Mark Roberts Interview on Skeptic Zone

[DC]

btw, remember i dont represent the TM or any other truther group, this is my personal oppinion.

 

[Dubbi]

i do consider a no lihop scenario aka incompetence, but this is very unlikely. as there was noone was held accountable for their incompetenz.

So: "noone was held accountable for their incompetenz." => "this is very unlikely"

No one was held accountable for the LIHOP scenario => this is also very unlikely.

Perhaps follow your own logic? If not, then give a better reason.

 

[Gravy]

I'm glad to have any well-researched corrections of my statements or work presented, but I'd like to restrict this thread to issues raised in the titular podcast.

Please use the Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread for the other stuff. Thanks.

 

[Gravy]

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.

Good grief! In 2002, NIST should have anticipated Steven Jones' idiotic 2006 thermite hypothesis? Sorry, the real world doesn't work that way, nor does real science.

Here's what NIST said about that material in their 2006 FAQ about the towers:

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

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.

How closely should they match? (That's a highly technical question and I don't suggest answering without doing a lot of homework. I haven't read the NIST WTC 7 report.)

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.

First, thank you for answering the question.

Next, it's important to understand the concept of falsifiability. An excerpt from A Field Guide to Critical Thinking:

The rule of falsifiability is essential for this reason: If nothing conceivable could ever disprove the claim, then the evidence that does exist would not matter; it would be pointless to even examine the evidence, because the conclusion is already known -- the claim is invulnerable to any possible evidence. This would not mean, however, that the claim is true; instead it would mean that the claim is meaningless. This is so because it is impossible -- logically impossible -- for any claim to be true no matter what. For every true claim, you can always conceive of evidence that would make the claim untrue -- in other words, again, every true claim is falsifiable.

Quick question: does your idea of Let It Happen On Purpose include allowing the demolition of the three skyscrapers with explosives/thermite/whatever?

 

[Gravy]

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're engaging in two fallacies here. The first is a false choice fallacy. Incompetence is not the only alternative to LIHOP.

You are also assuming that if there was incompetence that led to the attacks succeeding, that incompetence would be identified and publicly punished.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Minor correction...

1. Claim inside job.
2. Find contradiction.
3. ???
4. Profit!

Isn't it:

1. Claim inside job.
2. Fabricate contradiction.
3. ???
4. Profit!

Dave

 

[DC]

Good grief! In 2002, NIST should have anticipated Steven Jones' idiotic 2006 thermite hypothesis? Sorry, the real world doesn't work that way, nor does real science.

Here's what NIST said about that material in their 2006 FAQ about the towers:




How closely should they match? (That's a highly technical question and I don't suggest answering without doing a lot of homework. I haven't read the NIST WTC 7 report.)

First, thank you for answering the question.

Next, it's important to understand the concept of falsifiability. An excerpt from A Field Guide to Critical Thinking:
Quick question: does your idea of Let It Happen On Purpose include allowing the demolition of the three skyscrapers with explosives/thermite/whatever?

no grief at all.

would they have tested the Aluminium you found, they would be able to tell more about the other material in it or if it is indeed Aluminium.
bzt now, we cannot be sure, did you ever contact nist, and tell them, that you found material that propably is the material in question?


How closely should the FEA fit? well it should roughly look like the collapse recorded on video. but this is not the case yet. (I did alot lot lot of homework regarding the FEA)

i make a diffrence between the alleged CD of WTC towers and WTC7.

i can imagen that WTC7 CD would fit in a LIHOP scenario. For me even if WTC7 CD would be proven, it is not evidence of MIHOP.

 

[DC]

You're engaging in two fallacies here. The first is a false choice fallacy. Incompetence is not the only alternative to LIHOP.

You are also assuming that if there was incompetence that led to the attacks succeeding, that incompetence would be identified and publicly punished.

the it happened on suprise is debunked by the 9/11 Commission i think.

what other scenariios do you think?

 

[Brannagyn]

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?

What’s clear is that you either didn’t follow the argument in my post or are choosing to avoid it. You would have to be fundamentally impaired to be either unaware or incapable of finding evidence of the cheerleading the government and mainstream media did for the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection (let me know if the above is you pedantically asking for evidence of a commonly accepted fact). This being a clears example of a case where their “agenda was not related to the facts of 9/11” you would have to believe that no ‘debunker’ is influenced by either the mainstream media or the government.

Either:
A) you really are ignorant of this, in which case, God love you, you have my sympathies (then again, didn’t you claim to be wholly unaware of 9/11 CTs until 2006?)
B) you don’t consider the government or the mainstream press as part of the debunker grouping, in which case your continued association of anti-semites with the ‘truth movement’ is grossly hypocritical.
C) you don’t believe ‘debunkers’ (i.e. everyone opposing the ‘truth movement’) are influenced by the media or government, they are only influenced by the truth, which is such a ridiculous assertion I very nearly decided against including it (but you never know).

Its clear from your posts that you are not simply attempting to debunk the truth movement (something I would, depending on the sincerity of your motivations, respect) but instead denigrate it. In this podcast alone apart from your unjustifiable highlighting of anti-semites as prominent initiators of the truth movement (overlooking a very wide variety of far more prominent and infinitely more central figures) you also refer to the ‘truth movement’ as conspiracy nuts (both you and Chomsky seem to forget his earlier comments on this tactic), appear to agree with (at the least fail to correct) your host’s assessment that the truth movement is in opposition to the FDNY (?) and resort to name-calling regarding the choice of people to pursue this field to make a name for themselves after having failed to achieve anything else noteworthy in their careers.

Why you seem driven to both merge varied groups and individuals into a single mass and then belittle them in a wholly unscholarly fashion is your own business. Your dogmatic refusal to recognize the irrationality of it and the double-standards employed when viewing your own side of the divide (by which I mean the point repeated above) makes me highly doubtful that you are capable of a neutral approach to the issue, and that’s a shame.

I initially came to this site looking for counterbalance to claims heard from an oppossing source and initially thought I might have every last doubt I had about the 'official story' extinguished. The immediately apparent lack of civility I could have gotten past, but its become clear that, pretensions to critical thought aside, there are at least as many here as anywhere else who approach discussion with a thoroughly entrenched view from which cognitive dissonance will not permit concession of any ground no matter how small or unrelated to their central beliefs.

While I'll continue to examine what rational argument can be found amid the back-slapping of the peanut gallery, I suppose I can remain hopeful (if not optimistic) that the forums devoted to other issues are a little different.

 

[Tippit]

How closely should they match? (That's a highly technical question and I don't suggest answering without doing a lot of homework. I haven't read the NIST WTC 7 report.)

The tour guide-cum-self-proclaimed 9/11 expert hasn't read the NIST WTC 7 report? Why don't you read that, and then read Frank Greening's critique at http://the911forum.freeforums.org/ in the WTC 7 sub-forum? He's got some interesting things to say.

Next, it's important to understand the concept of falsifiability. An excerpt from A Field Guide to Critical Thinking:

Indeed it is, in fact I hope you make an attempt to understand the concept yourself. Your ignorance is based, again, on the fact that you think the World Trade Center was a science experiment, and not a crime scene. Falsifiability applies to theories which are scientific, and it refers to the ability to falsify propositions in them empirically, by observation.

From the wiki on the subject (emphasis my own): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

In the philosophy of science, verificationism (also known as the verifiability theory of meaning) holds that a statement must be in principle empirically verifiable in order to be both meaningful and scientific. This was an essential feature of the logical positivism of the so-called Vienna Circle that included such philosophers as Moritz Schlick, Rudolf Carnap, Otto Neurath, the Berlin philosopher Hans Reichenbach, and the logical empiricism of A.J. Ayer.

Popper noticed that the philosophers of the Vienna Circle had mixed two different problems, that of meaning and that of demarcation, and had proposed in verificationism a single solution to both. In opposition to this view, Popper emphasized that there are meaningful theories that are not scientific, and that, accordingly, a criterion of meaningfulness does not coincide with a criterion of demarcation. Verifiability came to be replaced by falsifiability as the criterion of demarcation.

Falsificationism strictly opposes the view that non-falsifiable statements are meaningless or otherwise inherently bad.[1]

What this means, in essence, is that while some propositions in 9/11 conspiracy theories are practically falsifiable (like the idea that the twin towers fell at free fall speeds), many are only falsifiable in principle, or not at all. This is because 9/11 represented a unique crime scene with many unknowns, rather than a repeatable scientific experiment.

So while many 9/11 conspiracy theories, or at least propositions within those theories are falsifiable (and have been falsified), many are not practically falsifiable or are not falsifiable at all, and they are not necessarily meaningless.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Which ones are not falsifiable at all?

 

[MarkyX]

In this podcast alone apart from your unjustifiable highlighting of anti-semites as prominent initiators of the truth movement (overlooking a very wide variety of far more prominent and infinitely more central figures)

Name them.

 

[bje]

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.

You have a difficult time understanding the written word. Try again:

"...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."

Repeat to yourself until you understand the written word, ok?

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

Yes, I know. Your assumption is the "government" must be behind 9/11. You'll deny the evidence until hell freezes over and insist that your answered "unanswered questions" have whatever validity you decide to assign to them. And we're all blind for not seeing the obvious, right?

And, of course, it is beneath you to prove Gravy wrong. 9/11 Deniers only ask questions - they are exempt from answering them, correct, Tippit?

Yes, keep associating 9/11 truth with Holocaust denial in a vain attempt at negative association.

You illustrate the determination characteristic of the 9/11 deniers everywhere to read anything you want into the written word. Now, Tippit let me repeat once again. Try to pay attention to what I am saying to you:

"...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."

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?

Denying what I actually wrote is a great illustration of denial, Tippit. And you 9/11 Denial Movement members are good at it. Let's try one more time. DO pay attention, Tippit:

"...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."

Is that the best you guys have got, to imply that we're all jew-haters? You're pathetic.

You'll never find a statement where I called you a "jew hater." But I thank you for illustrating my point that denial is denial is denial.

Amazing.

 

[Brannagyn]

Name them.

I considered asking you what naming them would do to your views but I fear I already know the answer. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Anyway…

The pre-existing and widespread anti-globalization movement realized from the get-go that 9/11 was going to have a major international ramifications and that despite it being a terrorist incident a military response was likely. It was elements of these groups led by people such as Carol Brouillet and Kevin Danaher that first approached Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, in November 2001, urging for a Senate enquiry into discrepancies and oddities they saw in the official version of events. This group learnt of and joined forces with others such as the Citizens for a Legitimate government. 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. There was also Michael Ruppert and the good ol’ whipping boy Alex Jones. I’m sure some are slipping my mind and that those more closely involved could name many more, suffice to say implying that the roots of the ‘truth movement’ were among ‘prominent anti-semites’ without pointing out the much more central figures is either ignorant or deliberately deceitful. Your choice which.

 

[MarkyX]

It was elements of these groups led by people such as Carol Brouillet and Kevin Danaher that first approached Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, in November 2001, urging for a Senate enquiry into discrepancies and oddities they saw in the official version of events.

And what oddities were there? How is this linked to the creation of the movement?

By January 2002 Barry Zwicker had produced the first major tv enquiry into the official version, the Great Deception.

Yes I know about this. His entire show was revolved around planes not taking off; nothing to do with controlled demolition, drone aircraft, or anything of that sort.

He believes the "stand down" order was established, however this is not a new theory as he actually cites Michael Ruppert for this and...wait for it, anti-semites were proposing the same theory months before Barry Zwicker.

gain, you're saying they are other people besides anti-semite that helped started the movement. You're either only giving vague answers or giving me people who were late for the bandwagon.

 

[DC]

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

or not?

 

[bje]

I considered asking you what naming them would do to your views but I fear I already know the answer. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Anyway…

The pre-existing and widespread anti-globalization movement realized from the get-go that 9/11 was going to have a major international ramifications and that despite it being a terrorist incident a military response was likely. It was elements of these groups led by people such as Carol Brouillet and Kevin Danaher that first approached Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, in November 2001, urging for a Senate enquiry into discrepancies and oddities they saw in the official version of events.

At least you admit the political motivations behind the 9/11 Truth Movement using so-called "discrepancies and oddities" in an ephemeral, truther-invented, "official version" of events.

In the seven years since 9/11, nothing has changed. The 9/11 Truth Movement invents new "oddities and discrepancies" and recycles the old debunked ones, and continues to use the canard of some "official story" in place of the actual massive, independent evidence that informs all of us, including, the NIST investigations and 9/11 Commission, and converges on the inescapable conclusions that are contrary to your political agenda.

And of course, you'll jump in and ask ,"what massive evidence?"

We've heard it all.

 

[CptColumbo]

i do consider a no lihop scenario aka incompetence, but this is very unlikely. as there was noone was held accountable for their incompetenz.

And Brownie was doin' a "heckuv a job."

 

[Brannagyn]

And of course, you'll jump in and ask ,"what massive evidence?"

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

How is this linked to the creation of the movement?

Can't say I'm surprised by your failure to either understand the relevance or overcome your own dogma. The people I've named above are among the people who can legitimately be called prominent early figures in the 'truth movement'.

The fact that anti-semites might have been claiming that 9/11 was a jewish plot from the first hours is irrelevant when you accept that such people claim any major event is a Jewish conspiracy. There is nothing to substantiate Roberts claims that they were prominent figures and the fact that he references them while ignoring the foundational impact of the above people can only be taken as either a mistake of ignorance (perfectly fine, especially if he only came across such issues in 2006 and through the skewed lens of LC) or a wilful attempt to denigrate his opponents.

Mark Roberts: “A lot of the early conspiracy theorists about 9/11 were holocaust deniers…not a lot, but prominent ones.”

a) "prominent" is just plain wrong.
b) highlighting the fringe element while failing to mention the more central figures in the early growth is disingenuous in the extreme.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

Do you have any evidence for the first part of this assertion, or are you merely making things up to support a weak argument?

Dave