed to ignore the whole damn thing.

Oh, by the way - do you know where the "Chertoff" brothers/cousin claim originated? (I'll give you a hint: "There are no influential holocaust deniers in the truth movement")

You didn't answer my question. Why do you care who Rodriguez tours with? He would still be just as wrong about 911, right?

He is just as wrong no matter who he tours with. The false nature of his claims are extensively documented.

Who he tours with simply serves to demonstrate just how horrible his judgment is - and how horrible yours is for taking him seriously.

 

[Gravy]

Debunkers could tour with whoever they liked and I would still evaluate their evidence without prejudice.

You cannot establish that debunkers get anything wrong, much less get anything wrong out of prejudice.

You didn't answer my question. Why do you care who Rodriguez tours with? He would still be just as wrong about 911, right?

Stop lying. How is it possible, mchapman, that you are capable of writing but not reading?

You did not answer my question. You claim no Holocaust denier influence in the 9/11 "truth" movement. Who was the director for the biggest truth conference of 2007?

And at that conference, what did another very influential truther say about the quality of 9/11 research of an egregious Holocaust denier?

And whose book did the keynote speaker at that conference praise?