Mark Roberts Interview on Skeptic Zone

[Disbelief]

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence.

So, are you agreeing with us that conspiracists don't use evidence?

 

[applecorped]

Read the thread.

meh.

 

[mchapman]

My mistake, I guess I assumed that since you said that conspiracists are not not using evidence- that they must be using evidence.

If you don't believe that, then we are not in disagreement.

I did back that claim up- it's up to you to refute it with even one example. Since you seem to be familiar with the arguments and claims of conspiracists, this should be a very easy task for you to do if you are in fact an honest person.

Are you serious? You make the claim that all conspiracists make false claims and now you are saying the burden of proof is on me to prove you wrong???

Sorry, the burden of proof lies squarely with you. If you can't meet that burden then I advise you not to make such sweeping claims in future.

 

[CHF]

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?

mchpman,

If someone is on record as being a Holocaust denier then that should seriously call into question both their mental state and their ability to analyze evidence.

After all, we're talking about the most well-documented war crime in history.

If someone gets that wrong (either due to blind hatred, stupidity or sloppiness) then why on earth would anyone believe them on 9/11?

Why do truthers gobble up the work of the AFP and Eric Hufschmid without question? Why do they sit shoulder-to-shoulder with Nazi creeps at their conferences? Why do they cite them in their movies and books?

That says more about the character of the TM than anything we debunkers would possibly say.

I don't care if Ernst Zundel agrees with me on the war in Iraq, the quality of pro-hockey in Toronto or even the colour of the sky! You will never find me teaming up with someone like that. Never.

 

[Gravy]

Why even mention that they are anti semitic?

Why are you attempting to discuss a podcast that you haven't bothered to listen to? As I stated, it explains a motivation for being early on the stupidwagon.

As I stated in the podcast, what worries me is not so much the kids watching 9/11 videos in their basement, most of whom are going to grow out of it, but the way the American "inside job" lies have taken hold in the Muslim world.

Why did anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers latch on to William Rodriguez and support him and travel with him to Muslim countries and speak with him? Why invite him to their conferences? Because he gives them an intro to a Muslim audience and his "hero" status seems to lend them legitimacy.

But don't take my word for it. In Muslim Malaysia, Rodriguez traveled with and spoke on the same stage with the AFP writer, anti-Semitic Holocaust denier Michael Collins Piper.

Piper's message was not "9/11 was an inside job," but that the Jewish-run US government and media want to destroy Islam. Malaysia's national news agency reported:

American Media Asked To Dupe People, Destroy Islam, Says Expert

KUALA LUMPUR, June 13 (Bernama) — The American media is controlled by certain groups which plan to destroy the Islamic world, according to an American media expert.

Michael Collins Piper said a group of family and financial interests people in the United States were using the media to control government policies. “They will not be satisfied because Islam is the last religion standing in the way of the new world order,” he added.

He said he wanted to be the “bridge-builder”, to show that not all Americans supported the Jewish-controlled Bush administration policy.

Rodriguez later spoke at a large Muslim rally in Texas:

"He said that the aim of American media was to criminalize all the Muslims, yet when he went to Malaysia, he received better treatment than he had ever received. He took shahada at the hands of Sheikh Yusuf Estes, Allahu Akbar!"

Piper, writing in the American Free Press, sums up the visit:

"The international audience at the fair—some 1,000 strong—was intrigued by the fact that here were Americans—including a 9-11 survivor—telling them that it was not “the Muslims” who were responsible for 9-11, but that the conspiracy went much higher and much deeper."

Rodriguez's friend Nila Sagadevan reports,

Willy mentioned that the movie triggered such an outcry that, last Friday, over 200 Islamic clerics marched on the US embassy to demand an answer to a long list of questions about 9/11. Predictably, the Marines were called in and the crowd dispersed under severe protest. While this was aired on Malaysian nightly news and caused a huge hullabaloo, we’ve obviously yet to hear a murmur of any of it Stateside (or, I presume, elsewhere in the West).

During a Broadcast on National News, Channel 3, at Primetime, it was stated that “The Mindset of the Malaysian people has been changed forever on the 9/11 events after seeing the latest evidence.”

“911 In Plane Site” and “Confronting the Evidence” continue to be recognized as the most controversial video documentaries on 9/11 to date, and are being shown by Rodriguez and Walter as they travel the world.

Do you detect an agenda there?

Willis Carto asked Piper to go to Venezuela. Piper handed that assignment to Chris Bollyn, who was busy covering the trial of a neo-Nazi. Bollyn wanted to go to Lebanon or Syria instead. Bollyn asked Rodriguez to go to Venezuela, and received permission for that from Carto. The purpose of the trip? To raise money for the AFP. Says Bollyn,

I was sent to Venezuela, from Europe, by Willis A. Carto, publisher of American Free Press, for one specific reason – to try and get financial support for AFP from Venezuela's generous populist president, Hugo Chavez.

It was my idea and initiative to bring William Rodriguez to Venezuela, as a friend and survivor from 9/11, in order to inform the Venezuelans about the false flag terror attacks. Since we had worked together and he speaks fluent Spanish, I asked AFP to let him join me in Venezuela.

...At the time, I was in Europe covering the [neo-Nazi] Ernst Zundel trial in Mannheim and had made excellent contacts with Lebanese and Syrian leaders at the Axis of Peace conference in Brussels.

I thought that AFP should send me to Lebanon and Syria, but AFP was more interested in sending me to Venezuela – on what can only be described as a wild goose chase.

...[AFP writer and anti-Semite] Michael Piper was involved in sending me to Venezuela. Mr. Carto had initially wanted him to go, but Piper passed the task on to me saying he was "in neither the physical nor mental state to be able to do such a thing."

You may not think that the anti-Semitic 9/11 conspiracy theorists are influential and potentially dangerous people. I think the evidence says they are.

Sources are here: http://911stories.googlepages.com/travelswithwillie

 

[mchapman]

mchpman,

If someone is on record as being a Holocaust denier then that should seriously call into question both their mental state and their ability to analyze evidence.

After all, we're talking about the most well-documented war crime in history.

If someone gets that wrong (either due to blind hatred, stupidity or sloppiness) then why on earth would anyone believe them on 9/11?

Why do truthers gobble up the work of the AFP and Eric Hufschmid without question? Why do they sit shoulder-to-shoulder with Nazi creeps at their conferences? Why do they cite them in their movies and books?

That says more about the character of the TM than anything we debunkers would possibly say.

I don't care if Ernst Zundel agrees with me on the war in Iraq, the quality of pro-hockey in Toronto or even the colour of the sky! You will never find me teaming up with someone like that. Never.

Well that is irrational behaviour.

 

[Totovader]

Are you serious? You make the claim that all conspiracists make false claims and now you are saying the burden of proof is on me to prove you wrong???

Sorry, the burden of proof lies squarely with you. If you can't meet that burden then I advise you not to make such sweeping claims in future.

Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you- you are the one making the positive claim. I qualified my argument. It is not my responsibility to quote every single conspiracist claim ever made to point out that they are not backed up by evidence. It is your responsibility (assuming you disagree with the statement) to provide even a single example to substantiate your argument.

Do you understand that? I made it easy for you: I said all. Therefore, in order to substantiate your argument, all you need to do is provide one single example and my statement will be debunked.

Come on.

Do it.

 

[applecorped]

Read the thread.

So, you're just asking questions? Got it.

When will Mark Roberts be providing evidence for some of his more ridiculous claims, like the claim that there weren't many cameras at the pentagon in 2001?

Why does Mark Roberts seem to think that the destruction of steel at ground zero is fine? Bill Manning didn't think it was fine. Yes, I know Bill Manning was talking about it from a fire safety standpoint, not explosives.

Do you have a qoute from him showing his full satisfaction?

If he was angry that the steel was destroyed, what exactly made him unangry? Was the steel undestroyed?

I am quoting my own post so I can highlight the bit that adversity1 was unable to comprehend while his knee jerked.

Do you not read your own work? You made that claim on page 10 of this document:

911myths.com/911TruthOrgCritiqueMay06.pdf

where you stated, without a source, that:

I am quoting my own post so I can highlight the bit that adversity1 was unable to comprehend while his knee jerked.

So, could you please tell us exactly how many is "very few" and where did you get this information?

You disappoint me. I was expecting maybe a link to a pentagon document, or perhaps a news story but no.....your source is a post on an internet forum.

I think that tells us everything we need to know about Mark Roberts' "research".

So what exactly was Bill Manning so upset about? Did you not ask the guy who was involved in the decision to destroy the steel why that decision was made?

Quote:
Can you briefly state your position about what happened on 9/11 and what evidence would change your mind?

And, can you name some of the significant claims that the "truth" movement gets right?

It is not as simple as claims they have gotten right. Most truther claims are claims that not enough investigation has been done.

For example, I don't claim as a fact that Mahmood ahmed wired 100,000 to Atta, but I would like to see it investigated further than "Oh it was an indian newspaper so probably false"

My position on 9/11 is that there are many aspects of it unexplained, or events within it that are so unusual they require more investigation.

 

[Totovader]

Can you name any prominent experts of the "official story" that base their conclusion on this supposed "racism"? If not, then this is simply a tu quoque- though I don't speak for Gravy, I personally believe that the anti-Semitism is a symptom of the irrationality of conspiracism and leads to conspiracist ideology.

Furthermore, are these "racists" in a higher majority among the scientific community- or is it simply the case that since the vast majority of experts, witnesses, and laymen believe the scientific version of the events- that there is likely to be a mix of people in there who also happen to be racist?

In other words- one is a symptom of the other, but your example is simply a statistical occurrence.

*bump^2 for mchapman

 

[Gravy]

By the way, Rodriguez still refuses to renounce his association with these extremist hate-mongers, as we saw in his coming to their aid the other day. I have repeatedly asked him to speak out against these people and no longer associate with them. From one of my emails to him (bolding added):

It bothers you that in my paper I discuss your association with anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers? I'm afraid that's just something you're going to have to live with, William. You're not a kid. You spent a lot of time with, and received a lot of aid from, individuals and organizations that are devoted to hatred and bigotry.

Look at it this way: if my 9/11 research involved repeatedly traveling with, speaking with, and receiving financial support from the Ku Klux Klan, wouldn't that be important for people to know? If you think so, then hold yourself to the same standard.

Those weren't isolated incidents, William. Just yesterday someone brought up a talk you did in 2005 in Schaumburg, Illinois, which was sponsored by the anti-Semites at AFP and the proud Holocaust denier Eric Hufschmid. In Malaysia you shared the stage and appeared elsewhere with anti-Semite and Holocaust denier Michael Collins Piper, who wrote, "The international audience at the fair—some 1,000 strong—was intrigued by the fact that here were Americans—including a 9-11 survivor—telling them that it was not “the Muslims” who were responsible for 9-11, but that the conspiracy went much higher and much deeper."

And as recently as September, 2006 you spoke at a conference attended by and run by many of the most notorious Holocaust deniers in the world.

I wish I had evidence that you've left that all behind, but just last month you again appeared with Kevin Barrett at at least one speaking engagement. You've appeared with him before and have been on his radio show several times. William, why in the world would you associate with such a deceitful, misinformed, hate-filled person?

Agenda-driven? Influential? You betcha.

 

[mchapman]

Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you- you are the one making the positive claim. I qualified my argument. It is not my responsibility to quote every single conspiracist claim ever made to point out that they are not backed up by evidence. It is your responsibility (assuming you disagree with the statement) to provide even a single example to substantiate your argument.

Do you understand that? I made it easy for you: I said all. Therefore, in order to substantiate your argument, all you need to do is provide one single example and my statement will be debunked.

Come on.

Do it.

Ok, I'll make this easy for you. Let's take Sander Hicks. He is a "conspiracist", as you would put it.

Since you claim that ALL conspiracists make false claims then it should be easy for you to find a single false claim he has made. Get to it.

I am not going to accept the burden of proof for your claims.

 

[mchapman]

By the way, Rodriguez still refuses to renounce his association with these extremist hate-mongers, as we saw in his coming to their aid the other day. I have repeatedly asked him to speak out against these people and no longer associate with them. From one of my emails to him (bolding added):

Agenda-driven? Influential? You betcha.

Do you really think muslim countries need informing of the hatred against them by a Janitor and and an anti semite? I should think the illegal invasion of their countries by america has probably tipped them off.

 

[CHF]

Well that is irrational behaviour.

Why in your opinon do so many truthers blindly accept the word of Holocaust deniers when it comes to 9/11?

Do you really think muslim countries need informing of the hatred against them by a Janitor and and an anti semite?

Why in your opinion is Willy touring with known anti-semites?

 

[Gravy]

This isn't the first time Mark Roberts has done this sort of thing. In his wtc7 paper he makes sure he points out that steven jones is a mormon who wrote a paper about Jesus coming to america. Totally irrelevant to his 911 claims.

False. It's completely relevant to his methods. Jones claimed to have evidence of Jesus' presence in the Americas. He attempted to make the evidence fit his faith-based preconceptions and ignored other explanations, exactly as he's done with his 9/11 claims. When preconceptions take precedence, anti-science results.

If you disagree, please explain clearly how.

