Mark Roberts Interview on Skeptic Zone

[DC]

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

atleast you admit that those are weak arguments.
far more than i ever expected.
thank you

 

[ElMondoHummus]

DC, your statement is dishonest. You know damn well that the identification of the hijackers as Arabic initially flowed from the flight victims calls - as one example, look up Madeline Sweeney - and later independently flowed from both the flight manifests as well as a backtracking of the hijacker's movements.

The fact that some "Islamophobes" allegedly made the accusation before the investigation (I'd like to see some examples of that, if you please) and happened to be coincidentally correct does not mean the investigation proceeded along the lines laid out by these unnamed "Islamophobes". Look up the evidence, and tell me which element was presented by which "Islamophobe"? Was it Pat Buchannan who estabished the hijackers' membership and classes at the flight schools? Was it some other "neocon" who established their presence at the terminals? Was it a random Zionist who proffered the DNA evidence from the hotels and rental cars? Were Betty Ong, Madaline Sweeney, Mark Bingham, and other flight victims who called for help and identified the hijackers all secret Muslim haters?

You usually argue better than presenting canards and outlandish statements. Given the testimony of the hijack victims, and the latter investigation uncovering the hijacker's movements and identities, you know damn well that the case is built on everything other than the statements of a few racists. So why make the charge? Are you really sinking to the level of other posters on this forum? I thought you were better than that.

 

[mchapman]

Every single professional investigator and law enforcement official on the planet seems to be in disagreement with your assessments, so I guess you're out of luck.

But hey, keep expressing your personal incredulity on Internet forums. I'm sure that will get your new investigation off the ground.

That is a very bold claim. If you don't have quotes from every single one backing that up then I would retract it.

 

[mchapman]

In response to people asking what is unexplained, lets start with:

1. The FBI having the passenger manifests immediately but getting the identities of the hijackers wrong initially.

2. The claim that the hijackers have been positively identified when no such thing has occured.

3. The lack of positive identification of any of the planes from serial numbered parts.

4 The treatment of the wreckage. Just exactly what from flight 93 is in iron mountain?

 

[DC]

DC, your statement is dishonest. You know damn well that the identification of the hijackers as Arabic initially flowed from the flight victims calls - as one example, look up Madeline Sweeney - and later independently flowed from both the flight manifests as well as a backtracking of the hijacker's movements.

The fact that some "Islamophobes" allegedly made the accusation before the investigation (I'd like to see some examples of that, if you please) and happened to be coincidentally correct does not mean the investigation proceeded along the lines laid out by these unnamed "Islamophobes". Look up the evidence, and tell me which element was presented by which "Islamophobe"? Was it Pat Buchannan who estabished the hijackers' membership and classes at the flight schools? Was it some other "neocon" who established their presence at the terminals? Was it a random Zionist who proffered the DNA evidence from the hotels and rental cars? Were Betty Ong, Madaline Sweeney, Mark Bingham, and other flight victims who called for help and identified the hijackers all secret Muslim haters?

You usually argue better than presenting canards and outlandish statements. Given the testimony of the hijack victims, and the latter investigation uncovering the hijacker's movements and identities, you know damn well that the case is built on everything other than the statements of a few racists. So why make the charge? Are you really sinking to the level of other posters on this forum? I thought you were better than that.

my argument was perfect, you got my point and pointed it out.

thank you.

 

[applecorped]

In response to people asking what is unexplained, lets start with:

1. The FBI having the passenger manifests immediately but getting the identities of the hijackers wrong initially.

2. The claim that the hijackers have been positively identified when no such thing has occured.

3. The lack of positive identification of any of the planes from serial numbered parts.

4 The treatment of the wreckage. Just exactly what from flight 93 is in iron mountain?

 

[Drudgewire]

That is a very bold claim. If you don't have quotes from every single one backing that up then I would retract it.

Until we have sworn statements from every single astronomer in the world, Gallelio might have been wrong about the earth revolving around the sun (or in Alex Jones' world, the world is round?)

 

[Gravy]

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.

WTF? This irrational nonsense is entirely unrelated to my evidence that anti-Semites were prominent early in the establishment of the 9/11 "truth" movement.

This irrational nonsense is entirely unrelated to people like myself who examine 9/11 conspiracy claims, using factual evidence from myriad sources, which anyone can check.

I asked you for evidence that "extreme" skeptics were influential in the establishment of the "debunking" movement. You have made several posts since then and have provided none.

Nor have you provided evidence that the debunking movement had gotten anything significant wrong.

If you want to continue making this petulant and baseless argument, do it elsewhere.

 

[Dave Rogers]

atleast you admit that those are weak arguments.

I'll be happy to admit that the tu quoque logical fallacy is a weak argument any time you care to employ it.

Dave

 

[Gravy]

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?

It's been explained to you why this is nonsense. Move on.

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)

Did you read the WTC 7 report? I'd also like to learn about how closely the FEA should match reality. What sources did you use to educate yourself?

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.

You realize that introducing a building demolition vastly complicates your LIHOP scenario, right? Since no LIHOP or MIHOP scenario is necessary to explain the events of 9/11, and you have no evidence to support the existence of such scenarios, your belief is irrational. Postulate plurality at your own risk, but don't waste others' time with it.

Won't somebody think of poor Ockham?

 

[Dave Rogers]

my argument was perfect, you got my point and pointed it out.

I can see what you're trying to establish, although your case is weakened more than a little by the fact that there wasn't an anti-Islamic culture that spawned a series of false claims in advance of the determination that al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. However, you're missing the point that much of the "evidence" cited by 9/11 truthers is fantasy originated by openly admitted anti-Semites, and that many truthers take these fantasies as proven fact on the authority of their originators. Gregory Urich, who has openly rejected the unsupported word of anti-Semitic commentators, is a good example of what can happen when someone in the truth movement takes a stand on this issue; he's finding himself marginalised by the movement, and there is someone on his own discussion forum suggesting that he shouldn't be allowed to remain a member of 9/11 truth groups. On the other hand, I've yet to see a debunker criticised for pointing out that (a) Arabs are equally capable as members of any other ethnicity of learning to fly airliners, or (b) perpetrators of an act should be determined based on verifiable evidence rather than racist suspicion.

Dave

 

[Drudgewire]

Won't somebody think of poor Ockham?

As maddening as some of these responses are, I'm trying to keep razors out of my thought patterns. v

v

This thread serves as a shining example of why you and others have all but washed your hands of this insanity. Nice to see you haven't lost your passion along with your patience for dealing with this nonsense.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

In response to people asking what is unexplained, lets start with:

1. The FBI having the passenger manifests immediately but getting the identities of the hijackers wrong initially.

2. The claim that the hijackers have been positively identified when no such thing has occured.

3. The lack of positive identification of any of the planes from serial numbered parts.

4 The treatment of the wreckage. Just exactly what from flight 93 is in iron mountain?

Wow, welcome to 2004. You should tr and catch up. But please indulge us and back those claims up. Show us where the FBI initially got the names wrong, and how that is something in need of investigating. Show us how the hijackers were identified but were not identified.

#3 has been too far debunked that it's not work addressing. #4 isn't even an argument.

 

[Gravy]

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

How many times do you people have to be told to stop pretending to have read the relevant documents?

Me, in the podcast: "Most of the conspiracy theorists – almost none of them – have read the things that they are purporting to critique. Almost none of them."

You didn't even make it past page 1 of the preface to the 9/11 Commission report:

We learned about an enemy who is sophisticated, patient, disciplined, and lethal. The enemy rallies broad support in the Arab and Muslim world by demanding redress of political grievances, but its hostility toward us and our values is limitless. Its purpose is to rid the world of religious and political pluralism, the plebiscite, and equal rights for women. It makes no distinction between military and civilian targets. Collateral damage is not in its lexicon.

We learned that the institutions charged with protecting our borders, civil aviation, and national security did not understand how grave this threat could be, and did not adjust their policies, plans, and practices to deter or defeat it. We learned of fault lines within our government-between foreign and domestic intelligence, and between and within agencies. We learned of the pervasive problems of managing and sharing information across a large and unwieldy government that had been built in a different era to confront different dangers.

