Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

RedIbis said:
Isn't there some rule about crossthread stalking?
Click to expand...


Stalking? Don't flatter yourself.

I just happened to notice that you were here on this thread as I was reading it, and asked you to address the posts that you've been studiously avoiding on another thread. You call that "stalking"? I call it avoidance on your part.

*lightbulb* Oh, I see. If you claim that you are being "stalked" (as silly as that is), you think that gives you an excuse to continue to avoid answering legitimate posts and queries. Got it, now.
 
RedIbis said:
The factual error is that the gash aligns with the fuel system. It doesn't. Whether the gash was caused by the fuel system explosions is pure speculation.
Click to expand...

Yes, but Roberts is reporting it as something Debunk911myths.com has stated, so IF (a big if) there is an error in fact, it is with that site, not Mark's reporting of it.

If I write a paper on Myocardial Infarction, and I state,

"Dr. Blowmedown states that ACE Inhibitors are not protective for subsequent Infarctions when given immediately after an initial event." Is my paper in factual error if experts say that ACE Inhibitors are protective for subsequent Infarctions?

No, of course not.

TAM:)
 
twinstead said:
Usually I would agree with you, but he has a point; exactly how much do you expect to hide in other threads when your theories are legitimately under attack?

Isn't there some rule about crossthread avoidance of contrary evidence?
Click to expand...

No, there is no rule against avoidance, crossthread or otherwise. Members are entitled to avoid posts that cause them discomfort and entitled to avoid posts that they are ill-equipped to respond to in any meaningful fashion.

However, most people here are smart enough to recognize such avoidance when they see it. Unfortunate, that, for the likes of RedIbis. ;)
 
RedIbis said:
The questions in that thread are based on speculation.
Click to expand...


My straightforward question to you is a direct question without any speculation whatsoever. Of course, you know that, which is why you've avoided answering it.
 
RedIbis said:
Once Swing and I get through with Gravy's work, there won't be anything left to pick.
Click to expand...


Not to sound impatient, and I wouldn't want to suggest that I lack confidence in the abilities of two such sterling researchers, but are there any projections as to when either of you might actually find an error in one of Mark's papers?
 
pomeroo said:
Not to sound impatient, and I wouldn't want to suggest that I lack confidence in the abilities of two such sterling researchers, but are there any projections as to when either of you might actually find an error in one of Mark's papers?
Click to expand...

Computerized extrapolation of the posts by RedIbis and SwingDangler indicates that the earliest possible date is somewhere around the twelfth of never.
 
Last edited:
DavidJames said:
At some point Red, maybe you or Swing will find an error which materially changes the entire point of his papers. Keep picking at nits though, I suspect it's pretty much all you've got to live for*

*in terms of your 9/11 CT fantasy.
Click to expand...
The difference between a diesel feeded fire or an ordinary office fire is no nitpicking David, especially not for the official theorists for who fire is essential to explain a fast, symmetrical and complete collapse.
 
16.5 said:
hey I can add another one:

“Gravy did not address the issue, except where he addressed the issue!”

“The buildings were not subject to massive smoke and fires except where they were subject to massive smoke and fires!”

"Gravy did not say he was talking about WTC7 except where he said he was talking about WTC7 (i.e. the title, the index, and the first line of the article itself.)"

I swear this guy is disinfo! Nobody can be THIS bad!
Click to expand...

Oh yes! swing IS this bad!
 
twinstead said:
Well, yea, 'cause the end result of both of Red's and Swing's arguments is exactly the same: Uncontrolled fires and heavy damage sealed the fate of the WTC7.

Was it from the fuel tanks?

Does it really matter? Unless said truthers can come up with a competing theory that fits the facts better this entire thread is a huge pile of feces.
Click to expand...
Oh, sweet, innocent twinstead! Don't you know that my making any mistakes means that:
  • 9/11 was an inside job
  • All evidence to the contrary is invalidated
  • al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism don't exist
  • Bush will be impeached
  • Ron Paul will be elected
  • All truthers will receive one virgin, which will make two in the basement
Don't you see, twinstead? This is a holy mission. It's like "The Nine Billion Names of God." It's like a Dan Brown novel. It's like, a revolution.

87904670cd1dc0fcb.jpg
 
Gravy said:
That you're hoping for such a patently unlikely event, and that you think there are "big boys" in Richard Gage's group, tells me that you've never seen the ae911truth website.
Click to expand...

I see you like to stay away from facts as always.

A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition.

Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Charles Pegelow, BS CE – Civil Engineer with more than 25 years experience in structural design questions the official account of the events of 9/11

The list goes on and on there are many experts that has spoken out, if you want to find that out just try to check out the facts ;)
 
Malmoesoldier said:
I see you like to stay away from facts as always.

A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

Please link to his paper.

Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

You might want to double check that.

Charles Pegelow, BS CE – Civil Engineer with more than 25 years experience in structural design questions the official account of the events of 9/11
Click to expand...

uh huh... you might want to look into that one too.

The list goes on and on....
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. In fact it hasn't even started.

....there are many experts that has spoken out, if you want to find that out just try to check out the facts ;)
Click to expand...

ohhhhh the irony.

:i:
 
uk_dave said:
Please link to his paper.



You might want to double check that.



uh huh... you might want to look into that one too.


No it doesn't. In fact it hasn't even started.



ohhhhh the irony.

:i:
Click to expand...

Please prove me wrong, show me where they have stated "i dont think it was a controlled demolition anymore" i cant see you did it in your post and i dont think you ever will do it either.

The list on http://www.ae911truth.org/ and http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ is fake right.

Those lists speaks for themself and they are intelligent people that understands the simple facts that 9-11 was an inside job even if there was no bombs in the building. But the massive evidence shows there was bombs.
 
Last edited:
Malmoesoldier said:
I see you like to stay away from facts as always.

A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition.
Click to expand...
Wow, a mechanical engineer who's an air conditioning specialist presents no evidence or research but calls for a new investigation into the collapses? We'd better get right on that then! :eye-poppi

What sad buffonery.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Wow, a mechanical engineer who's an air conditioning specialist presents no evidence or research but calls for a new investigation into the collapses? We'd better get right on that then! :eye-poppi

What sad buffonery.
Click to expand...

Steven jones and others as already provied hard evidence that only a fool can deny, and he agrees with that evidence. And he has 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices.
 
einsteen said:
The difference between a diesel feeded fire or an ordinary office fire is no nitpicking David, especially not for the official theorists for who fire is essential to explain a fast, symmetrical and complete collapse.
Click to expand...

It sure is going to be interesting to see how NIST comes up with a collapse theory for WTC 7 without the diesel being involved.

Not surprisingly, Gravy is going to wait to change his paper, even though Sunder has categorically ruled out diesel. Not a bad strategy when you consider how damn long it's going to take NIST to actually release the report.

Without diesel fuel, Gravy will have to eliminate a whole section of his paper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom