Investigative Journalist Stewart Bradley vs. Mark Roberts

Gravy · 11th February 2009, 11:57 PM

from: Mark Roberts <nyctours@gmail.com>
to: st0069@hotmail.com
date: Thu, Feb 12, 2009

subject: Face off with the Debunkers. Part 1 – Mark Roberts

Hello Stewart.

It's been brought to my attention that you made a blog post in which you claim to have had a debate via YouTube comments with me. You didn't. I have never gone by the name "clunkityclunk4truth" or anything like it, I did not host the video channel you refer to or make those videos, and I have never debated via YouTube comments.

Your work stands as an exemplar of 9/11 "Truth Movement" research.

I expect your apology and retraction in bold print at the beginning of that blog post to make it clear that the person you were debating was not me and did not represent him or herself as me.

Sincerely,
Mark Roberts

Baylor · 12th February 2009, 12:42 AM

Clunkityclunk4truth was blender head, a 21 year old from Colorado who likes Bad Religion, Keith Olbermann, and anything that has to do with left wing politics.

Is this you? If not, someone's posing as you.

http://www.youtube.com/user/markroberts911

Gravy · 12th February 2009, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

Clunkityclunk4truth was blender head, a 21 year old from Colorado who likes Bad Religion, Keith Olbermann, and anything that has to do with left wing politics.

He had sent an email last month saying that truthers had gotten the site pulled. I hadn't seen the site and didn't know anyone was confusing us until now. Unfortunately Bradley's post was picked up by several other blogs and websites.

Quote:

Is this you? If not, someone's posing as you.

http://www.youtube.com/user/markroberts911

It's not, but it's a very common name. I sent a message asking him to disambiguate for his viewers, if he has any. Thanks.

240-185 · 12th February 2009, 01:13 AM

I "like" how he's describing you...

"although he works as a NYC guide", which sounds to me like "hey, don't trust this guy, he's just a guide, don't care about his work! From their side, troofers have experts!"

Baylor · 12th February 2009, 01:17 AM

I don't think it was the truthers who got his accounts closed. Blender Head's YouTube accounts always had some copyrighted material. He posted Bill Maher shows, Keith Olbermann, and many other videos I think were copyrighted by Viacom. He got his other account suspended, ArmchairRevolution. He used to mention you a lot when he had his 9/11 channels. That's probably why truthers thought he was you. Now he has another account, politikaljunkie.

ETA and a little OT: Truthers love "debating" via YouTube comments. With the unlimited number of sockpuppets one can have, one can just mark all the "debunkers'" comments as spam or thumbs down and the comment won't be shown. Any post of substance by anyone (however rare it is) can be wiped off the first page in seconds and near impossible to find just by pouding away comment after comment. They do it all the time. Truther forums may be going the way of the dinosaur, but they made YouTube their new breeding ground.

Tweeter · 12th February 2009, 02:32 AM

Maybe there are two Mark Roberts that work as tour guides who also are debunkers. Just a coincidence. You know how they are.

njslim · 12th February 2009, 03:37 AM

Maybe Gravy is just a hologram? Just asking questions you know......

Panoply_Prefect · 12th February 2009, 05:28 AM

Originally Posted by Gravy

He had sent an email last month saying that truthers had gotten the site pulled. I hadn't seen the site and didn't know anyone was confusing us until now. Unfortunately Bradley's post was picked up by several other blogs and websites.

Oh no. With the current tally of removed factual errors from truthersites, we'll be spending the coming years debunking newbie truthers "Mark Robert lost the Youtube debate!" claims. Sigh.

bje · 12th February 2009, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by Panoply_Prefect

Oh no. With the current tally of removed factual errors from truthersites, we'll be spending the coming years debunking newbie truthers "Mark Robert lost the Youtube debate!" claims. Sigh.

We could confuse them with a Flash Mob of "Mark Roberts" at Ground Zero.

johnny karate · 12th February 2009, 08:04 AM

The page appears to have been taken down. Once again, a Truther fails to admit their mistakes and instead just pretends like it never happened.

Bonus: Title of a blog entry from December 24, 2008: "Newly Surfaced Video Proves Existence of Plan to "Take Down" Building 7" complete with link to a prisonplanet.com article titled "FDNY Lieutenant Admitted Plan To ‘Take Down’ WTC7". So this guy is just another FDNY-hating scumbag. Classy stuff.

lapman · 12th February 2009, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by 240-185

I "like" how he's describing you...

