peer review.

[furrod]

I'm doing a little 9/11 research and I had a few questions.

What exactly is peer review?

Is there a specific process that must be followed?

Is there a list of 9/11 engineering papers that have been submitted for peer review?

Are there any truther papers that have been submitted?

Is just submitting a paper for peer review sufficient reason to assume it's credibility or does it need to go through some sort of back and forth process between other engineers?

Are there any "fake" ways to claim peer reviewed?

[kookbreaker]

I'm doing a little 9/11 research and I had a few questions.

What exactly is peer review?


Peer review is when you submit a paper to anonymous people with proper credentials to review your work and check it for errors. Usually this is done with a reputable publication


Is there a specific process that must be followed?


Not entirely, there are some standards but its not like there's an ISO procedure. In any case, submission should be made to the proper jounral


Is there a list of 9/11 engineering papers that have been submitted for peer review?


Yes. There should be several. I'll have to leave it to others as I do not have the list handy.


Are there any truther papers that have been submitted?


Submitted? We may never be certain. Dr. Jones claims to have submitted his 'paper' to repuatble journals and they rejected it. If this is true, they had very good reason for doing so as it is full of errors a child could spot. If it is not true it is an example of a troofer telling tales.


Is just submitting a paper for peer review sufficient reason to assume it's credibility or does it need to go through some sort of back and forth process between other engineers?


Submission alone is not cause for reputability. Long before the truth movement many science, math and engineering journals have been beset by cranks submitting papers.


Are there any "fake" ways to claim peer reviewed?

Making your own journal with suspect, cause-friendly peers can fool a few people. The 'Journal of 911 studies' is a perfect example of phoney peer review, with theologists reviewing engineering claims and worse.

[Gravy]

Peer review. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review)

Pee-er review (courtesy JREF forum member triterope):

jurinal (n.) - A collection of scientific papers of such low quality that it shouldn't be read, but given to a vagrant for use as a travel toilet. Example: "Jurinal of 9-11 Studies."

peer review (n. or v.) - Confirming the quality of a scientific study by looking narrowly at the name of the author, and making sure that person believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Example: "Steven Jones has published many peer reviewed papers." Alt. Usage: After a jurinal has been given to a vagrant, this term is pronounced "pee-er review," and refers to a different form of expression.

[R.Mackey]

Peer review is a process in which scientific ideas are evaluated by an independent body of experts. There is no specific method cast-in-stone, but some of the more common features are these:

A preset list of academic standards required for submission, such as correct attribution of sources, absence of advertising, and absence of personal politics
Independence of reviewers from both publisher and submitter
Anonymity of reviewers
Balanced panel of reviewers, from as large a pool as possible
Mediated discussion between reviewer and submitter, i.e. questions and requests for revision, archived


A peer-reviewed paper is generally understood to be of higher quality because (a) it's been looked over by independent experts, and (b) the fact that the paper is ready for independent review reflects its maturity and cohesion. However, this is not always the case. Once in a while a flawed paper will slip through, and some excellent whitepapers are never submitted for peer review or are not approved for reasons having nothing to do with its merit (e.g. backlog of a particular publication).

There are other forms of peer review. As we speak, I am personally involved in a peer review of technology proposals, for instance. There are also engineering reviews (so-called NAR or Non-Advocate Reviews) that are similar, but not anonymous, essentially a face-to-face board of inquiry.

Check Gravy's site for a list of relevant peer-reviewed articles. It's quite long. (ETA: Scroll to the bottom of this page (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/nist%2Cfemareports%2C911structuralengineerin) for a list.)

I don't know whether any "conspiracy theorist" has submitted a paper or not. I am almost 100% certain that none has ever been published. The journals do not report on paper rejections, as this would compromise standards of the review.

There are ways to "fake" peer-review, but only to the uninformed. An example is the "Journal" for 9/11 Studies, which has its editorial staff perform many reviews, does not keep one article anonymous from another (allowing rebuttals to be penned by its board coincident with the articles they dislike), and keeps a highly selective list of other reviewers determined by their politics rather than their expertise. Nobody in the legitimate sciences is fooled by the "Journal" of 9/11 Studies, but it is difficult for non-technical individuals to tell the difference.

[furrod]

Is this paper submitted for peer review?
If so, when do you know if the paper has been generally accepted or rejected by the authors peers?

Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It?
Zden¡ek P. Ba¡zant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson

[R.Mackey]

That paper has been submitted, but is still under review to the best of my knowledge.

The review process can take months, or even years, depending on the journal. There's nothing unusual about this paper. ETA: Keep in mind that reviewers are usually volunteers, and have many other things to do with their time!

Having read it myself, I expect it to be published without substantial changes.

[beachnut]

There are ways to "fake" peer-review, but only to the uninformed. An example is the "Journal" for 9/11 Studies, which has its editorial staff perform many reviews, does not keep one article anonymous from another (allowing rebuttals to be penned by its board coincident with the articles they dislike), and keeps a highly selective list of other reviewers determined by their politics rather than their expertise. Nobody in the legitimate sciences is fooled by the "Journal" of 9/11 Studies, but it is difficult for non-technical individuals to tell the difference.Excellent information and points on the http://stj911.org/journal.html (http://stj911.org/journal.html) , journal of woo.

[CHF]

Dr. Jones claims to have submitted his 'paper' to repuatble journals and they rejected it.

Gee I wonder why. :rolleyes: It's gotta be pretty crappy to get rejected at the submission stage!

I actually wish they had accepted his paper. It would have been handed back to him covered in red ink with no room for "they turned it down cuz they're afraid" which is, no doubt, the twoofer spin.

[R.Mackey]

They very well may have. Remember that "accepted" means "accepted for publication," not merely that they didn't refuse to take it out of the mailbox.

I would speculate that any real journal would return Dr. Jones's paper without comment, but they may have wasted time trying to correct it. Remember, voluteers, large backlog -- journals see crackpot papers all the time, and usually just ignore them.

[Brainster]

It means that Kevin Ryan reviewed it while sitting here:

[Apollo20]

As someone who started publishing in 1975, I can tell you that some very bad papers pass so-called peer review, while others are rejected for strange, (not always technical), reasons.

Professors can be VERY competitive!

In the history of science some great papers were initially rejected and novel ideas supressed....

The same thing has happened in art and music when great works were rejected by the appropriate "Academy".

[William Rea]

As someone who started publishing in 1975, I can tell you that some very bad papers pass so-called peer review, while others are rejected for strange, (not always technical), reasons.

Professors can be VERY competitive!

In the history of science some great papers were initially rejected and novel ideas supressed....

The same thing has happened in art and music when great works were rejected by the appropriate "Academy".

Absolutely, I raised this topic in another thread to gauge what the perception of "peer review" is compared to the reality. I think saying something has been "peer reviewed" might offer it marginally more credibility but it is actual independent verification by the community after publication that matters.

I had my illusions about this shattered by a poster on a politics forum about 5 years ago. He routinely carried out "peer reviewing" for a publication.

[~enigma~]

Absolutely, I raised this topic in another thread to gauge what the perception of "peer review" is compared to the reality. I think saying something has been "peer reviewed" might offer it marginally more credibility but it is actual independent verification by the community after publication that matters.

I had my illusions about this shattered by a poster on a politics forum about 5 years ago. He routinely carried out "peer reviewing" for a publication.
So peer reviews are essentially worthless in your opinion?

[William Rea]

So peer reviews are essentially worthless in your opinion?

No.

[~enigma~]

No.
What is their purpose?

[nicepants]

I think saying something has been "peer reviewed" might offer it marginally more credibility but it is actual independent verification by the community after publication that matters.

Is this "independent verification" somehow less credible if it happens prior to publication?

[LashL]

As someone who started publishing in 1975, I can tell you that some very bad papers pass so-called peer review, while others are rejected for strange, (not always technical), reasons.

I'm sure that some people here would be very interested in a list of your publications since 1975, and a list of your papers, if any, that were rejected for strange reasons.

Professors can be VERY competitive!

Competitiveness is not limited to professors. Why, all manner of non-professors (including chemists such as yourself) have been known to be competitive, as have a vast array of individuals in numerous professions and trades, when it comes to having their work published.

In the history of science some great papers were initially rejected and novel ideas supressed....

The same thing has happened in art and music when great works were rejected by the appropriate "Academy".

Indeed. The same can be said of great legal arguments that were initially rejected, only to be ultimately accepted later. This happens relatively frequently in law, in fact.

None of the foregoing is good reason for a wholesale rejection of the peer-review process, though. It is not infallible, of course, but generally speaking, it works quite well.

[William Rea]

Is this "independent verification" somehow less credible if it happens prior to publication?

If I was arguing that then it might be relevant.

[T.A.M.]

As someone who started publishing in 1975, I can tell you that some very bad papers pass so-called peer review, while others are rejected for strange, (not always technical), reasons.

Professors can be VERY competitive!

In the history of science some great papers were initially rejected and novel ideas supressed....

The same thing has happened in art and music when great works were rejected by the appropriate "Academy".

While I have not authored any papers submitted for Peer Review, I have been an investigator in a few. I would agree that there are elements of inconsistency in Peer Review, but not many, and over all the process works...and works well. I will trust a peer reviewed paper much more than one published in a journal (though these are rare) that has no peer review process.

TAM:)

[nicepants]

Is this "independent verification" somehow less credible if it happens prior to publication? If I was arguing that then it might be relevant.

...see below.

I think saying something has been "peer reviewed" might offer it marginally more credibility but it is actual independent verification by the community after publication that matters.

Are you saying that independent verification AFTER publication means more than independent verification BEFORE publication?

[Apollo20]

Two points on this topic:

1. I am aware of a number of cases where a journal has rejected a paper, the author makes a few MINOR changes, submits the revised article to a different journal, and it is accepted. Thus there is no ABSOLUTE standard of quality in research.

2. I once discussed the issue of the quality of papers in the scientific literature with nobel prize winner Gerhard Herzberg and he said that there are two types of paper out there:

(i) Papers that provide data that will serve as quality reference data and as such will essentially always be of value, and
(ii) Papers that provide questionable data that will ultimately prove to be of little value or entirely erroneous.

In fact Herzberg believed that this IS THE PURPOSE of research literature: to separate the good from the bad!

Thus Herzberg argued that you shouldn't worry too much about the quality of a particular paper because research is self-correcting... good research is ultimatly recognized for what it is, as is bad.

[T.A.M.]

Two points on this topic:

1. I am aware of a number of cases where a journal has rejected a paper, the author makes a few MINOR changes, submits the revised article to a different journal, and it is accepted. Thus there is no ABSOLUTE standard of quality in research.

Agreed, just as there are journal of higher repute, and lower, so are there peer review processes of the same.


2. I once discussed the issue of the quality of papers in the scientific literature with nobel prize winner Gerhard Herzberg and he said that there are two types of paper out there:

(i) Papers that provide data that will serve as quality reference data and as such will essentially always be of value, and
(ii) Papers that provide questionable data that will ultimately prove to be of little value or entirely erroneous.

In fact Herzberg believed that this IS THE PURPOSE of research literature: to separate the good from the bad!

Thus Herzberg argued that you shouldn't worry too much about the quality of a particular paper because research is self-correcting... good research is ultimatly recognized for what it is, as is bad.

Also agreed. Peer Review is not often used to determine the validity or quality of the conclusions a paper makes, but rather to make sure that the research meets certain standards, the paper as a whole meets certain criteria. I have read articles that were peer reviewed and published, that were so full of bias, and skewed statistics, that they were torn to shreds both by myself and others in our journal club, as well as by letters to the editor in the follow up months.

TAM:)

[~enigma~]

1. I am aware of a number of cases where a journal has rejected a paper, the author makes a few MINOR changes, submits the revised article to a different journal, and it is accepted. Thus there is no ABSOLUTE standard of quality in research.Did the author think about resubmitting the changed paper? How can you claim that it would have still been rejected after edits? but anyway why exactly is the fact that two different journals have different standards? Are all journals supposed to be the same?
Thus Herzberg argued that you shouldn't worry too much about the quality of a particular paper because research is self-correcting... good research is ultimatly recognized for what it is, as is bad.Are you actually claiming that based on this it is ok to publish an incorrect paper? And why do you think we are supposed to get on our knees and worship this because it was said by a past nobel prize winner? Famous people say stupid things all the time...it's a requirement of being famous.

Just because you feel slighted by the peer review process doesn't make it bad and to be brutally honest it is quite immature and nor befitting a man of your age to "sling mud" at the process just because it "bit" you in the past.

[Tony Szamboti]

As someone who started publishing in 1975, I can tell you that some very bad papers pass so-called peer review, while others are rejected for strange, (not always technical), reasons.

Professors can be VERY competitive!

In the history of science some great papers were initially rejected and novel ideas supressed....

The same thing has happened in art and music when great works were rejected by the appropriate "Academy".

Good post. The merit of the paper is what really counts, and that will generally be fully discerned after an item is published, when a larger group has a chance to see and accept or reject the work based on its merits or lack of. Peer review is only an initial gate in the process which then includes the public at large. Unfortunately, as you point out, it is sometimes abused and papers with merit are initially kept from the public at large, and some that maybe should not be published pass through peer review which some erroneously associate with instant credibility. However, when viewed by large numbers the wheat is generally sifted from the chaff.

As Abraham Lincoln so aptly said "You can fool all of the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time".

As John Kennedy so aptly said "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people".

When everyone is allowed to see all of the information on a particular subject the truth or falsehood of a situation or idea will invariably be determined.

[Tony Szamboti]

...see below.



Are you saying that independent verification AFTER publication means more than independent verification BEFORE publication?

I hope you will excuse me William but this should be said. Yes, verification after publication is a much more stringent test of the merits of a work and therefore means a lot more.

[~enigma~]

I hope you will excuse me William but this should be said. Yes, verification after publication is a much more stringent test of the merits of a work and therefore means a lot more.
iOW, papers written by MaGz, Ace, Lyte Trip, Judy Wood, Uncle Fester, Steven Jones...on all their vastly different and insane 9/11 theories should be published so the public at large can tell them they are all loons...nice thought for a woo but their papers aren't published. Have any idea why?

[Apollo20]

Enigma:

Where do you get the idea that I feel slighted by the peer review process. I have written about 80 research papers, mostly internal reports at Ontario Hydro (which later became Ontario Power Generation), but quite a few in journals as well.... I can assure you that ALL of my papers were peer reviewed by other Ph. D. scientists. I have only had ONE paper rejected by a journal (Surface and Interface Analysis) and that was because the university research group I co-authored the paper with had pi**ed-off the German scientist who reviewed it, by previously fudging data in the same area of research (Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry)! The irony of all this is that the rejected paper was actually an expose of the previous cooking of data by a member of the group.

[rwguinn]

I hope you will excuse me William but this should be said. Yes, verification after publication is a much more stringent test of the merits of a work and therefore means a lot more.

Truly, the peer review prior to publication is supposed to be a method of weeding-out shaky research, sloppy methodology, and bias.
It is only after publication that additional heads can attempt to duplicate the research, find the subtle errors, and substantiate or refute the conclusions and findings.
Much as numerous groups have done with the NIST report on WTC 1 and 2

[beachnut]

As Abraham Lincoln so aptly said "You can fool all of the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time".

As John Kennedy so aptly said "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people".

When everyone is allowed to see all of the information on a particular subject the truth or falsehood of a situation or idea will invariably be determined.
Neat words lost falling on the deaf ears of liars, fools and idiots of 9/11 truth. Why is the 9/11 truth movement just lies like CD, thermite and beam weapons. Liars, nuts and insanity: The 9/11 truth Parade.

[Tony Szamboti]

iOW, papers written by MaGz, Ace, Lyte Trip, Judy Wood, Uncle Fester, Steven Jones...on all their vastly different and insane 9/11 theories should be published so the public at large can tell them they are all loons...nice thought for a woo but their papers aren't published. Have any idea why?

I didn't say papers should not pass some form of peer review and even though peer review is subjective there is hard science involved in peer review of scientific papers which some of those you mention do not live up to.

However, I do believe the public at large should be exposed to these ideas and the arguments for and against them. From what I have read Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood have lost credibility among the vast majority of those who have read what they have to say about the building collapses in NYC on 9/11/2001. They seem to have essentially self destructed in the public mind due to the lack of scientific basis for what they say. Ace is simply a tag along on their merry go round. I don't know that you can say the same about Jones. Do you believe there is no evidence that there was molten metal and sulfidated steel in the rubble under the three collapsed WTC buildings?

I think a paper involving extremely controversial subjects, which any paper positing a potential 911 conspiracy, rejecting government claims, and calling for a new investigation would certainly qualify as, is operating at a disadvantage when it comes to getting it published. Public perception of their publication is usually considered by Journals as well as book publishers and many are loathe to get involved in a controversy of this magnitude. Lack of being able to get a controversial work published does not imply that a work has no merit. History is replete with examples of this being true. This is why Jones and Ryan started their own Journal. The ideas are there for you to freely accept or reject based on their merits. Jones and Ryan were obviously not worried about the perception of themselves. The public should be exposed to what they are saying as well as any counter arguments.

[e^n]

I apologise for bringing this into another thread, Realcddeal you have still not responded to this: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2817304#post2817304

[leftysergeant]

I think we could even consider the effects on the the careers of Fetzer, Jones and Wood to constitute a sort of peer review.

[T.A.M.]

None of the 9/11 truth movement, Fetzer, Wood, OR JONES, have a leg to stand on in terms of Scientific integrety or diligence. Jones was editor and helped select the peer review panel for the same journal that he submitted his own research to. He has either (A) not submitted his work to any respectable journals, or (B) has done so, and in all likelihood been rejected by all of them.

I have yet to see a paper written by any of the truth movement that would pass muster with any worthwhile Peer Review process.

TAM:)

[Tony Szamboti]

I apologise for bringing this into another thread, Realcddeal you have still not responded to this: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2817304#post2817304

e^n, I have looked at the material and will respond to you on the other thread. It should be the last or near last response as that thread has calmed down significantly.

[T.A.M.]

Maybe the truth movement should ask their latest starlet, Torin "I iz an expert in everyting" Wolf, to write a paper and submit it for Peer Review.

TAM;)

[Tony Szamboti]

Maybe the truth movement should ask their latest starlet, Torin "I iz an expert in everyting" Wolf, to write a paper and submit it for Peer Review.

TAM;)

I think they should and if the peer reviewer believes there is merit to the work then it should be published irrespective of the controversial nature of the subject, as that gives you and I and everybody else a chance to scrutinize his arguments. If they are bad his ideas will be discredited on truly scientific grounds by the public at large.

[leftysergeant]

The peers of Jones, Fetzer and Wood have already concluded that those "scholars" have shown a decided lack of insight or care for real research and have told them to go sit in the corner.

[T.A.M.]

I think they should and if the peer reviewer believes there is merit to the work then it should be published irrespective of the controversial nature of the subject, as that gives you and I and everybody else a chance to scrutinize his arguments. If they are bad his ideas will be discredited on truly scientific grounds by the public at large.

Great so when can we expect to see his paper submitted?

TAM:)

[Tony Szamboti]

Great so when can we expect to see his paper submitted?

TAM:)

I think you need to ask him.

[~enigma~]

Enigma:

Where do you get the idea that I feel slighted by the peer review process. I have written about 80 research papers, mostly internal reports at Ontario Hydro (which later became Ontario Power Generation), but quite a few in journals as well.... I can assure you that ALL of my papers were peer reviewed by other Ph. D. scientists. I have only had ONE paper rejected by a journal (Surface and Interface Analysis) and that was because the university research group I co-authored the paper with had pi**ed-off the German scientist who reviewed it, by previously fudging data in the same area of research (Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry)! The irony of all this is that the rejected paper was actually an expose of the previous cooking of data by a member of the group.
Not an idea. You made it clear you are pissed off ansd jealous because of you "failed" scientist status. You should be proud though because thanks to you we have a new phrase in failed scientist instead of mad scientist (but I know you really are both).

[T.A.M.]

I'll wait to see if it gets published. I think I'll be waiting a LONG TIME. I have no intention of talking to him...if his resume is any indication of his honesty, I suspect he wouldn't tell me the truth anyway.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Not an idea. You made it clear you are pissed off ansd jealous because of you "failed" scientist status. You should be proud though because thanks to you we have a new phrase in failed scientist instead of mad scientist (but I know you really are both).

can we not start the same old name calling again...please. It really doesnt get anyone anywhere. Apollo20, as Dr. Greening, has added GOOD SCIENCE to the collection of 9/11 information pool, and for this alone I find calling him a "Failed" scientist kind of harsh.

Thanks

TAM:)

[~enigma~]

However, I do believe the public at large should be exposed to these ideas and the arguments for and against them. Good thing you are just an internet desk jockey so your opinion really means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

[~enigma~]

can we not start the same old name calling again...please. It really doesnt get anyone anywhere. Apollo20, as Dr. Greening, has added GOOD SCIENCE to the collection of 9/11 information pool, and for this alone I find calling him a "Failed" scientist kind of harsh.

Thanks

TAM:)
Harsh but true. Would you do as much checking into his carrer as you can. I am not going to say it so I suggest reading it and you will see exactly what i am referring to. But if "Frank" has the decency to stop posting his stupidity that is based on nothing more than his being piossed off at "the man" then I won't bring up his being a failuire.

[Tony Szamboti]

Good thing you are just an internet desk jockey so your opinion really means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

John Kennedy said the same thing. Do you believe his opinion meant nothing in the grand scheme of things?

[T.A.M.]

Harsh but true. Would you do as much checking into his carrer as you can. I am not going to say it so I suggest reading it and you will see exactly what i am referring to. But if "Frank" has the decency to stop posting his stupidity that is based on nothing more than his being piossed off at "the man" then I won't bring up his being a failuire.

Whether it is true or not, is likely an opinion, which of course you are entitled to. However, bring it forward, and publicizing your opinion here, in essence, what might be seen as an attempt to humiliate him or make him angry, is not going to accomplish anything but a flame war, and likely get warnings thrown around, along with a "moderation" status assigned to the thread.

But, as with any and everyone, tis your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

John Kennedy said the same thing. Do you believe his opinion meant nothing in the grand scheme of things?

About Torin's hypothetical Paper and Hypothetical peer review, I would say this...

If any paper, is deemed to be scientifically sound, then regardless of what contraversial conclusions are made within it, it should be published.

That is the key...I do not think his paper, should he create one, would meet those standards, and as a result, they will have to come to cyberspace and google search him, to read any such paper he creates.

TAM:)

[~enigma~]

John Kennedy said the same thing. Do you believe his opinion meant nothing in the grand scheme of things?
JFK said you were an internet desk jockey? If he said that you are perfectly correct that I don't think his opinion mattered. Only thing is, when did he say that you were an internet desk jockey?

[~enigma~]

Whether it is true or not, is likely an opinion, which of course you are entitled to. However, bring it forward, and publicizing your opinion here, in essence, what might be seen as an attempt to humiliate him or make him angry, is not going to accomplish anything but a flame war, and likely get warnings thrown around, along with a "moderation" status assigned to the thread.

But, as with any and everyone, tis your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

TAM:)
His "pissed off at the man" opinion that is based on how his career panned out gives me every right to be mad at the grumpy guy for posting his crap here and thinking name dropping is supposed to garner him respect.

[Tony Szamboti]

JFK said you were an internet desk jockey? If he said that you are perfectly correct that I don't think his opinion mattered. Only thing is, when did he say that you were an internet desk jockey?

The quote you previously made of my post was about my opinion that the information should be available to the public at large. That is what I meant when I said John Kennedy said the same thing. For your edification I have reposted the JFK quote below.

As John Kennedy so aptly said "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people".

It is represents my feelings exactly and probably a large part of the public at large.

If you prefer to call me an internet desk jockey I think you need to label yourself the same.

[Tony Szamboti]

About Torin's hypothetical Paper and Hypothetical peer review, I would say this...

If any paper, is deemed to be scientifically sound, then regardless of what contraversial conclusions are made within it, it should be published.

That is the key...I do not think his paper, should he create one, would meet those standards, and as a result, they will have to come to cyberspace and google search him, to read any such paper he creates.

TAM:)

I do not think there are many established journals which are willing to get into this debate at the moment, so unfortunately it has been left to the Internet.

[~enigma~]

The quote you previously made of my post was about my opinion that the information should be available to the public at large. That is what I meant when I said John Kennedy said the same thing. For your edification I have reposted the JFK quote below.Not what you quote so how was I supposed to know. Should i have guessed? Now that you clarified what you meant, JFK thought peer review should be done on scientific papers after publishing?

As John Kennedy so aptly said "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people".Ah...as I suspected, he never said such a thing about peer review of scientific papers. Why have you been dishonest? Is there a reason you want to see peer review after publication like maybe you have a bias of some kind? Tell you what, if you find a publisher that is willing to publish a paper that wasn't peer renewed (in a scientific journal) and when that paper and subsequently that journal is made a laughing stock and you are willing to repay printing costs and the cost of lost subscriptions etc that the journal encountered. OK then you can get published before review. Until then, too bad for you.If you prefer to call me an internet desk jockey I think you need to label yourself the same.Never said I was anything else while I post. On the other hand, I have a life which seems to be something most woos (including yourself) lack.

[R.Mackey]

I do not think there are many established journals which are willing to get into this debate at the moment, so unfortunately it has been left to the Internet.

You have no evidence of that at all.

Scientific journals discourage bad scholarship. That is why no "Truth Movement" paper has ever been published. It has nothing to do with politics.

Prove me wrong.

[Tony Szamboti]

You have no evidence of that at all.

Scientific journals discourage bad scholarship. That is why no "Truth Movement" paper has ever been published. It has nothing to do with politics.

Prove me wrong.

I can't prove you wrong here anymore than you can prove me wrong. In fact, I didn't make a definitive statement about it as it is nearly impossible to prove. Although you are definitive with no evidence for it. If you recall I said "I think". There is a difference.

[Tony Szamboti]

Not what you quote so how was I supposed to know. Should i have guessed? Now that you clarified what you meant, JFK thought peer review should be done on scientific papers after publishing?

Ah...as I suspected, he never said such a thing about peer review of scientific papers. Why have you been dishonest? Is there a reason you want to see peer review after publication like maybe you have a bias of some kind? Tell you what, if you find a publisher that is willing to publish a paper that wasn't peer renewed (in a scientific journal) and when that paper and subsequently that journal is made a laughing stock and you are willing to repay printing costs and the cost of lost subscriptions etc that the journal encountered. OK then you can get published before review. Until then, too bad for you.Never said I was anything else while I post. On the other hand, I have a life which seems to be something most woos (including yourself) lack.


Do you get dizzy from all of the spin you are throwing around? I obviously was talking about John Kennedy's and my own similar view that the material should be available to the public not the peer review side of the equation.

Any intelligent person reading this should wonder about someone who makes assumptions like you are concerning whether or not someone else has a life, outside of debating on an Internet forum. Ad Hominem won't win the argument for you.

[R.Mackey]

I can't prove you wrong here anymore than you can prove me wrong. In fact, I didn't make a definitive statement about it as it is nearly impossible to prove. Although you are definitive with no evidence for it. If you recall I said "I think". There is a difference.

I don't have to prove you wrong, all I have to do is demonstrate that you are engaging in unfounded speculation. That has been accomplished.

Please refrain from such irresponsible claims in the future.

[beachnut]

I do not think there are many established journals which are willing to get into this debate at the moment, so unfortunately it has been left to the Internet.
The 9/11 truth papers are not published in real journal due to the lack of facts, logic, and rational thought. It is as simple as lies are not acceptable in real journals. You are in a group of people who make up stuff on 9/11. Fiction is not published in the journals we speak. Your post is in error.

[Tony Szamboti]

I don't have to prove you wrong, all I have to do is demonstrate that you are engaging in unfounded speculation. That has been accomplished.

Please refrain from such irresponsible claims in the future.

You sir should take your own advice.

[R.Mackey]

Show me where I have failed to do so, and I will concede your point.

You know, "burden of proof" and all that.

[Tony Szamboti]

The 9/11 truth papers are not published in real journal due to the lack of facts, logic, and rational thought. It is as simple as lies are not acceptable in real journals. You are in a group of people who make up stuff on 9/11. Fiction is not published in the journals we speak. Your post is in error.

Would you say the same about the initial claims of Galileo, the Wright brothers, etc. take a look at the link here

http://amasci.com/supress1.html

[Apollo20]

My publications:




1. United-Atom Treatment of the Rydberg States of Linear Molecules with Pi-2 Cores. Chem. Phys. Let. 34(3), 581, (1975)
2. Rydberg States of Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Disulphide. J. Mol. Spect. 59(2), 312, (1976). (Co-author)
3. Rydberg States of Carbon Diselenide. J. Mol. Spect. 61(3), 459, (1976). (Co-author)
4. The Analysis of Polymer Degradation Products by UV-Photoelectron Spectroscopy. Physica Scripta 16, 339, (1977). (Co-author)
5. Acquisition of Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry Facilities. OHRD Report C78-112-H, (June 1978).
6. An Investigation of Preconcentration Techniques for Neutron Activation Analysis of Trace Elements in Water. OHRD Report 78-458-H, (October 1978).
7. The Determination of Trace Elements in Residual Fuel Oil. OHRD Report 78-477-K, (November 1978).
8. Boron Interference in Neutron Activation Analysis. OHRD Report 78-626-K, (December 1978).
9. Sodium Hydroxide Interference in the Determination of Carbon-14 by Liquid Scintillation Counting. OHRD Report 79-21-K (January 1979).
10. The Determination of Boron Isotopes in Moderator Heavy Water by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry. OHRD Report 79-115-K, (March 1979).
11. Analysis of Generator Core Monitor Samples. OHRD Report 79-189-H, (April 1979).
12. Analysis of Pickering NGS “A” Irradiated Fuel Bay Water. OHRD Report 79-297-H, (June 1979).
13. The Acquisition of Surface Analysis Facilities. OHRD Report 79-265-H, (July 1979).
14. Analysis of Water Samples from BNPD Site 2. OHRD Report C79-124-K, (June 1979).
15. An Assessment of the TAGA – a Trace Atmospheric Gas Analyzer. OHRD Report 79-482-H, (October 1979).
16. Neutron Activation Analysis of NBS Coals. OHRD Report C79-183-K, (November 1979).
17. The Electronic Spectra of HCl and HF. Can J. Phys 57(10), 1650, (1979). (Co-author).
18. Bruce NGS “A” Particulate Analysis. OHRD Report 80-24-K, (February 1980).
19. Low Level Gamma Counting. OHRD Report 80-97-H, (March 1980).
20. Uranium and Thorium in Concrete. OHRD Report 80-130-K, (March 1980).
21. Analysis of Bruce NGS “A” Particulate Samples Collected Nov/’79, Feb/’80 and April/’80. OHRD Report 80-234-K, (June 1980).
22. Analytical Applications of Delayed Neutron Counting. OHRD Report 80-360-K, (September 1980).
23. Nitrogen-16 Monitoring. OHRD Report 80-424-K, (October 1980).
24. The Determination of Plutonium, Americium and Curium. OHRD Report 80-509-K, (January 1981).
25. Analysis of Pickering NGS “A” Unit 4 N2 Annulus Gas Filter Deposit. OHRD Report C81-04-K, (January 1981).
26. Radionuclides in Flyash. OHRD Report 81-98-K, (August 1981).
27. The JAMP-10 Scanning Auger Microprobe – A New Facility for Surface Analysis at Chemical Research. OHRD Report 81-286-K, (August 1981).
28. Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis of Mixtures of Iron, Uranium and Zirconium Oxides. OHRD Report C81-148-K, (September 1981).
29. Quantitative Auger Electron Analysis. OHRD Report 82-108-K, (March 1982).
30. Radon Emanation from Flyash. OHRD Report 82-242-K, (June 1982).
31. Ion-Sputtering in the JAMP-10 Scanning Auger Microprobe. OHRD Report 82-472-K, (November 1982).
32. The Neutron Absorbing Capacity of Gadolinium Nitrate. OHRD Report 83-42-K, (May 1983).
33. Calibration of the EDAX X-RAY Spectrometer. OHRD Report 83-226-K, (May 1983).
34. The Determination of Radionuclides in Flyash Leachates by Gamma-Ray Spectrometry. OHRD Report CM82-2506-K, (May 1983).
35. The Ion -Tech Sputtering System. OHRD Report 83-477-K,
(December 1983).
36. Gamma-Ray and Auger Electron Analysis of Some Pickering NGS Unit 1 Corrosion Coupons. OHRD Report 83-529-K, (December 1983).
37. The Analysis of Pickering NGS “A” Unit 2 End Fitting Liners. OHRD Report 84-77-K, (March 1984).
38. Analysis of Oxide Scales Formed on Feeder Pipes from Pickering NGS “A” Units 1 and 2. OHRD Report 84-262-K, (August 1984).
39. Radionuclide Depth-Profiling. OHRD Report 84-359-K, (November 1984).
40. Determination of Radium-226 in Flyash Leachates and Ground Waters. OHRD Report 85-35-K, (February 1985). (Co-author).
41. The Determination of Particle Size, Specific Activity and Chemical Composition of Particulate Material Collected on March 24, 1985, from an End Fitting Removal Trough at Pickering NGS Unit 1. OHRD Report 85-202-K, (July 1985).
42. The Effects of the CANDECON Decontamination Process on the Surface Oxides on Pickering Units 1 and 2 Feeder Pipes. Co-authored Paper Presented at the 6th Annual Canadian Nuclear Society Conference, Ottawa, 1985.
43. The Characterization of Carbon-14 Containing Particulate Material from the Gas Annulus Systems of Pickering NGS “A” Units 1 and 2. Part 1. OHRD Report 86-73-K, (April 1986).
44. Carbon-14 Task Force Interim Report to the Nuclear Integrity Review Committee. RMEP-IR-03400.1-2. (May 1987). (Co-authored).
45. The Gasification of Carbon-14 Particulate in Pickering Units 1 and 2 with Carbon Dioxide Filled Annulus Gas systems. OHRD Report C87-51-K, (June 1987).
46. Freon Distillation of Carbon-14 contaminated Components from Pickering NGS. OHRD Report C87-60-K, (July 1987).
47. The Gasification of Carbon-14 Particulate in Pickering Units 1 and 2 with Carbon Dioxide Filled Annulus Gas Systems: Addendum. OHRD Report C87-62-K, (July 1987).
48. The Characterization of Carbon-14 Containing Particulate Material from the Gas Annulus Systems of Pickering NGS “A” Units 1 and 2. Part 2: Supplementary Data and Final Conclusions. OHRD Report 86-217-K, (October 1987).
49. The Analysis of Samples Associated with the Removal of a Pressure Tube from PNGS Unit 3. OHRD Report C87-97-K, (November 1987).
50. The Analysis of Smears Taken on Two Calandria Tubes (K05 and C08) at NPD after the 1987 Shutdown. OHRD Report C88-44-K, (May 1988).
51. An Investigation of the Radiolytically Enhanced Oxidation of Carbon-14 Particulate. OHRD Report 88-160-K, (August 1988).
52. The Characterization of Heavy Water Upgrader Deposits. OHRD Report 88-250-K, (October 1988).
53. Analysis of Particulate Material Found in a Shut-Off Valve from the Bruce “B”, Unit 8, Gas Annulus System. OHRD Report C89-17-K, (February 1989). (Co-authored).
54. The Identification of Nitrogen-13 in the Gas Annulus System of Unit 3 at Pickering NGS. OHRD Report C89-31-K, (March 1989).
55. The Distribution of Carbon-14 in the Oxide Layer on the Outer Surface of an Irradiated Zr-2.5% Nb Pressure Tube from Pickering Unit 3. OHRD Report 89-176-K, (August 1989).
56. The Characterization of Carbon-14 Rich Deposits Formed in the Nitrogen Gas Annulus Systems of 500 MWe CANDU Reactors. Radiochimica Acta 47, 209, (1989).
57. Deposit Formation in CO2 Annulus Gas Systems. OHRD Report 89-302-K, (March 1990).
58. Tests on “Cold Fusion” in an Electrochemical Cell. OHRD Report 90-28-K, (April 1990), (Co-authored).
59. The Characterization of a Deposit Removed from the Annulus Gas System of Bruce NGS Unit 3. OHRD Report 90-239-K, (November 1990).
60. 1990 RPAC: Program Area 53 – Nuclear Structures and Systems. OHRD Report X90-7-R, (December 1990).
61. The Detection and Interpretation of Carbon-13 Isotope Effects in the Oxide Scales of Irradiated Zr-2.5 wt% Nb Pressure Tubes. OHRD Report 91-93-P, (June 1991).
62. The Characterization of Particulate Material Removed from the Pigtails and Bellows of Pickering NGS Unit 3. OHRD Report C90-34-K, (August 1991).
63. The Characterization of Particulate Material from three Bruce Unit 1 Calandria Swabs. OHRD Report C91-46-K, (August 1991).
64. The Characterization of a Bruce Unit 2 End Fitting Smear. OHRD Report C92-10-K, (February 1992).
65. Water Absorption in the Pickering Unit 3 Annulus Gas System. OHRD Report 92-2-K, (April 1992).
66. Trace Organic Compounds in CO2 Annulus Gas Systems. OHRD Report 92-187-P, (August 1992).
67. Modification of Radiolytically Deposited Carbon by the Inclusion of Hydrogen and Oxygen. Carbon ’92 Conference, Essen, (1992). (Co-authored).
68. Measurement of 14C and Other Long-Lived Radionuclides in Irradiated Zr-2.5 Nb Pressure Tubes from Pickering Units 3 and 4. COG Report COG-93-22, (June 1993). (Co-authored).
69. Hydrogen Ingress in Pressure Tubes. Ontario Hydro Research Review Number 8, 17, (1993). (Co-authored).
70. Characterization of the Tritium Activity in Urine and Deposits Removed from Valve MV309, Pickering NGS, Unit 7. OHT Report A-NBP-94-47-K, (May 1994).
71. A Review of OHRD/OHT Research on Carbon-14 in Annulus Gas Systems. OHT Report A-NBP-94-201-CON, (Jan 1995).
72. The Effect of Nitrogen Impurities on CO2 Annulus Gas Chemistry. OHT Report A-NFC-95-19-P, (April 1995).
73. Post Irradiation Investigations of Corrosion and Deuterium Pickup by Zr-2.5 wt% Nb Alloy Pressure Tubes: 14C, 13C and 11B tracers in Outside Surface Oxides. J. Nuc. Mat. 226, 263, (1995). (Co-authored).
74. An Investigation of Pressure Tube Oxide Spalling Using Zr-Nb Activity Data for Bruce “A” Unit 3. OHT Report A-NFC-96-62-P, (June 1996).
75. The Measurement of the Isotopic Composition of Water Vapour in CANDU Annulus Gas Systems. OHT Report A-NFC-96-114-P, (July 1996).
76. Post Irradiation Investigations of Corrosion and Deuterium Pickup by Zr-2.5 wt% Nb Alloy Pressure Tubes: Isotope Tracers in Inside Oxides. OHT Report A-NFC-96-200-P, (December 1996).
77. Carbon Isotope Dating of Pressure Tube Corrosion. COG WP-35 Poster Presentation at Fuel Channel Meeting, Toronto, (1997).
78. Oxygen-18 Distributions in the Outside Surface Oxides of P3LSFCR pressure Tubes. COG Report COG-97-487, (March 1998).
79. Characterization of a Metal Fragment Found Lodged in a Fuel Bundle Removed from Channel T05 of Bruce ‘B’ Unit 5. OHT Report 6686-052-1998-RA-0001-R00, (September 1998).
80. The Characterization of Thick Oxide Patches on Removed Pressure Tubes: New Results for B3U11. OHT Report 6122-203-1997-TM-0001-R00, (February 1999).
81.The Quantitative Analysis of Carbon and Oxygen in Zirconium Alloys by SIMS
Depth Profiling. COG Report COG-00-057, (May 2000).
82. Testing of Potential Inhibitors for H Ingress due to Aqueous Corrosion of Zr-
2.5Nb. EPRI Technical Progress Report 1000161, (July 2000). (Co-author).
83. Titanium Flow Accelerated Corrosion Inhibitor Addition to CANDU Reactors: Design Concepts and Compatibility with Reactor Operation. COG Report COG-00-083, (July 2000). (Co-author).
84. Chemical Control of Pressure Tube Corrosion and Hydrogen Pickup: Technical Progress 1998 –’99. COG Report COG-00-080, (August 2000).

[~enigma~]

Do you get dizzy from all of the spin you are throwing around? I obviously was talking about John Kennedy's and my own similar view that the material should be available to the public not the peer review side of the equation.

Any intelligent person reading this should wonder about someone who makes assumptions like you are concerning whether or not someone else has a life, outside of debating on an Internet forum. Ad Hominem won't win the argument for you.Listen idiot, JFK was not talking about scientific papers. Now if you want to be an immature brat that just plays stupid word games, go play them yourself because I am not getting involved with a moron...

[Gravy]

Steven E. Jones: The Galileo of our times.

[Tony Szamboti]

You have no evidence of that at all.

Scientific journals discourage bad scholarship. That is why no "Truth Movement" paper has ever been published. It has nothing to do with politics.

Prove me wrong.

What is your basis for saying the fact that no "Truth Movement" paper has ever been published in a scientific journal has nothing to do with politics?

I think you are the one who is lacking evidence here. You should also read an article as to why some controversial things aren't published initially.

http://amasci.com/supress1.html

Galileo's findings that Copernicus was right when it came to whether the earth was the center of the universe or not weren't allowed to be published for many years. Was it because it was bad scholarship? Or did it have to do with ignorance and essentially politics?

[Tony Szamboti]

Listen idiot, JFK was not talking about scientific papers. Now if you want to be an immature brat that just plays stupid word games, go play them yourself because I am not getting involved with a moron...

Ok nitwit, JFK was talking about making information available for the people to discern its truth or falsehood. What don't you understand about that?

Don't hide behind the peer review as a way of keeping information out of the hands of the public. Most adults can discern whether something has validity and don't need or want it censured for them. You also fail to recognize that I said to present both sides of the argument to the public so get real.

[T.A.M.]

Please refrain from insulting Galileo by comparing him to the pseudoscience that is the 9/11 truth movement.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Don't hide behind the peer review as a way of keeping information out of the hands of the public. Most people can discern whether something has validity and don't need it censured for them. Get real.

most people, except the experts who have not published any 9/11 truth papers right...they are wrong...right?

No wait, let me guess, they are "in on it"?

TAM:)

[R.Mackey]

What is your basis for saying the fact that no "Truth Movement" paper has ever been published in a scientific journal has nothing to do with politics?
Because all "Truth Movement" papers appear as whitepapers on the Internet, and every one that I've read has had more holes in it than a horse-trader's mule -- excepting those where a faction of the "Truth Movement" tries to discredit other factions. That is why they aren't published. The question of politics never even enters the equation.

The "Space Beams are Nonsense" whitepapers and Gregory Urich's mass calculation paper are examples of those that are not nonsense, but they don't contest the NIST report, and as such are not actually "Truth Movement" papers.


I think you are the one who is lacking evidence here. You should also read an article as to why some controversial things aren't published initially.

http://amasci.com/supress1.html
My evidence is the "Journal" for 9/11 Studies. I am not engaging in unfounded speculation. Nice try, though.

I've participated on both sides of the peer review process, even in the same week. Even currently. Individual journals or editors sometimes have unfortunate politics, but there are so many journals out there that if your paper is correct, you can get it published. You claimed otherwise. You pulled that out of thin air.


Galileo's findings that Copernicus was right when it came to whether the earth was the center of the universe or not weren't allowed to be published for many years. Was it because it was bad scholarship? Or did it have to do with ignorance and essentially politics?

If you're attempting to claim that journals today behave similarly to those four centuries past, you've no business challenging me.

[Apollo20]

TAM:

"Seek ye first the political kingdom".............

[~enigma~]

most people, except the experts who have not published any 9/11 truth papers right...they are wrong...right?

No wait, let me guess, they are "in on it"?

TAM:)
So the woo are considering peer review censorship? Not like they have any bias right TAM.

[T.A.M.]

TAM:

"Seek ye first the political kingdom".............

Look Frank, I have defended you and your scientific work here, and will continue to do so, so long as it has been based on good science. ALL THAT I HAVE SEEN from the truth movement is based on flawed science, or flawed data, or both. I agree with Mackey, if the work is legit, based on proper data and science, it will get published...maybe not everywhere, but somewhere.

I am aware there is a degree of politics everywhere, peer review, publishing in general, within the the scientific community.

So the woo are considering peer review censorship? Not like they have any bias right TAM.

They consider peer review censorship BECAUSE they have not been able to utilize it. If one of them, by some freakish chance, were to ever get an article published in a peer reviewed journal, they would be praising peer review as if it were next to an "ok from God".

TAM:)

[William Rea]

...see below.



Are you saying that independent verification AFTER publication means more than independent verification BEFORE publication?

Tell me what independent verification happens before publication?

[William Rea]

I hope you will excuse me William but this should be said. Yes, verification after publication is a much more stringent test of the merits of a work and therefore means a lot more.

Excusing not required, thanks for the intervention.

It's nice to read a post from someone who displays intelligence and actually thinks before they press submit rather than posting erratically in the belief they have a chance to "get one over" on me. :rolleyes:

[~enigma~]

They consider peer review censorship BECAUSE they have not been able to utilize it. If one of them, by some freakish chance, were to ever get an article published in a peer reviewed journal, they would be praising peer review as if it were next to an "ok from God".
Well I think this would be a good point to post this...

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.

[William Rea]

Do you get dizzy from all of the spin you are throwing around? I obviously was talking about John Kennedy's and my own similar view that the material should be available to the public not the peer review side of the equation.

Any intelligent person reading this should wonder about someone who makes assumptions like you are concerning whether or not someone else has a life, outside of debating on an Internet forum. Ad Hominem won't win the argument for you.

It's not an Ad Hom, they don't exist in JREFland. :rolleyes:

[T.A.M.]

Excusing not required, thanks for the intervention.

It's nice to read a post from someone who displays intelligence and actually thinks before they press submit rather than posting erratically in the belief they have a chance to "get one over" on me. :rolleyes:

There are lots of us here who are INTELLIGENT, but may not agree with you on certain things...

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

Look TAM, I will not defend you and your work here, and will continue not to support you, so long as your position here is based on your lack of appreciation of the REALPOLITIK of scientific publishing.

[~enigma~]

Look TAM, I will not defend you and your work here, and will continue not to support you, so long as your position here is based on your lack of appreciation of the REALPOLITIK of scientific publishing.
Is this irony?

[William Rea]

There are lots of us here who are INTELLIGENT, but may not agree with you on certain things...

TAM:)

"Lots" is an exaggeration in terms of intelligent, I can count them on one hand. I will concede however that "lots" of people disagree with me.

I do try to avoid lumping the JREFers together to use the less intelligent ones as material to carry out Ad Homs against the overall arguments (as per JREFers and the St***ies).

[William Rea]

Look TAM, I will not defend you and your work here, and will continue not to support you, so long as your position here is based on your lack of appreciation of the REALPOLITIK of scientific publishing.

It is a scientifically proven fact that 100% of 911 related papers published are devoid of politics.:rolleyes:

[T.A.M.]

Look TAM, I will not defend you and your work here, and will continue not to support you, so long as your position here is based on your lack of appreciation of the REALPOLITIK of scientific publishing.

Did I not just say that I was aware of the politics of scientific publishing. I just do not think they are as bad as you make them out to be.

As for your defending me, that is fine, as I have no "work" here. If I ever do publish anything regarding 9/11 (Extremely unlikely) it would be around the medical issues surrounding the first responders after the event.

As for defending you, I did not do it to be "smarmy", but in the interest of fair play. I can see you have no respect for this, so from now on, do not accuse me of not being fair about issues, if I do not speak up when you are attacked.

TAM:)

[beachnut]

Would you say the same about the initial claims of Galileo, the Wright brothers, etc. take a look at the link here

http://amasci.com/supress1.html
You have a problem with logical thinking equating the liars from the 9/11 truth movement to great thinkers of the ages. The 9/11 truth movement are more like NAZIs, there is only their "truth" and you have their word on it.

9/11 truth is the anti-knowledge force, your analogy is really sad. lol

I would have been with the Wright brothers, my distant uncle was. I would have helped Galileo, but then I want to be an individual, not a group think truther with no real ability to think for myself. What is your goal realcddeal? Ironic name, like 9/11 truth.

Cognitive Processes and the Suppression of Sound Scientific Ideas, the web site you posted. You have found what 9/11 truth is all about. Suppression of Sound Scientific Ideas. 9/11 truth has zero sound scientific ideas. This is great, you think the fact less 9/11 truth movement is like Galileo, but they are like NAZIs, the anti-intellectuals making up lies about 9/11.

[Tony Szamboti]

Did I not just say that I was aware of the politics of scientific publishing. I just do not think they are as bad as you make them out to be.

As for your defending me, that is fine, as I have no "work" here. If I ever do publish anything regarding 9/11 (Extremely unlikely) it would be around the medical issues surrounding the first responders after the event.

As for defending you, I did not do it to be "smarmy", but in the interest of fair play. I can see you have no respect for this, so from now on, do not accuse me of not being fair about issues, if I do not speak up when you are attacked.

TAM:)

I think it is an accurate statement that Dr. Greening is probably the most experienced person in the discussion here when it comes to the peer review process and whether or not there is occassional subjectivity involved. Unfortunately, human nature dictates that such will happen occassionally. However, when something is presented to a large group of people statistics take over and any subjectivity a few people might have is overwhelmed by the majority with an objective view of the matter. I am thankful that Dr. Greening has been honest and candid about this issue.

[T.A.M.]

I think it is an accurate statement that Dr. Greening is probably the most experienced person in the discussion here when it comes to the peer review process and whether or not there is occassional subjectivity involved. Unfortunately, human nature dictates that such will happen occassionally. However, when something is presented to a large group of people statistics take over and any subjectivity a few people might have is overwhelmed by the majority with an objective view of the matter. I am thankful that Dr. Greening has been honest and candid about this issue.

I agree, although the lack of expertese within 99.999% of the truther community does not bode well for Objective criticism of any article, for either side...they will be unfairly in favor of a paper that supports them, and unfairly against a paper that does not. Of course, this will likely play the same way with alot of posters here, but we are much, much fewer in number (JREF Debunkers that is).

TAM:)

[beachnut]

"Lots" is an exaggeration in terms of intelligent, I can count them on one hand. I will concede however that "lots" of people disagree with me.

I do try to avoid lumping the JREFers together to use the less intelligent ones as material to carry out Ad Homs against the overall arguments (as per JREFers and the St***ies).
You are still having problems understanding what Ad Homs means.

[Zep]

Would you say the same about the initial claims of Galileo, the Wright brothers, etc. take a look at the link here

http://amasci.com/supress1.html

"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough to be persecuted by an unkind establishment. One must also be right."

[Tony Szamboti]

You have a problem with logical thinking equating the liars from the 9/11 truth movement to great thinkers of the ages. The 9/11 truth movement are more like NAZIs, there is only their "truth" and you have their word on it.

9/11 truth is the anti-knowledge force, your analogy is really sad. lol

I would have been with the Wright brothers, my distant uncle was. I would have helped Galileo, but then I want to be an individual, not a group think truther with no real ability to think for myself. What is your goal realcddeal? Ironic name, like 9/11 truth.

Cognitive Processes and the Suppression of Sound Scientific Ideas, the web site you posted. You have found what 9/11 truth is all about. Suppression of Sound Scientific Ideas. 9/11 truth has zero sound scientific ideas. This is great, you think the fact less 9/11 truth movement is like Galileo, but they are like NAZIs, the anti-intellectuals making up lies about 9/11.

Concerning the events of 911 my goal is honest objective evaluation and analysis of the entire mass of evidence. I do not believe we have gotten that yet. I believe a new investigation is called for, which is not controlled by parties which may be suspect, due to the fact that they had something to gain. Any law enforcement official who potentially could have had something to gain from a crime is usually recused, to avoid conflicts of interest, and to maintain propriety. That is standard procedure. If a police chief's wife is murdered he will not be allowed to run the investigation for these reasons. The Bush administration had massive things to gain from the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and yet all three of the investigations we have had so far, FEMA, 911 Commission, and NIST were fully controlled by the Bush administration.

As far as I am concerned people are innocent until proven guilty but there are protocols when investigating a crime which were not followed when it comes to the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

Most people would not call it Nazi like to want to question people who had access to the building's interiors in light of the fact that firefighters mentioned seeing, feeling, and hearing explosions both before and during the collapses of the towers. Even so, this simple process was never done and should have been. So why shouldn't it be done now? If it was all just a simple mistake we need to correct it. If you really want to put the conspiracy theories to bed we need to do a complete above board investigation.

[Tony Szamboti]

"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough to be persecuted by an unkind establishment. One must also be right."

Agreed!

[Zep]

Agreed!...and the Troofers clearly aren't, by anyone's standards.

So can we dispose of the great trVth! plinth persecution complex, please.

[Brainache]

Concerning the events of 911 my goal is honest objective evaluation and analysis of the entire mass of evidence. I do not believe we have gotten that yet. I believe a new investigation is called for, which is not controlled by parties which may be suspect, due to the fact that they had something to gain. Any law enforcement official who potentially could have had something to gain from a crime is usually recused, to avoid conflicts of interest, and to maintain propriety. That is standard procedure. If a police chief's wife is murdered he will not be allowed to run the investigation for these reasons. The Bush administration had massive things to gain from the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and yet all three of the investigations we have had so far, FEMA, 911 Commission, and NIST were fully controlled by the Bush administration.

As far as I am concerned people are innocent until proven guilty but there are protocols when investigating a crime which were not followed when it comes to the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

Most people would not call it Nazi like to want to question people who had access to the building's interiors in light of the fact that firefighters mentioned seeing, feeling, and hearing explosions both before and during the collapses of the towers. Even so, this simple process was never done and should have been. So why shouldn't it be done now? If it was all just a simple mistake we need to correct it. If you really want to put the conspiracy theories to bed we need to do a complete above board investigation.

Are you saying that the initial investigations should have been carried out by someone other than the FBI and the various US law enforcement departments?

Looks like in your police chief's wife analogy you are saying that no police should be involved in the investigation at all.

So who should be doing these investigations? Alex Jones?

[Tony Szamboti]

Are you saying that the initial investigations should have been carried out by someone other than the FBI and the various US law enforcement departments?

Looks like in your police chief's wife analogy you are saying that no police should be involved in the investigation at all.

So who should be doing these investigations? Alex Jones?

No, I didn't say no police chief should be involved in the investigation of another chief's wife's murder, just not the one who has a potential conflict of interest.

I do believe the investigation of the Twin Tower collapses should have been conducted by organizations such as the FBI, NIST, and FEMA but that their directors, who were politically appointed by the Bush administration, should have been recused. They weren't. The investigations should have been controlled and run by career government employees who were not politically appointed by this administration.

I don't believe Philip Zelikow, a definite Bush insider, should have been the director of the 911 Commission.

I also believe that in the case of the towers that all video and photos should be made available to the public for scrutiny and affirmation of the conclusions found by these investigations which would have been independent of political manipulation.

[Tony Szamboti]

Because all "Truth Movement" papers appear as whitepapers on the Internet, and every one that I've read has had more holes in it than a horse-trader's mule -- excepting those where a faction of the "Truth Movement" tries to discredit other factions. That is why they aren't published. The question of politics never even enters the equation.

The "Space Beams are Nonsense" whitepapers and Gregory Urich's mass calculation paper are examples of those that are not nonsense, but they don't contest the NIST report, and as such are not actually "Truth Movement" papers.


My evidence is the "Journal" for 9/11 Studies. I am not engaging in unfounded speculation. Nice try, though.

I've participated on both sides of the peer review process, even in the same week. Even currently. Individual journals or editors sometimes have unfortunate politics, but there are so many journals out there that if your paper is correct, you can get it published. You claimed otherwise. You pulled that out of thin air.



If you're attempting to claim that journals today behave similarly to those four centuries past, you've no business challenging me.

I am saying human nature is the same today as it was four centuries ago. Only the issues have changed.

I didn't claim anything. How many times do I have to tell you I said "I think that the controversial nature is the reason"

Do you think Greg Urich is right that the actual mass of the towers was significantly lower than the pruported 500,000 tons each?

I wrote one of those "Space Beams are Nonsense" whitepapers which were used to put James Fetzer and Judy Wood to bed on that.

[T.A.M.]

No, I didn't say no police chief should be involved in the investigation of another chief's wife's murder, just not the one who has a potential conflict of interest.

I do believe the investigation of the Twin Tower collapses should have been conducted by organizations such as the FBI, NIST, and FEMA but that their directors, who were politically appointed by the Bush administration, should have been recused. They weren't. The investigations should have been controlled and run by career government employees who were not politically appointed by this administration.

I don't believe Philip Zelikow, a definite Bush insider, should have been the director of the 911 Commission.

I also believe that in the case of the towers that all video and photos should be made available to the public for scrutiny and affirmation of the conclusions found by these investigations which would have been independent of political manipulation.


Oh come on now. Clinton and his cronies were in power for 8 years, right up until 9 months before the attack. Don't be just blaming BUSH and the Neocons...it goes much deeper. The NWO is not partisan. When Hillary gets back in power, you know it will only continue....BAHHHAAAHAAAAHAAA!!!

TAM:)

[beachnut]

Concerning the events of 911 my goal is honest objective evaluation and analysis of the entire mass of evidence. I do not believe we have gotten that yet. I believe a new investigation is called for, which is not controlled by parties which may be suspect, due to the fact that they had something to gain. Any law enforcement official who potentially could have had something to gain from a crime is usually recused, to avoid conflicts of interest, and to maintain propriety. That is standard procedure. If a police chief's wife is murdered he will not be allowed to run the investigation for these reasons. The Bush administration had massive things to gain from the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and yet all three of the investigations we have had so far, FEMA, 911 Commission, and NIST were fully controlled by the Bush administration.

As far as I am concerned people are innocent until proven guilty but there are protocols when investigating a crime which were not followed when it comes to the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

Most people would not call it Nazi like to want to question people who had access to the building's interiors in light of the fact that firefighters mentioned seeing, feeling, and hearing explosions both before and during the collapses of the towers. Even so, this simple process was never done and should have been. So why shouldn't it be done now? If it was all just a simple mistake we need to correct it. If you really want to put the conspiracy theories to bed we need to do a complete above board investigation.
Based on your present rate of uncovering real evidence, I predict you will solve 9/11 by 2173. (based on the rate you have shown rational evidence of any thing for the past 5 plus years)

No it is NAZI like propaganda coming from the 9/11 truth movement. The 9/11 truth movement is a one way propaganda machine, like NAZIs. The 9/11 truth movement is like a NAZI propaganda machine. I have been a victim of the NAZI like tactics at different truth forums and other places. I have been threatened and called a criminal for my beliefs, you truthers are like NAZIs. .

You have a problem. Open and independent papers and research has been done. Some of it is proprietary and you will be given the results when you build your next 1 billion dollar building. Independent papers are in academic journals, professional journal. The number of independent world wide studies is more than you will ever need to solve 9/11. The CD stuff is proved wrong on 9/11, and you are just not putting the evidence together.

9/11 truth is the closed minded society that calls everyone who knows the truth closed minded. They are the little kid group, that says no you are closed minded. What a bunch of pathetic false information spewing people, 9/11 truth.

I did not form anything from official reports. I knew on 9/11 that the WTC fell due to impact, fire, and failure. I have seen structural steel fail so quick in a fire. I fly airplanes, I love physics, I always liked science. But 9/11 without any help was so easy with my back ground in the USAF, engineering, and other experiences. I knew at the second impact OBL was a player, I knew when the WTC fell, it was impact, fire and failure. I think it is cool when I read a paper that confirms my calculations and observations. I find it real dumb that 9/11 truth makes up the explosive stuff when they know the witnesses are talking about sounds. I have also been around blasts, and I observed no blasts on 9/11. You will never find real evidence to support you CD ideas. You ignore all rational explanations.

I have found zero evidence to support CD or any ideas from 9/11 truth. And you have not presented facts to support them either.

Do not use the official source, I can use 9/11 truth sources and solve 9/11. It is pathetic the weave of junk that the truth movement impeaches itself. Sad group, 9/11 truth. I can watch Loose Change videos and solve 9/11. It is so ironic. I can take your post and prove CD did not happen. 9/11 truth is so easy to show wrong.

[Tony Szamboti]

Oh come on now. Clinton and his cronies were in power for 8 years, right up until 9 months before the attack. Don't be just blaming BUSH and the Neocons...it goes much deeper. The NWO is not partisan. When Hillary gets back in power, you know it will only continue....BAHHHAAAHAAAAHAAA!!!

TAM:)

Maybe you are right on Clinton. However, that still doesn't change my contention that there should have been no political appointees involved in the investigations. The one problem with your involvement of Clinton's people is that they would not be in control of the investigation. Even so, I think a legitimate investigation would still have had questions for members of his administration though and they wouldn't have just involved why they didn't get Osama Bin Laden.

[T.A.M.]

So who should have been on the commission???

TAM:)

[Tony Szamboti]

Based on your present rate of uncovering real evidence, I predict you will solve 9/11 by 2173. (based on the rate you have shown rational evidence of any thing for the past 5 plus years)

No it is NAZI like propaganda coming from the 9/11 truth movement. The 9/11 truth movement is a one way propaganda machine, like NAZIs. The 9/11 truth movement is like a NAZI propaganda machine. I have been a victim of the NAZI like tactics at different truth forums and other places. I have been threatened and called a criminal for my beliefs, you truthers are like NAZIs. .

You have a problem. Open and independent papers and research has been done. Some of it is proprietary and you will be given the results when you build your next 1 billion dollar building. Independent papers are in academic journals, professional journal. The number of independent world wide studies is more than you will ever need to solve 9/11. The CD stuff is proved wrong on 9/11, and you are just not putting the evidence together.

9/11 truth is the closed minded society that calls everyone who knows the truth closed minded. They are the little kid group, that says no you are closed minded. What a bunch of pathetic false information spewing people, 9/11 truth.

I did not form anything from official reports. I knew on 9/11 that the WTC fell due to impact, fire, and failure. I have seen structural steel fail so quick in a fire. I fly airplanes, I love physics, I always liked science. But 9/11 without any help was so easy with my back ground in the USAF, engineering, and other experiences. I knew at the second impact OBL was a player, I knew when the WTC fell, it was impact, fire and failure. I think it is cool when I read a paper that confirms my calculations and observations. I find it real dumb that 9/11 truth makes up the explosive stuff when they know the witnesses are talking about sounds. I have also been around blasts, and I observed no blasts on 9/11. You will never find real evidence to support you CD ideas. You ignore all rational explanations.

I have found zero evidence to support CD or any ideas from 9/11 truth. And you have not presented facts to support them either.

Listen real hard there Beach. It isn't my job or yours to take over for a poor investigation. We don't have the tools at our disposal and those who do didn't use them. That is the problem.

I did have a hard time not laughing at your contention that open and independent research has been done but that it won't be available until the next billion dollar building is built. Do you realize that you just stated an oxymoron?

[T.A.M.]

So are you suggesting that when ever an act of terrorism is perpetrated on the citizens of a country, that that countries leaders should not form a commission to investigate what happened??? Is that what you are suggesting????

TAM:)

[R.Mackey]

I am saying human nature is the same today as it was four centuries ago. Only the issues have changed.

I didn't claim anything. How many times do I have to tell you I said "I think that the controversial nature is the reason"

That's a claim. It's speculation. I think the reason is that "Truth Movement" papers are wrong, and that it has nothing to do with politics. Like I said above, I can show that they are wrong, and I also can show that they fail the written requirements of any legitimate journal.


Do you think Greg Urich is right that the actual mass of the towers was significantly lower than the pruported 500,000 tons each?

I wrote one of those "Space Beams are Nonsense" whitepapers which were used to put James Fetzer and Judy Wood to bed on that.
Yes, I do. That estimate was round and soft to begin with, and a comparison against the Sears Tower suggested that a figure of ~350,000 tons was more credible. We also have to define clearly what mass is included, since the basement and sublevels will be far more massive per floor than anything else in the structure.

Furthermore, comparison against the NIST models reveals that NIST also feels the mass was lower. NIST and Gregory Urich, after the latter revised his calculations, are within about 10% of each other. Not bad. See here (http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showthread.php?p=2787338) for the latest. I still feel this is a bit low owing to difficulties in estimating live loads, but I think these results are well within experimental uncertainty.

Of course, since NIST's numbers agree, then Gregory has not refuted the NIST collapse model in any way -- if anything he's confirmed it.

Now, then, nobody's stopping the "Truth Movement" from publishing anything. Go to it. Tell us what happened. I'm all ears.

[Tony Szamboti]

So are you suggesting that when ever an act of terrorism is perpetrated on the citizens of a country, that that countries leaders should not form a commission to investigate what happened??? Is that what you are suggesting????

TAM:)

No, if you were listening I said that there should have been no conflicts of interest. There were many conflicts of interest on the 911 Commission. I gave you one in Philip Zelikow. Another easily discernable one is Richard Ben-Veniste whose law firm was representing Unocal, who had a lot to gain from the removal of the Taliban with their intent to build an oil and gas pipeline through Afghanistan to the Caspian area, about which the Taliban was not cooperative and had given the contract to a Unocal competitior from Argentina named Bridas Corporation.

[twinstead]

No, if you were listening I said that there should have been no conflicts of interest. There were many conflicts of interest on the 911 Commission. I gave you one in Philip Zelikow. Another easily discernable one is Richard Ben-Veniste whose law firm was representing Unocal, who had a lot to gain from the removal of the Taliban with their intent to build an oil and gas pipeline through Afghanistan to the Caspian area, about which the Taliban was not cooperative and had given the contract to a Unocal competitior from Argentina named Bridas Corporation.

And of course that actually happened didn't it. Oh. Wait. No it didn't.

[Tony Szamboti]

That's a claim. It's speculation. I think the reason is that "Truth Movement" papers are wrong, and that it has nothing to do with politics. Like I said above, I can show that they are wrong, and I also can show that they fail the written requirements of any legitimate journal.

Now you are saying it right as "You think the reason is that the papers are wrong".

Yes, I do. That estimate was round and soft to begin with, and a comparison against the Sears Tower suggested that a figure of ~350,000 tons was more credible. We also have to define clearly what mass is included, since the basement and sublevels will be far more massive per floor than anything else in the structure.

Furthermore, comparison against the NIST models reveals that NIST also feels the mass was lower. NIST and Gregory Urich, after the latter revised his calculations, are within about 10% of each other. Not bad. See here (http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showthread.php?p=2787338) for the latest. I still feel this is a bit low owing to difficulties in estimating live loads, but I think these results are well within experimental uncertainty.

Of course, since NIST's numbers agree, then Gregory has not refuted the NIST collapse model in any way -- if anything he's confirmed it.

Now, then, nobody's stopping the "Truth Movement" from publishing anything. Go to it. Tell us what happened. I'm all ears.

Understanding that the live loads are difficult to discern but if the towers had a lower mass close to what Gregory Urich is proposing, then the factors of safety against vertical collapse would have been pretty high like 2.5 or 3 to 1. So if the NIST models on damaged and destroyed core columns is right, that means all of the remaining columns needed to reach at least 600 degrees C in the central core for collapse to ensue. The problem is there is no physical evidence for that so how did the buildings collapse?

[T.A.M.]

No, if you were listening I said that there should have been no conflicts of interest. There were many conflicts of interest on the 911 Commission. I gave you one in Philip Zelikow. Another easily discernable one is Richard Ben-Veniste whose law firm was representing Unocal, who had a lot to gain from the removal of the Taliban with their intent to build an oil and gas pipeline through Afghanistan to the Caspian area, about which the Taliban was not cooperative and had given the contract to a Unocal competitior from Argentina named Bridas Corporation.

How was it a conflict of interest. Only in the minds of those SUSPECTING the USG OF ALLOWING OR CAUSING the 9/11 attacks, is there a conflict of interest. If BUSH was being INVESTIGATED, than I would say there is a possible conflict of interest with Philip Zelikow. Likewise, if The oil companies were the focus of the commission, than perhaps having Richard Ben-Veniste on the commission might have been a conflict.

See you have to look at it, outside the paranoid mindset. Look at it from the perspective of what we all saw, what we all knew, and WHO WAS THE PARTY BEING INVESTIGATED.

But I know why you see it the way you do...because you assume Bush and the others were involved, so to have people on the commission that they had links to is a conflict...I don't see it from that perspective, so to me the commission was fine...no conflicts.

TAM:)

[R.Mackey]

Understanding that the live loads are difficult to discern but if the towers had a lower mass close to what Gregory Urich is proposing, then the factors of safety against vertical collapse would have been pretty high like 2.5 or 3 to 1. So if the NIST models on damaged and destroyed core columns is right, that means all of the remaining columns needed to reach at least 600 degrees C in the central core for collapse to ensue.

Sigh. Your reading comprehension is breathtakingly bad.

Gregory Urich's weight calculation and NIST's model agree.

There is no new information provided, just a confirmation of something peripheral to the NIST report that they didn't explicitly state.

There is no change to the validity of NIST's result, nor to its conclusions regarding core column temperature.

[T.A.M.]

real:

perhaps you think their should have not been any Jews on the commission as well...I mean Israel definitely had motive to frame the Arabs for the crimes....right?

TAM:)

[Tony Szamboti]

Sigh. Your reading comprehension is breathtakingly bad.

Gregory Urich's weight calculation and NIST's model agree.

There is no new information provided, just a confirmation of something peripheral to the NIST report that they didn't explicitly state.

There is no change to the validity of NIST's result, nor to its conclusions regarding core column temperature.

Sigh, sigh. You are evading the issue I brought up. NIST didn't publish or even imply a mass of the buildings. So Gregory Urich's findings are important to determining the actual factor of safety against vertical collapse.

A mechanical engineer by the name of Tony Szamboti wrote a paper which says that even with the 500,000 ton mass the remaining factor of safety was sufficient to prevent collapse given the NIST damage analysis and physical evidence of steel temperatures. His paper is on, I can hear the sigh now, the Journal of 911 Studies.

[Tony Szamboti]

real:

perhaps you think their should have not been any Jews on the commission as well...I mean Israel definitely had motive to frame the Arabs for the crimes....right?

TAM:)

Why not if they as an individual had nothing to gain? I don't think one can lump all people of Jewish nationality into supporting a crime like 911 whether Israel benefited from it or not. There are a lot of Jewish people that have problems with the explanations we have been given. See http://www.mujca.net

[beachnut]

Listen real hard there Beach. It isn't my job or yours to take over for a poor investigation. We don't have the tools at our disposal and those who do didn't use them. That is the problem.

I did have a hard time not laughing at your contention that open and independent research has been done but that it won't be available until the next billion dollar building is built. Do you realize that you just stated an oxymoron?
I like JFK, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. So I can do my own research and find facts to make conclusion. Sad you are unable, go to school. My own number are collaborated with other people papers, when I confirmed the energy to destroy the WTC with gravity. All I needed way math and physics and research.

Not surprised that you failed to understand, typical of 9/11 truth members. When you build a big building, you will be buying some proprietary research, already done, to help building your building better, that was done on 9/11. There are companies who did research and they will use it to build buildings. This research may come out as the structural engineers write papers in the future. There is research you can buy on 9/11.

The independent research is already done. You can buy it when you build, or you can buy the engineering services. This is like extra credit stuff. You need to work on comprehension or ask a question before you go nuts and oxymoron my lack of expression.

Ask better questions, sorry you missed the point, but since you are having problems comprehending or asking questions, and you get upset about your pet theory, my estimate of your solving 9/11 has moved to 2197.

[T.A.M.]

you mean this Tony Szamboti?

http://www.geocities.com/whiskey99a/jeteffectrebut.html

Yes...here you go...SIGH SIGH SIGH!!!!

TAM:)

[Tony Szamboti]

How was it a conflict of interest. Only in the minds of those SUSPECTING the USG OF ALLOWING OR CAUSING the 9/11 attacks, is there a conflict of interest. If BUSH was being INVESTIGATED, than I would say there is a possible conflict of interest with Philip Zelikow. Likewise, if The oil companies were the focus of the commission, than perhaps having Richard Ben-Veniste on the commission might have been a conflict.

See you have to look at it, outside the paranoid mindset. Look at it from the perspective of what we all saw, what we all knew, and WHO WAS THE PARTY BEING INVESTIGATED.

But I know why you see it the way you do...because you assume Bush and the others were involved, so to have people on the commission that they had links to is a conflict...I don't see it from that perspective, so to me the commission was fine...no conflicts.

TAM:)

An investigation is not supposed to start out with a pre-determined conclusion on WHO WAS THE PARTY BEING INVESTIGATED. They are supposed to ask Cui Bono or who benefits and start from there to investigate anyone who could have benefitted. It is far from paranoid to say that the Bush administration and Big Oil companies had a lot to gain from what happened on 911, and they should have been suspected and any mid level to high officials connected to them should not have been involved in the investigation. Unfortunately, people who fit in these categories were involved in the investigations at high levels of control over them.

[T.A.M.]

Why not if they as an individual had nothing to gain? I don't think one can lump all people of Jewish nationality into supporting a crime like 911 whether Israel benefited from it or not. There are a lot of Jewish people that have problems with the explanations we have been given. See http://www.mujca.net

ok, so on realcddeal's list of people who would be ok, or not, for the commission, we have...

ok:
1. Jews

Not ok:
1. USG past or present admin
2. People with ties to Oil Companies.

Anyone else you would add to either list?

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

It is far from paranoid to say that the Bush administration and Big Oil companies had a lot to gain from what happened on 911.

So did alot of Jewish people, or more specifically, Israeli Patriots.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

So any congressmen or women who were supported by the Bush Admin, should they have been allowed on the commission?

What about those heavily supported by the Clintons?

What about congresspeople supported by Dick Cheney?

What about lawyers with any ties to the BUSH or CLINTON admins?

TAM:)

[Tony Szamboti]

I like JFK, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. So I can do my own research and find facts to make conclusion. Sad you are unable, go to school. My own number are collaborated with other people papers, when I confirmed the energy to destroy the WTC with gravity. All I needed way math and physics and research.

Not surprised that you failed to understand, typical of 9/11 truth members. When you build a big building, you will be buying some proprietary research, already done, to help building your building better, that was done on 9/11. There are companies who did research and they will use it to build buildings. This research may come out as the structural engineers write papers in the future. There is research you can buy on 9/11.

The independent research is already done. You can buy it when you build, or you can buy the engineering services. This is like extra credit stuff. You need to work on comprehension or ask a question before you go nuts and oxymoron my lack of expression.

Ask better questions, sorry you missed the point, but since you are having problems comprehending or asking questions, and you get upset about your pet theory, my estimate of your solving 9/11 has moved to 2197.


You said the independent research or studies were open and then say the information is only available to those who are going to build large buildings. That fits the classic definition of an oxymoron. Keep it up and I'll have to call you Oxy for short.

I would like to see your calculations for the energy needed to collapse the towers to the ground and showing it being possible with gravity alone.

[Tony Szamboti]

So any congressmen or women who were supported by the Bush Admin, should they have been allowed on the commission?

What about those heavily supported by the Clintons?

What about congresspeople supported by Dick Cheney?

What about lawyers with any ties to the BUSH or CLINTON admins?

TAM:)

No.
No.
No.
No.

That still would probably leave 99% of the country eligible.

[Tony Szamboti]

you mean this Tony Szamboti?

http://www.geocities.com/whiskey99a/jeteffectrebut.html

Yes...here you go...SIGH SIGH SIGH!!!!

TAM:)

Did you read that paper or are you just sighing for effect?

[beachnut]

You said the investigations or studies were open and then say the information is only available to those who are going to build large buildings. That fits the classic definition of an oxymoron. Keep it up and I'll have to call you Oxy for short.
Touting CD theories is oxymoronic without the oxy.

Oh no, I could be president, I said open, but you have to buy them. Yes that is an oxymoron. It could be a stundie, sort of.

[R.Mackey]

Sigh, sigh. You are evading the issue I brought up. NIST didn't publish or even imply a mass of the buildings. So Gregory Urich's findings are important to determining the actual factor of safety against vertical collapse.

Bolding mine.

This is a lie. NIST estimated the weight as part of its structural model. Did you even bother checking the other thread, that I linked for you?

You are a liar.


A mechanical engineer by the name of Tony Szamboti wrote a paper which says that even with the 500,000 ton mass the remaining factor of safety was sufficient to prevent collapse given the NIST damage analysis and physical evidence of steel temperatures. His paper is on, I can hear the sigh now, the Journal of 911 Studies.

Yeah, him and Gordon Ross. I'll tear him up too if I feel like it.

As for you, your three strikes are up. Welcome to Ignore.

[T.A.M.]

No.
No.
No.
No.

That still would probably leave 99% of the country eligible.

ok:
1. Jews

Not Ok:

1.Bush admin/Clinton admin
2.Congresspeople or Lawyers with ties to Bush admin or Clinton admin

So Like I asked before, who should have been on the Commission? Remember what sort of people have been on all other govt appointed commissions in the past (don't forget the USG was asked to form the commission).


Did you read that paper or are you just sighing for effect?

I am sighing because (A) you invited it, (B) because your little starlet there, was a CTist long before 9/11.

TAM:)

[nicepants]

Tell me what independent verification happens before publication?

That would be the process known as "peer review".

[Tony Szamboti]

This is a lie. NIST estimated the weight as part of its structural model. Did you even bother checking the other thread, that I linked for you?

You are a liar.

And what link would that have been? I usually read whatever you provided. Of course, if I did happen to overlook it you wouldn't even consider that would you you pompous thing? Who the hell could you possibly be? Your profile says you are 32 years old. Most 32 year olds aren't much past the snot nose stage in engineering. You seem to be looking for any excuse to decapitate someone. It really sounds like you are just looking for an excuse to get out of an argument you can't win.


Yeah, him and Gordon Ross. I'll tear him up too if I feel like it.

Well why don't you show me where he is wrong?

As for you, your three strikes are up. Welcome to Ignore.
Thank God! I've had my full of your pomposity!

[Tony Szamboti]

ok:
1. Jews

Not Ok:

1.Bush admin/Clinton admin
2.Congresspeople or Lawyers with ties to Bush admin or Clinton admin

So Like I asked before, who should have been on the Commission? Remember what sort of people have been on all other govt appointed commissions in the past (don't forget the USG was asked to form the commission).




I am sighing because (A) you invited it, (B) because your little starlet there, was a CTist long before 9/11.

TAM:)


That is a massive ad hominem. Did you read the guy's paper? 80% of the people in this country think there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Are you saying you believe that whole thing was on the up and up? By the way the Warren Commission had heavy conflicts of interest also. Allen Dulles was appointed by LBJ. JFK had fired Dulles the year before for lying to him about the Bay of Pigs.

[William Rea]

That would be the process known as "peer review".

No it wouldn't, that's why I specifically said "independent verification" rather than "peer review".

[T.A.M.]

That is a massive ad hominem. Did you read the guy's paper? 80% of the people in this country think there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Are you saying you believe that whole thing was on the up and up? By the way the Warren Commission had heavy conflicts of interest also. Allen Dulles was appointed by LBJ. JFK had fired Dulles the year before for lying to him about the Bay of Pigs.

Well given he is not here arguing, I could care less if it an ad-hom. Besides in this case, I wasnt commenting about his 9/11 paper...was I. I am simply wondering if you guys have a single qualified engineer who wan't already a silly CTist before 9/11, who has produced a paper on it?

TAM:)

[Tony Szamboti]

Well given he is not here arguing, I could care less if it an ad-hom. Besides in this case, I wasnt commenting about his 9/11 paper...was I. I am simply wondering if you guys have a single qualified engineer who wan't already a silly CTist before 9/11, who has produced a paper on it?

TAM:)

Being that you say you couldn't care less about using ad-hominem I now have to wonder if T.A.M. stands for "The Ad-Hominem Man". I am sorry you feel that way. Luckily it seems most people prefer to judge a work on its merits. What is important is that they get a chance to see all sides of an argument, in which ad-hominem has no place.

[Brainache]

Being that you say you couldn't care less about using ad-hominem I now have to wonder if T.A.M. stands for "The Ad-Hominem Man". I am sorry you feel that way. Luckily it seems most people prefer to judge a work on its merits. What is important is that they get a chance to see all sides of an argument, in which ad-hominem has no place.

Well I think TAM was actually pointing out a conflict of interest.

[T.A.M.]

Being that you say you couldn't care less about using ad-hominem I now have to wonder if T.A.M. stands for "The Ad-Hominem Man". I am sorry you feel that way. Luckily it seems most people prefer to judge a work on its merits. What is important is that they get a chance to see all sides of an argument, in which ad-hominem has no place.

I am making the point that someone who has shown a propensity to believe unproven Conspiracy Theories in the past, has a POSSIBLE bias to believe such things on other matters.

I am not saying he has, but as I said, find me a single Expert who has written a quality paper showing evidence of a coverup, who WAS NOT a CTist prior to 9/11.

T.A.M. (The Artistic Macrophage) :)

PS. If he were personally here, defending his logic, I would not use this against him, as then, to me that would be poor debating technique.

So if a former Nazi Commander writes a paper concluding the Holocaust didn't happen, and someone uses the article as evidence in an arguement, is it an ad-hom to mention the authors background as a point of bias?

[Tony Szamboti]

Well I think TAM was actually pointing out a conflict of interest.

What would be the conflict of interest? If you are speaking about Tony Szamboti he apparently believes that both the Kennedy assassination and 911 were crimes which were not properly solved and were covered up. Are you saying it is impossible to have two crimes of such nature?

There are millions of people who believe both crimes were not properly solved and that cover-ups were used in both to hide the reality of what happened.

[Tony Szamboti]

I am making the point that someone who has shown a propensity to believe unproven Conspiracy Theories in the past, has a POSSIBLE bias to believe such things on other matters.

I am not saying he has, but as I said, find me a single Expert who has written a quality paper showing evidence of a coverup, who WAS NOT a CTist prior to 9/11.

T.A.M. (The Artistic Macrophage) :)

PS. If he were personally here, defending his logic, I would not use this against him, as then, to me that would be poor debating technique.

So if a former Nazi Commander writes a paper concluding the Holocaust didn't happen, and someone uses the article as evidence in an arguement, is it an ad-hom to mention the authors background as a point of bias?

I don't think most people would agree with your analogy. The fact that 80% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination pours cold water all over your argument. It is not anywhere near being in the same boat as a Nazi commander denying the Holocaust, and the handling of the Kennedy assassination and the Holocaust are actually the anti-thesis of each other. The Holocaust was exposed because the Allies won the war. Most people don't deny the Holocaust and most people believe there was a conspiracy involved in the murder of John Kennedy.

Had the Third Reich won the war I doubt we would have been enlightened about the Holocaust. The Nazis would have done what many Americans believe certain elements within our own government has done concerning the Kennedy assassination and the crimes of 911. Szamboti may be right on both counts. I wouldn't doubt that people like Szamboti would have tried to expose the Holocaust if the Nazis had won the war. He mentions the fact that the Nazis didn't tell the German people how Irwin Rommel really died at the end of his paper and that we only know how he died due to the Allies winning the war.

I would think that you do realize that Nazism and the Holocaust they wrought was a conspiracy.

[MarkyX]

The fact that 80% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination pours cold water all over your argument.


Belief does not replace facts.

Here's a dog:

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/3131/fwdanielledoglicenseru6.jpg

Get 9 of your buddies and vote on the gender of the dog. Let's just hypothetically say that 7 out of 10 said the dog is a girl, with 3 saying he's a guy. However, after examining the dog's genitals, you guys find out that he has a pair of balls. Physical evidence points that this pooch is indeed a guy.

Since 7 out of the 10 people said the dog was a girl, does that mean the dog is a girl despite the physical evidence saying otherwise? No, because beliefs does not substitute scientific evidence and facts.

Or if you want a less extreme example, you can always look at religion. The majority of people believe there is a supernatural being that created the universe but no scientific evidence points to such a scenario. Does that mean religion is 100% true because the majority believe in it?

[T.A.M.]

real:

let me spell it out for you...

I do not trust CTists to be honest, EOS. It is my opinion, my perspective, and you can say what you like about it. As a result, I take anything spoken by them with a grain of salt...like it or not, it is the way I feel.

TAM:)

[Tony Szamboti]

real:

let me spell it out for you...

I do not trust CTists to be honest, EOS. It is my opinion, my perspective, and you can say what you like about it. As a result, I take anything spoken by them with a grain of salt...like it or not, it is the way I feel.

TAM:)

I happen to think there are big problems with the investigations of the Twin Tower and Bldg. 7 collapses. So we agree to disagree.

[DGM]

What would be the conflict of interest? If you are speaking about Tony Szamboti he apparently believes that both the Kennedy assassination and 911 were crimes which were not properly solved and were covered up. Are you saying it is impossible to have two crimes of such nature?

There are millions of people who believe both crimes were not properly solved and that cover-ups were used in both to hide the reality of what happened.
Didn't Mr Szamboti assume the parameter columns to have a safety factor of 5?

[Revolutionary91]

TAM I just saw your quoted post. You do not trust the TM to tell the truth, that's fair enough. Do you trust the government to tell the truth?

[uk_dave]

TAM I just saw your quoted post. You do not trust the TM to tell the truth, that's fair enough. Do you trust the government to tell the truth?

Or....

You don't trust the government to tell the truth, that's fair enough, but do YOU trust the 'truth' movement to tell the truth?

Either way, at the end of the day it will come down to you making a subjective decision based upon what you consider to be the more believable. However, how you come to your conclusion is either going to be based upon rational consideration of events based upon your knowledge or expertise, or is going to be based upon a 'belief' however irrational it might be.

So, you can say you don't trust the government therefore you don't believe them when it comes to 911.

But I can say I don't trust the 'truth' movement and I don't agree with them regarding 911 because they have provided no evidence, their perception of events is flawed, they have no technical expertise, their arguments lack logic, their methods are questionable etc etc etc.

Or put another way...

You don't trust the government therefore you believe 911 was an inside job.

Whereas...

I don't think 911 was an inside job, therefore I don't trust the 'truth' movement.

[tsig]

You said the independent research or studies were open and then say the information is only available to those who are going to build large buildings. That fits the classic definition of an oxymoron. Keep it up and I'll have to call you Oxy for short.

I would like to see your calculations for the energy needed to collapse the towers to the ground and showing it being possible with gravity alone.

F=M*a

[T.A.M.]

TAM I just saw your quoted post. You do not trust the TM to tell the truth, that's fair enough. Do you trust the government to tell the truth?

Not always. I trust, as a whole the media to pick up on such things, as they have done consistently through out the last few decades. Of course, I expect you now to come up with alleged plots etc that you will say the MSM did not pick up on...go ahead.

My point is this. The USG cannot even hide scandals of congressmen, or govenors, etc... Even the slightest misconduct is leaked. Something as large and grand a scale as a 9/11 cover-up would not have gotten by the MSM, not all of them. Of course, I expect you to say that ALL of the MSM is owned by big corps, and Rupie, and so of course they are forced to ignore such things...I do not buy it...sorry.

TAM:)

[Revolutionary91]

Not always. I trust, as a whole the media to pick up on such things, as they have done consistently through out the last few decades. Of course, I expect you now to come up with alleged plots etc that you will say the MSM did not pick up on...go ahead.

My point is this. The USG cannot even hide scandals of congressmen, or govenors, etc... Even the slightest misconduct is leaked. Something as large and grand a scale as a 9/11 cover-up would not have gotten by the MSM, not all of them. Of course, I expect you to say that ALL of the MSM is owned by big corps, and Rupie, and so of course they are forced to ignore such things...I do not buy it...sorry.

TAM:)

Why do you think the former head of the CIA said that the CIA owns the major media? Do you think he said that for $%^&s and giggles?

[T.A.M.]

1. Which former head are you referring to, and where is your source for this?
2. So are you now saying the CIA was part of your alleged 9/11 cover-up? (yes or no please).

TAM:)

[tsig]

I happen to think there are big problems with the investigations of the Twin Tower and Bldg. 7 collapses. So we agree to disagree.

I know you are wrong.

So we will not agree to disagree.

You do not understand gravity.

[kookbreaker]

Why do you think the former head of the CIA said that the CIA owns the major media? Do you think he said that for $%^&s and giggles?

Assume what you say is true, which I doubt...

All the major media? Including the ones in foriegn countries? Even those not friendly to us? The CIA controls the Arabic media?

Wow! Who knew we taxpayers were actually getting our money's worth out of the CIA!?

[Revolutionary91]

1. Which former head are you referring to, and where is your source for this?
2. So are you now saying the CIA was part of your alleged 9/11 cover-up? (yes or no please).

TAM:)

Here is the quote I was referring to, along with some others:

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
--William Colby, former CIA Director, quoted by Dave Mcgowan, Derailing Democracy
"You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month."
--CIA operative, discussing the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. Katherine the Great, by Deborah Davis
"There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are [Central Intelligence] Agency people at the management level."
--William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein
"Senator William Proxmire has pegged the number of employees of the federal intelligence community at 148,000 ... though Proxmire's number is itself a conservative one. The "intelligence community" is officially defined as including only those organizations that are members of the U.S. Intelligence Board (USIB); a dozen other agencies, charged with both foreign and domestic intelligence chores, are not encompassed by the term.... The number of intelligence workers employed by the federal government is not 148,000, but some undetermined multiple of that number."
--Jim Hougan, Spooks
"For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the government.... I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations."
--former President Harry Truman, in a letter to the Washington Post, one month after the JFK assassination, December 21, 1963

[T.A.M.]

Here is the quote I was referring to, along with some others:

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
--William Colby, former CIA Director, quoted by Dave Mcgowan, Derailing Democracy


You do know when he was CIA director right???


"You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month."
--CIA operative, discussing the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. Katherine the Great, by Deborah Davis

Book written in 1979, and was referring even then to the CIA of yesteryear.


"There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are [Central Intelligence] Agency people at the management level."
--William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein

written in 1977, talking about the CIA of the 1950s and 1960s


"Senator William Proxmire has pegged the number of employees of the federal intelligence community at 148,000 ... though Proxmire's number is itself a conservative one. The "intelligence community" is officially defined as including only those organizations that are members of the U.S. Intelligence Board (USIB); a dozen other agencies, charged with both foreign and domestic intelligence chores, are not encompassed by the term.... The number of intelligence workers employed by the federal government is not 148,000, but some undetermined multiple of that number."
--Jim Hougan, Spooks
"For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the government.... I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations."
--former President Harry Truman, in a letter to the Washington Post, one month after the JFK assassination, December 21, 1963[/QUOTE]

I am not addressing the rest, as they all come from someone elses site, which you ripped off and did not link to...bad form.


Is this your site, or are you just ripping off the quotes there Rev?

http://mtracy9.tripod.com/cia_media.htm

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Are you really this poor a researcher that you would try to convince us that the modern CIA has control of present day MSM, by posting a bunch of quotes concerning the CIA back in the 1950's to 1970's....man I hope your research for school projects is better than this.

TAM:)

[TerryUK]

Hi realcddeal - You are toying with these guys!

I admire your patience!

[Revolutionary91]

Are you really this poor a researcher that you would try to convince us that the modern CIA has control of present day MSM, by posting a bunch of quotes concerning the CIA back in the 1950's to 1970's....man I hope your research for school projects is better than this.

TAM:)

Oh dear, I foolishly thought we could have a discussion. Back to ignore you go.

BTW, does your dad know that you have sent his details to lisa?

[T.A.M.]

My dad has been dead for 19 years now Rev.

As for putting me on ignore, well that is the biggest retreat I have ever seen.

You simply copy and pasted quotes from another website, without posting a link to where you got it from, which is considered very poor form, and may actually be in violation of the rules here.

Not to mention, your quotes about the CIA were about the CIA in the 1950's and 1960's...what sort of relavence could this have 40-50 years later.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Hi realcddeal - You are toying with these guys!

I admire your patience!

Well rather than waste our time with introductions, just post your CT nonsense here and lets have at it Terry.

TAM:)

[Revolutionary91]

My dad has been dead for 19 years now Rev.

As for putting me on ignore, well that is the biggest retreat I have ever seen.

You simply copy and pasted quotes from another website, without posting a link to where you got it from, which is considered very poor form, and may actually be in violation of the rules here.

Not to mention, your quotes about the CIA were about the CIA in the 1950's and 1960's...what sort of relavence could this have 40-50 years later.

TAM:)

You are being dishonest. Colby was director in the 70's and he said "owns". Present tense. Can you give me any evidence it has changed since the 70's?

[T.A.M.]

ummm....well I would hope the CIA has changed in 30 years Rev. If not, it would be pretty outdated...wouldn't it?

MSM certainly has changed. In the 70's, there was barely standard Cable, let alone the many many cable news networks we have today, plus the websites these networks have on the internet, plus reputable internet news sites...

Do you really, honestly, expect anyone besides your fellow CTers to give this any credibility. Have you looked at the era MOST of your quotes are referring to...wait I mean someone elses quotes, as you posted them here without giving them credit.

He was director from 1973 to 1976...That was 31-34 years ago.

TAM:)

[Revolutionary91]

A former clandestine services officer for the CIA who also maintains close relationships with top Google representatives says that the company is “in bed with” the intelligence agency and the U.S. government.

http://www.disgrunt.com/blog/2006/10/27/former-intelligence-agent-says-google-in-bed-with-cia/

[T.A.M.]

well in that case, how do you know any of your investigoogling is providing you with truthful links and sites???

lol

Come on, I am not denying that the CIA, and major corps do not have "influence" on the media, but that is a FAR CRY from stating that the CIA RUNS THE MEDIA, which is what you were contending.

TAM:)

[Revolutionary91]

So you think the CIA controlled the media for 30 years then just stopped? What color is the sky in your world?

[Revolutionary91]

I never contended that they run the media. You claimed that you werent buying that a story could be suppressed and the media be prevented from reporting it.

[T.A.M.]

Funny how Steele, with this great story, decides to break it on...wait for it....The Alex Jones Show...

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

I never contended that they run the media. You claimed that you werent buying that a story could be suppressed and the media be prevented from reporting it.

Given the size and scope of todays multi arena MSM, you would have to effectively RUN it, in order to supress such a huge, earth shattering story, as the 9/11 attack cover up.

TAM:)

[Revolutionary91]

Funny how Steele, with this great story, decides to break it on...wait for it....The Alex Jones Show...

TAM:)

Steele is a very experienced CIA man. Do you have any reason to discredit him?

[T.A.M.]

Why do you think the former head of the CIA said that the CIA owns the major media? Do you think he said that for $%^&s and giggles?

This was your original quote. bolded by me for your reference.

So are you retracting your insinuation that the CIA OWNS Major Media?

TAM:)

[Revolutionary91]

Given the size and scope of todays multi arena MSM, you would have to effectively RUN it, in order to supress such a huge, earth shattering story, as the 9/11 attack cover up.

TAM:)

It isn't being suppressed. It is all over the media. That is why the polls show such suspicion in the population.

[uk_dave]

Rev91, the CIA, like all western intelligence agencies, recruited journalists as assets during the Cold War. It wasn't sinister, it was just that journalists would get posted overseas in less than friendly countries and could be useful for low level intel gathering. They did the same thing with business people who travelled and worked overseas. A mixture of patriotic duty, a chance to imagine themselves being james bond, and a bit of extra cash.

If an intelligence head or operative makes a claim about having assets within the media then that is precisely the scenario they are describing. It's not a covert program to control the worlds media through the placement of intel operatives. If that were the case then all the bad news about the CIA or MI5/MI6 would never be in the public domain. No secret rendition flights or prisoner torture at abu ghraib. No watergate for gods sake.

The worst accusation which can be levelled at the modern media is the commercial imperative to break news, which then leads to the plethora of inaccurate reporting we saw on 911 because every station and every journalist wants to be the one with the scoop. This leads them to report rumour instead of fact.

Now, why do you trust the 'truth' movement?

[Revolutionary91]

This was your original quote. bolded by me for your reference.

So are you retracting your insinuation that the CIA OWNS Major Media?

TAM:)


No. You said "runs". That is not the same as owns.

[T.A.M.]

Steele is a very experienced CIA man. Do you have any reason to discredit him?

You mean besides the fact that takes his story to a small time talk show host in texas to reveal it...no, but....

Do you have any evidence besides a wiki article, and CT site articles to prove the validity of his claims or his resume?

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

No. You said "runs". That is not the same as owns.

Somantics....so you are contending that the CIA OWNS Major Media, but they do not RUN it, correct?

Well if they own it, you would think, given how evil you feel they are, that they should run it as well.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

And before you post it, yes, Alex Jones is small time, in terms of the greater AMERICAN Scheme of things.

TAM:)

[Revolutionary91]

Oh I see TAM, so what Gravy says about 911 is false because he took it to a local cable show called Hardfire. Thanks for clearing that up.

[T.A.M.]

Gravy is a tour guide, whose hobby includes debunking 911. He was not producing some great revolution about Google being in bed with the USG, and using credentials as a CIA Agent to give himself credibility. He was DEBATING with truthers on 9/11 issues, using EXISTING information, not revealing anything new and groundbreaking.

DO you see the difference???????

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Look I have got to run...its been a slice. Feel free to post more if you like...I will look at it later.

Cheers

TAM:)

[beachnut]

I don't think most people would agree with your analogy. The fact that 80% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination pours cold water all over your argument. It is not anywhere near being in the same boat as a Nazi commander denying the Holocaust, and the handling of the Kennedy assassination and the Holocaust are actually the anti-thesis of each other. The Holocaust was exposed because the Allies won the war. Most people don't deny the Holocaust and most people believe there was a conspiracy involved in the murder of John Kennedy.

Had the Third Reich won the war I doubt we would have been enlightened about the Holocaust. The Nazis would have done what many Americans believe certain elements within our own government has done concerning the Kennedy assassination and the crimes of 911. Szamboti may be right on both counts. I wouldn't doubt that people like Szamboti would have tried to expose the Holocaust if the Nazis had won the war. He mentions the fact that the Nazis didn't tell the German people how Irwin Rommel really died at the end of his paper and that we only know how he died due to the Allies winning the war.

I would think that you do realize that Nazism and the Holocaust they wrought was a conspiracy.
The only people who act like NAZIs are the 9/11 truth movement. They suppress the truth and make up lies about 9/11. Only idiots believe in CD because only idiots are unable to see the facts. 9/11 truth movement followers are group think dolts who believe lies about 9/11.

The NAZIs did not do a good job hiding the Holocaust. Have you missed something. The NAZIs were seen coming in 1931, and when old dolt man Hitler took power people knew what was up. I know 9/11 truth is full of lies, they have you fooled and you are not listing to the truth about 9/11 truth. Your post show you are lost and you do not have a clue why you are wrong. Nice try, but you are confused and lost.

You do not read to comprehend, and you post here not to learn, but to post lies about 9/11. Go ahead stay with the "NAZIs" of 9/11 truth, you know you are right and you can be just like a good "NAZI" and ignore the fact you are in a group that makes up lies about 9/11. You are doing good and a member of 9/11 truth in good standing. The best part is you can do this lying with no repercussions from me. Go lie, you seem to do real well without facts, I like a good BS artist, but you need to work at it.

Your big problem is you believe in fact less CTs. JFK and 9/11, what else is in your bag of woo? With a name like realcddeal, you have lost before you started; not really looking for the truth, you think you are the truth. Uncle Fetzer would be proud.

[beachnut]

Steele is a very experienced CIA man. Do you have any reason to discredit him?
You believe everything you read? Wait; darn you believe in LC video, OMG, a truther with out any real facts and believes what he thinks is true because he said it is true so if is false it is still true. A truther who thinks the Matrix is real? You need to get a life and understand the books you quote are making it up too. The quotes you posted are opinions at best, and not as true as you think the person who said them thought. You are using main stream books to make up your world of woo. I have to say if you believe LC videos, you are not able to comment on books and what is true. You have zero ability to spot the truth. Why should we listen to kid who can not find the truth when it is there to be found easily?

What is the color of your sky? You have problems with reality.

[leftysergeant]

A lot of twoofers actually are Nazis.

Chris Bollyn, Greg Szymanski, Darryl Bradford Smith. I kind of suspect that A. Jones is sympathetic. They're rather chameleon-like. I might have been a little more inclined to weigh the twoofer evidence at greater length had I not read The Turner Diaries before the event.

I had become aware of some of the commentators on the attack as white nationalist sympathizers about a week after the Murrah bombing.
They are not going to be satisfied with any peer review or independent investigative board, no matter who does it, if it is not stack with Nazis.

[William Rea]

A lot of twoofers actually are Nazis.

How many is a lot? Evidence to back it up?

[T.A.M.]

"lot" is a nebulous number, really, as we have no idea how many truthers there are...so since the larger cannot be quantified, neither can the smaller or subset.

TAM:)

[Tony Szamboti]

F=M*a

That is a relative term there chief. What are you trying to say?

[William Rea]

That is a relative term there chief. What are you trying to say?

He's telling us he learnt Junior High School Physics.

He didn't do English so he can only communicate by algebra and numbers in a way reminiscent of autism.

[nicepants]

No it wouldn't, that's why I specifically said "independent verification" rather than "peer review".

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?

[Gravy]

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

What an absurdly bad liar you are, realcddeal. Do you even understand what you write?

[Civilized Worm]

In the history of science some great papers were initially rejected and novel ideas supressed....


I suppose that includes papers that show that AIDS was created by the US government?


Would you say the same about the initial claims of Galileo, the Wright brothers, etc. take a look at the link here

http://amasci.com/supress1.html


No, because they backed themselves up with FACTS.


I am saying human nature is the same today as it was four centuries ago. Only the issues have changed.


You may not have noticed but science has changed quite a bit in 400 years.

[Gravy]

A mechanical engineer by the name of Tony Szamboti wrote a paper which says that even with the 500,000 ton mass the remaining factor of safety was sufficient to prevent collapse given the NIST damage analysis and physical evidence of steel temperatures. His paper is on, I can hear the sigh now, the Journal of 911 Studies.I'll start a thread about that paper if you're prepared to support Tony Szamboti's work. What say you?

[Civilized Worm]

By the way, no one is saying that peer review is the be all and end all, it's just that avoidance of the system is a sure sign of a pseudoscientist.



The pseudo-scientist has a profound intellectual superiority complex.

The pseudo-scientist regards other researchers as idiotic, and always operates outside the peer review system (hence the title of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").

The pseudo-scientist believes there is a campaign against their ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.

Instead of side-stepping the mainstream the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked. He writes: "A perpetual motion machine cannot be built. He builds one".

He coins neologisms.

[Tony Szamboti]

Belief does not replace facts.

Here's a dog:

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/3131/fwdanielledoglicenseru6.jpg

Get 9 of your buddies and vote on the gender of the dog. Let's just hypothetically say that 7 out of 10 said the dog is a girl, with 3 saying he's a guy. However, after examining the dog's genitals, you guys find out that he has a pair of balls. Physical evidence points that this pooch is indeed a guy.

Since 7 out of the 10 people said the dog was a girl, does that mean the dog is a girl despite the physical evidence saying otherwise? No, because beliefs does not substitute scientific evidence and facts.

Or if you want a less extreme example, you can always look at religion. The majority of people believe there is a supernatural being that created the universe but no scientific evidence points to such a scenario. Does that mean religion is 100% true because the majority believe in it?

I hate to tell you but most investigators would look at the genitals first if you asked them the dog's gender. Here are the balls from the Kennedy assassination. The Zapruder film showing the front to back head movement and the Parkland hospital doctors and nurses description of the massive rear head wound

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozx4_4DZp38

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:VO2FyFc7SSEJ:www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm+drawings+of+john+kennedy+right+ rear+head+wound&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

How do you get a large head wound in the rear of the head and the front to back movement if JFK was shot from the rear? Answer is you don't so if you want to say he was only shot from the rear and you control the investigation you have to suppress the Zapruder film and ignore the Parkland hospital doctors and nurses description of the location of the large head wound being in the right rear of the head. That is precisely what was done. The surprise was the 1969 trial of Clay Shaw in New Orleans for which D.A. Jim Garrison subpeonaed the Zapruder film. Life magazine fought the subpeona to the Supreme Court but there were no grounds to deny it and he got access to the film. Garrison allowed copies to be made, but it wasn't until 1975 that one of those copies of the Zapruder film was shown on ABC on late night TV. All of a sudden there needed to be an answer for the back and to the left head movement, previously unseen by most of the American people and who had been told JFK was only shot from the rear, and out popped the jet effect. Sure that's the ticket. That is what Tony Szamboti debunked in that JFK article of his and it needed to be debunked.

The scientific facts were swept under the rug by the Warren Commission. You do realize that the House Select Committee on Assassinations final report said that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy and they sent their information over to the Justice Department for further investigation. Unfortunately, the Justice department chose to try to refute the HSCA acoustic evidence and hasn't done anything with the case.

[~enigma~]

Belief does not replace facts.Alex Jones says facts do and why shouldn't we believe him?

[Tony Szamboti]

The only people who act like NAZIs are the 9/11 truth movement. They suppress the truth and make up lies about 9/11. Only idiots believe in CD because only idiots are unable to see the facts. 9/11 truth movement followers are group think dolts who believe lies about 9/11.

The NAZIs did not do a good job hiding the Holocaust. Have you missed something. The NAZIs were seen coming in 1931, and when old dolt man Hitler took power people knew what was up. I know 9/11 truth is full of lies, they have you fooled and you are not listing to the truth about 9/11 truth. Your post show you are lost and you do not have a clue why you are wrong. Nice try, but you are confused and lost.

You do not read to comprehend, and you post here not to learn, but to post lies about 9/11. Go ahead stay with the "NAZIs" of 9/11 truth, you know you are right and you can be just like a good "NAZI" and ignore the fact you are in a group that makes up lies about 9/11. You are doing good and a member of 9/11 truth in good standing. The best part is you can do this lying with no repercussions from me. Go lie, you seem to do real well without facts, I like a good BS artist, but you need to work at it.

Your big problem is you believe in fact less CTs. JFK and 9/11, what else is in your bag of woo? With a name like realcddeal, you have lost before you started; not really looking for the truth, you think you are the truth. Uncle Fetzer would be proud.

The real Nazis/fascists are those who say there is no need to investigate 911. I say investigate because there hasn't been a real investigation yet. At least not one that hasn't been controlled by suspects in the case.

The same was true of the Kennedy assassination and Jim Garrison said it live on the Johnny Carson show in 1967 when Carson mentioned the Warren Commission as having been an investigation. Garrison said straight out that that was not an investigation and that no investigation had ever been done to that point concerning the assassination.

It just doesn't make sense that you would label people as Nazis for showing that there are legitimate questions concerning the events of 911 and asking for a new investigation. I have noticed that the real fascists in the U.S. have become adept at projecting and accusing others of what they are actually doing. Fascists in the U.S. do have something to hide as most Americans abhor fascists. It seems one trick the true fascists here have learned to do is to label others as the thing they are to detract from themselves.

Sorry Uncle Fetzer is adrift somewhere and he certainly wouldn't be chosen to be on my team. I really think he might be working for the other team in disguise. He needs to peddle his space beams and no planes nonsense elsewhere.

[Tony Szamboti]

I know you are wrong.

So we will not agree to disagree.

You do not understand gravity.

And you haven't shown us any calculations so how can you say I don't understand gravity.

I just have a suspicion that I understand what F=ma means, what impulsive loads are, what buckling is, and mechanics in general, a whole lot better than you. However, you are welcome to show me that hunch is wrong.

I was talking to TAM concerning agreeing to disagree. You might have thought it was you due to your similar handles.

[T.A.M.]

The real Nazis/fascists are those who say there is no need to investigate 911. I say investigate because there hasn't been a real investigation yet. At least not one that hasn't been controlled by suspects in the case.

I have seen noone except the truth movement accuse the USG etc...of being suspects in the case. You have no proof of their involvement, at least none that would pass muster.

I am no Nazi sir, I assure you, but I do not agree with a NEW Investigation, simply because you have not made a sufficient case for it, and I do not think that other american's money should be spent on such, unless a reasonable case is made for it.


The same was true of the Kennedy assassination and Jim Garrison said it live on the Johnny Carson show in 1967 when Carson mentioned the Warren Commission as having been an investigation. Garrison said straight out that that was not an investigation and that no investigation had ever been done to that point concerning the assassination.

It just doesn't make sense that you would label people as Nazis for showing that there are legitimate questions concerning the events of 911 and asking for a new investigation. I have noticed that the real fascists in the U.S. have become adept at projecting and accusing others of what they are actually doing. Fascists in the U.S. do have something to hide as most Americans abhor fascists. It seems one trick the true fascists here have learned to do is to label others as the thing they are to detract from themselves.

Sorry Uncle Fetzer is adrift somewhere and he certainly wouldn't be chosen to be on my team. I really think he might be working for the other team in disguise. He needs to peddle his space beams and no planes nonsense elsewhere.

But Fetzer, like so many others use to be the twoof movements starlet. Then, like so many of the front line gurus, he showed his insane leopard spots, and has been ostercised by most of his own. So too will DRG and others find themselves, as the truth movement is a very fickle lot.

The movement will soon run out of people they have faith in to be on their imaginary "investigation" committee.

TAM:)

[Tony Szamboti]

Didn't Mr Szamboti assume the parameter columns to have a safety factor of 5?

He approximates the perimeter column factor of safety as 5.00 for gravity loads only. He shows backup for that in his references.

[Tony Szamboti]

I have seen noone except the truth movement accuse the USG etc...of being suspects in the case. You have no proof of their involvement, at least none that would past muster.

I am no Nazi sir, I assure you, but I do not agree with a NEW Investigation, simply because you have not made a sufficient case for it, and I do not think that other american's money should be spent on such, unless a reasonable case is made for it.



But Fetzer, like so many others use to be the twoof movements starlet. Then, like so many of the front line gurus, he showed his insane leopard spots, and has been ostercised by most of his own. So too will DRG and others find themselves, as the truth movement is a very fickle lot.

The movement will soon run out of people they have faith in to be on their imaginary "investigation" committee.

TAM:)

TAM, I do not think you are a Nazi. In my short dealings with you I have come to believe that you are sincere in your beliefs. That is ok even though I don't agree with you. One of us will eventually be shown to have been wrong on this issue. My rebuttal of the Nazi thing was not directed at anyone with honest beliefs.

Saying that I do have to make a point in that it bothers me and many others that we can't have a new investigation of 911, which might cost 50 million, but we can spend hundreds of billions in Afghanistan and Iraq when the FBI has no solid evidence that anyone in those two countries had anything to do with the crime.

[T.A.M.]

TAM, I do not think you are a Nazi. In my short dealings with you I have come to believe that you are sincere in your beliefs. That is ok even though I don't agree with you. One of us will eventually be shown to have been wrong on this issue. My rebuttal of the Nazi thing was not directed at anyone with honest beliefs.

Saying that I do have to make a point in that it bothers me and many others that we can't have a new investigation of 911, which might cost 50 million, but we can spend hundreds of billions in Afghanistan and Iraq when the FBI has no solid evidence that anyone in those two countries had anything to do with the crime.

Well two wrongs don't make a right, even if your wrong (to me anyway) is much smaller financially...get my drift.

I believe the War in Iraq was done for the wrong reasons, or at the very least, under FALSE pretenses. You'll get no argument from me on that. That said, now that the USA is in there, stability on leaving is key to world security.

The investment in Afghanistan, I would hope is for the safety of americans, and the rest of the world as well, in terms controlling a region where terrorism is fostered and encouraged.

Your investigation still has to be justified, whether it is 50 million, 5 Billion, or 5 million, and TO ME, it hasnt been. I, however, am not the one you have to convince. That said, I am probably similar to the general populous, which IS who you have to convince.

TAM:)

[hellaeon]

Two points on this topic:

1. I am aware of a number of cases where a journal has rejected a paper, the author makes a few MINOR changes, submits the revised article to a different journal, and it is accepted. Thus there is no ABSOLUTE standard of quality in research.

2. I once discussed the issue of the quality of papers in the scientific literature with nobel prize winner Gerhard Herzberg and he said that there are two types of paper out there:

(i) Papers that provide data that will serve as quality reference data and as such will essentially always be of value, and
(ii) Papers that provide questionable data that will ultimately prove to be of little value or entirely erroneous.

In fact Herzberg believed that this IS THE PURPOSE of research literature: to separate the good from the bad!

Thus Herzberg argued that you shouldn't worry too much about the quality of a particular paper because research is self-correcting... good research is ultimatly recognized for what it is, as is bad.

Thanks Apollo, this is the kind of explanation I can offer to others who may ask me! Laymens terms!

[LashL]

By the way, no one is saying that peer review is the be all and end all, it's just that avoidance of the system is a sure sign of a pseudoscientist.



1. The pseudo-scientist has a profound intellectual superiority complex.
2. The pseudo-scientist regards other researchers as idiotic, and always operates outside the peer review system (hence the title of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").
3. The pseudo-scientist believes there is a campaign against their ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.
4. Instead of side-stepping the mainstream the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked. He writes: "A perpetual motion machine cannot be built. He builds one".
5. He coins neologisms.



Ouch. At least four of those five are going to hit a little too close to home for a certain someone around here. ;)

[TerryUK]

... a new investigation of 911, which might cost 50 million, but we can spend hundreds of billions in Afghanistan and Iraq when the FBI has no solid evidence that anyone in those two countries had anything to do with the crime.

50 million for a new investigation - isn't that a sum of money equiv. to something like 60 minutes spending of the Defense buget ?

[stateofgrace]

Saying that I do have to make a point in that it bothers me and many others that we can't have a new investigation of 911, which might cost 50 million, but we can spend hundreds of billions in Afghanistan and Iraq when the FBI has no solid evidence that anyone in those two countries had anything to do with the crime.

That sounds like a good deal 50 million v 500 billion, have you suggested it to the USG?

Where is the return for the 500 billion BTW?

[T.A.M.]

50 million for a new investigation - isn't that a sum of money equiv. to something like 60 minutes spending of the Defense buget ?

All money, little or a lot, should be justified with evidence of a need. I don't see it, nor do others here...but it is not us you have to convince, despite the truth movement spending so much time trying to do so.

TAM;)

[Tony Szamboti]

That sounds like a good deal 50 million v 500 billion, have you suggested it to the USG?

Where is the return for the 500 billion BTW?

The oil men have that all figured out. Our investment and lives for their profits. All done in the name of the average American being protected from the terrorists, who just happen to be where a lot of oil still exists or are in the route of a pipeline. How convenient!

For a show of additional audacity take a look at what these guys have put into alternative energy research, with all of the money they have bilked the American public out of for the last thirty years with oil shortage scares. Over that 30 year time frame the average U.S. oil company has spent just 0.3% of its research funds on alternative energy research. The federal government under the Bush administration is spending less on alternatives now than was being spent in the late 1970's. In fairness, the oil companies seem to be getting with it a little more just recently. I wonder how much the quagmire we are involved with in Iraq has contributed to this seemingly mild change of heart. How much of Vice President Dick Cheney's secret Energy Task Force was devoted to alternative energies? I would be willing to bet none or a token at best.

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?

[Gravy]

I hate to tell you but most investigators would look at the genitals first if you asked them the dog's gender. Here are the balls from the Kennedy assassination. The Zapruder film showing the front to back head movement and the Parkland hospital doctors and nurses description of the massive rear head woundExcept that when the video is slowed down and stabilized, JFK's head clearly moves forward at impact, before rebounding to the rear.

Is there anything you do know about?

[uk_dave]

Is there anything you do know about?

Ask TerryUK. :D

[LashL]

<snip>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?

But can you legitimately discuss Brazil in that time frame without mentioning the horrific and nearly catastrophic financial failure that it faced in that time period? Without discussing the reality that required locals to, literally, lug suitcases of currency to do their weekly grocery shopping after the devaluation of the cruzeiro and the switch to the cruzado? Without discussing how the life savings of every day, hard-working, normal, middle class people went from (in relative terms) the equivalent of $100,000 to $100 overnight?

It was very, very ugly.

[Gravy]

He approximates the perimeter column factor of safety as 5.00 for gravity loads only. He shows backup for that in his references.No, Szamboti shows how he makes up that safety factor: by assuming that the columns at the impact floors would have the same factor of safety for gravity loads that he calculated for columns at the base of the building. Perhaps they do, but Szamboti makes no attempt to justify this assumption or to calculate the actual gravity load safety factor of the perimeter columns in the impact floors (not that that has much to do with why the towers collapsed anyway). I wonder how that passed peer review.

Strangely, Szamboti interchanges the words column and beam throughout his paper. I wonder how that passed peer review.
Standard design practice dictates that the beams in the upper part of the building would have had the same factor of safety as the beams at the base of the towers. So knowing the design of the columns at their base, the total gravity load of the buildings, and the percentage of damaged beams, we have deduced what the remaining factor of safety was for the beams at the aircraft impact and fire sites. And what does this hilariously wrong "gas and oil pipeline" nonsense have to do with an engineering analysis of the twin towers?
One may wonder who would want people in Afghanistan and Iraq to be blamed if they didn’t do it. A good hard look at the soon to be built U.S. oil company controlled gas and oil pipeline in Afghanistan, and the privatization of Iraq’s oilfields to U.S. oil companies, might be a start at solving that puzzle for oneself. Neither of these situations would have been possible, without the support of the American people, for the use of the U.S. military, to overthrow the previous governments of these countries.I wonder how that passed peer review.

Oh, and here's Szamboti's entire analysis of WTC 7:
The obvious controlled demolition of WTC7, at 5:20 PM on Sept. 11, 2001, proves that charges were pre-positioned in it, as there would not have been time to rig the building that day, especially with fires in it. With this in mind, the demolition of WTC7 lends considerable weight to the notion that charges could also have been pre-positioned in the twin towers. See? WTC 7 was obviously blown up, so the towers must have been also!

What a moron.

Anyway, realcddeal, if you're up for defending Szamboti's paper, let me know. I'll start the thread.

[uk_dave]

I wonder how the insurance companies view buildings which have pre-planted explosives?

Oh wait, sorry, the Insurance companies are in on it too!! Silly me.

As were the original builders, in fact every contractor in the NYC area who might at some point be asked to carry out alterations or undertake repairs must also be part of the conspiracy.

That would apply to the NYC utility companies also

Then, of course, the companies renting space within the building. They'd have to be tipped the wink about not letting their people get too....excited close to the positions of the preplanted charges...you know, just in case of premature explosion.

I'm beginning to wonder: Apart from a handful of 'truthers', is there anyone in the world who is NOT in on the conspiracy?

[Gravy]

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 will be astounded to hear this and will no doubt immediately launch an investigation into what is in those foreign oil tankers that dock there every day.


Is there anything you know about?

[~enigma~]

Ouch. At least four of those five are going to hit a little too close to home for a certain someone around here. ;)
Damn, that hit so hard it even hurt me :)

[LashL]

Damn, that hit so hard it even hurt me :)

Oops. Sorry about that - it happens sometimes if you don't stand away from the uncontrolled loons swinging in the breeze in time... I should have warned you ;)

[~enigma~]

Oops. Sorry about that - it happens sometimes if you don't stand away from the pendulum swinging in the breeze in time... ;)
I was collateral damage :)

[LashL]

I was collateral damage :)

Hee hee. **** happens ;)

[westprog]

All money, little or a lot, should be justified with evidence of a need. I don't see it, nor do others here...but it is not us you have to convince, despite the truth movement spending so much time trying to do so.

TAM;)

The calls for a new investigation are almost always insincere and unspecific. If the government is the perpetrator, how can a government investigation be trusted?

The parameters for such an investigation are never clear or explicit. That's inevitable. If an investigation were to be put together, it would be rejected immediately by some conspiracists, and it would be rejected by all of them when its conclusions were published.

There have been numerous independent investigations into 911, and all of the serious ones have demolished the conspiracy theories. That only serves to discredit the investigations in the eyes of those wedded to their pet theories.

Personally I'd favour a detailed investigation into the important issues which the conspiracists have clouded over.

[Tony Szamboti]

The calls for a new investigation are almost always insincere and unspecific. If the government is the perpetrator, how can a government investigation be trusted?

The parameters for such an investigation are never clear or explicit. That's inevitable. If an investigation were to be put together, it would be rejected immediately by some conspiracists, and it would be rejected by all of them when its conclusions were published.

There have been numerous independent investigations into 911, and all of the serious ones have demolished the conspiracy theories. That only serves to discredit the investigations in the eyes of those wedded to their pet theories.

Personally I'd favour a detailed investigation into the important issues which the conspiracists have clouded over.

Can you elaborate on what those issues might be.

[tsig]

So you think the CIA controlled the media for 30 years then just stopped? What color is the sky in your world?

Red.

[tsig]

How many is a lot? Evidence to back it up?

You.

[Revolutionary91]

Except that when the video is slowed down and stabilized, JFK's head clearly moves forward at impact, before rebounding to the rear.

Is there anything you do know about?

Are the witnesses who saw bullet holes in the limousine windshield lying? Yes or no?

"The presidential limousine, which had a bullet hole in the windshield, witnessed by two Dallas police officers, Sergeant Stavis Ellis and Patrolman H.R. Freeman, who saw it in the parking lot of the emergency room at Parkland, and by journalist Richard Dudman--made by a bullet from the front...noted the hole 'just left of center' in the windshield" According to Ellis, it was not chipped glass at Parkland he saw. 'You could put a pencil through it.'"


Killzone, by Craig Roberts

[tsig]

And you haven't shown us any calculations so how can you say I don't understand gravity.

I just have a suspicion that I understand what F=ma means, what impulsive loads are, what buckling is, and mechanics in general, a whole lot better than you. However, you are welcome to show me that hunch is wrong.

I was talking to TAM concerning agreeing to disagree. You might have thought it was you due to your similar handles.

You just have a suspicion I have knowledge.

You are talking on an open forum so anyone can reply.

Do not show the pearls to the swine.

[funk de fino]

Are the witnesses who saw bullet holes in the limousine windshield lying? Yes or no?



you say "holes" the quote says "hole"

which is it sunshine?

[tsig]

I wonder how the insurance companies view buildings which have pre-planted explosives?

Oh wait, sorry, the Insurance companies are in on it too!! Silly me.

As were the original builders, in fact every contractor in the NYC area who might at some point be asked to carry out alterations or undertake repairs must also be part of the conspiracy.

That would apply to the NYC utility companies also

Then, of course, the companies renting space within the building. They'd have to be tipped the wink about not letting their people get too....excited close to the positions of the preplanted charges...you know, just in case of premature explosion.

I'm beginning to wonder: Apart from a handful of 'truthers', is there anyone in the world who is NOT in on the conspiracy?

Everybody is in on it but us.

I'm feeling left out.

How do we get into it?

[Revolutionary91]

you say "holes" the quote says "hole"

which is it sunshine?


A hole.

Now are they lying?

[tsig]

Are the witnesses who saw bullet holes in the limousine windshield lying? Yes or no?




Killzone, by Craig Roberts

yes

[Revolutionary91]

yes


Right. So two policemen, a journalist and a doctor in another account are all lying because what they say doesnt fit what you believe. Your a great skeptic!

[tsig]

A hole.

Now are they lying?


Quit digging.

When you are in a hole.

And you are very deep.

[tsig]

Right. So two policemen, a journalist and a doctor in another account are all lying because what they say doesnt fit what you believe. Your a great skeptic!

Yes I am a great skeptic. Thanks for the recognition.

They are not lying you are just not trying to understand.

How many uniforms does it take to make it true?

[Revolutionary91]

Yes I am a great skeptic. Thanks for the recognition.

They are not lying you are just not trying to understand.

How many uniforms does it take to make it true?

Make your mind up. Are they lying or not?

[Dave Rogers]

Make your mind up. Are they lying or not?

False dilemma. Are they mistaken? There was certainly a crack in the windshield - did they check for themselves whether it was a bullet hole? Did they hear about it from someone else who may have mistakenly embellished their account? Have they been misreported?

The world isn't as black-and-white as conspiracy theorists want it to be.

Dave

[Revolutionary91]

False dilemma. Are they mistaken? There was certainly a crack in the windshield - did they check for themselves whether it was a bullet hole? Did they hear about it from someone else who may have mistakenly embellished their account? Have they been misreported?

The world isn't as black-and-white as conspiracy theorists want it to be.

Dave

What part of According to Ellis, it was not chipped glass at Parkland he saw. 'You could put a pencil through it.'" didnt you understand?

Why do you never ask those questions of witnesses that support the official story?

[funk de fino]

A hole.

Now are they lying?

no, but you were when you said holes

[Revolutionary91]

no, but you were when you said holes

I'm glad you acknowledge there was a hole in the windshield.

[kookbreaker]

A hole.

Now are they lying?

Maybe. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2708821&postcount=68)

But more likely they are just plain old wrong.

[T.A.M.]

Can we put the train back on the tracks here...

TAM:)

[funk de fino]

I'm glad you acknowledge there was a hole in the windshield.

i'm not, they were not lying, they were mistaken, i have seen the pictures of the "hole" it is not a bullet hole, it looks like my windscreen, it was hit by a stone and has the same kind of mark on it

difference between me and you, i waited to see all the evidence, you just jumped in with your great big galoshes again didnt you?

[Revolutionary91]

i'm not, they were not lying, they were mistaken, i have seen the pictures of the "hole" it is not a bullet hole, it looks like my windscreen, it was hit by a stone and has the same kind of mark on it

difference between me and you, i waited to see all the evidence, you just jumped in with your great big galoshes again didnt you?

Are you going to post these pictures or do I just have to take your word for it?

[T.A.M.]

how about everyone take the JFK stuff to a JFK thread, and lets continue on with the OP, or something MILDLY related.

TAM:)

[Unsecured Coins]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/CE350.gif

GO.

[kookbreaker]

Are you going to post these pictures or do I just have to take your word for it?

There were links to the pictures in my post. Why must you be dishonest?

[rwguinn]

Ouch. At least four of those five are going to hit a little too close to home for a certain someone around here. ;)
3.75, anyway. Change "always" to "prefers" in point #2 and we have a winnah!

[funk de fino]

Are you going to post these pictures or do I just have to take your word for it?


they were posted for you sunshine and you still failed to see them

now back the peer review comments please

[Revolutionary91]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/CE350.gif

GO.

Thanks for posting that clear picture of a bullet hole that the police witness said you could stick a pencil through.

[Unsecured Coins]

you never studied, did you?

what round was fired at JFK?

[kookbreaker]

Thanks for posting that clear picture of a bullet hole that the police witness said you could stick a pencil through.

I don't think you know what you are seeing. (http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/CE350W.gif)

[Unsecured Coins]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/SafetyGlassAnswer5B800x5335D.jpg

by the way, THAT's a bullet hole in glass, skippy.

[nicepants]

Make your mind up. Are they lying or not?

It's not a lie if they believe it is true. However, simply believing something is true does not make it so.

[funk de fino]

Thanks for posting that clear picture of a bullet hole that the police witness said you could stick a pencil through.

you did not even look at the other picture which would have showed you that it was not a hole

oh dear, you are given the chance to back down and yet again you fail miserably in the face of real facts given by people who have researched it properly

[beachnut]

How many is a lot? Evidence to back it up?It is his opinion and it is not to be questioned, as are your opinion, oh great opinion master William. Master William, please relax and lol a lot. A lot, I can furnish him some NAZIs who are truthers, so it is a lot. Relax.

[Gravy]

I'm glad you acknowledge there was a hole in the windshield.There wasn't. That crack on the inside of the windshield was made by bullet fragments. Small fragments were recovered from the crack. There was no hole anywhere on the outside of the windshield. You're an uninformed kid. It's summer time. When are you going to take the time to learn about the things that you make claims about?

Better yet, go out and play. It'll clear your head.

Start a new thread if you want to continue this.

[tsig]

Make your mind up. Are they lying or not?

Or are you?

[Revolutionary91]

There wasn't. That crack on the inside of the windshield was made by bullet fragments. Small fragments were recovered from the crack. There was no hole anywhere on the outside of the windshield. You're an uninformed kid. It's summer time. When are you going to take the time to learn about the things that you make claims about?

Better yet, go out and play. It'll clear your head.

Start a new thread if you want to continue this.

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

[tsig]

Thanks for posting that clear picture of a bullet hole that the police witness said you could stick a pencil through.

Bullets are made of lead.

As are pencils.

[Revolutionary91]

Where did these bullet fragments come from? Was it the intact bullet they found on the wrong stretcher?

[Unsecured Coins]

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


Hey, skippy, how much experience do you have with ballistics and firearms? Halo time not included. Answer me honestly, no matter how hard it kills you.

[kookbreaker]

Where did these bullet fragments come from?

The bullet that struck JFK in the head.


Was it the intact bullet they found on the wrong stretcher?

No 'intact bullet' was found. The only other bullet found was on the stretcher that Connelly was on, and that fits with the wound patterns.

[kookbreaker]

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

No, we are saying he is wrong. You need to learn the difference and also what false dichotomy is.

[rwguinn]

No, we are saying he is wrong. You need to learn the difference and also what false dichotomy is.
You guys want to start another JFK Thread, please?
Can't you stay on subject--or are you trying to out-kook the CTers?
The subject is peer review.

[nicepants]

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

There's a difference between being wrong and lying.

To lie, one must know the truth and deliberately misrepresent it.

[William Rea]

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?

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

[William Rea]

You.

OK, so you don't have any is the answer.

[Tony Szamboti]

But can you legitimately discuss Brazil in that time frame without mentioning the horrific and nearly catastrophic financial failure that it faced in that time period? Without discussing the reality that required locals to, literally, lug suitcases of currency to do their weekly grocery shopping after the devaluation of the cruzeiro and the switch to the cruzado? Without discussing how the life savings of every day, hard-working, normal, middle class people went from (in relative terms) the equivalent of $100,000 to $100 overnight?

It was very, very ugly.

The fact that they became energy independent in spite of the catastrophic financial failure is all the more stunning as to why we haven't done it. One of the reasons they had the financial problems was due to importing nearly 80% of their oil in the 1970's when the first shortages occurred.