Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Bermas & Rowe to Debate Mark Roberts

Kudos to Ron Wieck for setting this up. The debate will apparently take place over two shows of the Libertarian-oriented talk show, Hardfire, to be taped on December 14. Looking forward to the inevitable, "I'm not calling anybody a liar, I'm calling you a liar," from Bermas.

59 Comments:

At 21 November, 2006 12:19, Blogger Dog Town said...

Down Goes Bermass...Down Goes Bermass!

 
At 21 November, 2006 12:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What,

Is Roberts going to bite his ear?

 
At 21 November, 2006 12:38, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

What do you mean by that BG?

 
At 21 November, 2006 12:47, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You got to realize, from my view point, Roberts has no credibility for sticking to a fair fight. His document about WTC 7 drips with ad-hominem arguments, complete with a menacing picture of Jack Blood.

I mean that Roberts is as pitiful as Mike Tyson.

 
At 21 November, 2006 12:59, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Seriously BG, some lithium will help you.

Really.

I'm serious.

 
At 21 November, 2006 13:03, Blogger Alex said...

Ofcourse it's not a fair fight. Roberts doesn't let the twoofers change topics every 5 seconds, instead he insists they stick to one topic until they've proven it. Such tactics are clearly unfair, since it means twoofers don't stand a chance.

 
At 21 November, 2006 13:04, Blogger Dog Town said...

The "looser" does the bite thing, not the winner! Mark,and Ron will mop the floor with these idiots!
Can't wait ta see it!

 
At 21 November, 2006 13:16, Blogger James B. said...

"Ad hominem" is truther parlance for "we quote you".

 
At 21 November, 2006 13:44, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

you're just frustrated because it's sharder to change subjects and spam during an actually face-to-face debate.

That's why you twoofers always get slayed.

 
At 21 November, 2006 13:49, Blogger Manny said...

Bet they find an excuse to bail before it happens.

 
At 21 November, 2006 13:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's interesting to me that none of you have come to Roberts' defense by citing his work product.

Wouldn't that be the true ground to dispute?

 
At 21 November, 2006 14:39, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Whenever you put Bermas on you can count on the douchebags to lose.
He starts that head shaking thing, well this only draws attention to his head and face which already look like some sort of medical experiment gone wrong.

If you look at his teeth you can tell that he is inbred.

He then starts to twitch and I think that he may actually poop his pants during a debate.

Then he starts being disrespectful
I pitty him but cant help but laugh at him at the same time

Team Bermas and Judy Wood together and that is instant entertainment.

I am also convinced that BG posts from a padded room.

 
At 21 November, 2006 15:06, Blogger Falco98 said...

hmm.. i gotta feel just a little bad for Roberts, as even the best and most intelligent debaters can be beaten-down by a pair of gorillas with inflated egos and big mouths... he should have a second person in there to help him. (pat? james? myspace guy?)

 
At 21 November, 2006 15:23, Blogger Dog Town said...

he should have a second person in there to help him.

He would need no help, he has something better! Alas he has Ron, who can mop quite well, and it is his show. Down goes Bermass...

 
At 21 November, 2006 16:14, Blogger Triterope said...

I'd love to see someone invite the Twoofers onto a TV news show, and give them the "Count/Pointercount" treatment from Kentucky Fried Movie.

 
At 21 November, 2006 17:57, Blogger Murdervillage said...

bg said: "You got to realize, from my view point, Roberts has no credibility for sticking to a fair fight. His document about WTC 7 drips with ad-hominem arguments, complete with a menacing picture of Jack Blood.

I mean that Roberts is as pitiful as Mike Tyson."

Hi, bg. I'm Mark Roberts. Can you point out an example of a claim, criticism, or argument that I got wrong? Thanks.

 
At 21 November, 2006 18:08, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

(chirp) (chirp) (chirp) (chirp)

 
At 21 November, 2006 18:10, Blogger shawn said...

Bg you are an utter moron. This isn't any kind of ad hominem, I'm just stating a fact.

Because he sees fit to insult those pissing on the deaths of three thousand of his countrymen he's no longer credible. Nothing about how he utterly destroys every argument you whackos put forward. Nope. Nothing to see here.

 
At 21 November, 2006 18:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Murdervillage,

I've got travel all day tomorrow, and Thanksgiving activities on Thursday and Friday. In light of that, I'll give your request a fair response.

 
At 21 November, 2006 19:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark,

I'll be using Google Docs to add to the document found here

I know I've just barely started. I appreciate your interest. I know we'll start out with you saying my points are meaningless.

By the way, I don't claim I have proof of anything, or that I "know" what happened. Rather, I think all of us are disadvantaged by the most derelict criminal investigation in world history.

 
At 21 November, 2006 19:13, Blogger pomeroo said...

The presumptuousness of accusing NIST of failing to pursue an "honest investigation" is staggering. Over two hundred reseachers painstakingly examine the physical evidence and model various hypotheses. After thousands of pages of material is released to the public, total ignoramuses reject the conclusions without being able to point to ANY actual errors. Yeah, the conspiracy liars value honesty all right.

 
At 21 November, 2006 19:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark,

I think I'm done with a document that says what I believe.

 
At 21 November, 2006 19:39, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

By the way, I don't claim I have proof of anything, or that I "know" what happened. Rather, I think all of us are disadvantaged by the most derelict criminal investigation in world history.

That is just so idiotic were does one begin

 
At 21 November, 2006 19:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

pomeroo,

You remarks show complete ignorance of how badly the investigation has been handled, and how much evidence there is that it is clearly a cover-up.

 
At 21 November, 2006 19:56, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

I think I'm done with a document that says what I believe.

LOL!!!

WOW that was a quick debate!!

But gee earlier our by BG typed:

I've got travel all day tomorrow, and Thanksgiving activities on Thursday and Friday. In light of that, I'll give your request a fair response.

Are your meds not working for you BG?

BG you are a fraud and a disgrace to the human race and please add the race of the aliens that live in your head to that list as well, thanks!

 
At 21 November, 2006 20:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lying_Dylan,

I had read Mark document before and found it trivial. It was only after reviewing it that I realized how trivial.

 
At 21 November, 2006 20:10, Blogger pomeroo said...

No, bg, YOUR remarks show that you are a pretentious ignoramus. There isn't a shred of evidence to support your pernicious fantasies. You and your fellow conspiracy liars have NEVER shown ANYTHING to back up the ridiculous, anti-scientific claims you make. If there is evidence of a coverup, isn't it long past time that you stopped blowing smoke and actually produced something?

 
At 21 November, 2006 20:22, Blogger shawn said...

I had read Mark document before and found it trivial. It was only after reviewing it that I realized how trivial.

You have nothing more to say? You have to support your statements, idiot.

 
At 21 November, 2006 20:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

pomeroo,

I know you are saying what you are saying out of ignorance rather that spite. It's ok.



The evidence of a cover up begins with one devastating recognition, as follows:

What agency has primary regulatory responsibility for investigating commercial and private plane crashes that happen in the US?

Think Hard

Have you seen the NTSB Report on the plane crashes in Manhatten on 9/11?

Can you find me the place in US law that says: the NTSB is responsible, except when there a massive terrorist attack. In that case, we'll just leave it to the FBI.

Let me help you. Here's a clue (taken from here:
BACKGROUND. The NTSB was established by statute in 1966, located
within the Department of Transportation, to promote transportation
safety by conducting independent accident investigations and by
formulating safety improvement recommendations. Effective April 1,
1975, the NTSB was reestablished as an independent agency (reference
Title III of the Transportation Safety Act of 1974 and the Independent
Safety Board Act of 1974). The NTSB and the FAA have a common
objective of promoting safety in aviation and preventing aircraft
accidents within the scope of their respective statutory
responsibilities. When accidents occur, FAA participates in the NTSB
investigation to learn what accident prevention actions it should
initiate to prevent a recurrence of similar accidents and to provide
technical support to the NTSB. The NTSB has jurisdiction to
investigate accidents to determine probable cause and to make
recommendations to reduce the likelihood of recurrences of similar
accidents.