In that podcast he described hero Willie Rodriguez as a failed magician. All pathetic Ad Hom fallacies that make Mark Roberts research about as credible as any holocaust deniers'.

False. It's not an ad hom at all. It's a fact that may indicate why he craves the spotlight and why he began fabricating his new story. Rodriguez has repeatedly complained that he has not received enough attention from the public, the media, and the truthers.

Have you seen his 9/11 performances? The way he produces his key with a magician's flourish, to the "oohs" and applause of the audience? He's quite practiced and quite good on stage.

Rodriguez once signed off this forum by saying, "I have a show to do." He then quickly returned and changed it to "I have a talk to do" (or "presentation," or the like). Quite revealing, that.

 

[Totovader]

Ok, I'll make this easy for you. Let's take Sander Hicks. He is a "conspiracist", as you would put it.

Since you claim that ALL conspiracists make false claims then it should be easy for you to find a single false claim he has made. Get to it.

I am not going to accept the burden of proof for your claims.

You continue to dodge the question. I have qualified my statement- I am not going to quote every claim ever made- by anyone.

If you would like to disagree with my claim, then you can do so by providing evidence to substantiate your counter-argument. Claiming that the burden of proof is on me is insufficient.

If you need to educate yourself on logic and epistemology- you will need to do that on your own time. I am simply making a statement which I have backed up- and which you apparently disagree with. Claiming that I need to provide every single argument ever made in order to prove my argument to your satisfaction is not a rebuttal: it's fallacious nonsense.

 

[R.Mackey]

Ok, I'll make this easy for you. Let's take Sander Hicks. He is a "conspiracist", as you would put it.

Since you claim that ALL conspiracists make false claims then it should be easy for you to find a single false claim he has made. Get to it.

I am not going to accept the burden of proof for your claims.

Gravy is, as usual, at least a year ahead of you.

Very, very poor choice of an exemplar.

ETA: I'd forgotten he was a Leo Wanta subscriber. Wow. And this is the guy you pick??

 

[mchapman]

Why in your opinon do so many truthers blindly accept the word of Holocaust deniers when it comes to 9/11?



Why in your opinion is Willy touring with known anti-semites?

They don't blindly accept the word of holocaust deniers. They accept evidence on it's merits. There are no influential holocaust deniers in the truth movement. Even in the early truth movement the most influential people were not holocaust deniers. I have already named some of them. Meyssan, who started the pentagon theories was not a holocaust denier.

Why does it matter who willy tours with?

 

[Totovader]

Can you name any prominent experts of the "official story" that base their conclusion on this supposed "racism"? If not, then this is simply a tu quoque- though I don't speak for Gravy, I personally believe that the anti-Semitism is a symptom of the irrationality of conspiracism and leads to conspiracist ideology.

Furthermore, are these "racists" in a higher majority among the scientific community- or is it simply the case that since the vast majority of experts, witnesses, and laymen believe the scientific version of the events- that there is likely to be a mix of people in there who also happen to be racist?

In other words- one is a symptom of the other, but your example is simply a statistical occurrence.

*bump^3 for mchapman

If you're unable to answer the question, then just say so. Otherwise, I will have to assume you are dodging yet another question which is damaging to your claims.

 

[mchapman]

You continue to dodge the question. I have qualified my statement- I am not going to quote every claim ever made- by anyone.

If you would like to disagree with my claim, then you can do so by providing evidence to substantiate your counter-argument. Claiming that the burden of proof is on me is insufficient.

If you need to educate yourself on logic and epistemology- you will need to do that on your own time. I am simply making a statement which I have backed up- and which you apparently disagree with. Claiming that I need to provide every single argument ever made in order to prove my argument to your satisfaction is not a rebuttal: it's fallacious nonsense.

Even if I were prepared to, it is impossible for me to falsify your statement.

If I produce true claims made by people, that does not eliminate the possibility that they have made other false claims.

The burden of proof is entirely with you. If you are unprepared to list a false claim for every conspiricist, then maybe you will think twice about making sweeping claims that you are unwilling to back up.

 

[Gravy]

Do you really think muslim countries need informing of the hatred against them by a Janitor and and an anti semite? I should think the illegal invasion of their countries by america has probably tipped them off.

The US invaded Malaysia?

If there's any part of this you don't understand, I'll be glad to explain it to you:

During a Broadcast on National News, Channel 3, at Primetime, it was stated that “The Mindset of the Malaysian people has been changed forever on the 9/11 events after seeing the latest evidence.”