February, 2009: Truther competence at its finest. A guy who who runs a blog titled "Debunking the Debunkers" trumpets that he's debated me, publishes the debate, and spreads it around the internet. The problem? He wasn't debating me or anyone who claimed to be me. I guess the question "Are you Mark Roberts?" never occurred to this person, who bills himself as an "investigative journalist."First off, Stewart doesn't run this blog, I do, I'm sure that was just an honest mistake though. When I made Stewart aware of this he stated:
"I do like the fact that Roberts assumes that I run 'Debunking the Debunkers' when I am clearly listed as a 'Contributor'. See how easy it is to make false assumptions?"
After being informed that "a correction and apology has now been posted," Roberts stated:
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.The fact of the matter is Stewart offered to have the post removed, but Roberts requested the post to remain with an apology as the headline. Stewart didn't say he was definitely going to keep it pulled, and of course in the end that would be my decision, as I run the blog.
After seeing Robert's statement I informed him that:
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...Again, this is just an honest mistake based on his previous mistake of assuming Stewart runs this blog. Furthermore, Stewart pointed out:
'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.'"
"He did seem very understanding and gracious at the time, but I find it curious that he brags about this as an example of incompetent 'Truther' research without a word about 'Clunkity' falsely posting Robert's website as a contact source."
What all of this teaches me is that my idea of "big news" must be different than Roberts.
For instance, I think it's big news that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth now has 613 members, including at least 30 structural engineers, 3 high-rise architects, and over 3000 other petition signers, including A&E students, metallurgists, physicists, scientists, explosives experts and demolition contractors.
I think it's big news that former President Jimmy Carter recently stated that he supports calls for a new 9/11 investigation.
I think it's big news that a former fighter pilot for the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Air Force, have called for a new 9/11 investigation this year. As well as a commercial airline pilot, a Boeing 747 Senior First Officer, a FAA certified airline transport pilot and flight instructor, a NASA electrical engineering technician and U.S. Marine Corps veteran, among others.
In closing, was this all worthy of a correction, apology, and forum discussion, sure, big news, hardly, especially considering that Mark has recently had his own problems with mistaken identities.
Excerpt from "Taming the Beast: A Short History of the AE911Truth Debates":
The next debate took place on June 18, 2008, between Richard Gage, AIA, and Mark Roberts (a.k.a 'Gravy” on the James Randi Educational Forum) on the TV access show “Hardfire” with host John Clifton, past chair of the Libertarian Party of New York. Mark Roberts, a New York tour guide, said he has “no specific expertise” in 9-11 matters but became interested in 2006 when he heard some of the “conspiracy theories” and found them “suspect.”Excerpt from "Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories" by Prof. Graeme MacQueen:
Roberts could barely contain his hostility towards Gage, accusing him of lying several times and impugning his motives. The ill will Roberts brings to the discussion is evident in many of his online posts where he goes by the name of “Gravy.” One such post on a James Randi Educational Forum refers to “Gage and his gang of lazy, lying, despicable creeps,” which indicates that he doesn’t just disagree with his opposition; he despises them.
Towards the beginning of the debate Roberts said of Gage, “He's got a 542-slide presentation that he encourages everyone to see on his website.... I found 311 false statements, 114 misleading statements, and 137 logical fallacies.” He did not elaborate. Roberts took the approach that NIST fully explained everything; that anomalies, such as witnesses hearing explosions, simply didn't happen or the witnesses were mistaken. He also said the evidence of foreknowledge that Building 7 would collapse was simply a matter of experts thinking the building might fall because it had been damaged.
Mark Roberts, for example, has set forth a detailed collection of collapse warnings, many of which are drawn from the oral histories of the New York Fire Department,  and has tried to use these to support his hypothesis of a natural collapse. Ryan Mackey has used this material in a similar fashion. Since I find Mackey’s reasoning more clear than Roberts’ I will take him in this paper as representative of this position.He oughta know better: Mark Roberts and the iron spherules
Email debates, and more about Mark Roberts
Mark Roberts, an Apologist for EPA Lies
Mark Roberts: 9/11 "Debunker" or just Dishonest?
Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials.