List of Research Papers

ergo said:
Then why does it appear in two different listings of your so-called authoritative papers? :D
Click to expand...

I love it when stundie Ergo manages to step into (notice the difference ergo? Into it, not onto it) it. It is one of my favourite things. It makes my heart go all aflutter.

I'm reminded of my high school days... our team (of which I was playing) was beating the snot out of one of our division rivals in the state playoff game. They managed to score a touchdown and get all fired up. To which our defense replied as one "Scoreboard, Scoreboard, Scoreboard." (which at that time was 47 to 10 now in the late 4th quarter.)

So we have about 100 peer reviewed engineering journal articles which agree with different parts of the NIST reports (no matter how badly stundie Ergo wants to handwave away) That isn't counting that the NIST reports themselves are peer reviewed.

And what do twoof have? vanity journals that they set up themselves (riddled with bad "science") or vanity journals which will literally take money to publish your laundry list. So how many peer reviewed journal articles do you have again? Oh.... ZERO.

so to Stundie Ergo, I have one reply.

"Scoreboard, Scoreboard, Scoreboard."
 
TruthersLie said:
So we have about 100 peer reviewed engineering journal articles which agree with different parts of the NIST reports (no matter how badly stundie Ergo wants to handwave away) That isn't counting that the NIST reports themselves are peer reviewed.
Click to expand...

Oooo, it's 100 papers now. Do these 100 peer-reviewed engineering articles include the ones listed above? Including the one that Scott just dismissed as bunk? Or are these now new, different papers? And what parts of the NIST report do they explicitly agree with? I'm very interested in this claim of yours, Truthorlies.
 
ergo said:
Oooo, it's 100 papers now. Do these 100 peer-reviewed engineering articles include the ones listed above? Including the one that Scott just dismissed as bunk? Or are these now new, different papers? And what parts of the NIST report do they explicitly agree with? I'm very interested in this claim of yours, Truthorlies.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are trying to say here ergo?

Are you saying that Truthers have some papers or are you saying the Bedunkers, as you like to call them, have got less than a hundred. Or that they have a hundred but not all of them disagree with all the truther claims, or that there are often general statements in all papers that can apply to both arguments.?

From my perspective l am very disappointed by the lack of papers presented by Truther engineers, as I am sure they would be good entertainment. At last years structures congress attended by about 5,000 engineers, there was nothing from the Truthers out of several hundred papers on fire, blast, risk, progressive collapse etc.
 
T-Tom, the statement of Truthorlies' is right in the post you quoted from me. I am not saying anything about it. I am asking Truthorlies where and what are these 100 engineering papers he's speaking of. How about we let him answer?
 
ergo said:
T-Tom, the statement of Truthorlies' is right in the post you quoted from me. I am not saying anything about it. I am asking Truthorlies where and what are these 100 engineering papers he's speaking of. How about we let him answer?
Click to expand...
Truthers can't find the papers. As soon as they see math or engineering they fail to comprehend it is a paper. Guess they need a youtube video, or a failed gif to satisfy their failed delusions.

If you can't find papers, it is indicative of your failed delusions on 911. Try google without the 911 truth filter of stupid turned on.
 
ergo said:
Then why does it appear in two different listings of your so-called authoritative papers? :D
Click to expand...

Edited by LashL: 
Edited for civility.
I agree with you here, dude. I've probably read more of these papers than anyone here. Many of them are hard to get and even harder to read. I know a lot of math and don't feel too lost, but I'm not an engineer. But maybe because of that, after a while, they all seem to be like one big blur of how fire and airplanes brought down the WTC buildings. As Tom pointed out, in his own beautifully articulate fashion, there is no professional representation for Truthers. And that's why, as I have pointed out repeatedly, it's generally the poorly educated who continue to get sucked in by this 911 Truth story.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scott Sommers said:
I know a lot of math and don't feel too lost, but .... after a while, they all seem to be like one big blur of ... fire and airplanes
Click to expand...

Edited by LashL: 
Removed breach of Rule 12.


there is no professional representation for Truthers. And that's why, as I have pointed out repeatedly, it's generally the poorly educated who continue to get sucked in by this 911 Truth story.
Click to expand...

Right, because we must ignore the 1400+ architects and engineers who have signed their names to a petition, over 300 former and current military personnel, 200+ pilots and aviation professionals, over 400 academics, over 400 medical professionals, as well as scientists, lawyers, professors, firefighters, politicians, researchers, and media professionals. And these are just the people who have publicly stated their support. But yeah, no professional representation. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, 9/11 bedunkerism has, um .... Professor Bazant ..... NIST employees/contractors ...... .... a few media pundits .... and a shocking number of internet crackpots....

Edited by LashL: 
Removed breach.


Yup, real professional bunch. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Right, because we must ignore the 1400+ architects and engineers who have signed their names to a petition, over 300 former and current military personnel, 200+ pilots and aviation professionals, over 400 academics, over 400 medical professionals, as well as scientists, lawyers, professors, firefighters, politicians, researchers, and media professionals. And these are just the people who have publicly stated their support. But yeah, no professional representation. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No one has taken the vast pile of poppycock these morons on 911 have to earn what would be a Pulitzer Prize big time easy. When will these morons on 911 take action on their failed claims? Never?

Go ahead truthers take your evidence and try to make it real.

Here is the best 911 truth has. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: ... Zero.

Where are these idiots, idiots on 911 issues, hiding their professional papers proving their claims? Where are the papers from 911 truth? Where are the papers from the morons on 911, the 911 failed truth movement?
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Awaiting the inevitable off-topic diatribe from Beachnut....

Oh, gosh. He beat me to it. Every minute counts, eh, Beachnut?
Click to expand...
You have no clue what the topic is, as you present thousands of idiots on 911 issues. Thousands who have zero evidence and they fool you with empty words, fake information; many of them don't know they are on the list of idiots on 911 issues.

Not a single one has produced a paper on 911 which is truthful, or correct. You have failed again to understand 911, being fooled by idiots on 911. ... off topic, failed, fooled by idiots.

Any research paper from your list of morons on 911? Any evidence you want to support needs to be in a new thread, you are off topic.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Is it now abundantly clear to everyone that stundie is just here to troll?
 
I have the bloke on ignore.
Makes threads like this very readable, only a little repetitive and, frankly, boring.
 
ergo said:
Edited by LashL: 
Removed quote of modded content.


Right, because we must ignore the 1400+ architects and engineers who have signed their names to a petition, over 300 former and current military personnel, 200+ pilots and aviation professionals, over 400 academics, over 400 medical professionals, as well as scientists, lawyers, professors, firefighters, politicians, researchers, and media professionals. And these are just the people who have publicly stated their support. But yeah, no professional representation. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And we can't forget the massively competent individuals who post here on JREF who can't tell the difference between into and onto, essentially and actually, center of mass vs a debris field the "size of the moon", who doesn't understand what exponentially means, has difficulties with qualifiers in the english language like "about" and the list just keeps on growing.+

with professionalism like that it is what is causing twooferism to grow at an "exponential" rate.


[p.s. your own "list" is made up of individuals who can't even come up with one single peer reviewed journal in any engineering/architectural/hard science journal... why is that again? I mean with 1400 "qualified" individuals, I'm sure they could come up with at least 1 paper to get past peer review in the last 10 years... in any language... in any peer reviewed journal.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I notice the moderators really don't like me mentioning ESL teachers. I think they think I'm insulting them when, in fact, I think it's a very worthy occupation and probably an interesting one.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Yes, we've heard about the One Big Blur theory of bedunker cognitive assimilation. Fascinating.

For those of you sad, uneducated proles, this is psyientifick talk. You probably won't understand it. Don't feel bad.
Click to expand...
We understand your arguement. See above quote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom