• 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.

Mark Roberts Interview on Skeptic Zone

Likewise there are people who think there are too many unanswered issues with the holocaust to feel that it existed. The world doesn't have time to appease every crackpot who has unreasonable requirements in order to meet their political agendas.
 
Sizzler said:
He revealed this "fact" to the loose change boys in one of their debates. I don't feel like digging it up. Like the quote above, Gravy doesn't directly say where it came from, but he does mention the South Tower and dripping molten metal in the same breath. Perhaps another one of his propaganda techniques.

Too funny in my opinion.
Click to expand...

He, like many others got to handle aluminum from the WTC that had melted in mid air. What seems to be the problem here? That's no more propaganda than someone saying they saw a Tiger at the zoo.

You know for a movement touting truth, you guys sure are dishonest.
 
How difficult is it to name one thing that you or someone you agree with has said, in the past, that is verifiably correct?
 
bje said:
Your posts illustrate very well the nature of 9/11 Denial. Whereas you are upset that there are a quite a few known Holocaust deniers associated with your so-called 9/11 "Truth" movement, you miss the larger point that the behavior, methodology, denial of inconvenient evidence, and political motivation that characterizes the 9/11 "Truth" Movement is common to all denial movements, particulary politically motivated movements like your 9/11 denial Movement.
Click to expand...

Why would I be upset that there are Holocaust deniers associated with the 9/11 truth movement? I don't control them, they don't represent me, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool not worthy of my time. The 9/11 truth movement is politically diverse, so are the debunkers. Your rant about "denial movements" reeks of an implicit appeal to authority - that is, anyone with a point of view not in accordance with authority, or majority, is a "denier" worthy of ridicule and marginalization.

It is a pathology common to round-earth deniers, moon-landing hoax believers, and, of course Holocaust deniers. Denial is denial is denial - and you are showing in your own posts your practice of that very denial.
Click to expand...

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. When confronted with crooks and liars in government, I deny them. And their apologists.

It would not matter one iota if there were no Holocaust deniers as part of your 9/11 Denial Movement - deniers are deniers. You fell right into line, going after Mark Roberts for something he demonstrated quite well.

You 9/11 Denial Movement is going nowhere except into the trashbin of history. It's entirely your choice if you want go with it but a better idea would be to educate yourself on the nature and characteristics of "denial." No better place to start is with the long, examined nature of Holocaust denial. Deborah Lipstadt's, "Denying The Holocaust", is a good place to start your education. Share the book with other 9/11 Deniers.
Click to expand...

Yes, keep associating 9/11 truth with Holocaust denial in a vain attempt at negative association. Why would you equate 9/11 truth with Holocaust denial, recommend a book about Holocaust denial, and then expect me to actually read such a book when I don't deny that the Holocaust took place? Is that the best you guys have got, to imply that we're all jew-haters? You're pathetic.
 
Sizzler said:
My all time favorite Gravy claim is when he told the loose change boys he physically touched the once molten aluminum that had previously dripped out from the WTC impact areas.

That one is a classic for sure.
Click to expand...
It's always good to provide context for your claims, don't you think? No, you don't.

I "dug up" the relevant section from my Hardfire debate with Avery and Bermas and transcribed it, which Sizzler was too lazy to do.
Roberts: What you do see in that corner of the building where the material is leaking out of the building, and flowing quite a ways down before, uh, before it dissipates.

Bermas: makes it quite a ways down.

Roberts: Sure, many floors. Uh, I've held some of that in my hand, actually, after it solidified. It's aluminum.

Bermas: How would you have held molten metal that you could see at the World Trade Center, in your hands?

Roberts: Because people collected these things because they were fairly extraordinary –

Bermas: But that's after the fact, Mark, you have –

Roberts: You have the characteristics –

Bermas: You can't say all that was falling out of the World Trade Center.

Roberts: Well, that's where the people picked it up.

Bermas: Well, I'm not saying it wasn't at the World Trade Center. But you can't say that's the molten metal that's pouring out.

Roberts: You can't say for sure. But what they had done is cooled in mid-air. [makes stretching gesture with hands] Uh, if you've ever been to a volcano, and it shoots out–

Bermas: See, that's what upset me, though. Because just like you were saying, it made it down many, many floors, and it didn't cool down. You could actually see that stream of molten metal.

Roberts: But eventually, but eventually it does.

Bermas: Well, I mean, they're 110-story buildings, Mark.

Roberts: But here's the thing:

[Roberts produces two photos, stills from Loose Change, illustrating the inward bowing of the east wall of WTC 2 as its collapse begins.]

Roberts: Here's a photo from your video.

Bermas: That's the bowing in that you're talking about. I don't disagree–

Roiberts: This is actually the collapse.

Avery: We don't disagree.

Bermas: –that the thing could have tipped over, and at that impact point, fallen. I don't disagree with that, but I disagree with the fact that it was a freefall pancake collapse within its own footprint.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
It's always good to provide context for your claims, don't you think? No, you don't. You're a hardcore truther, and context never benefits you.

From my Hardfire debate with Avery and Bermas:
Click to expand...

Most propably it was not the same. because NIST did not use it. Would it been that what you belived , NIST would have used it in they investigation, dont you think?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
Most propably it was not the same. because NIST did not use it. Would it been that what you belived , NIST would have used it in they investigation, dont you think?
Click to expand...
Why would they try to collect material that melts at a relatively low temperature (and remember, aircraft aluminum alloys melt at a considerably lower temperature than pure aluminum)? What would that tell them? NIST does not hypothesize that the material was involved in the collapse, and the material I handled wasn't steel. Temperatures in that area were such that some of the aluminum piled there had to have melted. In fact, based on the brilliant light it output for about 10 minutes, there was one area in the NE corner of WTC 2 where NIST believes metal was actually burning (funny how I've never once seen a truther bring that up in defense of their thermite claims...no doubt because they don't know it's in the report). Nor would they have been able to definitively identify where it came from, as I can't. They couldn't even identify where most of the recovered core columns came from. Had you read the NIST report, you'd know these things.

While you're here, Dictator Cheney, can you name some significant claims that the truth movement gets right?

And can you briefly state what you think happened on 9/11 and what evidence would change your mind?
 
Last edited:
Nice to see some Gravy action here again. Actually, nice to see some real action here at all. Willie getting mad (confirming he still reads this forum), truthers getting extremely frustrated at someone they call "only a tour guide", etc.

I have nothing important to say. Carry on ;)
 
Gravy said:
While you're here, Dictator Cheney, can you name some significant claims that the truth movement gets right?

And can you briefly state what you think happened on 9/11 and what evidence would change your mind?
Click to expand...

I would love to see some truther take either of these two challenges. Nobody ever does.

Maybe it's because they think, that only pointing to the flaws (what are they, truthers?) of the so-called official narrative confirms the entire official story wrong. Maybe it's because their leaders like Griffin and Gage encourage them not to develop any theories. Maybe it's because when someone actually opens their mouth to produce an alternative truther narrative (like Balsamo or CIT about the flyover) everyone, including other truthers, just shake their heads in disbelief.
 
Gravy said:
Why would they try to collect material that melts at a relatively low temperature (and remember, aircraft aluminum alloys melt at a considerably lower temperature than pure aluminum)? What would that tell them? NIST does not hypothesize that the material was involved in the collapse, and the material I handled wasn't steel. Temperatures in that area were such that some of the aluminum piled there had to have melted. In fact, based on the brilliant light it output for about 10 minutes, there was one area in the NE corner of WTC 2 where NIST believes metal was actually burning (funny how I've never once seen a truther bring that up in defense of their thermite claims...no doubt because they don't know it's in the report). Nor would they have been able to definitively identify where it came from, as I can't. They couldn't even identify where most of the recovered core columns came from. Had you read the NIST report, you'd know these things.

While you're here, Dictator Cheney, can you name some significant claims that the truth movement gets right?

And can you briefly state what you think happened on 9/11 and what evidence would change your mind?
Click to expand...

they talked about the material coming out of the tower, and they had to assume it was Aluminium. It would have been alot better for NIST if they had samples from it, they could test, and then they could be alot more sure about theyr assumption than they can now.
everytime a truther says, look at the thermite coming out the tower, you could answer, no look NIST tested the material, it was not Iron or themite, it was aluminium.

While you're here, Dictator Cheney, can you name some significant claims that the truth movement gets right?
Click to expand...

ill take one of the new claims, the results from the WTC7 FEA does not look like the Videos of the WTC7 collapse. Their FEA did not result in a symectric collapse like we have on video.

i am not sure what exactly happened on 9/11. I am close to go back to LIHOP but still looking into MIHOP, but im really pretty close to go back LIHOP.
but i fear there is not much that could convince me of no LIHOP.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
they talked about the material coming out of the tower, and they had to assume it was Aluminium. It would have been alot better for NIST if they had samples from it, they could test, and then they could be alot more sure about theyr assumption than they can now.
Click to expand...


How would this better serve the purpose of the report?
 
Hokulele said:
"Not much" implies that there is something that could convince you of no LIHOP. What would that be?
Click to expand...

declassified documents could, but for that i have to wayt, 50 years? or is it more now? 75 years?
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
How would this better serve the purpose of the report?
Click to expand...

they are scientists, i am pretty sure they would prever to know rather than assuming.

i did not claim it would have served the purpose of the report. I clearly stated what i ment with it.
 
ref said:
Let me ask this another way.

What makes you so convinced of a LIHOP? Why don't you consider the other alternative (not even a LIHOP)?
Click to expand...

i do consider a no lihop scenario aka incompetence, but this is very unlikely. as there was noone was held accountable for their incompetenz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom