Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

[tsig]

I already answered your silly questions here, but since you insist I will answer them once again.

One was semantic and non-technical, concerning the use of the words beams vs. columns. Although I never called a column a beam but sometimes referred to the steel as beams, and the intent was structural member, it was better to refer to the horizontal members as beams. Nobody with any engineering knowledge would have misinterpreted that and only someone with limited knowledge would. I did actually change this so people like you wouldn't get confused.

Another showed your understanding of engineering was somewhat primitive and I am surprised you had the nerve to bring it up. That was concerning whether or not the factor of safety was the same in the aircraft impact areas as it would have been at the base of the building level. There is a minimum required and that is what I used. For the central core that would be 1.67.

Finally, you complain that I discuss the obvious controlled demolition of Bldg. 7. I have never met anyone who has seen that collapse call it anything but. I also told you via e-mail that 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. Interesting. No need to be suspicious though as you will simply say Bldg. 7 wasn't a controlled demolition.

Your logic does stink a little bit there Mark and it seems that you are disingenuous and your efforts are simply to discredit anyone questioning the story we have been given concerning the events of 911. In fact, since the current official story of what occurred on 911 stinks to high heaven I am thinking of renaming you and your ilk "reskunkers" in lieu of "debunkers". This is in keeping with your attempt to ridicule the Journal of 911 Studies with your monthly Stundie nominations. Just think there could be a "reskunker" nomination once a month, and we will get to vote on who tried to prop up the stinky story the most.

"stinks to high heaven" is not an engineering term I am familiar with.

Can you quantify it a bit.

Maybe it's somewhere between "stinks like hell and smells like cabbage"?

 

[Gravy]

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

Yes, I said anyone could host it.

 

[tsig]

It is obvious.

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

Not been too many papers about how water is wet either.

Just proves my "dry impact theory.

 

[timhau]

I hear that papers on the subject of Earth's roundness have been conspicuously absent from journals lately.

 

[tsig]

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 have peer reviewed your statement and find it lacking.

 

[chillzero]

Yes, I said anyone could host it.

OK. Thank you for the response.

In that case, I guess you have no way of knowing, unless you maybe consult daily with Sylvia Browne , whether anyone, anywhere in the world, has re-printed it and perhaps labelled it as 'peer-reviewed'.

 

[Belz...]

I also told you via e-mail that 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.

Excellent. I'm sure you won't have any difficulty producing a video of that particular sentence. If it exists, it should be all over the net on Truther sites.

Can't find it ?

I wonder why.

 

[Calcas]

Excellent. I'm sure you won't have any difficulty producing a video of that particular sentence. If it exists, it should be all over the net on Truther sites.

Can't find it ?

I wonder why.

How did I miss this?

He is actually claiming that Silverstein said, "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a television program and NOBODY in the twoofer movement picked up on it? And this was in 2002?

Tony, any creditbility you may have had is SHOT!

 

[T.A.M.]

I personally think, that IF Tony saw such an interview, Silverstein probably said WTC 6, but Tony now remembers it as WTC 7.

TAM

 

[R.Mackey]

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?

It's not my problem.

My whitepaper is available from all kinds of places, myself included. This is because I have extremely generous reproduction terms attached to it. Anyone, even you, can reprint all or some of it, provided it is for non-profit and educational purposes.

The downside is that if someone prints it and says something silly about it ("look at what this government agent wrote" was the case I expected, but it also covers "this paper is peer-reviewed"), that's not actionable. I can't do anything about it.

I don't care about the "Journal" for Debunking 9/11 Studies. I don't know who runs it or why. For all I know, they may very well have indeed reviewed my paper, but given my paper's large size and the timing involved, I suspect they have not. In fact, I believe (but cannot prove) they only say "peer-reviewed" because it's a mockery of the "Journal" of 9/11 Studies, which as we all agree is also not peer-reviewed, yet makes a big deal about it -- as if anyone who mattered would be convinced on those grounds alone. Guess what, it only impresses rubes who don't know what it means, and who heard about it on the Loose Change forums as something desirable but unattainable.

So write them a nasty letter. Not my problem. I represent myself fairly and honestly, and that's that. I bear no responsibility whatsoever for their website.

 

[lisabob2]

I find his website to be very unscientific.
Using buildings that collapse during construction stages has nothing to do with the collapses on 9-11. He uses the "what if" card quite a bit. Which is no way to investigate anything. He tries to question a few witnesses searching for problems he sees when there are hundred of witnesses which say the samething, like molten metal in debris, or explosions heard. Asking what if is not scientific without evidence. facts or scientific experiments to reach a thoughful conclusion or at least a likely theory.

 

[Gravy]

I find his website to be very unscientific.
Using buildings that collapse during construction stages has nothing to do with the collapses on 9-11. He uses the "what if" card quite a bit. Which is no way to investigate anything. He tries to question a few witnesses searching for problems he sees when there are hundred of witnesses which say the samething, like molten metal in debris, or explosions heard. Asking what if is not scientific without evidence. facts or scientific experiments to reach a thoughful conclusion or at least a likely theory.

You are babbling. Waxing incoherent. Writing in tongues. Feel free to make a lick of sense.

 

[A W Smith]

I find his website to be very unscientific.
Using buildings that collapse during construction stages has nothing to do with the collapses on 9-11. He uses the "what if" card quite a bit. Which is no way to investigate anything. He tries to question a few witnesses searching for problems he sees when there are hundred of witnesses which say the samething, like molten metal in debris, or explosions heard. Asking what if is not scientific without evidence. facts or scientific experiments to reach a thoughful conclusion or at least a likely theory.

Lisabob all 27 of your posts are unscientific ramblings. Based on generalizations. You are dancing around a hat like an intoxicated Mexican. If you don't bring up specific points or bring hard evidence or even a fact you will be ignored as a troll.

 

[lisabob2]

Mark is not a scientist, nor is James Randi. Yet their work is solid, resilient - and completely open to criticism from all quarters. In fact - critique is welcomed.

So tell us what you REALLY mean: Exactly where do you find fault with Roberts's work? Something specific would be nice.

I have a problem with somebody with no qualifications making statments like he is a expert,I have problems with Robert producing evidence that could be easily faked or inaccurate, yet he produces it like there is no question of it being good, when scientific methods question it. I have problems with Roberts unscientific methods, and the double standards he uses when he tries to use "evidence" He is so biased he has no chance of becoming close to being scientific. He has learn to use the neocon method of "loud is right" Attack the person but avoid the issues

 

[lisabob2]

Lisabob all 27 of your posts are unscientific ramblings. Based on generalizations. You are dancing around a hat like an intoxicated Mexican. If you don't bring up specific points or bring hard evidence or even a fact you will be ignored as a troll.

So because I don't agree with your point of view I am being unscientific boy thats scientific for sure. HAve you read the nist report? I have & I have found issues with it. Scientist who are much more qualified than you or me have too.
Saying something doesn't make it so. The evidence is against the official story in my view and in many others view also. Calling them morons or drunk mexicans doesn't change the facts.

 

[funk de fino]

You have an unhealthy obsession with Mr Roberts

I suggest you calm down

It is polite to use someones first name when you address them

 

[stateofgrace]

I have a problem with somebody with no qualifications making statments like he is a expert,I have problems with Robert producing evidence that could be easily faked or inaccurate, yet he produces it like there is no question of it being good, when scientific methods question it. I have problems with Roberts unscientific methods, and the double standards he uses when he tries to use "evidence" He is so biased he has no chance of becoming close to being scientific. He has learn to use the neocon method of "loud is right" Attack the person but avoid the issues

As have you dear boy.

 

[funk de fino]

So because I don't agree with your point of view I am being unscientific boy thats scientific for sure. HAve you read the nist report? I have & I have found issues with it. Scientist who are much more qualified than you or me have too.
Saying something doesn't make it so. The evidence is against the official story in my view and in many others view also. Calling them morons or drunk mexicans doesn't change the facts.

You may have read the entire NIST report (I doubt it though, so unless you can scientifixcally prove to me you have) but you do not understand it.

I believe you have been asked to post those issues you have. Do not copy others issues or we will know.

 

[lisabob2]

You are babbling. Waxing incoherent. Writing in tongues. Feel free to make a lick of sense.

What no specific responce to using construction accidents as a comparison to 9-11?
I love the fact that the first chance you get you personally attack me instead of defending your use of construction accidents. You do not deny the "what if" methods you use. You do not deny trying to find issues with a small # of witnesses while ignoring the fact that there are hundreds.
Really, trying to insult me helps your point how??
I find that when people resort to name calling or immature attempts at humor they have nothing better to say.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I find his website to be very unscientific.
Using buildings that collapse during construction stages has nothing to do with the collapses on 9-11. He uses the "what if" card quite a bit. Which is no way to investigate anything. He tries to question a few witnesses searching for problems he sees when there are hundred of witnesses which say the samething, like molten metal in debris, or explosions heard. Asking what if is not scientific without evidence. facts or scientific experiments to reach a thoughful conclusion or at least a likely theory.

If you are talking about anything in particular, perhaps you'd like to tell us all what it is.