Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

realcddeal said:
Not at all. I am simply saying that it must be a letter in writing, to which I will reply. That is the appropriate way to settle differences of opinion on matters concerning a written paper. It can be put on Debunking911.com or a similar site, which will publish the letters, for that matter.
Click to expand...
I do hope you bring some new material to the table, because everything you've ever claimed here has been laughable. So have you been holding out on us realcddeal? What is your latest smoking gun?
 
This thread is a joke right?


Because it has me in stitches.


Aside from that, seriously RealCDDeal...are you unaware of the definition of "Peer Review" or you going by the Truth Movement standards?

Just in case you need a real world definition, here you go:

"The peer review process aims to make authors meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general." - Wikipedia (Source)

As far as I am aware, Mark's work is made up of a collection of sources which is provided on his site. As the challenge has been issued before, why don't you point out the inaccuracies in any of Mark's work.
 
when is tony going to submit his work to a reputable journal? you know since he wants to talk about controlled demoltions, shouldn't he sumbit his work to structural engineers, controlled demolitionists and explosive experts?
 
Arus808 said:
when is tony going to submit his work to a reputable journal? you know since he wants to talk about controlled demoltions, shouldn't he sumbit his work to structural engineers, controlled demolitionists and explosive experts?
Click to expand...

He certainly should, and Tony knows it.

This might explain why he gets so pissy when someone points out the fact that his "peer-review" is a complete sham.
 
Last edited:
I tell you what, lets find someone who is an expert on "data and information collection and synthesis", and ask them to review Mark's Work, and in the bargain, Tony can submit his work to a REAL, ON PAPER, LEGITIMATE ENGINEERING JOURNAL, for their consideration of his scientific analysis of the collapses.

sounds fair...and both would be true "Peer Review" would they not??

TAM:)
 
You must realize that sourcing alone does not constitute accuracy. One can easily use selected sources to support a biased view.
Click to expand...

We know - many of us have seen Loose Change v.1,2,3. We are also well aware of prisonplanet.com, thank you.

BTW, thanks for arguing this point - now you can share it with your Troofer buddies.

And the question still remains...

What did Gravy get wrong? What is inaccurate?
 
realcddeal said:
You must realize that sourcing alone does not constitute accuracy. One can easily use selected sources to support a biased view.
Click to expand...

Sure. I see it happen all the time.

Okay, realdcdeal, I want to make you an offer.

If Gravy agrees, I will be one of the people who will review his writing for accuracy. If I do it, I would like to put in the effort to do a comparison and contrast between one of his papers and one of yours, each of your own choosing. I will perform a complete critical evaluation of not only accuracy, but of logical fallacy usage, misdirection or misrepresentation, contextual placement, open examination of facts and overall integrity of premise. I can, if you wish, even offer possible alternatives for areas where I detect errors or omissions, if I have such a suggestion to offer. So, you not only get a critical review but an honest and frank RFC in order to suggest places where there could be refinement of content in order to better make your point.

Go ahread and read my post history. I'm no fan of conspiracy theories, but I am also equally critical of knee-jerk reactions and poor rhetorical form, of which I have posted about in this forum to some people. If you want impartiality, I can promise you that I will use as objective an approach at critical review as possible, with no set predetermined opinion. This can be done in sections or as a full document for each.

Think about it. To be honest, I'm not sure you are going to get as much of a good-will gesture from those you look at as opposition, and if you think simply having a review of your work by people who agree with you is going to deflect hypocrisy accusations against you, then you'll be inviting worse criticism than many people here are already lobbing at your work (which I haven't seen, I have no clue who you are).

If you are honest about actually wanting to call Gravy on his papers, then you'll do well to take this seriously. I'm willing to do a critical review, but only if you agree to an equal critical review as well. You and Gravy can work out terms that you agree on and I can follow them, provided each are reasonable (for instance, I'm not flying across the country a bunch of times just to make you both happy).

Does this sound reasonable to you?
 
T.A.M. said:
How could I have missed a thread like this, 2 pages long, built on such an asinine premise (That a collector of 9/11 information, a compiler of all things 9/11, should have his work peer reviewed...by who, another encyclopedist)?

Really realcddeal, Red, who would you have critique Mark's work? Encyclopedia Britannica? The Farmer's Almanac?

Mark is not a scientist. He is not an engineer. He is a highly intelligent man with a very critical mind, and an enormous capacity to remember all things 9/11. He is a keen analyst, and superb Bolony Detector.

Your suggestion that his work, a collection facts, statements, and other forms of information, be "peer reviewed" is, well, there is no other way to say this...STUPID!

TAM:)
Click to expand...


Having read Gravy's online works, I have to agree. He is not a scientist, but he is a sceptical and thorough researcher and reporter of what most sane people would regard as verifiable facts. Until proven otherwise (by imperical evidence) the facts, as Gravy has reported them remain unchanged.
 
realcddeal said:
Not at all. I am simply saying that it must be a letter in writing, to which I will reply.
Click to expand...
If you're going to lie, Tony Szamboti, don't do it in writing.

realcddeal said:
Not so fast there Mark. You are the one who is supposed to write a critique of the paper you were chastising and have it published on a Journal. Otherwise there is no basis for the debate. I told you I would then reply with a letter to that Journal. I have no problem with you providing links to or reprinting your critiquing letter and my reply on this forum so long as you get your critique published in a Journal first.

In fact, I might as well tell everyone here I am Tony Szamboti so you have no holds on you. As far as I know, you did keep your word that you would not reveal my identity if I told you who I was, when you asked me to send you an e-mail due to your questioning whether or not I was an engineer.

You need to write your letter Mr. Roberts. What Journal will you submit your letter to?
Click to expand...

Gravy said:
I'll be submitting my letter to you by email, Tony, and will post it here.
Click to expand...

realcddeal said:
You mean you aren't going to submit it to a journal?
Click to expand...
realcddeal said:
I told Mark that I would not debate him on this forum. Just writing a paper and reprinting it here is the same thing.
Click to expand...

Gravy said:
A Journal? How about the American Journal of Enology?

You mean that something is about to happen that will render you incapable of dealing with me directly, as you are now?

Cut the crap, Tony, and leave out the cowardly and incompetent middlemen. This is a debate challenge. Either you agree to defend your paper in direct correspondence with me or you don't. Which is it?
Click to expand...

realcddeal said:
I told you I would not debate the scientific issues with you here any longer, and you are trying to do an end around. I told you to write a letter to a journal critiquing my paper. It can be any journal. However, I believe the only chance your paper, on this subject, has of being published is in the Journal of 911 Studies. Are you afraid you will get cooties if you submit a letter to them?
Click to expand...


Enjoying your time with the Intellectual Cowards Movement, Tony?
 
Last edited:
Just out of curiosity realcddeal, can you direct me to ONE factual error in ANY of Mark's papers?
 
AZCat said:
If peer review was required of all articles "published" on the internet, there would be considerably less content than there is now.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if peer reviewed porn would be a good thing or bad...
 
Last edited:
Quad4_72 said:
Just out of curiosity realcddeal, can you direct me to ONE factual error in ANY of Mark's papers?
Click to expand...

That would required reading them and cross-checking the sources. It's just not the truther way.

Much easier just to make blanket accusations based on inadequate understanding.
 
The OP is an argumentum ad hominem circumstantial. realcddeal, you clearly do not understand what peer review is or when it is to occur; please review this before commenting further. This thread is dead on the starting line.
 
Last edited:
Is there a peer group that hangs down at ground zero yelling at people? I mean there are others who do this...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom