Saturday, January 19, 2008

The Ground Zeros

I had the misfortune today of watching a video made by Mark Roberts, a man who attempts to "debunk" all the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement. The 52 minute video is certainly not entertaining, but I thought I would watch it nevertheless and write some of my observations.

Mark Roberts is obviously not being paid by any nefarious part of the US government to promote the 9/11 lie. He is merely a useful idiot who is regurgitating government propaganda.
Mark Roberts asked Les Jamison what law was violated by the removal and recycling of large amounts of steel from the towers. Is Mark Roberts saying that it is not illegal to destroy crime scene evidence?

Bill Manning wrote in his article "$elling out the Investigation"

"Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall."

Rep. Joseph Crowley(D) called the destruction of evidence, "borderline criminal."

If an individual tampers with evidence it is usually considered to be a felony.

Regardless, of the legalities of the issue, someone who is not concerned about the destruction of evidence in a crime that killed almost 3,000 people is a contemptible human being.

Later in the show Mark Roberts asked a lady what were the reasons that NIST gives for the collapse of the towers. She stated, "they claim that the twin towers pancaked."

It is true that NIST does not specifically state that the towers pancaked. However, it is easy to see how one might have come to that conclusion. NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told Popular Mechanics,

"When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, but it is the floor PANCAKING that leads to that perception."

Mark Roberts states on his debunking page that 9/11Myths is, "The best all-around site on the internet for examination of 9/11 conspiracist claims."

Mike Williams, the author of the site, states regarding the collapse of the towers, "A PANCAKE-STYLE collapse isn’t quite as rare as some sites want to portray."

Why isn't Mark Roberts interested in correcting the Popular Mechanics piece, or 911Myths?

Because he isn't interested in the truth. He is interested in ideological conformity to the government's position. As long as someone believes the government's story, then they can believe whatever they wish about the collapse of the towers. If someone strays from this position then he is interested in attacking them. Mark Roberts is good at repeating government propaganda, "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength."

In summation, Mark Roberts is a useful idiot.


toto said...

Something quite obvious is absent from your critique: a critique.

You offer no explanation as to where Mark is wrong, where he has failed to "criticize" 911myths, et al. (Although I have personally seen Mark correct others and be corrected). Again, your assumption is that "debunkers" cannot face criticism, and refuse to correct others. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Your peers tried to pick up where you left off on the JREF forum. When asked "Where is Mark factually wrong", they came up pretty much empty handed, despite a 31 page discussion. This is not to say that Mark is infallible, but when he is wrong, it's often moot and inconsequential because Mark bases his research on the facts. Conspiracists have a hard time countering facts with nothing.

As long as the criticism is valid and actually backed up, Mark and others (myself included) have no problem accepting it. However, if your criticism is just to call people "idiot", then it's pretty obvious that your position is weak and unfounded.

tanabear said...

I didn't necessarily write it as a critique, merely my observations on the film. I did show that Mark Roberts is only interested in "correcting" members of the 9/11Truth Movement, not people who defend the official story.

tanabear said...

toto writes, "However, if your criticism is just to call people "idiot", then it's pretty obvious that your position is weak and unfounded."

Mark Roberts used several descriptive phrases to refer to members of the 9/11 Truth Movement. These names are Ignoramus Profundis Nineelevenus, Ignoramus Horribilis Nineelevenus, and Moonbatia Nineelevenus. If his only criticism is just to call people names, then isn't it obvious that his position is weak and unfounded?

Totovader said...

The difference between Marks words and yours, however, is that Mark has backed up his statements with an exhaustive amount of research. The difference is ad hominem versus namecalling. In Marks case, the namecalling is quite understandable.

The fact that your ad hominem is "not necessarily a critique" was essentially my point.

Anonymous said...


Do you guys watch movies in theater or on internet? I use to rent DVD movies from [b][/b]. Recently I discovered that we can watch all new movies on internet on day, they are released. So why should I spend money on renting movies??? So, can you guys please tell me where I can [url=]watch latest movie Cheaters 2010[/url] for free?? I have searched [url=][/url], [url=][/url], [url=][/url] but, Could not find a good working link. If you know any working link please share it with me.