Looking For A Denier to Debate Mark Roberts
This should be amusing to watch. Ron Wieck, who destroyed Les Jamieson of the NY 9-11 Deniers group, will be having Mark Roberts on his show Hardfire in December. He's looking for a spokesperson for the Deniers who's willing to debate Roberts. Jason Bermas, come on down!
posted by Pat @ 4:32 PM
33 comments
33 Comments:
if the SLC boys have even one thing going for them, i think it's the ability to tell when they're walking into a trap and avoid it.
i mean, why engage in a debate where you could be faced with actual logic, when you could instead go where you know you're safe and spout the same circular fallacies where noone can put up a decent fight?
I'll debate Mark, I can do woo.
"Fire can't melt steel. Larry Silverstein said pull it. Marvin Bush was the head of security. It was on the Internet, I am right!"
See, that isn't hard.
I'd like to see that loser RoxDog do it.....he's a real jerkoff.....love to see him get his comeuppance....
Don't worry about a single denier, why not provide Mr. Mark Roberts directions to the National 9/11 Debate that already has a panel on the CT side and at least one professional on the OS side. Pony up your money and lets get Mark to this debate with professionals in multiple fields. I think the truth deserves his presence!
http://www.teamliberty.net/id244.html
yes, why do the fair thing and debate a person one on one, when you can go in by yourself, into the lions den, and have Fetzer, A. Jones, and many others gang up on you and not give you a chance to speak.
That sounds fair.
TAM
Let's review:
The 9-11 Troofers allege that a sitting Ameican president either staged or allowed the destruction of American landmarks that were also civilian buildings, murdering thousands of citizens and doing billions of dollars in damage, to selfish ends.
Given the monumental severity of this accusation, why is there any need to ARRANGE a debate? If there were any need for a debate of what happened on 9/11, it would already be happening in every living room, bar, office, and street corner in this country.
Remember Monica Lewinsky? Remember Iran-Contra? Those were much smaller scandals than this, but they dominated the national discourse for months. Meanwhile, the "9-11 Truth" movement is misrepresenting poll numbers, portraying unqualified people as experts, and appearing on kook AM radio shows just to get the tiny amount of attention it does.
If the CT allegation had the tiniest shred of evidence in its support, it would be the only topic on anyone's lips.
Good point, why are they debating it, shouldn't they be seeking indictments right now?
PD, had you not been an ass over at JREF, you could have chosen to debate someone one on one. It is always an option over there, if you ask for it.
TAM
I emailed Mark Roberts the debate information. I hope he can attend so he can defend beyond a reasonable doubt the governments CT of 9/11.
Perhaps all of you can email your support and encouragement to Mark so that he may join the debate team.
yes, why do the fair thing and debate a person one on one, when you can go in by yourself, into the lions den, and have Fetzer, A. Jones, and many others gang up on you and not give you a chance to speak.
Yes, lets create unfounded and unjustified reasons why an OS'er shouldn't join a panel of people with similiar beliefs to debate a panel of people with opposite beliefs. Yes, lets ignore an opportunity to shut the CTers up once and for all.
And I'm completely surpised to see none of this blogs regulars jumping at the chance to participate in this 9/11 National Debate. Seems to me that would be the best way to shut the leaders of the troof movement up once and for all! Ahhh but alas, I suspect all you will continue your war of keyboards in the comfort of your own existence. What better way to smash conspiracies, eh?
Yes, lets ignore an opportunity to shut the CTers up once and for all.
Won't happen. The CT movement is like a religion. You can disprove the majority of the CT just like you can disprove the majority of the Bible, but can never disprove the existence of God, you can never disprove government involvement, and you'll never convince the True Believers that they're wrong.
It won't happen? Come on now if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt it would happen. I mean what better way to end the Truth Movement once and for all!
Alex since both sides cling to a THEORY, the belief issue doesn't matter. Which theory can be proven based upon facts and evidence alone? Which could convince a jury? I would that would win the debate.
Swing Dangler gives away the game. He pretends that the conclusion of thousands of independent researchers, supported by a mountain of evidence, that nineteen jihadists hijacked commercial airliners and flew them into buildings, thereby causing the collapse of those buildings, constitutes just one competing theory. The opposing theory is supported by absolutely no evidence and is ridiculed by all the experts in the relevant fields, whose personal views extend across a wide spectrum of opinion.
He can hope to con an O.J. jury, ignorant and biased, determined to reach a preconceived verdict in spite of all evidence. He can never hope to win an intellectual duel.
It won't happen? Come on now if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt it would happen.
We've already proven it beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, "reasonable doubt" depends on those assessing the information being both reasonable and unbiased. That's why juries are carefully selected - to ensure that they do not have preconceived notions about the case, or irrelevant biases which could affect their judgment. You wouldn't ask a Christian to asses the accuracy of the bible, you wouldn't ask a KKK member to judge the evidence for the holocaust, and you wouldn't get a CTer to judge the evidence of 9/11. In all 3 cases you've got extremely biased individuals judging the information through the lenses of their own beliefs, rather than logically analyzing the evidence at hand.
I mean what better way to end the Truth Movement once and for all!
Mass-executions might do it, but short of that the twoof movement is here to stay. It'll decline eventually, once enough people get bored with it, but like any religion it will stay with us in one form or another for at least a few decades.
Alex since both sides cling to a THEORY, the belief issue doesn't matter.
But we don't.
I'm completely surpised to see none of this blogs regulars jumping at the chance to participate in this 9/11 National Debate.
There is no 9/11 national debate.
There is only a small internal debate among a couple thousand kookjobs who're taking a break from the chemtrail debate, the faked moon landing debate, the 17th shooter on the grassy knoll debate, and the Illuminati space lizards debate.
Read my earlier post. Consider the gravity of the accusations you're making. If there were any need for a "debate" of the facts of this matter, you wouldn't be running around blogs, begging random strangers to take you seriously. It would be the only topic of discussion anywhere in America for years.
Gentlemen, the issue still stands. Put your money where your mouth is and attend the debate, or better yet, participate in the debate!
He can never hope to win an intellectual duel.
I haven't been beat yet on this website. In fact, I've spent more time discrediting other posts due in large part to arguement fallacies you guys continually use.
Alex, has their been a trial of the accused for the crime of murdering 1000's? Nope. So until one takes place, both sides promote a theory. When OBL is captured and tried for the events of 9/11 and found to be guilty or innocent, that will end both theories and in turn turn one of the theories into a fact.
Until then a debate will have to suffice.
There is no 9/11 national debate
Trite, your like Bush, you just make history up as you go.
Sure there is a debate..follow the link posted earlier! All the leaders in the relevant fields have been invited to attend. I suppose you weren't on that list.
couple thousand kookjobs who're taking a break from the chemtrail debate, the faked moon landing debate, the 17th shooter on the grassy knoll debate, and the Illuminati space lizards debate.
Fallacy..move on. That shit is so old you have got to get over that tactic. It doesn't work really.
Consider the gravity of the accusations you're making.
Huh? NIST seems to be taking it seriously.
You have got to get over that tactic. It doesn't work really.
No, it works perfectly, and that's why you don't like it. It doesn't take much searching to find that 9/11 Deniers have an unfortunate tendency to believe the other idiocy I mentioned. That's kinda the point.
Or does it not bother you that David Icke and Sherry Shriner are on your side, while Noam Chomsky and the entire scientific community reject you? I realize this is argumentum ad popularum... but c'mon. 9/11 Denial is a joke.
Sure there is a debate..follow the link posted earlier!
...which consists entirely of the aforementioned kookjobs. Call me when someone cares about 9/11 Denial other than the kooks who believe it, the shysters who try to make money off of it, the professionals whose job it is to study it scientifically, or the people who laugh at it for their own amusement.
NIST seems to be taking it seriously.
Yes, and the nation could care less. That was the point.
I suppose we'll just have to wait for the results. You do realize, however, that expecting a credible scientific body to find any proof of 9/11 conspiracy is the equivalent of rooting for the Washington Generals.
Swing Dangler, you seem like an intelligent guy sometimes. I'm not sure how you got sucked into believing these silly theories, but I've got a feeling you'll grow out of it someday. We were all once young and idealistic and uncritical of things we wanted to believe. Hell, when I was in college I went through a Ross Perot phase. I hope someday you will be just as embarassed about having once being a 9/11 Denier, as I am about that.
Alex, has their been a trial of the accused for the crime of murdering 1000's? Nope. So until one takes place, both sides promote a theory.
There's also never been a trial to determine whether or not the earth revolves around the sun. Scientific facts are not determined through trials.
The only thing we use trials for is to determine the guilt or innocence of individuals. Since the hijackers are dead, it's rather difficult to put them on trial. Since Osama is in hiding, we've got a similar problem there. You could put Bush on trial since we know exactly where to find him, but good luck finding a prosecutor willing to bring charges against him based solely on google video "evidence", "billiard ball models" made by an insane woman, and "thermite residue" which turns out to be nothing more than sulfur. There's a reason that we haven't had a trial - you don't even have enough evidence to lay charges, let alone win the case. Meanwhile, the only people OUR side would put on trial are either dead or in hiding.
Although technicaly we did have a trial. "Mossaui" ring a bell? If he was found guilty, it's fairly safe to say that his compadres would be convicted too, if they were still alive.
Swing:
You havent been beat on this site yet because you havent said anything worthy of a response beyond "shut up" or "your an idiot". When you finally do decide to argue an element of the 9/11 attacks, and bring evidence along to back it up, then you'll have your ass handed to you.
until then, keep dangling and swinging.
TAM
Well, so far Dr. Greening and I are on the rationalist team. I believe Mark Roberts has agreed to participate, but I haven't heard a confirmation from him. The fantasist team consists of the usual suspects, but my experience with Jim Hoffman suggests that most, if not all, will run for the hills at the last minute.
Incidentally, Fetzer has so far ignored my invitation to appear on 'Hardfire' opposite Mark. I guess he's too big a celebrity for us.
Hey, don't knock Judy Woods. She poses an interesting thought experiment: Take a few long strips of balsa wood and hold them vertically in place by horizontal pieces of tissue paper separated by a foot or so to simulate the floors of a building. Next, drop a bowling ball on the structure. Judy believes that the bowling ball will either bounce off or, at minmum, be slowed down significantly. Me, I don't know what to think. A nasty friend of mind who brags about having been a physics major just keeps saying, "fucking morons," over and over, without explaining what he means.
I dunno. It's a tough one. You fantasy guys agree that the bowling ball will rest on top of the tissue paper, or will tear through v-e-r-y slowly, right?
My nasty friend just said it again.
It's Judy WOOD. I don't want to give the impression that there's more than one running around loose.
Thanks Trite. Your more reasonable than most!
The Keller issue-I proved that correct. There was a relationship of Keller with Atta. And from that point on, an investigation should begin in South Florida based upon Hopsickler's research.
WTC7 Theory-I've argued that successfully and used the Govt. to do so.
Larry and WTC 7-I agree that that was not a self-incriminating statement. Something I actually do agree with you guys on.
Pentagon-Still up in the air. Every time there is more video released, t brings up even more questions. The evidence is suspect. I don't think either side has proven what did hit the Pentagon. I do agree with all of you that those who claim "nothing hit it or no plane hit it" are truly nuts. From the eye witness testimony, to the video evidence, and the resulting damage (yes I've read both sides of the issue) and the Purdue University study, I can certainly say neither side has proven beyond a doubt what hit the Pentagon. I find the Purdue study extremely lacking which has the wings folding into the planes fuselage and a majority of the air craft traveling into the 'hole'. I've discussed that with a relative who are pilots (no not passenger airline pilots; former WW2 pilot ;) and they find that fact alone very strange.
The Twin Towers-I'm holding in my hand now the Manual of Steel Contruction from the AISC and reviewing that. A collegue of mine whom I work with wanted to share that with me. The part about steel melting etc. She is a Constructional Engineer and believes that the fire caused the collapse, but has found other items of the collapse as being very questionable: Rate of fall, debris scatter, explosions prior to the plane attack and afterwards. BTW, she didn't even know about WTC 7 collapsing. I wonder why?
Foreknowledge-Is there any question? LOL! It's a Bush thing.
More to come...
No, it works perfectly, and that's why you don't like it.
I don't like it because it categorizes folks particular stance with 9/11 with other 'theories'. It is also a complex question fallacy by trying to link two different items in order to discredit the person and the facts of one item. That is why I don't like it, because it is a simple fallacy to try to prove a point. Now in order for unintelligent folks to recognize it as such, I have to spend time to point it out. Or as you pointed out, why even list it, if its a fallacy?
Frankly I don't care about what other people think on the issue of 9/11 wether its lizards, UFO's (as Alex believes), or ghosts. You can't tarnish a theory with other belief systems in an attempt to discredit the theory itself. The merit of said theory still stands.
which consists entirely of the aforementioned kookjobs.
Again you apparently didn't examine the OS side of the debate or if you did, why do you prefer to call Frank R. Greening Ph.D, a kookjob.
The nation cares less.. The only 'nation' that statement applies to is the nation of Screwloosechange. I would argue that because the general public doesn't know what the NIST is or does which follows that the general public isn't aware of a CD scenario with WTC 7. And as I pointed out above this post, I would argue that the general public isn't aware that WTC 7 collapsed that day. Again, I wonder why?
Ross Perot Hey bro Ross was right! Do you hear that sucking sound again? That is the sound of NAFTA's 'outsourcing' sucking our jobs out of our country. Or to quote South Park: "They took our jobs!"
Sounds good doesn't it? Old Perot was right. Next step is the North American Union. Got to love that!
Swing Dangler, you sum up your attitude nicely in one sentence:
You can't tarnish a theory with other belief systems.
Uh-huh. So your opinions constitute valid scientific theory, while the opinions of those you disagree with or wish to disassociate from are just "belief systems."
Your arrogance is the crux of your misunderstanding. And it's an arrogance you betray on many occasions.
Conspiracism IS a belief system. It is a worldview that attracts some people, for a variety of reasons. Sociologists and other observers understood this as far back as Hofstater's "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" essay.
Getting back to 9/11: if there really were a 9/11 conspiracy theory, it would actually BE a theory -- you know, a comprehensive alternate explanation for the events of 9/11/01. But to this day, the Denier camp can't agree on the most basic facts of the matter, like how many planes were involved, whether or not the hijackers existed, or whether or not the WTC towers were blown up with explosives or Star Wars death beams.
The 9/11 Denial movement simply doesn't have a theory. You have a disparate collection of coincidences, hearsay, out-of-context remarks, and other material, much of which has been shown to be fraudulent, misleading, or irrelevant.
Your arrogance about the validity of your own beliefs and the invalidity of any competing beliefs manifests itself in other ways. From this thread alone:
And I'm completely surpised to see none of this blogs regulars jumping at the chance to participate in this 9/11 National Debate.
I haven't been beat yet on this website.
Now in order for unintelligent folks to recognize it as such, I have to spend time to point it out.
I would argue that the general public isn't aware that WTC 7 collapsed that day. Again, I wonder why?
Not only do you assume that every reaction to your assertions has some meaningful subtext to it, but that it always further proves of the correctness of your own position, and by extension your own brilliance. This isn't how scientists think; it's how cultists think. Get over yourself.
The merit of said theory still stands.
It's not even a theory.
Ive debated Mark many times at Ground Zero and would love o do so on air. Please contact me Ryan Rodrigues rdr2112@columbia.edu
http://www.myspace.com/rr0d
Ive debate mark many times at ground zero and would love to do so on air. Please contact me Ryan Rodrigues rdr2112@columbia.edu
http://www.myspace.com/rr0d
My name is Adam and I made and the website truth911.net. http://www.truth911.net
it is the first link on the scholars for 9/11 truth webpage (st911.org) under the link "Truth 9/11" in the beginner start here section.
I would love to debate Mark Roberts. Please e-mail me at truthabout911@hotmail.com if i get the chance to debate him.
My name is Adam and I made and the website truth911.net. http://www.truth911.net
it is the first link on the scholars for 9/11 truth webpage (st911.org) under the link "Truth 9/11" in the beginner start here section.
I would love to debate Mark Roberts. Please e-mail me at truthabout911@hotmail.com if i get the chance to debate him.
if anyone has Mark Roberts's e-mail, i'd like to hear his explanation for trying to debunk the Norman Mineta testimony which has never been addressed by popular mechanics, 9/11 myths, screw loose change, 9/11 commission, lee hamilton, or anyone.
Mark Roberts is a complete idiot! He looks as if he has something up his back end when he gets angry about talking with respect to how melted alluminum would look, he hasn't a fucking clue how it would look/act or anything else for that matter. There was NO aluminum melting on the WTC exterior pooring several floors downward, that was steel you moron! Do an extremely small experiment and you will get your "back end filled arse" look off your face! You will quickly see what aluminum looks like when melted moron boy!
Post a Comment
<< Home