It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:15 PM
reply to post by Griff

Then griff... you have not read any of his papers. He in fact gathers much of his information directly from the source.

Watching one video does not show the only knowledge he has. And to be quite honest... I would assume you are not qualified enough to debate him.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:18 PM
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Craig ~

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you refuse to debate him live? for you it would have been web based? Im not sure.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:28 PM

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
And to be quite honest... I would assume you are not qualified enough to debate him.

Maybe not on where a building used to be in NYC etc. Which is one thing he makes fun of the "truthers" for not knowing on his web page.

Yeah, that makes a real difference.

They claim to be spreading the “truth” about 9/11, but they are unable to answer basic questions such as, “What did NIST (the National Institute for Standards and Technology, which investigated the tower collapses) conclude were the causes of the tower collapses,” and “On September 11, 2001, what big building was standing right where we’re standing?” None of them have answered these questions correctly. This statement remains true as of mid-January, 2007.

But, I can garantee that if the debate focused on engineering, he would NOT be qualified to debate.

BTW, it must be nice to have all that time making videos, visiting the site, doing interviews and posting to jref. Doesn't he have a job? Oh, yeah, that's right. Tour guide.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:31 PM

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you refuse to debate him live? for you it would have been web based? Im not sure.

Why does it have to be live? Because Mark is a good speaker (he IS a tour guide after all) and can win a debate just by speaking well?

Speaking well is only part ( a miniscule part) of the debating process. Actually comming out with facts and not name calling are the other major parts. Of which (so far) I have seen none from Mr. Roberts.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:37 PM
Let's be civil and not joke about one's occupation... m'kay?

If we need to organize a venue for a debate -- web or life -- we can do so via our debate forum, or an ATS MIX episode.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:39 PM
This is the reason I lost interest in the 9/11 conspiracy.

People gathering up in their sides, gathering in their camps, tossing verbal hand grenades degrading one another and their theories.

What a waste of time.

A whole lot of time and effort has gone into investigating this tragedy, massive amounts of data, analysis, reports, theories expert and non-expert, it is honorable to try and seek the truth. The honor and integrity is lost when the movement is reduced to childish insults, and challenges of someone's intelligence, this turns people off.

I think sometimes that this is the goal of some, to make any discussion of the theories so unbearable that noone will care anymore.

It would be much easier to spot the instigator(s) if those who are really interested in the TRUTH, avoid from this baiting and sniping, right now all I see is this nastiness coming from all sides.

Somewhere in this madness is the truth but it doesn't seem anyone is willing to work together to extract it?

I know my input will not be welcomed and I really don't care. I just felt that another unbiased perspective might let you know how this appears to someone NOT deeply involved in the conspiracy.

Carry on.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:42 PM

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Let's be civil and not joke about one's occupation... m'kay?

Sure. Sorry for that.

All I mean by saying that is how can someone "debate" building collapses when they have had no training in the field?

Even I know my limits and don't claim to know more than the NIST scientists. Although I do claim to know that their methods and conclusions are suspect.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:45 PM

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
right now all I see is this nastiness coming from all sides.

I apologize for stepping down to that level.

I know my input will not be welcomed

I welcome your input.

I just felt that another unbiased perspective might let you know how this appears to someone NOT deeply involved in the conspiracy.

Thanks for that. it's good to step away every now and again and look at things from a different perception.

[edit on 12/21/2007 by Griff]

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 02:03 PM

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Craig ~

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you refuse to debate him live? for you it would have been web based? Im not sure.


We have never refused to debate him under any conditions.

You might be thinking about Rob from P4T but CIT will debate Roberts on the Pentagon attack anywhere.

I have a public challenge already posted here.

Like I said.....he wouldn't even debate me on jref.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 02:52 PM
reply to post by CaptainObvious

So why is Mark Roberts avoiding a debate with Craig?

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 04:03 PM
Removing post. Not on topic.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by Sublime620]

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 04:27 PM
reply to post by Sublime620

Except when he let's fly a flurry of Ad Hominem attacks, in attempt to discredit an opposing viewpoint containing abundant examples of: common sense, audio evidence, physical evidence, expert opinion, links to back-up claims.

No Griff... Mark Roberts might not be an engineer, however, Bazant, Zou, Greening, and a good number of the NIST team are.

You want to discredit Gravy for being a "Tour Guide" well perhaps he is taking the laymen on a TOUR of how to find solid relevent information out here on the internet... With so many people trying to rewrite history into some poorly made "Die hard sequel" with their "Dime o' Dozen" youtube videos, or flash in the pan anti-USA propaganda sites; I for one am glad to see Gravy making these rebuttal videos.

And as a conspiracist I am convinced that these "9/11 was an inside job" sites and videos are a planned and consorted effort by anti establishment activists to push their own political goals. An attempt to revise and pervert history with innaccurate, incompetent, and intentionally erronious information.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by Taxi-Driver]

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 06:56 PM
reply to post by Taxi-Driver

You should really go read that thread before you attack Griff. I removed that post because it is irrelevant to the thread and would have hindered discussion, as will yours.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 07:39 PM
I have read it. The thread is about Mark Robert's new film discussing the unlikelyhood of a controlled demolition on 9/11. I concur with Mark's findings.

For the last 5 years; What is the first thing out of the mouths of truthers (9 times out of 10) when confronted with an opposing viewpoint? -- "Well, you just haven't done the research!"

Whos research? Eric Huffschmitt's? The computer geek anti-semite that spawned the controlled demolition theory in 2002? Why is this dude so "qualified?" BULLOCKS!

Now you have people that took that challenge to task (Mark Roberts most notably) and have done reams of research... Is the mantra now going to be " What does a tour guide know?" Or an educator, or a cop, a firefighter, a demolitions expert, or any other well researched individual that might have a better grasp of the full picture?

Of course I am not trying to "derail" this thread or whatever you are implying there, Sublime. I feel it is all very relevent to this thread.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 08:26 PM
Yadda, yada ..NO ONE can explain away the FACT that the Towers turned into dust. There was no weight bearing down after the initiation because we saw it all turn into dust!! Exploding outwards and hurling sections weighing multitons hundreds of yards, both Towers dosplaying the exact same result: The top starts to go and then as it drops it turns to dust. The Towers literally peel away being pulverized, at near free fall speed. Steel core members turn to dust also!!

I could list another hundred ' inexplicable anomalies ' but you get the point: until ALL of the obvious proofs screaming for attention are answered FULLY and SCIENTIFICALLY with evidence that stands up to peer review from NON government sources, then we can assume with FULL confidence that we have a case so solid and so thorough that if it were presented to a jury tomorrow with all the known facts presented, we would see a conviction with no doubt.

Some amateur, with no experience, memorizes the Popular Mechanics lies and foolishness and then spouts it loud enough and of course the media is always ready to give attention to the uninformed and blatantly incorrect: They know that the truth is so obvious that it is an Emporer with No Clothes scenario for sure: Only the chronic state of denial that most people cling to can justify any longer doubting the inside job scenario as fact. It is a fact. Adequate proof is in front of you. Only an inability or unwillingness to deal with the facts properly could lead one to any conclusion but this: 9-11 was an inside job, and we are in a lot of trouble as a nation. Pleasant dreams.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:24 PM
That is a good video, and once again puts the onus on 911 truthers to step up to the plate.
The one problem I have with it, is it debunks conspiracy theorists under the guise that 'regular' - 'common' - 'everyday' demolition techniques would be used.

Now, if indeed the building was going be brought down 'on purpose' you wouldnt use a method that has been tried, tested and presented 1000's of times on tv.

Because then, when you do use common detonation methods, people can say
'' that looked EXACTLY like the others ''

No, you would use a technique not widley used, or perhaps still in its infancy stages within military research to do it.

I dont believe in the collapse theory due to the weight, because those towers held up the weight from day 1... and the collapse failed, they didnt drop 10 stories and cause massive structural failure, they sagged onto the lower floor..

The tilting tower when it collapses should of fallen sideways, over the edge of the building, instaed, the building BELOW the tilt seemed to fall down BEFORE the tilted top made contact.
That doesnt make sense for a collapse.

Now, While I dont believe C4 or regular demo was used,
something was used to significantly weaken the tower from level 1 to the top level, some sort of exotic device, chemical or explosive.

This wouldnt be something found in modern day demolitions.


I do not believe ANYONE who states to a mainstream media his side of the story.

Iraq proved, that the media will say what ever its expected to say 'for' the government.
likewise, they arent going to put on a secret service detail that says
'' yes, I was tasked with protecting the scientists that devised a way to bring the towers down '' if such a thing existed.

If there's nothing to hide, why hide?
There's still too much about 911 that the govenrment isnt willing to let us know.

That alone says to me, that theres aspects of that tragedy we, the public were never meant to know!

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:40 PM
Agit8ded's last line in his post rings true with me.Why all the secrecy from the gov't?Why was all the scrap from the towers shipped off so fast?Why did Pres.Bush want to be questioned with V.P. Cheney present and not under oath?Why was the video of the pentagon attack only a few frames when its obvious that there has to be more than one video with multiple angles.Theres just way to many coincidences and unanswered questions for me to believe the official story.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 10:27 PM
For Christ's sake. Just shoot me now. -----PC

[edit on 21-12-2007 by pc is here]

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 11:12 PM
WTC 1,2 and 7 are in the eye of the beholder, imo. This man being a NYC tourguide 'might' have a certain biases in the case of the NY attacks, and it's buildings. I know how it feels, I was a bycicle messenger in my teens in Manhatten for 3 years or so, and also worked other jobs out of the city, visiting the shop in lower Manhatten everyday for almost a decade. I also lived on LI,NY from birth to my mid 20's.

But after haveing a serious injury in September of 2000. Actually happened on the 11th no less, I fell on the Railroad tracks at Jamacia train station, forcing me to move to Fl, where I was when 9/11 occured.

Perhaps if I had been in Manhatten that day close to the towers, my views may be different. But then again I highly doubt it. There are those who seek the truth no matter how scary it might be, then there are those who either have vested interests in looking at things a certain way, or they just believe if they keep thier heads down and don't think about it, it'll all go away. (I'm not placing the maker of this video in any of those categories,btw). Just a thought.

But again putting all this aside, as I said The NY attacks are debatable; and can be debated well for either side, depending on the persons knowledge(as well as the moderator who is nearly always on the side of the debunker, oh well). But the debunker always has the trump card of the "official" reports to fall back on, and the "crazy no-planers" to quote if they get in a tight spot. Or call us conspiracy theorists, like that's a hurtful thing, heh, I love when they do that one, then the person and the host chuckle as if some points were scored just by using the term.

But...., bring up the Pentagon, or Shanksville, and these guys don't wanna touch it with a 10 foot pole. the inconsistancies of the flight data recorder, and the official 911 Commission's "alleged flight path to the pentagon. Watch Pandoras Black Box if you haven't had the chance, very compelling stuff in there, and it coincides perfectly with the groundwork and interviews Mr. Ranke has done, and what believe. I'd like to see someone explain those inconsistancies to me.

So anyway,even with my minimal education..., I can put 2 and 2 together. If the Pentagon was an inside job, and something fishy happened with flight 93 in Shanksville. Then I have to lean toward inside job in NY.

I believe it was CD. Afterviewing dozens and dozens of hours of footage, and knowing those buildings. As well as going on the testimonies of the surviving Firefighters, and WTC workers, as well as "The last Man out" William Rodriquez, I've concluded there were bombs that went off in those towers.

As far as WTC7 again eye of the Beholder, but weighing all the information I've looked at, I believe it was a textbook CD. I mean the 911 Commission wouldn't even touch it. I mean just look at the money they gave the men to figure out what happened? I can't pull the figures off the top of my head, but I know for a fact it was fractions of what was spent on investigating the Clinton/Lewinski scandal, that is just gross, imo.

But anyhow, thanks for posting this SO, although it's tough to watch someone say stuff that you don't agree with, it's always wise to know what your up against. Know your enemy as they say

Not that I consider this man my enemy, just a saying ya know. For now I can agree to disagree with him.

But I do see the truth movement getting it's act together, dropping all the things we disagree about, and running with stuff we do agree about and can prove. It will start small. Then it will begin to snowball. I believe there are still good and honest folks in the American government, and they just need to have the door opened for them. But it has to be done with level heads, and calm clear minds.

I know It's hard to have a level head though when something is so blatantly obvious to you, and your trying to tell someone and they just won't listen, it's hard to remain calm(hence whats been going on in the 911 forums lately). Then the truther starts shouting, and it "appears" he has lost the argument (there has to be a term for this in debating I would imagine). I'm sure if this guy out debated Jones, this is how it was done, with some help of the NYPD.I'm not up on debating, but I would imagine a good debater is probably calm, and good at pressing buttons, and makeing thier opponents come out of their skin.

But thanks again for bringing this video to light SO, it just reinforces my beliefs about 9/11 even more, and drive to pass information along to others.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 11:38 PM
and the truth shall set u free. Ive said it before and Ill say it again. There is no doubts in my mind that the government did not plan 9/11. You guys give our government to much think they are smart enough to pull something like that off???? Now as far as knowing before hand and not doing anything about it to go forward with an agenda that is debatable but for the people who cant cope with the fact it wasnt the government hey I got news for you.....Elvis & Tupac are alive too in fact I heard they were chilling in Californias San Fernando Valley.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in