Mark Basile / Jeff Farrer

[k-robjoe]

Mark Basile and Jeff Farrer about the WTC collapses :

Mark Basile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMkSP0_kUgM

Jeff Farrer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23n0Vr_A1TQ&feature=player_embedded

[whatchamacallit]

1. These guys are fools and/or liars

The reason I know is because the dungeon's genius scientists will say so.

[whatchamacallit]

38. You sure called that one Whatcha...

This thread devolved into a pointless "my scientist is better than your scientist" pissing match. Shocking!:wow:

[Bolo Boffin]

40. Let's see that ATM article here first.

http://jcp.aip.org/

Until then, our scientists ARE better than your scientists.

[whatchamacallit]

41. Your threshold is arbitrary, as prestige is no guarantor of fact or truth.

:hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

42. You're confusing "prestige" with "competent" and "responsible" n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Jeff Farrer is one of the authors of the Thermitic vanity paper.

Surprise, surprise.

Mark Basile is thanked in the Thermitic vanity paper.

In other words, welcome to 2009. When these guys are publishing in JEM, get back to us.

[immune]

3. Published where?

NASA - Kibo Japanese Experiment Module JEM
The Japanese Experiment Module is Japan's first human space facility. ... platform focus on Earth observation as well as communication, scientific ...
www.nasa.gov/.../station/structure/​elements/jem.html - Cached

SOFIA - Metadata - Scientific and Technical Support for Joint ...
Joint Ecosystem Modeling (JEM) supports the Department Of Interior (DOI) Science Plan as it: 1) provides assessment tools that are a critical priority for making ...
sofia.usgs.gov/metadata/sflwww/jem.html - Cached

The Journal of Experimental Medicine JEM
The Rockefeller University Press; The Journal of Cell Biology; The Journal of Experimental Medicine; The Journal of General Physiology
jem.rupress.org - Cached

Get back to "us"?
Who's us, Bolo? Got a worm in your pocket?

I'll bet your PCP is published in the Journal of American Medicine, too. Otherwise, what could he possibly know? How could you put your life in his hands?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. The Journal of Engineering Mechanics. n/t

[immune]

7. Publish or die, eh?

So, is your PCP published in the Journal of American Medicine? If not, how can you have any faith in him at all? After all, if your doc gets it wrong, it won't be him that does the dying.

[zappaman]

8. wtf?

Is these the kinds of things you say in your everyday life?
what a joke.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Perhaps you could share with us where Mark Basile or Jeff Farrer got their doctorates?

Since we're talking doctors.

[immune]

10. Their credentials are

freely available to anyone who cares to know. But if its a pissing match you're looking for, let's hear where you got yours.

[zappaman]

11. freely available?

so why don't you link us to them?
too much work?

by the way, here is why the sky is blue...

There is a physical phenomenon called Rayleigh scattering that causes light to scatter when it p asses through particles that have a diameter one-tenth that of the wavelength (color) of the light. Sunlight is made up of all different colors of light, but because of the elements in the atmosphere the color blue is scattered much more efficiently than the other colors.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. I know where Dr. Bazant got his.

Where did Mark Basile get his doctorate?

[immune]

13. Are you Dr. Bazant?

[Bolo Boffin]

14. No, but it's Dr. Bazant with articles in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics I'm citing.

I'm not asking for your doctorate. I'm asking for Mark Basile's and Jeff Farrer's.

[immune]

15. I was about to offer my condolences if

you WERE the good doctor with all the articles in JEM.

It can't be fun being referred to as NIST's fall guy. http://911blogger.com/node/9154/print

or worse:

the NIST piles it higher and deeper: structural engineer Anders Björkman refutes Dr. Zdenek Bazant
Aug 6th, 2010 by Shawn.

Anders Bjorkman
By Shawn Hamilton
Anders Björkman is a structural engineer from France.

Björkman’s reponse to Bazant’s closure

Björkman criticizes Bazant, as well as his theory, in strong terms. “I think he is a criminal. You can quote me because I’ve already said that on my web site,” he said. “This guy is a Lysenko-type scientist. He’s presenting a false theory for whatever purpose. I don’t know why he does it.”
Bazant’s theory, which Bjorkman dubbed the “Pouff Pouff Theory,” can be seen in the following graphic:
http://theswillbucket.com/?p=248

Björkman is so confident in his criticism of Bazant that in March he created The Heiwa Challenge. He offers ten thousand Euros to anyone who can reproduce, within specified parameters, the progressive collapse theory on their own structures.

He notes that as of July 2010, no one has claimed the prize.

---------------------------------------------

And then there's this guy:

James Gourley Published in “The Journal of Engineering Mechanics”
October 20th, 2008

The Journal of Engineering Mechanics has recently published a paper I authored. It can be found here, beginning on page 915: (PDF 224kb)

The Bazant/Greening Paper

In June 2007, I was sent a link to a paper by Dr. Zdenek Bazant, Dr. Frank Greening, and others, that had been submitted to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (JEM) for peer review and publication. This paper (the Bazant/Greening Paper) can be found here: (PDF 729kb)

After reading through the Bazant/Greening Paper, I came up with essentially the same criticism that I was eventually able to get published this month at JEM. .... I find the crush down/crush up theory completely unbelievable for the reasons I stated in my paper.

Back in June 2007, I sent an email to the editor of JEM that basically laid out my criticisms of the Bazant/Greening paper. About three weeks later, one of the Associate Editors of JEM sent me an email that read as follows:
...
You can imagine my surprise when, in late April 2008, I learned that the Bazant/Greening Paper had been accepted for publication at JEM. The published version can be found here: (PDF 1mb)
...
What I would come to realize later is that Dr. Bazant has published hundreds of papers at JEM, and seems to have the standing of something like a “favored author” over there. As will become apparent below, the rules at JEM that govern other authors do not apply to Dr. Bazant.

http://stj911.org/blog/?p=50

[Bolo Boffin]

16. That's funny. You mentioned James Gourley, who was only published in JEM

so that Dr. Bazant could demonstrate to all concerned just how idiotic the man's paper was.

Dr. Bazant has quite literally written the textbook on structural engineering. So, yes, he may be considered a "favored author" over there, because of his long-term and well respected mastery of the subject.

Now then, you were about to share with us the institutes where Mark Basile and James Farrer acquired their doctorates. For good measure, you may include Anders Björkman and James Gourley in that request. Four imminent 9/11 Truth scientists, one and all! Their doctorates stacked up together might make a dent in Dr. Bazant's reputation. Kindly produce them.

[immune]

17. Please remember, I'm not the one who's

obsessed with doctorates and favored positions with elite publications and on government commissions, that would be you. And it reeks of appeals to authority.

No one can be competent in the face of such haughty grandeur, particularly if he bucks the elitist system. And how lucky for the elites, that they have their palace guards at the gates of their "temple of truth" to throw out the "rabble".

It is for this reason that western civilization is defunct.

[Bolo Boffin]

18. "it reeks of appeals to authority" BWA-HAHAHAHAHA!

Why the hell are you bothering me with what Mark Basile and Jeff Farrer say about anything, if you're not appealing to their authority?

Western civilization is not that bad.

[immune]

19. Here's some western civilization humor for you

I Hold a PhD in Southern Mill Town Unemployment
Sep 12, 2010 Valerie Hegwood

My Associates Degree in Unemployment

Finishing up My Bachelor’s Degree in Unemployment

Masters in Unemployment

My Doctorate Thesis
I have tried to secure at least part-time employment but am turned down for one of two reasons: I am under-qualified or I am over-qualified. Nothing is ever ‘just right,’ as Goldilocks would infer. For two years, our area displayed the highest unemployment rate in the state.

Because Georgia is broke, schools are hurting and hundreds of teachers have been dismissed. All I have is time. At 42, I have received a PhD in Southern Unemployment: because of the sorry condition of Georgia schools and my gifted son had already skipped a grade and remained bored, I am now homeschooling him. Between that thesis and that of the three year old toddler girl, I could not take a job now should I be magically offered one.

Call me Dr. Stay At Home Mom

http://www.suite101.com/content/i-hold-a-phd-in-southern-mill-town-unemployment-a284955#ixzz13hMxfRqF

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Does Dr. Hegwood have Basile's or Farrer's doctorate? n/t

[immune]

21. Who the hell cares.

The point is that a doctorate is not the be all, end all.

Article I: Section 9, Paragraph 8 of the Constitution says:

No Title of Nobility ...

So they gave up titles like Baron and Count, putzed around at Ivy league schools for a few years and substituted being knighted by the king for a few letters behind their names as an end run around the meaning of the word nobility. Oddly enough, people without any letters, or not enough letters, or not the "right" letters, are still expected to bow and scrape before the most highly lettered nobles. Especially the ones with all the right connections in all the right places.

Long live the King.

[zappaman]

22. The Origins of Royalty

The concept of royalty is centuries ­old. It originated with the feudal systems of medieval Europe. Under feudalism, there were a few very powerful landowners who acquired large amounts of territory through military force or purchase. These landowners became high-ranking lords, and one of them was crowned king. This probably happened through a show of military force or through political machinations, or some combination of the two. Powerful as they were, these lords controlled too much territory to manage on their own. They would name vassals, lower-ranking nobles who were granted some property and whatever income it generated (usually through rents paid by commoners or profits from farming). In return, the vassal would act as administrator of that territory. More importantly, the vassal was obligated to provide military aid to his lord. He would raise a private army, and if his territory was large enough, he might create several vassals of his own below him.

[immune]

23. Read through that again and use your head.

We are still under a feudal system.

[zappaman]

24. yeah but

when a horse is lead to water, he doesn't necessarily turn it into gold.

[immune]

25. Yeah but

that doesn't mean the guy who lead (sic) the horse to the water isn't a gold star horse's ass.

[zappaman]

26. How to make a Gold Star Ways Quilt Pattern

From black background with colored dots, cut 24 X 351/2-inch rectangle. Fold along 351/2-inch line. Cut off 45 degree triangle from each corner, making hexagon. Fuse pieces of strip webbing to edges of hexagon. Remove paper. Cut four 7 X 42-inch strips.

From royal blue, cut 28 X 42-inch piece. Cut 4 X 17-inch piece of webbing. Fuse to remaining blue. Trace pattern A 6 times and cut out. Remove paper. Cut four 23/4-inch squares.

Cut and fuse two 10 X 17-inch pieces of webbing side by side to gold. Trim unbounded piece. Remove paper. Fold fabric in half where webbing meets. Cut four 2 X 34-inch strips of gold. Using 45 degree angle marking on ruler, cut and discard triangle from end of double-folded strip. Move ruler over 2 inches along same 45 degree angle marking, and cut 2 diamonds. Continue cutting for 40 diamonds.

Fuse 8 X 17-inch piece of webbing to remaining gold. Place patterns face up and trace 6 of piece A, 4 each of piece B and C, and 2 of piece D. Cut out. Fuse 12 X 17-inch piece of webbing to green. Trace 6 of piece A and 4 of piece E. Cut out and remove all paper. Cut two 23/4-inch strips into four 23/4-inch squares.

Fuse 12 X 17-inch piece of webbing to fuchsia. Trace 6 of piece A, 4 of piece E, and 2 of piece F. Cut out and remove paper. Cut two 2-inch strips, and follow Step 3 to cut 8 diamonds. Cut five 2 X 45-inch strips of binding from royal blue.

Center 8 gold diamonds on black print hexagon to form star. Pin and fuse. Alternate green and blue squares touching gold edges, and fuse. Using ruler to assure exact lines, place 8 fuchsia diamonds touching points of gold diamonds. Pin and fuse. Center black print hexagon on blue rectangle and pin. Fuse.

Arrange 8 gold diamonds in each corner of blue background to make 4 stars. The inner points of stars almost touch black print hexagon, and outer points are about 1/4 inch from blue background edges. Pin and fuse.

Place motifs on two 7 X 42-inch strips (follow photograph on PDF of Star Ways Quilt Pattern for placement). Each side panel contains 2 green circles, 1 fuchsia circle with gold ring, 1 fuchsia star with gold trail, and 1 small circle of each color. The green circles are 21/2 inches from ends, and other motifs are evenly spaced between. Pin and fuse.

Stitch side panels to blue center. Press seams toward side panels. Trim remaining two 7 X 42-inch strips to exact width of center and sides. Place motifs in order on top and bottom panels. Moons are 11/2 inches from ends. Pin and fuse.

Stitch top and bottom panels to center. Press seams toward panels. Place backing face down and center batting. Place quilt top face up over batting. Pin and hand baste.

With sewing machine on medium zigzag stitch, use gold thread and zigzag around edge of each diamond, starting with center. Change thread to match motif and zigzag around each fused piece.

Stitch together binding strips to make 1 long strip. Fold in half lengthwise, wrong sides together. Stitch binding to quilt top, beginning in middle of 1 side and leaving 3 inches of binding free. End stitching 1/4 inch from each corner. Begin next side, and repeat for all sides and corners. End stitching about 6 inches before binding ends meet. Stitch ends of binding, trim excess, and finish stitching binding. Trim batting and backing. Miter corners, turn binding to back, and blind stitch in place. Remove basting.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. My goodness, you don't seem to be able to stay on topic.

Enjoy your pseudoscience from bachelor degreed hacks.

[immune]

47. Okay, lets stay on topic.

I have some questions regarding the peer review process Dr. Brazant’s paper went through to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

1. Who all received a copy of this paper for review and when did they receive it?

2. Which members of the peer group read it and returned it approved for publication?

3. Which members of the peer group read it and returned it with criticism or rejected it?

4. How many peers must approve the scientific findings detailed in a paper to be published in JEM? Must they attempt to replicate the findings?

5. How many peers must disapprove of the scientific findings detailed in a paper to reject it?

6. Is the author allowed to revise his paper based on criticisms of the peer group and what is that process, how many times may a paper be resubmitted for subsequent peer review?

7. Where does one find the names of the specific peers who reviewed and approved, or disapproved, the scientific findings contained in Dr. Brazant’s paper? What is the particular discipline that qualifies each of them to judge the findings expressed in this paper?

And finally, why did Dr. Brazant seek to have his paper published in JEM, rather than in one of the journals listed at the link below? Wouldn’t a structural engineering journal be more appropriate in this instance since they deal specifically with the properties and actions of steel and concrete?

http://www.thestructuralengineer.info/?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=29

[Bolo Boffin]

53. Why JEM?

http://scitation.aip.org/emo/

The Journal of Engineering Mechanics covers activity and development in the field of applied mechanics as it relates to civil engineering. Research on bioengineering, computational mechanics, computer-aided engineering, dynamics of structures, elasticity, experimental analysis and instrumentation, fluid mechanics, flow of granular media, inelastic behavior of solids and structures, probabilistic methods, properties of materials, fracture mechanics, stability of structural elements and systems, and turbulence is reported. Typically, published papers describe the development and implementation of new analytical models, innovative numerical methods, and novel experimental methods and results.

The Journal of Engineering Mechanics was a most appropriate peer-reviewed scholarly journal for Bazant's papers on why the WTC towers fell, for the reasons I've bolded above. ACME's standards for manuscript submission are available here:

http://www.asce.org/Content.aspx?id=18107

[immune]

55. 1 out of 8?

Zdenek P. Bazant to Receive the ASME Nadai Medal

NEW YORK, Sept. 25, 2008 -- Zdenÿk P. Baÿant, Ph.D., a resident of Evanston, Ill., and McCormick Institute professor and W. P. Murphy professor of civil engineering at Northwestern University, will be honored by ASME. He is being recognized for demonstrating spurious localization instability in strain-softening models of quasibrittle materials, devising a remedy by crack-band and nonlocal damage formulations, discovering and experimentally validating the energetic size effect law for such materials, and showing applications to particulate and fiber composites. He will receive the Society’s Nadai Medal.

Prior to 1984, all the experimentally observed size effects on structural strength were attributed to material strength randomness and described by Weibull statistics. Baÿant is known worldwide for showing, beginning with his two landmark papers in 1976 and 1984, that this was not true for brittle heterogeneous materials. He introduced the novel concept of size effect caused by stress redistribution with a release of stored energy due to stable growth of large fractures or large damage zones prior to failure.

http://www.asme.org/Governance/Honors/Releases/Zdenek_P_Bazant_Receive_Nadai.cfm

So what, the towers collapsed because they were big? They collapsed because the concrete and steel was old and brittle? Or was it because small portions of two buildings got hit by planes and the stress was redistributed, so that they, plus one that wasn't hit by a plane, fell as a mass into their own footprints? Sounds pretty innovative to me.

Maybe you could try for the other questions.

[SDuderstadt]

56. Does anyone know what...

"immune" is babbling about now?

[zappaman]

57. no

neither does he.

[Bolo Boffin]

58. No, 8 out of 8. All answers to your questions on the review process are at the link. n/t

[immune]

59. I asked "who" specifically.

the answer provided on the site is "volunteers". Is that like the candy stripers of old? Well, I guess not, since they at least wore name tags on thiir pretty blouses.

[Bolo Boffin]

60. Do you know that about the ATM Paper? n/t

[immune]

62. Do you always

evade questions by going off topic and asking unrelated questions? You and I were talking about Dr. Bazant and the peer review HIS paper allegedly received by unnamed volunteers.

I realize its hard to keep so many balls in the air all at the same time, but you were having the ATM paper conversation with Tetedur. But since you asked so nicely, no, I wouldn't expect The Journal of Engineering Mechanics to publish the ATM paper, it would be like expecting them to publish an arson investigator's report on NIST's failure to test for the presence of accelerants or explosives in the tower's rubble. And we both know that ain't happening any time soon.

.... an accelerant is any substance or mixture that "accelerates" the development of fire. Accelerants are often used to commit arson, and some accelerants may cause an explosion. Some fire investigators use the term "accelerant" to mean any substance that initiates and promotes a fire without...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_accelerant - Cached

[zappaman]

63. LOL

"Do you always evade questions by going off topic and asking unrelated questions?"
Coming from you, the Queen of evasion and going off topic, that statement is hilarious!!!
:rofl:

[immune]

65. And you,

being the Queen of Hilarity, would know ... well everything there is to know about going off and staying off topic.

[Bolo Boffin]

64. Fine, so you have a double standard for the ATM paper and the Bazant papers.

Here's how we'll agree to disagree. You stick with the Benthem vanity press paper with no knowledge whatsoever of its peer review process, and I'll stick with the internationally respected JEM papers with no specific knowledge of the exact peer review process employed for it.

And the ATM paper can easily be submitted to the Journal of Chemical Physics, as I pointed out below. Why haven't the authors of the ATM paper submitted it there? Answer: because there's a peer review process more substantial than making sure the check cleared.

[immune]

67. No, we'll simply have to agree that you cannot

come up with the names of the volunteers who peer reviewed Bazant's Paper. We do, of course, know that it was submitted to James Gourley for review, and we do know how he responded. That's it ... nobody else is talking. Including you.

So when you break a hip, we'll expect you to be satisfied to have a paper written up on your bone fracture in the Journal of Evolutionary Anthropology since they know all about how man learned to walk upright, well at least until he broke a hip.

This whole argument about flawless holy journals makes as much sense as that.

The evidence was hauled away and the proper tests were not performed by the appointed investigators. Period. One might wonder what the ones doing the appointing have to hide. Actually tens of millions of people are wondering exactly that and you can't stop them from wondering by waving plausible deniability papers in their faces. It just isn't working this time.

[Bolo Boffin]

89. "We do, of course, know that it was submitted to James Gourley for review." You know wrong. n/t

[immune]

93. Hmmm. If you know that,

(or think you do) then obviously you must have the complete list of those volunteers to whom itwas submitted for review. Why are you being so hesitant about sharing that information with us or telling us how you came to be in possession of such a list?

[Bolo Boffin]

94. Your fucking idiotic claim. I'm calling Bullshit. Produce your evidence to back your claim.

What I know is Gourley's actual account, not your clever little reworking to make it all better. No one ever asked James Gourley to review Bazant's paper.

[immune]

96. You claimed I was wrong.

Prove it.

[Bolo Boffin]

97. And so you are. Here's proof:

http://911blogger.com/node/18196

In June 2007, I was sent a link to a paper by Dr. Zdenek Bazant, Dr. Frank Greening, and others, that had been submitted to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (JEM) for peer review and publication....

Back in June 2007, I sent an email to the editor of JEM that basically laid out my criticisms of the Bazant/Greening paper. About three weeks later, one of the Associate Editors of JEM sent me an email...

I completed the reviewer forms that evening, and sent it back to JEM the following day. The reviewer forms allowed me to recommend for or against publication of the paper. I, of course, recommended against publication until my concerns were addressed.

I never heard anything back from JEM...

Thus your statement "We do, of course, know that it was submitted to James Gourley for review..." is false. Gourley found the paper online. He submitted an unrequested critique. The Associate Editor sent him a necessary form to have his critique considered, he filled it out, and never heard back from JEM.

Gourley then initiated another round of emails in which JEM basically threw him off the scent. After finding the article published, Gourler submitted his critique as a response. JEM published it, allowing Bazant free rein to eviserate the piece of trash Gourley had written. And that was that.

The article was NEVER submitted to Gourley. Please stick to facts when you speak.

ETA: Question for you -- if you think Gourley's initial review delayed the publication of the Bazant article, why on reading the published version did Gourley feel none of his critiques had been addressed?

[zappaman]

98. "Please stick to facts when you speak."

You do realize you are talking to a guy that claimed the flights on 9/11 were only short destinations that spent hours flying around wasting fuel, right?

[Bolo Boffin]

99. Oh, boy. n/t

[immune]

101. And as it turned out, they were destined to be

short flights. Somebody planned it that way. You seem to think that's humorous. I find laughter and mockery over death and destruction quite sickening.

[zappaman]

103. wow

"And as it turned out, they were destined to be short flights. Somebody planned it that way. You seem to think that's humorous. I find laughter and mockery over death and destruction quite sickening."

You have really surpassed yourself in the bullshit department.
If anything, you and your misinformed brain is what is making a mockery over death and destruction.

[immune]

100. Okay, so who sent him the link?

It obviously arrived in his email complete with "reviewer forms" to fill out and return. Now who would be sending those out to anyone and everyone? What a sloppy system.

And by your own admission, James Gourley's rebuttal paper was published in JEM .... only "so that Dr. Bazant could demonstrate to all concerned just how idiotic the man's paper was."

Are you suggesting that Gourley's paper wasn't subjected to peer review as required by JEM and approved by the "volunteer reviewers"? It was only published as comic relief?

Like I said, what a sloppy, junior high mentality system that would be.

[Bolo Boffin]

102. Gourley doesn't say. But it obviously wasn't JEM.

I found Bazant's paper online before it was published. The paper was released online for a while. It made all the 9/11 Truth and debunker rounds. That's how Gourley found the link.

Reading isn't your strong suit, is it? Gourley didn't have "reviewer forms" to fill out until the Assistant Editor sent him the email AFTER Gourley had submitted his unrequested critique. In other words, JEM never submitted it to him.

Yes, Gourley's paper was subjected to peer review. The reviewer was BAZANT. The review was published right after Gourley's paper in the same issue. The review was GOURLEY FAILS.

Yes, this is the paper 9/11 Truth advocates tout as "peer reviewed." That embarrassing piece of tripe only published to demonstrate that perhaps thinking about these matters in a scholarly fashion should be conducted by scholars in the field, and not a fucking lawyer.

[zappaman]

104. Incoherent and random reply in...

3...
2...
1

[immune]

105. It sounds like

you are speaking for JEM in some kind of an official way. Or maybe it's Bazant in particular that you're speaking for. All these amazing details that you are privy to. And all that hostility.

God knows the poor man has become a punching bag for the 911 truth community since he hooked up with NIST. Got to choose one's friends more carefully. Shoot, its almost enough to jerk a tear or two from my eye.

[Bolo Boffin]

106. You are confusing "speaking in an official way" with "able to read, reason, and write."

I'm only doing the latter, not the former.

[immune]

108. Okie dokie.

I found Bazant's paper online before it was published. The paper was released online for a while. It made all the 9/11 Truth and debunker rounds. That's how Gourley found the link.

Link please to the pre-JEM version that was released online prior to publication and why would that happen at all unless he was looking for feedback ... like he got from Gourmley? At any rate, that dated pre-version must still be floating around out there in cyberspace somewhere.

Gourley didn't have "reviewer forms" to fill out until the Assistant Editor sent him the email AFTER Gourley had submitted his unrequested critique. In other words, JEM never submitted it to him.

Why didn't the Assistant Editor just tell him to piss off since his opinion was unwelcome?

Yes, Gourley's paper was subjected to peer review. The reviewer was BAZANT. The review was published right after Gourley's paper in the same issue. The review was GOURLEY FAILS.

More of the junior high mentality. My paper's better than your paper. Pretty soon they're throwing spit balls.

At last we bask in the Glorious American Socialist Paradise! Obama Akbar!


That's in your sig line?

Holy SHIT!! I must've gotten lost again.

[zappaman]

109. "I must've gotten lost again."

what do you mean by "again"?
Seems to be a permanent condition.

[Bolo Boffin]

111. Bazant pulled the link. Now the only link is to the published paper.

Yes, I come at the healthcare issue from Obama's extreme left. I see sarcasm is something else you have difficulty ascertaining.

[immune]

112. Somehow I'm having difficulty connecting

"Obama Akbar!" with healthcare of any kind.

Oh darn, he pulled the link just so you couldn't prove your assertions.

[Bolo Boffin]

113. "Obama Akbar" is mocking Tea Baggers who think liberals are all secret Muslims.

We won healthcare and so Sharia Law is sweeping the country.

Sarcasm. Let's give you another example for practice.

Yes, that's exactly right. Bazant thought that he would pull the link just so I couldn't prove my assertions. It's all the government's fault. You're right. Pass the tin foil.

Are you getting a grasp on sarcasm yet?

[immune]

114. Actually,

my comment about Bazant pulling the link was sarcasm. I don't think it ever existed. So apparently we're at a stalemate on that score.

I don't think the bagger's hysteria over Sharia law sweeping the land (which is nuts to begin with} has anything at all to do with the healthcare bill. It has more to do with the fact that the pukes are pissed off over losing the 2000 election and they're scared to death they won't get back into power any time soon ... so hyping fear of Muslims higher and higher is just convenient ... since 911, of course.

[Bolo Boffin]

115. Ah, so when I say that I was able to access it before it was published

I'm not telling you the truth?

[immune]

116. How should I know if you could or couldn't

FOR SURE? You guys dish out plenty of demands for proof of everything, but you don't like taking it. Goosies and ganders.

[zappaman]

117. "goosies and ganders"

I think you meant wood chips and tuna fish.

[Bolo Boffin]

118. You could be gracious and civil and accept my word. n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

125. Why would anyone blindly accept the word of Mr. Indian Lake "was yards away from the crash site"?

They would still be misinformed to this day...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=204435#204441

Not to mention another time you were caught posting a pure falsehood, then a few replies later admit to using lazy shortcuts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=182119#182387

Do you find this a good enough reason why someone wouldn't "be gracious and civil and accept (your) word"?

Hell, farther down in this thread you admit you haven't even watched the videos that you're trying to argue against! It's even funnier, and by "funnier" I really mean "sad, but not surprising", that you have no problem with Bazant doing the peer review on a paper that criticizes his (Bazant's) original paper. No room for bias there at all, is there?

"You could be gracious and civil and accept my word"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Bolo Boffin]

133. Personally, if I were you, I'd be embarrassed to link to that thread.

Your protestations that you would not haunt me with that silly little mistake (and both mistakes are that, silly and little) don't read so well when you bring it up years later. Looks like I called that situation pretty well. Maybe I should go apply for Randi's million dollars!

And I still stand by this statement:

Nobody here (least of all me) thinks I'm perfect in every way. But I'll tell you what - do a search of my posts, and while you will find only a few corrections there, you will find them. I say the truth as much as possible, and when I'm wrong, I admit it. That is a damned sight better than many, many CT advocates around here.

When I make mistakes, I correct them. When my debate opponents make mistakes, they cling to them. And you follow me around, haunting me.

Well, thinking about it, I guess I don't blame you too much. Pointing out my mistakes to me generally results in my correcting them.

[Ghost in the Machine]

141. Why should I be embarrassed about your mistakes?

"Your protestations that you would not haunt me with that silly little mistake (and both mistakes are that, silly and little) don't read so well when you bring it up years later. Looks like I called that situation pretty well. Maybe I should go apply for Randi's million dollars!"

Where, exactly, did I say I wouldn't haunt you with it? What I said was "BTW---- where did I ever say I'd try to haunt you with it?" in reference to your comment "I'd like to see you try to haunt me with this silly little mistake."

In my opinion, they weren't "silly little mistakes", they were flatout falsehoods. You stated as FACT that "My title isn't exactly right, but the actual one (How The Loss of One Column May Have Led To The Collapse of WTC 7) wouldn't fit", when you really just made an assumption without even trying to find out for yourself if it was true or not. This wasn't a mistake, it was a falsehood. Period.

Please tell me why, exactly, that this shouldn't be brought up when you are asking someone to "be gracious and civil and accept my word"?

[Bolo Boffin]

143. Between the people who misidentified paint chips as thermite and the guy who didn't check a title in

a window to see if it would fit because he thought it wouldn't fit and said it wouldn't fit, you think the mistake worth hounding someone over is the title mistake guy. I think it's the paint chip guys.

And now you have the fucking nerve to give me grief over these mistakes, when you gave me grief back then for saying that you would do exactly what you are now doing!

And as Make7 just kicked up to the top, you have your own record of false claims that by your own standard should cause us to doubt every single word you say and hound you to the end of time with your mistakes. Did you even admit you were wrong about WTC 7 not being a tube-in-tube design?

You haunt me with mistakes I've admitted were mistakes, while ignoring much more serious errors and while making them yourself! I myself would be embarrassed to act that way. Stop taking my inventory, Ghost, and deal with your own moral failures.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

147. No, no, no. You're in the construction industry and you perpetuated such a blatant falsehood?

You didn't know what tube-in-tube meant and we're supposed to take anything you say seriously? And you think you can just get off the hooks for your deliberate falsehood by saying you were wrong at the time? No, no, no, no, no!

/Ghost in the Machine mode

[Ghost in the Machine]

150. And you were what? A cruise ship dancer? Have you ever even been on a construction site?

Once again, since it's apparent that you have comprehension problems, I'm not the one asking people to "be gracious and civil and accept my word" for anything, am I?

Answer the question, Bolo: Is it wrong to point out your mistakes/falsehoods when you're asking people to "be gracious and civil and accept my word" about something? It's like a used car salesman, or a politician, saying "trust me"...

[Bolo Boffin]

151. No, I was not a cruise ship dancer. Another flatout falsehood you've stated.

Implying that I'm a closeted fundie hiding behind atheism is another flatout falsehood you've stated.

Keep racking up the evidence of harrassment of me, Ghost. It will be sad to see your tombstone.

[Ghost in the Machine]

154. Yeah, my bad... it was "actor"...

"Implying that I'm a closeted fundie hiding behind atheism is another flatout falsehood you've stated."

No, once again you show your problems with comprehension. Please explain, in detail, how my saying that "you sound like a closeted fundie hiding behind the veil of atheism" is a falsehood. To me, you sounded like a fundie preaching morality. Prove that you didn't sound that way to me. When you're done with that, you can answer my previous question.

In case you've forgotten, the question was: Is it wrong to point out your mistakes/falsehoods when you're asking someone to "be gracious and civil and accept my word" about something? Why won't you answer the question??

"Keep racking up the evidence of harrassment of me, Ghost. It will be sad to see your tombstone."

Why do you ALWAYS whine, cry and accuse people of "maligning me" or "attacking me" or "harrassing me" when they point out your mistakes? Is that all you've got... mistakes, falsehoods and whiney nuisance distraction? Well, besides your false sense of superiority and authority, that is...

[Bolo Boffin]

155. Cease your personal obsession with me this instance.

Do not reply to this unless you are dealing with the topic of this thread, which is not "Joseph Nobles."

If you want to order a granite pizza for yourself, that's fine. Do as you like. But your harassment is unwelcome and it will cease, whether you possess the ability to restrain yourself or not.

[Ghost in the Machine]

156. The topic of this sub-thread is you wanting someone to "be gracious and civil and accept my word"..

YOU are the one who asked someone to do that, aren't you? Here, I'll even leave out the "falsehoods" and just leave it at "mistakes":

Answer the question, Bolo: Is it wrong to point out your mistakes when you're asking people to "be gracious and civil and accept my word" about something?

Asking you to explain *why* someone should "be gracious and civil and accept my word" is an obsession now? :rofl:

[immune]

139. Holy Catfish, Andy!!!

That was some interesting reading.

Thanks, Ghost.

[Ghost in the Machine]

142. It helps when you know what you're dealing with, doesn't it?

None of us are above making mistakes here.. and I have made a couple of them myself, one of them that was pretty fuckin' embarrassing about what "tube in a tube" meant as per the construction of the Twin Towers, but there's a big difference between making a mistake and posting a flatout falsehood IMHO.

Peace,

Ghost

[immune]

146. I've certainly made my share of mistakes

on issues and don't mind admitting it, even though a few folks hereabouts seem to get their daily jollies by rubbing one of them, in particular, in. Its childish behavior in the extreme and I think anyone who spends much time here in the dungeon could figure that out.

But yes, deliberate falsehoods are a very different matter and it always helps to know who has a habit of perpetrating them.

Being relatively new to the forum means that I don't have a lot of background on what posters have said in the past and not much time to research it, but those links were helpful in clearing up a few questions I had.

Thanks and peace back to you.

[Bolo Boffin]

148. Oh, t his raises cute to a whole new level.

Ghost has resurrected two minor mistakes I made years ago, and you're doing here grousing with him about "a few folks hereabouts seem to get their daily jollies by rubbing one of (my mistakes), in particular, in."

Yes, indeed, all kinds of questions are been cleared up here, aren't they?

[zappaman]

149. you've made more than your share

and they are more bullshit/just making shit up than honest mistakes.
Furthermore, when called on them, you just joke and change the subject.
Your response when caught not having a clue to where the flights were headed that day and how long they were in the air was...

"As it turns out, they were destined to be short flights. Somebody planned it that way. You seem to think that's humorous. I find laughter and mockery over death and destruction quite sickening."

You don't make mistakes...you just make shit up.
Big difference.

[SDuderstadt]

152. You might try fact checking...

your goofy bullshit before just blurting it out.

That would save you a lot of embarrassment.

[immune]

129. After you say things like ...

"Your fucking idiotic claim", you're asking me to be gracious?

I see Make7 saved your bacon by locating the archived link to Bazant's early released paper (which I haven't seen yet), although its noted that he felt the need to add a little snark that I couldn't find the report that you, yourself, couldn't find.

But that doesn't answer the question of WHY he released it early, unless he was looking for feedback, which he apparently got, in spades, from Gourley.

[Bolo Boffin]

132. And you have yet to answer the question why, if Gourley's review was accepted by JEM

...did Gourley feel that none of his criticisms had been addressed when he had read the published article? Enough so that he felt the need to submit his critique as a response to the paper?

If his criticisms had played a part in delaying and changing the paper, there would be some acknowledgement of that in the way the paper read as published. It appears however that Gourley's criticism was dispensed with before the paper was published. JEM gave every indication, after asking for the proper paperwork to be filled out, of ignoring and putting Gourley off. But Gourley begged and begged for the thrashing he received in the pages of the JEM, and 9/11 Truth advocate boast of his peer-reviewed JEM paper as if it were something other than it is: an embarrassment.

Your claims remain fucking idiotic, immune. I label them as such to encourage you to drop them. But it is your right to hold and make all the fucking idiotic claims you wish. How is that working out for you?

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

138. Maybe if you wouldn't make...

fucking idiotic claims, people wouldn't single them out, Mr. "the 9/11 flights were just short hops".

[Make7]

119. You could actually look for it yourself, immune. That's one way to know.

 
http://web.archive.org/web/20070607165124rn_1/www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/


That's a web archive link that was saved June 7th, 2007. The link to the actual paper is the second listing on that page.
 

[Bolo Boffin]

120. Well, gee whiz.

I constantly forget how useful the Web Archive is. Thanks, Make7.

[immune]

135. Back to the drawing board

Gourley states:
In June 2007, I was sent a link to a paper by Dr. Zdenek Bazant, Dr. Frank Greening, and others, that had been submitted to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (JEM) for peer review and publication....

Back in June 2007, I sent an email to the editor of JEM that basically laid out my criticisms of the Bazant/Greening paper. About three weeks later, one of the Associate Editors of JEM sent me an email...

... then we're told ...
________________________________________
www.civil.northwestern.edu - /people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/

2/11/2004 5:59 PM 71018 0 INSTRUCTIONS.pdf
5/30/2007 2:58 PM 584144 00 WTC Collapse - What Did & Did Not Cause It - 5-2007.pdf
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

So is Make's link above supposed to represent an early posting on the internet, as he implies, or would May 30, 2007 be the date Bazant's paper was first submitted to JEM for review? Or what?

Who would have leaked the paper early to all the 911 debunker sites, who then leaked it to Gourley prior to publication, which, if I remember correctly, is what you earlier alleged, Bolo.

And what of this claim:
"James Gourley has a critique of Bazant and Green's paper and published by ASCE that points out several blunders in Bazant's crazy collapse theory. I don't think NIST even supports Bazant and Green, they're theories are so wild. Apparently some of the first of Bazant and Green's papers on collapse theory submitted to JEM were rejected due to Gourley's criticisms."

http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/science-still-failing-nist-physics-tells-us-resistance-only-mental

ASCE paper by Gourley: "Discussion of “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions” by Zdenk P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure"
James R. Gourley

Can someone with all the right links and info create a timeline of this series of events and articles and papers? Please? So we could get back to the videos in the OP, maybe? Thank you in advance!

[Bolo Boffin]

140. "leaked it"? There is no leaking here.

Bazant released an early version of the paper on the Internet. Make7 has provided you the web archive of June 2007 where the paper was (and is) available. That was the link Gourley found.

Your claim that JEM sent the paper to Gourley for review is hogwash. It's based on a misreading of Gourley's own account. That much is crystal clear. Gourley doesn't make that claim; you do.

If you think "some of the first of Bazant and Green's papers on collapse theory submitted to JEM were rejected due to Gourley's criticisms", you have the original paper, the published paper, and Gourley's critique. You can find out for yourself what changed due to Gourley's critique. Enjoy.

[alcibiades_mystery]

121. Without getting involved in this too much

Let me just say that I have "volunteered" as an article manuscript reviewer for journals in my field (in the humanities), and information on specific reviewers is generally not supplied to the public (or the author(s), or anyone else) by the journal. There's a reason it's called "blind peer review." Both the name of the author(s) and the names of the reviewers are kept confidential each from the other. That's the standard practice for academic journals with a blind peer review process. If I found out that the editors of a journal for which I reviewed an article were giving out my name on specific reviews, I would cease reviewing for that journal and probably make an ethics complaint to the editors' home institutions.

Generally speaking, you can find the names of reviewers listed in the journals "editorial review board" or "editorial board." For specific articles, an editor may seek out a non-affiliated expert (i.e., somebody who has a number of published works or other demonstrated expertise on the topic under consideration). But an academic journal will almost never (in my experience, plain old never) divulge the identities of the peer reviewers for a specific article.

That's not to say that this information may not travel independently. I have contacted authors whose work I accepted in review and let them know that I was the favorable review. I've also been pinned by authors whose work I rejected in review: increasingly specialized fields, and all that.

But you're literally asking for information that simply doesn't circulate publicly. Whether you're doing that knowingly to score points, or through ignorance of the review processes of academic journals, I can't say.

[immune]

127. I have no doubt that

your characterization of the normal publishing process in any scholarly journal is correct.

In this particular instance, however, that process appears to have been derailed due to the politicization of Bazant't position on the NIST commission and his paper, which many people believe was nothing more than part of the overall cover up in the investigation.

Accusing me of trying to score points is silly, there isn't even a score keeper. Ignorance? Sure, that's more than possible, but I would say its more an attempt to discover people's true motives regarding "the worst terror attack ever committed on American soil."

Sorry, you can ridicule my own motives and intellect till hell freezes over, I won't apologize or grovel to any "higher" authority for wanting to know who attacked us and to see them punished to the letter of the law.

[alcibiades_mystery]

128. I guess I've not been following

the thread or issue closely enough to see where it's been "derailed."

From the descriptions above, it seems that Gourmley was sent what he took to be a "reviewer form." This would indeed be odd practice.

Asking for the names of reviewers, in any case, remains silly, since academic journals are usually bound to keep that information secret in the interest of blind peer review.

[immune]

130. If a paper is released early by the author

on the internet, which apparently this one was, wouldn't that involve the author himself breaking the rules of required blindness? Why would he do that?

As for what Gourley took to be a "reviewer form", maybe it would be worth following the thread more closely before reaching a conclusion. Truthfully, I've been following the thread pretty closely all along and still haven't been able to reach a conclusion, other than all the rules seem to have been broken.

[alcibiades_mystery]

131. It happens from time to time

Blindness is a term of process. It means that when the article is sent to reviewers, it does not include author information. It also means that when reviewers submit their comments and judgment, the reviewer's identity is not submitted to the author (or anyone else outside of the editorial staff). Quite often, the blindness is only processual. I've often reviewed articles for which I could identify the author, either because I'd seen the author give the same article as a conference talk (often with the same title), or because I know the author's methodology, objects of inquiry, or even writing style. And, indeed, it's started to become common for academics to place works-in-progress in PDF form on their web sites. It's not some massive breakdown in process, though I agree it puts pressure on the "blind" character of the peer review process, though, again, that was never as blind as one might think. Academic disciplines are very small worlds indeed, especially at advanced levels.

The relevance of blind peer review here goes to your request for the names of the reviewers. You're asking for information that is generally not made available by the editors of an academic journal. That's my only point. It could, of course, be made available by the reviewers themselves, but that is their choice.

Once again, you're asking for information that is generally not made available. Whether you are doing so through ignorance of the process or because you're trying to be clever in an internet forum debate, I don't know. I can't deal with the latter, but I can inform you on the former. You may as well be asking for the journal editor's social security number. It's not persuasive argument to ask your interlocutor to provide information that is next to impossible to get. So you shouldn't do that.

Cheers.

[immune]

136. Little digs. Gotta love 'em.

"Whether you are doing so through ignorance of the process or because you're trying to be clever in an internet forum debate, I don't know."

I've admitted my basic ignorance of the "process" about a hundred times already, which is why I'm asking questions.

But the real question here is what did "they" know and when did "they" know it, not the actual peer review process itself, or even the papers.

Smearing Gourley has been the purpose of a few here all along.

So the cleverness part you're noticing is being demonstrated more by those who want to muddy the issues further, rather than clarify them, hence my sarcasm.

[alcibiades_mystery]

153. I don't know about all that

Here's the way I saw it. There are only two reasons for repeatedly demanding information your interlocutors could not possibly produce: either you A) don't know that such information is generally unavailable, or B) you know that it is, and you're demanding it for that reason. I'm not really sure how to represent those choices as anything other than ignorance or cleverness, though I suspect that if I worked harder at it, I'd find a way to say it that you didn't consider insulting.

Now, apparently there's a third choice: you know that your interlocutors know at least one potential peer reviewer, and you want them to say that person's name, presumably Gourley. They seem willing to take Gourley's statements at face value in terms of his involvement with the peer review, but that still wouldn't allow them to provide you with the names of the reviewers.

Like I said, I'm not really that interested in being involved in all that. I can address possibility A) (i.e., that you perhaps didn't know how peer review works). I'll let you and the other sort out the other stuff.

[immune]

157. There's another reason you're missing.

"There are only two reasons for repeatedly demanding information your interlocutors could not possibly produce: either you A) don't know that such information is generally unavailable, or B) you know that it is, and you're demanding it for that reason."

When someone keeps hinting at being in possession of "secret" knowledge, which you say they should not have anyway, and they use that premise to disparage the credibility of others, what is the proper way to go about .... encouraging .... them to admit they're blowing smoke if they are unwilling to back up their claims with facts? Or is one to just blithely accept that everyone is forthright and honest while they're blasting away at other people's reputations?

[alcibiades_mystery]

158. That would certainly be a reason

I don't see it. Maybe point me to it?

[immune]

160. I hate redundancy, but

I missed the post # on the first comment I've reposted here, but they're all Bolo's posts:

That's funny. You mentioned James Gourley, who was only published in JEM
so that Dr. Bazant could demonstrate to all concerned just how idiotic the man's paper was.

…. How could anyone know this was the only reason it was published without inside information?

#94 No one ever asked James Gourley to review Bazant's paper

…. How could anyone know this without inside information?

#97 Gourley then initiated another round of emails in which JEM basically threw him off the scent.

…. Threw him off the scent? How could anyone know this was their intent without having access to the emails?

#102 The paper was released online for a while. It made all the 9/11 Truth and debunker rounds. That's how Gourley found the link.

…. How could anyone know this unless Gourley told them that's how he found it? It is also claimed that Bazant released his paper online early and that's how Gourley found it.

#102 Yes, this is the paper 9/11 Truth advocates tout as "peer reviewed." That embarrassing piece of tripe only published to demonstrate that perhaps thinking about these matters in a scholarly fashion should be conducted by scholars in the field, and not a fucking lawyer.

…. Again, how could anyone know the reasons JEM published the paper without inside info?


Perhaps these comments don't mean much when taken individually, but added up I'm not so sure about it. I, at least, got the feeling that he was hinting at having inside information that could not be disputed by any outsider.

I stand prepared to be wrong if proven so, but its my opinion.

[alcibiades_mystery]

161. That's pretty thin

Sorry, but I'm not seeing it.

[immune]

162. No problem.

As I said, its just my opinion.

There are much better discussions going on in this thread regarding the value of the videos in the OP than this ongoing off-topic nonsense about Bazant and Co. anyway, so IMO there's no point in continuing it.

I apologize to one and all for my part in diverting attention from the importance of the OP.

immune >:spank:

[Bolo Boffin]

167. Yes, by all means, let's get back to the OP, where the people involved in writing the ATM paper

confirm the results of the paper.

[zappaman]

90. "tens of millions"

Please name them.

[SDuderstadt]

66. You realize that the...

NFPA was part of the investigation, right?

Wait, I just answered my own question.

[immune]

68. Yeah, sure.

NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) 921, which is the National Standard for Fire and Explosion Investigations, very clearly indicates in numerous sections that the possibility of explosives should have been thoroughly investigated. Specifically in NFPA 921 18.3.2 "High Order Damage"- "High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet. High-order damage is the result of rapid rates of pressure rise." World Trade Center's 1, 2, and 7 all clearly met this definition; therefore they should have been thoroughly investigated and analyzed for explosives. Specifically, the use of "exotic accelerants" should have been investigated. In NFPA 921 19.2.4 -"Exotic Accelerants," three indicators were clearly met that should have led to a thorough investigation into the possible use of "exotic accelerants," specifically as stated in the guideline, "Thermite mixtures."

http://www.911truth.org/page.php?page=petitions

Emphasis on Should Have. So where are the reports of the NFPA investigation? Bring 'em on, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

69. Dude...

Why isn't the NFPA echoing your allegations?

[immune]

70. Allegations?

Actually, that's a fine question you just asked and it looks to me like the answer might have something to do with the fact that the people of this country and the world have lost faith in the institutions and agencies that are supposed to serve them, but don't. Who they DO serve is the real question.

[SDuderstadt]

71. Dude...

the NFPA standard you invoke is when the cause of the fire is unknown.

Duh.

[immune]

73. And the standard you invoke

is to investigate by assumption.

Duh.

[SDuderstadt]

74. Dude...

there is video evidence of the cause of the fires. To label it an "assumption" is beyond stupid.

[immune]

75. There is also video evidence

that the towers fell just like a controlled demolition. So saith control demolition experts:

Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology says the collapse of the twin towers resembled those of controlled implosions used in planned demolition.

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

A demolition expert, Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews1.htm

[SDuderstadt]

76. More of your absolute bullshit...

Do you bother to fact-check things before you just blurt them out?

Albuquerque Journal
September 21, 2001


Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

By John Fleck
Journal Staff Writer


A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.

Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion.

Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above.

That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building.

But he said he now believes explosives would not have been needed to create the collapse seen in video images.

Conspiracy theorists have seized on Romero's comments as evidence for their argument that someone else, possibly the U.S. government, was behind the attack on the Trade Center.

Romero said he has been bombarded with electronic mail from the conspiracy theorists.

"I'm very upset about that," he said. "I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen."

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/van-romero.html

Again, this is why you're not taken seriously here.

[zappaman]

77. heh

obviously, someone got him to change his story.
I wonder who that could be?
Cher?
or Ronald McDonald?
heh.

[immune]

78. LOL,

he just got the memo a little late.

[SDuderstadt]

79. So...

what are the names of the other controlled demolition "experts"?

[immune]

80. Set enough examples

of how people who speak out are discredited, both personally and professionally, and that's usually enough to get the idea across. But regular every day people see that video and they don't really need an expert to tell them something pretty hinky went down there that day (besides three buildings). It really doesn't take more than that for your little OCT to go off the track, but in this case there is one hell of a lot more to question than one video. It must be a genuine bitch trying to keep up with it all.

[SDuderstadt]

81. So, what were the names of those other...

controlled demolition "experts"? Can you give us examples of any who initially claimed the collapse of the towers resulted from explosives, then retracted their claim after seeing what "happened" to Romero? In fact, do you have any evidence that anything "happened" to Romero?

Don't you think your silly "they're all cowards" rationalization is wearing thin?

[immune]

83. Do you dispute

the rising tide of professionals from all walks of life who are demanding better answers than the NIST report provided despite the hammering they're taking from the OCT crowd? It ain't gonna go away, dude. Count on it.

I have no idea what happened to make Romero change his story, but if he had just stayed silent from the beginning, no one would ever have heard of him. That was one mighty retraction, though, and I'm sure he didn't just volunteer to publicly point out that he was "mistaken" in his views. Its like waving a flag whilst proclaiming oneself to be a fool and people don't do that without a damn good reason.

We've all seen well-known and respected people make statements, some of which may even reflect our own views, and had to watch them later apologizing, recanting and groveling like whipped dogs before a bouquet of microphones only to find themselves ostracized from the milieu anyway. I won't call these people cowards, either, because I'm not walking in their moccasins, but it can't be denied that it happens on a regular enough basis to know that its real and that the first amendment is a dead letter. Well, actually it wasn't ever anything but an illusion anyway, since speech often comes with a high price.

[SDuderstadt]

86. So, what evidence do you have that Romwro was...

"pressured"? Hint: none.

And, yes, I dispute this "rising tide". Can you name a single person in any of those groups who's even remotely prominent?

[immune]

88. What evidence do we have that

Helen Thomas was pressured to recant? None. Do you think she was not?

You are perfectly well aware of the many organizations and individuals who've come out against the OCT. The funny thing is, few of them had any prominence at all until you guys started trying so hard to discredit them ... and then people discovered they were more logical and credible than NIST. Unintended consequences, it'll getcha every time.

[SDuderstadt]

107. Name one prominent one...

dude.

[zappaman]

82. actually, it's the "regular every day people"

who don't buy your wacky bullshit.

[immune]

84. You must only know

Fox viewers. You'd be right on that point.

[zappaman]

85. wrong

the fox is only hiding from the hounds.

[SDuderstadt]

87. Another smear from you...

Which is rather comical given some of the RW "sources" of some of your goofy CT bullshit and your hearty defense of them, dude.

[immune]

91. As someone else said just lately,

the truth doesn't need a defense, whether its coming from a right winger or a left winger or anything in between. Fact is, the demands for the truth are coming from every ideology under the sun on this particular issue. Kind of a smudging of the lines, if you will. What any one of these different ideologists might consider a good response after getting the truth is a whole different story, though, and it probably won't be comedy in anybody's book.

[SDuderstadt]

92. Dude...

now you're "begging the question" by assuming your position is the "truth" and hypocritical defending RW sources.

Rank hypocrisy, dude.

[immune]

95. Can't you tell the difference

between "having" the truth and "demanding" the truth?

Silly question. I know.

[SDuderstadt]

110. WTF are you babbling about...

now, dude?

[zappaman]

72. exactly

back in the day, there was prohibition and people didn't have televisions.
combine that with the knowledge that whales aren't fish and you have the perfect storm!

[zappaman]

61. candy stripers

wore name tags and so do guys at conventions.
coincidence?

[KDLarsen]

35. Good lord..

Anders Björkman is Swedish, he's a marine architect, and he believes noone will suffer any harm by jumping off a ladder with 30kg of weight on their shoulders.

He also goes by the name of Heiwa.

[immune]

36. Yes, he's Swedish, But stop criticizing his findings and,

step up to win the prize Bjorkman has offered!!!

Björkman is so confident in his criticism of Bazant that in March he created The Heiwa Challenge. He offers ten thousand Euros to anyone who can reproduce, within specified parameters, the progressive collapse theory on their own structures.

He notes that as of July 2010, no one has claimed the prize.

That should be relatively simple for a structural engineer such as yourself.

Different cover up, but you are sadly mistaken if you think Bjorkman doesn't have experience in investigating false flag operations and government cover ups.

http://www.elaestonia.org/eng/index.php

[KDLarsen]

46. Only 10,000 euro?

When he started the Heiwa challenge at JREF, he was offering "$1M (not bucks)". I guess he meant Zimbabwean Dollar or something. And Heiwa is probably correct in that noone has claimed the prize yet, mainly since the majority don't take him and his posts serious.

Want to know why?

Heiwa claims that no planes hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon or crashed near Shanksville, which makes him a rarity even among the most delusional "truthers": a quadruple no-planer.
Heiwa claims that all evidence of the aircraft impacts is fake and all witness accounts are invalid.
Heiwa claims that if 30 stories of one of the Twin Towers was dropped on the lower 80 stories from a height of two miles, it would bounce off without damaging the lower portion. Heiwa says a Tower wouldn't be destroyed if a 60-million-pound block of ice was dropped on it, then denies making that claim.
Heiwa claims that all photo and video evidence showing severe fires and structural failure in the WTC buildings is fake.
Heiwa claims that WTC 7 was demolished by a vacuum.
Heiwa believes that the authors of the NIST WTC reports don't exist.
Heiwa believes that steel structures are indestructible, even by nuclear weapons.
However, Heiwa also believes that 16,500-22,000 lbs of high explosives may have been used to demolish each Twin Tower...with no detectable detonations.
Heiwa is an engineer who believes that weight = mass. No, really.
Heiwa believes his house would survive an asteroid impact.
Heiwa again attempts to revise the laws of physics.
Heiwa says a bathroom scale will register the same weight whether you stand on it or jump on it.
Heiwa says the Twin Tower fires were "minor office fires."
Heiwa makes the egregiously false claim that the FDNY said it could handle the fires in the Towers.
Heiwa believes that columns become stronger when their supports are removed.
Heiwa believes that the structures of the Twin Towers were comparable to cheese, pizza boxes, match boxes, rubber balls, sponges, a bicycle running into a wall, a child jumping on a bed, a tower of sushi, and a tower of lemons.

[immune]

48. You've found your life's goal.

At last. What a coup for you to scientifically disprove all these bogus claims. Should be as easy as jumping on a bed of sushi while juggling rubber balls. You can submit your paper to JEM for peer review and become instantly (in)famous. That'll show 'em. And win a great big pile of Zimbabwean Bux, too boot.

Did you know that heiwa is the Japanese word for "peace"? Wow, a peace challenge. Wouldn't that be a nice change from the status quo?

[KDLarsen]

49. I have no idea what you're talking about

Maybe if you switched to decaf, you might be able to post something that was even remotely comprehensible.

[immune]

50. That's funny.

A few simple sentences by me defeat you, but in the next breath you expect us to believe you understand the complicated language contained in any of the scientific reports, whether they be by Dr. Zdenek Bazant, Dr. Frank Greening, James Gourley, Anders Bjorkman or dozens of others.

Wait a minute, that's not funny.

[SDuderstadt]

51. Dude...

your posts are mostly incoherent. Please learn the difference between complicated, yet comprehendable and your posts, which leave many people scratching their heads, wondering wtf you're babbling about.

[zappaman]

52. you totally defeated him!

give a man a fish and he eats dinner, but don't call him to dinner and he watches TV!

[Sancho]

123. Did you watch the videos?

Jeff Farrer's vita is clear (and he states it). His Ph.D. is from U. Minn.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/directory.aspx?personID=23

Basile is an experienced analytical chemist, but does not appear to have a Ph.D.

[Bolo Boffin]

124. Thank you!

No, I didn't watch the videos because I very much doubt they would say anything I haven't heard before.

What kind of Ph.D in Material Sciences have ever not heard of a $40 test that tells you the exact compounds in a new material? Instead, they play games with guessing compounds, having simply used methods to determine percentages of elemental composition. Who deliberately keeps a situation ambigious when it only cost $40 to provide clarity?

[Sancho]

126. I think there is an explanation...

it's not my field, but identifying the compounds was not the issue...the issue is the reactive energy in the compounds...sometimes the same molecules are arranged in different ways. The particles that were uniform (manufactured - not random dust) and that also were reactive (nano explosives; not paint) were one of the conclusions of the test results in all the samples.

They had to slice particles to make sure they were not looking at contamination....other details are explained.

i sort of followed, but it's been decades since I had undergraduate chemistry and physics courses, so I can't defend the exact equipment they used. I'm sure that others can do that...

[Bolo Boffin]

134. "identifying the compounds was not the issue"

I rest my case.

[immune]

144. You don't have a case.

All you have is innuendo that no one who denies the federal case has a case. And the upshot is that you don't even need to HEAR their case, to know they don't have one.

Osmosis.

[Sancho]

163. That's correct..the elements and compounds are not the issue..

it's important that the material found was reactive to create high temperatures consistent with thermite. if the bread rises, the species of yeast doesn't matter...to deny there was yeast is denial of the evidence. sorry about the story, but you seem to fail to understand. The authors were perfectly willing to suggest that more tests, samples, and replication might indicate the exact type or origin of an explosive. They simply found evidence of material that reacted like a thermite explosive, so more tests were indicated...

there is no case

[Bolo Boffin]

164. "the material found was reactive to create high temperatures consistent with thermite"

But it wasn't. Check the numbers in the report. That's one of the indications that what they found was NOT thermite of any stripe, nano, super, -ate, or otherwise.

[Sancho]

165. and you make the point..as they do in the video...

either you can have replication or not...so the video speakers are very clear that they encourage more testing until there is a consensus. You continue to argue what you think, or one other person thinks. It took decades to reach a conclusion that smoking causes cancer. One or two "experts" or opinions or articles do not create final evidence in complex chemistry. Sooo....you can continue to argue about the quality of the editors, etc. Steven Jones is correct (see previous quote) as are the speakers on the video.

You build evidence one step at a time with replication. You cannot say the temperature were NOT thermite and the speakers are clear that they found evidence that MIGHT be manufactured explosives BUT encourage more testing, a wider investigation, etc.

The plan to collect evidence and the speakers are true to a scientific method.

[Bolo Boffin]

166. What about the French 9/11 Truth advocate that couldn't confirm thermite...

...though he had their samples?

http://darksideofgravity.com/marseille.pdf

Furthermore, what about this materials scientist who found Kaolinite in the red side of the samples?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694

[Sancho]

168. exactly - you make the point that is discussed in the videos..

as the speakers said, it takes years and many investigations to reach some conclusions. Smoking as a cause of cancer was investigated almost 100 years! Engineering failures can be tricky (ie space shuttles blowing up). Differing results happen. A thorough study of samples that may be available has not occurred! The answer is not definitive!

Attacking the messenger won't change the facts - and so far the facts are not clear. Some folks here continue to argue, as you do, that a journal or particular degree of an author or the price of eggs in Russia have meaning - and that is a red herring. The only way to get conclusive results is to do research that explains the differing results. The speakers on this op state that.

Some on this forum continue to make it impossible to get to the point of the posts by constantly arguing a false logic over and over and over. After a few years, it gets old and tiresome. Virtually all researchers expect some to find things that others don't: so what? That could be the tests used, the samples used, or the what data was analyzed, etc.

[tetedur]

28. Glad to see these reinforcements speaking up

The more scientists that pile on in public ways, the more the word gets around. I hope that the more people argue about the "Active Thermitic Material Found in the WTC Dust" the more people will want to have an investigation to settle the issue once and for all.

These men challenge the scientific community to check their findings. I don't think we will ever see an effort made in a peer-reviewed paper disputing their conclusions.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. "settle the issue once and for all"

It IS settled once and for all. Your side is wrong. Your failure to understand this is not reality's problem.

[tetedur]

30. "It is settled." Really?

Could you point to the peer-reviewed scientific refutation of the "Active Thermitic Material" paper? Is it in JEM? If it is, could you tell me how I can read it without having to purchase it or subscribe to JEM? Thanks in advance.

"Your side is wrong." Your statement makes it so?

"Your failure to understand..." Someone who has fundamental comprehension problems with even the title of the "Active Thermitic Material" paper says I don't understand. I see.

You think you are qualified to dismiss these scientifically testable conclusions and there's something wrong with my understanding of "reality?"

[SDuderstadt]

31. Serious question...

Do you really not see the problem with the provenance of the "dust"?

[tetedur]

32. According to the paper "Active Thermitic Material",

five samples of dust were provided to the scientists. Four of the five people gave their names and provided videotaped testimony, an affidavit or transferred the dust in front of witnesses. If White transferred the dust in a documented manner, it is not revealed. They have expressed a willingness to provide samples to others for testing.

Repeatedly the men associated with the "Active Thermitic Material" paper have called for others to come forward with other samples for testing by other scientists. Moreover, in these two interviews they invite the scrutiny of an investigation.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Do you not see the problem with that?

Seriously?

[Bolo Boffin]

34. No peer-reviewed refutation of ATM is needed, since IT isn't peer-reviewed.

Tell the whole Hee-Haw gang to submit ATM to a reputable journal like JEM, get it published, and then we'll talk.

Do you not understand that the evidence needed to show those red-gray chips aren't thermite nor any brand of thermite is contained inside ATM itself? Read it again and stack up the ways that the chips behave differently than thermite. Hint: a different level of energy release means a different material. That's one.

Did you know that for $40 this gang of Keystone Khemists could have submitted their sample to a process that would have told them the exact compounds in those chips, not just the percentages of the elements? They would have known conclusively, for example, if those hexagonal chips found in the red side were indeed kaolinite as they seem to be. But by only determining percentages of elements found in the chips, they were free to speculate on what those compounds might be, like prophets picking through the guts of a slaughtered animal. Ambiguity is not the friend of science, but it certainly is the friend of the snake oil salesman. And if they had spent $40 on this test, the ATM paper might never have been written.

These people are taking advantage of the conspiratorially prone and the scientifically illiterate to fund their unemployment and retirement. They lie to you when they say there is room for doubt here.

[tetedur]

37. "IT isn't peer-reviewed." What is your proof of that assertion?

Why doesn't your "side" submit a study of the WTC dust that refutes their findings to JEM, get it published, make it available to everyone and then "we'll talk."

You said, "those red-gray chips aren't thermite." Do you not understand that they didn't assert the re-gray chips were mere "thermite" but thermitic nano material? Other than that the authors of "Active Thermitic Material" say they don't know exactly what this stuff is. They know they are not equipped to manufacture it. They also know what it is not and they give reasons for their assertions.

As for the accusation that they are "taking advantage of the conspiratorially prone" what is exactly the benefit for them? It's a conspiracy to get rich to fund their "unemployment and retirement?" Why are they making their research available for free on the internet? Also, as far as I know, only two men involved with this project lost a job or retired.

But go ahead, knock people who lose a job. Have fun.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. The ATM paper been published in something beside the Benthem vanity press? Do share.

I'd be interested to hear if it's been published somewhere else. When the publishers of the Benthem vanity press did an end-run around the actual editor of the journal, she quit. Can you explain how any reputable peer review process managed to exclude the editor of the journal in question?

ETA: Here's the kind of journal I'm talking about.

http://jcp.aip.org/

When the ATM paper appears in this journal, or one with its degree of respectability and rigor, then get back to me. Until then, you're pimping BS when you site the ATM paper.

[tetedur]

43. For me the importance of the "Active Thermitic Material" paper

is the content and its conclusion. For you its value is gauged by where/who publishes it.

It is laughable that you think I have to explain the circumstances of the paper's publication to somehow justify it. I think if it is the truth, it justifies itself.

For the last time, show me a scientific, peer-reviewed refutation of this paper published by anyone. Until then, you keep on with your assertions about what is or is not BS. Very impressive and absolutely convincing.

[LARED]

44. the content and its conclusion

are both amateurish at best.

[Bolo Boffin]

45. If what the ATM paper said was important and crucial, getting it published at JCP would be easy.

If the content could pass peer review and if the conclusion was worth publishing, the Journal of Chemical Physics would be happy to publish it. Until that happens, no scientific, peer-reviewed refutation of this paper is needed.

[mrarundale]

54. Look at AIP's Director's page and check out their funding sources

Naval Research, Dept of Energy, DoD, yadda yadda yadda....I doubt there will be funding to test for explosive residue in WTC samples any time soon.

I am glad to have an explanation for how the materials found indicate a process involving thermite (or Thermate with the sulfur) rather than just random aluminum and iron, sounds convincing to me but I am not a scientist..I remember when OCTS used to say the findings could be from other sources, now they aren't saying that any more, heh heh..

The only problem there might be is with having an "official" chain of evidence or whatever you call it with the dust and the steel. I wouldn't trust anything from FEMA, although I am not questioning the sincerity of the scientists in the vids. The withholding of evidence from "official" sources has always been a red flag.

A coincidence I can't help but notice is the fire dept's response to the smell of natural gas (which is from an additive that smells like sulfur) around the time of the first explosion - (although I distrust the Naudet video the call to the fire dept could have been real...)

[Sancho]

122. I don't know if the dust samples will ever be conclusive..

but there seems to be a pervasive debate or over-reliance on the "journal". Both of the videos are clear that the coauthors limit their claims and call for replication or verification of results. That is a correct methodology. Jones seems to have a good idea. Here is a quote from his strategy...

"My next major paper was in Nature, 1986, a British scientific journal. <5> I want to point out that
it generally takes several years to go from a conference proceedings or a minor paper to a major paper
like this one in Nature. By 1986 I was about seven years into the study of muon catalyzed fusion. One
cannot realistically demand a major publication in less than two years -- which is about how long I’ve
been studying what’s happened with 9/11/2001. Nevertheless we are approaching a major publication
already, I maintain. I’m not sure Nature would publish it or Scientific American, but the research by
various scientists and engineers is certainly reaching a point where a major journal must publish the
work."

He is correct, it is common to publish first in minor journals and see what comments and criticisms improve the next study. It may or may not turn out that explosives are found, but some issues that have surfaced should be addressed in the next round: details of the origin of samples, generalizability of samples, and more exact chemical signatures of the "red-grey" chips as manufactured and energetic. It seems that both sides here are not allowing the process to play out; meanwhile, the speakers are interesting and seem cautious and credible. They may be wrong, but they raise a valid issue with the initial experiment. The video's of the coauthors (including the chemist from Europe) seem appropriate for interested folks to see.

Thanks for posting the links.

[tetedur]

159. Thanks for the pertinent post.

I would love to see a real scientific debate on the "Dust" but I fear the "Establishment" (as we used to say in the 60's) will never allow one or engage. I'd do it if I were in a position to make such decisions in a magazine just for sales reasons. Sometimes I imagine a TV show that would be a weekly serious debate by experts on some controversial subject. But then again no, the American people might learn something or start to think about things. They might start to respect people who try to educate them. We can't have that in America.

I found what you said more helpful and thought provoking than anything else in this entire thread.