From section 11.1
The methods for detecting and then warning of surprise attack that the U.S. government had so painstakingly developed in the decades after Pearl Harbor did not fail; instead, they were not really tried. They were not employed to analyze the enemy that, as the twentieth century closed, was most likely to launch a surprise attack directly against the United States.

Research time: 2 minutes.

I'm going to ask you directly to stop faking it. If you don't know something, this is a good place to ask. But it is rude and immature to waste peoples' time like you are doing.

Clear enough?

 

[RedIbis]

WTF? This irrational nonsense is entirely unrelated to my evidence that anti-Semites were prominent early in the establishment of the 9/11 "truth" movement.

Whereas it's true that people like Hufschmid were prominent early on, it's no longer the case. If they've been dismissed and are no longer prominent in this fantasy movment you obsess over, why are you still dragging this old dead canard around?

 

[mchapman]

The old anti-semite card is the weakest and laziest in the debunkers deck. It is dragged out simply in a desperate attempt at poisoning the well when they can't deal with actual evidence.

 

[Brannagyn]

WTF? This irrational nonsense is entirely unrelated to my evidence that anti-Semites were prominent early in the establishment of the 9/11 "truth" movement...

You haven't provided any evidence of this.

btw. "irrational nonsense".....not the strongest argument I've ever come across.

Whereas it's true that people like Hufschmid were prominent early on...

Still don't see the evidence to support this even though many on the opposing side seem to accept it. Like Roberts many people took an interest well after the growth of the initial enquiries into the official version by which time people such as Hufschmid had seen the benefits to be gained from playing to a wider audience. I still am not aware of any evidence establishing them as prominent figures at the early stages.

Nor have you provided evidence that the debunking movement had gotten anything significant wrong.

You first need to explain why the government and the mainstream media cannot be considered among the debunker camp or show that the claims they made linking the hijackers to Iraq were accurate.

Maybe you aren't thinking. "No, no no, I'm talking baout the claims WE make here at JREF. Not some other unrelated group whose unsubstantiated claims we don't support just because we often oppose the same people". Even so...

This irrational nonsense is entirely unrelated to people like myself who examine 9/11 conspiracy claims, using factual evidence from myriad sources, which anyone can check.

I accept that equating the 9/11 related lies propogated by the government and media as a reflection of all debunkers of CTs is irrational, nonetheless, it simply duplicates the logic which would be needed to construct any meaningful corelation between anti-semitism and the genesis of the 'truth movement'.

Please remember why people are likely to respond to any future claims by you of anti-semtism as a significant element of the truth movement, as "irrational nonsense".

This wasn't a discussion of CT theory or its counterpoints but instead related to the manner in which the debate is being conducted, specifically (at your request) in your podcast. You certainly wouldn't have lost any ground in admitting an understandable confusion over the state of the 'truth movement' five years before you became aware of it. A simple "Okay maybe Holocaust deniers weren't so prominent a factor as to justify highlighting them to the exclusion of much more relevant people" would have sufficed.

If you want to continue making this petulant and baseless argument, do it elsewhere.

The JREF forum once again displaying its scholarly roots. While I certainly have little interest in your opinion, given your evident dogmatism, I'm still relatively new here and will happily scour the forums for factual data and insightful opinion wherever I might find it. I may even offer my opinion from time to time.

I know...quel dommage.

 

[uk_dave]

The old anti-semite card is the weakest and laziest in the debunkers deck. It is dragged out simply in a desperate attempt at poisoning the well when they can't deal with actual evidence.

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.

 

[Drudgewire]

Whereas it's true that people like Hufschmid were prominent early on, it's no longer the case.

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

If they've been dismissed and are no longer prominent in this fantasy movment you obsess over, why are you still dragging this old dead canard around?

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."

 

[applecorped]

The JREF forum once again displaying its scholarly roots. While I certainly have little interest in your opinion, given your evident dogmatism, I'm still relatively new here and will happily scour the forums for factual data and insightful opinion wherever I might find it. I may even offer my opinion from time to time.

I know...quel dommage.

What a shame indeed!