Mark Roberts Interview on Skeptic Zone

[Hyperviolet]

Hi folks,

In case you guys missed the thread in the Community Subforum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124685), here is the link again:
www.skepticzone.tv/

The interview was conducted by JREF member Dr Mark Henn (Mercutio) and is quite excellent, if I must say. So take the time to leave feedback on the blog (http://skepticzone.wordpress.com/).
It's their first show, let 'em know how you enjoyed it.

Furthermore, for those else interested:
Gravy, in a PM, told me:
Mark Henn's question about the best way to approach truthers was a good one, and as usual I left a lot out of my response (and some was edited out.) I'll be writing a suggested "dos and don'ts for skeptics" to be linked prominently on my site (wtc7lies.googlepages.com).



Cheers!

[tanabear]

The interview was conducted by JREF member Dr Mark Henn (Mercutio) and is quite excellent, if I must say. So take the time to leave feedback on the blog (http://skepticzone.wordpress.com/).
It's their first show, let 'em know how you enjoyed it.

Mark Roberts starts off by stating that the 9/11 Truth Movement was largely started by Holocaust denier's and anti-Semites. I suppose I could say that the die-hard believers in the official propaganda story are only interested in killing Arabs/Muslims. Some Arabs blew up the World Trade Center so let's blow up some Arabs. All political and social movements have crazy people in their midst.

Later Mark Roberts states, "Initially, the truthers get a big headstart...When you are forming a conspiracy theory you don't have to get anything right... People like us[debunkers???] have to rely on facts and evidence."

Really!!! Well, Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou had their first paper ready for publication on 09/13/2001, only two days after the attacks. What facts and evidence did they have at this point? In their paper they write,

"the conflagration caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800°C."

What evidence was there on 09/13/2001 that the columns were exposed to sustained temperatures exceeding 800C? None

In their first paper they also stated,

"the upper part may be assumed to move through distance h almost in a free fall."

What evidence was there for this occurrence? None.

I wonder why Mark Roberts isn't criticizing Bazant for coming to conclusions before any of the evidence was in?

Jerome Hauer, the director of the Office of Emergency Management(OEM) under Giuliani, already seemed to know that day how the towers were destroyed.

Dan Rather: Based on what you know and I recognize that we are dealing with so few facts. Is it possible that just a plane crash could have collapsed these buildings or would it have required a prior positioning of other explosives...?

Jerome Hauer: "...No, my sense is that a plane filled with fuel that hit that buildings that burned...the velocity of the plane certainly had an impact on the structure itself...the fact that it burned and you had that intense heat probably weakened the structure as well. And I think that it was simply the planes hitting the buildings and causing the collapse."

Charles Thornton, one of the members of the ASCE investigation, stated to Karl Koch, "Karl, we all know what caused the collapse." Karl Koch himself stated,

"I could see it in my mind's eye: The fire burned until the steel was weakened and the floors above collapsed, starting a chain reaction of gravity, floor falling upon floor upon floor, clunk – clunk – clunk, the load gaining weight and momentum by the nanosecond, unstoppable. Once enough floors collapsed, the exterior walls and the core columns were no longer laterally supported and folded in."

He might have seen it in his mind's eye, but apparently this wasn't ever captured on any of the videos. As S. Shyam Sunder once stated, "When you did it previously, you showed that the floors actually pancaked, and we did not see any evidence of pancaking in the videos or photographs we have."

What facts and evidence did Jerome Hauer, Zdenek Bazant, Charles Thornton, and Karl Koch have when they made their statements? None.

Why isn't Mark Roberts interested in pointing this out? Because he isn't interested in the truth. He is interested in promoting ideological conformity to the government's position.

[pomeroo]

Mark Roberts starts off by stating that the 9/11 Truth Movement was largely started by Holocaust denier's and anti-Semites. I suppose I could say that the die-hard believers in the official propaganda story are only interested in killing Arabs/Muslims. Some Arabs blew up the World Trade Center so let's blow up some Arabs. All political and social movements have crazy people in their midst.

Later Mark Roberts states, "Initially, the truthers get a big headstart...When you are forming a conspiracy theory you don't have to get anything right... People like us[debunkers???] have to rely on facts and evidence."

Really!!! Well, Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou had their first paper ready for publication on 09/13/2001, only two days after the attacks. What facts and evidence did they have at this point? In their paper they write,

"the conflagration caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800°C."

What evidence was there on 09/13/2001 that the columns were exposed to sustained temperatures exceeding 800C? None

In their first paper they also stated,

"the upper part may be assumed to move through distance h almost in a free fall."

What evidence was there for this occurrence? None.

I wonder why Mark Roberts isn't criticizing Bazant for coming to conclusions before any of the evidence was in?

Jerome Hauer, the director of the Office of Emergency Management(OEM) under Giuliani, already seemed to know that day how the towers were destroyed.

Dan Rather: Based on what you know and I recognize that we are dealing with so few facts. Is it possible that just a plane crash could have collapsed these buildings or would it have required a prior positioning of other explosives...?

Jerome Hauer: "...No, my sense is that a plane filled with fuel that hit that buildings that burned...the velocity of the plane certainly had an impact on the structure itself...the fact that it burned and you had that intense heat probably weakened the structure as well. And I think that it was simply the planes hitting the buildings and causing the collapse."

Charles Thornton, one of the members of the ASCE investigation, stated to Karl Koch, "Karl, we all know what caused the collapse." Karl Koch himself stated,

"I could see it in my mind's eye: The fire burned until the steel was weakened and the floors above collapsed, starting a chain reaction of gravity, floor falling upon floor upon floor, clunk – clunk – clunk, the load gaining weight and momentum by the nanosecond, unstoppable. Once enough floors collapsed, the exterior walls and the core columns were no longer laterally supported and folded in."

He might have seen it in his mind's eye, but apparently this wasn't ever captured on any of the videos. As S. Shyam Sunder once stated, "When you did it previously, you showed that the floors actually pancaked, and we did not see any evidence of pancaking in the videos or photographs we have."

What facts and evidence did Jerome Hauer, Zdenek Bazant, Charles Thornton, and Karl Koch have when they made their statements? None.

Why isn't Mark Roberts interested in pointing this out? Because he isn't interested in the truth. He is interested in promoting ideological conformity to the government's position.


Why is Mark Roberts, a liberal Democrat, interested in promoting ideological conformity with an ideology he doesn't share?

[beachnut]

... He is interested in promoting ideological conformity to the government's position.
If you understood the things you reference you would not ask completely stupid questions.

Empty rhetoric proven by your purity of zero evidence. Talk is all you have making stupid statements backed up with nothing. You and 9/11 truth not done a single thing of value after 7 years. No Pulitzer Prize, nothing.

[Jonnyclueless]

That's the biggest strawman argument I have ever seen.

[Gravy]

Mark Roberts starts off by stating that the 9/11 Truth Movement was largely started by Holocaust denier's and anti-Semites. (Gravy notes truther getting his very first statement wrong, learns from experience and ignores the remaining ignorant drivel.)

[tanabear]

Why is Mark Roberts, a liberal Democrat, interested in promoting ideological conformity with an ideology he doesn't share?

He is interested in promoting ideological conformity to the government's position regarding the events of 9/11.

Why am I, a conservative Republican, not interested in promoting ideological conformity to the government's position?

I believe National Review used to sell a bumper sticker that stated, "Love your country, fear your government."

[johnny karate]

He is interested in promoting ideological conformity to the government's position regarding the events of 9/11.

Why am I, a conservative Republican, not interested in promoting ideological conformity to the government's position?

Please point me to a link or any other reference that will demonstrate "the government's position regarding the events of 9/11".

[LibraryLady]

Good job, Gravy and Mercutio both! Very interesting interview.


I would like to know about the sirens in the background--were they looking for you?

As to supporting ideologies, Gravy is not supporting anything. He is offering facts.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Please point me to a link or any other reference that will demonstrate "the government's position regarding the events of 9/11".

You don't know the governments position on 9/11?

shhhhhhh

[johnny karate]

You don't know the governments position on 9/11?

shhhhhhh

No, I don't. Could you please direct me to a resource that will provide it?

[Jonnyclueless]

This government, does he have a good personality? Would you go on a second date?

[tanabear]

(Gravy notes truther getting his very first statement wrong, learns from experience and ignores the remaining ignorant drivel.)

You said something to this effect during the interview,

"A lot of the early conspiracy theorists for 9/11 were holocaust deniers, not a lot but prominent ones, looking for another excuse to be able present their views on what the Jews had done...but they didn't make it overtly a Jewish thing...and later on find out that these are hardcore holocaust deniers and anti-Semites."

Some of the early prominent 9/11 Truthers would include Michael Ruppert, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Jimmy Walter, Barrie Zwicker, Jim Hoffman etc.

You later state, "A lot of people who stuck in there are not well mentally." Actually, it is probably the case some of the early truthers were more out of it mentally, while the more credible ones are still relevant to the 9/11 Truth Movement. James Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood are largely irrelevant to the 9/11 Truth Movement at this point.

Nevertheless, your attempt to associate the 9/11 Truth Movement with Holocaust deniers is just another pathetic ad hominem attack against us. Why not mention the Jersey Girls, who lost their husbands in the attacks, and were instrumental in helping the create the 9/11 Commission? Because you want people to believe that the people who make up the 9/11 Truth Movement are the most detestable kind of people imaginable. So you can't very well say that a lot of the early prominent truthers were married women with children who lost their husbands on 9/11 and set out to discover the truth about what happened. That sounds to sympathetic. You want people unfamiliar with the 9/11 Truth Movement to think, 9/11 Truthers = Holocaust deniers. I suppose that is good propaganda though.

Please point me to a link or any other reference that will demonstrate "the government's position regarding the events of 9/11".

Here (http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-english/2006/August/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html), here (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html) here (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2006/Jan/20-672210.html) and here (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm).

Good job, Gravy and Mercutio both! Very interesting interview.

I would like to know about the sirens in the background--were they looking for you?

As to supporting ideologies, Gravy is not supporting anything. He is offering facts.

But his "facts" don't really go beyond the official explanation offered by our government. Someone repeating, "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength" isn't really offering facts.

[Gravy]

You said something to this effect during the interview,

"A lot of the early conspiracy theorists for 9/11 were holocaust deniers, not a lot but prominent ones, looking for another excuse to be able present their views on what the Jews had done...but they didn't make it overtly a Jewish thing...and later on find out that these are hardcore holocaust deniers and anti-Semites."

Some of the early prominent 9/11 Truthers would include Michael Ruppert, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Jimmy Walter, Barrie Zwicker, Jim Hoffman etc.It's one thing to be ignorant and too lazy to do your homework. It's another thing to flaunt those regrettable qualities.

This was for a revision of my Loose Change Viewer guide, which I never finished. August, 2006.

I’m going to take a break from Loose Change’s narrative for a moment, to talk about 9/11 denial and anti-Semitism. The American Free Press (AFP), a far-right-wing biweekly anti-Israel conspiracy-promoting opinion paper, is one of the main sources for information in Loose Change. Here’s an excerpt from the AFP’s mission statement:You can see the future clearly if America continues her mad race to oblivion. Thanks to the press, the life-denying values – often called "democratic values" – are in vogue. Kids can't pray in school even as the taxpayers offer huge sums to the theocratic state of Israel. The Boy Scouts are scheduled for the guillotine because they don't want perverts to be scoutmasters and want to restrict membership to normal boys. The family is officially defined now as something other than what it has been since humankind appeared on this globe. The ancient Hippocratic Oath for doctors is trashed to accommodate the profitable business of abortion. Cultural communism-which is called political correctness-dominates all media. Art is literal trash and music is cacophony. Morals and speech are sewage, history as fact is viciously attacked by the media, entertainment is ethical syphilis. One must be blind not to see the direction. Where can it end? Jumping from a cliff brings a light-hearted feeling and the descent is most enjoyable until the inevitable sudden stop. Reality is not fitted with a bungee rope.

Whether you wish to choose or not, you will choose. It's the Global Plantation and Death or Liberty and Life. You will have and your children will have either an international communistic society with the very rich at the top, the bureaucrats in the middle and the rest of mankind at the bottom, or a free and sovereign America. –The AFP http://www.btpholdings.com/afp.htmlIt’s one thing to rely on crackpot sources, which, as you will see (if you haven’t already from the passage above), the AFP clearly is. But it’s another thing to rely on a crackpot source that’s run by Willis Carto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Carto), the racist Holocaust denier whom the Anti-Defamation League (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/carto.asp?xpicked=2&item=carto) calls “one of the most influential American anti-Semitic propagandists of the past 50 years.” The AFP is published from the same office as Carto’s The Barnes Review, which ran a serious story titled “Adolf Hitler – An Overlooked Candidate for the Nobel Prize.” Willis Carto: "If Satan himself, with all of his super-human genius and diabolical ingenuity at his command, had tried to create a permanent disintegration and force for the destruction of the nations, he could have done no better than to invent the Jews."Thanks to reader Ralph Hernandez (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1794085&postcount=2840) for alerting me to this connection, which reminds me of a disturbing fact. There are several prominent anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers in the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. I don’t mean the people who believe the very common conspiracy theory that radical Zionists in Israel and/or in the US government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks to get the US to wage war against the foes of Israel. And it’s important not to automatically label as anti-Semitic, people who disagree with Israeli policy or with a Zionist political agenda. That said, I’m not aware of a single Holocaust denier or anti-Semite who’s prominent on the 9/11 myth-debunking side. But there are several people on the CT side who hold such views. These include:

– Eric Hufschmid, author of the 9/11 conspiracy book “Painful Questions” and the video “Painful Deceptions,” is so proud of his Holocaust denial that he calls himself a “HoloHoax exposer.”

– The owners of the popular, and early, 9/11 conspiracy website Serendipity.li, who publish articles such as “In Defense of Anti-Semitism” and “Jewish media myths leading us to World War III.”

– The host of the webcast “Wing TV,” who goes by the pseudonym “Victor Thorn,” and who published a booklet titled “Christ Killers.”

– Carol Valentine, who runs the conspiracy website Public-Action.com, where the current headline is “The American Coup d’Etat and the War for Jewish Supremacy,” and who writes, “Zionist Christians are traitors to America. Along with Jews, they scream loudest for Arab blood, even though all rational analysis shouts that Israel and Israeli agents in America were responsible for 9-11.”

– “Scholar for Truth” Rick Rajter praises Iran’s president Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial and has a website that links to the neo-Nazi site Stormfront. More about him on the Screw Loose Change blog (http://tinyurl.com/qg24b).

– The writers and editors of the American Free Press, whose work is cited several times in Loose Change. They formerly published The Spotlight, a harsher anti-Semitic paper, which was shut down when a lawsuit bankrupted Willis Carto’s Liberty Lobby organization.

– 9/11 conspiracy promoter “Killtown,” who presents the idea that fewer than 300,000 Jews may have died at the hands of the Nazis, and who believes that Israel was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and therefore may be lying about the Holocaust.

***

March, 2003: A.K. Dewdney publishes his "cell phones can't work in airliners" paper in an online journal dedicated to Holocaust denial: http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/3/Dewdney248-271.html
***


Is Dylan Avery an anti-Semite? I don’t know. He denies that he is. Some people, like the administrator of the website littlegreenfootballs.com, insist that he’s the same Dylan Avery who posted anti-Semitic rants on that site in 2003. Indeed, there are remarkable similarities between the two besides the name, as I point out on page 50 of Loose Change Creators Speak (http://tinyurl.com/s8ouv).(PDF) But I’d need more evidence before making an accusation of anti-Semitism against Avery. Loose Change mostly stays away from the “Zionist plot” claims made by other conspiracists.

However, in their public lives Avery & co. have repeatedly thrown their hats in with these paranoid, far-right “Christian patriot” hatemongers. In addition to promoting the laughably bad “research” that’s printed in The AFP, they have done interviews with people like Victor Thorn, John Stadtmiller, Jack Blood, and Eric Hufschmid. This strikes me as very strange behavior for people who claim to be sensitive to murder victims.

In an interview with “HoloHoax exposer” Hufschmid, Avery responds to Hufschmid’s criticism that Loose Change doesn’t place enough blame on the Jews by saying,“Take our word for it: we're well aware of the Illuminati and the New World Order, and we're well aware that there are people who want an all-Jewish state. We realize that all these things exist, but that's not what we're about. Your video, and Alex Jones's video, cover these things beautifully, and there's no need for us to cover these same topics. …I just hope you can support us.”Jason Bermas tells Hufschmid, “This not just about Cheney and Rumsfeld and those guys. But by piercing them, we're hoping to get to the bottom of this [Zionist] criminal network that you talk about.”
***

William Rodriguez's association with anti-Semites and Holocaust Deniers


“The Mindset of the Malaysian people has been changed forever on the 9/11 events after seeing the latest evidence.” (http://911stories.googlepages.com/travelswithwillie) –Malaysia's National News Service

Rodriguez travels with crackpots and Holocaust deniers to tell the world that 9/11 was an inside job. Citing this information, Muslim clerics march on a U.S. embassy. Venezuela's National Assembly calls for a new investigation to include the possibility of U.S. complicity in the attacks. Rodriguez is proud of these achievements.

Back in the U.S., Rodriguez speaks at a neo-Nazi conference and, not surprisingly, gets a speaking invitation from the world's top anti-Semites. In December, 2006 he announces his conversion to Islam and says that the aim of American media is to criminalize Muslims.

December, 2007: Rodriguez won't denounce Kevin Barrett's anti-Semitism or agree not to associate with Barrett. (http://911stories.googlepages.com/emailsfrommetowilliamrodriguez) (December 11 email on that page includes a list of Barrett's hateful statements.)

September, 2008: Rodriguez writes to notorious anti-Semites Willis Carto and Michael Collins Piper, warning them that I have mentioned them in this thread.
(http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4077344&postcount=20)
***


Screw Loose Change has numerous posts about 9/11 and Holocaust deniers, including an account of the Phoenix 9/11 Truth conference in Feb., 2007, which was organized by a Holocaust denier. Here's SLC's search results for "Holocaust" http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search?q=Holocaust

***


More about Carol Valentine and Eric Hufschmid at ref's site: http://911guide.googlepages.com/history

***

Excerpt from an email from me to Kevin Barrett, January, 2007:


9) Why did you say that it's a "Zionist Big Lie" that the "Germans hated the Jews for no reason."

10) Why did you say "the Holocaust as it is taught in the US is a hideously destructive myth"?

11) Why did you name one of the most egregious white-supremicist neo-Nazis, Ernst Zundel, as someone whose work deserves consideration? In case you've forgotten about Zundel's work, here's a quote by him:

"Wherever we look, we White people find ourselves besieged by peoples of other races who compete aggressively against us for jobs, food, housing, education and above all -- power! The Jews are particularly adept at seizing or insinuating themselves into strategic positions in our society where they wield power far beyond the extent of their numbers....Through us, the White majority of Europe and America, the Jewish minority have obtained their advantages, including their Israel, their Federal Reserve, their World Bank and their International Monetary Fund. In exchange for these advantages, the Jews give us -- their White hosts -- wars, depressions, inflation, unemployment, energy shortages, higher and higher taxes and air piracy. Like sheep, they expect us to go down the road with them -- all the way to the kosher slaughterhouse. We White people of America have done nothing so far which would frustrate the Jews' expectations or their ambitions of becoming the world's slavemasters."***


The ADL published an overview of anti-Semitic 9/11 conspiracy theories: http://tinyurl.com/rhvkd


Of course, much of the anti-Semitism practiced in the U.S. is mild compared to that in the Middle East. This 2002 paper examines the resurgence of anti-Semitic myths there: http://tinyurl.com/lfj3y


This film takes a critical look at the Arab and Iranian reaction to 9/11, five years later: http://www.memrifilms.org/

[Jonnyclueless]

It's kind of sad when truths aren't even familiar with the history of their movements origin.

[Gravy]

But his "facts" don't really go beyond the official explanation offered by our government. Someone repeating, "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength" isn't really offering facts.You have no excuse for not having visited my website (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com), since the link was given at the start of the podcast. Nor have you pointed out where or when I repeated anything like you claim I did.

Here are some sections of my site for you to consider before you judge if I have merely repeated government slogans. Let me know in a few years, after you've read the material, if you've changed your mind. You'll need to email me then, since you're going on ignore now. Best wishes in your studies.

William Rodriguez, Escape Artist (http://911stories.googlepages.com/home)– To a hero of 9/11, the truth is a straitjacket.

An open letter to John Schroeder, formerly of FDNY Engine 10 (http://911stories.googlepages.com/anopenletter)– His conspiracist interviewers repeatedly fail to clear up his confusion, then use his confused story to try to support their claims.

WTC 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction) – An examination of how the conspiracist claims of WTC 7's condition and collapse correspond to reality, with numerous first responder accounts.

Loose Change 2nd Edition Viewer guide (http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html): Not a single claim right, and 81 factual errors in 81 minutes.


The 9/11 Terrorists, Confessions, al Qaeda & Jihadist History & Ideology (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/linkstoterrorism%2Calqaedainfo)

NIST & FEMA reports and critiques, 9/11 Engineering Studies, Alternate Hypotheses, WTC 7 Reports, Computer Simulations, more (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/nist%2Cfemareports%2C911structuralengineerin)

Fire Safety Engineering and the Performance of Structural Steel in Fires, Building Code Changes
(http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/firesafetyengineering%26theperformanceofst)
Did eyewitnesses report hearing or seeing bombs and demolitions explosives in and around the towers? (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard).(Includes analysis of the "118 Witnesses" paper and other conspiracist claims and methods.)

Accounts of structural instability in the Twin Towers, Bowing of columns, Collapse expected (http://911stories.googlepages.com/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande)

Flight 77 – Pentagon – A thorough look at the evidence, many links & photos (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary)

Flight 93 – Shanksville, PA – A thorough look at the evidence, many links & photos (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1)

A partial (but long) list of agencies, organizations, and experts responding to and investigating the 9/11 attacks. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/someoftheagencies%2Corganizationsandindivi)–You know: the ones the conspiracists say are liars, dupes, and shills.


They oughta know better: (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/theyoughtaknowbetter%3Acritiquesoftheinept)critiqu es of the inept work, absurd claims, and deceitful practices of Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, Jim Hoffman, Steven E. Jones, Gordon Ross, Kevin Ryan, and others (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/theyoughtaknowbetter%3Acritiquesoftheinept)

Ground Zero cleanup, Fires in piles, Molten metals, Fresh Kills operations, Steel ID & scrap issues (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/groundzerocleanup%2Cfreshkillssortingopera)

What They Saw: Eyewitness Accounts of the NYC Aircraft Attacks (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheysaw%3Aeyewitnessaccountsofthenycai)

9/11 Forensics and Victim Identification (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/linksto911forensicsaqndvictimidentificat)

FDNY Info, Oral testimony transcripts, 9/11 Communication Problems, Other WTC First Responder Issues, corporate response (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/fdny%26otherwtcfirstresponders)

(http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/worldtradecenterconstruction%2Cfacts%26figur)Groun d Zero worker health issues, Respirator use, Dust composition, Environmental Testing (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/groundzerositesafety%2Cworkerhealthissues)

9/11 Survivor Aid, Stories, Statistics, Tributes, Memorials, Exhibits (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/victim%2Cfamilyinformation%26narratives%2Caido)

WTC Construction, Plans & Elevations, Power, Security, Statistics, Pre-9/11 photos, Tenants (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/worldtradecenterconstruction%2Cfacts%26figur)

WTC Insurance Issues before and after 9/11, Terrorism Insurance (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/wtcinsuranceissues)

9/11 Photo & Video Resources (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/photo%26videoresources)


– Some Recommended Books about 9/11 and its Aftermath –
(More books are listed at the categorized pages linked above)


Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts (http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/158816635X)

The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (http://www.amazon.com/Looming-Tower-Al-Qaeda-Road-11/dp/037541486X)

Perfect Soldiers: The 9/11 Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It (http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Soldiers-Hijackers-They-Were/dp/0060584696)

Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 (http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-September/dp/1594200076)

102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers (http://www.amazon.com/102-Minutes-Untold-Survive-Towers/dp/0805076824)

Why Buildings Fall Down: How Structures Fail (http://www.amazon.com/Why-Buildings-Fall-Down-Structures/dp/039331152X/sr=1-1/qid=1167480091/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-1337371-7995012?ie=UTF8&s=books)

Report from Ground Zero: The Story of the Rescue Efforts at the World Trade Center (http://www.amazon.com/Report-Ground-Zero-Rescue-Efforts/dp/067003116X/sr=1-7/qid=1170881485/ref=sr_1_7/104-4484109-2435964?ie=UTF8&s=books)

Nine Months at Ground Zero: The story of the brotherhood of workers who took on a job like no other
(http://www.amazon.com/Nine-Months-Ground-Zero-Brotherhood/dp/0743270401)

Tragedy and Heroism: September 11, 2001 at the Pentagon (http://bookstore.gpo.gov/collections/pentagon911.jsp)

Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11 (http://www.amazon.com/Firefight-Inside-Battle-Save-Pentagon/dp/0891419055/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212415983&sr=8-1) (2008)

Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11 (http://www.amazon.com/Touching-History-Untold-Unfolded-America/dp/1416559256)

Among the Heroes (Flight 93) (http://www.amazon.com/Among-Heroes-United-Flight-Passengers/dp/0060099097/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195642659&sr=1-2)

[johnny karate]

Here (http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-english/2006/August/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html), here (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html) here (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2006/Jan/20-672210.html) and here (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm).

None of those webpages gave me any indication on what the government's position is on the events of 9/11. Perhaps I overlooked it and you could quote the relevant passages.

Also, they're all dated 2005 and later. Is it your contention that the government had no position on the events of 9/11 before then? If not, then please cite an earlier source. If so, then please explain how anyone besides conspiracy theorists knew what happened on 9/11 prior to 2005.

[Homeland Insurgency]

It's one thing to be ignorant and too lazy to do your homework. It's another thing to flaunt those regrettable qualities.

This was for a revision of my Loose Change Viewer guide, which I never finished. August, 2006.

I’m going to take a break from Loose Change’s narrative for a moment, to talk about 9/11 denial and anti-Semitism. The American Free Press (AFP), a far-right-wing biweekly anti-Israel conspiracy-promoting opinion paper, is one of the main sources for information in Loose Change. Here’s an excerpt from the AFP’s mission statement:You can see the future clearly if America continues her mad race to oblivion. Thanks to the press, the life-denying values – often called "democratic values" – are in vogue. Kids can't pray in school even as the taxpayers offer huge sums to the theocratic state of Israel. The Boy Scouts are scheduled for the guillotine because they don't want perverts to be scoutmasters and want to restrict membership to normal boys. The family is officially defined now as something other than what it has been since humankind appeared on this globe. The ancient Hippocratic Oath for doctors is trashed to accommodate the profitable business of abortion. Cultural communism-which is called political correctness-dominates all media. Art is literal trash and music is cacophony. Morals and speech are sewage, history as fact is viciously attacked by the media, entertainment is ethical syphilis. One must be blind not to see the direction. Where can it end? Jumping from a cliff brings a light-hearted feeling and the descent is most enjoyable until the inevitable sudden stop. Reality is not fitted with a bungee rope.

Whether you wish to choose or not, you will choose. It's the Global Plantation and Death or Liberty and Life. You will have and your children will have either an international communistic society with the very rich at the top, the bureaucrats in the middle and the rest of mankind at the bottom, or a free and sovereign America. –The AFP http://www.btpholdings.com/afp.htmlIt’s one thing to rely on crackpot sources, which, as you will see (if you haven’t already from the passage above), the AFP clearly is. But it’s another thing to rely on a crackpot source that’s run by Willis Carto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Carto), the racist Holocaust denier whom the Anti-Defamation League (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/carto.asp?xpicked=2&item=carto) calls “one of the most influential American anti-Semitic propagandists of the past 50 years.” The AFP is published from the same office as Carto’s The Barnes Review, which ran a serious story titled “Adolf Hitler – An Overlooked Candidate for the Nobel Prize.” Willis Carto: "If Satan himself, with all of his super-human genius and diabolical ingenuity at his command, had tried to create a permanent disintegration and force for the destruction of the nations, he could have done no better than to invent the Jews."Thanks to reader Ralph Hernandez (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1794085&postcount=2840) for alerting me to this connection, which reminds me of a disturbing fact. There are several prominent anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers in the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. I don’t mean the people who believe the very common conspiracy theory that radical Zionists in Israel and/or in the US government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks to get the US to wage war against the foes of Israel. And it’s important not to automatically label as anti-Semitic, people who disagree with Israeli policy or with a Zionist political agenda. That said, I’m not aware of a single Holocaust denier or anti-Semite who’s prominent on the 9/11 myth-debunking side. But there are several people on the CT side who hold such views. These include:

– Eric Hufschmid, author of the 9/11 conspiracy book “Painful Questions” and the video “Painful Deceptions,” is so proud of his Holocaust denial that he calls himself a “HoloHoax exposer.”

– The owners of the popular, and early, 9/11 conspiracy website Serendipity.li, who publish articles such as “In Defense of Anti-Semitism” and “Jewish media myths leading us to World War III.”

– The host of the webcast “Wing TV,” who goes by the pseudonym “Victor Thorn,” and who published a booklet titled “Christ Killers.”

– Carol Valentine, who runs the conspiracy website Public-Action.com, where the current headline is “The American Coup d’Etat and the War for Jewish Supremacy,” and who writes, “Zionist Christians are traitors to America. Along with Jews, they scream loudest for Arab blood, even though all rational analysis shouts that Israel and Israeli agents in America were responsible for 9-11.”

– “Scholar for Truth” Rick Rajter praises Iran’s president Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial and has a website that links to the neo-Nazi site Stormfront. More about him on the Screw Loose Change blog (http://tinyurl.com/qg24b).

– The writers and editors of the American Free Press, whose work is cited several times in Loose Change. They formerly published The Spotlight, a harsher anti-Semitic paper, which was shut down when a lawsuit bankrupted Willis Carto’s Liberty Lobby organization.

– 9/11 conspiracy promoter “Killtown,” who presents the idea that fewer than 300,000 Jews may have died at the hands of the Nazis, and who believes that Israel was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and therefore may be lying about the Holocaust.

***

March, 2003: A.K. Dewdney publishes his "cell phones can't work in airliners" paper in an online journal dedicated to Holocaust denial: http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/3/Dewdney248-271.html
***


Is Dylan Avery an anti-Semite? I don’t know. He denies that he is. Some people, like the administrator of the website littlegreenfootballs.com, insist that he’s the same Dylan Avery who posted anti-Semitic rants on that site in 2003. Indeed, there are remarkable similarities between the two besides the name, as I point out on page 50 of Loose Change Creators Speak (http://tinyurl.com/s8ouv).(PDF) But I’d need more evidence before making an accusation of anti-Semitism against Avery. Loose Change mostly stays away from the “Zionist plot” claims made by other conspiracists.

However, in their public lives Avery & co. have repeatedly thrown their hats in with these paranoid, far-right “Christian patriot” hatemongers. In addition to promoting the laughably bad “research” that’s printed in The AFP, they have done interviews with people like Victor Thorn, John Stadtmiller, Jack Blood, and Eric Hufschmid. This strikes me as very strange behavior for people who claim to be sensitive to murder victims.

In an interview with “HoloHoax exposer” Hufschmid, Avery responds to Hufschmid’s criticism that Loose Change doesn’t place enough blame on the Jews by saying,“Take our word for it: we're well aware of the Illuminati and the New World Order, and we're well aware that there are people who want an all-Jewish state. We realize that all these things exist, but that's not what we're about. Your video, and Alex Jones's video, cover these things beautifully, and there's no need for us to cover these same topics. …I just hope you can support us.”Jason Bermas tells Hufschmid, “This not just about Cheney and Rumsfeld and those guys. But by piercing them, we're hoping to get to the bottom of this [Zionist] criminal network that you talk about.”
***

William Rodriguez's association with anti-Semites and Holocaust Deniers


“The Mindset of the Malaysian people has been changed forever on the 9/11 events after seeing the latest evidence.” (http://911stories.googlepages.com/travelswithwillie) –Malaysia's National News Service
Rodriguez travels with crackpots and Holocaust deniers to tell the world that 9/11 was an inside job. Citing this information, Muslim clerics march on a U.S. embassy. Venezuela's National Assembly calls for a new investigation to include the possibility of U.S. complicity in the attacks. Rodriguez is proud of these achievements. Back in the U.S., Rodriguez speaks at a neo-Nazi conference and, not surprisingly, gets a speaking invitation from the world's top anti-Semites. In December, 2006 he announces his conversion to Islam and says that the aim of American media is to criminalize Muslims.December, 2007: Rodriguez won't denounce Kevin Barrett's anti-Semitism or agree not to associate with Barrett. (http://911stories.googlepages.com/emailsfrommetowilliamrodriguez) (December 11 email on that page includes a list of Barrett's hateful statements.)

***
Screw Loose Change has numerous posts about 9/11 and Holocaust deniers, including an account of the Phoenix 9/11 Truth conference in Feb., 2007, which was organized by a Holocaust denier. Here's SLC's search results for "Holocaust" http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search?q=Holocaust

***


More about Carol Valentine and Eric Hufschmid at ref's site: http://911guide.googlepages.com/history

***

Excerpt from an email from me to Kevin Barrett, January, 2007:


9) Why did you say that it's a "Zionist Big Lie" that the "Germans hated the Jews for no reason."

10) Why did you say "the Holocaust as it is taught in the US is a hideously destructive myth"?

11) Why did you name one of the most egregious white-supremicist neo-Nazis, Ernst Zundel, as someone whose work deserves consideration? In case you've forgotten about Zundel's work, here's a quote by him:

***


The ADL published an overview of anti-Semitic 9/11 conspiracies here: http://tinyurl.com/rhvkd

Of course, much of the anti-Semitism practiced in the U.S. is mild compared to that in the Middle East. This 2002 paper examines the resurgence of anti-Semitic myths there: http://tinyurl.com/lfj3y

This film takes a critical look at the Arab and Iranian reaction to 9/11, five years later: http://www.memrifilms.org/

Yeah right Mark. BTW I thought you were retired from here? So I guess you’ve finally taken your thumb out of your mouth and have stretch out of that fetal position Gage beat you into and are now just getting some of your confidence back. Good for you tough guy.

That's some nice generizations you made there. Lumping everyone together who might have some similar thoughts on one issue. Do you generalize much? I mean being on the subject of anti-Semitism and all I was just curious.

Did you forget which liars you get your story on 9/11 from?

[Tippit]

Please point me to a link or any other reference that will demonstrate "the government's position regarding the events of 9/11".

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

[Gravy]

How sad. I just received an email from William Rodriguez. He wrote an email to “one of the most influential American anti-Semitic propagandists of the past 50 years.” (see above) and to anti-Semite Michael Collins Piper to advise them that "Mark Roberts of Brooklyn, NY" "attacked" the American Free Press on this website. He linked to this thread.

Rodriguez told them that I have "made fun of" 9/11 victims in the past. He did not elaborate on how he believes I did that.

He also told them that I mentioned the fact that Rodriguez spoke at the neo-Nazi conference Carto hosted. You can read about these things in my Rodriguez paper.

How nice of William to do the good Mr. Carto this favor. I wonder how he knew about this thread.

Way to live up to expectations, "truth" movement!

Did I say, "How sad?" If not, I'll do so again.

How sad.


William Rodriguez <wtcbill@gmail.com>tohttps://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gifafpeditor@americanfreepress.net,
https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gifmichaelcollinspiper1960@yahoo.com
cchttps://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gifMark Roberts <nyctours@gmail.com>

datehttps://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gif: Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 10:57 PM

subject: https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gifattacks on AFP and victims of 9/11.In the email Rodriguez did not elaborate on how he believes I've attacked victims of 9/11.

A final point: William Rodriguez still has not responded to a single point in my detailed paper about his claims (http://911stories.googlepages.com/home), which he's been invited to do since May, 2007.


Update: Rodriguez has sent another email, to the AFP and to his 9/11 family and fan mailing lists, advising them of further discussion on this site that is "famous for attacking people of 9/11." He seems to be forgetting that truthers cringed when he announced that he was sending a link to my paper about him to all 65,000 people on his mailing list. All the emails I received about him after that were in support of my work.

Strangely, Rodriguez took issue with my displaying his email address, which is publicly available on his websites. He encouraged 9/11 families and the AFP crackpots to contact him for my email address, which is also publicly available, on my website.

Rodriguez stated in that email that he is no longer a member of the Truth Movement. He says he has his own mission (which now includes a video for sale – MR).

Please get help, William.

[Mercutio]

HomIns....

Pathetic.


Gravy...

Sorry our interview led to this. You were quite right.

[Walter Ego]

Screw Loose Change has numerous posts about 9/11 and Holocaust deniers, including an account of the Phoenix 9/11 Truth conference in Feb., 2007, which was organized by a Holocaust denier. Here's SLC's search results for "Holocaust" http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search?q=Holocaust

The conference was in Chandler, Arizona, and the Holocaust denier was Eric D. Williams (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search/label/Eric%20D.%20Williams)who was the organizer until he was exposed by Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog and by local journalist Stephen Lemons. Incredibly, Williams was not booted but only demoted to a lesser role at the conference.

(I should note that truther superstars Dylan Avery and Alex Jones did bail out of the conference after Williams was outed.)

The five minute video linked below is by truther Jon Gold and was supposed to be a take down of Lemons who was “mean” to Bob McIlvaine and local truther Blair Gadsby . What you will see, however, is a bunch of truthers, including Jim Fetzer, rushing to defend Williams. The irony of this video was completely invisible to Gold.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs5ovCSBotw

[Homeland Insurgency]

Man there really needs to be a Godwin's Law sub-forum added to AAH.

It could at least cut the irrelevant postings down in this sub-forum by at least 30% if not more.

[uruk]

Yeah right Mark. BTW I thought you were retired from here? So I guess you’ve finally taken your thumb out of your mouth and have stretch out of that fetal position Gage beat you into and are now just getting some of your confidence back. Good for you tough guy. AAAAHHHH! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

That's some nice generizations you made there. Lumping everyone together who might have some similar thoughts on one issue. Do you generalize much? I mean being on the subject of anti-Semitism and all I was just curious. Nice of you to purposly ignore the fact that Gravy said that SOME prominant truthers were anti-semetic. He never said that all truthers were anti-semetic

[Tippit]

I’m going to take a break from Loose Change’s narrative for a moment, to talk about 9/11 denial and anti-Semitism.



You've obviously spent a lot of time investigating select 9/11 truthers in support of your guilt-by-association fallacy. What conclusions have you come to? Can you estimate how many of us truthers are really jew-hating bigots? Please break it down by the numbers for us.

In any event, just focusing on a few bad-apples serves your purpose, doesn't it? Because you know full well that if you just point out that sources like AFP are run by bigots, that even if what they have to say about 9/11 is true, most people won't be aware that you're committing a fallacy.

Then you can avoid dealing with the facts that have caused so many people to question what exactly happened. If you really push this hard enough, you might be able to-preempt all questions about 9/11 altogether! After all, if everyone knows that the 9/11 truth movement is really just a smokescreen for hating jewish people, that will serve as a deterrent enough, won't it.

[Mercutio]

Could you answer those questions, Tippit?

Does Gravy know your movement better than you do?

[Gravy]

HomIns....

Pathetic.


Gravy...

Sorry our interview led to this. You were quite right.
I'm not sorry at all, Merc. The truther posts here exactly illustrate the points we were making.

And Rodriguez warning the anti-Semites that they're being discussed? Wow.

I wish these things weren't so, but since they are so, I'm glad we shed light on them, so that others may learn.

[Homeland Insurgency]

AAAAHHHH! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Yeah I thought it was funny too. Though you better not let your hero hear you laughing at him. He seems to hold grudges.

Nice of you to purposly ignore the fact that Gravy said that SOME prominant truthers were anti-semetic. He never said that all truthers were anti-semetic

He did? Then he doesn't have much of an argument does he? Very observant of you! Have a cookie.

[Gravy]

You've obviously spent a lot of time investigating select 9/11 truthers in support of your guilt-by-association fallacy. What conclusions have you come to? Can you estimate how many of us truthers are really jew-hating bigots? Please break it down by the numbers for us.It is you who commits a logical fallacy. My comment was about prominent truth leaders who were/are Holocaust deniers. If I got something wrong, let me know.

In any event, just focusing on a few bad-apples serves your purpose, doesn't it? Because you know full well that if you just point out that sources like AFP are run by bigots, that even if what they have to say about 9/11 is true, most people won't be aware that you're committing a fallacy.Your fallacy again. You miss the fact that I examined those AFP claims in my Loose Change Guide (http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html), and showed them to be false.

It's 2008. When are you going to learn to do your homework?

Then you can avoid dealing with the facts that have caused so many people to question what exactly happened. If you really push this hard enough, you might be able to-preempt all questions about 9/11 altogether! After all, if everyone knows that the 9/11 truth movement is really just a smokescreen for hating jewish people, that will serve as a deterrent enough, won't it.As always, you're welcome to shoot me an email detailing anything you think I've gotten wrong. Until then, I suggest conserving your energy. Your brain may be in need of the oxygen. :)

[adversity1]

Mark Roberts, thank you for exposing these sickening anti-semites and the allies who do so much to cover up for them.

[MarkyX]

Mark Roberts starts off by stating that the 9/11 Truth Movement was largely started by Holocaust denier's and anti-Semites.

It was.

Chris Bollyn, Eric Humsfield, Carol Valentine, American Free Press...

You name a popular 9/11 denier theory and we can probably trace it back to it's anti-semite roots. If you honestly think anti-semites don't influence the movement, just look at the theories around WTC7: Many other buildings collapse, but let's focus on the one owned by a jew.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

How sad. I just received an email from William Rodriguez. He wrote an email to “one of the most influential American anti-Semitic propagandists of the past 50 years.” (see above) and to anti-Semite Michael Collins Piper to advise them that "Mark Roberts of Brooklyn, NY" "attacked" the American Free Press on this website. He linked to this thread.


Sheez. It's like he's looking for a pat on the head from AFP. That's... messed up.

[Tippit]

Could you answer those questions, Tippit?

Does Gravy know your movement better than you do?

Well, your premise is wrong. I don't have a movement. I haven't attended any rallies, I don't own any investigate 9/11 t-shirts, I don't attend workgroups, or meet-ups. The questions were rhetorical in the sense that I really don't care what the answers are anyway. That there are bigots who think we were lied to about 9/11 is inconsequential. That rubes like Roberts are using smear-tactics to discredit a broad-based and diverse movement of people is irrelevant. He has failed to convince us with his version of the facts, and this is what he's left with.

The truth movement could be filled with axe-murderers and it wouldn't change what I think about 9/11, and it wouldn't change what happened.

[johnny karate]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

The 9/11 Commission released their report in 2004. Prior to then, how did anyone who is not a conspiracy theorist know what happened on 9/11?

[Mercutio]

Well, your premise is wrong. I don't have a movement. I haven't attended any rallies, I don't own any investigate 9/11 t-shirts, I don't attend workgroups, or meet-ups. The questions were rhetorical in the sense that I really don't care what the answers are anyway. That there are bigots who think we were lied to about 9/11 is inconsequential. That rubes like Roberts are using smear-tactics to discredit a broad-based and diverse movement of people is irrelevant. He has failed to convince us with his version of the facts, and this is what he's left with.

The truth movement could be filled with axe-murderers and it wouldn't change what I think about 9/11, and it wouldn't change what happened.
My apologies, then.

Oh, and could you provide a bit of evidence that the movement (not your movement) is "broad-based and diverse"? Those are not adjectives I would use, so I look forward to your educating me.

[Homeland Insurgency]

It was.

Chris Bollyn, Eric Humsfield, Carol Valentine, American Free Press...

You name a popular 9/11 denier theory and we can probably trace it back to it's anti-semite roots. If you honestly think anti-semites don't influence the movement, just look at the theories around WTC7: Many other buildings collapse, but let's focus on the one owned by a jew.

And the official version was started by...

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, 9/11 Commission Report (an obstructed investigation btw)...

Yeah right. You really have the white hats on your side.

[adversity1]

If you guys want a sense of how deep and popular anti-semitism is in the 9/11 truth movement, and sadly how much they have done to popularize that ideology, check out this thread at infowars:

http://www.infowars.com/?p=4866&cp=13

[uruk]

Yeah I thought it was funny too. Though you better not let your hero hear you laughing at him. He seems to hold grudges.
Aw come on. You really know who I was laughing at. Then again maybe not.


He did? Then he doesn't have much of an argument does he? Very observant of you! Have a cookie.I think that he was alluding that you all (truthers) were being lead around by your nose by anti-semites. They will then use your numbers to bolster their agenda.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Aw come on. You really know who I was laughing at. Then again maybe not.

Yes I do. And he might not find it funny. You really didn't need to laugh at him so hard did you? You don't resent your hero at all do you?

I think that he was alluding that you all (truthers) were being lead around by your nose by anti-semites. They will then use your numbers to bolster their agenda.

Well you won't have to just think as to what I might be alluding to. I think I make it pretty clear who has been leading you by the nose.

[MarkyX]

And the official version was started by...

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, 9/11 Commission Report (an obstructed investigation btw)...

You forget to mention the NIST scientists, FEMA, the NYFD, NYPD, first responders, Arlington Fire department, FBI, CIA, Controlled Demolition Inc., the mayor of Shanksville, Wally Miller, FAA, NORAD...

And that's just the top of my head.

[beachnut]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

I've been a member of the JREF forum for quite some time, and I have to say, I haven't seen anything original or thoughtful in any of your posts. They are all filled with bile, insults, and substance-free denial. Most JREFers are abusive, dishonest, and dogmatic, but you take the cake.

And your post is...

Can I eat that cake now, oops it is gone... Good luck, thank you very much

Does this mean you can help 9/11 truth find some evidence, or are you as pure and evidence free as the entire truth movement?


Then you can avoid dealing with the facts that have caused so many people to question what exactly happened?
Show me some details of your false statement.
There is zero evidence to question what happen, there is ignorance which makes some people think they have evidence to question something they don’t understand (fire, aircraft impacts, et al), there is ignorance to not find out what happen; that is the truth movement pure ignorance acting as if they have questions based on evidence, they don't have.

Then people on the sideline kibitzing with even less evidence. Negative evidence is now defined, it is your stand on 9/11 issues; undefined.

[MarkyX]

If you guys want a sense of how deep and popular anti-semitism is in the 9/11 truth movement, and sadly how much they have done to popularize that ideology, check out this thread at infowars:

http://www.infowars.com/?p=4866&cp=13

CAIR? They are siding with CAIR?

I think someone needs to ask Alex Jones if he believes the Protocols of Zion is real and what does he think of Mein Kempf.

The most ironic thing is if the Islamics ever had their way, Alex Jones would probably be executed despite his insignificance.

[Gravy]

And the official version was started by...

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, 9/11 Commission Report (an obstructed investigation btw)...

Yeah right. You really have the white hats on your side.You miss the point. This isn't about personalities, but about facts. It's September, 2008, and the 9/11 "truth" movement has yet to get a significant claim right, and still can't point to any evidence of an "inside job" or to any significant conclusions that the "official" evidence-based investigations get wrong.

Should you some day stumble on some significant new evidence about 9/11, the world will be all ears. Until then, please stop the nonsense and do something productive with yourself.

[Homeland Insurgency]

You forget to mention the NIST scientists, FEMA, the NYFD, NYPD, first responders, Arlington Fire department, FBI, CIA, Controlled Demolition Inc., the mayor of Shanksville, Wally Miller, FAA, NORAD...

And that's just the top of my head.

I didn't forget to mention anything that is on the top of your head. Even the hair that use to be there.

There are people from almost every group you have listed there that have a problem with the official version.

You nor any of them know exactly what happened on 9/11. If you did you wouldn't be here with me.

[uruk]

Yes I do. And he might not find it funny. You really didn't need to laugh at him so hard did you? You don't resent your hero at all do you? HAAAAA, HA HA HA HA HA HA! Oh, you are precious. No wonder you are having a bad time here.


Well you won't have to just think as to what I might be alluding to. I think I make it pretty clear who has been leading you by the nose. Yep, I do. But I don't think it has quite the impact you think it does.

[A W Smith]

what time will Carto and Piper register here and post to this thread? Cause I am all out of popcorn and need to run to the 24 hour A&P to get more.

[Homeland Insurgency]

You miss the point. This isn't about personalities, but about facts. It's September, 2008, and the 9/11 "truth" movement has yet to get a significant claim right, and still can't point to any evidence of an "inside job" or to any significant conclusions that the "official" evidence-based investigations get wrong.

Should you some day stumble on some significant new evidence about 9/11, the world will be all ears. Until then, please stop the nonsense and do something productive with yourself.

Bull.

That's right it is September 2008 and the official version on WTC-7 was just released. It turns out all of the the debunkers here with all their facts about 10 story gashes and fuel tanks didn't have anything more then the truth movement for the last seven years. You had no idea and you still don't. You just keep spinning, pretending, and wasting your life.

Why can't YOU let go Gravy? Why are you still here?

[Homeland Insurgency]

HAAAAA, HA HA HA HA HA HA! Oh, you are precious. No wonder you are having a bad time here.

I always have fun here. Maybe you should use more capital and multiple letters when you post and it will at least look like you are having a good time. But probably not.


Yep, I do. But I don't think it has quite the impact you think it does.

It's not about me it's about you and what you fear. I'm just pointing it out.

[Gravy]

That rubes like Roberts are using smear-tactics to discredit a broad-based and diverse movement of people is irrelevant. He has failed to convince us with his version of the facts, and this is what he's left with.Please point out what I've gotten wrong. If you cannot, you'll need to rethink your position. You may want to familiarize yourself with my "version of the facts" – the evidence-based version – by reviewing the information in the pages linked above.

Truthers have discredited themselves by being the world's most incompetent and/or dishonest "investigators." You can't do worse than getting everything wrong.

Please bear this in mind: evidence and facts do not change depending on if you are "convinced" by them. Reality will never adjust itself to your misconceptions.

[johnny karate]

And the official version was started by...

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, 9/11 Commission Report (an obstructed investigation btw)...

Really?

Please provide a source that substantiates either Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld provided a narrative of the events of 9/11 we now call "the official version".

And when you fail at that task, see if you can provide an explanation how anyone other than Truthers knew what happened on 9/11 prior to the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in 2004.

[Gravy]

Bull.

That's right it is September 2008 and the official version on WTC-7 was just released. It turns out all of the the debunkers here with all their facts about 10 story gashes and fuel tanks didn't have anything more then the truth movement for the last seven years.False. Please read my paper WTC 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction).

You had no idea and you still don't. You just keep spinning, pretending, and wasting your life.Your inability to support your claims is noted and filed in a very, very packed file cabinet.

Why can't YOU let go Gravy? Why are you still here?When exactly should I stop caring about getting the facts surrounding the events of 9/11 right? Why does my concern about that bother you?

Further, I'm checking to be sure that the statements I made about the 9/11 "truth" movement in the podcast are accurate. So far, they're right on the money.

I'll try to increase the signal-to-noise ratio in this thread by asking if you can briefly state your position about the events of 9/11 and what evidence would change your mind.

[MarkyX]

That's right it is September 2008 and the official version on WTC-7 was just released. It turns out all of the the debunkers here with all their facts about 10 story gashes and fuel tanks didn't have anything more then the truth movement for the last seven years.


Do you know what a hypothesis is?

[tanabear]

It's one thing to be ignorant and too lazy to do your homework. It's another thing to flaunt those regrettable qualities.

– Eric Hufschmid, author of the 9/11 conspiracy book “Painful Questions” and the video “Painful Deceptions,” is so proud of his Holocaust denial that he calls himself a “HoloHoax exposer.”

– The owners of the popular, and early, 9/11 conspiracy website Serendipity.li, who publish articles such as “In Defense of Anti-Semitism” and “Jewish media myths leading us to World War III.”

– The host of the webcast “Wing TV,” who goes by the pseudonym “Victor Thorn,” and who published a booklet titled “Christ Killers.”

– Carol Valentine, who runs the conspiracy website Public-Action.com, where the current headline is “The American Coup d’Etat and the War for Jewish Supremacy,” and who writes, “Zionist Christians are traitors to America. Along with Jews, they scream loudest for Arab blood, even though all rational analysis shouts that Israel and Israeli agents in America were responsible for 9-11.”

– “Scholar for Truth” Rick Rajter praises Iran’s president Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial and has a website that links to the neo-Nazi site Stormfront. More about him on the Screw Loose Change blog (http://tinyurl.com/qg24b).

– The writers and editors of the American Free Press, whose work is cited several times in Loose Change. They formerly published The Spotlight, a harsher anti-Semitic paper, which was shut down when a lawsuit bankrupted Willis Carto’s Liberty Lobby organization.

– 9/11 conspiracy promoter “Killtown,” who presents the idea that fewer than 300,000 Jews may have died at the hands of the Nazis, and who believes that Israel was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and therefore may be lying about the Holocaust.]

I was aware of course that there are/were Holocaust deniers and anti-Semitic people within the 9/11 Truth Movement. As I stated in a previous post, "All political and social movements have crazy people in their midst." Eric Hufschmid is hostile to many people within the 9/11 Truth Movement. He once wrote, "This is also the reason I am not promoted by other 9/11 truth groups, and other radio stations. My conclusion is that most of the 9/11 truth groups and the media are controlled by Zionists, and they censor anybody who brings up these issues." He goes on to give a list of "9/11 Truther liars" who seek to deny the alleged Zionist role in 9/11: Karl Schwarz, Tom Flocco, John Stadtmiller, Greg Szymanski, Webster Tarpley, Dave von Kleist, Alex Jones etc.

The anti-Semites don't seem to play that large of a role in the current 9/11 Truth Movement. Killtown was banned from 9/11 blogger, and the websites serendipity and public-action are not even that prominent within the 9/11 Truth Movement. Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Jim Hoffman, Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan, and Paul Thompson are the most prominent Truthers currently. None of them can be described as Holocaust deniers or anti-Semetic.

You write, "That said, I’m not aware of a single Holocaust denier or anti-Semite who’s prominent on the 9/11 myth-debunking side."

But those who believe the official 9/11 fairy tale do believe in killing innocent Arabs/Muslims for 9/11.

Ann Coulter: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

Michelle Malkin wrote a book entitled In Defense of Internment which she attempted to defend or at least provoke debate regarding the internment of Japanese during WWII. She wrote, "Make no mistake: I am not advocating rounding up all Arabs or Muslims and tossing them into camps, but when we are under attack, 'Racial profiling' - or more precisely, threat profiling - is justified" I wonder if a prominent truther had said a similar comment after 9/11 and just substituted the words "Arabs" and "Muslims" with Jews.

Talk show host Michael Reagan gave his opinion on 9/11 Truthers,

"We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that's what they are, and you shoot them dead. I'll pay for the bullets. How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of a firing range. Tie him to a post, don't blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice."

Lawrence Auster from vfr (http://amnation.com/vfr/) has even advocated outlawing Islam in American. He once wrote,

"Declare that Islam is not just a religion but a political movement aimed at gaining power, and therefore the individual beliefs of individual Muslims matter less than the overall presence of Islam among us which strengthens the Islamic political agenda. Therefore (1) Islam is not a religion receiving protections under the First Amendment, and (2) Islam is not welcome in this country." I wonder if a prominent truther had said the same thing about Judaism/Zionism after 9/11, what the response would be. I suppose Anti-Arab sentiment is acceptable more acceptable.

As well, the official 9/11 fairy tale has been used to invade a country(Iraq) that had nothing to do with 9/11. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and millions of people have become refugees. Neo-con conspiracy theories are responsible for the deaths of thousands. Actually killing innocent people bothers me more than someone's opinions about Zionism, no matter how noxious.

Overall, this was just another lame attempt by you to divert attention away from your comment that truthers just make stuff up, while those in the debunking community rely on facts and evidence.

As well, if someone has a problem with the political views expressed by the American Free Press then that can be discussed in the politics forum. Gregory Urich, who is Jewish and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice stated,

"The Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice group is larger than Steve Jones and has clearly denounced "ALL forms of prejudice and bigotry" in this statement on their public web site (http://stj911.org/nonviolence.html)."

[Walter Ego]

Talk show host Michael Reagan gave his opinion on 9/11 Truthers,

"We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that's what they are, and you shoot them dead. I'll pay for the bullets. How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of a firing range. Tie him to a post, don't blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice."



And Reagan apologized for his ill-tempered remarks and even had Mark Dice on his show (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1838563446791301111).

I guess you missed that part of the story.

[tanabear]

HomIns....

Pathetic.

Gravy...

Sorry our interview led to this. You were quite right.

Quite right about what? He attempts to compare 9/11 Truthers to Holocaust deniers. The most prominent 9/11 Truth organization, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, has nothing to do with Holocaust denial. The Jersey Girls were instrumental in the creation of the 9/11 Commission and have certainly played a much larger role than the anti-Semites that Mark Roberts references.

The 9/11 Commission released their report in 2004. Prior to then, how did anyone who is not a conspiracy theorist know what happened on 9/11?

Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou had their first paper ready to go on 09/13/2001. Jerome Hauer was on national television that day stating that the jet impacts and the subsequent fires caused the towers to collapse. He also expressed his belief that it had all the fingerprints of someone like bin Laden. Of course, he stated all this with zero evidence.

My apologies, then.

Oh, and could you provide a bit of evidence that the movement (not your movement) is "broad-based and diverse"? Those are not adjectives I would use, so I look forward to your educating me.

Richard Gage described himself as a Reagan conservative. Steven Jones was at one point a registered Republican. David Ray Griffin is your standard leftist college professor. Alex Jones calls himself a paleo-conservative/libertarian. Paul Thompson is probably a liberal. Two of the Jersey Girls(Mindy Kleinberg, Lorie van Auken) are Democrats. Kristen Breitweiser and Patty Casazza both voted for George Bush in the first election. Regarding the rank and file, the majority are on the political left.

[Jonnyclueless]

"As well, the official 9/11 fairy tale has been used to invade a country(Iraq)"

******LIE*********

[Jonnyclueless]

"He attempts to compare 9/11 Truthers to Holocaust deniers"

***********LIE**********

"Of course, he stated all this with zero evidence. "


***********LIE*********

[Brannagyn]

Having lately being accused of anti-Semitism myself in one of the few threads I’ve taken part in and given the fact that some of the same people are indulging themselves here I was naturally curious about this one.

@tanabear: The point you’ve made, that it was poor form to highlight the worst elements of the ‘truth movement’ as being notable when the exact same can be done with extremist ‘skeptics’, is a perfectly fair one and Mr. Roberts character would no doubt go up in the estimation of many people if he could acknowledge this. Unfortunately many here (on both sides of discussions) seem to take reasoned discourse as being some sort of contest to see whose original position will dominate, refusing to give ground in any area no matter how strong or reasonable the argument against them.

An additional point I’d like to make, which generated very irrational and boorish cries of ‘racism’ in the aforementioned thread is that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are not synonyms.

There are many people opposed to the political ideology of Zionism (which has profound impact in international affairs) who have no negative views of either the Jewish people as a race (who, apart from the prominent Zionists, have no special influence on world affairs) or the Jewish religion (which has next to no relevance politically).

You can either choose to recognize what is a self-evident fact or denigrate yourself by labeling people such as Rabbi Michael Lerner, Norman Finkelstein, Israel Shahak and a wide variety of orthodox Jews (e.g. http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/), who oppose the political ideology of Zionism, as “self-hating Jews”.

Willis Carto, from what I've read about him, does certainly seem to have a vile streak of racism running through him. This doesn't, however, anyone associated with him or his newspaper is also racist. On top of this Carto's racism (or that of any racist) is entirely irrelvant to the validity of their other views. Highlighting their character is an appeal to emotion rather than logic (though I don't care to much about this aspect as I myself prefer to simply avoid engaging such people in the first place).

There are certainly racists among the proponents of 9/11 truth who should be identified and condemned for their prejudiced views but failing to differentiate between Zionism and Semitism not only condemns an unwarranted and excessively broad array of people it also allows actual racists to evade full scrutiny and condemnation by including them amongst groups whose views are actually defensible (if not neccesarily correct).

Its also possible you might have racist groups claiming to be “anti-Zionist”. This is hardly surprising as by virtue of being anti-Semitic you are automatically anti-Zionist (but not vice-versa). It isn’t hard to distinguish between them though. If someone mentions that Michael Perle is a Zionist this, depending upon the discussion, might be a fair and relevant point. If someone mentions that he, or Chertoff or Silverstein, etc. is a Jew, there’s almost no context in which that is a relevant or decent comment to make.

Anyway, I’m not expecting actual rational responses to these points (knee-jerk reactions seemed far more satisfying to posters in my last thread) but as far as I can see two things are unassailable by rational argument:

1. There are extremists on both sides of the truther/skeptic divide (which I personally regard as a false and destructive dichotomy but…), such people are a minority in both camps and do a disservice to the majority or reasonable people in each, not least because despite their small size they may well be the most vocal. Consequently highlighting them without pointing out their fringe status is poor form.
2. Zionism is not Semitism and to conflate opposition to the former with hatred of the latter is at best an ad hominem argument and more accurately may be considered character assassination.

Failure to recognize these two points is making what is, supposedly, a place of rational thought appear to be a reactionary playpen in which personal views carry more weight that actual argument.

[technoextreme]

Quite right about what? He attempts to compare 9/11 Truthers to Holocaust deniers. The most prominent 9/11 Truth organization, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, has nothing to do with Holocaust denial. The Jersey Girls were instrumental in the creation of the 9/11 Commission and have certainly played a much larger role than the anti-Semites that Mark Roberts references.

And it had nothing to do with architects and engineers. *rimshot*1. There are extremists on both sides of the truther/skeptic divide (which I personally regard as a false and destructive dichotomy but…), such people are a minority in both camps and do a disservice to the majority or reasonable people in each, not least because despite their small size they may well be the most vocal. Consequently highlighting them without pointing out their fringe status is poor form.
It's not really a false dichotomy because I see one group as delusional and the other as sane.

[MarkyX]

The anti-Semites don't seem to play that large of a role in the current 9/11 Truth Movement.


Wrong.

- Steven Jones' "research" on Thermite was based on Chris Bollyn's article about the "molten steel". He even cites Chris Bollyn and there is a picture of the two together.

- Loose Change practically used AFP for nearly every claim. The pentagon engines, the molten steel, etc.

- Carol Valentine's theories such as fake passports, no muslim hijackers, and a drone plane hitting the Pentagon are still used in mainstream 9/11 denialism. His theories spouted in October 2001, before any investigation was done.

- Eric was interviewed on 9/11 mysteries, another popular 9/11 denier film.

Again, all you need to do is look at WTC7 to see the anti-semite influence on the movement. There were other buildings collapsed not mentioned in the 9/11 commission (nor they should be), so why the focus on WTC7? Jews. There is no other reason.

And now with Alex Jones saying that Obsession DVD is propaganda (despite using Arab's own footage and spoke with people from middle eastern countries), AJ is saying Jews are behind it and sides with the CAIR, an Islamic extremist group.

You might not like it but Anti-semitism is still a big fish in the 9/11 denier pool.

[Hyperviolet]

Wait.
Why on Earth would Mr Rodriguez want to give raging anti-Semites a heads-up about this interview?

:confused:

[DC]

why the focus on WTC7? Jews. There is no other reason

BS

[MarkyX]

BS

So explain to me why other buildings are ignored by the movement but the prime focus is WTC7?

[Gravy]

I'm perfectly open to arguments that anti-Semites were not influential in starting the 9/11 "truth" movement. But for all the whining, no one here has attempted to make such an argument. I presented my evidence, and even pointed out that within hours of this thread starting, a prominent "truth" movement leader stepped up to aid notorious anti-Semites (who, by the way, get nothing about 9/11 right).

@tanabear: The point you’ve made, that it was poor form to highlight the worst elements of the ‘truth movement’ as being notable when the exact same can be done with extremist ‘skeptics’, is a perfectly fair one and Mr. Roberts character would no doubt go up in the estimation of many people if he could acknowledge this.You should listen to the portion of the interview where I take "a lot of" debunkers to task for their behavior.

"The exact same?" Please point out where these "extremist" skeptics have been influential to 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers. Where are their popular websites, their books, their DVDs, their speaking tours, their conferences? How have they caused the debunkers to get anything wrong?

The "debunking" movement, if one wants to call it that, was not started in large or small part by people who express race or ethnic hatred and get everything wrong.

You may also want to consider my statement about the "truth" movement's rank-and-file members:

"This is a religious movement. It didn't, I think, start out that way. I think it started with a lot of people who had questions that they at least believed were legitimate, and lots of things were confusing and take some study and research. But it became, quickly, a religious movement. As I said, not a single significant claim correct. It takes a special kind of person to stick with that."

If I'm wrong about that, I encourage the truthers participating here to state what evidence would change their minds.

[chillzero]

So explain to me why other buildings are ignored by the movement but the prime focus is WTC7?

Perhaps you could take it to any of the gazillion other threads already on WTC7?

[Walter Ego]

My latest video seems appropriate here. It was in fact inspired by this thread.

Take a gander at truthers rushing to the defense of Holocaust denier Eric Williams at a truther confab in Chandler, Arizona, last year. Williams was the organizer of the conference until the ***** hit the fan thanks to wiseacre journalist Steve Lemons of the Phoenix New Times and Pat. C. (Brainster on this forum) of the Screw Loose Change blog. Pat was in the room too but is not in the video.

The video features local nutter Kent "Cow Killer" Knudson and Uncle James Fetzer singing the praises of Eric Hufschmid.

By the company they keep, ye shall know them.

Sb-qXrQ2v3E

[RedIbis]

If I'm wrong about that, I encourage the truthers participating here to state what evidence would change their minds.

Twoofie Twoofer or not, nearly anyone with an ounce of skepticism would ask to see evidence of the now infamous Column 79. I apologize to CZ who is obviously trying to keep this thread focused and not veering off into well covered territory, but how are we to address Gravy's largely rhetorical and disingenuous challenges?

[MarkyX]

Perhaps you could take it to any of the gazillion other threads already on WTC7?

Chill, I'm not focusing on WTC7 specifically. I'm proving a point that anti-semitism is a huge part of the movement and the one of the many outcomes of this is their special attention towards WTC7 and its owner.

[Gravy]

- Eric was interviewed on 9/11 mysteries, another popular 9/11 denier film.The 9/11 Mysteries website also sells Hufschmid's 9/11 books and DVDs.

Further, of all the books about free speech issues (http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&index=books&field-keywords=Freedom%20of%20speech&page=1) they could choose to sell, the one they offer (http://www.avatarproducts.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=AP-EZS&Category_Code=BMV) is about neo-Nazi Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel: "A story that spans more than 20 years, and a vastly different view of World War II."

Zundel is the one whose rantings "truth" movement leader Kevin Barrett thinks are worthy of consideration.

ETA: For some reason the Larry Silverstein section of the 9/11 Mysteries website is titled "Larry Silverbird."

And let's not for get that on 9/11/06, a thousand black-shirted "patriots" gathered outside Larry Silverstein's office. From the account of one truther that day:

...Some Jew looking dude in a suit came up to me and asked “where are you from?” I said “PA”, and he said “you should go back to PA, *******” and walked away. It took me by suprise, and I started laughing, I thought about saying “you should go back to Israel” but instead just shouted to him “you have a nice day too sir” and smiled.

...then the movement began walking to 120 Broadway, where Larry Silverstiens office is. The police blocked off 2 lanes of traffic and the Truth Movement gathered in the middle of the street. Alex Jones got on the megaphone again and started speaking about WTC 7 and other things. In the hour or so we were there, we chanted “Pull it! pull it! pull it!” and “murderer! murderer! murderer!” among other sayings like “911 was an inside job, we have the proof, so face the truth!”

... Another thing I couldn’t help but notice was the respect, concern, and love that the 9/11 Truth Movement represented."

Bolding mine.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22545_The_Mind_of_a_Truther&only

[Gravy]

Twoofie Twoofer or not, nearly anyone with an ounce of skepticism would ask to see evidence of the now infamous Column 79. Who is "disingenuous" again? Anyone with an ounce of knowledge would know that that column, like all the other WTC 7 columns, wasn't saved. No one asked that they be saved for forensic engineering purposes. No one has presented any evidence that those decisions were made due to any malice or conspiracy.

Requesting that a nonexistent column be examined doesn't do much to refute my claim that you're part of a religious movement. Is there any evidence that might exist that would convince you that 9/11 was not an inside job, RedIbis?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

There are many people opposed to the political ideology of Zionism (which has profound impact in international affairs) who have no negative views of either the Jewish people as a race (who, apart from the prominent Zionists, have no special influence on world affairs) or the Jewish religion (which has next to no relevance politically).


I don't think you quite understand what's going on here in CT land... I don't think there's anyone here who is not aware of that distinction. The problem is within the context of the 9/11 Truth Movement. A number of truthers understand that anti-Zionism is less offensive than anti-semitism so they choose to label themselves as "anti-Zionists"... yet continue to spit venom at prominent, yet seemingly random Jews.

[Gravy]

An additional point I’d like to make, which generated very irrational and boorish cries of ‘racism’ in the aforementioned thread is that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are not synonyms.I made that point in post 14 of this thread. From my 2006 commentary:

There are several prominent anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers in the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. I don’t mean the people who believe the very common conspiracy theory that radical Zionists in Israel and/or in the US government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks to get the US to wage war against the foes of Israel. And it’s important not to automatically label as anti-Semitic, people who disagree with Israeli policy or with a Zionist political agenda. That said, I’m not aware of a single Holocaust denier or anti-Semite who’s prominent on the 9/11 myth-debunking side. But there are several people on the CT side who hold such views. These include...

[technoextreme]

Perhaps you could take it to any of the gazillion other threads already on WTC7?
It's a legitimate point to bring up in this context. Albeit, I don't know if his implication has to do with antisemitism or the fact that the other buildings completely screw up their narrative of fire couldn't have brought down WTC 7. In fact I was ready to bring the same point up before he did. There was plenty of evidence that fire brought down those buildings on the same day it happened. All you have to do is look at pictures of the other buildings that were destroyed.

[RedIbis]

Who is "disingenuous" again? Anyone with an ounce of knowledge would know that that column, like all the other WTC 7 columns, wasn't saved.No one asked that they be saved for forensic engineering purposes.
And the fact that you accept that unquestioningly, especially since it is at the very center of the NIST collapse theory, is a bit strange for a so-called skeptic.

No one has presented any evidence that those decisions were made due to any malice or conspiracy.
I didn't say they were. I'm questioning the validity of a collapse theory that has no physical evidence to back it up. You are not.

Requesting that a nonexistent column be examined doesn't do much to refute my claim that you're part of a religious movement.
Requesting empirical evidence is the exact opposite of blind faith. Not requesting such evidence is slavish religious adherance.

Is there any evidence that might exist that would convince you that 9/11 was not an inside job, RedIbis?

The point you're dancing around is that I'm calling on NIST to provide the physical evidence that supports their unprecedented collapse theory. Isn't the burden of proof on the one who makes the claim?

[Jonnyclueless]

Saying that because someone agrees with NIST findings mean they accept it unquestionably is a pretty desperate argument even for a 9/11 denier. but to be expected from a group of people who unconditionally accept an inside job and have never to date been able to present any evidence of such.

Ibis doesn't really question a controlled demolition for which there is no evidence of, yet questions the fire induced collapse for which there is evidence of and simultaneously claims there isn't evidence of. Hence the term denier. He then goes on to say he requests empirical evidence to which he has been provided by NIST, yet requires no empirical evidence for a controlled demolition. So Ibis makes his requirements impossible to sustain, yet has no problem with his conspiracy theories that he supports failing to meet his own requirements.

That's what being a hypocrite is about. And this whole anti-semitism thing? Often time the argument against the government or a person that is being discussed is based on them supposedly being Jewish or a zionist. Silverstien for example. Were it not for him being Jewish, there would be no such arguments about him using the term pull it". And while some try to skirt the issue of curbing it to simply "zionism", it's still hatred and bigotry no matter how you try to disguise it.

[Bananaman]

For God's sake, redIbis, just say what you think happened. It would make things a lot easier than sitting there like an old woman nitpicking at rubbish.

Bananaman.

[technoextreme]

The point you're dancing around is that I'm calling on NIST to provide the physical evidence that supports their unprecedented collapse theory. Isn't the burden of proof on the one who makes the claim?
And they have plenty of proof which goes back to the whole ignoring every single other building besides 1,2, and 7. I mean come on. Go look at the fire damage pictures of 5 and then try tilting at windmills with me.

[Gravy]

And the fact that you accept that unquestioningly, especially since it is at the very center of the NIST collapse theory, is a bit strange for a so-called skeptic.False. I bothered to do what I've never seen a truther do: learn about this issue. You can learn about these things in the debris cleanup section of my website. I have even corresponded by email, telephone, and in person with people who were directly involved with making these decisions. As I said in my Richard Gage debate, Dave Peraza, the structural engineer in charge of all debris removal, told me, unsolicited:

“By the way, some of the conspiracy theories state that the steel was sent to the scrap yards, presumably to destroy evidence of the conspiracy. I participated in the decision, ultimately made by DDC, to not retain the majority of the steel. I guess I was part of the conspiracy!”

I have seen zero evidence that any of the facts I've uncovered about this issue are wrong or that any of the people I've corresponded with are anything but honest and professional.

You can disagree, RedIbis, but the burden of proof of 9/11 conspiracies remains where it's always been: on the shoulders of the conspiracy theorists. Waiting for the rest of the world to adopt and fight for your beliefs is irrational. It's 2008. You've been doing this for years and still haven't learned that?

Let's be clear about what just transpired here.

Gravy: What evidence would convince you that your beliefs about 9/11 conspiracies are wrong?

RedIbis: Nonexistent evidence.

My point about "truthers" existing in a fantasy world stands, and I'm done with you.

[johnny karate]

And the fact that you accept that unquestioningly, especially since it is at the very center of the NIST collapse theory, is a bit strange for a so-called skeptic.

Pretty strange for the entire engineering community too, since none of them are questioning the NIST collapse theory. But hey, a non-professional from the Internet has hand-waved the theory away, so it must be wrong.

Seriously Red, you're already embarrassing yourself in one thread about this topic. Are you so lacking in shame that you feel the need to advertise your ignorance in another?

[Brannagyn]

Cl1mh4224rd: “I don't think there's anyone here who is not aware of that distinction.”

Really?

Johnnyclueless: “And while some try to skirt the issue of curbing it to simply "zionism", it's still hatred and bigotry no matter how you try to disguise it.”

And this is the problem, some people really don’t seem to get how the two are totally separate. For those people, take my own case in point.

Zionism: Don’t like it, much as I don’t like white separatism of the extreme black power views of Louis Farakhan. I don’t like non-integrationist ideologies, ethnic democracies or Communitarianism for similar reasons.

Israel: Have a lot against its humanitarian record and think it wields far too much influence over the US. Have a high opinion of its intelligence and military services yet, ironically, my Israeli friends, post-service, fervently dislike the thing I admire most about their country.

Jews: Have several Jewish friends. Don’t really go for their home cooking. Love a large number of Jewish comedians. Other than that its not an issue.

@Johnnyclueless: Please explain to me the exact nature of my bigotry and hate.

Mark Roberts: “If you can point out where these "extremist" skeptics have been influential to 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers, I'll gladly look at your evidence. Where are their popular websites, their books, their DVDs, their conferences? How have they caused the debunkers to get anything wrong?”

I can understand that you differentiate between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism but by lumping outright racists in with anyone sharing an opinion with them on 9/11 issues you’re doing the latter group a huge disservice.

I’ve already stated it’s a false dichotomy, its counter-productive to demark two opposing groups of ‘truthers' and ‘skeptics’ when by far the vast majority of people with any interest in the subject (though possibly not those who regularly post on dedicated forums) have feet in both camps (which, to state the painfully obvious, is figurative).

By far the majority of ‘skeptics’ here seem to envision a single 'truth movement' coalesced around self-promoters such as Alex Jones and Dylan Avery. Without having any conception of my views on, or knowledge of, the issues in question the majority here will probably label me part of the group simply because I’m arguing against the consensus.

All well and good, but if you take that view you have to be willing to take everybody else onto your side. Every group that argues against any 9/11 CT’s becomes part of the ‘debunking camp’. This includes the government and the mainstream media, both of whom are in clear support of the vast majority of ‘debunker’ views and who continuously pushed the link between the 9/11 attacks and Iraq in the run up to, during and after the invasion.

Oh wait, perhaps you disagree with them on this point? Maybe you debunked that connection yourself?

No good I’m afraid, if you’re a “You’re with us or you’re with the truthers” kind of guy. If you feel the ‘truth movement’ exists as a whole, and has to take responsibility for the presence within it of extremist racists, then you’ll find the debunking camp has extremists of its own who have made far more harmful claims.

Or you could avoid the labeling issue entirely by avoiding attempting to link totally disparate parties together because their views align on certain issues.

If you were simply trying to highlight the nature of people like Willis Carto and his ilk, I’d be first in line to sign up. As I’ve said, I don’t like ethnic separatism and have far less tolerance for supremacism. If there’s a thread on fringe elements tying their flag to the 9/11 truth wagon I’d honestly love to read it and learn more about such people.

That said I think, despite what you’ve said, many here do have a problem differentiating anti-semetism and anti-zionism. In itself this wouldn’t be such a big deal except for the nature of the black and white division most here make between ‘skeptic’ and ‘truther’. I’m sure it makes it more entertaining for many to imagine they’re waging a war against the barbarians but the world simply doesn’t work in such a simplistic fashion.

The charge of anti-Semetism is a powerful one, much more forceful than simple allegations of racism and it seems to be used with surprising frequency in discussions here despite the fringe status of its actual proponents. As far as I remember it, there was a far greater cross-over between the anti-war and 9/11 truth movement than there ever was with extremist racists (though to be fair I’m largely basing this on my purely peripheral awareness of these racist elements and the clear connection between the other groups) but of course ‘anti-war’ is not as effective an epithet.

There is, of course, as little reason to link the ‘truth movement’ to the positive goals of the anti-war groups as there is the negative goals of the anti-semetic groups. Each group (or each set of individuals) should be addressed on a separate basis.

[Gravy]

Mark Roberts: “If you can point out where these "extremist" skeptics have been influential to 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers, I'll gladly look at your evidence. Where are their popular websites, their books, their DVDs, their conferences? How have they caused the debunkers to get anything wrong?”

I can understand that you differentiate between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism but by lumping outright racists in with anyone sharing an opinion with them on 9/11 issues you’re doing the latter group a huge disservice.My point, which I made repeatedly in the podcast interview, is that many truthers have been influenced by people with agendas not related to the facts of 9/11. You did not support your claim that the same is true of debunkers.

Clear enough?

[uk_dave]

ahhhhh it's just like october 2006 all over again.....only i'm much better looking now.

[Tippit]

Wrong.

- Steven Jones' "research" on Thermite was based on Chris Bollyn's article about the "molten steel". He even cites Chris Bollyn and there is a picture of the two together.

- Loose Change practically used AFP for nearly every claim. The pentagon engines, the molten steel, etc.

- Carol Valentine's theories such as fake passports, no muslim hijackers, and a drone plane hitting the Pentagon are still used in mainstream 9/11 denialism. His theories spouted in October 2001, before any investigation was done.

- Eric was interviewed on 9/11 mysteries, another popular 9/11 denier film.

Again, all you need to do is look at WTC7 to see the anti-semite influence on the movement. There were other buildings collapsed not mentioned in the 9/11 commission (nor they should be), so why the focus on WTC7? Jews. There is no other reason.

And now with Alex Jones saying that Obsession DVD is propaganda (despite using Arab's own footage and spoke with people from middle eastern countries), AJ is saying Jews are behind it and sides with the CAIR, an Islamic extremist group.

You might not like it but Anti-semitism is still a big fish in the 9/11 denier pool.

No, you're wrong. It's a fallacy to say that anything from AFP is false because the owner is a racist. Claims must be evaluated on their own merit. People who support factual claims made by racists are not racists. Liars and bigots can sometimes tell the truth.

[Gravy]

No, you're wrong. It's a fallacy to say that anything from AFP is false because the owner is a racist.Unless you can point to where MarkyX said or implied that, you have engaged in the fallacy of making a strawman argument and need to retract your statement.

Do you understand this? If not I'll be glad to explain it in depth.

ETA: this is the second time you've done this in this thread. As I pointed out to you on page 1,

"Your fallacy again. You miss the fact that I examined those AFP claims in my Loose Change Guide (http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html), and showed them to be false."

[tanabear]

You have no excuse for not having visited my website (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com), since the link was given at the start of the podcast. Nor have you pointed out where or when I repeated anything like you claim I did.

Here are some sections of my site for you to consider before you judge if I have merely repeated government slogans. Let me know in a few years, after you've read the material, if you've changed your mind. You'll need to email me then, since you're going on ignore now. Best wishes in your studies.

I've visited your website on many occasions and I read your paper on WTC7 a couple of months after it was published at the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories. In the paper you don't really attempt to explain how the building collapsed. Your goal was to cast dispersions against the 9/11 Truth Movement for asking questions about it.

Nevertheless, I did show that those promoting the official story came to conclusions before any of the evidence was in. Jerome Hauer was on national television the day of 9/11 telling us what happened. Carol Valentine has some obscure website that practically no one reads.

@tanabear: The point you’ve made, that it was poor form to highlight the worst elements of the ‘truth movement’ as being notable when the exact same can be done with extremist ‘skeptics’, is a perfectly fair one and Mr. Roberts character would no doubt go up in the estimation of many people if he could acknowledge this. Unfortunately many here (on both sides of discussions) seem to take reasoned discourse as being some sort of contest to see whose original position will dominate, refusing to give ground in any area no matter how strong or reasonable the argument against them.

Exactly. Political parties and conservatives and liberals engage in the same tactics all the time. Conservative Republicans are racist, sexist, homophobic bigots etc. Liberal Democrats are all Commie loving America haters. As Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said of the 1994 Republican Congress, "It's not 'spic' or '******' anymore. They say, 'Let's cut taxes." And Rush Limbaugh used call environmentalists watermelons. "They're green on the outside but red on the inside."

Mark Roberts has already decided that the 9/11 Truth Movement is comprised of moral reprobates so for emotional reasons he will never accept any evidence they offer. Many conservatives, such as Jonah Goldberg, supported the war in Iraq because the primary opposition came from the far left and Bush haters. "Well, I can't give credence to anything those crazy people say, so I'll support the war."


So explain to me why other buildings are ignored by the movement but the prime focus is WTC7?

The primary focus of the 9/11 Truth Movement is on WTC1,2 and 7. For some reason this also seemed to by the primary concern of NIST as well.

"What are the main objectives of the investigation? The primary objectives of the NIST-led technical investigation of the WTC disaster are to determine:
why and how the WTC 1 and 2 (the WTC towers) collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft, and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;"
NIST Factsheet.


Requesting that a nonexistent column be examined doesn't do much to refute my claim that you're part of a religious movement. Is there any evidence that might exist that would convince you that 9/11 was not an inside job, RedIbis?

I've stated on several occasions what it would require to falsify my beliefs that 9/11 was not an inside job. A steel-frame high-rise would have to be destroyed with impact damage and fire the same way WTC1,2 and 7 were destroyed. This would include destroying a building from the top-down to match the destruction of WTC 1 and 2(crush-down/crush-up). And destroying a steel-frame high-rise from the bottom-up to match the destruction of WTC7(implosion).

Shyam Sunder said that the NIST report on WTC7 was robust science. So I'm sure in the future we'll see demolition companies use the principles of thermal expansion to demolish steel-frame high-rises.

p.s. I suppose the Randi Forums will not allow the n-word even if one is quoting a Democratic Congressman.

[Tippit]

The "debunking" movement, if one wants to call it that, was not started in large or small part by people who express race or ethnic hatred and get everything wrong.

You may also want to consider my statement about the "truth" movement's rank-and-file members:

"This is a religious movement. It didn't, I think, start out that way. I think it started with a lot of people who had questions that they at least believed were legitimate, and lots of things were confusing and take some study and research. But it became, quickly, a religious movement. As I said, not a single significant claim correct. It takes a special kind of person to stick with that."

If I'm wrong about that, I encourage the truthers participating here to state what evidence would change their minds.

The problem with you, Roberts, is that you repeat ad nauseum about how the debunkers are "right" about everything, and the truthers are "wrong" about everything. Of course this is necessary for you because none of the truther's claims can be true in order for your worldview to be maintained. But the reality is, most of the "facts" surrounding 9/11 are either unknowable, conjecture, or depend upon a government and media with no credibility what-so-ever. Your mind apparently cannot deal in probabalistic reasoning, and therefore you must make assumptions that every piece of evidence surrounding 9/11 must be accepted and labeled as "true" or "false", "correct" or "incorrect". It's this mental impairment which leads you to make such ridiculous, all encompassing statements that you're famous for, and it's why you have zero credibility with me.

[Gravy]

The problem with you, Roberts, is that you repeat ad nauseum about how the debunkers are "right" about everything, and the truthers are "wrong" about everything. I repeat "ad nauseum," and will do so again because people like you do have great trouble grasping the concept, that rationalists rely on evidence to support their claims and truthers do not.

Think I'm wrong? Then name a few significant claims that the 9/11 "truth" movement gets right.

Shouldn't take you more than a minute. I await your reply, as do media outlets worldwide who would be eager to report this important news.

[beachnut]

... , and the truthers are "wrong" about everything. ...
This would be your only true statement, if only you had made it.

Your total knowledge on the truth movement equals their total evidence on 9/11. Add them together take the square root, you have zero.

Not a single thing from 9/11 truth is true. And you are unable to produce a substantive rebuttal.

[Tippit]

Please point out what I've gotten wrong. If you cannot, you'll need to rethink your position. You may want to familiarize yourself with my "version of the facts" – the evidence-based version – by reviewing the information in the pages linked above.

Truthers have discredited themselves by being the world's most incompetent and/or dishonest "investigators." You can't do worse than getting everything wrong.

Please bear this in mind: evidence and facts do not change depending on if you are "convinced" by them. Reality will never adjust itself to your misconceptions.

To point out what you've gotten wrong would require me to care enough about what you have written so as to spend time reading it. Your dishonest and hyperbolic manner of labeling and attacking truthers coupled with your absolute certainty that everything you present is true reveals that you're here to preach, not debate. You're a tour guide with an axe to grind, an assembler and distributor of propaganda. You're an expert on nothing other than New York trivia. Indeed, evidence and facts don't change. It's just a question of what does the evidence really represent, and whose misconceptions are the "facts" subject to.

Stop the tour, I want a refund.

[uk_dave]

To point out what you've gotten wrong would require me to care enough about what you have written so as to spend time reading it.

Spoken like a true devotee of 'the truth'

[Tippit]

Think I'm wrong? Then name a few significant claims that the 9/11 "truth" movement gets right.



The fact that you would ask this question indicates a total lack of reading comprehension in light of what I just wrote. You just don't get it. 9/11 is a mystery, not a science experiment. You're not an authority on what's correct or incorrect with respect to this mystery, nor is anyone else. You're just preaching a religion.

[Tippit]

Spoken like a true devotee of 'the truth'

Spoken as if Mark Roberts is the arbiter of everything that's true. I only have a finite amount of time left on this earth. With regard to researching 9/11, I can either spend that time reading people who have a pretense of objectivity and who are experts, or Mark Roberts. I think the choice is pretty clear.

[KTB]

The fact that you would ask this question indicates a total lack of reading comprehension in light of what I just wrote. You just don't get it. 9/11 is a mystery, not a science experiment. You're not an authority on what's correct or incorrect with respect to this mystery, nor is anyone else. You're just preaching a religion.

What mysteries are there exactly? Care to enumerate a few?

Do you also claim that eg. the collapses of the buildings are not possible to explain by science (and thus the given explanations must be wrong)?

[Hyperviolet]

ahhhhh it's just like october 2006 all over again.....only i'm much better looking now.

I love a positive attitude, Dave!

:D

[A W Smith]

Spoken as if Mark Roberts is the arbiter of everything that's true.
Surely in your next post you will be listing everything he gets wrong?I only have a finite amount of time left on this earth. With regard to researching 9/11, I can either spend that time reading people who have a pretense of objectivity and who are experts, or Mark Roberts. I think the choice is pretty clear.

and your wasting your times here because???? your paragraph above clearly illustrates your aversion to facts and details Mark had alluded to in the audio when confronting the religious movement at ground zero with his 9/11 binder.

[dudalb]

Rodriguez being buddy buddy with the likes of The American Free Press has cost me the last, small smidgen of respect I had for him.

[uk_dave]

I think the choice is pretty clear.

Indeed, your statement makes something very clear about you.

You will read and believe anything which confirms your preconceptions and validates your paranoid view of the world, and anything which disturbs you is to be ignored.

You WANT there to be a conspiracy. What personal need that serves for you..... well, we can all speculate about that.

[uk_dave]

I love a positive attitude, Dave!

:D

I've improved with age...like a fine port.....

...such as grimsby.

[Nick Terry]

No, you're wrong. It's a fallacy to say that anything from AFP is false because the owner is a racist. Claims must be evaluated on their own merit. People who support factual claims made by racists are not racists. Liars and bigots can sometimes tell the truth.

But, Tippit, this is not the claim. AFP et al got things wrong. The question of motivation only enters into the picture in order to explain possibly WHY they got things wrong. It's pretty clear to everyone but ostrich-like truthers that AFP and other antisemitic sources had motivation to lie, dissemble and generally fail to tell the truth.

First, the error.
Second, the explanation for the error

[Hyperviolet]

The fact that you would ask this question indicates a total lack of reading comprehension in light of what I just wrote. You just don't get it. 9/11 is a mystery, not a science experiment. You're not an authority on what's correct or incorrect with respect to this mystery, nor is anyone else. You're just preaching a religion.

9/11 is a mystery?
That's news to me.

In reality the story is told through the video evidence of the hijackers, the phone calls from loved ones, the recovered DNA, the admissions from Binalshibh, bin Laden and KSM, the Martyrdom videos, evidence from the passenger manifests, etc, etc.

It all paints a very clear picture of what happened that day.
And more importantly: who was responsible.

What, exactly, then, is the mystery?

[beachnut]

To point out what you've gotten wrong would require me to care enough about what you have written so as to spend time reading it. ...
Stop the tour, I want a refund.

Spoken like a true devotee of 'the truth'

He has the "ample evidence" the truth movement talks about, but he is not sharing it.

A truther who can't articulate what he knows about 9/11 because he is too good for you. He has gobs of evidence, but you can't have it.

Another truth-NAZI, I can see him acting just like the soup-NAZI, with his vapor evidence. " No truth for you!!!"

[MarkyX]

Carol Valentine has some obscure website that practically no one reads.


That's why his theories are still being used today. Hell, isn't DRG's theories involving no hijackers and the flight manifests? This is what Carol Valentine said about them


On September 30 I looked at the passenger lists of those four flights. To my surprise, the lists contained none of the hijackers' names.


Remember this was October 2001.

DRG, on Electric Politics podcast in 2008


Griffin: Well you know, some people have started making that distinction. I am not sure that distinction wasn't just created after the fact that none of the manifests that the airlines put out at the time had any hijackers names or any Arab names whatsoever. But be that as it may, the fact remains that we have no evidence of any list that has the name on them. And we have evidence that when they say that they had identified the hijackers immediately that they are lying.


--


The primary focus of the 9/11 Truth Movement is on WTC1,2 and 7.


Why 7? How come 3, 4, 5, and 6 aren't involved? They weren't mentioned in the 9/11 commission report either. Again, it all comes back to who owned that building and since Larry is Jewish, something must be wrong.

[tanabear]

My point, which I made repeatedly in the podcast interview, is that many truthers have been influenced by people with agendas not related to the facts of 9/11. You did not support your claim that the same is true of debunkers.

Clear enough?

If the debunkers use the 9/11 Commission Report in their arguments then they are being influenced by people with agendas not related to the facts of 9/11. The Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission was Philip Zelikow who worked on the Bush transition team and he helped to draft the National Security Strategy Document of 2002 which advocated preemptive war(i.e the Bush Doctrine.)

I repeat "ad nauseum," and will do so again because people like you do have great trouble grasping the concept, that rationalists rely on evidence to support their claims and truthers do not.

Think I'm wrong? Then name a few significant claims that the 9/11 "truth" movement gets right.

Shouldn't take you more than a minute. I await your reply, as do media outlets worldwide who would be eager to report this important news.

Blogger Arabesque has written about the issue here (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/mark-roberts-911-debunker-or-just.html).

1. NIST doesn't go much beyond the point of collapse initiation in their 10,000 page report.

2. The crush-down/crush-up theory of Bazant is not supported by the visual evidence and it has yet to be replicated experimentally.

3. The claim made by Seffen, Bazant and Greening of the 3.7 meter free fall or near free fall of the upper block onto the lower block is not supported by the video tape record.

4. There are no other examples, except for WTC1 and 2, of a total progressive top down collapse of a skyscraper. Even Ryan Mackey admits as much, "Nobody has suggested that progressive collapse is a common event, particularly since skyscraper collapses of any kind are unusual. And while it is difficult to find an example of “total top-down progressive collapse”"

5. The idea that explosive charges can destroy buildings is well supported. The idea that a building can be destroyed via crush-down/crush-up is still a conspiracy theory at this point. etc..etc...etc...

[bje]

Spoken as if Mark Roberts is the arbiter of everything that's true. I only have a finite amount of time left on this earth. With regard to researching 9/11, I can either spend that time reading people who have a pretense of objectivity and who are experts, or Mark Roberts. I think the choice is pretty clear.

Your posts illustrate very well the nature of 9/11 Denial. Whereas you are upset that there are a quite a few known Holocaust deniers associated with your so-called 9/11 "Truth" movement, you miss the larger point that the behavior, methodology, denial of inconvenient evidence, and political motivation that characterizes the 9/11 "Truth" Movement is common to all denial movements, particulary politically motivated movements like your 9/11 denial Movement.

It is a pathology common to round-earth deniers, moon-landing hoax believers, and, of course Holocaust deniers. Denial is denial is denial - and you are showing in your own posts your practice of that very denial.

It would not matter one iota if there were no Holocaust deniers as part of your 9/11 Denial Movement - deniers are deniers. You fell right into line, going after Mark Roberts for something he demonstrated quite well.

You 9/11 Denial Movement is going nowhere except into the trashbin of history. It's entirely your choice if you want go with it but a better idea would be to educate yourself on the nature and characteristics of "denial." No better place to start is with the long, examined nature of Holocaust denial. Deborah Lipstadt's, "Denying The Holocaust (http://www.amazon.com/Denying-Holocaust-Growing-Assault-Memory/dp/0452272742/)", is a good place to start your education. Share the book with other 9/11 Deniers.

[KTB]

5. The idea that explosive charges can destroy buildings is well supported. The idea that a building can be destroyed via crush-down/crush-up is still a conspiracy theory at this point. etc..etc...etc...

Are you really this deluded or don't you think at all about what you write?

[Gravy]

To point out what you've gotten wrong would require me to care enough about what you have written so as to spend time reading it.You haven't read the material I present but you take it on faith that it's wrong. Thanks for helping to prove my point, and goodbye. (See how easy this is, skeptics? ;) )

Way to live up to expectations, truthers!

[T.A.M.]

Goodbye. (See how easy this is, skeptics? ;) )

QFT. The list becomes long, but the annoyance level is reduced significantly.

TAM:)

[technoextreme]

3. The claim made by Seffen, Bazant and Greening of the 3.7 meter free fall or near free fall of the upper block onto the lower block is not supported by the video tape record.

No. We've been through this before. Anyone who tries to extract information out of the video tape record has no clue what they are doing. It's exactly like trying to read a book when every other page has been torn out. Also, after reading this a few times I realized that KTB is right. This does not make any sense at all. 3.7 meter free fall? You mean the building fell down 3.7 meters?

[beachnut]

To point out what you've gotten wrong would require me to care enough about what you have written so as to spend time reading it.
Translation; He can't point out what the 9/11 truth movement has right, that is impossible. He can smart off and say he can show you are wrong, but he is not going to. That is not only possible, but he is doing it. (not showing you what you got wrong)

Researching 9/11 takes time and intelligence to come to rational conclusions; three things Tibet has not shown the inclination or the capability of doing.

He can comment on statements made and correctly label them in a vacuum; in the big picture world of reality, his stand on 9/11 remains as undefined as dividing all the evidence of 9/11 truth has into the conclusion of 9/11 truth.

[RedIbis]

False. I bothered to do what I've never seen a truther do: learn about this issue. You can learn about these things in the debris cleanup section of my website. I have even corresponded by email, telephone, and in person with people who were directly involved with making these decisions. As I said in my Richard Gage debate, Dave Peraza, the structural engineer in charge of all debris removal, told me, unsolicited:

“By the way, some of the conspiracy theories state that the steel was sent to the scrap yards, presumably to destroy evidence of the conspiracy. I participated in the decision, ultimately made by DDC, to not retain the majority of the steel. I guess I was part of the conspiracy!”

Well, mystery solved. I suppose you didn't think to ask the obvious follow up question, why was the decision made by the DDC?

I have seen zero evidence that any of the facts I've uncovered about this issue are wrong or that any of the people I've corresponded with are anything but honest and professional.

Now that's what I call blind faith. What a wonderful world it would be if everyone was 100% honest 100% of the time.

You can disagree, RedIbis, but the burden of proof of 9/11 conspiracies remains where it's always been: on the shoulders of the conspiracy theorists. Waiting for the rest of the world to adopt and fight for your beliefs is irrational. It's 2008. You've been doing this for years and still haven't learned that?

The burden of proof for the single column failure causing global collapse falls squarely on NIST's shoulders.

Let's be clear about what just transpired here.

Gravy: What evidence would convince you that your beliefs about 9/11 conspiracies are wrong?

RedIbis: Nonexistent evidence.

Let's, because that's not what either you or I said.

My point about "truthers" existing in a fantasy world stands, and I'm done with you.

No, you're not. You've said that so many times before your dramatic proclamations can't possibly be taken seriously by anyone. You will cease responding to me when the questions become too difficult. In the Johanneman thread I brought to your attention that you've criticized Rodriguez for not contacting eyewitnesses, which I know for a fact he has. I asked if you've contacted Kenny's family and you ignored it.

I'm not surprised you have no interest in defending NIST's outrageous collapse theory, perhaps because it contradicts your preferred diesel fuel theory.

[beachnut]

... NIST's outrageous collapse theory, ...
Do you even know the topic. Why do you in one stupid statement expose your ignorance on WTC 7, structurally engineering, and fire? You offer zero substantive scientific work to support your statement; a statement based on ignorance.

Why do you share the zero evidence for you ideas on 9/11? Why is the entire 9/11 truth movement unable to scrap up any evidence?

[KTB]

The burden of proof for the single column failure causing global collapse falls squarely on NIST's shoulders.


And they have met that burden. Where is the problem? If you have any specifics that are wrong in their paper please tell. And not that crap about not having a physical column nullifies the whole thing, that's just ridiculous.

Now it's your turn to tell about your alternate theory and defend it. Ain't gonna happen right?
"Just askin' questions!"
-- RedIbis et. al.

[R.Mackey]

So this is what the Truth Movement has turned into -- a squabble over its motivation, throwing its own leaders under a bus, and dogged confusion over the definition of English words "evidence" and "theory."

Welcome back, Mark, though I forecast not for long. The Truth Movement for all intents and purposes no longer even exists, even in death, if I read these signs correctly.

ETA: Given the talk of holocaust deniers and racists, I felt this phrase unusually poigniant:

"Take our indifference," the Daily Mississippian's editorial board wrote in an open letter to the Klan on Sept. 16, "as the ultimate symbol of your failure." Source (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1844872,00.html)

I'm more than happy to hold a scientific discussion with anyone, Truther or otherwise, but it's increasingly clear that they have no interest, if even the ability, to do so.

[Gravy]

So this is what the Truth Movement has turned into -- a squabble over its motivation, throwing its own leaders under a bus, and dogged confusion over the definition of English words "evidence" and "theory."

Welcome back, Mark, though I forecast not for long. The Truth Movement for all intents and purposes no longer even exists, even in death, if I read these signs correctly.

ETA: Given the talk of holocaust deniers and racists, I felt this phrase unusually poigniant:
Originally Posted by Daily Mississippian
"Take our indifference," the Daily Mississippian's editorial board wrote in an open letter to the Klan on Sept. 16, "as the ultimate symbol of your failure."
Source (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1844872,00.html)

I'm more than happy to hold a scientific discussion with anyone, Truther or otherwise, but it's increasingly clear that they have no interest, if even the ability, to do so.Thanks, Ryan. I couldn't hope for better examples of behavior that prove the points I made in the podcast. I've already put three truthers on ignore who've shown themselves to be incapable of rational discussion. I encourage other rationalists to keep the wilfully ignorant on short leashes.

[dtugg]

I
5. The idea that explosive charges can destroy buildings is well supported.


The idea that three skyscrapers can be destroyed with explosives without anybody noticing the preparation is not supported at all.

[Minadin]

I would like to thank each of the conspiracy theorists who have posted in this thread for illustrating our point(s) so comprehensively.

Thank you.

[MarkyX]

The idea that three skyscrapers can be destroyed with explosives without anybody noticing the preparation is not supported at all.

Not to mention bombs that leave no traces whatsoever in the debris.

[Mercutio]

Not to mention bombs that leave no traces whatsoever in the debris.

Or pull the walls inward when they explode.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

To point out what you've gotten wrong would require me to care enough about what you have written so as to spend time reading it.
Spoken as if Mark Roberts is the arbiter of everything that's true.


You say you don't care enough to point out what Mark gets wrong, but you sure as hell seem convinced that he's gotten enough wrong to dismiss everything he says.

Judging by your increasingly defensive posting, you seem to feel rather threatened by Mark. Claiming you don't actually care is just lying to yourself. If you didn't care, you wouldn't have anything to say...

[bje]

The burden of proof for the single column failure causing global collapse falls squarely on NIST's shoulders.

Ah, the ultimate 9/11 Denier evasion. NIST's report, it's evidence, methodology, and conclusions, now fully available, means only one thing: the ball is in your court even more than it was before.

When will you take responsibility for your claims? Or don't you yet understand your responsibility, RedIbis?

[KTB]

You will cease responding to me when the questions become too difficult.

Takes one to know one :)
You sir are a joke. How about you grow a pair and start answering the questions here, or at least try to understand what's being said to you.

[dudalb]

[quote]"Take our indifference," the Daily Mississippian's editorial board wrote in an open letter to the Klan on Sept. 16, "as the ultimate symbol of your failure."
[/quote}

Beautifully put.
I would only add "and our laughter" after "indifference".

[Jonnyclueless]

"I've stated on several occasions what it would require to falsify my beliefs that 9/11 was not an inside job. A steel-frame high-rise would have to be destroyed with impact damage and fire the same way WTC1,2 and 7 were destroyed. This would include destroying a building from the top-down to match the destruction of WTC 1 and 2(crush-down/crush-up). And destroying a steel-frame high-rise from the bottom-up to match the destruction of WTC7(implosion)."

Stundie!!

:dl:

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Why isn't Mark Roberts interested in pointing this out?

Because he's part of teh jooh conspiracy! He was one of the hundreds of joohs that weren't in the tower that day, because they had been tipped off!

Because he isn't interested in the truth.

He can't handle the truth! (I should know, I've meet him in person)

He is interested in promoting ideological conformity to the government's position.

Exactly. He gets $10,000 a week and an endless supply of Tony's frozen pizza to be a part of the cover up.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Yeah Yeah Yeah Right. We all hate the jews here on the truther side. Please.

Got anything else? Why not?

[Gravy]

Yeah Yeah Yeah Right. We all hate the jews here on the truther side. Please.

Got anything else? Why not?
It's been repeatedly pointed out that this is an ignorant and dishonest strawman statement.

So don't behave this way. At least imagine how a rational adult would behave and emulate that. Fair enough?

"Got anything else?" You mean all the evidence on our side, whereas you have none? Is that what you mean?

If you think I'm wrong, why not name some of the significant claims that the "truth" movement gets right. You've had plenty of time to think about this.

And while you're at it, please briefly state your position about what happened on 9/11 and what evidence would change your mind.

[Homeland Insurgency]

It's been repeatedly pointed out that this is an ignorant and dishonest strawman statement.

So don't behave this way. At least imagine how a rational adult would behave and emulate that. Fair enough?

"Got anything else?" You mean all the evidence on our side, whereas you have none? Is that what you mean?

If you think I'm wrong, why not name some of the significant claims that the "truth" movement gets right. You've had plenty of time to think about this.

So do it.

Are you telling me that my doubts about 9/11 are automatically based in anti-Semitism? Is this what you have digressed to?

You are so over.

[Gravy]

Are you telling me that my doubts about 9/11 are automatically based in anti-Semitism? Second time: It's been repeatedly pointed out that this is an ignorant and dishonest strawman statement.

If you disagree, then point out where I in any way said or implied this, truther. Are you up to that challenge?

[ElMondoHummus]

Are you telling me that my doubts about 9/11 are automatically based in anti-Semitism? Is this what you have digressed to?

You are so over.

Good grief! Did you even read his response before you posted that?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Please point out where I in any way said or implied this, truther. Are you up to that challenge?

I thought the evidence was on your side? Did I misinterpret you? What is your point here about anti-Semitism and the truth movement? In a sound bite please.

[Gravy]

Good grief! Did you even read his response before you posted that?I can't tell you how much it saddens me to see every single truther demonstrate their irrationality in this thread about my talk about truther irrationality.

I would think that someone with a shred of self-awareness would try hard not to behave that way, to prove me wrong. Instead, they seem to be going out of their way to prove me right.

[ElMondoHummus]

I can't tell you how much it saddens me to see every single truther demonstrate their irrationality in this thread about my talk about truther irrationality.

I would think that someone with a shred of self-awareness would try hard not to behave that way, to prove me wrong. Instead, they seem to be going out of their way to prove me right.

No kidding. It's like he responded based on what he wished you said instead of on what you actually said.

But that's the movement in a nutshell.

[Gravy]

I thought the evidence was on your side? Did I misinterpret you?[You did. That statement was in response to your question "Got anything else?" as you can see from how my response was formatted.

What is your point here about anti-Semitism and the truth movement? In a sound bite please.Since I've stated it clearly here, I won't repeat myself again. I suggest you read before jerking your knee again.

[johnny karate]

I suggest you read before jerking your knee again.

I don't think that's his knee.

[Homeland Insurgency]

It's been repeatedly pointed out that this is an ignorant and dishonest strawman statement.

So don't behave this way. At least imagine how a rational adult would behave and emulate that. Fair enough?

"Got anything else?" You mean all the evidence on our side, whereas you have none? Is that what you mean?

If you think I'm wrong, why not name some of the significant claims that the "truth" movement gets right. You've had plenty of time to think about this.

And while you're at it, please briefly state your position about what happened on 9/11 and what evidence would change your mind.

Oh please. WHAT EVIDENCE? You attack people who don't trust this present administration based on much more then 9/11. And then you point to their government collected evidence and sponsored reports as if that would convince anyone of anything.

And from what I can see here you go off on some nonsense that implies much of it is based in anti-Semitism.

You got the evidence on your side? Then don’t invoke Godwin’s law. Don’t even imply it.

[Gravy]

Oh please. WHAT EVIDENCE?Homeland, Insurgency, I already linked to my website in this thread, where you'll find links to thousands of pieces of evidence. When I asked you to read before jerking your knee I was serious. Why did you immediately do so again?

Have you read the 9/11 Commission report? Have you read the NIST reports? If not, please do. If so, please list some significant things they got wrong.

You attack people who don't trust this present administration based on much more then 9/11. Please support this accusation with facts or retract your statement. That's what rational people do. You want to be rational, don't you?

And then you point to their government collected evidence and sponsored reports as if that would convince anyone of anything.Had you read this thread as I asked you to, you would have seen my links to mountains of evidence not collected by the government. Repeating ignorant and false accusations will never make them true.

And from what I can see here you go off on some nonsense that implies much of it is based in anti-Semitism.Get back to me when you've read the thread and learned what a strawman argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) is.

You got the evidence on your side? Then don’t invoke Godwin’s law. Don’t even imply it.No one here has done that. I provided evidence that several early, prominent truth movement leaders were and are anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers. Had you read the thread you'd know that.

How can you not be embarrassed by your behavior, in a thread that is specifically about the behavior you're displaying?


Second and final time, Homeland Insurgency:

If you think I'm wrong, why not name some of the significant claims that the "truth" movement gets right. You've had plenty of time to think about this.

And while you're at it, please briefly state your position about what happened on 9/11 and what evidence would change your mind.

[MarkyX]

It's like Homeland is really hoping Gravy is going to "slip up" or something to verify his strawman.

Ain't happening.

[mchapman]

When will Mark Roberts be providing evidence for some of his more ridiculous claims, like the claim that there weren't many cameras at the pentagon in 2001?

Why does Mark Roberts seem to think that the destruction of steel at ground zero is fine? Bill Manning didn't think it was fine. Yes, I know Bill Manning was talking about it from a fire safety standpoint, not explosives.

[R.Mackey]

How many times have we told people here that Bill Manning's comments were pre-NCSTA, and that he was fully satisfied by the creation and eventual result from the NIST Team?

A hundred?

A thousand..?

[mchapman]

How many times have we told people here that Bill Manning's comments were pre-NCSTA, and that he was fully satisfied by the creation and eventual result from the NIST Team?

A hundred?

A thousand..?


Do you have a qoute from him showing his full satisfaction?

If he was angry that the steel was destroyed, what exactly made him unangry? Was the steel undestroyed?

[adversity1]

Funniest thing about the Bill Manning citation is that truthers never read to the bottom of that article, which has this link:

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=130026

Where the journal states:

Yes, it was the terrorist pilots who slammed two jetliners into the Twin Towers. It was the ensuing fire, however, that brought the towers down. Make no mistake about it: This high-rise collapse was no "fluke." The temperatures experienced and heat release rates achieved at the World Trade Center could be seen in future high-rise fires.

But hey, anything to put words in people's mouths and add another stick to the bonfire of "overwhelming evidence" used to convince people. :rolleyes:

[mchapman]

When will Mark Roberts be providing evidence for some of his more ridiculous claims, like the claim that there weren't many cameras at the pentagon in 2001?

Why does Mark Roberts seem to think that the destruction of steel at ground zero is fine? Bill Manning didn't think it was fine. Yes, I know Bill Manning was talking about it from a fire safety standpoint, not explosives.

I am quoting my own post so I can highlight the bit that adversity1 was unable to comprehend while his knee jerked.

[adversity1]

I am quoting my own post so I can highlight the bit that adversity1 was unable to comprehend while his knee jerked.

Right, and if he's only talking about fire safety, then what would he have to do with any of you? You trust him to cast doubt on destruction of evidence but when he and his journal offer their expert opinion that the collapse of the towers was completely realistic via two planes, you ignore him. This is all that you truthers can do, use use use. You find something that fits for the moment, grab it and deploy it as something that adds to the cloud of doubt you've created.

[Gravy]

When will Mark Roberts be providing evidence for some of his more ridiculous claims, like the claim that there weren't many cameras at the pentagon in 2001?Hello, mchapman. Welcome to the forums. Please point out where I made this claim.

Why does Mark Roberts seem to think that the destruction of steel at ground zero is fine?Please point out where I said or implied any such thing, and be prepared to do the same with any subsequent claims you make about me. That's known as having evidence to support your statements. Fair enough?

[beachnut]

When will Mark Roberts be providing evidence for some of his more ridiculous claims, like the claim that there weren't many cameras at the pentagon in 2001?

Why does Mark Roberts seem to think that the destruction of steel at ground zero is fine? Bill Manning didn't think it was fine. Yes, I know Bill Manning was talking about it from a fire safety standpoint, not explosives.
out of the woodwork off topic terrorist apologist invade, unarmed, no evidence

[mchapman]

Hello, mchapman. Welcome to the forums. Please point out where I made this claim.



Do you not read your own work? You made that claim on page 10 of this document:

911myths.com/911TruthOrgCritiqueMay06.pdf

where you stated, without a source, that:

The Pentagon uses “live” perimiter security, mostly men in vehicles. In 2001 there were very few security cameras pointing at the building

So, could you please tell us exactly how many is "very few" and where did you get this information?

[Gravy]

Do you not read your own work? You made that claim on page 10 of this document:

911myths.com/911TruthOrgCritiqueMay06.pdf

where you stated, without a source, that:

So, could you please tell us exactly how many is "very few" and where did you get this information?Ah, right. I wrote that for Les Jamieson in the first month I was doing this stuff, and didn't include a citation. More information is on the Pentagon section (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary) of my website:

As for the question, "Where are all those Pentagon video cameras?" one answer is that the Pentagon primarily uses live security – human beings – for its perimeter security. (Since 9/11 more cameras may have been installed. I don’t have information on that.) Here's a post (http://tinyurl.com/gxvvd) on the BAUT forum from a Pentagon employee who was there on 9/11. An excerpt:"Why isn't there more video? Without telling too much of what I know of Pentagon security, you would be surprised how few cameras there are outside the building. Humans actively patrolling a building's perimeter are a tad more effective than dozens of monitors which may or may not be watched at any given moment."Excerpt from statement of FBI Agent Jacqueline McGuire, who viewed all the videotapes collected as evidence:
fifty-six (56) of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon.....I personally reviewed the remaining twenty-nine (29) videotapes. I determined that sixteen (16) of these video tapes did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon.....Out of the remaining thirteen (13) videotapes, which did show the Pentagon crash site, twelve (12) videotapes only showed the Pentagon after. I determined that only one videotape showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 Source (http://pentagonresearch.com/121.html)Longer video clips from the Pentagon parking lot cameras (http://tinyurl.com/gwqob)

Citgo Video (Doesn't show plane (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFjsl6zk))

Doubletree hotel video (15 mins, shows fireball, doesn't show plane) (http://www.flight77.info/doubletree.mpg)You'll find extensive information about steel collection, examination, and disposal on this page (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/groundzerocleanup%2Cfreshkillssortingopera) of my site, as well as in the NIST and FEMA reports.

I'll ask you what I've asked others in this thread:

Can you briefly state your position about what happened on 9/11 and what evidence would change your mind?

And, can you name some of the significant claims that the "truth" movement gets right?

[mchapman]

You disappoint me. I was expecting maybe a link to a pentagon document, or perhaps a news story but no.....your source is a post on an internet forum.

I think that tells us everything we need to know about Mark Roberts' "research".

So what exactly was Bill Manning so upset about? Did you not ask the guy who was involved in the decision to destroy the steel why that decision was made?

[mchapman]

Can you briefly state your position about what happened on 9/11 and what evidence would change your mind?

And, can you name some of the significant claims that the "truth" movement gets right?

It is not as simple as claims they have gotten right. Most truther claims are claims that not enough investigation has been done.

For example, I don't claim as a fact that Mahmood ahmed wired 100,000 to Atta, but I would like to see it investigated further than "Oh it was an indian newspaper so probably false"

My position on 9/11 is that there are many aspects of it unexplained, or events within it that are so unusual they require more investigation.

[johnny karate]

My position on 9/11 is that there are many aspects of it unexplained, or events within it that are so unusual they require more investigation.

Every single professional investigator and law enforcement official on the planet seems to be in disagreement with your assessments, so I guess you're out of luck.

But hey, keep expressing your personal incredulity on Internet forums. I'm sure that will get your new investigation off the ground.

[beachnut]

My position on 9/11 is that there are many aspects of it unexplained, or events within it that are so unusual they require more investigation.Name one, with evidence to support a new investigation.

Did you fail to understand the research already done? Why do you have no evidence, or idea what happen on 9/11? Why can't you specify what is wrong with the volumes of evidence already available?

A new investigation? What make you think you will grow the skills to understand a new investigation?

Do you think you are the one who needs to learn the skills to understand what has been done to date? Do you think a getting a PhD in the next 7 years would help you stop wallowing in hearsay and lies?

[Sizzler]

My all time favorite Gravy claim is when he told the loose change boys he physically touched the once molten aluminum that had previously dripped out from the WTC impact areas.

That one is a classic for sure.

[A W Smith]

My all time favorite Gravy claim is when he told the loose change boys he physically touched the once molten aluminum that had previously dripped out from the WTC impact areas.

That one is a classic for sure.


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2713013&postcount=5

[Gravy]

You disappoint me. I was expecting maybe a link to a pentagon document, or perhaps a news story but no.....your source is a post on an internet forum.

I think that tells us everything we need to know about Mark Roberts' "research".I provided a source for one explanation of why there might be few cameras outside the Pentagon, and I confirmed that he worked at the Pentagon (which was widely known at BAUT anyway). This isn't an issue that interests me in the least, nor does it affect in any way what happened at the Pentagon, so I spent no more time on it.

Many times I've encouraged truthers to do their own research about this, since it does interest them. If you are one of those people, I encourage you to satisfy your curiosity to the best of your ability.

So what exactly was Bill Manning so upset about?In your haste to find a mistake by me you skipped over the answer to your question on page 16 of that May, 2006 paper of mine. (Note that this also refutes your claim that I seem to think the destruction of steel was "fine.")

The quote from Fire Engineering is, as usual, taken out of context. Its author, Bill Manning, was justifiably angry that more steel was not preserved, because he wanted fire safety engineers like himself to be able to study it in order to better answer these questions:

"Can the fire service really handle high rise fires adequately? What part did lightweight steel trusses, some reported to have been in excess of 50 feet long, play in the collapse? How effective was the modern sprayed-on steel "fireproofing" employed at the WTC? How relevant to today's fires are the criteria established for the ASTM E-119 fire resistance test developed in the 1920's? When should the defend-in-place strategy for the WTC be used and not used for large high-rise fires? What can be done to make communication by radio possible in high-rise buildings?" (Fire Engineering, February, 2002)

Manning’s concern was saving lives in high rise fires. The FEMA and NIST reports addressed these issues, of course, but Manning’s concerns were perhaps more specific. He did not, and does not, support the “controlled demolition” theory, or any conspiracy theory, at all. You can read Manning's June, 2002 Fire Engineering editorial in which he states his gratitude that the investigation was expanded far beyond FEMA's cursory job – something that virtually everyone involved agreed needed to be done.

You could also have found this information with a quick internet search. You could have asked Bill Manning these questions yourself. Why didn't you?

Did you not ask the guy who was involved in the decision to destroy the steel why that decision was made?I have already pointed you to the resources to answer this question. I created my website so that I do not have to answer the same questions over and over. I hope you find it a valuable resource.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

My all time favorite Gravy claim is when he told the loose change boys he physically touched the once molten aluminum that had previously dripped out from the WTC impact areas.


Without a source I can only assume you are mistaken, because below is a statement by Mark in which he does not claim an origin for the aluminum that you have attributed to him.

I have held peices of cooled molten aluminum from the south tower in my hand. And not from the bottom of the debris pile, either.

That one is a classic for sure.


Careful with those memories, pal...

[Gravy]

It is not as simple as claims they have gotten right. Most truther claims are claims that not enough investigation has been done.It's not a trick question. Truthers have been investigating this themselves for years, and have made hundreds of specific claims about the events of 9/11. If you can, please name some significant claims that they get right.

For example, I don't claim as a fact that Mahmood ahmed wired 100,000 to Atta, but I would like to see it investigated further than "Oh it was an indian newspaper so probably false"What effort have you made to answer your questions? You understand that the answers aren't just going to magically appear in your mailbox, right?

So if this is important to you, what have you done to learn about it?

Have you read the 9/11 Commission report and its staff monograph on terrorist financing? I'd like an answer to these questions, please.

Further, you linked to my paper at 911myths.com. Had you taken an interest you could have read Mike Williams' extensive treatment of this subject (http://911myths.com/html/pakistan_s_isi_link_to_9_11_fu.html) there.

My position on 9/11 is that there are many aspects of it unexplained, or events within it that are so unusual they require more investigation.Please don't play games. Specifically what do you believe is unexplained, and what efforts have you made to seek explanations?
What documents and reports and books have you read?
What sites have you visited to find answers?
Whom have you contacted?

And I ask you again: what evidence would change your mind about the specific things you think are unexplained?

[Hokulele]

What I find most amusing about this thread is the way the CTists carry on as if the entire 9/11 sub-forum at JREF will completely disintegrate if they can find just one thing wrong with things Gravy has said in the past. From what I have seen, if anyone, CTist or otherwise, finds something Gravy has gotten wrong, he corrects it and thanks them. The nerve!

I guess it makes sense when compared to the way the CTists seem to think that a single contradiction in or between any of the reports known to date means that the entire body of evidence can be dismissed.

1) Find contradiction.
2) Claim inside job.
3) ???
4) Profit!

[Sizzler]

Without a source I can only assume you are mistaken, because below is a statement by Mark in which he does not claim an origin for the aluminum that you have attributed to him.






Careful with those memories, pal...


The pieces of WTC aluminum I handled had characteristics of having cooled while falling in the air (I suppose falling through water is also a possibility). The curator said to me "I bet you can't guess what this is," but I guessed right away. This was before I knew of the conspiracy nonsense or the video of molten material coming from the south tower.

He revealed this "fact" to the loose change boys in one of their debates. I don't feel like digging it up. Like the quote above, Gravy doesn't directly say where it came from, but he does mention the South Tower and dripping molten metal in the same breath. Perhaps another one of his propaganda techniques.

Too funny in my opinion.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

1) Find contradiction.
2) Claim inside job.
3) ???
4) Profit!


Minor correction...


Claim inside job.
Find contradiction.
???
Profit!


;)

[Hokulele]

Minor correction...


Claim inside job.
Find contradiction.
???
Profit!

;)


D'oh! You are absolutely correct. Thank you.

:D

[Jonnyclueless]

Likewise there are people who think there are too many unanswered issues with the holocaust to feel that it existed. The world doesn't have time to appease every crackpot who has unreasonable requirements in order to meet their political agendas.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I don't feel like digging it up.


That's the spirit... :rolleyes:

[uk_dave]

I don't feel like digging it up.

Yet another obsessive who just can't be bothered to support his claims.

What personal need does the 9-11 ct satisfy for you?

[Jonnyclueless]

He revealed this "fact" to the loose change boys in one of their debates. I don't feel like digging it up. Like the quote above, Gravy doesn't directly say where it came from, but he does mention the South Tower and dripping molten metal in the same breath. Perhaps another one of his propaganda techniques.

Too funny in my opinion.

He, like many others got to handle aluminum from the WTC that had melted in mid air. What seems to be the problem here? That's no more propaganda than someone saying they saw a Tiger at the zoo.

You know for a movement touting truth, you guys sure are dishonest.

[Tbone]

I don't feel like digging it up.

Such a devoted truth seeker you are. Can't "dig up" a quote made on a video readily available on the internet.

[Minadin]

How difficult is it to name one thing that you or someone you agree with has said, in the past, that is verifiably correct?

[Tippit]

Your posts illustrate very well the nature of 9/11 Denial. Whereas you are upset that there are a quite a few known Holocaust deniers associated with your so-called 9/11 "Truth" movement, you miss the larger point that the behavior, methodology, denial of inconvenient evidence, and political motivation that characterizes the 9/11 "Truth" Movement is common to all denial movements, particulary politically motivated movements like your 9/11 denial Movement.



Why would I be upset that there are Holocaust deniers associated with the 9/11 truth movement? I don't control them, they don't represent me, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool not worthy of my time. The 9/11 truth movement is politically diverse, so are the debunkers. Your rant about "denial movements" reeks of an implicit appeal to authority - that is, anyone with a point of view not in accordance with authority, or majority, is a "denier" worthy of ridicule and marginalization.



It is a pathology common to round-earth deniers, moon-landing hoax believers, and, of course Holocaust deniers. Denial is denial is denial - and you are showing in your own posts your practice of that very denial.



Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. When confronted with crooks and liars in government, I deny them. And their apologists.



It would not matter one iota if there were no Holocaust deniers as part of your 9/11 Denial Movement - deniers are deniers. You fell right into line, going after Mark Roberts for something he demonstrated quite well.

You 9/11 Denial Movement is going nowhere except into the trashbin of history. It's entirely your choice if you want go with it but a better idea would be to educate yourself on the nature and characteristics of "denial." No better place to start is with the long, examined nature of Holocaust denial. Deborah Lipstadt's, "Denying The Holocaust (http://www.amazon.com/Denying-Holocaust-Growing-Assault-Memory/dp/0452272742/)", is a good place to start your education. Share the book with other 9/11 Deniers.

Yes, keep associating 9/11 truth with Holocaust denial in a vain attempt at negative association. Why would you equate 9/11 truth with Holocaust denial, recommend a book about Holocaust denial, and then expect me to actually read such a book when I don't deny that the Holocaust took place? Is that the best you guys have got, to imply that we're all jew-haters? You're pathetic.

[Gravy]

My all time favorite Gravy claim is when he told the loose change boys he physically touched the once molten aluminum that had previously dripped out from the WTC impact areas.

That one is a classic for sure.It's always good to provide context for your claims, don't you think? No, you don't.

I "dug up" the relevant section from my Hardfire debate with Avery and Bermas and transcribed it, which Sizzler was too lazy to do.

Roberts: What you do see in that corner of the building where the material is leaking out of the building, and flowing quite a ways down before, uh, before it dissipates.

Bermas: makes it quite a ways down.

Roberts: Sure, many floors. Uh, I've held some of that in my hand, actually, after it solidified. It's aluminum.

Bermas: How would you have held molten metal that you could see at the World Trade Center, in your hands?

Roberts: Because people collected these things because they were fairly extraordinary –

Bermas: But that's after the fact, Mark, you have –

Roberts: You have the characteristics –

Bermas: You can't say all that was falling out of the World Trade Center.

Roberts: Well, that's where the people picked it up.

Bermas: Well, I'm not saying it wasn't at the World Trade Center. But you can't say that's the molten metal that's pouring out.

Roberts: You can't say for sure. But what they had done is cooled in mid-air. [makes stretching gesture with hands] Uh, if you've ever been to a volcano, and it shoots out–

Bermas: See, that's what upset me, though. Because just like you were saying, it made it down many, many floors, and it didn't cool down. You could actually see that stream of molten metal.

Roberts: But eventually, but eventually it does.

Bermas: Well, I mean, they're 110-story buildings, Mark.

Roberts: But here's the thing:

[Roberts produces two photos, stills from Loose Change, illustrating the inward bowing of the east wall of WTC 2 as its collapse begins.]

Roberts: Here's a photo from your video.

Bermas: That's the bowing in that you're talking about. I don't disagree–

Roiberts: This is actually the collapse.

Avery: We don't disagree.

Bermas: –that the thing could have tipped over, and at that impact point, fallen. I don't disagree with that, but I disagree with the fact that it was a freefall pancake collapse within its own footprint.

[DC]

It's always good to provide context for your claims, don't you think? No, you don't. You're a hardcore truther, and context never benefits you.

From my Hardfire debate with Avery and Bermas:

Most propably it was not the same. because NIST did not use it. Would it been that what you belived , NIST would have used it in they investigation, dont you think?

[Hokulele]

Most propably it was not the same. because NIST did not use it. Would it been that what you belived , NIST would have used it in they investigation, dont you think?


Not if there were other similar samples.

[Gravy]

Most propably it was not the same. because NIST did not use it. Would it been that what you belived , NIST would have used it in they investigation, dont you think?Why would they try to collect material that melts at a relatively low temperature (and remember, aircraft aluminum alloys melt at a considerably lower temperature than pure aluminum)? What would that tell them? NIST does not hypothesize that the material was involved in the collapse, and the material I handled wasn't steel. Temperatures in that area were such that some of the aluminum piled there had to have melted. In fact, based on the brilliant light it output for about 10 minutes, there was one area in the NE corner of WTC 2 where NIST believes metal was actually burning (funny how I've never once seen a truther bring that up in defense of their thermite claims...no doubt because they don't know it's in the report). Nor would they have been able to definitively identify where it came from, as I can't. They couldn't even identify where most of the recovered core columns came from. Had you read the NIST report, you'd know these things.

While you're here, Dictator Cheney, can you name some significant claims that the truth movement gets right?

And can you briefly state what you think happened on 9/11 and what evidence would change your mind?

[ref]

Nice to see some Gravy action here again. Actually, nice to see some real action here at all. Willie getting mad (confirming he still reads this forum), truthers getting extremely frustrated at someone they call "only a tour guide", etc.

I have nothing important to say. Carry on ;)

[ref]

While you're here, Dictator Cheney, can you name some significant claims that the truth movement gets right?

And can you briefly state what you think happened on 9/11 and what evidence would change your mind?

I would love to see some truther take either of these two challenges. Nobody ever does.

Maybe it's because they think, that only pointing to the flaws (what are they, truthers?) of the so-called official narrative confirms the entire official story wrong. Maybe it's because their leaders like Griffin and Gage encourage them not to develop any theories. Maybe it's because when someone actually opens their mouth to produce an alternative truther narrative (like Balsamo or CIT about the flyover) everyone, including other truthers, just shake their heads in disbelief.

[DC]

Why would they try to collect material that melts at a relatively low temperature (and remember, aircraft aluminum alloys melt at a considerably lower temperature than pure aluminum)? What would that tell them? NIST does not hypothesize that the material was involved in the collapse, and the material I handled wasn't steel. Temperatures in that area were such that some of the aluminum piled there had to have melted. In fact, based on the brilliant light it output for about 10 minutes, there was one area in the NE corner of WTC 2 where NIST believes metal was actually burning (funny how I've never once seen a truther bring that up in defense of their thermite claims...no doubt because they don't know it's in the report). Nor would they have been able to definitively identify where it came from, as I can't. They couldn't even identify where most of the recovered core columns came from. Had you read the NIST report, you'd know these things.

While you're here, Dictator Cheney, can you name some significant claims that the truth movement gets right?

And can you briefly state what you think happened on 9/11 and what evidence would change your mind?

they talked about the material coming out of the tower, and they had to assume it was Aluminium. It would have been alot better for NIST if they had samples from it, they could test, and then they could be alot more sure about theyr assumption than they can now.
everytime a truther says, look at the thermite coming out the tower, you could answer, no look NIST tested the material, it was not Iron or themite, it was aluminium.

While you're here, Dictator Cheney, can you name some significant claims that the truth movement gets right?

ill take one of the new claims, the results from the WTC7 FEA does not look like the Videos of the WTC7 collapse. Their FEA did not result in a symectric collapse like we have on video.

i am not sure what exactly happened on 9/11. I am close to go back to LIHOP but still looking into MIHOP, but im really pretty close to go back LIHOP.
but i fear there is not much that could convince me of no LIHOP.

[ref]

but i fear there is not much that could convince me of no LIHOP.

Let me ask this another way.

What makes you so convinced of a LIHOP? Why don't you consider the other alternative (not even a LIHOP)?

[Hokulele]

but i fear there is not much that could convince me of no LIHOP.


"Not much" implies that there is something that could convince you of no LIHOP. What would that be?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

they talked about the material coming out of the tower, and they had to assume it was Aluminium. It would have been alot better for NIST if they had samples from it, they could test, and then they could be alot more sure about theyr assumption than they can now.


How would this better serve the purpose of the report?

[DC]

"Not much" implies that there is something that could convince you of no LIHOP. What would that be?

declassified documents could, but for that i have to wayt, 50 years? or is it more now? 75 years?

[DC]

How would this better serve the purpose of the report?

they are scientists, i am pretty sure they would prever to know rather than assuming.

i did not claim it would have served the purpose of the report. I clearly stated what i ment with it.

[DC]

Let me ask this another way.

What makes you so convinced of a LIHOP? Why don't you consider the other alternative (not even a LIHOP)?

i do consider a no lihop scenario aka incompetence, but this is very unlikely. as there was noone was held accountable for their incompetenz.

[DC]

btw, remember i dont represent the TM or any other truther group, this is my personal oppinion.

[Dubbi]

i do consider a no lihop scenario aka incompetence, but this is very unlikely. as there was noone was held accountable for their incompetenz.

So: "noone was held accountable for their incompetenz." => "this is very unlikely"

No one was held accountable for the LIHOP scenario => this is also very unlikely.

Perhaps follow your own logic? If not, then give a better reason.

[Gravy]

I'm glad to have any well-researched corrections of my statements or work presented, but I'd like to restrict this thread to issues raised in the titular podcast.

Please use the Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100488) for the other stuff. Thanks.

[Gravy]

they talked about the material coming out of the tower, and they had to assume it was Aluminium. It would have been alot better for NIST if they had samples from it, they could test, and then they could be alot more sure about theyr assumption than they can now.
everytime a truther says, look at the thermite coming out the tower, you could answer, no look NIST tested the material, it was not Iron or themite, it was aluminium.Good grief! In 2002, NIST should have anticipated Steven Jones' idiotic 2006 thermite hypothesis? Sorry, the real world doesn't work that way, nor does real science.

Here's what NIST said about that material in their 2006 FAQ about the towers:
11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.



ill take one of the new claims, the results from the WTC7 FEA does not look like the Videos of the WTC7 collapse. Their FEA did not result in a symectric collapse like we have on video.How closely should they match? (That's a highly technical question and I don't suggest answering without doing a lot of homework. I haven't read the NIST WTC 7 report.)

i am not sure what exactly happened on 9/11. I am close to go back to LIHOP but still looking into MIHOP, but im really pretty close to go back LIHOP.
but i fear there is not much that could convince me of no LIHOP.First, thank you for answering the question.

Next, it's important to understand the concept of falsifiability. An excerpt from A Field Guide to Critical Thinking (http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html):
The rule of falsifiability is essential for this reason: If nothing conceivable could ever disprove the claim, then the evidence that does exist would not matter; it would be pointless to even examine the evidence, because the conclusion is already known -- the claim is invulnerable to any possible evidence. This would not mean, however, that the claim is true; instead it would mean that the claim is meaningless. This is so because it is impossible -- logically impossible -- for any claim to be true no matter what. For every true claim, you can always conceive of evidence that would make the claim untrue -- in other words, again, every true claim is falsifiable.Quick question: does your idea of Let It Happen On Purpose include allowing the demolition of the three skyscrapers with explosives/thermite/whatever?

[Gravy]

i do consider a no lihop scenario aka incompetence, but this is very unlikely. as there was noone was held accountable for their incompetenz.You're engaging in two fallacies here. The first is a false choice fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). Incompetence is not the only alternative to LIHOP.

You are also assuming that if there was incompetence that led to the attacks succeeding, that incompetence would be identified and publicly punished.

[Dave Rogers]

Minor correction...


Claim inside job.
Find contradiction.
???
Profit!

;)

Isn't it:


Claim inside job.
Fabricate contradiction.
???
Profit!
Dave

[DC]

Good grief! In 2002, NIST should have anticipated Steven Jones' idiotic 2006 thermite hypothesis? Sorry, the real world doesn't work that way, nor does real science.

Here's what NIST said about that material in their 2006 FAQ about the towers:




How closely should they match? (That's a highly technical question and I don't suggest answering without doing a lot of homework. I haven't read the NIST WTC 7 report.)

First, thank you for answering the question.

Next, it's important to understand the concept of falsifiability. An excerpt from A Field Guide to Critical Thinking (http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html):
Quick question: does your idea of Let It Happen On Purpose include allowing the demolition of the three skyscrapers with explosives/thermite/whatever?

no grief at all.

would they have tested the Aluminium you found, they would be able to tell more about the other material in it or if it is indeed Aluminium.
bzt now, we cannot be sure, did you ever contact nist, and tell them, that you found material that propably is the material in question?


How closely should the FEA fit? well it should roughly look like the collapse recorded on video. but this is not the case yet. (I did alot lot lot of homework regarding the FEA)

i make a diffrence between the alleged CD of WTC towers and WTC7.

i can imagen that WTC7 CD would fit in a LIHOP scenario. For me even if WTC7 CD would be proven, it is not evidence of MIHOP.

[DC]

You're engaging in two fallacies here. The first is a false choice fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). Incompetence is not the only alternative to LIHOP.

You are also assuming that if there was incompetence that led to the attacks succeeding, that incompetence would be identified and publicly punished.

the it happened on suprise is debunked by the 9/11 Commission i think.

what other scenariios do you think?

[Brannagyn]

My point, which I made repeatedly in the podcast interview, is that many truthers have been influenced by people with agendas not related to the facts of 9/11. You did not support your claim that the same is true of debunkers.

Clear enough?


What’s clear is that you either didn’t follow the argument in my post or are choosing to avoid it. You would have to be fundamentally impaired to be either unaware or incapable of finding evidence of the cheerleading the government and mainstream media did for the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection (let me know if the above is you pedantically asking for evidence of a commonly accepted fact). This being a clears example of a case where their “agenda was not related to the facts of 9/11” you would have to believe that no ‘debunker’ is influenced by either the mainstream media or the government.

Either:
A) you really are ignorant of this, in which case, God love you, you have my sympathies (then again, didn’t you claim to be wholly unaware of 9/11 CTs until 2006?)
B) you don’t consider the government or the mainstream press as part of the debunker grouping, in which case your continued association of anti-semites with the ‘truth movement’ is grossly hypocritical.
C) you don’t believe ‘debunkers’ (i.e. everyone opposing the ‘truth movement’) are influenced by the media or government, they are only influenced by the truth, which is such a ridiculous assertion I very nearly decided against including it (but you never know).

Its clear from your posts that you are not simply attempting to debunk the truth movement (something I would, depending on the sincerity of your motivations, respect) but instead denigrate it. In this podcast alone apart from your unjustifiable highlighting of anti-semites as prominent initiators of the truth movement (overlooking a very wide variety of far more prominent and infinitely more central figures) you also refer to the ‘truth movement’ as conspiracy nuts (both you and Chomsky seem to forget his earlier comments on this tactic), appear to agree with (at the least fail to correct) your host’s assessment that the truth movement is in opposition to the FDNY (?) and resort to name-calling regarding the choice of people to pursue this field to make a name for themselves after having failed to achieve anything else noteworthy in their careers.

Why you seem driven to both merge varied groups and individuals into a single mass and then belittle them in a wholly unscholarly fashion is your own business. Your dogmatic refusal to recognize the irrationality of it and the double-standards employed when viewing your own side of the divide (by which I mean the point repeated above) makes me highly doubtful that you are capable of a neutral approach to the issue, and that’s a shame.

I initially came to this site looking for counterbalance to claims heard from an oppossing source and initially thought I might have every last doubt I had about the 'official story' extinguished. The immediately apparent lack of civility I could have gotten past, but its become clear that, pretensions to critical thought aside, there are at least as many here as anywhere else who approach discussion with a thoroughly entrenched view from which cognitive dissonance will not permit concession of any ground no matter how small or unrelated to their central beliefs.

While I'll continue to examine what rational argument can be found amid the back-slapping of the peanut gallery, I suppose I can remain hopeful (if not optimistic) that the forums devoted to other issues are a little different.

[Tippit]

How closely should they match? (That's a highly technical question and I don't suggest answering without doing a lot of homework. I haven't read the NIST WTC 7 report.)



The tour guide-cum-self-proclaimed 9/11 expert hasn't read the NIST WTC 7 report? Why don't you read that, and then read Frank Greening's critique at http://the911forum.freeforums.org/ in the WTC 7 sub-forum? He's got some interesting things to say.



Next, it's important to understand the concept of falsifiability. An excerpt from A Field Guide to Critical Thinking (http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html):



Indeed it is, in fact I hope you make an attempt to understand the concept yourself. Your ignorance is based, again, on the fact that you think the World Trade Center was a science experiment, and not a crime scene. Falsifiability applies to theories which are scientific, and it refers to the ability to falsify propositions in them empirically, by observation.

From the wiki on the subject (emphasis my own): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability





In the philosophy of science, verificationism (also known as the verifiability theory of meaning) holds that a statement must be in principle empirically verifiable in order to be both meaningful and scientific. This was an essential feature of the logical positivism of the so-called Vienna Circle that included such philosophers as Moritz Schlick, Rudolf Carnap, Otto Neurath, the Berlin philosopher Hans Reichenbach, and the logical empiricism of A.J. Ayer.

Popper noticed that the philosophers of the Vienna Circle had mixed two different problems, that of meaning and that of demarcation, and had proposed in verificationism a single solution to both. In opposition to this view, Popper emphasized that there are meaningful theories that are not scientific, and that, accordingly, a criterion of meaningfulness does not coincide with a criterion of demarcation. Verifiability came to be replaced by falsifiability as the criterion of demarcation.

Falsificationism strictly opposes the view that non-falsifiable statements are meaningless or otherwise inherently bad.[1]



What this means, in essence, is that while some propositions in 9/11 conspiracy theories are practically falsifiable (like the idea that the twin towers fell at free fall speeds), many are only falsifiable in principle, or not at all. This is because 9/11 represented a unique crime scene with many unknowns, rather than a repeatable scientific experiment.

So while many 9/11 conspiracy theories, or at least propositions within those theories are falsifiable (and have been falsified), many are not practically falsifiable or are not falsifiable at all, and they are not necessarily meaningless.

[Jonnyclueless]

Which ones are not falsifiable at all?

[MarkyX]

In this podcast alone apart from your unjustifiable highlighting of anti-semites as prominent initiators of the truth movement (overlooking a very wide variety of far more prominent and infinitely more central figures)


Name them.

[bje]

Why would I be upset that there are Holocaust deniers associated with the 9/11 truth movement? I don't control them, they don't represent me, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool not worthy of my time. The 9/11 truth movement is politically diverse, so are the debunkers. Your rant about "denial movements" reeks of an implicit appeal to authority - that is, anyone with a point of view not in accordance with authority, or majority, is a "denier" worthy of ridicule and marginalization.

You have a difficult time understanding the written word. Try again:

"...you miss the larger point that the behavior, methodology, denial of inconvenient evidence, and political motivation that characterizes the 9/11 "Truth" Movement is common to all denial movements, particulary politically motivated movements like your 9/11 denial Movement."Repeat to yourself until you understand the written word, ok?

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. When confronted with crooks and liars in government, I deny them. And their apologists.Yes, I know. Your assumption is the "government" must be behind 9/11. You'll deny the evidence until hell freezes over and insist that your answered "unanswered questions" have whatever validity you decide to assign to them. And we're all blind for not seeing the obvious, right?

And, of course, it is beneath you to prove Gravy wrong. 9/11 Deniers only ask questions - they are exempt from answering them, correct, Tippit?

Yes, keep associating 9/11 truth with Holocaust denial in a vain attempt at negative association.
You illustrate the determination characteristic of the 9/11 deniers everywhere to read anything you want into the written word. Now, Tippit let me repeat once again. Try to pay attention to what I am saying to you:

"...you miss the larger point that the behavior, methodology, denial of inconvenient evidence, and political motivation that characterizes the 9/11 "Truth" Movement is common to all denial movements, particulary politically motivated movements like your 9/11 denial Movement."Why would you equate 9/11 truth with Holocaust denial, recommend a book about Holocaust denial, and then expect me to actually read such a book when I don't deny that the Holocaust took place? Denying what I actually wrote is a great illustration of denial, Tippit. And you 9/11 Denial Movement members are good at it. Let's try one more time. DO pay attention, Tippit:

"...you miss the larger point that the behavior, methodology, denial of inconvenient evidence, and political motivation that characterizes the 9/11 "Truth" Movement is common to all denial movements, particulary politically motivated movements like your 9/11 denial Movement."Is that the best you guys have got, to imply that we're all jew-haters? You're pathetic.You'll never find a statement where I called you a "jew hater." But I thank you for illustrating my point that denial is denial is denial.

Amazing.

[Brannagyn]

Name them.


I considered asking you what naming them would do to your views but I fear I already know the answer. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Anyway…

The pre-existing and widespread anti-globalization movement realized from the get-go that 9/11 was going to have a major international ramifications and that despite it being a terrorist incident a military response was likely. It was elements of these groups led by people such as Carol Brouillet and Kevin Danaher that first approached Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, in November 2001, urging for a Senate enquiry into discrepancies and oddities they saw in the official version of events. This group learnt of and joined forces with others such as the Citizens for a Legitimate government. By January 2002 Barry Zwicker had produced the first major tv enquiry into the official version, the Great Deception. Other early proponents of investigation (and far more central than whatever anti-semite fringe existed) included Peter Dale Scott, Nafeez Ahmed and Michel Chossudovsky, none of whom seem to come up much here. There was also Michael Ruppert and the good ol’ whipping boy Alex Jones. I’m sure some are slipping my mind and that those more closely involved could name many more, suffice to say implying that the roots of the ‘truth movement’ were among ‘prominent anti-semites’ without pointing out the much more central figures is either ignorant or deliberately deceitful. Your choice which.

[MarkyX]

It was elements of these groups led by people such as Carol Brouillet and Kevin Danaher that first approached Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, in November 2001, urging for a Senate enquiry into discrepancies and oddities they saw in the official version of events.


And what oddities were there? How is this linked to the creation of the movement?


By January 2002 Barry Zwicker had produced the first major tv enquiry into the official version, the Great Deception.


Yes I know about this. His entire show was revolved around planes not taking off; nothing to do with controlled demolition, drone aircraft, or anything of that sort.

He believes the "stand down" order was established, however this is not a new theory as he actually cites Michael Ruppert for this and...wait for it, anti-semites were proposing the same theory months before Barry Zwicker.

gain, you're saying they are other people besides anti-semite that helped started the movement. You're either only giving vague answers or giving me people who were late for the bandwagon.

[DC]

Islamophobes claimed Islamic terrorists even bofore any investigation was started, thus the OCT is based on Islam haters and OCTers are Islamophobes.

or not?

[bje]

I considered asking you what naming them would do to your views but I fear I already know the answer. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Anyway…

The pre-existing and widespread anti-globalization movement realized from the get-go that 9/11 was going to have a major international ramifications and that despite it being a terrorist incident a military response was likely. It was elements of these groups led by people such as Carol Brouillet and Kevin Danaher that first approached Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, in November 2001, urging for a Senate enquiry into discrepancies and oddities they saw in the official version of events.

At least you admit the political motivations behind the 9/11 Truth Movement using so-called "discrepancies and oddities" in an ephemeral, truther-invented, "official version" of events.

In the seven years since 9/11, nothing has changed. The 9/11 Truth Movement invents new "oddities and discrepancies" and recycles the old debunked ones, and continues to use the canard of some "official story" in place of the actual massive, independent evidence that informs all of us, including, the NIST investigations and 9/11 Commission, and converges on the inescapable conclusions that are contrary to your political agenda.

And of course, you'll jump in and ask ,"what massive evidence?"

We've heard it all.

[CptColumbo]

i do consider a no lihop scenario aka incompetence, but this is very unlikely. as there was noone was held accountable for their incompetenz.And Brownie was doin' a "heckuv a job."

[Brannagyn]

And of course, you'll jump in and ask ,"what massive evidence?"

Try and do your best not to derail the point under discussion with attempts at clairvoyance.

How is this linked to the creation of the movement?


Can't say I'm surprised by your failure to either understand the relevance or overcome your own dogma. The people I've named above are among the people who can legitimately be called prominent early figures in the 'truth movement'.

The fact that anti-semites might have been claiming that 9/11 was a jewish plot from the first hours is irrelevant when you accept that such people claim any major event is a Jewish conspiracy. There is nothing to substantiate Roberts claims that they were prominent figures and the fact that he references them while ignoring the foundational impact of the above people can only be taken as either a mistake of ignorance (perfectly fine, especially if he only came across such issues in 2006 and through the skewed lens of LC) or a wilful attempt to denigrate his opponents.

Mark Roberts: “A lot of the early conspiracy theorists about 9/11 were holocaust deniers…not a lot, but prominent ones.”

a) "prominent" is just plain wrong.
b) highlighting the fringe element while failing to mention the more central figures in the early growth is disingenuous in the extreme.

[Dave Rogers]

Islamophobes claimed Islamic terrorists even bofore any investigation was started, thus the OCT is based on Islam haters and OCTers are Islamophobes.

Do you have any evidence for the first part of this assertion, or are you merely making things up to support a weak argument?

Dave

[DC]

Do you have any evidence for the first part of this assertion, or are you merely making things up to support a weak argument?

Dave

atleast you admit that those are weak arguments.
far more than i ever expected.
thank you

[ElMondoHummus]

DC, your statement is dishonest. You know damn well that the identification of the hijackers as Arabic initially flowed from the flight victims calls - as one example, look up Madeline Sweeney - and later independently flowed from both the flight manifests as well as a backtracking of the hijacker's movements.

The fact that some "Islamophobes" allegedly made the accusation before the investigation (I'd like to see some examples of that, if you please) and happened to be coincidentally correct does not mean the investigation proceeded along the lines laid out by these unnamed "Islamophobes". Look up the evidence, and tell me which element was presented by which "Islamophobe"? Was it Pat Buchannan who estabished the hijackers' membership and classes at the flight schools? Was it some other "neocon" who established their presence at the terminals? Was it a random Zionist who proffered the DNA evidence from the hotels and rental cars? Were Betty Ong, Madaline Sweeney, Mark Bingham, and other flight victims who called for help and identified the hijackers all secret Muslim haters?

You usually argue better than presenting canards and outlandish statements. Given the testimony of the hijack victims, and the latter investigation uncovering the hijacker's movements and identities, you know damn well that the case is built on everything other than the statements of a few racists. So why make the charge? Are you really sinking to the level of other posters on this forum? I thought you were better than that.

[mchapman]

Every single professional investigator and law enforcement official on the planet seems to be in disagreement with your assessments, so I guess you're out of luck.

But hey, keep expressing your personal incredulity on Internet forums. I'm sure that will get your new investigation off the ground.

That is a very bold claim. If you don't have quotes from every single one backing that up then I would retract it.

[mchapman]

In response to people asking what is unexplained, lets start with:

1. The FBI having the passenger manifests immediately but getting the identities of the hijackers wrong initially.

2. The claim that the hijackers have been positively identified when no such thing has occured.

3. The lack of positive identification of any of the planes from serial numbered parts.

4 The treatment of the wreckage. Just exactly what from flight 93 is in iron mountain?

[DC]

DC, your statement is dishonest. You know damn well that the identification of the hijackers as Arabic initially flowed from the flight victims calls - as one example, look up Madeline Sweeney - and later independently flowed from both the flight manifests as well as a backtracking of the hijacker's movements.

The fact that some "Islamophobes" allegedly made the accusation before the investigation (I'd like to see some examples of that, if you please) and happened to be coincidentally correct does not mean the investigation proceeded along the lines laid out by these unnamed "Islamophobes". Look up the evidence, and tell me which element was presented by which "Islamophobe"? Was it Pat Buchannan who estabished the hijackers' membership and classes at the flight schools? Was it some other "neocon" who established their presence at the terminals? Was it a random Zionist who proffered the DNA evidence from the hotels and rental cars? Were Betty Ong, Madaline Sweeney, Mark Bingham, and other flight victims who called for help and identified the hijackers all secret Muslim haters?

You usually argue better than presenting canards and outlandish statements. Given the testimony of the hijack victims, and the latter investigation uncovering the hijacker's movements and identities, you know damn well that the case is built on everything other than the statements of a few racists. So why make the charge? Are you really sinking to the level of other posters on this forum? I thought you were better than that.

my argument was perfect, you got my point and pointed it out.

thank you.

[applecorped]

In response to people asking what is unexplained, lets start with:

1. The FBI having the passenger manifests immediately but getting the identities of the hijackers wrong initially.

2. The claim that the hijackers have been positively identified when no such thing has occured.

3. The lack of positive identification of any of the planes from serial numbered parts.

4 The treatment of the wreckage. Just exactly what from flight 93 is in iron mountain?

:jaw-dropp:eek::boggled::covereyes:jaw-dropp

[Drudgewire]

That is a very bold claim. If you don't have quotes from every single one backing that up then I would retract it.


Until we have sworn statements from every single astronomer in the world, Gallelio might have been wrong about the earth revolving around the sun (or in Alex Jones' world, the world is round?) :confused:

[Gravy]

What’s clear is that you either didn’t follow the argument in my post or are choosing to avoid it. You would have to be fundamentally impaired to be either unaware or incapable of finding evidence of the cheerleading the government and mainstream media did for the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection (let me know if the above is you pedantically asking for evidence of a commonly accepted fact). This being a clears example of a case where their “agenda was not related to the facts of 9/11” you would have to believe that no ‘debunker’ is influenced by either the mainstream media or the government.WTF? This irrational nonsense is entirely unrelated to my evidence that anti-Semites were prominent early in the establishment of the 9/11 "truth" movement.

This irrational nonsense is entirely unrelated to people like myself who examine 9/11 conspiracy claims, using factual evidence from myriad sources, which anyone can check.

I asked you for evidence that "extreme" skeptics were influential in the establishment of the "debunking" movement. You have made several posts since then and have provided none.

Nor have you provided evidence that the debunking movement had gotten anything significant wrong.

If you want to continue making this petulant and baseless argument, do it elsewhere.

[Dave Rogers]

atleast you admit that those are weak arguments.

I'll be happy to admit that the tu quoque logical fallacy is a weak argument any time you care to employ it.

Dave

[Gravy]

no grief at all.

would they have tested the Aluminium you found, they would be able to tell more about the other material in it or if it is indeed Aluminium.
bzt now, we cannot be sure, did you ever contact nist, and tell them, that you found material that propably is the material in question?It's been explained to you why this is nonsense. Move on.

How closely should the FEA fit? well it should roughly look like the collapse recorded on video. but this is not the case yet. (I did alot lot lot of homework regarding the FEA)Did you read the WTC 7 report? I'd also like to learn about how closely the FEA should match reality. What sources did you use to educate yourself?

i make a diffrence between the alleged CD of WTC towers and WTC7.

i can imagen that WTC7 CD would fit in a LIHOP scenario. For me even if WTC7 CD would be proven, it is not evidence of MIHOP.You realize that introducing a building demolition vastly complicates your LIHOP scenario, right? Since no LIHOP or MIHOP scenario is necessary to explain the events of 9/11, and you have no evidence to support the existence of such scenarios, your belief is irrational. Postulate plurality at your own risk, but don't waste others' time with it.

Won't somebody think of poor Ockham?

[Dave Rogers]

my argument was perfect, you got my point and pointed it out.

I can see what you're trying to establish, although your case is weakened more than a little by the fact that there wasn't an anti-Islamic culture that spawned a series of false claims in advance of the determination that al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. However, you're missing the point that much of the "evidence" cited by 9/11 truthers is fantasy originated by openly admitted anti-Semites, and that many truthers take these fantasies as proven fact on the authority of their originators. Gregory Urich, who has openly rejected the unsupported word of anti-Semitic commentators, is a good example of what can happen when someone in the truth movement takes a stand on this issue; he's finding himself marginalised by the movement, and there is someone on his own discussion forum suggesting that he shouldn't be allowed to remain a member of 9/11 truth groups. On the other hand, I've yet to see a debunker criticised for pointing out that (a) Arabs are equally capable as members of any other ethnicity of learning to fly airliners, or (b) perpetrators of an act should be determined based on verifiable evidence rather than racist suspicion.

Dave

[Drudgewire]

Won't somebody think of poor Ockham?


As maddening as some of these responses are, I'm trying to keep razors out of my thought patterns. vhttp://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/shobon.gifv

This thread serves as a shining example of why you and others have all but washed your hands of this insanity. Nice to see you haven't lost your passion along with your patience for dealing with this nonsense.

[Jonnyclueless]

In response to people asking what is unexplained, lets start with:

1. The FBI having the passenger manifests immediately but getting the identities of the hijackers wrong initially.

2. The claim that the hijackers have been positively identified when no such thing has occured.

3. The lack of positive identification of any of the planes from serial numbered parts.

4 The treatment of the wreckage. Just exactly what from flight 93 is in iron mountain?

Wow, welcome to 2004. You should tr and catch up. But please indulge us and back those claims up. Show us where the FBI initially got the names wrong, and how that is something in need of investigating. Show us how the hijackers were identified but were not identified.

#3 has been too far debunked that it's not work addressing. #4 isn't even an argument.

[Gravy]

the it happened on suprise is debunked by the 9/11 Commission i think.How many times do you people have to be told to stop pretending to have read the relevant documents?

Me, in the podcast: "Most of the conspiracy theorists – almost none of them – have read the things that they are purporting to critique. Almost none of them."

You didn't even make it past page 1 of the preface to the 9/11 Commission report:

We learned about an enemy who is sophisticated, patient, disciplined, and lethal. The enemy rallies broad support in the Arab and Muslim world by demanding redress of political grievances, but its hostility toward us and our values is limitless. Its purpose is to rid the world of religious and political pluralism, the plebiscite, and equal rights for women. It makes no distinction between military and civilian targets. Collateral damage is not in its lexicon.

We learned that the institutions charged with protecting our borders, civil aviation, and national security did not understand how grave this threat could be, and did not adjust their policies, plans, and practices to deter or defeat it. We learned of fault lines within our government-between foreign and domestic intelligence, and between and within agencies. We learned of the pervasive problems of managing and sharing information across a large and unwieldy government that had been built in a different era to confront different dangers.

From section 11.1
The methods for detecting and then warning of surprise attack that the U.S. government had so painstakingly developed in the decades after Pearl Harbor did not fail; instead, they were not really tried. They were not employed to analyze the enemy that, as the twentieth century closed, was most likely to launch a surprise attack directly against the United States.Research time: 2 minutes.

I'm going to ask you directly to stop faking it. If you don't know something, this is a good place to ask. But it is rude and immature to waste peoples' time like you are doing.

Clear enough?

[RedIbis]

WTF? This irrational nonsense is entirely unrelated to my evidence that anti-Semites were prominent early in the establishment of the 9/11 "truth" movement.




Whereas it's true that people like Hufschmid were prominent early on, it's no longer the case. If they've been dismissed and are no longer prominent in this fantasy movment you obsess over, why are you still dragging this old dead canard around?

[mchapman]

The old anti-semite card is the weakest and laziest in the debunkers deck. It is dragged out simply in a desperate attempt at poisoning the well when they can't deal with actual evidence.

[Brannagyn]

WTF? This irrational nonsense is entirely unrelated to my evidence that anti-Semites were prominent early in the establishment of the 9/11 "truth" movement...

You haven't provided any evidence of this.

btw. "irrational nonsense".....not the strongest argument I've ever come across.

Whereas it's true that people like Hufschmid were prominent early on...

Still don't see the evidence to support this even though many on the opposing side seem to accept it. Like Roberts many people took an interest well after the growth of the initial enquiries into the official version by which time people such as Hufschmid had seen the benefits to be gained from playing to a wider audience. I still am not aware of any evidence establishing them as prominent figures at the early stages.

Nor have you provided evidence that the debunking movement had gotten anything significant wrong.

You first need to explain why the government and the mainstream media cannot be considered among the debunker camp or show that the claims they made linking the hijackers to Iraq were accurate.

Maybe you aren't thinking. "No, no no, I'm talking baout the claims WE make here at JREF. Not some other unrelated group whose unsubstantiated claims we don't support just because we often oppose the same people". Even so...

This irrational nonsense is entirely unrelated to people like myself who examine 9/11 conspiracy claims, using factual evidence from myriad sources, which anyone can check.

I accept that equating the 9/11 related lies propogated by the government and media as a reflection of all debunkers of CTs is irrational, nonetheless, it simply duplicates the logic which would be needed to construct any meaningful corelation between anti-semitism and the genesis of the 'truth movement'.

Please remember why people are likely to respond to any future claims by you of anti-semtism as a significant element of the truth movement, as "irrational nonsense".

This wasn't a discussion of CT theory or its counterpoints but instead related to the manner in which the debate is being conducted, specifically (at your request) in your podcast. You certainly wouldn't have lost any ground in admitting an understandable confusion over the state of the 'truth movement' five years before you became aware of it. A simple "Okay maybe Holocaust deniers weren't so prominent a factor as to justify highlighting them to the exclusion of much more relevant people" would have sufficed.

If you want to continue making this petulant and baseless argument, do it elsewhere.

The JREF forum once again displaying its scholarly roots. While I certainly have little interest in your opinion, given your evident dogmatism, I'm still relatively new here and will happily scour the forums for factual data and insightful opinion wherever I might find it. I may even offer my opinion from time to time.

I know...quel dommage.

[uk_dave]

The old anti-semite card is the weakest and laziest in the debunkers deck. It is dragged out simply in a desperate attempt at poisoning the well when they can't deal with actual evidence.

Whereas the old 'you can't trust them there pesky politicos' card is the weakest and laziest in the 'truthers' deck. It is the foundation of their belief system and is constantly used to poison the well when they can't deal with actual evidence presented by specialist investigators who have no committment to any one political ideology.

[Drudgewire]

Whereas it's true that people like Hufschmid were prominent early on, it's no longer the case.


The claim is that they were prominent in establishing the movement. You just verified it.


If they've been dismissed and are no longer prominent in this fantasy movment you obsess over, why are you still dragging this old dead canard around?


We're getting besieged by four-year old comments like "how come the plane parts weren't identified" and questioning flight manifests in this very thread. Let's face it, you could very easily rename the entire twoof movement the "Dead Canard Society."

[applecorped]

The JREF forum once again displaying its scholarly roots. While I certainly have little interest in your opinion, given your evident dogmatism, I'm still relatively new here and will happily scour the forums for factual data and insightful opinion wherever I might find it. I may even offer my opinion from time to time.

I know...quel dommage.

:rolleyes:

What a shame indeed!

[mchapman]

Whereas the old 'you can't trust them there pesky politicos' card is the weakest and laziest in the 'truthers' deck. It is the foundation of their belief system and is constantly used to poison the well when they can't deal with actual evidence presented by specialist investigators who have no committment to any one political ideology.

Where have I said you can't trust politicians?

[Jonnyclueless]

I think Red still doesn't get it. Most of the truther sites that are now touted as prominent all stem back to anti-semitic sites. Most of the articles that are passed around came from those original anti-semitic sites. They were the ones who had the biggest hand in getting the conspiracy theories going. Bollyn is like the grandfather of them as the majority of articles that got the movement going were written by him and published on the anti-semitic sites. Those sites may no longer exist, but the articles written by them and still used today are.

Mark simply pointed this out. He didn't say that conspiracy theorists all follow the anti-semitic movement, he pointed out the origin.

And it should be pointed out that a lot of CT arguments are based on anti-semitic evidence. Larry would not be a big argument for CTs if he wasn't Jewish. PNAC would not be a big talking point if it weren't for members having been Jewish, etc. But that isn't even mark's argument.

[mchapman]

The claim is that they were prominent in establishing the movement. You just verified it.





We're getting besieged by four-year old comments like "how come the plane parts weren't identified" and questioning flight manifests in this very thread. Let's face it, you could very easily rename the entire twoof movement the "Dead Canard Society."



I wasn't questioning the flight manifests at all. I asked why the FBI had to change their list of hijackers when they had the manifests from the start.

Still waiting for the positive ID of the hijackers that the debunkers keep pretending has been done.

[Jonnyclueless]

I wasn't questioning the flight manifests at all. I asked why the FBI had to change their list of hijackers when they had the manifests from the start.

Still waiting for the positive ID of the hijackers that the debunkers keep pretending has been done.

Perhaps you can show us where the FBI changed the list.

Still waiting for some evidence of an inside job the crackpots keep pretending happened.

[mchapman]

I think Red still doesn't get it. Most of the truther sites that are now touted as prominent all stem back to anti-semitic sites. Most of the articles that are passed around came from those original anti-semitic sites. They were the ones who had the biggest hand in getting the conspiracy theories going. Bollyn is like the grandfather of them as the majority of articles that got the movement going were written by him and published on the anti-semitic sites. Those sites may no longer exist, but the articles written by them and still used today are.

Mark simply pointed this out. He didn't say that conspiracy theorists all follow the anti-semitic movement, he pointed out the origin.

And it should be pointed out that a lot of CT arguments are based on anti-semitic evidence. Larry would not be a big argument for CTs if he wasn't Jewish. PNAC would not be a big talking point if it weren't for members having been Jewish, etc. But that isn't even mark's argument.

Total garbage.

Have you seen Mike Ruppert's lecture from October 2001? He isn't an anti semite but the vast majority of the current evidence started with him. Back then he was talking about PNAC, The Grand Chessboard, the put options etc. ONE MONTH AFTER THE ATTACKS.

[applecorped]

Total garbage.

Have you seen Mike Ruppert's lecture from October 2001? He isn't an anti semite but the vast majority of the current evidence started with him. Back then he was talking about PNAC, The Grand Chessboard, the put options etc. ONE MONTH AFTER THE ATTACKS.

And seven years later......nothing. Good job.:rolleyes:

[mchapman]

The originator of the Pentagon claims was the French man (whose name evades me) that wrote "The Big Lie". He wasn't anti semitic either.

[mchapman]

And seven years later......nothing. Good job.:rolleyes:

Care to address the point that he isn't an anti semite but he was lecturing on these issues 28 days after the planes hit the towers?

[Jonnyclueless]

Total garbage.

Have you seen Mike Ruppert's lecture from October 2001? He isn't an anti semite but the vast majority of the current evidence started with him. Back then he was talking about PNAC, The Grand Chessboard, the put options etc. ONE MONTH AFTER THE ATTACKS.

WRONG. This isn't about who said what first. It's about what drove the crackpot movement. Most of the big web sites you see now are not using articles from Mike. They are using articles written by Bollyn. And this is what got all the big sites like Loose Change and XXXfortruth.org sites.

What made this possible was Chris himself. He was writing these articles left and righ (And I assume making good money doing so). And since the crackpot tabloids are generally just concerned with publishing stuff that backs their paranoia, most didn't bother to check their sources and just copied everything they could find.

You guys should really research the history.

[Gravy]

By January 2002 Barry Zwicker had produced the first major tv enquiry into the official version, the Great Deception. Other early proponents of investigation (and far more central than whatever anti-semite fringe existed) included Peter Dale Scott, Nafeez Ahmed and Michel Chossudovsky, none of whom seem to come up much here.That's because only a handful of the hundreds of truthers who've posted here have ever cited those people or their work.

Further, in my face-to face dealings with hundreds of truthers, not a single person ever cited those people or their work. Zero. But many cited the websites and other influential early 9/11 work of Hufschmid, Valentine, the AFP et al.

By far the most influential 9/11 conspiracy platform has been Loose Change 2nd Edition. Millions of people have seen it. It's been translated into many languages and distributed in many countries. Its largest source of false conspiracy "evidence" is the quasi-Nazi-owned American Free Press. Your claim that the people you listed above are "far more central" than that is nonsense.

[applecorped]

Care to address the point that he isn't an anti semite but he was lecturing on these issues 28 days after the planes hit the towers?

No. The fact that someone was lecturing 28 days after the event should give you pause for concern.

[Gravy]

Mark simply pointed this out. He didn't say that conspiracy theorists all follow the anti-semitic movement, he pointed out the origin.

And it should be pointed out that a lot of CT arguments are based on anti-semitic evidence. Larry would not be a big argument for CTs if he wasn't Jewish. PNAC would not be a big talking point if it weren't for members having been Jewish, etc. But that isn't even mark's argument.You're also reading more into what I said, Jonny. I don't claim that all or a majority of conspiracy claims can be traced back to anti-Semites. Referring to influential Holocaust deniers, I said "Not a lot. But prominent ones." That statement is true. If Brannagyn cannot accept it, that's his problem. Move on.

[mchapman]

Even if it were true that ALL truthers that ever lived were anti semetic, it would not make them wrong about 911 so I don't see the point.

[Jonnyclueless]

Even if it were true that ALL truthers that ever lived were anti semetic, it would not make them wrong about 911 so I don't see the point.

So it would make them right? The whole point is to show the original political motivation that helped start the movement. The fact that not a single one has been able to produce any evidence is what prevents them from being right.

[R.Mackey]

That's true.

What makes the Truth Movement wrong is that (a) every single claim they've ever made is verifiably incorrect, (b) they have no evidence, and (c) they have no hypothesis.

Hard to get more wrong than that.

If you disagree with any of the above statements, I invite you to provide an example. We already have several threads running that explicitly ask for any of the above, and none has yet to produce a result. I therefore speak with the evidence on my side. Prove me wrong.

[Gravy]

Islamophobes claimed Islamic terrorists even bofore any investigation was started, thus the OCT is based on Islam haters and OCTers are Islamophobes.

or not?Howling ignorance. You are severely embarrassing yourself here. Remember, this is a thread about an interview I did about incompetent, dishonest, and fantasy-based truthers. It's your choice whether or not to live up to that description.

At least try. Spewing drivel is rude and a waste of everyone's time.

[Gravy]

Even if it were true that ALL truthers that ever lived were anti semetic, it would not make them wrong about 911 so I don't see the point.I don't know how you missed it. I stated my point quite clearly in post 81 of this thread:

"My point, which I made repeatedly in the podcast interview, is that many truthers have been influenced by people with agendas not related to the facts of 9/11. You did not support your claim that the same is true of debunkers.

Clear enough?"

The fact that the anti-Semitic truther claims are demonstrably wrong makes your statement meaningless.

[mchapman]

I don't know how you missed it. I stated my point quite clearly in post 81 of this thread:

"My point, which I made repeatedly in the podcast interview, is that many truthers have been influenced by people with agendas not related to the facts of 9/11. You did not support your claim that the same is true of debunkers.

Clear enough?"

The fact that the anti-Semitic truther claims are demonstrably wrong makes your statement meaningless.


Why even mention that they are anti semitic? If claims are wrong then they are wrong on their own merits regardless of other views.

I know plenty of people who accept the official story of 911 who are extremely racist towards black or muslim people. Does that have any bearing on their claims about 911?

[bje]

Try and do your best not to derail the point under discussion with attempts at clairvoyance.

Pay attention.

The point is your admission of your motives. Which derailed your 9/11 Denial Movement from the beginning.

Any questions?

[mchapman]

Let me put this as clearly as possible:

Person A makes false claims about 911.

Person B makes false claims about 911 and hates jews.

Is there any difference between A and B that requires us to focus on the jew hating?

[Jonnyclueless]

The only ones that are drawing this out into the claim being that jew haters are synonymous with 9/11 conspiracy theorists are the conspiracy theorists. Certainly not Mark. The point goes to show how such a movement evolved.

No one on this side is focusing on the Jew hating mchapman. Well, except for you. It makes for a nice strawman argument in light of there being no real evidence to support the conspiracy theories.

[Dave Rogers]

Not very clear. Try this one:

Person A makes false claims about 9/11. Person A's motivation in making these false claims is to demonise Jews.

Person B repeats person A's false claims about 9/11. Person B's motivation in repeating these false claims is to appear clever and independent-minded.

Are you entirely comfortable with person B's actions?

Dave

[mchapman]

The only ones that are drawing this out into the claim being that jew haters are synonymous with 9/11 conspiracy theorists are the conspiracy theorists. Certainly not Mark. The point goes to show how such a movement evolved.

No one on this side is focusing on the Jew hating mchapman. Well, except for you. It makes for a nice strawman argument in light of there being no real evidence to support the conspiracy theories.

This isn't the first time Mark Roberts has done this sort of thing. In his wtc7 paper he makes sure he points out that steven jones is a mormon who wrote a paper about Jesus coming to america. Totally irrelevant to his 911 claims.

In that podcast he described hero Willie Rodriguez as a failed magician. All pathetic Ad Hom fallacies that make Mark Roberts research about as credible as any holocaust deniers'.

[Totovader]

Why even mention that they are anti semitic? If claims are wrong then they are wrong on their own merits regardless of other views.

I know plenty of people who accept the official story of 911 who are extremely racist towards black or muslim people. Does that have any bearing on their claims about 911?

Can you name any prominent experts of the "official story" that base their conclusion on this supposed "racism"? If not, then this is simply a tu quoque- though I don't speak for Gravy, I personally believe that the anti-Semitism is a symptom of the irrationality of conspiracism and leads to conspiracist ideology.

Furthermore, are these "racists" in a higher majority among the scientific community- or is it simply the case that since the vast majority of experts, witnesses, and laymen believe the scientific version of the events- that there is likely to be a mix of people in there who also happen to be racist?

In other words- one is a symptom of the other, but your example is simply a statistical occurrence.

[mchapman]

Not very clear. Try this one:

Person A makes false claims about 9/11. Person A's motivation in making these false claims is to demonise Jews.

Person B repeats person A's false claims about 9/11. Person B's motivation in repeating these false claims is to appear clever and independent-minded.

Are you entirely comfortable with person B's actions?

Dave

Try this one.

Person A hates jews and makes false claims about 911.

Person B makes false claims.

Person C relies on facts and and evidence and evaluates the claims regardless of who made them.

Why arent the debunkers behaving like person C?

[Totovader]

This isn't the first time Mark Roberts has done this sort of thing. In his wtc7 paper he makes sure he points out that steven jones is a mormon who wrote a paper about Jesus coming to america. Totally irrelevant to his 911 claims.

In that podcast he described hero Willie Rodriguez as a failed magician. All pathetic Ad Hom fallacies that make Mark Roberts research about as credible as any holocaust deniers'.

Gravy can probably clear your misunderstanding up for you on his own- but it should be pointed out that he was referring to a history of poor decisions- a stretch to call that ad hominem, but an outright lie to call it the basis for the rebuttal.

He wasn't saying that Jones is wrong because he wrote a paper about Jesus coming to America- he's wrong because he lacks scientific proof, and by the way he has a history of doing so.

[Totovader]

Try this one.

Person A hates jews and makes false claims about 911.

Person B makes false claims.

Person C relies on facts and and evidence and evaluates the claims regardless of who made them.

Why arent the debunkers behaving like person C?

Um, a better question is why are all conspiracists acting like person A and person B?

[bje]

...I'm still relatively new here and will happily scour the forums for factual data and insightful opinion wherever I might find it.

It's helpful when new members learn to distinguish factual data from debunked beliefs.That you can't understand Gravy and the written word is not a good start.

[mchapman]

Um, a better question is why are all conspiracists acting like person A and person B?

They aren't.

[Dave Rogers]

Why arent the debunkers behaving like person C?

Give an instance.

Dave