• 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.

Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course, you could go further than Loose Change and make some phone calls to investigate. Call Dylan up - 'Mr Avery, was the goat you defiled a virgin?' I can guarantee that any response he gave would fit perfectly into a CT-type vid.

Oh yeah, and found a nice example of asking questions on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...)&curid=4042257&diff=75548793&oldid=75445573). Just asking questions about whether 'Mark Roberts' is what they claim to be...

I am new to Wikipedia. Recently I came across the link to Mark Robert's critique on this wikipedia page. I followed the link and examined the site. In the spirit of this whole matter I asked myself a basic and obvious question: Who is Mark Roberts. I started researching Mark Roberts and I found almost nothing about him. Also, there is no bio information on the site. I had the nagging feeling that I have seen this kind of thing before.
+
+ There is a well established and documented site about electronic voting problems and fraud. In discussions with my local Registrar of Voters, she cited a site countering its claims. I went to the cite to investigate. There was no bio information about the author on the site. I and others made inquiries asking the person to identify himself. No answer was received. About a year later it was discovered that the "person" was a paid hack for Diebold, a vendor of electronic voting systems with an obvious vested interest in countering the negative publicity they were receiving.
+
+
+ I have emailed Mark Roberts and asked him to identify himself by providing some bio information. To date I have received no response. In the interim I searched through the loose change web site forums and found that I was not the first person to question the identity of Mark Roberts, and posters cited evidence that Mark Roberts was positing on other forums under different names.
+
+ It is far too easy for a "Mark Roberts" to seed doubt and confusion, and to sap time and energy from people who are fighting the "conventional wisdom". This is not to say that the information in the Mark Roberts critique is wrong, it is to say that full disclosure should be required when linking to an information source. If Mark Roberts is a person, let him identify himself and provide background about himself and his many sources. If not a person, then let the group identify itself and its many sources. Until then, I urge you to pull the link, any link, unless the source can be reasonably verified as being who or what it purports to be.--[[User:Jonbarril|jonb]] 18:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Click to expand...
 
To adapt an old aggie joke...


JREFers: "...and we heard Dylan Avery has sex with goats, dogs, chickens, sheep, and horses."

Dylan Avery: "CHICKENS !?!"
 
jon said:
Just asking questions about whether 'Mark Roberts' is what they claim to be...
Click to expand...

No, it's Mark Ferguson ... Wait ... Mark Farrington

No, it can't be Mark Farrington. I'm Mark Farrington ... I'm not Gravy ... Am I? I'm confused now. I've never been to New York.

Gravy, just who are you? ;)
 
Alareth said:
No, it's Mark Ferguson ... Wait ... Mark Farrington

No, it can't be Mark Farrington. I'm Mark Farrington ... I'm not Gravy ... Am I? I'm confused now. I've never been to New York.

Gravy, just who are you? ;)
Click to expand...
I met the other me on Monday. On Saturday, Alex Jones called me "Mark Ferguson," and said he'd read my work. Well, I'm sure he hasn't read my work, but Jones and I have both been on the email list of debunker Mark Ferran, who was at GZ. So that's who I am. Who the hell are you?
 
Gravy said:
I met the other me on Monday. On Saturday, Alex Jones called me "Mark Ferguson," and said he'd read my work. Well, I'm sure he hasn't read my work, but Jones and I have both been on the email list of debunker Mark Ferran, who was at GZ. So that's who I am. Who the hell are you?
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, for the last 36 years I've been me.
 
jon said:
Of course, you could go further than Loose Change and make some phone calls to investigate. Call Dylan up - 'Mr Avery, was the goat you defiled a virgin?' I can guarantee that any response he gave would fit perfectly into a CT-type vid.

Oh yeah, and found a nice example of asking questions on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Loose_Change_%28video%29&curid=4042257&diff=75548793&oldid=75445573). Just asking questions about whether 'Mark Roberts' is what they claim to be...
Click to expand...
Bwahahaha! I did get an email from him (last name Barrilleaux). This was my response:

BarrilleauxChek
Chek=No
Hold Not Approved
NoDirectAuth
ttBlockSatAutoresponse
UpSat
z
z
zd261135a355
Go
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++/001
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
zww78935002d0/bmqrij09w00/SatUplink/Onyx/yes/OnyxGo
OnyxPgmChek
OnyxPgmOK
Waiting
Waiting
Rerouting
ConnectNSAConnectprotocolNSAMD-NSANYC003
Waiting for authorization
NSApga1rraunogitd1lkg10r018y5h82_qrnbpif2h-85u1njb3]0I)OOOafbabqo__*MarkRobertsPseudoGo
EncryptAuthMarkRobertsMerck1ConAg1Archer1Archer2KBR18yq3iujyo
GoPwdNSANYC256b++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++/002
Operator code required
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
OP26MIDATLxSatxflyboy
Operator code approved
flyboyGo

This is an automated response. Please do not reply.

Re:Re: who are you?

Dear Barrilleaux,

Sorry I missed your email. I will be , 2006out of the office until S
Retry+++++++++++S++++++ep
OnyxConnectionFailed
Reconnect
FailChek=Yes
Waiting
Waiting for authorization
NSApga1rraunogitd1lkg10r018y5h82_qrnbpif2h-85u1njb3]0I)OOOafbabqo__*MarkRobertsPseudoGo
EncryptAuthMarkRobertsMerck1ConAg1Archer1Archer2KBR18yq3iujyo
GoPwdNSANYC256b++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++/002
OpReChek=OK
FailChek=OK
NSANYC003=OK

If you require immediate assistance, please contact Mark Roberts at nyctours@gmail.com

Thank you, and have a great day!

Mark Roberts


flyboyStop
OnyxStop
 
I like :) Now the question is - will that show up on CT sites to PROVE that you're a shill?
 
Gravy, you should talk to RLancaster. Kaz didn't believe he existed either.

You, MarkyX and RLancaster could become the JREF Phantom Skeptic Brigade.
 
Dear Barrilleaux,

Sorry I missed your email. I will be , 2006out of the office until S
Retry+++++++++++S++++++ep
OnyxConnectionFailed
Reconnect
FailChek=Yes
Waiting
Click to expand...

Gdammit, that was funny.
 
I am officially done debating with CTers, and this is why:

My post at DU:
yes, if you are to believe the collected, cut and pasted parts that add up to the CT version of the "controlled Demolition" of WTC1 and 2, here is what you must admit...

1. That Thermate or Thermite was used (only way to explain absence of conventional sequence of 100+ detonation explosions and accompanying flashes), despite the fact that it has NOT been used for the demolition of a building anywhere.

2. That they used a previously untried form of controlled demolition, where you initiate the collapse from the floor of plane impact, and have it collapse from the top down. This, also, has never before done in "controlled demolition".

3. That someone was on the ground or in a building nearby with a remote control, waiting to see which floor the plane would hit, so that he could detonate the "Thermate" on that level first, providing us with the "Top down" demolition we observed.

4. That there was enough time and secrecy available that teams of demolitions people could plant these "Thermate" explosives on the Steel columns, requiring removal of the walls, then planting the explosives, then redoing the walls, so noone would notice (polyfilla not gonna do it). Knowing that the Landmark tower, a 30 storey building brought down by conventional "controlled demolition", took 4 months of unlimited access to the building to rig, it is likely that to rig two 110 storey buildings, we are talking years of continuous access, or decades of weekends and nights...

5. That noone of all the people who would have planted the explosives would ever breath a word of it to anyone.

Shall I go on...

TAM

A reply from some CTer named petgoat:
Thermite...has NOT been used for the demolition of a building anywhere.

So what? Do you have any doubt that if you sever the core columns of a hundred story
tower, it will collapse? Besides, there was the fail safe of the explosives. Redundant
systems were employed.

That they used a previously untried form of controlled demolition, where you initiate
the collapse from the floor of plane impact, and have it collapse from the top down.

What exactly do you anticipate going wrong? Do you have any doubt that if you explode the
top of a hundred story tower, and five seconds later you explode the middle, and five
seconds later explode the bottom, that it will come down?

someone was on the ground or in a building nearby with a remote control, waiting to
see which floor the plane would hit

If the planes homed in on radio beacons placed in the towers, then the impace zone could
be predicted precisely. What about radio control do you find implausible?

requiring removal of the walls, then planting the explosives, then redoing the walls

How often are the elevator shafts inspected? What walls need be removed? There were many
vacant floors. Have you ever seen how much space there is above the suspended ceiling of
an office building?

That noone of all the people who would have planted the explosives would ever breath a
word of it to anyone.

Dead men tell no tales, and pro spooks are rarely chatty about their work.

Shall I go on...

You'll have to do better than what you did.

and my reply to him:
forget it...there is no convincing anyone who believes the crap anyway...believe what you want. It is funny though, that the supermastergeniuses who were able to pull all of that off, and so much more that day, couldnt plant a few WMDs and labs in the entire country of Iraq. How much easier their life would be...how much more sure of a win in 2008 they would be if only they could have planted them...but no...they couldn't...they werent good enough...but they could plant explosives in 3 buildings, fly remote controlled planes into them, shoot crusie missiles into the pentagon, immitate voices in real time...cause that stuff is easy compared to dropping a few guys down into Iraq to set up a couple of labs and chemical weapons...yup.

TAM

So I am done with them. They are useless anyway. From now on my role is to annoy them, mock them, and to try and educate the naive, the fence sitters, and the unsure. I am fed up with those guys...

TAM
 
So I am done with them. They are useless anyway. From now on my role is to annoy them, mock them, and to try and educate the naive, the fence sitters, and the unsure. I am fed up with those guys...

TAM
Click to expand...

I can relate to your story entirely. I tried and tried to debate with these guys. I have researched and investigated this event to the point I can almost debunk their theories off the top of my head or know exactly where to find a link to do so.
I know now it is pointless, totally and absolutely pointless trying to reason with those that really subscribe to this, they will never change their minds.
I got to the point of saying "sod it believe what you want” on the British forum. Simply due to the constant barrage of insults and brick walls I kept running into.
So now I eat pop corn and try to keep up with events as they progress.

I know there are many, many people here and else where that can simply wipe the floor with these conspirators. I also know I am comfortable with what I have learnt and know about this event. This is something the conspirators will never have. The ability to relax, accept reality become comfortable and move on.
 
Petgoat also defended the spooked rabbit cage/ twin towers experiment.
He's really not mentally all there.

The more you read the CT posts, the more you realize you've just signed up for fantasy camp.
 
StateofGrace:

Thank you. I can see you totally know where I am coming from, and it is very comforting to know that there are others like me, who see it that way.

Kent1:
I can tell he is a completely won over CT guru. It just got to me that he thinks he "nailed" me with his response, when clearly what I said was true, and his explanations were just embarrassingly insane, but that was it...it was like I looked into the eye of the ancient evil nutbar and saw there was no saving any of them.

TAM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom