Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[Billdave2]

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?

[sarcasm]Don't you see! They were in on it too! The NWO bribed them to jump.[end sarcasm]

Now I have to go and wash my hands from typing that.

 

[Totovader]

[...]

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

[...]

Just out of curiosity, how do you know that your statement here is true? And- more to the point- what is this "substantive discussion" supposed to consist of?

 

[Totovader]

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.

Appeal to pity.

You can ignore the labels and still answer the question.

(In my eyes, by using this type of an argument and avoiding the OP, you're successfully labeling yourself)

 

[RedIbis]

Appeal to pity.

You can ignore the labels and still answer the question.

(In my eyes, by using this type of an argument and avoiding the OP, you're successfully labeling yourself)

You must have missed the first sentence and title of the OP. I was being directly addressed.

If you're going to refer to logical fallacies than you should recognize the use of labels as base ad hominem.

 

[Hellbound]

If you're going to refer to logical fallacies than you should recognize the use of labels as base ad hominem.

No.

No, they are not ad hominem, and you would understand this if you took the time to research.

I can call you an idiotic moron all day (or could, if the membership agreement didn't preclude it) and it's not ad hominem, it's simply insult.

Now, if I made the argument that "You're wrong because your'e an idiotic moron", then that would be ad hominem.

Likewise, if I tried to put forth the arguement that "Your arguments are invalid because you're a truther", then that would be ad hominem.

However, reversing that...for example "You're so wrong you must be an idiot", is not an ad hominem.

I am absolutely sick and tired of people (on all sides) tossing around "Ad hominem" instead of insult and "Appeal to authority" when people quote recognized experts in a relevent field.

It does not make you sound smart or educated. It does not help your argument, It makes you look like a whiny wanna-be, using big words he doesn't understand in an attempt to try and puff himself up. Like those frilled lizards witht he goofy run.

Sheesh, learn the fallacies before you go tossing them around.

 

[RedIbis]

It does not make you sound smart or educated. It does not help your argument, It makes you look like a whiny wanna-be, using big words he doesn't understand in an attempt to try and puff himself up. Like those frilled lizards witht he goofy run.

.

Try to get your pronouns in order so that when you use silly ad hominem name calling, you're not so convoluted.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

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

Britney Spears crotch shot?

 

[Hellbound]

Try to get your pronouns in order so that when you use silly ad hominem name calling, you're not so convoluted.

That is also not ad hominem. That was simply insult.

If I said you were wrong becauase you're a whiny wanna-be, that would be ad hom. Instead, I said that your continued mis-use of logical terms makes you a whiny wanna-be, which is a personal opinion based upon a review of the available evidence.

ETA: Nice description of ad hominem id available here.
Example from there:

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
   Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
   Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
   Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Gee, that sounds familiar...

ETA2: Although, I suppose you could go with the Wiki definition, which includes pretty much any complaint against a person as an ad hominem (I disagree with this, but I do recognize that some people have a different interpretation). However, if we accept that definition, then RedIbis's attacks against posters using labels, instead of addressing the argument, is in itself an Ad Hominem.

Linky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[Myriad]

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.

To paraphrase the Truthers' favorite leader: "As you know, you go to debate with the arguments you have. They're not the evidence you might want or wish to have at a later time."

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[The Big Dog]

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

Is it to late to say I knew that "twoofer" reference in the headline was going to be used as an excuse not to participate in this thread?

But perhaps Red Ibis is correct, perhaps a bit of incivility is sufficient to derail this thread (I would also say derail the search for the Truth, but perhaps that is also unkind).

As such, I am sure that no one would object if this original thread was moved to AAH, and a new thread, perhaps by one of those that question the Official Conspiracy Theory could start a fresh thread.

What say, Red Ibis? Have at it!

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

How about a moderated sticky thread, so that anyone who wanted to claim Mark had made errors would be able to check the thread before posting?

Dave

 

[jhunter1163]

I apologize for the incivility in the thread title. If it's possible to edit the title to whatever label the official-story questioners would prefer, then please do so.

My challenge remains, though; show me a factual error Mark has made. I suspect that Chill is correct that there will be little to no response to this challenge.

 

[DavidJames]

I apologize for the incivility in the thread title. If it's possible to edit the title to whatever label the official-story questioners would prefer, then please do so.

I believe an apology is thoughtful but not necessary. The responses by Red prove CTists like him have no interest in honest debate. He shows up and whines about being called a name. Seriously, he has no qualms about accusing people of mass murder, but the poor child is insulted when he feels he was called a name, pathetic.

 

[Brainster]

I debunk myself several times a day. Much of what I initially believe is wrong, and gets corrected with research.

Geniuses and fools alike make errors, but the smart man learns from his mistakes.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

I read that on a fortune cookie once. You eat at Tsao's too?

 

[jhunter1163]

Well, I felt that if apologizing would remove an impediment to getting at those factual errors, it would be worth it.

So, SwingDangler, RedIbis, I stand ready to be persuaded of the error of Mark's ways. Let's have some links.

 

[StickMan2008]

Then why does the Truth Movement put so much focus on the controlled demolition theories?

And why is the worst investigative documentary of 9/11 presented as the face of that movement?


Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that straw man attack on the 9/11 truth movement is based off of making LC the face of the movement.


If anything, an eye opener for people should have been the story of the Jersey Girls in 9/11 Press for Truth which is an exponentially better documentary. And not just because of the appeal to emotion, but because the story of these women shows you how an investigation of any kind into 9/11 was clearly not wanted by the Bush administration. And when they were finally pushed into a corner of having one, they put Bush insiders to conduct it.

And you see how the questions arose and how they were avoided. You see a brilliant timeline of events that are not answered as well.

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime is another brilliant film that stays completely away from CD. It's all about the criminal negligence angle which is a lot harder to deny than it is to deny the science behind 9/11 when even if it is a CD, faux scientists can deceive the public.


The Truth Movement is a joke. Maybe it didn't start out that way, but the fact that Loose Change is the face of it, destroys any hope whatsoever.


No way that is by coincidence BTW that out of all the dozens of documentaries the absolute worst one made by incompetent college kids is the face.

Gotta keep the incompetence angle going.

Incompetent President to Incompetent college kids.


So anyone who sees anyone trying to look at facts surrounding 9/11 assumes that person thinks that a couple of college kids solved the case.


Brilliant plan for whoever promoted that movie

 

[DGM]

And why is the worst investigative documentary of 9/11 presented as the face of that movement?


Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that straw man attack on the 9/11 truth movement is based off of making LC the face of the movement.


If anything, an eye opener for people should have been the story of the Jersey Girls in 9/11 Press for Truth which is an exponentially better documentary. And not just because of the appeal to emotion, but because the story of these women shows you how an investigation of any kind into 9/11 was clearly not wanted by the Bush administration. And when they were finally pushed into a corner of having one, they put Bush insiders to conduct it.

And you see how the questions arose and how they were avoided. You see a brilliant timeline of events that are not answered as well.

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime is another brilliant film that stays completely away from CD. It's all about the criminal negligence angle which is a lot harder to deny than it is to deny the science behind 9/11 when even if it is a CD, faux scientists can deceive the public.


The Truth Movement is a joke. Maybe it didn't start out that way, but the fact that Loose Change is the face of it, destroys any hope whatsoever.


No way that is by coincidence BTW that out of all the dozens of documentaries the absolute worst one made by incompetent college kids is the face.

Gotta keep the incompetence angle going.

Incompetent President to Incompetent college kids.


So anyone who sees anyone trying to look at facts surrounding 9/11 assumes that person thinks that a couple of college kids solved the case.


Brilliant plan for whoever promoted that movie

Question. How many investigations into 9/11

have been done?

 

[StickMan2008]

Just out of curiosity, how do you know that your statement here is true? And- more to the point- what is this "substantive discussion" supposed to consist of?

Well I think the title of one article says it all

9/11 "Conspiracies" and the Defactualisation of Analysis
How Ideologues on the Left and Right Theorize Vacuously to Support Baseless Supposition

IOW, people are so caught up in their belief system when it comes to 9/11 whether if it's pro-OS or against-OS that they refuse to objectively look at anything that could qualify as evidence for the opposing side.

Instead of addressing it, they meet it with informal logic to avoid discussing it.


Personally, I do not find myself doing this. Because if someone really wants to find the truth, they will objectively look at something that could prove one of their previous beliefs wrong.


For instance, I used to hear how no Muslim names were on the passenger manifests. But I go back and look and I find that's not true.

I used to quote Woodrow Wilson about the Fed Reserve, but since I can't cite that, I no longer use it.


I like this site because it forces you to use cited proof which helps you present more factual information.


All Im saying is mathematically there is a chance that either side is true

It's mathematically possible that

A)Government displayed competence/immorality to pull off 9/11 and used their PR Machine as the media to cover it up

B)It's possible government was that incompetent and all the anomalies surrounding the event are just coincidences


It's just IMO that A a bigger possibility than B. But Im not going to go as far as to say there is no mathematical possibility the other side could be true because Im still disseminating fact from fiction.


But the other side IMO is so stubborn they won't even admit it as a mathematical possibility and they refuse to objectively look at any information that would go against the competence/morality angle.

 

[jhunter1163]

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime is another brilliant film that stays completely away from CD. It's all about the criminal negligence angle which is a lot harder to deny than it is to deny the science behind 9/11 when even if it is a CD, faux scientists can deceive the public.

This type of thing is typical of the "New Truth" movement, which is running to distance themselves as far from LC as possible, mainly because everything in LC has had the snot debunked out of it. The "Old Truth" is dying fast; hardly anything is heard from Avery and crew anymore.

The "New Truth" is kind of "LIHOP-lite", or, as TAM would put it, LIHOI. It focuses on the negligence and foulups and uncertain responses of that day and sneers, "Well, isn't that conveeeeeeeenient?". It's still wrong, but much harder to debunk because it focuses on imputing motives rather than actual facts.