Mark Roberts: 9/11 Debunker... Dishonest, Delusional or Saint?

I have noted quite a few threads perpetuating unfair character assassinations of people who ask fair questions about 911.

So i found a man, whose character i think truly deserves questioning...
maybe this thread will provide a good example of how to approach the subject...
of character assassination versus character analysis in a sincere effort to get at the truth.

To provide a proper/fair introduction to Roberts...
here's an interview/debate between Roberts (nyc tour guide) and Cage (sf architect)
sponsored by the Libertarian talk show "Hardfire"

Google Video Link

Part 1
google video mirror to part 1

Google Video Link

Part 2
google video mirror to part 2

...and here's an article on Roberts that in part, inspired the title and creation of this thread.


[edit on 16-9-2008 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
I have noted quite a few threads perpetuating unfair character assassinations of people who ask fair questions about 911.

So i found a man, whose character i think truly deserves questioning...

Since I started two of the threads i beleive you are claiming have "unfairly" assasinated their characters, I thought I would chime in here as well.

I have personally contacted Mark Roberts on several occasions. He is very friendly and has encyclopedic knowledge of the events surrounding September 11th.

Here are some comments about Mr. Roberts:

"The Obi-wan Kenobi of debunkers" –Stephen Lemons, Phoenix New Times

"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 & engineer Manuel Garcia Jr.

"An absolute demon"–Alex Jones

And some not so nice words:

"If you are not aware that you're covering up for that traitor and mass murderer and yes insurance fraudster Silverstein, you'll figure it out when you're beside him on the scaffold. I'll be saving this email as evidence for your trial." – Kevin Barrett -Schlor for 911 Truth

“Mark Roberts deserves to die a traitors [sic] death for trying to suppress 9/11 families from seeking the Truth.”–"Pilots for Truth" founder, and ex-commercial pilot, Robert Balsamo

"Mark Roberts does deserve to die a traitors death....

I will not apologize for it this time. I will be there for his death should America fall into Civil War. That is not a threat. .that is a promise.
If he gets in my way of defending our Constitution.. it will be my pleasure to put a bullet in his head to defend our Constitution from enemies foreign or domestic." –"Pilots for Truth" founder Robert Balsamo, panicking after Mark Roberts challenged him to a debate.

"He's betraying this country and humanity!" – Jason Bermas of Loose Change


I would like to know what you think of him and the reasons behind them. In the two threads I started, I offered information explaining why I have come to the opinions I posted.

Thanks,
-TY-


[edit on 16-9-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
here's an article on Roberts that in part, inspired the title and creation of this thread.

I was having a hard time opening this page. Must have been my connection.
Anyway, after reading it it showed nothing to queston Mark's credibility. This was an open appeal for him to answer some questions. I can't tell you if Mark has read it or not.

This Arabesque person did not point out any errors Mark has made, no lies, no misleading statements, etc.

Mark Roberts is a New Yorker who lost friends and neighbors in the 9/11 attacks.

He had questions too, however when he has questions he goes right to the source. Doesn't sit around and cook up non-sensical "theories" he goes to the firehouse, the police department, asks engineers ect.

It doesn't really matter if "conspiracists" don't agree with Mark Roberts.

And any true "conspiracist," that has been paying attention, have been mandated by their propagandists to just forget about the people that don't agree with their "theories" and have evidence to back-up their claims... But to just move on to some unwitting person that is ignorant about the details of 9/11.. It is the only way the defunked "movement" can grow.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Taxi-Driver]

reply to post by Taxi-Driver

Wait a second!
Are you saying that I cant trust really cool Youtube vids with funky music?
I cant trust what I read on the internet?
I have to like go outside and talk to people?
I don't get it!

ok... i see two from the Gravy Fan Club
anybody else? ....interesting...
i can see why the 911T vets of this community have reframed from getting tangled into this web... it would be like going up against the church in Copernicus's day.

What we have here today is a very similar sinereo.
We have the Bible=NIST and Church=911Commission
We have God=Government backing up the Religion=OfficialStory

And a what appears to be a "volunteer" Saint/Theologian/Pastor=Roberts

There are many people throughout the world and history who have memorized the Bible and have parroted the written word as fact.

Well now we know better or at least should know better then to blindly follow the Bible word for word. After all it was written by man to in part control man throughout the ages. Most obvious example of this can be seen in the Hindu caste system... but religion is a whole other topic unto itself. I am only using it here to help clarify the "official-story/theory" position in relationship to it's many followers.

These followers of the alpha/omega reference books (bibles) of the world throughout history have silenced and derailed the efforts of any inquiry that would challenge their "official story". I'm sure everyone has heard of Copernicus suggesting that the world is round and Darwin's proposal that we have evolved from apes.

To some degree i can say "deja vu"... when it comes to the Jones Thermite theory, could it be wrong? maybe... maybe not... but we have no other theory which explains all this phenomenon. A hybrid thermate technique explains the rapid free fall speed of all three towers, the relatively quiet way in which they collapsed (compared to a classic controlled demolition) and the reports of molten steel found.

Of all the theories including NIST's... this is the most logical, and has more evidence to suggest it's true than the plane-impact/kerosene-fires/pancake theory.

So with all of this said, Roberts and others who pride themselves on giving further voice to NIST and the Commission Report have unfortunately put themselves in a position that attempts to stand against progress made in further independent research.

In an effort to come full circle and summarize (referencing the title of the thread)... to voluntarily put up blinders and to encourage others to do the same, shows to me that Roberts is Delusional in thinking that he is being a Saint (doing God's/Government's work) and as a result unknowingly being Dishonest. So for extra measure in clarity, the delusions come from a shallow/incomplete reference source, in no way am i suggesting that Roberts delusions come from a chemical imbalance.

Noting all of the evil deeds this country has partaken in over its fairly short history, and the level of layers of such deeds in just the past 8 years... this government doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt... and to go out of one's way to defend this administration's long list of so called "incompetencies" and "coincidences" is beyond naive... something is at play here... and i would venture to call it blind faith.

Robert's may be a nice guy, his intentions may even be pure but his "books of knowledge" have many shallow interpretations and missing pages... in turn his purpose/direction in this quest for the truth is a huge waste of valuable time and energy... for him and anyone who deals with him.

I think Robert's memorization/recall skills, which i'm sure he undoubtedly makes good use of as a nyc tour guide, would be better spent preparing for a trivial pursuit type tv show game, like jeopardy or who wants to be a millionaire. Where the regurgitation of fact and fiction are handsomely rewarded... and where he won't derail truth seekers off into a culdisac.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by The All Seeing I]

reply to post by The All Seeing I


"ASI";

I will not attack your analogy. God knows sometimes after I read some of my own, I am left scratching my head wondering: "What the F was I thinking?" That being said, I know where you were attempting to go with it. Just a little too extreme for my taste.

First of all by the substance of your post, it is obvious you have not read all of Marks collections of facts. Yes facts. The only thing you have dared to correct him on is the NIST report. Which you have failed doing. You have also failed to recognize the abundance of additional information that he has collected for all to see and read. He does not only reference NIST reports when it comes to the collapses of the towers. Mark shows many reports by Structural Engineers, Scientists, etc. Most I might add have been peer reviewed and published.

May I suggest you look at this page for links to may other entities other than NIST. (although there are NIST references on this page)There are some excellent reads there.

Fire Safety Engineering & the Performance of Structural Steel in Fires

You reference Steven Jones who you stated as being the most logical when it comes to the explanation of the WTC collapses, is not accurate. You don't know the facts. For instance, the buildings did not fall at free fall speed. This has been discussed countless times with many members here. Here you will find investigations resulting in alternate tower collapse theories

Mark actually addresses Physicist Steven E. Jones with links that are very informative that denounce his work.

Allow me to address this statement from you:

In an effort to come full circle and summarize (referencing the title of the thread)... to voluntarily put up blinders and to encourage others to do the same, shows to me that Roberts is Delusional in thinking that he is being a Saint (doing God's/Government's work) and as a result unknowingly being Dishonest.

First of all Mark is not doing the governments work as you suggest. Mark is an outspoken critic of the Bush administration and is against the war in Iraq. So, your fantasy that he is doing government work is just that. A fantasy. Because he disagrees with the fantasies of the truth movement, does not in anyway equate to him agreeing with the actions of the current administration. In your title of this thread, he is only one of the several labels that you present. That is de-bunker. He removes the bunk from 911 conspiracy theories.

Mark does not have "memorization/recall skills." He has knowledge. He did his homework. Something you have failed to do prior to your poor attempt at discrediting him.

I suggest you read his googlepages, watch his debates, read some of his posts at the JREF Forum (Gravy is his name there), then e-mail him if you still don't get it. He will answer pretty much any questions you may have regarding 911. After that, I would like to see where you think he is in error.

Thank you,

-TY-








[edit on 17-9-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

Duly noted TY... brings me to a reconfirmation of what i had suspected.

Thus a thread to adequately address the core operation of the Gravy bandwagon:
The use of Doublespeak to derail Occam's Razor




[edit on 18-9-2008 by The All Seeing I]

reply to post by The All Seeing I



In other words:

All seeing I has been unable to find any errors in Mark Roberts work. OR... he didn't read any of it.