peer review.

[Tony Szamboti]

For anyone who doubts that Brazil is essentially energy independent today below are a couple of articles you should read.

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003961.html

http://www.truthabouttrade.org/article.asp?id=5029

It is a shame that some of the posts on here aren't peer reviewed. It was implied that I was lying about this by a certain individual posting in this thread.

[Civilized Worm]

Me being a kid does not change what the police witness said. You are calling him a liar.


No, we're calling him mistaken. How hard is that to understand?

[Gravy]

For anyone who doubts that Brazil is essentially energy independent today below are a couple of articles you should read.

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003961.html

http://www.truthabouttrade.org/article.asp?id=5029

It is a shame that some of the posts on here aren't peer reviewed. It was implied that I was lying about this by a certain individual posting in this thread.

Lying? No, I said you were wrong. Learn the difference, and when you refer to a forum member, be a man and do so directly.

When you're told by people who give a damn about getting things right, that you're wrong, you should pay attention.

Brazil Imports of Crude Oil, 2006
426,800 barrels/day. Increase over 2005: 1.7%

Brazil Imports of Refined Products, 2006
337,900 barrels/day. Increase over 2005: 3.7%

Brazil Imports of Natural Gas, 2006
9.46 billion cubic meters. Increase over 2005: 7.4%

Source: OPEC Annual Statistical Bulletin, p. 94-96, July 31, 2007. Link to pdf (http://www.opec.org/library/Annual%20Statistical%20Bulletin/pdf/ASB2006.pdf)

Give me a ring when you decide to get anything right. Anything at all.

[TerryUK]

Lying? No, I said you were wrong. Learn the difference

That's rich ! Although I am new here, even I know that you often call someone a liar when in fact that person is, at most, mistaken.

Oh, by the way, "Brazil's reliance on oil imports has plummeted from 85 percent of its energy consumption in 1978 to nearly zero, (2006) "

[Par]

That's rich !


Gravy is rich by definition.

Oh,...


Ohhh. Bisto.

[Civilized Worm]

That's rich ! Although I am new here, even I know that you often call someone a liar when in fact that person is, at most, mistaken.


But did he?

[TerryUK]

Gravy is rich by definition.






Full of cholesterol

[rwguinn]

That's rich ! Although I am new here, even I know that you often call someone a liar when in fact that person is, at most, mistaken.

IF your mom tells you that trash pickup is on the 7th and you need to get it to the curb on time, and you miss it, saying "I thought today was the 5th" are you lying?
No. you were mistaken, or ill-informed
IF your mom tells you that trash pickup is on the 7th and you need to get it to the curb on time, shows you the calender, pointing out that today is the 6th, and that tomorrow is the 7th, and you miss it, saying "I thought today was the 5th" are you lying?
yes. The truth was pointed out to you, and you ignored it.

Oh, by the way, "Brazil's reliance on oil imports has plummeted from 85 percent of its energy consumption in 1978 to nearly zero, (2006) "
"Nearly" does not equal "is"
available the data was. Ignored and mirepresented it also was.

[TerryUK]

"Nearly" does not equal "is"
available the data was. Ignored and mirepresented it also was.

You see, you just want to win , even at the expense of being dishonest in your argument...
The post from realcddeal about Brazil's oil was presenting a fair picture of the facts. Gravy wanted to make him look wrong.
If Gravy was being fair, he would have admitted that what realcddeal said was a reasonably accurate statement.
But no, he had to start nit-picking.

You say : "Nearly" does not equal "is"
In this particular case, you know perfectly well that your 'nit-picking' is exactly that, and therefor dishonest.

Unfortunately,that's one of the problems with some people on this forum.

[Gravy]

That's rich ! Although I am new here, even I know that you often call someone a liar when in fact that person is, at most, mistaken.Prove it. Or are you lying?

[Gravy]

If Gravy was being fair, he would have admitted that what realcddeal said was a reasonably accurate statement.
But no, he had to start nit-picking.

I also want to mention that in the last thirty years of oil shortage scares Brazil has managed to become completely energy independent and does not import oil any longer. Why are they able to do it and we aren't?


Brazil Imports of Crude Oil, 2006
426,800 barrels/day. Increase over 2005: 1.7%

Brazil Imports of Refined Products, 2006
337,900 barrels/day. Increase over 2005: 3.7%

Brazil Imports of Natural Gas, 2006
9.46 billion cubic meters. Increase over 2005: 7.4%


Any questions?

[Viper Daimao]

geez this thread went downhill.

[hellaeon]

Me being a kid does not change what the police witness said. You are calling him a liar.

Im intrigued at this point. Clearly the pictures show there is no hole (unless I am looking at the wrong thing) but the police officer says you could push a pencil through it. He obviously is wrong, either purposefully or not. If you contend to say he is correct when the physical evidence shows he is not, your wrong.

Why dont you just accept and concede this, thank others for pointing it out and move on?

Apologies if I got this mixed up, there are a number of single sentence posts.

[Apollo20]

Yes, thanks to the off-topic boys...

Brazil... La la la la la la... Brazil...

I think all those posters who have never submitted a paper for peer review, or have never been a peer reviewer should drop out of this debate right now!

[Tony Szamboti]

IF your mom tells you that trash pickup is on the 7th and you need to get it to the curb on time, and you miss it, saying "I thought today was the 5th" are you lying?
No. you were mistaken, or ill-informed
IF your mom tells you that trash pickup is on the 7th and you need to get it to the curb on time, shows you the calender, pointing out that today is the 6th, and that tomorrow is the 7th, and you miss it, saying "I thought today was the 5th" are you lying?
yes. The truth was pointed out to you, and you ignored it.

"Nearly" does not equal "is"
available the data was. Ignored and mirepresented it also was.

Some of you guys are the biggest nit pickers I have ever seen. Brazil imported 80% of their energy supplies in 1978. They are well into the single digits today and essentially are import free and if not totally will be in the near future. It is the gravy boy who is misrepresenting this not I. The figures he gave for their imports are relative and mean nothing in the overall scheme of things. Of course, he wouldn't tell you they were relative but I would hope most people here can see that.

[rwguinn]

Some of you guys are the biggest nit pickers I have ever seen. Brazil imported 80% of their energy supplies in 1978. They are well into the single digits today and essentially are import free and if not totally will be in the near future. It is the gravy boy who is misrepresenting this not I. The figures he gave for their imports are relative and mean nothing in the overall scheme of things. Of course, he wouldn't tell you they were relative but I would hope most people here can see that.

Welcome to the real world.
You call it nit-picking. In this case, it is not.
Were you to assert that the yield stress of A-36 steel is 35.98 ksi, and I assert that it is 35.987 ksi, that is nit-picking.
If you assert that Brazil "does not import oil any longer", and Gravy point out that in 2006, Brazil imported 426,800 barrels/day, nobody in his right mind is going to agree with you that 155,782,000 barrels/year=none, or even "essentially import free"
We deal in reality here. Numbers and words have real meaning, and we insist that you back up your assertions.
You will never convince anyone who actually uses his brain that 1=0. Not here, and not in real life.

[Gravy]

Happy birthday, Hellaeon! :dc_biggrin::not_ripe::dc_biggrin:

[TerryUK]

Prove it. Or are you lying?

Gravy - this is what you wrote about the poster named realcddeal.
You describe him as a liar ... "the guy who repeatedly refuses to read the reports he's directed to, who won't even read the captions on photos, who accuses the witnesses and investigators who refute his claims of being liars and frauds, and whose screen name tells us about the objective nature of his search."
Then you continue: "What an absurdly bad liar you are, realcddeal. Do you even understand what you write?"

So let's look at what you've done.
First you invent a false story where he's supposed to have lied, you then use this fabricated story as evidence that he lied, and then call him a liar... then , for good measure, you criticise him for him 'screen name' for god's sake.

Why don't you stick to the truth?
Are you so anchored to your beliefs, that you have to lie when the truth is not enough?

[beachnut]

Some of you guys are the biggest nit pickers I have ever seen. Brazil imported 80% of their energy supplies in 1978. They are well into the single digits today and essentially are import free and if not totally will be in the near future. It is the gravy boy who is misrepresenting this not I. The figures he gave for their imports are relative and mean nothing in the overall scheme of things. Of course, he wouldn't tell you they were relative but I would hope most people here can see that.
Why have they almost doubled their natural gas imports? That is energy imports. Why are you truthers bad on the facts? And why have they increased their imports of refined products? I have to think increases are increases and you want to quibble about it.

No one said Brazil did not decrease its imports of oil. Why are you wrong all the time?

[rwguinn]

Why have they almost doubled their natural gas imports? That is energy imports. Why are you truthers bad on the facts? And why have they increased their imports of refined products? I have to think increases are increases and you want to quibble about it.

No one said Brazil did not decrease its imports of oil. Why are you wrong all the time?

It is much like the "Congress cut the budget" scam the press always uses:
Previous year's budget for X=$32 billion
Requested budget for X=$50 billion
Actual passed buidget for X=$40 billion, a 20% cut! (from the requested amount, actually an increase of 8/32= 25%)

[Tony Szamboti]

Welcome to the real world.
You call it nit-picking. In this case, it is not.
Were you to assert that the yield stress of A-36 steel is 35.98 ksi, and I assert that it is 35.987 ksi, that is nit-picking.
If you assert that Brazil "does not import oil any longer", and Gravy point out that in 2006, Brazil imported 426,800 barrels/day, nobody in his right mind is going to agree with you that 155,782,000 barrels/year=none, or even "essentially import free"
We deal in reality here. Numbers and words have real meaning, and we insist that you back up your assertions.
You will never convince anyone who actually uses his brain that 1=0. Not here, and not in real life.

The U.S. imports 11.8 million barrels per day for a total of 4,307,000,000 barrels/year or 27.6 times as much oil as does Brazil. Brazil has a population of 190 million people and is the fifth largest in the world. The U.S. has a population of 301 million and is the third largest. Brazil imports single digit percentages of its energy needs right now and probably won't even be doing that much longer. They also export ethanol and that offsets energy imports. Gravy boy won't tell you that, but maybe he just didn't understand it isn't black and white and based on single figures. The U.S. imports 57% of its net energy needs with Brazil at near 0% net. That is the only way to really say it.

By the way, you never admitted you were wrong about the Hoover dam being constructed using a monolithic pour.

This is my last post on this here as I will start a different thread on this subject and not continue to go off topic.

[rwguinn]

The U.S. imports 11.8 million barrels per day for a total of 4,307,000,000 barrels/year or 27.6 times as much oil than Brazil. Brazil has a population of 190 million people and is the fifth largest in the world. The U.S. has a population of 301 million and is the third largest. Brazil imports single digit percentages of its energy needs and the U.S. imports 57% of its ebergy needs. That is the only way to really say it.

By the way you never admitted you were wrong about the Hoover dam being constructed using a monolithic pour.

That's becaues you are wrong. Monolithic does not equal single pour. The dam is an interlocking, continous piece. It wasn't poured as a continous wet-on-wet, but it is monolithic--one final piece. no joints. I even gave you links...

[Tony Szamboti]

That's becaues you are wrong. Monolithic does not equal single pour. The dam is an interlocking, continous piece. It wasn't poured as a continous wet-on-wet, but it is monolithic--one final piece. no joints. I even gave you links...

You said to Architect "Don't you use monolithic pours? It was good enough for the Hoover Dam". You weren't saying the dam was a monolithic dam. You seemed to be discussing how it was poured. I just asked you what you meant by it. You are the one who came roaring back with a comment that I must not know anything about engineering and construction.

[TerryUK]

Welcome to the real world.
You call it nit-picking. In this case, it is not.
Were you to assert that the yield stress of A-36 steel is 35.98 ksi, and I assert that it is 35.987 ksi, that is nit-picking.
If you assert that Brazil "does not import oil any longer", and Gravy point out that in 2006, Brazil imported 426,800 barrels/day, nobody in his right mind is going to agree with you that 155,782,000 barrels/year=none, or even "essentially import free"
We deal in reality here. Numbers and words have real meaning, and we insist that you back up your assertions.


He wasn't presenting a mathematically accurate account for anyone to rely on - he was merely conveying the idea that Brazil had performed well in reducing their oil import reliance from very high in the 1970s to very low in 2007.
YES, for the nitpickers like you he should have avoided any inaccuracies or exagerations, even though HONEST people understand that in normal communication an exageration like that is not at all trying to mislead - especialy when he gave links to thescource of the info...

You also said:
You will never convince anyone who actually uses his brain that 1=0. Not
here, and not in real life.

You see? You've done it again.
You characterize this as trying to convince people that "1=0"

Why don't you stick to honestmethods of argument?

[Tony Szamboti]

That's becaues you are wrong. Monolithic does not equal single pour. The dam is an interlocking, continous piece. It wasn't poured as a continous wet-on-wet, but it is monolithic--one final piece. no joints. I even gave you links...

Just in case you forgot what you actually said in the other thread here it is

You mean you don't use monolithic pours any more? If it was good enougth for Boulder (Hoover) dam, it outta be goo enough for an office building!
:D:D:D

Now maybe you meant a monolithic structure by that and you could have simply answered me that way initially.

[Gravy]

Gravy - this is what you wrote about the poster named realcddeal.
You describe him as a liar ... "the guy who repeatedly refuses to read the reports he's directed to, who won't even read the captions on photos, who accuses the witnesses and investigators who refute his claims of being liars and frauds, and whose screen name tells us about the objective nature of his search."
Then you continue: "What an absurdly bad liar you are, realcddeal. Do you even understand what you write?"

So let's look at what you've done.
First you invent a false story where he's supposed to have lied, you then use this fabricated story as evidence that he lied, and then call him a liar... then , for good measure, you criticise him for him 'screen name' for god's sake.

Why don't you stick to the truth?
Are you so anchored to your beliefs, that you have to lie when the truth is not enough?My claims about him are true. He's welcome to believe whatever he wants about the investigators and witnesses. But making unsubstantiated claims about them, and refusing to accept correction, and refusing to even read what he pretends to be critiquing, and repeating the same claims, is lying. This isn't so difficult.

You said I often wrongly accuse people of lying. Why don't you assemble some examples and start a thread about it? I'll gladly apologize to anyone I've wrongly accused.

Go ahead. Or were you lying?

ETA: By the way, for some reason – perhaps you'll explain why – you neglected to include the realcddeal quote that I was responding to when I called him a liar, which is this:

Concerning the events of 911 my goal is honest objective evaluation and analysis of the entire mass of evidence.

A demonstrably false statement, as I pointed out in my post.

[beachnut]

Full of cholesterol
This is the only fact you will ever bring to 9/11 truth. ?

[TerryUK]

My claims about him are true. He's welcome to believe whatever he wants about the investigators and witnesses. But making unsubstantiated claims about them, and refusing to accept correction, and refusing to even read what he pretends to be critiquing, and repeating the same claims, is lying. This isn't so difficult.

You said I often wrongly accuse people of lying. Why don't you assemble some examples and start a thread about it? I'll gladly apologize to anyone I've wrongly accused.

Go ahead. Or were you lying?

You say: "Go ahead. Or were you lying"

A 'reasonable' person would understand this to mean "unless you go ahead and make a list, you are lying"

So now, I have to go look for examples and make a list, and if I don't, I'm a liar...?
This is just another one of your, IMO, dishonest tactics Gravy.

Any questions?

If so they'll have to wait until another day, I have to log off for now.

[T.A.M.]

Yes, thanks to the off-topic boys...

Brazil... La la la la la la... Brazil...

I think all those posters who have never submitted a paper for peer review, or have never been a peer reviewer should drop out of this debate right now!

Don't you have Physorg for that???

This is a CT forum Frank...remember? Stop with the scientific Elitism already...you are usually the first to defend the high schoolers right to "question" the science of the NIST report.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

You say: "Go ahead. Or were you lying"

A 'reasonable' person would understand this to mean "unless you go ahead and make a list, you are lying"

So now, I have to go look for examples and make a list, and if I don't, I'm a liar...?
This is just another one of your, IMO, dishonest tactics Gravy.

Any questions?

If so they'll have to wait until another day, I have to log off for now.

Good, maybe rather then running your mouth off, you'll come back and actually try to debate the man...

TAM:)

[Gravy]

So now, I have to go look for examples and make a list, and if I don't, I'm a liar...?

Absolutely. You made an accusation against my character: that I often call people liars without justification. I say your claim is false and should be retracted. If you cannot provide evidence to prove your claim, and will not retract it, then you are a liar. Rational adults avoid this problem by:

1) Not making statements about people that they can't back up.

2) Apologizing when they've wrongly impugned someone's character.

[LashL]

Yes, thanks to the off-topic boys...

Brazil... La la la la la la... Brazil...

I think all those posters who have never submitted a paper for peer review, or have never been a peer reviewer should drop out of this debate right now!

Fortunately for the forum, you, Apollo, do not get to dictate which members are permitted to post on any given thread. You have offered little of substance on this thread and you have done more than your share of "off topic" posting on numerous threads here, so kwitcherbelliakin already.

It is obvious to all and sundry that you regularly post nonsense for the sole purpose of garnering attention and reaction. How utterly juvenile.

If you seriously think that anyone who has never submitted a paper for peer review or been a peer reviewer (I have been both) should be barred from commenting on a thread about the peer review process, just think about how that would limit your own posts on the vast majority of threads here.

You are a (forced) retired chemist. Many others here have far more knowledge and expertise on a vast range of subjects than you do. If you want to limit posters to contributing to threads that are specific to their professional experience and areas of expertise, you are going to find that you are not qualified to comment on 95% of the threads here. You have no more knowledge, experience or expertise than many other posters here, and it's about time you stopped acting as though you do.

This is not to take anything away from your actual knowledge and expertise in your specific field. However, you really should cut the superiority crap. You are not, repeat not, superior to other posters here. While your chemistry knowledge is superior to the chemistry knowledge of most others here, you are not superior to others here. Do you see the distinction?

It would behoove you to get rid of that gargantuan chip on your shoulder and contribute meaningfully to the forum rather than merely using it to stroke your ego and to amuse yourself. It would behoove you to start acting like the professional that you once were and stop acting like a little boy throwing a tempter tantrum.

[funk de fino]

He wasn't presenting a mathematically accurate account for anyone to rely on - he was merely conveying the idea that Brazil had performed well in reducing their oil import reliance from very high in the 1970s to very low in 2007.
YES, for the nitpickers like you he should have avoided any inaccuracies or exagerations, even though HONEST people understand that in normal communication an exageration like that is not at all trying to mislead - especialy when he gave links to thescource of the info...

You also said:

You see? You've done it again.
You characterize this as trying to convince people that "1=0"

Why don't you stick to honestmethods of argument?

We'll if people are posting supposed evidence on this forum that says people are murderers I would expect some level of accuracy in claims and evidence given in any post or thread or can we just throw in any old claims?

Brazil have done well but no more than any other country who has started reaping the benefits of oil finds, but tell me who are the companies who are helping get this oil out of the ground for Petrobras? Is it ok to make money in Brazil but not Iraq for these companies?

You cannot produce your own energy if you do not have oil and even if you do find some you cannot drill for it without brining in the leaders in the field with oil technology, Brazil discovered oil in the 60's and only really started producing it in decent amounts in the early 70's and now they are drilling and producing it in larger quantities with help from KBR amongst others

This guy made an exact claim and it was false, get over it

If the oil industry in Iraq is left to flourish with the help of american oil company technologies then they will be in a better position than Brazil

An exaggeration is not trying to mislead?

[Dave Rogers]

I think all those posters who have never submitted a paper for peer review, or have never been a peer reviewer should drop out of this debate right now!

OK, I'm in (co-author on over 30 published papers in peer-reviewed journals and have served as a peer reviewer). I'd add some helpful comments to this debate if I could remember what on earth it was about in the first place.

Oh, yeah, politics and peer review.

Yes, there are abuses of the peer review process, and I've heard of them in action - no names, no packdrill, but it happens. There are said to be cliques of people in power who pass each other's papers and block ones from persona non grata, and on rare occasions I've heard rumours of peer reviewers blocking publication of other people's work so they could get prior publication themselves. Nothing specific I could reference, but one hears stories. It's a system run by human beings, so despite all the safeguards it falls foul of abuses on occasion. The problem is, nobody's yet come up with a better system. The phoney peer review process carried out by JONES is effectively a distillation of all the worst abuses of peer review crafted into a system that eliminates the possibility of honest operation, and is therefore far worse than the system it claims to imitate.

Discuss.

Dave

[Revolutionary91]

Absolutely. You made an accusation against my character: that I often call people liars without justification. I say your claim is false and should be retracted. If you cannot provide evidence to prove your claim, and will not retract it, then you are a liar. Rational adults avoid this problem by:

1) Not making statements about people that they can't back up.

2) Apologizing when they've wrongly impugned someone's character.

A search of your posts in this forum with the keyword "lying" turns up 147 results. Among them is this gem

Another lie. jessicarabbit, why do you constantly lie? Is it that you cannot, or will not stop?

Since you haven't posted your important refutation of the calculations in the papers we discussed, I can only assume that you are also lying about that.

Please stop lying if you can. This is 9/11 we're talking about, not some sick game for trolls.

If you cannot stop lying, you need mental health care that we cannot provide for you.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2055574&postcount=244

[Gravy]

A search of your posts in this forum with the keyword "lying" turns up 147 results. Among them is this gem

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2055574&postcount=244Two things, my ever-wrong rebel without a cause:

1) The post I responded to was a lie, as were numerous other posts by jessicarabbit.
2) "jessicarabbit" was a sock of Paul Doherty, perhaps the most consistent and persistent liar in all of 9/11 denierhood.

Thank you for supporting my point. Go out and play today, or just take a good long walk. It'll help clear your head. Really.

[DGM]

A search of your posts in this forum with the keyword "lying" turns up 147 results. Among them is this gem


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2055574&postcount=244
This coming from the person who wrongfully (and proved) called me a liar and dealt with it by putting me on ignore. You have no right to comment on matters of integrity.

Someone quote this so he will see it please.

[Revolutionary91]

Two things, my ever-wrong rebel without a cause:

1) The post I responded to was a lie, as were numerous other posts by jessicarabbit.
2) "jessicarabbit" was a sock of Paul Doherty, perhaps the most consistent and persistent liar in all of 9/11 denierhood.

Thank you for supporting my point. Go out and play today, or just take a good long walk. It'll help clear your head. Really.

No, the post you were responding to was jessicarabbit saying that she had debunked something. That was her a opinion and not necessarily a knowing lie. There are dozens of other examples. In one post you claim that everything Hopsicker writes is a lie. You provide no evidence for this and you do not allow for the possibility of him being mistaken.


You need to refine your definition of lie. It doesn't include opinions and mistakes. Heres a little lesson for you:

If I say "the sky is green" thats a lie. If I write a rebuttal of your post and say its a debunking thats an opinion. Got it?

[Gravy]

No, the post you were responding to was jessicarabbit saying that she had debunked something. That was her a opinion and not necessarily a knowing lie.Read the thread, lazybones.

There are dozens of other examples. In one post you claim that everything Hopsicker writes is a lie. You provide no evidence for this and you do not allow for the possibility of him being mistaken.Are you mistaken, or lying?

A good stretch of the legs, my teen angst-filled friend. Seriously. It'll help.

[Revolutionary91]

Read the thread, lazybones.

Are you mistaken, or lying?

A good stretch of the legs, my teen angst-filled friend. Seriously. It'll help.

How do you think it looks when you resort to some ad hom attack regarding my age in every post but I just stick to the facts?

[Gravy]

How do you think it looks when you resort to some ad hom attack regarding my age in every post but I just stick to the facts?It is you who avoids the facts. Want to be treated like an adult? Then act like one. Second time: are you mistaken or lying?

[Revolutionary91]

It is you who avoids the facts. Want to be treated like an adult? Then act like one. Second time: are you mistaken or lying?

Neither. Anyone can do the search and confirm it.

[Gravy]

Neither. Anyone can do the search and confirm it.The burden of proof is on you. I'll give you a last chance to provide your evidence or admit that you're mistaken. Fail to take it and you become a liar. You weren't raised to say things about people that aren't true, were you? Time to man up.

[Revolutionary91]

The burden of proof is on you. I'll give you a last chance to provide your evidence or admit that you're mistaken. Fail to take it and you become a liar. You weren't raised to say things about people that aren't true, were you? Time to man up.

No, when you casually say that Hopsicker is a liar (and tarpley, rense and Jones) in this thread

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2445242&postcount=231

the burden of proof is on you to show that they are liars. You called hopsicker a liar in that thread, out of the blue, then suggested that everything that he and the other three said was a lie. Please back that up or retract your claim. Isn't that what an adult would do?

I also present the above as the evidence you asked of Terry. I have proven how you will call people liars without backing it up.

[Brainache]

No, when you casually say that Hopsicker is a liar (and tarpley, rense and Jones) in this thread

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2445242&postcount=231

the burden of proof is on you to show that they are liars. You called hopsicker a liar in that thread, out of the blue, then suggested that everything that he and the other three said was a lie. Please back that up or retract your claim. Isn't that what an adult would do?

I also present the above as the evidence you asked of Terry. I have proven how you will call people liars without backing it up.

Uh Oh. Now you've done it Rev. I have a feeling that Gravy may indeed be able to show that those named are liars. Call it a hunch...

[8den]

If I say "the sky is green" thats a lie. If I write a rebuttal of your post and say its a debunking thats an opinion. Got it?


No sorry, you're wrong. If you're aware that the sky is blue, and say the sky is green, you're lying. If you're blind or lived in a cave all your life, and just assume the sky is green, or have been told the sky is green, and repeat this claim, it's not a lie. Its just incorrect.

If someone claims something, that they patently know is false, they are lying. If they weren't aware it was untrue they are incorrect. Pointing out that someone who has repeating information that has been shown to be false is not lying.

[Revolutionary91]

I agree 8den. Perhaps you can teach this to Gravy. He calls everyone that utters something false a liar without proving their intention.

[Gravy]

No, when you casually say that Hopsicker is a liar (and tarpley, rense and Jones) in this thread

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2445242&postcount=231

the burden of proof is on you to show that they are liars. You called hopsicker a liar in that thread, out of the blue, then suggested that everything that he and the other three said was a lie. Please back that up or retract your claim. Isn't that what an adult would do?

I also present the above as the evidence you asked of Terry. I have proven how you will call people liars without backing it up.Skepticalcriticalguy was championing four independent "journalists": Alex Jones, Tarpley, Hopsicker, and Rense. Four of the most disreputable people you'll find anywhere. His claim was that we should be reading these people.

I challenged him to produce a single 9/11 claim that they got right. I pursued that challenge in two threads. He could not. Remember, it was his claim that these people produced worthwhile work.

Meanwhile, he challenged (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2446771&postcount=242) me to produce a lie that Hopsicker told. On the same page, I did (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2447244&postcount=255).

Even just a stroll around the block, Rev. Seriously.

[Revolutionary91]

And did you notice that through two threads, skepticalcriticalguy was unable to produce a single significant correct claim made by any of the independent journalists that he was championing? His claim was that we should be reading these people.

I challenged him to produce a single 9/11 claim that they got right. I pursued that challenge in two threads. He could not.

Meanwhile, he challenged (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2446771&postcount=242) me to produce a lie that Hopsicker told. On the same page, I did (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2447244&postcount=255).

Even just a stroll around the block, Rev. Seriously.

No you produced a false statement without proving an intention to mislead. Are all journalists lying when they issue a false report? Are the BBC lying when they said wtc7 had collapsed early?

[Gravy]

I agree 8den. Perhaps you can teach this to Gravy. He calls everyone that utters something false a liar without proving their intention.Why are you lying, Rev? How does lying benefit you?

[Revolutionary91]

I submit the above post as further evidence.

[Unsecured Coins]

Overuled. Answer the question, counsel.

[Gravy]

No you produced a false statement without proving an intention to mislead. Are all journalists lying when they issue a false report? Are the BBC lying when they said wtc7 had collapsed early?Hopsicker made two blatantly false statements about a printed document that was right in front of him. Remember, he's supposed to be an investigative reporter. This isn't a matter that requires any investigation: just eyesight. Note that skepticalcriticalguy did not challenge my assessment. Oh, and note that I pointed out other Hopsicker blatant falsehoods.

If you're not aware that these people don't tell the truth, it's time to wake up.

Remember, SCG was challenged to name any 9/11 claim that Hopsicker or the others got right. He couldn't. And these were the guys he was recommending.

[Gravy]

I submit the above post as further evidence.Rev, I'm done here. You're acting like a baby. You said that I claim that all false statements by others are lies. That is a blatant lie: a statement that you know is false and cannot support, and you should apologize and retract it. The more you post here, the farther from adulthood you appear to be.

[kookbreaker]

I submit the above post as further evidence.

You're not very good at this, are you?

[funk de fino]

Are the BBC lying when they said wtc7 had collapsed early?

Have you watched the video report?

Post on here exactly what the reporters say at the start of the report

Does they use words like "sketchy" and "apparently" and "reports coming in"?

They are reporting what they are told are they not? Do they give their sources? They were mistaken, very easily done, especially on days like that

Prior to 911 I was in New York and went up the Twin Towers, however I never knew and did not until recently that the WTC7 was the Solomon building, why would the BBC people have known that day?

[Revolutionary91]

Rev, I'm done here. You're acting like a baby. You said that I claim that all false statements by others are lies. That is a blatant lie: a statement that you know is false and cannot support, and you should apologize and retract it. The more you post here, the farther from adulthood you appear to be.

Yes I think you should quit and take that walk round the block. It must be demoralising to be arguing with a 15 year old on the internet, at your age.

[Unsecured Coins]

hey Rev... you got a thread waiting on you. I'd really like your input

[Par]

Yes I think you should quit and take that walk round the block. It must be demoralising to be arguing with a 15 year old on the internet, at your age.



What would we do without truthers and their adolescent posturing.

[Revolutionary91]

What would we do without truthers and their adolescent posturing.

Get lives?

[chillzero]

OK, everyone needs to calm down here, and back off from the personal stuff. Please address the points raised, and not the age, etc of the person who posts it. If there is any further bickering, then posts will be split off to AAH. Let's get back on topic, please.

[mortimer]

I agree 8den. Perhaps you can teach this to Gravy. He calls everyone that utters something false a liar without proving their intention.

If I produce a post where Gravy corrects something false in one of my posts without calling me a liar, will you retract this accusation?

[mortimer]

I agree 8den. Perhaps you can teach this to Gravy. He calls everyone that utters something false a liar without proving their intention.

How many fighters at Andrews, and how many of them were combat ready and not just on alert?

During the Cold War, we had fighters armed and ready, and a rotation of pilots who could jump into those planes at a moment's notice. Once the Cold War was over, the "Peace Dividend" kicked in, and there weren't any fighters or crew that were kept combat ready. Fighters that were on alert could take several hours to make combat ready.
Andrews was not an alert base as of 9/11. You'll find answers to the common conspiracist claims about the military response at my site, linked in my sig.

Mortimer, your statement isn't accurate. There were 7 alert bases in the U.S. on 9/11, each with 2 fighters armed and ready to launch on short notice. On the east coast, those bases were Otis ANG on Cape Cod and Langley in Virginia. Fighters were launched from those bases in response to the hijackings but did not have sufficient time or information to intercept any of the airliners. Also, AA 77, which hit the Pentagon, made its turn towards D.C. in an area that lacked primary radar coverage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2). ATC was looking for it along its projected flight path. The Secret Service did contact Andrews to see if they had planes available, but they had none that were armed and ready.

Rev, would you care to retract your accusation against Gravy?

[T.A.M.]

I would make note that everytime Rev gets fed up, it is HE who mentions his age, usually in the fashion of...

"I hope you guys get a kick out of arguing with a 15 year old".

So it works both ways REV. Besided, anyone who thinks that a 15 year old doesnt have a lot to learn about everything, including life, is probably 15 or younger themselves.

TAM:)

[nicepants]

Took a while for that penny to drop didn't it.:rolleyes:

Let's move on to your response to the following (assuming you return after your suspension):

Please explain the difference between your definitions of

"Independent verification" and "peer-review".

Can an independent verification be part of a peer-review?
Can a peer-review be part of an independent verification?

[nicepants]

No you produced a false statement without proving an intention to mislead. Are all journalists lying when they issue a false report? Are the BBC lying when they said wtc7 had collapsed early?

Do you know the difference between being a liar and simply being wrong?

[AZCat]

If I produce a post where Gravy corrects something false in one of my posts without calling me a liar, will you retract this accusation?

He has done the same to me. It is probably important to note that it was obvious that I was mistaken rather than lying, and that Gravy apparently can tell the difference.

[Apollo20]

On topic:

The present peer review process of scientific articles IS seriously flawed inspite of some, unsupported, BS, comments to the contrary on this thread. Do the individuals who express such opinions have ANY experience with reviewing SCIENTIFIC articles? I doubt it! And, by the way, I have seen a FRS and Professor of chemistry tell blatant lies to a journal when questioned about his review of a competitor's paper. And the same Professor kept porno magazines in his office desk to help pass the time! Ah, yes there are many upstanding scholars at our universities......

Anyway, I have a way to improve the peer review process that I have thought about for many years. It is this:

The paper should be sent to a reviewer with the author's name removed. In this way it is now an "anonymous" paper that could have been written by anyone. Of course the reviewer may recognize the style and associate the content with a particular individual, but the reviewer could never be sure of the authorship until the paper appeared. This would remove a lot of the bias that plagues the current peer review process. After all, there is absolutely no reason for the author's name to appear on the submitted paper!

What I am suggesting would not solve all the problems with peer review but I believe it would be a significant improvement.

[drkitten]

The present peer review process of scientific articles IS seriously flawed inspite of some, unsupported, BS, comments to the contrary on this thread. Do the individuals who express such opinions have ANY experience with reviewing SCIENTIFIC articles?

Er, yes. Thirty-odd peer-reviewed articles, three books, and a hundred or so conference papers published, and I don't keep track of the number of reviews that I do.

And as far as I can tell, you're way off base.

And, by the way, I have seen a FRS and Professor of chemistry tell blatant lies to a journal when questioned about his review of a competitor's paper.

Shrug. That's why papers have multiple reviewers, precisely to prevent this. There's always some wingnut. An otherwise good paper will not typically be rejected on the basis of a single review.


Anyway, I have a way to improve the peer review process that I have thought about for many years. It is this:

The paper should be sent to a reviewer with the author's name removed. In this way it is now an "anonymous" paper that could have been written by anyone. Of course the reviewer may recognize the style and associate the content with a particular individual, but the reviewer could never be sure of the authorship until the paper appeared.

In many journals, this is already standard practice. In many others, this has been tried and found wanting; the main reason is that in small fields, the major reviewers know all the players and anonymity is pointless. Everyone knows Dr. Erlenmeyer's problem, his equipment, and his theoretical approach, which makes papers by Doc E. almost trivial to spot.

[rwguinn]

On topic:

The present peer review process of scientific articles IS seriously flawed inspite of some, unsupported, BS, comments to the contrary on this thread. Do the individuals who express such opinions have ANY experience with reviewing SCIENTIFIC articles? I doubt it! And, by the way, I have seen a FRS and Professor of chemistry tell blatant lies to a journal when questioned about his review of a competitor's paper. And the same Professor kept porno magazines in his office desk to help pass the time! Ah, yes there are many upstanding scholars at our universities......
poisoning the well and strawman not necessary. Keeping magazines of any type are not a reflection of the individual's prowess in his field of expertise...

Anyway, I have a way to improve the peer review process that I have thought about for many years. It is this:

The paper should be sent to a reviewer with the author's name removed. In this way it is now an "anonymous" paper that could have been written by anyone. Of course the reviewer may recognize the style and associate the content with a particular individual, but the reviewer could never be sure of the authorship until the paper appeared. This would remove a lot of the bias that plagues the current peer review process. After all, there is absolutely no reason for the author's name to appear on the submitted paper!

What I am suggesting would not solve all the problems with peer review but I believe it would be a significant improvement.

I am surprised that in the more competitive "Publish-or-perish" fields that this is not already the case. It would make a lot of sense.
Perhaps Mackey can answer this one--Doesn't a NASA TN or TR (As they used to be called) have the author's name removed during the review process prior to the "Editorial"? I THINK that it used to be so during review (back in the 1970's), but you also had to go in and defend the report/Tech Note in front of a committee at some point to achieve actual publication and getting an actual number assigned.

[T.A.M.]

On topic:

The present peer review process of scientific articles IS seriously flawed inspite of some, unsupported, BS, comments to the contrary on this thread. Do the individuals who express such opinions have ANY experience with reviewing SCIENTIFIC articles? I doubt it! And, by the way, I have seen a FRS and Professor of chemistry tell blatant lies to a journal when questioned about his review of a competitor's paper. And the same Professor kept porno magazines in his office desk to help pass the time! Ah, yes there are many upstanding scholars at our universities......

Anyway, I have a way to improve the peer review process that I have thought about for many years. It is this:

The paper should be sent to a reviewer with the author's name removed. In this way it is now an "anonymous" paper that could have been written by anyone. Of course the reviewer may recognize the style and associate the content with a particular individual, but the reviewer could never be sure of the authorship until the paper appeared. This would remove a lot of the bias that plagues the current peer review process. After all, there is absolutely no reason for the author's name to appear on the submitted paper!

What I am suggesting would not solve all the problems with peer review but I believe it would be a significant improvement.


Part of our last year of med school, prior to our clinical clerkship, was a 12 week course in "critical analysis" which specifically focused on the critical analysis of scientific literature, more particularly on Medical Trials and Papers.

Since my graduation I have read literally hundreds, if not thousands of medical papers, and use the skills I was tought on ALL OF THEM.

Are their flaws in Peer Review...sure there are, but can it be counted on in terms of insuring that junk is kept out, I think so...for the most part.

Edit: I agree, in a perfect world, all papers for review would have the names removed for the Reviewer, the magazine at large retaining the name to insure the author was legit, and not a plagerizing hack. As well they SHOULD include full disclosure of financial support sources...

TAM:)

[Civilized Worm]

There are flaws in peer review just like there are flaws in democracy.

[Apollo20]

Civilized Worm:

Flaws in Democracy?

Oh, you mean like the Patriot Act and the suspension of Habeas Corpus?

[T.A.M.]

Any chance you would point out what part of the patriot act you have a problem with???

TAM:)

[Civilized Worm]

Civilized Worm:

Flaws in Democracy?

Oh, you mean like the Patriot Act and the suspension of Habeas Corpus?


I mean like people who think that AIDS was created by the government being allowed to vote.

[Corsair 115]

The U.S. imports 11.8 million barrels per day for a total of 4,307,000,000 barrels/year or 27.6 times as much oil as does Brazil.And which two countries in 2006 combined to supply over one-third of all U.S. crude oil imports? Hint: Saudi Arabia and Iraq would be incorrect answers.

[DGM]

Canada

[Slayhamlet]

No you produced a false statement without proving an intention to mislead. Are all journalists lying when they issue a false report? Are the BBC lying when they said wtc7 had collapsed early?

Wow, you are dense. Please read the words of people's responses before responding yourself, 'kay?

[Corsair 115]

CanadaCorrect! That's #1. Now we just need #2...

[DGM]

Correct! That's #1. Now we just need #2...
Mexico:)

[Tony Szamboti]

On topic:

The present peer review process of scientific articles IS seriously flawed inspite of some, unsupported, BS, comments to the contrary on this thread. Do the individuals who express such opinions have ANY experience with reviewing SCIENTIFIC articles? I doubt it! And, by the way, I have seen a FRS and Professor of chemistry tell blatant lies to a journal when questioned about his review of a competitor's paper. And the same Professor kept porno magazines in his office desk to help pass the time! Ah, yes there are many upstanding scholars at our universities......

Anyway, I have a way to improve the peer review process that I have thought about for many years. It is this:

The paper should be sent to a reviewer with the author's name removed. In this way it is now an "anonymous" paper that could have been written by anyone. Of course the reviewer may recognize the style and associate the content with a particular individual, but the reviewer could never be sure of the authorship until the paper appeared. This would remove a lot of the bias that plagues the current peer review process. After all, there is absolutely no reason for the author's name to appear on the submitted paper!

What I am suggesting would not solve all the problems with peer review but I believe it would be a significant improvement.

It certainly solves the problem of potential bias towards the individual author. All peer reviews should be blind.

Another issue would be subject bias.

[Gravy]

It certainly solves the problem of potential bias towards the individual author. All peer reviews should be blind.

Another issue would be subject bias.The Journal of 9/11 Stundies takes a double-blind approach. The reviewers are blind in both eyes.

[Tony Szamboti]

And which two countries in 2006 combined to supply over one-third of all U.S. crude oil imports? Hint: Saudi Arabia and Iraq would be incorrect answers.

Canada was one and I believe Mexico the other. That wasn't the point I was making though. I am saying that I believe we should make every attempt at becoming energy independent with renewable energies.

How long is the oil going to last?

[Tony Szamboti]

The Journal of 9/11 Stundies takes a double-blind approach. The reviewers are blind in both eyes.

How would you know?

What is your background other than being a NYC Tour Guide and what makes you qualified to make these comments if you are serious?

Just because you read the NIST report hardly qualifies you as an expert in the design and failure analysis of structures.

The people at the Journal of 911 Studies may feel that your excuse for not being able to see might be because your head is in a location without sunlight.

[twinstead]

How would you know?

What is your background other than being a NYC Tour Guide and what makes you qualified to make these comments if you are serious?

Just because you read the NIST report hardly qualifies you as an expert in the design and failure analysis of structures.

The people at the Journal of 911 Studies may feel that your excuse for not being able to see might be because your head is in a location without sunlight.

I would imagine the folks who contributed to the NIST report are the ones you should be asking these questions of. You know, all those people who ARE experts in the design and failure analysis of structures.

[Gravy]

How would you know?
What is your background other than being a NYC Tour Guide and what makes you qualified to make these comments if you are serious?


1) I'm not a paranoid, lying loon.

2) I give a damn about getting things right.

3) I've read the mind-blowingly idiotic papers there, you silly goose.

Does it trouble you that I can so easily pick out the errors in papers that passed "peer review" there? It should.

[Apollo20]

Realcddeal:

Did you know that Rembrandt van Rijn, the great Dutch painter, was famous for dark, foreboding, paintings, and was considered the founder of the GRAVY SCHOOL of art?

[Tony Szamboti]

1) I'm not a paranoid, lying loon.

Who says you're not?

2) I give a damn about getting things right.

Maybe you do, but that doesn't make you right.

3) I've read the mind-blowingly idiotic papers there, you silly goose.

You don't argue engineering issues and I don't think you are qualified to call them mind-blowing idiotic papers.


Does it trouble you that I can so easily pick out the errors in papers that passed "peer review" there? It should.

You may have read them but it doesn't appear you understood very well. All I ever see you do is quote the NIST report and complain that someone isn't willing to read it. That just isn't true. Concerning papers on the Journal of 911 Studies I only ever see you pick on insignificant minor issues and claim an author is cherry picking without backing up your claim other than a nebulous reference to NIST.

[Gravy]

You may have read them but it doesn't appear you understood very well. All I ever see you do is quote the NIST report and complain that someone isn't willing to read it. That just isn't true. Concerning papers on the Journal of 911 Studies I only ever see you pick on insignificant minor issues and claim an author is cherry picking without backing up your claim other than a nebulous reference to NIST.Care to defend the Tony Szamboti paper, which you cited yesterday, and which passed "peer review?" This is the third time I've asked. He's a mechanical engineer and I believe you are also. I'm a lowly tour guide. Think you can handle it? Or you not so confident of the paper's merits anymore?

[Tony Szamboti]

Care to defend the Tony Szamboti paper, which you cited yesterday? This is the third time I've asked. He's a mechanical engineer and I believe you are also. I'm a lowly tour guide. Think you can handle it?

I do agree with what is said in that paper. Of course, you will probably make it all about how he could say Bldg. 7 was obviously a controlled demolition and that NIST only tested floor trusses without fireproofing for calibration reasons. Spare me your nonsensical arguments. That is why I haven't jumped at your offer. Most of what I have seen you do cannot be called debate but an attempt to smear. Nobody wants to deal with that garbage.

[Gravy]

I do agree with what is said in that paper. Of course, you will probably make it all about how he could say Bldg. 7 was obviously a controlled demolition and that NIST only tested floor trusses without fireproofing for calibration reasons. Spare me your nonsensical arguments. That is why I haven't jumped at your offer. Most of what I have seen you do cannot be called debate but an attempt to smear. Nobody wants to deal with that garbage.Ah, you won't debate me because you fear I'm not up to it. Weird, seems like I've heard that a couple of times from the person in charge of reviewing those papers, who twice fled from the opportunity to put me in my place, despite debate terms that were completely in his favor.

Well, yesterday I spent two minutes with that paper and pointed out three errors that would not pass peer review in a serious journal (I haven't read the whole thing). Was I wrong about any of them?

And I know you agree with the conclusions in that paper, but do you agree with the methods used to arrive at those conclusions?

And does it bother you that I've waxed your tail every single time we've tangled? It should.

[Tony Szamboti]

[QUOTE=Gravy;2842789]Ah, you won't debate me because you fear I'm not up to it. Weird, seems like I've heard that a couple of times from the person in charge of reviewing those papers, who twice fled from the opportunity to put me in my place, despite debate terms that were completely in his favor.

Just so everyone knows, I want to say that I just e-mailed you and told you that I believe you should write a critiquing Letter to the Journal of 911 Studies about the Szamboti paper. This is what Dr. Greening did in his debate with Gordon Ross. I am sure Tony Szamboti himself will respond to you publicly on the Journal and you can then post links to your critique and his response here.

Well, yesterday I spent two minutes with that paper and pointed out three errors that would not pass peer review in a serious journal (I haven't read the whole thing). Was I wrong about any of them?

Yes, I believe the determination of the Factor of Safety that Szamboti uses is legitimate. I also think you were nitpicking that he interchanged beams and columns. He was discussing structural elements in general when he used the term beams. The connotation is not lost. As for Bldg. 7 you will have to take that up with him. Every single engineer I have showed the collapse of Bldg. 7 to says it was a controlled demolition. Most science people would not comment on a paper before reading it in its entirety.

And I know you agree with the conclusions in that paper, but do you agree with the methods used to arrive at those conclusions?

Yes.

And does it bother you that I've waxed your tail every single time we've tangled? It should.

I guess I don't understand what your basis is here.

If you believe Szamboti is wrong in any way you should write a critiquing letter concerning that paper to the Journal of 911 Studies. That is how it should be done and not in a hysterical way on a quick moving forum.

[jsfisher]

If you believe Szamboti is wrong in any way you should write a critiquing letter concerning that paper to the Journal of 911 Studies. That is how it should be done and not in a hysterical way on a quick moving forum.


Were the Journal of 911 Studies in any way reputable, that might be appropriate. Then again, were that publication actually reputable, the situation would have likely not arisen.

[Crungy]

Every single engineer I have showed the collapse of Bldg. 7 to says it was a controlled demolition.


Wow, a first for me! I'm a mechanical engineer and certified P.E. who has worked at several large A/E firms in Chicago during the past 15 years. The firm I'm in now is even designing and building a 90 story beast. All of the structural engineers in my firm, as well as plenty of architects and engineers I've worked with in the past, think the whole CD theory for the WTC building is on par with arguing that the tooth fairy exists. I've discussed and joked about this with professional liscensed engineering co-workers for over a year and have yet to find a single one who doesn't have extreme contempt for CD twoofers.

Btw, you say that you "showed" the collapse of Bldg. 7, why didn't your engineers inquire about what occured to and inside building 7 prior to the collapse. Oddly, that's what my co-workers are always interested in.

[T.A.M.]

shill!!! Liar!!!!

lol

TAM;)

[Tony Szamboti]

Wow, a first for me! I'm a mechanical engineer and certified P.E. who has worked at several large A/E firms in Chicago during the past 15 years. The firm I'm in now is even designing and building a 90 story beast. All of the structural engineers in my firm, as well as plenty of architects and engineers I've worked with in the past, think the whole CD theory for the WTC building is on par with arguing that the tooth fairy exists. I've discussed and joked about this with professional liscensed engineering co-workers for over a year and have yet to find a single one who doesn't have extreme contempt for CD twoofers.

Btw, you say that you "showed" the collapse of Bldg. 7, why didn't your engineers inquire about what occured to and inside building 7 prior to the collapse. Oddly, that's what my co-workers are always interested in.

I seriously doubt that you are a mechanical engineer and a licensed P.E. when, in a first response to someone, you call anyone who thinks controlled demolition should be investigated as a cause for the building collapses which occurred on 911 "twoofers". I would need to see a whole lot more than this non-technical diatribe to believe you are a qualified engineer.

My engineering colleagues were aware of the fires inside and external structural damage to Bldg. 7 when they made the comment that it appears to be a controlled demolition. These comments were made after discussing it at length.

[T.A.M.]

never saw that coming...lol

TAM:)

[Tony Szamboti]

Were the Journal of 911 Studies in any way reputable, that might be appropriate. Then again, were that publication actually reputable, the situation would have likely not arisen.

A letter in a scientific debate stands on its own. Gravy should write a letter and debate it with Szamboti in public, via letters. The fact that it would be done on the Journal of 911 Studies is insignificant to the public discussion that would take place.

Your point makes no sense.

[Crungy]

I seriously doubt that you are a mechanical engineer and a licensed P.E. when, in a first response to someone, you call anyone who thinks controlled demolition should be investigated as a cause for the building collapses which occurred on 911 "twoofers". I would need to see a whole lot more than this non-technical diatribe to believe you are a qualified engineer.

My engineering colleagues were aware of the fires inside and external structural damage to Bldg. 7 when they made the comment that it appears to be a controlled demolition. These comments were made after discussing it at length.


Well, I'll one up you, because all of us engineers think that 9/11 CTers are batsh** kooks. Your kind are laughed at, if you are really an engineer then you should know that. I can not only prove that I am a PE who works in a top A/E firm, off board to a third party, perhaps to the mod, but I also work in one of the top firms in Chicago and speak to some of the brightest structural engineers in Chicago. Hell, one of them has been in the national print and TV media discussing the Minnesota bridge collapse. He thinks that you are coo-coo for coco puffs.

[Gravy]

Just so everyone knows, I want to say that I just e-mailed you and told you that I believe you should write a critiquing Letter to the Journal of 911 Studies about the Szamboti paper.No need to email me. I'm right here. I'm not interested in writing letters to Steven Jones, because he doesn't run a real journal. If he did, the papers he publishes, including his, would never in a million years be published, and his supervisor of peer review wouldn't flee like a bunny being chased by a wolf whenever I'm around. The responses to Gordon Ross were justified, because he at least made the effort to put his name to some serious, if misguided, calculations. Besides that and a few papers that criticize other truthers, it's a complete intellectual wasteland there.

No, I wanted to engage with you, because you both question my competence and champion a paper that's laughably bad.


Yes, I believe the determination of the Factor of Safety that Szamboti uses is legitimate. Since Szamboti in no ways justifies his calculation or attempts to calculate the gravity load safety factor of the columns that matter, which is not difficult to do, your belief seems optimistic.

I also think you were nitpicking that he interchanged beams and columns. He was discussing structural elements in general when he used the term beams. The connotation is not lost. No reputable journal would permit such silly, inaccurate, haphazard language.

As for Bldg. 7 you will have to take that up with him. Every single engineer I have showed the collapse of Bldg. 7 to says it was a controlled demolition. Most science people would not comment on a paper before reading it in its entirety.Speculation, like Szamboti, and there's absolutely no place for statements like "The obvious controlled demolition of building 7" (paraphrasing) to appear in an engineering paper. Those are just random things that caught my eye as I was looking for a particular section to mention in a post. Pathetic.

I guess I don't understand what your basis is here.Wait, an apology may be in order. I was thinking you were the guy I kept asking, "Is there anything you do know about?" I'll be back.

Sorry, yeah, you are that guy.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2795813&postcount=61
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2798758&postcount=70
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2798883&postcount=74
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2803002&postcount=79
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2810267&postcount=108
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2810512&postcount=114
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2812745&postcount=132
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2812760&postcount=133
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2813218&postcount=156
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2813359&postcount=165
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2813520&postcount=175
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2817586&postcount=232
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2834888&postcount=176
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2835833&postcount=194
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2835974&postcount=199
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2838742&postcount=253
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2838926&postcount=261

There's more, but I tired of the nonsense.

So if I'm incompetent, and you're way, way, way worse, well....
Well, that's just not a happy place to be, is it?

[Tony Szamboti]

Well, I'll one up you, because all of us engineers think that 9/11 CTers are batsh** kooks. Your kind are laughed at, if you are really an engineer then you should know that. I can not only prove that I am a PE who works in a top A/E firm, off board to a third party, perhaps to the mod, but I also work in one of the top firms in Chicago and speak to some of the brightest structural engineers in Chicago. Hell, one of them has been in the national print and TV media discussing the Minnesota bridge collapse. He thinks that you are coo-coo for coco puffs.

Are diatribes all you can do concerning the discussion of what occurred on 911?

[Tony Szamboti]

No need to email me. I'm right here. I'm not interested in writing letters to Steven Jones, because he doesn't run a real journal. If he did, the papers he publishes, including his, would never in a million years be published, and his supervisor of peer review wouldn't flee like a bunny being chased by a wolf whenever I'm around. The responses to Gordon Ross were justified, because he at least made the effort to put his name to some serious, if misguided, calculations. Besides that and a few papers that criticize other truthers, it's a complete intellectual wasteland there.

No, I wanted to engage with you, because you both question my competence and champion a paper that's laughably bad.


Since Szamboti in no ways justifies his calculation or attempts to calculate the gravity load safety factor of the columns that matter, which is not difficult to do, your belief seems optimistic.

No reputable journal would permit such silly, inaccurate, haphazard language.

Speculation, like Szamboti, and there's absolutely no place for statements like "The obvious controlled demolition of building 7" (paraphrasing) to appear in an engineering paper. Those are just random things that caught my eye as I was looking for a particular section to mention in a post. Pathetic.

Wait, an apology may be in order. I was thinking you were the guy I kept asking, "Is there anything you do know about?" I'll be back.

Sorry, yeah, you are that guy.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2795813&postcount=61
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2798758&postcount=70
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2798883&postcount=74
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2803002&postcount=79
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2810267&postcount=108
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2810512&postcount=114
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2812745&postcount=132
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2812760&postcount=133
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2813218&postcount=156
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2813359&postcount=165
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2813520&postcount=175
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2817586&postcount=232
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2834888&postcount=176
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2835833&postcount=194
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2835974&postcount=199
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2838742&postcount=253
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2838926&postcount=261

There's more, but I tired of the nonsense.

So if I'm incompetent, and you're way, way, way worse, well....
Well, that's just not a happy place to be, is it?

This entire post was a waste. If you won't write a letter then you aren't really interested in scientific debate but just want to smear someone on a forum where ad-hominem and ridicule are second nature for some, including you. You don't seem to be being genuine and that causes me to question your motives.

[Crungy]

Are diatribes all you can do concerning the discussion of what occurred on 911?

Nope. You mentioned every engineer that you showed the WTC7 collapse to, said that it was CT. I am an engineer and this is in complete odds with my experience to the WTC7 collapse. I wanted to express that opinion. I thought that I made myself perfectly clear in my initial post. Reading it again, it's clear to me, no?

I work in the design and construction industry and have myself been part of the design team of a 90 story skyscaper currently in construction. 9/11 CT (specifically CD) has been discussed amongst many architects, engineers of various disciplines as well as construction workers who have built many skyscrapers. To a man (woman) they all hold extreme contempt for CDers.

[Gravy]

This entire post was a waste. If you won't write a letter then you aren't really interested in scientific debate but just want to smear someone on a forum where ad-hominem and ridicule are second nature for some, including you. You don't seem to be being genuine and that causes me to question your motives.Oh, I'm genuine, all right, and frauds like you piss me off. You wanted to know the basis of my claim against you. See the posts linked above, which are only a portion, and suck it up like a man.

[LashL]

Nope. You mentioned every engineer that you showed the WTC7 collapse to, said that it was CT. I am an engineer and this is in complete odds with my experience to the WTC7 collapse. I wanted to express that opinion. I thought that I made myself perfectly clear in my initial post. Reading it again, it's clear to me, no?

I work in the design and construction industry and have myself been part of the design team of a 90 story skyscaper currently in construction. 9/11 CT (specifically CD) has been discussed amongst many architects, engineers of various disciplines as well as construction workers who have built many skyscrapers. To a man (woman) they all hold extreme contempt for CDers.

You did, in fact, make yourself perfectly clear. However, tinhatters (like realcddeal) seem to have tremendous difficulty with reading comprehension.

And with honesty.

And with reality.

[CHF]

This entire post was a waste.

Translation: "ya got me!"

Know what I'd like to see, realcddeal?

I'd like to see one of those engineers you talked to (if in fact you did) write a paper on the collapses and the "obvious" demolitions. Any chance of that?

[Corsair 115]

Mexico:)Correct! DGM gets the gold star! Well done.

Canada was one and I believe Mexico the other. That wasn't the point I was making though. I am saying that I believe we should make every attempt at becoming energy independent with renewable energies. And what does that point have to do with 9/11 conspiracies and claims that it was all about Middle Eastern oil control?

How long is the oil going to last?A potentially long time. The amount of petroleum reserves locked up in the oil sands in Alberta are estimated to be as much as 170 billion barrels, second only to the reseves in Saudi Arabia. Granted, getting oil from the oil sands is not easy, but it can be done, and is economical provided the price of oil stays above certain levels.

[Gravy]

Correct! DGM gets the gold star! Well done.

And what does that point have to do with 9/11 conspiracies and claims that it was all about Middle Eastern oil control?

A potentially long time. The amount of petroleum reserves locked up in the oil sands in Alberta are estimated to be as much as 170 billion barrels, second only to the reseves in Saudi Arabia. Granted, getting oil from the oil sands is not easy, but it can be done, and is economical provided the price of oil stays above certain levels.And have you noticed the new U.S.-owned amusement park that's about to open, Six False Flags Calgary? And do you think the U.S. Air Force holds massive exercises in Alaska because of the Russians?

[LashL]

Translation: "ya got me!"

Know what I'd like to see, realcddeal?

I'd like to see one of those engineers you talked to (if in fact you did) write a paper on the collapses and the "obvious" demolitions. Any chance of that?

Indeed.

But even if they haven't the ability to write a paper on it, one would think that if realcddeal's engineering colleagues all believe that there were controlled demolitions at the WTC, as he says, then certainly some of them would have spoken up publicly in the past (almost) six years.

Why, oh why, haven't they? :rolleyes:

[kookbreaker]

Indeed.

But even if they haven't the ability to write a paper on it, one would think that if realcddeal's engineering colleagues all believe that there were controlled demolitions at the WTC, as he says, then certainly some of them would have spoken up publicly in the past (almost) six years.

Why, oh why, haven't they? :rolleyes:

Its hard to teach imaginary friends how to type.

[Corsair 115]

And have you noticed the new U.S.-owned amusement park that's about to open, Six False Flags Calgary? Can't say I have, no. But Alberta does apparently have its own Creation Museum. :(

And do you think the U.S. Air Force holds massive exercises in Alaska because of the Russians?Well, I do recall that back in the late 1970s/early 1980s the U.S. wanted to test the then-new cruise missile out in western Canada and a number of folks here were not pleased about it. One such group was called ACT (Against Cruise Testing).

How on Earth I can remember such minutia after all this time is a mystery to me considering I can barely remember what I did last week...

[Dave Rogers]

It certainly solves the problem of potential bias towards the individual author. All peer reviews should be blind.

This would be a serious problem for the Journal of 9/11 Studies, where peer reviewers are allowed to contribute to the papers they review. It's a bit tricky failing to recognise your own work.

Dave

[Tony Szamboti]

Oh, I'm genuine, all right, and frauds like you piss me off. You wanted to know the basis of my claim against you. See the posts linked above, which are only a portion, and suck it up like a man.

If you were genuine you would write a critiquing paper and debate it in the accepted scientific way. Write a paper or shut your big trap.

You have a lot of nerve calling me a fraud and you know what I mean.

[Tony Szamboti]

This would be a serious problem for the Journal of 9/11 Studies, where peer reviewers are allowed to contribute to the papers they review. It's a bit tricky failing to recognise your own work.

Dave

How would you know that reviewers are allowed to contribute to the papers they review there? You should provide a basis for a claim like this.

[Dave Rogers]

How would you know that reviewers are allowed to contribute to the papers they review there? You should provide a basis for a claim like this.

OK, on checking I was wrong. The conflict of interests is subtly different.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collap se_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade-Center.doc

Page 1: "The paper has undergone significant modifications following an additional set of peer reviews organized by Journal of 9/11 Studies Editor Kevin Ryan."

Section title, page 40: "Analysis by Whistleblower Ryan"

The paper has had its peer review organised by, and incorporates the work of, Kevin Ryan. I withdraw the statement that peer reviewers are allowed to contribute to the papers they review, but maintain the criticism that the JONES peer review process is shown to be deeply flawed.

Dave

[AZCat]

[quote]Every single engineer I have showed the collapse of Bldg. 7 to says it was a controlled demolition.

Even though this has already been pointed out, I would like to add that this is also contrary to my experience. I've only broached the subject with a half-dozen mechanicals, but out of that group only one has showed any sympathy to controlled demolition theories.

[rwguinn]

I seriously doubt that you are a mechanical engineer and a licensed P.E. when, in a first response to someone, you call anyone who thinks controlled demolition should be investigated as a cause for the building collapses which occurred on 911 "twoofers". I would need to see a whole lot more than this non-technical diatribe to believe you are a qualified engineer.

My engineering colleagues were aware of the fires inside and external structural damage to Bldg. 7 when they made the comment that it appears to be a controlled demolition. These comments were made after discussing it at length.
So "Appears to be"= is. Twoo-woofer logic at its finest.
**** yes, it "Looks Like"--it can't "look like" anything else, because, unexpectedly, gravity works the same way every time. this has been discussed many many many^n times here.
All competent engineers with any structural design and analysis experience and expertise think Twoofers are guanofrentic, and absolutely not worth the effort to explain things to them more than 3 times. Most of us are on our 29th or 30th time, so ridicule is our only hope.
And yes, I am a mechanical PE, specializing in structural analysis. Credential are on file with Lash, who can verify. Don't expect name address, registration number from her, though--she's a lawyer who can be trusted!
To the uninitiated and to twoofer engineers, that means I work to try to correct designs to prevent failue in the first place.

[Gravy]

If you were genuine you would write a critiquing paper and debate it in the accepted scientific way. Write a paper or shut your big trap.Had the author written the paper in any accepted scientific way, I'd have replied in kind.

You have a lot of nerve calling me a fraud and you know what I mean.I apologize for selling you short. I should have said "You super-duper fraud."

[T.A.M.]

If you were genuine you would write a critiquing paper and debate it in the accepted scientific way. Write a paper or shut your big trap.

You have a lot of nerve calling me a fraud and you know what I mean.

If the alleged Scientists/Engineers/architects for truth would only listen to your advice, we'd have alot less gum flapping, and alot of bunk to read...alas, 90% or more of the truth movements 300-500 "scientists/engineers/architects" do no such thing, despite ACTUALLY having the ALLEGED qualifications to do so...I wonder why they don't????

TAM:)

[Tony Szamboti]

[QUOTE=Gravy;2845928]Had the author written the paper in any accepted scientific way, I'd have replied in kind.

And what qualifications do you have to be the judge of that? What college or university did you attend and what science degree do you have? Have you ever done any scientific type work in your life? For that matter what is your background in general? How long have you been a NYC tour guide and what did you do before that? Have you lived in NYC all of your life?

I apologize for selling you short. I should have said "You super-duper fraud."

I am wondering if you really understand what a fraud is so here is the definition.


fraud /frɔd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[frawd]
–noun 1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.


I am a fifty year old who never made money in a dishonest way in my life. I am a U.S. Navy veteran who was an aircraft mechanic in the service and a machinist in civilian life. I went to night school for nine years at a major university in the 1980's to earn my engineering degree and have worked as an engineer since 1986 at major U.S. aerospace companies.

I was born a U.S. citizen and have given to my country and presently am not satisfied with the answers we have been given concerning the events of 911. The events of that day and the answers from our government, at this time, simply do not add up, in my opinion, if ones takes an honest look at it. After looking at this for the last year I am now suspicious that certain elements who have made their way into our government have committed major crimes here. That does not make me a fraud sir and shame on you for saying that.

I have nothing to gain by raising these issues other than to be sure our government is on the up and up for all of our sakes. I am sorry if your belief system cannot tolerate the possibility that there is/could be major corruption in our government and that a domestic conspiracy may have occurred in the conception, planning, execution, and cover up of the events of Sept. 11, 2001. I do wish this were not true but I strive to look at things for the way they are not how I would hope they are. Adults aren't supposed to live in a fairy tale land and we don't like being told fairy tales about a crime. If everyone looked at it that way maybe the corruption we are experiencing would have a harder time manifesting itself.

[twinstead]

Well, many people here have taken an equally honest look at the events of 911 and the same evidence you have looked at, and come to a different conclusion than you.

SO. What exactly does that mean? The only honest conclusion is YOURS?

[Civilized Worm]

If you were genuine you would write a critiquing paper and debate it in the accepted scientific way. Write a paper or shut your big trap.


We tried having a scientific debate with a pseudoscientist before, you'll never guess how that went.

[Tony Szamboti]

OK, on checking I was wrong. The conflict of interests is subtly different.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collap se_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade-Center.doc

Page 1: "The paper has undergone significant modifications following an additional set of peer reviews organized by Journal of 9/11 Studies Editor Kevin Ryan."

Section title, page 40: "Analysis by Whistleblower Ryan"

The paper has had its peer review organised by, and incorporates the work of, Kevin Ryan. I withdraw the statement that peer reviewers are allowed to contribute to the papers they review, but maintain the criticism that the JONES peer review process is shown to be deeply flawed.

Dave



What do you believe to be wrong with Jones' peer review process?

[Tony Szamboti]

Well, many people here have taken an equally honest look at the events of 911 and the same evidence you have looked at, and come to a different conclusion than you.

SO. What exactly does that mean? The only honest conclusion is YOURS?

Not at all. There should be an open, honest, and objective debate. This would not include name calling and ad-hominem.

If someone has a problem with a paper someone has written they should write a rebuttal/refutation and the discussion should continue until the wheat has been separated from the chaff. This usually happens when honest debate occurs. The real answer comes out in the end.

[twinstead]

Not at all. There should be an open, honest, and objective debate. This would not include name calling and ad-hominem.

If someone has a problem with a paper someone has written they should write a rebuttal/refutation and the discussion should continue until the wheat has been separated from the chaff. This usually happens when honest debate occurs. The real answer comes out in the end.

I can't argue with that, but you must admit that emotions run high on both side of this particular debate.

Ad-homs are just going to happen. Combatants debating 911 need a thick skin.

[TerryUK]

[QUOTE]

And what qualifications do you have to be the judge of that? What college or university did you attend and what science degree do you have? Have you ever done any scientific type work in your life? For that matter what is your background in general? How long have you been a NYC tour guide and what did you do before that? Have you lived in NYC all of your life?



I am wondering if you really understand what a fraud is so here is the definition.


fraud /frɔd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[frawd]
–noun 1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.


I am a fifty year old who never made money in a dishonest way in my life. I am a U.S. Navy veteran who was an aircraft mechanic in the service and a machinist in civilian life. I went to night school for nine years at a major university in the 1980's to earn my engineering degree and have worked as an engineer since 1986 at major U.S. aerospace companies.

I was born a U.S. citizen and have given to my country and presently am not satisfied with the answers we have been given concerning the events of 911. The events of that day and the answers from our government, at this time, simply do not add up, in my opinion, if ones takes an honest look at it. After looking at this for the last year I am now suspicious that certain elements who have made their way into our government have committed major crimes here. That does not make me a fraud sir and shame on you for saying that.

I have nothing to gain by raising these issues other than to be sure our government is on the up and up for all of our sakes. I am sorry if your belief system cannot tolerate the possibility that there is/could be major corruption in our government and that a domestic conspiracy may have occurred in the conception, planning, execution, and cover up of the events of Sept. 11, 2001. I do wish this were not true but I strive to look at things for the way they are not how I would hope they are. Adults aren't supposed to live in a fairy tale land and we don't like being told fairy tales about a crime. If everyone looked at it that way maybe the corruption we are experiencing would have a harder time manifesting itself.

Very well said.

I feel the same way, and when I see what some of these biggoted, 'holier than thou' morons post here, it makes me wonder how people can be SO disingenuous.

e.g. if you question something = 'you are unpatriotic/traitor/liar' whatever... or 'you hate America'

[T.A.M.]

[QUOTE]

And what qualifications do you have to be the judge of that? What college or university did you attend and what science degree do you have? Have you ever done any scientific type work in your life? For that matter what is your background in general? How long have you been a NYC tour guide and what did you do before that? Have you lived in NYC all of your life?



I am wondering if you really understand what a fraud is so here is the definition.


fraud /frɔd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[frawd]
–noun 1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.


I am a fifty year old who never made money in a dishonest way in my life. I am a U.S. Navy veteran who was an aircraft mechanic in the service and a machinist in civilian life. I went to night school for nine years at a major university in the 1980's to earn my engineering degree and have worked as an engineer since 1986 at major U.S. aerospace companies.

I was born a U.S. citizen and have given to my country and presently am not satisfied with the answers we have been given concerning the events of 911. The events of that day and the answers from our government, at this time, simply do not add up, in my opinion, if ones takes an honest look at it. After looking at this for the last year I am now suspicious that certain elements who have made their way into our government have committed major crimes here. That does not make me a fraud sir and shame on you for saying that.

I have nothing to gain by raising these issues other than to be sure our government is on the up and up for all of our sakes. I am sorry if your belief system cannot tolerate the possibility that there is/could be major corruption in our government and that a domestic conspiracy may have occurred in the conception, planning, execution, and cover up of the events of Sept. 11, 2001. I do wish this were not true but I strive to look at things for the way they are not how I would hope they are. Adults aren't supposed to live in a fairy tale land and we don't like being told fairy tales about a crime. If everyone looked at it that way maybe the corruption we are experiencing would have a harder time manifesting itself.


Passionate for sure. You've won the approval of TerryUK, so that must count for something...I guess.

Quite a Soapbox like diatribe you've got up there, but thats ok, we all need to get things off our chest from time to time...Rev91 has been doing it for 500 posts, and still hasn't finished snapping at everyone.

Gravy can state his own qualifications, and if you search the site long enough, you'll find an extensive list of the qualifications of alot of the posters here. Of course, you will likely doubt them, as it will make you feel better about yourself...this seems to work for some of the younger truthers that post here.

Anyway, personally I have a Diploma in Electronic Engineering Technology, a BSc in Medical Science, an MD, and A residency in Family Practice. I graduated highschool at 17, started post secondary at age 18, and got out of post secondary at age 30.

Like I said, for a more complete listing of who has what on this site, there is a link...but it doesnt really matter, because the "Tour Guide" can debate the hell out of any truther, ANY ONE of them, and all of you know it.

TAM:)

[TerryUK]

[QUOTE=realcddeal;2846807]


the "Tour Guide" can debate the hell out of any truther, ANY ONE of them, and all of you know it.

TAM:)

Unfortunately, 'debate' is the wrong word. It's like saying a hotdog is 'haute cuisine' :)

[T.A.M.]

and with an insult, he makes comment on someone elses debating style...well done.

TAM:)

[Crungy]

Unfortunately, 'debate' is the wrong word. It's like saying a hotdog is 'haute cuisine' :)

Most of us here have seen the Hardfire debates along with various informal Ground Zero debates. Myself and many others on this forum thought that he did quite well. Could you please post a link to a debate where he preformed poorly in relation to the 9/11 CTer?

[TerryUK]

and with an insult, he makes comment on someone elses debating style...well done.

TAM:)

You talk about insults?
I get the distinct impression that this place is 90% insults...
talk about the pot calling the kettle black !

[Crungy]

Very well said.

I feel the same way, and when I see what some of these biggoted, 'holier than thou' morons post here, it makes me wonder how people can be SO disingenuous.

e.g. if you question something = 'you are unpatriotic/traitor/liar' whatever... or 'you hate America'

I thought it was an honest, but intellectually bankrupt appeal to emotion, which was clouded by an enorumous amount of political disillusionment.

Myself and other professionals on this board are wondering why amongst ourselves and our colleagues why 9/11 controlled demolition theories are held in the same contempt as Apollo moon landing hoaxes being a product of Hollywood special effects. Most of these professionals are not fans of the Bush administration and are only interested in the pure forensic science of these events. Btw, I am a political refugee to the USA and am well aware of government "evil doings", as I've had many tales of such pounded into my brain by relatives relaying first hand experiences.

biggoted, 'holier than thou' morons

seems an apt discription for much of the 9/11 CT junk that's been tossed my way by various people with no background about the ideas they put forth.

[TerryUK]

[QUOTE=TerryUK;2847757]

Most of us here have seen the Hardfire debates along with various informal Ground Zero debates. Myself and many others on this forum thought that he did quite well.

OK, that could well be, I am only refering to what I've personally seen since I first posted on this forum, which was this week.

I see someone who appears to be uninterested in any viewpoint other than that which fits his own... someone who thinks the term 'liar' is appropriate to describe those who disagree with him... someone who insults, as a matter of routine those he is "DEBATING" with.

Sorry, that is not debating, now is it.

[Crungy]

OK, that could well be, I am only refering to what I've personally seen since I first posted on this forum, which was this week.

I see someone who appears to be uninterested in any viewpoint other than that which fits his own... someone who thinks the term 'liar' is appropriate to describe those who disagree with him... someone who insults, as a matter of routine those he is "DEBATING" with.

Sorry, that is not debating, now is it.

Fair enough. At times, fatigue from debating the same points over and over, occurs with some of the regulars here and the exchanges become quite testy. When I first joined, most posters were much more civil, but endless trolls have veered some of the regulars into the infinite banging the head against the wall syndrom. From my obervance in the past year, the 9/11 CTers still hold the nasty and rude moron title by a far margin, but as you point out, it is not a shut out by any means.

[Corsair 115]

The events of that day and the answers from our government, at this time, simply do not add up, in my opinion, if ones takes an honest look at it.I have a question about that last part of the above. Does the "in my opinion" part refer to things not adding up, or to the "takes an honest look at it" part? Because you could take from the sentence that you think anyone who doesn't claim things don't add up hasn't taken an honest look at it. For the purposes of clarity, is that what you're trying to imply?

[Tony Szamboti]

I have a question about that last part of the above. Does the "in my opinion" part refer to things not adding up, or to the "takes an honest look at it" part? Because you could take from the sentence that you think anyone who doesn't claim things don't add up hasn't taken an honest look at it. For the purposes of clarity, is that what you're trying to imply?

Corsair, I was basically saying that I believe that anyone taking an honest objective look at all of the information which has surfaced in the last two years concerning the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and the present government explanations for those events, would at least have a number of legitimate questions and feel that maybe we don't really fully know what happened.

For instance, the mysterious and still not officially explained complete symmetric collapse of Building 7, the near free fall speed collapses of the towers and conservation of momentum problems for a gravity driven collapse, the near complete pulverization of the concrete in the towers, the total collapse of the central cores of each tower, purported molten metal in the rubble, the molten metal pouring out of the 80th floor of WTC2 minutes before it collapsed, the lack of steel for NIST to test for high temperature exposure from the fire affected areas, the firefighters oral histories where there is talk of seeing, hearing, and feeling explosives, etc.

Don't forget that the oral histories of the emergency personnel was suppressed until ordered by the NY State Court of Appeals to be released in August 2005. Why wasn't this information discussed in the 911 Commission report?

[T.A.M.]

You talk about insults?
I get the distinct impression that this place is 90% insults...
talk about the pot calling the kettle black !

I was commenting on the hypocrisy in commenting on someones conduct, by insulting them...do you not see it?

TAM:)

[Gravy]

I am a fifty year old who never made money in a dishonest way in my life. I am a U.S. Navy veteran who was an aircraft mechanic in the service and a machinist in civilian life. I went to night school for nine years at a major university in the 1980's to earn my engineering degree and have worked as an engineer since 1986 at major U.S. aerospace companies.

I was born a U.S. citizen and have given to my country and presently am not satisfied with the answers we have been given concerning the events of 911. The events of that day and the answers from our government, at this time, simply do not add up, in my opinion, if ones takes an honest look at it. After looking at this for the last year I am now suspicious that certain elements who have made their way into our government have committed major crimes here. That does not make me a fraud sir and shame on you for saying that.

I have nothing to gain by raising these issues other than to be sure our government is on the up and up for all of our sakes. I am sorry if your belief system cannot tolerate the possibility that there is/could be major corruption in our government and that a domestic conspiracy may have occurred in the conception, planning, execution, and cover up of the events of Sept. 11, 2001. I do wish this were not true but I strive to look at things for the way they are not how I would hope they are. Adults aren't supposed to live in a fairy tale land and we don't like being told fairy tales about a crime. If everyone looked at it that way maybe the corruption we are experiencing would have a harder time manifesting itself.

Yawn. I'm sorry to see that you've abandoned the principles that you once held and have embraced dishonesty and ignorance.

What do you believe to be wrong with Jones' peer review process?See? Dishonesty and ignorance. Didn't we just have this conversation? What's wrong with the Journal of 9/11 Stundies? It accepts papers that are amongst the worst ever written by adults on any subject.

I pointed out three major errors in the Szamboti paper, which I, a layman, incidentally spotted in two minutes when looking for something else. Without even trying. I could do the same with any other paper there.

There are no papers in JONES that would pass peer review in a respected journal. Jones and Ryan are utter frauds.

[Tony Szamboti]

Yawn. I'm sorry to see that you've abandoned the principles that you once held and have embraced dishonesty and ignorance.

See? Dishonesty and ignorance. Didn't we just have this conversation? What's wrong with the Journal of 9/11 Stundies? It accepts papers that are amongst the worst ever written by adults on any subject.

I pointed out three major errors in the Szamboti paper, which I, a layman, incidentally spotted in two minutes when looking for something else. Without even trying. I could do the same with any other paper there.

There are no papers in JONES that would pass peer review in a respected journal. Jones and Ryan are utter frauds.

What a laugh you are. You are truly a legend in your own mind. What you in your limited scientific abilities are claiming as errors were not errors and I explained that earlier. Who do you think are you kidding? You sound like you went to the Joseph Goebbels school of debate. That is, to just keep repeating a lie and sooner or later people will believe it. I am tempted to say it is you who may actually be a fraud and a liar to boot. It is starting to look like you have a strategy to constantly accuse others of what you actually may be, to shift the focus off of your distortions. Unfortunately , some people fall for it. I doubt it is many though.

Like Abe Lincoln said "You can fool some of the people all the time, you can even fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

You are starting to be seen for who you really are. I doubt many know for sure but I believe they are starting to put it together about you.

You obviously aren't qualified to peer review any scientific paper so you have no basis to call Jones and Ryan frauds. You are truly disgraceful and without shame. I am beginning to believe you are a professional propagandist. How long did you say you have been a NYC tour guide? Oh, I forgot you didn't answer those questions I asked. How long have you lived in NYC and what else besides being a tour guide have you done in your life?

Go debate Jim Fetzer, he is more your speed, although more respectful to some degree. You can do Hardfire again with your fellow propagandist Ronald Wieck. What a fraud that show was as Wieck's attempt to appear impartial was an obvious failure.

[jsfisher]

I think somebody struck a nerve.

[Gravy]

What a laugh you are. You are truly a legend in your own mind. What you in your limited scientific abilities are claiming as errors were not errors and I explained that earlier.Says the mechanical engineer whose critique of the NIST report consists of claiming that the investigators and witnesses are liars and frauds, and who in no way explained how the errors I pointed out are not errors, or how they would pass peer review in a legitimate journal.

You're a fraud, "realcddeal." Think I'm wrong? Then prove it. You said you're in the NYC area. Meet me for a videotaped debate about what caused the towers to collapse. Your many years of mechanical engineering/aerospace expertise versus my knowledge of the Theater District.

I say you won't because you're a fraud. Prove me wrong. Destroy me publicly.

[Tony Szamboti]

Says the mechanical engineer whose critique of the NIST report consists of claiming that the investigators and witnesses are liars and frauds, and who in no way explained how the errors I pointed out are not errors, or how they would pass peer review in a legitimate journal.

You're a fraud, "realcddeal." Think I'm wrong? Then prove it. You said you were in the NYC area. Meet me for a videotaped debate about what caused the towers to collapse. Your many years of mechanical engineering/aerospace expertise versus my knowledge of the Theater District.

I say you won't because you're a fraud. Prove me wrong.

The NIST report has no physical evidence for steel temperatures needed to cause the steel to weaken. They couldn't get models to fail due to fire. There are no videos of perimeter columns bowing minutes before the collapses. The North Tower antenna mast falls before the perimeter columns go and it was in the center of the roof, meaning the core went first. Get for real, the central core of those buildings was demolished intentionally and NIST's upper echelon are political appointees who are covering up for their bosses, the Machiavellian bastards who stole their way into power.

I believe you are nothing but a shill for these people, simple as that and others here and elsewhere are starting to figure that out.

Again I will ask how long you have been a tour guide in NYC? How long have you lived there? What else have you done in your life besides being a NYC tour guide? Why don't you answer these questions with some form of backup?

I would be willing to debate you anytime in a fair format, which this forum and Ronald Wieck's show are not. I asked you to write a paper critiquing the paper we were discussing and you won't. You make unfounded lame excuses like "if it was a legitimate scientific journal". Written papers are the only way to debate a scientific issue as things need to be thought through. You seem afraid of letting someone think before they respond to your distortions. Are you afraid you will get torn to pieces in that format. I didn't say I was in the NYC area. I live in South Jersey, although I don't believe I ever mentioned that here or to you. I will debate you through written papers/letters. Choose your pen. I am done with you on this forum. No more easy work for a distorter like you.

I have to laugh at people like you, who want to make a big issue out of peer review as though it is a do all and be all, when experienced people here, like Dr. Greening, have said otherwise and pointed out the problems with it. The real review is when something is in the public eye and available for all to see. You hide behind this peer review nonsense. Write a paper to debate me and let people decide. The Journal of 911 Studies is simply a placeholder for that debate. Why can't you write a paper for publishing there? Newton's Bit did it.

I know what you probably are and you certainly do. Others are starting to figure it out. I have to wonder what your tax return looks like. I'll bet it isn't just tour guide money you pay taxes on, or do they pay undercover shills/propagandists under the table nowadays? People should wonder why it is that you can get on a show like Hardfire to debate this issue when you are just a lowly tour guide. Yeah right.

I will not answer you again unless you write a letter to the Journal of 911 Studies or any Journal of your choosing. Let's see if anything you write passes your vaunted peer review.

[T.A.M.]

that journal would better serve as a cupholder, than a place holder for any sort of debate...what a sham.

TAM:)

[CHF]

So realcddeal....you will debate Gravy publicly?

Yes or no.

Or will your name be added next to Kevin Ryan and DR Griffin on the list of those who talk a great game but refuse to take to the field?

[beachnut]

I believe you are nothing but a shill for these people, simple as that and others here and elsewhere are starting to figure that out.

I would be willing to debate you anytime in a fair format, which this forum
I will not answer you again unless you write a letter to the Journal of 911 Studies or any Journal of your choosing. Let's see if anything you write passes your vaunted peer review.
You can not be a shill if you know it. Darn, you mess up facts all to0 often.

What would you debate? There is no real cd deal around the WTC. No explosive blasts, no explosive sounds and no extra energy needed to do what happen on 9/11.

You have no facts, no evidence, and no real conclusions can be made. So what would you debate. Please point to your paper on how the WTC fell, or 9/11, or anything you think you have. I do not remember anything you have presented of merit to add to 9/11.

Gravy has passed a peer review, I have not found a single person who does not think he has provided real information useful to understand the broad topics of 9/11. Not even you can put a dent in his work with real facts to back up you claims. Come on rip up his work, it is published and ready for your critique. Yet you can not touch it. You are a real cd fraud because you have failed to present any facts to support they ideas you have on 9/11. Gravy has already published his work, you are so good you missed it. Good job real man.

[Gravy]

I would be willing to debate you anytime in a fair format, which this forum and Ronald Wieck's show are not. Name your debate format then.

By the way, what is unfair about this forum or Hardfire? You can either back up your claims or you can't. Quite simple, really.

So name your format.

[Tony Szamboti]

You can not be a shill if you know it. Darn, you mess up facts all to often.

What would you debate? There is no real cd deal around the WTC. No explosive blasts, no explosive sounds and no extra energy needed to do what happen on 9/11.

You have no facts, no evidence, and no real conclusions can be made. So what would you debate. Please point to your paper on how the WTC fell, or 9/11, or anything you think you have. I do not remember anything you have presented of merit to add to 9/11.

Gravy has passed a peer review, I have not found a single person who does not think he has provided real information useful to understand the broad topics of 9/11. Not even you can put a dent in his work with real facts to back up you claims. Come on rip up his work, it is published and ready for your critique. Yet you can not touch it. You are a real cd fraud because you have failed to present any facts to support they ideas you have on 9/11. Gravy has already published his work, you are so good you missed it. Good job real man.

I have written papers on the collapses of the twin towers that are published and on the Journal of 911 Studies, your favorite whipping post. Gravy knows who I am but swore not to divulge my identity if I proved I was an engineer in an e-mail, for which he provided his address on this forum.

Why don't you point me to one of Gravy's peer reviewed papers and I will critique it to start the ball rolling. How is that? I'll even tell you who I am when I write the critique. You may guess before that though with the hints I have given you in many of these posts.

[CHF]

I have written papers on the collapses of the twin towers that are published and on the Journal of 911 Studies, your favorite whipping post.

You plan on submitting your papers to a real journal? You know...like an engineering journal? One that people actually give a toss about?

[Tony Szamboti]

Name your debate format then.

By the way, what is unfair about this forum or Hardfire? You can either back up your claims or you can't. Quite simple, really.

So name your format.

I did. Written letters/papers. That's it take it or leave it. That is the only real acceptable way for scientific debate to take place.

[Tony Szamboti]

You plan on submitting your papers to a real journal? You know...like an engineering journal? One that people actually give a toss about?

And what makes you qualified to be the judge of what is or isn't a REAL JOURNAL? How would you know what journals people give a toss about?

[CHF]

I did. Written letters/papers. That's it take it or leave it. That is the only real acceptable way for scientific debate to take place.

No the only real acceptable way for scientific debate to take place is in an actual scientific journal - not the Mickey Mouse rag created by Thermite Man as a way of sidestepping peer-review.

[CHF]

And what makes you qualified to be the judge of what is or isn't a REAL JOURNAL? How would you know what journals people give a toss about?

A real journal is one that has a history of reviewing and publishing the subject matter in question.

A real journal is one where the brightest minds submit their work.

A real journal is not created for the sake of avoiding a real peer-review in a real journal!

[Gravy]

I did. Written letters/papers. That's it take it or leave it. That is the only real acceptable way for scientific debate to take place.Excellent. I accept, as long as those letters/papers can be reprinted here. I have no unique hypotheses. You can assume that I generally accept the official version of the tower collapses as plausible and backed by good science.

I'll await your dissertation. Send it to nyctours (at) gmail (dot) com.

[drkitten]

And what makes you qualified to be the judge of what is or isn't a REAL JOURNAL? How would you know what journals people give a toss about?

You don't want to go there. There are people on this thread with substantial experience judging the quality of journals.

In direct answer to your question, what makes me qualified to be the judge of what is and isn't a "real journal" is professional experience. It's part of my job to sit in judgment upon my peers and students, especially at tenure review time, but also when doing hiring, graduate student evaluation, grant review, merit awards, and so forth.

As to how I know -- well, I'm an expert, and I've been in the field for some time. There's also a well-developed support system in place to help me make those judgements; for example, ISI publishes a periodicals index that includes concepts like "impact factor" to help me determine the degree to which a paper is read, and more importantly, cited. Other factors include the quality of the editorial board, the quality of any sample papers that I've read, and so forth.

And by all those measures, the Journal of 911 Studies does not score well. The editorial board is frankly pathetic, the articles that I've read are drivel, and the impact factor doesn't even make the radar.

I would in fact be hard-pressed to name a journal less valuable, less informative, and in general less. I suggest that J911 is not worth the paper it's written on -- and I say this in the complete belief that it is an electronic-only journal. This journal is literally of negative value. Any faculty candidate who appeared before me with this journal in his/her CV would probably be passed over for an interview as a result; any student who cited this journal in any work they submitted to me for credit would receive a lowered grade.

It's a vanity journal run by a bunch of unqualified near-illiterates. I feel sorry for you that you bother to write for it.

[beachnut]

What a laugh you are. You are truly a legend in your own mind. What you in your limited scientific abilities are claiming as errors were not errors and I explained that earlier. Who do you think are you kidding? You sound like you went to the Joseph Goebbels school of debate. That is, to just keep repeating a lie and sooner or later people will believe it. I am tempted to say it is you who may actually be a fraud and a liar to boot. It is starting to look like you have a strategy to constantly accuse others of what you actually may be, to shift the focus off of your distortions. Unfortunately , some people fall for it. I doubt it is many though.

Like Abe Lincoln said "You can fool some of the people all the time, you can even fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

You are starting to be seen for who you really are. I doubt many know for sure but I believe they are starting to put it together about you.

You obviously aren't qualified to peer review any scientific paper so you have no basis to call Jones and Ryan frauds. You are truly disgraceful and without shame. I am beginning to believe you are a professional propagandist. How long did you say you have been a NYC tour guide? Oh, I forgot you didn't answer those questions I asked. How long have you lived in NYC and what else besides being a tour guide have you done in your life?

Go debate Jim Fetzer, he is more your speed, although more respectful to some degree. You can do Hardfire again with your fellow propagandist Ronald Wieck. What a fraud that show was as Wieck's attempt to appear impartial was an obvious failure.
But not only has Gravy hit this one out of the park, Jones and Ryan are frauds and everyone who is able to read and comprehend agrees. Jones started a journal on line because real journals do not publish junk. Most of the papers the Jones institute of fraud and 9/11 lies contain political rant. If you can not see the junk in the papers go get help from real scholars.

[Slayhamlet]

You don't want to go there. There are people on this thread with substantial experience judging the quality of journals.

In direct answer to your question, what makes me qualified to be the judge of what is and isn't a "real journal" is professional experience. It's part of my job to sit in judgment upon my peers and students, especially at tenure review time, but also when doing hiring, graduate student evaluation, grant review, merit awards, and so forth.

As to how I know -- well, I'm an expert, and I've been in the field for some time. There's also a well-developed support system in place to help me make those judgements; for example, ISI publishes a periodicals index that includes concepts like "impact factor" to help me determine the degree to which a paper is read, and more importantly, cited. Other factors include the quality of the editorial board, the quality of any sample papers that I've read, and so forth.

And by all those measures, the Journal of 911 Studies does not score well. The editorial board is frankly pathetic, the articles that I've read are drivel, and the impact factor doesn't even make the radar.

I would in fact be hard-pressed to name a journal less valuable, less informative, and in general less. I suggest that J911 is not worth the paper it's written on -- and I say this in the complete belief that it is an electronic-only journal. This journal is literally of negative value. Any faculty candidate who appeared before me with this journal in his/her CV would probably be passed over for an interview as a result; any student who cited this journal in any work they submitted to me for credit would receive a lowered grade.

It's a vanity journal run by a bunch of unqualified near-illiterates. I feel sorry for you that you bother to write for it.

Oh, so realcddeal is a contributor to the "Journal" of 9/11 Studies? That explains a lot.

:dl:

[bonavada]

....
firefighters mentioned seeing, feeling, and hearing explosions both before and during the collapses of the towers....


this firefighter mentions something else. should his comments be taken as literally? people say the same things differently. it's called analogy. look it up.

v_CmZMkvQ_w

BV

[Tony Szamboti]

You don't want to go there. There are people on this thread with substantial experience judging the quality of journals.

In direct answer to your question, what makes me qualified to be the judge of what is and isn't a "real journal" is professional experience. It's part of my job to sit in judgment upon my peers and students, especially at tenure review time, but also when doing hiring, graduate student evaluation, grant review, merit awards, and so forth.

As to how I know -- well, I'm an expert, and I've been in the field for some time. There's also a well-developed support system in place to help me make those judgements; for example, ISI publishes a periodicals index that includes concepts like "impact factor" to help me determine the degree to which a paper is read, and more importantly, cited. Other factors include the quality of the editorial board, the quality of any sample papers that I've read, and so forth.

And by all those measures, the Journal of 911 Studies does not score well. The editorial board is frankly pathetic, the articles that I've read are drivel, and the impact factor doesn't even make the radar.

I would in fact be hard-pressed to name a journal less valuable, less informative, and in general less. I suggest that J911 is not worth the paper it's written on -- and I say this in the complete belief that it is an electronic-only journal. This journal is literally of negative value. Any faculty candidate who appeared before me with this journal in his/her CV would probably be passed over for an interview as a result; any student who cited this journal in any work they submitted to me for credit would receive a lowered grade.

It's a vanity journal run by a bunch of unqualified near-illiterates. I feel sorry for you that you bother to write for it.

drkitten, if you noticed I was addressing CHF with the question, based on his comment. Why did you think you needed to answer? Unless you are CHF also.

[stateofgrace]

drkitten, if you noticed I was addressing CHF with the question, based on his comment. Why did you think you needed to answer? Unless you are CHF also.

I actually think drkitten gave a very well worded, very informative answer; maybe you should address what he wrote, rather than trying to side step it and making unsubstantiated claims.

[jsfisher]

drkitten, if you noticed I was addressing CHF with the question, based on his comment. Why did you think you needed to answer? Unless you are CHF also.

Drkitten, I warned you. You need to raise your hand if you have a question or need to make a comment. Realcddeal will call on you when it's your turn. Stop trying to butt in. How can you learn if you continue to be disruptive?

[Tony Szamboti]

Excellent. I accept, as long as those letters/papers can be reprinted here. I have no unique hypotheses. You can assume that I generally accept the official version of the tower collapses as plausible and backed by good science.

I'll await your dissertation. Send it to nyctours (at) gmail (dot) com.

Not so fast there Mark. You are the one who is supposed to write a critique of the paper you were chastising and have it published on a Journal. Otherwise there is no basis for the debate. I told you I would then reply with a letter to that Journal. I have no problem with you providing links to or reprinting your critiquing letter and my reply on this forum so long as you get your critique published in a Journal first.

In fact, I might as well tell everyone here I am Tony Szamboti so you have no holds on you. As far as I know, you did keep your word that you would not reveal my identity if I told you who I was, when you asked me to send you an e-mail due to your questioning whether or not I was an engineer.

You need to write your letter Mr. Roberts. What Journal will you submit your letter to?

[Tony Szamboti]

A real journal is one that has a history of reviewing and publishing the subject matter in question.

A real journal is one where the brightest minds submit their work.

A real journal is not created for the sake of avoiding a real peer-review in a real journal!

Just astounding logic here.

Maybe it's just me but did you actually say something in all those words? I guess when those other journals you talk about started maybe they were avoiding a real peer-review in a real journal too.

No wonder drkitten answered.

[beachnut]

Not so fast there Mark. You are the one who is supposed to write a critique of the paper you were chastising and have it published on a Journal. Otherwise there is no basis for the debate. I told you I would then reply with a letter to that Journal. I have no problem with you providing links to or reprinting your critiquing letter and my reply on this forum so long as you get your critique published in a Journal first.

In fact, I might as well tell everyone here I am Tony Szamboti so you have no holds on you. As far as I know, you did keep your word that you would not reveal my identity if I told you who I was, when you asked me to send you an e-mail due to your questioning whether or not I was an engineer.

You need to write your letter Mr. Roberts. What Journal will you submit your letter to?
I was wondering how you would weasel out of this. Nice backpedaling truther. Run away home. CD, is a joke, you are now the same.

[Gravy]

In fact, I might as well tell everyone here I am Tony Szamboti so you have no holds on you. As far as I know, you did keep your word that you would not reveal my identity if I told you who I was, when you asked me to send you an e-mail due to your questioning whether or not I was an engineer.

You need to write your letter Mr. Roberts. What Journal will you submit your letter to?Hey, he admitted it!

I'll be submitting my letter to you by email, Tony, and will post it here. Give me a few days. I've got many things on my plate.

Also, I reserve the option to retain the holds on me. :eye-poppi

[drkitten]

drkitten, if you noticed I was addressing CHF with the question, based on his comment. Why did you think you needed to answer?

Because the questions "how do you evaluate the worth of a journal" and "is the journal of 9-11 studies meritorious" are both questions worth answering, regardless of the person who answers. If you're under the impression that CHF's statement that J911 is worthless cat-box liner can somehow be dismissed because he, personally, doesn't have the expertise to make that statement, I thought I would "head you off at the pass."

I do have the expertise, and I agree with that statement.


Maybe it's just me but did you actually say something in all those words? I guess when those other journals you talk about started maybe they were avoiding a real peer-review in a real journal too.

No, they weren't. Granted, every journal has to start somewhere, and there's always a first volume/issue, at which point, the journal doesn't have a track record.

Oddly enough, we are aware of this. A lot of researchers, myself included, are nervous about submitting to a newly launched journal for precisely this reason; the fear that the journal will be total drek. This is where the other criteria come in. "A real journal is one where the brightest minds submit their work." One of the duties of the editorial board is to solicit articles and write them themselves, so you can get an idea of who will be writing in a brand-new journal by looking at the board. Ask yourself this question : "would I be proud to have an article in the same issue as these people?" "Would I be embarassed?" In the case of J9/11S, I'd be embarassed....

Furthermore, most journals are started, not to avoid peer review in "real" journals, but because there is an existing reseach community that has grown to the point where the then-existing journals can't really handle the publication load. When half of the Journal of XYZ is about W, then it's probably time to spin off the Journal of WXYZ. Again, J9/11S doesn't score well; I haven't seen an overabundance of high quality papers in the mainstream engineering press about 9/11 -- in fact, I don't think I've seen any high quality papers supporting 9/11 conspiracies in the mainstream engineering press.

But that's still largely irrelevant, because J9/11S is not a new publication and we can see it's publication history. And the most damning evidence that it's a lousy journal is that it publishes lousy, badly-written, badly-edited, badly-reviewed papers.

[Tony Szamboti]

Hey, he admitted it!

I'll be submitting my letter to you by email, Tony, and will post it here. Give me a few days. I've got many things on my plate.

Also, I reserve the option to retain the holds on me. :eye-poppi

You mean you aren't going to submit it to a journal?

[Tony Szamboti]

Because the questions "how do you evaluate the worth of a journal" and "is the journal of 9-11 studies meritorious" are both questions worth answering, regardless of the person who answers. If you're under the impression that CHF's statement that J911 is worthless cat-box liner can somehow be dismissed because he, personally, doesn't have the expertise to make that statement, I thought I would "head you off at the pass."

I do have the expertise, and I agree with that statement.



No, they weren't. Granted, every journal has to start somewhere, and there's always a first volume/issue, at which point, the journal doesn't have a track record.

Oddly enough, we are aware of this. A lot of researchers, myself included, are nervous about submitting to a newly launched journal for precisely this reason; the fear that the journal will be total drek. This is where the other criteria come in. "A real journal is one where the brightest minds submit their work." One of the duties of the editorial board is to solicit articles and write them themselves, so you can get an idea of who will be writing in a brand-new journal by looking at the board. Ask yourself this question : "would I be proud to have an article in the same issue as these people?" "Would I be embarassed?" In the case of J9/11S, I'd be embarassed....

Furthermore, most journals are started, not to avoid peer review in "real" journals, but because there is an existing reseach community that has grown to the point where the then-existing journals can't really handle the publication load. When half of the Journal of XYZ is about W, then it's probably time to spin off the Journal of WXYZ. Again, J9/11S doesn't score well; I haven't seen an overabundance of high quality papers in the mainstream engineering press about 9/11 -- in fact, I don't think I've seen any high quality papers supporting 9/11 conspiracies in the mainstream engineering press.

But that's still largely irrelevant, because J9/11S is not a new publication and we can see it's publication history. And the most damning evidence that it's a lousy journal is that it publishes lousy, badly-written, badly-edited, badly-reviewed papers.

Nobody says you aren't entitled to your opinion but that is all it is.

As complete as your reply here is I am surprised you didn't mention the fact that some publications in history have also been started because the controversial nature of what was being discussed couldn't get a fair hearing in established publications.

[Tony Szamboti]

I was wondering how you would weasel out of this. Nice backpedaling truther. Run away home. CD, is a joke, you are now the same.

Don't tell me your just another pretty face backing up your words with nothing.

I told Mark that I would not debate him on this forum. Just writing a paper and reprinting it here is the same thing. Go back and read my earlier posts from yesterday on this.

[Gravy]

You mean you aren't going to submit it to a journal?A Journal? How about the American Journal of Enology?

You mean that something is about to happen that will render you incapable of dealing with me directly, as you are now?

Cut the crap, Tony, and leave out the cowardly and incompetent middlemen. This is a debate challenge. Either you agree to defend your paper in direct correspondence with me or you don't. Which is it?

[Revolutionary91]

Welcome to the forum Tony. As you can see, it's a bit bereft of any actual science at the moment. Lets hope you can help change that.

[drkitten]

How can you learn if you continue to be disruptive?

What, another trip to the headmaster's office?

Cool. He's got that jar of jelly beans on his desk....

[jsfisher]

What, another trip to the headmaster's office?

Cool. He's got that jar of jelly beans on his desk....


Don't eat the green ones.

[drkitten]

Nobody says you aren't entitled to your opinion but that is all it is.

Yup. That's all it is : expert opinion, backed by reason, evidence, training, and skill.

[Gravy]

Nobody says you aren't entitled to your opinion but that is all it is.Correct. The expert opinion of someone who produces and reviews actual scholarly work for reputable journals.

[Tony Szamboti]

A Journal? How about the American Journal of Enology?

You mean that something is about to happen that will render you incapable of dealing with me directly, as you are now?

Cut the crap, Tony, and leave out the cowardly and incompetent middlemen. This is a debate challenge. Either you agree to defend your paper in direct correspondence with me or you don't. Which is it?

I told you I would not debate the scientific issues with you here any longer, and you are trying to do an end around. I told you to write a letter to a journal critiquing my paper. It can be any journal. However, I believe the only chance your paper, on this subject, has of being published is in the Journal of 911 Studies. Are you afraid you will get cooties if you submit a letter to them? Journals ensure civility and legitimate debate.

In an e-mail I informed Dr. Jones that I had challenged you to write a critiquing letter of my paper. I am sure it would be published, as was Newton's Bit's letter concerning his critique of one of Gordon Ross' papers.

I also said you are welcome to reprint the letters, yours and mine, here after they are published.

Feel free to take your time writing it.

[drkitten]

As complete as your reply here is I am surprised you didn't mention the fact that some publications in history have also been started because the controversial nature of what was being discussed couldn't get a fair hearing in established publications.

There are three very good reasons for that. It's not relevant, it's not relevant, and it's not relevant.

First of all, I'm not aware of any such journals -- I assume you would like to claim that J9/11S is one such, but the quality of the papers makes it clear that a "fair hearing" would result in their rejection from established publications. Granted, with tens of thousands of publications out there, there may be a very few that started due to the process you describe, but they're rare enough to qualify as "noise in the system," especially when what you were asking was the process by which "all those other journals" started.

As a matter of fact, prior to about ten years ago (-ish), the process you describe wouldn't really have even been possible. In the age of print (as opposed to electronic) publishing, the individual unpopular scholars wouldn't have been able to get together to share their views outside of the ordinary channels of scholastic publishing. If I am the only person in California with an interest in Elvish Linguistics, and you're the only person in Ireland with the same interest.... how will we find each other without the Web?

If you are aware of any now-reputable journals that started because the early researchers couldn't get quality research published in mainstream journals, please let me know.

The second reason that it's not relevant is because that's a common lie, told by hundreds if not thousands of quacks, frauds, and reprobates -- a good
example of how that lie is told is through the "Journal of Historical Review," essentially a quasi-journal devoted to Holocaust Denial, claims simply to be providing an alternative channel for politically unacceptable writing. The actual situation is now a matter of public record following Irving's loss in Irving vs. Penguin Books. In point of fact, that lie almost always covers the fact that the journal was in fact, created to avoid standard standards of scholarship -- in the case of JHR, "don't falsify evidence" was one such standard.

The third reason it's not relevant is because the quality of the articles published in J9/11S make it clear that "a fair hearing" in the mainstream press would have resulted in outright rejection for all the papers I read. Not just for the fact that their conclusions are unpopular, but for the simple reason that the papers are appalingly badly-written. The paper is rife with minor errors such as missing footnotes and bad formatting, and with major errors such as a complete lack of any background or reference to the existing literature with the single exception of the NIST report. Perhaps some of the papers could be cleaned up and made acceptable for publication. The fact that they weren't is a good illustration of how bad the "review" is at the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

So: not relevant, not relevant, and not relevant.

[Tony Szamboti]

Correct. The expert opinion of someone who produces and reviews actual scholarly work for reputable journals.

I believe the subjectivity of the peer review process has been brought to light here by experienced people like Dr. Greening and others.

[Gravy]

I told you I would not debate the scientific issues with you here any longer, and you are trying to do an end around.Any longer? You haven't even started. You have repeatedly refused to read the information I've cited, and your entire criticism of NIST here has been to claim the the investigators are frauds and the witnesses liars.

I told you to write a letter to a journal critiquing my paper. It can be any journal. Tony, do you even read what you write? Why in the world would I write to "any" journal about your paper? Please try to make sense.

Here's the only journal I'd actually consider writing to about your paper. (http://www.jir.com/)

Your paper is not published in a journal that has any credibilty. JONES is a dumpster filled by frauds and cowards and I won't have my work on their website. Remember, its supervisor of peer review just ran away from the chance to debate me, after proclaiming that no one was willing to defend the official version of the tower collapses. He had to hide behind the skirts of the 9/11blogger mods and have them ban me. He never responded to my emails. Yep, the people at JONES are fearless seekers and defenders of truth. These are the leaders of your movement, Tony. Think about it.

Your refusal to defend your paper is noted by all. You couldn't even refute the points I raised against it before people knew you were the author.

Man, I hate intellectual cowards.

[jsfisher]

I told you I would not debate the scientific issues with you here any longer, and you are trying to do an end around. I told you to write a letter to a journal critiquing my paper. It can be any journal. However, I believe the only chance your paper, on this subject, has of being published is in the Journal of 911 Studies. Are you afraid you will get cooties if you submit a letter to them? Journals ensure civility and legitimate debate.


So, if I or someone else here created the Journal of Gravy Critiques, complete with web site and official sounding statement of purpose and editorial board and everything like that, that would qualify as a journal, right?

[Gravy]

I believe the subjectivity of the peer review process has been brought to light here by experienced people like Dr. Greening and others.An amazing statement, if you're trying to defend JONES.

[Revolutionary91]

Why are these scientists even lowering themselves to debate these laymen?

Tony, you will find no science here.

[CHF]

I told you I would not debate the scientific issues with you here any longer, and you are trying to do an end around. I told you to write a letter to a journal critiquing my paper. It can be any journal. However, the only chance your paper on this subject has of being published is in the Journal of 911 Studies.

Tony, you seem to be operating on the assumption that Journal of 911 Studies is an actual journal worthy of scientific or public respect. It's not! It's a kook rag created by one of your "brightest" minds because he couldn't get a real journal to give his mindless idiocy the time of day.

He created a journal and hired his pal Kevin Ryan in order to get his work "peer-reviewed" because no one else could be bothered. How many other journals started up for that reason, Tony? How do you expect people to regard a journal like that?

I told you to write a letter to a journal critiquing my paper. It can be any journal.

It can be any journal. That's how serious you take publication and peer-review.

[drkitten]

So, if I or someone else here created the Journal of Gravy Critiques, complete with web site and official sounding statement of purpose and editorial board and everything like that, that would qualify as a journal, right?


Quite possibly a better one than J9/11S. Depending upon who you got for the board. For example:


Yourself (as Editor-in-Chief)
Wile E. Coyote
Santa Claus
King Theoden of Rohan
Captain Jean-Luc Picard
Iron Man
The Tin Woodsman
Darth Maul
and Captain Nemo


would probably work. I'd trust the technical expertise of your board over theirs....

[drkitten]

Why are these scientists even lowering themselves to debate these laymen?

Because -- for my sins -- I am not just a "scientist." I am, unfortunately, an "educator," and part of my penance is therefore that I have to teach people things.

In this case, I'm trying to teach whoever will listen exactly what is involved in the peer-review process, exactly what distinguishes a good journal from the bottom of a bird cage, and how scientific publication really works.

[CHF]

Why are these scientists even lowering themselves to debate these laymen?

Mark's actually doing you guys a favour, Rev.

No real scientist can be bothered wasting their time on twoofer idiocy; just like how famous historians don't sit down and debate Holocaust Deniers.

People like Mark are at least offering you guys someone to debate - someone who doesn't have degrees in engineering but has read up on twoofer lore and is willing to take twoofers on.

Thus far we've seen that your brightest minds don't have the balls to take on a NYC tour guide.

So what bloody hope do you have against real scientists?

[Revolutionary91]

No real scientist can be bothered wasting their time on twoofer idiocy; just like how famous historians don't sit down and debate Holocaust Deniers.



So you are saying Greening isnt a real scientist?

[CHF]

So you are saying Greening isnt a real scientist?

You're right for once. I forgot about Frank.

Yes, Greening is indeed a scientist, and his published work on 9/11 has demolished its share of twoofer claims.

Good example, Rev.

[drkitten]

He created a journal and hired his pal Kevin Ryan in order to get his work "peer-reviewed" because no one else could be bothered. How many other journals started up for that reason, Tony? How do you expect people to regard a journal like that?


First banana : I say, I say, I say,... How is the Journal of 9/11 Studies' web page like the bottom of a bird cage?

Second banana : I don't know, how is the Journal of 9/11 Studies' web page like the bottom of a bird cage?

First banana : Because they're both simply covered with ****!

[rimshot]

[Gravy]

Mark's actually doing you guys a favour, Rev.

No real scientist can be bothered wasting their time on twoofer idiocy; just like how famous historians don't sit down and debate Holocaust Deniers.

People like Mark are at least offering you guys someone to debate - someone who doesn't have degrees in engineering but has read up on twoofer lore and is willing to take twoofers on.

Thus far we've seen that your brightest minds don't have the balls to take on a NYC tour guide.

So what bloody hope do you have against real scientists?


Rev is hilarious. Remember, it was Rev who challenged me to debate Kevin Ryan, who ran like a scared bunny. In case Rev missed it, these "scientists" aren't debating these laymen, because they know they'll be humiliated.

realcddeal is an aerospace engineer. You'd think he could handle someone with no science training, but he can't, because he has abandoned the principles of science in favor of political rants.

[Revolutionary91]

You're right for once. I forgot about Frank.

Yes, Greening is indeed a scientist, and his published work on 9/11 has demolished its share of twoofer claims.

Good example, Rev.

So if they have a real scientist like Greening to tangle with, why would they bother to debate a tour guide? Greening is also a true skeptic.

[Pardalis]

So if they have a real scientist like Greening to tangle with, why would they bother to debate a tour guide? Greening is also a true skeptic.

Should we talk about your profession?

[CHF]

Mark, whenever I hear a twoofer calling for a debate opponent I automatically ask myself "what excuse will this one use when the well-read NYC tour guide comes calling?"

And to think the US government is supposedly shaking in fear at the impending "truth" revolution.

[CHF]

So if they have a real scientist like Greening to tangle with, why would they bother to debate a tour guide? Greening is also a true skeptic.

Wonderful!

Get one of your "scientists" to debate Greening on, say, pulverization during collapse.

Or maybe they should start with the tour guide and work their way up. :D

[Revolutionary91]

Wonderful!

Get one of your "scientists" to debate Greening on, say, pulverization during collapse.

Or maybe they should start with the tour guide and work their way up. :D

Gordon Ross agreed to the disputation that pomeroo set up. Greening and RMackey and Newtons Bit all said no.

Whos running from who again?

[CHF]

Gordon Ross agreed to the disputation that pomeroo set up. Greening and RMackey and Newtons Bit all said no.

And their stated reason was....?

Whos running from who again?

Kevin Ryan, GR Griffin and Tony are running from Mark Roberts. That much I know for sure.

[R.Mackey]

Here's a hint (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2758870#post2758870).

Somebody PM me if the kid ever gets anything right, will you? I can't bear to watch.

[Tony Szamboti]

Because the questions "how do you evaluate the worth of a journal" and "is the journal of 9-11 studies meritorious" are both questions worth answering, regardless of the person who answers. If you're under the impression that CHF's statement that J911 is worthless cat-box liner can somehow be dismissed because he, personally, doesn't have the expertise to make that statement, I thought I would "head you off at the pass."

I do have the expertise, and I agree with that statement.



No, they weren't. Granted, every journal has to start somewhere, and there's always a first volume/issue, at which point, the journal doesn't have a track record.

Oddly enough, we are aware of this. A lot of researchers, myself included, are nervous about submitting to a newly launched journal for precisely this reason; the fear that the journal will be total drek. This is where the other criteria come in. "A real journal is one where the brightest minds submit their work." One of the duties of the editorial board is to solicit articles and write them themselves, so you can get an idea of who will be writing in a brand-new journal by looking at the board. Ask yourself this question : "would I be proud to have an article in the same issue as these people?" "Would I be embarassed?" In the case of J9/11S, I'd be embarassed....

Furthermore, most journals are started, not to avoid peer review in "real" journals, but because there is an existing reseach community that has grown to the point where the then-existing journals can't really handle the publication load. When half of the Journal of XYZ is about W, then it's probably time to spin off the Journal of WXYZ. Again, J9/11S doesn't score well; I haven't seen an overabundance of high quality papers in the mainstream engineering press about 9/11 -- in fact, I don't think I've seen any high quality papers supporting 9/11 conspiracies in the mainstream engineering press.

But that's still largely irrelevant, because J9/11S is not a new publication and we can see it's publication history. And the most damning evidence that it's a lousy journal is that it publishes lousy, badly-written, badly-edited, badly-reviewed papers.

I usually judge an individual paper on its individual merits. You sound like you give a huge amount of credit up front based on where it has been published. I do agree with some of that but it should not be taken to an extreme. There have been numerous frauds in highly reputable journals over the years.

[CHF]

Here's a hint (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2758870#post2758870).

Somebody PM me if the kid ever gets anything right, will you? I can't bear to watch.

Yeah I didn't recall it being a matter of you fearing the great Ross.

So...Rev...in the meantime I guess your experts will have to be content with crushing Mark Roberts in a debate, huh?

I mean that would really put the JREFers and our NWO masters in our place!

So...who's stepping up from your side?

[Gravy]

I usually judge an individual paper on its individual merits. You sound like you give a huge amount of credit up front based on where it has been published. I do agree with some of that but it should not be taken to an extreme. There have been numerous frauds in highly reputable journals over the years.realcddeal, if you think there's a difference between "publishing" at JONES and posting here, and if you think your paper was actually peer reviewed, then you'll be able to list the changes you had to make to get the paper passed by the reviewers.

Or was your paper accepted as is?

[CHF]

I usually judge an individual paper on its individual merits.

And if those individual merits make for a positive judgment then I'm sure a prestigious non-truther publication will see things the same way.

Right?

[Revolutionary91]

Yeah I didn't recall it being a matter of you fearing the great Ross.

So...Rev...in the meantime I guess your experts will have to be content with crushing Mark Roberts in a debate, huh?

I mean that would really put the JREFers and our NWO masters in our place!

So...who's stepping up from your side?

Ross is up for debating scientists. All your scientists have fled. Why should they accept the scraps (tour guide) that you throw them?

[Pardalis]

What do you do Rev?

[CHF]

Ross is up for debating scientists. All your scientists have fled. Why should they accept the scraps (tour guide) that you throw them?

I already told you.

Ross has a chance to crush the great Gravy. What more incentive could a truther possibly ask for?

A successful debate by Ross would make him front page news at prisonplanet for the next year at least. He'd be a hero in Truther Land! And all he has to do is debate a tour guide....

[Corsair 115]

Welcome to the forum Tony. As you can see, it's a bit bereft of any actual science at the moment.Says the poster who presented absolutely ZERO science to support his position that the moon landings were faked.

[CHF]

Hey, speaking of Gordon Ross...where have his papers been published or peer-reviewed?

[Tony Szamboti]

Any longer? You haven't even started. You have repeatedly refused to read the information I've cited, and your entire criticism of NIST here has been to claim the the investigators are frauds and the witnesses liars.

Tony, do you even read what you write? Why in the world would I write to "any" journal about your paper? Please try to make sense.

Here's the only journal I'd actually consider writing to about your paper. (http://www.jir.com/)


Your paper is not published in a journal that has any credibilty. JONES is a dumpster filled by frauds and cowards and I won't have my work on their website. Remember, its supervisor of peer review just ran away from the chance to debate me, after proclaiming that no one was willing to defend the official version of the tower collapses. He had to hide behind the skirts of the 9/11blogger mods and have them ban me. He never responded to my emails. Yep, the people at JONES are fearless seekers and defenders of truth. These are the leaders of your movement, Tony. Think about it.

Your refusal to defend your paper is noted by all. You couldn't even refute the points I raised against it before people knew you were the author.

Man, I hate intellectual cowards.

I know what I said about any journal. You are one of those who take pot shots at others for not submitting their work on 911 to other, in your words, "legitimate journals" whatever you imagine that to be. You should take your own advice. There are no other journals that would touch most of what is being said about 911 because it is too controversial at the moment. The mere fact that a paper discusses problems with government reports concerning the largest mass murder ever on American soil make it controversial.

However, that should not stop debate and Dr. Steven Jones created the Journal of 911 Studies to fill that void.

I am not refusing to defend my paper. It is you who is refusing to take the first step now. The onus is on you. Stop hiding behind your "its not a legitimate journal" nonsense. The journal has nothing to do with the debate between you and I except to ensure civility, which won't happen here. I wouldn't debate someone like you on 911 Blogger either. Forums like this are bloated with ridiculers who either don't or can't debate. The problem then becomes personal and strays from the issues. All you need to do is write your letter and e-mail it to the Journal of 911 Studies and I will certainly respond. It sounds like you are the one who is afraid.

[CHF]

I know what I said about any journal. You are one of those who take pot shots at others for not submitting their work on 911 to other, in your words, "legitimate journals" whatever you imagine that to be.

I think it's been made quite clear to you what a legitimate journal is, Tony.

Stop playing dumb.

All you need to do is write your letter and e-mail it to the Journal of 911 Studies and I will certainly respond. It sounds like you are the one who is afraid.

In other words you want Mark to play along and pretend that the Jo911S is serious.

[Tony Szamboti]

Mark, whenever I hear a twoofer calling for a debate opponent I automatically ask myself "what excuse will this one use when the well-read NYC tour guide comes calling?"

And to think the US government is supposedly shaking in fear at the impending "truth" revolution.

I am wondering if your use of a raccoon as a logo means you only come out at night?

[Tony Szamboti]

[QUOTE=CHF;2856162]I think it's been made quite clear to you what a legitimate journal is, Tony.

Not by you.

Stop playing dumb.

I don't think I am the one doing that.

In other words you want Mark to play along and pretend that the Jo911S is serious.

There is nothing wrong with Mark Roberts writing a rebuttal to my paper at the Journal of 911 Studies. Dr. Greening did it. Is Mark somehow better than Dr. Greening?

[CHF]

I am wondering if your use of a raccoon as a logo means you only come out at night?

No it means I think it's a cute picture that I took while camping last year.

Must truthers always read too much into things?

[Revolutionary91]

I already told you.

Ross has a chance to crush the great Gravy. What more incentive could a truther possibly ask for?

A successful debate by Ross would make him front page news at prisonplanet for the next year at least. He'd be a hero in Truther Land! And all he has to do is debate a tour guide....

Great! Im glad to hear that Gravy has agreed to this disputation with Ross. I will let Ross know. Im sure he cant wait to get started.

[CHF]

There is nothing wrong with Mark Roberts writing a rebuttal to my paper at the Journal of 911 Studies.

Why give you the business when it can be posted here with the same value and effect?

[Tony Szamboti]

realcddeal, if you think there's a difference between "publishing" at JONES and posting here, and if you think your paper was actually peer reviewed, then you'll be able to list the changes you had to make to get the paper passed by the reviewers.

Or was your paper accepted as is?

It wasn't accepted "as is" and there were some changes. I don't need to tell you what they were.

As someone who has reviewed thousands of engineering drawings and documents I know what a review entails and my paper was reviewed by several people who were qualified to do so.

Man, you are fishing aren't you.

[Tony Szamboti]

Why give you the business when it can be posted here with the same value and effect?

Because I don't feel like putting up with interjected comments every time I need to answer a question.

The letters can be posted here after Mark gets his letter published and I respond. Why is that such a problem?

[Revolutionary91]

This is big news. Gravy has bottled out of a genuine debate. The JREF Denialist cult is collapsing, essentially in freefall.

[beachnut]

Because I don't feel like putting up with interjected comments every time I need to answer a question.

The letters can be posted here after Mark gets his letter published and I respond. Why is that such a problem?

In the past year there has been an exponential growth in the number of people
who see 9/11 truth as a hoax, and just plain misinformation.

The real speed of the design impact was 180 mph, slow speed aircraft impact. Why are you using a 607 mph for impact design. There are many reasons why this was not really the design impact speed used on the WTC. 250KIAS below 10.000 feet. At 1300 feet the planes would be below 200 KIAS for landing. The maximum speed for a 707 is really 350 KCAS, and the typical speed would only be 300 KIAS, if the pilot was breaking the other rules. But over 355 KCAS would be deliberate, as on 9/11.

The real speed of the design impact was 180 mph, slow speed aircraft impact. Why are you using a 607 mph for impact design. There are many reasons why this was not really the design impact speed used on the WTC. 250KIAS below 10.000 feet. At 1300 feet the planes would be below 200 KIAS for landing. The maximum speed for a 707 is really 350 KCAS, and the typical speed would only be 300 KIAS, if the pilot was breaking the other rules. But over 355 KCAS would be deliberate, as on 9/11.

Debunking you would be easy to do. Any EE, or MSEE (any BSXE or MSXE, or even an ATP could do it; and Gravy could do it better. So what is your decision? I need to save your pathetic paper before you change the dumb stuff, like all of it. Your paper is not indicative of an engineer.

To date these papers have not been challenged in writing, or shown to be incorrect in any way. Most engineers and scientist do not pick on the mentally impaired people at 9/11 truth and justice fools. (just the facts, but why would real engineers write papers to the journal of woo? http://journalof911studies.com/ (http://journalof911studies.com/) is this the papers no one has challenged in writing? Wooooooooooowoo)

[CHF]

The letters can be posted here after Mark gets his letter published and I respond. Why is that such a problem?

Because

Your

Journal

Is

A

Joke

[Revolutionary91]

Great! Im glad to hear that Gravy has agreed to this disputation with Ross. I will let Ross know. Im sure he cant wait to get started.

Bump for CHF.

[Tony Szamboti]

who see 9/11 truth as a hoax, and just plain misinformation.

Not saying you are but just reminding you that none of us can deny that there has been an exponential growth in the number of people questioning the events of 911 in the past year.

In honest debate the wheat will be separated from the chaff. I think the problem is our government has not been totally forthcoming about 911 and a lot of people believe that to be true even if they don't think it was an inside job.

[Revolutionary91]

Because

Your

Journal

Is

A

Joke

And what is this place? A magicians forum with less science than the cavemen had.

[Hokulele]

And what is this place? A magicians forum with less science than the cavemen had.


If you do not find this thread interesting, there are many threads you have abandoned with questions you are avoiding. Care to provide some answers? No? Why not?

[CHF]

Rev, it would indeed be nice to see someone take on Gravy.

If Ross is game then pass on word to Gravy himself. I'm not his agent.

By the way, I can't tell you how revolting your avatar is. You have serious issues.

[Tony Szamboti]

who see 9/11 truth as a hoax, and just plain misinformation.

The real speed of the design impact was 180 mph, slow speed aircraft impact. Why are you using a 607 mph for impact design. There are many reasons why this was not really the design impact speed used on the WTC. 250KIAS below 10.000 feet. At 1300 feet the planes would be below 200 KIAS for landing. The maximum speed for a 707 is really 350 KCAS, and the typical speed would only be 300 KIAS, if the pilot was breaking the other rules. But over 355 KCAS would be deliberate, as on 9/11.

The real speed of the design impact was 180 mph, slow speed aircraft impact. Why are you using a 607 mph for impact design. There are many reasons why this was not really the design impact speed used on the WTC. 250KIAS below 10.000 feet. At 1300 feet the planes would be below 200 KIAS for landing. The maximum speed for a 707 is really 350 KCAS, and the typical speed would only be 300 KIAS, if the pilot was breaking the other rules. But over 355 KCAS would be deliberate, as on 9/11.

Debunking you would be easy to do. Any EE, or MSEE (any BSXE or MSXE, or even an ATP could do it; and Gravy could do it better. So what is your decision? I need to save your pathetic paper before you change the dumb stuff, like all of it. Your paper is not indicative of an engineer.

You have no idea what impact speed was used in the design do you?

How fast do you think commercial aircraft like the 707 are moving just twenty miles after takeoff?

Have altimeters ever been known to malfunction?

What reasons would a good engineer give for deciding not to use the maximum speed of the aircraft if it was feasible both structurally and cost wise to design the building to withstand the impact at that speed?

And where do you get the maximum speed of a 707 to be 350 KIAS? Go take a look at the Boeing site for the 707 and you will see it is over 600 mph. You can't even get the plane's speed right and you want to go out on a limb and say debunking me is easy. Well that limb just broke and you are on the ground with zero KIAS.

Well it is time to say goodnight. Have fun but don't forget to do a little research before going off half cocked.

[Revolutionary91]

Rev, it would indeed be nice to see someone take on Gravy.

If Ross is game then pass on word to Gravy himself. I'm not his agent.

By the way, I can't tell you how revolting your avatar is. You have serious issues.

You seem to have backtracked a bit since you said

Ross has a chance to crush the great Gravy.

Gravy knows about the disputation, pomeroo was asking for takers. Gravy has not accepted.

[CHF]

Gravy knows about the disputation, pomeroo was asking for takers. Gravy has not accepted.

Seeing how you already misrepresented R.Mackey on such an issue I'm gonna wait for Gravy's response to that.
(http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=9193)

[beachnut]

You have no idea what impact speed was used in the design do you?

And where do you get the maximum speed of a 707 to be 350 KIAS? Go take a look at the Boeing site for the 707 and you will see it is over 600 mph. I have a link to the Boeing site for the 707 at the end of my paper. You can't even get the plane's speed right and you want to go out on a limb and say debunking me is easy. Well that limb just broke and you are on the ground with zero KIAS.
This is when an ATP comes in handy. Top speed of a 707 is 355KCAS. I meant 355KCAS, not 350 KCAS, and not KIAS, you need help reading. Sad but true.

You do not understand physics. Sad but true. You have messed up the aircraft speed with hearsay news articles. I had to ask Leslie Robertson for the details of the design impact. But if you insist on 607 mph, you are so wrong if you can not explain why any idiot would use 607 mph at 1300 feet for a 707 lost in the fog, to land. You been debunked.

Wow, and you got more. Well, point by point.

You have no idea what impact speed was used in the design do you?Slow flying, low on fuel, 180 mph. Next.


Leslie E. Robertson, , said: on being hit by a commercial jet -
" It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)

How fast do you think commercial aircraft like the 707 are moving just twenty miles after takeoff?They are at 28,000 feet doing 300 KIAS. Next. WTC is at 1300 feet. Questions.

Have altimeters ever been known to malfunction?Of all the things that have gone wrong in flight, I have never lost an altimeter. Darn they are good. But do I have a back up? Yes. Next. Try harder next time.

What reasons would a good engineer give for deciding not to use the maximum speed of the aircraft if it was feasible both structurally and cost wise to design the building to withstand the impact at that speed?607 is not the maximum speed really, it could go faster for a while, but it would fall apart soon. Which part of slow speed landing in the fog do you have a problem with? 180 mph, or use 180 KIAS, but why do you want to use a speed not used? The max speed below 10,000 feet is 250 KIAS. The max speed of the airframe, a 707, is 355 KCAS. And the typical cruise airspeed is 300 KIAS. You seem to be lost on flying stuff. Your dumb question is like asking why did they not plan on a nuke, or beam weapon. That is how dumb your question is. And you are an engineer? Sad. I can explain more, but you have no clue. So the design was 180 mph, lost in fog plane, going to land. Sorry but that was the design.

And where do you get the maximum speed of a 707 to be 350 KIAS? Go take a look at the Boeing site for the 707 and you will see it is over 600 mph. You can't even get the plane's speed right and you want to go out on a limb and say debunking me is easy. Well that limb just broke and you are on the ground with zero KIAS.The max speed of a 707 is 355KCAS. You are debunked again, and you do not even know why. Good job expert researcher engineer.

Well it is time to say goodnight. Have fun but don't forget to do a little research before going off half cocked.Oh, and you have done research, I don't think so.

[Revolutionary91]

Seeing how you already misrepresented R.Mackey on such an issue I'm gonna wait for Gravy's response to that.
(http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=9193)


Gravy has me on ignore. Ask him if he accepts the disputation against Ross. Ill bet you 50 bucks he says no.

[Tony Szamboti]

This is when an ATP comes in handy. Top speed of a 707 is 355KCAS. I meant 355KCAS, not 350 KCAS, and not KIAS, you need help reading. Sad but true.

Indicated or calibrated doesn't make much difference with what you are trying to say? You are totally wrong about the speed of a 707.

You do not understand physics. Sad but true. You have messed up the aircraft speed with hearsay news articles. I had to ask Leslie Robertson for the details of the design impact. But if you insist on 607 mph, you are so wrong if you can not explain why any idiot would use 607 mph at 1300 feet for a 707 lost in the fog, to land. You been debunked.
Did Leslie show you design specifications for the impact speed? I don't think so. Leslie even had the 767 which hit the towers shown as 767-300ER aircraft on his website next to a 707. These planes are significantly bigger than 767-200ERs. Who are you kidding?

[beachnut]

Did Leslie show you design specifications for the impact speed? I don't think so. leslie even had the 767 which hit the towers shown as 767-300ER aircraft on his website next to a 707. These planes are significantly bigger than 767-200ERs. Who are you kidding?
Yes the speed of design impact for aircraft was 180 mph, lost jet in the fog. You are debunked by L.Robertson. Darn, it feels good all those flying lessons you paid for paid off.

Please explain why you use 607 mph for impact of 707? Lots of Details please. but you will be wrong, do i get the 1,000,000 if so

[Tony Szamboti]

Yes the speed of design impact for aircraft was 180 mph, lost jet in the fog. You are debunked by L.Robertson. Darn, it feels good all those flying lessons you paid for paid off.

Please explain why you use 607 mph for impact of 707? Lots of Details please. but you will be wrong, do i get the 1,000,000 if so



John Skilling was quoted about it in 1993 after the first Trade Center Bombing. Here is the article.

www.cooperativeresearch.org/.../11_world=investigations

Here are the specifications for a Boeing 707-320B which was the largest plane at the time the towers were built and what they were designed to handle an impact from. By the way, 607 MPH was its cruise speed.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html

You should ask Leslie Robertson how they would decide 180 MPH was a good number. Engineers don't make arbitrary decisions and a decision like that wouldn't be made without strong data. I have never heard any justification for using a low speed of impact.

Additionally, it seems Skilling was more accurate in that the buildings did survive the impact. He was also the chief engineer.

You have been shown to be wrong here with solid facts on something you were adamant about and thus have no business telling anybody they have been debunked.

[beachnut]

John Skilling was quoted about it in 1993 after the first Trade Center Bombing. Here is the article.

www.cooperativeresearch.org/.../11_world=investigations (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/.../11_world=investigations)

Here are the specifications for a Boeing 707-320B which was the largest plane at the time the towers were built and what they were designed to handle an impact from. By the way, 607 MPH was its cruise speed.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html

You should ask Leslie Robertson how they would decide 180 MPH was a good number. Engineers don't make arbitrary decisions and a decision like that wouldn't be made without strong data. I have never heard any justification for using a low speed of impact.

Additionally, it seems Skilling was more accurate in that the buildings did survive the impact. He was also the chief engineer.
No, Leslie Robertson was the Chief Structural engineer, and the design was a slow moving lost in the fog aircraft. Sorry but my engineer beats your engineer.

No, as an engineer they make sound decision. And a lost plane in the fog is going 180 mph. BTW, the max speed is still 355KCAS. My speed is more correct. Debunked again. twice


Leslie E. Robertson, , said: on being hit by a commercial jet -
" It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)


Your 607 speed is wrong for many reasons. Tell me why you would use 607, try some engineering details now based on reality. All the parameters please.

Notice, I did not use a biased woo site like you did. I used the source! The boeing site, yes, the speed is 355KCAS, you need help, even boeing confirms my speed, go ask them. They put in the 607 mph for fools like you who do not understand flying.

Do you need to me to tell you how you pick a speed for aircraft impact? I can do it, I be engineer too, like you, but no woo.

[CHF]

John Skilling - died in 1998

Leslie Robertson - still alive

Naturally truthers take the claims of someone who wasn't alive for 9/11 over a comrade of his who can actually speak about the event itself.

[Furcifer]

I missed this thread, I've been away from the computer for a bit, taking a break from the conspiracy. I'm not sure what the question is, but as a student of physics I was taught to look at energy. What energy did the plane have before the impact and where did it go? Energy is energy, the ability to do work and cause destruction in this case. Whatever form it takes is irrelevant, the structure had to absorb it. The energy went into causing damage which ultimately caused the collapse. Trying to dissect the particlulars of the collapse is futile. It happened, just accept it and deal with it. I swear to God, from what I know and what I've learned over the last few months this is true. This isn't the most scientific explanation of what happened, but it is what I have seen and observed over the last few months. I've got a pretty good idea of what happened, and a pretty good understanding of what buildings are capable of withstanding, and they couldn't. They couldn't withstand the impact and the fires. NIST was right. Yeah, I said it, NIST was right. I've seen what Ryan has said and I agree. Totally. And from what I have gathered over the last few months, most of the people educated in this area concur. There are a few that question the official story and for good reason. The US goverment has failed in what it intended since 9/11. Bush sucks, he can't make his own decisions, and all those that have tried to help him do so have been a miserable failure. Prove me wrong in this and I will retract all I have said, but in the mean time it is an utter truth. Why? Because Bush is a moron. Plain and simple. I'm not sure why, my olny question is how you can be advised by so many people and still fail in the way Bush has. What it boils down to for me is that there is a slight chance that if Bush weren't such a moron the WTC may not have fallen. This totally defies logic, and I can't explain it. I'm totally serious, if Bush were like 20 IQ points higher this wouldn't have happened. But then again, if Bush were 20 points higher in his IQ everything would be different. Right? Maybe not. Who knows really. Whatever, I guess I'm rambling so I'll end it here. All I'm saying is as a person well versed in physics and building construction there is nothing to see here. NIST did a very good job. They explained everything that needed to be explained, and did so very well. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to see it do we need a 10 000 page explaination to explain it?

[Gravy]

It wasn't accepted "as is" and there were some changes. I don't need to tell you what they were.

Oh, my god (and as I'm an atheist, it takes a lot for me to say that). Since your paper is chock-full of obvious errors, rampant nonsensical speculation, uninformed political rants, and abuse of the English language, how bad was it before?

[T.A.M.]

Produce for me, one, just ONE 9/11 "inside job" related scientific article that has been published in a reputable, NON 9/11 RELATED journal, a scientific journal...

JUST ONE!!!

You can try to defend that toilet paper substitute all you want, at the end of the day it is not a journal worth anything...it is still just butt wipe.

Sorry to sound course and nasty, but the issue of that journal's merits has been beaten to death here, and nothing has changed...it is still garbage.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

Can I suggest taking the "707" argument elsewhere? realcddeal can easily search the forum for threads in which this issue is discussed, and add his comments there.

[Tony Szamboti]

Oh, my god (and as I'm an atheist, it takes a lot for me to say that). Since your paper is chock-full of obvious errors, rampant nonsensical speculation, uninformed political rants, and abuse of the English language, how bad was it before?

Write your paper and attempt to show me the errors you allege. Blathering without backup isn't debating. I have to put you on ignore until you write your critiquing paper. You have my e-mail address so let me know when you have written and published your paper. Dr. Jones is waiting fo it. Goodbye for now.

[Tony Szamboti]

John Skilling - died in 1998

Leslie Robertson - still alive

Naturally truthers take the claims of someone who wasn't alive for 9/11 over a comrade of his who can actually speak about the event itself.

We still have Skilling's quotes with us. He said it was a fully loaded 707 or DC-8 moving at approximately 600 MPH and he was the Chief Engineer on the design.

[Tony Szamboti]

No, Leslie Robertson was the Chief Structural engineer, and the design was a slow moving lost in the fog aircraft. Sorry but my engineer beats your engineer.

No, as an engineer they make sound decision. And a lost plane in the fog is going 180 mph. BTW, the max speed is still 355KCAS. My speed is more correct. Debunked again. twice



Your 607 speed is wrong for many reasons. Tell me why you would use 607, try some engineering details now based on reality. All the parameters please.

Notice, I did not use a biased woo site like you did. I used the source! The boeing site, yes, the speed is 355KCAS, you need help, even boeing confirms my speed, go ask them. They put in the 607 mph for fools like you who do not understand flying.

Do you need to me to tell you how you pick a speed for aircraft impact? I can do it, I be engineer too, like you, but no woo.

Leslie Robertson was NOT the Chief Engineer on the tower design. Where did you get that idea? John Skilling was the Chief Engineer on the tower design. Leslie Robertson was in his early 30's when the towers were designed and did not have the experience to be a Chief Engineer yet. Actually Leslie does not even have an engineering degree, he has a basic hard science degree from the University of California at Berkeley. His primary contribution to the tower design was the dampers on the floor trusses and the idea to bring the floor truss diagonals into the floor concrete to make the floor and trusses act in unison.

How can you possibly say something like "Boeing only says 607 MPH in their specification for fools"? Then you want to tell us they agree with your 355 KCAS but just don't publish that and you add that we should go ask them. Nobody can take you seriously.

As for why the speed of 607 MPH would be used one has to realize that the design would be concerned with a worst case if it was possible to withstand it structurally and cost wise. It obviously was as the buildings took 500 MPH hits and survived them. John Skilling also said they were designed to take a hit at that speed.

Flight controls can get jammed, hydraulics can malfunction, altimeters can break.

There would be NO basis for limiting the airspeed to 180 MPH. That would be irresponsible unless a higher speed was cost prohibitive which was not the case.

You need to get your facts straight on the simple matter of the cruise speed of a Boeing 707. I have to put you on ignore until you decide to work a little harder at your research before opening your mouth.

[Tony Szamboti]

Produce for me, one, just ONE 9/11 "inside job" related scientific article that has been published in a reputable, NON 9/11 RELATED journal, a scientific journal...

JUST ONE!!!

You can try to defend that toilet paper substitute all you want, at the end of the day it is not a journal worth anything...it is still just butt wipe.

Sorry to sound course and nasty, but the issue of that journal's merits has been beaten to death here, and nothing has changed...it is still garbage.

TAM:)

This is a strawman argument there TAM. You are supposed to judge a paper by its merits. Remember Galileo. I really am starting to think some of you guys would have been flat earthers in the middle ages, and claiming that the reason there were no articles published on the earth being round and not the center of the universe in your definition of an accepted journal, is that it couldn't be true.

[T.A.M.]

This is a strawman argument there TAM. You are supposed to judge a paper by its merits. Remember Galileo. I really am starting to think some of you guys would have been flat earthers in the middle ages, and claiming that the reason there were no articles published on the earth being round and not the center of the universe in your definition of an accepted journal, is that it couldn't be true.

It is not a strawman arguement. I am not arguing for starters. I am asking you to prove the worth of 9/11 Scientific papers by producing at least a single paper that has been deemed of high enough quality or at least meeting the minimum standards, to appear in at least ONE reputable journal.

Your arguement that it is a strawman is simply a cop out so you do not have to admit that the 9/11 truth academia is so poor that it cannot get published in any journal a REAL scientist would call legit.

If an MD colleague of mine begins bragging that his new, earth shattering paper has been published, and that I must take him seriously, and I find out that the only journal it got published in was "Good Housekeeping", am I going to really take him or his "paper" seriously?

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

This is a strawman argument there TAM. You are supposed to judge a paper by its merits. Remember Galileo. I really am starting to think some of you guys would have been flat earthers in the middle ages, and claiming that the reason there were no articles published on the earth being round and not the center of the universe in your definition of an accepted journal, is that it couldn't be true.

Palleaaaseee

I am really sick of the arrogance in comparing yourself, or any of the truth movement academics to Galileo...

TAM:)

[Slayhamlet]

This is a strawman argument there TAM. You are supposed to judge a paper by its merits. Remember Galileo. I really am starting to think some of you guys would have been flat earthers in the middle ages, and claiming that the reason there were no articles published on the earth being round and not the center of the universe in your definition of an accepted journal, is that it couldn't be true.

The conception of a flat earth was not prominent in the Middle Ages.

[MarkyX]

You are supposed to judge a paper by its merits. Remember Galileo.


Wait, so Galileo never had to test his theories to and was not looked at by other scientists?

What a dumb argument.

[Gravy]

Leslie Robertson was NOT the Chief Engineer on the tower design. Where did you get that idea? John Skilling was the Chief Engineer on the tower design. Leslie Robertson was in his early 30's when the towers were designed and did not have the experience to be a Chief Engineer yet. Actually Leslie does not even have an engineering degree, he has a basic hard science degree from Cal-Poly Tech.

His actual school disagrees with you. Give us a holler when you're inspired to get anything right, will you? Anything at all. It'll be big news around these parts.
A 1952 Berkeley civil engineering graduate, Robertson and his then-partner John Skilling were the original structural engineers for the Twin Towers.
http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/forefront/fall02/towers.html
LESLIE E. ROBERTSON
P.E., C.E., S.E., D.Sc., D.Eng., NAE, Hon. M.ASCE, AIJ, JSCA, AGIR, Chartered Structural Engineer

Education
University of California at Berkeley, B.Sc., 1952

Professional Experience
1958 to Date - Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P.
1957 to 1958 - Raymond International
1954 to 1957 - John Blume & Associates
1952 to 1954 - Kaiser Engineers

Mr. Robertson is responsible for the structural design of hundreds of buildings and structures about the world, including the World Trade Center (New York), the United States Steel Headquarters (Pittsburgh), the Bank of China Tower (Hong Kong), Puerta de Europa (Madrid) and the Continental Arena (Meadowlands) as well as exceptional museums in Berlin, Portland (Maine) and Seattle, and the Miho Museum Bridge (Japan).

With his innovations in structural engineering, Mr. Robertson has set new standards in the design and construction of tall buildings. A pioneer in the application of computers to design, he has advanced the art and the science of structural engineering theory. Mr. Robertson's work on skyscrapers, domes, bridges and long-span roofs has transformed engineering theory into practical technological breakthroughs that free architects to build the stuff of dreams.

Professional Licenses
Structural Engineer - California
Professional Engineer - New York. Licensed or eligible in all 50 states. N.C.E.E.
Civil Engineer - California. Licensed or eligible in all 50 states.
First Class Architect and Professional Engineer, Japan

Honors and Awards
Responsible for the structural design and construction of three of the world's tallest buildings, Mr. Robertson received the 1993 Mayor's Award for Excellence in Science and Technology for his structural design of the World Trade Center that withstood the 1993 terrorist bombing. As well, he was awarded the World Trade Center Individual Exceptional Service Medal for his work in the re-construction of the twin towers.

Mr. Robertson received the first Henry C. Turner Prize for Innovation in Construction Technology. The National Building Museum and Turner Construction Company established the prize for notable advances and high achievement in the process of construction. The award recognized Mr. Robertson's 50-year career as a structural designer, which has significantly advanced the engineering and construction of tall buildings around the world. He also recently received the prestigious Outstanding Projects and Leaders (OPAL) award from the American Society of Civil Engineers for his lifetime achievement in the category of design.

Mr. Robertson received the Gengo Matsui Prize, the AIA Institute Honor and honorary membership with the AIA, New York; and was recognized as ENR's Construction ÔMan of the Year'. Mr. Robertson was recently named one of Engineering News Record's "125 Top People of the Past 125 Years". He is one of twenty structural engineers (nine of whom are living) who made ENR's list of 125 Top People. Additional honors include:

Elected to the National Academy of Engineering in recognition of his expertise and contributions to the field of structural engineering.
Doctor of Engineering: Lehigh University
Doctor of Science: The University of Western Ontario
Doctor of Engineering: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Doctor of Engineering: University of Notre Dame
Recipient of the ASCE Outstanding Projects and Leaders (OPAL) Award for lifetime contributions in design, 2003
The Top 25 Newsmakers of ENR, 1993 and 1997
1991 John F. Parmer Award: Structural Engineers Association of Illinois
1989 Institute Honor: American Institute of Architects
State-of-the-Art in Civil Engineering Award: ASCE
Raymond C. Reese Research Prize: ASCE
AISC's J. Lloyd Kimbrough Award, 2001
Honorary Member: American Institute of Architects, New York Chapter
Structural Engineers Association of New York, Honorary Member
Honorary Member and Medal: National Society of Romanian Engineers (AGIR)

Professional Activities and Teaching Experience
Professor: Princeton University, 2002-2005
The Gordon Smith Lecturer, Yale University, 2003
The Felix Candela Lecturer Ð M.I.T., Museum of Modern Art, New York, Princeton University, 2002-03
Board of Directors: The Skyscraper Museum
Member: Architectural Institute of Japan
Commencement Speaker: Penn State University, 2002
The Frank Howard Distinguished Lecturer: George Washington University, 2002
Distinguished Engineering Alumnus, University of California at Berkeley
Fellow: The MacDowell Colony, 1996; Board of Directors, 2004-2005
Honorary Fellowship and Medal: Tokyo Society of Architects & Building Engineers
Architects, Designers, Planners for Social Responsibility (ADPSR), Board
Committee on Bombing Preparedness: Japan Institute of Architects
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems Committee on Federal Construction Design Criteria
Fellow: American Society of Civil Engineers
Past Chairman: Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
Fellow: New York Academy of Sciences; Committee on Human Rights
Board of Directors: The Architectural League of New York
Fellow: Singapore Structural Steel Society
Member: Japan Structural Consultants Association
Past Chairman: Wind Engineering Research Council

Patents
U.S. Patents: Viscoelastic Damper for Buildings (#3,605,953) Elevator Cable Dampers (#5,103,937)
Japanese Patents: Long-Span Structural System (#11800161)
Euro Patents: Cable Stabilization System (#DE 692 19 464.9-06)

Publications
Mr. Robertson has written over 300 papers on structural, earthquake and wind engineering.
http://lera.com/robertson.htm
Reflections on the World Trade Center by Leslie E. Robertson (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB)

[T.A.M.]

This arguement reminds me of one that occured in medicine in the 1980's over the role of H.Pylori in the genesis/pathology of GI Ulcers. The discoverer won a Nobel Prize, but the medical establishment didn't buy it, and some tried to over turn the award...an article on it here...

http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2005/11_15/2_advances_medicine05_19.html

Unfortunately, praise of the team's work wasn't always so unanimous. Back in the early 80s their findings created a not-entirely positive stir. At the time, it was still widely held that the gut was just too acidic to be a retreat for a bacteria and gastric acid itself was considered a more likely cause of ulcers.

The backlash was in fact so profound that the Nobel citation alludes to the controversy. These trailblazing doctors are now formally credited with "tenacity and a prepared mind [to challenge] prevailing dogmas."

Dr Sekar remembers the contro-versy well. "I remember attending a talk at an American GI meeting when Dr Marshall spoke about H pylori many, many years ago," he says. "There was obvious scepticism. How can an acid-mediated disorder be due to an infection? It didn't take long before we saw the light."

Dr Fingerote also recalls the eventual enthusiasm among his fellow GI specialists. "I was initially quite excited at the idea that ulcers could be cured with a couple of days of antibiotics," he says. "My next thought was how incredibly obvious this observation was? After all, bacteria in the gastric antrum were first identified over a century ago."

And you wanna know why the discoverers prevailed? Because their science was LEGITIMATE!!!!

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Leslie Robertson was NOT the Chief Engineer on the tower design. Where did you get that idea? John Skilling was the Chief Engineer on the tower design. Leslie Robertson was in his early 30's when the towers were designed and did not have the experience to be a Chief Engineer yet. Actually Leslie does not even have an engineering degree, he has a basic hard science degree from Cal-Poly Tech.

I hope others in the 9/11 truth academia are better researchers than you are...

Edit:

Doh, foiled by the dogowl again...lol

TAM:)

[apathoid]

You need to get your facts straight on the simple matter of the cruise speed of a Boeing 707. I have to put you on ignore until you decide to work a little harder at your research before opening your mouth.


Well, did you stop to think that maybe the cruise speed might not be a "hard" number.....that it might change with altitude and be expressed in a number of ways? Beachnut has a 707 type-rating, I'll take his opinion over yours. And cruise speed is typically expressed in mach number, or indicated airspeed - in knots(KIAS). 355 knots indicated airspeed at 35,000 feet may well work out to 600 mph true airspeed - but at 1000 feet, 355 knots indicated won't be much more than 400 mph. That is why he is telling you to check your facts.

Just thought I'd throw that out there......

[Tony Szamboti]

I hope others in the 9/11 truth academia are better researchers than you are...

Edit:

Doh, foiled by the dogowl again...lol

TAM:)

What are you trying to say here? The school was actually the University of California at Berkeley but the degree he received was a B. SC. in 1952. That is not an engineering degree. I am not saying Robertson is not qualified as a structural engineer. I am merely showing that he would not have been a chief engineer in his early 30's. That is what Beachnut was claiming. Robertson had a lot to learn at that point. and it is apparent that Beachnut still does.

http://www.lera.com/robertson.htm

[Tony Szamboti]

Well, did you stop to think that maybe the cruise speed might not be a "hard" number.....that it might change with altitude and be expressed in a number of ways? Beachnut has a 707 type-rating, I'll take his opinion over yours. And cruise speed is typically expressed in mach number, or indicated airspeed - in knots(KIAS). 355 knots indicated airspeed at 35,000 feet may well work out to 600 mph true airspeed - but at 1000 feet, 355 knots indicated won't be much more than 400 mph. That is why he is telling you to check your facts.

Just thought I'd throw that out there......

Boeing said 607 mph period, they never discuss 355 KCAS. Look at their specification. You also need to show a calculation to back up what you are saying. Bottom line is John Skilling was referring to 600 MPH relative to the building's speed which was zero. You guys are either confused or are trying to confuse others.