• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

RedIbis said:
That's a well played card, but this thread is about Mark's errors. Do you think Mark should eliminate or revise that page?

Whose theory do you accept, Mark Roberts' or NIST's Sunder's?
Click to expand...

I accept the theory that says the building was brought down by extensive damage and fire instead of CD.

Oh. Wait. That's both of them. My bad.
 
funk de fino said:
Do not defend Ballone, it makes you look silly

You do know he was charged with stealing things also?
Click to expand...

He was cleared of charges when the DA declined to prosecute him, probably because prosecuting a 9/11 hero for these minor offenses (he was using the equipment for his educational charity called T.R.A.C. Team and returned it after the files were charged, and none of his impersonations were done with malicious intent) would generate horrible press. He was there at Ground Zero and he did help as a volunteer, but his credibility is shot to shreds by his many misrepresentations of himself as a safety director with the FDNY, WTC Task Force Fire Safety Director, Ground Zero Recovery Director, and of course "honorary firefighter". He was none of these.

The whole thing reminds me of this story.


Edited to fix links
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Please quote me arguing strongly in favor of CD. I argue strongly that official collapse theories, for example, are contradictory, lacking, and often implausible. That's not the same as arguing in favor of CD.
Click to expand...

Clearly it was a good case o osmosis. Certainly couldn't have been that big plane and raging fires. THAT would be implausible. Probably just as well that those guys hit the buildings with planes seeing as those towers were coincidentally going to collapse that day anyways.
 
RedIbis said:
Please quote me arguing strongly in favor of CD. I argue strongly that official collapse theories, for example, are contradictory, lacking, and often implausible. That's not the same as arguing in favor of CD.
Click to expand...

make your case for erosion then, if they didn't collapse or were not CD then its space beams or???? Go ahead ceramic bird. make your case. stop JAQing off.
 
Wait, RedIbis is saying that my October, 2006 paper is in error when it states this:
Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?

Short answer: we don’t know. The final NIST WTC 7 report should shed more light on this issue, which is an important one.
Click to expand...

And when the final report is out, we'll know more.

RedIbis, do not ask others to quote your posts for me. I have you on ignore for a reason: your astonishing ignorance combined with your obsession with me makes you a complete waste of time.
 
Gravy said:
Ah, I see Google isn't working for you. That's unusual. Tell you what: an ex-roommate of mine is good friends with one of Google's founders. I'll give her a ring and see if she can run your problem by him. It is a holiday weekend, though, so your fix may have to wait until Wednesday. Is that okay?
Click to expand...

It looks like gmtoday.com (website for a Milwaukee newspaper) takes down old articles from their site, but fortunately the article is still in google cache.
 
LastChild said:
I'm not defending anyone I'm asking. Someone asked me for the source of something and I produced it. ....
Click to expand...

If you're referring to me, I didn't ask you for anything. I asked Swing Dangler to provide the quote by DeMasi that details his 2004 claim. I still don't see it posted by him.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Please quote me arguing strongly in favor of CD. I argue strongly that official collapse theories, for example, are contradictory, lacking, and often implausible. That's not the same as arguing in favor of CD.
Click to expand...
No, arguing would include facts and evidence to support your non position. You are a non position person, you have made a mistake there saying you argue against some OCT, but you have not presented your case, you have no facts, you have no evidence, you have not argued. Your strongly is really funny. Fact less strongly supporting your fantasy non position. Wowzer.

Please point me to those times you strongly argue your anti OCT stuff? Funny!
 
lisabob2 said:
those pics are not evidence of anything but damage at ground zero. Jones said the core columns pic is curious but more test would have to be done on the core column. He did not jump to any conclusions about that pic. He has done scientific tests that he says suggest thermate was used and his hypothesis was that it or some other incenderary was used to weaken the steel columns. What scientific tests were done to prove him wrong?
Click to expand...
Jones makes up stuff about 9/11. Fools believe him. I think this poves a lot about something.

Why are those who believe 9/11 truth unable to look up stuff on their own?
 
Last edited:
Slayhamlet said:
He was cleared of charges when the DA declined to prosecute him, probably because prosecuting a 9/11 hero for these minor offenses (he was using the equipment for his educational charity called T.R.A.C. Team and returned it after the files were charged, and none of his impersonations were done with malicious intent) would generate horrible press. He was there at Ground Zero and he did help as a volunteer, but his credibility is shot to shreds by his many misrepresentations of himself as a safety director with the FDNY, WTC Task Force Fire Safety Director, Ground Zero Recovery Director, and of course "honorary firefighter". He was none of these.

The whole thing reminds me of this story.


Edited to fix links
Click to expand...

I saw this after my last post.

Well granted if he went around claiming he was a firefighter then that is wrong. But he was there right and his story about the black boxes is the same as the firefighter who said they found three out of four no?
 
LastChild said:
I saw this after my last post.

Well granted if he went around claiming he was a firefighter then that is wrong. But he was there right and his story about the black boxes is the same as the firefighter who said they found three out of four no?
Click to expand...

You mean the firefighter who also claims he was part of the challenger clean up. definitely a credible source...At least he isn't known for stealing too, oh wait...
 
LastChild said:
No problem

It’s DeMasi who is claimed in the Aug 2003 book to have witnessed the following…

DeMasi was with now defunct Engine Company 261 in 2001. He wrote up his recollections of the Ground Zero recovery in a glossy book self-published by a group that calls itself Trauma Recovery Assistance for Children, or the TRAC Team. The book was published in 2003 but received little notice.
DeMasi, an all-terrain vehicles hobbyist - said he donated 4 ATVs to the clean-up and became known as “the ATV Guy.”

“At one point, I was asked to take Federal Agents around the site to search for the black boxes from the planes,” he wrote. “We were getting ready to go out. My ATV was parked at the top of the stairs at the Brooks Brothers entrance area. We loaded up about a million dollars worth of equipment and strapped it into the ATV...”

“There were a total of four black boxes. We found three.”

This was pointed to and brought to light in the 2004 Philadelphia News article that was then picked up and ran by other news agencies. If DeMasi or other are misrepresented then one would think there should be some sort of retraction somewhere. Unless of course you are making the implication that Bellone, DeMasi, and others, are conspiracy liars looking to make a buck on accusing innocents of murder. In which case you would think DeMasi would have followed up on his claims to milk it for all it’s worth.

Now would DeMasi a firefighter at the time be accusing himself of murder?

What is your implication? I don't think Swing pointing to an article from 2004 that quotes DeMasi from a late 2003 book can really be pointed to as inaccurate. At least not anywhere near the same level of inaccuracy shown by Gravy who seemed to conveniently miss this entire documented fact.
Click to expand...


DeMasi's story is not a "documented fact" by any stretch of the imagination. It's nothing more than a single anecdote, and, as I've mentioned before, both here and on BAUT, it's totally non-credible.

First, the idea that three of the flight recorders could have been located in a single day of searching is utterly implausible. The recorders would have had to have been near enough to the surface of the debris to have been retrievable on that particular day, but not exposed in the open where someone would have noticed them and called attention to them. It is remotely possible that the CVR and FDR from one aircraft could have been located this way, had they both remained attached to a small section of the fuselage, but for recorders from both aircraft to have turned up in this way is a virtual impossibility.

Second, there is no special equipment that can help to locate flight recorders that end up on land. The only sort of beacons the recorders are equipped with are sonic Underwater Locator Beacons ("pingers") that activate if the devices are immersed in water (see here).

Finally, even if such equipment existed, it would have been operated by technicians from the National Transportation Safety Board, rather than Federal law-enforcement agents. Whenever the FBI takes over an air crash investigation because a criminal act is suspected, the NTSB still provides technical assistance, as it did in the analysis of the recorders from United 93 and American 77.

As usual, you uncritically accept any claim that appears to cast doubt on "the official story," no matter how [edit: weak] that claim might be.
 
Last edited:
LastChild said:
I saw this after my last post.

Well granted if he went around claiming he was a firefighter then that is wrong. But he was there right and his story about the black boxes is the same as the firefighter who said they found three out of four no?
Click to expand...

Bellone is a liar and a fraud. The only claims I'm aware of by DeMasi were the ones in the book that was co-authored with this liar. I've seen no quotes by DeMasi claiming the book is accurate or true. Until I see such a confirmation of accuracy of the 2003 claims that can be provided by DeMasi, his book, and its claims, written with a proven fraud is worthless.

I've certainly seen no claims quoted from 2004 by DeMasi. This alleged claim is the one from the article posted by Swing Dangler to assert Gravy is in error. I'm beginning to wonder if that article is itself ... erroneous. Oh, the irony ... if that is the case.
 
SpitfireIX said:
First, the idea that three of the flight recorders could have been located in a single day of searching is utterly implausible.
Click to expand...
...Months later. By driving around the site. Where hundreds of people had walked every single day. Where signs were posted showing what the recorders look like. Absolutely absurd.

DeMasi may have found something of interest to the FBI, but it wasn't the black boxes. Note that he hasn't made the claim since.

Oh, and that "self-published" book of theirs? Well, it wasn't self-printed. They stuck the printer for $200,000. I don't know if it was ever paid back. That organization, which was not registered as a charity, wound up being sued several times by creditors.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
...Months later. By driving around the site. Where hundreds of people had walked every single day. Where signs were posted showing what the recorders look like. Absolutely absurd.

DeMasi may have found something of interest to the FBI, but it wasn't the black boxes. Note that he hasn't made the claim since.

Oh, and that "self-published" book of theirs? Well, it wasn't self-printed. They stuck the printer for $200,000. I don't know if it was ever paid back. That organization, which was not registered as a charity, wound up being sued several times by creditors.
Click to expand...

(emphasis added)

DeMasi seems to be playing hard to get ever since 2003.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom