• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

So, realcddeal has vehemently insisted, from August until a few hours ago, that he will not debate the details of his paper with me on this forum.

And now he's here debating those details with others.

9/11 deniers are fascinating. Absolutely fascinating.
 
GreNME said:
That's a poor analogy. Any time a conspiracy theorist makes a CT claim on this forum, they get dogpiled by no less than a half-dozen people right off the bat. I'm not talking about whether their claims are right or wrong. The reality is that the views toward conspiracy theory talking points are heavily biased toward "against" in this forum, and because of that it is not unreasonable to consider this forum any less "hostile" (in the way I described) that perhaps the LC forums are to people from JREF who post there, or the manner in which Gravy presumes his papers would be received by the 9/11 Journal reviewers. This is a difference of outlook, approach, and conclusion. I'm not including the name-calling and other aggressive behaviors.
Just as an aside, and I've said it before, we do tend to be unduly aggressive a lot of the time - Mackay, Doc, and others aside. We could do worse than to follow the BAUT example a bit more...

:boxedin:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Gravy said:
So, realcddeal has vehemently insisted, from August until a few hours ago, that he will not debate the details of his paper with me on this forum.

And now he's here debating those details with others.

9/11 deniers are fascinating. Absolutely fascinating.
Click to expand...

And you are apparently a weasel who won't debate outside the confines of his cozy little home, without the comfort of his energy draining friends.

You declined the debate weasel.

Keep it civil here please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WildCat said:
You keep saying this, who has ever claimed a jet fuel fireball (magical or otherwise) shot down anything?
Click to expand...

Have you read Gravy's paper?

"Like other 9/11 conspiracists Rodriguez has no evidence to support, nor will he take the time to research, his own claims. The keystone–nearly the only stone–of his argument is that the explosion he heard in the basement could not have been caused by jet fuel in the elevator shafts."
Click to expand...

According to Gravy, since Rodriguez is a liar and a denialist, then of course it must have been jet fuel in the elevator shafts which caused the explosion he heard. There are no other options.

In fact, the entire premise of the paper is that witness accounts, the smell of fuel, etc "proves" that it was in fact jet fuel which caused the fireball witnessed in the elevator shaft.

On at least two other threads I explained in detail why the timeframe is much too long for this to be true and only a magic, jet fuel fireball would have survived the impact, penetrated the one available elevator shaft, resisted absorption, obstruction and ignition for 80 or so floors, while two rescue operations take place. Kerosene isn't napalm.

Forgive my skepticism towards Gravy's paper.
 
RedIbis,
I believe that this is something you are currently discussing in another thread, so should not be derailing this one.
 
chillzero said:
RedIbis,
I believe that this is something you are currently discussing in another thread, so should not be derailing this one.
Click to expand...

My apologies. I was asked a direct question and since my response was related to Roberts' paper, I figured I'd respond. I do respect the need to keep threads on specific topics, but it is my second cup of coffee, and you know how that goes...
 
RedIbis said:
On at least two other threads I explained in detail why the timeframe is much too long for this to be true and only a magic, jet fuel fireball would have survived the impact, penetrated the one available elevator shaft, resisted absorption, obstruction and ignition for 80 or so floors, while two rescue operations take place. Kerosene isn't napalm.
Click to expand...

Do you think explosive charges create billowing fireballs?

Have you ever fired a rifle or detonated a string of firecrackers?
 
The topic for this thread is peer reviewing of various approaches to 911 research and discussion. It has had many posts moved to a new thread as off topic. Please keep the thread on topic now.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
realcddeal you never answered my question...can you direct me to ONE factual error in any of Mark's papers? You obviously have a problem with them so I assume that you have some sort of evidence to back this up correct?
 
Quad4_72 said:
realcddeal you never answered my question...can you direct me to ONE factual error in any of Mark's papers? You obviously have a problem with them so I assume that you have some sort of evidence to back this up correct?
Click to expand...

You are assuming something and you know what can happen there. I never made any reference to whether or not Roberts' papers contained errors.

The subject of this thread was whether or not the work of Mark Roberts, someone who complains very loudly about the peer review process of the Journal of 911 Studies, is peer reviewed itself.

The answer is that it is apparently not.
 
realcddeal said:
You are assuming something and you know what can happen there. I never made any reference to whether or not Roberts' papers contained errors.
Click to expand...

seeing as youre mkaing an issue of his papers, then you may best point out what the errors are.

The subject of this thread was whether or not the work of Mark Roberts, someone who complains very loudly about the peer review process of the Journal of 911 Studies, is peer reviewed itself.
Click to expand...

the problem here, is he has never claimed that his papers are or ever peer reviewed.

Unlike you, who have calimed your papers are "peer reviewed" but, only by those associated with JONES, and we have come to find out , that you are on the "peer" review panel of JONES>

If you can't see anything wrong with this, then you are unfamiliar to peer review as you are to facts.
 
Arus808 said:
seeing as youre mkaing an issue of his papers, then you may best point out what the errors are.



the problem here, is he has never claimed that his papers are or ever peer reviewed.

Unlike you, who have calimed your papers are "peer reviewed" but, only by those associated with JONES, and we have come to find out , that you are on the "peer" review panel of JONES>

If you can't see anything wrong with this, then you are unfamiliar to peer review as you are to facts.
Click to expand...


There are people from many walks of life and even different countries who have thus far contributed to the Journal of 911 Studies. To say they are all just associates of Dr. Jones is not accurate.

Many reviewers are also contributors on different journals. The rule is that you can't review your own papers. I don't review my own papers and the review is blind. The author only gets the comments not the identity of the reviewers. I am one of a fairly large number of people who do review papers for the Journal of 911 Studies.

It sounds like you are a little annoyed that I pointed out that Roberts, who complains very loudly about the peer review process at the Journal of 911 Studies, who probably doesn't have any experience with the process, and whose work on 911 is not peer reviewed, lives in a glass house.
 
Last edited:
RCDD - if the "Journal" of 911 Studies isn't peer reviewed properly, it isn't a journal, and it's dishonest to present it as such. That's a simple fact. Stop carping.
 
volatile said:
RCDD - if the "Journal" of 911 Studies isn't peer reviewed properly, it isn't a journal, and it's dishonest to present it as such. That's a simple fact. Stop carping.
Click to expand...

Papers which appear on the Journal of 911 Studies are peer reviewed. I have personally reviewed some of them.

You have no facts. In fact, it appears that you are the one carping.
 
realcddeal said:
Papers which appear on the Journal of 911 Studies are peer reviewed. I have personally reviewed some of them.

You have no facts. In fact, it appears that you are the one carping.
Click to expand...

The problem is that they are trying to pass them off as SCIENTIFICALLY peer reviewed. The sooner you comprehend this the better.
 
Quad4_72 said:
The problem is that they are trying to pass them off as SCIENTIFICALLY peer reviewed. The sooner you comprehend this the better.
Click to expand...

I am a degreed mechanical engineer with over 30 years of experience. Now what would you call it when I review a scientific paper for scientific accuracy and logic?

You aren't making sense. I am not the one who needs to comprehend anything here. Come back when you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom