Martin Sheen: 9/11 Questions 'Unanswered,' Building 7 'Very Suspicious'

[tomk52]

96. Well, waddaya know...

OK, lyrical prose is over.

Let's suppose I were to lay out the fundamentals of Number Theory & then show that, by applying those rules, 2*3=6.
Someone else retort, using only unsubstantiated assertion, that I'm wrong. 2*3 = 23.

I would say the person had "written baseless nonsense".
Would you assert that person had "refuted me"?
If so, we'll just agree to disagree on the meaning of the word "refute".
But, for the record, your definition sucks. And my definition doesn't suck.

Next, not Bjorkman nor Gourley nor Szuladzinski nor Szamboti has ever published a paper, or an article, in JOM.

A letter is not an article nor a paper. Letters are not peer reviewed in any way comparable to a paper. Papers are reviewed to delete obvious, blatant errors. The letters from all 4 of those clowns were replete with errors. If they had been "reviewed", the reviewers would have insisted the errors be removed before publication.

Catch the difference?

Now, you're welcome to post a link to the other "peer reviewed articles, published in JOM, questioning Bazant".

Why should you believe that I have ~40 years mech engineering experience?
Have I ever lied to you before?

Regardless of that, it will become apparent when I answer your tech questions. If you'd responded earlier, you'd know by now. If it remains an issue, others know exactly who I am. It can be resolved. (For the moment, a short bio, posted years ago: tinyurl.com/canv4kn )

I "haven't made a serious argument"??
Bjorkman's credentials vs. Bazant's.
That's a serious issue.
If you'd responded to that 3 weeks ago, we'd be on Topic #15 by now.

Now, do you think that I haven't noticed that you STILL haven't addressed that issue.
Please do so now.

Address that issue, and then I'll immediately address all of yours, including:
supporters of Bazant
"regular people vs. truthers"
my arrogance.
all the rest...