Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[Coffee]

Quintiere has said investigation was blocked from seeking answers. And Quintiere says new independent investigation needs to happen. What is taken out of context?
How can nist investigation be scientific when it was block from seeking answers? Ignoring evidence & facts is not scientific. Again calling people names because they disagree with you is avoiding issues. Check out journalof911studies.com and read the scientific debate between Greening & Ross. no name calling, all about the numbers & mathamatical equations. Thats how scientist debate, thats how issues are handled.

You have mentioned journalof911studies.com at least three times and you say people here should check it out. Are you spamming for the site? Everyone here is fully aware of its existence. Quintierre has been covered previously here. Please use the search feature to find the thread about him.

 

[lisabob2]

But, Jones and Quintiere want a new investigation for diametrically opposed reasons. Quintiere does NOT suspect the towers were CD, and in fact accuses NIST of being too conservative; he would certainly agree however with their premise.

Jones is a throughly discredited biased pseudo-investigator who thinks the WTC was brought down by thermite and that NIST is lying.

You realize that if you want to tie in Quintiere with Jones this would require 2 separate investigations, right? Quintiere's issues with NIST in no way, shape, or form lend any credence to Jones' 'research'.

Actually Quintiere words were investigation "was blocked from seeking answers". Quintiere is quoted as saying a new independent investigation is needed. Thats were he & Jones agree, only that a new investigation is needed. They both have ideas about collapse but without a real scientific investigation nobody has anything but theories right now.

 

[DGM]

Actually Quintiere words were investigation "was blocked from seeking answers". Quintiere is quoted as saying a new independent investigation is needed. Thats were he & Jones agree, only that a new investigation is needed. They both have ideas about collapse but without a real scientific investigation nobody has anything but theories right now.

Who told you what Dr. Quintiere said? You obviously have not read what he said himself.
Do you think he disagrees with NIST's conclusions?

 

[lisabob2]

Nope, Jesus does not make Jones a dope or a moron. But his comments on 9/11 about thermite 4 years after the act and making up lies is moronic. Jones is a dolt on 9/11, if you have some evidence to support him, you can do something he can't.

Bring up some proof of thermite on 9/11 used to bring down the WTC and you have a Pulitzer Prize, stop acting dumb and bring facts or confess you are unable to think for yourself so you believe people who make up junk about 9/11.
Please point out the areas of the investigation that Jones says are wrong. But you can not let Jones lie about thermite. Jones says the WTC were exploded by people unknown; That is a nut case idea and you have zero evidence to support JONES or his ideas. Put up some evidence to support Jones' ideas. You can not! You have nothing. Why are you fact less on 9/11 and clearly ignorant that Jones' themite was made up 4 years after 9/11. 4 years and then he makes up lies; WHY? Why is Jones telling lies?

You must be upset a person who seems to be a lay person is smarter on 9/11 than a Jones who has nut case ideas on 9/11. What is pathetic, you are fooled by a few so called "experts", and you have no clue why they are wrong, or able to support them. Pathetic.

Interesting that you call somebody a dolt because they disagree with you. I find it hard to ignore David Griscom's view of the science of 9-11. Griscom supports Jones & Griffin work on 9-11. To totally disregard somebody with that experience & respect from his peers is odd.
Jones points out that any investigation that ignores data & evidence is not proper science. Quintiere is quoted as saying new investigation is needed. He make specific points and also says investigation was blocked from seeking answers. I think that makes it obvious that investigation was inadequate. Unless Quintiere was just making it up, which I very seriously doubt.

 

[beachnut]

Actually Quintiere words were investigation "was blocked from seeking answers". Quintiere is quoted as saying a new independent investigation is needed. Thats were he & Jones agree, only that a new investigation is needed. They both have ideas about collapse but without a real scientific investigation nobody has anything but theories right now.

Roberts uses fact and evidence to support his conclusions. Jones uses nothing! Jones just makes it up. If you can not go to the journal of 9/11 truth and see it is a SHAM, you need some help.

As already said use the search function and read for a few days before you expose more ignorance on the topic of 9/11.

Please pick an error Roberts has made, that is the thread topic, not Jones. If you want to discuss how you can support the liars who write and publish their papers on 9/11 at journal of 9/11 truth, please start a thread. But the journal of 9/11 truth was started because no one would publish the lies of Jones. Roberts does not lie, if you find an error he can correct it unlike Jones who just keeps making up lies.

 

[lisabob2]

Who told you what Dr. Quintiere said? You obviously have not read what he said himself.
Do you think he disagrees with NIST's conclusions?

www .opednews. com
August 21, 2007
Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, "Questions on the WTC Investigations" at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view."

Dr. Quintiere said he originally "had high hopes" that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. "They're the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it's the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything."

 

[twinstead]

Actually Quintiere words were investigation "was blocked from seeking answers". Quintiere is quoted as saying a new independent investigation is needed. Thats were he & Jones agree, only that a new investigation is needed. They both have ideas about collapse but without a real scientific investigation nobody has anything but theories right now.

Many, many experts in the relevant fields, from around the world, would strongly disagree with you that NIST wasn't a real scientific investigation, and that includes Quintiere. Exactly what expertise to you bring to the table to claim otherwise again?

The fact that you posted this AFTER you have been told exactly what Quintiere's issues are with NIST and how it is totally wrong to say he and Jones want the same thing confuses me.

Are you reading the posts directed towards you?

 

[twinstead]

www .opednews. com
August 21, 2007
Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, "Questions on the WTC Investigations" at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view."

Dr. Quintiere said he originally "had high hopes" that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. "They're the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it's the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything."

And THIS you equate with Jones' paranoid ramblings?

 

[beachnut]

Interesting that you call somebody a dolt because they disagree with you. I find it hard to ignore David Griscom's view of the science of 9-11. Griscom supports Jones & Griffin work on 9-11. To totally disregard somebody with that experience & respect from his peers is odd.
Jones points out that any investigation that ignores data & evidence is not proper science. Quintiere is quoted as saying new investigation is needed. He make specific points and also says investigation was blocked from seeking answers. I think that makes it obvious that investigation was inadequate. Unless Quintiere was just making it up, which I very seriously doubt.

Griscom is wrong, you should have been an engineer, he is a biased politcally blinded fool who makes up stuff about 9/11. Please read his stuff on 9/11 and point out what he got right! You can't~!

Jones failed to point out the NIST ignores data and evidence.

Jones is the one who has no evidence to support his ideas on 9/11. He made up the thermite claim 4 years after 9/11 due to the war in Iraq. He is spreading lies. Why are you unable to see that?

What was so obvious that the investigationS were inadequate, please a list would be great, instead of a rant of how your experts, who make up stuff about 9/11, know something but you can not support them with facts! You just say they have something. No facts from you, no facts from Jones. I hate to ask, but please tell me you are not an engineer.

Jones is a dolt on 9/11 topics (and you can not even bring up something he has got right), his call for a new investigation is truly an ignorant thing to ask for and for you to support. Why are you ignorant on 9/11 topics and unable to see the false information Jones makes up?

 

[DGM]

www .opednews. com
August 21, 2007
Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, "Questions on the WTC Investigations" at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view."

Dr. Quintiere said he originally "had high hopes" that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. "They're the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it's the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything."

So you got your information second hand.

Do you plan to answer my question or should i take this as an "I don't know"?

Just in case you missed it.

Do you think he disagrees with NIST's conclusions?

 

[Coffee]

www .opednews. com
August 21, 2007
Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, "Questions on the WTC Investigations" at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view."

Dr. Quintiere said he originally "had high hopes" that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. "They're the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it's the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything."

