Mark Roberts Interview on Skeptic Zone

[mchapman]

Whereas the old 'you can't trust them there pesky politicos' card is the weakest and laziest in the 'truthers' deck. It is the foundation of their belief system and is constantly used to poison the well when they can't deal with actual evidence presented by specialist investigators who have no committment to any one political ideology.

Where have I said you can't trust politicians?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I think Red still doesn't get it. Most of the truther sites that are now touted as prominent all stem back to anti-semitic sites. Most of the articles that are passed around came from those original anti-semitic sites. They were the ones who had the biggest hand in getting the conspiracy theories going. Bollyn is like the grandfather of them as the majority of articles that got the movement going were written by him and published on the anti-semitic sites. Those sites may no longer exist, but the articles written by them and still used today are.

Mark simply pointed this out. He didn't say that conspiracy theorists all follow the anti-semitic movement, he pointed out the origin.

And it should be pointed out that a lot of CT arguments are based on anti-semitic evidence. Larry would not be a big argument for CTs if he wasn't Jewish. PNAC would not be a big talking point if it weren't for members having been Jewish, etc. But that isn't even mark's argument.

 

[mchapman]

The claim is that they were prominent in establishing the movement. You just verified it.





We're getting besieged by four-year old comments like "how come the plane parts weren't identified" and questioning flight manifests in this very thread. Let's face it, you could very easily rename the entire twoof movement the "Dead Canard Society."

I wasn't questioning the flight manifests at all. I asked why the FBI had to change their list of hijackers when they had the manifests from the start.

Still waiting for the positive ID of the hijackers that the debunkers keep pretending has been done.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I wasn't questioning the flight manifests at all. I asked why the FBI had to change their list of hijackers when they had the manifests from the start.

Still waiting for the positive ID of the hijackers that the debunkers keep pretending has been done.

Perhaps you can show us where the FBI changed the list.

Still waiting for some evidence of an inside job the crackpots keep pretending happened.

 

[mchapman]

I think Red still doesn't get it. Most of the truther sites that are now touted as prominent all stem back to anti-semitic sites. Most of the articles that are passed around came from those original anti-semitic sites. They were the ones who had the biggest hand in getting the conspiracy theories going. Bollyn is like the grandfather of them as the majority of articles that got the movement going were written by him and published on the anti-semitic sites. Those sites may no longer exist, but the articles written by them and still used today are.

Mark simply pointed this out. He didn't say that conspiracy theorists all follow the anti-semitic movement, he pointed out the origin.

And it should be pointed out that a lot of CT arguments are based on anti-semitic evidence. Larry would not be a big argument for CTs if he wasn't Jewish. PNAC would not be a big talking point if it weren't for members having been Jewish, etc. But that isn't even mark's argument.

Total garbage.

Have you seen Mike Ruppert's lecture from October 2001? He isn't an anti semite but the vast majority of the current evidence started with him. Back then he was talking about PNAC, The Grand Chessboard, the put options etc. ONE MONTH AFTER THE ATTACKS.

 

[applecorped]

Total garbage.

Have you seen Mike Ruppert's lecture from October 2001? He isn't an anti semite but the vast majority of the current evidence started with him. Back then he was talking about PNAC, The Grand Chessboard, the put options etc. ONE MONTH AFTER THE ATTACKS.

And seven years later......nothing. Good job.

 

[mchapman]

The originator of the Pentagon claims was the French man (whose name evades me) that wrote "The Big Lie". He wasn't anti semitic either.

 

[mchapman]

And seven years later......nothing. Good job.

Care to address the point that he isn't an anti semite but he was lecturing on these issues 28 days after the planes hit the towers?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Total garbage.

Have you seen Mike Ruppert's lecture from October 2001? He isn't an anti semite but the vast majority of the current evidence started with him. Back then he was talking about PNAC, The Grand Chessboard, the put options etc. ONE MONTH AFTER THE ATTACKS.

WRONG. This isn't about who said what first. It's about what drove the crackpot movement. Most of the big web sites you see now are not using articles from Mike. They are using articles written by Bollyn. And this is what got all the big sites like Loose Change and XXXfortruth.org sites.

What made this possible was Chris himself. He was writing these articles left and righ (And I assume making good money doing so). And since the crackpot tabloids are generally just concerned with publishing stuff that backs their paranoia, most didn't bother to check their sources and just copied everything they could find.

You guys should really research the history.

 

[Gravy]

By January 2002 Barry Zwicker had produced the first major tv enquiry into the official version, the Great Deception. Other early proponents of investigation (and far more central than whatever anti-semite fringe existed) included Peter Dale Scott, Nafeez Ahmed and Michel Chossudovsky, none of whom seem to come up much here.

That's because only a handful of the hundreds of truthers who've posted here have ever cited those people or their work.

Further, in my face-to face dealings with hundreds of truthers, not a single person ever cited those people or their work. Zero. But many cited the websites and other influential early 9/11 work of Hufschmid, Valentine, the AFP et al.

By far the most influential 9/11 conspiracy platform has been Loose Change 2nd Edition. Millions of people have seen it. It's been translated into many languages and distributed in many countries. Its largest source of false conspiracy "evidence" is the quasi-Nazi-owned American Free Press. Your claim that the people you listed above are "far more central" than that is nonsense.

 

[applecorped]

Care to address the point that he isn't an anti semite but he was lecturing on these issues 28 days after the planes hit the towers?

No. The fact that someone was lecturing 28 days after the event should give you pause for concern.

 

[Gravy]

Mark simply pointed this out. He didn't say that conspiracy theorists all follow the anti-semitic movement, he pointed out the origin.

And it should be pointed out that a lot of CT arguments are based on anti-semitic evidence. Larry would not be a big argument for CTs if he wasn't Jewish. PNAC would not be a big talking point if it weren't for members having been Jewish, etc. But that isn't even mark's argument.

You're also reading more into what I said, Jonny. I don't claim that all or a majority of conspiracy claims can be traced back to anti-Semites. Referring to influential Holocaust deniers, I said "Not a lot. But prominent ones." That statement is true. If Brannagyn cannot accept it, that's his problem. Move on.

 

[mchapman]

Even if it were true that ALL truthers that ever lived were anti semetic, it would not make them wrong about 911 so I don't see the point.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Even if it were true that ALL truthers that ever lived were anti semetic, it would not make them wrong about 911 so I don't see the point.

So it would make them right? The whole point is to show the original political motivation that helped start the movement. The fact that not a single one has been able to produce any evidence is what prevents them from being right.

 

[R.Mackey]

That's true.

What makes the Truth Movement wrong is that (a) every single claim they've ever made is verifiably incorrect, (b) they have no evidence, and (c) they have no hypothesis.

Hard to get more wrong than that.

If you disagree with any of the above statements, I invite you to provide an example. We already have several threads running that explicitly ask for any of the above, and none has yet to produce a result. I therefore speak with the evidence on my side. Prove me wrong.

 

[Gravy]

Islamophobes claimed Islamic terrorists even bofore any investigation was started, thus the OCT is based on Islam haters and OCTers are Islamophobes.

or not?

Howling ignorance. You are severely embarrassing yourself here. Remember, this is a thread about an interview I did about incompetent, dishonest, and fantasy-based truthers. It's your choice whether or not to live up to that description.

At least try. Spewing drivel is rude and a waste of everyone's time.

 

[Gravy]

Even if it were true that ALL truthers that ever lived were anti semetic, it would not make them wrong about 911 so I don't see the point.

I don't know how you missed it. I stated my point quite clearly in post 81 of this thread:

"My point, which I made repeatedly in the podcast interview, is that many truthers have been influenced by people with agendas not related to the facts of 9/11. You did not support your claim that the same is true of debunkers.

Clear enough?"

The fact that the anti-Semitic truther claims are demonstrably wrong makes your statement meaningless.

 

[mchapman]

I don't know how you missed it. I stated my point quite clearly in post 81 of this thread:

"My point, which I made repeatedly in the podcast interview, is that many truthers have been influenced by people with agendas not related to the facts of 9/11. You did not support your claim that the same is true of debunkers.

Clear enough?"

The fact that the anti-Semitic truther claims are demonstrably wrong makes your statement meaningless.

Why even mention that they are anti semitic? If claims are wrong then they are wrong on their own merits regardless of other views.

I know plenty of people who accept the official story of 911 who are extremely racist towards black or muslim people. Does that have any bearing on their claims about 911?

 

[bje]

Try and do your best not to derail the point under discussion with attempts at clairvoyance.

Pay attention.

The point is your admission of your motives. Which derailed your 9/11 Denial Movement from the beginning.

Any questions?

 

[mchapman]

Let me put this as clearly as possible:

Person A makes false claims about 911.

Person B makes false claims about 911 and hates jews.

Is there any difference between A and B that requires us to focus on the jew hating?