Mark Roberts Interview on Skeptic Zone

[Congruentruth]

BTW Just what are Mr Robert's qualifications? Good grief, it's a simple enough question but every time I ask it people run away from it as if they were running from a grizzly bear.

It comes to something when you have to spam yourself to get an answer.
perhaps my phrasing is incorrect?

 

[Mr.Herbert]

It comes to something when you have to spam yourself to get an answer.

I guess you are just JAQQING off to yourself?

 

[Horatius]

BTW Just what are Mr Robert's qualifications? Good grief, it's a simple enough question but every time I ask it people run away from it as if they were running from a grizzly bear.

His qualifications? He's a tour guide who knows how to use his brain.


Now, I suppose you could provide evidence of all these "every times" you've posed this question, and had people "run away from it as if they were running from a grizzly bear"?

the Japanese insisted that Obama open a new investigation on the back of it.

...and some evidence of this wouldn't be amiss, either.

Unless you'd rather "run away as if running from a grizzly bear".

 

[TexasJack]

(sigh) another illiterate Texan.

Ah, you're from Texas. How is Texas?
I've never been there. Perhaps I'll visit there some day.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Mr Roberts needs to present a scientifically accredited and peer reviewed version of his 'investigations'.

No, he does not. Mark Roberts never did any original investigations or experiments; the reason he is of value is because he gathered and centralized information. He never originated any of it; the value of the information lies in the details that are independently verifiable.

You are committing a type of Appeal-to-Perfection fallacy. The information on his site stands on their own merits, not because of who gathered it, therefore your call to perfecting his information via peer review is nothing more than an argumentive tactic. If you choose to disbelieve a centralized collection of quotes of witnesses, that's your failing, but don't mistake your failing for legitimate criticism. A study like Jones's and Harrit's should be subject to legit peer review because it is inherently an attempt to be scholarly. Mark Roberts pages and info does not because it is nothing more than an archive. Learn the difference.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

BTW Just what are Mr Robert's qualifications? Good grief, it's a simple enough question but every time I ask it people run away from it as if they were running from a grizzly bear.

It comes to something when you have to spam yourself to get an answer.
perhaps my phrasing is incorrect?

They're the same as mine, the same as yours, and the same as the vast majority of people who've studied 9/11: He's taken the time to study 9/11.

Disappointing?

Ryan Mackey is not "qualified" as a tall structures engineer to the best of my knowledge. I'm not qualified in the discipline of any sort of structural engineering or any engineering at all. Many here merely have the "qualifications" of having read the histories and looked into the original evidence as much as possible.

So, why is that not a failing?

It's because there's a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority". Genuine authority doesn't not extend from who a person is. It extends from they say. Claims either survive or fail based on their inherent characteristics. As the common saying goes, it doesn't matter if an astronomer says the sun will rise in the west tomorrow, it'll only matter if he can say why it will and if that information ends up being validated. Authority pertaining to statements about a given subject therefore end up depending on the verifiability of the given data. It attaches to being right, not being credentialed.

This is why physicists and and engineers like Steven Jones and Tony Szamboti are wrong with their conclusions vis-a-vis 9/11, and people like those of us here with supposedly lesser credentials are right: Jones, Szamboti, and the rest of the 9/11 truth movement have forwarded conclusions based on misrepresentations and fallacies, and those conclusions can be demonstrated as wrong on their own merits, independent of the person forwarding them. Whereas we make far better attempts to base our conclusions not on predetermined answers like "inside job", but rather on where the totality of the information and context takes us. Yes, we're wrong sometimes. Early on, many of us did indeed ascribe 7 World Trade's collapse to diesel fuel fires; subsequent data showed that most of that fuel was recovered, and then NIST showed that those wouldn't have mattered anyway. But being "wrong" in this manner doesn't close us out to eventually correcting ourselves as to the truth as it develops. Information is gathered, and what do you know, we were wrong about WTC 7. But we self-corrected based on undeniable evidence plus rational, in-depth analysis.

