Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

[DGM]

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

That would be unlikely. None of the buildings damage on 9/11 were taken down with CD. I think it had to do with fear of additional damage to other buildings and infrastructure.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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.

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.

Drop the ad hominem logical fallacies and post hoc rationalizations. You're not going to be fooling people on this site with that kind of drek.

 

[LashL]

That would be unlikely. None of the buildings damage on 9/11 were taken down with CD. I think it had to do with fear of additional damage to other buildings and infrastructure.

Well, building 6 was taken down by "controlled demolition" - but not with explosives, of course, rather it was pulled down with cables.

As I mentioned above, it would not be farfetched to think that there may have been some reference to the ongoing dismantling of damaged buildings for safety reasons, in September of 2002. Certainly, Mr. Silverstein did not say that "Building 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons".

It is obvious that realcd's memory is not very reliable, given that he initially claimed to have seen the show in "early 2004", not in "late 2002". It is equally obvious that his reasoning and critical thinking abilities are not exactly, er, impressive. Here is his post from 9/11 blogger:

The History Channel is also suppressing a video of Larry Silverstein actually saying Bldg. 7 was a "controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a Sunday morning show called History's Business in early 2004. I know as I watched him say it and at the time I was not suspicious about 911 and that comment made sense to me as I had never understood Bldg. 7's complete collapse. It seems to me that the original plan may have been to admit it was a controlled demolition, but for safety reasons. It looks like it got to be a problem after Dr. Steven Jones' paper was published and people started asking when there would have been time to set the charges and then asking about the towers given all of the testimony about explosions being seen, heard, and felt after the Oral Histories were released in August 2005. I personally asked myself the question of when there would have been time to set the charges in Bldg. 7 only after reading Dr. Jones' paper in early 2006.

 

[kookbreaker]

If you notice they also haven't seemed to publish a lot of papers backing up the current government story either.

This is your evidence? Are you also surprised that the media doesn't still keep telling you Franco is still dead?

 

[cmcaulif]

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.

(ahem)

A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. By: Quintiere, J.G.; di Marzo, M.; Becker, R.. Fire Safety Journal, Oct2002, Vol. 37 Issue 7, p707, 10p.

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.

Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse?; Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Journal of Engineering Mechanics; 2002 Vol. 128 Issue 7, p795-800, 6p.

How did the WTC towers collapse? A new theory; Usmani, A. S.; Chung, Y. C.; Torero, J. L. Fire Safety Journal; 2003 Vol. 38, p501-533, 33p.

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625, 25p

Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires. By: Usmani, A. S.. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Jun2005, Vol. 131 Issue 6, p654-657.

Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses. Fire and Materials, 29:4, July/August 2005. pp. 181 - 194. Chang, Jeremy; Buchanan, Andrew H.; Moss, Peter J.

Use of High-Efficiency Energy Absorbing Device to Arrest Progressive Collapse of Tall Building Qing Zhou and T. X. Yu Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130, 1177 (2004)

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30:2, January, 2005. pp. 2247-2254. Baum, Howard R.; Rehm, Ronald G.

Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks. Omika, Yukihiro.; Fukuzawa, Eiji.; Koshika, Norihide. Journal of Structural Engineering v. 131 no1 (January 2005) p. 6-15

The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers. Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W.; Foecke, Tim. Advanced Materials & Processes v. 162 no10 (October 2004) p. 37-9

WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design. Post, Nadine M. ENR v. 253 no17 (November 1 2004) p. 10-11

Recent advances in fire–structure analysis
Fire Safety Journal, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 20 August 2007,
Dat Duthinh, Kevin McGrattan and Abed Khaskia

Coupled fire dynamics and thermal response of complex building structures
Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, Volume 30, Issue 2, January 2005, Pages 2255-2262 Kuldeep Prasad and Howard R. Baum

K A Seffen,"Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis", ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, in press

A. Irfanoglu and C. Hoffmann, "An Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-1," J. of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, 06/2007; in press.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%206-22-07.pdf

it seems like there are plenty of journals publishing paper reguarding 9/11, and it is still a hot topic, one of these was published in august, 2 are in press, and one is still in the review process as far as I know.

 

[T.A.M.]

That would be unlikely. None of the buildings damage on 9/11 were taken down with CD. I think it had to do with fear of additional damage to other buildings and infrastructure.

Well, building 6 was taken down by "controlled demolition" - but not with explosives, of course, rather it was pulled down with cables.

As I mentioned above, it would not be farfetched to think that there may have been some reference to the ongoing dismantling of damaged buildings for safety reasons, in September of 2002. Certainly, Mr. Silverstein did not say that "Building 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons".

It is obvious that realcd's memory is not very reliable, given that he initially claimed to have seen the show in "early 2004", not in "late 2002". It is equally obvious that his reasoning and critical thinking abilities are not exactly, er, impressive. Here is his post from 9/11 blogger:

Yes, it was this that I was referring to. It was taken down by Cables, and was used here often to counter the "pull" = "Explosives" argument.

WTC6 versus WTC7, and remembering such a detail years later...easily could have been this...

TAM

 

[ConspiRaider]

Now how is it that ELEVEN of my posts in this thread were moved, and yet many were just as "on topic" as what I'm seeing right now? How is that? Are the mods gunning for me or something?

I am now going to start out my replies one word at a time, just to test the waters.

The...

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It is obvious that realcd's memory is not very reliable, given that he initially claimed to have seen the show in "early 2004", not in "late 2002". It is equally obvious that his reasoning and critical thinking abilities are not exactly, er, impressive. Here is his post from 9/11 blogger:

The History Channel is also suppressing a video of Larry Silverstein actually saying Bldg. 7 was a "controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a Sunday morning show called History's Business in early 2004. I know as I watched him say it [...]

Hah! It's the fisherman's stereotypical "The One That Got Away" tall-tale. Beautiful.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

How would you know there Gravy boy?

Silverstein was on the History Channel show History's Business on a Sunday morning in Sept. 2002 and I watched that show. It was an interview type show not a documentary. See the link below.

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

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.

I did not become suspicious about 911 until last spring after reading Dr. Steven Jones' paper and then asking myself when there would have been a chance to set the charges in Bldg. 7. I also have to say that when I first heard about Dr. Jones' paper I thought that maybe it could have been a quirky anomaly that there was molten metal in the rubble of the three buildings.

Call the History Channel and see if you can get a copy of the show. I couldn't. Only when we can all see it can you refute what I have said. I watched him say it and you don't know otherwise. You are just blowing hot air and ridiculing for some motive we can't figure out yet.

 

[Crungy]

How would you know there Gravy boy?

Silverstein was on the History Channel show History's Business on a Sunday morning in Sept. 2002 and I watched that show. It was an interview type show not a documentary. See the link below.

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

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.

I did not become suspicious about 911 until last spring after reading Dr. Steven Jones' paper and then asking myself when there would have been a chance to set the charges in Bldg. 7. I also have to say that when I first heard about Dr. Jones' paper I thought that maybe it could have been a quirky anomaly that there was molten metal in the rubble of the three buildings.

Call the History Channel and see if you can get a copy of the show. I couldn't. Only when we can all see it can you refute what I have said. I watched him say it and you don't know otherwise. You are just blowing hot air and ridiculing for some motive we can't figure out yet.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94103

 

[Quad4_72]

How would you know there Gravy boy?

Silverstein was on the History Channel show History's Business on a Sunday morning in Sept. 2002 and I watched that show. It was an interview type show not a documentary. See the link below.

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

 

[PhantomWolf]

BTW Tony, you wouldn't happen to have a copy of that 1964 Whitepaper you claim stays that a large passanger plane flying at 600 mph could hit the WTC? It'd be nice to see it. I gues until you produce a copy we're just going to have to take it on faith it really says that, right?

 

[LashL]

How would you know there Gravy boy?

Silverstein was on the History Channel show History's Business on a Sunday morning in Sept. 2002 and I watched that show. It was an interview type show not a documentary. See the link below.

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

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.

I did not become suspicious about 911 until last spring after reading Dr. Steven Jones' paper and then asking myself when there would have been a chance to set the charges in Bldg. 7. I also have to say that when I first heard about Dr. Jones' paper I thought that maybe it could have been a quirky anomaly that there was molten metal in the rubble of the three buildings.

Yeah, we know that you "believe" that, Tony. We have been discussing it but you haven't been answering.

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?

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!"

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

That would be unlikely. None of the buildings damage on 9/11 were taken down with CD. I think it had to do with fear of additional damage to other buildings and infrastructure.

Well, building 6 was taken down by "controlled demolition" - but not with explosives, of course, rather it was pulled down with cables.

As I mentioned above, it would not be farfetched to think that there may have been some reference to the ongoing dismantling of damaged buildings for safety reasons, in September of 2002. Certainly, Mr. Silverstein did not say that "Building 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons".

It is obvious that realcd's memory is not very reliable, given that he initially claimed to have seen the show in "early 2004", not in "late 2002". It is equally obvious that his reasoning and critical thinking abilities are not exactly, er, impressive. Here is his post from 9/11 blogger:

The History Channel is also suppressing a video of Larry Silverstein actually saying Bldg. 7 was a "controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a Sunday morning show called History's Business in early 2004. I know as I watched him say it and at the time I was not suspicious about 911 and that comment made sense to me as I had never understood Bldg. 7's complete collapse. It seems to me that the original plan may have been to admit it was a controlled demolition, but for safety reasons. It looks like it got to be a problem after Dr. Steven Jones' paper was published and people started asking when there would have been time to set the charges and then asking about the towers given all of the testimony about explosions being seen, heard, and felt after the Oral Histories were released in August 2005. I personally asked myself the question of when there would have been time to set the charges in Bldg. 7 only after reading Dr. Jones' paper in early 2006.

Yes, it was this that I was referring to. It was taken down by Cables, and was used here often to counter the "pull" = "Explosives" argument.

WTC6 versus WTC7, and remembering such a detail years later...easily could have been this...

TAM

 

[332nd]

How would you know there Gravy boy?

Silverstein was on the History Channel show History's Business on a Sunday morning in Sept. 2002 and I watched that show. It was an interview type show not a documentary. See the link below.

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

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.

I did not become suspicious about 911 until last spring after reading Dr. Steven Jones' paper and then asking myself when there would have been a chance to set the charges in Bldg. 7. I also have to say that when I first heard about Dr. Jones' paper I thought that maybe it could have been a quirky anomaly that there was molten metal in the rubble of the three buildings.

Call the History Channel and see if you can get a copy of the show. I couldn't. Only when we can all see it can you refute what I have said. I watched him say it and you don't know otherwise. You are just blowing hot air and ridiculing for some motive we can't figure out yet.

I refute what you have said on the grounds that 1.)there were no sounds of a CD picked up by any mic in the area. 2.) you are the only one to bring this up in 6 years. and 3.) you can't produce any evidence of this statement beyond your saying "I saw it!"

 

[R.Mackey]

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?

 

[leftysergeant]

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.

 

[timhau]

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?

If that is a representative sample, I doubt his stuff would ever even reach the reviewers. When I worked as an editor in a small-time journal, I did do some screening of the incoming papers. There were three reasons why I'd send a paper back to the writer straight away:

1. Blatant disregard for submission guidelines. I basically sent back a "please revise the format and resubmit" note along with a copy of the journal's style sheet. This was by far the most common reason.
2. Wrong journal. The paper wasn't about one of the things the journal was devoted to. In this case, I included some suggestions of a more suitable publication forum. This was rare.
3. Obvious nuttery. The reviewers work for free, and a good reviewer is worth his/her weight in gold. Pissing one off by wasting his/her time is about the last thing an editor wants to do.

 

[timhau]

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?

The options that come to mind are 'tragedy' and 'farce'.

 

[chillzero]

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.

Can we close this thread now, please?

Indeed.

For clarification, as there seems to be confusion between a few threads.

This thread is not about the events of 911 . It is about the requirement of or non-requirement of peer review for Mark's work.

To discuss the peer review process for the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories :
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95954http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95863

To debate the events of 911 and the theories arising:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95958

If we cannot keep this thread on topic, it will be set to moderated status.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[Gravy]

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.