3292 replies to this topic

[MID]

Babe Ruth, on 06 October 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

Objective reality, and how do we define it?



The truth is that the OCT is a lie.

No es dificil.

It isn't difficult, unless it's you attempting to understand the real data and argue a skewed opinion.
All too easy, until you attempt to argue with those who do know something.


There is no OTC.

You never quite seem to get that.  There's only engineering and scientific analysis which shows exactly what happened, and how it happened.

There's no conspiracy involved in that.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 06 October 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

Double ha, 'have been proven biased in applying publishing rules', the familiar whine of the anti-evolution creationist, great company to be keeping.  Do you have actual evidence from a mainstream journal indicating, 'your paper is scientifically sound and meets all the criteria for publication but we can't do that because of political sensitivity' or anything along those lines?  Or does this also require me to just be 'unbiased'?

I’ve requested on at least two previous occasions that you review the complaint of U.S. attorney James Gourley regarding the publishing rules at JEM.  Here is an excerpt so perhaps you can see favouritism granted to the official theory’s 'golden engineer' and bias the truth movement must face: -

James Gourley, U.S. attorney said:

So, I sent a rather heated email to the JEM staff, asking them why Dr. Bazant was allowed to completely ignore the 2000 word limit in criticizing me and my Discussion paper, when I complied with it in good faith. I told them there were three ways to fairly resolve the situation.

First, JEM could pull my Discussion paper and his Closure paper from publication. JEM refused to do this. In hindsight, I’m actually glad they didn’t choose this option. The results of Dr. Bazant’s Closure paper are ludicrous, and demonstrate the utter bankruptcy of his theory. Even though I was treated unfairly, on balance I’m glad both papers were ultimately published.

Second, JEM could allow me to revise my paper free from the 2000 word limit I had originally complied with in good faith. If I was allowed to revise my paper without worrying about the word limit, I could have included all of my criticisms of his paper, and included mathematical equations to support my arguments. JEM refused to do this. This would have been the preferred option, but for some reason, I was not allowed to resubmit a revised paper exceeding the 2000 word limit.

Third, JEM could force Dr. Bazant to revise his paper to comply with the 2000 word limit. This was not preferable, but at least would have leveled the playing field. I would rather everyone have the same opportunity to fully develop their arguments and let the public decide who to believe. Unfortunately, this is not what ended up happening. After several rounds of email correspondence, JEM decided that they would ask Dr. Bazant to revise his paper to comply with the 2000 word limit, and remove the offensive language I had identified.

You can imagine my surprise again when I learned last week that both of our papers had been published in the October issue of JEM. I was never given another opportunity to review Dr. Bazant’s Closure paper before it was published. If you read through it, you can see why. Dr. Bazant was not required to comply with the 2000 word limit, as the JEM staff promised me he would. My rough estimate is that in his Closure’s response to my Discussion is between 4000 and 6000 words in length.

His Closure paper still derides me for not including equations in support of my position, without mentioning that there is no way I could have done that and still complied with the 2000 word limit, and that I was not allowed to revise my paper by JEM staff. Any fair peer review would not have allowed him to say this. JEM knew full well I was required to comply with the 2000 word limit, while Dr. Bazant was not.

In fact, he spends 2000 words responding to the steel temperature portion of my Discussion paper alone. JEM allowed him to use that much text to respond to my one paragraph on his misrepresentations of the steel temperatures reported by NIST. Dr. Bazant is clearly held to a different standard at JEM. How can JEM possibly be seen as a fair and balanced in this situation?

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

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 08 October 2012 - 02:03 AM, said:

I’ve requested on at least two previous occasions that you review the complaint of U.S. attorney James Gourley regarding the publishing rules at JEM.  Here is an excerpt so perhaps you can see favouritism granted to the official theory’s 'golden engineer' and bias the truth movement must face: -



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

Here's a tissue for him.



When he's done drying his crying eyes, please ask him to come back with something substantial.  So far he's only been put in his place because he had no idea what he was talking about.  Let him return after all this time with something worthy of rebuttal.

It's not going to happen though because he isn't qualified or knowledgeable enough to address the physics and engineering aspects of the question at hand; much like yourself.

The truth hurts, but that's what this movement is all about right?  The Truth^TM?

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 08 October 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

Here's a tissue for him.



When he's done drying his crying eyes, please ask him to come back with something substantial.  So far he's only been put in his place because he had no idea what he was talking about.  Let him return after all this time with something worthy of rebuttal.

It's not going to happen though because he isn't qualified or knowledgeable enough to address the physics and engineering aspects of the question at hand; much like yourself.

The truth hurts, but that's what this movement is all about right?  The Truth^TM?

Translation:  “Yes the publishing rules at JEM are clearly biased (which is the whole point in your post Q), but I’m not objective either so I don’t care, nor will I consider it when disingenuously requesting papers opposing the official theory be published in mainstream journals.  Instead I’ll cover for this with silly pictures and comments, in hope that other biased people see it as a good argument.”

By the way... I should have added in my previous post... when is that pile of politically driven pseudo-science that NIST came up with to prop-up the official story going to be peer-reviewed?  How many years has it been now?

"I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view."

"I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable," explained Dr. Quintiere. "Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another."

~James Quintierre, NIST former Chief of Fire Science Division

http://www.ae911trut...estigation.html

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 08 October 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

"I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view."

"I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable," explained Dr. Quintiere. "Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another."

~James Quintierre, NIST former Chief of Fire Science Division

http://www.ae911trut...estigation.html

!

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 08 October 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

Translation:  “Yes the publishing rules at JEM are clearly biased (which is the whole point in your post Q), but I’m not objective either so I don’t care, nor will I consider it when disingenuously requesting papers opposing the official theory be published in mainstream journals.  Instead I’ll cover for this with silly pictures and comments, in hope that other biased people see it as a good argument.”

By the way... I should have added in my previous post... when is that pile of politically driven pseudo-science that NIST came up with to prop-up the official story going to be peer-reviewed?  How many years has it been now?

"I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view."

"I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable," explained Dr. Quintiere. "Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another."

~James Quintierre, NIST former Chief of Fire Science Division

http://www.ae911trut...estigation.html

Wrong again Q24.

You can keep on crying about this and so can he.  It will change nothing.  The reason that he got trounced is because he had nothing substantial to bring to the table.  He was put in his place because he was out of his league, not because of the number of words he was allowed.  He could write a million words but they'd still be inadequate.  Why?  Because he isn't qualified to be publishing in that journal in the first place.  Why isn't he qualified?  Because HE IS A LAWYER, NOT AN ENGINEER OR PHYSICIST.  Easy enough to understand?

Should I repeat that?  I probably should huh?  I mean, it's the core point after all.  He has no idea what he's talking about.  Why?

HE IS A LAWYER, NOT AN ENGINEER OR PHYSICIST.

Get the picture yet?

Please do come back when he has something that isn't easily used to mop up the floor.  So far his contributions are A JOKE.

[booNyzarC]

booNyzarC, on 08 October 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

Wrong again Q24.

You can keep on crying about this and so can he.  It will change nothing.  The reason that he got trounced is because he had nothing substantial to bring to the table.  He was put in his place because he was out of his league, not because of the number of words he was allowed.  He could write a million words but they'd still be inadequate.  Why?  Because he isn't qualified to be publishing in that journal in the first place.  Why isn't he qualified?  Because HE IS A LAWYER, NOT AN ENGINEER OR PHYSICIST.  Easy enough to understand?

Should I repeat that?  I probably should huh?  I mean, it's the core point after all.  He has no idea what he's talking about.  Why?

HE IS A LAWYER, NOT AN ENGINEER OR PHYSICIST.

Get the picture yet?

Please do come back when he has something that isn't easily used to mop up the floor.  So far his contributions are A JOKE.

How do I know this?  Why am I so confident about this?  Let me tell you how and why...

It has been how many years now since then?

Has he presented his full case with the full freedom allotted by the internet?  Has he more fully fleshed out his position?  Has he ignored the limitations imposed by JEM in order to speak his mind and illustrate his reasoning with these freedoms?  If so, have they stood unrefuted and undeniable?

If he has, please do present that for us all.

If he hasn't, please ask yourself....  WHY THE HELL NOT?

It seems to me that he'd rather declare that he was mistreated rather than attempt to defend his completely destroyed position.  He has no leg to stand on.  He can't defend what he started with because it was complete nonsense.  If you think otherwise, take up the torch yourself Q24.  Take up the torch and show us all how he was right and Bazant was wrong.

You could lead the vanguard.  You could be the savior.  Bring the Truth^TM to all of us Q24.  Tell us how it is.  Educate us.  Inform us.

Inquiring minds want to know.  

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 08 October 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

Wrong again Q24.

You can keep on crying about this and so can he.  It will change nothing.  The reason that he got trounced is because he had nothing substantial to bring to the table.  He was put in his place because he was out of his league, not because of the number of words he was allowed.  He could write a million words but they'd still be inadequate.  Why?  Because he isn't qualified to be publishing in that journal in the first place.  Why isn't he qualified?  Because HE IS A LAWYER, NOT AN ENGINEER OR PHYSICIST.  Easy enough to understand?

Should I repeat that?  I probably should huh?  I mean, it's the core point after all.  He has no idea what he's talking about.  Why?

HE IS A LAWYER, NOT AN ENGINEER OR PHYSICIST.

Get the picture yet?

Please do come back when he has something that isn't easily used to mop up the floor.  So far his contributions are A JOKE.

WHETHER YOU THINK GOURLEY’S ENGINEERING/PHYSICS ARGUMENT IS CORRECT OR NOT IS ANOTHER SUBJECT.  AT A MINIMUM WE KNOW THAT HIS PAPER WAS PEER REVIEWED AND PUBLISHED, AND THAT THOUSANDS OF ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS, ALONG WITH MILLIONS OF CITIZENS AGREE WITH HIM.  HOWEVER, THE POINT IS THAT THE PUBLISHING RULES AT JEM ARE BIASED - THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MERIT OF THE ARGUMENTS.  I THOUGHT THAT WAS CLEAR FROM MY LAST TWO POSTS.  I’M UNDECIDED WHETHER THIS BIG RED TEXT GETS OUR POINTS ACROSS ANY BETTER BUT THOUGHT I’D FOLLOW YOUR LEAD.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 08 October 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

WHETHER YOU THINK GOURLEY’S ENGINEERING/PHYSICS ARGUMENT IS CORRECT OR NOT IS ANOTHER SUBJECT.  AT A MINIMUM WE KNOW THAT HIS PAPER WAS PEER REVIEWED AND PUBLISHED, AND THAT THOUSANDS OF ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS, ALONG WITH MILLIONS OF CITIZENS AGREE WITH HIM.  HOWEVER, THE POINT IS THAT THE PUBLISHING RULES AT JEM ARE BIASED - THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MERIT OF THE ARGUMENTS.  I THOUGHT THAT WAS CLEAR FROM MY LAST TWO POSTS.  I’M UNDECIDED WHETHER THIS BIG RED TEXT GETS OUR POINTS ACROSS ANY BETTER BUT THOUGHT I’D FOLLOW YOUR LEAD.

Struck a nerve I think...  The Truth^TM hurts don't it?

Let him bring something more substantial to the table.  Are you opposed to him actually backing up his original points that were utterly trounced?

That seems to be the actual point to me.  Why does it not seem to be the actual point to you?

Isn't the Truth^TM what really matters?  Let him bring some Truth^TM to the table.  I'm all ears.

Cry about rules on your own time.  That is for lesser men.  Bring the Truth^TM to the table and let history sort it out.

Fair enough?

[booNyzarC]

And I'll add that if you can't defend this...  If you can't substantiate his demolished point of view,...  if you can't repudiate the responses to his originally misguided and misinformed paper... ..  you should never bring this up again.  If you do bring this up again, it should be pointed out that there is nothing of substance in your claim.  Unless, of course, he or you take up the torch and bring something else to the table.


Until then, this is just a bunch of garbage that you are trying to use to substantiate your unfounded claims of controlled demolition.  Absolutely nothing that you have presented supports this ridiculous notion.  Nothing at all.


Until you can substantiate this ridiculous claim, I suggest you go back to the drawing board and elicit help from people more qualified than you.  Do you know what you'll find if you follow that suggestion?

NOTHING.

Why?

There was no controlled demolition.  The damn towers fell because they were hit by airplanes piloted by terrorists.

End of story.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 08 October 2012 - 03:29 AM, said:

Struck a nerve I think...  The Truth^TM hurts don't it?

Let him bring something more substantial to the table.  Are you opposed to him actually backing up his original points that were utterly trounced?

That seems to be the actual point to me.  Why does it not seem to be the actual point to you?

Isn't the Truth^TM what really matters?  Let him bring some Truth^TM to the table.  I'm all ears.

Cry about rules on your own time.  That is for lesser men.  Bring the Truth^TM to the table and let history sort it out.

Fair enough?

This is perhaps the second weirdest post I’ve ever seen from you – right after this other weird outburst.  Sorry booNy but you’re fast approaching skyeagle (non-)standards of discussion where I’m going to start ignoring you altogether.  Suggest you read over my last few posts again, try to understand the point and respond with something relevant.  So far we have a U.S. attorney with experience in the peer-review process who has highlighted clear bias in the publishing rules at JEM... you actually have no relevant response to this – thus the weird posts and derailment (attempting to discuss the opposing arguments for/against demolition (where this is not even the thread for it) rather than acknowledge the fact of the biased publishing rules of mainstream journals).

In addition, all of your arguments against the WTC demolition have been rebutted numerous times previously – please use the search function; I have no desire to go over them with you again.  The only question I’d like you to think about is this:  Why do you defend those who carried out the demolitions on 9/11?  Why wouldn’t you want the demolitions and those responsible to be exposed?  What happened to vigilance and real patriotism?

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 08 October 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

This is perhaps the second weirdest post I’ve ever seen from you – right after this other weird outburst.  Sorry booNy but you’re fast approaching skyeagle (non-)standards of discussion where I’m going to start ignoring you altogether.  Suggest you read over my last few posts again, try to understand the point and respond with something relevant.  So far we have a U.S. attorney with experience in the peer-review process who has highlighted clear bias in the publishing rules at JEM... you actually have no relevant response to this – thus the weird posts and derailment (attempting to discuss the opposing arguments for/against demolition (where this is not even the thread for it) rather than acknowledge the fact of the biased publishing rules of mainstream journals).

In addition, all of your arguments against the WTC demolition have been rebutted numerous times previously – please use the search function; I have no desire to go over them with you again.  The only question I’d like you to think about is this:  Why do you defend those who carried out the demolitions on 9/11?  Why wouldn’t you want the demolitions and those responsible to be exposed?  What happened to vigilance and real patriotism?

And the points that you proudly point out on your link still stand unrefuted.  You've completely ignored them.  You claim that they are easily refuted, and yet take no action to do so.  The same is true here.

Your points are defunct.  Your position is devoid of substance.  This attorney has failed to make his case and you have failed to support him.

He and you have nothing of value to offer on any scientific or engineering front.  Nothing at all.  You are mutually clueless regarding what was involved in the collapses and you're focused solely on political subterfuge.

You may not realize it right now, and you may never come to realize it...  but you are so blatantly wrong about these points that it is embarrassing.

Perhaps some day you'll actually learn something about these topics that you try to argue over.  Perhaps not.  In either case, the reality of the situation will not change; and your present course of thought will never be validated.

On that note I bid you good night.  May you waken with more sense in your head than existed before it hit the pillow.

Cheers.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 08 October 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

  Sorry booNy but you’re fast approaching skyeagle (non-)standards of discussion where I’m going to start ignoring you altogether.

You have been asked to provide evidence supporting your claim that the collapse of the WTC buildings were the result of controlled demolitions and so far, you have simply failed to deliver the goods.

On another note, you have also failed to understand the full scope of the intelligence failures leading up to the 9/11 attacks despite the fact that such failures and conflicts between our intelligence agencies were revealed in those investigations and you seem unaware that problems continued even after the 9/11 attacks. In other words, you have failed to provide evidence of a government 9/11 conspiracy.

Edited by skyeagle409, 08 October 2012 - 04:26 AM.

[Q24]

Further demonstration of your skyeagle-esque standard of (non-)discussion, booNy...

booNyzarC, on 08 October 2012 - 04:16 AM, said:

This attorney has failed to make his case and you have failed to support him.

Of your whole post, this is the only sentence relevant to the point I have raised.  It’s nothing but a statement of opinion.  There is no argument to back it up.  You cannot fairly reason why JEM allowed Bazant double to triple the publishing space that was permitted to Gourley.  So all you provide is a hollow opinion and a lot of babble that is irrelevant to the point.

skyeagle409, on 08 October 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:

You have been asked to provide evidence supporting your claim that the collapse of the WTC buildings were the result of controlled demolitions and so far, you have simply failed to deliver the goods.

Well booNy... I mean err... skyeagle, if you give me an example of what might constitute circumstantial evidence for a demolition, to show that you understand the concept of circumstantial evidence in the first place (as you have failed terribly in the past) and that you’re not just a waste of time, and then we can talk.  [I’m betting I receive nothing relevant in response to this request].

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 08 October 2012 - 08:08 AM, said:

Further demonstration of your skyeagle-esque standard of (non-)discussion, booNy...

Of your whole post, this is the only sentence relevant to the point I have raised.  It’s nothing but a statement of opinion.  There is no argument to back it up.  You cannot fairly reason why JEM allowed Bazant double to triple the publishing space that was permitted to Gourley.  So all you provide is a hollow opinion and a lot of babble that is irrelevant to the point.

The actual point is that Gourley has not and cannot support his criticisms of Bazant's paper.  There is nothing stopping him from writing as much as he wants right now.  He could write a million words right now.  You can both keep whining about JEM until you're blue in the face and it will change nothing.  You, he, or someone else needs to bring something of substance to the table if you're going to make any headway at all.

And that, Q24, is the actual point.