Prof. David L. Griscom: "Pay for Publish" without Peer Review is False!

reply to post by -PLB-


Well I hope Pteridine knows better than to use those points.

You should really stop quoting people that don't know the science. I can easily pick off any of those points
you made in your post. Your source obviously didn't bother to read the footnotes and assoicated references.

He would have found most of the answers in the LLNL public data.

Furthermore, you shuold have quoted his closing paragraph where he states:

"I may be wrong..."



Clearly he hasn't done the experiments, or research ; nor have you.

Feel free to debate me on any of those points. I'd be happy to show you the answers with sourced material.

reply to post by turbofan


Hand waving isn't going to make it go away. I would say start addressing those points, let us show that you are really the expert you claim to be. And send your rebuttal to Denis Rancourt also. But what would really help is when Harrit addresses these points, as he is the only one who can give clarification.

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by turbofan

 

Which part of "I'm not interested in a debate" did you not understand?

As it is, neither you or I have the scientific background to debate this paper, so why bother? And in any case, I don't have any reason to do so, as there are people who are more suited than me to discuss and debate the merits of the therm*te pamphlet.

If you're so hellbent on having a debate, why not contact your fellow 'truther', Denis Rancourt? He appears to have the scientific background to analyze the problems with the therm*te pamphlet:
climateguy.blogspot.com...

edit on 3-12-2010 by roboe because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-12-2010 by roboe because: (no reason given)

The part where you say you don't wish to debate and then continue to do so.

It is very confusing to me.

reply to post by -PLB-

Hand waving isn't going to make it go away. I would say start addressing those points

Already done. Perhaps you should read one of the many PDF's from LLNL and other sources in my thread,
"Jones' Dust Analysis: Common Arguments Addressed"

Do you accept the debate then? Shall I start the thread?

reply to post by turbofan


No I don't accept a debate, this is not my area of expertise. But the least you can do is show why those points brought up by Denis Rancourt, the only scientists who seem to have seriously read the paper, are wrong. If I feel I can make a contribution I will, but if the debate gets too specialized, I won't be able to make a useful contribution. I would suggest to take the debate to Denis Rancourt.

Well, the data is there for you to read i you care to.

I'd rather not start ANOTHER thread on the same material if you can wait for Pteridine to begin his debate with me.
The same questions will be covered.

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by turbofan

 

Which part of "I'm not interested in a debate" did you not understand?

The part where you say you don't wish to debate and then continue to do so.

It is very confusing to me.

It is confusing, but it's nothing new. It's the main reason I don't even want to have these "discussions" on ATS anymore, because they always go nowhere. There is nothing being debated, and this guy admits himself he doesn't even want to debate.

Look at the first response to the OP. He dismisses this guy's education background out of hand just because he's a "truther." This label "truther" apparently renders physics Ph.D.'s from Brown University, or anyone else with any other Ivy League education or any other education whatsoever, mentally incapacitated. It's the intellectual equivalent of racism and it comes with no debate, no logic, no reasoning, only prejudice. Just like the idea that we know everything worth knowing about 9/11 already and nothing more needs to be investigated and all the official reports covered everything already. Nobody wants to debate those things, either, they just want to cling to prejudices, and play ego games online by trying to show how clever they are by always getting the last word in, in some petty argument.

reply to post by turbofan


It's thermite..end of story

Originally posted by trebor451
With the histronics between you and "Capt" Bob Balsamo still providing us with laughs, it looks like you are simply grasping at whatever sensational whack-job claim that is next in line.

You have failed at the aircraft, you faield at teh Pentagon, you are now failing at the WTC.

What is next? You'll probably take up the nuke meme or the Judy Woods dustification idea.

I see the "close staff scrutiny" warning message has been taken away.

It's a shame too, because this kind of posting still contains no intelligent discussion in it whatsoever and only prevents reasonable discourse.

A friendly reminder to stay on the topic and not each other. Thank you.

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine

 

No, I'm not wrong. I said:

he has not replied to any of my threads since, and I have personally not seen him post on the
forum since this date.

Besides this response, can you find another reply to any of my threads since that date?

At the time you said you were stuck in hotels, you responed on the forum several times. Shall I gather
those quotes too? I hope your review of the paper has more grip than these simple points I've just made!

August 22, 2010. Pteridine says he's too busy to debate:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since the week you told me you had no time to post these replies were recorded:

[url]http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/searchresults.php?cx=010913664321846374563%3Afzhl_cfnikq&cof=FORID%3A9&q=%22pteridine%22+&sa=Search#1037[/url ]

Note the dates from September to Mid November. That is quite a bit of of action for someone that declined a debate for being "busy".

You do a great deal of complaining for an anonymous internet guy who thinks he's better and more thorough
than several highly schooled and experienced scholars.

Can't wait to debate the science and check out your sources for all of that heat! Hurry up with that 'review' of yours and those calculations...ESPECIALLY for this one:

Further, no combination of thermite and any energetic material shown in his paper as examples would produce the energies shown without combustion in air.

edit on 4-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)

So pteridine got a bit confused with the time or found internet access in between after all to get his kick. That does not proof he is a goverment sponsored shill. He is just not good with details ^^.