1,600 verified architectural and engineering professionals

if papertitle = repeated
ignore(entirelist); act('smug');
else
ignore(entirelist); act('smug');
end

I'm in a MATLAB mood today.
 
Originally Posted by Marokkaan
No its not, i guess you dont understand the rules of something getting peer reviewed, try to google.
excaza said:
Yes, it is. Yes, I do.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Did he really say this? I guess so. Wow. That must be because he's published so many peer-reviewed research papers. Or maybe he's even a reviewer. Imagine that, Marokkaan the journal reviewer.

The really funny thing is dat' he must be thinkin' he can sound like someone with one a' dem' fancy diplomas type things if he just makes up enough stuff. 'Cause there's no way one a' dem' JREF guys could actually know about dis' university type stuff. Ahh? No way any a' dem' actually do dis' peer-review type stuff for real? Ahh? No way dat' any a' dem' could actually have been a reviewer? Ahh?

Marokkaan, stop this talk! I'm trying to be your friend. It only makes you look like a silly uneducated hick when you say things like this.
 
Last edited:
excaza said:
if papertitle = repeated
ignore(entirelist); act('smug');
else
ignore(entirelist); act('smug');
end

I'm in a MATLAB mood today.
Click to expand...

Doesn't embarrass you, eh? You have a high threshold for shame.


if paper =/= WTC analysis
if paper =/= engineering
ignore(entirepostpointingthisout); act('smug');
else
ignore(entirepostpointingthisout); act('smug');
end

Did I get this right?
 
You would think with 1600 professionals on tap they would do an "independent investigation".

Maybe if they should start a new "patition" asking these guys to do something.

:rolleyes:
 
Miss the point of a puffed up list of mostly irrelevant papers?

Yup, ya got me.
 
ergo
This message is hidden because ergo is on your ignore list.
Click to expand...

I wish you guys wouldn't keep spoiling the fun. I keep imagining our JREF Truther friends as part of a discourse community, involved in nurturing a growing body of knowledge. And instead, I just get sillier and sillier comments. I try and hide the reality of the matter, but you guys just keep letting me know. Why don't they just stick to stuff they know about? Something like the Star Wars death ray and how it turned New York to dust. Or how a nuclear bomb was set off and all the firefighters have radiation sickness. Just stick to stuff like that guys. You don't look nearly as stupid.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Please specify. What has AE911truth accomplished in the last few years? Surely, if you think the NIST's recommended code changes for the IBC are frivolous, your experts should have something to say to the engineering community about it. Have they actually protested these?



The following recommendations set forth by the NIST report on the WTC collapses represent a few examples of the changes that were adopted by the International Building codes in 2007:

  • An additional exit stairway for buildings more than 420 feet in height.
  • A minimum of one fire service access elevator for buildings more than 120 feet in height.
  • Increased bond strength for fireproofing (nearly three times greater than currently required for buildings 75-420 feet in height and seven times greater for buildings more than 420 feet in height).
  • Field installation requirements for fireproofing to ensure that:
    - installation complies with the manufacturer's instructions;
    - the substrates (surfaces being fireproofed) are clean and free of any condition that prevents adhesion;
    - testing is conducted to demonstrate that required adhesion is maintained for primed, painted or encapsulated steel surfaces; and
    - the finished condition of the installed fireproofing, upon complete drying or curing, does not exhibit cracks, voids, spalls, delamination or any exposure of the substrate.
    - Special field inspections of fireproofing to ensure that its as-installed thickness, density and bond strength meet specified requirements, and that a bonding agent is applied when the bond strength is less than required due to the effect of a primed, painted or encapsulated steel surface. The inspections are to be performed after the rough installation of mechanical, electrical, plumbing, sprinkler and ceiling systems.
    - Increasing by one hour the fire-resistance rating of structural components and assemblies in buildings 420 feet and higher. (This change was approved in a prior edition of the code.)
    - Explicit adoption of the "structural frame" approach to fire resistance ratings that requires all members of the primary structural frame to have the higher fire resistance rating commonly required for columns. The primary structural frame includes the columns, other structural members including the girders, beams, trusses, and spandrels having direct connections to the columns, and bracing members designed to carry gravity loads.
    - Luminous markings delineating the exit path (including vertical exit enclosures and passageways) in buildings more than 75 feet in height to facilitate rapid egress and full building evacuation.

Perhaps with your denial that buildings can collapse due to fire, you can explain what AE911truth has done to address these recommendations - clearly based on supposedly frivolous engineering cover up -and show that the conclusions should not have been accepted by the general architecture and engineering community.


You took the time to describe me as a disgruntled internet surfer when you could've used that time more productively to show us some actual accomplishments that your favorite movement has brought to the table - a resume if you will.
That resume - I must say - is looking unsurprisingly blank... being that you would rather avoid the technical details of the debate. May I ask why you chose to this route; surely you must have a good reason.
Click to expand...

So basically you just wrote one long appeal to authority. Changes were made based on the NIST report (again I emphasize their numbers aren't even released) AE for 9/11 truth what have they done? That's your basis of an argument. Aren't you doing the same thing you accused me of doing, addressing the people making the claims instead of the claims themselves? AE for 9/11 truth has done an awful lot. A lot of people have questions now because of them. Did you ever think that they focus more on getting the message out, as opposed to publishing things in journals where they would not be read by nearly as many people? Sure they could do both, but they focus on getting their message out. Where it can be viewed by the public, so they can make their own decision.

I've never said buildings can't collapse because of fire. I do think it highly unlikely steel frame buildings can completely collapse as we saw on that day. I don't think what we observed on that day especially 7 were brought down by fire. I mean 7 reached free fall speed. You can talk about your progressive collapse all you want, and I know nothing will convince you otherwise. Maybe one day you will see things for what they are.

What I took the time to describe, is someone who is being faced with evidence that is contradictory to his world view, and is responding with anger. It's not an easy thing accept that's for sure. Maybe one day you can re-focus your anger on the people who would have done this.
 
ergo said:
Miss the point of a puffed up list of mostly irrelevant papers?

Yup, ya got me.
Click to expand...

Now here's where you can take up the gauntlet, Ergo. You throw out a list of all the peer-reviewed papers by the TM (all none of them) and the self-published nonsense (all one of them), and we'll tear 'em apart for you. It's already been done by much better minds than my own. You can find the debunking of Jones and Griffin and Harrit in numerous threads.

So now it's your turn. You start working on that partial list. A dedicated researcher should be able to knock them down in a few months. So we'll see you in February?

On your mark? Get set? Go? (No, I mean that sincerely.... Go!)
 
Scott Sommers said:
Did he really say this? I guess so. Wow. That must be because he's published so many peer-reviewed research papers. Or maybe he's even a reviewer. Imagine that, Marokkaan the journal reviewer.

The really funny thing is dat' he must be thinkin' he can sound like someone with one a' dem' fancy diplomas type things if he just makes up enough stuff. 'Cause there's no way one a' dem' JREF guys could actually know about dis' university type stuff. Ahh? No way any a' dem' actually do dis' peer-review type stuff for real? Ahh? No way dat' any a' dem' could actually have been a reviewer? Ahh?

Marokkaan, stop this talk! I'm trying to be your friend. It only makes you look like a silly uneducated hick when you say things like this.
Click to expand...

But but but you had me on ignore? LOL

By the way, does nist have peer reviewed reports yes or no?
 
Marokkaan said:
Then you know NIST failed with their reports.

Ohno you dont know, thats why you are a debunker.

You dont even know how a peer reviewed process goes
Click to expand...

Oooh, I'm taking bets. I've got five bucks that says that Excaza can give a better explanation of peer review than you can. (Hint: Google It, is not the answer.)
 
Wha'd I tell ya'...dos' NIST guys...just a bunch a' crap guys. Bush put 'im da' phone and tells dem', " Don't you NIST guys put dat' free fall in dat' report." But den' that high school guy, he come along and fool dat' Bush guy. And that's dat's where da' real common sense comes in. 9/11...nuttin' dat' a little common sense can't tell ya'.
 
Last edited:
And jep another debunker who's interfering and goes on ignore.

A normal debate, here on jref is impossible.

The only thing you can do, is show the facts and the opinions of expert.
 
Scott Sommers said:
Wha'd I tell ya'...dos' NIST guys...just a bunch a' crap guys. Bush put 'im da' phone and tells dem', " Don't you NIST guys put dat' free fall in dat' report." But den' that high school guy, he come along and fool dat' Bush guy. And that's dat's where the real common sense comes in. 9/11...nuttin' dat' a little common sense can't tell ya'.
Click to expand...

Lol
 
tmd2_1 said:
I've never said buildings can't collapse because of fire. I do think it highly unlikely steel frame buildings can completely collapse as we saw on that day. I don't think what we observed on that day especially 7 were brought down by fire. I mean 7 reached free fall speed. You can talk about your progressive collapse all you want, and I know nothing will convince you otherwise. Maybe one day you will see things for what they are.
Click to expand...

Irony-796569.jpg


What I took the time to describe, is someone who is being faced with evidence that is contradictory to his world view, and is responding with anger. It's not an easy thing accept that's for sure. Maybe one day you can re-focus your anger on the people who would have done this.
Click to expand...

You twoofers sure do like your psychobabble. It lets you pretend that its you that is sane and everyone else is crazy.
 
ergo said:
Doesn't embarrass you, eh? You have a high threshold for shame.


if paper =/= WTC analysis
if paper =/= engineering
ignore(entirepostpointingthisout); act('smug');
else
ignore(entirepostpointingthisout); act('smug');
end

Did I get this right?
Click to expand...

Nope. Syntax error. Why would you get anything right? At least that way you're consistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom