Mark Roberts Interview on Skeptic Zone

[beachnut]

To point out what you've gotten wrong would require me to care enough about what you have written so as to spend time reading it. ...
Stop the tour, I want a refund.

Spoken like a true devotee of 'the truth'

He has the "ample evidence" the truth movement talks about, but he is not sharing it.

A truther who can't articulate what he knows about 9/11 because he is too good for you. He has gobs of evidence, but you can't have it.

Another truth-NAZI, I can see him acting just like the soup-NAZI, with his vapor evidence. " No truth for you!!!"

 

[MarkyX]

Carol Valentine has some obscure website that practically no one reads.

That's why his theories are still being used today. Hell, isn't DRG's theories involving no hijackers and the flight manifests? This is what Carol Valentine said about them

On September 30 I looked at the passenger lists of those four flights. To my surprise, the lists contained none of the hijackers' names.

Remember this was October 2001.

DRG, on Electric Politics podcast in 2008

Griffin: Well you know, some people have started making that distinction. I am not sure that distinction wasn't just created after the fact that none of the manifests that the airlines put out at the time had any hijackers names or any Arab names whatsoever. But be that as it may, the fact remains that we have no evidence of any list that has the name on them. And we have evidence that when they say that they had identified the hijackers immediately that they are lying.

--

The primary focus of the 9/11 Truth Movement is on WTC1,2 and 7.

Why 7? How come 3, 4, 5, and 6 aren't involved? They weren't mentioned in the 9/11 commission report either. Again, it all comes back to who owned that building and since Larry is Jewish, something must be wrong.

 

[tanabear]

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?

If the debunkers use the 9/11 Commission Report in their arguments then they are being influenced by people with agendas not related to the facts of 9/11. The Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission was Philip Zelikow who worked on the Bush transition team and he helped to draft the National Security Strategy Document of 2002 which advocated preemptive war(i.e the Bush Doctrine.)

I repeat "ad nauseum," and will do so again because people like you do have great trouble grasping the concept, that rationalists rely on evidence to support their claims and truthers do not.

Think I'm wrong? Then name a few significant claims that the 9/11 "truth" movement gets right.

Shouldn't take you more than a minute. I await your reply, as do media outlets worldwide who would be eager to report this important news.

Blogger Arabesque has written about the issue here.

1. NIST doesn't go much beyond the point of collapse initiation in their 10,000 page report.

2. The crush-down/crush-up theory of Bazant is not supported by the visual evidence and it has yet to be replicated experimentally.

3. The claim made by Seffen, Bazant and Greening of the 3.7 meter free fall or near free fall of the upper block onto the lower block is not supported by the video tape record.

4. There are no other examples, except for WTC1 and 2, of a total progressive top down collapse of a skyscraper. Even Ryan Mackey admits as much, "Nobody has suggested that progressive collapse is a common event, particularly since skyscraper collapses of any kind are unusual. And while it is difficult to find an example of “total top-down progressive collapse”"

5. The idea that explosive charges can destroy buildings is well supported. The idea that a building can be destroyed via crush-down/crush-up is still a conspiracy theory at this point. etc..etc...etc...

 

[bje]

Spoken as if Mark Roberts is the arbiter of everything that's true. I only have a finite amount of time left on this earth. With regard to researching 9/11, I can either spend that time reading people who have a pretense of objectivity and who are experts, or Mark Roberts. I think the choice is pretty clear.

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.

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.

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.

 

[KTB]

5. The idea that explosive charges can destroy buildings is well supported. The idea that a building can be destroyed via crush-down/crush-up is still a conspiracy theory at this point. etc..etc...etc...

Are you really this deluded or don't you think at all about what you write?

 

[Gravy]

To point out what you've gotten wrong would require me to care enough about what you have written so as to spend time reading it.

You haven't read the material I present but you take it on faith that it's wrong. Thanks for helping to prove my point, and goodbye. (See how easy this is, skeptics? )

Way to live up to expectations, truthers!

 

[T.A.M.]

Goodbye. (See how easy this is, skeptics? )

QFT. The list becomes long, but the annoyance level is reduced significantly.

TAM

 

[technoextreme]

3. The claim made by Seffen, Bazant and Greening of the 3.7 meter free fall or near free fall of the upper block onto the lower block is not supported by the video tape record.

No. We've been through this before. Anyone who tries to extract information out of the video tape record has no clue what they are doing. It's exactly like trying to read a book when every other page has been torn out. Also, after reading this a few times I realized that KTB is right. This does not make any sense at all. 3.7 meter free fall? You mean the building fell down 3.7 meters?

 

[beachnut]

To point out what you've gotten wrong would require me to care enough about what you have written so as to spend time reading it.

Translation; He can't point out what the 9/11 truth movement has right, that is impossible. He can smart off and say he can show you are wrong, but he is not going to. That is not only possible, but he is doing it. (not showing you what you got wrong)

Researching 9/11 takes time and intelligence to come to rational conclusions; three things Tibet has not shown the inclination or the capability of doing.

He can comment on statements made and correctly label them in a vacuum; in the big picture world of reality, his stand on 9/11 remains as undefined as dividing all the evidence of 9/11 truth has into the conclusion of 9/11 truth.

 

[RedIbis]

False. I bothered to do what I've never seen a truther do: learn about this issue. You can learn about these things in the debris cleanup section of my website. I have even corresponded by email, telephone, and in person with people who were directly involved with making these decisions. As I said in my Richard Gage debate, Dave Peraza, the structural engineer in charge of all debris removal, told me, unsolicited:

“By the way, some of the conspiracy theories state that the steel was sent to the scrap yards, presumably to destroy evidence of the conspiracy. I participated in the decision, ultimately made by DDC, to not retain the majority of the steel. I guess I was part of the conspiracy!”

Well, mystery solved. I suppose you didn't think to ask the obvious follow up question, why was the decision made by the DDC?

I have seen zero evidence that any of the facts I've uncovered about this issue are wrong or that any of the people I've corresponded with are anything but honest and professional.

Now that's what I call blind faith. What a wonderful world it would be if everyone was 100% honest 100% of the time.

You can disagree, RedIbis, but the burden of proof of 9/11 conspiracies remains where it's always been: on the shoulders of the conspiracy theorists. Waiting for the rest of the world to adopt and fight for your beliefs is irrational. It's 2008. You've been doing this for years and still haven't learned that?

The burden of proof for the single column failure causing global collapse falls squarely on NIST's shoulders.

Let's be clear about what just transpired here.

Gravy: What evidence would convince you that your beliefs about 9/11 conspiracies are wrong?

RedIbis: Nonexistent evidence.

Let's, because that's not what either you or I said.

My point about "truthers" existing in a fantasy world stands, and I'm done with you.

No, you're not. You've said that so many times before your dramatic proclamations can't possibly be taken seriously by anyone. You will cease responding to me when the questions become too difficult. In the Johanneman thread I brought to your attention that you've criticized Rodriguez for not contacting eyewitnesses, which I know for a fact he has. I asked if you've contacted Kenny's family and you ignored it.

I'm not surprised you have no interest in defending NIST's outrageous collapse theory, perhaps because it contradicts your preferred diesel fuel theory.

 

[beachnut]

... NIST's outrageous collapse theory, ...

Do you even know the topic. Why do you in one stupid statement expose your ignorance on WTC 7, structurally engineering, and fire? You offer zero substantive scientific work to support your statement; a statement based on ignorance.

Why do you share the zero evidence for you ideas on 9/11? Why is the entire 9/11 truth movement unable to scrap up any evidence?

 

[KTB]

The burden of proof for the single column failure causing global collapse falls squarely on NIST's shoulders.

And they have met that burden. Where is the problem? If you have any specifics that are wrong in their paper please tell. And not that crap about not having a physical column nullifies the whole thing, that's just ridiculous.

Now it's your turn to tell about your alternate theory and defend it. Ain't gonna happen right?
"Just askin' questions!"
-- RedIbis et. al.

 

[R.Mackey]

So this is what the Truth Movement has turned into -- a squabble over its motivation, throwing its own leaders under a bus, and dogged confusion over the definition of English words "evidence" and "theory."

Welcome back, Mark, though I forecast not for long. The Truth Movement for all intents and purposes no longer even exists, even in death, if I read these signs correctly.

ETA: Given the talk of holocaust deniers and racists, I felt this phrase unusually poigniant:

"Take our indifference," the Daily Mississippian's editorial board wrote in an open letter to the Klan on Sept. 16, "as the ultimate symbol of your failure."

Source

I'm more than happy to hold a scientific discussion with anyone, Truther or otherwise, but it's increasingly clear that they have no interest, if even the ability, to do so.

 

[Gravy]

So this is what the Truth Movement has turned into -- a squabble over its motivation, throwing its own leaders under a bus, and dogged confusion over the definition of English words "evidence" and "theory."

Welcome back, Mark, though I forecast not for long. The Truth Movement for all intents and purposes no longer even exists, even in death, if I read these signs correctly.

ETA: Given the talk of holocaust deniers and racists, I felt this phrase unusually poigniant:

Originally Posted by Daily Mississippian
"Take our indifference," the Daily Mississippian's editorial board wrote in an open letter to the Klan on Sept. 16, "as the ultimate symbol of your failure."

Source

I'm more than happy to hold a scientific discussion with anyone, Truther or otherwise, but it's increasingly clear that they have no interest, if even the ability, to do so.

Thanks, Ryan. I couldn't hope for better examples of behavior that prove the points I made in the podcast. I've already put three truthers on ignore who've shown themselves to be incapable of rational discussion. I encourage other rationalists to keep the wilfully ignorant on short leashes.

 

[dtugg]

I
5. The idea that explosive charges can destroy buildings is well supported.

The idea that three skyscrapers can be destroyed with explosives without anybody noticing the preparation is not supported at all.

 

[Minadin]

I would like to thank each of the conspiracy theorists who have posted in this thread for illustrating our point(s) so comprehensively.

Thank you.

 

[MarkyX]

The idea that three skyscrapers can be destroyed with explosives without anybody noticing the preparation is not supported at all.

Not to mention bombs that leave no traces whatsoever in the debris.

 

[Mercutio]

Not to mention bombs that leave no traces whatsoever in the debris.

Or pull the walls inward when they explode.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

To point out what you've gotten wrong would require me to care enough about what you have written so as to spend time reading it.

Spoken as if Mark Roberts is the arbiter of everything that's true.

You say you don't care enough to point out what Mark gets wrong, but you sure as hell seem convinced that he's gotten enough wrong to dismiss everything he says.

Judging by your increasingly defensive posting, you seem to feel rather threatened by Mark. Claiming you don't actually care is just lying to yourself. If you didn't care, you wouldn't have anything to say...

 

[bje]

The burden of proof for the single column failure causing global collapse falls squarely on NIST's shoulders.

Ah, the ultimate 9/11 Denier evasion. NIST's report, it's evidence, methodology, and conclusions, now fully available, means only one thing: the ball is in your court even more than it was before.

When will you take responsibility for your claims? Or don't you yet understand your responsibility, RedIbis?