"although he works as a NYC guide", which sounds to me like "hey, don't trust this guy, he's just a guide, don't care about his work! From their side, troofers have experts!"

Wait. Mark is a GUIDE? That makes him a pilot. Therefore, according to pfft logic, he didn't even need to do any research to know everything there is about 9/11. Wow, Mark, you wasted all that time.

CptColumbo · 12th February 2009, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by Tweeter

Maybe there are two Mark Roberts that work as tour guides who also are debunkers. Just a coincidence. You know how they are.

It's a common name. I'm not a tour guide and my last name isn't Roberts, but I'm half-way there.

DGM · 12th February 2009, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Tweeter

Maybe there are two Mark Roberts that work as tour guides who also are debunkers. Just a coincidence. You know how they are.

"Mark Roberts" is also (or atleast was) one of the producers of "Two and a Half Men" with Charlie Shean. I don't believe it's the same one. What's your point?

sleahead · 12th February 2009, 04:42 PM

A correction and apology has now been posted.

fullflavormenthol · 12th February 2009, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by sleahead

A correction and apology has now been posted.

Well he did correct it, which does count for something; despite not agreeing with his overall position. Fairness in a debate is a very positive thing.

Gravy · 12th February 2009, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by sleahead

A correction and apology has now been posted.

That's good. He was going to keep the post pulled, but I asked him to restore it and add the correction. Otherwise no one who was linked to it from other blogs or sites would know about the error, and would assume that I'd been "pwned" as described in the comments at those sites.

beachnut · 12th February 2009, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol

Well he did correct it, which does count for something; despite not agreeing with his overall position. Fairness in a debate is a very positive thing.

If he had the knowledge he could correct his delusional stand on 911. He spews crap as if it was the truth. This may be the only thing he ever gets right on 911.

Why can't he research 911 like he finally figure out this tough topic?

fullflavormenthol · 12th February 2009, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by beachnut

If he had the knowledge he could correct his delusional stand on 911. He spews crap as if it was the truth. This may be the only thing he ever gets right on 911.

Why can't he research 911 like he finally figure out this tough topic?

Oh, don't get me wrong. I believe he could actually apply the same logic to 9-11. It is unfortunate that only after being embarassed can he correct a completely wrong story.

I didn't mean to imply that I was 100% supportive of the guy, and I would hope that this might awaken him to actually look into the research of Mark Roberts. Because that was what snapped me out of the truther mindset.

johnny karate · 12th February 2009, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by sleahead

A correction and apology has now been posted.

Good on him. I retract my previous snide comment.

bje · 12th February 2009, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Gravy

That's good. He was going to keep the post pulled, but I asked him to restore it and add the correction. Otherwise no one who was linked to it from other blogs or sites would know about the error, and would assume that I'd been "pwned" as described in the comments at those sites.

You handled that very well, Mark.

T.A.M. · 12th February 2009, 05:33 PM

The bigger question now is....

"Will the two actually debate in RL, or not?"

TAM

golotomer · 12th February 2009, 05:54 PM

Hello Mark this John-Michael from the "debunking the debunkers blog" I was always planning on putting it back up with a correction and apology from Stewart. When I first heard about it on Care2 I posted...

"Thanks for the info RU. I'm sure this was an honest mistake, I'll get more info, and pull the blog post until I know more."

I'm pretty sure Stewart would actually want to do the debate.

JM

golotomer · 12th February 2009, 06:00 PM

That's the reason it has the same URL, I just saved it back to draft until he updated it.

Gravy · 12th February 2009, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

The bigger question now is....

"Will the two actually debate in RL, or not?"

TAM

This reminds me of Mark Gaffney, the guy who wrote the book about the "mystery plane" that's no mystery. He wrote to me, said he'd been reading my site and had some issues with my analysis. He asked me to read his detailed analysis of NIST's report on the Twin Towers. He'd had it online for over a year.

I responded that I got as far as the part in the first paragraph where he called NIST the "National Institute of Safety and Transportation," then I closed the window. I asked him to get back to me in a year if he'd actually read the report by then.

He replied that he didn't think anyone had read the whole report. I said that not only had I read it, but I'd studied much of it, taken copious notes, read several analyses of its methods and conclusions, and read many other engineering reports. I corrected him about the gross errors he'd made in the few killer points he attempted to make by email.

He said he'd get back to me. That was in 2007.

Gravy · 12th February 2009, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by golotomer

Hello Mark this John-Michael from the "debunking the debunkers blog" I was always planning on putting it back up with a correction and apology from Stewart. When I first heard about it on Care2 I posted...

"Thanks for the info RU. I'm sure this was an honest mistake, I'll get more info, and pull the blog post until I know more."

Hi, John-Michael, and thanks.

Quote:

I'm pretty sure Stewart would actually want to do the debate.

JM

Ah, T.A.M. was joking about that above, for obvious reasons.

beachnut · 12th February 2009, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by golotomer

Hello Mark this John-Michael from the "debunking the debunkers blog" I was always planning on putting it back up with a correction and apology from Stewart. When I first heard about it on Care2 I posted...

"Thanks for the info RU. I'm sure this was an honest mistake, I'll get more info, and pull the blog post until I know more."

I'm pretty sure Stewart would actually want to do the debate.

JM

How do you debate bat crazy ideas from 911, pure delusions?

With zero evidence and poor Stewart arguing about exercises on 911 already debunked years ago, how do you debate fantasy and ignorance when the 911Truth person has drank the Kool-Aid and uses hearsay, lies and fantasy for evidence. 7 years and only those who lack knowledge and the ability to exercise sound judgment back the delusions of 911Truth.

Gravy · 12th February 2009, 07:26 PM

Easy there, beachnut. Not every thread needs a rant.

A while ago I was typing a ranty PM, and I noticed that even my hands looked angry. I took a photo. Now, rather than posting repetitive rants, I just post Angry Hand. Saves a lot of typing.

Thunder · 12th February 2009, 07:35 PM

Debating truthers is dumb. I don't do it anymore. I now spend my time playing with girls. =)

T.A.M. · 12th February 2009, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by beachnut

How do you debate bat crazy ideas from 911, pure delusions?

With zero evidence and poor Stewart arguing about exercises on 911 already debunked years ago, how do you debate fantasy and ignorance when the 911Truth person has drank the Kool-Aid and uses hearsay, lies and fantasy for evidence. 7 years and only those who lack knowledge and the ability to exercise sound judgment back the delusions of 911Truth.

Relax, I am not calling for any form of debating. If you have read my posts as of late, you would realize that I have declared debating any of these fellows as a useless exercise. Literally beating a dead horse.

Mark was right, it was in jest. I thought the winking smilie gave it away.

Oh well.

TAM

bje · 12th February 2009, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Gravy

Easy there, beachnut. Not every thread needs a rant.

A while ago I was typing a ranty PM, and I noticed that even my hands looked angry. I took a photo. Now, rather than posting repetitive rants, I just post Angry Hand. Saves a lot of typing.

I've seen that hand before. The horror!

beachnut · 12th February 2009, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by Gravy

Easy there, beachnut. Not every thread needs a rant.

Now I have to work out to get my angry hand photo. Stop working out!

I an not angry, I am baby sitting my grandkids for my daughter the Nurse and her husband the out of work (most of the time now) construction guy who is going to school for his business degree. I have changed diapers today with more substantive evidence than all of 911Truth. How does a jet pilot trained by the USAF become a nanny? Oops crying… That was quick, just a nightmare, and need of a bottle.

Have a great weekend.

What is the definition of an Investigative Journalist who supports 911Truth?

bje · 12th February 2009, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by beachnut

How does a jet pilot trained by the USAF become a nanny?

You're highly qualified to know where they'll aim.

HyJinX · 12th February 2009, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by bje

You're highly qualified to know where they'll aim.

golotomer · 12th February 2009, 09:32 PM

Yeah I knew that probably wasn't said in all seriousness about doing the debate, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. I forgot the smiley face, but I was smiling.

The Lone Bolt · 9th July 2009, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Gravy

This reminds me of Mark Gaffney, the guy who wrote the book about the "mystery plane" that's no mystery. He wrote to me, said he'd been reading my site and had some issues with my analysis. He asked me to read his detailed analysis of NIST's report on the Twin Towers. He'd had it online for over a year.

I responded that I got as far as the part in the first paragraph where he called NIST the "National Institute of Safety and Transportation," then I closed the window. I asked him to get back to me in a year if he'd actually read the report by then.

He replied that he didn't think anyone had read the whole report. I said that not only had I read it, but I'd studied much of it, taken copious notes, read several analyses of its methods and conclusions, and read many other engineering reports. I corrected him about the gross errors he'd made in the few killer points he attempted to make by email.

He said he'd get back to me. That was in 2007.

Gaffney is a regular poster over at Orangemane.com, a Denver Broncos forum (I'm a Chargers fan myself but I've been sucked into their politics subforum).

Your post here was brought up over there and here is Gaffo's response:

Originally Posted by Gaffo

The only error Roberts found was a minor detail -- a point of fact -- that had no bearing on the big picture. In fact, it was so minor I'd have to go back through my emails to identify it.

He never compiled a list of problems or issues with my paper. No one has shown any errors in the analysis -- nor with my conclusions -- not to this day.

h**p://w**.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=81807&page=4

(Sorry about the *s, but I can't yet post links)

So naturally I'm curious about what you debunked from his claims. Do you by any chance have a copy of your response to Gaff? I'd love to see it. Thanks!

TLB

Arus808 · 9th July 2009, 03:14 PM

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthr...t=81807&page=4

fixed that for you

Gravy rarely posts in this forum, so its best that you send him a PM

The Lone Bolt · 9th July 2009, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Arus808

fixed that for you

Gravy rarely posts in this forum, so its best that you send him a PM

Thanks, I will.

Gravy · 9th July 2009, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

...

So naturally I'm curious about what you debunked from his claims. Do you by any chance have a copy of your response to Gaff? I'd love to see it. Thanks!

TLB

Sure do, and I'll be very glad to post our whole exchange (several emails) here if you can get his written permission to do so. Be warned: Gaffney's statements devolve into sadly typical truther paranoia involving my refusal to credit Steven Jones, William Rodriguez, and others for their accurate 9/11 analyses, followed by an accusation that I am a "DISINFO" agent who will be "exposed" for my wrongdoings. He said (in 2007) that he'd be dealing with me in an upcoming book.

Also, a correction: it wasn't me who discovered that Gaffney, in his "detailed review" of the NIST WTC 1 & 2 reports, calls NIST the "National Institute for Safety and Transportation." That info came from a JREF forum member who nominated Gaffney's blazing firebrand of ignorance for a Stundie award, of which I advised Gaffney. The Stundie is awarded by some JREF forum members to the conspiracist whom they judge to have posted the stupidest or looniest statement of the month. Like most truthers, Gaffney remains untroubled by his own stupidity: his ignorance of NIST remains online today, in 2009:

My critiques are of Gaffney's statements in his emails to me, not of the paper he wanted me to spend my valuable time reading. Why the hell would I read a "detailed review" written by a paranoiac who hasn't read the study he purports to be reviewing and who is ignorant of the role of the agency that produced the study?

Feel free to post this elsewhere if you think it will help.

The Lone Bolt · 9th July 2009, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Gravy

Sure do, and I'll be very glad to post our whole exchange (several emails) here if you can get his written permission to do so. Be warned: Gaffney's statements devolve into sadly typical truther paranoia involving my refusal to credit Steven Jones, William Rodriguez, and others for their accurate 9/11 analyses, followed by an accusation that I am a "DISINFO" agent who will be "exposed" for my wrongdoings. He said (in 2007) that he'd be dealing with me in an upcoming book.

Also, a correction: it wasn't me who discovered that Gaffney, in his "detailed review" of the NIST WTC 1 & 2 reports, calls NIST the "National Institute of Safety and Transportation." That info came from a JREF forum member who nominated Gaffney's blazing firebrand of ignorance for a Stundie award, of which I advised Gaffney. The Stundie is awarded by some JREF forum members to the conspiracist whom they judge to have posted the stupidest or looniest statement of the month. Like most truthers, Gaffney remains untroubled by his own stupidity: his ignorance of what NIST is remains today:

My critiques are of Gaffney's statements in his emails to me. Why the hell would I read a "detailed review" written by someone who hasn't read the study he purports to be reviewing and who is ignorant of the role of the agency that produced the study?

Feel free to post this elsewhere if you think it will help.

Appreciate it. I've challenged Gaff to respond. Somehow I doubt that consent will be forthcoming, but it's worth a try.

Gravy · 9th July 2009, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

...Somehow I doubt that consent will be forthcoming...

Betcha it is. As a rule, these people are not blessed with self-awareness.

11th February 2009, 11:57 PM	#1
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,078	Investigative Journalist Stewart Bradley vs. Mark Roberts from: Mark Roberts <nyctours@gmail.com> to: st0069@hotmail.com date: Thu, Feb 12, 2009 subject: Face off with the Debunkers. Part 1 – Mark Roberts Hello Stewart. It's been brought to my attention that you made a blog post in which you claim to have had a debate via YouTube comments with me. You didn't. I have never gone by the name "clunkityclunk4truth" or anything like it, I did not host the video channel you refer to or make those videos, and I have never debated via YouTube comments. Your work stands as an exemplar of 9/11 "Truth Movement" research. I expect your apology and retraction in bold print at the beginning of that blog post to make it clear that the person you were debating was not me and did not represent him or herself as me. Sincerely, Mark Roberts
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

12th February 2009, 12:42 AM	#2
Baylor Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 8,394	Clunkityclunk4truth was blender head, a 21 year old from Colorado who likes Bad Religion, Keith Olbermann, and anything that has to do with left wing politics. Is this you? If not, someone's posing as you. http://www.youtube.com/user/markroberts911
Baylor Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 8,394	Last edited by Baylor; 12th February 2009 at 12:47 AM.

12th February 2009, 12:53 AM	#3
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,078	Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel Clunkityclunk4truth was blender head, a 21 year old from Colorado who likes Bad Religion, Keith Olbermann, and anything that has to do with left wing politics. He had sent an email last month saying that truthers had gotten the site pulled. I hadn't seen the site and didn't know anyone was confusing us until now. Unfortunately Bradley's post was picked up by several other blogs and websites. Quote: Is this you? If not, someone's posing as you. http://www.youtube.com/user/markroberts911 It's not, but it's a very common name. I sent a message asking him to disambiguate for his viewers, if he has any. Thanks.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard Last edited by Gravy; 12th February 2009 at 12:54 AM.

12th February 2009, 01:13 AM	#4
240-185 Muse Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 510	I "like" how he's describing you... "although he works as a NYC guide", which sounds to me like "hey, don't trust this guy, he's just a guide, don't care about his work! From their side, troofers have experts!"
240-185 Muse Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 510	__________________ Like a toy, the black dinosaur walked towards a Goomba and asked him: "What do Truthy Chain Chomps say when they bark? Twoof! Twoof! Twoof!" badum pschhh My 9/11 Crackpot Index

12th February 2009, 01:17 AM	#5
Baylor Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 8,394	I don't think it was the truthers who got his accounts closed. Blender Head's YouTube accounts always had some copyrighted material. He posted Bill Maher shows, Keith Olbermann, and many other videos I think were copyrighted by Viacom. He got his other account suspended, ArmchairRevolution. He used to mention you a lot when he had his 9/11 channels. That's probably why truthers thought he was you. Now he has another account, politikaljunkie. ETA and a little OT: Truthers love "debating" via YouTube comments. With the unlimited number of sockpuppets one can have, one can just mark all the "debunkers'" comments as spam or thumbs down and the comment won't be shown. Any post of substance by anyone (however rare it is) can be wiped off the first page in seconds and near impossible to find just by pouding away comment after comment. They do it all the time. Truther forums may be going the way of the dinosaur, but they made YouTube their new breeding ground.
Baylor Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 8,394	Last edited by Baylor; 12th February 2009 at 01:23 AM.

12th February 2009, 02:32 AM	#6
Tweeter Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 790	Maybe there are two Mark Roberts that work as tour guides who also are debunkers. Just a coincidence. You know how they are.
Tweeter Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 790

12th February 2009, 03:37 AM	#7
njslim Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,076	Maybe Gravy is just a hologram? Just asking questions you know......
njslim Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,076

12th February 2009, 05:28 AM	#8
Panoply_Prefect Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,075	Originally Posted by Gravy He had sent an email last month saying that truthers had gotten the site pulled. I hadn't seen the site and didn't know anyone was confusing us until now. Unfortunately Bradley's post was picked up by several other blogs and websites. Oh no. With the current tally of removed factual errors from truthersites, we'll be spending the coming years debunking newbie truthers "Mark Robert lost the Youtube debate!" claims. Sigh.

12th February 2009, 05:50 AM	#9
bje Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,281	Originally Posted by Panoply_Prefect Oh no. With the current tally of removed factual errors from truthersites, we'll be spending the coming years debunking newbie truthers "Mark Robert lost the Youtube debate!" claims. Sigh. We could confuse them with a Flash Mob of "Mark Roberts" at Ground Zero.
bje Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,281	__________________ - There is only one way to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong.

12th February 2009, 08:04 AM	#10
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 16,090	The page appears to have been taken down. Once again, a Truther fails to admit their mistakes and instead just pretends like it never happened. Bonus: Title of a blog entry from December 24, 2008: "Newly Surfaced Video Proves Existence of Plan to "Take Down" Building 7" complete with link to a prisonplanet.com article titled "FDNY Lieutenant Admitted Plan To ‘Take Down’ WTC7". So this guy is just another FDNY-hating scumbag. Classy stuff.

12th February 2009, 09:24 AM	#11
lapman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,717	Originally Posted by 240-185 I "like" how he's describing you... "although he works as a NYC guide", which sounds to me like "hey, don't trust this guy, he's just a guide, don't care about his work! From their side, troofers have experts!" Wait. Mark is a GUIDE? That makes him a pilot. Therefore, according to pfft logic, he didn't even need to do any research to know everything there is about 9/11. Wow, Mark, you wasted all that time.
lapman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,717	__________________ They take their paranoia, mix in a healthy dose of mistrust in anything "gubmint", and then bake it in that big ole EZ Bake oven of ignorance, and come to the delusional conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. - Seymour Butz

12th February 2009, 10:35 AM	#12
CptColumbo Just One More Question Join Date: May 2004 Location: Lots of places Posts: 9,237	Originally Posted by Tweeter Maybe there are two Mark Roberts that work as tour guides who also are debunkers. Just a coincidence. You know how they are. It's a common name. I'm not a tour guide and my last name isn't Roberts, but I'm half-way there.
	__________________ I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office" The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling

12th February 2009, 03:05 PM	#13
DGM Skeptic not Atheist Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 24,738	Originally Posted by Tweeter Maybe there are two Mark Roberts that work as tour guides who also are debunkers. Just a coincidence. You know how they are. "Mark Roberts" is also (or atleast was) one of the producers of "Two and a Half Men" with Charlie Shean. I don't believe it's the same one. What's your point?
	__________________ "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

12th February 2009, 04:42 PM	#14
sleahead Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 406	A correction and apology has now been posted.
sleahead Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 406

12th February 2009, 04:51 PM	#15
fullflavormenthol Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,415	Originally Posted by sleahead A correction and apology has now been posted. Well he did correct it, which does count for something; despite not agreeing with his overall position. Fairness in a debate is a very positive thing.
	__________________ "Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS

12th February 2009, 05:05 PM	#16
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,078	Originally Posted by sleahead A correction and apology has now been posted. That's good. He was going to keep the post pulled, but I asked him to restore it and add the correction. Otherwise no one who was linked to it from other blogs or sites would know about the error, and would assume that I'd been "pwned" as described in the comments at those sites.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

12th February 2009, 05:07 PM	#17
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,116	Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol Well he did correct it, which does count for something; despite not agreeing with his overall position. Fairness in a debate is a very positive thing. If he had the knowledge he could correct his delusional stand on 911. He spews crap as if it was the truth. This may be the only thing he ever gets right on 911. Why can't he research 911 like he finally figure out this tough topic?

12th February 2009, 05:17 PM	#18
fullflavormenthol Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,415	Originally Posted by beachnut If he had the knowledge he could correct his delusional stand on 911. He spews crap as if it was the truth. This may be the only thing he ever gets right on 911. Why can't he research 911 like he finally figure out this tough topic? Oh, don't get me wrong. I believe he could actually apply the same logic to 9-11. It is unfortunate that only after being embarassed can he correct a completely wrong story. I didn't mean to imply that I was 100% supportive of the guy, and I would hope that this might awaken him to actually look into the research of Mark Roberts. Because that was what snapped me out of the truther mindset.
	__________________ "Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS

12th February 2009, 05:23 PM	#19
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 16,090	Originally Posted by sleahead A correction and apology has now been posted. Good on him. I retract my previous snide comment.

12th February 2009, 05:28 PM	#20
bje Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,281	Originally Posted by Gravy That's good. He was going to keep the post pulled, but I asked him to restore it and add the correction. Otherwise no one who was linked to it from other blogs or sites would know about the error, and would assume that I'd been "pwned" as described in the comments at those sites. You handled that very well, Mark.
bje Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,281	__________________ - There is only one way to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong.

12th February 2009, 05:33 PM	#21
T.A.M. Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,795	The bigger question now is.... "Will the two actually debate in RL, or not?" TAM

12th February 2009, 05:54 PM	#22
golotomer Guest Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 14	Hello Mark this John-Michael from the "debunking the debunkers blog" I was always planning on putting it back up with a correction and apology from Stewart. When I first heard about it on Care2 I posted... "Thanks for the info RU. I'm sure this was an honest mistake, I'll get more info, and pull the blog post until I know more." I'm pretty sure Stewart would actually want to do the debate. JM
golotomer Guest Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 14

12th February 2009, 06:00 PM	#23
golotomer Guest Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 14	That's the reason it has the same URL, I just saved it back to draft until he updated it.
golotomer Guest Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 14

12th February 2009, 07:01 PM	#24
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,078	Originally Posted by T.A.M. The bigger question now is.... "Will the two actually debate in RL, or not?" TAM This reminds me of Mark Gaffney, the guy who wrote the book about the "mystery plane" that's no mystery. He wrote to me, said he'd been reading my site and had some issues with my analysis. He asked me to read his detailed analysis of NIST's report on the Twin Towers. He'd had it online for over a year. I responded that I got as far as the part in the first paragraph where he called NIST the "National Institute of Safety and Transportation," then I closed the window. I asked him to get back to me in a year if he'd actually read the report by then. He replied that he didn't think anyone had read the whole report. I said that not only had I read it, but I'd studied much of it, taken copious notes, read several analyses of its methods and conclusions, and read many other engineering reports. I corrected him about the gross errors he'd made in the few killer points he attempted to make by email. He said he'd get back to me. That was in 2007.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

12th February 2009, 07:04 PM	#25
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,078	Originally Posted by golotomer Hello Mark this John-Michael from the "debunking the debunkers blog" I was always planning on putting it back up with a correction and apology from Stewart. When I first heard about it on Care2 I posted... "Thanks for the info RU. I'm sure this was an honest mistake, I'll get more info, and pull the blog post until I know more." Hi, John-Michael, and thanks. Quote: I'm pretty sure Stewart would actually want to do the debate. JM Ah, T.A.M. was joking about that above, for obvious reasons.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

12th February 2009, 07:08 PM	#26
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,116	Originally Posted by golotomer Hello Mark this John-Michael from the "debunking the debunkers blog" I was always planning on putting it back up with a correction and apology from Stewart. When I first heard about it on Care2 I posted... "Thanks for the info RU. I'm sure this was an honest mistake, I'll get more info, and pull the blog post until I know more." I'm pretty sure Stewart would actually want to do the debate. JM How do you debate bat crazy ideas from 911, pure delusions? With zero evidence and poor Stewart arguing about exercises on 911 already debunked years ago, how do you debate fantasy and ignorance when the 911Truth person has drank the Kool-Aid and uses hearsay, lies and fantasy for evidence. 7 years and only those who lack knowledge and the ability to exercise sound judgment back the delusions of 911Truth.

12th February 2009, 07:26 PM	#27
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,078	Easy there, beachnut. Not every thread needs a rant. A while ago I was typing a ranty PM, and I noticed that even my hands looked angry. I took a photo. Now, rather than posting repetitive rants, I just post Angry Hand. Saves a lot of typing.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

12th February 2009, 07:35 PM	#28
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918	Debating truthers is dumb. I don't do it anymore. I now spend my time playing with girls. =)
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918

12th February 2009, 07:35 PM	#29
T.A.M. Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,795	Originally Posted by beachnut How do you debate bat crazy ideas from 911, pure delusions? With zero evidence and poor Stewart arguing about exercises on 911 already debunked years ago, how do you debate fantasy and ignorance when the 911Truth person has drank the Kool-Aid and uses hearsay, lies and fantasy for evidence. 7 years and only those who lack knowledge and the ability to exercise sound judgment back the delusions of 911Truth. Relax, I am not calling for any form of debating. If you have read my posts as of late, you would realize that I have declared debating any of these fellows as a useless exercise. Literally beating a dead horse. Mark was right, it was in jest. I thought the winking smilie gave it away. Oh well. TAM

12th February 2009, 07:41 PM	#30
bje Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,281	Originally Posted by Gravy Easy there, beachnut. Not every thread needs a rant. A while ago I was typing a ranty PM, and I noticed that even my hands looked angry. I took a photo. Now, rather than posting repetitive rants, I just post Angry Hand. Saves a lot of typing. I've seen that hand before. The horror!
bje Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,281	__________________ - There is only one way to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong.

12th February 2009, 07:45 PM	#31
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,116	Originally Posted by Gravy Easy there, beachnut. Not every thread needs a rant. Now I have to work out to get my angry hand photo. Stop working out! I an not angry, I am baby sitting my grandkids for my daughter the Nurse and her husband the out of work (most of the time now) construction guy who is going to school for his business degree. I have changed diapers today with more substantive evidence than all of 911Truth. How does a jet pilot trained by the USAF become a nanny? Oops crying… That was quick, just a nightmare, and need of a bottle. Have a great weekend. What is the definition of an Investigative Journalist who supports 911Truth?
	Last edited by beachnut; 12th February 2009 at 07:46 PM. Reason: mom made me take typing class in 1969 -

12th February 2009, 08:05 PM	#32
bje Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,281	Originally Posted by beachnut How does a jet pilot trained by the USAF become a nanny? You're highly qualified to know where they'll aim.
bje Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,281	__________________ - There is only one way to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong.

12th February 2009, 08:09 PM	#33
HyJinX Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,662	Originally Posted by bje You're highly qualified to know where they'll aim.
HyJinX Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,662	__________________ What? You pooped in the refrigerator? And you ate the whole... wheel of cheese? How'd you do that? Heck, I'm not even mad; that's amazing. - Ron Burgundy

12th February 2009, 09:32 PM	#34
golotomer Guest Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 14	Yeah I knew that probably wasn't said in all seriousness about doing the debate, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. I forgot the smiley face, but I was smiling.
golotomer Guest Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 14

9th July 2009, 02:31 PM	#35
The Lone Bolt Scholar Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 65	Originally Posted by Gravy This reminds me of Mark Gaffney, the guy who wrote the book about the "mystery plane" that's no mystery. He wrote to me, said he'd been reading my site and had some issues with my analysis. He asked me to read his detailed analysis of NIST's report on the Twin Towers. He'd had it online for over a year. I responded that I got as far as the part in the first paragraph where he called NIST the "National Institute of Safety and Transportation," then I closed the window. I asked him to get back to me in a year if he'd actually read the report by then. He replied that he didn't think anyone had read the whole report. I said that not only had I read it, but I'd studied much of it, taken copious notes, read several analyses of its methods and conclusions, and read many other engineering reports. I corrected him about the gross errors he'd made in the few killer points he attempted to make by email. He said he'd get back to me. That was in 2007. Gaffney is a regular poster over at Orangemane.com, a Denver Broncos forum (I'm a Chargers fan myself but I've been sucked into their politics subforum). Your post here was brought up over there and here is Gaffo's response: Originally Posted by Gaffo The only error Roberts found was a minor detail -- a point of fact -- that had no bearing on the big picture. In fact, it was so minor I'd have to go back through my emails to identify it. He never compiled a list of problems or issues with my paper. No one has shown any errors in the analysis -- nor with my conclusions -- not to this day. hp://w.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=81807&page=4 (Sorry about the *s, but I can't yet post links) So naturally I'm curious about what you debunked from his claims. Do you by any chance have a copy of your response to Gaff? I'd love to see it. Thanks! TLB
The Lone Bolt Scholar Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 65