Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

[ref]

I don't know what all the fuss is about. I think there's been tremendous progress in this thread. On page 9, Mr. deal concluded that my work has apparently not been peer reviewed. That's incredibly fast progress, for a Scholar for Truth.

I have to agree. It took him only 2 days and about 62 posts to reach that conclusion.

 

[peteweaver]

If he can progress that fast in two days, just imagine what he'll achieve in two years.

He'll wake up one day and realise that the 'truth' movement is a con, go to a bar, get drunk, and then get on with enjoying a life free from silly black tshirts, and loudhailers.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I cannot believe this is still going on.

Mark Roberts's papers are not peer-reviewed. He has never claimed they are. They do not need to be, either.

More important than peer-review is whether or not a paper is correct. Having said that, papers that go through peer-review and are then found to be in error are a huge embarassment to the reviewers and the publication that endorsed them.

The "Journal" of 9/11 Studies does not practice rigorous peer-review, and this is partly to blame for the fact that virtually every paper they've ever produced is riddled with errors (one or two of the "Space Beam" refutations are probably clean, and I've personally gone over and basically agree with Gregory Urich's paper on the mass of the WTC Towers). Some of them, particularly if you take the "letters" into account, even conflict with each other. Many more have been redacted without notice. None of this is in dispute.

Can we close this thread now, please?

Yes, we can close this thread with just one more comment. To your credit you stated that your paper has not been peer reviewed and we had to conclude that none of Mark Roberts' papers are peer reviewed (when it was brought up he was willing to allow that the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories had peer reviewed even though he admitted not submitting it personally).

Since the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories passes off both yours and Mark Roberts papers as peer reviewed, right above the title on their front page, why have you and Roberts not corrected them?

Why do you two allow your papers to be advertised as peer reviewed when in fact, by your own admission, they are not?

 

[chillzero]

Since the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories passes off both yours and Mark Roberts papers as peer reviewed, right above the title on their front page, why have you and Roberts not corrected them?

Why do you two allow your papers to be advertised as peer reviewed when in fact, by your own admission, they are not?

Have you contacted the Journal and asked them if they submitted them to a peer review process before publishing?

 

[Gravy]

Tony, I took you off ignore to see if you were behaving honestly, and look what I found in the very first post I read:

...we had to conclude that none of Mark Roberts' papers are peer reviewed (when it was brought up he was willing to allow that the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories had peer reviewed even though he admitted not submitting it personally).

Mr. Szamboti, are you lying again, or is your reading comprehension really that bad? Let's take this real slow:

I have never made any representation that any work of mine has been peer reviewed by anyone.

Is that clear, Tony Szamboti? Answer yes or no.

You will be called on your dishonesty every single time here. Get used to it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Realcddeal's memory of the Silverstein comment sounds to me like confabulation. He has a need for such a thing to be true, so, in his mind (trying not to make a snide remark here using quotation marks) it IS true.

Lefty, I have shown you it was a real show and you have no idea what was said on it. Why don't you call the History Channel and see if you can get a copy of the show before you say anything about it? That doesn't take very long and you will see whether or not it is confabulation. It isn't. I did not remember the exact date of the show initially but I know what he said. When I brought it up on another forum someone came up with the link shown here

http://couchville.com/show/history's-business/larry-silverstein

that provided some validation of what I was saying. The show may have even been a rerun when I saw it. The show is real and I can tell you what he said on there about Bldg. 7 at that time. I was not suspicious about 911 at that time and Silverstein's comments settled the puzzlement I had about the complete rapid collapse of Bldg. 7. It wasn't until last spring that I questioned when there would have been a chance to set the charges after reading Dr. Steven Jones' paper where he hypothesizes that there were charges set in the buildings. I did call the History Channel a few months ago and they told me that series is not publicly available. Now you can take that however you want but I found it odd since I thought all of their shows were available on VHS or DVD.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, I took you off ignore to see if you were behaving honestly, and look what I found in the very first post I read:

Mr. Szamboti, are you lying again, or is your reading comprehension really that bad? Let's take this real slow:

I have never made any representation that any work of mine has been peer reviewed by anyone.

Is that clear, Tony Szamboti? Answer yes or no.

You will be called on your dishonesty every single time here. Get used to it.

When it was first brought up, on this forum in the last couple of days, that your work was peer reviewed on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, as proof that it was peer reviewed, you let that pass without correction. All you said was that you didn't send it to them.

Why don't you answer my question of why you allow them to represent your paper as being peer reviewed when you know it is not?

 

[volatile]

Lefty, I have shown you it was a real show and you have no idea what was said on it. Why don't you call the History Channel and see if you can get a copy of the show before you say anything about it? That doesn't take very long and you will see whether or not it is confabulation. It isn't. I did not remember the exact date of the show initially but I know what he said. When I brought it up on another forum someone came up with the link shown here

http://couchville.com/show/history's-business/larry-silverstein

that provided some validation of what I was saying. The show may have even been a rerun when I saw it. The show is real and I can tell you what he said on there about Bldg. 7 at that time. I was not suspicious about 911 at that time and Silverstein's comments settled the puzzlement I had about the complete rapid collapse of Bldg. 7. It wasn't until last spring that I questioned when there would have been a chance to set the charges after reading Dr. Steven Jones' paper where he hypothesizes that there were charges set in the buildings. I did call the History Channel a few months ago and they told me that series is not publicly available. Now you can take that however you want but I found it odd since I thought all of their shows were available on VHS or DVD.

Why are you the only person on the planet who heard him say this? Why did no media outlets report this? Why the hell should we take your word for it - one line from a documentary you don't even remember when you saw, filtered through a fugue of conspiracy ideology 5 years ago?

Quite simply - prove it, or shut up.

-----------

ETA: I just googled ""History's Business" Silverstein" and, surprise surprise, there are only two references to this apparent quote on the entire internet, and ONE OF THEM WAS POSTED BY YOU!

You're making it up.

 

[Gravy]

When it was first brought up, on this forum in the last couple of days, that your work was peer reviewed on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, as proof that it was peer reviewed, you let that pass without correction. All you said was that you didn't send it to them.

That is a lie.

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.

I have repeatedly asked you to stop lying. Is it that you are unwilling, or incapable, of stopping?

 

[WildCat]

At the time I thought him saying "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" made sense as I could never understand its complete rapid collapse from the time I heard about it on the night of Sept. 11, 2001.

This is the claim pd'oh was making... that the firemen went into WTC, which was burning out of control, rigged it with explosives, and then blew it up for safety reasons. You don't see a problem with that scenario?

And you claim Silverstein said this? Let me guess, the NWO made that program disappear like a LCF thread, right?

 

[Quad4_72]

Why is it that you are the ONLY one who saw that show and heard him say that?

Figured I would just quote myself to see if I could get an answer out of good ole realcddeal. Oh and could you also direct me to ONE error in any of Mark's papers since you have such a problem with the peer review process (Which he never claimed to go through in the first place)?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That is a lie.


I have repeatedly asked you to stop lying. Is it that you are unwilling, or incapable, of stopping?

Please show where you said it wasn't peer reviewed when the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories was first brought up, early in this thread, as proof that there was a peer review of your work. You only said you didn't send it to them and did not correct the fact that your paper was not peer reviewed.

Why are you allowing your paper to be represented by the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories as peer reviewed when it is not?

I have to go to work now. We can talk more tonight.

 

[Quad4_72]

This is the claim pd'oh was making... that the firemen went into WTC, which was burning out of control, rigged it with explosives, and then blew it up for safety reasons. You don't see a problem with that scenario?

And you claim Silverstein said this? Let me guess, the NWO made that program disappear like a LCF thread, right?

Actually I believe he also endorses this theory:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3054359&postcount=134

"Quote:
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."

 

[tsig]

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.

Yes it was. Every NYC tour guide who has read the paper agrees with Mark.

 

[Shrinker]

Is this the smoking gun? Mark Roberts allegedly didn't correct some guy's assumption that he endorsed some website's claim that a debunking article was peer reviewed? Gee, somebody call the UN.

 

[timhau]

Is this the smoking gun? Mark Roberts allegedly didn't correct some guy's assumption that he endorsed some website's claim that a debunking article was peer reviewed? Gee, somebody call the UN.

Yes. And from that, it logically follows that 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[chillzero]

Please show where you said it wasn't peer reviewed when the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories was first brought up, early in this thread, as proof that there was a peer review of your work. You only said you didn't send it to them and did not correct the fact that your paper was not peer reviewed.

...and he has never claimed anything other than that. The claim that the paper is peer reviewed comes from JOD911CT, not Mark.

Why are you allowing your paper to be represented by the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories as peer reviewed when it is not?

I've asked this already, but will try again - have you contacted the JOD911CT and asked them if they put the paper through peer review before publishing it? They made the claim - ask them to support it.



Also, Mark, I just wondered - have you given permission for your paper to be reproduced in this manner?

 

[tsig]

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.

So you are a peer!

And a submitter!

Just how many hats do you have?

Are the all lined with teh tinfoil?

 

[tsig]

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.

one year of experience, 29 years of doing the same thing.

 

[Gravy]

Please show where you said it wasn't peer reviewed when the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories was first brought up, early in this thread, as proof that there was a peer review of your work. You only said you didn't send it to them and did not correct the fact that your paper was not peer reviewed.

That is the third lie you've told in as many responses. Is it that you cannot, or that you will not, stop lying?

We're on page 11 of your thread and your infantile denial still prevents you from getiting the simplest facts right. My quote above came after I brought up that journal, and was a direct reply to your question:

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.

Let's try this one more time, okay, Tony? Got your thinking cap screwed on?
I have never submitted any paper to any journal. I have never made any representation that any work of mine has been peer reviewed by anyone.

Is that clear, Tony Szamboti? Answer yes or no.