Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

realcddeal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Care to provide evidence for this claim?
 
realcddeal said:
You shouldn't be talking the way you are if you haven't written a paper and had it submitted to peer review yourself.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. Your actions and behaviour is like no engineer or professional that I've ever associated with and I'm calling you out for it. I am familiar with the process that coworkers go through when submitting scientific papers and it has worked for thousands of others, why not you?

realcddeal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. That is a cop out, which has been used by troothers for the engineering community, including my co-workers. "He's too scared to risk his professional career." Complete BS! You know damn well, that 99.9999% of the engineering community is in concert with the majority of NIST and view the 9/11 troof community as the 21st century flat earth society. I've never met a single engineer, whether in a professional or casual setting, who hasn't rolled their eyes and mocked your movement.
 
realcddeal said:
<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.
Click to expand...

Serious question, Tony. If you really believe what you wrote above, what are you doing about it besides posting about it on an internet forum?

Edit to add this paragraph: Also, why are you so sure about it, since you initially said (on 9/11 Blogger) that you saw it in early 2004 rather than in late 2002? I realize that you've changed that since someone posted a link showing that Larry Silverstein was on that show on September 8, 2002, but that's a big difference in your "memory". Also, think about this: if Larry Silverstein said those words on television 3 days before the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks, don't you think that a large portion of the free world would have taken notice of such a comment?

In any event, if you actually believe what you wrote, don't you think that you should be writing down all the details that you recall, making several copies, taking them to top investigative journalists, television news departments, the police, the D.A, and the F.B.I. in order to crack open the vast conspiracy?
 
Last edited:
realcddeal said:
It is obvious.
...
Click to expand...
If it is so obvious, why don't you post said evidence?

Reminder of your claim: "the journals are staying away from it right now, out of fear of reprisal".

That's quite a claim, and you should provide evidence for this claim, not just say that "it is obvious".
 
Last edited:
ironic op and pushing false information is the reason

GreNME said:
... 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.
Click to expand...
Ironic; Your second point is the reason. 9/11 truth has a perfect record of being wrong. And 9/11 truth has never been right on the facts of 9/11. Why are people piling on when someone lies? Why should we tolerate lies and false information about 9/11? So as with this peer review irony, you have missed the fact, if a 9/11 truth person would show up with facts, they would not be 9/11 truth. This is why lies are opposed by so many. These are not articles of faith, or political views, 9/11 is about facts. The OP about peer reviews; but their peer review is a fraud; he is facing a pile of truth, instead of the lies he tries to push on others.

Mark's work seems to bother real. Is it due to the facts? Yes facts real can not deny or find in error. Whereas, real's paper is full of errors and is wrong in the conclusion it comes to after presenting false information and making up junk. I think realcddeal is upset that his paper did not receive a real peer review so he would understand his paper is full of errors and comes to a faulty conclusion.
 
Holy crap. Now he's imagining things in documentaries. I know he's in denial, but I really didn't expect this to get into Christophera territory. How sad.
 
Firestone said:
If it is so obvious, why don't you post said evidence?
Click to expand...

Oh, he does post evidence, such as this gem.

realcddeal said:
There is evidence for means, motive, and opportunity. Don't forget that the company which handled security for the WTC, Securacom, was bought by the Kuwaiti American co. in the mid 1990's and they installed Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker on the board and then installed a new security system. That is means and opportunity since it could be used as a cover for installing other things. I also would like to know the details of how a small elevator company like Ace Elevator Co. beat out the designer of the twin tower elevator system Otis Elevator Corp. for the maintenance contract, also in the mid 1990's. I would also like to know how much other work other than the twin towers Ace had during the time they had the contract for the twin towers. Core columns were accessible in an unseen way from the elevator shafts. It was reported in USA Today that the Ace mechanics left both buildings right after the second plane hit. Otis' mechanics did not do that in the 1993 bombing. They stayed to help people stuck in elevators.

You could say I like to talk about this issue as it is important to all of us.
Click to expand...

Last year my 48 story building underwent a lengthy elevator replacement project. 18 elevators replaced in what seemed like eternity. Should I be suspicious? Is my building next in line for a CD?

Now you see why he doesn't submitt to scientific journals? Could you imagine the look on the face of someone assigned to review this paranoia?
 
realcddeal said:
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.
Click to expand...

again, you seem to not know what reputable peer reviewed journal really is.
I dont care who contributed to the Journal as in papers, or as reviewers; for all i care, the Cookie Monster can contribute to your journal, but unless he is an expert within the fields that are needed to understand the events of 9/11/2001, i could really give a crap about what he says

Now, JONES is not a journal of any sort. Its a website that Steven Jones put up so that he could ESCAPE a proper reivew of his work, and the proper review of those who submit to his sham journal.


Why haven't you submitted your paper to journals that deal with architect and engineering? Have you had a member of ASCE look over your work? why is that?


Many reviewers are also contributors on different journals.[/qutoe]

Name them, and what journals they sit on, or hae submitted to; and have passed the proper review procedures. Name of articles and when it was published.

what you are doing is hearsay. I want proof.



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.
Click to expand...


yet, who else in on JONES peer review qualified in knowlege and expertise to "review". I dont see a single Architect or structural engineer amongst the JONES members.





please educate yourself what a TRUE peer review is, and be a man by SUBMITTING your work to a REAL reputable scientific and engineering journal. YOu can START with the ASCE.
Click to expand...
 
realcddeal said:
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?
Click to expand...

sorry, but what is your expertise in:
architect
structural engineering
and
explosives?

Sorry, but you dont qualify to review anything or write anything that is about the above subjects; 911 is about those subjects.

You aren't making sense. I am not the one who needs to comprehend anything here. Come back when you do.
Click to expand...


no, we are making sense; you are ignoring that you are not qualified to write on things you do not have any knowledge about.
 
Gravy said:
Holy crap. Now he's imagining things in documentaries. I know he's in denial, but I really didn't expect this to get into Christophera territory. How sad.
Click to expand...

Yup Gravy, you'll have to add The History Channel to your long list of those "in on it".

Anyone who thinks that everyone believes WTC 7 was was a CT just has to come to NYC, walk into any firehouse in the five boros and ask the friendly firefighters who work there.
 
Tony:

1. "It is obvious" doesn't hold water...at all.
2. Care to enlighten us on the EXACTS of the peer review process used by the JO911S?
3. The peer review SHOULD BE by a panel of experts in the field related to the topic addressed in the paper in question. A single reviewer in a RELATED field is not really sufficient. While it is sometimes done this way, as I have said, it is an exception, and is not considered the "standard" in terms of vigor/rigorousness for what most would consider normal scientific peer review.
4. Will the JO911S give full disclosure on their policies and procedures for Peer Review??

TAM:)
 
Crungy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed, saving for it would be ICE or IStructE.

Incidentally, why do people keep forgetting that ARUP (they're really big and important, btw) DID publish an alternative theory.

But yet strangely occasionaly get accused of being US government stooges. Despite not even being American..... :boggled:
 
Gravy said:
Holy crap. Now he's imagining things in documentaries. I know he's in denial, but I really didn't expect this to get into Christophera territory. How sad.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Given that the show was aired on September 8, 2002 (even though Tony previously said he saw it in early 2004, not in late 2002 as he says now), it would be a safe bet that there was discussion about the progress at the site and some reference to the ongoing dismantling of damaged buildings for safety reasons. In the CT mind, such a sensible, rational, completely innocuous comment can easily become "WTC7 was a controlled demolition!!!1111eleventyones!!111!"
 
Arus808 said:
<snip>Now, JONES is not a journal of any sort. Its a website that Steven Jones put up so that he could ESCAPE a proper reivew of his work, and the proper review of those who submit to his sham journal.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
I am guessing, IF HE SAW such a program with Silverstein, Larry was probably referring to one of the OTHER WTC complex buildings that was brought down.

However, I got my doubts anything even close was actually said.

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom