Mark Roberts Gets Every Single Point Right
And that apparently bugs this filmmaker to no end. :)
posted by Pat @ 5:13 PM
25 comments
As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!
Sunday, February 18, 2007
And that apparently bugs this filmmaker to no end. :)
Previous Posts
- BBC 9-11 CT Show
- Still Moron 9-11 Accountability
- New Debunking Site
- Dylan On Truth Jihad
- 9-11 Accountability Conference Screwing Speakers?
- Twilight Zone Territory
- Dramatic Video of Fires in WTC 7!
- Getting It Wrong
- The Dancing Jews Redux
- Two Degrees of Separation
View My Stats
Allies:
25 Comments:
I agree with your comment, chf.
This puts Mark is a positive light.
I believe that Mark is an honest guy and he is acting out of conviction that the "truther lies" hurt our Country, which may be the exact motivation of you and many others here.
As you know, I disagree with you, but I don't question your motives.
CHF said...
You have no idea how I spend my time, CHF. You do, of course, see my posts here, and you may or may not visit my blog.
However, the arrogance which you show in representing that you know the totality of my efforts, and the idea that you are in a position to assess whether my behavior has been appropriate is outrageous.
Of course, YOU were Time's person of the year last year, so is that where you got the idea you have this incredible power of discernment?
chf,
Look, you brilliant son of a bitch.
Explain what Bush was talking about here when he was bragging about the intelligence gained from interrogating KSM: here
chf,
I approved your comment at my blog.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I respect the basic truth of you comment about my blog design. As I've said before, it gets probably 1% or less traffic as compared to this blog.
I don't mind sharing my recent stats.
Given that it's possible to get traffic with such a poor design, perhaps you should start a blog to share your insight, chf?
CHF said...
Pretty lame sidetracking effort there, BG.
I repeat my question:
what ARE you doing with the amazing proof you have?
Where have I ever claimed amazing proof? In fact, I got hit here at SLC in another comment for saying I couldn't prove anything.
So, chf, you have no response to my G W Bush / KSM question?
chf,
Let me ask you a question to see if you are delusional?
In your judgement was there any illegal act (including perjury) committed by anyone related to Valerie Plame Wilson (prior to or after her "outing")?
Sorry, CHF, but that shot at his blog design was completely uncalled for, totally irrelevant and just as bad as any sidetracking BG tried to do.
No it wasn't. One thing that all the really loony motherfuckers have in common is the design of their webpages. That's because nutballs have no idea how to structure their thoughts into a logical order. It's definitely a valid comment.
i posted on the video:
"People can say what they want about Mark "Oh he's just a tour guide" etc, but the fact is his paper has never been challenged yet. You are not showing Mark Roberts debating. You are showing him making a statement during a debate to ignorant people. He's no scientist or engineer, but he's heard what the experts have to say and concluded from his own research."
Do you think it will get approved? no.
BG, don't confuse CHF's comments with me ignoring him. I ignore him because I displayed in full view his lying nature, his lies about me, and unsupported claims.
The debunking of the BBC program...
http://debunking-bbc.blogspot.com/
Just an idea, but why donate to Mark's fund when you could donate to the victims fund, or say the fund established to help those who suffered at the hands of the EPA's lies?
Why buy Dylans movie and stupid t-shirts when you could donate to the victims fund?
Why do you bother arguing? I have yet to see you make an argument that couldn't be demolished in 2 minutes by a 10 year old. Give up already!
And no, it won't get you any 10 year olds, don't get your hopes up.
Chf speaks for me. I have yet to meet a conspiracy liar who had genuine questions about the events of 9/11/01. The fantasists share an irrational hatred of America that makes it impossible for them to view this country as the victim of an unprovoked attack. All of their nonsensical, bogus science, their distortions of the words of first-responders, structural engineers, and demolition experts, and their outright falsehoods have a dual purpose: to exonerate the actual perpetrators of a mass murder and to frame innocent American officials. In five years of screaming, the conspiracy liars have yet to produce a coherent narrative. They have not undermined any part of the NIST Report. They have found no errors in the 9/11 Commission Report. Their sad, sick charade is almost over.
Why buy Dylans movie and stupid t-shirts when you could donate to the victims fund?
Great question, Alex. How much have you donated to the funds?
