peer review.

[TerryUK]

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

TAM

You talk about insults?
I get the distinct impression that this place is 90% insults...
talk about the pot calling the kettle black !

 

[Crungy]

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'

I thought it was an honest, but intellectually bankrupt appeal to emotion, which was clouded by an enorumous amount of political disillusionment.

Myself and other professionals on this board are wondering why amongst ourselves and our colleagues why 9/11 controlled demolition theories are held in the same contempt as Apollo moon landing hoaxes being a product of Hollywood special effects. Most of these professionals are not fans of the Bush administration and are only interested in the pure forensic science of these events. Btw, I am a political refugee to the USA and am well aware of government "evil doings", as I've had many tales of such pounded into my brain by relatives relaying first hand experiences.

biggoted, 'holier than thou' morons

seems an apt discription for much of the 9/11 CT junk that's been tossed my way by various people with no background about the ideas they put forth.

 

[TerryUK]

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.

OK, that could well be, I am only refering to what I've personally seen since I first posted on this forum, which was this week.

I see someone who appears to be uninterested in any viewpoint other than that which fits his own... someone who thinks the term 'liar' is appropriate to describe those who disagree with him... someone who insults, as a matter of routine those he is "DEBATING" with.

Sorry, that is not debating, now is it.

 

[Crungy]

OK, that could well be, I am only refering to what I've personally seen since I first posted on this forum, which was this week.

I see someone who appears to be uninterested in any viewpoint other than that which fits his own... someone who thinks the term 'liar' is appropriate to describe those who disagree with him... someone who insults, as a matter of routine those he is "DEBATING" with.

Sorry, that is not debating, now is it.

Fair enough. At times, fatigue from debating the same points over and over, occurs with some of the regulars here and the exchanges become quite testy. When I first joined, most posters were much more civil, but endless trolls have veered some of the regulars into the infinite banging the head against the wall syndrom. From my obervance in the past year, the 9/11 CTers still hold the nasty and rude moron title by a far margin, but as you point out, it is not a shut out by any means.

 

[Corsair 115]

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.

I have a question about that last part of the above. Does the "in my opinion" part refer to things not adding up, or to the "takes an honest look at it" part? Because you could take from the sentence that you think anyone who doesn't claim things don't add up hasn't taken an honest look at it. For the purposes of clarity, is that what you're trying to imply?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I have a question about that last part of the above. Does the "in my opinion" part refer to things not adding up, or to the "takes an honest look at it" part? Because you could take from the sentence that you think anyone who doesn't claim things don't add up hasn't taken an honest look at it. For the purposes of clarity, is that what you're trying to imply?

Corsair, I was basically saying that I believe that anyone taking an honest objective look at all of the information which has surfaced in the last two years concerning the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and the present government explanations for those events, would at least have a number of legitimate questions and feel that maybe we don't really fully know what happened.

For instance, the mysterious and still not officially explained complete symmetric collapse of Building 7, the near free fall speed collapses of the towers and conservation of momentum problems for a gravity driven collapse, the near complete pulverization of the concrete in the towers, the total collapse of the central cores of each tower, purported molten metal in the rubble, the molten metal pouring out of the 80th floor of WTC2 minutes before it collapsed, the lack of steel for NIST to test for high temperature exposure from the fire affected areas, the firefighters oral histories where there is talk of seeing, hearing, and feeling explosives, etc.

Don't forget that the oral histories of the emergency personnel was suppressed until ordered by the NY State Court of Appeals to be released in August 2005. Why wasn't this information discussed in the 911 Commission report?

 

[T.A.M.]

You talk about insults?
I get the distinct impression that this place is 90% insults...
talk about the pot calling the kettle black !

I was commenting on the hypocrisy in commenting on someones conduct, by insulting them...do you not see it?

TAM

 

[Gravy]

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.

Yawn. I'm sorry to see that you've abandoned the principles that you once held and have embraced dishonesty and ignorance.

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

See? Dishonesty and ignorance. Didn't we just have this conversation? What's wrong with the Journal of 9/11 Stundies? It accepts papers that are amongst the worst ever written by adults on any subject.

I pointed out three major errors in the Szamboti paper, which I, a layman, incidentally spotted in two minutes when looking for something else. Without even trying. I could do the same with any other paper there.

There are no papers in JONES that would pass peer review in a respected journal. Jones and Ryan are utter frauds.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Yawn. I'm sorry to see that you've abandoned the principles that you once held and have embraced dishonesty and ignorance.

See? Dishonesty and ignorance. Didn't we just have this conversation? What's wrong with the Journal of 9/11 Stundies? It accepts papers that are amongst the worst ever written by adults on any subject.

I pointed out three major errors in the Szamboti paper, which I, a layman, incidentally spotted in two minutes when looking for something else. Without even trying. I could do the same with any other paper there.

There are no papers in JONES that would pass peer review in a respected journal. Jones and Ryan are utter frauds.

What a laugh you are. You are truly a legend in your own mind. What you in your limited scientific abilities are claiming as errors were not errors and I explained that earlier. Who do you think are you kidding? You sound like you went to the Joseph Goebbels school of debate. That is, to just keep repeating a lie and sooner or later people will believe it. I am tempted to say it is you who may actually be a fraud and a liar to boot. It is starting to look like you have a strategy to constantly accuse others of what you actually may be, to shift the focus off of your distortions. Unfortunately , some people fall for it. I doubt it is many though.

Like Abe Lincoln said "You can fool some of the people all the time, you can even fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

You are starting to be seen for who you really are. I doubt many know for sure but I believe they are starting to put it together about you.

You obviously aren't qualified to peer review any scientific paper so you have no basis to call Jones and Ryan frauds. You are truly disgraceful and without shame. I am beginning to believe you are a professional propagandist. How long did you say you have been a NYC tour guide? Oh, I forgot you didn't answer those questions I asked. How long have you lived in NYC and what else besides being a tour guide have you done in your life?

Go debate Jim Fetzer, he is more your speed, although more respectful to some degree. You can do Hardfire again with your fellow propagandist Ronald Wieck. What a fraud that show was as Wieck's attempt to appear impartial was an obvious failure.

 

[jsfisher]

I think somebody struck a nerve.

 

[Gravy]

What a laugh you are. You are truly a legend in your own mind. What you in your limited scientific abilities are claiming as errors were not errors and I explained that earlier.

Says the mechanical engineer whose critique of the NIST report consists of claiming that the investigators and witnesses are liars and frauds, and who in no way explained how the errors I pointed out are not errors, or how they would pass peer review in a legitimate journal.

You're a fraud, "realcddeal." Think I'm wrong? Then prove it. You said you're in the NYC area. Meet me for a videotaped debate about what caused the towers to collapse. Your many years of mechanical engineering/aerospace expertise versus my knowledge of the Theater District.

I say you won't because you're a fraud. Prove me wrong. Destroy me publicly.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Says the mechanical engineer whose critique of the NIST report consists of claiming that the investigators and witnesses are liars and frauds, and who in no way explained how the errors I pointed out are not errors, or how they would pass peer review in a legitimate journal.

You're a fraud, "realcddeal." Think I'm wrong? Then prove it. You said you were in the NYC area. Meet me for a videotaped debate about what caused the towers to collapse. Your many years of mechanical engineering/aerospace expertise versus my knowledge of the Theater District.

I say you won't because you're a fraud. Prove me wrong.

The NIST report has no physical evidence for steel temperatures needed to cause the steel to weaken. They couldn't get models to fail due to fire. There are no videos of perimeter columns bowing minutes before the collapses. The North Tower antenna mast falls before the perimeter columns go and it was in the center of the roof, meaning the core went first. Get for real, the central core of those buildings was demolished intentionally and NIST's upper echelon are political appointees who are covering up for their bosses, the Machiavellian bastards who stole their way into power.

I believe you are nothing but a shill for these people, simple as that and others here and elsewhere are starting to figure that out.

Again I will ask how long you have been a tour guide in NYC? How long have you lived there? What else have you done in your life besides being a NYC tour guide? Why don't you answer these questions with some form of backup?

I would be willing to debate you anytime in a fair format, which this forum and Ronald Wieck's show are not. I asked you to write a paper critiquing the paper we were discussing and you won't. You make unfounded lame excuses like "if it was a legitimate scientific journal". Written papers are the only way to debate a scientific issue as things need to be thought through. You seem afraid of letting someone think before they respond to your distortions. Are you afraid you will get torn to pieces in that format. I didn't say I was in the NYC area. I live in South Jersey, although I don't believe I ever mentioned that here or to you. I will debate you through written papers/letters. Choose your pen. I am done with you on this forum. No more easy work for a distorter like you.

I have to laugh at people like you, who want to make a big issue out of peer review as though it is a do all and be all, when experienced people here, like Dr. Greening, have said otherwise and pointed out the problems with it. The real review is when something is in the public eye and available for all to see. You hide behind this peer review nonsense. Write a paper to debate me and let people decide. The Journal of 911 Studies is simply a placeholder for that debate. Why can't you write a paper for publishing there? Newton's Bit did it.

I know what you probably are and you certainly do. Others are starting to figure it out. I have to wonder what your tax return looks like. I'll bet it isn't just tour guide money you pay taxes on, or do they pay undercover shills/propagandists under the table nowadays? People should wonder why it is that you can get on a show like Hardfire to debate this issue when you are just a lowly tour guide. Yeah right.

I will not answer you again unless you write a letter to the Journal of 911 Studies or any Journal of your choosing. Let's see if anything you write passes your vaunted peer review.

 

[T.A.M.]

that journal would better serve as a cupholder, than a place holder for any sort of debate...what a sham.

TAM

 

[CHF]

So realcddeal....you will debate Gravy publicly?

Yes or no.

Or will your name be added next to Kevin Ryan and DR Griffin on the list of those who talk a great game but refuse to take to the field?

 

[beachnut]

ironic irony of illogical ilk

I believe you are nothing but a shill for these people, simple as that and others here and elsewhere are starting to figure that out.

I would be willing to debate you anytime in a fair format, which this forum
I will not answer you again unless you write a letter to the Journal of 911 Studies or any Journal of your choosing. Let's see if anything you write passes your vaunted peer review.

You can not be a shill if you know it. Darn, you mess up facts all to0 often.

What would you debate? There is no real cd deal around the WTC. No explosive blasts, no explosive sounds and no extra energy needed to do what happen on 9/11.

You have no facts, no evidence, and no real conclusions can be made. So what would you debate. Please point to your paper on how the WTC fell, or 9/11, or anything you think you have. I do not remember anything you have presented of merit to add to 9/11.

Gravy has passed a peer review, I have not found a single person who does not think he has provided real information useful to understand the broad topics of 9/11. Not even you can put a dent in his work with real facts to back up you claims. Come on rip up his work, it is published and ready for your critique. Yet you can not touch it. You are a real cd fraud because you have failed to present any facts to support they ideas you have on 9/11. Gravy has already published his work, you are so good you missed it. Good job real man.

 

[Gravy]

I would be willing to debate you anytime in a fair format, which this forum and Ronald Wieck's show are not.

Name your debate format then.

By the way, what is unfair about this forum or Hardfire? You can either back up your claims or you can't. Quite simple, really.

So name your format.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You can not be a shill if you know it. Darn, you mess up facts all to often.

What would you debate? There is no real cd deal around the WTC. No explosive blasts, no explosive sounds and no extra energy needed to do what happen on 9/11.

You have no facts, no evidence, and no real conclusions can be made. So what would you debate. Please point to your paper on how the WTC fell, or 9/11, or anything you think you have. I do not remember anything you have presented of merit to add to 9/11.

Gravy has passed a peer review, I have not found a single person who does not think he has provided real information useful to understand the broad topics of 9/11. Not even you can put a dent in his work with real facts to back up you claims. Come on rip up his work, it is published and ready for your critique. Yet you can not touch it. You are a real cd fraud because you have failed to present any facts to support they ideas you have on 9/11. Gravy has already published his work, you are so good you missed it. Good job real man.

I have written papers on the collapses of the twin towers that are published and on the Journal of 911 Studies, your favorite whipping post. Gravy knows who I am but swore not to divulge my identity if I proved I was an engineer in an e-mail, for which he provided his address on this forum.

Why don't you point me to one of Gravy's peer reviewed papers and I will critique it to start the ball rolling. How is that? I'll even tell you who I am when I write the critique. You may guess before that though with the hints I have given you in many of these posts.

 

[CHF]

I have written papers on the collapses of the twin towers that are published and on the Journal of 911 Studies, your favorite whipping post.

You plan on submitting your papers to a real journal? You know...like an engineering journal? One that people actually give a toss about?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Name your debate format then.

By the way, what is unfair about this forum or Hardfire? You can either back up your claims or you can't. Quite simple, really.

So name your format.

I did. Written letters/papers. That's it take it or leave it. That is the only real acceptable way for scientific debate to take place.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You plan on submitting your papers to a real journal? You know...like an engineering journal? One that people actually give a toss about?

And what makes you qualified to be the judge of what is or isn't a REAL JOURNAL? How would you know what journals people give a toss about?