Face off with the Debunkers. Part 1

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Face off with the Debunkers. Part 1 - Mark Roberts
Topic Started: Dec 18 2008, 09:03 AM (764 Views)
infowarpatriot	Dec 18 2008, 09:03 AM Post #1
Posts: 23 Group: Members Member #642 Joined: 06/08/08	Monday, December 15, 2008 http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/12/face-off-with-debunkers-part-1-mark.html Mark Roberts has been called "The Obi-wan Kenobi of debunkers" and gained fame as the "most effective" opposition to the 9/11 truth movement. Although he works as a New York City tour guide, he has dedicated a website against those who question the official version the 9/11 attack, and until recently hosted a 9/11 debunking YouTube channel under the name ClunkityClunk4Truth . After reading his research and following many of his arguments with 9/11 researchers, some lasting for days, I decided to contact him and respectfully ask his opinion about a video I posted, " The 9/11 Cheney Connection", about the evidence of official complicity. The following is the transcript of our interaction. Because of YouTube's 500 character limit and prohibiting the use of URLs I have edited the content to keep topics to together and added links to referenced information. But you can read the original transcript in the comments section of the video to verify the content. Here is the original video along with the "rebuttal" video I refer to in the exchange. "The 9/11 Cheney Connection" "9/11 Cheney Rebuttal" Stewart Bradley: Thanks for replying Clunkity, and having watched many of your videos I have seen you point out many other ( 9/11) flaws. As a 7 year researcher I would agree with you that MUCH Truth research is based on speculation and cannot be proved, but do you really contend that ALL Truthers claims are bunk? If so, then I have found some anomalies that I would like some serious answers to, things that other debunkers have refused to address - "9/11 Cheney Connection." Maybe you can help me? Thanks. Mark Roberts ( ClunkityClunk4Truth ): Your video is pretty misleading, I shall take a crack at it. COMMENTS ON "9/11 CHENEY CONNECTION": MR: Your quotation of PNAC is misleading, as on pg. 74 it reads "In Europe, the Persian Gulf and East Asia, enduring U.S. security interests argue forcefully for an enduring American military presence." which, rather than what you're trying to put across, many countries ask for our military on their land. SB: I assume you've read the whole PNAC document (RAD). Do you deny the plan suggests a military intervention in the middle east to pursue a "Pax Americana" democratization of hostile nations? What do you think the overall plan suggests if not? MR: Where does this idea that false blips would be on the radar screens come from? Whose screens? Where does the idea that the drills were set by the Bush Administration for September? SB: There are lots of sites that describe how part of these drills inserted false radar blips. Google "wargames and drills masterlist" for just some. But the point is how all these drills were all scheduled to coincide with the real attack. MR: 'Possibly contributing, with continued radar inserts, to the presence of "ghost planes" like the phantom Flight 11 that distracted fighters from Flights 77 and 93.' From the link you sent me to. Doesn't prove that false blips were put on radar screens nor provides any source that states Cheney ordered the NORAD drills. SB: Air traffic controllers claim they were still tracking what they thought were hijacked planes long after all 4 of the real planes had crashed. This implies that false radar blips remained on their screens after all 4 planes went down, long after the military claims they purged the phantom war-game-related radar signals. And as in the "Rebuttal", when Bush signed the May 2001 order, Cheney was put in charge of exercises. You still elude the point as why they were all set for 9/11? MR: 'what they thought were hijacked planes' Now compare this to: 'false radar blips remained on their screens after all 4 planes went down' But all the ATCs say is they were tracking planes assumed, incorrectly, to be hijacked. Did those flights actually exist? 'the point as why they were all set for 9/11?' Which of the NORAD operations were not run for more than a year? Were the drills held other times only for them to then be set for 9/11? SB: If those flight were real they would have had transponder signals identifying them from the "phantom" flights. And Google "ONE 9/11 WAR GAME NOW IN MAINSTREAM PRESS" for more details on the drills. MR: Your source implies that Dick Cheney would be coordinating the NORAD drills since he was put in place of overseeing drills related to WMDs. That makes no sense. Other than that the article does nothing for me. SB: Bush's mandate created the Office of National Preparedness in FEMA, overseen by Dick Cheney. This included all "training and planning" within the Departments of Defense. If Cheney did not plan these drills himself then whoever did was under Cheney's command. Please. I know you are intelligent enough to understand this yet you continue to dodge the relevant question of why this unusual number of drills were scheduled during the time of the real attack. MR: "67 scrambles claim" Assuming those 67 scrambles were indeed successful, those intercepts occured outside the continental U.S. by NORAD. NORAD's pre-9/11 mission has been to defend America's skies from foreign threats. NORAD's pre-9/11 mission did not deal in hijacked flights within the U.S. intended to be used as missles. Regardless, aircraft were scrambled by NEADS but were not given enough time to intercept any flights. SB: If you suggest NORAD did not monitor domestic US airspace then why had they already conducted drills simulating hijacking of planes from inside the US airspace? To prepare for something they were not expecting? Regardless - if aircraft were scrambled according to the old standard hijacking procedures they could have been in time, but Rumsfeld changed these proceedures. Why? And why was this change in SOP not discussed by the 9/11 Commission? MR: 'why had they already conducted drills simulating hijacking of planes from inside the US airspace' What NORAD drill included hijacked flights originating from within continental U.S airspace? 'if aircraft were scrambled...' It took the fighter jet an hour and a half to reach Payne Stewart's Learjet even with its transponder on. Time from scramble order matters too. 'Rumsfeld changed these proceedures' I thought Dick did? 'change in SOP' Nothing really changed. 1997 SOP document: "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will monitor the situation and forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance for aircraft piracy (hijacking) to the Secretary of Defense for approval." 2001 SOP changes: "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference D, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval." So what changed? Redundacy has been dropped and some words have been switched. There's no 'there' there. SB: USA Today reported in April 2004 that NORAD had run exercises before 9/11 simulating suicide hijacking attacks: Most of these drills imagined hijackings originating overseas, but USA Today noted one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington State that were "hijacked." This drill was "conducted later" than July 2001, but not after September 11, and the date is apparently classified. Rumsfeld, as I stated in my "rebuttal" video, signed the order at the request of Cheney, making the distinction that approval of the Secretary of Defense, ( or higher) was required before and military aircraft could respond. MR: You misquote Mineta's testimony about what happened in the bunker. The exchange with Hamilton indicated that the order told in the Mineta recollection was a shoot-down order by Bush: "We had that order given, I think it was by the President, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists. Were you there when that order was given?" And later Mineta states that he "subsequently" found out what the order was. It should be noted that first quoted person was Commissioner Lee Hamilton. SB: Mineta still stands by his testimony that he was referring to Flight 77 nearing the Pentagon when Cheney issued his "of course the order still stands" quote. This was before the Pentagon was hit. He has clarified this many times. The 9/11 commission and the media continue misquoting Mineta saying it was in reference to Flight 93. Yet Cheney's unsworn interview testimony is still contradicted by Mineta, Clark, NORAD, NEADS, and NMCC. Shouldn't he have given his testimony under oath? MR: For Mineta to have his time right then not only must Cheney be wrong, but so too the Secret Service logs (which dicuss Cheney being taken to a underground hallway for protection at around 9:30am when the first reports of a unidentified aircraft came through), the Whitehouse phone logs (which showed when the President and Vice President discussed the shoot down order), the news reporting of the Whitehouse evacuation... (which reported people running from the white house and nearby buildings at 9:45am, 25 mintes after Mineta claims it happened), and the testimony of all the others that were there, including Mrs Cheney (who arrived at 9:50am, yet whom Mineta said was there before he arrived at 9:20am) and the officer who was speaking to Cheney. Either everyone else in that room at the time is lying, or Mineta got the time wrong. Which is more likely? SB: The 9/11 Commission admits the 9:37 entry time for Cheney was based on the Secret Service report alarm data and is undocumented, while Mineta's early arrival testimony is consistent with reports from Richard Clark, Condi Rice, Karl Rove, White House photographer David Bohrer, and ABC, BBC, and WSJ. This is discussed in great detail in chapter 2 of David Ray Griffin's book "9/11 Contradictions." ( Mark Roberts then comments on a separate post from "FightTheElite", not the video.) MR: 'What about the 3 supposed suicide terrorist hijackers who after 9/11 turned out to be alive and outraged?' Case of mistaken identity. Those who were listed after 9/11 as hijackers and believed they were wrongly accused had different names, birth dates, family members, etc. SB: Although I don't mention the hijackers in my video, FBI director Robert Meuller did announce the hijackers were probably using stolen identities. MR: But the final list of hijackers and their identities are unique to them, as those who feel were wrongly accused turned out to have different birth dates, birth places, occupation and family than those named as the terrorists. SB: If these are the true hijackers, then 3 of the hijackers had been trained at the Pensacola navel air station, one attended Brooks Air Force Base Aerospace Medical School, 2 attended the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, and Mohamed Atta himself attended the International Officer's School at Maxwell Air Force Base. Men trained by our own military? And several were issued Visas despite being on the terrorist watch list. Is this any less incriminating? MR: There were no hijackers training in Florida. Again the three individuals listed at the Pensacola station have different birth dates from the hijackers listed. The DLI is a cultural learning center for the DoD, were the hijackers learning Spanish while planning 9/11? 'Men trained by our own military?' If that was the case, then that means the 'hijackers are still alive' conspiracy is based on a dumb assumption: The evil NWO wouldn't kill those claimed to have perpetrated 9/11. SB: "No hijackers training in Florida? What about the two pilots who trained at Huffman Aviation flight school in Venice, Fla. and a third who trained at Florida Flight Training. Both foreign owned flight schools, one with CIA connections, as reported by Daniel Hopsicker? Again, I did not include anything about the hijackers in my video and I most certainly did not mention any NWO. ( At this point there are no further replies from Mark Roberts on the "9/11 Cheney Connection" video. Two days later I saw another post from Roberts on the video,"Bamboozled again by 9/11 Truthers" ) MR: The only liars are Truthers. SB: "The only liars are Truthers." Oh really? I do appreciate you taking a crack at debunking the "9/11 Cheney Connection" video. You could find only a few minor discrepancies, ( which I then rebutted) and never addressed the actual case against Cheney the video lays out. Doesn't that mean anything to you? Or are you so devoted to your ideology that you can no longer think objectively and admit when "Truthers" might have a legitimate point? Sorry but I thought you were smarter than that. MR: I quit trying to talk to a brick wall, sorry stool. ( My reply is then blocked from the video comments, so I posted my reply on ClunkityClunk4Truth's channel comments.) SB: "Stool"? Clever. So you raised minor questions about my video, and I answered them in a clear and respectful way, so you write me off as a "brick wall?" You don't seem to have a problem endlessly debating the "brick walls" who claim WTC demolitions. I assume you are not used to loosing debates because I have done nothing more than defend my position. Did I hurt your pride? I apologize if I have offended you, but I was expecting more from someone with your expert reputation. ( No reply and end of interaction.) It's tough to imagine from this dialogue how Roberts could have gained such fame as an "expert debunker" when the man clearly avoided talking about the evidence I presented and changed the subject whenever he was shown to be incorrect. It was a week or two later when YouTube suspended his channel due to copyright violations. Coming soon - Part 2. Ryan Owens ( RKOwens4 ) dodges the LIHOP case.
Posts: 23 Group: Members Member #642 Joined: 06/08/08


Stundie	Dec 18 2008, 02:20 PM Post #2
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	Hi Infowarpatriot, When I 1st started looking into the events of 9/11, I joined the JREF Forum to test the theory of Cheney's involvement on 9/11 and came into contact with Gravy, but I was not aware of who he was. The conversation with him and the other debunkers went a similar way, until one morning I signed on was suspended! I contact the mods but no joy, then later found out I was banned for being a sock puppet of a banned poster even though I am not in. I've always maintained that my banning was nothing more than a face saving excerise by the mods to save Gravy from the embarrassment of being consistently wrong. As for RKOwens, I would honestly suggest that you do not waste your time with him, anything which challenges what he personally believes and he will react in a similar manner to Gravy, except he is more extreme and irrational. Here is my last dealing with RKOwens who claimed that poor ole Larry Silverstein lost loads of money on the WTC, infact poor Larry lost $300 million or even billions. It depends on which day you catch RKOwens on. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/130277/1/#new Good work and more importantly, good luck. Cheers Stundie
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


BoneZ	Dec 18 2008, 03:34 PM Post #3
Posts: 724 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08	Infowarpatriot, I think you were giving Mark Roberts the benefit of the doubt when you were saying that he was smarter than that. If he were smarter than that, he would be a 9/11 Truther.
Posts: 724 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08


blarney fife	Dec 19 2008, 10:20 AM Post #4
Posts: 202 Group: Members Member #15 Joined: 01/14/08	SKEPTINAZI DEBATE FLOWCHART http://ignoranceisfutile.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/the-neuropsychology-of-pseudo-skepticism/
Posts: 202 Group: Members Member #15 Joined: 01/14/08


RUkiddin	Feb 12 2009, 02:20 AM Post #5
Posts: 6 Group: Members Member #1,056 Joined: 02/12/09	Uh, the problem is that Stewart Bradley wasn't debating with Mark Roberts or anyone who represented himself as Mark Roberts. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135322 Truther "investigative journalism" at its best.
Posts: 6 Group: Members Member #1,056 Joined: 02/12/09


skunkrider	Feb 12 2009, 02:48 AM Post #6
Posts: 328 Group: Members Member #166 Joined: 01/21/08	RUkiddin Feb 12 2009, 02:20 AM Uh, the problem is that Stewart Bradley wasn't debating with Mark Roberts or anyone who represented himself as Mark Roberts. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135322 Truther "investigative journalism" at its best. I looked at the link. I was tempted to register and have fun with Mark. I suddenly felt nauseous. I closed the browser window. I felt better.
Posts: 328 Group: Members Member #166 Joined: 01/21/08


Stundie	Feb 12 2009, 06:21 AM Post #7
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135322 Mark says this is not him?? lol
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


infowarpatriot	Feb 28 2009, 07:54 PM Post #8
Posts: 23 Group: Members Member #642 Joined: 06/08/08	Honest Mistakes are "big news" to Mark Roberts... http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/02/honest-mistakes-are-big-news-to-mark.html
Posts: 23 Group: Members Member #642 Joined: 06/08/08


Stundie	Mar 1 2009, 03:29 PM Post #9
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	Look at how the so called twoofers dealt with their mistakes. Shows integrity, sincerity, honesty, respect and a whole bunch of favourable attributes for correcting an honest mistake. Naturally, none of these attributes can be attributed to debunkers & mods at the JREF forum for the simple reason, the above attributes are an alien concept. lol
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


Miragememories	Mar 1 2009, 04:14 PM Post #10
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Stundis "Naturally, none of these attributes can be attributed to debunkers & mods at the JREF forum for the simple reason, the above attributes are an alien concept." It's called a double standard - something frequently in use at JREF. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Stundie	Mar 2 2009, 06:23 PM Post #11
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	Miragememories Mar 1 2009, 04:14 PM Stundis "Naturally, none of these attributes can be attributed to debunkers & mods at the JREF forum for the simple reason, the above attributes are an alien concept." It's called a double standard - something frequently in use at JREF. MM I thought it was called normality.....lol
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »