Questions concerning peer review on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories

[Tony Szamboti]

On an earlier thread, concerning whether or not Mark Roberts' work on 911 was peer reviewed or not, I was surprised to hear from both him and Ryan Mackey, that although their respective papers appear on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, that they did not actually submit them to that journal. They both said that others had posted them there with no interaction with the authors of the papers.

What this means is that there could have been no review feedback and potential correction by the authors due to any peer review claimed by the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories. Hmm!

Ryan Mackey says straight out that his paper is not peer reviewed by a formal process, although he did put it out in the public domain to be viewed and commented on by many.

What is the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Studies claiming for their peer review process?

[DGM]

On an earlier thread, concerning whether or not Mark Roberts' work on 911 was peer reviewed or not, I was surprised to hear from both him and Ryan Mackey, that although their respective papers appear on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, that they did not actually submit them to that journal. They both said that others had posted them there with no interaction with the authors of the papers.

What this means is that there could have been no review feedback and potential correction by the authors due to any peer review claimed by the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories. Hmm!

Ryan Mackey says straight out that his paper is not peer reviewed by a formal process, although he did put it out in the public domain to be viewed and commented on by many.

What is the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Studies claiming for their peer review process?
I don't believe they claim anything.

[Blender Head]

I always thought the name JoD911CT was simply a jab at Journals for 9/11 Truth. Show what I know...:boxedin:

[Arus808]

since when was the JoD911CT considered a real journal? Seems that you have a problem in realizing that anyone can put up anything on the web, and call it anything they want. The Jod911CT was "created as a parody to the joke of journal created by Steven Jones.

[jhunter1163]

since when was the JoD911CT considered a real journal? Seems that you have a problem in realizing that anyone can put up anything on the web, and call it anything they want. The Jod911CT was "created as a parody to the joke of journal created by Steven Jones.


This is true, but even so, the quality of work there VASTLY exceeds that of JONES. The joke's on the Truthers in this case.

[Arus808]

This is true, but even so, the quality of work there VASTLY exceeds that of JONES. The joke's on the Truthers in this case.

oh i agree on the quality of the work. when you use mostly facts and link to your sources, and all you are doing is summarizing the statements, how can the quality suffer? ^_^

[A W Smith]

Linky

http://www.jod911.com/

[CHF]

Realcddeal,

since you want people to accept the Jo911S as being a real scientific journal with top-notch peer-review procedure, shouldn't you be comparing it to the kind of scientific publication that you think Jo911S is?

Instead you compare it first to Mark Roberts' work (which he never claimed was in a scientific journal or peer-reviewed) and then to a journal created as a parody of yours.

What gives?

[T.A.M.]

lol...

Commentary only:
well technically they are peer reviewed. They are critical analysis papers, analyzing various elements of the 9/11 truth theorems, or are critiquing works by CTers. They are written by "Debunkers" who critically analyze the issues, and are reviewed, to the best of my knowledge, by other debunkers (the website/journal owners) prior to posting...lol

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

I am perfectly willing to admit that the Journal of 9/11 studies is a legitimate "Peer Reviewed" Journal of GENERAL CONSPIRACY THEORIES REGARDING 9/11. It produces NUMEROUS articles written with little to no scientific facts or analysis. Its "Peer Reviewers" come from scientific AND NON SCIENTIFIC backgrounds, but ALL are 9/11 CTists, so as CTists they are qualified to "peer review" general papers on CTs.

The trouble is that the JO911S is trying to PASS ITSELF OFF as a peer reviewed SCIENTIFIC journal. In no way, in the eyes of any LEGITIMATE scientist, is the JO911S a LEGITIMATE PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL.

TAM:)

[Quad4_72]

I really don't get realcddeal's problem. To the best of my knowledge I don't think anyone has ever claimed to have had their work officially peer reviewed or submitted to a scientific journal. All of Mark's and others papers are available for the public to view and critique. As of yet not a single factual error has been found. I really don't get what the big deal is here. If realcddeal has issues with a paper submitted online (which anyone can do), why does he not address them?

[Alareth]

What is the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Studies claiming for their peer review process?


Why are you asking us? No one here is involved with them that I am aware of,

Wouldn't it be more effective to contact them for an answer to the question? Is only going through second and third party sources for EVERYTHING endemic to everything people in the "Truth" movement do?

[Arus808]

I really don't get realcddeal's problem. To the best of my knowledge I don't think anyone has ever claimed to have had their work officially peer reviewed or submitted to a scientific journal. All of Mark's and others papers are available for the public to view and critique. As of yet not a single factual error has been found. I really don't get what the big deal is here. If realcddeal has issues with a paper submitted online (which anyone can do), why does he not address them?


because, like truthers, they rather obfuscate the real issue. instead of us concentrating on the the errors presented in any of hte CT papers, they rather resort to bashing their critics.

childish I'd say.

[Tony Szamboti]

Realcddeal,

since you want people to accept the Jo911S as being a real scientific journal with top-notch peer-review procedure, shouldn't you be comparing it to the kind of scientific publication that you think Jo911S is?

Instead you compare it first to Mark Roberts' work (which he never claimed was in a scientific journal or peer-reviewed) and then to a journal created as a parody of yours.

What gives?


I don't make the claim that the Journal of 911 Studies is anything more than a collection of papers and letters from educated individuals concerning what they have discerned about the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and that there is a certain attempt at a formal peer review of these papers.

I find it interesting that a bunch of people who have never been peer reviewed are complaining the loudest about someone else's peer review process. I don't see Dr. Greening talking like you, Mark Roberts, and some others here do about peer review. In fact, Dr. Greening has stated on this forum, what anyone who ever went through the process will tell you, and that is that it can be a somewhat subjective process, with the same types of problems encountered in most human interaction, but that it is the best tool we have for separating the wheat from the chaff.

Roberts' paper on WTC7 is published on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and someone tried to make the claim, on another thread, that since it was published there that it was peer reviewed. Roberts only said he didn't personally submit it but he did not make any disclaimer that it wasn't peer reviewed. The reason for this thread is to show that since there was no interaction between reviewers, editors, and authors that there could not have been a peer review, as there was no chance for feedback and incorporation of comments.

[Blender Head]

I don't make the claim that the Journal of 911 Studies is anything more than a collection of papers and letters from educated individuals concerning what they have discerned about the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and that there is a certain attempt at a formal peer review of these papers.

I find it interesting that a bunch of people who have never been peer reviewed are complaining the loudest about someone else's peer review process. I don't see Dr. Greening talking like you, Mark Roberts, and some others here do about peer review. In fact, Dr. Greening has stated on this forum, what anyone who ever went through the process will tell you, and that is that it can be a somewhat subjective process, with the same types of problems encountered in most human interaction, but that it is the best tool we have for separating the wheat from the chaff.

Roberts' paper on WTC7 is published on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and someone tried to make the claim, on another thread, that since it was published there that it was peer reviewed. Roberts only said he didn't personally submit it but he did not make any disclaimer that it wasn't peer reviewed. The reason for this thread is to show that since there was no interaction between reviewers, editors, and authors that there could not have been a peer review, as there was no chance for feedback and incorporation of comments.

Then review it! :jaw-dropp

[Tony Szamboti]

Then review it! :jaw-dropp

Not my job there chief. I am not the one claiming it was peer reviewed. The Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories makes that claim.

Take it up with them.

[Alareth]

Not my job there chief. I am not the one claiming it was peer reviewed. The Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories makes that claim.

Take it up with them.

You are the one questioning their review process, YOU take it up with them. No one here can answer your questions.

[Quad4_72]

Not my job there chief. I am not the one claiming it was peer reviewed. The Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories makes that claim.

Take it up with them.

Well technically they have peer reviewed everything on their site yes. I could type up a paper about anything I wanted and give it to my friends and have them read it. My paper would then have been peer reviewed. What you need to get through your head is that no one here is claiming scientific peer review (As in having submitted work to a scientific journal). Our problem is that the Journal of 911 Studies is trying to pass their work off as having been scientifically peer reviewed, which it has not. Is that basic enough or shall I dumb it down a bit more?

[Quad4_72]

Oh and were you ever going to provide us with ONE mistake in any of Marks papers? Still waiting for you to answer that one.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I really don't get realcddeal's problem.


As I see it, Mark apparently put a bug up Tony's butt with his commentary on the peer review process (or rather, lack thereof) for Journal of 9/11 Studies. Now Tony's on a crusade to "defend" that process... by lamely trying to discredit his opposition's "peer review" process, or expose the lack thereof.

It's also an attempt to put his opposition on the defensive, taking attention away from what started this crap in the first place: Jo911S's non-existent or highly ineffectual peer review process.

[Tony Szamboti]

lol...

Commentary only:
well technically they are peer reviewed. They are critical analysis papers, analyzing various elements of the 9/11 truth theorems, or are critiquing works by CTers. They are written by "Debunkers" who critically analyze the issues, and are reviewed, to the best of my knowledge, by other debunkers (the website/journal owners) prior to posting...lol

TAM:)


TAM, you know as well as I do that part of any peer review process is reviewer comments and feedback to the authors, for correction if necessary. If this doesn't occur then it technically can't be called a peer review.

Additionally, peer review requires that the reviewers have the technical expertise to understand the subject matter. If they don't then it can't be called peer review. Do you know anything about the skill level of the reviewer pool on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories?

[Quad4_72]

Just ONE mistake realcddeal, thats all I am asking for.

[LashL]

<snip>Do you know anything about the skill level of the reviewer pool on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories?

realcddeal,

Why don't you do some research or simply ask the good folks at debunking911.com? They are the ones who are best suited to answer your questions about their site.

[Gravy]

As I see it, Mark apparently put a bug up Tony's butt with his commentary on the peer review process (or rather, lack thereof) for Journal of 9/11 Studies. Now Tony's on a crusade to "defend" that process... by lamely trying to discredit his opposition's "peer review" process, or expose the lack thereof.

It's also an attempt to put his opposition on the defensive, taking attention away from what started this crap in the first place: Jo911S's non-existent or highly ineffectual peer review process.What childish nonsense he spouts. He has never once explained how this screamingly incompetent work passed "peer review." (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3054359&postcount=134)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What childish nonsense he spouts. He has never once explained how this screamingly incompetent work passed "peer review." (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3054359&postcount=134)


Yep. As I see it (and I'm certainly not claiming any grand wisdom; I think it's fairly obvious to most here), on this forum he's trying to take the high ground by digging a hole under his perceived opposition (you).

It's pathetic to the extreme.

(I also find it pretty sad that, in the original thread, realcddeal was defending himself in the third person. That seems kind of dishonest to me.)

[beachnut]

On an earlier thread, concerning whether or not Mark Roberts' work on 911 was peer reviewed or not, I was surprised to hear from both him and Ryan Mackey, that although their respective papers appear on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, that they did not actually submit them to that journal. They both said that others had posted them there with no interaction with the authors of the papers.

What this means is that there could have been no review feedback and potential correction by the authors due to any peer review claimed by the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories. Hmm!

Ryan Mackey says straight out that his paper is not peer reviewed by a formal process, although he did put it out in the public domain to be viewed and commented on by many.

What is the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Studies claiming for their peer review process?
And their papers are based on facts, your paper was based on hearsay. The peer review from the Journal of 9/11 Studies, did not catch your errors (like 600 mph impact study, so clearly an error on your part since you can not provide proof or sources), and your political junk and the piles of hearsay.

The Journal you posted your work in, the Journal is not real, it is not anything about science, it is a joke; and always will be. Read and comprehend the papers, they are mostly making up stuff and publishing hearsay junk about 9/11. Your paper is full of errors and you still quibble about who is and was the chief engineer of the WTC. Sad.

It seems the debunking journal is better at posting reality based papers than the sad, fired from real jobs peer review by 9/11 truthers, Journal of 9/11 Studies.

It is also worth mentioning the fact that the twin towers were designed to take an impact by the largest aircraft at the time they were built. A white paper dated February 3, 1964 describes the findings of an analysis, which says the towers would survive the impact of a fully loaded Boeing 707-320B, with a 336,000 lb.max takeoff weight,4 moving at 600 MPH.Referenced to Boeing, just as the idiots who publish this junk on the internet and else where have done. They go like first graders to Boeing and find?

Boeing Technical characteristics for the 707 and 767 aircraft. See 707-320B and 767-200ER. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html
http://en.boeing-me.com/ViewContent.do?id=2404

You use 600 mph? Why, because you looked it up from Boeing. You talk about a white paper and have NO real source, No real paper, just the same error everyone made in 9/11 truth.

What did a real engineer do; What did I do? I found Robertson, the only real source when it comes to decode the study that would only have "localized damage". I found that a study was done for an aircraft impact and it was described as only "localized damage" and fires that could be fought and controlled. Who can tell me how it was done? Robertson. He said first hand several times it was a slow speed impact.

So you publish this tripe –

it is found that the designed for 707-320B impact would have contained at least 1.26 times or 26% more kinetic energy than what either 767-200ER

You fake the study Robertson did with you own numbers ignoring the real numbers; As it turns out the impact study was found to have the energy of 186 pounds of TNT. You are off by over a factor of 10, more than an order of magnitude!

The Boeing 707 impact study was only 0.386 G Joules, while 11 and 175 impacts were 2.74 G Joules/ 4.32 G Joules. Instead of 26 percent more energy in the study, the impacts on 9/11 were 700 percent bigger, and 1100 percent bigger than the impact design. This is why the WTC tower fell, they could not take impacts 7 to 11 times bigger than design!

My source is Robertson and if you evaluate the other evidence, like "localized damage", and other things about the WTC design; clearly Robertson is correct. When Robertson first heard of the attacks he even speculated that the aircraft were near their top speeds for 700 feet in the 350 mph range, not knowing the terrorist had in the last 20 seconds pushed the throttles to the wall and hit the buildings past the top speed of 355 KCAS for 700 feet and well past the normal speed of planes at 700 feet!

Facts I present to show your paper was not in a real peer review. I am saying the Journal you posted in is fake, junk, not real. The people who published Mark's paper and Ryan's paper did so because they met the goal of containing facts to show that people like you who publish false information about 9/11 are out there trying to trick people. Therefore, the facts speak for themselves. You can put together all the phony Journal Peer review junk you want, but it is easy to see there was not a real peer review on your paper; because if they had done a peer review they would have rejected your paper on the facts I presented. I am an engineer and my peer review would stop your paper from being published.

Your peer review was faulty, there would never be the hearsay junk you added allowed in a scientific paper. Making up junk about 9/11 is not a good idea, but you do it anyway; Why?

It comes down to the truth; Mark and Ryan never said their papers were peer reviewed, yet their work is based on reality and facts. You have claimed (your journal) you paper is peer reviewed, yet it is based on hearsay and not supported by facts; I have shown you just pick numbers out of the ether to support your conclusion of controlled demolition, which has zero evidence or facts. You are published in the correct place; Journal of 9/11 Studies; No facts required.
If you want, please point out the errors in Ryan's, or Mark's work, I can do a mini peer review as I have with your. Your paper has failed peer review from me; fix your paper.

[buka001]

If you have problems with a paper on that journal, you are welcome to raise the issue with the publisher. As a reader of a paper in a journal, you form part of the peer eview processs in effect. If you find any problems, you can raise the issue and it will be addressed.

So go ahead, read and review and bring any problems you find to the attention of the editors.

Enjoy!

[Tony Szamboti]

Just ONE mistake realcddeal, thats all I am asking for.

This thread is not about the accuracy or lack of in his papers.

The point is that Roberts' papers aren't peer reviewed and that is all I have discussed here.

[chillzero]

This thread is not about the accuracy or lack of in his papers.

The point is that Roberts' papers aren't peer reviewed and that is all I have discussed here.

No, that was the other thread.

This one was about:


What is the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Studies claiming for their peer review process?

Which you can only really answer by contacting that Journal, surely?

[Tony Szamboti]

And their papers are based on facts, your paper was based on hearsay. The peer review from the Journal of 9/11 Studies, did not catch your errors (like 600 mph impact study, so clearly an error on your part since you can not provide proof or sources), and your political junk and the piles of hearsay.

The Journal you posted your work in, the Journal is not real, it is not anything about science, it is a joke; and always will be. Read and comprehend the papers, they are mostly making up stuff and publishing hearsay junk about 9/11. Your paper is full of errors and you still quibble about who is and was the chief engineer of the WTC. Sad.

It seems the debunking journal is better at posting reality based papers than the sad, fired from real jobs peer review by 9/11 truthers, Journal of 9/11 Studies.
Referenced to Boeing, just as the idiots who publish this junk on the internet and else where have done. They go like first graders to Boeing and find?

You use 600 mph? Why, because you looked it up from Boeing. You talk about a white paper and have NO real source, No real paper, just the same error everyone made in 9/11 truth.

What did a real engineer do; What did I do? I found Robertson, the only real source when it comes to decode the study that would only have "localized damage". I found that a study was done for an aircraft impact and it was described as only "localized damage" and fires that could be fought and controlled. Who can tell me how it was done? Robertson. He said first hand several times it was a slow speed impact.

So you publish this tripe –
You fake the study Robertson did with you own numbers ignoring the real numbers; As it turns out the impact study was found to have the energy of 186 pounds of TNT. You are off by over a factor of 10, more than an order of magnitude!

The Boeing 707 impact study was only 0.386 G Joules, while 11 and 175 impacts were 2.74 G Joules/ 4.32 G Joules. Instead of 26 percent more energy in the study, the impacts on 9/11 were 700 percent bigger, and 1100 percent bigger than the impact design. This is why the WTC tower fell, they could not take impacts 7 to 11 times bigger than design!

My source is Robertson and if you evaluate the other evidence, like "localized damage", and other things about the WTC design; clearly Robertson is correct. When Robertson first heard of the attacks he even speculated that the aircraft were near their top speeds for 700 feet in the 350 mph range, not knowing the terrorist had in the last 20 seconds pushed the throttles to the wall and hit the buildings past the top speed of 355 KCAS for 700 feet and well past the normal speed of planes at 700 feet!

Facts I present to show your paper was not in a real peer review. I am saying the Journal you posted in is fake, junk, not real. The people who published Mark's paper and Ryan's paper did so because they met the goal of containing facts to show that people like you who publish false information about 9/11 are out there trying to trick people. Therefore, the facts speak for themselves. You can put together all the phony Journal Peer review junk you want, but it is easy to see there was not a real peer review on your paper; because if they had done a peer review they would have rejected your paper on the facts I presented. I am an engineer and my peer review would stop your paper from being published.

Your peer review was faulty, there would never be the hearsay junk you added allowed in a scientific paper. Making up junk about 9/11 is not a good idea, but you do it anyway; Why?

It comes down to the truth; Mark and Ryan never said their papers were peer reviewed, yet their work is based on reality and facts. You have claimed (your journal) you paper is peer reviewed, yet it is based on hearsay and not supported by facts; I have shown you just pick numbers out of the ether to support your conclusion of controlled demolition, which has zero evidence or facts. You are published in the correct place; Journal of 9/11 Studies; No facts required.
If you want, please point out the errors in Ryan's, or Mark's work, I can do a mini peer review as I have with your. Your paper has failed peer review from me; fix your paper.


Beachnut, I almost forgot about you. How could I? Thanks for reminding me you are here though. Did you hear about the new award for 911 debunkers who want to prop up the terribly smelly official conspiracy theory? It is called "reskunkers". I do think you could be one of the first nominees, with your constant unsupported ninniness.

[Arus808]

when is tony going to point out anything wrong in Mark's papers


try and deflect all you want tony, but we will not forget the POOR process of peer review that happens on JONES and that your terribly written paper and papers written for JONES would have been trashed by 6th graders.

[beachnut]

Beachnut, I almost forgot about you. How could I? Thanks for reminding me you are here though. Did you hear about the new award for 911 debunkers who want to prop up the terribly smelly official conspiracy theory? It is called "reskunkers". I do think you could be one of the first nominees, with your constant unsupported ninniness.
Thank you. Did you learn this at engineering school?
Your paper lacks a single fact to support your conclusion. You ignore facts and publish, what did you call it?... had an n sound...

Your only cure is to find some facts and the ability to understand reality. Their is a chance you could; wait, I could be wrong you may never be able to string facts together to make a logical conclusion. Your paper confirms this.

[Tony Szamboti]

when is tony going to point out anything wrong in Mark's papers


try and deflect all you want tony, but we will not forget the POOR process of peer review that happens on JONES and that your terribly written paper and papers written for JONES would have been trashed by 6th graders.

Are you a 6th grader? I would give you a little more credit but you might be a slightly advanced 6th grader so I am not sure.

[Arus808]

Are you a 6th grader? I would give you a little more credit but you might be a slightly advanced 6th grader so I am not sure.



again more deflection on your part.
missing entirely my first question



Please point out any error in Mark's papers.

[Tony Szamboti]

Thank you. Did you learn this at engineering school?
Your paper lacks a single fact to support your conclusion. You ignore facts and publish, what did you call it?... had an n sound...

Your only cure is to find some facts and the ability to understand reality. Their is a chance you could; wait, I could be wrong you may never be able to string facts together to make a logical conclusion. Your paper confirms this.


You simply want to dismiss the February 3, 1964 white paper which states the speed of the airliner at 600 MPH as a big mistake by everybody including NIST. The proof is also in the fact that the buildings did survive impacts close to that speed.

Your facts simply don't wash. Maybe that is why they could be called stinky. See it all works.

[Arus808]

1) as told you many times already, the white paper was written with a MISTAKE.

how many times must this be told you? How many times must this FACT be repeated until you learn what it means?

Again, you can talk straight with Robertson, why haven't you done so.


Now, point out what is wrong with Mark's papers.

[Tony Szamboti]

again more deflection on your part.
missing entirely my first question



Please point out any error in Mark's papers.

That isn't what the thread is about here. How many times do you have to hear that?

The point is that Roberts' papers are not peer reviewed. An astonishing thing considering his level of ridicule of others who publish work on 911 and actually do have an independent review of the work.

[Tony Szamboti]

1) as told you many times already, the white paper was written with a MISTAKE.

how many times must this be told you? How many times must this FACT be repeated until you learn what it means?

Again, you can talk straight with Robertson, why haven't you done so.


Now, point out what is wrong with Mark's papers.

How do you know that the white paper was written with a mistake?

Please provide a quote from Leslie Robertson where he says verbatim that the white paper was mistaken on the speed used.

Why did NIST quote what the February 3, 1964 white paper said about a large airliner (Boeing 707 or DC-8) moving at 600 MPH?

Why did the buildings survive impacts estimated by NIST to be up to 473 MPH for the North Tower and 566 MPH for the South Tower?

Why did John Skilling say that there was an analysis done for aircraft impact and that there would be a horrendous fire but the building would still be there?

What are you smoking?

[Arus808]

That isn't what the thread is about here. How many times do you have to hear that?

your constant deflection is noted.

care to point out what is wrong with Mark's papers? As you have stated, it can be found on the JoD911CT, so that means it pertains to this thread.


The point is that Roberts' papers are not peer reviewed.

And nor did he claim them to be. how manhy times must this be told to you? and how many times must you be told that the JoD911CT doesn't claim at all to be a reputable journal? How many times must it be told to you it was done as a parody to JONES because of the corrupt nature of JONES' peer review process?

You seem to have trouble distinguishing a joke.

An astonishing thing considering his level of ridicule of others who publish work on 911 and actually do have an independent review of the work.


now, please point out what is wrong with mark's papers, and when are you going to submit your paper to a reputable journal? you can start with ASCE.

[Architect]

I wish there were more people here who would understand the Scottish term "wasp", because it seems rather appropriate to RCDD at the moment....

[Mr. Skinny]

Are you a 6th grader? I would give you a little more credit but you might be a slightly advanced 6th grader so I am not sure.
That's really not necessary. Further, it does nothing to advance your argument.

[Arus808]

How do you know that the white paper was written with a mistake?

this was explained to you

Please provide a quote from Leslie Robertson where he says verbatim that the white paper had a mistaken speed used.

this was explained to you

Why did NIST quote what the white paper said?this was explained to you


Why did the buildings survive 473 and 566 MPH impacts?this was explained to you


What are you smoking?please, dont attempt humour



now, point out what is wrong with Mark's papers.

[Architect]

How do you know that the white paper was written with a mistake?

Please provide a quote from Leslie Robertson where he says verbatim that the white paper was mistaken on the speed used.

Why did NIST quote what the February 3, 1964 white paper said about a large airliner (Boeing 707 or DC-8) moving at 600 MPH?

Why did the buildings survive 473 and 566 MPH impacts?

Why did John Skilling say that there was an analysis done for aircraft impact and that there would be a horrendous fire but the building would still be there?

What are you smoking?


Tony

Work with me here. I've done nothing to cause you offence, and have (to coin and English phrase) played with a straight bat.

You're probably aware, indeed I think I've mentioned to you before, that I am in fact an architect specialising in tall buildings work here in the UK. Others on this site have had sight of appropriate proof of qualifications, if you need such comfort.

Moving away from the peer review issue, it seems to me that you have a number of fundamental technical queries regarding buildings and the NIST report.

Is there a technical problem with the NIST report which you would like to put to me in a professional context?

[Tony Szamboti]

That's really not necessary. Further, it does nothing to advance your argument.

C'mon, have a sense of humor. Didn't you see where he said my paper wouldn't be passed by a 6th grader?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

. . .
I find it interesting that a bunch of people who have never been peer reviewed are complaining the loudest about someone else's peer review process. . . .
Since you, apparently, are this stupid: The above is a strawman fallacy. No one here complains that Jones' group isn't "peer reviewed", the complaint is that they are not "peer reviewed and yet claim to be peer reviewed". I understand that the statement, being compound and encompassing two concepts that together as one statement mean more than as two seperate statements may be a bit too complex for you. But do try to get it through your thick skull.

[Mr. Skinny]

C'mon, have a sense of humor. Didn't you see where he said my paper wouldn't be passed by a 6th grader?
realcddeal - I went back and looked at the thread again, and you are right. I should have had a better sense of humor. Seems you were simply countering a sword thrust.

That said, as a graduate Mechanical Engineer with 30+ years experience, and with no structural engineering experience and no professional designations to flaunt :), I do have many questions about the professionalism of what you've written.

For now, I'll just observe.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony

Work with me here. I've done nothing to cause you offence, and have (to coin and English phrase) played with a straight bat.

You're probably aware, indeed I think I've mentioned to you before, that I am in fact an architect specialising in tall buildings work here in the UK. Others on this site have had sight of appropriate proof of qualifications, if you need such comfort.

Moving away from the peer review issue, it seems to me that you have a number of fundamental technical queries regarding buildings and the NIST report.

Is there a technical problem with the NIST report which you would like to put to me in a professional context?


Architect, I do believe you are an architect from reading your posts and you have been fairly straight with me.

My main problems with the NIST report are; (some of which are shared by Dr. James Quintiere)

1. They only tested 1% of the steel. These were the most catastrophic building failures in history and it doesn't make sense that a full forensic examination wasn't done to see how the columns and beams failed throughout the structure.

2. They found very little physical evidence of high steel temperatures in their microstructure testing. How does this support heat weakening?

3. There was a good bit of maneuvering by lawyers and not engineers according to Dr. Quintiere.

4. The floor truss testing done for NIST by UL did not produce a significant midspan deflection yet the NIST computer model was tweaked to use a deflection that was many times higher than what they got during the testing, in order to cause inward bowing of the perimeter columns. This inward bowing could also be caused if the central core columns were cut and dropping causing the floor trusses to pull on the perimeter columns

5. Neither NIST or FEMA did any testing for explosive residue despite firefighters attesting to seeing, feeling, and hearing explosions in the buildings both before and during the collapses. Please give me a reason why any honest investigation wouldn't do this just for completeness in light of the firefighter's testimony.

[Tony Szamboti]

Since you, apparently, are this stupid: The above is a strawman fallacy. No one here complains that Jones' group isn't "peer reviewed", the complaint is that they are not "peer reviewed and yet claim to be peer reviewed". I understand that the statement, being compound and encompassing two concepts that together as one statement mean more than as two seperate statements may be a bit too complex for you. But do try to get it through your thick skull.

You can't be talking out of your mouth here. How can you say that you know whether or not the papers on the Journal of 911 Studies aren't peer reviewed?

[CHF]

You can't be talking out of your mouth here. How can you say that you know whether or not the papers on the Journal of 911 Studies aren't peer reviewed?

Maybe he can tell by the fact that your "peer-review" process gives a stamp of approval to complete garbage, thus making it painfully clear that no serious peer-reviews are actually being done at the journal Jones started to avoid peer-review.

[Tony Szamboti]

realcddeal - I went back and looked at the thread again, and you are right. I should have had a better sense of humor. Seems you were simply countering a sword thrust.

That said, as a graduate Mechanical Engineer with 30+ years experience, and with no structural engineering experience and no professional designations to flaunt :), I do have many questions about the professionalism of what you've written.

For now, I'll just observe.

I know you said you would just observe but I have to wonder what you think a mechanical engineer does. Most of us in the Aerospace industry, where I work, design structures of some sort and the same engineering rules apply. As for professional designations, I took the EIT right out of college and got an excellent score. Very few mechanical engineers who work in industries such as Aerospace, Automotive, etc. get a state license due to the industrial exemption. It simply isn't required. That does not mean we don't have structural experience. In fact, I probably have much more dynamic experience than those who design buildings as the structures I design have to take shock and vibration. A collapse of a building is a dynamic event.

[Architect]

Architect, I do believe you are an architect from reading your posts and you have been fairly straight with me.

My main problems with the NIST report are; (some of which are shared by Dr. James Quintiere)

1. They only tested 1% of the steel. These were the most catastrophic building failures in history and it doesn't make sense that a full forensic examination wasn't done to see how the columns and beams failed throughout the structure.

2. They found very little physical evidence of high steel temperatures in their microstructure testing. How does this support heat weakening?

3. There was a good bit of maneuvering by lawyers and not engineers according to Dr. Quintiere.

4. The floor truss testing done for NIST by UL did not produce a significant midspan deflection yet the NIST computer model was tweaked to use a deflection that was many times higher than what they got during the testing, in order to cause inward bowing of the perimeter columns. This inward bowing could also be caused if the central core columns were cut and dropping causing the floor trusses to pull on the perimeter columns

5. Neither NIST or FEMA did any testing for explosive residue despite firefighters attesting to seeing, feeling, and hearing explosions in the buildings both before and during the collapses. Please give me a reason why any honest investigation wouldn't do this just for completeness in light of the firefighter's testimony.

Tony,

I'm not going to respond to these straight away, but rather given them some thought and come back to you. Fair enough?

[Alareth]

I'd type up a long response to this nonsense, but I need to run out and complain to the management at Best Buy about the poor customer service I got while at Circuit City.

[Tony Szamboti]

Maybe he can tell by the fact that your "peer-review" process gives a stamp of approval to complete garbage, thus making it painfully clear that no serious peer-reviews are actually being done at the journal Jones started to avoid peer-review.

That is your opinion, but I have yet to see you back it up.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,

I'm not going to respond to these straight away, but rather given them some thought and come back to you. Fair enough?

No problem Arch.

[CHF]

5. Neither NIST or FEMA did any testing for explosive residue despite firefighters attesting to seeing, feeling, and hearing explosions in the buildings both before and during the collapses. Please give me a reason why any honest investigation wouldn't do this just for completeness in light of the firefighter's testimony.

What do you think, Tony...

"It looked like a bomb went off," said Los Angeles County firefighter Scott Clark, one of about 300 firefighters who battled the blaze through the night.

Should they test for explosives at this car crash? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071014/ap_on_re_us/truck_pileup)

There's a reason why FDNY aren't lining up to demand an investigation into bombs being in the towers.

[CHF]

That is your opinion, but I have yet to see you back it up.

Mark has pointed out errors in your paper several times. He gave up looking for a response when you repeatedly failed to explain how "peer-review" passed your work.

I don't suspect you'll explain it now either.

[Architect]

In fact, I probably have much more dynamic experience than those who design buildings as the structures I design have to take shock and vibration. A collapse of a building is a dynamic event.

Would you be willing to accept that this analagy takes no account of wind and other dynamic loads set out in (amongst other things) the Eurocodes and BS EN requirements?

[DGM]

Tony:
Do you think that all the papers at Jones's 9/11 journal are factually accurate?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You can't be talking out of your mouth here. How can you say that you know whether or not the papers on the Journal of 911 Studies aren't peer reviewed?
Because, unlike you, I understand what the peer review process is with regard to academic and scientific literature.

[Mr. Skinny]

I know you said you would just observe but I have to wonder what you think a mechanical engineer does.
I can only speak for myself, I suppose. I ended up doing fire protection/boilers & pressure vessels/system safety engineering. I'm a gubmint Safety Engineer.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm an engineering generalist. I'm the person that's supposed to ask "dumb questions"; double check people's math; be the "bastage" that nixes an experiment, etc.

Most of us in the Aerospace industry, where I work, design structures of some sort and the same engineering rules apply. As for professional designations, I took the EIT right out of college and got an excellent score. Very few mechanical engineers who work in industries such as Aerospace, Automotive, etc. get a state license due to the industrial exemption. It simply isn't required. That does not mean we don't have structural experience. In fact, I probably have much more dynamic experience than those who design buildings as the structures I design have to take shock and vibration. A collapse of a building is a dynamic event.
That's very admirable. I never took the EIT or PE exams. I found I didn't need them to make a decent salary - and then I met this woman and had kids and...

[Tony Szamboti]

What do you think, Tony...



Should they test for explosives at this car crash? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071014/ap_on_re_us/truck_pileup)

There's a reason why FDNY aren't lining up to demand an investigation into bombs being in the towers.


I doubt that the firefighters at the car crash said they saw, heard, and felt explosions.

You expect the firefighters to stand up to the federal government? What are you smoking? They are little guys who need their jobs.

[AZCat]

Would you be willing to accept that this analagy takes no account of wind and other dynamic loads set out in (amongst other things) the Eurocodes and BS EN requirements?

Slight derail: Do you know if there are any connections between the Eurocodes and the equivalent codes used in the U.S. (International and Uniform, among others)?

[Tony Szamboti]

I can only speak for myself, I suppose. I ended up doing fire protection/boilers & pressure vessels/system safety engineering. I'm a gubmint Safety Engineer.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm an engineering generalist. I'm the person that's supposed to ask "dumb questions"; double check people's math; be the "bastage" that nixes an experiment, etc.


That's very admirable. I never took the EIT or PE exams. I found I didn't need them to make a decent salary - and then I met this woman and had kids and...

Thank you for your honesty. I can see you understand and have real world experience.

[AZCat]

You expect the firefighters to stand up to the federal government? What are you smoking? They are little guys who need their jobs.

I see this point made repeatedly by the supporters of "alternative conspiracies" as a reason why there aren't either more accounts being made public that contradict the "official story" or why there aren't more people screaming "fraud". I think it is both incorrect and denigrating. The history of whistleblowers and others who have risked their jobs to do what is right is well-documented and stands in direct contrast to this. It is a coward's way out, to accuse anybody with sufficient knowledge of staying quiet for fear of reprisal. You're better than this, realcddeal.

[twinstead]

You're better than this, realcddeal.

Sadly, I am beginning to get the impression the he indeed is not.

[peteweaver]

Realcddeal, There is a paper by Zdenek Bazant Phd, which covers the collapses, and scientifically explains what caused them, i.e. structural damage + fire which exceeded the tolerances of the structure.

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf (http://www-math.mit.edu/%7Ebazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf)

That paper has been peer reviewed by REAL journals, not parody ones, not fake journals created by a nuclear physicist who wouldn't know a structure if it collapsed on him.

What do you think of Bazant's paper, and if you disagree with his conclusions, can you scientifically prove him wrong ?

Btw, if you really deal in cd's could you try and get me a cheap deal on Led Zeppelin Boxed set 1 please ? ;-)

[Alt+F4]

You expect the firefighters to stand up to the federal government? What are you smoking? They are little guys who need their jobs.

Extremely offensive. How dare you call people you don't even know "little guys". What exactly do YOU know about the workings of the FDNY and it's retirement system? I've never met a member of the FDNY or any employee of the City of New York that would not turn report knowledge of serious wrongdoing.

[AZCat]

Sadly, I am beginning to get the impression the he indeed is not.

Whether or not he is, I prefer to give him the opportunity. I've not always behaved as I should either.

[twinstead]

Whether or not he is, I prefer to give him the opportunity. I've not always behaved as I should either.

Well, certainly; I wholeheartedly agree and retract my ad hom statement.

[A W Smith]

You expect the firefighters to stand up to the federal government? What are you smoking? They are little guys who need their jobs.

You are clearly without a clue as to the FDNY union
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=8&aid=74380

[LashL]

You expect the firefighters to stand up to the federal government? What are you smoking? They are little guys who need their jobs.

Actually, yes, I would expect the firefighters to stand up to the government if they believed that the government had just murdered 343 of their fellow firefighters and 2600 other innocent people.

I would also expect the NYPD and the PA to stand up to the government if they believed that the government had just murdered 60 of their fellow police officers and 2600 other innocent people.

You should not be so quick to label these people as "little guys who need their jobs" and who, by your insinuation, are too shallow and too cowardly to speak up. They are quite powerful, in fact. And what do you say about all of those who were there at the time but have since retired? What are they afraid of, in your view, that is so frightening that they, too, would cover up mass murder?

Your comment is ugly, dismissive, denigrating, unsubstantiated and wholly inappropriate.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally Posted by realcddeal http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3057611#post3057611)
You expect the firefighters to stand up to the federal government? What are you smoking? They are little guys who need their jobs.
Can I ask that you concentrate on the engineering aspects of your theory, at least for the time being?

Seriously, this is where CTists lose me. Suddenly, we jump from science and engineering to Cheney and Bush whispering in the restroom of the Capitol...Gaahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

[T.A.M.]

TAM, you know as well as I do that part of any peer review process is reviewer comments and feedback to the authors, for correction if necessary. If this doesn't occur then it technically can't be called a peer review.

Additionally, peer review requires that the reviewers have the technical expertise to understand the subject matter. If they don't then it can't be called peer review. Do you know anything about the skill level of the reviewer pool on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories?

Please enlighten me about who that pool is, and in fact, if you can, please walk us through the process used for submissions to JONES.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

Tony,

I'm not going to respond to these straight away, but rather given them some thought and come back to you. Fair enough?Please allow me to point out that all of realcddeal's issues, except perhaps the Quintiere statements, have been raised here before and dealt with at length. He has completely ignored the detailed explanations he's been given, and either refuses to read or cannot understand the sources he's directed to.

I strongly encourage you to review his posts before spending your valuable time on this. Case in point. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2810512&postcount=114) He is extremely irrational.

The threads he's started. (http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=1111980)

[T.A.M.]

Tony:

Here is a list of the editors and the advisory editorial board for JONES.


Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
Physicist (BYU) and Archaeometrist

Kevin Ryan
Former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories

Frank Carmen Ph.D.
Physicist (BYU)

Alex Floum
Lawyer

Marcus Ford Ph.D.
Professor of Humanities

Derrick Grimmer Ph.D.
Physicist

Richard McGinn Ph.D.
Professor of Linguistics

Kimberly Moore
No credentials found

Robert Moore
Lawyer

Paul Zarembka
Professor of Economics

Joseph Phelps MS CE PE
Civil Engineer(ret)

Diane Ralph Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Social Work

Lon Waters Ph.D.
Mathematics


If the list of "Peer Reviewers" is completely different from this list, then should the list not be made public, so that the general public is aware of what "experts" are contributing to the "Peer Review" label that accepted submissions are given?

Thanks

TAM:)

[BenBurch]

I really don't get realcddeal's problem. ...

http://oldstersview.files.wordpress.com.nyud.net/2007/05/bullet.jpg
:D

[Arus808]

Tony:

Here is a list of the editors and the advisory editorial board for JONES.



If the list of "Peer Reviewers" is completely different from this list, then should the list not be made public, so that the general public is aware of what "experts" are contributing to the "Peer Review" label that accepted submissions are given?

Thanks

TAM:)



wow, and not one single structural engineer, fire expert, or controlled demolitionist on that list

what does a linguistics professor have any thing to do with structural engineering? what makes him more qualified to comment on engineering than those at ASCE?

[T.A.M.]

wow, and not one single structural engineer, fire expert, or controlled demolitionist on that list

what does a linguistics professor have any thing to do with structural engineering? what makes him more qualified to comment on engineering than those at ASCE?

Well that is why, if the journal is to have "any" credibility, we should here from Tony that the "Peer Reviewer Pool" is a completely different list.

If this is the case, then I think to settle things, and to give the journal some creds, they should disclose the names and qualifications of the members of the pool.

TAM:)

[DGM]

Well that is why, if the journal is to have "any" credibility, we should here from Tony that the "Peer Reviewer Pool" is a completely different list.

If this is the case, then I think to settle things, and to give the journal some creds, they should disclose the names and qualifications of the members of the pool.

TAM:)
Also addressing some of the more obvious errors in the journals papers that detract from the credibility (not only Tony's). I asked earlier if he thought there were any factual errors in any of the other papers.

BTW Interesting reading in your blog. I don't have a account or I would have commented there. Keep it up!:)

[SDC]

Please enlighten me about who that [reviewer] pool is, and in fact, if you can, please walk us through the process used for submissions to JONES.

TAM:)

Someone has probably addressed this, but I don't recall it. My understanding of the peer review process includes that the reviewers are anonymous -- at least, to the reviewee. (Presumably the editors know.) And actually, the paper is supposed to be sent to the reviewers without indication of the name of the author. This is supposed to guarantee impartiality, and also discourage firebombings of the homes of one's professional rivals.

That's the way I always understood it in the humanities business. Isn't it the same in STM? (Librarian talk for Scientific Technical Medical, and probably others' talk as well.)

Have I missed this, in this discussion? Am I just being dense? Regardless of anything else, this alone makes the discussion even mooter than usual. (Can I say "mooter"?)

[beachnut]

You simply want to dismiss the February 3, 1964 white paper which states the speed of the airliner at 600 MPH as a big mistake by everybody including NIST. The proof is also in the fact that the buildings did survive impacts close to that speed.

Your facts simply don't wash. Maybe that is why they could be called stinky. See it all works.
From a systems engineering point of view, the WTC did not survive the big impacts of two jets on 9/11. The energy of impact on 9/11 from 11 and 175 were equal in energy to 1,311 and 2,066 pounds of TNT. Believe me when I have seen a two thousand pound bomb go off it looked like the energy flight 175 delivered to the WTC tower. These were big events on 9/11, large impacts! The WTC ENGINEERS did a design study on an aircraft impact which was equal to 184 pounds of TNT. Not even close to 9/11 impacts.

Therefore, it is clear to see why the towers failed. If the towers were designed for the impacts of plane flown by terrorist over top speed for 700 feet, the fires control systems would have survived, the staircases would have survived, the WTC would be standing today. I am not surprised that impacts 7 to 11 times greater than the impact DESIGN lead to the failure of the WTC towers. NEVER did the engineers think anyone would take a jet and go faster than they are allowed to go with lots of fuel, 60,000 pounds of fuel, and hit the buildings.

BUT, the engineers did see a hazard, a possible plane impact. It happened to the Empire State Building. The aircraft accident they thought was most likely, was a lost plane trying to land, low on fuel. I hate to repeat this for non pilots but if my plane was lost in the fog, and we had tons of fuel. Why risk landing in NYC FOG when we can have happy hour in the clear at MIAMI BEACH! The biggest risk is a plane, a pilot who thinks he has to land, due to low fuel, and he has problems with something else while LANDING. The landing speed at 700 feet would be near 180 mph. OOPS, not 600 mph, it is against the LAW to go 600 mph at 700 feet!!! The terrorist were breaking the rules and going too fast for the planes; they DID NOT CARE!.

Please produce the WHITE PAPER with 600 mph. You can't. BTW, the WTC fell, they did not survive, they failed due to impact and fire. Without the impacts and injections of 60,000 pounds of fuel, there would be no failure. Trying using some of that engineering stink you seem to of lost.

Here is the problem with you and the 9/11 truth movement and web sites who publish junk like 600 mph without thinking. They heard the WTC was designed for an impact of a 707. Then the fools go out to the Boeing web site and look up the top speed of 607 mph and they use that speed. You and 9/11 truth now try to say, see, there had to be something else because the WTC was designed for the impact of a 707, and you use the full weight (dumb), at 600 mph. Without thinking.

When I have listened to the design studies done for a 707 impact they concluded with "localized damage" from the aircraft impact and limited fires. The only impact that gives us, AS ENGINEERS, a localized damage, is an impact at 180 mph from a plane lost in the fog, low on fuel trying to land. NOT terrorist at full throttle trying to kill people.

TONY, I am trying to find your 600 mph from a real source, from the teams of real engineers who built the building and I only find idiots who insert the 600 mph after hearing the 707 aircraft design spec from real sources. Never found anyone who was responsible for the WTC as an engineer, even Skilling, mention 600 mph. I have seen the 600 mph added by the authors of web sites and papers. They are in error when we talk about the entire system surviving. Robertson tells us repeatedly that the study for the WTC design was slow speed; Robertson is still responsible for buildings around the world, and he was in charge of the WTC, he is the MAN.

If I was not an engineer, I would not be so hard on you. Your paper is pure junk. I am humbled by the lay people who clearly see the errors in your paper. Most of them are able to rip your paper apart with ease. Your paper and the peer review process at the famous truth journal, started to circumvent the fact no one will publish the lies of 9/11 truth, stink. You can take all of the junk you are critiquing me with and use it directly as a self critique.

I have tried to find 600 mph for you, but I have failed (it is only at the Boeing web site, and in error for the WTC impact study). The study was for a low speed impact. I think everyone has looked a little for the 600 mph, and tried to find out why so many sources have it. All the source I have seen do not link the 600 mph to a Skilling quote, they seem to of heard 707 and looked up the speed at the BOEING web site, just like you did. This is called shallow research, it is the hallmark of 9/11 truth.

Tony, you seem to be having problems with rational thinking, and adding all sorts of hearsay junk to your 9/11 conclusions. Are you having problems? I can clearly see that 600 mph was never used by the engineers who built the WTC in their study of a 707 impact with reference to the overall survival of the WTC. You ignore what the study said and you add junk and 600 mph in your paper with a reference to Boeing. Boeing did not do the study impact for the WTC. Your numbers are in error by an order of magnitude. Please fix your paper. (Why am I writing this over, and over again)

[R.Mackey]

My main problems with the NIST report are; (some of which are shared by Dr. James Quintiere)

1. They only tested 1% of the steel. These were the most catastrophic building failures in history and it doesn't make sense that a full forensic examination wasn't done to see how the columns and beams failed throughout the structure.

2. They found very little physical evidence of high steel temperatures in their microstructure testing. How does this support heat weakening?

3. There was a good bit of maneuvering by lawyers and not engineers according to Dr. Quintiere.

4. The floor truss testing done for NIST by UL did not produce a significant midspan deflection yet the NIST computer model was tweaked to use a deflection that was many times higher than what they got during the testing, in order to cause inward bowing of the perimeter columns. This inward bowing could also be caused if the central core columns were cut and dropping causing the floor trusses to pull on the perimeter columns

5. Neither NIST or FEMA did any testing for explosive residue despite firefighters attesting to seeing, feeling, and hearing explosions in the buildings both before and during the collapses. Please give me a reason why any honest investigation wouldn't do this just for completeness in light of the firefighter's testimony.

Tony,

I'm not going to respond to these straight away, but rather given them some thought and come back to you. Fair enough?

This discussion really belongs in the other split-off thread, not here.

Having said that, every question except #3 is covered in depth in my whitepaper on Dr. Griffin vs. NIST, and regarding #3, I also include Dr. Quintiere's statements along with a brief analysis.

Architect, let me know if you need any help. These are the standard questions, all answered many times, all due to nothing more than poor reading comprehension and creation of false dichotomies.

[JamesB]

Ironically, when I submitted my paper responding to Legge's idiotic paper, Jones rejected it on the basis that it was already published in a "journal". I asked the good Dr. Jones if he considered a website where a handful of people post their own material to be a "journal", but never received a response.

[LashL]

Ironically, when I submitted my paper responding to Legge's idiotic paper, Jones rejected it on the basis that it was already published in a "journal". I asked the good Dr. Jones if he considered a website where a handful of people post their own material to be a "journal", but never received a response.

:id:

[leftysergeant]

If Jones has a journal, this is also a journal. You put him in a bind.

[Magenta]

I have tried to find 600 mph for you, but I have failed (it is only at the Boeing web site, and in error for the WTC impact study). The study was for a low speed impact. I think everyone has looked a little for the 600 mph, and tried to find out why so many sources have it. All the source I have seen do not link the 600 mph to a Skilling quote, they seem to of heard 707 and looked up the speed at the BOEING web site, just like you did. This is called shallow research, it is the hallmark of 9/11 truth.


Could this, or a similar article, be the source of the 600mph error. It's from the 15 February 1964 edition of the New York Times. I found it while looking for something else.

Richard Roth of the architectural firm of Emery Roth & Sons issued the statement defending the safety of the twin towers, which the firm, in association with Minoru Yamasaki, designed for the center.

Mr. Roth said that a structural analysis by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson had found that if a tower were hit by an airliner at 600 miles an hour, the damage to the tower would be only local and its occupants outside the immediate area of impact would not be endangered.


http://www.nytimes.com/1964/02/15/nyregion/15WTC.html

[beachnut]

Could this, or a similar article, be the source of the 600mph error. It's from the 15 February 1964 edition of the New York Times. I found it while looking for something else.

http://www.nytimes.com/1964/02/15/nyregion/15WTC.html
I have found these 600 mph sources, but when I check them closely, you find out Skilling, Helle & Jackson did not say 600, they said aircraft impact of 707 would cause "damage to the tower", "would be only local", and that type of damage can only be from a slow speed impact as Robertson can tell you today. The energy of a low speed impact fits the results of the study reported, I think the reporters added the speed from the Boeing site without thinking. (I have yet to find a direct quote from the team who built the WTC; engineers; and Robertson makes it clear, the design impact was low speed, low fuel, aircraft accident, trying to land; it all is logical and a the most probable accident event for building and LARGE aircraft)


Mr. Roth said that a structural analysis by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson had found that if a tower were hit by an airliner at 600 miles an hour, the damage to the tower would be only local and its occupants outside the immediate area of impact would not be endangered.
When you see this statement, you can not believe the 600 mph impact idea, since the energy of that impact is over 2200 pounds of TNT energy, it would destroy major portions of multiple floors, as seen on 9/11 or you can figure it out with the energy and what happens to buildings involved in an energy event equal to 2200 pounds of TNT.

When you understand the study was about a plane low on fuel and in landing configuration, you can easily see that energy of 184 pounds of TNT fits the "LOCAL damage" results Mr. Roth is talking about, but for some reason he or the reporter added the 600 mph.

The article is not a direct quote of Mr. Roth or the team of Skilling, Helle & Jackson. This is an article put together with notes, and it is not accurate in the speed.

The reporter added the 600 mph, because he found the speed of a 707 can be as high as 600 mph. The reporter has no idea the speed limit below 10,000 feet is 250 knots, or the top speed was 355 knots below 20 or so thousand feet. 600 mph is a speed the jets can do above 27,000 feet.

What is the proof of 600 mph being wrong? I have stated it over and over. The impact at 600 mph would be an event that would do major damage to multiple floors. That is not what the study said the damage to the tower would be only local and its occupants outside the immediate area of impact would not be endangered; I have to say the impact of a low speed aircraft, as it was, satisfies the local damage. On 9/11 the impact did major damage to multiple floors and the core of the WTC; I call destroying the stairwell endangering occupants outside the impact area. Therefore, 600 mph is bogus.

The BS flag should have gone up, but in 1964 no one reads the article critically for errors in a non-topic area, or there would have been a correction. As usual when we talk to the press and they mess up the fine points sometimes, but the as long as the subject is correct who cares. 9/11 truth is unable to comprehend what this article means and they repeat errors blindly, or make them again independently to support their lies. To me it is clear the 600 mph is in error for many reasons.
I doubt Robertson would miss the fact an aircraft at 600 mph would destroy almost half of all one side of the building on multiple floors and cut through the core. The impact of 175 was very close to 600 mph, if you call that local damage you (not you, the editorial me, you thing) are nuts and or a 9/11 truth drone.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046a66b7c96bf7.jpg
I have to say the reporter added the speed; this is not local impact damage!! more like global impact damage
Mr. Roth said that a structural analysis by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson had found that if a tower were hit by an airliner at 600 miles an hour, the damage to the tower would be only local and its occupants outside the immediate area of impact would not be endangered. No, it can not be 600 mph, this impact is not a local impact event, it is a terrorist attempt at murder; 9/11 truth continues to be ignorant of facts and rational thinking.

Proper peer review, would stop errors like this! realcddeal should of come here for inputs and proper peer review. His paper could be a debunking 9/11 truth classic if he would fix the errors and expose why a peer review at the Journal started by Dr Jones is bogus.

[Magenta]

The BS flag should have gone up, but in 1964 no one reads the article critically for errors in a non-topic area, or there would have been a correction. As usual when we talk to the press and they mess up the fine points sometimes, but the as long as the subject is correct who cares. 9/11 truth is unable to comprehend what this article means and they repeat errors blindly, or make them again independently to support their lies. To me it is clear the 600 mph is in error for many reasons.


Even to a layperson like me, a 600mph impact seems inconsistent with "only local damage". It sounds a bit like Silverstein's "pull it" comment; once it's out there, it's hard to kill off.

[timhau]

Linky

http://www.jod911.com/

Has anyone ever seen a real, non-parody journal which advertises it's own papers as peer reviewed? An article in a journal is by default peer reviewed (unlike, say, book reviews or discussion, both of which can be solicited by the editor(s) and are generally just approved for publication by the section editor).

Having "Peer reviewed papers" in the contents section of a journal is like "Edible main courses" on a restaurant menu.

[chillzero]

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

This thread is not about peer review of Mark Roberts' work. Realcddeal, you have stated this a few times, and I corrected you before. It is also not about discussion of events on 911. It is about the peer review process for the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories.

To discuss the requirement of or non-requirement of peer review for Mark's work:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95863

To debate the events of 911 and the theories arising:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95958

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

[CHF]

You expect the firefighters to stand up to the federal government? What are you smoking? They are little guys who need their jobs.

So in other words, these "little guys" are refusing to expose the mass murder of their comrades for the sake of protecting their jobs.

Do you have the guts to make that sickening accusation in an FDNY fire station, Tony?

[Calcas]

You expect the firefighters to stand up to the federal government? What are you smoking? They are little guys who need their jobs.

People like you always show their true colors eventually.

The firefighters were in on it. They won't say anything because they need their job.

Disgusting.

I expect the anti-semite stuff will follow shortly.

[JimBenArm]

You expect the firefighters to stand up to the federal government? What are you smoking? They are little guys who need their jobs.
You're cute. Of course they wouldn't stand up to the big, bad gubment. They're courageous men & women who put themselves on the line daily, but are obviously cowards when it comes to keeping their jobs.

Me, I don't think I could live with myself if I knew something like what you're accusing them of hiding, but hey, I'm not a little guy who needs his job. I'm a smaller-than-that guy who couldn't survive without his job, but I'd ditch it in a second if I knew anything like that!


But of course, I'm much more courageous than any low-life firefighter!

[twinstead]

I expect the anti-semite stuff will follow shortly.

Hey. Jews need their jobs too. ;)

[drkitten]

Someone has probably addressed this, but I don't recall it. My understanding of the peer review process includes that the reviewers are anonymous -- at least, to the reviewee. (Presumably the editors know.) And actually, the paper is supposed to be sent to the reviewers without indication of the name of the author. This is supposed to guarantee impartiality, and also discourage firebombings of the homes of one's professional rivals.

It's not quite as strict as that. I've never reviewed a journal paper where I didn't know the author's name, although I've submitted some (that's a subject of constant debate among editors).

Furthermore, although the specific reviwer(s) for each paper is usually kept secret, the editorial pool (the major/frequent reviewers) is usually relatively common knowledge. So I might not know who reviewed my paper, but given twenty guesses, I could come up with it. (There are really only twenty people who read my journals that are quallified to review.) And the competence of the editorial pool is often one of the selling points for the journal.

[drkitten]

Has anyone ever seen a real, non-parody journal which advertises it's own papers as peer reviewed?

All the time. E.g. "Wiley-Blackwell announced the launch of Archives of Drug Information (ADI), a new open access, freely available peer-reviewed journal, dedicated to publishing the results of drug studies. "


"Clinical Therapeutics : The International Peer-Reviewed Journal of Drug Therapy"

"On 10 May, Elsevier announced plans to commence publication of the first international, peer-reviewed journal devoted to the emerging science of brain stimulation. The cross-disciplinary journal, titled Brain Stimulation: Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research in Neuromodulation, will premiere later this year."

"Artificial Intelligence in Engineering : Peer-reviewed journal providing manuscripts on real world applications of artificial intelligence. Published by Elsevier Science."

Librarians need to know that a journal is legit, and the words "peer reviewed" are often part of the mandatory management tick-list before they're allowed to buy it.

On the other hand, I've never seen a table of contents label which papers were peer-reviewed and which weren't.....

[T.A.M.]

Also addressing some of the more obvious errors in the journals papers that detract from the credibility (not only Tony's). I asked earlier if he thought there were any factual errors in any of the other papers.

BTW Interesting reading in your blog. I don't have a account or I would have commented there. Keep it up!:)

Thanks...Most of my posts are commentary, so I do not often bring any new links or items to the table. If I find a topic here or elsewhere that sparks my interest I will post a commentary on it.

Someone has probably addressed this, but I don't recall it. My understanding of the peer review process includes that the reviewers are anonymous -- at least, to the reviewee. (Presumably the editors know.) And actually, the paper is supposed to be sent to the reviewers without indication of the name of the author. This is supposed to guarantee impartiality, and also discourage firebombings of the homes of one's professional rivals.

That's the way I always understood it in the humanities business. Isn't it the same in STM? (Librarian talk for Scientific Technical Medical, and probably others' talk as well.)

Have I missed this, in this discussion? Am I just being dense? Regardless of anything else, this alone makes the discussion even mooter than usual. (Can I say "mooter"?)

Agreed. In most Peer Review the Reviewers of a paper are not known to the author(s). What I am asking for is a list of their "Peer Review Pool", so that we can see if they have people who cover all of the major sciences and engineering branches needed for the topics of the 9/11 attacks, as well as Demolition Experts and Aviation Experts.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

It's not quite as strict as that. I've never reviewed a journal paper where I didn't know the author's name, although I've submitted some (that's a subject of constant debate among editors).

Furthermore, although the specific reviwer(s) for each paper is usually kept secret, the editorial pool (the major/frequent reviewers) is usually relatively common knowledge. So I might not know who reviewed my paper, but given twenty guesses, I could come up with it. (There are really only twenty people who read my journals that are quallified to review.) And the competence of the editorial pool is often one of the selling points for the journal.

Exactly, and it is the "pool" of Peer Reviewers that I think should be made publicly available.

All the time. E.g. "Wiley-Blackwell announced the launch of Archives of Drug Information (ADI), a new open access, freely available peer-reviewed journal, dedicated to publishing the results of drug studies. "


"Clinical Therapeutics : The International Peer-Reviewed Journal of Drug Therapy"

"On 10 May, Elsevier announced plans to commence publication of the first international, peer-reviewed journal devoted to the emerging science of brain stimulation. The cross-disciplinary journal, titled Brain Stimulation: Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research in Neuromodulation, will premiere later this year."

"Artificial Intelligence in Engineering : Peer-reviewed journal providing manuscripts on real world applications of artificial intelligence. Published by Elsevier Science."

Librarians need to know that a journal is legit, and the words "peer reviewed" are often part of the mandatory management tick-list before they're allowed to buy it.

On the other hand, I've never seen a table of contents label which papers were peer-reviewed and which weren't.....

And this is my other point. They are using the words "Peer Review" to try and add the legitimacy that you have stated exists when these words are used. However, if they are going to use the words (which they do, OFTEN) then I want to see the list of Peer Reviewers that they are choosing from.

TAM:)

[drkitten]

Exactly, and it is the "pool" of Peer Reviewers that I think should be made publicly available.



And this is my other point. They are using the words "Peer Review" to try and add the legitimacy that you have stated exists when these words are used.

Yup and yup. The J911S is cat-box liner that is trying to use the words "peer-reviewed" to create an air of respectability for itself purely for marketing purposes, in the same way that a restaurant might make up phony restaurant critic columns about itself and run them as paid advertisement "testimonials."

Just because someone somewhere said "the Golden Dolphin is an excellent spot for casual dining" doesn't mean much, if the person who said it turns out to be the owner's brother-in-law, and if the pm;u actual restaurant critic who went there called the health department on his cell halfway through the soup course.

You wouldn't take a restaurant's unsupported word that it was any good at face value. Why take the journal's?

[T.A.M.]

Yup and yup. The J911S is cat-box liner that is trying to use the words "peer-reviewed" to create an air of respectability for itself purely for marketing purposes, in the same way that a restaurant might make up phony restaurant critic columns about itself and run them as paid advertisement "testimonials."

Just because someone somewhere said "the Golden Dolphin is an excellent spot for casual dining" doesn't mean much, if the person who said it turns out to be the owner's brother-in-law, and if the pm;u actual restaurant critic who went there called the health department on his cell halfway through the soup course.

You wouldn't take a restaurant's unsupported word that it was any good at face value. Why take the journal's?

I will go one step further. While open publishing of the "peer reviewer pool" would be a start, I still would put little faith in their peer review process, as I can almost guarantee that the people in that pool are fellow 9/11 truthers. If there is one thing I have learned about members of that movement, it is that they will allow their bias toward the USG etc...to override their commitment to good, honest science. Review by such people would not be honest fair review.

Now if their "peer reviewer pool" has a number of neutral, non 9/11 CTists among them, then maybe I would lend it some cred.

TAM:)

[jhunter1163]

Now if their "peer reviewer pool" has a number of neutral, non 9/11 CTists among them, then maybe I would lend it some cred.

TAM:)

If they had neutral, non-9/11 CTist peer reviewers, the journal would be very thin indeed.

[drkitten]

I will go one step further. While open publishing of the "peer reviewer pool" would be a start, I still would put little faith in their peer review process, as I can almost guarantee that the people in that pool are fellow 9/11 truthers. If there is one thing I have learned about members of that movement, it is that they will allow their bias toward the USG etc...to override their commitment to good, honest science. Review by such people would not be honest fair review.

Let's be fair, here. You wouldn't expect Evolutionary Genetics to put William Dembski into their peer review pool, would you? I wouldn't expect a journal called Philosophy and Free Will to include a hard-line determinist among their reviewers, I wouldn't expect a hard-line frequentist to review for Bayesian Studies and I think that Richard Dawkins would be a lousy reviewer for J. Catholic Thought.

There are lots of "good" journals out there that are nevertheless biased to one side of a controversial issue. Sometimes there will even be "good" journals on both sides of a controversial issue.

The problem isn't that J911S is reviewed only by truthers. It's that it's incompetently reviewed by incompetent truthers. And the longer that Jones, Ryan, and Co. spend defending their incompetent reviewers instead of looking for good ones, the farther their little vanity journal will sink. Come on now -- if there are all of these top-flight structural engineers out there arguing against the official story, surely a few of them must be available instead of unemployed and unemployable UL water boys.

[tsig]

I doubt that the firefighters at the car crash said they saw, heard, and felt explosions.

You expect the firefighters to stand up to the federal government? What are you smoking? They are little guys who need their jobs.

You just called the FDNY cowards and sell-outs.