Apparently this needs to be made clear to you; This thread is not about Quintiere or Jones. This is the Mark Roberts Factual Thread. If you have found errors in Mark's work then please point them out and back up your claim with evidence.
If you wish to discuss Quintiere or Jones then you should start another thread.

 

[lisabob2]

Roberts uses fact and evidence to support his conclusions. Jones uses nothing! Jones just makes it up. If you can not go to the journal of 9/11 truth and see it is a SHAM, you need some help.

As already said use the search function and read for a few days before you expose more ignorance on the topic of 9/11.

Please pick an error Roberts has made, that is the thread topic, not Jones. If you want to discuss how you can support the liars who write and publish their papers on 9/11 at journal of 9/11 truth, please start a thread. But the journal of 9/11 truth was started because no one would publish the lies of Jones. Roberts does not lie, if you find an error he can correct it unlike Jones who just keeps making up lies.

I have read thru 911myths & journalof911studies. I find journal much more scientific, and it has Greening making his opinion known on it. Ross then puts in his response to Greening, but it is very issue oriented, no name calling, or avoiding facts & evidence. Just two different views of same event. Both men are educated & show us how we should debate issues.

 

[lisabob2]

So you got your information second hand.

Do you plan to answer my question or should i take this as an "I don't know"?

Just in case you missed it.

If Quitiere wants new independent investigation then it is pretty obvious that he thinks nist investigation was lacking.

 

[jhunter1163]

As I read the above quote from Quintiere, it seems that he is complaining that the powers-that-be at NIST limited the scope of the investigation in some way by not including ATF in it. I am not sure why this would affect NIST's investigation in any way; they certainly appeared to have enough data to exhaustively model the tragic events of the day.

And, as has been pointed out above, this has nothing to do with any factual error Mark Roberts has made.

 

[DGM]

If Quitiere wants new independent investigation then it is pretty obvious that he thinks nist investigation was lacking.

Why can't you answer the question? I didn't ask if it was lacking, I asked if he agreed with the findings.

 

[lisabob2]

Apparently this needs to be made clear to you; This thread is not about Quintiere or Jones. This is the Mark Roberts Factual Thread. If you have found errors in Mark's work then please point them out and back up your claim with evidence.
If you wish to discuss Quintiere or Jones then you should start another thread.

I think it is obvious that if nist investigation is not a good investigation and Quintiere wants new one then much of Roberts "facts" are in question. How can you base your entire theory on incomplete and unscientific investigation? You cannot deny that Quintiere wants new investigation.

 

[lisabob2]

Why can't you answer the question? I didn't ask if it was lacking, I asked if he agreed with the findings.

I know that Quintiere wants new investigation, and if he agrees with the findings of nist after questioning it that is his choice.
I cannot answer what Quintiere agrees with, I can only see what he has said. I do not know if he agrees with nist findings, but he thinks a new investigation is needed, & I agree with that.

 

[T.A.M.]

Am I remembering incorrectly, or did Quintere ask for another look at the evidence collected?

I do not recall him calling for a NEW INVESTIGATION, but rather a review of the facts and data from the existing one.

Am I wrong here??

TAM

 

[DGM]

I know that Quintiere wants new investigation, and if he agrees with the findings of nist after questioning it that is his choice.
I cannot answer what Quintiere agrees with, I can only see what he has said. I do not know if he agrees with nist findings, but he thinks a new investigation is needed, & I agree with that.

You don't know because you only get your information from tainted sources. This is a problem that you have to work out for yourself if you really want to find the "truth".

Please look into what he wants an investigation into.

 

[DGM]

Am I remembering incorrectly, or did Quintere ask for another look at the evidence collected?

I do not recall him calling for a NEW INVESTIGATION, but rather a review of the facts and data from the existing one.

Am I wrong here??

TAM

No your not wrong. He wants more emphasis on fire proofing and fire safety (mostly code issues). He does say that the building would have collapsed with no fire proofing removed by the impacts. That's the type of thing he wants looked into for code improvements.