Contrast that to the "Truth" movement. We're still seeing "Pull it" and "thermite" being pushed forward, in spite of the fundamentally damming, invalidating flaws having long been highlighted and better, non-self-contradictory explanations being readily available, considered in academic and professional circles, and showing their worth in their influence on engineering standards around the world. Everyone else but the truth movement is advancing and refining what's known.

At any rate, that's where Mark's authority derives from. Not he himself; he's just a tour guide. I'm merely an IT professional. True, there are genuinely "qualified" people here in some specific disciplines: The poster calling himself Architect is degreed, certified, and practiced in tall building design. We have a plethora of ex-military posters who can speak definitively towards military aspects of the event (gosh, where to start... Beechnut, Sabrina, Unsecured Coins, Reheat, and many others). We have Cheap Shot, Boston Air Traffic Control's Military Liason, a person who was on the front line of and involved in 9/11. But guess what? None of that gives anyone here "qualifications", not above the obvious point details directly related to their experience. What does is whether our statements are solidly based on information that's verifiable, and helps lead people to conclusions that can be validated in multiple ways. As opposed to the truth movement, who's suffered the indignity of being told that propositions like Jones's/Harrit's thermite "findings", or CIT's absurd NOC/Flyover thesis are openly contradicted by known information.

So, Mark Roberts? He's merely studied the history, accumulated and centrally deposited information. That's it. But he's still head-and-shoulders above truthers. And it's too bad that you all don't understand why.

 

[Animal]

It's not that hard to find this information for yourself, that's why I resist posting it for all of the so called master researchers around here.

We both know what Gravy was trying to do. He wanted to disseminate the false idea that airplane impact is such an extraordinary event, it's not feasible to design skyscrapers to prevent it, which is obviously wrong.

So I guess you can point to the building code section requiring design for aircraft impact.

 

[Congruentruth]

No, he does not. Mark Roberts never did any original investigations or experiments; the reason he is of value is because he gathered and centralized information. He never originated any of it; the value of the information lies in the details that are independently verifiable.

You are committing a type of Appeal-to-Perfection fallacy. The information on his site stands on their own merits, not because of who gathered it, therefore your call to perfecting his information via peer review is nothing more than an argumentive tactic. If you choose to disbelieve a centralized collection of quotes of witnesses, that's your failing, but don't mistake your failing for legitimate criticism. A study like Jones's and Harrit's should be subject to legit peer review because it is inherently an attempt to be scholarly. Mark Roberts pages and info does not because it is nothing more than an archive. Learn the difference.

I smiled when I read this, Thankyou it's a gem. I guess the same rule applies to the Bible,in other words useless.

 

[Congruentruth]

No, he does not. Mark Roberts never did any original investigations or experiments; the reason he is of value is because he gathered and centralized information. He never originated any of it; the value of the information lies in the details that are independently verifiable.

You are committing a type of Appeal-to-Perfection fallacy. The information on his site stands on their own merits, not because of who gathered it, therefore your call to perfecting his information via peer review is nothing more than an argumentive tactic. If you choose to disbelieve a centralized collection of quotes of witnesses, that's your failing, but don't mistake your failing for legitimate criticism. A study like Jones's and Harrit's should be subject to legit peer review because it is inherently an attempt to be scholarly. Mark Roberts pages and info does not because it is nothing more than an archive. Learn the difference.

I find it alarming that you don't understand what the scientific method is and it's importance to objective reality.

 

[carlitos]

"September 2009"

 

[Congruentruth]

His qualifications? He's a tour guide who knows how to use his brain.

Ah, and scientists that devote their lives to research and the increase in mankind's knowledge - just how do they use their brains then?


Now, I suppose you could provide evidence of all these "every times" you've posed this question, and had people "run away from it as if they were running from a grizzly bear"?

Search these forums.I'm not the only one asking this obviously touchy question here however your typical side-step is noted.

...and some evidence of this wouldn't be amiss, either.

Unless you'd rather "run away as if running from a grizzly bear".

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7803
there ya go.BTW i'm only 'archiving' this page.

 

[Congruentruth]

Ah, you're from Texas. How is Texas?
I've never been there. Perhaps I'll visit there some day.

With a name like 'Texas Jack' you are obviously far too over qualified.

 

[GlennB]

With a name like 'Texas Jack' you are obviously far too over qualified.

Mark Roberts 'retired' from the 9/11 business a few years ago.

If you want to enter the debate in other specific threads I'm sure people will engage you in discussion.

 

[newton3376]

With a name like 'Texas Jack' you are obviously far too over qualified.

Truthers often focus on personalities or "qualifications" because they can't debate facts or evidence. This is a common debate tactic of conspiracy theorists.

 

[fourtoe]

read it again.Mr Roberts needs to present a scientifically accredited and peer reviewed version of his 'investigations'.You see, any rational person that is presented with such a study say, showing nano technology and a clear thermate signature taken from microscopic balls of iron that could only be formed under extreme temperatures and pressures akin to explosive activity from a scene of a crime, is frankly not going to be entirely persuaded when the main and only credible counter case is 'paint'.

Why don't you read the RJ Lee paper that actually discusses this, or at the least read the relevant parts of the paper.

If your highly qualified and knowledgeable 'leader' could present some real science and real experiments and have it verified by real scientists then I would be more than willing to give it a fair critique.'

Leader? His google.pages site hasn't been updated since early 2009...

BTW Just what are Mr Robert's qualifications? Good grief, it's a simple enough question but every time I ask it people run away from it as if they were running from a grizzly bear.

I call BS. I think even other Truthers will disagree with this statement. Do you want to take it back?

Hell, RedIbis, have you seen a debunker shy away from saying that Gravy is a tour guide?

Either way, he certainly brings up his job in many times in his debates or discussions on 911. Again, you want to take it back?

 

[Horatius]

the Japanese insisted that Obama open a new investigation on the back of it.

...and some evidence of this wouldn't be amiss, either.

Unless you'd rather "run away as if running from a grizzly bear".

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7803
there ya go.BTW i'm only 'archiving' this page.

So, when challenged to provide evidence supporting your claim that "the Japanese insisted that Obama open a new investigation on the back of it", you posted an article about one Japanese guy who gave a speech to the Japanese Diet about 9/11 truth. And that one guy isn't even in the government, but the opposition. And the article was from 2008. And it doesn't even mention Obama.

Sadly, that's exactly the level of quality I've come to expect from truthers trying to support their allegations.



And I'll just assume that this part of my post:

Now, I suppose you could provide evidence of all these "every times" you've posed this question, and had people "run away from it as if they were running from a grizzly bear"?

...looks like a grizzly bear to you.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Yeah, obviously. No kidding.

I find it alarming that you don't understand what the scientific method is and it's importance to objective reality.

(*Yawn*) Says the guy who tried to apply peer review to a collection of links and testimonies. Tell you what: When CNN reports that a bunch of people said "X", you go tell them they should submit their "research" to such review.

And if you want to talk scientific method: Read youself some Popper and understand why the so-called "Truth" movement gets stymied at every turn.

With that: Goodbye. You're already on my ignore list under another name, so I might as well add your current one.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Thanks, I have been here a while actually.If you think that the 'scientific method' is a subject to be passed off as trivial and unimportant then fine, you have that right.Creationists, afterall are entitled to their opinions based on exactly the same premise.Unfortunately for both them and yourselves it is the best and most credible way on the planet for disseminating what is considered to be true.Perhaps a visit to the humor subforum would be more fitting for yourself after that comment.

Word salad.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Man, I used to never put anyone on ignore. Now I seem to be doing it for every other new account that comes through.

Then again, like I said above, that's partially offset by the fact that it endds up being the same subset of people going on ignore anyway. So to an extent, if you think about it, I'm not really "adding" anyone new.

--------

Word salad.

I disagree. Salad has practical utility.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I smiled when I read this, Thankyou it's a gem. I guess the same rule applies to the Bible,in other words useless.

I enjoyed this retort to ElMondoHummus. The very definition of "I got nothin'."