Investigative Journalist Stewart Bradley vs. Mark Roberts

The bigger question now is....

"Will the two actually debate in RL, or not?"

TAM;)
 
Hello Mark this John-Michael from the "debunking the debunkers blog" I was always planning on putting it back up with a correction and apology from Stewart. When I first heard about it on Care2 I posted...

"Thanks for the info RU. I'm sure this was an honest mistake, I'll get more info, and pull the blog post until I know more."

I'm pretty sure Stewart would actually want to do the debate.

JM
 
That's the reason it has the same URL, I just saved it back to draft until he updated it.
 
T.A.M. said:
The bigger question now is....

"Will the two actually debate in RL, or not?"

TAM;)
Click to expand...
:D This reminds me of Mark Gaffney, the guy who wrote the book about the "mystery plane" that's no mystery. He wrote to me, said he'd been reading my site and had some issues with my analysis. He asked me to read his detailed analysis of NIST's report on the Twin Towers. He'd had it online for over a year.

I responded that I got as far as the part in the first paragraph where he called NIST the "National Institute of Safety and Transportation," then I closed the window. I asked him to get back to me in a year if he'd actually read the report by then.

He replied that he didn't think anyone had read the whole report. I said that not only had I read it, but I'd studied much of it, taken copious notes, read several analyses of its methods and conclusions, and read many other engineering reports. I corrected him about the gross errors he'd made in the few killer points he attempted to make by email.

He said he'd get back to me. That was in 2007.
 
golotomer said:
Hello Mark this John-Michael from the "debunking the debunkers blog" I was always planning on putting it back up with a correction and apology from Stewart. When I first heard about it on Care2 I posted...

"Thanks for the info RU. I'm sure this was an honest mistake, I'll get more info, and pull the blog post until I know more."
Click to expand...
Hi, John-Michael, and thanks.

I'm pretty sure Stewart would actually want to do the debate.

JM
Click to expand...
Ah, T.A.M. was joking about that above, for obvious reasons.
 
golotomer said:
Hello Mark this John-Michael from the "debunking the debunkers blog" I was always planning on putting it back up with a correction and apology from Stewart. When I first heard about it on Care2 I posted...

"Thanks for the info RU. I'm sure this was an honest mistake, I'll get more info, and pull the blog post until I know more."

I'm pretty sure Stewart would actually want to do the debate.

JM
Click to expand...
How do you debate bat crazy ideas from 911, pure delusions?

With zero evidence and poor Stewart arguing about exercises on 911 already debunked years ago, how do you debate fantasy and ignorance when the 911Truth person has drank the Kool-Aid and uses hearsay, lies and fantasy for evidence. 7 years and only those who lack knowledge and the ability to exercise sound judgment back the delusions of 911Truth.
 
Easy there, beachnut. Not every thread needs a rant. ;)

A while ago I was typing a ranty PM, and I noticed that even my hands looked angry. I took a photo. Now, rather than posting repetitive rants, I just post Angry Hand. Saves a lot of typing.

typing.jpg
 
Debating truthers is dumb. I don't do it anymore. I now spend my time playing with girls. =)
 
beachnut said:
How do you debate bat crazy ideas from 911, pure delusions?

With zero evidence and poor Stewart arguing about exercises on 911 already debunked years ago, how do you debate fantasy and ignorance when the 911Truth person has drank the Kool-Aid and uses hearsay, lies and fantasy for evidence. 7 years and only those who lack knowledge and the ability to exercise sound judgment back the delusions of 911Truth.
Click to expand...

Relax, I am not calling for any form of debating. If you have read my posts as of late, you would realize that I have declared debating any of these fellows as a useless exercise. Literally beating a dead horse.

Mark was right, it was in jest. I thought the winking smilie gave it away.

Oh well.

TAM:)
 
Gravy said:
Easy there, beachnut. Not every thread needs a rant. ;)

A while ago I was typing a ranty PM, and I noticed that even my hands looked angry. I took a photo. Now, rather than posting repetitive rants, I just post Angry Hand. Saves a lot of typing.

Click to expand...

I've seen that hand before. The horror!

choke-the-chicken-doll.jpg
 
Gravy said:
Easy there, beachnut. Not every thread needs a rant. ;)

typing.jpg
Click to expand...
Now I have to work out to get my angry hand photo. Stop working out!

I an not angry, I am baby sitting my grandkids for my daughter the Nurse and her husband the out of work (most of the time now) construction guy who is going to school for his business degree. I have changed diapers today with more substantive evidence than all of 911Truth. How does a jet pilot trained by the USAF become a nanny? Oops crying… That was quick, just a nightmare, and need of a bottle.

Have a great weekend.

What is the definition of an Investigative Journalist who supports 911Truth?
 
Last edited:
Yeah I knew that probably wasn't said in all seriousness about doing the debate, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. I forgot the smiley face, but I was smiling.
 
Gravy said:
:D This reminds me of Mark Gaffney, the guy who wrote the book about the "mystery plane" that's no mystery. He wrote to me, said he'd been reading my site and had some issues with my analysis. He asked me to read his detailed analysis of NIST's report on the Twin Towers. He'd had it online for over a year.

I responded that I got as far as the part in the first paragraph where he called NIST the "National Institute of Safety and Transportation," then I closed the window. I asked him to get back to me in a year if he'd actually read the report by then.

He replied that he didn't think anyone had read the whole report. I said that not only had I read it, but I'd studied much of it, taken copious notes, read several analyses of its methods and conclusions, and read many other engineering reports. I corrected him about the gross errors he'd made in the few killer points he attempted to make by email.

He said he'd get back to me. That was in 2007.
Click to expand...

Gaffney is a regular poster over at Orangemane.com, a Denver Broncos forum (I'm a Chargers fan myself but I've been sucked into their politics subforum).

Your post here was brought up over there and here is Gaffo's response:

Gaffo said:
The only error Roberts found was a minor detail -- a point of fact -- that had no bearing on the big picture. In fact, it was so minor I'd have to go back through my emails to identify it.

He never compiled a list of problems or issues with my paper. No one has shown any errors in the analysis -- nor with my conclusions -- not to this day.
Click to expand...

h**p://w**.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=81807&page=4

(Sorry about the *s, but I can't yet post links)

So naturally I'm curious about what you debunked from his claims. Do you by any chance have a copy of your response to Gaff? I'd love to see it. Thanks!

TLB
 
The Lone Bolt said:
...

So naturally I'm curious about what you debunked from his claims. Do you by any chance have a copy of your response to Gaff? I'd love to see it. Thanks!

TLB
Click to expand...
Sure do, and I'll be very glad to post our whole exchange (several emails) here if you can get his written permission to do so. Be warned: Gaffney's statements devolve into sadly typical truther paranoia involving my refusal to credit Steven Jones, William Rodriguez, and others for their accurate 9/11 analyses, followed by an accusation that I am a "DISINFO" agent who will be "exposed" for my wrongdoings. He said (in 2007) that he'd be dealing with me in an upcoming book.

Also, a correction: it wasn't me who discovered that Gaffney, in his "detailed review" of the NIST WTC 1 & 2 reports, calls NIST the "National Institute for Safety and Transportation." That info came from a JREF forum member who nominated Gaffney's blazing firebrand of ignorance for a Stundie award, of which I advised Gaffney. The Stundie is awarded by some JREF forum members to the conspiracist whom they judge to have posted the stupidest or looniest statement of the month. Like most truthers, Gaffney remains untroubled by his own stupidity: his ignorance of NIST remains online today, in 2009:

87904a5680d2bee6a.jpg


My critiques are of Gaffney's statements in his emails to me, not of the paper he wanted me to spend my valuable time reading. Why the hell would I read a "detailed review" written by a paranoiac who hasn't read the study he purports to be reviewing and who is ignorant of the role of the agency that produced the study?

Feel free to post this elsewhere if you think it will help.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Sure do, and I'll be very glad to post our whole exchange (several emails) here if you can get his written permission to do so. Be warned: Gaffney's statements devolve into sadly typical truther paranoia involving my refusal to credit Steven Jones, William Rodriguez, and others for their accurate 9/11 analyses, followed by an accusation that I am a "DISINFO" agent who will be "exposed" for my wrongdoings. He said (in 2007) that he'd be dealing with me in an upcoming book.

Also, a correction: it wasn't me who discovered that Gaffney, in his "detailed review" of the NIST WTC 1 & 2 reports, calls NIST the "National Institute of Safety and Transportation." That info came from a JREF forum member who nominated Gaffney's blazing firebrand of ignorance for a Stundie award, of which I advised Gaffney. The Stundie is awarded by some JREF forum members to the conspiracist whom they judge to have posted the stupidest or looniest statement of the month. Like most truthers, Gaffney remains untroubled by his own stupidity: his ignorance of what NIST is remains today:


My critiques are of Gaffney's statements in his emails to me. Why the hell would I read a "detailed review" written by someone who hasn't read the study he purports to be reviewing and who is ignorant of the role of the agency that produced the study?

Feel free to post this elsewhere if you think it will help.
Click to expand...



Appreciate it. I've challenged Gaff to respond. Somehow I doubt that consent will be forthcoming, but it's worth a try. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom