Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

[Firestone]

Actually, a very big part of my job, and one I enjoy a lot, is debunking myths about New York City. The myths are almost always more fun than reality, though.

When we were in New York City, this summer, the guide on the boat trip we took said that one third of all elevators in the USA are located in Manhattan.

Is that true?

[Good Lt]

He makes many of his own claims in both posts and writings.

That because he observes when some facts put forth by CTs conflict with either, for example, a) other facts, ie. one Willie Rodriquez story conflicting with several other eyewitness accounts which corroborate each other, or b) when those sourced facts that he observed have little basis in fact whatsoever, ie. space beams or controlled demolitions.

When Mark notices that the vast majority of the CT theories don't have basis in reality or support from documented and easily accessible sources and facts, Mark (SHOCK HORROR) notices it and (SHOCK HORROR) points it out.

[Architect]

GreNME's option does sound fair, i agree.

Although i must say, Architect's suggestion of The Doc's website seems like the perfect place for such a debate.


Who says us Jocks don't stick together? Got your French top ready for the game in half an hour?

[SDC]

Can you provide a basis for anything you said here?

OK, my own academic training is in the public record, but I will not share it with you, because I value my privacy.

Also, the rejections I have suffered via the peer review process, see above.

Gravy has a point of view which he supports... This is obvious, sailor.

Historians are serious people who hang out in the Peer Review Saloon... Well hello, sailor. New in town?

Would you like anything else?

[Architect]

When we were in New York City, this summer, the guide on the boat trip we took said that one third of all elevators in the USA are located in Manhattan.

Is that true?

It's gotta be a load of b*ll*cks.....:boggled:

[beachnut]

Real, have you corrected your errors in your paper yet?

You still have the 600 mph stuff, and a bunch of political crap; the answer is NO.

Marks work is supported by facts, your work is hearsay; How can you debate hearsay vs facts? You would fail. Fix your paper first and then come back. Hurry.

[Tony Szamboti]

OK, my own academic training is in the public record, but I will not share it with you, because I value my privacy.

Also, the rejections I have suffered via the peer review process, see above.

Gravy has a point of view which he supports... This is obvious, sailor.

Historians are serious people who hang out in the Peer Review Saloon... Well hello, sailor. New in town?

Would you like anything else?

You didn't provide a basis for your comments on my work. That is what I was asking you to do.

Mark Roberts has not supported his criticisms of me as of yet and it appears he is refusing to do so in a neutral venue.

[Architect]

So publish your full and detailed critique of his work and be done with it. Stop beating about the bush, man!

[Hyperviolet]

Who says us Jocks don't stick together? Got your French top ready for the game in half an hour?

Aye!


Good result in the fitbaw, too. 2 up within 10 minutes...
WOOOFFFTT
Couldne believe it.

[Architect]

Remember, it's not Scotland winning that's important..........

[Hyperviolet]

Remember, it's not Scotland winning that's important..........

It's someone losing.

[ConspiRaider]

Hey, I've missed that name, although when my cat's begging for attention I sometimes say, "Who do you think you are, Violeta McWhifferkugel?" Good to see you back posting here, Conspi!
Thank you sir! Had to return and mix it up. And who'd have thunk that out of the blue, in this particular thread, I'd be resting my mournful peepers on Her Royal Woolness, my ever-lovely Violeta McWhifferkugel? Fortune favors the foolish...

[Architect]

It's someone losing.

Allez les bleus, allez les bleus!


Nous detestons Jimmy Hill, il est poof, il est poof...........



:p

[Bell]

Mark, again you are simply saying things about me with no basis.

You spent more time with the above post than it would take you to cut and paste your questions into a letter to send GreNME.

Are you going to write a critique of my paper and send it to GreNME? Everybody is waiting for your answer.

You do realise that Gravy has you on ignore, don't you?

[ConspiRaider]

If I recall correctly, you are a Cleveland fan, while I am a Detroit Taaaagers fan.

With respect to Baaaaaaaaaaaahs-ton vs Cleveland,

GO CLEVELAND! SMITE THE EVILDOERS!!
We're up against it, concerning the Bosox. Maybe Carmona will pull off a victory today.

Ah, the Tigers. Hank Greenberg territory. Denny McLain. Norm Cash. The Bird. Bill Freehan. Dick McAuliffe. I remember in those long summer where all we did was play baseball - someone would always try to imitate his batting stance.

[chillzero]

Guys, there's a whole Sports subforum for discussing the game. I don't know where you should take the discussion about Violetta McWhatever.....

however, please remember the membership agreement, and keep this thread on topic.

[Architect]

We're up against it, concerning the Bosox. Maybe Carmona will pull off a victory today.

Ah, the Tigers. Hank Greenberg territory. Denny McLain. Norm Cash. The Bird. Bill Freehan. Dick McAuliffe. I remember in those long summer where all we did was play baseball - someone would always try to imitate his batting stance.

Seriously, mate, can me and Hyper interest you in a real man's game? World Cup semi finals this weekend....

[Architect]

Guys, there's a whole Sports subforum for discussing the game. I don't know where you should take the discussion about Violetta McWhatever.....

however, please remember the membership agreement, and keep this thread on topic.

Okay, but just to finish off the sheep jokes I recall the old Aberdeen version of the well known Rolling Stones song......Hey, MacLeod, get off my Ewe!


(boom boom)

[SDC]

You didn't provide a basis for your comments on my work. That is what I was asking you to do.

Mark Roberts has not supported his criticisms of me as of yet and it appears he is refusing to do so in a neutral venue.


Mein' Ruhe ist hin... Sorry. It was the slivovitz.

I have no comments on your work except, By carbonate of soda! I don't trust your efforts while I do trust those of G.

This Mark Roberts fellow... Well, why should he, even if you are correct as regards to his refusal? Which I do not accept.

OK, look. Here is what Real Historians do. (Let me add: as of 9/12/01, when I had enough space to start to think, I regarded the events of 9/11/01 as a historical problem, as I was trained to do). We research, we write, we get rejected, we go ahead and find somewhere to publish, and when we don't get the respect we think we deserve, we cry on the shoulders of our... significant others...)

And so forth, but that leads us into the world of romance (can I just share one more moondance), and I don't want to share it with you. Sorry.

[Tony Szamboti]

Real, have you corrected your errors in your paper yet?

You still have the 600 mph stuff, and a bunch of political crap; the answer is NO.

Marks work is supported by facts, your work is hearsay; How can you debate hearsay vs facts? You would fail. Fix your paper first and then come back. Hurry.

What does NIST say would have happened if the fireproofing hadn't been allegedly stripped off?

Does NIST make the statement that the February 3, 1964 white paper says a large commercial aircraft moving at 600 MPH?

[Hyperviolet]

Allez les bleus, allez les bleus!


Nous detestons Jimmy Hill, il est poof, il est poof...........



:p

*Greets*

Superb!

[Hokulele]

Mark, again you are simply saying things about me with no basis.

You spent more time with the above post than it would take you to cut and paste your questions into a letter to send GreNME.

Are you going to write a critique of my paper and send it to GreNME? Everybody is waiting for your answer.


If you are truly interested in a formal debate, I would recommend cutting and pasting the questions Gravy has already raised, first back in August, then again in this thread. You can send those off to GreNME with a formal response, and carry on from there. Since the questions have already been posted, why are you requiring Gravy to repost them?

[Tony Szamboti]

You do realise that Gravy has you on ignore, don't you?

Are you sure, and if so how would you know?

[Hyperviolet]

Guys, there's a whole Sports subforum for discussing the game. I don't know where you should take the discussion about Violetta McWhatever.....

however, please remember the membership agreement, and keep this thread on topic.

Sorry, Chill!

Blame Architect, he is far too enthusiatic. The man is sitting with onions round his neck, for Christ's sake.

[Bell]

Are you sure, and if so how would you know?

Reading comprehension.

[T.A.M.]

You shouldn't presume what he is thinking. Let him answer for himself. He started the fight so don't jump in on his side and prove my point about his friends helping out.

I appreciate your advice, but that is why after I said "I THINK", I added the letters IMHO (In My Honest Opinion). You are right, and I am not presuming, I am essentially guessing based on what I have read.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

SDC:

From your comments I know you were not offended by what I said, but just for clarification, I in no way meant to belittle, or trivialize the work of historians, information organizers, or librarians. I was merely commenting on how the collection, and even analysis of multisourced, diverse data, is not amenable to the format of "Objectives, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion" as a scientific paper would be.

TAM:)

[SDC]

SDC:

From your comments I know you were not offended by what I said, but just for clarification, I in no way meant to belittle, or trivialize the work of historians, information organizers, or librarians. I was merely commenting on how the collection, and even analysis of multisourced, diverse data, is not amenable to the format of "Objectives, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion" as a scientific paper would be.

TAM:)

Ach, you know, historians just want to have fun. So do librarians. If I understand correctly, you are an MD (or any Canadian equivalent). And let me say, if any MD wants to address my issues with pharmaceuticals, surgery, or examinations evaluating inspection of body parts...

Never mind. You said somewhere you have a 17 yr old daughter. I have a 15 year old daughter. HELP!!

[beachnut]

What does NIST say would have happened if the fireproofing hadn't been allegedly stripped off?

Does NIST make the statement that the February 3, 1964 white paper says a large commercial aircraft moving at 600 MPH?
NIST? I am using the chief engineer on the WTC and you have bogus information in your paper. Please, if you want to talk about NIST go to the NIST threads, but this is about facts, and you got them wrong and ignore real facts and use hearsay. Hearsay stuff is your paper, and you round it out with political junk.

BTW, repeating the junk from others you are trying to prove wrong, and using the errors they have, magnify your errors and prove you are not able to get the facts straight.

[T.A.M.]

no, my daughter is 4.5 years old...lol

as for the rest...let me quote a famous TV MD...

Caller...I'm listening.

TAM:)

[SDC]

no, my daughter is 4.5 years old...lol

TAM:)

Nuts. I got it wrong. OK, well, uhm... Don't let her out of the house except for classes and the like. Make sure she does her homework. Fruit and vegetables are good but don't obsess about them. Keep her away from boys; remember what you were like when...

(Jeez, I mean, how can I in honesty...)

Good luck, really.

[beachnut]

Ach, you know, historians just want to have fun. So do librarians. If I understand correctly, you are an MD (or any Canadian equivalent). And let me say, if any MD wants to address my issues with pharmaceuticals, surgery, or examinations evaluating inspection of body parts...

Never mind. You said somewhere you have a 17 yr old daughter. I have a 15 year old daughter. HELP!!
Peer reviews of Marks work would be easy, since he uses facts.

There is no help, I had a 13, 15, 17, and 20 year old set of daughters, they now leave grandsons to poke in the cones of old speakers, and set the stereo in unknown states. But all my daughters can see Tony's work as hearsay bull; my grandson at three uses more facts than Tony.

[Hokulele]

So realcddeal, rather than trying to defend the errors in your paper, you would rather deflect the questions back to your issues with NIST? No wonder Gravy has no interest in debating you. Answer the questions people have regarding your paper, correct the errors that are pointed out to you, or drop the whole issue with Gravy's criticisms.

[beachnut]

So no critique of your paper has ever been done?
Points of his paper have been exposed as bogus too many times; he is in shock and does not understand. Why is he unable to see critiques of his paper?

[R.Mackey]

Sorry to stick my nose in here, so late... but would I be correct in making the following observations?

1. The initial complaint is nothing other than one huge ad hominem tu quoque fallacy -- specifically, since Mr. Szamboti's paper was never peer-reviewed, despite claims to the contrary, he seeks to deflect attention by remarking that one of his critics is also not peer-reviewed (though has never claimed to be).

2. Upon failure of the opening gambit, Mr. Szamboti then desires some sort of "official" debate on his "work," either (a) to bring badly needed traffic to the "Journal" for 9/11 Studies, or (b) to cloak his whitepaper in a veneer of plausibility simply by generating controversy.

If so, neither point is valid. As an un-reviewed whitepaper, un-reviewed responses are more than adequate. And the "Journal" for 9/11 Studies, being both hostile and misrepresentative of its true nature, is not an acceptable venue for discussion.

We can discuss (and have discussed) Mr. Szamboti's work in threads here, but I see absolutely no value to the Original Post. Whether or not Gravy's works are reviewed has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of Mr. Szamboti's opinions.

[Gravy]

When we were in New York City, this summer, the guide on the boat trip we took said that one third of all elevators in the USA are located in Manhattan.

Is that true? No, it's nonsense.

[Alareth]

No, it's nonsense.

So you're saying there are no elevators in Manhattan?


(Runs off to start new elevator related CT)

[timhau]

You do provide that publishing of historical work gets peer reviewed. So I ask you who reviews Mark Roberts work?

*sigh*

He can write, but he apparently can't read.

[Nick Terry]

realcddeal's behaviour reminds me of the antics of a Holocaust denier, Paul Grubach, who is basically a letter-writing crank sending off missives to Bush, the UN, and 'challenging' historians to 'debate'.

When Grubach was in turn 'challenged' by an online debunker, he claimed it wasn't worth his time to debate online and it would have to be in the pages of a 'journal'.

The same behaviour was exhibited by one 'denierbud' who made a series of YouTube videos on the extermination camps; he stated on his website he would only respond to criticisms if they were from "a specific academic community" and at least 20pp in length.

The response to this from my colleagues was "If you can't even deal with what amateurs have to offer, you're done."

Same with 9/11 CTers, whether that be DRG or realcddeal.

[Bell]

No, it's nonsense.

I want a peer review of this quote.

[Architect]

I want a peer review of this quote.

Consider it done.

[Firestone]

No, it's nonsense.Thanks.

We were on the impression that ...
It's gotta be a load of b*ll*cks.....:boggled:

Sorry for the derail.

ETA: Although it may serve a purpose after all:
So you're saying there are no elevators in Manhattan?


(Runs off to start new elevator related CT):)

[Architect]

Thanks.

We were on the impression that ...


Sorry for the derail. :)

No, really, don't worry. Me and Hyper went off on a tangent too. It made a change from kittens....:eye-poppi

[Hyperviolet]

No, really, don't worry. Me and Hyper went off on a tangent too. It made a change from kittens....:eye-poppi

Bloody French.

*runs away from Chillzero*
sorry!



:boxedin:
:p

[Hyperviolet]

Sorry to stick my nose in here, so late... but would I be correct in making the following observations?

1. The initial complaint is nothing other than one huge ad hominem tu quoque fallacy -- specifically, since Mr. Szamboti's paper was never peer-reviewed, despite claims to the contrary, he seeks to deflect attention by remarking that one of his critics is also not peer-reviewed (though has never claimed to be).

2. Upon failure of the opening gambit, Mr. Szamboti then desires some sort of "official" debate on his "work," either (a) to bring badly needed traffic to the "Journal" for 9/11 Studies, or (b) to cloak his whitepaper in a veneer of plausibility simply by generating controversy.

If so, neither point is valid. As an un-reviewed whitepaper, un-reviewed responses are more than adequate. And the "Journal" for 9/11 Studies, being both hostile and misrepresentative of its true nature, is not an acceptable venue for discussion.

We can discuss (and have discussed) Mr. Szamboti's work in threads here, but I see absolutely no value to the Original Post. Whether or not Gravy's works are reviewed has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of Mr. Szamboti's opinions.

On point, as always, R.Mackey.

[Architect]

Bloody French.

*runs away from Chillzero*
sorry!



:boxedin:
:p


Aye, ye cannae rely on them for onyhin'.

Where can we buy South Africa or Argentina strips in Glasgow? Is Greaves open on a Sunday?

:boxedin:

[Hyperviolet]

Aye, ye cannae rely on them for onyhin'.

Where can we buy South Africa or Argentina strips in Glasgow? Is Greaves open on a Sunday?

:boxedin:

LMAO

[ConspiRaider]

When we were in New York City, this summer, the guide on the boat trip we took said that one third of all elevators in the USA are located in Manhattan.

Is that true?
No fooling? Did this guide have red sideburns, a blonde chest hair wig, low-rider Bermuda shorts and brunette hair on his palms?

Because if so that's the SAME guide who told me on my visit that before the 1977 NYC blackout, Lady Liberty was holding the Torch in her left hand! And that she was wearing Air Jordans!

[Hyperviolet]

Because if so that's the SAME guide who told me on my visit that before the 1977 NYC blackout, Lady Liberty was holding the Torch in her left hand! And that she was wearing Air Jordans!


Whaaaaaat

[pomeroo]

No fooling? Did this guide have red sideburns, a blonde chest hair wig, low-rider Bermuda shorts and brunette hair on his palms?

Because if so that's the SAME guide who told me on my visit that before the 1977 NYC blackout, Lady Liberty was holding the Torch in her left hand! And that she was wearing Air Jordans!


Are you sure you weren't in San Francisco?

[GreNME]

Jeez, this stuff reads like a chat log.

First, realcddeal:
This -
You can review it if you are part of the review teams of either the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories or the Journal of 911 Studies.
Followed by this -
GreNME, I would agree to this format. Since Mark Roberts is the one who needs to substantiate his criticisms of my paper then he should write his letter which you can post and I will reply. Please private message me when he does so.

Does not imply to me the attitude of good faith, so honestly the two days of you attempting to use me a rhetorical tool is very much not appreciated.

I said I can review both of your papers, as well as your responses to each other on a separate and third-party location where each of you can claim is not being cornered in a hostile environment. This isn't an offer so that one of you can use it as an argument point to attack the other's veracity-- which is what you're doing. Continue to do so, and consider the offer dropped. I'm not offering neutrality, I'm offering a critical third party that you can each consider not initially or intentionally biased against either of you. For humor, I'm not offering you Switzerland, I'm offering you Canada.

----

As for this:
I have no problem with that if GreNME agrees. I do not want a cast of characters making quick comments and jetting off. GreNME appears to understand that and I am sure he would not allow that to occur.
Do you mean a politically biased web site will host your debate on science? That is not a good place.

I can see how, with all the BS political content of your failed paper, you would love a political site to host the debate.

Your scientific paper posted at wooville fits much better in a political bs venue.

Cool.

Did you get your knee-jerk out of your system enough insulting me? Just like I said to realcddeal, don't use me or my site as a weapon of insult on someone else. If you have a problem with my site, take it up with me. My site is a personal file repository on the web with a vanity front-end, nothing more. It's had other uses in the past, and I was offering it for another use that could aid in this senseless bickering.


----

If you are truly interested in a formal debate, I would recommend cutting and pasting the questions Gravy has already raised, first back in August, then again in this thread. You can send those off to GreNME with a formal response, and carry on from there. Since the questions have already been posted, why are you requiring Gravy to repost them?

This might actually be a good idea to get the ball rolling, realcddeal. If you truly wish to engage in good faith debate to actually prove your point, I'll gladly relay such information for you to start the process.

And remember, as far as the papers are concerned, all I have to do with Gravy's stuff is have him say "go ahead" to review them, as I know where they are. I have no idea where yours are, or which ones you want compared. Neither you nor Gravy have to send me anything for me to do this.

If you wanted to actually engage in debate over the contents and veracity of one of the two of your papers, I'm offering a forum where you two are the only posters, segregated from the rest of the forum. What was mentioned earlier here by one of the mods here was exactly the same offer, because I know the capabilities of this forum software and I know that the exact same thing is possible here. You now have two venues available where before you had one to actually engage in one-on-one textual debate. You each seem to have requirements of the other that you feel need to be met before you can engage in a good faith debate, so honestly I suggest you let pride go and be the one to take the first step. Yes, Gravy could do the same thing, but I'm addressing you right now, mostly because I am notably not pleased with having been a rhetorical weapon used by you when I was making a non-combative gesture to you both. If you're sick of the games and want to get down to debate, then you have a choice in this matter to get that started.

I'm not offering neutrality to anyone, I'm offering level ground for critical debate on one hand, and a third-party critical assessment on the other. I am assuming you're both adults and can handle whatever personal issues you have between each other without my involvement, so do me a favor and keep me out of it.

[twinstead]

My take on this situation is that certain 'truthers' have a serious problem dealing with serious, rational, objective, and factual critiques of their positions that suggest they might possibly be wrong.

There is a reason why the vast majority of the world's experts still, after 6 long years, have not come out against the official story in any way meaningful to those who think it was an inside job.

[Calcas]

"If you can't even deal with what amateurs have to offer, you're done."


I find it amusing that Tony keeps referring to writing "letters" over and over in this thread.

People who write on blogs or forums or anything else that isn't "a letter" (just typing that makes me laugh) isn't worth consideration.

It reminds me of a great book.

"Letters from a Nut" by Ted L. Nancy. Forward by Jerry Seinfeld. I defy anyone to read some of those letters out loud and not laugh.

Here are a few.

Again, read them out loud for the full effect.

http://englishseven.com/businessletter/businessamp.html

[Calcas]

As for this:
Did you get your knee-jerk out of your system enough insulting me?

Was Beachnuts comment directed toward your site?

I read it as directed at Tony and his "chosen" sites.

[GreNME]

My take on this situation is that certain 'truthers' have a serious problem dealing with serious, rational, objective, and factual critiques of their positions that suggest they might possibly be wrong.

There is a reason why the vast majority of the world's experts still, after 6 long years, have not come out against the official story in any way meaningful to those who think it was an inside job.

Actually, I think it's fair to say that this forum could be viewed as just as much a hostile environment as Gravy might view the 9/11 Journal group. 'Hostile' not always in the angry or openly aggressive sense, but in the contentious sense.

----

Was Beachnuts comment directed toward your site?

I read it as directed at Tony and his "chosen" sites.

You should look back at the actual post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3054897#post3054897). The quote he seems to be replying to is talking about my site. I apreciated it about as much as I appreciated realcddeal's use of my offer as a rhetorical invective at Gravy, or in other words "not at all."

[volatile]

Agreed, but historical data collection and analysis is not as amenable to the format and standards of academic papers as a scientific analysis or experiment would be.



I know this is a side issue but I just wanted to point out that there are academic journals and a rigorous peer review process in all disciplines, not just science. A journal that publishes historical analysis is just as capable of having a stringent peer review process as an engineering journal. Were Mark to write a paper, he could submit it to a peer reviewed journal. Of course, he's not an academic, his work is not intended to be academic and the whole point is moot, I just wanted to object to the overly narrow definition of peer review employed here.

I peer review submissions for the journal Body & Society - whilst these submissions are in the fields of philosophy and cultural studies, it is still perfectly possible to objectively review them for quality. History journals no doubt review for veracity as tenaciously as physics journals do...

[GreNME]

I know this is a side issue but I just wanted to point out that there are academic journals and a rigorous peer review process in all disciplines, not just science. A journal that publishes historical analysis is just as capable of having a stringent peer review process as an engineering journal. Were Mark to write a paper, he could submit it to a peer reviewed journal. Of course, he's not an academic, his work is not intended to be academic and the whole point is moot, I just wanted to object to the overly narrow definition of peer review employed here.

I peer review submissions for the journal Body & Society - whilst these submissions are in the fields of philosophy and cultural studies, it is still perfectly possible to objectively review them for quality. History journals no doubt review for veracity as tenaciously as physics journals do...




[added derail]

Yes, this is absolutely true. Also, just like other scientific journals, the peer review can be quite critical and the writer needs to have all their proverbial ducks in a row if they don't want to be chewed up by the reviewers.

[/added derail]

This is actually why I'm offering what I am to realcddeal.

[beachnut]

As for this:
Did you get your knee-jerk out of your system enough insulting me? Just like I said to realcddeal, don't use me or my site as a weapon of insult on someone else. If you have a problem with my site, take it up with me. My site is a personal file repository on the web with a vanity front-end, nothing more. It's had other uses in the past, and I was offering it for another use that could aid in this senseless bickering.
----

I went to your web site forum, unknown what the subject of the web site was, and I found political bs; if you found my web site you may find stereo bs, or educational bs. So? I never figured I was this good at making insults without trying; my writing abilities are marginal. I can not help it if your web site if full of political stuff, it was on the first page and the main subject, politics. I missed the overview page explaining the web site. I can host a blog too, so?

I doubt realcddeal is going to find any facts so he can debate, or even figure out why Mark's work would be easier to pass a peer review as is than realcddeal's bs.

[T.A.M.]

I know this is a side issue but I just wanted to point out that there are academic journals and a rigorous peer review process in all disciplines, not just science. A journal that publishes historical analysis is just as capable of having a stringent peer review process as an engineering journal. Were Mark to write a paper, he could submit it to a peer reviewed journal. Of course, he's not an academic, his work is not intended to be academic and the whole point is moot, I just wanted to object to the overly narrow definition of peer review employed here.

I peer review submissions for the journal Body & Society - whilst these submissions are in the fields of philosophy and cultural studies, it is still perfectly possible to objectively review them for quality. History journals no doubt review for veracity as tenaciously as physics journals do...




[reply to derail]

Agreed, but my point was simply that what Mark does is not amenable to the usual "paper" format, such as "Objectives, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion", and hence I am not sure he could write a paper, based on what he does, that would be amenable to peer review.

If peer review exists for "Data and information collection and synthesis" in the way mark collects and presents it, than great, I just didn't think there would be "peer review" for this. [/reply to derail]

TAM:)

[Alareth]

I was an Operations Specialist in the Navy. The job of an OS is to "Collect, Analyze and Disseminate information". Does that make me a qualified expert to peer review Gravy's works? That is what he has done in his writings.

[buka001]

Aye, ye cannae rely on them for onyhin'.

Where can we buy South Africa or Argentina strips in Glasgow? Is Greaves open on a Sunday?

:boxedin:


South Africa will defeat Argentina!! South Africa will meet England in the final. But as to who will win that match mmmmm. My heart wants SA. But we can often self destruct under pressure. We beat England 36-0 in the opening game, but it wont eb that easy! Jonny Wilkinson is NOT human!! Plus my girlfriend thinks he is hot!! :mad:

[GreNME]

I went to your web site forum, unknown what the subject of the web site was, and I found political bs; if you found my web site you may find stereo bs, or educational bs. So? I never figured I was this good at making insults without trying; my writing abilities are marginal. I can not help it if your web site if full of political stuff, it was on the first page and the main subject, politics. I missed the overview page explaining the web site. I can host a blog too, so?

I have yet to insult your web site, I have no idea what it is about, yet it has been proposed to host some debate. I guess I can offer up a web blog for the debate, what should the title be, debateMark.beachymon.com, I only have a few domains to pick from, and only one I think I would use would be superdebatemark.beachymon.com or debateMark.beachymon.com, or anynamehere.beachymon.com.

I doubt realcddeal is going to find any facts so he can debate, or even figure out why Mark's work would be easier to pass a peer review as is than realcddeal's bs.

There's a difference between 'bs' and 'bias', and despite your claims to the contrary, you were invoking a judgment of the location as your argument against realcddeal. I told you that I don't appreciate it, just like I told realcddeal that I don't appreciate his use of my offer as an argument against gravy. Unless you're criticizing my site either on the site or in a place where the value or content of my site is relevant to the discussion, then I'll address whatever you think there. As it stands, my site was being used as a rhetorical weapon, and I'm telling you that I don't appreciate it.

Despite the impression my complaint may have given you, I am against the implication that my site is meant to be more favorable to either party in this. It's meant specifically to offer a third party separate from what I see as "JREF vs <insert forum or CT website of choice here" that is prevalent throughout many of these threads. I am openly not a conspiracy theorist, and I have been openly critical of those on this forum who are also not conspiracy theorists. I believe that puts me in a unique position where I can't be accused of toeing one line or the other in terms of hard feelings or rhetoric. Instead, your post implied that somehow my offer is perhaps biased in one way or the other, and I object vehemently to such an implication.

I don't care what you think about my political views. I'm offering an alternative to what I see as a regular form of cross-forum fighting that can easily be solved by any two individuals from each side meeting in a third-party environment that facilitates them hashing out a debate without a cheerleading squad filling up nine pages of challenges or twenty-five separate lines of debate at once mucking up the format. If it's going to be two or so people debating, then let it be two or so people debating under previously-agreed-upon terms. Multi-user forum threads are good for a large number of users to chime in as they see fit, but aren't always a good way to facilitate a debate between two people. It doesn't matter what the rest of the format of the site is if the ability facilitate a two-person debate is present, which is what I'm offering.

[twinstead]

Actually, I think it's fair to say that this forum could be viewed as just as much a hostile environment as Gravy might view the 9/11 Journal group. 'Hostile' not always in the angry or openly aggressive sense, but in the contentious sense.


Indeed, just like a sports arena of an opposing team could be considered hostile, I suppose.

[Tony Szamboti]

Sorry to stick my nose in here, so late... but would I be correct in making the following observations?

1. The initial complaint is nothing other than one huge ad hominem tu quoque fallacy -- specifically, since Mr. Szamboti's paper was never peer-reviewed, despite claims to the contrary, he seeks to deflect attention by remarking that one of his critics is also not peer-reviewed (though has never claimed to be).

2. Upon failure of the opening gambit, Mr. Szamboti then desires some sort of "official" debate on his "work," either (a) to bring badly needed traffic to the "Journal" for 9/11 Studies, or (b) to cloak his whitepaper in a veneer of plausibility simply by generating controversy.

If so, neither point is valid. As an un-reviewed whitepaper, un-reviewed responses are more than adequate. And the "Journal" for 9/11 Studies, being both hostile and misrepresentative of its true nature, is not an acceptable venue for discussion.

We can discuss (and have discussed) Mr. Szamboti's work in threads here, but I see absolutely no value to the Original Post. Whether or not Gravy's works are reviewed has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of Mr. Szamboti's opinions.


You are giving me more credit here than I deserve. I had no ulterior motive for bringing attention to the Journal of 911 Studies. Mark Roberts and others here do that more than enough with their attempts to smear the integrity of that Journal. The only motive I had was to show Mark Roberts lives in a glass house when he attacks the Journal of 911 Studies peer review process and yet he publishes unreviewed papers on 911, some with scientific information in them. Since he also falsely claimed that I refused to debate him I again offered to do it on not only the Journal of 911 Studies but also the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, where his paper on WTC7 is published.

I see your recent paper is published and put forth as peer reviewed on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories.

My paper was peer reviewed and whether or not you accept that is of no consequence as it doesn't change the reality.

I would also like to inquire how the peer review process works on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and also whether or not you submitted your paper to any other scientific journals.

[R.Mackey]

You are giving me more credit here than I deserve. I had no ulterior motive for bringing attention to the Journal of 911 Studies. The only motive I had was to show Mark Roberts lives in a glass house when he attacks the Journal of 911 Studies peer review process and yet he publishes unreviewed papers on 911, some with scientific information in them.

I shouldn't have to tell you this, but Mark has done nothing wrong. The problem is that you claim to have "peer-reviewed" your work, but you have not. Mark is under no compunction to have his work reviewed. For that matter, neither are you. The problem is that your paper is misrepresented.

I would give you still more credit than you deserve and suggest that, perhaps, you don't know what real peer-review is and were duped by Dr. Steven Jones and company, but later on we discovered that you are a reviewer for that publication, so I don't think you can claim ignorance.


Since he also falsely claimed that I refused to debate him I again offered to do it on not only the Journal of 911 Studies but also the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, where his paper on WTC7 is published.

I wouldn't use either of these, but whatever. That's between you and Mark. As for his "falsely claiming that you refused," that's not what it looks like from where I'm standing -- but if this is so, you should have no problem availing yourself of the alternate proposals put forth in this thread. It's your move.


I see your recent paper is published and put forth as peer reviewed on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories.

May I ask how the peer review process works on the Journal of Debunking 911Conspiracy Theories.

I have no idea. My paper is marked as freely reproducible, and those responsible for the "Journal" of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories put it on their site without my request or submission. I do not refer to my whitepaper as peer-reviewed, because it hasn't been.

However, I have requested any and all feedback on the paper, and I am maintaining a careful change log and version control. There is also the fact that virtually everything in my whitepaper could be independently verified. I have received a large amount of feedback on that paper, from the full spectrum of readers, including "fans" here at the JREF Forum to those sourced by Dr. Griffin. While it is just a whitepaper, I believe you will find it is of high quality. No one yet has found any significant errors in my work. I also welcome and facilitate discussion from any quarter.

[MolBasser]

This thread (and the fact that I even bothered to post on it) is just asinine.

How old are these people again?

If you want to debate, just do it. For freekin sake....

MolBasser

[leftysergeant]

What most of us are doing here, and what it appears to me that Gravy is doing, is far different from what Jones, Wood, or Gage are doing.

We are all looking at trhe evidence that has been gathered and the articles presented and the theories posited rather as would a jury or a legislative body doing oversight.

We look at what appeared to happen, what the government says happened, what the conspiracy theorists say happened.

The conspiracy theorists have their "experts." I think some of them are akin to the hired guns that corporations bring in to "prove" that all injuries resulting from the use of a product are the result of the consumers' being bumbling idiots.

But we have among us specialists in a multitude of fields, and we have people who just learn a bit of certain subjects here and there because we find it interesting, and we have people with hands-on experience with some of the phenomena under discusssion.

Jones and his kind, if they want a new investigation, have to convince thousands of people like us, from varied backgrounds. To do that, he has to prove to us that he can jump through the hoops and prove his drivel out in the presence of experts within his own discipline, among more than just his circle of fanatical comrades and crusaders for the same cause.

What we are saying, when we reject his woo-woo, is "We don't see you convincing anybody who understands this stuff that you are right, so why should we buy it?"

The standards are different for the general populace than for the closed society of academics.

[Myriad]

Thanks for your kind words, Myriad. I'm perfectly comfortable with the label "amateur historian" when the subject is New York City history.


I left the "amateur" part unstated (while clearly implying it) because not everyone is aware of the long tradition of successful amateur historians and their valuable contributions. (Thinking long-term, it's the professional/academic historians who are the newfangled innovations.) Some might misinterpret that label as dismissive of the quality or accuracy of the work you do (as might be justified, if it were some other field like "amateur physician" or "amateur soldier"). But I'm glad you know enough about the "history of history" to be comfortable with such a label.

But I don't accept that label as it relates to much of the 9/11 work I've done, for a few reasons:


I'd dispute this, but what's the point? Perhaps it just comes down to where you say "much of," I'd say instead "some of."

For most of the historical events I've studied in detail (I'm not an amateur historian; my wife is, and I help out), it seems there's almost always one book written and/or compiled relatively soon after the event, that is a local amateur historian's attempt at a comprehensive record. Though such books are by definition secondary sources and the author's minimal analysis is usually ignored (often unwisely, in my opinion) by later historians, they tend to include information that's no longer, in later eras, available directly from primary sources. If the book proves accurate about sources that can still be checked, it acquires close to primary-source status on those that are otherwise lost.

There's probably not really any direct modern comparison, given the mass and reduntancy of information storage and dissemination today. But your web site, nonetheless, reminds me of those "true and compleat account" histories and their patient compilers.

1) There's a fair amount of invective in my papers...


I don't think that's at all unusual. People choose fields they're passionate about; that they then proceed to publish nothing but dispassionate work in those fields is largely a myth. Sure, depending on the audience overt invective is unprofessional; but in this case your audience is not dispassionate scholars either. I wouldn't call Dawkins unprofessional for the books he's written for public consumption, though if he used the same tone in a journal paper it probably would be.

2) I deliberately make little use of the tremendous wealth of human experience and knowledge about 9/11...


For "history's" sake I'd love to see recorded interviews with every witness, first responder, etc. but respecting their privacy is appropriate. "Truthers" scurrying around looking for any mistake or discrepancy to exploit makes it harder to bring this information to light; this alone makes them deserve the invective you speak of.

3) I rarely make use of the enormous library resources at my disposal...


Probably too large a task for any one person, especially not doing it full time. This is a common complaint; I've read plenty of prefaces in which authors of meticulously and extensively researched books bemoan the limited time and resources that prevented them from looking into every possible angle.

So as far as 9/11 goes, I consider myself not a historian and barely a researcher. I'm an information organizer. To me, research takes work. Most of this stuff is quite easy. It's just time-consuming because of the number of claims to deal with.


As I explained above I see that kind of information organizing as being well within the purview of (and perhaps even a particular strength of) amateur history. But I understand your point. I certainly don't mean to seriously dispute you about it.

Building a pyramid is easy too. It's just time-consuming because of the number of big stone blocks to deal with. :)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Myriad]

The only motive I had was to show Mark Roberts lives in a glass house when he attacks the Journal of 911 Studies peer review process and yet he publishes unreviewed papers on 911, some with scientific information in them.


This accusation still makes no logical sense. Mark Roberts has never claimed that his papers are peer reviewed.

That's not a nit-picking detail. The issue isn't publishing without peer review; it's whether your claim that your paper was peer-reviewed holds up. No claim, no issue.

Your argument is like saying a judge shouldn't commit a crazy guy who thinks he's Napoleon, because the judge isn't Napoleon either.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[GreNME]

Actually, I think it's fair to say that this forum could be viewed as just as much a hostile environment as Gravy might view the 9/11 Journal group. 'Hostile' not always in the angry or openly aggressive sense, but in the contentious sense.
Indeed, just like a sports arena of an opposing team could be considered hostile, I suppose.

That's a poor analogy. Any time a conspiracy theorist makes a CT claim on this forum, they get dogpiled by no less than a half-dozen people right off the bat. I'm not talking about whether their claims are right or wrong. The reality is that the views toward conspiracy theory talking points are heavily biased toward "against" in this forum, and because of that it is not unreasonable to consider this forum any less "hostile" (in the way I described) that perhaps the LC forums are to people from JREF who post there, or the manner in which Gravy presumes his papers would be received by the 9/11 Journal reviewers. This is a difference of outlook, approach, and conclusion. I'm not including the name-calling and other aggressive behaviors.

What I offerred was the equivalent of an arena, where everyone who isn't actively participating can view from the metaphorical "stands" and not actually take part. In this subforum, while technically possible, it is not the way these threads are set up (by default). This doesn't mean they can't be set up that way, but that doesn't necessarily remove the first impression of the forum as a whole.

That said, I've made my offer and I think I'm going to stay out of the general argument between Gravy and realcddeal. I can be reached by private message if they come to an agreement and decide to take my offer, and we can work out a set of criteria that meets their satisfaction at that time. I'm not personally invested in the other issues going on with this thread, and at this point I don't think I want to be.

[Gravy]

So, realcddeal has vehemently insisted, from August until a few hours ago, that he will not debate the details of his paper with me on this forum.

And now he's here debating those details with others.

9/11 deniers are fascinating. Absolutely fascinating.

[Architect]

[quote=GreNME;3055958]That's a poor analogy. Any time a conspiracy theorist makes a CT claim on this forum, they get dogpiled by no less than a half-dozen people right off the bat. I'm not talking about whether their claims are right or wrong. The reality is that the views toward conspiracy theory talking points are heavily biased toward "against" in this forum, and because of that it is not unreasonable to consider this forum any less "hostile" (in the way I described) that perhaps the LC forums are to people from JREF who post there, or the manner in which Gravy presumes his papers would be received by the 9/11 Journal reviewers. This is a difference of outlook, approach, and conclusion. I'm not including the name-calling and other aggressive behaviors.
[quote]

Just as an aside, and I've said it before, we do tend to be unduly aggressive a lot of the time - Mackay, Doc, and others aside. We could do worse than to follow the BAUT example a bit more...

:boxedin:

[Tony Szamboti]

So, realcddeal has vehemently insisted, from August until a few hours ago, that he will not debate the details of his paper with me on this forum.

And now he's here debating those details with others.

9/11 deniers are fascinating. Absolutely fascinating.

And you are apparently a weasel who won't debate outside the confines of his cozy little home, without the comfort of his energy draining friends.

You declined the debate weasel.

Keep it civil here please.

[jsfisher]

You declined the debate weasel.

I declined a spice weasel once. Commas are curious things, aren't they?

[RedIbis]

ah but dont forget the magic pipeline...lol

TAM:)

Is that what the magic jet fuel fireball shot down?

[WildCat]

Is that what the magic jet fuel fireball shot down?
You keep saying this, who has ever claimed a jet fuel fireball (magical or otherwise) shot down anything?

[RedIbis]

You keep saying this, who has ever claimed a jet fuel fireball (magical or otherwise) shot down anything?

Have you read Gravy's paper?

"Like other 9/11 conspiracists Rodriguez has no evidence to support, nor will he take the time to research, his own claims. The keystone–nearly the only stone–of his argument is that the explosion he heard in the basement could not have been caused by jet fuel in the elevator shafts."

According to Gravy, since Rodriguez is a liar and a denialist, then of course it must have been jet fuel in the elevator shafts which caused the explosion he heard. There are no other options.

In fact, the entire premise of the paper is that witness accounts, the smell of fuel, etc "proves" that it was in fact jet fuel which caused the fireball witnessed in the elevator shaft.

On at least two other threads I explained in detail why the timeframe is much too long for this to be true and only a magic, jet fuel fireball would have survived the impact, penetrated the one available elevator shaft, resisted absorption, obstruction and ignition for 80 or so floors, while two rescue operations take place. Kerosene isn't napalm.

Forgive my skepticism towards Gravy's paper.

[chillzero]

RedIbis,
I believe that this is something you are currently discussing in another thread, so should not be derailing this one.

[RedIbis]

RedIbis,
I believe that this is something you are currently discussing in another thread, so should not be derailing this one.

My apologies. I was asked a direct question and since my response was related to Roberts' paper, I figured I'd respond. I do respect the need to keep threads on specific topics, but it is my second cup of coffee, and you know how that goes...

[negativ]

On at least two other threads I explained in detail why the timeframe is much too long for this to be true and only a magic, jet fuel fireball would have survived the impact, penetrated the one available elevator shaft, resisted absorption, obstruction and ignition for 80 or so floors, while two rescue operations take place. Kerosene isn't napalm.

Do you think explosive charges create billowing fireballs?

Have you ever fired a rifle or detonated a string of firecrackers?

[chillzero]

The topic for this thread is peer reviewing of various approaches to 911 research and discussion. It has had many posts moved to a new thread as off topic. Please keep the thread on topic now.

[Quad4_72]

realcddeal you never answered my question...can you direct me to ONE factual error in any of Mark's papers? You obviously have a problem with them so I assume that you have some sort of evidence to back this up correct?

[Tony Szamboti]

realcddeal you never answered my question...can you direct me to ONE factual error in any of Mark's papers? You obviously have a problem with them so I assume that you have some sort of evidence to back this up correct?

You are assuming something and you know what can happen there. I never made any reference to whether or not Roberts' papers contained errors.

The subject of this thread was whether or not the work of Mark Roberts, someone who complains very loudly about the peer review process of the Journal of 911 Studies, is peer reviewed itself.

The answer is that it is apparently not.

[Arus808]

You are assuming something and you know what can happen there. I never made any reference to whether or not Roberts' papers contained errors.

seeing as youre mkaing an issue of his papers, then you may best point out what the errors are.

The subject of this thread was whether or not the work of Mark Roberts, someone who complains very loudly about the peer review process of the Journal of 911 Studies, is peer reviewed itself.

the problem here, is he has never claimed that his papers are or ever peer reviewed.

Unlike you, who have calimed your papers are "peer reviewed" but, only by those associated with JONES, and we have come to find out , that you are on the "peer" review panel of JONES>

If you can't see anything wrong with this, then you are unfamiliar to peer review as you are to facts.

[Tony Szamboti]

seeing as youre mkaing an issue of his papers, then you may best point out what the errors are.



the problem here, is he has never claimed that his papers are or ever peer reviewed.

Unlike you, who have calimed your papers are "peer reviewed" but, only by those associated with JONES, and we have come to find out , that you are on the "peer" review panel of JONES>

If you can't see anything wrong with this, then you are unfamiliar to peer review as you are to facts.


There are people from many walks of life and even different countries who have thus far contributed to the Journal of 911 Studies. To say they are all just associates of Dr. Jones is not accurate.

Many reviewers are also contributors on different journals. The rule is that you can't review your own papers. I don't review my own papers and the review is blind. The author only gets the comments not the identity of the reviewers. I am one of a fairly large number of people who do review papers for the Journal of 911 Studies.

It sounds like you are a little annoyed that I pointed out that Roberts, who complains very loudly about the peer review process at the Journal of 911 Studies, who probably doesn't have any experience with the process, and whose work on 911 is not peer reviewed, lives in a glass house.

[volatile]

RCDD - if the "Journal" of 911 Studies isn't peer reviewed properly, it isn't a journal, and it's dishonest to present it as such. That's a simple fact. Stop carping.

[Tony Szamboti]

RCDD - if the "Journal" of 911 Studies isn't peer reviewed properly, it isn't a journal, and it's dishonest to present it as such. That's a simple fact. Stop carping.

Papers which appear on the Journal of 911 Studies are peer reviewed. I have personally reviewed some of them.

You have no facts. In fact, it appears that you are the one carping.

[Quad4_72]

Papers which appear on the Journal of 911 Studies are peer reviewed. I have personally reviewed some of them.

You have no facts. In fact, it appears that you are the one carping.

The problem is that they are trying to pass them off as SCIENTIFICALLY peer reviewed. The sooner you comprehend this the better.

[Tony Szamboti]

The problem is that they are trying to pass them off as SCIENTIFICALLY peer reviewed. The sooner you comprehend this the better.

I am a degreed mechanical engineer with over 30 years of experience. Now what would you call it when I review a scientific paper for scientific accuracy and logic?

You aren't making sense. I am not the one who needs to comprehend anything here. Come back when you do.

[Gravy]

Here's a sample of the howlingly incompetent work that was reviewed and judged acceptable by Tony Szamboti. Clearly no other reviewers were involved. There can't be more than one person who would find this work acceptable at any level. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3054359&postcount=134)

[Quad4_72]

Here's a sample of the howlingly incompetent work that was reviewed and judged acceptable by Tony Szamboti. Clearly no other reviewers were involved. There can't be more than one person who would find this work acceptable at any level. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3054359&postcount=134)

Wow. That is absolutely ATROCIOUS work. Ok realcddeal your peer review privileges have officially been revoked. What were you doing for your 30 years of experience? Designing sophisticated structures with Legos? Or building SUPER COOL sand castles? NO, you are not allowed to peer review anything, not even my 3 page paper that I made about turtles back in 6th grade.

Scientific peer review does not consist of one person with a degree terribly reading through a paper and then saying its good to go. Scientific peer review is submitting your work to an accredited scientific journal where a panel of NUMEROUS scientists and engineers then review it and make corrections. I am appalled by the lack of competence and knowledge someone with supposedly 30 years of experience is portraying.

[Crungy]

Wow. That is absolutely ATROCIOUS work. Ok realcddeal your peer review privileges have officially been revoked. What were you doing for your 30 years of experience? Designing sophisticated structures with Legos? Or building SUPER COOL sand castles? NO, you are not allowed to peer review anything, not even my 3 page paper that I made about turtles back in 6th grade.

Scientific peer review does not consist of one person with a degree terribly reading through a paper and then saying its good to go. Scientific peer review is submitting your work to an accredited scientific journal where a panel of NUMEROUS scientists and engineers then review it and make corrections. I am appalled by the lack of competence and knowledge someone with supposedly 30 years of experience is portraying.

As another mechanical engineer, one professionally liscensed, with fifteen years experience in building design, including skscrapers, I'm baffled that Tony doesn't submitt his paper to the professional trade journals. If I wrote, what I felt was a scientific engineering paper of such critical and urgent importance, the professional engineering societies and associated journals would be the first and only place that I would submit my paper to, not some crackpot website. Why doesn't Tony submit to those societies and journals? Wouldn't want any of the nations leading structural engineers to critique your woo, would you Anthony? Every structural engineer I know has more respect for someone who believes in the tooth fairy, then a 9/11 nutter.

[Tony Szamboti]

Here's a sample of the howlingly incompetent work that was reviewed and judged acceptable by Tony Szamboti. Clearly no other reviewers were involved. There can't be more than one person who would find this work acceptable at any level. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3054359&postcount=134)

I already answered your silly questions here, but since you insist I will answer them once again.

One was semantic and non-technical, concerning the use of the words beams vs. columns. Although I never called a column a beam but sometimes referred to the steel as beams, and the intent was structural member, it was better to refer to the horizontal members as beams. Nobody with any engineering knowledge would have misinterpreted that and only someone with limited knowledge would. I did actually change this so people like you wouldn't get confused.

Another showed your understanding of engineering was somewhat primitive and I am surprised you had the nerve to bring it up. That was concerning whether or not the factor of safety was the same in the aircraft impact areas as it would have been at the base of the building level. There is a minimum required and that is what I used. For the central core that would be 1.67.

Finally, you complain that I discuss the obvious controlled demolition of Bldg. 7. I have never met anyone who has seen that collapse call it anything but. I also told you via e-mail that I watched Larry Silverstein use the actual words "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a History Channel show called History's Business in late 2002, so I absolutely know I am right about that and none of yours or Popular mechanics non-engineering editors can say different. I tried to get a copy of that show when I realized 911 wasn't what we were told it was last year, and the History Channel told me that series is not publicly available. Interesting. No need to be suspicious though as you will simply say Bldg. 7 wasn't a controlled demolition.

Your logic does stink a little bit there Mark and it seems that you are disingenuous and your efforts are simply to discredit anyone questioning the story we have been given concerning the events of 911. In fact, since the current official story of what occurred on 911 stinks to high heaven I am thinking of renaming you and your ilk "reskunkers" in lieu of "debunkers". This is in keeping with your attempt to ridicule the Journal of 911 Studies with your monthly Stundie nominations. Just think there could be a "reskunker" nomination once a month, and we will get to vote on who tried to prop up the stinky story the most.

[T.A.M.]

I also told you via e-mail that I watched Larry Silverstein use the actual words "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a History Channel show called History's Business in late 2002, so I absolutely know I am right about that and none of yours or Popular mechanics non-engineering editors can say different.

Interesting? Who produced it? Who directed it? These would be people to contact to ask them if this was the case...they would have access no doubt, why not start there to confirm your comment.

TAM:)

[LashL]

<snip> I watched Larry Silverstein use the actual words "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a History Channel show called History's Business in late 2002, so I absolutely know I am right about that and none of yours or Popular mechanics non-engineering editors can say different. I tried to get a copy of that show when I realized 911 wasn't what we were told it was last year, and the History Channel told me that series is not publicly available.


Christophera? Is that you?

EDIT TO ADD: Seriously, Tony, if you believe that, what are you doing posting about it on an internet forum? Write down all the details that you recall, make several copies, take them to top investigative journalists, television news departments, the police, the D.A, and the F.B.I. and crack open the conspiracy, already!

[Quad4_72]

I also told you via e-mail that I watched Larry Silverstein use the actual words "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a History Channel show called History's Business in late 2002, so I absolutely know I am right about that and none of yours or Popular mechanics non-engineering editors can say different.

STUNDIE NOMINATION.

[Tony Szamboti]

Wow. That is absolutely ATROCIOUS work. Ok realcddeal your peer review privileges have officially been revoked. What were you doing for your 30 years of experience? Designing sophisticated structures with Legos? Or building SUPER COOL sand castles? NO, you are not allowed to peer review anything, not even my 3 page paper that I made about turtles back in 6th grade.

Scientific peer review does not consist of one person with a degree terribly reading through a paper and then saying its good to go. Scientific peer review is submitting your work to an accredited scientific journal where a panel of NUMEROUS scientists and engineers then review it and make corrections. I am appalled by the lack of competence and knowledge someone with supposedly 30 years of experience is portraying.

Excuse me, but did you actually say anything here?

[Tony Szamboti]

As another mechanical engineer, one professionally liscensed, with fifteen years experience in building design, including skscrapers, I'm baffled that Tony doesn't submitt his paper to the professional trade journals. If I wrote, what I felt was a scientific engineering paper of such critical and urgent importance, the professional engineering societies and associated journals would be the first and only place that I would submit my paper to, not some crackpot website. Why doesn't Tony submit to those societies and journals? Wouldn't want any of the nations leading structural engineers to critique your woo, would you Anthony? Every structural engineer I know has more respect for someone who believes in the tooth fairy, then a 9/11 nutter.

Crungy, have you ever written any papers?

[Quad4_72]

Excuse me, but did you actually say anything here?

Why yes I did actually. Let me break it down point by point:

1. You are not allowed to peer review ANYTHING.
2. Your experience is completely meaningless. (Your post #343 proves this).
3. One person does not equal scientific peer review.
4. And finally, I am appalled by your lack of knowledge.

Did that make it easier for you? By the way your post #343 is probably one of the most hilarious posts I have ever read. Apparently the History Channel is now in on the conspiracy. We need to introduce you to Stundie. You guys would be the best of pals. You know what, I am putting that in my signature. That is just CF comedic GOLD.

[T.A.M.]

As another mechanical engineer, one professionally liscensed, with fifteen years experience in building design, including skscrapers, I'm baffled that Tony doesn't submitt his paper to the professional trade journals. If I wrote, what I felt was a scientific engineering paper of such critical and urgent importance, the professional engineering societies and associated journals would be the first and only place that I would submit my paper to, not some crackpot website. Why doesn't Tony submit to those societies and journals? Wouldn't want any of the nations leading structural engineers to critique your woo, would you Anthony? Every structural engineer I know has more respect for someone who believes in the tooth fairy, then a 9/11 nutter.

Exactly. Same question goes for S.Jones, and any other truther "scientist" or "engineer".

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Why yes I did actually. Let me break it down point by point:

1. You are not allowed to peer review ANYTHING.
2. Your experience is completely meaningless. (Your post #343 proves this).
3. One person does not equal scientific peer review.
4. And finally, I am appalled by your lack of knowledge.

Did that make it easier for you? By the way your post #343 is probably one of the most hilarious posts I have ever read. Apparently the History Channel is now in on the conspiracy. We need to introduce you to Stundie. You guys would be the best of pals. You know what, I am putting that in my signature. That is just CF comedic GOLD.

Actually, in some case one peer reviewer is all that is provided, but this is an exception, and is not considered very rigorous (to say the least) in terms of peer review.

As well, a true PEER REVIEW of his article, would be by at least one Engineer who is an EXPERT in the field that the article addresses.

TAM:)

[Tony Szamboti]

Exactly. Same question goes for S.Jones, and any other truther "scientist" or "engineer".

TAM:)

TAM, the hilarity with some of these comments is that they are probably coming from people who have never even written a paper let alone peer reviewed anything.

Most of these guys here have no credibility unless they are willing to prove who they are and show what they have done.

Roberts at least is known and we know what he has done. At least in terms of 911. He won't say what he has done in the past and what his background other than a tour guide is yet. One thing I would believe he hasn't done is been part of anybody's peer review process. He just likes to complain about others, without the requisite expertise.

[Calcas]

Finally, you complain that I discuss the obvious controlled demolition of Bldg. 7. I have never met anyone who has seen that collapse call it anything but.

You have NEVER met anyone who saw the collapse of bldg 7 call it anything other than a CD? Really?

This must be either a very sick joke or you have somehow managed to insulate yourself in a cocoon.

[Crungy]

Crungy, have you ever written any papers?

No, but some of my co-workers have. They submit to real journals reviewed by real engineers. They also design real buildings and bridges. Oh, you and your woo ilk have provided great amusement for the design and contruction community in Chicago. Keep up the paranoid nuttery. We enjoy emailing the woo links and laughing ourselves silly. :D

Tony, you do want the nations best engineers reviewing your work, don't you? Don't you?!

[Tony Szamboti]

You have NEVER met anyone who saw the collapse of bldg 7 call it anything other than a CD? Really?

This must be either a very sick joke or you have somehow managed to insulate yourself in a cocoon.


That is right, everyone I have ever talked to about Bldg. 7 and who has seen video of it's collapse says it was a controlled blast or demolition. Many of these people are in the aerospace industry in which I work and they are generally highly educated.

Why don't you tell me how you think Bldg. 7 collapsed Mr. Wizard?

[Quad4_72]

Actually, in some case one peer reviewer is all that is provided, but this is an exception, and is not considered very rigorous (to say the least) in terms of peer review.

As well, a true PEER REVIEW of his article, would be by at least one Engineer who is an EXPERT in the field that the article addresses.

TAM:)

For credibility and bias purposes, I will take a panel over a single person anyday.

[DGM]

No, but some of my co-workers have. They submit to real journals reviewed by real engineers. They also design real buildings and bridges. Oh, you and your woo ilk have provided great amusement for the design and contruction community in Chicago. Keep up the paranoid nuttery. We enjoy emailing the woo links and laughing ourselves silly. :D

Tony, you do want the nations best engineers reviewing your work, don't you? Don't you?!
That goes for the construction crowd also. Fire doesn't weaken steel always gets a good laugh going.

[Quad4_72]

Why don't you tell me how you think Bldg. 7 collapsed Mr. Wizard?

The same way everyone else thinks who does not spout woo. Damage and fire.

[Tony Szamboti]

No, but some of my co-workers have. They submit to real journals reviewed by real engineers. They also design real buildings and bridges. Oh, you and your woo ilk have provided great amusement for the design and contruction community in Chicago. Keep up the paranoid nuttery. We enjoy emailing the woo links and laughing ourselves silly. :D

Tony, you do want the nations best engineers reviewing your work, don't you? Don't you?!

You shouldn't be talking the way you are if you haven't written a paper and had it submitted to peer review yourself.

You know damn right well that this is a controversial subject and the journals are staying away from it right now, out of fear of reprisal. There may come a time when it is politically acceptable to publish on it.

[Crungy]

That is right, everyone I have ever talked to about Bldg. 7 and who has seen video of it's collapse says it was a controlled blast or demolition. Many of these people are in the aerospace industry in which I work and they are generally highly educated.

Why don't you tell me how you think Bldg. 7 collapsed Mr. Wizard?

Every structural engineer I know believes that it was a combination of the structual damage inflicted by the WTC tower collapse and the fires.

If your coworkers believe that it was CD, why aren't they hopping made and writing a paper to ASCE? If I was a structural engineer and felt that way I sure as hell would, as I know every friggin' structural engineer I work with would do likewise.

[Firestone]

You shouldn't be talking the way you are if you haven't written a paper and had it submitted to peer review yourself.

You know damn right well that this is a controversial subject and the journals are staying away from it right now, out of fear of reprisal. There may come a time when it is politically acceptable to publish on it.Care to provide evidence for this claim?

[Tony Szamboti]

The same way everyone else thinks who does not spout woo. Damage and fire.

Can you elaborate?

[chillzero]

Can you elaborate?

I believe that derail has already been split to another thread.

[Tony Szamboti]

Care to provide evidence for this claim?

It is obvious.

If you notice they also haven't seemed to publish a lot of papers backing up the current government story either.

[Crungy]

You shouldn't be talking the way you are if you haven't written a paper and had it submitted to peer review yourself.


Rubbish. Your actions and behaviour is like no engineer or professional that I've ever associated with and I'm calling you out for it. I am familiar with the process that coworkers go through when submitting scientific papers and it has worked for thousands of others, why not you?

You know damn right well that this is a controversial subject and the journals are staying away from it right now, out of fear of reprisal. There may come a time when it is politically acceptable to publish on it.

Rubbish. That is a cop out, which has been used by troothers for the engineering community, including my co-workers. "He's too scared to risk his professional career." Complete BS! You know damn well, that 99.9999% of the engineering community is in concert with the majority of NIST and view the 9/11 troof community as the 21st century flat earth society. I've never met a single engineer, whether in a professional or casual setting, who hasn't rolled their eyes and mocked your movement.

[LashL]

<snip> I watched Larry Silverstein use the actual words "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a History Channel show called History's Business in late 2002, so I absolutely know I am right about that and none of yours or Popular mechanics non-engineering editors can say different. I tried to get a copy of that show when I realized 911 wasn't what we were told it was last year, and the History Channel told me that series is not publicly available.

Serious question, Tony. If you really believe what you wrote above, what are you doing about it besides posting about it on an internet forum?

Edit to add this paragraph: Also, why are you so sure about it, since you initially said (on 9/11 Blogger) that you saw it in early 2004 rather than in late 2002? I realize that you've changed that since someone posted a link showing that Larry Silverstein was on that show on September 8, 2002, but that's a big difference in your "memory". Also, think about this: if Larry Silverstein said those words on television 3 days before the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks, don't you think that a large portion of the free world would have taken notice of such a comment?

In any event, if you actually believe what you wrote, don't you think that you should be writing down all the details that you recall, making several copies, taking them to top investigative journalists, television news departments, the police, the D.A, and the F.B.I. in order to crack open the vast conspiracy?

[Firestone]

It is obvious.
...If it is so obvious, why don't you post said evidence?

Reminder of your claim (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3057130&postcount=359): "the journals are staying away from it right now, out of fear of reprisal".

That's quite a claim, and you should provide evidence for this claim, not just say that "it is obvious".

[Quad4_72]

I believe that derail has already been split to another thread.

I am more than happy to elaborate. I don't see a derail thread though...

[beachnut]

... Any time a conspiracy theorist makes a CT claim on this forum, they get dogpiled by no less than a half-dozen people right off the bat.

I'm not talking about whether their claims are right or wrong.

Ironic; Your second point is the reason. 9/11 truth has a perfect record of being wrong. And 9/11 truth has never been right on the facts of 9/11. Why are people piling on when someone lies? Why should we tolerate lies and false information about 9/11? So as with this peer review irony, you have missed the fact, if a 9/11 truth person would show up with facts, they would not be 9/11 truth. This is why lies are opposed by so many. These are not articles of faith, or political views, 9/11 is about facts. The OP about peer reviews; but their peer review is a fraud; he is facing a pile of truth, instead of the lies he tries to push on others.

Mark's work seems to bother real. Is it due to the facts? Yes facts real can not deny or find in error. Whereas, real's paper is full of errors and is wrong in the conclusion it comes to after presenting false information and making up junk. I think realcddeal is upset that his paper did not receive a real peer review so he would understand his paper is full of errors and comes to a faulty conclusion.

[chillzero]

I am more than happy to elaborate. I don't see a derail thread though...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95958

[Gravy]

Holy crap. Now he's imagining things in documentaries. I know he's in denial, but I really didn't expect this to get into Christophera territory. How sad.

[Crungy]

If it is so obvious, why don't you post said evidence?


Oh, he does post evidence, such as this gem.

There is evidence for means, motive, and opportunity. Don't forget that the company which handled security for the WTC, Securacom, was bought by the Kuwaiti American co. in the mid 1990's and they installed Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker on the board and then installed a new security system. That is means and opportunity since it could be used as a cover for installing other things. I also would like to know the details of how a small elevator company like Ace Elevator Co. beat out the designer of the twin tower elevator system Otis Elevator Corp. for the maintenance contract, also in the mid 1990's. I would also like to know how much other work other than the twin towers Ace had during the time they had the contract for the twin towers. Core columns were accessible in an unseen way from the elevator shafts. It was reported in USA Today that the Ace mechanics left both buildings right after the second plane hit. Otis' mechanics did not do that in the 1993 bombing. They stayed to help people stuck in elevators.

You could say I like to talk about this issue as it is important to all of us.

Last year my 48 story building underwent a lengthy elevator replacement project. 18 elevators replaced in what seemed like eternity. Should I be suspicious? Is my building next in line for a CD?

Now you see why he doesn't submitt to scientific journals? Could you imagine the look on the face of someone assigned to review this paranoia?

[Arus808]

There are people from many walks of life and even different countries who have thus far contributed to the Journal of 911 Studies. To say they are all just associates of Dr. Jones is not accurate.

again, you seem to not know what reputable peer reviewed journal really is.
I dont care who contributed to the Journal as in papers, or as reviewers; for all i care, the Cookie Monster can contribute to your journal, but unless he is an expert within the fields that are needed to understand the events of 9/11/2001, i could really give a crap about what he says

Now, JONES is not a journal of any sort. Its a website that Steven Jones put up so that he could ESCAPE a proper reivew of his work, and the proper review of those who submit to his sham journal.


Why haven't you submitted your paper to journals that deal with architect and engineering? Have you had a member of ASCE look over your work? why is that?


Many reviewers are also contributors on different journals.[/qutoe]

Name them, and what journals they sit on, or hae submitted to; and have passed the proper review procedures. Name of articles and when it was published.

what you are doing is hearsay. I want proof.



[quote] The rule is that you can't review your own papers. I don't review my own papers and the review is blind. The author only gets the comments not the identity of the reviewers. I am one of a fairly large number of people who do review papers for the Journal of 911 Studies.


yet, who else in on JONES peer review qualified in knowlege and expertise to "review". I dont see a single Architect or structural engineer amongst the JONES members.





please educate yourself what a TRUE peer review is, and be a man by SUBMITTING your work to a REAL reputable scientific and engineering journal. YOu can START with the ASCE.

[Arus808]

I am a degreed mechanical engineer with over 30 years of experience. Now what would you call it when I review a scientific paper for scientific accuracy and logic?

sorry, but what is your expertise in:
architect
structural engineering
and
explosives?

Sorry, but you dont qualify to review anything or write anything that is about the above subjects; 911 is about those subjects.

You aren't making sense. I am not the one who needs to comprehend anything here. Come back when you do.


no, we are making sense; you are ignoring that you are not qualified to write on things you do not have any knowledge about.

[Alt+F4]

Holy crap. Now he's imagining things in documentaries. I know he's in denial, but I really didn't expect this to get into Christophera territory. How sad.

Yup Gravy, you'll have to add The History Channel to your long list of those "in on it".

Anyone who thinks that everyone believes WTC 7 was was a CT just has to come to NYC, walk into any firehouse in the five boros and ask the friendly firefighters who work there.

[T.A.M.]

Tony:

1. "It is obvious" doesn't hold water...at all.
2. Care to enlighten us on the EXACTS of the peer review process used by the JO911S?
3. The peer review SHOULD BE by a panel of experts in the field related to the topic addressed in the paper in question. A single reviewer in a RELATED field is not really sufficient. While it is sometimes done this way, as I have said, it is an exception, and is not considered the "standard" in terms of vigor/rigorousness for what most would consider normal scientific peer review.
4. Will the JO911S give full disclosure on their policies and procedures for Peer Review??

TAM:)

[Architect]

Every structural engineer I know believes that it was a combination of the structual damage inflicted by the WTC tower collapse and the fires.

If your coworkers believe that it was CD, why aren't they hopping made and writing a paper to ASCE? If I was a structural engineer and felt that way I sure as hell would, as I know every friggin' structural engineer I work with would do likewise.

Agreed, saving for it would be ICE or IStructE.

Incidentally, why do people keep forgetting that ARUP (they're really big and important, btw) DID publish an alternative theory.

But yet strangely occasionaly get accused of being US government stooges. Despite not even being American..... :boggled:

[LashL]

Holy crap. Now he's imagining things in documentaries. I know he's in denial, but I really didn't expect this to get into Christophera territory. How sad.

Indeed. Given that the show was aired on September 8, 2002 (even though Tony previously said he saw it in early 2004, not in late 2002 as he says now), it would be a safe bet that there was discussion about the progress at the site and some reference to the ongoing dismantling of damaged buildings for safety reasons. In the CT mind, such a sensible, rational, completely innocuous comment can easily become "WTC7 was a controlled demolition!!!1111eleventyones!!111!"

[LashL]

<snip>Now, JONES is not a journal of any sort. Its a website that Steven Jones put up so that he could ESCAPE a proper reivew of his work, and the proper review of those who submit to his sham journal.

Bingo.

[T.A.M.]

I am guessing, IF HE SAW such a program with Silverstein, Larry was probably referring to one of the OTHER WTC complex buildings that was brought down.

However, I got my doubts anything even close was actually said.

TAM:)

[DGM]

I am guessing, IF HE SAW such a program with Silverstein, Larry was probably referring to one of the OTHER WTC complex buildings that was brought down.

However, I got my doubts anything even close was actually said.

TAM:)
That would be unlikely. None of the buildings damage on 9/11 were taken down with CD. I think it had to do with fear of additional damage to other buildings and infrastructure.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

TAM, the hilarity with some of these comments is that they are probably coming from people who have never even written a paper let alone peer reviewed anything.

Most of these guys here have no credibility unless they are willing to prove who they are and show what they have done.

Roberts at least is known and we know what he has done. At least in terms of 911. He won't say what he has done in the past and what his background other than a tour guide is yet. One thing I would believe he hasn't done is been part of anybody's peer review process. He just likes to complain about others, without the requisite expertise.

You shouldn't be talking the way you are if you haven't written a paper and had it submitted to peer review yourself.

You know damn right well that this is a controversial subject and the journals are staying away from it right now, out of fear of reprisal. There may come a time when it is politically acceptable to publish on it.
Drop the ad hominem logical fallacies and post hoc rationalizations. You're not going to be fooling people on this site with that kind of drek.

[LashL]

That would be unlikely. None of the buildings damage on 9/11 were taken down with CD. I think it had to do with fear of additional damage to other buildings and infrastructure.

Well, building 6 was taken down by "controlled demolition" - but not with explosives, of course, rather it was pulled down with cables.

As I mentioned above, it would not be farfetched to think that there may have been some reference to the ongoing dismantling of damaged buildings for safety reasons, in September of 2002. Certainly, Mr. Silverstein did not say that "Building 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons".

It is obvious that realcd's memory is not very reliable, given that he initially claimed to have seen the show in "early 2004", not in "late 2002". It is equally obvious that his reasoning and critical thinking abilities are not exactly, er, impressive. Here is his post from 9/11 blogger:

The History Channel is also suppressing a video of Larry Silverstein actually saying Bldg. 7 was a "controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a Sunday morning show called History's Business in early 2004. I know as I watched him say it and at the time I was not suspicious about 911 and that comment made sense to me as I had never understood Bldg. 7's complete collapse. It seems to me that the original plan may have been to admit it was a controlled demolition, but for safety reasons. It looks like it got to be a problem after Dr. Steven Jones' paper was published and people started asking when there would have been time to set the charges and then asking about the towers given all of the testimony about explosions being seen, heard, and felt after the Oral Histories were released in August 2005. I personally asked myself the question of when there would have been time to set the charges in Bldg. 7 only after reading Dr. Jones' paper in early 2006.

[kookbreaker]

If you notice they also haven't seemed to publish a lot of papers backing up the current government story either.

This is your evidence? Are you also surprised that the media doesn't still keep telling you Franco is still dead?

[cmcaulif]

You know damn right well that this is a controversial subject and the journals are staying away from it right now, out of fear of reprisal. There may come a time when it is politically acceptable to publish on it.

(ahem)

A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. By: Quintiere, J.G.; di Marzo, M.; Becker, R.. Fire Safety Journal, Oct2002, Vol. 37 Issue 7, p707, 10p.

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.

Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse?; Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Journal of Engineering Mechanics; 2002 Vol. 128 Issue 7, p795-800, 6p.

How did the WTC towers collapse? A new theory; Usmani, A. S.; Chung, Y. C.; Torero, J. L. Fire Safety Journal; 2003 Vol. 38, p501-533, 33p.

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625, 25p

Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires. By: Usmani, A. S.. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Jun2005, Vol. 131 Issue 6, p654-657.

Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses. Fire and Materials, 29:4, July/August 2005. pp. 181 - 194. Chang, Jeremy; Buchanan, Andrew H.; Moss, Peter J.

Use of High-Efficiency Energy Absorbing Device to Arrest Progressive Collapse of Tall Building Qing Zhou and T. X. Yu Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130, 1177 (2004)

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30:2, January, 2005. pp. 2247-2254. Baum, Howard R.; Rehm, Ronald G.

Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks. Omika, Yukihiro.; Fukuzawa, Eiji.; Koshika, Norihide. Journal of Structural Engineering v. 131 no1 (January 2005) p. 6-15

The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers. Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W.; Foecke, Tim. Advanced Materials & Processes v. 162 no10 (October 2004) p. 37-9

WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design. Post, Nadine M. ENR v. 253 no17 (November 1 2004) p. 10-11

Recent advances in fire–structure analysis
Fire Safety Journal, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 20 August 2007,
Dat Duthinh, Kevin McGrattan and Abed Khaskia

Coupled fire dynamics and thermal response of complex building structures
Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, Volume 30, Issue 2, January 2005, Pages 2255-2262 Kuldeep Prasad and Howard R. Baum

K A Seffen,"Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis", ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, in press

A. Irfanoglu and C. Hoffmann, "An Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-1," J. of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, 06/2007; in press.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%206-22-07.pdf

it seems like there are plenty of journals publishing paper reguarding 9/11, and it is still a hot topic, one of these was published in august, 2 are in press, and one is still in the review process as far as I know.

[T.A.M.]

That would be unlikely. None of the buildings damage on 9/11 were taken down with CD. I think it had to do with fear of additional damage to other buildings and infrastructure.

Well, building 6 was taken down by "controlled demolition" - but not with explosives, of course, rather it was pulled down with cables.

As I mentioned above, it would not be farfetched to think that there may have been some reference to the ongoing dismantling of damaged buildings for safety reasons, in September of 2002. Certainly, Mr. Silverstein did not say that "Building 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons".

It is obvious that realcd's memory is not very reliable, given that he initially claimed to have seen the show in "early 2004", not in "late 2002". It is equally obvious that his reasoning and critical thinking abilities are not exactly, er, impressive. Here is his post from 9/11 blogger:

Yes, it was this that I was referring to. It was taken down by Cables, and was used here often to counter the "pull" = "Explosives" argument.

WTC6 versus WTC7, and remembering such a detail years later...easily could have been this...

TAM:)

[ConspiRaider]

Now how is it that ELEVEN of my posts in this thread were moved, and yet many were just as "on topic" as what I'm seeing right now? How is that? Are the mods gunning for me or something?

I am now going to start out my replies one word at a time, just to test the waters.

The... :boxedin:

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It is obvious that realcd's memory is not very reliable, given that he initially claimed to have seen the show in "early 2004", not in "late 2002". It is equally obvious that his reasoning and critical thinking abilities are not exactly, er, impressive. Here is his post from 9/11 blogger:

The History Channel is also suppressing a video of Larry Silverstein actually saying Bldg. 7 was a "controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a Sunday morning show called History's Business in early 2004. I know as I watched him say it [...]


Hah! It's the fisherman's stereotypical "The One That Got Away" tall-tale. Beautiful.

[Tony Szamboti]

Holy crap. Now he's imagining things in documentaries. I know he's in denial, but I really didn't expect this to get into Christophera territory. How sad.

How would you know there Gravy boy?

Silverstein was on the History Channel show History's Business on a Sunday morning in Sept. 2002 and I watched that show. It was an interview type show not a documentary. See the link below.

http://couchville.com/show/history's-business/larry-silverstein

At the time I thought him saying "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" made sense as I could never understand its complete rapid collapse from the time I heard about it on the night of Sept. 11, 2001.

I did not become suspicious about 911 until last spring after reading Dr. Steven Jones' paper and then asking myself when there would have been a chance to set the charges in Bldg. 7. I also have to say that when I first heard about Dr. Jones' paper I thought that maybe it could have been a quirky anomaly that there was molten metal in the rubble of the three buildings.

Call the History Channel and see if you can get a copy of the show. I couldn't. Only when we can all see it can you refute what I have said. I watched him say it and you don't know otherwise. You are just blowing hot air and ridiculing for some motive we can't figure out yet.

[Crungy]

How would you know there Gravy boy?

Silverstein was on the History Channel show History's Business on a Sunday morning in Sept. 2002 and I watched that show. It was an interview type show not a documentary. See the link below.

http://couchville.com/show/history's-business/larry-silverstein

At the time I thought him saying "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" made sense as I could never understand its complete rapid collapse from the time I heard about it on the night of Sept. 11, 2001.

I did not become suspicious about 911 until last spring after reading Dr. Steven Jones' paper and then asking myself when there would have been a chance to set the charges in Bldg. 7. I also have to say that when I first heard about Dr. Jones' paper I thought that maybe it could have been a quirky anomaly that there was molten metal in the rubble of the three buildings.

Call the History Channel and see if you can get a copy of the show. I couldn't. Only when we can all see it can you refute what I have said. I watched him say it and you don't know otherwise. You are just blowing hot air and ridiculing for some motive we can't figure out yet.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94103

[Quad4_72]

How would you know there Gravy boy?

Silverstein was on the History Channel show History's Business on a Sunday morning in Sept. 2002 and I watched that show. It was an interview type show not a documentary. See the link below.


Why is it that you are the ONLY one who saw that show and heard him say that?

[PhantomWolf]

BTW Tony, you wouldn't happen to have a copy of that 1964 Whitepaper you claim stays that a large passanger plane flying at 600 mph could hit the WTC? It'd be nice to see it. I gues until you produce a copy we're just going to have to take it on faith it really says that, right?

[LashL]

How would you know there Gravy boy?

Silverstein was on the History Channel show History's Business on a Sunday morning in Sept. 2002 and I watched that show. It was an interview type show not a documentary. See the link below.

http://couchville.com/show/history's-business/larry-silverstein (http://couchville.com/show/history%27s-business/larry-silverstein)

At the time I thought him saying "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" made sense as I could never understand its complete rapid collapse from the time I heard about it on the night of Sept. 11, 2001.

I did not become suspicious about 911 until last spring after reading Dr. Steven Jones' paper and then asking myself when there would have been a chance to set the charges in Bldg. 7. I also have to say that when I first heard about Dr. Jones' paper I thought that maybe it could have been a quirky anomaly that there was molten metal in the rubble of the three buildings.


Yeah, we know that you "believe" that, Tony. We have been discussing it but you haven't been answering.

Serious question, Tony. If you really believe what you wrote above, what are you doing about it besides posting about it on an internet forum?

Edit to add this paragraph: Also, why are you so sure about it, since you initially said (on 9/11 Blogger) that you saw it in early 2004 rather than in late 2002? I realize that you've changed that since someone posted a link showing that Larry Silverstein was on that show on September 8, 2002, but that's a big difference in your "memory". Also, think about this: if Larry Silverstein said those words on television 3 days before the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks, don't you think that a large portion of the free world would have taken notice of such a comment?

In any event, if you actually believe what you wrote, don't you think that you should be writing down all the details that you recall, making several copies, taking them to top investigative journalists, television news departments, the police, the D.A, and the F.B.I. in order to crack open the vast conspiracy?


Indeed. Given that the show was aired on September 8, 2002 (even though Tony previously said he saw it in early 2004, not in late 2002 as he says now), it would be a safe bet that there was discussion about the progress at the site and some reference to the ongoing dismantling of damaged buildings for safety reasons. In the CT mind, such a sensible, rational, completely innocuous comment can easily become "WTC7 was a controlled demolition!!!1111eleventyones!!111!"

I am guessing, IF HE SAW such a program with Silverstein, Larry was probably referring to one of the OTHER WTC complex buildings that was brought down.

However, I got my doubts anything even close was actually said.

TAM:)

That would be unlikely. None of the buildings damage on 9/11 were taken down with CD. I think it had to do with fear of additional damage to other buildings and infrastructure.

Well, building 6 was taken down by "controlled demolition" - but not with explosives, of course, rather it was pulled down with cables.

As I mentioned above, it would not be farfetched to think that there may have been some reference to the ongoing dismantling of damaged buildings for safety reasons, in September of 2002. Certainly, Mr. Silverstein did not say that "Building 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons".

It is obvious that realcd's memory is not very reliable, given that he initially claimed to have seen the show in "early 2004", not in "late 2002". It is equally obvious that his reasoning and critical thinking abilities are not exactly, er, impressive. Here is his post from 9/11 blogger:
The History Channel is also suppressing a video of Larry Silverstein actually saying Bldg. 7 was a "controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a Sunday morning show called History's Business in early 2004. I know as I watched him say it and at the time I was not suspicious about 911 and that comment made sense to me as I had never understood Bldg. 7's complete collapse. It seems to me that the original plan may have been to admit it was a controlled demolition, but for safety reasons. It looks like it got to be a problem after Dr. Steven Jones' paper was published and people started asking when there would have been time to set the charges and then asking about the towers given all of the testimony about explosions being seen, heard, and felt after the Oral Histories were released in August 2005. I personally asked myself the question of when there would have been time to set the charges in Bldg. 7 only after reading Dr. Jones' paper in early 2006.


Yes, it was this that I was referring to. It was taken down by Cables, and was used here often to counter the "pull" = "Explosives" argument.

WTC6 versus WTC7, and remembering such a detail years later...easily could have been this...

TAM:)

[Redtail]

How would you know there Gravy boy?

Silverstein was on the History Channel show History's Business on a Sunday morning in Sept. 2002 and I watched that show. It was an interview type show not a documentary. See the link below.

http://couchville.com/show/history's-business/larry-silverstein (http://couchville.com/show/history%27s-business/larry-silverstein)

At the time I thought him saying "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" made sense as I could never understand its complete rapid collapse from the time I heard about it on the night of Sept. 11, 2001.

I did not become suspicious about 911 until last spring after reading Dr. Steven Jones' paper and then asking myself when there would have been a chance to set the charges in Bldg. 7. I also have to say that when I first heard about Dr. Jones' paper I thought that maybe it could have been a quirky anomaly that there was molten metal in the rubble of the three buildings.

Call the History Channel and see if you can get a copy of the show. I couldn't. Only when we can all see it can you refute what I have said. I watched him say it and you don't know otherwise. You are just blowing hot air and ridiculing for some motive we can't figure out yet.

I refute what you have said on the grounds that 1.)there were no sounds of a CD picked up by any mic in the area. 2.) you are the only one to bring this up in 6 years. and 3.) you can't produce any evidence of this statement beyond your saying "I saw it!"

[R.Mackey]

I cannot believe this is still going on.

Mark Roberts's papers are not peer-reviewed. He has never claimed they are. They do not need to be, either.

More important than peer-review is whether or not a paper is correct. Having said that, papers that go through peer-review and are then found to be in error are a huge embarassment to the reviewers and the publication that endorsed them.

The "Journal" of 9/11 Studies does not practice rigorous peer-review, and this is partly to blame for the fact that virtually every paper they've ever produced is riddled with errors (one or two of the "Space Beam" refutations are probably clean, and I've personally gone over and basically agree with Gregory Urich's paper on the mass of the WTC Towers). Some of them, particularly if you take the "letters" into account, even conflict with each other. Many more have been redacted without notice. None of this is in dispute.

Can we close this thread now, please?

[leftysergeant]

Realcddeal's memory of the Silverstein comment sounds to me like confabulation. He has a need for such a thing to be true, so, in his mind (trying not to make a snide remark here using quotation marks) it IS true.

[timhau]

Now you see why he doesn't submitt to scientific journals? Could you imagine the look on the face of someone assigned to review this paranoia?

If that is a representative sample, I doubt his stuff would ever even reach the reviewers. When I worked as an editor in a small-time journal, I did do some screening of the incoming papers. There were three reasons why I'd send a paper back to the writer straight away:


Blatant disregard for submission guidelines. I basically sent back a "please revise the format and resubmit" note along with a copy of the journal's style sheet. This was by far the most common reason.
Wrong journal. The paper wasn't about one of the things the journal was devoted to. In this case, I included some suggestions of a more suitable publication forum. This was rare.
Obvious nuttery. The reviewers work for free, and a good reviewer is worth his/her weight in gold. Pissing one off by wasting his/her time is about the last thing an editor wants to do.

[timhau]

I am a degreed mechanical engineer with over 30 years of experience. Now what would you call it when I review a scientific paper for scientific accuracy and logic?

The options that come to mind are 'tragedy' and 'farce'.

[chillzero]

I cannot believe this is still going on.

Mark Roberts's papers are not peer-reviewed. He has never claimed they are. They do not need to be, either.

Can we close this thread now, please?

Indeed.

For clarification, as there seems to be confusion between a few threads.

This thread is not about the events of 911 . It is about the requirement of or non-requirement of peer review for Mark's work.

To discuss the peer review process for the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories :
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95954[/URL]

To debate the events of 911 and the theories arising:
[URL="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95958"]http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95958 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95863)

If we cannot keep this thread on topic, it will be set to moderated status.

[Gravy]

I don't know what all the fuss is about. I think there's been tremendous progress in this thread. On page 9, Mr. deal concluded that my work has apparently not been peer reviewed. That's incredibly fast progress, for a Scholar for Truth.

[ref]

I don't know what all the fuss is about. I think there's been tremendous progress in this thread. On page 9, Mr. deal concluded that my work has apparently not been peer reviewed. That's incredibly fast progress, for a Scholar for Truth.

I have to agree. It took him only 2 days and about 62 posts to reach that conclusion.

[peteweaver]

If he can progress that fast in two days, just imagine what he'll achieve in two years.

He'll wake up one day and realise that the 'truth' movement is a con, go to a bar, get drunk, and then get on with enjoying a life free from silly black tshirts, and loudhailers.

[Tony Szamboti]

I cannot believe this is still going on.

Mark Roberts's papers are not peer-reviewed. He has never claimed they are. They do not need to be, either.

More important than peer-review is whether or not a paper is correct. Having said that, papers that go through peer-review and are then found to be in error are a huge embarassment to the reviewers and the publication that endorsed them.

The "Journal" of 9/11 Studies does not practice rigorous peer-review, and this is partly to blame for the fact that virtually every paper they've ever produced is riddled with errors (one or two of the "Space Beam" refutations are probably clean, and I've personally gone over and basically agree with Gregory Urich's paper on the mass of the WTC Towers). Some of them, particularly if you take the "letters" into account, even conflict with each other. Many more have been redacted without notice. None of this is in dispute.

Can we close this thread now, please?

Yes, we can close this thread with just one more comment. To your credit you stated that your paper has not been peer reviewed and we had to conclude that none of Mark Roberts' papers are peer reviewed (when it was brought up he was willing to allow that the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories had peer reviewed even though he admitted not submitting it personally).

Since the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories passes off both yours and Mark Roberts papers as peer reviewed, right above the title on their front page, why have you and Roberts not corrected them?

Why do you two allow your papers to be advertised as peer reviewed when in fact, by your own admission, they are not?

[chillzero]

Since the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories passes off both yours and Mark Roberts papers as peer reviewed, right above the title on their front page, why have you and Roberts not corrected them?

Why do you two allow your papers to be advertised as peer reviewed when in fact, by your own admission, they are not?

Have you contacted the Journal and asked them if they submitted them to a peer review process before publishing?

[Gravy]

Tony, I took you off ignore to see if you were behaving honestly, and look what I found in the very first post I read:

...we had to conclude that none of Mark Roberts' papers are peer reviewed (when it was brought up he was willing to allow that the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories had peer reviewed even though he admitted not submitting it personally).Mr. Szamboti, are you lying again, or is your reading comprehension really that bad? Let's take this real slow:

I have never made any representation that any work of mine has been peer reviewed by anyone.

Is that clear, Tony Szamboti? Answer yes or no.

You will be called on your dishonesty every single time here. Get used to it.

[Tony Szamboti]

Realcddeal's memory of the Silverstein comment sounds to me like confabulation. He has a need for such a thing to be true, so, in his mind (trying not to make a snide remark here using quotation marks) it IS true.

Lefty, I have shown you it was a real show and you have no idea what was said on it. Why don't you call the History Channel and see if you can get a copy of the show before you say anything about it? That doesn't take very long and you will see whether or not it is confabulation. It isn't. I did not remember the exact date of the show initially but I know what he said. When I brought it up on another forum someone came up with the link shown here

http://couchville.com/show/history's-business/larry-silverstein

that provided some validation of what I was saying. The show may have even been a rerun when I saw it. The show is real and I can tell you what he said on there about Bldg. 7 at that time. I was not suspicious about 911 at that time and Silverstein's comments settled the puzzlement I had about the complete rapid collapse of Bldg. 7. It wasn't until last spring that I questioned when there would have been a chance to set the charges after reading Dr. Steven Jones' paper where he hypothesizes that there were charges set in the buildings. I did call the History Channel a few months ago and they told me that series is not publicly available. Now you can take that however you want but I found it odd since I thought all of their shows were available on VHS or DVD.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, I took you off ignore to see if you were behaving honestly, and look what I found in the very first post I read:

Mr. Szamboti, are you lying again, or is your reading comprehension really that bad? Let's take this real slow:

I have never made any representation that any work of mine has been peer reviewed by anyone.

Is that clear, Tony Szamboti? Answer yes or no.

You will be called on your dishonesty every single time here. Get used to it.


When it was first brought up, on this forum in the last couple of days, that your work was peer reviewed on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, as proof that it was peer reviewed, you let that pass without correction. All you said was that you didn't send it to them.

Why don't you answer my question of why you allow them to represent your paper as being peer reviewed when you know it is not?

[volatile]

Lefty, I have shown you it was a real show and you have no idea what was said on it. Why don't you call the History Channel and see if you can get a copy of the show before you say anything about it? That doesn't take very long and you will see whether or not it is confabulation. It isn't. I did not remember the exact date of the show initially but I know what he said. When I brought it up on another forum someone came up with the link shown here

http://couchville.com/show/history's-business/larry-silverstein (http://couchville.com/show/history%27s-business/larry-silverstein)

that provided some validation of what I was saying. The show may have even been a rerun when I saw it. The show is real and I can tell you what he said on there about Bldg. 7 at that time. I was not suspicious about 911 at that time and Silverstein's comments settled the puzzlement I had about the complete rapid collapse of Bldg. 7. It wasn't until last spring that I questioned when there would have been a chance to set the charges after reading Dr. Steven Jones' paper where he hypothesizes that there were charges set in the buildings. I did call the History Channel a few months ago and they told me that series is not publicly available. Now you can take that however you want but I found it odd since I thought all of their shows were available on VHS or DVD.

Why are you the only person on the planet who heard him say this? Why did no media outlets report this? Why the hell should we take your word for it - one line from a documentary you don't even remember when you saw, filtered through a fugue of conspiracy ideology 5 years ago?

Quite simply - prove it, or shut up.

-----------

ETA: I just googled ""History's Business" Silverstein" and, surprise surprise, there are only two references to this apparent quote on the entire internet, and ONE OF THEM WAS POSTED BY YOU!

You're making it up.

[Gravy]

When it was first brought up, on this forum in the last couple of days, that your work was peer reviewed on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, as proof that it was peer reviewed, you let that pass without correction. All you said was that you didn't send it to them.That is a lie.
I have never submitted any paper to any journal. If someone says they've peer reviewed something I've written, that's their claim, not mine.

I have repeatedly asked you to stop lying. Is it that you are unwilling, or incapable, of stopping?

[WildCat]

At the time I thought him saying "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" made sense as I could never understand its complete rapid collapse from the time I heard about it on the night of Sept. 11, 2001.
This is the claim pd'oh was making... that the firemen went into WTC, which was burning out of control, rigged it with explosives, and then blew it up for safety reasons. You don't see a problem with that scenario?

And you claim Silverstein said this? Let me guess, the NWO made that program disappear like a LCF thread, right? :rolleyes:

[Quad4_72]

Why is it that you are the ONLY one who saw that show and heard him say that?

Figured I would just quote myself to see if I could get an answer out of good ole realcddeal. Oh and could you also direct me to ONE error in any of Mark's papers since you have such a problem with the peer review process (Which he never claimed to go through in the first place)?

[Tony Szamboti]

That is a lie.


I have repeatedly asked you to stop lying. Is it that you are unwilling, or incapable, of stopping?

Please show where you said it wasn't peer reviewed when the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories was first brought up, early in this thread, as proof that there was a peer review of your work. You only said you didn't send it to them and did not correct the fact that your paper was not peer reviewed.

Why are you allowing your paper to be represented by the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories as peer reviewed when it is not?

I have to go to work now. We can talk more tonight.

[Quad4_72]

This is the claim pd'oh was making... that the firemen went into WTC, which was burning out of control, rigged it with explosives, and then blew it up for safety reasons. You don't see a problem with that scenario?

And you claim Silverstein said this? Let me guess, the NWO made that program disappear like a LCF thread, right? :rolleyes:

Actually I believe he also endorses this theory:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3054359&postcount=134

"Quote:
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."

[tsig]

You are assuming something and you know what can happen there. I never made any reference to whether or not Roberts' papers contained errors.

The subject of this thread was whether or not the work of Mark Roberts, someone who complains very loudly about the peer review process of the Journal of 911 Studies, is peer reviewed itself.

The answer is that it is apparently not.

Yes it was. Every NYC tour guide who has read the paper agrees with Mark.

[Shrinker]

Is this the smoking gun? Mark Roberts allegedly didn't correct some guy's assumption that he endorsed some website's claim that a debunking article was peer reviewed? Gee, somebody call the UN.

[timhau]

Is this the smoking gun? Mark Roberts allegedly didn't correct some guy's assumption that he endorsed some website's claim that a debunking article was peer reviewed? Gee, somebody call the UN.

Yes. And from that, it logically follows that 9/11 was an inside job.

[chillzero]

Please show where you said it wasn't peer reviewed when the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories was first brought up, early in this thread, as proof that there was a peer review of your work. You only said you didn't send it to them and did not correct the fact that your paper was not peer reviewed.

...and he has never claimed anything other than that. The claim that the paper is peer reviewed comes from JOD911CT, not Mark.

Why are you allowing your paper to be represented by the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories as peer reviewed when it is not?


I've asked this already, but will try again - have you contacted the JOD911CT and asked them if they put the paper through peer review before publishing it? They made the claim - ask them to support it.



Also, Mark, I just wondered - have you given permission for your paper to be reproduced in this manner?

[tsig]

Papers which appear on the Journal of 911 Studies are peer reviewed. I have personally reviewed some of them.

You have no facts. In fact, it appears that you are the one carping.


So you are a peer!

And a submitter!

Just how many hats do you have?

Are the all lined with teh tinfoil?

[tsig]

I am a degreed mechanical engineer with over 30 years of experience. Now what would you call it when I review a scientific paper for scientific accuracy and logic?

You aren't making sense. I am not the one who needs to comprehend anything here. Come back when you do.

one year of experience, 29 years of doing the same thing.

[Gravy]

Please show where you said it wasn't peer reviewed when the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories was first brought up, early in this thread, as proof that there was a peer review of your work. You only said you didn't send it to them and did not correct the fact that your paper was not peer reviewed.That is the third lie you've told in as many responses. Is it that you cannot, or that you will not, stop lying?

We're on page 11 of your thread and your infantile denial still prevents you from getiting the simplest facts right. My quote above came after I brought up that journal, and was a direct reply to your question:
Was your WTC7 paper peer reviewed Mark and by what organization?

I have never submitted any paper to any journal. If someone says they've peer reviewed something I've written, that's their claim, not mine.

Let's try this one more time, okay, Tony? Got your thinking cap screwed on?
I have never submitted any paper to any journal. I have never made any representation that any work of mine has been peer reviewed by anyone.

Is that clear, Tony Szamboti? Answer yes or no.

[tsig]

I already answered your silly questions here, but since you insist I will answer them once again.

One was semantic and non-technical, concerning the use of the words beams vs. columns. Although I never called a column a beam but sometimes referred to the steel as beams, and the intent was structural member, it was better to refer to the horizontal members as beams. Nobody with any engineering knowledge would have misinterpreted that and only someone with limited knowledge would. I did actually change this so people like you wouldn't get confused.

Another showed your understanding of engineering was somewhat primitive and I am surprised you had the nerve to bring it up. That was concerning whether or not the factor of safety was the same in the aircraft impact areas as it would have been at the base of the building level. There is a minimum required and that is what I used. For the central core that would be 1.67.

Finally, you complain that I discuss the obvious controlled demolition of Bldg. 7. I have never met anyone who has seen that collapse call it anything but. I also told you via e-mail that I watched Larry Silverstein use the actual words "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a History Channel show called History's Business in late 2002, so I absolutely know I am right about that and none of yours or Popular mechanics non-engineering editors can say different. I tried to get a copy of that show when I realized 911 wasn't what we were told it was last year, and the History Channel told me that series is not publicly available. Interesting. No need to be suspicious though as you will simply say Bldg. 7 wasn't a controlled demolition.

Your logic does stink a little bit there Mark and it seems that you are disingenuous and your efforts are simply to discredit anyone questioning the story we have been given concerning the events of 911. In fact, since the current official story of what occurred on 911 stinks to high heaven I am thinking of renaming you and your ilk "reskunkers" in lieu of "debunkers". This is in keeping with your attempt to ridicule the Journal of 911 Studies with your monthly Stundie nominations. Just think there could be a "reskunker" nomination once a month, and we will get to vote on who tried to prop up the stinky story the most.

"stinks to high heaven" is not an engineering term I am familiar with.

Can you quantify it a bit.

Maybe it's somewhere between "stinks like hell and smells like cabbage"?

[Gravy]

Also, Mark, I just wondered - have you given permission for your paper to be reproduced in this manner?
Yes, I said anyone could host it.

[tsig]

It is obvious.

If you notice they also haven't seemed to publish a lot of papers backing up the current government story either.

Not been too many papers about how water is wet either.

Just proves my "dry impact theory.

[timhau]

I hear that papers on the subject of Earth's roundness have been conspicuously absent from journals lately.

[tsig]

How would you know there Gravy boy?

Silverstein was on the History Channel show History's Business on a Sunday morning in Sept. 2002 and I watched that show. It was an interview type show not a documentary. See the link below.

http://couchville.com/show/history's-business/larry-silverstein

At the time I thought him saying "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" made sense as I could never understand its complete rapid collapse from the time I heard about it on the night of Sept. 11, 2001.

I did not become suspicious about 911 until last spring after reading Dr. Steven Jones' paper and then asking myself when there would have been a chance to set the charges in Bldg. 7. I also have to say that when I first heard about Dr. Jones' paper I thought that maybe it could have been a quirky anomaly that there was molten metal in the rubble of the three buildings.

Call the History Channel and see if you can get a copy of the show. I couldn't. Only when we can all see it can you refute what I have said. I watched him say it and you don't know otherwise. You are just blowing hot air and ridiculing for some motive we can't figure out yet.

I have peer reviewed your statement and find it lacking.

[chillzero]

Yes, I said anyone could host it.

OK. Thank you for the response.

In that case, I guess you have no way of knowing, unless you maybe consult daily with Sylvia Browne ;), whether anyone, anywhere in the world, has re-printed it and perhaps labelled it as 'peer-reviewed'.

[Belz...]

I also told you via e-mail that I watched Larry Silverstein use the actual words "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a History Channel show called History's Business in late 2002, so I absolutely know I am right about that and none of yours or Popular mechanics non-engineering editors can say different.

Excellent. I'm sure you won't have any difficulty producing a video of that particular sentence. If it exists, it should be all over the net on Truther sites.

Can't find it ?

I wonder why.

[Calcas]

Excellent. I'm sure you won't have any difficulty producing a video of that particular sentence. If it exists, it should be all over the net on Truther sites.

Can't find it ?

I wonder why.

How did I miss this?

He is actually claiming that Silverstein said, "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a television program and NOBODY in the twoofer movement picked up on it? And this was in 2002?

Tony, any creditbility you may have had is SHOT!

[T.A.M.]

I personally think, that IF Tony saw such an interview, Silverstein probably said WTC 6, but Tony now remembers it as WTC 7.

TAM:)

[R.Mackey]

Yes, we can close this thread with just one more comment. To your credit you stated that your paper has not been peer reviewed and we had to conclude that none of Mark Roberts' papers are peer reviewed (when it was brought up he was willing to allow that the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories had peer reviewed even though he admitted not submitting it personally).

Since the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories passes off both yours and Mark Roberts papers as peer reviewed, right above the title on their front page, why have you and Roberts not corrected them?

Why do you two allow your papers to be advertised as peer reviewed when in fact, by your own admission, they are not?

It's not my problem.

My whitepaper is available from all kinds of places, myself included. This is because I have extremely generous reproduction terms attached to it. Anyone, even you, can reprint all or some of it, provided it is for non-profit and educational purposes.

The downside is that if someone prints it and says something silly about it ("look at what this government agent wrote" was the case I expected, but it also covers "this paper is peer-reviewed"), that's not actionable. I can't do anything about it.

I don't care about the "Journal" for Debunking 9/11 Studies. I don't know who runs it or why. For all I know, they may very well have indeed reviewed my paper, but given my paper's large size and the timing involved, I suspect they have not. In fact, I believe (but cannot prove) they only say "peer-reviewed" because it's a mockery of the "Journal" of 9/11 Studies, which as we all agree is also not peer-reviewed, yet makes a big deal about it -- as if anyone who mattered would be convinced on those grounds alone. Guess what, it only impresses rubes who don't know what it means, and who heard about it on the Loose Change forums as something desirable but unattainable.

So write them a nasty letter. Not my problem. I represent myself fairly and honestly, and that's that. I bear no responsibility whatsoever for their website.

[lisabob2]

I find his website to be very unscientific.
Using buildings that collapse during construction stages has nothing to do with the collapses on 9-11. He uses the "what if" card quite a bit. Which is no way to investigate anything. He tries to question a few witnesses searching for problems he sees when there are hundred of witnesses which say the samething, like molten metal in debris, or explosions heard. Asking what if is not scientific without evidence. facts or scientific experiments to reach a thoughful conclusion or at least a likely theory.

[Gravy]

I find his website to be very unscientific.
Using buildings that collapse during construction stages has nothing to do with the collapses on 9-11. He uses the "what if" card quite a bit. Which is no way to investigate anything. He tries to question a few witnesses searching for problems he sees when there are hundred of witnesses which say the samething, like molten metal in debris, or explosions heard. Asking what if is not scientific without evidence. facts or scientific experiments to reach a thoughful conclusion or at least a likely theory.You are babbling. Waxing incoherent. Writing in tongues. Feel free to make a lick of sense.

[A W Smith]

I find his website to be very unscientific.
Using buildings that collapse during construction stages has nothing to do with the collapses on 9-11. He uses the "what if" card quite a bit. Which is no way to investigate anything. He tries to question a few witnesses searching for problems he sees when there are hundred of witnesses which say the samething, like molten metal in debris, or explosions heard. Asking what if is not scientific without evidence. facts or scientific experiments to reach a thoughful conclusion or at least a likely theory.


Lisabob all 27 of your posts are unscientific ramblings. Based on generalizations. You are dancing around a hat like an intoxicated Mexican. If you don't bring up specific points or bring hard evidence or even a fact you will be ignored as a troll.

[lisabob2]

Mark is not a scientist, nor is James Randi. Yet their work is solid, resilient - and completely open to criticism from all quarters. In fact - critique is welcomed.

So tell us what you REALLY mean: Exactly where do you find fault with Roberts's work? Something specific would be nice.
I have a problem with somebody with no qualifications making statments like he is a expert,I have problems with Robert producing evidence that could be easily faked or inaccurate, yet he produces it like there is no question of it being good, when scientific methods question it. I have problems with Roberts unscientific methods, and the double standards he uses when he tries to use "evidence" He is so biased he has no chance of becoming close to being scientific. He has learn to use the neocon method of "loud is right" Attack the person but avoid the issues

[lisabob2]

Lisabob all 27 of your posts are unscientific ramblings. Based on generalizations. You are dancing around a hat like an intoxicated Mexican. If you don't bring up specific points or bring hard evidence or even a fact you will be ignored as a troll.
So because I don't agree with your point of view I am being unscientific boy thats scientific for sure. HAve you read the nist report? I have & I have found issues with it. Scientist who are much more qualified than you or me have too.
Saying something doesn't make it so. The evidence is against the official story in my view and in many others view also. Calling them morons or drunk mexicans doesn't change the facts.

[funk de fino]

You have an unhealthy obsession with Mr Roberts

I suggest you calm down

It is polite to use someones first name when you address them

[stateofgrace]

I have a problem with somebody with no qualifications making statments like he is a expert,I have problems with Robert producing evidence that could be easily faked or inaccurate, yet he produces it like there is no question of it being good, when scientific methods question it. I have problems with Roberts unscientific methods, and the double standards he uses when he tries to use "evidence" He is so biased he has no chance of becoming close to being scientific. He has learn to use the neocon method of "loud is right" Attack the person but avoid the issues

As have you dear boy.

[funk de fino]

So because I don't agree with your point of view I am being unscientific boy thats scientific for sure. HAve you read the nist report? I have & I have found issues with it. Scientist who are much more qualified than you or me have too.
Saying something doesn't make it so. The evidence is against the official story in my view and in many others view also. Calling them morons or drunk mexicans doesn't change the facts.

You may have read the entire NIST report (I doubt it though, so unless you can scientifixcally prove to me you have) but you do not understand it.

I believe you have been asked to post those issues you have. Do not copy others issues or we will know.

[lisabob2]

You are babbling. Waxing incoherent. Writing in tongues. Feel free to make a lick of sense.
What no specific responce to using construction accidents as a comparison to 9-11?
I love the fact that the first chance you get you personally attack me instead of defending your use of construction accidents. You do not deny the "what if" methods you use. You do not deny trying to find issues with a small # of witnesses while ignoring the fact that there are hundreds.
Really, trying to insult me helps your point how??
I find that when people resort to name calling or immature attempts at humor they have nothing better to say.

[Dr Adequate]

I find his website to be very unscientific.
Using buildings that collapse during construction stages has nothing to do with the collapses on 9-11. He uses the "what if" card quite a bit. Which is no way to investigate anything. He tries to question a few witnesses searching for problems he sees when there are hundred of witnesses which say the samething, like molten metal in debris, or explosions heard. Asking what if is not scientific without evidence. facts or scientific experiments to reach a thoughful conclusion or at least a likely theory. If you are talking about anything in particular, perhaps you'd like to tell us all what it is.

[A W Smith]

So because I don't agree with your point of view I am being unscientific boy thats scientific for sure. HAve you read the nist report? I have & I have found issues with it. Scientist who are much more qualified than you or me have too.
Saying something doesn't make it so. The evidence is against the official story in my view and in many others view also. Calling them morons or drunk mexicans doesn't change the facts.


there you go again. dancing. List the issues you found with the NIST report. Do it now. List the evidence. Do it now. You wont. you know why? of course you and I both know why. because you and I both know you have none.

[Gravy]

He has learn to use the neocon method of "loud is right" Attack the person but avoid the issuesYep, I'm a neocon, all right, and look at all the issues I avoid! (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home) Shame on me!

BOO!

[twinstead]

Yep, I'm a neocon, all right, and look at all the issues I avoid! (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home) Shame on me!


Yes, Gravy, I would also like to go on record admonishing you for hiding from all the issues. You really should address the truther's points once in a while, okay? ;)

[Coffee]

So because I don't agree with your point of view I am being unscientific boy thats scientific for sure. HAve you read the nist report? I have & I have found issues with it.

Please start a new thread. List your issues with the NIST report. Support your issues with evidence.

Scientist who are much more qualified than you or me have too.

If you start a new thread as I suggested, then please include the names of the scientists, provide evidence that they actually say what you claim and please provide evidence to back up their claims.


Saying something doesn't make it so.

That sentence applies to you as well. Please take note of it.


The evidence is against the official story in my view and in many others view also.

Again, start a new thread and please provide this evidence you speak of. Provide sources for what you claim.

Calling them morons or drunk mexicans doesn't change the facts.

You have made over 25 posts and you have not provided any evidence that counters the NIST findings. You have made claims with ZERO evidence. Start a new thread and please back up what you say with evidence and sources.

Please do as I have suggested in this post. It would be disappointing if you turn out to be another truther with no evidence to back up your claims.

[pomeroo]

I have a problem with somebody with no qualifications making statments like he is a expert,I have problems with Robert producing evidence that could be easily faked or inaccurate, yet he produces it like there is no question of it being good, when scientific methods question it. I have problems with Roberts unscientific methods, and the double standards he uses when he tries to use "evidence" He is so biased he has no chance of becoming close to being scientific. He has learn to use the neocon method of "loud is right" Attack the person but avoid the issues



I'm not sure I'm following. You, a conspiracy liar, are complaining about "unscientific methods"? But your evil movement employs no other kind.

Substance-free, personal attacks are a "neocon" method? Really? Apart from the fact that you couldn't define "neoconservative" if your life depended on it, you overlook the irony here. Far-leftists do nothing but attack the person and avoid the issues.

[lisabob2]

there you go again. dancing. List the issues you found with the NIST report. Do it now. List the evidence. Do it now. You wont. you know why? of course you and I both know why. because you and I both know you have none.
Nist report uses computer simulations which do not have physical evidence corroborating temps used. James Quintiere among others have pointed this out.
Why don't we stick to issues here? calling me names and making unfounded claims does not intimidate me. It only shows me that you don't have anything better to say.
For a forum that aspires to "critical Thinking" it sure seems strange that many of you guys resort to name calling. How about some proof of your claims? what kind of proof do you have that Nist report was done scientifically? I specified one example, which has been corroborated by James Quintiere and other scientists like David Griscom. Why should I believe your opinion of nist report? your ability to call those who think different than you names? I have read a exchange between Ross & Greening & guess what? no name calling, seems that educated people can disagree and still refrain from personal attacks.

[lisabob2]

I'm not sure I'm following. You, a conspiracy liar, are complaining about "unscientific methods"? But your evil movement employs no other kind.

Substance-free, personal attacks are a "neocon" method? Really? Apart from the fact that you couldn't define "neoconservative" if your life depended on it, you overlook the irony here. Far-leftists do nothing but attack the person and avoid the issues.
Do you realize that you are making my point for me??
"You, a conspiracy liar"
"your evil movement "
"Apart from the fact that you couldn't define "neoconservative" if your life depended on it, you overlook the irony here. Far-leftists do nothing but attack the person and avoid the issues."

Now please copy any personal attacks I have made.
Don't worry I am a big boy it won't hurt my feelings.
Please tell me why you think I am a "conspiracy liar"
Please tell me what movement I belong too.
Merry CHristmas & A Happy New Year

[lisabob2]

Please start a new thread. List your issues with the NIST report. Support your issues with evidence.



If you start a new thread as I suggested, then please include the names of the scientists, provide evidence that they actually say what you claim and please provide evidence to back up their claims.




That sentence applies to you as well. Please take note of it.




Again, start a new thread and please provide this evidence you speak of. Provide sources for what you claim.



You have made over 25 posts and you have not provided any evidence that counters the NIST findings. You have made claims with ZERO evidence. Start a new thread and please back up what you say with evidence and sources.

Please do as I have suggested in this post. It would be disappointing if you turn out to be another truther with no evidence to back up your claims.
I am sure that if you read my post again you will see at least one issue with nist report that I believe makes it unscientific

[lisabob2]

Yep, I'm a neocon, all right, and look at all the issues I avoid! (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home) Shame on me!

BOO!
Clouding the issues by avoiding science & facts are not exactly meeting the issues head on are they?
Can you really give a solid scientific reason why I should ignore Steven Jones, Or David Griscom and believe your take on the evidence of 9-11?
Can you explain why Greening can have a scientific debate with Ross, but people on this forum seem to think that insulting somebody makes some kind of point.
Can you deny the fact that the computer simulations nist uses does not have physical evidence corroborating them?
Can you deny the fact that Jones has a hypothesis that needs more scientific investigation? A hypothesis he arrived at using proper scientific methods.
Can you really believe that calling people names or trying to personally attack them changes the facts?
Do you really want people who think that shallowly agreeing with you ?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Nist report uses computer simulations which do not have physical evidence corroborating temps used. James Quintiere among others have pointed this out.


Do you know that Mr. Quintiere's conclusion is that the towers would have collapsed as a result of the damage and fire even if the fireproofing hadn't been dislodged? This refutes the conspiracist claims even more than the NIST report does.

That you bring him up tells me that you're only interested in making the NIST look "bad" and not interested in actually providing support for your particular delusion.

Yours is a destructive movement, not a constructive one.

calling me names [...] does not intimidate me.


I would hope not, considering that A W Smith didn't call you names. Are you sure you're alright?

For a forum that aspires to "critical Thinking" it sure seems strange that many of you guys resort to name calling. How about some proof of your claims? what kind of proof do you have that Nist report was done scientifically?


That very few legitimate engineers actually question the methods NIST used to come to their conclusions, which were in turn used to propose changes to building codes. Naturally, their report would be studied by many people.

I specified one example, which has been corroborated by James Quintiere and other scientists like David Griscom.


Again, Mr. Quintiere's criticism of NIST's report in no way supports your fantasy. His criticisms, if valid, would only result in potentially stricter building codes with respect to the fireproofing of steel frames. They certainly would not help in "exposing the Truth™ of 9/11".

[Jonnyclueless]

Clouding the issues by avoiding science & facts are not exactly meeting the issues head on are they?

Nor is pretending that's the case by singling out a single post.

Can you really give a solid scientific reason why I should ignore Steven Jones, Or David Griscom and believe your take on the evidence of 9-11?

If you'd bother to read the forum, you would get exactly that. No one is saying you should Ignore Jones per say as much as you should stop assuming anything he says is correct and instead do some real research beyond believing anything by someone who just tells you what you want to hear. I would say that Jone's claims being proven scientifically wrong, would be a good start as a motive.

Can you explain why Greening can have a scientific debate with Ross, but people on this forum seem to think that insulting somebody makes some kind of point.

There you go pretending again. Ignore all the scientific stuff and focus on the insults which are usually in response to insults from people such as yourself who can't come up with any real scientific or factual arguments.

Can you deny the fact that the computer simulations nist uses does not have physical evidence corroborating them?

That's an easy one. It's NOT a fact, you just think it is because you obviously believe anything that CTers will tell you.

Can you deny the fact that Jones has a hypothesis that needs more scientific investigation?

More empty wishful thinking on your part. It's not a fact, it's a wish.

A hypothesis he arrived at using proper scientific methods.

Another lie on your part.

Can you really believe that calling people names or trying to personally attack them changes the facts?

So why do you do it so much? Why is that the basis of the entire truth movement?

Do you really want people who think that shallowly agreeing with you ?




That's pretty funny coming from someone who doesn't actually care about any kind of science and simply believes anyone who tells you what you already want to believe. If it says there's a conspiracy, you don't need facts or evidence. When it says there isn't one, then you DO need such things. When given such things, you ignore them. Pretty typical. Please continue to pretend to play the victim to make up for a lack of an actual argument.

[A W Smith]

Nist report uses computer simulations which do not have physical evidence corroborating temps used. James Quintiere among others have pointed this out.
Why don't we stick to issues here? calling me names and making unfounded claims does not intimidate me. It only shows me that you don't have anything better to say.
For a forum that aspires to "critical Thinking" it sure seems strange that many of you guys resort to name calling. How about some proof of your claims? what kind of proof do you have that Nist report was done scientifically? I specified one example, which has been corroborated by James Quintiere and other scientists like David Griscom. Why should I believe your opinion of nist report? your ability to call those who think different than you names? I have read a exchange between Ross & Greening & guess what? no name calling, seems that educated people can disagree and still refrain from personal attacks.

i was correct. you will not post your evidence.

start a new thread because you are trolling off topic on this one

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Can you deny the fact that the computer simulations nist uses does not have physical evidence corroborating them?


Are you aware that the NIST compared the results of their simulation to the heat damage they found to numerous steel supports from the fire-afflicted floors in order to confirm the accuracy of their model?

I'd call that using physical evidence to corroborate their simulations, wouldn't you?

Can you deny the fact that Jones has a hypothesis that needs more scientific investigation? A hypothesis he arrived at using proper scientific methods.


His papers are littered with extremely unscientific methods. From identifying a few floors pressed together as a "once-molten and re-solidified" blob of metal, to using altered photographs as support for his claims.

[Gravy]

Please don't feed the off-topic troll.

[Coffee]

I am sure that if you read my post again you will see at least one issue with nist report that I believe makes it unscientific

1) Read the membership agreement for this forum. You keep violating it by continuously posting off topic.
3) Start a new thread, state your case in that thread and back up your claims with EVIDENCE.

Get a grip on those two concepts.

[lisabob2]

Do you know that Mr. Quintiere's conclusion is that the towers would have collapsed as a result of the damage and fire even if the fireproofing hadn't been dislodged? This refutes the conspiracist claims even more than the NIST report does.

That you bring him up tells me that you're only interested in making the NIST look "bad" and not interested in actually providing support for your particular delusion.

Yours is a destructive movement, not a constructive one.




I would hope not, considering that A W Smith didn't call you names. Are you sure you're alright?




That very few legitimate engineers actually question the methods NIST used to come to their conclusions, which were in turn used to propose changes to building codes. Naturally, their report would be studied by many people.




Again, Mr. Quintiere's criticism of NIST's report in no way supports your fantasy. His criticisms, if valid, would only result in potentially stricter building codes with respect to the fireproofing of steel frames. They certainly would not help in "exposing the Truth™ of 9/11".
you really believe Quintiere did not say
{"A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have."} exact quote from Quintiere. core columns samples had evidence of reaching up to 250C some exterior columns had temps up to 600C but most showed evidence of 250C also. But what temps did they use for computer simulations? and when base models did not show collapse initiation they used more extreme data like higher temps than physical evidence showed.

[lisabob2]

Do you know that Mr. Quintiere's conclusion is that the towers would have collapsed as a result of the damage and fire even if the fireproofing hadn't been dislodged? This refutes the conspiracist claims even more than the NIST report does.

That you bring him up tells me that you're only interested in making the NIST look "bad" and not interested in actually providing support for your particular delusion.

Yours is a destructive movement, not a constructive one.




I would hope not, considering that A W Smith didn't call you names. Are you sure you're alright?




That very few legitimate engineers actually question the methods NIST used to come to their conclusions, which were in turn used to propose changes to building codes. Naturally, their report would be studied by many people.




Again, Mr. Quintiere's criticism of NIST's report in no way supports your fantasy. His criticisms, if valid, would only result in potentially stricter building codes with respect to the fireproofing of steel frames. They certainly would not help in "exposing the Truth™ of 9/11".
I made a post. I have since responded to other posts. So when you disagree with people you threaten them? I have included evidence in my post.

[twinstead]

you really believe Quintiere did not say
{"A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have."} exact quote from Quintiere.

All in the context that he wished they would have tested more steel because he thinks they didn't investigate the fireproofing issue enough. He has no problem with the fact the buildings collapsed due to damage and subsequent fires. He questions the role that fireproofing, or lack thereof played in that collapse.

That is his area of expertise, you know.

Your taking his quotes out of context might work on some conspiracy forums, I suppose, but any rational person when reading ALL of Quintiere's statements, in context, would realize his issue with NIST has NOTHING to do with an 'inside job' by the government.

You're wasting your time by trying to shoehorn his issues into your theory; I would suggest another route if you want to actually make some headway.

This is all a moot point anyway. Why doesn't your movement get some kind of legitimate investigator to give Quintiere a call and ask him to clarify? Think of the coup you would have if he claimed the damage and fire couldn't bring the building down!

Can you imagine what having him REALLY on your side would do for your movement?

[DGM]

I made a post. I have since responded to other posts. So when you disagree with people you threaten them? I have included evidence in my post.
Start a new thread and stop derailing every thread you enter.

READ THE MEMBERS AGREEMENT.

[lisabob2]

Do you know that Mr. Quintiere's conclusion is that the towers would have collapsed as a result of the damage and fire even if the fireproofing hadn't been dislodged? This refutes the conspiracist claims even more than the NIST report does.

That you bring him up tells me that you're only interested in making the NIST look "bad" and not interested in actually providing support for your particular delusion.

Yours is a destructive movement, not a constructive one.




I would hope not, considering that A W Smith didn't call you names. Are you sure you're alright?




That very few legitimate engineers actually question the methods NIST used to come to their conclusions, which were in turn used to propose changes to building codes. Naturally, their report would be studied by many people.




Again, Mr. Quintiere's criticism of NIST's report in no way supports your fantasy. His criticisms, if valid, would only result in potentially stricter building codes with respect to the fireproofing of steel frames. They certainly would not help in "exposing the Truth™ of 9/11".
Making assumptions. I do not care whether nist looks bad or good. I am looking at the evidence of the collapses on 9-11 and I believe the evidence supports the "truthers" and not the official story. My "delusion" is based on a impartial view of available evidence.
There is no evidence fire proofing was "knocked off" anywhere but at impact areas.
As I said before anybody view right now is nothing more than theories without a complete & open scientific investigation Quintiere has his belief but you cannot deny that he said investigation so far , had shortcomings.

[Mince]

My "delusion" is based on a impartial view of available evidence.


You misspelled misunderstanding.



As I said before anybody view right now is nothing more than theories...


Thank you being so candid in admitting that the truth movement's accusations of mass murder is without foundation.




**emphasis added

[lisabob2]

Nor is pretending that's the case by singling out a single post.



If you'd bother to read the forum, you would get exactly that. No one is saying you should Ignore Jones per say as much as you should stop assuming anything he says is correct and instead do some real research beyond believing anything by someone who just tells you what you want to hear. I would say that Jone's claims being proven scientifically wrong, would be a good start as a motive.



There you go pretending again. Ignore all the scientific stuff and focus on the insults which are usually in response to insults from people such as yourself who can't come up with any real scientific or factual arguments.



That's an easy one. It's NOT a fact, you just think it is because you obviously believe anything that CTers will tell you.



More empty wishful thinking on your part. It's not a fact, it's a wish.



Another lie on your part.



So why do you do it so much? Why is that the basis of the entire truth movement?



That's pretty funny coming from someone who doesn't actually care about any kind of science and simply believes anyone who tells you what you already want to believe. If it says there's a conspiracy, you don't need facts or evidence. When it says there isn't one, then you DO need such things. When given such things, you ignore them. Pretty typical. Please continue to pretend to play the victim to make up for a lack of an actual argument.
"There you go pretending again. Ignore all the scientific stuff and focus on the insults which are usually in response to insults from people such as yourself who can't come up with any real scientific or factual arguments

"More empty wishful thinking on your part. It's not a fact, it's a wish."
this statement makes no sense, Jones has a hypothesis, it is a fact. the above statement seems to be little more than a childish attempt at insults.

"Another lie on your part. " No it is not a lie, it is a matter of opinion. Jones having been a scientist for decades, I believe uses proper scientific methods. Now If you don't think so, thats your opinion, and does not make my opinion a lie. That stance is immature and illogical.

"So why do you do it so much? Why is that the basis of the entire truth movement? "
please post any insults or name calling I have done here. I keep all my insults to my driving normally. As far as I can see the truth movement is attempting to have the truth exposed, I do not find them doing a lot of insulting, although I have read some that do, and anybody who says that the people who believe the official story don't do there share of insults is being obviosly one sided.

"That's pretty funny coming from someone who doesn't actually care about any kind of science and simply believes anyone who tells you what you already want to believe. If it says there's a conspiracy, you don't need facts or evidence. When it says there isn't one, then you DO need such things. When given such things, you ignore them. Pretty typical. Please continue to pretend to play the victim to make up for a lack of an actual argument."
the whole statement above has no basis in fact. Making up what you wish I would think like is not even close to reality. And what does it prove? We could spend all day making up what we think the other person is thinking but why don't we stick to what is posted and try to respond to it?

[DavidJames]

Jones has a hypothesis, it is a fact. We can boil down your ability to think critically using just these 8 words.

[lisabob2]

All in the context that he wished they would have tested more steel because he thinks they didn't investigate the fireproofing issue enough. He has no problem with the fact the buildings collapsed due to damage and subsequent fires. He questions the role that fireproofing, or lack thereof played in that collapse.

That is his area of expertise, you know.

Your taking his quotes out of context might work on some conspiracy forums, I suppose, but any rational person when reading ALL of Quintiere's statements, in context, would realize his issue with NIST has NOTHING to do with an 'inside job' by the government.

You're wasting your time by trying to shoehorn his issues into your theory; I would suggest another route if you want to actually make some headway.

This is all a moot point anyway. Why doesn't your movement get some kind of legitimate investigator to give Quintiere a call and ask him to clarify? Think of the coup you would have if he claimed the damage and fire couldn't bring the building down!

Can you imagine what having him REALLY on your side would do for your movement?
I have not said anything about inside job. I have said that so far nobody has done a good scientific investigation. The evidence I believe does not support the official story.
I have taken exact quotes that support my view of nist report, or some of it's problems.
The nist report does have issues as far as I am concerned, and many other qualified scientist think so also. I don't think Quintiere bring on "our side" makes any difference. David Griscom is already and I doubt you could find very many experts with his credentials. There are hundreds of qualified experts who have studied these issues. Anybody who can just dismiss them without reason is being foolish, just as nobody should just dismiss the experts who have done a partial investigation so far.
I have read both sides. I have my opinion.

[lisabob2]

You misspelled misunderstanding.






Thank you being so candid in admitting that the truth movement's accusations of mass murder is without foundation.




**emphasis added
Did I spell misunderstanding?

[rwguinn]

Making assumptions. I do not care whether nist looks bad or good. I am looking at the evidence of the collapses on 9-11 and I believe the evidence supports the "truthers" and not the official story. My "delusion" is based on a impartial view of available evidence.
There is no evidence fire proofing was "knocked off" anywhere but at impact areas.
As I said before anybody view right now is nothing more than theories without a complete & open scientific investigation Quintiere has his belief but you cannot deny that he said investigation so far , had shortcomings.

Engineers do that.
They assume the laws of physics work the same way every time.
They examined areas in which the steel reached 250 C. They then ran a simulation, in which those same areas reached 250 C. Other areas got considerable hotter. Hot enough, in fact, that they couldn't determine the temperature because the bloody damn indicators were burned off!
They didn't need to check other areas. The simulation worked. It simulated very nearly exactly the conditions in the areas they could determine what happened. The laws of physics took care of the rest.
damnfoolijits.

[Mince]

Did I spell misunderstanding?


No, you misspelled it.

[JimBenArm]

No, you misspelled it.
Humor is wasted on the stupid.

[uk_dave]

Engineers do that.
They assume the laws of physics work the same way every time.
They examined areas in which the steel reached 250 C. They then ran a simulation, in which those same areas reached 250 C. Other areas got considerable hotter. Hot enough, in fact, that they couldn't determine the temperature because the bloody damn indicators were burned off!
They didn't need to check other areas. The simulation worked. It simulated very nearly exactly the conditions in the areas they could determine what happened. The laws of physics took care of the rest.
damnfoolijits.

Please stop threatening Lisabob with reality.

It's so unfair.

[Jonnyclueless]

So basically Lisa's response to the problems with Jone's work is that he's a scientist. Well, that just explains it all. It's all factual and scientific because he is a scientist. It's like a slice of 100% twooficana.

That's some impartial view there!

[Mince]

Humor is wasted on the stupid.


Yes. But I think you're insulting stupid people by making this particular comparison.

[JimBenArm]

Yes. But I think you're insulting stupid people by making this particular comparison.
You are quite correct. My apologies to stupid people everywhere.

[Pardalis]

You are quite correct. My apologies to stupid people everywhere.

No problem.

Doh!

[beachnut]

So basically Lisa's response to the problems with Jone's work is that he's a scientist. Well, that just explains it all. It's all factual and scientific because he is a scientist. It's like a slice of 100% twooficana.

That's some impartial view there!
They do not care if Jones lies, and made up his ideas on 9/11.