Mark "Gravy" Roberts to Debate Richard Gage!!!

Originally posted by SPreston

What expertise does a theologian who is now an agnostic on all matters religious bring to the debate? What could he possibly know about architecture or physics or explosives or demolition technique to warrant his expert witness position you accredit to him CF?

David Ray Griffin (born 1939) is a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology.

More recently, Griffin has published a number of books on the subject of the September 11 attacks, suggesting that there was a conspiracy involving some elements of the United States government.

You tell me!

Originally posted by SPreston

boloboffin is just another know nothing JREF nutcase.

SPreston... aren't you a member at JREF?

forums.randi.org...


What does that make you





[edit on 26-4-2009 by CameronFox]

They debate, We decide...

"Hi, I'm Richard Gage, I'm an architect of 20 years currently working on a 400 million dollar project .." "Hi, I'm Mark, I'm a tour guide"

Pfft! please tell me this is a joke.

reply to post by Smack


I know right?

Watching a tour guide explain to a licensed architect how buildings works. Tour Guides are NOT supposed to school architects on their own profession!

reply to post by CameronFox


I totally agree. What planet is that guy from that he presumes to lecture an accomplished architect about how buildings work? Did Gage tell him how to conduct tours?

reply to post by Smack


You would think so huh? But yes, it is true. A well researched NY city tour guide made a laughing stock out of a guy who builds IHOPS !!

reply to post by CameronFox


Yes, it was amusing to read all the laughs directed at Mr. Gage in the comments. How many were there?

I use to be a Tour Guide too. Does that help my case?

All I had to do was watch the videos provided by A&E on WTC 7 to see they were lying. At one time it could have been a mistake but after this much time it can only be construed as a lie.

Fear is the mind killer

Originally posted by Smack


I use to be a Tour Guide too. Does that help my case?

That would depend, I would assume on how well researched you are.

Originally posted by Griff
I wonder why "gravy" retired from duhbunking?

Maybe he had a multi-million dollar tour he had to work on?

I'm (not) surprised how blind "skeptics" are to the hypocrisy of always appealing to authorities, and "experts," like a badly-needed crutch, but then having a tour guide represent them in debate. There's nothing you can really say, is there? I would just be preaching to the choir. The people that don't get it demonstrate it every chance they get.

Originally posted by CameronFox
bonez... why did you chose those two? why not address the technical errors Gage made?

Since he's not qualified to address the "errors" Gage made, there's no sense in wasting my time to read something by someone that's not qualified.

Originally posted by CameronFox
I think you will be hard pressed to find even one Bush supporter that thinks 911 was an inside job.

As I told you, I was a Bush supporter after 9/11. Have you seen "9/11 Mysteries"? You would also know that one of the makers of that movie was also a conservative republican who was a Bush supporter and he said 9/11 conspiracy theories angered him until he did some REAL research that showed the 9/11 conspiracy theories were true and had merit.

I'm sure you'll find more Bush supports or former Bush admin officials on this website:

patriotsquestion911.com...

Originally posted by CameronFox
I stand by facts.

You can't stand by facts if those facts are peddled by a tour guide or a bible hugger, neither of which are qualified to debunk architects, engineers and physicists.

Originally posted by CameronFox
what about Dr. Griffin? He is the high priest of 911 truth yet his degree is in Theology.

At least you were respectful enough this time to say "Dr. Griffin". I knew you would bring him up. Dr. Griffin is supported by the entire truth movement, including the architects, engineers, and physicists. Where's your theologian's long list of architect, engineer, and physicist supporters?

Originally posted by CameronFox
He also gets he garbage from Steven Jones...who was fired from BYU for his 911 crack pot ideas.

I love how you debunkers can't even say one truthful thing. Then you wonder why you don't believe in 9/11 truth. You would rather believe in UNtruthful things and peddle those untruthful things.

On September 7, 2006, Dr. Jones was placed on review for the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Dr. Jones' work and the concern that perhaps it had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues", however the review was abandoned (contrary to Jones' request) when Jones elected to retire, effective January 1, 2007.

en.wikipedia.org...

So, once again, your credibility hits the fan because you can't be truthful about anything that comes out of your keyboard. It is truly sad you can't be a grown up and just tell the truth.

Originally posted by CameronFox
his appeal for more $$ from his suckers is up on the 28th... 2 more days... you diggin deep?

Not only am I a member of AE911T, I'm also a sustaining member, i.e. donate every month.

[edit on 26-4-2009 by _BoneZ_]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I was a Bush supporter after 9/11, too, all the way up until I stopped watching TV exclusively and started listening to what other people had to say. Even then it wasn't an overnight change, I had to really think about it, something which too many people are either too afraid or too stupid to do.

I don't particularly care what problems a tour guide has with what an engineer or architect is saying, either. I don't really care about anyone's opinion really, because unlike some people I can actually know what a "fact" is by my own deduction, and I don't have to repeatedly assert that something is a fact to feel secure in myself that it really is. I guess I was just loved enough as a child, I don't know.

reply to post by bsbray11


That's a great post. Yet another Bush supporter who thinks 9/11 was an inside job. That would be yet another untruthful claim made by CameronFox. They say when someone can't tell the truth, they're a habitual liar which is a syndrome and a mental health disorder.

Originally posted by CameronFox
A well researched NY city tour guide

Can you show us proof he's a tour guide? Anybody can take a test and get a card. It's another thing to actually do that as a living.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
]Since he's not qualified to address the "errors" Gage made, there's no sense in wasting my time to read something by someone that's not qualified.

Appeal to authority. You are also guilty of hypocrisy.

Why should I listen to Dr. Griffin? What are his qualifications?

Originally posted by CameronFox
I think you will be hard pressed to find even one Bush supporter that thinks 911 was an inside job.

Should I have been more clear and said "current" Bush supporter?


You can't stand by facts if those facts are peddled by a tour guide or a bible hugger, neither of which are qualified to debunk architects, engineers and physicists.

Again, another appeal to authority. Show me what Gravy got wrong. Show me what the "bible huger" got wrong.

At least you were respectful enough this time to say "Dr. Griffin". I knew you would bring him up. Dr. Griffin is supported by the entire truth movement, including the architects, engineers, and physicists. Where's your theologian's long list of architect, engineer, and physicist supporters?

"The Yoda of 9/11 reality...If this site is not to your liking, then you have melded with the ju-ju, and are beyond the enticements of reason.".–Physicist Manuel Garcia Jr. in regards to Mark Roberts

Mr. Roberts has the support of many engineers who have written PEER REVIEWED papers regarding the collapses on 911. How many peer reviewed papers does Griffin have out?

Just so you know, here are a list of peer reviewed papers that Mr. Roberts uses as sources to his facts.

From Mr. Roberts site:


Some Peer Reviewed Papers in Engineering Journals

What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Authors Bazant, Le, Greening & Benson. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 134 (2008).

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions Co-author Verdure. PDF. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 133 (2007): pp. 308–319
Discussion and replies to June 2006 Bazant & Verdure paper: James Gourley, G. Szuladinski

Bazant & Zhou, 2001-2002: Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis J. Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Sept. 28, 2001, addendum March, 2002.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation. Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C., JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Dissecting the Collapses Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. By: Quintiere, J.G.; di Marzo, M.; Becker, R.. Fire Safety Journal, Oct2002, Vol. 37 Issue 7, p707, 10p.

S. W. Banovic, T. Foecke, W.E. Luecke, et al. “The role of metallurgy in the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center towers collapse”, JOM, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 22-29, November 2007.

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.

Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse?; Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Journal of Engineering Mechanics; 2002 Vol. 128 Issue 7, p795-800, 6p.

"Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers" Clifton, Charles G., HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625, 25p

Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires. By: Usmani, A. S.. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Jun2005, Vol. 131 Issue 6, p654-657.

Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks. Omika, Yukihiro.; Fukuzawa, Eiji.; Koshika, Norihide. Journal of Structural Engineering v. 131 no1 (January 2005) p. 6-15

The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers. Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W.; Foecke, Tim. Advanced Materials & Processes v. 162 no10 (October 2004) p. 37-9

WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design. Post, Nadine M. ENR v. 253 no17 (November 1 2004) p. 10-11

"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations" Monahan, B., Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, and Andre Marshall "Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1" Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities Volume 21, Issue 6, pp. 414-421


Engineering Conference Papers
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" Marechaux, T.G. JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Abboud, N., M. Levy, D. Tennant, J. Mould, H. Levine, S. King, C. Ekwueme, A. Jain, G. Hart. (2003) Anatomy of a Disaster: A Structural Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapses. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 360-370

Beyler, C., D. White, M. Peatross, J. Trellis, S. Li, A. Luers, D. Hopkins. (2003) Analysis of the Thermal Exposure in the Impact Areas of the World Trade Center Terrorist Attacks. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 371-382

Thater, G. G.; Panariello, G. F.; Cuoco, D. A. (2003) World Trade Center Disaster: Damage/Debris Assessment In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 383-392



Fire Protection and Fire Modeling Papers
How did the WTC towers collapse? A new theory; Usmani, A. S.; Chung, Y. C.; Torero, J. L. Fire Safety Journal; 2003 Vol. 38, p501-533, 33p.

Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses. Fire and Materials, 29:4, July/August 2005. pp. 181 - 194. Chang, Jeremy; Buchanan, Andrew H.; Moss, Peter J.

"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings" Brannigan, F.L. Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

"Construction and Collapse Factors" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Corbett, G.P. "Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Collapse Lessons" Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Burgess, I.W., 'Fire Resistance of Framed Buildings', Physics Education, 37 (5), (2002) pp390-399.

G. Flint, A.S. Usmani, S. Lamont, J. Torero and B. Lane, Effect of fire on composite long span truss floor systems, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (4) (2006), pp. 303–315.



Fire Protection Conference Papers
"Coupled fire dynamics and thermal response of complex building structures" Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, Volume 30, Issue 2, January 2005, Pages 2255-2262 Kuldeep Prasad and Howard R. Baum

Choi, S.K., Burgess, I.W. and Plank, R.J., 'The Behaviour of Lightweight Composite Floor Trusses in Fire', ASCE Specialty Conference: Designing Structures for Fire, Baltimore, (Oct 2003) pp 24-32.

Jowsey et all, Determination of Fire Induced Collapse Mechanisms in Steel Framed Structures, 4th European Conference on Steel and Composite Structures, 10 June 05, 69-76

Usmani et all, Collapse scenarios of WTC 1 & 2 with extension to generic tall buildings, Oct-2006 Proceedings of the International Congress on Fire Safety in Tall Buildings



Related Papers
Interactive Failure of Two Impacting Beams Xiaoqing. Teng and Tomasz Wierzbicki. J. Engrg. Mech., Volume 129, Issue 8, pp. 918-926 (August 2003)

Use of High-Efficiency Energy Absorbing Device to Arrest Progressive Collapse of Tall Building Qing Zhou and T. X. Yu Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130, 1177 (2004)

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30:2, January, 2005. pp. 2247-2254. Baum, Howard R.; Rehm, Ronald G.

Reconnaissance and preliminary assessment of a damaged high-rise building near Ground Zero. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings. 12 :5, 15 December 2003. pp. 371 - 391. Warn, Gordon; Berman, Jeffrey; Whittaker, Andrew; Bruneau, Michel

"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center" Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A., The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48

John K. McGee et al, “Chemical Analysis of World Trade Center Fine Particulate Matter for Use in
Toxicologic Assessment”, Environmental Health Perspective (June 2003)

UC Davis Aerosol Study: Cahill et al., “Analysis of Aerosols from the World Trade Center
Collapse Site, New York, October 2 to October 30, 2001”, Aerosol Science and Technology,

Lioy et al, “Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center
(WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001”, Environmental Health
Perspectives, Volume 110 #7

- Post to continue

reply to post by CameronFox

Appeal to authority. You are also guilty of hypocrisy.

And yet you pensively use that same tool of sophistry to beggar your own argument. What does that make you then? A double hypocrite?
Your risible enumeration of documents purported to sustain your argument now is hardly a convincing support for your prior objection.

Do be so kind as to inform us which of the two fallacies are true.

Formulate carefully though, it is a double edged blade.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by Smack


And yet you pensively use that same tool of sophistry to beggar your own argument. What does that make you then? A double hypocrite?
Your risible enumeration of documents purported to sustain your argument now is hardly a convincing support for your prior objection.

Do be so kind as to inform us which of the two fallacies are true.

Formulate carefully though, it is a double edged blade.

Smack,

I believe you are missing the point here. Bonez and others dismiss what Mark Roberts states due to the fact that he is not accredited in the filed of study being discussed. That goes the same for the author of the AE4911Truth. info page.

The irony is that Dr. Griffin is a theologian too..yet he is seen as the master of 911.

Bonez and others state that because Gage is an architect (who admits he over his head) he is the know all.

Now, I will ask you; please point out what is incorrect about the AE4911Truth. info page, or what Roberts got wrong during the debate.

Mr. Gage buried Gravy big time. the only thing Roberts succeeded in is playing the doublethink game, making claims and accusations without backing them up, and generally looking like an ass.

Debunkers need to find a better candidate.

Yay, Libertarians!

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Mr. Gage buried Gravy big time. the only thing Roberts succeeded in is playing the doublethink game, making claims and accusations without backing them up, and generally looking like an ass.

What did Griff say above about opinions?

Try listing what facts Gage got right and Gravy got wrong.

Thank you

Originally posted by CameronFox
What did Griff say above about opinions?

Indeed. You would be wise to heed such advice as well.

As for facts...Gravy merely played semantics and word games, and ad hominem attacks. Things like that simply aren't debatable, just ignorable.

By the way, Mr Roberts is a mere tour guide. From someone who derides people on here for not being "experts" and ignoring the state sanctioned "Experts", you put alot of stock in a mere tour guide operator.