Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[jhunter1163]

That link works.

Those sure as hell don't look like isolated fires to me.

 

[bynmdsue]

 

[Gravy]

That link works.

Those sure as hell don't look like isolated fires to me.

"We were looking at two large bodies of fires that neither of us in our 33-year careers had ever seen anything that enormous. So it's pretty much, you know, I thought we would lose a company or two possibly. I didn't think we would come out of this unscathed at all. It was just too enormous." –FDNY Chief of Safety Albert Turi (PDF)


"It was the most unbelievable sight I ever saw, up until that point.

I had been in some very busy units during my time in the fire department. I broke in, in Engine 46 and Ladder 27 in the South Bronx when the South Bronx was burning down. I was in Rescue 3, which was extremely busy; they covered the Bronx and Harlem. And then as a lieutenant, I was in the Lower East Side when that was burning down. As a captain, I was in Chinatown. I saw some unbelievable fires in Chinatown.

What I saw pales in comparison [sic] to anything else I had seen previously." –FDNY Captain Jay Jonas

 

[scissorhands]

But why not focus on the fact that the alleged heat was intense enough to weaken structural steel yet not hot enough to affect people who were seen waving from buildings.

There are other despicable arguments put forward by Twoofers, but this one really takes the biscuit.
I still cant believe how they cant see just how offensive this is.
People were throwing themselves out of windows to a certain death to avoid the conditions in that building.
They gathered where they could to avoid the heat and smoke and waved forlornly for a rescue that never came.
That this is used as an argument for isolated and minor fires on those floors really shows what kind of sociopaths make up the "truth movement".

 

[pomeroo]

The errors of Mark Roberts are those of any sophist OS pedaler.

Informal logic is no substitute for substantive discussion of reasonably questioned anomalies of the most significant event of the 21st century.


Mark Roberts, just like the kings of yellow journalism at Popular Mechanics, presents a couple of nefarious half truths from Loose Change, refutes them, and considers the entire investigative 9/11 movement debunked.


Or he cherry picks a couple of points from men like David Ray Griffin, calls himself refuting them with special pleading, appeal to anonymous/unqualified authority, and considers everything in totality of DRG and the investigative movement debunked.


You see the funny thing is these sophist pretend that the entire investigative movement of 9/11 is based off the idea that it was a controlled demolition.


That is not even close to true. All that would have to be proved in a court of law was that people in positions of significant influence were criminally negligent in preventing the attacks and participated in a cover-up by methods such as spoliation.


The debunkers love to focus on the speculations and divert attention away from smoking gun facts.


For instance, they love to focus on how it's speculation if whether a 707 could do comparable damage to a 767 (although if you have a fundamental grasp of science you could figure this out with a kinetic energy formula. That and the fact that the building was designed to take SEVERAL 707s which is more than comparable to a single 767)

But why not focus on the fact that the alleged heat was intense enough to weaken structural steel yet not hot enough to affect people who were seen waving from buildings.

If it was indeed hot enough to mold steel, people just within FEET of the incendiary would have been toast. Yet here they are seen waving from the buildings as if there was no raging inferno.

Which would be consistent with the fact that it was reported on radios as isolated pockets of fire that could have been knocked down with a couple of water hoses.

Would have been consistent with the fact that most of the dominant substance out of those towers after the initial fireball is DARK SMOKE which is consistent with an oxygen deprived fire.

If a building is engulfed in flames, that dark black smoke would have been replaced with some bright orange flames.


Yet even in the history of architecture buildings that have had fires with much more heat with much longer durability, have not even begin to affect the structural integrity of the steel as witnessed in 9/11.

And worst of all, the most recent expert explanation we have for all of this, only explains teh collapse up to the initiation.

When although the initiation was unprecedented, it isn't nearly as big of a mystery as what followed which are activities that would explained a lot easier if they didn't have such a limited scope on their hypothesis.

Many words to demonstrate that you know nothing about the jihadist attacks and have found no errors made by Mark Roberts.

 

[jhunter1163]

Look at picture #4 at that link. That building is 208 feet on a side. 208 feet of flames, and that wasn't even the side the plane hit.

The idea that those fires were "isolated" is absolutely mind-boggling.

I think we can conclude that Stick's argument is debunked. Any other Truther care to try pointing out where Mark went wrong?

 

[Mancman]

If a building is engulfed in flames, that dark black smoke would have been replaced with some bright orange flames.

Yeh, gosh. Imagine if we had seen scenes like this on 9/11?

Thank god we have you crack researchers on the case. You're saving humanity. Bless.

 

[LashL]

It also says Twoofers Only. So by posting here you are a Twoofer! Ha! I ran circles around you logically!

Wait.... perhaps I did not think my cunning post all the way through.

Cue music...

Reviewing the Situation

(from the 9/11 The Musical thread)

"I think I'd better think it out again..."

 

[alexg]

Yeh, gosh. Imagine if we had seen scenes like this on 9/11?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/10252462f1fb5349c7.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/10252460ac0c35d142.jpg

Thank god we have you crack researchers on the case. You're saving humanity. Bless.

Oops. Looks like the building was really on fire after all. Your're gonna have to get on the stick stick. So far you've presented zip and demonstrated ignorance of even the most basic facts.

I trust you see the orange?

 

[FactCheck]

The two pockets of isolated fires argument is the most despicable a truther can make. They take the last words from a dead, HEROIC fireman to prop up their conspiracy story. Little makes me more mad than those few words. It shows just how low the conspiracy industry will go to make a few dollars.

http://www.debunking911.com/fire.htm



And just so you truthers know, I investigted this issue myself over 2 years ago. This is not part of some "official" anything. If I could debunk this nonsense I have to wonder why the "Scholars" couldn't.

 

[Bell]

And just so you truthers know, I investigted this issue myself over 2 years ago. This is not part of some "official" anything. If I could debunk this nonsense I have to wonder why the "Scholars" couldn't.

Troofers are not interested in facts. Why do you think they keep up bringing the same debunked and rebunked crap over and over and over again?

 

[tomwaits]

Now when I think of truthers, I think of Jim Garrison. Garrison bullied, bribed, and created witnesses to justify his claims of a JFK conspiracy involving David Ferrie and Clay Shaw, yet I still think he thought he was doing some good. It really never occurred to him that he was completely perverting the justice system and making a complete mockery of himself. To him, faulty and imaginary evidence was just a method to get to the "truth".

 

[jhunter1163]

Now when I think of truthers, I think of Jim Garrison. Garrison bullied, bribed, and created witnesses to justify his claims of a JFK conspiracy involving David Ferrie and Clay Shaw, yet I still think he thought he was doing some good. It really never occurred to him that he was completely perverting the justice system and making a complete mockery of himself. To him, faulty and imaginary evidence was just a method to get to the "truth".

And to carry the analogy further, Garrison didn't care how much pain and destruction he caused along the way. To him, the end justified the means. Just like today's 9/11 Twoofers.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The errors of Mark Roberts are those of any sophist OS pedaler.

Informal logic is no substitute for substantive discussion of reasonably questioned anomalies of the most significant event of the 21st century.


Mark Roberts, just like the kings of yellow journalism at Popular Mechanics, presents a couple of nefarious half truths from Loose Change, refutes them, and considers the entire investigative 9/11 movement debunked.


Or he cherry picks a couple of points from men like David Ray Griffin, calls himself refuting them with special pleading, appeal to anonymous/unqualified authority, and considers everything in totality of DRG and the investigative movement debunked.


You see the funny thing is these sophist pretend that the entire investigative movement of 9/11 is based off the idea that it was a controlled demolition.


That is not even close to true. All that would have to be proved in a court of law was that people in positions of significant influence were criminally negligent in preventing the attacks and participated in a cover-up by methods such as spoliation.


The debunkers love to focus on the speculations and divert attention away from smoking gun facts.


For instance, they love to focus on how it's speculation if whether a 707 could do comparable damage to a 767 (although if you have a fundamental grasp of science you could figure this out with a kinetic energy formula. That and the fact that the building was designed to take SEVERAL 707s which is more than comparable to a single 767)

But why not focus on the fact that the alleged heat was intense enough to weaken structural steel yet not hot enough to affect people who were seen waving from buildings.

If it was indeed hot enough to mold steel, people just within FEET of the incendiary would have been toast. Yet here they are seen waving from the buildings as if there was no raging inferno.

Which would be consistent with the fact that it was reported on radios as isolated pockets of fire that could have been knocked down with a couple of water hoses.

Would have been consistent with the fact that most of the dominant substance out of those towers after the initial fireball is DARK SMOKE which is consistent with an oxygen deprived fire.

If a building is engulfed in flames, that dark black smoke would have been replaced with some bright orange flames.


Yet even in the history of architecture buildings that have had fires with much more heat with much longer durability, have not even begin to affect the structural integrity of the steel as witnessed in 9/11.

And worst of all, the most recent expert explanation we have for all of this, only explains teh collapse up to the initiation.

When although the initiation was unprecedented, it isn't nearly as big of a mystery as what followed which are activities that would explained a lot easier if they didn't have such a limited scope on their hypothesis.

You appear to have disasterbated all over your computer screen.

Would you like a towel?

 

[chillzero]

jhunter, if you want to try this again with a moderated thread to ensure that the very simple instructions you laid out in the OP are followed, please let me know. I suspect it would sit at the OP and drop off the front page due to lack of response.

In response to the discussion about whether people were burning inside the tower or not, I was almost going to ask if any of the fallen bodies had been examined, and found to have burned (as well as the obvious damage), but it didn't take me too long to realise why this was a stupid question. And then I got all upset over this again. Why people think that anyone would jump at that distance without damn good reason really escapes me. Stickman - why do you think anyone would jump like that?

 

[RedIbis]

Why would I participate in a thread that refers to me as a "twoofer" or "truther"?

If the OP is sincere and wishes to catalog the errors that the preeminent researcher on this site has made, I suggest you begin with a bit of respect and drop the silly labels.

I've heard every possible rationale for why it's ok for the regulars here to use labels and none of them inspire productive debate. Let me know when you wish to treat your opponent in debate with a basic level of respect and I'll participate with civility and accuracy.

 

[chillzero]

Actually, I meant to add something to that effect in my post also, but got sidetracked as explained.

I agree that to request a debate honestly, it is better to avoid slang terms, etc.

 

[e^n]

Why would I participate in a thread that refers to me as a "twoofer" or "truther"?

I'm pretty sure truther is a self imposed label and I have discussed this with you before haven't I?

edit: also of course labels are really a minor issue, people have been insulting Gravy for quite some time so why don't we just put aside the pettyness and list some errors?

 

[RedIbis]

I'm pretty sure truther is a self imposed label and I have discussed this with you before haven't I?

Are you saying that I've referred to myself this way? Please quote me or post the thread where this occurred.

 

[e^n]

Are you saying that I've referred to myself this way? Please quote me or post the thread where this occurred.

You are a member if only by opinion of a particular group who identify themselves as 'truthers'. If you want specific exclusion then fine I will do my best to remember never to call you a truther but regardless this thread was not aimed soley at you.

Why do you find such a label so offensive, and why are you resorting to indignation? Just post some errors Gravy has made please