Correcting Mark Roberts

Mark Roberts is considered by some to be the greatest defender of the the official 9/11 story and the greatest debunker of the 9/11 Truth Movement. His encyclopedic knowledge of 9/11 is so vast that no one should dare challenge his towering intellect. Anyone who steps into the ring with him is bound to get clobbered. He is the 800 pound gorilla who's mere presence causes truthers to run for the hills. In reality, he is more comparable to a scarecrow, from a distance he may look menacing, but upon closer inspection he is just made out of straw.

So where is Mark Roberts wrong? This was a question posed to members of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Mark Roberts wrote a long paper on the collapse WTC7, or more to the point, the "lies" of the 9/11 Truth Movement and their beliefs regarding WTC7. The goal of his paper was to attack people for asking questions about WTC7, not to discover how the building collapsed. In fact, Mark Roberts does not devote a single sentence to explain how WTC7 collapsed. This is not surprising since the government has yet to offer an explanation for the collapse. If someone does not have an explanation for something, then it is not possible to say where their explanation is wrong. So I will move on and show where Mark Roberts is wrong regarding the Pentagon attack.

Where did the right wing impact the Pentagon? Mark Roberts has this picture on his website.

Mark Roberts states this regarding the "hole", "The hole made by flight 77 extends along the wing line, left and right of the fuselage hole. It is not a cookie-cutter hole: that simply cannot happen when a plane hits a heavily- reinforced concrete building. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at a 43-degree angle to its west wall. It came from the right of the photo below." If the right wing hit within the area shown by the rectangle, then this contradicts the information in the Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR). At the moment of impact the plane was tilted to the left between 7 to 9 degrees. The PBPR states, “The left wing passed below the second-floor slab, and the right wing crossed at a shallow angle from below the second floor slab to above the second-floor slab.” It goes on and reports, "The right wing was below the second-floor slab at the fuselage but above the second-floor slab at the tip, and the left wing struck the building entirely below the second-floor slab, to the north of column line." So the right wing could not have damaged all of the area within the rectangle. Somewhere between column line 17 and 18 the right wing should have impacted the second floor slab and gone up from there. Mark Roberts has the all impact beneath the 2nd floor slab. So for Mark Roberts to be accurate, he should show the rectangle at a slight upwards tilt. If he does, will he refer to this as the “hole” and no longer refer to the damage on the first floor as the “hole”? The area beneath the first floor slab appears to be more damaged so maybe that is why he chose to show the impact there. If the right wing is sloped upwards slightly a "hole" becomes less obvious.

This also brings up another important issue. Regardless of where the right wing impacted the building, how were the columns behind the facade, where the right wing hit the Pentagon, damaged? If the wing disintegrated or folded back what caused the damage to the columns behind column lines 15 to 18. If the wing never punctured a clear hole through the facade, how were the columns on the other side damaged?

Of course, I don’t know if Mark Roberts is wrong, because I don’t presume to know everything that happened that day. However, we can say that his claim contradicts the information in the PBPR.

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.