Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

My "delusion" is based on a impartial view of available evidence.


You misspelled misunderstanding.



As I said before anybody view right now is nothing more than theories...


Thank you being so candid in admitting that the truth movement's accusations of mass murder is without foundation.




**emphasis added
 
Last edited:
Nor is pretending that's the case by singling out a single post.



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.



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.



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.



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



Another lie on your part.



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



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.
"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

"More empty wishful thinking on your part. It's not a fact, it's a wish."
this statement makes no sense, Jones has a hypothesis, it is a fact. the above statement seems to be little more than a childish attempt at insults.

"Another lie on your part. " No it is not a lie, it is a matter of opinion. Jones having been a scientist for decades, I believe uses proper scientific methods. Now If you don't think so, thats your opinion, and does not make my opinion a lie. That stance is immature and illogical.

"So why do you do it so much? Why is that the basis of the entire truth movement? "
please post any insults or name calling I have done here. I keep all my insults to my driving normally. As far as I can see the truth movement is attempting to have the truth exposed, I do not find them doing a lot of insulting, although I have read some that do, and anybody who says that the people who believe the official story don't do there share of insults is being obviosly one sided.

"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."
the whole statement above has no basis in fact. Making up what you wish I would think like is not even close to reality. And what does it prove? We could spend all day making up what we think the other person is thinking but why don't we stick to what is posted and try to respond to it?
 
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?
I have not said anything about inside job. I have said that so far nobody has done a good scientific investigation. The evidence I believe does not support the official story.
I have taken exact quotes that support my view of nist report, or some of it's problems.
The nist report does have issues as far as I am concerned, and many other qualified scientist think so also. I don't think Quintiere bring on "our side" makes any difference. David Griscom is already and I doubt you could find very many experts with his credentials. There are hundreds of qualified experts who have studied these issues. Anybody who can just dismiss them without reason is being foolish, just as nobody should just dismiss the experts who have done a partial investigation so far.
I have read both sides. I have my opinion.
 
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.

Engineers do that.
They assume the laws of physics work the same way every time.
They examined areas in which the steel reached 250 C. They then ran a simulation, in which those same areas reached 250 C. Other areas got considerable hotter. Hot enough, in fact, that they couldn't determine the temperature because the bloody damn indicators were burned off!
They didn't need to check other areas. The simulation worked. It simulated very nearly exactly the conditions in the areas they could determine what happened. The laws of physics took care of the rest.
damnfoolijits.
 
Engineers do that.
They assume the laws of physics work the same way every time.
They examined areas in which the steel reached 250 C. They then ran a simulation, in which those same areas reached 250 C. Other areas got considerable hotter. Hot enough, in fact, that they couldn't determine the temperature because the bloody damn indicators were burned off!
They didn't need to check other areas. The simulation worked. It simulated very nearly exactly the conditions in the areas they could determine what happened. The laws of physics took care of the rest.
damnfoolijits.

Please stop threatening Lisabob with reality.

It's so unfair.
 
So basically Lisa's response to the problems with Jone's work is that he's a scientist. Well, that just explains it all. It's all factual and scientific because he is a scientist. It's like a slice of 100% twooficana.

That's some impartial view there!
 
So basically Lisa's response to the problems with Jone's work is that he's a scientist. Well, that just explains it all. It's all factual and scientific because he is a scientist. It's like a slice of 100% twooficana.

That's some impartial view there!
They do not care if Jones lies, and made up his ideas on 9/11.
 

Back
Top Bottom