If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

FalseFlag said:
My budget for fiction is used up for the month.

..........I know what's coming
Click to expand...

Apparently there are peer reviewers who do not consider it fiction. You know, experts who have read it. What expertise do you bring to bear in order to pass judgement on it sight unseen?

Then again, you knew this question was coming, right?
 
jaydeehess said:
Apparently there are peer reviewers who do not consider it fiction. You know, experts who have read it. What expertise do you bring to bear in order to pass judgement on it sight unseen?

Then again, you knew this question was coming, right?
Click to expand...

Just to drive this point home even further--from the journal's website:

Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities

Aims & Scope

The Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities attempts to improve the quality of the constructed product through interdisciplinary communication. Papers examine the causes and costs of failures and other performance problems.

Both catastrophic failures as well as serviceability problems are examined. Both procedural and technical causes of failures are included. Papers that discuss the interface between various professionals in the construction industry are of special interest.

Editorial Board:

Editor:

Norbert Delatte, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE, Cleveland State University

Editor Emeritus:

Kenneth L. Carper, M.ASCE, Washington State University

Associate Editors:

Jose M. Adam, Ph.D., C.Eng, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

Ronald W. Anthony, M.ASCE, Anthony & Associates, Inc.

Glenn R. Bell, P.E., Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, Inc.

Paul A. Bosela, Ph.D., P.E., Cleveland State University

Sean Brady, Ph.D., CPEng., Brady Heywood Pty., Ltd., Australia

Pamalee A. Brady-Griffith, Ph.D., California Polytechnic State University

Dar-Hao Chen, Ph.D., P.E., Texas Department of Transportation

Elizabeth P. Dahlen, Ph.D., P.E., SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory

Milos F. Drdácky, Ph.D., P.E., Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic

Sheila Rimal Duwadi, P.E., Federal Highway Administration

John A. Frauenhoffer, P.E., John Frauenhoffer and Associates

Khaled Galal, Ph.D., P.Eng., Concordia University

Howard F. Greenspan, P.E., L.S., Howard F. Greenspan Associates

Timothy Grocholski, P.E., M.ASCE, Brander Engineering, Inc.

Tong Guo, Ph.D., C.Eng, Southeast University

Gerald A. Haynes, P.E., Forensic Fire Analysis, Inc.

Wei F. Lee, Ph.D., Ground Master Construction/MICE Engineering Consultants

Yue Li, Ph.D., Case Western Reserve University

Richard G. Little, University of Southern California

Shalva Marjanishvili, D.Sc., P.E., S.E., Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Navid Nastar, Ph.D., P.E., University of Southern California

Ilias Ortega, Ph.D., Ortega and Kanoussi Technologies, Mexico City

John D. Osteraas, Ph.D., P.E., Exponent: Failure Analysis Associates

Fulvio Parisi, Ph.D., C.Eng., University of Naples Federico II

David B. Peraza, P.E., Exponent: Failure Analysis Associates

Declan T. Phillips, Ph.D., P.E., Unviersity of Limerick

Abbas Rashidi, Ph.D., University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Oswald Rendon-Herrero, Ph.D., P.E., Mississippi State University

Kevin L. Rens, Ph.D., P.E., University of Colorado, Denver

Mehdi Setareh, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, Virginia Tech

Fabian C.H. Tan, Ph.D., P.E., The Ohio State University

Solomon Tesfamariam, P.E., The University of British Columbia

Chengqing Wu, Ph.D., University of Technology, Sydney

Wael Zatar, Ph.D., Marshall University

Zhongxuan Yang, Ph.D., Zheijang University

Forensic Engineering Division Executive Committee:

Ronald W. Anthony, Aff.M.ASCE, Chair

Derrick Stephen Hancock, P.E., M.ASCE, Past Chair

Ziad Mohammad Salameh, P.E., M.ASCE, Vice Chair

Alicia E. Diaz deLeon, P.E., S.E., R.A., M.ASCE, Secretary

Clemens J Rossell, P.E., M.ASCE. Member

Patrick R McCormick, P.E., S.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE, CTA Liaison

You can find the paper submission guidelines here: http://ascelibrary.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1354630459079/PerfConstFac.pdf

Be sure to check out the extensive requirements the authors had to meet to publish the paper in question under the section titled "Criteria for Manuscripts on Specific Failures (Case Histories)".
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Apparently there are peer reviewers who do not consider it fiction. You know, experts who have read it. What expertise do you bring to bear in order to pass judgement on it sight unseen?

Then again, you knew this question was coming, right?
Click to expand...
Who peer reviewed what? If the article is not posted, discussion is pointless.
 
FalseFlag said:
What about something like this?

[qimg]http://i11.pixs.ru/storage/2/9/5/Untitledpn_4508802_22518295.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...


That is what happens when Truthers send their hard-earned money to Richard Gage, and Co.

Send Richard Gage another $50.00 and he'll send you a laundry soap tablet to wash your brand new T-shirt.
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
Yes. Let's drive this point home even further - has the original article been posted?
Click to expand...


Talking about driving, did you know that with all of the donations that Richard Gage receives from Truthers, he doesn't take his brand new cars for their first oil changes? He simply buys new cars.

After all, with many duped Truthers flooding him with donations, why should he waste time on oil changes when he can simply buy a brand new car with fresh oil?
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
Yes. Let's drive this point home even further - has the original article been posted?
Click to expand...

I cannot post it due to copyright laws. You have to buy it if you want to read it. If you were actually interested in the topic, you would do so as the fee to buy ($30) is nominal. Instead, you refuse to buy the article as you claim the article (which you have not read) is fiction. That claim is, of course, simply baseless.
 
FalseFlag said:
I'm not a structural engineer, and I would never claim that I have the expertise to question a credible paper on the subject.

The issue is that the claims being made by the so-called experts here are so flawed that anyone can see through them.
Click to expand...

Proof?

Please provide a credible source.
 
benthamitemetric said:
I cannot post it due to copyright laws. You have to buy it if you want to read it. If you were actually interested in the topic, you would do so as the fee to buy ($30) is nominal. Instead, you refuse to buy the article as you claim the article (which you have not read) is fiction. That claim is, of course, simply baseless.
Click to expand...

This shouldn't be a problem for FalseFlag he is fully committed to the truth movement and it is the focus of his life so much so he is now working two jobs so he can donate even more money to Richard Gage the moron. Isn't that right FalseFlag?

$30 is a mere pittance to someone committed to the truth, I'm sure he will have purchased it by tomorrow.



:dl: :dl: :dl:
 
FalseFlag said:
Yes. Let's drive this point home even further - has the original article been posted?
Click to expand...

It's been Peer Reviewed and published in a prestigious technical journal.

It has also been referenced in other published papers.

What more do you want?
 
FalseFlag said:
Who peer reviewed what? If the article is not posted, discussion is pointless.
Click to expand...

You have access to the paper. Access it.

How can you possibly condemn it sight unseen?

As for who reviewed it, aside from the fact that you can find out that info easily enough on your own, are you calling into question the journal's integrity? If so please illustrate your evidence that there is sufficient reason to question it. For instance, your expert analysis of the journal's past performance, or failing that (since we all know you are not an expert) some other expert analysis on the journal's performance in peer review.

On the point of experts, benthamitemetric listed a few dozen on the editorial board, all of which have relevant credentials. Its replete with P.E., P.End, and Ph.D. Note the last few are listed in the Forensic engineering field. Spot on for any paper concerning the destruction of the WTC buildings.

The guidlines for submissions includes the following:(hilites mine)
The Journal includes manuscripts on individual performance
case histories, as well as generic failure related topics. Case history
manuscripts should contain, as appropriate, the following
information:
1. Purpose of the investigation;2. Authors’ role in the investigation, including information regarding
which party retained the author to conduct the investigation,
and the intended scope of the investigation;
3. Background and experience of the investigator;
4. Description of the failed construction;
5. Description of the mode of failure;6. Results of document review;7. Site investigation;
8. Results of nondestructive evaluations;
9. Sample removal;10. Laboratory tests of materials;
11. Laboratory tests of constructed mock-ups;
12. Theoretical analyses;13. Interpretation and discussion of findings;
14. Conclusions regarding the most probable cause or causes of failure, both procedural and technical;15. If the failure initiated litigation, arbitration, or other dispute
resolution activity, the results of the resolution;
16. If available, the cost of the failure, in terms of loss of life,
injury, property damage, and the cost of litigation; and
17. Recommendations for improvements in design, construction,
or operational practices based on lessons learned from the
case.
Click to expand...

WOW!!! This is right up AE911T's alley in what they want for WTC7. I really cannot understand why after a decade of fund raising, and with the pool of 'experts' they have, that no paper has come out of AE911T to be published in a true engineering peer review journal such as this. Perhaps you can shed some light on this very obvious absence.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
You have access to the paper. Access it.

How can you possibly condemn it sight unseen?

As for who reviewed it, aside from the fact that you can find out that info easily enough on your own, are you calling into question the journal's integrity? If so please illustrate your evidence that there is sufficient reason to question it. For instance, your expert analysis of the journal's past performance, or failing that (since we all know you are not an expert) some other expert analysis on the journal's performance in peer review.

On the point of experts, benthamitemetric listed a few dozen on the editorial board, all of which have relevant credentials. Its replete with P.E., P.End, and Ph.D. Note the last few are listed in the Forensic engineering field. Spot on for any paper concerning the destruction of the WTC buildings.

The guidlines for submissions includes the following:(hilites mine)


WOW!!! This is right up AE911T's alley in what they want for WTC7. I really cannot understand why after a decade of fund raising, and with the pool of 'experts' they have, that no paper has come out of AE911T to be published in a true engineering peer review journal such as this. Perhaps you can shed some light on this very obvious absence.
Click to expand...

Also absent is any mention by the AE911-types of this paper and related papers. Why is that? Have these folks who have been researching the collapse for 15 years never thought to actually check the professional literature? Or are those who have checked the literature merely withholding it from others?

I'm not an engineer and it took me only a few minutes to find this paper when I endeavored to research the collapses a few years back.
 
FalseFlag said:
Then why bring it up? You are trying to make an argument using something you can not or will not post.
Click to expand...
Because the papers exist and are widely available for a nominal fee. You can't stymie discussion on the basis that you're not willing or able to read a paper.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom