peer review.

[Corsair 115]

And have you noticed the new U.S.-owned amusement park that's about to open, Six False Flags Calgary?

Can't say I have, no. But Alberta does apparently have its own Creation Museum.

And do you think the U.S. Air Force holds massive exercises in Alaska because of the Russians?

Well, I do recall that back in the late 1970s/early 1980s the U.S. wanted to test the then-new cruise missile out in western Canada and a number of folks here were not pleased about it. One such group was called ACT (Against Cruise Testing).

How on Earth I can remember such minutia after all this time is a mystery to me considering I can barely remember what I did last week...

 

[Dave Rogers]

It certainly solves the problem of potential bias towards the individual author. All peer reviews should be blind.

This would be a serious problem for the Journal of 9/11 Studies, where peer reviewers are allowed to contribute to the papers they review. It's a bit tricky failing to recognise your own work.

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

If you were genuine you would write a critiquing paper and debate it in the accepted scientific way. Write a paper or shut your big trap.

You have a lot of nerve calling me a fraud and you know what I mean.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

This would be a serious problem for the Journal of 9/11 Studies, where peer reviewers are allowed to contribute to the papers they review. It's a bit tricky failing to recognise your own work.

Dave

How would you know that reviewers are allowed to contribute to the papers they review there? You should provide a basis for a claim like this.

 

[Dave Rogers]

How would you know that reviewers are allowed to contribute to the papers they review there? You should provide a basis for a claim like this.

OK, on checking I was wrong. The conflict of interests is subtly different.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade-Center.doc

Page 1: "The paper has undergone significant modifications following an additional set of peer reviews organized by Journal of 9/11 Studies Editor Kevin Ryan."

Section title, page 40: "Analysis by Whistleblower Ryan"

The paper has had its peer review organised by, and incorporates the work of, Kevin Ryan. I withdraw the statement that peer reviewers are allowed to contribute to the papers they review, but maintain the criticism that the JONES peer review process is shown to be deeply flawed.

Dave
​

 

[AZCat]

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

Even though this has already been pointed out, I would like to add that this is also contrary to my experience. I've only broached the subject with a half-dozen mechanicals, but out of that group only one has showed any sympathy to controlled demolition theories.

 

[rwguinn]

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.

So "Appears to be"= is. Twoo-woofer logic at its finest.
**** yes, it "Looks Like"--it can't "look like" anything else, because, unexpectedly, gravity works the same way every time. this has been discussed many many many^n times here.
All competent engineers with any structural design and analysis experience and expertise think Twoofers are guanofrentic, and absolutely not worth the effort to explain things to them more than 3 times. Most of us are on our 29th or 30th time, so ridicule is our only hope.
And yes, I am a mechanical PE, specializing in structural analysis. Credential are on file with Lash, who can verify. Don't expect name address, registration number from her, though--she's a lawyer who can be trusted!
To the uninitiated and to twoofer engineers, that means I work to try to correct designs to prevent failue in the first place.

 

[Gravy]

If you were genuine you would write a critiquing paper and debate it in the accepted scientific way. Write a paper or shut your big trap.

Had the author written the paper in any accepted scientific way, I'd have replied in kind.

You have a lot of nerve calling me a fraud and you know what I mean.

I apologize for selling you short. I should have said "You super-duper fraud."

 

[T.A.M.]

If you were genuine you would write a critiquing paper and debate it in the accepted scientific way. Write a paper or shut your big trap.

You have a lot of nerve calling me a fraud and you know what I mean.

If the alleged Scientists/Engineers/architects for truth would only listen to your advice, we'd have alot less gum flapping, and alot of bunk to read...alas, 90% or more of the truth movements 300-500 "scientists/engineers/architects" do no such thing, despite ACTUALLY having the ALLEGED qualifications to do so...I wonder why they don't????

TAM

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Had the author written the paper in any accepted scientific way, I'd have replied in kind.

And what qualifications do you have to be the judge of that? What college or university did you attend and what science degree do you have? Have you ever done any scientific type work in your life? For that matter what is your background in general? How long have you been a NYC tour guide and what did you do before that? Have you lived in NYC all of your life?

I apologize for selling you short. I should have said "You super-duper fraud."