 
At 21 November, 2006 20:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shawn,

Watch the video. There is the support for my statements.

 
At 21 November, 2006 20:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just in case I'm not making myself clear about the NTSB issue, please refer here

 
At 21 November, 2006 20:39, Blogger pomeroo said...

BG, stop wasting everyone's time with such evasive bullshit.

Fact: EVERY demolition expert in the country regards the conspiracists' fantasy about explosives in the WTC as ludicrous. What do you know that they don't?

Fact: Seismic data from the Lamont-Doherty laboratories show no secondary explosions during the collapse of the buildings.

Fact: Dr. Greening's papers account for the presence of sulfur and explain the collapse mechanism in accordance with accepted scientific principles, not science fiction.

Fact: The fantasy movement has been caught telling innumerable lies, from the mindless repetition of the falsehood that "pull it" is industry jargon for "blow up the building," to the dishonest claim that Matthys Levy, a structural enginner, and Mike Taylor, a demolition expert, support theories which they actually reject.

SHOW US EVIDENCE! How many times must you hear this request before the implications sink in?

 
At 21 November, 2006 20:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pomeroo,

Rather that quote generic talking points, tell me exactly how NIST has accounted for WTC 7.

You can't. Because even they admit they are still working on that.

 
At 21 November, 2006 21:23, Blogger Murdervillage said...

bg said "I had read Mark document before and found it trivial. It was only after reviewing it that I realized how trivial."

bg, thanks for taking the time to read my WTC 7 paper. I read your comments. As you know, NIST's investigation into the cause of WTC 7's collapse is ongoing. My goal was to show that the condition of the building on 9/11 is routinely misrepresented by the "truth movement." Did I succeed in that?

 
At 21 November, 2006 21:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark,

you succeeded. I'm embarrassed and dismayed by what many have said and done who claim that they are trying to expose the truth. I've been a huge critic of Fetzer.

My best judgment is that debating 9/11, by and large, is over, as far any development that impacts our govt. or the conscience of the populace.

My lack of support for the "truth" of Loose Change (especially the first video) has been made clear here (mostly in older comments).

However, in a forum such as this blog, I'm going to continue to speak out as long as the evidence of what happened is consistent with a massive deception. It is out of a massive concern for the negative impact against the human race that these lies wrought, that I will continue to thump each of you on the head and say wake up!

 
At 21 November, 2006 22:03, Blogger Triterope said...

It is out of a massive concern for the negative impact against the human race that these lies wrought, that I will continue to thump each of you on the head and say wake up!

Look out, everyone! Meo is putting on his dark sunglasses and entering THE ME-TRIX!

 
At 21 November, 2006 22:05, Blogger Murdervillage said...

bg, please do your homework.

Carol Carmody Vice-Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board:

"The NTSB was created by the Congress to investigate accidents, determine the probable cause and make recommendations to prevent recurrence. We have this authority across all modes of transportation, although aviation gets the most attention. We are the lead agency in aviation accidents unless there is credible evidence of criminal activity. In that case, the Attorney General and the Chairman must confer and the FBI would take the lead. This provision is contained in a statute because of the difficulties that arose between the NTSB and the FBI following the TWA 800 crash." http://www.ntsb.gov/speeches/carmody/cc020227.htm

 
At 21 November, 2006 22:06, Blogger Dog Town said...

Can you find me the place in US law that says: the NTSB is responsible, except when there a massive terrorist attack.

Does the word accident, that is in that post fify times, escape you? RETARD!

 
At 21 November, 2006 22:07, Blogger Dog Town said...

Gravy beat me!

 
At 21 November, 2006 22:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Carol Carmody is expressing an opinion that have not be codified into the law, has it?

TWA 800 was a cover-up, by the way, as well.

 
At 21 November, 2006 22:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quoting from one source here:

Investigations Involving Criminal Activity

In cases of suspected criminal activity, other agencies may participate in the investigation. The Safety Board does not investigate criminal activity; in the past, once it has been established that a transportation tragedy is, in fact, a criminal act, the FBI becomes the lead federal investigative body, with the NTSB providing any requested support.

One example would be the crash of a Pacific Southwest Airlines flight in San Luis Obispo, California on December 7, 1987. All 43 persons aboard died in the crash of the Bae-146. Because of information conveyed over the radio by the flight crew shortly before the crash, the FBI instituted its own investigation, parallel to the Safety Board's investigation, to determine if a crime had been committed. Within days, it was learned that a former employee of the airline had boarded the plane with a gun and, while the plane was in cruise flight, had shot the flight crew, causing the aircraft to crash. When that was made evident, the FBI assumed control of the investigation.

More recently, on September 11, 2001, the crashes of all four airliners were obviously the result of criminal actions and the Justice Department assumed control of the investigations. The NTSB provided requested technical support.

As the result of recent legislation, the NTSB will surrender lead status on a transportation accident only if the Attorney General, in consultation with the Chairman of the Safety Board, notifies the Board that circumstances reasonably indicate that the accident may have been caused by an intentional criminal act.

===========================
My point is that we should have still received a publicly available comprehensive NTSB report on the part of the Investigation that they handled. This could have been rolled into the FBI report. It could have be rolled into the 9/11 Commission Report.

We have not received it at all.

 
At 21 November, 2006 22:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...


In every case of an aircraft loss, an accident investigation was always conducted and a report was issued through command channels, and it made no difference if the loss was due to an obvious accident or if it had been shot down by enemy fire. An investigation was always conducted, and a report was always filed, even if the plane was under 5,000 feet of water and not recoverable.

In the case of all four reported aircraft losses on 9-11, each one was reported to have been carrying commercial passengers aboard scheduled commercial airliners. Federal Aviation regulations in Part 121, governs the operations of all scheduled airlines that operate inside the United States, including foreign airlines, which transit through our airports in commercial operations. In the case of each aircraft loss that occurred on 9-11, the regulations are very clear and unambiguous-- investigations were required, and the reports would have covered the loss circumstances in excruciating detail, including all collateral damage incurred.


from here

 
At 21 November, 2006 23:12, Blogger pomeroo said...

Bg, you're fooling no one with your tap dancing around the collapse of WTC 7. The NIST preliminary report explained it, as did the Popular Mechanics book, and the relevant section on 911myths.com. The point is, you don't care.
NIST is in the process of crossing every "t" and dotting every "i" to produced a report that will miss nothing.
And you know what? When it appears, you and other conspiracy liars will reject it without reading it because it won't provide any support for your lunatic fabrications about a controlled demolition.
You must seriously think that someone here is buying your snake oil.

 
At 22 November, 2006 01:20, Blogger Alex said...

Idiot. No, BG, "Terrorist Attack" does not equal "Accident". Since the NTSB only investigates accidents, they would not be involved in investigating a DELIBERATE crash.

Actually, I trained a guy in 2002 who was a crash scene investigator. He decided to join the reserves because of the 9/11 attacks. I actually had to let him leave one of my lectures because an aircraft flying in to Pearson airport had a fire in it's cargo hold, and the air safety board had paged him to handle it. So this guy, whose job it is to investigate air accidents, believed so strongly that 9/11 was an act of terrorism that he decided to re-enlist in the military. But, ofcourse, I should trust BG's uninformed opinion instead, right?

Pomeroo is right, your presumptuousness is truly galling. How can someones so utterly worthless have THAT much ego?

 
At 22 November, 2006 03:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the investigation of a normal plane crash, the National Transportation Safety Board will often attempt to reconstruct a fallen aircraft from the recovered parts. As this is a criminal investigation, however, the NTSB will not attempt to piece together the Boeing 757 unless the FBI, the lead inves tigative agency, asks them to. Crowley said his agency had not asked for a reconstruction effort up to this point.

"If it becomes of investigative interest, we will," he said


Link

 
At 22 November, 2006 04:22, Blogger Alex said...

Do you get a kick out of posting totally irrelevant articles?

Look, I can do it too!

Police searched the area, and minutes later, Lt. Steven Sarinelli found Holguinrojas near the eastbound side of the train station eating from a bag of pork rinds with bloodied hands.

Sarinelli called Molnar, who was still at the scene of the burglary and asked whether the store sold the same brand of pork rinds, Herr's. Molnar told Sarinelli that a display stand near the point of entry had the same brand of pork rinds.

Holguinrojas, caught with his apparently ill-gotten gains valued at $1.98, was then arrested. He was positively identified by witnesses.


Link

 
At 22 November, 2006 07:12, Blogger Abby Scott said...

"Bermas & Rowe to Debate Mark Roberts"

Can't. Wait. For. This.

 
At 22 November, 2006 07:31, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

you really are a religious zealot.

The NTSB thing was explained ages ago.

 
At 22 November, 2006 08:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pomeroo is right, your presumptuousness is truly galling. How can someones so utterly worthless have THAT much ego?

My take is as follows:

There are the Rush Limbaughs, the Hannitys, the Savages, the Maulkins who rule the airwaves. These people are fanatical. Whether intentional or not, they support a myth that is evil. That myth involves a jingoistic attitude that redowns to the befenite of calculating criminals, many of them in the US. These people behind 9/11 are cold-blooded murderers, and they work for a monied elite of unbelievable power.

Trying to stand up and talk truth bluntly to you guys is one of the ways that I'm fighting the good fight.

I could give a rats ass whether you think I'm being egotistical or whatever. There's no reason to do any job half-assed, as I think most anyone here would agree.

Those of you who don't see how the pieces fit together need to be told in plain strong terms that your understanding or lack thereof hurts every fight for justice on this Earth.

 
At 22 November, 2006 08:36, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Question to Murdervillage aka Mark Roberts:
Will you be joining the OS panel at the National 9/11 Debate? That appears to be the most balanced event to date, although the official consiracy side needs more representation on the moderator panel.

Fact: Seismic data from the Lamont-Doherty laboratories show no secondary explosions during the collapse of the buildings. Key word is during. Several explosions took place prior to the collapse and 2 prior to the planes impact. See FAA, NTSB, eyewitness and video accounts, and Lamount Obvservatory.

Fact: Dr. Greening's papers account for the presence of sulfur and explain the collapse mechanism in accordance with accepted scientific principles, not science fiction.
Dr. Greenings own figures cast doubt on gravity collapse and account for a theortical minimum of
17.5 seconds.This timing contrarily does not take regard of the loss of effective mass that
would be present due to the pulverisation and the ejection of the concrete pieces outside the
area where they play a role in promulgating the collapse. Having regard to this and the
other energies involved, the theoretical minimum collapse time can be seen to be
approaching double that of the figures given for the collapse timing in official reports, even
with no account taken of the energy demand from the distortion and destruction wrought
to the steel superstructures.
From Reply to Dr. Greening from Gordon Ross.

The NIST preliminary report explained it,(WTC7) No it did not. Which is why we have an ongoing
investigation. And another problem with NIST... it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xxxvii/39 of Draft) Again their theory leads only to collapse initiation

Dishonest? Debatable. Flawed. Certainly.

 
At 22 November, 2006 08:47, Blogger James B. said...

Question to Murdervillage aka Mark Roberts:
Will you be joining the OS panel at the National 9/11 Debate? That appears to be the most balanced event to date, although the official consiracy side needs more representation on the moderator panel.


Balanced? You could have Jones, Fetzer and Wood debate each other, you don't need our participation.

 
At 22 November, 2006 10:22, Blogger Alex said...

Trying to stand up and talk truth bluntly to you guys is one of the ways that I'm fighting the good fight.

Save us Super Man!

God you're full of it. I suppose that even weak kneed bastards like you need a way to feel like they're part of a fight. Since you'll never be capable of picking up a rifle and holding the line, you delude yourself into beleiving that making fun of those better than you is somehow equivalent to "fighting for world justice". I knew a kid like you when I was in middle school. He actually thought he was a "cop by day, superhero by night". Your real name isn't Mike, is it?

 
At 22 November, 2006 11:30, Blogger Murdervillage said...

bg said: In the investigation of a normal plane crash, the National Transportation Safety Board will often attempt to reconstruct a fallen aircraft from the recovered parts.

That's to try to determine why the plane crashed. We know why the planes on 9/11 crashed, so spending tens of millions of dollars trying to reconstruct four aircraft from tiny pieces makes no sense. This is very basic stuff, bg. I have no idea why you continue to compare the 9/11 attacks to "normal" crashes.

 
At 22 November, 2006 11:59, Blogger Murdervillage said...

swing dangler said:
Question to Murdervillage aka Mark Roberts: Will you be joining the OS panel at the National 9/11 Debate?


I hadn't signed up in the past, because the debate organizerw were unable to come up with a moderator, press panel, or format. Then Jim Fetzer agreed to debate me, and he suggested that the "National" debate be moved to my college. That would be fun for me, but other "Scholars" don't want to give control of the format and moderation to an independent party. My guess is that the debate isn't going to happen at all, since the scholars have never agreed on their own version of events and seem to be falling apart.

The idea that a debate of this kind can "settle" something about 9/11 is silly. The "official version" has been in print for a long time. Anyone is welcome to publish a refutation that in turn can be commented on by others. The result: laughable rants like "The New Pearl Harbor" and an online "journal" of non-peer reviewed nonsense promoted by the "scholars." My involvement in any debates is simply to show how uninformed and dishonest the 9/11 deniers are.

 
At 22 November, 2006 13:09, Blogger pomeroo said...

Swing Dangler exposes his fellow liars for the frauds they are. The Lamont-Doherty data reveal ABSOLUTELY NO evidence for explosions BEFORE, DURING, or AFTER the collapse of the buildings.
Don't waste your time writing, rationalists: He is well aware of that fact. This is why I refer to the tinfoil-hat brigade as "conspiracy LIARS."

No, Bg, talking truth bluntly is as far from your real agenda as anything could be. You don't communicate ANY truths. Your falsehoods skate around the issues and seek to muddy the water with irrelevancies. All the while, you NEVER offer a shred of proof for your pernicious fantasies. Yes, we understand that you operate in this manner because you DON'T HAVE ANY PROOF.

 
At 22 November, 2006 14:29, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Swing:

NIST has a WORKING HYPOTHESIS for the collapse of WTC7. What do you think of (a) what the words "working Hypothesis" mean and (b) what do you think of their "working Hypothesis" ( asummary of it can be found on page L-48 onward of the interim report of WTC7)?

TAM

 
At 22 November, 2006 14:32, Blogger Stevew said...

Thank you Pom I was going to make that point. Why do they never give a detailed explaination to back up their claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts?

 
At 23 November, 2006 20:35, Blogger R.Lange said...

word is during. Several explosions took place prior to the collapse and 2 prior to the planes impact. See FAA, NTSB, eyewitness and video accounts, and Lamount Obvservatory.

Wow, that was dumb. Have you never seen the graph that was released?

http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-graph1-lg.jpg
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-graph2-lg.jpg

As you can [hopefully] see, it doesn't show just the collapses. You can see the seismic activity from 8:40am all the way up to 11:40am on the first graph. The second one is a close-up of all four events (two impacts, two collapses) for WTC1 and WTC2.

No indication of any explosions prior to either collapse.

 
At 24 November, 2006 13:18, Blogger pomeroo said...

R.lange, my point is that the loons are not merely dumb--they, being stupid, aren't aware of their own stupidity: They are LIARS. And that is something they are aware of.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home