Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

[Quad4_72]

Here's a sample of the howlingly incompetent work that was reviewed and judged acceptable by Tony Szamboti. Clearly no other reviewers were involved. There can't be more than one person who would find this work acceptable at any level.

Wow. That is absolutely ATROCIOUS work. Ok realcddeal your peer review privileges have officially been revoked. What were you doing for your 30 years of experience? Designing sophisticated structures with Legos? Or building SUPER COOL sand castles? NO, you are not allowed to peer review anything, not even my 3 page paper that I made about turtles back in 6th grade.

Scientific peer review does not consist of one person with a degree terribly reading through a paper and then saying its good to go. Scientific peer review is submitting your work to an accredited scientific journal where a panel of NUMEROUS scientists and engineers then review it and make corrections. I am appalled by the lack of competence and knowledge someone with supposedly 30 years of experience is portraying.

 

[Crungy]

Wow. That is absolutely ATROCIOUS work. Ok realcddeal your peer review privileges have officially been revoked. What were you doing for your 30 years of experience? Designing sophisticated structures with Legos? Or building SUPER COOL sand castles? NO, you are not allowed to peer review anything, not even my 3 page paper that I made about turtles back in 6th grade.

Scientific peer review does not consist of one person with a degree terribly reading through a paper and then saying its good to go. Scientific peer review is submitting your work to an accredited scientific journal where a panel of NUMEROUS scientists and engineers then review it and make corrections. I am appalled by the lack of competence and knowledge someone with supposedly 30 years of experience is portraying.

As another mechanical engineer, one professionally liscensed, with fifteen years experience in building design, including skscrapers, I'm baffled that Tony doesn't submitt his paper to the professional trade journals. If I wrote, what I felt was a scientific engineering paper of such critical and urgent importance, the professional engineering societies and associated journals would be the first and only place that I would submit my paper to, not some crackpot website. Why doesn't Tony submit to those societies and journals? Wouldn't want any of the nations leading structural engineers to critique your woo, would you Anthony? Every structural engineer I know has more respect for someone who believes in the tooth fairy, then a 9/11 nutter.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Here's a sample of the howlingly incompetent work that was reviewed and judged acceptable by Tony Szamboti. Clearly no other reviewers were involved. There can't be more than one person who would find this work acceptable at any level.

I already answered your silly questions here, but since you insist I will answer them once again.

One was semantic and non-technical, concerning the use of the words beams vs. columns. Although I never called a column a beam but sometimes referred to the steel as beams, and the intent was structural member, it was better to refer to the horizontal members as beams. Nobody with any engineering knowledge would have misinterpreted that and only someone with limited knowledge would. I did actually change this so people like you wouldn't get confused.

Another showed your understanding of engineering was somewhat primitive and I am surprised you had the nerve to bring it up. That was concerning whether or not the factor of safety was the same in the aircraft impact areas as it would have been at the base of the building level. There is a minimum required and that is what I used. For the central core that would be 1.67.

Finally, you complain that I discuss the obvious controlled demolition of Bldg. 7. I have never met anyone who has seen that collapse call it anything but. I also told you via e-mail that I watched Larry Silverstein use the actual words "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a History Channel show called History's Business in late 2002, so I absolutely know I am right about that and none of yours or Popular mechanics non-engineering editors can say different. I tried to get a copy of that show when I realized 911 wasn't what we were told it was last year, and the History Channel told me that series is not publicly available. Interesting. No need to be suspicious though as you will simply say Bldg. 7 wasn't a controlled demolition.

Your logic does stink a little bit there Mark and it seems that you are disingenuous and your efforts are simply to discredit anyone questioning the story we have been given concerning the events of 911. In fact, since the current official story of what occurred on 911 stinks to high heaven I am thinking of renaming you and your ilk "reskunkers" in lieu of "debunkers". This is in keeping with your attempt to ridicule the Journal of 911 Studies with your monthly Stundie nominations. Just think there could be a "reskunker" nomination once a month, and we will get to vote on who tried to prop up the stinky story the most.

 

[T.A.M.]

I also told you via e-mail that I watched Larry Silverstein use the actual words "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a History Channel show called History's Business in late 2002, so I absolutely know I am right about that and none of yours or Popular mechanics non-engineering editors can say different.

Interesting? Who produced it? Who directed it? These would be people to contact to ask them if this was the case...they would have access no doubt, why not start there to confirm your comment.

TAM

 

[LashL]

<snip> I watched Larry Silverstein use the actual words "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a History Channel show called History's Business in late 2002, so I absolutely know I am right about that and none of yours or Popular mechanics non-engineering editors can say different. I tried to get a copy of that show when I realized 911 wasn't what we were told it was last year, and the History Channel told me that series is not publicly available.

Christophera? Is that you?

EDIT TO ADD: Seriously, Tony, if you believe that, what are you doing posting about it on an internet forum? Write down all the details that you recall, make several copies, take them to top investigative journalists, television news departments, the police, the D.A, and the F.B.I. and crack open the conspiracy, already!

 

[Quad4_72]

I also told you via e-mail that I watched Larry Silverstein use the actual words "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a History Channel show called History's Business in late 2002, so I absolutely know I am right about that and none of yours or Popular mechanics non-engineering editors can say different.

STUNDIE NOMINATION.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Wow. That is absolutely ATROCIOUS work. Ok realcddeal your peer review privileges have officially been revoked. What were you doing for your 30 years of experience? Designing sophisticated structures with Legos? Or building SUPER COOL sand castles? NO, you are not allowed to peer review anything, not even my 3 page paper that I made about turtles back in 6th grade.

Scientific peer review does not consist of one person with a degree terribly reading through a paper and then saying its good to go. Scientific peer review is submitting your work to an accredited scientific journal where a panel of NUMEROUS scientists and engineers then review it and make corrections. I am appalled by the lack of competence and knowledge someone with supposedly 30 years of experience is portraying.

Excuse me, but did you actually say anything here?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

As another mechanical engineer, one professionally liscensed, with fifteen years experience in building design, including skscrapers, I'm baffled that Tony doesn't submitt his paper to the professional trade journals. If I wrote, what I felt was a scientific engineering paper of such critical and urgent importance, the professional engineering societies and associated journals would be the first and only place that I would submit my paper to, not some crackpot website. Why doesn't Tony submit to those societies and journals? Wouldn't want any of the nations leading structural engineers to critique your woo, would you Anthony? Every structural engineer I know has more respect for someone who believes in the tooth fairy, then a 9/11 nutter.

Crungy, have you ever written any papers?

 

[Quad4_72]

Excuse me, but did you actually say anything here?

Why yes I did actually. Let me break it down point by point:

1. You are not allowed to peer review ANYTHING.
2. Your experience is completely meaningless. (Your post #343 proves this).
3. One person does not equal scientific peer review.
4. And finally, I am appalled by your lack of knowledge.

Did that make it easier for you? By the way your post #343 is probably one of the most hilarious posts I have ever read. Apparently the History Channel is now in on the conspiracy. We need to introduce you to Stundie. You guys would be the best of pals. You know what, I am putting that in my signature. That is just CF comedic GOLD.

 

[T.A.M.]

As another mechanical engineer, one professionally liscensed, with fifteen years experience in building design, including skscrapers, I'm baffled that Tony doesn't submitt his paper to the professional trade journals. If I wrote, what I felt was a scientific engineering paper of such critical and urgent importance, the professional engineering societies and associated journals would be the first and only place that I would submit my paper to, not some crackpot website. Why doesn't Tony submit to those societies and journals? Wouldn't want any of the nations leading structural engineers to critique your woo, would you Anthony? Every structural engineer I know has more respect for someone who believes in the tooth fairy, then a 9/11 nutter.

Exactly. Same question goes for S.Jones, and any other truther "scientist" or "engineer".

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Why yes I did actually. Let me break it down point by point:

1. You are not allowed to peer review ANYTHING.
2. Your experience is completely meaningless. (Your post #343 proves this).
3. One person does not equal scientific peer review.
4. And finally, I am appalled by your lack of knowledge.

Did that make it easier for you? By the way your post #343 is probably one of the most hilarious posts I have ever read. Apparently the History Channel is now in on the conspiracy. We need to introduce you to Stundie. You guys would be the best of pals. You know what, I am putting that in my signature. That is just CF comedic GOLD.

Actually, in some case one peer reviewer is all that is provided, but this is an exception, and is not considered very rigorous (to say the least) in terms of peer review.

As well, a true PEER REVIEW of his article, would be by at least one Engineer who is an EXPERT in the field that the article addresses.

TAM

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Exactly. Same question goes for S.Jones, and any other truther "scientist" or "engineer".

TAM

TAM, the hilarity with some of these comments is that they are probably coming from people who have never even written a paper let alone peer reviewed anything.

Most of these guys here have no credibility unless they are willing to prove who they are and show what they have done.

Roberts at least is known and we know what he has done. At least in terms of 911. He won't say what he has done in the past and what his background other than a tour guide is yet. One thing I would believe he hasn't done is been part of anybody's peer review process. He just likes to complain about others, without the requisite expertise.

 

[Calcas]

Finally, you complain that I discuss the obvious controlled demolition of Bldg. 7. I have never met anyone who has seen that collapse call it anything but.

You have NEVER met anyone who saw the collapse of bldg 7 call it anything other than a CD? Really?

This must be either a very sick joke or you have somehow managed to insulate yourself in a cocoon.

 

[Crungy]

Crungy, have you ever written any papers?

No, but some of my co-workers have. They submit to real journals reviewed by real engineers. They also design real buildings and bridges. Oh, you and your woo ilk have provided great amusement for the design and contruction community in Chicago. Keep up the paranoid nuttery. We enjoy emailing the woo links and laughing ourselves silly.

Tony, you do want the nations best engineers reviewing your work, don't you? Don't you?!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You have NEVER met anyone who saw the collapse of bldg 7 call it anything other than a CD? Really?

This must be either a very sick joke or you have somehow managed to insulate yourself in a cocoon.

That is right, everyone I have ever talked to about Bldg. 7 and who has seen video of it's collapse says it was a controlled blast or demolition. Many of these people are in the aerospace industry in which I work and they are generally highly educated.

Why don't you tell me how you think Bldg. 7 collapsed Mr. Wizard?

 

[Quad4_72]

Actually, in some case one peer reviewer is all that is provided, but this is an exception, and is not considered very rigorous (to say the least) in terms of peer review.

As well, a true PEER REVIEW of his article, would be by at least one Engineer who is an EXPERT in the field that the article addresses.

TAM

For credibility and bias purposes, I will take a panel over a single person anyday.

 

[DGM]

No, but some of my co-workers have. They submit to real journals reviewed by real engineers. They also design real buildings and bridges. Oh, you and your woo ilk have provided great amusement for the design and contruction community in Chicago. Keep up the paranoid nuttery. We enjoy emailing the woo links and laughing ourselves silly.

Tony, you do want the nations best engineers reviewing your work, don't you? Don't you?!

That goes for the construction crowd also. Fire doesn't weaken steel always gets a good laugh going.

 

[Quad4_72]

Why don't you tell me how you think Bldg. 7 collapsed Mr. Wizard?

The same way everyone else thinks who does not spout woo. Damage and fire.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No, but some of my co-workers have. They submit to real journals reviewed by real engineers. They also design real buildings and bridges. Oh, you and your woo ilk have provided great amusement for the design and contruction community in Chicago. Keep up the paranoid nuttery. We enjoy emailing the woo links and laughing ourselves silly.

Tony, you do want the nations best engineers reviewing your work, don't you? Don't you?!

You shouldn't be talking the way you are if you haven't written a paper and had it submitted to peer review yourself.

You know damn right well that this is a controversial subject and the journals are staying away from it right now, out of fear of reprisal. There may come a time when it is politically acceptable to publish on it.

 

[Crungy]

That is right, everyone I have ever talked to about Bldg. 7 and who has seen video of it's collapse says it was a controlled blast or demolition. Many of these people are in the aerospace industry in which I work and they are generally highly educated.

Why don't you tell me how you think Bldg. 7 collapsed Mr. Wizard?

Every structural engineer I know believes that it was a combination of the structual damage inflicted by the WTC tower collapse and the fires.

If your coworkers believe that it was CD, why aren't they hopping made and writing a paper to ASCE? If I was a structural engineer and felt that way I sure as hell would, as I know every friggin' structural engineer I work with would do likewise.