I am wondering if you really understand what a fraud is so here is the definition.


fraud /frɔd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[frawd]
–noun 1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.


I am a fifty year old who never made money in a dishonest way in my life. I am a U.S. Navy veteran who was an aircraft mechanic in the service and a machinist in civilian life. I went to night school for nine years at a major university in the 1980's to earn my engineering degree and have worked as an engineer since 1986 at major U.S. aerospace companies.

I was born a U.S. citizen and have given to my country and presently am not satisfied with the answers we have been given concerning the events of 911. The events of that day and the answers from our government, at this time, simply do not add up, in my opinion, if ones takes an honest look at it. After looking at this for the last year I am now suspicious that certain elements who have made their way into our government have committed major crimes here. That does not make me a fraud sir and shame on you for saying that.

I have nothing to gain by raising these issues other than to be sure our government is on the up and up for all of our sakes. I am sorry if your belief system cannot tolerate the possibility that there is/could be major corruption in our government and that a domestic conspiracy may have occurred in the conception, planning, execution, and cover up of the events of Sept. 11, 2001. I do wish this were not true but I strive to look at things for the way they are not how I would hope they are. Adults aren't supposed to live in a fairy tale land and we don't like being told fairy tales about a crime. If everyone looked at it that way maybe the corruption we are experiencing would have a harder time manifesting itself.

 

[twinstead]

Well, many people here have taken an equally honest look at the events of 911 and the same evidence you have looked at, and come to a different conclusion than you.

SO. What exactly does that mean? The only honest conclusion is YOURS?

 

[Civilized Worm]

If you were genuine you would write a critiquing paper and debate it in the accepted scientific way. Write a paper or shut your big trap.

We tried having a scientific debate with a pseudoscientist before, you'll never guess how that went.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

OK, on checking I was wrong. The conflict of interests is subtly different.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade-Center.doc

Page 1: "The paper has undergone significant modifications following an additional set of peer reviews organized by Journal of 9/11 Studies Editor Kevin Ryan."

Section title, page 40: "Analysis by Whistleblower Ryan"

The paper has had its peer review organised by, and incorporates the work of, Kevin Ryan. I withdraw the statement that peer reviewers are allowed to contribute to the papers they review, but maintain the criticism that the JONES peer review process is shown to be deeply flawed.

Dave
​

What do you believe to be wrong with Jones' peer review process?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Well, many people here have taken an equally honest look at the events of 911 and the same evidence you have looked at, and come to a different conclusion than you.

SO. What exactly does that mean? The only honest conclusion is YOURS?

Not at all. There should be an open, honest, and objective debate. This would not include name calling and ad-hominem.

If someone has a problem with a paper someone has written they should write a rebuttal/refutation and the discussion should continue until the wheat has been separated from the chaff. This usually happens when honest debate occurs. The real answer comes out in the end.

 

[twinstead]

Not at all. There should be an open, honest, and objective debate. This would not include name calling and ad-hominem.

If someone has a problem with a paper someone has written they should write a rebuttal/refutation and the discussion should continue until the wheat has been separated from the chaff. This usually happens when honest debate occurs. The real answer comes out in the end.

I can't argue with that, but you must admit that emotions run high on both side of this particular debate.

Ad-homs are just going to happen. Combatants debating 911 need a thick skin.

 

[TerryUK]

And what qualifications do you have to be the judge of that? What college or university did you attend and what science degree do you have? Have you ever done any scientific type work in your life? For that matter what is your background in general? How long have you been a NYC tour guide and what did you do before that? Have you lived in NYC all of your life?



I am wondering if you really understand what a fraud is so here is the definition.


fraud /frɔd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[frawd]
–noun 1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.


I am a fifty year old who never made money in a dishonest way in my life. I am a U.S. Navy veteran who was an aircraft mechanic in the service and a machinist in civilian life. I went to night school for nine years at a major university in the 1980's to earn my engineering degree and have worked as an engineer since 1986 at major U.S. aerospace companies.

I was born a U.S. citizen and have given to my country and presently am not satisfied with the answers we have been given concerning the events of 911. The events of that day and the answers from our government, at this time, simply do not add up, in my opinion, if ones takes an honest look at it. After looking at this for the last year I am now suspicious that certain elements who have made their way into our government have committed major crimes here. That does not make me a fraud sir and shame on you for saying that.

I have nothing to gain by raising these issues other than to be sure our government is on the up and up for all of our sakes. I am sorry if your belief system cannot tolerate the possibility that there is/could be major corruption in our government and that a domestic conspiracy may have occurred in the conception, planning, execution, and cover up of the events of Sept. 11, 2001. I do wish this were not true but I strive to look at things for the way they are not how I would hope they are. Adults aren't supposed to live in a fairy tale land and we don't like being told fairy tales about a crime. If everyone looked at it that way maybe the corruption we are experiencing would have a harder time manifesting itself.

Very well said.

I feel the same way, and when I see what some of these biggoted, 'holier than thou' morons post here, it makes me wonder how people can be SO disingenuous.

e.g. if you question something = 'you are unpatriotic/traitor/liar' whatever... or 'you hate America'

 

[T.A.M.]

And what qualifications do you have to be the judge of that? What college or university did you attend and what science degree do you have? Have you ever done any scientific type work in your life? For that matter what is your background in general? How long have you been a NYC tour guide and what did you do before that? Have you lived in NYC all of your life?



I am wondering if you really understand what a fraud is so here is the definition.


fraud /frɔd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[frawd]
–noun 1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.


I am a fifty year old who never made money in a dishonest way in my life. I am a U.S. Navy veteran who was an aircraft mechanic in the service and a machinist in civilian life. I went to night school for nine years at a major university in the 1980's to earn my engineering degree and have worked as an engineer since 1986 at major U.S. aerospace companies.

I was born a U.S. citizen and have given to my country and presently am not satisfied with the answers we have been given concerning the events of 911. The events of that day and the answers from our government, at this time, simply do not add up, in my opinion, if ones takes an honest look at it. After looking at this for the last year I am now suspicious that certain elements who have made their way into our government have committed major crimes here. That does not make me a fraud sir and shame on you for saying that.

I have nothing to gain by raising these issues other than to be sure our government is on the up and up for all of our sakes. I am sorry if your belief system cannot tolerate the possibility that there is/could be major corruption in our government and that a domestic conspiracy may have occurred in the conception, planning, execution, and cover up of the events of Sept. 11, 2001. I do wish this were not true but I strive to look at things for the way they are not how I would hope they are. Adults aren't supposed to live in a fairy tale land and we don't like being told fairy tales about a crime. If everyone looked at it that way maybe the corruption we are experiencing would have a harder time manifesting itself.

Passionate for sure. You've won the approval of TerryUK, so that must count for something...I guess.

Quite a Soapbox like diatribe you've got up there, but thats ok, we all need to get things off our chest from time to time...Rev91 has been doing it for 500 posts, and still hasn't finished snapping at everyone.

Gravy can state his own qualifications, and if you search the site long enough, you'll find an extensive list of the qualifications of alot of the posters here. Of course, you will likely doubt them, as it will make you feel better about yourself...this seems to work for some of the younger truthers that post here.

Anyway, personally I have a Diploma in Electronic Engineering Technology, a BSc in Medical Science, an MD, and A residency in Family Practice. I graduated highschool at 17, started post secondary at age 18, and got out of post secondary at age 30.

Like I said, for a more complete listing of who has what on this site, there is a link...but it doesnt really matter, because the "Tour Guide" can debate the hell out of any truther, ANY ONE of them, and all of you know it.

TAM

 

[TerryUK]

the "Tour Guide" can debate the hell out of any truther, ANY ONE of them, and all of you know it.

TAM

Unfortunately, 'debate' is the wrong word. It's like saying a hotdog is 'haute cuisine'

 

[T.A.M.]

and with an insult, he makes comment on someone elses debating style...well done.

TAM

 

[Crungy]

Unfortunately, 'debate' is the wrong word. It's like saying a hotdog is 'haute cuisine'

Most of us here have seen the Hardfire debates along with various informal Ground Zero debates. Myself and many others on this forum thought that he did quite well. Could you please post a link to a debate where he preformed poorly in relation to the 9/11 CTer?