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.