Oh and you know dam well you don't have to buy it as it is the most downloaded free video on the net as most of the videos regarding the 9/11 conspiracy are.
Move on hero border guard. Go fight those terrorists in the great white north. Or better yet, sign up to go to Afghanistan or Iraq and serve your country there and earn some real respect.
Why did you join the reserves instead of active military anyway? Was that the coward in you afraid to go to the Middle East or is there some other noble reason?
Your country ought to fire you and take that money to support the real Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan facing hit and run attacks by the Taliban instead of paying you to sit on your ass all day. Or is destroying old tank cannons that important to Canadian National Security?
And put your money where your mouth is and please repost or link to my arguments that were destroyed as you have stated.
Does Mark Roberts have other Tour Guides serve as his peer reviewers for his paper?
I'm not a supporter of Silver's public statement, but ..
Main Entry: pull
Part of Speech: verb 1
Definition: draw
Synonyms: cull, dislocate, drag, extract, gather, haul, heave, jerk, lug, paddle, pick, pluck, remove, rend, rip, row, schlep, sprain, strain, stretch, take out, tear, tow, trail, truck, tug, twitch, uproot, weed*, wrench, yank
Main Entry: pull down
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: destroy
Synonyms: annihilate, bulldoze, decimate, demolish, destruct, dismantle, knock over, let down, lower, raze, remove, ruin, take down, tear down, wreck
Geez, tour guide debunked by the thesarus.
Well the first part of Mark's work is a transcript with Troothers. Who cares??
Oh but wait, Mark quotes 1 expert in CD, and a few PM experts. But is Larry Silverstein an expert in demoltions? Are firefighters?
Oh but wait, Mark points out the number of times 'pull' is used to remove people from buildings. And in every instances, 'pull' is followed by guys, people, workers etc. Silverstein comments pull with no mention of people, firefighters, etc. but does follow with watching the building collapse. Hmmm
How can you pull a firefighter operation out of the building if there wasn't one to begin with anyway, according to FEMA?
And since Mark Roberts, tour guide, has the definitive proof of what happend to WTC, why in the hell would the NIST even bother to consider blast scenarios? With Mark's tour guide expertise, why would FEMA declare that the fire collapse has a low probability of occuring. Pretty freakin' low considering the historical record.
Does anyone know if Mark has submitted his paper to the NIST, FEMA, or other structural engineering firms so that buildings can now be made safe from fires? I mean wouldn't that be the thing to do if you really cared about saving lives? Or is more about getting attention on the web at ground zero? Seems to me if he had all this proof he would do something with instead of arguing with strangers at ground zero.
How were the experts so sure when it was going to collapse anyway? Could it have been 10, 12, 18 hours later?
From Mark's paper:
40. Captain Michael Currid, the president of the Uniformed Fire Officers Asso-ciation, said that some timehow much time would be nice to know after the collapse of the Twin Towers,
“Someone from the city's Office of Emergency Management” told him that building 7 was “basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it," after which the firefighters in the building were told to get out (Murphy, Dean E., 2002. September 11: An Oral History. New York: Doubleday pp. 175-76)
Any idea who this 'someone' is? They could certainly clear up a lot of questions.
While we were searching the subbasements (of building 6) they decided that Seven World Trade Center which was across the street was going to collapse, so they called us out.
Searching WTC6 subbasement???? The dam building is next door to the towers, has a huge hole in it, tons of damage from debris and god knows what else and they were searching it but stay the hell out of 7??
No fear of WTC6 collapsing?
Why place firefighters in that building and its damage compared to WTC7
Firefighters ordered away from WTC 7 because it is in danger of collapse but somehow WTC 6 was not?
How does that make any sense at all?
I wonder why Mark didn't highlight thise eyewitnesses testimony:
Reports of gas main leaks, bombs, small arms fire and buildings about to collapse forced us to again relocate further north on West Street. –Daniel A. Carbonaro, PAPD Lieutenant http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports03.pdf page 76
This line by Mark is classic..
No one reports having seen work that might involve the planting of demo-litions charges.
Well hell, tour boy, do you think your going to put yourself in a position to be seen by anyone if you were rigging a building to be destroyed?? DUH!
Lack of hydrant pressure due to broken water mains left firemen nearly helpless to extinguish the blazes.
Yet in a video taken of WTC we have , hold on your jocks, firefigthers fighting fire in another buidling with water! WOW! I thought I'd seen it all until I see an OS video debunk an OS statement. ROFL
Tour boy points out a graphic provided by NIST but sadly it is nothing but estimates and possiblities.
Random thought, but how did a gravity fed collapse have enough energy to blow enough debris to damage the upperfloors of wtc 7 that Mark points out?
Tour guide versus Physics Professor: Why tour boy would you even point out Stephen's Jones religious beliefs in relation to his 9/11 research? Oh wait, typical tactic of trying to smear the man instead of his work. I don't recall reading in at least the first 5 of 6 pages Mark pointing out his expertise: giving tours.
In WTC Building 5, this large column and beam buckled
on floor 8 of 9. The fire was fueled by office materials only.
That is a great picture. Now in order for his theory to work, all 47 core steel members had to have the fire proofing blown off at the same place, at the same time and to fail at the same time as well and then try to explain why the wrong building fell first. And then he fails to explain how that leads to a global collapse.
I checked out, Underwriters Labs post-9/11 WTC fire testing, ASTM E119 standard and their conclusion about WTC completely contradicts the Head Strucutral Engineer's own analysis. But I digress, because the test itself didn't display a global collapse feature.
Mark goes on to show the tidy pile of WTC 7 and the debris it left. I'm curious if there are other photos of the same area that show a pristine region not being impacted in any way by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2? Until we are shown pictures of that pristine area after the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, the point is inconclusive and the footprint remains.
No explosive sounds like these were reported or recorded when WTC 7 col-lapsed. Perhaps he will revise his statments after viewing the following
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
CcRs1fv8i3I
or this
http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0
I'm not sure if Mark has seen this video, but I would encourage him to view it:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
wtc7.html
The following video (screenshot left) compares the collapse of WTC 7 to a controlled demolition. The characteristics and speed of the collapses are all but identical. It is impossible for diesel fires to collapse a building in this manner.
WMV video download (190kB)
Of course Mark ignores all of the evidence regarding sounds when it comes to WTC 1 and 2 and brushes it off as 'it could be anything atitude, totally ignoring all the firefighter's testiomy in this case. He will accept without a doubt firefighter's beliefs about WTC 7 but disregard their beliefs as well as first responders, eyewitnesses, FBI, etc about 1 and 2. Nice work, Gravy.
I will stop here. But it isn't too difficult to counter mu
The first part of Mark's paper, so what? Nobody cares about your converstations with troofers.
The second part, great oral testimony about building 7 with the total ommission of testimony on the thoughts of firefighters about 1 and 2. Fallacy of ommision, I believe?
I would be really impressed with Mark if he met with the expert who stated WTC 7 was a CD.
Sd never ceases to provide amusement with his typ 5000 words of mindless babble. I love they way he repeats the same BS as if it is something new.
I wonder where his list of experts are to back up all, his tripe instead of his usual opinion, spec and conjecture
Sd never ceases to provide amusement with his typ 5000 words of mindless babble. I love they way he repeats the same BS as if it is something new.
You actually read that crap? What's the point? You can read the first five words of every paragraph and know exactly what arguments he's trying to make. That's because, as you correctly point out, he recycles the same garbage over and over again. So why waste your time?
If it were not for C&P he could not say a word, it is really getting funny.
He will never give a list of experts because there are none.
Only the toofers agree with him
Thanks Tard Farmers...you did everything but support the Tour Guide, your most popular expert.
I'm begining to think you 3 are circle jerkers with a cracker just waiting for that saltine lunch.
It is really too bad you jerkyes continue to use the 'expert' case when in fact experts can't even get the data to determine if the NIST had any errors in the computer modeling program. Geez how do we know this, NSE publication.
Hey CHF, Alex
I think we have just been insulted LOL
You can try to debunk BBC, you can whine about South Park, the fact is as the big boys get hold of the "truth" crap, they are burying that movement further and further...I love it.
TAM
I think we have just been insulted LOL
I dunno. When a monkey throws a turd at you, is that really an insult? I'm sure the monkey thinks it is....but do you?
Naw monkey's are more intelligent than sd :)
Post a Comment
<< Home