Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
lliqerty

911 Pentagon Video Footage

3,304 posts in this topic

I've been meaning to rip into you about pretty much flat out misleading me that Gourley's paper was peer-reviewed as that term is used in reference to normal papers, it appears that this was an editorial review which is different, but it's Friday we'll let it go.

I'm sorry if you feel I misled you about the review process, though it made no difference to the point - that the paper met standards of the journal - and I'm still not convinced myself that Gourley's paper received no peer-review - it doesn't seem right that a technical paper can be published with no such review.

This point was irking me: -

1) as you accused me of being misleading.

2) because it didn't sit right that a technical paper could be published with no peer-review.

I have now had chance to take a closer look at the ASCE review process and realise I should have known better than to accept flyingswan's selective quoting of the guidelines and skewed understanding – god almighty, how many times have I derided him for his lack of English comprehension skills in the past? It was thoroughly naïve on my part to take what he said at face value, though as I mentioned, it made no difference to the argument at the time and didn't seem worth disputing, until arrival of your accusation.

The fact is that Discussion and Closure papers (Gourley's included) are peer-reviewed - the process is simply different to that of a standalone paper, apparently to speed up publishing. Whereas the initial standalone paper must receive two positive reviews to be published, Discussion and Closure papers require only one positive review. That's it. That is the only difference. Any of the papers can be peer-reviewed by the editor(s), who themselves are professionals in the field of engineering and mechanics, or forwarded to an external reviewer deemed fit. Of course having two reviewer approvals is more stringent than only having one reviewer approval, but each are equally and accurately described as a "peer-review".

Please see both links here: -

ASCE Policy on Peer Review

http://poc.smartlogi...ypeerreview.htm

ASCE Discussions and Closures

http://poc.smartlogi...discussions.htm

So Gourley's paper was peer-reviewed – it had to be, to be published, which is the assumption I was working to from the start. I was correct. Flyingswan was incorrect. I trust that you retract your accusation and better consider who may be misleading you in future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, now it's "pieces of the puzzle". Most interesting.

Seems like before it was the unqualified and absolutely certain evidence, now it's pieces of the puzzle.

What about that little piece "no aircraft assignment on FDR"? How does that fit in as a piece of the puzzle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q

Welcome to the club of naivete here at UM.

You were naive about taking at face value what Swanny posted.

I was naive months ago in taking at face value what Sky posted regarding F-18s and buildings.

Caveat Emptor is still valid today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

was naive months ago in taking at face value what Sky posted regarding F-18s and buildings.

How amusing!!

You have been challenged to produce evidence to refute what I have posted and each time you came up empty-handed. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about that little piece "no aircraft assignment on FDR"?

Question for you! What other means and data does the FAA and the NTSB use to verify FDR data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for you Sky--why was the FDR unassigned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for you Sky--why was the FDR unassigned?

What difference does that make when the FAA and the NTSB use data and other evidence to verify FDR data? Seems you are unaware that data from the FDR of American 77 has been verified.

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon

http://journalof911s...ltimeter_92.pdf

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly – which is why it is biased that Bazant was allowed to break the word limit guideline when Gourley was not. Especially after JEM had promised Gourley that Bazant would be required to adhere to the guideline but then published his extended article anyway. And even more unfair that Bazant was allowed to criticise Gourley for his limited paper when there was nothing Gourley could do about that due to the word limit being upheld in his case.

Guidelines are not typically 'broken', and even that is an empty charge when they come flat out and say that part of their guidelines is that they allow longer articles as they see fit.

To your question - it would be naive to believe that political considerations are not taken into account by publishing editors.

"I'll take that as a 'no' ", you don't have any evidence that the bias you perceive was because of political sensitivity.

The truth movement must do more work and convincing than other professionals who already have the media and political establishment on their side.

The media and political establishment that you haven't shown to be relevant at all to this decision?

I agree that the truth movement has the opportunity to continue their work and are doing so – that is my main point since booNy challenged that they were not in mainstream avenues, rather than this side-point of ‘fairness’ you have jumped on. In fact, there is another article to be published in JEM this month, by yet another physicist pointing out error of the official theory: -

http://911blogger.co...t=450&width=850

It will be interesting to hear how Dr. Grabbe is treated.

I'm less interested with how he will be treated and more interested if he turns out to be scientifically correct. And you've reviewed his paper fully and come to the fully educated opinion that he has legitimately pointed out an error of the official theory? Already? It will be interesting to see if that's the case.

Because the media and political establishment very apparently held a pre-conceived conclusion from day one.

It's not 'pre-conceived', it's 'post-conceived' from evidence and the conclusions of experts qualifed to examine the scientific questions.

It is always possible to fit another answer to the evidence. As I said elsewhere... when the suspect with a grudge against the victim was witnessed at the scene, found in possession of the murder weapon and with the victim’s blood on his shirt... that was due to a chance meeting, planting of the weapon and cross-contamination... right? Through such explanations people claim that no thorough investigation is needed.

Your analogy here is nowhere near the mark. "Found in possession of the murder weapon?" Is this the Israeli agents stuff? They were found with a van full of explosives..., no, it was a bomb-sniffing dog that may have alerted to explosives present, and we know they are eminently reliable. Who was found in possession of thermite in the vicinity of WTC?

But I actually like your paragraph above, because I could throw it all right back at you – that official story with it’s information gaps.

You could but it would be a false equivalency; your demolition theory involves tons more missing data than the official story. The demolition theory that you sell as 'blatant' by the way.

And I say to you again: my argument supports a thorough investigation, what matter if my certainty were unfounded? Your argument props up a war, what are the stakes if you are wrong? I really think it's official story adherents that needs to keep their confidence in check, not I.

What matters if your certainty is unfounded is only nearly every data point that you touch on in support of your demolition scenario. Your certainty distorts your argumentation, such as your non-analogous murder analogy above. And as I've said before, since the theories of the truth movement are for the most part not accepted at this point by the scientific establishment, you are just inviting further disregard and eyerolling. When you establish that honesty is not the overriding attribute of your argument, then you give whatever establishment good reason to require more work on truthers' part to make their case and legitimize that higher standard (assuming the correctness of your argument that they actually have 'more' work to do). If this was really about 'stakes', then we have misplaced our priorities, we should both be thoroughly investigating the possibility that extraterrestrials are visiting the earth and lowering the evidential bar by which we propose that it is true; the downside of that is far greater than any puny human war.

None of those points you mention make it anymore ‘fair’ on Gourley’s argument.

The question is whether he was treated fairly or not, not 'more fair'. He was not limited in word count below their general guidelines, he was treated fairly. Don't blame the journal if he decided to not use his limited word count as constructively as possible. This 'fairness' point can be made any time the journal allows longer submissions, people who disagree with these longer submissions can always claim that their word-count restricted counterpoint was treated unfairly. Thus the term, 'whiny'. Despite what you said earlier, this doesn't seem to me to be a 'formal debate'. Scientific papers are supposed to note and address all conceivable counterpoints; debates have opposing sides and you don't address all counterpoints unless in rebuttal to something specifically asserted, you don't want to make your opponent's argument for them.

The consequences are a potential civil war and political overhaul the likes of which have not been seen in our lifetime – you don’t initiate that lightly on the chance of gaining some ‘credibility’ or ‘fame and fortune’ which might not even be recognised until after we’re all gone.

Puhleeze, what potential civil war? You don't have to initiate it lightly if you actually have the convincing conclusive case that you've been arguing for; to not initiate it risks the potential for something worse than a civil war and political overhaul, you've got govt officials plotting the murder of the country's citizens. What is more accurate is that you don't initiate it based on the incomplete evidence and case that the truthers currently have.

You cut the supportive expert opinion I provided from Quintiere out of my post and then isolate and attack the point as my opinion? That’s kind of.. wrong. Not to mention that my argument is based on that of an attorney and demonstrated to be more widely backed by thousands of architects, engineers and scientists.

I don't know what you think is 'wrong' here. Here's the part that I quoted from you that I was referring to:

I don’t see that official theorists have done much better in the area of proving their case in journals. Apart from Bazant’s papers, there was that ridiculous Chinese paper supporting the collapses, which flyingswan once linked – which, so desperate to produce a global collapse, began by placing the WTC1 impact in completely the wrong location in the model. Certainly the NIST study, if it ever were to be peer-reviewed, would be derided for not proving the case of what happened on 9/11...

So to be clearer, I don't trust your non-expert appraisal of Bazant, the ridiculous Chinese paper, nor the NIST study. As I said, you would be derided for expecting the NIST study to 'prove' the case of what happened on 9/11. And of what relevance is the presence of an attorney in this discussion? They don't bring any obvious scientific credentials or expertise, and I'm really hoping that you aren't offering up an attorney as having some special expertise in, ha, 'fairness'.

I’ll take that as a “no”; you cannot provide numbers of professionals who have definitely evaluated the points I argue and disagree with me, to rival the truth movement professional membership. If you want to use alchemy as a comparison, we would first need a large group of professionals who still agree with the practice.

Your ridiculous argument here is that unless someone provides you with the number of professionals who have specifically voiced opposition to your position, and have definitely evaluated your points (nice 'out' that you've built in), then we should be impressed by the 1700+ professionals in the truther movement a decade later. If we're really going to go to this extent, you haven't provided me any evidence that the 1700+ professionals have all definitely evaluated all your points. And which points are sufficient? "You have no best evidence", but can you even say what a couple of your killer arguments that are not explicitly being rebutted by a preponderance of available experts? Experts usually don't spend time on topics that do not, possibly 'yet', have any scientific traction. Thus, the truthers have a lot more work to do.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So Gourley's paper was peer-reviewed – it had to be, to be published, which is the assumption I was working to from the start. I was correct. Flyingswan was incorrect. I trust that you retract your accusation and better consider who may be misleading you in future.

Thanks for the info Q. I retract my accusation that you were being misleading about Gourley's paper being peer-reviewed. It apparently wasn't as thoroughly peer-reviewed, but at this point I think it's fair for you to use the term. I'm not that intimate with standards for scientific studies and that should have tempered my accusation. I will say I'm surprised that only two reviews are required, I was thinking it would require more than that.

As long as we're clearing the air, I'll take this opportunity to return the favor on two irking points myself:

1 - Your original statement, "There have also been a number of papers published in mainstream journals, which unfortunately have been proven biased in applying publishing rules when it comes to 9/11 truth, such is political sensitivity of the subject" is now down to "it would be naive to believe that political considerations are not taken into account by publishing editors.". Those two statements are a significant distance apart, 'proven' is not based on the standard of what one thinks is or is not 'naive to believe'. You don't seem to have any evidence of political sensitivity and therefore don't have any evidence that the differing word count standards is actually 'biased', meaning applying different standards illegitimately. I believe this results from what we just talked about, your over-certainty, and here's a prime example of the problem with it. It not only retards the progress of the conversation, it leads to statements that are at this point unsupported and not true.

2 - You've quoted this from swan a few times: "NIST's conclusion would be "It's more likely to stand up than collapse, but we can't rule out collapse". You are not including the rest of the context, "Engineers don't put safety factors into their calculations for fun, they do it because no-one ever knows everything, there are always margins of error. You don't design a building to stand up, just. You design it to stand up under the worst conditions you can think of, and then make it stronger again by a substantial factor. That means that a prediction of a collapse within the margins of error of the input parameters would be enough to declare the building unsafe.". The part that you exclude is relevant to what you are quoting from swan and directly qualifies what he means by it, which means you are pretty much quote-mining which is fallacious.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither you nor Sky can PROVE that a 757 struck the Pentagon, that it was AA77, OR that it was piloted by HH.

You can make that claim, repeat it ad nauseam, provide cool links and specious pictures, but you cannot PROVE it.

There is too much evidence that contradicts the story, from the Citgo witnesses to the doctored FDR, to the absurdity of a lousy pilot flying like God, to specious cell phone calls, and on and on.

Too many flies in the ointment for your story to be true MID. :no:

:w00t:

Uh, Babe...

First of all, the "doctored FDR" is an impossible thing, and of course, you have nothing to show that any phone cells made from cells aboard those doomed craft were specious...and on and on, as you say.

And, as you should known, no lousy pilot flew like a miracle worker then, and indeed, mild pilots flew mildly, and executed not a heck of alot that resembled anything miraculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is that Discussion and Closure papers (Gourley's included) are peer-reviewed - the process is simply different to that of a standalone paper, apparently to speed up publishing. Whereas the initial standalone paper must receive two positive reviews to be published, Discussion and Closure papers require only one positive review. That's it. That is the only difference. Any of the papers can be peer-reviewed by the editor(s), who themselves are professionals in the field of engineering and mechanics, or forwarded to an external reviewer deemed fit. Of course having two reviewer approvals is more stringent than only having one reviewer approval, but each are equally and accurately described as a "peer-review".

I suggest you read all those guidelines very carefully again.

An original paper gets peer-review, ie it is sent out to specialists on the subject of the paper for their comments. The editor himself is only one of the reviewers if he considers himself such a specialist. Being a professional engineer doesn't make the editor enough of a specialist on every subject carried in his journal to normally do the peer-review himself.

A discussion piece gets editorial review. It's reviewed by the editor or a member of his team, not by a specialist on the subject.

And you accuse me of not understanding English.

Edited by flyingswan
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you read all those guidelines very carefully again.

An original paper gets peer-review, ie it is sent out to specialists on the subject of the paper for their comments. The editor himself is only one of the reviewers if he considers himself such a specialist. Being a professional engineer doesn't make the editor enough of a specialist on every subject carried in his journal to normally do the peer-review himself.

A discussion piece gets editorial review. It's reviewed by the editor or a member of his team, not by a specialist on the subject.

And you accuse me of not understanding English.

This is the way I read it as well Swanny. The key distinction is in who is performing the review. Closures and Discussions are reviewed either by the Editor himself or is assigned to an Associate Editor. At no point is this sent out for Peer Review like a normal paper is handled.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:w00t:

Uh, Babe...

First of all, the "doctored FDR" is an impossible thing, and of course, you have nothing to show that any phone cells made from cells aboard those doomed craft were specious...and on and on, as you say.

And, as you should known, no lousy pilot flew like a miracle worker then, and indeed, mild pilots flew mildly, and executed not a heck of alot that resembled anything miraculous.

The expert who received the FDR data from NTSB, Dennis Cimino, says that ALL FDRs are assigned, for the obvious reason--if there is a midair collision and the wrecks end up in a ball on the ground, there must be SOME way to determine which FDR belongs to which aircraft. Common Sense, you guys, common sense.

Sky thinks it does not matter if the FDR is assigned, but then he thinks low level flight is anywhere below 10,000 feet.

That the recorder was unassigned demonstrates clearly that the data was made up. It would NEVER pass in any court of law as being legitimate evidence. The only thing that it evidences is FRAUD AND DECEIT on the part of the person submitting it.

Thus, the FDR evidence WORKS AGAINST the official narrative. It and almost every other piece of evidence available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the draft version from Grabbe's website:

http://www.sealane.o.../Bazantrpy.html

and the first page as published:

http://ascelibrary.o...rnalCode=jenmdt

Usual stuff, lots of claims, nothing to back them up. Where on earth does he get the "four times gravity" stuff - he doesn't give a reference? Top of the building being accelerated down by enormous rockets?

Hoffman's ridiculous energy claims have been long demolished.

That was a painful read... and he actually cites Bjorkman... I'm shaking my head right now. Stunned by the stupidity. How on earth did this pass editorial review? It's like a badly written comic book.

I bet Bazant gets tired of this foolishness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the way I read it as well Swanny. The key distinction is in who is performing the review. Closures and Discussions are reviewed either by the Editor himself or is assigned to an Associate Editor. At no point is this sent out for Peer Review like a normal paper is handled.

Interesting, I may have read that a little too quickly last night. Thanks for the info guys.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, I may have read that a little too quickly last night. Thanks for the info guys.

No problem LG. At least you exhibited good faith when presented with what you found to be a compelling rebuttal. It will be interesting to see if Q24 reciprocates with any concessions regarding the issues that you raised within the same post.

Cheers.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The expert who received the FDR data from NTSB, Dennis Cimino, says that ALL FDRs are assigned, for the obvious reason--if there is a midair collision and the wrecks end up in a ball on the ground, there must be SOME way to determine which FDR belongs to which aircraft. Common Sense, you guys, common sense.

Sky thinks it does not matter if the FDR is assigned, but then he thinks low level flight is anywhere below 10,000 feet.

If you were a pilot you would know something about 10,000 feet altitude in respect to aircraft operations, but since you have just made it clear that you didn't, reconfirms that you are not a pilot at all. :no:

That the recorder was unassigned demonstrates clearly that the data was made up. It would NEVER pass in any court of law as being legitimate evidence. The only thing that it evidences is FRAUD AND DECEIT on the part of the person submitting it.

Thus, the FDR evidence WORKS AGAINST the official narrative. It and almost every other piece of evidence available.

If you knew anything about aircraft accidents you would have known that the FAA and NTSB use other data and means to backup FDR data. In addition, the transcribed data from the recovered FDR were reduced from the recorded binary values to engineering units from conversion formulas obtained from Boeing and American Airlines for tail number; N644AA, airframe serial number 24602.

Now, are Boeing and American Airlines considered government agencies?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Sky, but they are typical modern large american corporations, and it has been demonstrated that MANY of them work hand-in-glove with the government. For example, it is well documented that various telecoms did Bush's dirty work for him in intercepting communications illegally. And the government blessed that criminal activity by passing FISA II which gave those corporations immunity for their crimes.

FDR tampering is probably a crime. Don't know, just guessing. But when the government does it, you act like it's no big deal.

The bogus FDR data corroborates the testimony of those who saw a Boeing north of the Citgo station. Either of them is evidence that the official story is a lie, and both together demonstrate it more strongly.

It's interpretation of ALL the evidence Sky. That is where you fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bogus FDR data corroborates the testimony of those who saw a Boeing north of the Citgo station. Either of them is evidence that the official story is a lie, and both together demonstrate it more strongly.

Funny enough as Fetzer/Cimino had also made an error in claiming that the FDR data clearly shows the airplane passing OVER the Pentagon, when it has been confirmed that a Plane struck the Pentagon.

As I have discussed this before the RA data they datamined and calculated was incorrect.

If the FDR was indeed fabricated, by Fetzer and Cimino's own admission, then the Government sure as hell did a p*** poor job in fabricating a FDR that is way off what the official report says.

The fact of the matter is, neither Fetzer or Cimino can come to an agreement between what happened.

Can you please tell me why Cimino has not yet retracted his statement that the Cabin Door data showed 0 values (basically never being opened) after being advised that the model jet the FDR came from was not updated to include this data in the FDR?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Sky, but they are typical modern large american corporations, and it has been demonstrated that MANY of them work hand-in-glove with the government.

So what if they do? What's the big deal?! Are you now claiming that families of passengers and crew of American 11, American 77, United 93, and United 175 were in a conspiracy as well?

For example, it is well documented that various telecoms did Bush's dirty work for him in intercepting communications illegally.

The real dirty work is being done by those who push lies, disinformation, and misinformation for the sole purpose of deceiving the public on the 9/11 attacks.

FDR tampering is probably a crime.

Where's your evidence that the FDR was tampered with? If you don't produce the evidence for all to see, then it will be very clear that you are guilty of pushing another lie.

The bogus FDR data corroborates the testimony of those who saw a Boeing north of the Citgo station.

But wait, you have claimed that "no Boeing was involved" and now, look what you are posting!

Babe Ruth said:

Well, the planes hit at WTC, but not @ Pentagon or Shanksville.

Once again, you get so caught up in your own deception routine that you tend to trip over yourself while we sit and watch.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a script from the Fringe show ? :tu:

If so It splanes all the missing people and parts. Other wise ITs all in a few of these BRminds!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a script from the Fringe show ? :tu:

If so It splanes all the missing people and parts. Other wise ITs all in a few of these BRminds!

BR, has been caught changing his stories time after time after time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guidelines are not typically 'broken', and even that is an empty charge when they come flat out and say that part of their guidelines is that they allow longer articles as they see fit.

Does acceptance of breaking the guidelines, in favour of one author but not another, make the decision any less biased? I think not.

"I'll take that as a 'no' ", you don't have any evidence that the bias you perceive was because of political sensitivity.

I don’t have any concrete evidence that every one of Rupert Murdoch’s hundreds of media outlets without exception editorialised in favour of the Iraq war due to a political decision at some level either... but that obviously was the case (it would be unbelievable to find a large random group where 100% agreed with the war). That instance was also a form of editorial bias in place of fair reporting of the facts, though given your responses I wouldn’t expect you to see/accept it. I rather hope, to be consistent, that you would argue along the lines the bias existed because the creators of the conflict were luminaries and that the Iraq war was ‘plain correct’, etc. Whilst I would, and did, question that media bias just as much as in the present case regarding mainstream journals.

The media and political establishment that you haven't shown to be relevant at all to this decision?

I don’t understand how you can miss it. You already accept that editors can break their own guidelines “as they see fit”. So the only question would be: do you think editors are like robots; wholly objective and free of media influences and political considerations? Of course they are not – they are affected as much as anyone else, have a position of power/responsibility to add and must answer to their superiors. Even I would think twice about what I published if I were such an editor, for fear of stirring up a hornets’ nest and safety of my position.

It's not 'pre-conceived', it's 'post-conceived' from evidence and the conclusions of experts qualifed to examine the scientific questions.

How does it go? Oh puhleeze? The media and political establishment concluded that the towers came down as a result of the impacts and fires and that bin Laden was responsible on the first day. Bazant drafted his hypothesis (the one that still provides backbone of the official collapse theory today) only two days after 9/11, before evidence was gathered or any investigation had taken place – of course the conclusion was pre-conceived.

Your analogy here is nowhere near the mark.

It’s an example of how any level of compelling circumstantial evidence can be disputed, if one so wishes.

What matters if your certainty is unfounded is only nearly every data point that you touch on in support of your demolition scenario.

So what? Then I jumped the gun, demanded an investigation and conclusive answers. Better than to lull people into a false sense of righteousness in support of a war, no? By the way, I don’t believe I’m wrong at all – I have a very high level of confidence in my conclusions due to culmination of the vast evidence I have researched – that is not a concern to me at all. I’m more challenging you – what if you are wrong? All you want to talk about, are the oh so terrible consequences if I am wrong – OMG Q, if you are wrong, then you are wrong and... nothing. But what if you are wrong, LG? How does that compare? Perhaps we should have got a real investigation, and real answers, so we didn’t need to be in this position?

The question is whether he was treated fairly or not, not 'more fair'.

I disagree. Both ‘more fair’ or ‘less fair’ are degrees of bias. This is the question. Well... the side-point. The question was actually about whether the 9/11 truth movement have published in mainstream journals.

I don't know what you think is 'wrong' here. Here's the part that I quoted from you that I was referring to:

I already said what is wrong – that you cut out the expert quote that supports what I said and isolate it as only my opinion. This piece goes together: -

Certainly the NIST study, if it ever were to be peer-reviewed, would be derided for not proving the case of what happened on 9/11...

Perhaps the most telling external analysis came from NIST’s own former chief of the fire science division, James Quintiere, at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference: -

“I wish that there would be a peer review of this ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable ... 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 ... In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.”

You see how the expert quote supports my opinion?

That’s the whole reason I posted it – so that I am not just giving my opinion.

So to be clearer, I don't trust your non-expert appraisal of Bazant, the ridiculous Chinese paper, nor the NIST study.

You don’t have to ‘trust’ me, only the obvious facts. Fact: Bazant’s hypothesis is so full of assumptions detrimental to the building survival it’s unreal (literally). Fact: the ridiculous Chinese paper placed the WTC1 impact in the wrong location (you’d know this if you’d seen the paper). Fact: results of the NIST study indicate the buildings were more likely to stand up than collapse due to the impacts and fires and fail to prove the collapses even possible within the observable impact and fire reality at all. You don’t need to be an expert to discern any of these basic facts. Though if still in doubt, consult the experts, like Quintiere above.

Your ridiculous argument here is that unless someone provides you with the number of professionals who have specifically voiced opposition to your position, and have definitely evaluated your points (nice 'out' that you've built in), then we should be impressed by the 1700+ professionals in the truther movement a decade later.

No, that is not my argument - you have intentionally or not adopted a strawman argument. Let’s start from the beginning. I initially set out to show that the number of professionals is growing within the truth movement – and due to the figures, this is undeniable (post #2417). You then put forward an argument that a significant number of individuals not within the truth movement have evaluated the points I argue and disagree with me. The challenge that followed is to prove that your argument is unfounded in figures; it’s just an opinion. You don’t know that a significant number of professionals have evaluated the points I argue and disagree with me at all – you can’t back it up, but you’d like to believe it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info Q. I retract my accusation that you were being misleading about Gourley's paper being peer-reviewed. It apparently wasn't as thoroughly peer-reviewed, but at this point I think it's fair for you to use the term. I'm not that intimate with standards for scientific studies and that should have tempered my accusation. I will say I'm surprised that only two reviews are required, I was thinking it would require more than that.

No problem.

As long as we're clearing the air, I'll take this opportunity to return the favor on two irking points myself:

1 - Your original statement, "There have also been a number of papers published in mainstream journals, which unfortunately have been proven biased in applying publishing rules when it comes to 9/11 truth, such is political sensitivity of the subject" is now down to "it would be naive to believe that political considerations are not taken into account by publishing editors.". Those two statements are a significant distance apart, 'proven' is not based on the standard of what one thinks is or is not 'naive to believe'. You don't seem to have any evidence of political sensitivity and therefore don't have any evidence that the differing word count standards is actually 'biased', meaning applying different standards illegitimately. I believe this results from what we just talked about, your over-certainty, and here's a prime example of the problem with it. It not only retards the progress of the conversation, it leads to statements that are at this point unsupported and not true.

I’m honestly bored of this particular discussion. Let’s leave the facts to speak for themselves: -

“Discussions must have fewer than 2,000 words or word-equivalents.”

“Closures must have fewer than 2,000 words or word-equivalents.”

~ASCE submission guidelines

http://www.asce.org/...ournal-Content/

“The journal editor may waive these guidelines to encourage papers on topics that cannot be treated within these limitations. Such topics may include state-of-the-art reviews and detailed case histories. However, authors are advised that most topics can be covered within these limitations, and that clear justification is required for longer manuscripts.”

~ASCE submission guidelines

http://www.asce.org/...al-Submissions/

“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.”

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

Everyone can draw their own conclusions whether this constitutes ‘bias’ in favour of Bazant/against Gourley.

2 - You've quoted this from swan a few times: "NIST's conclusion would be "It's more likely to stand up than collapse, but we can't rule out collapse". You are not including the rest of the context, "Engineers don't put safety factors into their calculations for fun, they do it because no-one ever knows everything, there are always margins of error. You don't design a building to stand up, just. You design it to stand up under the worst conditions you can think of, and then make it stronger again by a substantial factor. That means that a prediction of a collapse within the margins of error of the input parameters would be enough to declare the building unsafe.". The part that you exclude is relevant to what you are quoting from swan and directly qualifies what he means by it, which means you are pretty much quote-mining which is fallacious.

Yes, it’s a great quote isn’t it? A rare moment of truthfulness.

The reason I don’t feel the need to reproduce all of that text is because it has no bearing whatsoever on the initial quote. So please could you explain what context you think the rest of that text adds to the quote? Because I honestly don’t see it.

Is it that... no, I’ll just let you explain. This should be interesting. Do beware - flyingswan has misled you before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the FDR was indeed fabricated, by Fetzer and Cimino's own admission, then the Government sure as hell did a p*** poor job in fabricating a FDR that is way off what the official report says.

Fact of the matter is, the FDR data was not fabricated and your remarks once again, reconfirm you have no knowledge on the way things are done in the world of aviation.

The bogus FDR data corroborates the testimony of those who saw a Boeing north of the Citgo station. Either of them is evidence that the official story is a lie, and both together demonstrate it more strongly.

It's interpretation of ALL the evidence Sky. That is where you fail.

Fact of the matter is, FDR data did not depict American 77 north of the gas station and it was impossible for anyone to have seen American 77 north of the gas station unless the gas station was in Florida. The path of destruction proves beyond any doubt American 77 passed south of the gas station.

Other than the path of destruction leading to, and inside the Pentagon, do you know another reason why it would have been impossible for American 77 to have passed north of the gas station in question?

Remember, you have made the following claims:

*************************************************************************************

Babe Ruth says:

* No Boeing (B-757) crashed into the Pentagon.

______________________________________________________

Babe Ruth says:

* American 77, which was a B-757, passed north of the gas station.

______________________________________________________

Babe Ruth added:

A P700 anti-ship cruise missile struck the Pentagon

**************************************************************************************

Seems you cannot make up you mind! :no:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.