peer review.

Gravy · Aug 8, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

Tony Szamboti · Aug 8, 2007

Gravy said:
Gravy said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

Yes.

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

Click to expand...

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

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

jsfisher · Aug 8, 2007

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

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

Crungy · Aug 8, 2007

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

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

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

T.A.M. · Aug 8, 2007

shill!!! Liar!!!!

lol

TAM

Tony Szamboti · Aug 8, 2007

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

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

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

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

T.A.M. · Aug 8, 2007

never saw that coming...lol

TAM

Tony Szamboti · Aug 8, 2007

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

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

Your point makes no sense.

Crungy · Aug 8, 2007

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

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

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

Gravy · Aug 8, 2007

realcddeal said:
Just so everyone knows, I want to say that I just e-mailed you and told you that I believe you should write a critiquing Letter to the Journal of 911 Studies about the Szamboti paper.

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

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

Yes, I believe the determination of the Factor of Safety that Szamboti uses is legitimate.

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

I also think you were nitpicking that he interchanged beams and columns. He was discussing structural elements in general when he used the term beams. The connotation is not lost.

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

As for Bldg. 7 you will have to take that up with him. Every single engineer I have showed the collapse of Bldg. 7 to says it was a controlled demolition. Most science people would not comment on a paper before reading it in its entirety.

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

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

Tony Szamboti · Aug 8, 2007

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

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

Tony Szamboti · Aug 8, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, yeah, you are that guy.

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

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

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

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

Crungy · Aug 8, 2007

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

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

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

Gravy · Aug 8, 2007

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

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

LashL · Aug 8, 2007

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

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

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

And with honesty.

And with reality.

CHF · Aug 8, 2007

realcddeal said:
This entire post was a waste.

Translation: "ya got me!"

Know what I'd like to see, realcddeal?

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

Corsair 115 · Aug 8, 2007

DGM said:
Mexico

Correct! DGM gets the gold star! Well done.

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

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

realcddeal said:
How long is the oil going to last?

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

Gravy · Aug 8, 2007

Corsair 115 said:
Correct! DGM gets the gold star! Well done.

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

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

And have you noticed the new U.S.-owned amusement park that's about to open, Six False Flags Calgary? And do you think the U.S. Air Force holds massive exercises in Alaska because of the Russians?

LashL · Aug 8, 2007

CHF said:
Translation: "ya got me!"

Know what I'd like to see, realcddeal?

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

Indeed.

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

Why, oh why, haven't they?

kookbreaker · Aug 8, 2007

LashL said:
Indeed.

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

Why, oh why, haven't they?

Its hard to teach imaginary friends how to type.

peer review.

Downsitting Citizen

Illuminator

ETcorngods survivor

Critical Thinker

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Critical Thinker

Downsitting Citizen

Illuminator

Illuminator

Critical Thinker

Downsitting Citizen

Goddess of Legaltainment™

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Downsitting Citizen

Goddess of Legaltainment™

Evil Fokker