WTCD Exclusive! Decision Imminent On "Fire-initiated Collapse" Paper - UPDATE - Paper REJECTED!
Too funny... I did write back to tell Giedre that the papers aren't mine, but in any case it seems we'll know in two weeks whether they will be published in The Structural Engineer journal...
Dear [Gretavo],
Thank you for your email.
Your paper's two parts have now been through the review process and I am awaiting for reporters comments and decision. As soon as I get the information I'll come back to you. I should say it shouldn't take more than another 2 weeks.
Kind regards,
Giedre
Giedre Vabuolaite
The Institution of Structural Engineers
11 Upper Belgrave Street
London SW1X 8BH
Tel: 0044 (0) 20 7201 9147
Fax: 0044 (0) 20 7201 9109
Email: Giedre.Vabuolaite@istructe.org
Web: www.istructe.org
------ Forwarded Message
From: [Gretavo] <[Gretavo]@fas.harvard.edu>
Reply-To: <[Gretavo]@fas.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:43:15 -0000
To: Kathy Stansfield
Conversation: IStructE Website E-mail: articles under review
Subject: IStructE Website E-mail: articles under review
Dear Kathy,
The following message has been sent from [Gretavo] using the IStructE website:
Dear Ms. Stanfield,
I am writing to inquire as to the status of the following articles that are said to be under review by your journal:
Charlotte Röben, A. Usmani, G. Flint, A. Jowsey, and D. Lange; Tall building collapse mechanisms initiated by fire: Part 1, Mechanisms Explained; submitted to the Structural Engineer, July 2007; under review as of 13/11/07
David Lange, C. Röben, A. Usmani; Tall Building collapse mechanisms initiated by fire: Part 2, Design Method; submitted to the Structural Engineer, July 2007; under review as of 13/11/07
I wonder if you might be able to tell me how long the review process normally takes, and whether these articles are indeed still being reviewed, and if so by whom.
Many kind thanks for your assistance.
Best regards,
[Gretavo]
The Institution of Structural Engineers - A large and ever-growing repository of information for structural engineers and those interested in the profession.
----------------------------------------
For IT Team
- gretavo's blog
- Login to post comments
gold is defending silverstien....again
albeit in his roundabout way (OMG, he didn't use the families!!!). this guy is a real loser. here's his quote from WAC confronting lord silverstein, "He does have to answer for his comments on PBS. I spoke to Daniel Nigro, and he said that he did NOT speak with Larry Silverstein. He also said he didn't think WTC7 was brought down by CD, but that's a story for a different time. What was the name of the Fire Commander Larry?" jon gold, your BS sucks.com! oh wow, he spoke to blah, fuckin' blah... how's sibel?
thx for the update horse!
It's funny I ran across the Daniel Nigro issue a few days ago on a debunking site where they "debunked" the whole pull it thing by saying it was Nigro he spoke to. Scroll a bit further down the page and a little paragraph tells you in so many words that oh yeah, Nigro said it wasn't him he talked to. But please believe everything else we haven't been called out on. You know, I'm starting to lose my conciliatory attitude for some of these creeps. This is pure evil we're dealing with. A lady today walked by my series of posters and began laughing nervously. I said to her "this really isn't something to laugh about, there are people dying in there (referring to the pics of the exploding towers) can you tell me why you think this is funny"? And then she said something like "well, it's just all these new theories"quite derisively. No clue what the f*** she was talking about or laughing about. Very sad. So many people, and I mean the hangers on to the OCT, are going to be devastated as soon as they can no longer sustain their disbelief. And maybe it's just because I had a long day today but you know what, let me vent. I sometimes wonder how many of the people who insult me or just give me those looks every day are going to come up crying to me some day and apologize for everything they said and did. I think it will be very few, probably none, because at this point most of the people left who refuse to look at the truth are probably in some way very flawed human beings, possibly by birth or by some sick aspect of their upbringing. Will they feel remorse ever? Or will they forever hold a grudge against the good people who ruined their illusion?
They'll come around
And apart from the ever so few people incapable of remorse, they will feel ashamed. Remember that apologizing, just like confronting (other...) uncomfortable truths, requires a certain kind of strength -- if they commanded sufficient amounts of it, the need to apologize wouldn't have arisen in the first place. So, don't wait for it! Integrity is its own reward.
FYI, It does appear that this paper was rejected for publication
in other words, it did not pass peer-review.