Tony Szamboti Publishes a Technical Paper about 9/11 Truth

Scott Sommers

Illuminator
Scott Sommers
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,866
Tony and others have published a paper called
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis
in the journal,
International Journal of Protective Structures.
The abstract is here
http://911inacademia.files.wordpres...isunderstandings-of-wtc-collapse-analysis.pdf
but the whole paper can be found here
http://rethink911.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Szuladzinski.Johns_.Szamboti.pdf

The International Journal of Protective Structures is not a listed journal. It is published by Multi-Science Publishing. This is not a major academic publishing house, although it appears better than Bentham. It's press page states,
Multi-Science Publishing is pleased to announce that a number of its journals have been accepted for inclusion into ISI and Scopus indexing systems. The International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching has been accepted for ISI's Social Sciences Citation Index, and will have an impact factor from June 2011; the Journal of Computational Multiphase Flows, the International Journal of Flow Control, and the International Journal of Emerging Multidisciplinary Fluid Sciences have all been selected for inclusion in Scopus.
Click to expand...
Note that International Journal of Protective Structures is not among these journals and in 2013 had only published 4 volumes.

The chief editor of International Journal of Protective Structures is Hong Hao. He has published a large number of papers in leading and relevant journals. I am less sure of the people listed as the journal's 'editorial board' and 'associate editors'. Some of them seem surprisingly difficult to find. I have not been able to locate an impact factor for the journal, which seems very strange to me. A search with Google Scholar found that the most cited article in the journal's history has been cited only 13 times and most of these citations appear to be in papers published later by the same people. Most papers listed in the Google search have never been cited. Perhaps this is not to be unexpected from a new journal.

I congratulate Tony and his team on their success. This is not a strong publication - although it is far, far better than that thermite crap these pass around as 'research'. I leave it to voices of engineering expertise here to interpret whether the findings are meaningful.
 
Scott Sommers said:
Tony and others have published a paper called
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis
in the journal,
International Journal of Protective Structures.
The abstract is here
http://911inacademia.files.wordpres...isunderstandings-of-wtc-collapse-analysis.pdf
but the whole paper can be found here
http://rethink911.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Szuladzinski.Johns_.Szamboti.pdf

The International Journal of Protective Structures is not a listed journal. It is published by Multi-Science Publishing. This is not a major academic publishing house, although it appears better than Bentham. It's press page states,

Note that International Journal of Protective Structures is not among these journals and in 2013 had only published 4 volumes.

The chief editor of International Journal of Protective Structures is Hong Hao. He has published a large number of papers in leading and relevant journals. I am less sure of the people listed as the journal's 'editorial board' and 'associate editors'. Some of them seem surprisingly difficult to find. I have not been able to locate an impact factor for the journal, which seems very strange to me. A search with Google Scholar found that the most cited article in the journal's history has been cited only 13 times and most of these citations appear to be in papers published later by the same people. Most papers listed in the Google search have never been cited. Perhaps this is not to be unexpected from a new journal.

I congratulate Tony and his team on their success. This is not a strong publication - although it is far, far better than that thermite crap these pass around as 'research'. I leave it to voices of engineering expertise here to interpret whether the findings are meaningful.
Click to expand...

Still processing it, however the paper kicks off with an unvalidated assumption:

The only complete hypothesis of the global collapse mechanism of the Towers is a successive flattening of stories associated with compressive column failure and referred to as a Progressive Column Failure mode or PCF in brief
Click to expand...

Hilite added by me. Essentially, they are setting up a strawman and attacking it.
 
Last edited:
I'm also in the processing phase of this paper. (something "truthers" never really go through)

Initial feelings is it's a "school yard spat" with Bazant as the target.

The first thing we need to consider is the buildings did in fact collapse. This paper sets out to invalidate an extreme case that shows that collapse is inevitable once it starts. They look for an even more extreme condition in favor of arrest and try to make the case Bazant over estimates the available energy by creating a one story fall (they're trying to save the building on paper).

The paper attempts a mixture of theory with reality to prove something that is not reality in the first place. Keep in mind, the building did fail.

True, the top "block" did not go through a one story "free-fall" but it is also unlikely that all the columns lined up perfectly to facilitate the collapse arrest.

Bazant does not make a case against CD nor does this paper make a case for. It's really very bland.

Reading the paper you come away with the question. "And"? They never actually go there.

I'm not an engineer but, I don't really see the point of this paper (I am willing to be corrected and learn).

I'm sure I'll be talking to Tony about this soon. He does read this forum. ;)
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
True, the top "block" did not go through a one story "free-fall" but it is also unlikely that all the columns lined up perfectly to facilitate the collapse arrest.
Click to expand...

My hilite. It's distantly possible that, freakishly, a few column ends might have met.

Tony's entire theory rested on disproving the paper theory of Bazant with the (utterly erroneous) idea that real-life column ends would meet. It was a bizarre hybrid in that sense, where Bazantian theory was applied to a real world that was, however, being viewed purely in theory.

Essentially, TS totally insisted on having the best of both worlds but could never comprehend why this was an invalid concept..
 
Of course, the paper referenced is not a technical paper about 9/11 truth. It's a technical paper about the inapplicability of Bazant's model to the real world. Since there already is a thread for that, and since Scott has not understood the subject of the referenced paper, this thread appears to have no reason for existence except perhaps to educate Scott Sommers about what technical papers are and are not.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Of course, the paper referenced is not a technical paper about 9/11 truth. It's a technical paper about the inapplicability of Bazant's model to the real world. Since there already is a thread for that, and since Scott has not understood the subject of the referenced paper, this thread appears to have no reason for existence except perhaps to educate Scott Sommers about what technical papers are and are not.
Click to expand...
The first Bazant papers were not intended to represent the real world. When will you get this through your head?

They were limiting models.
 
I'm familair with Szamboti and Szuladzinki (I believie they are forum members here), but I have never heard of the third author, Richard Johns from Langara College in Canada. Google finds a philosphy instructor and nothing else. Does anyone know who he is?
 
DGM said:
The first Bazant papers were not intended to represent the real world. When will you get this through your head?
Click to expand...

When will you understand what the phrase "real world" means?
 
TexasJack said:
I'm familair with Szamboti and Szuladzinki (I believie they are forum members here), but I have never heard of the third author, Richard Johns from Langara College in Canada. Google finds a philosphy instructor and nothing else. Does anyone know who he is?
Click to expand...

Langara_CollegeWP? Now there's an institution I have never heard of before.
 
Scott Sommers said:
Tony Szamboti Publishes a Technical Paper about 9/11 Truth
Click to expand...

I'm not really seeing any "truth" in this.

I'm seeing a pissing contest with Bazant and models but, "truth" concepts are absent as far as I can see. They do link to "truthy" sources but they sidestep the direct references.
 
Scott Sommers said:
Tony and others have published a paper called
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis
in the journal,
International Journal of Protective Structures.
The abstract is here
http://911inacademia.files.wordpres...isunderstandings-of-wtc-collapse-analysis.pdf
but the whole paper can be found here
http://rethink911.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Szuladzinski.Johns_.Szamboti.pdf

The International Journal of Protective Structures is not a listed journal. It is published by Multi-Science Publishing. This is not a major academic publishing house, although it appears better than Bentham. It's press page states,

Note that International Journal of Protective Structures is not among these journals and in 2013 had only published 4 volumes.
Click to expand...

Geez, whats with you guys? You're so quick to throw any journal associated with the twoof movement under the bus, just like the fools who were claiming that the JEM had jumped the shark for publishing critiques of bazant. If you don't like people talking about the CD stuff, then just say it! Don't make up arbitrary reasons as an excuse. The fear of concepts implicating the powers that be has been a universal constant throughout human history. The reason there hasn't been a been a REAL investigation into the 911 attacks is not because an absence of evidence that the original commission report is false, but because of widespread moral cowardice amongst the populace. That is hardly surprising.

People worry more about how they are perceived by peers than whether they are standing up for the truth (which, by the way, how do we have anyway of knowing? I mean hey, this is the postmodernist era, after all...). Having a class of menial wage slaves who self-censor themselves is what has allowed the state to continue with their blatant power grabbing in the wake of 911. It has been said time and again, true power comes out of the barrel of a gun. The people know this, but they are too afraid to acknowledge it. Look at what happens when you tell them that taxation equals force! They act like a resentful, cornered rodent. This fear of fingering the ruling authoritys is an ancient cultural artifact, which remains even though we have something called a bill of rights.
 
TheJamesrocket said:
Geez, whats with you guys? You're so quick to throw any journal associated with the twoof movement under the bus, just like the fools who were claiming that the JEM had jumped the shark for publishing critiques of bazant. If you don't like people talking about the CD stuff, then just say it! Don't make up arbitrary reasons as an excuse. The fear of concepts implicating the powers that be has been a universal constant throughout human history. The reason there hasn't been a been a REAL investigation into the 911 attacks is not because an absence of evidence that the original commission report is false, but because of widespread moral cowardice amongst the populace. That is hardly surprising.

People worry more about how they are perceived by peers than whether they are standing up for the truth (which, by the way, how do we have anyway of knowing? I mean hey, this is the postmodernist era, after all...). Having a class of menial wage slaves who self-censor themselves is what has allowed the state to continue with their blatant power grabbing in the wake of 911. It has been said time and again, true power comes out of the barrel of a gun. The people know this, but they are too afraid to acknowledge it. Look at what happens when you tell them that taxation equals force! They act like a resentful, cornered rodent. This fear of fingering the ruling authoritys is an ancient cultural artifact, which remains even though we have something called a bill of rights.
Click to expand...

You do realize this paper ignores Major Tom's ROOSD, don't you?:rolleyes:
 
TheJamesrocket said:
If you don't like people talking about the CD stuff, then just say it!
Click to expand...


This paper has nothing to do with CD. Maybe you should read something before you comment.

:rolleyes:

What is it with "truthers". Do you just assume something your heroes produce supports your belief?
 
Last edited:
TheJamesrocket said:
Geez, whats with you guys? You're so quick to throw any journal associated with the twoof movement under the bus, just like the fools who were claiming that the JEM had jumped the shark for publishing critiques of bazant. If you don't like people talking about the CD stuff, then just say it! Don't make up arbitrary reasons as an excuse. The fear of concepts implicating the powers that be has been a universal constant throughout human history. The reason there hasn't been a been a REAL investigation into the 911 attacks is not because an absence of evidence that the original commission report is false, but because of widespread moral cowardice amongst the populace. That is hardly surprising.

People worry more about how they are perceived by peers than whether they are standing up for the truth (which, by the way, how do we have anyway of knowing? I mean hey, this is the postmodernist era, after all...). Having a class of menial wage slaves who self-censor themselves is what has allowed the state to continue with their blatant power grabbing in the wake of 911. It has been said time and again, true power comes out of the barrel of a gun. The people know this, but they are too afraid to acknowledge it. Look at what happens when you tell them that taxation equals force! They act like a resentful, cornered rodent. This fear of fingering the ruling authoritys is an ancient cultural artifact, which remains even though we have something called a bill of rights.
Click to expand...

You took your failure to understand a simple, common and straightforward analysis of the merits and reputation of the scholarly journal and just freaking ran with it didn't you? LOLZ!

OP: Say, this journal does not enjoy a very good reputation.
You: ZOMG you are teh sheep! Viva teh revolutrions!

Hee hee!
 
DGM said:
This paper has nothing to do with CD. Maybe you should read something before you comment.

:rolleyes:

What is it with "truthers". Do you just assume something your heroes produce supports your belief?
Click to expand...

Oho, we've got a funny boy here. I'll be keeping an eye on you, mister!
 
The paper has a narrow focus:
It takes the assumptions of the Bazant & Zhou paper(s) - so "columns in line resisting collapse" - and presents maths which claim to show that Bazant's original maths were wrong. But it does not show how it matters.

I have already posted a critique of the paper in the other two threads where this topic has been under discussion - cannot post links due to my current limited technology - I'm travelling away from homebase and "real" computers.

Ergo has extensively disagreed with my comments so I must have been close to the mark. ;)

Some significant points arise from the paper:
1) It destroys the foundation of "Missing Jolt" and Szamboti is a co-author. ;)
2) It is a complicated "proof" of the generally accepted understanding of the mechanism of Twin Towers global collapse being caused by material falling down the office space "tube" and leaving perimeter columns to fall away. The explanation being the one which Major_Tom re-discovered and labelled ROOSD (But he did not invent the mechanism despite numerous inferences) At least one of our newer trolls has insisted that M_T's precision "mappings" are needed to prove the mechanism labelled "ROOSD". That is crap - it rewrites history. The identification of the mechanism predates M_T and the label ROOSD by some years.
3) In the setting of exploring the limitations of Bazant's work the paper is an incomplete argument - I called it a "Three leg stool with two legs missing."

This thread could be merged to the one where the active discussion is. Discussion of the narrow focus of the paper is redundant - any value it has lies only in the context of applicability of Bazant's work.

And all the usual nonsense about "peer review" is as distracting as ever. The tests of a paper are "Are its claims true?" and "So what if they are?" NOT "Is it peer reviewed?" OR "How big a degree does the Author have?" :(

Over in the other thread I summarised the paper as effective trolling because it has features to irritate people across the spectrum from truthers/trolls to "hard line BazantOPhyles" - plus all of us rational skeptics caught in the middle ground. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
TheJamesrocket said:
Geez, whats with you guys? You're so quick to throw any journal associated with the twoof movement under the bus, just like the fools who were claiming that the JEM had jumped the shark for publishing critiques of bazant. If you don't like people talking about the CD stuff, then just say it! Don't make up arbitrary reasons as an excuse. The fear of concepts implicating the powers that be has been a universal constant throughout human history. The reason there hasn't been a been a REAL investigation into the 911 attacks is not because an absence of evidence that the original commission report is false, but because of widespread moral cowardice amongst the populace. That is hardly surprising.

People worry more about how they are perceived by peers than whether they are standing up for the truth (which, by the way, how do we have anyway of knowing? I mean hey, this is the postmodernist era, after all...). Having a class of menial wage slaves who self-censor themselves is what has allowed the state to continue with their blatant power grabbing in the wake of 911. It has been said time and again, true power comes out of the barrel of a gun. The people know this, but they are too afraid to acknowledge it. Look at what happens when you tell them that taxation equals force! They act like a resentful, cornered rodent. This fear of fingering the ruling authority is an ancient cultural artifact, which remains even though we have something called a bill of rights.
Click to expand...

Well said.

MM
 
As a Canadian further west than Gord in Toronto, I can also say I have not heard of Langara. The other two however we do know have credentials.

I might ask ergo and James when any truther engineer will get around to a paper illustrating a CD collapse instead of one such as this that seeks only to say to Bazant, 'did not happen the way you said'?
 
jhunter1163 said:
Even if the column ends had all met, by some freakish chance (right after the monkeys typed Shakespeare and pigs sprouted wings and flew), is there any reason to think that this would have affected the progression of the collapse in any way?
Click to expand...

This is the argument that ergo, et al., seem to be having right now. They seem to think that it would (and thus, Bazant et al. is wrong). Bazant and Zhou, however, mathematically demonstrated that it would not. As far as I can tell from the tidbits disclosed in these threads, this paper does not concern itself with disproving this math, but rather setting up an elaborate strawman wherein the authors prove that this scenario did not occur in reality - which has been the consensus for some time.
 
thedopefishlives said:
This is the argument that ergo, et al., seem to be having right now. They seem to think that it would (and thus, Bazant et al. is wrong). Bazant and Zhou, however, mathematically demonstrated that it would not. As far as I can tell from the tidbits disclosed in these threads, this paper does not concern itself with disproving this math, but rather setting up an elaborate strawman wherein the authors prove that this scenario did not occur in reality - which has been the consensus for some time.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
TheJamesrocket said:
Geez, whats with you guys? You're so quick to throw any journal associated with the twoof movement under the bus, just like the fools who were claiming that the JEM had jumped the shark for publishing critiques of bazant. If you don't like people talking about the CD stuff, then just say it! Don't make up arbitrary reasons as an excuse. The fear of concepts implicating the powers that be has been a universal constant throughout human history. The reason there hasn't been a been a REAL investigation into the 911 attacks is not because an absence of evidence that the original commission report is false, but because of widespread moral cowardice amongst the populace. That is hardly surprising.

People worry more about how they are perceived by peers than whether they are standing up for the truth (which, by the way, how do we have anyway of knowing? I mean hey, this is the postmodernist era, after all...). Having a class of menial wage slaves who self-censor themselves is what has allowed the state to continue with their blatant power grabbing in the wake of 911. It has been said time and again, true power comes out of the barrel of a gun. The people know this, but they are too afraid to acknowledge it. Look at what happens when you tell them that taxation equals force! They act like a resentful, cornered rodent. This fear of fingering the ruling authoritys is an ancient cultural artifact, which remains even though we have something called a bill of rights.
Click to expand...


We're working with reality here. There was no CD. So why not mock 'papers' that claim CD?
 
TexasJack said:
I'm familair with Szamboti and Szuladzinki (I believie they are forum members here), but I have never heard of the third author, Richard Johns from Langara College in Canada. Google finds a philosphy instructor and nothing else. Does anyone know who he is?
Click to expand...

I have never met Richard Johns. He apparently has a background in computer science but has a PhD in philosophy from the University of British Columbia. I understand he has a background in computer science, but I am not such how significant this is.

Gord_in_Toronto said:
Langara_CollegeWP? Now there's an institution I have never heard of before.
Click to expand...

Langara College is part of the 2-year college system of the Province of British Columbia. I understand it has been promoted and can now offer some degrees. The full name now is Langara University-College. Faculty there are teachers. There is no rank and no research requirement for being hired or as a job requirement. I doubt Richard Jones has published anything else.
 
TheJamesrocket said:
Geez, whats with you guys? You're so quick to throw any journal associated with the twoof movement under the bus, just like the fools who were claiming that the JEM had jumped the shark for publishing critiques of bazant. If you don't like people talking about the CD stuff, then just say it! Don't make up arbitrary reasons as an excuse. The fear of concepts implicating the powers that be has been a universal constant throughout human history. The reason there hasn't been a been a REAL investigation into the 911 attacks is not because an absence of evidence that the original commission report is false, but because of widespread moral cowardice amongst the populace. That is hardly surprising.

People worry more about how they are perceived by peers than whether they are standing up for the truth (which, by the way, how do we have anyway of knowing? I mean hey, this is the postmodernist era, after all...). Having a class of menial wage slaves who self-censor themselves is what has allowed the state to continue with their blatant power grabbing in the wake of 911. It has been said time and again, true power comes out of the barrel of a gun. The people know this, but they are too afraid to acknowledge it. Look at what happens when you tell them that taxation equals force! They act like a resentful, cornered rodent. This fear of fingering the ruling authoritys is an ancient cultural artifact, which remains even though we have something called a bill of rights.
Click to expand...

Since you posted this in response to my OP and show this in your post I will respond.

It is not a very good journal. Many journals have so few submissions they publish almost anything. The review process is more like an editorial process where the editors tell the authors how to change spelling, style and format to meet the journal requirements. There is no scholarly review. I have reviewed many papers for such journals and while a few of them are listed on Thompson indexes, such as the SCI, many are listed on SCOPUS. A look at the editorial board found CVs that were very much similar or even inferior to my own. Some people on the editorial board had never published anything.

I would say the same thing about any paper in this journal. While I congratulate Tony and his team on their initial success, a journal like this is probably more desperate for papers to publish than Tony is to find one. In that sense, they are well-matched. But the publication itself will probably go unnoticed in the larger world of construction research, probably forever.
 
Last edited:
I said this on another thread...Tony are you going to submit this paper to be published in the ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering? Will you try and present the paper at the ASCE structures congress 2014 in Boston?
 
MileHighMadness said:
I said this on another thread...Tony are you going to submit this paper to be published in the ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering? Will you try and present the paper at the ASCE structures congress 2014 in Boston?
Click to expand...

And just like I said to you on the other thread

For somebody who claims to know something about engineering and science you ask some strange questions.

The paper was published by the International Journal of Protective Structures. Journals do not allow papers previously published by other journals.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
And just like I said to you on the other thread

For somebody who claims to know something about engineering and science you ask some strange questions.

The paper was published by the International Journal of Protective Structures. Journals do not allow papers previously published by other journals.
Click to expand...
They could not fool ASCE with a 911 truth paper, but the IJPS was gullible.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
And just like I said to you on the other thread

For somebody who claims to know something about engineering and science you ask some strange questions.

The paper was published by the International Journal of Protective Structures. Journals do not allow papers previously published by other journals.
Click to expand...

Tony please, let's be civil. I don't know what MHM knows about engineering or science. I do know what he or she means.

While I congratulate you on the publication of your paper, my post was intended to point out that the venue renders the importance of the findings to be almost insignificant. There are many journals that are desperate for papers. I do not know how many submissions International Journal of Protective Structures gets. I am surprised by their editorial board, though, and take this as an indication of the depth to which the journal penetrates into legitimate academic engineering. I went through the names listed and found that some of the members of their board have published nothing that I can find. So if this is who they have on their board, I can only wonder who is doing their reviewing for them. My experience with 3rd and 4th tier journals, such as IJPS appears to be, reminds me of how many journals of this sort have trouble finding reviewers, especially for highly specialized papers. I suspect that in many cases, it was the people listed on the editorial board who did the review. And as I have said, I have trouble understanding what gives at least some of the IJPS editors the background to make such expert judgements. In all honesty, you appear to have a strong academic and research background that some of those listed on the IJPS editorial board.

The issue that keeps coming up is why you and similar researchers have waited so long to start publishing papers of this kind. I suspect it is because the intelligentsia of 9/11 Truth, in which I include you and your friend Richard, have been waiting for that avalanche of research you were certain would follow once think tanks like AE9/11T brought the true facts of 9/11 to professional attention. But that never happened. Sometime around the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attack by the Jihadist terrorists, you and what was left of the Truther intelligentsia began to take it seriously that you would have to do this publishing yourself. And you did.

I congratulate you on your initiative. I congratulate you on your publication in a serious venue. But I hope you understand that what MHM meant with his or her post was clearly that we are looking for you to publish these findings in a venue with greater credibility than one that appears rarely cited and, as such, almost entirely uninfluential in the field it claims to represent. For me personally, as a non-engineering specialist, I wonder how much more space there is in engineering scholarship for the critique of a model that I am told was never intended as the final word on the WTC collapses. But I guess we will find out soon enough.

Once again, congratulations. I look forward to seeing this work published in a venue with a higher level of respect in the profession.
 
Last edited:
Tony's paper is not technical, it is woo.


Yet, the thin aluminum wings cut through the much thicker steel.​
Click to expand...
LOL, no science, just woo. A fact is made to sound like doubt. Much thicker? Much? Is that engineering, or what?

With a silly statement like this in the paper, the "International Journal of Protective Structures" has no rational review, it had the special woo review. How do CT papers make it into a real journal?
 
jaydeehess said:
As a Canadian further west than Gord in Toronto, I can also say I have not heard of Langara. The other two however we do know have credentials.

I might ask ergo and James when any truther engineer will get around to a paper illustrating a CD collapse instead of one such as this that seeks only to say to Bazant, 'did not happen the way you said'?
Click to expand...

Langara is a pretty respectable institution in B.C. Not internationally known, but that doesn't mean it's some fly by night ESL college. Serves some 23000 students annually.
 
beachnut said:
Tony's paper is not technical, it is woo.


LOL, no science, just woo. A fact is made to sound like doubt. Much thicker? Much? Is that engineering, or what?

With a silly statement like this in the paper, the "International Journal of Protective Structures" has no rational review, it had the special woo review. How do CT papers make it into a real journal?
Click to expand...

I don't know if this is a serious problem. I do know there are very serious publications that deal directly with this issue.
Wierzbicki, T. and Teng, X. (2003). “How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center.” J. of Impact Enrg. 28, pp.601–625
The IJIE was established in 1983 and has an impact factor of 1.922. This is not especially high for an engineering journal (also). But it is respectable, particularly for a specialized journal.

I suspect this point got through because the paper was reviewed by someone who doesn't know this is an issue in the WTCs or perhaps even impact engineering. This often happens with 3rd or 4th tier journals and this lack of depth among reviewers is a great deal of what makes them not 2nd or 1st tier. Judging from its editorial board, the paper may not have even been reviewed in any sense we are thinking of the process.

Tony, while I applaud your attempt at rigor, getting these findings publishing in something like IJIE or one of these ASCE journal
http://www.asce.org/PPLContent.aspx?id=17273 would go a long way to making the peanut gallery shut up. I look forward to you making it happen.
 
Last edited:
Solid job on publishing a PR journal article, Tony. Especially since this journal so far, doesn't seem nearly as sketchy as the one Jones published in a few years back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom