Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

[A W Smith]

No lisa you did not read the NIST report. it is obvious.

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.

there you go again. dancing. List the issues you found with the NIST report. Do it now. List the evidence. Do it now. You wont. you know why? of course you and I both know why. because you and I both know you have none.

 

[Gravy]

He has learn to use the neocon method of "loud is right" Attack the person but avoid the issues

Yep, I'm a neocon, all right, and look at all the issues I avoid! Shame on me!

BOO!

 

[twinstead]

Yep, I'm a neocon, all right, and look at all the issues I avoid! Shame on me!

Yes, Gravy, I would also like to go on record admonishing you for hiding from all the issues. You really should address the truther's points once in a while, okay?

 

[Coffee]

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.

Please start a new thread. List your issues with the NIST report. Support your issues with evidence.

Scientist who are much more qualified than you or me have too.

If you start a new thread as I suggested, then please include the names of the scientists, provide evidence that they actually say what you claim and please provide evidence to back up their claims.

Saying something doesn't make it so.

That sentence applies to you as well. Please take note of it.

The evidence is against the official story in my view and in many others view also.

Again, start a new thread and please provide this evidence you speak of. Provide sources for what you claim.

Calling them morons or drunk mexicans doesn't change the facts.

You have made over 25 posts and you have not provided any evidence that counters the NIST findings. You have made claims with ZERO evidence. Start a new thread and please back up what you say with evidence and sources.

Please do as I have suggested in this post. It would be disappointing if you turn out to be another truther with no evidence to back up your claims.

 

[pomeroo]

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

I'm not sure I'm following. You, a conspiracy liar, are complaining about "unscientific methods"? But your evil movement employs no other kind.

Substance-free, personal attacks are a "neocon" method? Really? Apart from the fact that you couldn't define "neoconservative" if your life depended on it, you overlook the irony here. Far-leftists do nothing but attack the person and avoid the issues.

 

[lisabob2]

there you go again. dancing. List the issues you found with the NIST report. Do it now. List the evidence. Do it now. You wont. you know why? of course you and I both know why. because you and I both know you have none.

Nist report uses computer simulations which do not have physical evidence corroborating temps used. James Quintiere among others have pointed this out.
Why don't we stick to issues here? calling me names and making unfounded claims does not intimidate me. It only shows me that you don't have anything better to say.
For a forum that aspires to "critical Thinking" it sure seems strange that many of you guys resort to name calling. How about some proof of your claims? what kind of proof do you have that Nist report was done scientifically? I specified one example, which has been corroborated by James Quintiere and other scientists like David Griscom. Why should I believe your opinion of nist report? your ability to call those who think different than you names? I have read a exchange between Ross & Greening & guess what? no name calling, seems that educated people can disagree and still refrain from personal attacks.

 

[lisabob2]

I'm not sure I'm following. You, a conspiracy liar, are complaining about "unscientific methods"? But your evil movement employs no other kind.

Substance-free, personal attacks are a "neocon" method? Really? Apart from the fact that you couldn't define "neoconservative" if your life depended on it, you overlook the irony here. Far-leftists do nothing but attack the person and avoid the issues.

Do you realize that you are making my point for me??
"You, a conspiracy liar"
"your evil movement "
"Apart from the fact that you couldn't define "neoconservative" if your life depended on it, you overlook the irony here. Far-leftists do nothing but attack the person and avoid the issues."

Now please copy any personal attacks I have made.
Don't worry I am a big boy it won't hurt my feelings.
Please tell me why you think I am a "conspiracy liar"
Please tell me what movement I belong too.
Merry CHristmas & A Happy New Year

 

[lisabob2]

Please start a new thread. List your issues with the NIST report. Support your issues with evidence.



If you start a new thread as I suggested, then please include the names of the scientists, provide evidence that they actually say what you claim and please provide evidence to back up their claims.




That sentence applies to you as well. Please take note of it.




Again, start a new thread and please provide this evidence you speak of. Provide sources for what you claim.



You have made over 25 posts and you have not provided any evidence that counters the NIST findings. You have made claims with ZERO evidence. Start a new thread and please back up what you say with evidence and sources.

Please do as I have suggested in this post. It would be disappointing if you turn out to be another truther with no evidence to back up your claims.

I am sure that if you read my post again you will see at least one issue with nist report that I believe makes it unscientific

 

[lisabob2]

Yep, I'm a neocon, all right, and look at all the issues I avoid! Shame on me!

BOO!

Clouding the issues by avoiding science & facts are not exactly meeting the issues head on are they?
Can you really give a solid scientific reason why I should ignore Steven Jones, Or David Griscom and believe your take on the evidence of 9-11?
Can you explain why Greening can have a scientific debate with Ross, but people on this forum seem to think that insulting somebody makes some kind of point.
Can you deny the fact that the computer simulations nist uses does not have physical evidence corroborating them?
Can you deny the fact that Jones has a hypothesis that needs more scientific investigation? A hypothesis he arrived at using proper scientific methods.
Can you really believe that calling people names or trying to personally attack them changes the facts?
Do you really want people who think that shallowly agreeing with you ?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Nist report uses computer simulations which do not have physical evidence corroborating temps used. James Quintiere among others have pointed this out.

Do you know that Mr. Quintiere's conclusion is that the towers would have collapsed as a result of the damage and fire even if the fireproofing hadn't been dislodged? This refutes the conspiracist claims even more than the NIST report does.

That you bring him up tells me that you're only interested in making the NIST look "bad" and not interested in actually providing support for your particular delusion.

Yours is a destructive movement, not a constructive one.

calling me names [...] does not intimidate me.

I would hope not, considering that A W Smith didn't call you names. Are you sure you're alright?

For a forum that aspires to "critical Thinking" it sure seems strange that many of you guys resort to name calling. How about some proof of your claims? what kind of proof do you have that Nist report was done scientifically?

That very few legitimate engineers actually question the methods NIST used to come to their conclusions, which were in turn used to propose changes to building codes. Naturally, their report would be studied by many people.

I specified one example, which has been corroborated by James Quintiere and other scientists like David Griscom.

Again, Mr. Quintiere's criticism of NIST's report in no way supports your fantasy. His criticisms, if valid, would only result in potentially stricter building codes with respect to the fireproofing of steel frames. They certainly would not help in "exposing the Truth™ of 9/11".

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Clouding the issues by avoiding science & facts are not exactly meeting the issues head on are they?

Nor is pretending that's the case by singling out a single post.

Can you really give a solid scientific reason why I should ignore Steven Jones, Or David Griscom and believe your take on the evidence of 9-11?

If you'd bother to read the forum, you would get exactly that. No one is saying you should Ignore Jones per say as much as you should stop assuming anything he says is correct and instead do some real research beyond believing anything by someone who just tells you what you want to hear. I would say that Jone's claims being proven scientifically wrong, would be a good start as a motive.

Can you explain why Greening can have a scientific debate with Ross, but people on this forum seem to think that insulting somebody makes some kind of point.

There you go pretending again. Ignore all the scientific stuff and focus on the insults which are usually in response to insults from people such as yourself who can't come up with any real scientific or factual arguments.

Can you deny the fact that the computer simulations nist uses does not have physical evidence corroborating them?

That's an easy one. It's NOT a fact, you just think it is because you obviously believe anything that CTers will tell you.

Can you deny the fact that Jones has a hypothesis that needs more scientific investigation?

More empty wishful thinking on your part. It's not a fact, it's a wish.

A hypothesis he arrived at using proper scientific methods.

Another lie on your part.

Can you really believe that calling people names or trying to personally attack them changes the facts?

So why do you do it so much? Why is that the basis of the entire truth movement?

Do you really want people who think that shallowly agreeing with you ?

That's pretty funny coming from someone who doesn't actually care about any kind of science and simply believes anyone who tells you what you already want to believe. If it says there's a conspiracy, you don't need facts or evidence. When it says there isn't one, then you DO need such things. When given such things, you ignore them. Pretty typical. Please continue to pretend to play the victim to make up for a lack of an actual argument.

 

[A W Smith]

Nist report uses computer simulations which do not have physical evidence corroborating temps used. James Quintiere among others have pointed this out.
Why don't we stick to issues here? calling me names and making unfounded claims does not intimidate me. It only shows me that you don't have anything better to say.
For a forum that aspires to "critical Thinking" it sure seems strange that many of you guys resort to name calling. How about some proof of your claims? what kind of proof do you have that Nist report was done scientifically? I specified one example, which has been corroborated by James Quintiere and other scientists like David Griscom. Why should I believe your opinion of nist report? your ability to call those who think different than you names? I have read a exchange between Ross & Greening & guess what? no name calling, seems that educated people can disagree and still refrain from personal attacks.

i was correct. you will not post your evidence.

start a new thread because you are trolling off topic on this one

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Can you deny the fact that the computer simulations nist uses does not have physical evidence corroborating them?

Are you aware that the NIST compared the results of their simulation to the heat damage they found to numerous steel supports from the fire-afflicted floors in order to confirm the accuracy of their model?

I'd call that using physical evidence to corroborate their simulations, wouldn't you?

Can you deny the fact that Jones has a hypothesis that needs more scientific investigation? A hypothesis he arrived at using proper scientific methods.

His papers are littered with extremely unscientific methods. From identifying a few floors pressed together as a "once-molten and re-solidified" blob of metal, to using altered photographs as support for his claims.

 

[Gravy]

Please don't feed the off-topic troll.

 

[Coffee]

I am sure that if you read my post again you will see at least one issue with nist report that I believe makes it unscientific

1) Read the membership agreement for this forum. You keep violating it by continuously posting off topic.
3) Start a new thread, state your case in that thread and back up your claims with EVIDENCE.

Get a grip on those two concepts.

 

[lisabob2]

Do you know that Mr. Quintiere's conclusion is that the towers would have collapsed as a result of the damage and fire even if the fireproofing hadn't been dislodged? This refutes the conspiracist claims even more than the NIST report does.

That you bring him up tells me that you're only interested in making the NIST look "bad" and not interested in actually providing support for your particular delusion.

Yours is a destructive movement, not a constructive one.




I would hope not, considering that A W Smith didn't call you names. Are you sure you're alright?




That very few legitimate engineers actually question the methods NIST used to come to their conclusions, which were in turn used to propose changes to building codes. Naturally, their report would be studied by many people.




Again, Mr. Quintiere's criticism of NIST's report in no way supports your fantasy. His criticisms, if valid, would only result in potentially stricter building codes with respect to the fireproofing of steel frames. They certainly would not help in "exposing the Truth™ of 9/11".

you really believe Quintiere did not say
{"A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have."} exact quote from Quintiere. core columns samples had evidence of reaching up to 250C some exterior columns had temps up to 600C but most showed evidence of 250C also. But what temps did they use for computer simulations? and when base models did not show collapse initiation they used more extreme data like higher temps than physical evidence showed.

 

[lisabob2]

Do you know that Mr. Quintiere's conclusion is that the towers would have collapsed as a result of the damage and fire even if the fireproofing hadn't been dislodged? This refutes the conspiracist claims even more than the NIST report does.

That you bring him up tells me that you're only interested in making the NIST look "bad" and not interested in actually providing support for your particular delusion.

Yours is a destructive movement, not a constructive one.




I would hope not, considering that A W Smith didn't call you names. Are you sure you're alright?




That very few legitimate engineers actually question the methods NIST used to come to their conclusions, which were in turn used to propose changes to building codes. Naturally, their report would be studied by many people.




Again, Mr. Quintiere's criticism of NIST's report in no way supports your fantasy. His criticisms, if valid, would only result in potentially stricter building codes with respect to the fireproofing of steel frames. They certainly would not help in "exposing the Truth™ of 9/11".

I made a post. I have since responded to other posts. So when you disagree with people you threaten them? I have included evidence in my post.

 

[twinstead]

you really believe Quintiere did not say
{"A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have."} exact quote from Quintiere.

All in the context that he wished they would have tested more steel because he thinks they didn't investigate the fireproofing issue enough. He has no problem with the fact the buildings collapsed due to damage and subsequent fires. He questions the role that fireproofing, or lack thereof played in that collapse.

That is his area of expertise, you know.

Your taking his quotes out of context might work on some conspiracy forums, I suppose, but any rational person when reading ALL of Quintiere's statements, in context, would realize his issue with NIST has NOTHING to do with an 'inside job' by the government.

You're wasting your time by trying to shoehorn his issues into your theory; I would suggest another route if you want to actually make some headway.

This is all a moot point anyway. Why doesn't your movement get some kind of legitimate investigator to give Quintiere a call and ask him to clarify? Think of the coup you would have if he claimed the damage and fire couldn't bring the building down!

Can you imagine what having him REALLY on your side would do for your movement?

 

[DGM]

I made a post. I have since responded to other posts. So when you disagree with people you threaten them? I have included evidence in my post.

Start a new thread and stop derailing every thread you enter.

READ THE MEMBERS AGREEMENT.

 

[lisabob2]

Do you know that Mr. Quintiere's conclusion is that the towers would have collapsed as a result of the damage and fire even if the fireproofing hadn't been dislodged? This refutes the conspiracist claims even more than the NIST report does.

That you bring him up tells me that you're only interested in making the NIST look "bad" and not interested in actually providing support for your particular delusion.

Yours is a destructive movement, not a constructive one.




I would hope not, considering that A W Smith didn't call you names. Are you sure you're alright?




That very few legitimate engineers actually question the methods NIST used to come to their conclusions, which were in turn used to propose changes to building codes. Naturally, their report would be studied by many people.




Again, Mr. Quintiere's criticism of NIST's report in no way supports your fantasy. His criticisms, if valid, would only result in potentially stricter building codes with respect to the fireproofing of steel frames. They certainly would not help in "exposing the Truth™ of 9/11".

Making assumptions. I do not care whether nist looks bad or good. I am looking at the evidence of the collapses on 9-11 and I believe the evidence supports the "truthers" and not the official story. My "delusion" is based on a impartial view of available evidence.
There is no evidence fire proofing was "knocked off" anywhere but at impact areas.
As I said before anybody view right now is nothing more than theories without a complete & open scientific investigation Quintiere has his belief but you cannot deny that he said investigation so far , had shortcomings.