It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

World Trade Center Not a Demolition: New Mark Roberts Video

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 08:34 AM
link   

New 9/11 Conspiracies Debunking Video From Mark "Gravy" Roberts




Google Video Link


Without claim as to the accuracy of the content, this video from someone who has become the "lead Truth Movement debunker," is presented for discussion by ATS members.

From the Google Video Comments:

This video is about how obviously wrong the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are that WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 were destroyed by explosive demolition, about how they resort to lying to try to cling to their fantasies, and about how they posit the use of exotic sci-fi weapons while criticizing others who do the same.

Includes discussion of claims by conspiracists Steven Jones and members of his Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Richard Gage and members of his Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, David Ray Griffin, Dylan Avery and Loose Change, Jim Hoffman, "9/11 Mysteries," Jim Fetzer, Kevin Ryan, and others.

Issues discussed include controlled demolition, blast effects, cutter charges, potential energy of towers, audio fakery and deception, severity of fires, the expected collapse of WTC 7, "pyroclastic flows," and the dust clouds produced by the collapses.

Comments are presented by expert structural engineers and WTC investigators Gene Corley, Matthys Levy, Leslie Robertson, Irwin Cantor, and by FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro.

Work and calculations by Zdenek Bazant, Frank Greening, Ryan Mackey and others is cited.




posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I'm not exactly sure why this video, of all those regarding 9/11, is being promoted by the site owner.

Frankly, I found it rather sophmoric. I don't need to see nearly ten minutes of bridges and concrete towers being cd'd to make an irrelevant point in relation to the destruction of the WTC buildings.

The discussions on these boards, led by several dedicated and educated ATS members, are light-years more advanced than the easy targets chosen for this video.

Sorry, I find this borderline improper for a site owner to promote this view, using such a weak video.

Also, SO, what ever happened to the five reasons 9/11 was a CD/250,000 ATS points thread? IIRC that thread simply died from official neglect from you. Now we receive this?



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
I'm not exactly sure why this video, of all those regarding 9/11, is being promoted by the site owner.

To be very clear, I'm not promoting it at all. I felt our members should be aware of it and discuss it. If conspiracy theorists ignore debunking efforts, then we ignore all tools available for refining and improving the delivery of our concepts.



five reasons 9/11 was a CD

There never was such a thread... the thread you may be thinking of was more related to "Five Concise Points" and wasn't specific to demolition.


[edit on 21-12-2007 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Not to belabor the point, but if you post regularly on this board you are already exposed to all debunking efforts ad infinitum. That is its great strength, btw.

Also that it is not static, like this video, which picks and chooses its arguments and "builds" a case based on foundational questions that are not those the most informed 9/11 skeptics are asking.

So I do hope you'll also post another video from the opposition that you find worthy of discussion, and point out why you have selected these videos in specific terms. What is it in them that brings the debate forward?

Quite obviously your position here carries with it influence, and the mere fact of posting a video promoting one side of the debate is a form of influence, all disclaimers aside.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


Gottago ~

So much for finding the truth huh? Truthers often ignore the facts that are presented to them. It appears that although you call it sophmoric and improper, you have not stated anything that is in error with this video.

As I have stated before and several others, Mark Roberts is a key member when it comes to 911 facts. He has encyclopedic knowledge of the events prior, during, and post 911. He has debated several members of the truth movement on a show called HARDFIRE. On the few occasions he did do this, he made the members of the movement look ...well like idiots. A simple google or youtube search will have all of his debates listed. Since his name has been spread around the 911 web, there are no leaders of the truth movement that are willing to debate him. Kevin Ryan has backed out and well as others.

Thanks ~

C.O.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


I hate to be a jerk but I guess that depends on who he's arguing with and how fair of a discussion it was. For instance, and again I hate to say this, but regularly Bsbray and Griff* do exactly that to you - make you look like an idiot that is.

I guess my point is this, it's not really side that you are arguing but rather your qualifications and knowledge. Maybe Mark Roberts isn't choosing worthy opponenets.

*Edit to fix Griff's name. I always put Griffin. To much Family Guy?

[edit on 21-12-2007 by Sublime620]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
I don't need to see nearly ten minutes of bridges and concrete towers being cd'd to make an irrelevant point in relation to the destruction of the WTC buildings.


That's the problem with making a video that just tries to prove a negative the whole time.

It's impossible to prove a negative, except by proving the opposite to be true.

If this is not the case, then Mr. Roberts must be an unsurpassed genius to have first discovered how this is supposed to work, without proving the "official story" to be true.


Just for the sake of argument (to simplify what would realistically be a very complicated issue), let's say that the towers were brought down by cheesecake devices. Why not? It could be anything that Roberts does not consider.

He does not consider it. Therefore he does not disprove it. So, he cannot fully disprove "demolition theory" without disproving every single way in which it could have been accomplished. This is why you cannot prove a negative, without proving its positive to be true.


I'm still waiting on an "official story" to explain the collapses. So far, FEMA has said pancake, and NIST refuted pancake but only tried to explain how the collapses started.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
As I have stated before and several others, Mark Roberts is a key member when it comes to 911 facts. He has encyclopedic knowledge of the events prior, during, and post 911.


I'm sorry, but if Mark "Gravy" Roberts is your best bet, then you have nothing to stand on.

Let me ask again. What are his qualifications? A tour guide in NYC? How does this make him an expert in anything other than guiding tours around NYC?


On the few occasions he did do this, he made the members of the movement look ...well like idiots.


Can you list the people he has debated? Thanks.


Since his name has been spread around the 911 web, there are no leaders of the truth movement that are willing to debate him.


Could it possibly be that the truth movement leaders are sick of his sophmorishness and think of him as a waste of their time? I know I do. I won't debate him for these very same reasons. Does that mean that he has "won" the debate with me because I feel he is not qualified to debate to begin with?


Kevin Ryan has backed out and well as others.


Going by your logic, we on ATS can claim that we have "won" the debate against both Mark Roberts and Ryan Mackey. Because they refuse to join ATS and actually debate.

We won, we won, we won.


See how easy it is to win debates in CO's mind?

[edit on 12/21/2007 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
SkepticOverlord, I was very interested in viewing this video as I always think the more information the better, no matter where it comes from. But I couldn't get through half of this video. I stopped watching when he started calling everyone "dishonest", "deceitful", and "incompetent." Which is strange.... you posted this video only 9 days after starting your "Dealing with 9/11 Madness (argumentum ad hominem veritas)" I agree with that previous post and lets deal with only "facts and reasoned analysis." There are probably some facts in this video that may be very useful but I personally don't want to spend all my time separating the wheat from the chaff. Anyway, no more homemade vids for me (I never could stand their banal soundtracks anyway).



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
But I couldn't get through half of this video. I stopped watching when he started calling everyone "dishonest", "deceitful", and "incompetent."

Excellent point... which is one of the key factors I had hoped would spring forth in regards to discussion about this video. It's alarming to see how much the "sides" to this debate feel they need to insult each other to make their point. So much so, that it has become habitual.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


First of all Griff does not make me look like an idiot. We have very open discussions. BsBray has been on ignore with me for months for reasons his is well aware of.

Sublime, please point out a post where I have made a mistake. I promise to look into it and retract or fix any errors.

In regards to the members of the truth movement, they ALL refuse to debate people who have any knowledge. They all claim that NIST and other government officals will not debate them...and claim that is an admission of guilt.

And please refrain from calling me an idiot.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff ~

Mark is a member here and has posted.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I'm sorry, but if Mark "Gravy" Roberts is your best bet, then you have nothing to stand on.

Let me ask again. What are his qualifications? A tour guide in NYC? How does this make him an expert in anything other than guiding tours around NYC?


Please show me where Mark Roberts has made erros in any of his statements. There is a thread at Jref asking the same thing.... so far... there are none. ( there are many that are trying )

forums.randi.org...

I did NOT say that he was an expert. Please re-read my post. I stated that he has encyclopedic knowledge. Mark has gathered an abundance of information and put papers together. If you wish to read some of his work, here is a link to them:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...



Again Griff... and others. Please post the errors that he has made.



Can you list the people he has debated? Thanks.


The ones i know of:

Hardfire Telvision Debates:

Jim Fetzer
Dylan and Jason (Loose Change)

He has also debated at Ground Zero with Alex Jones and others.

Please let me look into who else.




Could it possibly be that the truth movement leaders are sick of his sophmorishness and think of him as a waste of their time? I know I do. I won't debate him for these very same reasons. Does that mean that he has "won" the debate with me because I feel he is not qualified to debate to begin with?


Griff, so someone needs to have a degree for you to debate with? Why don't you e-mail him? U2U him here? PM him @ Jref? See for your self what his qualifications are?

Mark Roberts email: nyctours@gmail.com


Kevin Ryan has backed out and well as others.

Going by your logic, we on ATS can claim that we have "won" the debate against both Mark Roberts and Ryan Mackey. Because they refuse to join ATS and actually debate.

We won, we won, we won.


See how easy it is to win debates in CO's mind?


thats NOT what I said Griff I actually thought you were above this type of post.....that is the logic of the truthers.... Kevin Ryan will only debate members of NIST becasue he KNOWS that they will not do it.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Mark is a member here and has posted.


Yes, but I just went through his post history (all 8 of them) and not once does he answer ANY of my questions in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nor does he even acknowledge my existence.

So, the point still stands that going by your logic, I made him look rather idiotic since he avoided every post of mine.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


That is NOT my logic Griff. I gave you his e-mail adress.. im sure he will answer you there. When I stated he made the truthers he debated with look like idiots ...was because he showed how ignorant they were.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Again Griff... and others. Please post the errors that he has made.


Since I have seen nothing comming from him other than his opinion, how am I to refute that?

Please post ONE fact of his that he hasn't picked up from "debunking9/11" or "screwloosechange".

If all he can do is parrot these sites and what they say without actually thinking for himself, then yes, I refuse to debate with him.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
When I stated he made the truthers he debated with look like idiots ...was because he showed how ignorant they were.


I'll ask the same of the people he has debated with. What qualifications does Dillon Avery have? Or Alex Jones? Or Jim Fetzer?

Can you see my point of "winning" a debate when no one was qualified for the debate to begin with is easy.

I'd like to see him debate physics. Have him take on Newton once. I bet he'd loose.

[edit on 12/21/2007 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Griff, so someone needs to have a degree for you to debate with? Why don't you e-mail him? U2U him here? PM him @ Jref? See for your self what his qualifications are?

Mark Roberts email: nyctours@gmail.com



We have emailed him and challenged him to a debate many times.

He simply responds with images of cuckoo clocks.

Gravy wouldn't even respond in a thread where I directly challenged him at jref regarding his erroneous witness list:

Gravy's witness "summary" does not reflect reality.

Naturally the discussion devolved into constant sophomoric attacks that ignored the evidence so TAM started his own thread to take the challenge for Gravy.

Pentagon Attack Witnesses - dissecting their testimony and credibility

In essence TAM agrees that many of the witnesses on Gravy's list that are cited as having seen the impact could not have done so.

Gravy never responded or corrected the errors in his list and refuses to debate the information at all costs.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Personally I thought the video attacked from the wrong angle. As was mentioned by bsbray11, Fema says Pancake, Nist says no--only dealiing with the *start* of collapse. Its the nature of the collapse of the 3 buildings that most here find troubling as well as many other things surrounding this. Already Griff posted a Fema PDF document that details melted Steel which was very unusual, from one of the Towers and Bldg-7, so far the de-bunkers have been plainly telling us again and again----"there was no Molten Steel" I think there are good reasons now to solidly refute and refuse that notion. There most likely was Molten Steel and that idea has support from eyewitnesses on the scene.

What should be looked at are more exotic types of explosives, Thermobaric and so forth. I don't think most here would argue that this was a conventional event.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


He apparently is a member here. Why not openly challenge him here?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join