Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

[Gravy]

Was that an attempt at wit?

Actually, a very big part of my job, and one I enjoy a lot, is debunking myths about New York City. The myths are almost always more fun than reality, though.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

9/11myths.com isn't a journal, Tony.

Explain why you won't defend your work right here, dealing with me directly. Come on, lots of people are reading this. Explain it.

I have told you before that a fast moving forum is no place to publish a letter. 911myths.com would have been a compromise and it was a drop in standards. It sounds like that isn't enough for you.

Instead of continuing to post here why don't you put that energy into your critique of my paper. I am waiting.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Well, I'll be a flatworm's anus.

But, I guess now that we know you have been "peer reviewed", that settles realcddeals's question.

That was one paper and he didn't sound too sure about the peer review part. Was your WTC7 paper peer reviewed Mark and by what organization?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That's exactly what I agreed to, and you refused.

What a sad person you are.

No, you want it put on a forum. That isn't publishing.

I am tempted to use common insults against you also but I have refrained. What is sad is that you insist on doing so.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I am tempted to use common insults against you also but I have refrained. What is sad is that you insist on doing so.

If that is the case, why do you resort to insulting yourself with every post? Displayed mostly in your opening post of this thread, which looks incredibly, if I may be so bold, as a classic trolling of a forum.

Frustrating few days has it been Tony?

 

[Hyperviolet]

No, you want it put on a forum. That isn't publishing.

I am tempted to use common insults against you also but I have refrained. What is sad is that you insist on doing so.

RealCdDeal, i am mystified.
You wanted this confrontation to take place simply in writing.
Why, specifically, do you require it to be published on a website/journal?

There can be a thread allocated for your dispute, one in which only you and Mark shall post. It will be in writing, it will be recorded. You can link it on other forums, or screenshot it, should you require it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Seeing how you have never reviewed his other work, i.e, clearing up the mess a handful of conspiracy theorists feel the need to tip all over the streets of rationality, I find CTers often resort to finding something comical of a man who knows the history of his city and passes on his knowledge to others.

Mark Roberts is the one who cast aspersions on my work, with no basis, not the other way around. I am simply asking him to do it formally in a published letter which will allow me to reply formally.

This thread is actually the only thing I have said about Roberts' work to date and as you can see that is only to ask who reviews his work, as he often attempts to belittle, with no basis of course, the Journal of 911 Studies peer review system.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

RealCdDeal, i am mystified.
You wanted this confrontation to take place simply in writing.
Why, specifically, do you require it to be published on a website/journal?

There can be a thread allocated for your dispute, one in which only you and Mark shall post. It will be in writing, it will be recorded. You can link it on other forums, or screenshot it, should you require it.

If it can be guaranteed that only Mark Roberts and I are allowed to post in letter form then that could work.

Somehow I don't believe that the forum allows for that. If the forum moderators would guarantee it I would consider it.

You must realize that it would more than likely be a free for all and nobody has the energy to answer any and all comers. C'mon get fair about it.

Publishing letters at a site like 911myths.com can work and one has to wonder about Mark's refusal to do that.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That's exactly what I agreed to, and you refused.

Mark, since you have published in the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and I have published in the Journal of 911 Studies then I believe the only fair way to debate the issue formally is to publish your critique of my paper and my reply in both Journals.

I did not know that you had a paper in the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories until now.

If you refuse to do this then, in light of your so far unsubstantiated attacks on me, one would have to review your credibility.

 

[Hyperviolet]

If it can be guaranteed that only Mark Roberts and I are allowed to post in letter form then that could work.

Somehow I don't believe that the forum allows for that. If the forum moderators would guarantee it I would consider it.

You must realize that it would more than likely be a free for all and nobody has the energy to answer any and all comers. C'mon get fair about it.

Publishing letters at a site like 911myths.com can work and one has to wonder about Mark's refusal to do that.

Gravy is a well-respected member here at JREF.
Should he request that the thread be left vacated from other members to avoid clutter, then i'm positive people here would do just that.

Moreover, the moderators here at JREF are quite obliging and i don't think they would object to keeping a little eye on the thread so that it stays on topic (that is, a dispute specifcally between you and Mark).

Should that be arranged (and Gravy agrees, of course), would you be willing to participate in such a format?

 

[Myriad]

Publishing letters at a site like 911myths.com can work and one has to wonder about Mark's refusal to do that.

Where did he say publishing letters at 911myths.com wouldn't be acceptable to him? I read his posts as expressing surprise that you consider that an acceptable option, having earlier insisted that the publisher must be a "journal."

The relevant question there is whether publishing such letters would be acceptable for 911myths.com. That is not a debate site. It has no obligation, and may or may not have any inclination, to publish debates or "opposing points of view."

If it can be guaranteed that only Mark Roberts and I are allowed to post in letter form then that could work.

Somehow I don't believe that the forum allows for that. If the forum moderators would guarantee it I would consider it.

You must realize that it would more than likely be a free for all and nobody has the energy to answer any and all comers. C'mon get fair about it.

The forum does allow for that. Request a moderated thread.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Gravy, is a well-respected member here at JREF.
Should he request that the thread be left vacated from other members to avoid clutter, then i'm positive people here would do just that.

Moreover, the moderators here at JREF are quite obliging and i don't think they would object to keeping a little eye on the thread so that it stays on topic (that is, a dispute specifcally between you and Mark).

Should that be arranged (and Gravy agrees, of course), would you be willing to particpate in such a format?

After discovering, just today, that Mark Roberts has a published paper at the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories it is only right that he publish any critique of my work there with my response being published there also. To be fair to both sides of the argument, his critique and my response should be published in the Journal of 911 Studies also. Those two places are where a scientific debate should take place. Not on a forum.

This is now my final offer and it seems fair to both sides. Everyone here can go to either of those sites and comment here after his critique and my reply are published.

 

[Hyperviolet]

After discovering that Mark Roberts has a published paper at the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories it is only right that he publish any critique of my work there with my response being published there also. To be fair to both sides of the argument, his critique and my response should be published in the Journal of 911 Studies also. Those two places are where a scientific debate should take place. Not on a forum.

This is now my final offer and it seems fair to both sides. Everyone here can go to either of those sites and comment here after his critique and my reply are published.

RealCdDeal,
Again, i am baffled.

When you said:

I am simply saying that it must be a letter in writing, to which I will reply.

Did you mean it? That is, all you require is the dispute in writing, and something you can respond to?
The JREF can accomodate your requests.

What is the problem?

 

[Gravy]

That was one paper and he didn't sound too sure about the peer review part. Was your WTC7 paper peer reviewed Mark and by what organization?

I have never submitted any paper to any journal. If someone says they've peer reviewed something I've written, that's their claim, not mine.

On the other hand, you staunchly defend the Journal of 9/11 Stundies peer review process, and you claim to be a peer reviewer for them. Yet when I raised these simple issues about your paper and their review, you were completely unable to defend them. Remember? It was in the thread titled "Peer Review."

Originally Posted by realcddeal
He [Tony Szamboti, in his JONES paper]approximates the perimeter column factor of safety as 5.00 for gravity loads only. He shows backup for that in his references.

No, Szamboti shows how he makes up that safety factor: by assuming that the columns at the impact floors would have the same factor of safety for gravity loads that he calculated for columns at the base of the building. Perhaps they do, but Szamboti makes no attempt to justify this assumption or to calculate the actual gravity load safety factor of the perimeter columns in the impact floors (not that that has much to do with why the towers collapsed anyway). I wonder how that passed peer review.

Strangely, Szamboti interchanges the words column and beam throughout his paper. I wonder how that passed peer review.

Standard design practice dictates that the beams in the upper part of the building would have had the same factor of safety as the beams at the base of the towers. So knowing the design of the columns at their base, the total gravity load of the buildings, and the percentage of damaged beams, we have deduced what the remaining factor of safety was for the beams at the aircraft impact and fire sites.

And what does this hilariously wrong "gas and oil pipeline" nonsense have to do with an engineering analysis of the twin towers?

One may wonder who would want people in Afghanistan and Iraq to be blamed if they didn’t do it. A good hard look at the soon to be built U.S. oil company controlled gas and oil pipeline in Afghanistan, and the privatization of Iraq’s oilfields to U.S. oil companies, might be a start at solving that puzzle for oneself. Neither of these situations would have been possible, without the support of the American people, for the use of the U.S. military, to overthrow the previous governments of these countries.

I wonder how that passed peer review.

Oh, and here's Szamboti's entire analysis of WTC 7:

The obvious controlled demolition of WTC7, at 5:20 PM on Sept. 11, 2001, proves that charges were pre-positioned in it, as there would not have been time to rig the building that day, especially with fires in it. With this in mind, the demolition of WTC7 lends considerable weight to the notion that charges could also have been pre-positioned in the twin towers.

See? WTC 7 was obviously blown up, so the towers must have been also!

What a moron.

Anyway, realcddeal, if you're up for defending Szamboti's paper, let me know. I'll start the thread.

I have demonstrated that you cannot explain how these statements of yours could have passed peer review in a reputable journal. If you can do so here, I'll go right ahead and write my letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

 

[chillzero]

If it can be guaranteed that only Mark Roberts and I are allowed to post in letter form then that could work.

Somehow I don't believe that the forum allows for that. If the forum moderators would guarantee it I would consider it.

You must realize that it would more than likely be a free for all and nobody has the energy to answer any and all comers. C'mon get fair about it.

Publishing letters at a site like 911myths.com can work and one has to wonder about Mark's refusal to do that.

Absolutely we can accommodate that. In fact, I would have stepped in to suggest this earlier had I noticed the thread.

I can set up a moderated thread, and ensure that the mod team know that only you and Gravy are allowed to post in it. We can also consider some rules if you wish. For example, how one of you is unable to respond until the other one has made their response. There would be one post by you, then one by Gravy, then one by you... and so on.

You will need to bear in mind that there may be batches of time when no moderator is available, causing a slight delay in approving posts.

 

[Hyperviolet]

Absolutely we can accommodate that. In fact, I would have stepped in to suggest this earlier had I noticed the thread.

I can set up a moderated thread, and ensure that the mod team know that only you and Gravy are allowed to post in it. We can also consider some rules if you wish. For example, how one of you is unable to respond until the other one has made their response. There would be one post by you, then one by Gravy, then one by you... and so on.

You will need to bear in mind that there may be batches of time when no moderator is available, causing a slight delay in approving posts.

There you have it, RealCdDeal.
Chillzero, as i expected, has given you her word that this can be set-up exactly as specified.

In writing. Moderated. And you can reply.
The criteria you required has been fulfilled.

 

[Gravy]

There you have it, RealCdDeal.
Chillzero, as i expected, has given you her word that this can be set-up exactly as specified.

In writing. Moderated. And you can reply.
The criteria you required has been fulfilled.

He's going to have to answer the old questions in my post 134 if I'm going to spend any more time on him. If he can't explain these simple things, he's just an irrational waste of time.

By the way, it's my understanding (from Darat?) that one-on-one moderated threads are not encouraged here, since it's a discussion forum for all.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I have never submitted any paper to any journal. If someone says they've peer reviewed something I've written, that's their claim, not mine.

On the other hand, you staunchly defend the Journal of 9/11 Stundies peer review process, and you claim to be a peer reviewer for them. Yet when I raised these simple issues about your paper and their review, you were completely unable to defend them. Remember? It was in the thread titled "Peer Review."



I have demonstrated that you cannot explain how these statements of yours could have passed peer review in a reputable journal. If you can do so here, I'll go right ahead and write my letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Based on what you are saying it is obvious that you are not in any position whatsoever to determine what is and isn't a reputable journal and you are refusing to write a letter of critique. You appear to choose a fast moving forum for debating as it fits your style. Sorry forums aren't the place for genuine critiques.

The entire reason for scientific debate taking place in letter form is so the authors can generate thoughtful responses. This is not possible on a fast moving forum with anyone being able to chime in.

You are apparently refusing to debate me in the accepted scientific way! This is why you should have no credibility when making comments about those who have written papers with which you don't agree. So long Mark.

 

[chillzero]

The entire reason for scientific debate taking place in letter form is so the authors can generate thoughtful responses. This is not possible on a fast moving forum with anyone being able to chime in.

This point is redundant, as I have already agreed to accommodate a one-on-one debate for you both.

 

[Myriad]

There you have it, RealCdDeal.
Chillzero, as i expected, has given you her word that this can be set-up exactly as specified.

In writing. Moderated. And you can reply.
The criteria you required has been fulfilled.

Except that moments after I posted informing him that was a viable option, RealCdDeal changed his requirements:

After discovering, just today, that Mark Roberts has a published paper at the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories it is only right that he publish any critique of my work there with my response being published there also. To be fair to both sides of the argument, his critique and my response should be published in the Journal of 911 Studies also. Those two places are where a scientific debate should take place. Not on a forum.

This is now my final offer and it seems fair to both sides. Everyone here can go to either of those sites and comment here after his critique and my reply are published.

(emphasis added)

Altered terms noted.

Evasion noted.

Desperate ploy to legitimize J911S by establishing the future claim "Mark Roberts agreed to debate in its pages" noted.

Waste of time by all those including Mark who honestly attempted to meet the requirements for an open honest debate, when RealCdDeal's only apparent motivation is to use Mark Roberts' name and reputation to legitimize J911S as mentioned above, noted.

Respectfully,
Myriad