Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[The Big Dog]

RedIbis

"Your paper suggests that the WTC 7 southface gash is consistent with the fuel distribution system. . . . are you ready to admit your error?"

I was kind of hoping old Red Ibis would come in here and explain himself. Oh well, we'll just have to chalk it up to another example of:

"Gravy's paper is not consistent except where it is consistent."

“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.)"

 

[Belz...]

I said a 757 or 767 cannot attain high speeds below a certain height, not that they could not fly. They can fly, they just can't stay stable at high speeds until they reach a certain altitude.

Yeah, but they sure as hell can CRASH at those altitudes, can't they ?

Now you are just lying. please stop it. You are ignorant about aircraft and there are many pilots and technicians who know more that you on this site who say you are wrong.

Uh-oh. Never say things like that when you don't know who you're talking to.

If you keep repeating this mistake then you are lying. There are many videos on youtube of aircraft like these flying at fast speeds at low levels. None of them crashed. The ones on 911 did.

Did... did you just contradict yourself, here ?

"Boeing 757 cannot go faster than 330mph at 700ft altitude because air resistance is too "thick" at that speed. Air resistance causes the engines turbines to stop and the airplane starts to shake so hard it will break apart."
Facts seem to agree with me

You might want to look up that word.

 

[Jennie C.]

Aye, indeedoe, albeit one repetition short (of "secret") to win the customized NWO coffee-cup.

But who suspects that an NWO operative would live in Ohio?

(and btw, Go Bucks)

 

[lisabob2]

OK, everyone. This thread is for Xena, Swing, RedIbis, and any other Truther who wants to jump in here.

For the purposes of this thread, we'll assume that I am a fencesitter on all things 9/11. I stand willing to be persuaded on any matter.

What I would like to see is independent confirmation of an error that Mark Roberts has made. That is, I want to see just exactly where he's gone wrong. It's very simple, really; just say "Mark Roberts said X (link), but the truth is actually Y(link)."

I will accept no opinion pieces; I'm a skeptic after all. I want to see verifiable facts. Anything posted will be checked for accuracy and context.

Go to it. I'm waiting.

At 911myths Roberts show us pictures of a core column, some exterior columns, and a worker cutting a exterior column with a torch.
He says this is evidence that those first column pictures were cut by workers.
I would like to point out the obvious.
Just because 1 picture shows a exterior column being cut by a worker, there is nothing in the other pictures to prove that they were cut by same method. As a matter of fact the only thing those pictures show are damaged columns. How they were damaged is questionable. They could have been cut by workers, or possible not. Steven Jones says that simple scientific tests could have proven how the columns were cut, or damaged.

 

[lisabob2]

So you believe that it was not a pair of air planes that hit the towers?

Where do you get that idea? I am stating a fact that comes from good sources. The 2 plane that hit the towers might have been going slower than 500mph. The estimates of their speeds is that a estimate.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

lisa... you started a thread....there are many questions there. I suggest you start to answer some of them.

 

[beachnut]

At 911myths Roberts show us pictures of a core column, some exterior columns, and a worker cutting a exterior column with a torch.
He says this is evidence that those first column pictures were cut by workers.
I would like to point out the obvious.
Just because 1 picture shows a exterior column being cut by a worker, there is nothing in the other pictures to prove that they were cut by same method. As a matter of fact the only thing those pictures show are damaged columns. How they were damaged is questionable. They could have been cut by workers, or possible not. Steven Jones says that simple scientific tests could have proven how the columns were cut, or damaged.

All the cuts Jones had in his paper were cut during clean up. So you are defending liars who make up lies about 9/11 and you have no ability to understand 9/11 and have no clue when people are telling you lies on 9/11. You are short on facts.
Sorry, all the diagonals were cut during clean up. Sad you are just making this up to support liars on 9/11. You are not trying to spread false information. Please bring some facts next time.

 

[lisabob2]

Liar

I am an ex aircraft technician of 12 years experience in all aircraft systems. I know more than you ansd the stupid software guy you have quoted. They can do those speeds and can crash into buldings. Obviously its not adviseable but i do not think the hijackers cared much.

Lying again, does not look good pal, very poor effort

My brother has been a Boeing aircraft tecnician since 1980. The engineers & test pilots that have verified these facts know quite a bit more than you do about the planes they designed & fly. calling me a liar changes nothing especially the facts

 

[lisabob2]

Then I guess it's a good thing they ran into some buildings before they shook apart.

Hey Kiddo,crashing airplanes is not that hard.Accept it.Move on.

crashing planes is not hard, but ignoring facts is not scientific is it?

 

[The Big Dog]

"At 911myths Roberts show us pictures of a core column, some exterior columns, and a worker cutting a exterior column with a torch."

Uhh, ya got a link?

 

[DGM]

Where do you get that idea? I am stating a fact that comes from good sources. The 2 plane that hit the towers might have been going slower than 500mph. The estimates of their speeds is that a estimate.

Why are you saying this. Even you can confirm the speeds. Have you seen a video yet of the impacts?

ETA Your research is really bad. 911 myths is not done by Mark Roberts.

 

[lisabob2]

Yes, you've said that, but when asked for the source or sources for such information you reply with the rather vague:

Surely you can either a) list the names of these individuals and the specific statements they agree with in regards to the physical capabilities of the aircraft, or b) list the specific capabilities of the aircraft as stated in any publically available official documentation.

I could just as easily say I knew some test pilots and engineers at Boeing who emphatically disagree with your claim. Who should readers believe, me or you, without some sort of additional verification?

do you really think my friends want to me to give their names over the internet? why when there is plenty of info easily available online I posted some evidence in other post. The retired Boeing engineer who help designed the planes for 1

 

[GStan]

At 911myths Roberts show us pictures of a core column, some exterior columns, and a worker cutting a exterior column with a torch.
He says this is evidence that those first column pictures were cut by workers.
I would like to point out the obvious.
Just because 1 picture shows a exterior column being cut by a worker, there is nothing in the other pictures to prove that they were cut by same method. As a matter of fact the only thing those pictures show are damaged columns. How they were damaged is questionable. They could have been cut by workers, or possible not. Steven Jones says that simple scientific tests could have proven how the columns were cut, or damaged.

my bolding

Precisely correct, the picture does not prove they were all cut that way, however, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that they were cut in any other way. Jones assertion that tests 'could have been done' is not evidence that they were cut in another way. Just an irrelevant observation that fits his predetermined conclusions. Given that the only photo evidence showing how they may have been cut is the photo of the man cutting one with a torch, it is reasonable to assume that they were all cut with a torch. Upon the identification of new evidence, that assumption may ultimately prove to be incorrect, however, until such evidence is discovered, the most plausible explanation is that the columns were cut with torches. (They even had a non-sinister motive for cutting them, if you can believe that!?)

 

[beachnut]

My brother has been a Boeing aircraft tecnician since 1980. The engineers & test pilots that have verified these facts know quite a bit more than you do about the planes they designed & fly. calling me a liar changes nothing especially the facts

You are just plan wrong. I am a pilot and have flown my plane faster than it is allowed, I am still here. It is sad you are so wrong on all the facts so far, maybe you can find a subject you are actually trained in, instead of using hearsay crap.

The fact is, yes the planes on 9/11 were over speed for a 10 to 20 seconds and they hit buildings and the ground. I doubt you can even give the speeds and the limits of the planes. Sad you have a little knowledge and can not apply it with accuracy or properly.

If your experts verified a 767/757 can not do what they did on 9/11, then your experts are WRONG! Funny, your experts are wrong on something even you saw done! Besides the facts I flew Boeing jets, and have over speed them a little, a fellow pilot a little more and he lost some parts from his jet, but gee, the jets worked. I like Boeing, they work even better than the limits say! You are wrong on this point too, I think you have a perfect record so far bringing hearsay to a factual thread.

Here is how it works, I actually went a little faster than top speed, that makes this not hearsay for me. Your stuff was from others, and that is hearsay. The real limits on the jet are not cut and dry numbers, but limits based on criteria. I would even have to study them and look up the reasons. So unless you bring a bunch of stuff, which will prove you wrong if you do, then your hearsay junk is BS.

 

[lisabob2]

This "fact" is so moronic, it's laughable to people who actually know a thing or two about jet engines. Turbines don't stall or surge, compressors do. Oh and it's lack of intake air which causes these compressor stalls, not too much air. Jets love lots and lots of thick, dense air.

BTW Joseph Keith is a software engineer. You are no less qualified to opine on this topic than he is...



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/99024525c71053c56.gif[/qimg]

There are 20,000 Boeing and Airbus aircraft being flown by 200,000 airline pilots. Why haven't they come forward? If the official story is so aboviously a farce from an airline pilots perspective, why does the Airline Pilots Association still have a bounty on Bin Ladens head?

As beachnut would say: "Go get some facts."

look up pilotsfor911truth.org for plenty of pilots that have come forward.
What was that question again?

 

[beachnut]

look up pilotsfor911truth.org for plenty of pilots that have come forward.
What was that question again?

I like p4t John Lear and his aliens among us. Good job, nut cases and nut case ideas on 9/11 I give you, Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

This almost proves you have not facts and evidence and just love hearsay junk on 9/11. So you lied you do not know engineers at Boeing, you have no names because you have no engineers, aero engineers, who talked to at Boeing you have the made up stuff of p4t.

P4t have no rational ideas on 9/11. You are pre-debunked when you mention p4t.

 

[lisabob2]

You are just plan wrong. I am a pilot and have flown my plane faster than it is allowed, I am still here. It is sad you are so wrong on all the facts so far, maybe you can find a subject you are actually trained in, instead of using hearsay crap.

The fact is, yes the planes on 9/11 were over speed for a 10 to 20 seconds and they hit buildings and the ground. I doubt you can even give the speeds and the limits of the planes. Sad you have a little knowledge and can not apply it with accuracy or properly.

If your experts verified a 767/757 can not do what they did on 9/11, then your experts are WRONG! Funny, your experts are wrong on something even you saw done! Besides the facts I flew Boeing jets, and have over speed them a little, a fellow pilot a little more and he lost some parts from his jet, but gee, the jets worked. I like Boeing, they work even better than the limits say! You are wrong on this point too, I think you have a perfect record so far bringing hearsay to a factual thread.

Here is how it works, I actually went a little faster than top speed, that makes this not hearsay for me. Your stuff was from others, and that is hearsay. The real limits on the jet are not cut and dry numbers, but limits based on criteria. I would even have to study them and look up the reasons. So unless you bring a bunch of stuff, which will prove you wrong if you do, then your hearsay junk is BS.

How can you prove they are wrong? the speeds of the planes that hit the towers were ESTIMATES. How fast does 300mph look as compared to 500mph? flying a plane is not flying a Boeing 767 or 757 is it? As a pilot you know the differences.
Sorry just saying what you have done flying proves nothing.
Maybe post something that disproves what the Boeing test pilots or Engineers have to say on this subject.

 

[Jono]

How can you prove they are wrong? the speeds of the planes that hit the towers were ESTIMATES. How fast does 300mph look as compared to 500mph? flying a plane is not flying a Boeing 767 or 757 is it? As a pilot you know the differences.
Sorry just saying what you have done flying proves nothing.
Maybe post something that disproves what the Boeing test pilots or Engineers have to say on this subject.

All the Boeing pilots and Engineers thereof would resound what has been said here, save for those who've made claims about the matter which has already been addressed by equally and notably more competent people.

So far I've heard one, perhaps two even who've even said anything remotely close to be in disagreement with the established aeordynamic event.

 

[beachnut]

How can you prove they are wrong? the speeds of the planes that hit the towers were ESTIMATES. How fast does 300mph look as compared to 500mph? flying a plane is not flying a Boeing 767 or 757 is it? As a pilot you know the differences.
Sorry just saying what you have done flying proves nothing.
Maybe post something that disproves what the Boeing test pilots or Engineers have to say on this subject.

Oh, and you just say things that proves even less; I have done, you have talked. Let me see, which is real? You never really said what your experts said, you said they supported you, I say they are not real experts.

You like science. Using science, and cheating, I found the speeds on 9/11 to be 470mph for 11, 590mph for 175, about 600mph for 93, and over 473 KIAS for 77. You can use science to figure out the speeds. I used the same methods we did in physics. Why are you not prepared with facts?


My Boeing jet was in the 300,000 pound class, and I have type rating in a Boeing 707/720. I would say my plane was comparable, yet the 757/767 is easier to fly and could be stronger with the new wing design and more capable to fly faster maybe. Yes, I am an engineer too, I fly heavy jets, I am qualified to say the planes on 9/11 can, and did go faster than maximums for normal flight. Normal flight! Wake up! I do know Boeing engineers who I have worked with on aircraft accidents, and 9/11 is too simple to bother them with your lies and the lies of 9/11 truth since you are wrong.

You have zero Boeing aero engineers on your side who are up on the 757/767. Your p4t are a joke. Roll out the engineers you have from Boeing, not the stupid phone calls to the front desk!

So list your experts and let me try to check on them through channels in the Air Force to see if they really support you and 9/11 truth failed ideas. You see, then I can tell you they are clerks and just answer the phone when we check with Boeing.

 

[Corsair 115]

do you really think my friends want to me to give their names over the internet? why when there is plenty of info easily available online I posted some evidence in other post.

And there is much evidence which contradicts your claim. That is why additional verification for your claim is necessary. Just saying "I knew some guys who said..." without any further support is right up there with saying, "I once caught a fish this big."

Also, why would it be an issue for someone to state on the record their technical knowledge?

It is worth noting there is a difference between the maximum safe operating speed and the maximum speed physically possible.