[timhau]

All the time. E.g. "Wiley-Blackwell announced the launch of Archives of Drug Information (ADI), a new open access, freely available peer-reviewed journal, dedicated to publishing the results of drug studies. "

<list deleted>

On the other hand, I've never seen a table of contents label which papers were peer-reviewed and which weren't.....

Sure, when journals describe themselves, they do advertise themselves as "peer-reviewed". It even serves a purpose there. It's the table of contents label I was after; it seems like it's always just "Articles".

[Dave Rogers]

The problem isn't that J911S is reviewed only by truthers. It's that it's incompetently reviewed by incompetent truthers. And the longer that Jones, Ryan, and Co. spend defending their incompetent reviewers instead of looking for good ones, the farther their little vanity journal will sink.

But then, the problem is that anyone who is able to assess the arguments of the truth movement objectively, quickly tends to find that they no longer wish to be associated with the truth movement. In other words, it's only the incompetent who are able to believe what JON-ES requires them to believe in order to be reviewers.

Dave

[BenBurch]

But then, the problem is that anyone who is able to assess the arguments of the truth movement objectively, quickly tends to find that they no longer wish to be associated with the truth movement. In other words, it's only the incompetent who are able to believe what JON-ES requires them to believe in order to be reviewers.

Dave

Just so. It is a Parliament of Dunces.

[T.A.M.]

Let's be fair, here. You wouldn't expect Evolutionary Genetics to put William Dembski into their peer review pool, would you? I wouldn't expect a journal called Philosophy and Free Will to include a hard-line determinist among their reviewers, I wouldn't expect a hard-line frequentist to review for Bayesian Studies and I think that Richard Dawkins would be a lousy reviewer for J. Catholic Thought.

There are lots of "good" journals out there that are nevertheless biased to one side of a controversial issue. Sometimes there will even be "good" journals on both sides of a controversial issue.

The problem isn't that J911S is reviewed only by truthers. It's that it's incompetently reviewed by incompetent truthers. And the longer that Jones, Ryan, and Co. spend defending their incompetent reviewers instead of looking for good ones, the farther their little vanity journal will sink. Come on now -- if there are all of these top-flight structural engineers out there arguing against the official story, surely a few of them must be available instead of unemployed and unemployable UL water boys.

Agreed. However, I am asking for NEUTRAL reviewers, not people on the opposite end of the argument.

As well, my thoughts were based on the premise of ACADEMIC/SCIENTIFIC review, not on review of opinion or speculation...for this all of their reviewers are qualified...they are all truthers.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

You just called the FDNY cowards and sell-outs.

Exactly. One of the MOST DISRESPECTFUL arguments the truth movement makes, is that these valiant heroes, who throw themselves into the fire as others are running out, would let the MURDER of 300+ of their fellow men to go unpunished, because they are afraid the perps will take away their jobs...

That is TRULY INSULTING to them, and their courage.

TAM:)

[quixotecoyote]

And this is my other point. They are using the words "Peer Review" to try and add the legitimacy that you have stated exists when these words are used. However, if they are going to use the words (which they do, OFTEN) then I want to see the list of Peer Reviewers that they are choosing from.
TAM:)

If I may be allowed a case of borderline necromancy, I'm currently writing a course paper on 9/11 truth organizations and I'd love to cite some articles from the JoD911CT (?). Unfortunately, while not quite a parody, it's not quite legitimate either. Given the general quality of the articles involved, I could probably use them without a problem if the editing staff had their names and credentials published instead of using screennames like "Shagster"

[Sword_Of_Truth]

On an earlier thread, concerning whether or not Mark Roberts' work on 911 was peer reviewed or not, I was surprised to hear from both him and Ryan Mackey, that although their respective papers appear on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, that they did not actually submit them to that journal. They both said that others had posted them there with no interaction with the authors of the papers.

What this means is that there could have been no review feedback and potential correction by the authors due to any peer review claimed by the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories. Hmm!

Ryan Mackey says straight out that his paper is not peer reviewed by a formal process, although he did put it out in the public domain to be viewed and commented on by many.

What is the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Studies claiming for their peer review process?

Wow... another stunning example of double standards and poor reality testing.

The difference I see between the Journal of Debunking J.O.N.E.S. (wich has been stated previously in this thread) is that "Debunking" has never claimed to be peer reviewed.

Teal me, RealCD... if Mad Magazine (http://www.dccomics.com/mad/) mocks the tinfoil turban crowd, do you intend to bitch about their scientific review process?

[FactCheck]

The very first paper explains the journal...


"6) No effort to peer review in a mainstream scientific journal

While they may be able to argue that it would be unlikely to get a paper peer reviewed in a main stream scientific journal, the conspiracy theorists haven’t even tried to get peer reviewed in a true Journal. Instead they write papers for an “in house” journal they created. Why would they not at least try? They use “Obvious” to characterize the evidence for controlled demolition. If it were so obvious, you think they would figure it couldn’t be denied by anyone. Instead they create a web site and link some of their PDF’s calling them “Peer-Review”. That’s the problem; they are reviewed by their conspiracy theorist peers and not by experts in their field.

This Journal, “The Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories” was created to show exactly how easy it is to put up a web site and call it a “Journal.” However, our Journal is serious in the sense that the work within is carefully reviewed. The conspiracy theorists journal is not. No example is more glaring than Dixon/Scholars for 9/11 Truth” “The Flying Elephant: Evidence for Involvement of a Third Jet in the WTC Attacks” document.28 It seems no effort whatsoever was made to examine this document for errors.

http://www.jod911.com/evidence.pdf

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

And therein lies the brilliance of jod911.com. Since it follows the exact same template as st911 then the truthers are forced to either:
1) Acknowledge jod911 as being of equal merit as st911
2) Acknowledge that st911 has equal lack of merit as jod911

[JamesB]

And therein lies the brilliance of jod911.com. Since it follows the exact same template as st911 then the truthers are forced to either:
1) Acknowledge jod911 as being of equal merit as st911
2) Acknowledge that st911 has equal lack of merit as jod911

They already have, when I sent Steven Jones a copy of one of the papers I wrote, he rejected it on the basis that it had already appeared in a journal.

[FactCheck]

And therein lies the brilliance of jod911.com. Since it follows the exact same template as st911 then the truthers are forced to either:
1) Acknowledge jod911 as being of equal merit as st911
2) Acknowledge that st911 has equal lack of merit as jod911

:D

There is one major difference, jod911 lets you know it's not a journal with impact to the scientific community. That alone makes it more credible than the st911.

Since Jones has reviewed the work and conciders it a "Peer reviewed" journal then who are the twoofers to say it's not? I mean he is a physics professor... HEHEHE

[Tony Szamboti]

Wow... another stunning example of double standards and poor reality testing.

The difference I see between the Journal of Debunking J.O.N.E.S. (wich has been stated previously in this thread) is that "Debunking" has never claimed to be peer reviewed.

Teal me, RealCD... if Mad Magazine (http://www.dccomics.com/mad/) mocks the tinfoil turban crowd, do you intend to bitch about their scientific review process?


I had to think about whether to even answer this obnoxious comment as you obviously did not even bother to look at the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories website or you wouldn't have said they never claimed to be peer reviewed. They say it right with the title of the article.

http://www.jod911.com/

Nowhere do they say that their site is simply a parody. I guess you have to be on the inside to get that joke.

Of course, as it appears that you don't seem to investigate before shooting off your mouth, even on easy to verify matters, I wonder how much credibility that adds to your take on who belongs in a tin foil hat crowd.

[Gravy]

I wonder how much credibility that adds to your take on who belongs in a tin foil hat crowd.:rolleyes:
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.

[SDC]

I had to think about whether to even answer this obnoxious comment as you obviously did not even bother to look at the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories website or you wouldn't have said they never claimed to be peer reviewed. They say it right with the title of the article.

http://www.jod911.com/

Nowhere do they say that their site is simply a parody. I guess you have to be on the inside to get that joke.

Of course, as it appears that you don't seem to investigate before shooting off your mouth, even on easy to verify matters, I wonder how much credibility that adds to your take on who belongs in a tin foil hat crowd.

Who claimed it is a "parody"? As in the sense of (say) nasty, mocking humor. Or are you the only one using that specific term?

[LashL]

...obnoxious...


That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

:rolleyes:

[FactCheck]

I had to think about whether to even answer this obnoxious comment as you obviously did not even bother to look at the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories website or you wouldn't have said they never claimed to be peer reviewed. They say it right with the title of the article.

http://www.jod911.com/

Nowhere do they say that their site is simply a parody. I guess you have to be on the inside to get that joke.

Of course, as it appears that you don't seem to investigate before shooting off your mouth, even on easy to verify matters, I wonder how much credibility that adds to your take on who belongs in a tin foil hat crowd.

Call it what you want, The journal of 9/11 Conspiracies Theories can be called a journal and the papers within can be called peer reviewed if ST911 is the same.

In other words, when Jones stops saying his paper was peer reviewed I'll stop putting "Peer Reviewed Papers" on the site. Yea, that's my site.

SoT gets it.

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade
And therein lies the brilliance of jod911.com. Since it follows the exact same template as st911 then the truthers are forced to either:
1) Acknowledge jod911 as being of equal merit as st911
2) Acknowledge that st911 has equal lack of merit as jod911

realcddeal seems to be the only one here that doesn't get it.