Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

twinstead said:
In his defense it must be frustrating that people keep asking him to support his claims with facts. I mean seriously. He doesn't have to. He's just right and we're just a bunch of mindless Nazis for even daring to doubt him and that's that. It's so OBVIOUS.

We should be ashamed of ourselves.
Click to expand...

At this point it should be obvious that Malmoesoldier is deeply entrenched in his belief system. He is incapable of engaging in a civil discussion. This is apparent by his own words where he expressed a desire to harm others. It would be best not to engage him further.

Now can we get this thread back on topic please?

Mark Roberts Factual errors ..GO! :)
 
Coffee said:
At this point it should be obvious that Malmoesoldier is deeply entrenched in his belief system. He is incapable of engaging in a civil discussion. This is apparent by his own words where he expressed a desire to harm others. It would be best not to engage him further.

Now can we get this thread back on topic please?

Mark Roberts Factual errors ..GO! :)
Click to expand...

killjoy. As a third-string debunker I have to take my small victories when I can get them.

But, alas, you are correct.
 
Malmoesoldier said:
I see you are a lier?. they dont give any evidence to what caused the collapse, they have a theory, not evidence. dont lie it can be a dangerous thing. you are on ignore.
Click to expand...

I doubt you have actually ignored me but I though i'd make this point even if you had.

I gave you some specific questions which you must answer in order to show NIST has not provided evidence and I gave you some critical problems with theories which you must resolve for your point to be valid.

You have done neither, so when you say
Malmoesoldier said:
they dont give any evidence to what caused the collapse
Click to expand...
We can easily tell from this that you are either lying, or you are incompetent enough that you have read through the NIST report and failed to notice any of their supporting evidence.

Conspiracy theories are not inherently wrong, but when your only method of arguing is to claim of your opponent that he is a liar and you are ignoring him without providing any evidence is pathetic. Indeed your entire attitude towards this is childish and illogical. Why would you choose to insult me rather than show where I was wrong? Typically this is because you cannot do the latter so must resort to the former.

Tell me, have you met MirageMemories? (Yes MM I namedropped you in a post, you have been baiting me into it for some time but I felt it was relevant in a thread about someone who is utterly unable to come to terms with their own incorrectness).
 
So....any errors by Mark Roberts yet? And by that I mean any errors that actually make a difference.
 
CHF said:
So....any errors by Mark Roberts yet? And by that I mean any errors that actually make a difference.
Click to expand...

Well, I know he neglected to get me that 54 inch LCD HDTV I wanted for Christmas, if that counts...
 
CHF said:
So....any errors by Mark Roberts yet? And by that I mean any errors that actually make a difference.
Click to expand...
I misspelled "Alhazmi" on my site. Fixed it...just in time!

twinstead said:
Well, I know he neglected to get me that 54 inch LCD HDTV I wanted for Christmas, if that counts...
Click to expand...
I didn't have a box big enough, so it'll arrive at two 27-inch screens and a tube of Krazy Glue.
 
Gravy said:
Wait, RedIbis is saying that my October, 2006 paper is in error when it states this:


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.
Click to expand...

Obsession? If I had an obsession with you I would make youtube videos with fantasy dialogue, pretending to be you. Now that would be obsessive.

Your paper suggests that the WTC 7 southface gash is consistent with the fuel distribution system. Given the chart on pg 36 of http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1J.pdf
are you ready to admit your error?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Obsession? If I had an obsession with you I would make youtube videos with fantasy dialogue, pretending to be you. Now that would be obsessive.

Your paper suggests that the WTC 7 southface gash is consistent with the fuel distribution system. Given the chart on pg 15 of http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1J.pdf
are you ready to admit your error?
Click to expand...

Wait...the Troofers who claim with no proff that 9-11 was an inside job are claiming fervently and repeatedly that others are committing noticeable factual errors?

:dl:
 
Good Lt said:
Wait...the Troofers who claim with no proff that 9-11 was an inside job are claiming fervently and repeatedly that others are committing noticeable factual errors?

:dl:
Click to expand...

If nothing else I appreciate your quoting of my post.
 
That's fine, but you still haven't addressed your central and overriding error - 9-11 was not an inside job.

You're claiming that it was. You're wrong.

Address this please.
 
Good Lt said:
That's fine, but you still haven't addressed your central and overriding error - 9-11 was not an inside job.

You're claiming that it was. You're wrong.

Address this please.
Click to expand...

Get real familiar with the quote function and address something that I actually posted.
 
RedIbis said:
Obsession? If I had an obsession with you I would make youtube videos with fantasy dialogue, pretending to be you. Now that would be obsessive.

Your paper suggests that the WTC 7 southface gash is consistent with the fuel distribution system. Given the chart on pg 15 of http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1J.pdf
are you ready to admit your error?
Click to expand...
Why do you refer to the diagram (page) fuel before the 1994 modifications. You need to read deeper into the report.
 
RedIbis said:
If nothing else I appreciate your quoting of my post.
Click to expand...

You seem a bit obsessed with making sure Gravy sees your words though. Just because one skeptic spurns your advances, doesn't mean you can't hook up with another. I mean, there are plenty of other fish in the sea ... like about 95.4% (minus 1, of course) of the population. Surely you can hook up with one of them. Go get'um, tiger!
 
DGM said:
Why do you refer to the diagram (page) fuel before the 1994 modifications. You need to read deeper into the report.
Click to expand...

I did post the wrong page number. I will change my post to pg 36 which shows that the highest floor the distribution system was on is the 9th and does not correspond to the gash, as Gravy's paper suggests.

ETA: pg 36 is the final plan after modification.
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
RED:

Looking at the photos found here...

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

I would say the damage to the south face could very well have extended to the 9th floor...would you not say so??

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I am not sure if you saw this Red, but there is at least one photo on this site, where if you line up the floor numbers with the damage, it seems clear that SOME damage to the south facade did extend to the 9th floor...don't you think?

TAM:)
 
RedIbis said:
Your paper suggests that the WTC 7 southface gash is consistent with the fuel distribution system. Given the chart on pg 36 of http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1J.pdf
are you ready to admit your error?
Click to expand...

I am mystified by your post. First, Gravy's paper is referencing another site, with a link. That site has numerous references to damage occurring well below the level of the 9th floor. In point of fact, your own post says as much. You said: "As is clear in the photo, this gash extends from the roof down through the south face." Are you claiming that it stopped at the Ninth floor?

You have not at all pointed to an error.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
I am mystified by your post. First, Gravy's paper is referencing another site, with a link. That site has numerous references to damage occurring well below the level of the 9th floor. In point of fact, your own post says as much. You said: "As is clear in the photo, this gash extends from the roof down through the south face." Are you claiming that it stopped at the Ninth floor?

You have not at all pointed to an error.
Click to expand...
I missed where he proved or has been proven that no damage below floor 9 also. I really don't see the error here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom