[Merged]Peer-reviewed technical paper to appear in mainstream journal [Archive]

deep

2nd April 2008, 05:56 PM

Just noticed this over on 911blogger.com - it's from Steven Jones:

1. Recently had a technical paper accepted for publication following peer-review (three reviewers!), in a mainstream journal. Hopefully it will be out soon. Please read the entire paper when it comes out -- not just the title! You will see a little humor coming through (I hope you'll see it), but the overall thrust is very serious: countering popular myths about the destruction of WTC 7 and the Towers -- and pointing out areas where we the authors find agreement with NIST (and FEMA). Yes, we agree with NIST that the Towers fell at nearly free-fall speed, for example -- and that the WTC fires were NOT hot enough to melt structural steel. Don't you? The paper should come out about the same time as Truth Week, and hopefully add to the momentum of that week (beginning April 16th).(bolding mine)

So what will the new "standard" be? Multiple peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals?

Don't worry, you guys have a couple weeks to think about it.

16.5

2nd April 2008, 06:06 PM

So what will the new "standard" be? Multiple peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals?

Don't worry, you guys have a couple weeks to think about it.

BWHAHAHA! It appears to be a humor piece that they reviewed, and sent to a "mainstream journal."

It is clearly NOT in a peer reviewed journal.

Cripes, you guys even screw up the easy stuff don't you??

Did you see the piece of crap they "published" about the financial impact of the attacks? It was dismantled here this morning.

OldTigerCub

2nd April 2008, 06:09 PM

Just noticed this over on 911blogger.com - it's from Steven Jones:

(bolding mine)

So what will the new "standard" be? Multiple peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals?

Don't worry, you guys have a couple weeks to think about it.

I can't help but wonder if the "mainstream journal" he mentioned might be this one:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1975747f42e04efeaa.jpg
:rolleyes:

beachnut

2nd April 2008, 06:11 PM

Just noticed this over on 911blogger.com - it's from Steven Jones:

(bolding mine)

So what will the new "standard" be? Multiple peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals?

Don't worry, you guys have a couple weeks to think about it.
Yes, if you take out all the false information, you can get published. But it sounds like 9/11 truth is like LCFC, watered-down hearsay. The publication may be soon a joke if they let the woo show, just like Jones and his journal.

Sizzler

2nd April 2008, 06:11 PM

BWHAHAHA! It appears to be a humor piece that they reviewed, and sent to a "mainstream journal."

It is clearly NOT in a peer reviewed journal.

Cripes, you guys even screw up the easy stuff don't you??

Did you see the piece of crap they "published" about the financial impact of the attacks? It was dismantled here this morning.

huh?

Mr.Herbert

2nd April 2008, 06:21 PM

What the hell is Bubble Hash?

(from High Times)

16.5

2nd April 2008, 06:21 PM

huh?

Sorry, were you asking something? I was too busy reading his comments about buying cans of oats. And his comments about how another engineer told him his analysis was filled with errors (true), and it would wreck his career (his colleagues at BYU basically agreed!) and how he hopes he doesn't end up in the "camps."

Dr. Jones has LEFT THE BUILDING!

WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

AZCat

2nd April 2008, 06:29 PM

Sorry, were you asking something? I was too busy reading his comments about buying cans of oats. And his comments about how another engineer told him his analysis was filled with errors (true), and it would wreck his career (his colleagues at BYU basically agreed!) and how he hopes he doesn't end up in the "camps."

Dr. Jones has LEFT THE BUILDING!

WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I love how in his point #8 (excerpted below) he puts the word "event" in quotation marks.

8. And please think of a "place of refuge" or two where you and family might go, should a nasty "event" take place in your city or near you. PRE-planning and preparation are much better than 20-20 hind-sight. We can get through this, together...

How similar is this to the ravings of any other loon?

On Edit: I just noticed the question and response further down the page. More of the same.

Comment
Thank you
Dr. Jones you inspire me and give me hope. Your continued work fuels that hope for so many, I for one am grateful that you have chosen the path of truth. Thank you so much. I hope we don't meet in the *camp*, but if we do, I would be honored to be there with you.
I also agree that we must all prepare for our own survival in the event of another false flag. We talk about it all the time, but who here has actually done anything about it?

Response
Thanks, GW, Cheri

And you're so right, Cheri -- something I'm trying to emphasize -- it TIME to get PREpared, now. There is a time at dusk when work can still be done, and preparations made for the night which may be long. It is dusk, that is my sense and that of many friends. Fortunately, many are waking up to the need to get some foods, water, warm clothing, medications, etc... and a place to go to if you have to get out...

Blender Head

2nd April 2008, 06:30 PM

Why does the 9/11 Truth Movement want to embarrass themselves like this?

defaultdotxbe

2nd April 2008, 06:30 PM

WildCat

2nd April 2008, 06:36 PM

What the hell is Bubble Hash?

(from High Times)
I don't know, but it's just a matter of time before a truther uses that as his screen name.

Good Lt

2nd April 2008, 06:39 PM

Why do I get the feeling this will be like everything else the Troof movement has shoveled in the past six years?

It sounds suspiciously like the pre-release hype for LCFC. Undebunkable. The end of "debunkers." The bombshell.

hype Hype HYPE HYPE nothing.

WildCat

2nd April 2008, 06:39 PM

does this mainstream journal have a name?
"Hustler".

LashL

2nd April 2008, 06:44 PM

So what will the new "standard" be? Multiple peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals?

Don't worry, you guys have a couple weeks to think about it.

What makes you think there will be a new standard? Until we (and you) actually see what it is that Jones is all excited about, what journal he's talking about, what the article is about, what the contents of the article are, and whether it is adequately peer-reviewed, there is no way of assessing it and no way of assessing the veracity of Jones' announcement. Time will tell.

It is worth bearing in mind, though, that leaders of inaptly self-named "truth" movement have long been prone to making giddy, hopeful, pronouncements and announcements that promise a lot but fail to deliver anything but disappointment, so you may not want to go too far out a limb in assuming that this one will be any different than all of those made in the past.

beachnut

2nd April 2008, 07:00 PM

Just noticed this over on 911blogger.com - it's from Steven Jones:

(bolding mine)

So what will the new "standard" be? Multiple peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals?

Don't worry, you guys have a couple weeks to think about it.
http://911blogger.com/node/14692 (911Blogger.com, the place for real dumb people to read up on pure stupid; boy that is stupid stuff; how can they contain the ignorance that posts there?)
6. I've been talking for many months about the importance of getting some food and water stored up, for three months at least! Better for longer, like a year. I've been asked -- where do you get cans of wheat, oats, rice, beans, etc?
Is the food so you can go away, lock yourself up, eat mushrooms, and think up insane ideas on 9/11? Oh, the next false flag operation. Woo woo, the train for Happy Dale left with Jones almost 4 years ago.

I guess Dr Jones does not need more nuts when he is hiding out from the evil people who did 9/11. Is Jones nuts, or just plan insane from making up so much fantasy thermite stuff?

Sizzler

2nd April 2008, 07:11 PM

beachnut

2nd April 2008, 08:12 PM

LOL. I just finished reading that too.:boggled:

Parnoid delusions aside, I am quite curious what "mainstream journal" is publishing this paper. I think by three reviewers he meant the "mainstream journal's" reviewers.
Journal for mental health, how Jones has fallen from being rational to making up stuff. (was he ever)

Quad4_72

2nd April 2008, 08:14 PM

Just noticed this over on 911blogger.com - it's from Steven Jones:

(bolding mine)

So what will the new "standard" be? Multiple peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals?

Don't worry, you guys have a couple weeks to think about it.

I think Jones is confused. "Peer review" does not mean "Having your buddies read over it while having a couple of brews."

T.A.M.

2nd April 2008, 08:21 PM

16.5

2nd April 2008, 08:23 PM

LOL. I just finished reading that too.:boggled:

Parnoid delusions aside, I am quite curious what "mainstream journal" is publishing this paper.

Mad Magazine?

T.A.M.

2nd April 2008, 08:23 PM

So if I write a paper about "Vaccines cause all diseases known to man", have my fellow Docs read it, and then submit it to "Mad Magazine", is it technically the publication of a peer reviewed article in a mainstream journal??

TAM;)

johnny karate

2nd April 2008, 08:33 PM

JamesB

2nd April 2008, 10:22 PM

So am I to understand that the S. Jones paper was peer reviewed by his own paranoid crack pots, and then submitted and published in a throw away mag?

It will be interesting to see:

(1) Which journal/magazine it is published in
(2) Which section of the journal it is published in
(3) The replies to it, in future additions (should be priceless)

TAM:)

I think he is learning from the Loose Change boys though, based on the newer versions of his paper he is pretty much LIHOP physics. Well, some metallurgical things happened at the World Trade Center, we aren't quite sure what, but we think they are weird. Someone smarter than us should look into it.

Pretty lazy science.

Sword_Of_Truth

2nd April 2008, 10:24 PM

I've corrected your thread title for you, Deep44.

"Peer-reviewed" "technical paper" to appear in "mainstream" "journal"

OldTigerCub

2nd April 2008, 10:25 PM

Why does the 9/11 Truth Movement want to embarrass themselves like this?

Practice makes perfect! They do such a wonderful job already....why stop?!!
:p

The Almond

3rd April 2008, 05:26 AM

I've always wondered why truthers don't understand this whole peer-review concept.

Science isn't a game of whose dick is bigger.

The correctness of your methods, your ideas and your conclusions is not evaluated by whether or not you've published them. It's not established by peer review. It is established through repeat experimentation, presentation at scientific symposia and concept analysis done at other labs by other scientists. The impact of an idea, however new and revolutionary, is evaluated through repeat publication and citation.

As to Jones, the issue has always been that he hasn't even bothered to take the first step and get his paper peer reviewed. Imagine if a car dealer showed you a rusted out hunk of metal. Your response might be, "How could this be a car, it hasn't got any wheels?!" So the car dealer shows you a mattress pad with 4 wheels attached to it. Would you be happy?

The point is that Jones is finally, 7 years after the event and 4 years after he fell off the Woo truck, taking his first step as a legitimate researcher. His ideas are still bonkers, and his methodology is still crap, but he is taking a first step. That doesn't, in any way, make him right about anything.

Side note: The issues for ASCE Structural Design and Construction, ACI Structures, ASCE Structural Engineering have all already come out this quarter. So it's likely not to be one of those, is it?

cloudshipsrule

3rd April 2008, 05:33 AM

Yikes. I think Jones auctioned off his marbles on Ebay years ago.

Drudgewire

3rd April 2008, 05:41 AM

So what will the new "standard" be?
Same as always. Will your new standard finally be "wait until they have something instead of saying they have something coming?"

timhau

3rd April 2008, 05:44 AM

I've corrected your thread title for you, Deep44."Peer-reviewed" "technical paper" to appear in "mainstream" "journal"

It's also possible that it will be...

"Peer-reviewed" "technical paper" to "appear" in "mainstream" "journal"

CurtC

3rd April 2008, 06:13 AM

Say - that 911blogger posting by Steven Jones didn't happen on April 1, I suppose?

aggle-rithm

3rd April 2008, 06:23 AM

CHF

3rd April 2008, 06:39 AM

The only thing I see interesting about this is it's an acknowledgment on the part of Dr. Jones that publication in a mainstream journal is more respectable than in his own. Otherwise, why would he bother with this?

I think you nailed it. This is the closest Steven Jones will ever get to admitting that his "peer-review" journal is a complete sham. Not that the sane people of this world didn't already know that, but it might come as a shock to some of the morons who trusted him.

In all likelyhood, if Jones ever does get published somewhere meaningful, he will likely go from "OMG! Thermite!" to full-fledged JAQ-off. "Wow, there micro-spheres are weird! I wonder what they mean...."

nicepants

3rd April 2008, 06:55 AM

It will be interesting to see:

(1) Which journal/magazine it is published in
(2) Which section of the journal it is published in

It will be one of those glossy inserts in the Sunday paper with coupons for Pizza Hut on the back.

slyjoe

3rd April 2008, 07:19 AM

Myriad

3rd April 2008, 07:33 AM

I'm wondering why any technical paper of any kind would appear in any mainstream publication. Perhaps Jones is simply misunderstanding what those two terms mean.

However, if this is real and not just some play on words, then... all the better. It would be like someone who's boasted for years about how they could outbox any professional boxer (since after all, everyone knows professional matches are rigged), finally actually entering the ring.

Passing peer review is not an affirmation that a paper's findings are correct. (That would require peer reviewers to repeat all the experiments themselves, and even that would be no guarantee.) It's an affirmation that the paper meet certain standards in how thoroughly and consistently it presents its case, sufficient to allow other researchers to confirm or refute those findings with further analysis or experimentation.

Passing peer review means you can start participating in professional scientific or technical discourse. Someone who's taken years to get that far can perhaps be forgiven for mistaking that starting line for the finish line.

Respectfully,
Myriad

aggle-rithm

3rd April 2008, 08:07 AM

Passing peer review is not an affirmation that a paper's findings are correct. (That would require peer reviewers to repeat all the experiments themselves, and even that would be no guarantee.) It's an affirmation that the paper meet certain standards in how thoroughly and consistently it presents its case, sufficient to allow other researchers to confirm or refute those findings with further analysis or experimentation.

Didn't Nature publish a parapsychology piece just as an example of how NOT to write a scientific paper (which, of course, didn't stop the authors from bragging about their accomplishment)? I read about it in Randi's Flim-Flam, but I can't remember the authors or what it was about.

T.A.M.

3rd April 2008, 08:09 AM

I am guessing, if it is in fact a real mainstream journal, it may be an op-ed type piece. I agree, any "mainstream" journal is unlikely to publish all, or even part, of a scientific paper.

This brings up the questions (A) is it a scientific paper he submitted, and (B) is the journal a mainstream science journal such as "Nature" etc...

lol...wouldn't it be ironic if he got published in Popular Mechanics...lol

TAM:)

ElMondoHummus

3rd April 2008, 09:47 AM

You know, folks have to be careful about drawing too many conclusions from the publishing of Jones's work in a peer reviewed journal. Remember, as Apollo20 here said (or at least, I think he said it; damn it all that the much maligned search function is missing today!), some of his work in the metal-rich spherules paper can probably find a home in some journals, and that is because the actual spectroscopic work is pretty straightfoward and conventional. It's just that some people try to make it out to be more than it is, which is simply a finding of a group of particles that has many explanations for their genesis. Only one of those explanations include thermite.

Like any other aspect of the various investigations into individual topics on 9/11, it's what the fantasists make of a certain work that ends up being ridiculous. The work Jones is publishing might very well be rather mundane and noncontroversial.

Minadin

3rd April 2008, 10:10 AM

This thread does raise an important question, though.

Where does one buy a can of oats?

SpitfireIX

3rd April 2008, 10:19 AM

DGM

3rd April 2008, 10:40 AM

This thread does raise an important question, though.

Where does one buy a can of oats?
I think the best you can do is buy a box and wrap it in tinfoil.:D

Apollo20

3rd April 2008, 11:02 AM

I could well imagine SJ writing a paper with a title something like:

“The characterization of iron-rich microspheres in dust samples collected in NYC after the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.”

If appropriately written, such a paper would be suitable for publication in a whole slew of journals such as Surface and Interface Analysis, Microchimica Acta, Environmental Science and Technology, etc, etc.

I could also see the paper dealing mostly with the X-ray (fluorescence and diffraction) analysis of microspheres. There could be a Discussion section where the possible sources of the particles would be reviewed. SJ could go through possibilities like fly ash, welding and cutting fume, wear particles, etc, and argue against these in various predictable ways. He could end the paper with the conclusion that the iron-rich microspheres indicate the presence of very high temperatures in the Twin Towers; temperatures that cannot be explained by conventional hydrocarbon/cellulosic fuelled fires.

Such a paper would be acceptable to reviewers while simultaneously satisfying the conspiracy-believer crowd. Furthermore, this approach would leave the door open for any number of follow-up articles.

CHF

3rd April 2008, 11:36 AM

Apollo20,

I think you're right. If Jones is published in a real scientific journal (a big if) I'll be surprised if he has the balls to come out and say "I think thermite produced this."

Instead it'll be a few pages of: "oh look at these spheres...how interesting. I wish I knew what caused it. We'd better conduct a new investigation to find out...but not one funded by the government! Not that I'm saying the guv had anything to do with it...I'm just saying maybe they did. But I have no idea how. That's why we need a new investigation...one that hopefully points to thermite....not that I'm saying that's what it was."

16.5

3rd April 2008, 11:45 AM

Apollo:

“The characterization of iron-rich microspheres in dust samples collected in NYC after the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.”

"If appropriately written, such a paper would be suitable for publication in a whole slew of journals such as Surface and Interface Analysis, Microchimica Acta, Environmental Science and Technology, etc, etc."

I strongly disagree. Jones cannot establish the provenance of his samples to the degree that any reputable journal would deem acceptable. Further, I seem to recall that he refuses to provide his samples to others.

This is all BS anyway: his claim that this is a technical paper seems to be bologna anyway. He tells his minions to "Please read the entire paper when it comes out -- not just the title! You will see a little humor coming through (I hope you'll see it), but the overall thrust is very serious: countering popular myths about the destruction of WTC 7 and the Towers -- and pointing out areas where we the authors find agreement with NIST (and FEMA). Yes, we agree with NIST that the Towers fell at nearly free-fall speed, for example -- and that the WTC fires were NOT hot enough to melt structural steel. Don't you?"

So it ain't about dust, it seems like a smart aleck paper written by a nitwit.

Walter Ego

3rd April 2008, 01:38 PM

So am I to understand that the S. Jones paper was peer reviewed by his own paranoid crack pots, and then submitted and published in a throw away mag?

It will be interesting to see:

(1) Which journal/magazine it is published in
(2) Which section of the journal it is published in
(3) The replies to it, in future additions (should be priceless)

TAM:)

What the hell is Jones saying in this video? First he says his paper has been 'accepted' but then he says it's "in a book" by DMG.

VhGBtRmIeEY

Mince

3rd April 2008, 02:42 PM

So what will the new "standard" be? Multiple peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals?

No. The new standard will be that we accept Stephen Jones' analysis (and actually start a message board thread about it) when we don't even know what the analysis is, who reviewed it and who will publish it.

Don't worry, you guys have a couple weeks to think about it

You do also. I highly suggest you use that time wisely.

Myron Proudfoot

3rd April 2008, 03:20 PM

Question here - for one off events (most of history), does anyone know what the peer review process is? I am familiar with science and engineering journals. The OP said "mainstream journal", not scientific journal. I'm thinking he may be going the history journal route.

I can chime in a bit here as I've been on both sides of that process. The article draft is sent to a minimum of 2 other specialists in the same field with an established record of publication. The review process is "blind" (only the editor knows who is who). The reviewers write individual reports stating if they think the paper thesis is original, if the author has made a logical argument, and if the author has presented sufficient evidence to support their conclusion. The reviewers' reports are sent to the author who can then do one of three things…

- revise the article to meet suggestions or complaints
- decide to shop the article elsewhere (and risk getting the same reviewer a second time if it's a small field)
- bag the entire thing and start over

The first option is pretty common. There are always suggestions to improve the original draft. Once the author makes the changes then the paper may be resubmitted and it is sent back to the original reviewers (usually). Once the reviewers are satisfied, and if the journal editor is satisfied, then the article usually goes before an editorial board for their approval.

This is the process in a nutshell. It can vary from publication to publication. I have seen articles go to one specialist for review for very specialized subjects.

Frankly, knowing the major history journals, I find it very hard to believe that any of the first or second string history journals would touch anything written by a 9-11 twoofer. I can see some "C-List" journal publishing something LIHOP, but suspect only an unknown cellar-dwelling journal would touch MIHOP.

Stellafane

3rd April 2008, 03:43 PM

...Don't worry, you guys have a couple weeks to think about it.

Yes, we always have a couple of weeks. Or months. Or some unspecified short interval. Because the Big Truther Event, that epochal blow-the-lid-off-everything happening that will finally justify all those lonely hours you guys spent on the internet when you could have been out living a real life, is always just about to take place. Real soon. Really, really, really, we mean it this time soon. Any day now.

Only it doesn't. It's been what, going on seven years now? And you guys haven't advanced your cause a single angstrom. (If you're unfamiliar with the term, trust me, it isn't far.) You've gone backwards even. They talk about Peak Oil, well, I think you guys have had your Peak Truth moment a long time ago, and now you're reduced to a tiny core of bitter kids whose only purpose in life seems to be to provide entertainment for us bored, semi-mean JREFer's. All because that Big Thing That's Always Just About To Happen never does. Always so close, just out of reach. You need it so desperately, to provide a little much needed enthusiasm to your strange little group, and here it is a mere two weeks away. But why won't those two weeks ever come to pass?

How do you guys do it? Seriously, how do you do it?? Never mind the much bigger (and far more disturbing) question of why anyone would even want to do it. How do you manage to go through life like that, always being told vindication is just around the corner, everything you worked for will be proven true and you'll finally stop being considered a weird joke and be able to shut up all those people who thought they were so smart, only again and again and again it always falls through, right at the last second? Good Gravy, what drives a person to voluntarily subject themselves to such constant disappointment and mental torture? Can't you spot the trend here?

My advice: give it up. Whatever answers you think you're looking for, they're not going to be provided by Dr. Griffin or Dylan Avery or anyone else whose need for attention has warped their common sense beyond recognition. They're always going to string you along, promising Christmas, fame, and popularity will all be yours, if you just hang on and follow them for just a little longer. They need you, but trust me, you don't need them.

Just two more weeks, and everything will be different. Sure it will. I've been hearing that for years now, and nothing ever changes. I swear, for 9/11 CTers, it's like today will always be September 12, 2001, forever.

stateofgrace

3rd April 2008, 04:00 PM

Yes, we always have a couple of weeks. Or months. Or some unspecified short interval. Because the Big Truther Event, that epochal blow-the-lid-off-everything happening that will finally justify all those lonely hours you guys spent on the internet when you could have been out living a real life, is always just about to take place. Real soon. Really, really, really, we mean it this time soon. Any day now.

Only it doesn't. It's been what, going on seven years now? And you guys haven't advanced your cause a single angstrom. (If you're unfamiliar with the term, trust me, it isn't far.) You've gone backwards even. They talk about Peak Oil, well, I think you guys have had your Peak Truth moment a long time ago, and now you're reduced to a tiny core of bitter kids whose only purpose in life seems to be to provide entertainment for us bored, semi-mean JREFer's. All because that Big Thing That's Always Just About To Happen never does. Always so close, just out of reach. You need it so desperately, to provide a little much needed enthusiasm to your strange little group, and here it is a mere two weeks away. But why won't those two weeks ever come to pass?

How do you guys do it? Seriously, how do you do it?? Never mind the much bigger (and far more disturbing) question of why anyone would even want to do it. How do you manage to go through life like that, always being told vindication is just around the corner, everything you worked for will be proven true and you'll finally stop being considered a weird joke and be able to shut up all those people who thought they were so smart, only again and again and again it always falls through, right at the last second? Good Gravy, what drives a person to voluntarily subject themselves to such constant disappointment and mental torture? Can't you spot the trend here?

My advice: give it up. Whatever answers you think you're looking for, they're not going to be provided by Dr. Griffin or Dylan Avery or anyone else whose need for attention has warped their common sense beyond recognition. They're always going to string you along, promising Christmas, fame, and popularity will all be yours, if you just hang on and follow them for just a little longer. They need you, but trust me, you don't need them.

Just two more weeks, and everything will be different. Sure it will. I've been hearing that for years now, and nothing ever changes. I swear, for 9/11 CTers, it's like today will always be September 12, 2001, forever.

Great post, nominated.

DGM

3rd April 2008, 04:01 PM

T.A.M.

3rd April 2008, 04:36 PM

The Almond

3rd April 2008, 07:28 PM

I agree that if he has written a strictly scientific paper on the iron microspheres, and had a few other scientists review it for scientific accuracy and content, he could get it published in a proper journal.

The problem, is beyond the academic, the unbias evidence, he gets into gaga land. If his "Discussion" of the evidence even hints at the words "Thermite" or "Explosives" the majority of academics reading the paper would tear it to shreds...that is if such ridiculous and evidence-less suggestions would pass Peer Review at any decent journal.

TAM:)

While I understand the sentiment, I don't find what Jones has done in terms of microanalysis to be worthy of publication. Indeed, there are numerous publications on particle analysis, and a publication on the analysis of the WTC dust. What he's done is neither original, nor very good, so why should anyone bother to publish it?

Beerina

4th April 2008, 12:30 PM

I've just been accepted for sex with a gorgeous Hollywood woman, who's been at the top of many "hottest" lists.

I'll let you know which one in a few months. Meanwhile, here's a link to my site where you can order stuff.

DGM

4th April 2008, 12:42 PM

T.A.M.

4th April 2008, 01:55 PM

I'll wait and download the video via P2P...lol

TAM;)

16.5

4th April 2008, 06:21 PM

I tend to agree with Apollo20. What Jones has found is in fact interesting. As long as he drops his speculation as to what caused these spheres I see no reason for his paper not to be published.

The only thing Woo about Dr Jones work is his interpretation of his "evidence".

Dude, read what Dr. Woo wrote:

"Please read the entire paper when it comes out -- not just the title! You will see a little humor coming through (I hope you'll see it), but the overall thrust is very serious: countering popular myths about the destruction of WTC 7 and the Towers -- and pointing out areas where we the authors find agreement with NIST (and FEMA). Yes, we agree with NIST that the Towers fell at nearly free-fall speed, for example -- and that the WTC fires were NOT hot enough to melt structural steel. Don't you?"

He will not mention dust at all. It will be some smarmy bs article misrepresenting the NIST report, and claiming that their ideas are not woo because they are close to the Nist report.

Bull ****.

Stellafane

14th April 2008, 09:01 AM

Just noticed this over on 911blogger.com - it's from Steven Jones:

(bolding mine)

So what will the new "standard" be? Multiple peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals?

Don't worry, you guys have a couple weeks to think about it.

It's been (almost) a couple of weeks now. Any progress on this paradigm-shifting report?

As an aside, you may well wonder why I'm bumping this for all to see. After all, shouldn't I wait until the two weeks are well past, so if the report doesn't come out I can safely gloat along the lines of "Hey CTer's, where's your precious report? HA HA!" But what if the report does come out, and it has some real meat and controversy to it (not just some nothing-to-do-with-anything topic dressed up in cheap gift wrapping and breathlessly hyped as a breakthrough like oh say, WTC floorplans)? Then bumping this thread is a risk, because it gives the CTers a chance to gloat at debunkers, right?

Well, if I were a CTer, I probably would wait until I can safely see how things pan out. But I'm not (a CTer, that is). Therefore I welcome the chance to be proven wrong, because it means I may learn something very important. And that's precisely one of the core differences between the way CTers think and how the rest of us see the world: I'm willing to change my views to conform with reality, rather than the other way around.

And if the article doesn't come out, or is some meaningless piece of nothing, that's a non-event worth noting too, since it represents the demise of yet another right-around-the-corner stupendous breakthough upon which CTers seem to forever pin all their fevered little hopes.

Evilgiraffe

14th April 2008, 10:04 AM

I too would like to see Jones' new paper.

Having read another of his (this one (http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf)), I'll be interested to see if he has made any attempt to identify any of the phases present in his "iron-rich microspheres".

In the previous paper there are elemental analyses from energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy. This technique can only analyse samples as an average. Essentially it can tell you that there is "some iron", "some aluminium" etc, but there can be no detailed examination of microstructure. There are comments about one of his samples having a Fe:O ratio commensurate with Fe2O3, one of the components of thermite, commonly known as rust. This is hardly compelling evidence of the presence of thermite.

If Jones wants to use the microspheres as evidence of thermite, there needs to be some kind of crystallography going on to identify phases present in his samples. Only then can he compare what he has picked up off the floor (or in someone's flat) with genuine thermite residues to confirm whether or not thermite was used at the WTC site.

For those who have access (and are remotely interested):

Duraes et al, Mat. Sci. & Eng. A, 465, (2007), pp 199-210

Has a discussion of which phases are formed during and after a Fe2O3 + Al thermite reaction.

Jonnyclueless

14th April 2008, 10:35 AM

I think the goal is to write a non-conspiracy paper as Apollo suggested, but then be able to claim to have had their work published. They can then just make blanket statements about their work being published in a legitimate journal without mentioning that the only paper that was actually published didn't prove any kind of controlled demolition or conspiracy.

ElMondoHummus

14th April 2008, 10:45 AM

14th April 2008, 10:51 AM

Not to nitpick or move the goalposts, but even if he finds phases consistent with a thermite reaction, how does he separate naturally occuring reactions arising just from the presence of rust, aluminum, etc. from deliberately planted thermite? Seems to me that even if Jones found any such phases he would still be quite a long way from establishing thermite demolitions.

when his newest claims of red/grey chips that according to him seems to be a sort of thermite, are true and provable in other samples, i think we dont need to look for natural sources. If

14th April 2008, 10:57 AM

could it be just this paper that will be printed in a journal?

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction (http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf)

Evilgiraffe

14th April 2008, 11:26 AM

Not to nitpick or move the goalposts, but even if he finds phases consistent with a thermite reaction, how does he separate naturally occuring reactions arising just from the presence of rust, aluminum, etc. from deliberately planted thermite? Seems to me that even if Jones found any such phases he would still be quite a long way from establishing thermite demolitions.

Yup you're right, slightly poor phrasing on my part.

Finding thermite consistent residues would be the first step toward determining whether thermite was present. It certainly wouldn't be proof. However, so far Jones hasn't even done this.

CHF

14th April 2008, 11:34 AM

Sporanox

14th April 2008, 09:43 PM

First Jones published his research in a Marxist economics journal.

Then he published it multiple times in his own journal.

Now he appears ready to publish what appears to be a comedic piece in a "maintrsteam" journal.

For someone trying to expose a conspiracy and prevent a fascist NWO police state, Jones sure is taking his sweet time. In fact it's almost as if he isn't serious about it at all.

Hmmmm...now where else in Trutherville have I seen that particular fire in the belly...?

Ah, that's it, fighting against the murderous government by arguing against a tiny population of skeptics on the internet.

Minadin

14th April 2008, 09:45 PM

But where do I get a can of oats?

JamesB

14th April 2008, 09:56 PM

First Jones published his research in a Marxist economics journal.

Then he published it multiple times in his own journal.

Now he appears ready to publish what appears to be a comedic piece in a "maintrsteam" journal.

For someone trying to expose a conspiracy and prevent a fascist NWO police state, Jones sure is taking his sweet time. In fact it's almost as if he isn't serious about it at all.

And ironically when I submitted my Legge paper to him he rejected it on the basis that it had already been published in a journal, our semi-parody Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

14th April 2008, 09:58 PM

And ironically when I submitted my Legge paper to him he rejected it on the basis that it had already been published in a journal, our semi-parody Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

Submit a PDF or Microsoft Word Document to the Journals E-mail address. Check manuscript length limitations listed below. Papers under review, accepted for publication, or published elsewhere are not accepted. E-mail the Journals Department for JD911 for complete instructions for manuscript preparation. Submit your documents for review at submissions@jod911.com

LashL

14th April 2008, 10:34 PM

Submit a PDF or Microsoft Word Document to the Journals E-mail address. Check manuscript length limitations listed below. Papers under review, accepted for publication, or published elsewhere are not accepted. E-mail the Journals Department for JD911 for complete instructions for manuscript preparation. Submit your documents for review at submissions@jod911.com

88.

:rolleyes:

Cl1mh4224rd

14th April 2008, 10:50 PM

Just noticed this over on 911blogger.com - it's from Steven Jones:

1. Recently had a technical paper accepted for publication following peer-review (three reviewers!), in a mainstream journal. Hopefully it will be out soon. Please read the entire paper when it comes out -- not just the title! You will see a little humor coming through (I hope you'll see it), but the overall thrust is very serious: countering popular myths about the destruction of WTC 7 and the Towers -- and pointing out areas where we the authors find agreement with NIST (and FEMA). Yes, we agree with NIST that the Towers fell at nearly free-fall speed, for example -- and that the WTC fires were NOT hot enough to melt structural steel. Don't you? The paper should come out about the same time as Truth Week, and hopefully add to the momentum of that week (beginning April 16th).

God... Don't tell me he's going with "the towers fell too fast" and "the fires weren't hot enough to melt steel, therefore the collapses were anomalous" crap...

BenBurch

14th April 2008, 10:53 PM

What the hell is Bubble Hash?

(from High Times)

I dunno, but don't Bogart it!

16.5

17th April 2008, 03:19 PM

Bumped:

I just got my latest Edition of High times, and Mad Magazine: no peer reviewed article in sight.

Anybody seen this alleged article?

LashL

17th April 2008, 04:58 PM

This thread does raise an important question, though.

Where does one buy a can of oats?

Jones was considerate enough to provide a link over at 911bloviater so that tinhatters can purchase cans of oats from his church (http://www.ldscatalog.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10151&storeId=10151&productId=11155&langId=-1&cg1=14087&cg2=10002&cg3=&cg4=&cg5=&sortId=1&sortOr=1&retURLtext=Back%20to%20%27Home%20Storage%27&retURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ldscatalog.com%2Fwebapp%2F wcs%2Fstores%2Fservlet%2FCategoryDisplay%3Fcatalog Id%3D10151%26amp%3BstoreId%3D10151%26amp%3Bcategor yId%3D10002%26amp%3BlangId%3D-1%26amp%3Bcg1%3D14087%26amp%3Bcg2%3D%26amp%3Bcg3%3 D%26amp%3Bcg4%3D%26amp%3Bcg5%3D%26pageId%3D1%26pag eCt%3D15%26sortId%3D1%26sortOr%3D1) in Utah. Along with cans of wheat, pinto beans, rice, tin foil pouches, and pouch sealing machines (https://www.ldscatalog.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10151&langId=-1&storeId=10151&krypto=1uSEhjcmQDusd5Cn9kbBQgu8ChFvq1tWNK6FIV8mLmF dFR3yam08q2l%2Fx0S02pE4P0a%2FsZgvVpHt%0AHNSxqGZTQ% 2FZsIB2xn%2BV%2FOmnZEamqAnlc7FpslYerMqw%2F%2FzpDmS 0K&ddkey=http:ClickInfo).

They seem to be expecting some kind of catastrophe to strike ... hmm, is that foreknowledge? ;)

Drudgewire

17th April 2008, 05:11 PM

I just got my latest Edition of High times, and Mad Magazine: no peer reviewed article in sight.

What's #1 on the Hemp 100 this month? I'll just die if it isn't Metalocalypse. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/sweatdrop.gif

Sizzler

17th April 2008, 09:53 PM

God... Don't tell me he's going with "the towers fell too fast" and "the fires weren't hot enough to melt steel, therefore the collapses were anomalous" crap...

He is but not how you think. He is referring to the microspheres and the Lee report that states the fires caused iron contents to melt and form microspheres.

This isn't in reference to fire melting the steel structures.

R.Mackey

17th April 2008, 10:01 PM

As you well recall, we've been over the Lee Report, and the microspheres therein -- by virtue of being found after cleanup was nearly completed -- have everything to do with cutting of the material post-collapse, and little to nothing to do with the fires.

Surely you haven't forgotten.

westprog

18th April 2008, 05:42 AM

So what will the new "standard" be? Multiple peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals?

When or "when" an article casting doubt on the collapse is published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, then the debate can actually begin. Up till then, any attention given to these absurd theories is probably pointless. There's certainly no scientific controversy.

Don't worry, you guys have a couple weeks to think about it.

At least.

Stellafane

18th April 2008, 10:57 AM

Sooooo, where's that article? Did I miss it? Or is today still September 12, 2001?

Cl1mh4224rd

18th April 2008, 05:27 PM

Sooooo, where's that article? Did I miss it? Or is today still September 12, 2001?

The truther universe runs on an older version of Windows. Clock drift is a bitch...

Apollo20

18th April 2008, 05:44 PM

It's not a problem if you re-boot your system often - I find two or three times a day and older versions of Windows work just fine.

Par

18th April 2008, 05:55 PM

The truther universe runs on an older version of Windows. Clock drift is a bitch...
It's not a problem if you re-boot your system often - I find two or three times a day and older versions of Windows work just fine.

I hate to sound pedantic*, but Windows 2000 featured authoritative time synchronisation and was also relatively stable.

* = That’s false.

18th April 2008, 05:55 PM

older version of windows just working fine?
:scared:

ElMondoHummus

18th April 2008, 06:22 PM

when his newest claims of red/grey chips that according to him seems to be a sort of thermite, are true and provable in other samples, i think we dont need to look for natural sources. If

You think we don't need to look for natural sources of thermite? Stop and think about this for a minute:

At heart, thermite is iron oxide plus aluminum.
The Twin Towers were aluminum clad buildings with steel frames that, as all steel does in nature, had rust.How sir would you rule out natural sources when two major components of the building in question are the same two components of the "planted" compound one is looking for? You cannot avoid natural generation of thermite; the only question is how much would be present. So despite the chip Steven Jones found - a chip that's not established as being anything other than the most likely candidate (paint or primer) - the question still stands: How does a person distinguish between emplanted thermite and naturally occuring thermite? No chip Steven Jones presents comes close to answering that question.

18th April 2008, 06:25 PM

You think we don't need to look for natural sources of thermite? Stop and think about this for a minute:

At heart, thermite is iron oxide plus aluminum.
The Twin Towers were aluminum clad buildings with steel frames that, as all steel does in nature, had rust.How sir would you rule out natural sources when two major components of the building in question are the same two components of the "planted" compound one is looking for? You cannot avoid natural generation of thermite; the only question is how much would be present. So despite the chip Steven Jones found - a chip that's not established as being anything other than the most likely candidate (paint or primer) - the question still stands: How does a person distinguish between emplanted thermite and naturally occuring thermite? No chip Steven Jones presents comes close to answering that question.

there are many difrent therm?tes.

ElMondoHummus

18th April 2008, 06:33 PM

there are many difrent therm?tes.

Good. Now distinguish between natural occurances and planted thermite for us.

alexg

18th April 2008, 09:45 PM

This gives me a great get-rich-quick idea.

Start a journal called "Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal". Accept any paper from anyone willing to pay out $5,000 or more. They then have the bragging rights to having published in my journal, widely read by anyone who has paid me $5,000 or more.

Although, from the looks of things, it appears someone else has already thought of it.

But it should be called "A peer reviewed scientific journal". Then you can simply say I had my pape published in A peer reviewed . . . .
and you would not be lying.

JamesB

18th April 2008, 10:02 PM

Jones, Ryan et al finally got their peer-reviewed paper, of course they had to water it down to basically agree with NIST in order to get it published.

http://911blogger.com/node/15081

Sizzler

18th April 2008, 11:53 PM

Here it is....

http://911blogger.com/node/15081

It is a letter published in The Open Civil Engineering Journal online.

I'm going to reserve comment because all of the points raised in the article have been debated to death here and elsewhere.

I'll just say it is interesting to note that these "issues" passed legit peer review and are now published in a civil engineering journal.

How will this be received by the civil engineering community?

And here is Jones' message to Jref

With publication in an established civil engineering journal, the discussion has reached a new level – JREF’ers and others may attack, but unless they can also get published in a peer-reviewed journal, those attacks do not carry nearly the weight of a peer-reviewed paper. It may be that debunkers will try to avoid the fourteen issues we raise in the Letter, by attacking the author(s) or even the journal rather than addressing the science – that would not surprise me.

Is that a challenge I smell?

Walter Ego

19th April 2008, 12:22 AM

Here it is....

http://911blogger.com/node/15081

And here is Jones' message to Jref

Quote:
With publication in an established civil engineering journal, the discussion has reached a new level – JREF’ers and others may attack, but unless they can also get published in a peer-reviewed journal, those attacks do not carry nearly the weight of a peer-reviewed paper. It may be that debunkers will try to avoid the fourteen issues we raise in the Letter, by attacking the author(s) or even the journal rather than addressing the science – that would not surprise me.

Is that a challenge is smell?

When I went to the homepage of the presumably prestigious peer-reviewed online publication (http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/)that has ‘accepted’ Dr. Jones’ paper, this immediately caught my eye.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2284548099a4770e8a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11834)

Attractive open access fees? A little investigating found this.

PUBLICATION FEES: The publication fee details for each article published in the journal are given below:

Letters: The publication fee for each published Letter article submitted is $600.

Research Articles: The publication fee for each published Research article is $800.

Mini-Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Mini-Review article is $600.

Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Review article is $900.

http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/MSandI.htm

I’m not an engineer or academic, but is this standard for a peer-reviewed academic journal? This smells of a vanity publication to me.

Edit: Here's some more info on Bentham Publishers.

Bentham Science Publishers is a publisher of 42 journals and from 2005 a further 19, making 61 journal titles together with 5 new book series. We publish primarily in areas of pre-clinical and pharmaceutical research for academic and pharmaceutical libraries. Many of our journals have high impact factors and we are fortunate to have the leading journal for reviews in medicinal chemistry, Current Medicinal Chemistry with an impact factor of 4.4. We also have other journals with rising impact factors like Current Pharmaceutical Design which is one of our leading titles. It publishes 32 issues a year and has an impact factor of 5.55.

http://www.aardvarknet.info/access/number50/monthnews.cfm?monthnews=11

gtc

19th April 2008, 12:32 AM

Hmm, my University library gives me access to 1104 electronic journals that start with the letter 'O'. Everything from 'O' Oprah's magazine to the Journal of Ozone.

Nothing from The Open Civil Engineering Journal though.

Doesn't mean that the article is baloney, just that the journal is not well known.

Let's look at what the Journal (http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/MSandI.htm) itself says:

Let's look at what it says about peer reviewing manuscripts (letters appear to be counted as manuscripts):

REVIEWING AND PROMPTNESS OF PUBLICATION: All manuscripts submitted for publication will be immediately subjected to peer-reviewing, usually in consultation with the members of the Editorial Advisory Board and a number of external referees. Authors may, however, provide in their Covering Letter the contact details (including e-mail addresses) of four potential peer reviewers for their paper. Any peer reviewers suggested should not have recently published with any of the authors of the submitted manuscript and should not be members of the same research institution.
All peer-reviewing will be conducted via the Internet to facilitate rapid reviewing of the submitted manuscripts. Every possible effort will be made to assess the manuscripts quickly with the decision being conveyed to the authors in due course.

I will read the letter and see what I can add.

Orphia Nay

19th April 2008, 12:35 AM

Hahahaha! I thought for a minute, "Publication Fee" might mean what Jones would be paid, but no... from Walter Ego's link (http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/MSandI.htm):

PUBLICATION FEES: The publication fee details for each article published in the journal are given below:

Letters: The publication fee for each published Letter article submitted is $600.

Research Articles: The publication fee for each published Research article is $800.

Mini-Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Mini-Review article is $600.

Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Review article is $900.

Once the paper is accepted for publication, the author will receive by email an electronic invoice.

"We will publish your article, but only if you pay us."
:newlol

Panoply_Prefect

19th April 2008, 12:51 AM

Isn't this the same as in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110489)? What new insights does this paper put forth to further the truthers agenda?

gtc

19th April 2008, 12:58 AM

It's a load of crud. Look at this section, ostensibly about whether the building was designed to withstand a jet impact:

2. Withstanding Jet Impact

FEMA: “The WTC towers had been designed to withstand the accidental impact of a Boeing 707 seeking to land at a nearby airport…” [2]
...

Makes sense, right? They even admit that the operative words are 707 and 'seeking to land'. Then they insert this quote from Skilling taken from a Seattle newspaper in 1993:

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building [which did not collapse], Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

Again, makes sense. But then they go off on a tangent by continuing the quote from the Seattle article:

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

…Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough
about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."

This has nothing to do with whether or not the WTC could withstand the impact of an airline. It merely shows that Skilling believed in 1993 that some hypothetical person could, if given sufficient resources and time, demolish the building with expolosives; without suggesting whether or not Skilling had ever actually researched the controlled demolotion of the towers (and why would he, when they weren't planning to demolish them). Does it have anything to do with whether the building was designed to withstand a plane crash? Nothing whatsoever. Does it have any relevance to the article, at all? No. How did this get past peer review? But it gets worse as the 'letter continues'

Thus, Skilling’s team showed that a commercial jet would not bring down a WTC Tower, just as the Empire State Building did not collapse when hit by an airplane, and he explained that a demolition expert using explosives could demolish the buildings. We find we are in agreement.

The Empire State Building is completely irrelevant. It is a different building and a different plane travelling at a different velocity etc. Their conclusion is also completely wrong, the letter is supposed to be about where they agree with FEMA and NIST:

Our goal here is to set a foundation for scientific discussion by enumerating those areas where we find agreement with NIST and FEMA.

Here they are not agreeing with NIST or FEMA, instead they are agreeing with an 1993 article from a Seattle newspaper (actually a straw man argument they have created from the newspaper article). It appears that they are either dishonestly trying to suggest that NIST or FEMA have suggested that the WTC should have withstood an impact or they have no idea what they have written.

I suspect that they might have used the loophole that lets you nominate your peer reviewers to get around the, apparently minimal, scrutinisation process.

All I can suggest is that the authors were forced to pay $600 to publish their letter there because it would have been torn to shreds if it was published in these forums.

Panoply_Prefect

19th April 2008, 01:04 AM

Ummm:

“Why the Towers Fell” produced by NOVA [7]. The “pan-
cake theory of collapse” is strongly promoted in a Popular
Mechanics article along with a number of other discredited
ideas [8, 9]. We, on the other hand, agree with NIST that the
“pancake theory” is not scientifically tenable and ought to be
set aside in serious discussions regarding the destruction of
the WTC Towers and WTC 7.

Did Popular Mechanics promote the FEMA "Pancake-theory" as a cause for collapse initiation as suggested by this article? Source given is:

wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html [Accessed March 17, 2008].
[8] J. B. Meigs, D. Dunbar, B. Reagan, et al. “Debunking the 9/11
myths, special report”, Popular Mechanics, vol. 182, pp. 70-81
March 2005.

I don't have that paper so I have no way of checking. (And as a side note: who uses the pancake-theory as explanation for the initiation of the collapse nowadays anyhow, and have anyone ever used it in connection with WTC7?)

Panoply_Prefect

19th April 2008, 01:14 AM

One thing more:

13. Total Collapse Explanation Lacking
NIST: “This letter is in response to your April 12, 2007
request for correction… we are unable to provide a full ex-
planation of the total collapse” [25].
This admission by NIST after publishing some 10,000
pages on the collapse of the Towers shows admirable candor,
yet may come as a bit of a shock to interested parties includ-
ing Congress, which commissioned NIST to find a full ex-
planation.

Doesn't NIST mean that they haven't modelled, or tried to explain, the events that took place after collapse initiation? Here it appears as if NIST can't really explain what happened - but isn't that a strawman?

Was the mission really to "find a full explanation" e.g modell the collapse itself as well?

Edmund Standing

19th April 2008, 01:48 AM

This is extraordinary - an academic journal that charges a hefty sum for an author's work to be featured?!

There are also some oddities in his references section.

Given this is supposed to be a technical scientific paper, what is he doing citing a theologian (David Ray Griffin), the Seattle Times, Public Broadcasting System, the New York Times, and the Hartford Advocate? Where are all the references to other scientists, and to credible mainstream research papers that support his views? (*cough*) I also notice he repeatedly cites a spurious journal that he just happens to edit, the peer review process of which has been shown to be a joke.

19th April 2008, 02:11 AM

do peer reviewer for known journals, review papers for free?

ref

19th April 2008, 02:20 AM

I have asked Bentham, who did the peer-reviewing for this paper.

Btw, the Open Civil Engineering Journal means, that it is an open access journal at Bentham Open. The Civil Engineering Journal is one of Bentham's over 200 open access journals.

volatile

19th April 2008, 02:27 AM

Jones, Ryan et al finally got their peer-reviewed paper, of course they had to water it down to basically agree with NIST in order to get it published.

http://911blogger.com/node/15081

Subtle, but stupid. It's too subtle for the truthers, and to get any traction in the discipline, I'd imagine. It reads like a giant, unfunny in-joke that no-one who isn't involved in 9-11 forums will get, and I can't see any of the usual readers of this journal (is it really so respected?) giving a flying monkey's.

volatile

19th April 2008, 02:44 AM

do peer reviewer for known journals, review papers for free?

Yes. Authors submit for free too, and they should certainly never be asked to pay a fee to get published (unless the article contains images that need to have rights clearance, which never happens in technical papers, I'd imagine).

This paper is the Truth Argument with all the interesting parts removed. It's just so limp-wristed.

Nick Terry

19th April 2008, 03:34 AM

I hope the Troofers hear realise this is a truly spectacular own goal. After seven years, the best they can do is BUY space in a vanity journal.

Doctor Evil

19th April 2008, 03:40 AM

I hope the Troofers hear realise this is a truly spectacular own goal. After seven years, the best they can do is BUY space in a vanity journal.

I am still not sure that this is a vanity journal. There is a new aspect of scientific publishing, called open access. The idea is that the author of a paper pay a fee, and then their paper can be read by anyone, even without subscription to the Journal.

If you would ask for my guess, this is the case here. I would also guess that the paper will not contain anything which is related directly to 'da troof'. It will most probably be an analysis of microspheres as was discussed in another thread.

ETA here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110489 I suggest the MODS will merge this thread into that one.

fullflavormenthol

19th April 2008, 04:34 AM

Ahh! :newlol Yes, I will take that challenge given that I could easily find four people that agree with me that are college Professors, and pay $600.

Peer-Review is like regular legitimate publishing. You are not supposed to pay to be published, at all. That and the peer-review process is supposed to be anonymous in that you are not supposed to know who have reviewed your work.

So let them brag on this sad testament vanity publications. I'll go write my counter thesis and publish the abstract on Poetry.com and publish the Novelization through Publish America. Lets see Jones stand up to that.:newlol

deep

19th April 2008, 05:10 AM

The paper passed peer-review. It's been peer-reviewed and published.

Stephen Jones also included this in his message over at 911blogger.com:

With publication in an established civil engineering journal, the discussion has reached a new level – JREF’ers and others may attack, but unless they can also get published in a peer-reviewed journal, those attacks do not carry nearly the weight of a peer-reviewed paper. It may be that debunkers will try to avoid the fourteen issues we raise in the Letter, by attacking the author(s) or even the journal rather than addressing the science – that would not surprise me.(bolding mine)

He hit the nail right on the head.

I find this to be especially satisfying, because I now get to watch you guys squirm, as you try desperately to find a reason to ignore this peer-reviewed publication. You'll probably just move the goalposts.. again.

Stephen Jones was correct, until you start published peer-reviewed research, your opinions are meaningless to anyone but yourselves.

DGM

19th April 2008, 05:18 AM

The paper passed peer-review. It's been peer-reviewed and published.

Stephen Jones also included this in his message over at 911blogger.com:

(bolding mine)

He hit the nail right on the head.

I find this to be especially satisfying, because I now get to watch you guys squirm, as you try desperately to find a reason to ignore this peer-reviewed publication. You'll probably just move the goalposts.. again.

Stephen Jones was correct, until you start published peer-reviewed research, your opinions are meaningless to anyone but yourselves.

What new ground breaking evidence has been presented here? How does this help your movement? Bragging rights to another meaningless paper on one will pay attention to? The paper essentially says we think the investigations so far are wrong. This is nothing more the paying to say we are "just asking questions".

Doctor Evil

19th April 2008, 05:21 AM

I find this to be especially satisfying, because I now get to watch you guys squirm, as you try desperately to find a reason to ignore this peer-reviewed publication. You'll probably just move the goalposts.. again.

Following the link, I have found this:
In this Letter, we emphasize “points of agreement” with FEMA and NIST, seeking to build bridges for further communications. Of course, we will send a copy to NIST for their comment and hopefully open a public discussion on these crucial evidences and analyses.

What is your point? That they manage to publish a letter telling us how they agree with previous results. How lame.

deep

19th April 2008, 05:22 AM

I hope the Troofers hear realise this is a truly spectacular own goal. After seven years, the best they can do is BUY space in a vanity journal.

Are you suggesting that the paper was not peer-reviewed? Care to provide your proof? Or is that just another pathetic JREF lie?

As for whether or not a fee was paid - I'm not sure; however, I wouldn't be surprised, considering it is an open access journal. How else would you suggest they pay to host and maintain the website + cover general operational costs?

The bottom line is this: the paper was peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal. There's nothing you can say or do to change that fact.

fullflavormenthol

19th April 2008, 05:33 AM

Are you suggesting that the paper was not peer-reviewed? Care to provide your proof? Or is that just another pathetic JREF lie?

You get to pick the people that "review" your work. You can literally pick four people willing to give it a pass.

As for whether or not a fee was paid - I'm not sure; however, I wouldn't be surprised, considering it is an open access journal. How else would you suggest they pay to host and maintain the website + cover general operational costs?

Well in the non-academic world this is through advertising. In the academic world you pay for it through professional memberships and subcription fees. That is why most peer-reviewed journals are put out by professional organizations. Still look to the issue of choosing your own reviewers as a means to criticise this publication.

The bottom line is this: the paper was peer-reviewed (potentially by people of the author's choosing) and published in a scientific (vanity) journal. There's nothing you can say or do to change that fact.

(I fixed that for you)

We all did. There are issues that cast suspicion upon viewing this as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. And it is funny how Jone's specifically mentions how we bad people will attack the publication, because he obviously knows there is something wrong with any review structure that allows you to hand pick your reviewers.

Doctor Evil

19th April 2008, 05:34 AM

I took the time to look the this 'so called paper'. And, yes, 'so called paper' is the correct term for it. Is that supposed to present an original work? It is just a few pages of various citations from other work or from people, without any serious discussion of any technical point. Frankly, I would have been ashamed to publish such a paper. I am not familiar with the standards of publication in the engineering community, but still wonder how it got published.

kookbreaker

19th April 2008, 05:35 AM

I'll take 'Letter of the law, not the spirit' for $600, Alex.

DGM

19th April 2008, 05:36 AM

deep44:
Out of curiosity, Have you read this letter yet? I'm kind of puzzled why you seem so excited about it. I think you demonstrate perfectly the reaction Jones was trying to get with this letter.

WildCat

19th April 2008, 05:43 AM

So Jones paid to have his paper published by a vanity publisher? Too funny, even funnier than the High Times and Mad magazine jokes, 5 laughing dogs!

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

fullflavormenthol

19th April 2008, 05:47 AM

So Jones paid to have his paper published by a vanity publisher? Too funny, even funnier than the High Times.....

I doubt High Times would even touch this letter. They probably even have higher standards of integrity.

deep

19th April 2008, 05:47 AM

What is your point? That they manage to publish a letter telling us how they agree with previous results. How lame.

Sounds like it might be a little bit over your head.

BigAl

19th April 2008, 05:48 AM

Hahahaha! I thought for a minute, "Publication Fee" might mean what Jones would be paid, but no... from Walter Ego's link (http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/MSandI.htm):

"We will publish your article, but only if you pay us."
:newlol

My reading of that rate list suggests that $600 doesn't get the author any review, peer or otherwise.

Am I wrong?

boloboffin

19th April 2008, 05:50 AM

I love No. 4 -

We totally agree that the WTC Towers included “massive”
interconnected steel columns in the cores of the buildings,
in addition to the columns in the outside walls. The
central core columns bore much of the gravity loads so the
Towers were clearly NOT hollow. Yet the false notion that
the Towers were “hollow tubes” with the floors supported
just by the perimeter columns seems to have gained wide
acceptance. For example, an emeritus structural engineering
professor asserted, “The structural design of the towers was
unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of
closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The
resulting structure was similar to a tube…” [12].
The fact is the Towers were constructed with a substantial
load-supporting core structure as well as perimeter columns
– and on this point we agree with NIST in dispelling
false popular notions.

One of their "points of agreement" is that the Towers had massive, load-bearing columns. Oh, excellent.

Are we all agreed that the attacks happened on 11 September 2001? Yes? Dang, that could have been 15 points of agreement. Maybe Jones could slip the journal a quick $50 and get an addendum in the next issue.

DGM

19th April 2008, 05:52 AM

My reading of that rate list suggests that $600 doesn't get the author any review, peer or otherwise.

Am I wrong?
REVIEWING AND PROMPTNESS OF PUBLICATION: All manuscripts submitted for publication will be immediately subjected to peer-reviewing, usually in consultation with the members of the Editorial Advisory Board and a number of external referees. Authors may, however, provide in their Covering Letter the contact details (including e-mail addresses) of four potential peer reviewers for their paper. Any peer reviewers suggested should not have recently published with any of the authors of the submitted manuscript and should not be members of the same research institution.All peer-reviewing will be conducted via the Internet to facilitate rapid reviewing of the submitted manuscripts. Every possible effort will be made to assess the manuscripts quickly with the decision being conveyed to the authors in due course.

Sounds like you tell them who will review it.

deep

19th April 2008, 05:56 AM

So Jones paid to have his paper published by a vanity publisher? Too funny, even funnier than the High Times and Mad magazine jokes, 5 laughing dogs!

1. Please provide proof that a fee was paid.

2. Please define "vanity publisher". If you're implying that the paper wasn't peer-reviewed, you're lying.

--

..or feel free to continue embarrassing yourself and JREF by spouting those obvious lies. Like I said, you guys are only fooling yourselves.

ref

19th April 2008, 05:59 AM

On a not-so-scientific note, their paper uses a total of 7 times their very own journalof911studies (JONES) as a source. As we all know, peer-reviewers for JONES include Kevin Ryan and Tony Szamboti. And who are among the five authors of this new paper? Kevin Ryan and Tony Szamboti! So they use papers that are peer-reviewed by themselves as sources. How scientific indeed.

Of those citations, two of the most important seem to be the ones discussing the molten material pouring out of WTC, and the thermite evidence. Both are Steven Jones papers. Steven Jones cites his own (not properly peer-reviewed) papers to bring the point through.

DGM

19th April 2008, 06:01 AM

CptColumbo

19th April 2008, 06:03 AM

Sounds like you tell them who will review it.It reads more like you can suggest reviewers, but the "editorial advisory board" still has to be consulted. Still, I'm not experienced enough in the process to know if this is unusual, or how rigorous their review process is.

DGM

19th April 2008, 06:08 AM

It reads more like you can suggest reviewers, but the "editorial advisory board" still has to be consulted. Still, I'm not experienced enough in the process to know if this is unusual, or how rigorous their review process is.
I agree. I'm sure they have to approve the reviewers. This type of journal wouldn't normally have it's own reviewers in the relevant fields. They publish such a wide variety of subjects.

fullflavormenthol

19th April 2008, 06:09 AM

1. Please provide proof that a fee was paid.

It was published, and they require a fee for publication.....:rolleyes:

2. Please define "vanity publisher".

Encarta
van·i·ty pub·lish·ing

noun
Definition:

publishing at authors' expense: the business of publishing books at the author's expense

If you're implying that the paper wasn't peer-reviewed, you're lying.

Well our definitions of peer-review seem a little different. I use it in the academic/professional term meaning that I don't get to choose my reviewers.

..or feel free to continue embarrassing yourself and JREF by spouting those obvious lies. Like I said, you guys are only fooling yourselves.

Why lie? When the truth is oh so much more fun :newlol

boloboffin

19th April 2008, 06:12 AM

The question of Jones suggesting reviewers or not is easily resolved.

Jones should release his Covering Letter.

Minadin

19th April 2008, 06:13 AM

Wow. Pretty lame all around. It's like they aren't even trying anymore.

Doctor Evil

19th April 2008, 06:17 AM

Sounds like it might be a little bit over your head.

I must say I find your response amusing. Self serving assumptions, definitely not the way to go.

WildCat

19th April 2008, 06:20 AM

For god sake. Read the publishing terms for the journal. Are you that research challenged?
Yes he is. Unless someone holds his hand and personally shows him, he's clueless as to what to do.

Walter Ego

19th April 2008, 06:22 AM

1. Please provide proof that a fee was paid.

I did provide proof. You must have missed it. Here it is again.

This is from the publishers webpage.
PUBLICATION FEES: The publication fee details for each article published in the journal are given below:

Letters: The publication fee for each published Letter article submitted is $600.

Research Articles: The publication fee for each published Research article is $800.

Mini-Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Mini-Review article is $600.

Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Review article is $900.

Once the paper is accepted for publication, the author will receive by email an electronic invoice. The fee form is also available on the Web site at www.bentham.org/open/feeform Submissions from the Editorial Board Members of the journals will receive a special discount of 50% on the total publication fee. Submissions by authors from developing countries will receive a discount of 30% on the total publication fee charge.

http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/MSandI.htm

It's possible the fee was waived but I kinda doubt it.

2. Please define "vanity publisher".

Vanity publishers charge authors to get published. See above.

If you're implying that the paper wasn't peer-reviewed, you're lying.

This from the publisher suggests Jones could have nonimated the 'peers' to review his paper (or letter or whatever it is).

Quote:
REVIEWING AND PROMPTNESS OF PUBLICATION: All manuscripts submitted for publication will be immediately subjected to peer-reviewing, usually in consultation with the members of the Editorial Advisory Board and a number of external referees. Authors may, however, provide in their Covering Letter the contact details (including e-mail addresses) of four potential peer reviewers for their paper. Any peer reviewers suggested should not have recently published with any of the authors of the submitted manuscript and should not be members of the same research institution.All peer-reviewing will be conducted via the Internet to facilitate rapid reviewing of the submitted manuscripts. Every possible effort will be made to assess the manuscripts quickly with the decision being conveyed to the authors in due course.

kookbreaker

19th April 2008, 06:24 AM

Someday, truthers will learn that bluster and spittle is not an effective way to press their arguement.

On that day, they will probably stop being truthers.

WildCat

19th April 2008, 06:25 AM

Who wants to bet that Richard Gage was one of the reviewers?

Something tells me that "Honest" Steven Jones won't be releasing the identities of his "peer reviewers".

Stellafane

19th April 2008, 06:27 AM

1. Please provide proof that a fee was paid.

2. Please define "vanity publisher". If you're implying that the paper wasn't peer-reviewed, you're lying.

--

..or feel free to continue embarrassing yourself and JREF by spouting those obvious lies. Like I said, you guys are only fooling yourselves.

That's it. You guys have officially become too pathetic to even be laughed at. A "paper" published in an obscure publication that they had to pay for (that's called "advertising" in the real world). And it's so watered down as to say absolutely nothing. And this to you is a major accomphishment. I can't laugh at you anymore, but it's not for the reason you probably anticipated.

DGM

19th April 2008, 06:42 AM

That's it. You guys have officially become too pathetic to even be laughed at. A "paper" published in an obscure publication that they had to pay for (that's called "advertising" in the real world). And it's so watered down as to say absolutely nothing. And this to you is a major accomphishment. I can't laugh at you anymore, but it's not for the reason you probably anticipated.
Jones is getting the effect he wanted. "Truthers" are jumping up and down about a paper reviewed and published in something other than a woo journal. The contents and context of this "break through" are irrelevant.

JamesB

19th April 2008, 06:53 AM

I guess the 911 blogger people read JREF religiously:

http://911blogger.com/node/15081

(EDIT: FYI, it is extremely common for Open Access Journals to charge a publication fee. This in no way reflects upon the quality of the peer review process, or the contents of the paper. -rep.)

ref

19th April 2008, 07:36 AM

The actual paper makes me yawn. Old points. Like comparing WTC attacks to a 707 landing in a fog and the comparison to the Empire State Building accident. What was the size of the plane that hit ESB again, Jones? What is the structure of ESB like?

And the usage of the NIST quote “…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” without acknowledging the reason why NIST said this. Because the computer models were unable to converge a solution, because of the magnitude of deflections and the number of failures occurring.

That's a dishonest yawner of a paper.

CHF

19th April 2008, 07:40 AM

So after all that hype what do we get?

A JAQ-off piece where the author cites his own work as a source and appears to have picked his own reviewers.

Take a bow, TM!

twinstead

19th April 2008, 07:44 AM

So after all that hype what do we get?

A JAQ-off piece where the author cites his own work as a source and appears to have picked his own reviewers.

Take a bow, TM!

I'm SO proud of the truth movement. Their most recent triumph just brings a little tear to my eye....sniff....

Unsecured Coins

19th April 2008, 07:45 AM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v149/butterwheels/threaddeliversby9.jpg

CHF

19th April 2008, 07:59 AM

My God, Jones is still rambling about the "pancake" theory of collapse - ignoring the fact that it refers to how the collapse started.

Jones' next step would be to tackle the NIST theory that perimeter columns bending inwards started the collapse. Yet he won't touch it.

tanabear

19th April 2008, 09:02 AM

Ummm:

Did Popular Mechanics promote the FEMA "Pancake-theory" as a cause for collapse initiation as suggested by this article? Source given is:

"When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4#puffs). Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

"Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report."

rwguinn

19th April 2008, 09:19 AM

I did provide proof. You must have missed it. Here it is again.

This is from the publishers webpage.

It's possible the fee was waived but I kinda doubt it.

Vanity publishers charge authors to get published. See above.

This from the publisher suggests Jones could have nonimated the 'peers' to review his paper (or letter or whatever it is).

Interestingly enough, according to the web page list of fees, an individual would have to also pay a fee just to refute Jones paper!
$600 payment just to say "That's a load of ****, or $900 to say "This paper is suffused with that which causes growth, and is very powerful" makes it irrefutable!

CptColumbo

19th April 2008, 09:20 AM

"When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4#puffs). Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

"Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report."Where in there does it say that the collapse was initiated by pancaking?

twinstead

19th April 2008, 09:42 AM

Yup. I read it again and nowhere does any of this even imply that the collapse was initiated by pancaking. And, I checked Panoply_Perfect's question was indeed (bolding mine): Did Popular Mechanics promote the FEMA "Pancake-theory" as a cause for collapse initiation as suggested by this article?So Tanebear how did your post answer the question? I suspect reading comprehension is becoming a lost art.

tanabear

19th April 2008, 09:59 AM

Where in there does it say that the collapse was initiated by pancaking?

The collapse was initiated by a pancaking????? The initiation has been theorized either to be truss failure or column failure. The failure of the floor trusses creates a chain reaction of floors falling on top of each other, which eventually causes the entire tower to be destroyed. This is known as the pancake collapse theory.

DGM

19th April 2008, 10:07 AM

The collapse was initiated by a pancaking????? The initiation has been theorized either to be truss failure or column failure. The failure of the floor trusses creates a chain reaction of floors falling on top of each other, which eventually causes the entire tower to be destroyed. This is known as the pancake collapse theory.
Do you know the difference between the floors and the trusses? This is a serious question, please answer.

CptColumbo

19th April 2008, 10:11 AM

Did Popular Mechanics promote the FEMA "Pancake-theory" as a cause for collapse initiation as suggested by this article? Source given is:
You answered this question with:

"When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4#puffs). Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

"Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report."I posted asking.

Where in there does it say that the collapse was initiated by pancaking?Meaning, if you intention in posting those two quotes was to answer Panopoly, you failed to do so since neither quote mentioned the collapse initiating with pancaking.

The collapse was initiated by a pancaking????? The initiation has been theorized either to be truss failure or column failure. The failure of the floor trusses creates a chain reaction of floors falling on top of each other, which eventually causes the entire tower to be destroyed. This is known as the pancake collapse theory.
So, as twinstead wrote, your reading comprehension is not very good.

Panoply_Prefect

19th April 2008, 10:17 AM

I believe the pancake theory surfaced in FEMA chapter 2 (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf) (someone correct me if Im wrong). As I understood it FEMA theorised that progressive pancaking was the cause of the collapse, while NIST rejected this. I can see that PM suggest that progressive pancaking was the cause of the collapse either.

/S

16.5

19th April 2008, 10:29 AM

I am absolutely appalled that Jones is passing off this CRAP, as a technical, peer reviewed article "published in the literature."

THE VERY FIRST item cites the May 2002 Preliminary report from NIST mentioning diesel, BUT ignores the later update and in fact most recent UPDATE discounting this theory. As such, this letter is not scholarly, and in fact is grossly misleading.

The second item ignores the fact that any modeling of a plane hitting the Towers DID NOT account for fuel. I call this intellectual dishonesty.

Need I go on? This vanity piece that Jones paid to publish is intellectual fraud.

tanabear

19th April 2008, 10:31 AM

Do you know the difference between the floors and the trusses? This is a serious question, please answer.

Yes, I'm aware of the difference. Explain why it is a serious question.

You answered this question with:

I posted asking.

Meaning, if you intention in posting those two quotes was to answer Panopoly, you failed to do so since neither quote mentioned the collapse initiating with pancaking.

So, as twinstead wrote, your reading comprehension is not very good.

That is because pancaking is the result of truss failure. It is an effect not a cause. What is meant by the phrase, "the collapse initiating with pancaking
"??????

Panoply_Prefect

19th April 2008, 10:38 AM

From the NIST WTC faq (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) (my bolding):

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

NIST is talking about what initiated the collapse, not the subsequent events.

(...)the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else,

Now, did Jones actually get to pick peer-reviewers for this article? And what new insights does Jones, or truthers, draw from this text?

CptColumbo

19th April 2008, 10:45 AM

Yes, I'm aware of the difference. Explain why it is a serious question.

That is because pancaking is the result of truss failure. It is an effect not a cause. What is meant by the phrase, "the collapse initiating with pancaking
"??????
in·i·ti·ate verb, -at·ed, -at·ing, adjective, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to begin, set going, or originate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/initiating

Par

19th April 2008, 10:57 AM

older version of windows just working fine?
:scared:

:scared:

Edmund Standing

19th April 2008, 12:00 PM

As for whether or not a fee was paid - I'm not sure; however, I wouldn't be surprised, considering it is an open access journal. How else would you suggest they pay to host and maintain the website + cover general operational costs?

An example of a peer-reviewed open access journal that does not charge for publication is:

Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research

There are 1,120 open access journals listed at the Directory of Open Access Journals (doaj.org), go and take a look and see how many charge ridiculous fees for publication.

kookbreaker

19th April 2008, 12:04 PM

Cardboard tube model is to WTC 1 & 2 construction

as

Paid-to-publish-'peer' Journal is to Real Professional Technical Journals.

R.Mackey

19th April 2008, 12:05 PM

I guess the 911 blogger people read JREF religiously:

(EDIT: FYI, it is extremely common for Open Access Journals to charge a publication fee. This in no way reflects upon the quality of the peer review process, or the contents of the paper. -rep.)

http://911blogger.com/node/15081

I saw that, but I read too quickly and assumed they meant you'd have to pay in order to read the article. That is common.

Paying to have it published, not so much. I've never heard of such a thing in my life -- at least, in legitimate journals. You know you're in trouble when you have to put up a disclaimer on a site frequented by your unquestioning supporters...

Like others have noted, the "review process" here is also highly irregular. That explains the combative and speculative nature of the text. This is nothing like any journal article I've ever seen, either.

Regarding the actual content, all I saw was a list of questions and corrections to NIST's wording that we've all seen for years. I don't openly disagree with much of the content, in fact every single one of these issues is something I discussed in my whitepaper, many in more depth.

The big difference is, I didn't have to shell out $600 to publish my whitepaper. ;)

Honestly, this is a supremely pathetic move on the part of Dr. Jones. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it.

Sizzler

19th April 2008, 01:10 PM

Unsecured Coins

19th April 2008, 01:11 PM

write your congressman

Sizzler

19th April 2008, 01:12 PM

I saw that, but I read too quickly and assumed they meant you'd have to pay in order to read the article. That is common.

Paying to have it published, not so much. I've never heard of such a thing in my life -- at least, in legitimate journals. You know you're in trouble when you have to put up a disclaimer on a site frequented by your unquestioning supporters...

Like others have noted, the "review process" here is also highly irregular. That explains the combative and speculative nature of the text. This is nothing like any journal article I've ever seen, either.

Regarding the actual content, all I saw was a list of questions and corrections to NIST's wording that we've all seen for years. I don't openly disagree with much of the content, in fact every single one of these issues is something I discussed in my whitepaper, many in more depth.

The big difference is, I didn't have to shell out $600 to publish my whitepaper. ;)

Honestly, this is a supremely pathetic move on the part of Dr. Jones. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it.

Why is it pathetic? Care to expand?

WildCat

19th April 2008, 01:17 PM

in·i·ti·ate verb, -at·ed, -at·ing, adjective, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to begin, set going, or originate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/initiating
I'd say I'm shocked that tanabear had to have that explained to him/her, but it's what I've come to expect from truthers.

Unsecured Coins

19th April 2008, 01:22 PM

Why is it pathetic? Care to expand?

certainly. "After submitting a half-dozen papers to established peer-reviewed technical journals over a period of nearly a year" they had to PAY to get published in a journal that even allowed them to peer review their own work before submission.

That's like paying a stripper to be your prom date, if you ask me. Yeah, it looks good, but it cost you out the ass.

WildCat

19th April 2008, 01:39 PM

That's like paying a stripper to be your prom date, if you ask me. Yeah, it looks good, but it cost you out the ass.
:dl:

beachnut

19th April 2008, 01:42 PM

So Jones paid to have his paper published by a vanity publisher? Too funny, even funnier than the High Times and Mad magazine jokes, 5 laughing dogs!

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:
This journal better pull this political tripe. Darn, they have an email. Anyone who calls that piece of false information paper, peer reviewed is lacking knowledge.

Did someone write them, I think it has been pulled. It is a joke.

The Open Civil Engineering Journal, a peer-reviewed journal, aims to provide the most complete and reliable source of information on recent developments in civil engineering. The emphasis will be on publishing quality articles rapidly and freely available to researchers worldwide.

Not if they publish that tripe. I found errors all over the paper. Poor.

Jonnyclueless

19th April 2008, 01:45 PM

How many proofs of purchases do you need to the publishing fee?

R.Mackey

19th April 2008, 01:52 PM

Why is it pathetic? Care to expand?

Not at all. It's pathetic because Dr. Jones has been telling everyone about his "peer-reviewed" journal, and all the great papers in it, for years.

Apparently that didn't exactly set the world on fire. So, he tries to publish for real. That's fine.

However, instead of publishing for real, he publishes in somebody else's sham journal. This gains him no credibility. The only change is, instead of trying to con other people, he falls for exactly the same con run by someone else... and even pays for the privilege.

That's pretty sad.

----

Upon reflection, however, I've decided that the general idea of an Open Access Journal, fees and all, is not inherently bad. The problem is that it makes it much, much harder for readers to distinguish a genuine OAJ from rabble producing their own whitepapers. As a result, the OAJ has to uphold the absolute highest standards of review, accuracy, transparency, and scientific rigor. If this is done, I support it.

I've just fired off a lengthy letter to the publishers at oa@bentham.org describing why this paper should have failed review, and asking them to reconsider it. We shall see their response. It's possible they were just completely blindsided by the Truth Movement.

If they can find and fix their problems, then I support the Bentham folks in their endeavors. But if they can't, then they're no Journal at all, whether they're trying to deceive or simply not up to the task regarding peer review.

Stellafane

19th April 2008, 02:22 PM

That's like paying a stripper to be your prom date, if you ask me. Yeah, it looks good, but it cost you out the ass.

Actually, I think it's a bit more like paying a female impersonator to be your prom date. Epic fail all around.

JamesB

19th April 2008, 03:20 PM

I posted this on the ole blog, but thought this part was amusing enough to cross-post.

I could not help but think of this quote from, A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America by Michael Barkun, which I am currently in the process of reading.

At the same time that stigmatization is employed as a virtual guarantee of truth, the literature of stigmatized knowledge enthusiastically mimics mainstream scholarship. It does so by appropriating the apparatus of scholarship in the form of elaborate citations and bibliographies. The most common manifestation of pedantry is a fondness for reciprocal citation, in which the authors obligingly cite one another. The result is that the same sources are repeated over and over, which produces a kind of pseudoconfirmation. If a source is cited many times, it must be true. Because the claims made by conspiracy theorists are usually nonfalsifiable, the multiplication of sources may leave the impression of validation without actually putting any propositions to the test of evidence.

Update: This is what I am talking about as far as their incestous self-referential claims. Let's take this paragraph from their "peer review" paper.

Published papers have argued that this negligence by NIST (leaving the near-free-fall speeds unexplained) is a major flaw in their analysis [13, 14].

Well, this has been argued in "published papers" so there must be some legitimacy to this claim to back up their argument, right? They were published after all.

Well let's look at the footnotes:

[13] S. E. Jones, “Why indeed did the WTC buildings completely collapse?”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 3, pp. 1-47, September 2006. [Online]. Available: www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].

[14] F. Legge and T. Szamboti, “9/11 and the twin towers: Sudden collapse initiation was impossible”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 18, pp. 1-3, December 2007. [Online]. Available: www. journalof911studies.com Accessed March 17, 2008].

Well, these papers were published by Jones, Legge, and Szamboti, who were 3 of the 5 authors of this paper in the first place, and it was published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, which Jones founded, and whose editors are, you guessed it, Steven Jones and Frank Legge!

JamesB

19th April 2008, 04:56 PM

Jones responds (sort of) on the 911 Blogger thread.

A page-charge is fairly common in technical journals,
especially OPEN-access journals, from what I've seen. Yes, some are making a big deal of this, overlooking this common practice -- it would be helpful if someone would research the page-charges for other journals, especially e-journals. Bentham explains, correctly, that having a publication fee in no way compromises the peer-review process.

I just found this at the JREF site -- so you can see what "R. Mackey" is doing (no doubt the same Ryan Mackey to whom Kevin Ryan replied, in the Journal of 911 Studies):
______________________________________

"Upon reflection, however, I've decided that the general idea of an Open Access Journal, fees and all, is not inherently bad. The problem is that it makes it much, much harder for readers to distinguish a genuine OAJ from rabble producing their own whitepapers. As a result, the OAJ has to uphold the absolute highest standards of review, accuracy, transparency, and scientific rigor. If this is done, I support it.

I've just fired off a lengthy letter to the publishers at oa@bentham.org describing why this paper should have failed review, and asking them to reconsider it. We shall see their response. It's possible they were just completely blindsided by the Truth Movement." [R. Mackey, JREF]

__________________

Interesting. Like I said in my blog, it would be nice to let the editors know that some readers of their journal SUPPORT the publication of this article.

Remember (as I said) that all three reviewers approved publication (I do NOT know who the reviewers were!), so it is unlikely that Mr. Mackey's objections will overturn the approval for publication. He could write me and explain why I should retract the paper, but it would need to have specific objections... (good luck)

Cl1mh4224rd

19th April 2008, 05:21 PM

Jones responds (sort of) on the 911 Blogger thread.

I just found this at the JREF site [...]

S.Jones reads the Conspiracy Theories subforum of JREF? Huh...

Interesting. Like I said in my blog, it would be nice to let the editors know that some readers of their journal SUPPORT the publication of this article.

Somehow I doubt a bunch of emails saying "Thanks for publishing this" will outweigh a reasoned criticism. Unless, of course, this journal wants to merely please its "readers" without any regard to accuracy... but where would that leave the credibility of this paper?

Bad move, Jones, trying to turn this into a popularity contest. Bad, bad move...

twinstead

19th April 2008, 05:23 PM

But isn't good science all about popularity? No? Ouch.

R.Mackey

19th April 2008, 05:27 PM

Somehow I doubt a bunch of emails saying "Thanks for publishing this" will outweigh a reasoned criticism. Unless, of course, this journal wants to merely please its "readers" without any regard to accuracy... but where would that leave the credibility of this paper?

The irony is that, what little content there is in the whitepaper is basically correct -- stale, uninteresting, and already beat to death, but nonetheless correct. What's wrong with this paper is that it isn't science. It's a bunch of guys publishing errata and their own unsupported opinions in challenge to another, much more rigorous publication.

It's not a science paper. Its inclusion in this Journal is completely unwarranted.

Had Dr. Jones actually done some science, that would be different. He could motivate an experiment based on NIST, do the experiment, publish results, and contrast his findings to NIST. That's perfectly acceptable. Of course, if he does that, then he has to follow rigorous procedures of experiment design, data analysis, and hypothesis testing, things he's failed to do in the past. But if he does a good experiment, then he should publish it.

This paper doesn't have anything new in it. There's not a repeatable conclusion in it anywhere. It also, incidentally, does not support any conspiracy theory, so I fail to see its utility to the Truth Movement except for the sheer PR value.

16.5

19th April 2008, 05:35 PM

Jones says:

"Remember (as I said) that all three reviewers approved publication (I do NOT know who the reviewers were!)"

I've located the reviewers! I don't know their names, but the review was very thorough!

Reviewer 1: Opened the envelope, found the check, confirmed the amount, made sure the check was signed.

Reviewer 2: Took the check from reviewer one, filled a detailed document known as a "deposit slip."

Reviewer Three: Received the most important document of all! The notice from the bank confirming that the check did not bounce.

And the Jones article was printed! Kudos!

MikeyMetz

19th April 2008, 05:55 PM

Here's my favorite comment from the Jones disciples over at Blogger so far:

I have a very short college paper to write this weekend for a Science class where I need to cite a Journal article. My paper is on the "evidence of explosives used on 9/11". I have a brief class presentation on Tuesday with instructors present as judges.

This is just the ticket I need for a source!

Thanks to you guys (Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley ) and others! Ya'll are changing the world.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If one does not thoroughly LOOK, the TRUTH is not visible.-Tom T.

Ugh... His professor is going to beat his/her head against a desk. Hopefully, Tom gets torn apart by the judges during his presentation.

LashL

19th April 2008, 07:05 PM

Jones responds (sort of) on the 911 Blogger thread.

A page-charge is fairly common in technical journals,
especially OPEN-access journals, from what I've seen.

How common? I did a random check at doaj and of the 50 journals I checked, the only ones that charged "publication fees" were those of Bentham, another similar company called Hindawi, and a Nigerian published journal called the International Journal of Physical Science. The vast majority of the journals in my random sample do not charge publication fees.

Now, obviously, my random sampling of open access science journals is not definitive by any stretch, but I'm not the one claiming that the practice is "common".

it would be helpful if someone would research the page-charges for other journals, especially e-journals.

Ha. As if Jones and his fellow pseudo-scholars didn't check into the publication fees after they failed to have any of their nonsense accepted by any legitimate, respected journal. My guess is that they went with the cheapest one they could find.

Bentham explains, correctly, that having a publication fee in no way compromises the peer-review process.

Um, would Jones really expect the fellow charging him in order to accept his completely-devoid-of-science "letter" to say otherwise? :rolleyes:

Like I said in my blog, it would be nice to let the editors know that some readers of their journal SUPPORT the publication of this article.

Lol @ "readers of their journal". Jones means, "readers of my letter". As if any of the truther cult members - or any of us here, for that matter - had ever heard of this particular journal before now. It has all of two issues.

It's amusing that Jones seems worried enough about R. Mackey writing to Bentham that he has to call upon the cult members to write to Bentham in an appeal to popularity type of exercise. It is obvious that Jones hasn't any confidence in his ridiculous letter - for very good reason.

He could write me and explain why I should retract the paper, but it would need to have specific objections... (good luck)

Too funny. Obviously, Jones is reading this very thread, so he can see R. Mackey's specific objections right here.

What an idiot.

Stellafane

19th April 2008, 08:12 PM

...Obviously, Jones is reading this very thread, so he can see R. Mackey's specific objections right here.

Really? In that case, I'd like to address this to you personally, Dr. Jones. In all seriousness, why are you doing this? Do you really need someone like me to remind you that the respect of your peers is worth infinitely more than the adulation of diseased little minds? Sure, your whoring yourself for the sake of the 9/11 CTers has made you a big fish in a small pond. But the water in that pond is exceedingly polluted and toxic. Shame on you for misleading these poor, deluded children (and adults with childish minds) just so you can get a little malignant attention.

CHF

19th April 2008, 08:28 PM

AZCat

19th April 2008, 08:42 PM

Perhaps Steven Jones (who is apparently reading this thread) would care to explain why he decided not to go with his microsphere/thermite research for this review and publication.

I'm sure I ain't the only one wondering what happened to all that "smoking gun" evidence.

In Jones' defense, he did say in his post at 911Blogger that there were two papers accepted for publication. We still don't know the topic of the second paper. It is possible that he has chosen his microsphere work to appear in that one.

AZCat

19th April 2008, 09:05 PM

I just read through the article as it appears on the 911Blogger page. My first question is, "why did this require five authors?" It doesn't strike me as a particularly exhaustive article, primarily because it is pointless, stupid and wrong. Surely any one of the five is capable of producing such a steaming pile of crap all on his own. It's not like they bothered to be correct about their claims, or even make arguments that had a point.

Sizzler

19th April 2008, 09:22 PM

Not at all. It's pathetic because Dr. Jones has been telling everyone about his "peer-reviewed" journal, and all the great papers in it, for years.

Apparently that didn't exactly set the world on fire. So, he tries to publish for real. That's fine.

However, instead of publishing for real, he publishes in somebody else's sham journal. This gains him no credibility. The only change is, instead of trying to con other people, he falls for exactly the same con run by someone else... and even pays for the privilege.

That's pretty sad.

----

Upon reflection, however, I've decided that the general idea of an Open Access Journal, fees and all, is not inherently bad. The problem is that it makes it much, much harder for readers to distinguish a genuine OAJ from rabble producing their own whitepapers. As a result, the OAJ has to uphold the absolute highest standards of review, accuracy, transparency, and scientific rigor. If this is done, I support it.

I've just fired off a lengthy letter to the publishers at oa@bentham.org describing why this paper should have failed review, and asking them to reconsider it. We shall see their response. It's possible they were just completely blindsided by the Truth Movement.

If they can find and fix their problems, then I support the Bentham folks in their endeavors. But if they can't, then they're no Journal at all, whether they're trying to deceive or simply not up to the task regarding peer review.

I think the strong point of the paper, besides the issues it raises with NIST's hypothesis, is that it passed peer review outside of his own journal.

Now is this journal just another scam? Although I haven't seen anything that would suggest it is a scam journal, it might very well be.

With that said, I think it is important to once again look at the claims made in his paper. By your own admission you have claimed that his information is correct (in a different post), and I would agree.

I think this is a great start in bridging cooperation between the "truth movement" and NIST. We are all still waiting for WTC7 report to come out after all. This, and other efforts may be what some of the NIST scientists need to look outside of the fire induced collapse hypothesis, if indeed it is proving unfeasible.

Would you be willing to post your letter to the publishers that you mentioned?

LashL

19th April 2008, 09:47 PM

My first question is, "why did this require five authors?"

Because they had to pool their resources to pay the publication fee when they couldn't get their crap accepted by any legitimate journal, and all five of them want to be able to later claim that they've had a letter (which they will subsequently call a "scientific paper" - just watch) published in a "mainstream peer reviewed journal." :rolleyes:

Members of the "truth" movement rarely, if ever, manage to live up to reasonable expectations, but they often manage to live down to the lowest of expectations (this particular piece of crap letter is a good example), and they often sink to such sub-levels of self-delusion and insanity that rational people can only pity them, shake their heads, turn away in disgust, or ... try to help them overcome their delusions by countering their nonsense with reality. 'Tis a thankless task, but somebody has to do it. Thank goodness for debunkers. :)

beachnut

19th April 2008, 10:05 PM

Now is this journal just another scam? Although I haven't seen anything that would suggest it is a scam journal, it might very well be.

Jones work is political tripe weaved into a supposedly technical paper. How scientific is an article with political rant. It is sad to see someone make up thermite 4 years after 9/11 and pathetically fail at backing in evidence, to keep his failed idea alive.

When someone support Jones, you know they lack knowledge, can not do basic research, and do not care for evidence.

It is very funny they paid to publish, and it makes this journal suspect for accepting such a failed paper. Their reputation, the journal, will suffer since 99.99 percent of all engineer and scientist see this type of work as pure opinions base on political biases and false information and conclusions. This is the reason Jones was fired in the first place; to go tilt at windmills, howl at the moon, and he is now only short taxi fare for happy dale.

OMG, he put in thermite! How much did they pay for that peer review?
When the paper is not pulled, you know the journal is a for pay, you can publish anything.
When a few people who do not usually read 9/11 truth junk see the paper/letter, they will make some noise and take action, unlike 9/11 truth.

Sizzler

19th April 2008, 10:25 PM

Jones work is political tripe weaved into a supposedly technical paper. How scientific is an article with political rant. It is sad to see someone make up thermite 4 years after 9/11 and pathetically fail at backing in evidence, to keep his failed idea alive.

When someone support Jones, you know they lack knowledge, can not do basic research, and do not care for evidence.

It is very funny they paid to publish, and it makes this journal suspect for accepting such a failed paper. Their reputation, the journal, will suffer since 99.99 percent of all engineer and scientist see this type of work as pure opinions base on political biases and false information and conclusions. This is the reason Jones was fired in the first place; to go tilt at windmills, howl at the moon, and he is now only short taxi fare for happy dale.

OMG, he put in thermite! How much did they pay for that peer review?
When the paper is not pulled, you know the journal is a for pay, you can publish anything.
When a few people who do not usually read 9/11 truth junk see the paper/letter, they will make some noise and take action, unlike 9/11 truth.

Jones made thermite up 4 years ago? Geesh, why didn't you tell me that before. Oh wait, you did, in EVERY post you have EVER directed towards me.:p

Instead of repeating the same lines, why don't you tell me what part of Jones' letter is incorrect.

tanabear

19th April 2008, 10:28 PM

in·i·ti·ate verb, -at·ed, -at·ing, adjective, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to begin, set going, or originate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/initiating

I know what the word initiate means. I asked you what you meant by the phrase, "the collapse initiating with pancaking." This is what Steven Jones wrote in his paper,

"Agreed: the “pancake theory of collapse” is incorrect and should be rejected. This theory of collapse was proposed by the earlier FEMA report and promoted in the documentary “Why the Towers Fell” produced by NOVA.7The “pancake theory of collapse” is strongly promoted in a Popular Mechanics article along with a number of other discredited ideas.8, 9 We, on the other hand, agree with NIST that the “pancake theory” is not scientifically tenable and ought to be set aside in serious discussions regarding the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC 7."

Are you saying that the pancake collapse theory was not proposed by FEMA and popularized by the NOVA documentary and Popular Mechanics?

I'd say I'm shocked that tanabear had to have that explained to him/her, but it's what I've come to expect from truthers.

He did not explain what he meant by the phrase, "the collapse initiating with pancaking." Would you like to explain what this phrase means?

The irony is that, what little content there is in the whitepaper is basically correct -- stale, uninteresting, and already beat to death, but nonetheless correct. What's wrong with this paper is that it isn't science. It's a bunch of guys publishing errata and their own unsupported opinions in challenge to another, much more rigorous publication.

It's not a science paper. Its inclusion in this Journal is completely unwarranted.

Had Dr. Jones actually done some science, that would be different. He could motivate an experiment based on NIST, do the experiment, publish results, and contrast his findings to NIST. That's perfectly acceptable. Of course, if he does that, then he has to follow rigorous procedures of experiment design, data analysis, and hypothesis testing, things he's failed to do in the past. But if he does a good experiment, then he should publish it.

In another thread, you seemed to suggest that the experimental method was so passé. When I asked if the NIST science could be reproduced experimentally, you seemed to scoff at the idea. You were asked if a computer model would suffice. You responded,

"It does for me, but that's a question for tanabear. I'm perfectly happy with scientific modeling of bounding cases, and in this particular instance, even simulation isn't required, just basic mathematical modeling. This evidently isn't sufficient for him."

So mathematical modeling is sufficient for the defenders of the official story, but experiment design, data analysis and hypothesis testing are required for those questioning the official story?

AZCat

19th April 2008, 10:31 PM

Because they had to pool their resources to pay the publication fee when they couldn't get their crap accepted by any legitimate journal, and all five of them want to be able to later claim that they've had a letter (which they will subsequently call a "scientific paper" - just watch) published in a "mainstream peer reviewed journal." :rolleyes:

At the moment, Jones is calling it a "formal publication" in what he says is a "established civil engineering journal." I will watch to see how this description changes as time goes by. I wouldn't make a bet on it, though - I have seen the same thing done too many times by the "truth movement".

If they're having difficulty with funds then maybe Jones and Ryan should get real jobs instead of trying to live off the "truth movement".

'Tis a thankless task, but somebody has to do it. Thank goodness for debunkers. :)

Bringing truthers to the light, that's us.

beachnut

19th April 2008, 10:33 PM

Jones made thermite up 4 years ago? Geesh, why didn't you tell me that before. Oh wait, you did, in EVERY post you have EVER directed towards me.:p

Instead of repeating the same lines, why don't you tell me what part of Jones' letter is incorrect.
We would save time if you just point out the correct part of anything Jones ever said.

Zero.

And since it is true, why mention it again? You seem to believe Jones, yet he made it up. Oops again.

Sizzler

19th April 2008, 10:50 PM

We would save time if you just point out the correct part of anything Jones ever said.

Zero.

And since it is true, why mention it again? You seem to believe Jones, yet he made it up. Oops again.

I'd say most, if not all of his letter is correct. More importantly though, do you agree that these "issues" need to be resolved? If your answer is no, then we certainly don't agree on that point and will have to agree to disagree;) But lets leave Jones out of it...

AZCat

19th April 2008, 10:54 PM

I'd say most, if not all of his letter is correct.

Then you haven't been paying attention. These issues have all been addressed here, to the detriment of Jones' arguments.

R.Mackey

19th April 2008, 11:28 PM

I think the strong point of the paper, besides the issues it raises with NIST's hypothesis, is that it passed peer review outside of his own journal.

And that is a miracle. I've never seen a paper like this, due to the sheer degree of editorializing, and the absence of results. I've informed the editors of this gross irregularity, and I expect them to respond.

Now is this journal just another scam? Although I haven't seen anything that would suggest it is a scam journal, it might very well be.

I did some digging on the background of the (suspiciously large) editorial board. At least some of them appear legitimate, if inexperienced. This "journal," or family of journals, is about as fledgling as they come -- there are a total of ten articles published in the history of the Civil Engineering branch, and other flavors have even less.

I'm guessing the Journal is legitimate, or trying to be anyway, but is still not quite ready for prime-time. If Dr. Jones "Recommended" four reviewers, it's pretty unlikely the editors would have any familiarity with the relationships in the Truth Movement, and may have just let it go without due diligence. It happens. I expect them to correct this oversight, if I'm right about their true goals.

With that said, I think it is important to once again look at the claims made in his paper. By your own admission you have claimed that his information is correct (in a different post), and I would agree.

There are no claims made in this paper. There are a few observations of known typos and poor phrasing that we've all known about for years, and there are a few unsupported opinions. Neither raises to the level of a "Claim."

I think this is a great start in bridging cooperation between the "truth movement" and NIST. We are all still waiting for WTC7 report to come out after all. This, and other efforts may be what some of the NIST scientists need to look outside of the fire induced collapse hypothesis, if indeed it is proving unfeasible.

It is not. You do not respond to NIST by tricking a journal into bearing your "letter to the editor." NIST has made itself abundantly available, and they know it; they just don't like the answers.

As I stated above, if they have conflicting results, then publishing here is appropriate. Their paper contains no results.

Would you be willing to post your letter to the publishers that you mentioned?

It's too long to post here, but I may post some excerpts. The issue is really quite simple.

R.Mackey

19th April 2008, 11:32 PM

In another thread, you seemed to suggest that the experimental method was so passé. When I asked if the NIST science could be reproduced experimentally, you seemed to scoff at the idea.

I suggested nothing of the sort. What I said was that nobody was going to build a skyscraper and crash an airliner into it just to satisfy your own, absurdly naive, requirements to believe. Nobody will.

You were asked if a computer model would suffice. You responded...

So mathematical modeling is sufficient for the defenders of the official story, but experiment design, data analysis and hypothesis testing are required for those questioning the official story?

I'm beginning to comprehend the depth of your confusion, and it is far greater than I had imagined.

Experiment design, data analysis, and hypothesis testing are part of mathematical modeling. I've made no inconsistent statements.

Dr. Jones has presented none of this in his paper. Not a single bloody thing.

Walter Ego

19th April 2008, 11:49 PM

I did some digging on the background of the (suspiciously large) editorial board. At least some of them appear legitimate, if inexperienced. This "journal," or family of journals, is about as fledgling as they come -- there are a total of ten articles published in the history of the Civil Engineering branch, and other flavors have even less.

Here's some interesting info on Bentham.

Science publishing is under attack. Librarians are unhappy with rising prices and the 'big deal' bundles favoured by large publishers. The voice of Open Access proponents grows louder and more influential with each passing day. And governments in Europe and America have mounted enquiries and debates into STM publishing. But where do the smaller, respected publishers of highly regarded science journals fit in? Are they prospering? Is the call of Open Access impacting on the way they do business?

------

Bentham Science Publishers is a publisher of 42 journals and from 2005 a further 19, making 61 journal titles together with 5 new book series. We publish primarily in areas of pre-clinical and pharmaceutical research for academic and pharmaceutical libraries. Many of our journals have high impact factors and we are fortunate to have the leading journal for reviews in medicinal chemistry, Current Medicinal Chemistry with an impact factor of 4.4. We also have other journals with rising impact factors like Current Pharmaceutical Design which is one of our leading titles. It publishes 32 issues a year and has an impact factor of 5.55.

----

Bentham's geographic profile is unique. Where is the company based?

We're an international company officially based and registered in the United Arab Emirates. UAE is close to Pakistan where many of our staff work. So it's strategically well placed. We chose Pakistan for similar reasons why other publishers have chosen India, Malaysia and Indonesia. Our production people were looking at the cost of production especially printing and typesetting. We found that Pakistan offered very competitive prices and that the staff we could employ were highly educated, often with Ph.Ds. While the editorial work is done largely by our teams in The Netherlands and USA, Pakistan assists with the collection of manuscripts from the editors world wide. All the production and printing – we've just bought 3 presses – is done in-house in Pakistan. So there was reason enough to go there. It was a little risky at first because of political tensions but these have eased and the economy is improving. So it's a stable place for us to do our business.

http://www.aardvarknet.info/access/number50/monthnews.cfm?monthnews=11

R.Mackey

19th April 2008, 11:57 PM

Here's some interesting info on Bentham.

Yes, but let's not turn this into an ad hominem against Bentham.

If you look at the other articles in their Civil Engineering journal (all nine of them...) they're pretty ordinary. I wouldn't call this a prestigous journal by any stretch, but they may be trying to do it right. How they respond to the problem of Dr. Jones's paper will be a useful data point. I'm optimistic until proven wrong.

Sizzler

19th April 2008, 11:57 PM

And that is a miracle. I've never seen a paper like this, due to the sheer degree of editorializing, and the absence of results. I've informed the editors of this gross irregularity, and I expect them to respond.

I see the merit in your criticism except that this is a letter, and not a "paper" with results. It is what it is Mackey.

I did some digging on the background of the (suspiciously large) editorial board. At least some of them appear legitimate, if inexperienced. This "journal," or family of journals, is about as fledgling as they come -- there are a total of ten articles published in the history of the Civil Engineering branch, and other flavors have even less.

I'm guessing the Journal is legitimate, or trying to be anyway, but is still not quite ready for prime-time. If Dr. Jones "Recommended" four reviewers, it's pretty unlikely the editors would have any familiarity with the relationships in the Truth Movement, and may have just let it go without due diligence. It happens. I expect them to correct this oversight, if I'm right about their true goals.

I'm not totally familiar with the particulars of scientific review. I think this is a bold claim and you do to, demonstrated by your use of "if".

However you then claim it is an "oversight". I think you are getting ahead of yourself here because you haven't shown an oversight to exist yet.

There are no claims made in this paper. There are a few observations of known typos and poor phrasing that we've all known about for years, and there are a few unsupported opinions. Neither raises to the level of a "Claim."

From Jones et al

"NIST and FEMA were not charged with finding out how fire was the specific agent of collapse, yet both evidently took that limited approach while leaving open a number of unanswered questions. Our goal here is to set a foundation for scientific discussion by enumerating those areas where we find agreement with NIST and FEMA."

The central thesis, or claim of this letter is that there are several unanswered questions. These questions are explored by identifying areas of agreement between them and NIST/FEMA which in turn exposes the unanswered questions.

The final opinion in the letter is that these questions need answers before anyone can fully understand the collapses.

Lets not forget that this is a letter.

It is not. You do not respond to NIST by tricking a journal into bearing your "letter to the editor." NIST has made itself abundantly available, and they know it; they just don't like the answers.

Well it certainly can't hurt.

As I stated above, if they have conflicting results, then publishing here is appropriate. Their paper contains no results.

Right, because it is a letter. It identifies areas of agreement, exposing unanswered questions. I see nothing wrong with it given it isn't meant to be a traditional scientific paper.

It's too long to post here, but I may post some excerpts. The issue is really quite simple.

That would be great. I'd like to see your criticisms in more detail. Eagerly waiting.

Sizzler

20th April 2008, 12:01 AM

Yes, but let's not turn this into an ad hominem against Bentham.

If you look at the other articles in their Civil Engineering journal (all nine of them...) they're pretty ordinary. I wouldn't call this a prestigous journal by any stretch, but they may be trying to do it right. How they respond to the problem of Dr. Jones's paper will be a useful data point. I'm optimistic until proven wrong.

Sorry to be frank but you are basically saying it is a legit journal as long as they agree with you and your supposed criticisms, which you haven't really clearly identified or proven to be true.

R.Mackey

20th April 2008, 12:07 AM

I see the merit in your criticism except that this is a letter, and not a "paper" with results. It is what it is Mackey.

One does not post "letters" in scientific journals. In general, if you have to put a special name on something, you're making excuses for it.

If you read their (very slender) guidelines, you note they only refer to technical and review articles. This paper is neither. That is one of the complaints I have for the publishers.

However you then claim it is an "oversight". I think you are getting ahead of yourself here because you haven't shown an oversight to exist yet.

Here's an "oversight," quoted from my letter to the editors:

Another problem with the paper in question is its combative tone. For example, from Page 39:

"The evident evasiveness of this answer might be humorous if not for the fact that NIST's approach here affects the lives of so many innocent people. We do not think that looking for thermite or other residues specified in the NFPA 921 code is 'wasting your time.' We may be able to help out here as well, for we have looked for such residues in the WTC remains using state-of-the-art analytical methods, especially in the voluminous toxic dust that was produced as the buildings fell and killed thousands of people, and the evidence for thermite use is mounting."

In this brief passage alone, the authors (a) accuse fellow researchers at NIST of being "Evasive;" (b) suggest without evidence that NIST failed to discharge its duties in investigation; (c) advertise their own purported abilities; and (d) assert that there is evidence of "thermite," citing in support only two articles from the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" rather than any reliable scientific result.
I trust you can accept that this passage is totally unacceptable in a formal scientific communication. I have never seen anything so incendiary or so transparently unsupported in any article, in any journal, in any subject.

I'm trying to imagine the three peer-reviewers reading this and all deciding, independently, to give it a thumbs-up. I'm failing. Help me out with this.

The final opinion in the letter is that these questions need answers before anyone can fully understand the collapses.

But this is false. None of the "issues" raised by Dr. Jones have any impact on our understanding of the collapses. If he had results showing thermite was at work, that would be something, but questions are not evidence.

Honestly, did we need a "journal article" to remind us that the fires didn't melt steel? (point #8 in Dr. Jones's paper) Hmm? The only person in the world who hasn't gotten that message is Rosie O'Donnell.

R.Mackey

20th April 2008, 12:10 AM

Sorry to be frank but you are basically saying it is a legit journal as long as they agree with you and your supposed criticisms, which you haven't really clearly identified or proven to be true.

Absolute balderdash. I'm saying it's a legitimate journal if they perform due diligence in review and adhere to scientific standards. I am not insisting that I am the one who gets to set those standards. Those standards are pretty well established and universal in the world of publication.

As I said before, there is not a single result in this paper. It is neither science nor engineering. It is editorializing. That is not the function of a scientific journal. The editors must respond to this criticism, and I trust that they will.

Sizzler

20th April 2008, 12:23 AM

One does not post "letters" in scientific journals. In general, if you have to put a special name on something, you're making excuses for it.

It is what it is Mackey. The editors obviously thought it merited being published and it also passed peer review.

If you read their (very slender) guidelines, you note they only refer to technical and review articles. This paper is neither. That is one of the complaints I have for the publishers.

I would like to know their answer.

Here's an "oversight," quoted from my letter to the editors:

I agree with you on this point. Thanks for sharing.

I'm trying to imagine the three peer-reviewers reading this and all deciding, independently, to give it a thumbs-up. I'm failing. Help me out with this.

I would like to know what their response is to this particular issue.

But this is false. None of the "issues" raised by Dr. Jones have any impact on our understanding of the collapses. If he had results showing thermite was at work, that would be something, but questions are not evidence.

This is a fallacy you have presented here. One does not need to prove CD to show that the fire induced hypothesis is insufficiently supported.

Honestly, did we need a "journal article" to remind us that the fires didn't melt steel? (point #8 in Dr. Jones's paper) Hmm? The only person in the world who hasn't gotten that message is Rosie O'Donnell.

Again another fallacy; this time a straw man. You are suggesting that this is pertaining to the claim that fire can't melt steel and thus can't cause the building to collapse by your inclusion of Rosie. However Jones explicitly states that this is in conflict with reports by Lee et al describing dust particles that needed high temperatures to form, including once molten iron microspheres.

Sizzler

20th April 2008, 12:24 AM

Absolute balderdash. I'm saying it's a legitimate journal if they perform due diligence in review and adhere to scientific standards. I am not insisting that I am the one who gets to set those standards. Those standards are pretty well established and universal in the world of publication.

As I said before, there is not a single result in this paper. It is neither science nor engineering. It is editorializing. That is not the function of a scientific journal. The editors must respond to this criticism, and I trust that they will.

Ok, your criticisms are a little clearer now. I agree with the one you previously posted.

Care to make a list, or post more of that letter?

R.Mackey

20th April 2008, 12:34 AM

It is what it is Mackey. The editors obviously thought it merited being published and it also passed peer review.

The review process was breathtakingly short. Their review policy also includes accepting reviewers suggested by the authors, provided they aren't from "the same institution." Since the Truth Movement is not an institution, it is possible (though I do not know this took place) that Dr. Jones got his own friends to "review" the paper, and the editors did not adequately verify its quality.

I've already demonstrated a passage that should have never seen the light of day, so we know the review was inadequate.

This is a fallacy you have presented here. One does not need to prove CD to show that the fire induced hypothesis is insufficiently supported.

I didn't say that one did.

Dr. Jones could show the NIST hypothesis is insufficient through a variety of methods -- running his own models, finding flaws in the assumptions, etc. -- without even mentioning explosives. He's done none of this. All he's done is go over a few nitpicks and wild assertions.

Compare, if you will, Dr. Jones's paper to those of Dr. Quintiere. Dr. Quintiere is equally hostile towards NIST, but his papers have content. He doesn't just speculate that NIST might be wrong, he gets his own data, runs his own experiments, and publishes that. We learn from Dr. Quintiere.

What did we learn from Dr. Jones's paper? Nothing.

Again another fallacy; this time a straw man. You are suggesting that this is pertaining to the claim that fire can't melt steel and thus can't cause the building to collapse by your inclusion of Rosie. However Jones explicitly states that this is in conflict with reports by Lee et al describing dust particles that needed high temperatures to form, including once molten iron microspheres.

No, no no. Once again, the samples in the RJ Lee report were taken months afterward. I told you this myself. There is no reason at all to assume these microspheres were created prior to or during collapse. And unless you make that assumption, there is no conflict.

The strawman is Dr. Jones's, not mine.

ETA: I've already received an acknowledgment from the publishers, and I'll let you know what transpires. I only gave them a few examples of problems with the paper.

Realistically, what may happen in the long term is Dr. Jones is forced to revise his paper, but perhaps some variant of what he has now will persist. It'll never be a great paper, but it could at least be banged into a semblance of an ordinary paper. But like I said, he makes no claims, and we learn nothing from its publication. I therefore fail to see the point.

Foolmewunz

20th April 2008, 12:36 AM

hey mods why did you merge these two threads. This deserves a new thread for sure. 911 truth movement hits a mainstream journal and you merge the thread with an old one????? Come on now........sad imo

Firstly, the definition of "mainstream journal" that you use must be coming from the same Big Book of Picture Words that you guys use to define "peer review".

Secondly, the threads were merged because they were identical topics. No conspiracy here, move along.

ref

20th April 2008, 02:19 AM

To no surprise, they will not release the names of the reviewers. But at least they really seem to be other than JONES people :rolleyes:

Slayhamlet

20th April 2008, 02:57 AM

I know what the word initiate means. I asked you what you meant by the phrase, "the collapse initiating with pancaking." This is what Steven Jones wrote in his paper,

"Agreed: the “pancake theory of collapse” is incorrect and should be rejected. This theory of collapse was proposed by the earlier FEMA report and promoted in the documentary “Why the Towers Fell” produced by NOVA.7The “pancake theory of collapse” is strongly promoted in a Popular Mechanics article along with a number of other discredited ideas.8, 9 We, on the other hand, agree with NIST that the “pancake theory” is not scientifically tenable and ought to be set aside in serious discussions regarding the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC 7."

Are you saying that the pancake collapse theory was not proposed by FEMA and popularized by the NOVA documentary and Popular Mechanics?

You are horribly confused. No, obviously nothing of the sort was said by anyone here. How you could read that into what was written is beyond me.

The "pancake collapse" hypothesis was proposed by FEMA; that much of your statement is correct. The second part, namely that this disproved hypothesis was represented in Popular Mechanics, you have utterly failed to support. It could be true, but we actually require evidence of it.

He did not explain what he meant by the phrase, "the collapse initiating with pancaking." Would you like to explain what this phrase means?

He means, of course, the "pancake collapse" hypothesis itself:

As the temperature of floor slabs and support framing increases, these elements can lose rigidity and sag into catenary action. As catenary action progresses, horizontal framing elements and floor slabs become tensile elements, which can cause failure of end connections (Figure 2-21) [right] and allow supported floors to collapse onto the floors below. The presence of large amounts of debris on some floors of WTC 1 would have made them even more susceptible to this behavior.

In addition to overloading the floors below, and potentially resulting in a pancake-type collapse of successive floors, local floor collapse would also immediately increase the laterally unsupported length of columns, permitting buckling to begin. As indicated in Appendix B, the propensity of exterior columns to buckle would have been governed by the relatively weak bolted column splices between the vertically stacked prefabricated exterior wall units. This effect would be even more likely to occur in a fire that involves several adjacent floor levels simultaneously, because the columns could effectively lose lateral support over several stories

The same types of structural behaviors and failure mechanisms previously discussed are equally likely to have occurred in WTC 2, resulting in the initiation of progressive collapse, approximately 56 minutes after the aircraft impact. Review of video footage of the WTC 2 collapse suggests that it probably initiated with a partial collapse of the floor in the southeast corner of the building at approximately the 80th level. This appears to have been followed rapidly by collapse of the entire floor level along the east side, as evidenced by a line of dust blowing out of the side of the building. As this floor collapse occurred, columns along the east face of the building appear to buckle in the region of the collapsed floor, beginning at the south side and progressing to the north, causing the top of the building to rotate toward the east and south and to begin to collapse downward (Figure 2-32). It should be noted that failure of core columns in the southeast corner of the building could have preceded and triggered these events.

FEMA403 2 (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf)

According to the observations of NIST, this is not what happened. Their reasons for discounting the hypothesis, as R. Mackey explains in his whitepaper "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking", are such:

1.Close examination of video prior to the collapses proved that the exterior walls were being pulled inward, which suggests floors remained attached up to the moment of collapse.

2. Photographs also showed floors sagging severely but still attached to the walls.

3. Modeling of the perimeter wall bowing proved that the amount of inward pull required to bow the exterior columns was not enough to sever the floor truss connections.

4. Modeling of a single floor tearing free and falling onto an undamaged floor suggested that the undamaged floor would not be destroyed, thus casting doubt on the ability of the “pancake theory” to sustain a progressive collapse.

ETA: Just in case you missed it: we're talking about collapse initiation from local truss connection failures here, not the progression of global collapse, which NIST was not tasked with modelling.

Edmund Standing

20th April 2008, 03:08 AM

I think this is a great start in bridging cooperation between the "truth movement" and NIST.

The problem is, NIST doesn't need anyone from the 'truth movement'. NIST has enough real experts who are not emotionally invested in a very partisan and scientifically vacuous conspiracy world view to get along just fine without help from the likes of Jones et al. Of course, should NIST decide to investigate pictorial evidence for Jesus' alleged visit to ancient America, or another area in which Jones has particular expertise they probably lack (for example, pre-Columbian horse remains), then I'm sure some cooperation would be helpful.

Sizzler

20th April 2008, 03:22 AM

The review process was breathtakingly short. Their review policy also includes accepting reviewers suggested by the authors, provided they aren't from "the same institution." Since the Truth Movement is not an institution, it is possible (though I do not know this took place) that Dr. Jones got his own friends to "review" the paper, and the editors did not adequately verify its quality.

I've already demonstrated a passage that should have never seen the light of day, so we know the review was inadequate.

I have a feeling this is going to become another popular, but unsupported, claim; much like the claim of the welder boyfriend who contaminated Jones' dust samples.

And, we don't know that the "review was inadequate" yet. Lets wait for a reply first shall we.

Dr. Jones could show the NIST hypothesis is insufficient through a variety of methods -- running his own models, finding flaws in the assumptions, etc. -- without even mentioning explosives. He's done none of this. All he's done is go over a few nitpicks and wild assertions.

Compare, if you will, Dr. Jones's paper to those of Dr. Quintiere. Dr. Quintiere is equally hostile towards NIST, but his papers have content. He doesn't just speculate that NIST might be wrong, he gets his own data, runs his own experiments, and publishes that. We learn from Dr. Quintiere.

What did we learn from Dr. Jones's paper? Nothing.

You learnt nothing but that doesn't mean others haven't. Jones summarized important literature that perhaps not everyone is aware of. He uses this literature to reveal several questions that have not been answered. These questions are real and have passed the review process adding credibility to their importance.

Regardless of 9-11 being an inside job or not, at least a few of those questions should be answered for the sake of building safety in the future.

No, no no. Once again, the samples in the RJ Lee report were taken months afterward. I told you this myself. There is no reason at all to assume these microspheres were created prior to or during collapse. And unless you make that assumption, there is no conflict.

The strawman is Dr. Jones's, not mine.

Nice try Mackey, but this certainly isn't what I was commenting on. While I don't disagree with your answer, it certainly does not explain your use of a straw-man.

you said;

"Honestly, did we need a "journal article" to remind us that the fires didn't melt steel? (point #8 in Dr. Jones's paper) Hmm? The only person in the world who hasn't gotten that message is Rosie O'Donnell."

By including Rosie you are implicating the straw-man "fire can't melt steel, thus the buildings shouldn't have collapsed." But this has nothing to do with Jones' paper (which you no doubt knew very well) and thus you created a straw man of your own.

ETA: I've already received an acknowledgment from the publishers, and I'll let you know what transpires. I only gave them a few examples of problems with the paper.

can you make a list or post more sections of your letter? You have so far only provided one example.

Realistically, what may happen in the long term is Dr. Jones is forced to revise his paper, but perhaps some variant of what he has now will persist. It'll never be a great paper, but it could at least be banged into a semblance of an ordinary paper. But like I said, he makes no claims, and we learn nothing from its publication. I therefore fail to see the point.

I learnt from the paper. Others will too. Learning is a step by step process. I see great value in this paper for the truth movement and their cause.

At the very least, civil engineers that read the journal will notice the letter and perhaps join in on the process of strengthening the best hypothesis, whatever it might be.

drkitten

20th April 2008, 03:35 AM

I think the strong point of the paper, besides the issues it raises with NIST's hypothesis, is that it passed peer review outside of his own journal.

One would hope that the strong point of a scientific/technical paper was that it was well-argued and factually accurate. Passing peer review is not a goal in and of itself, surely?

That's like saying "the best thing about the new restaurant down the block is that it got a five-star rating from a local food critic." Is that really the best thing about the place? How about "... is that the food is good enough to deserve a five-star rating"?

There are lots of reasons that a restaurant can get a high rating. One is by serving good food. But reviewers can make errors in judgement, esp. reviewers new to their jobs or unfamiliar with a particular style of food. Reviewers can also be outright frauds with stars-for-sale. (I'll happily review any restaurant you pick, at $10,000 per star. Even for five stars, that's still possibly cheaper than hiring a real chef.)

A few points from my p.o.v. as a practicing researcher.

"Publication fees" are quite common in biology journals, both print and on-line. Outside of biology, they are almost unheard of. So an open-access civil engineering journal with publication fees is not necessarily a scam, but it's certainly a warning.

Similarly, being able to pick your own reviewers is definitely a sign of a scam, but being able to suggest reviewers is not. (The journal editor in chief is not necessarily a domain expert and may not know who the major players are. On the other hand, the journal editor in chief is ultimately responsible for selecting domain experts.) It is perhaps most common for the journal editor to use SOME of the suggested referees and balance them with referees of her own choosing. That the journal encourages this as a matter of course is a bad sign; it suggest that the editorial board is not confident of its own expertise (at best) and at worst that the journal is a scam.

"Letters" to journals are still held to the same standards of content and format of full papers. The usual use for "letters" is to establish priority of findings (I found something in 2007 that needs immediate publication, so I put a letter in in 2008 and a full paper will not come around in the publication cycle until 2011); that Dr. Jones found it necessary to submit what are essentially warmed-over results in the form of a "letter" reflects badly both on him and the journal. What about his findings needed IMMEDIATE publication? This, again, is a red flag.

The quality and tone of the writing suggests that due attention was not paid in the editorial process; again a possible sign of a slipshod journal.

I have no personal experience with Bentham as a publisher -- I HAVE, however, published through other open-access journals, and I had an entirely different experience. I'm actually willing to cut Bentham a break here and believe that they made a mistake. But this is the sort of mistake that, if repeated, can sink a journal (and publishing company), precisely because it looks so much like a vanity article that it might be confused for one in a dim light.

Sizzler

20th April 2008, 03:46 AM

One would hope that the strong point of a scientific/technical paper was that it was well-argued and factually accurate. Passing peer review is not a goal in and of itself, surely?

That's like saying "the best thing about the new restaurant down the block is that it got a five-star rating from a local food critic." Is that really the best thing about the place? How about "... is that the food is good enough to deserve a five-star rating"?

There are lots of reasons that a restaurant can get a high rating. One is by serving good food. But reviewers can make errors in judgement, esp. reviewers new to their jobs or unfamiliar with a particular style of food. Reviewers can also be outright frauds with stars-for-sale. (I'll happily review any restaurant you pick, at $10,000 per star. Even for five stars, that's still possibly cheaper than hiring a real chef.)

I agree fully. That is why I included the following part in my sentence;

"I think the strong point of the paper, besides the issues it raises with NIST's hypothesis, is that it passed peer review outside of his own journal."

So I agree in that content is number one, but I added that acceptance into the scientific arena is of secondary importance.

A few points from my p.o.v. as a practicing researcher.

"Publication fees" are quite common in biology journals, both print and on-line. Outside of biology, they are almost unheard of. So an open-access civil engineering journal with publication fees is not necessarily a scam, but it's certainly a warning.

Similarly, being able to pick your own reviewers is definitely a sign of a scam, but being able to suggest reviewers is not. (The journal editor in chief is not necessarily a domain expert and may not know who the major players are. On the other hand, the journal editor in chief is ultimately responsible for selecting domain experts.) It is perhaps most common for the journal editor to use SOME of the suggested referees and balance them with referees of her own choosing. That the journal encourages this as a matter of course is a bad sign; it suggest that the editorial board is not confident of its own expertise (at best) and at worst that the journal is a scam.

"Letters" to journals are still held to the same standards of content and format of full papers. The usual use for "letters" is to establish priority of findings (I found something in 2007 that needs immediate publication, so I put a letter in in 2008 and a full paper will not come around in the publication cycle until 2011); that Dr. Jones found it necessary to submit what are essentially warmed-over results in the form of a "letter" reflects badly both on him and the journal. What about his findings needed IMMEDIATE publication? This, again, is a red flag.

The quality and tone of the writing suggests that due attention was not paid in the editorial process; again a possible sign of a slipshod journal.

I have no personal experience with Bentham as a publisher -- I HAVE, however, published through other open-access journals, and I had an entirely different experience. I'm actually willing to cut Bentham a break here and believe that they made a mistake. But this is the sort of mistake that, if repeated, can sink a journal (and publishing company), precisely because it looks so much like a vanity article that it might be confused for one in a dim light.

Thanks for the insight. What exactly do you believe to be the mistake here?

Slayhamlet

20th April 2008, 03:50 AM

You learnt nothing but that doesn't mean others haven't. Jones summarized important literature that perhaps not everyone is aware of. He uses this literature to reveal several questions that have not been answered. These questions are real and have passed the review process adding credibility to their importance.

Regardless of 9-11 being an inside job or not, at least a few of those questions should be answered for the sake of building safety in the future.

Could you specify exactly what these unanswered questions are, and how they pertain to building safety?

Nice try Mackey, but this certainly isn't what I was commenting on. While I don't disagree with your answer, it certainly does not explain your use of a straw-man.

you said;

"Honestly, did we need a "journal article" to remind us that the fires didn't melt steel? (point #8 in Dr. Jones's paper) Hmm? The only person in the world who hasn't gotten that message is Rosie O'Donnell."

By including Rosie you are implicating the straw-man "fire can't melt steel, thus the buildings shouldn't have collapses." But this has nothing to do with Jones' paper (which you no doubt knew very well) and thus you created a straw man of your own.

I don't get it. What's the straw man being implied here? He mentioned Rosie in order to illustrate just how trivial Jones's point is. How is that a straw man?

drkitten

20th April 2008, 03:59 AM

Thanks for the insight. What exactly do you believe to be the mistake here?

The acceptance and publication of the paper, obviously.

As to the underlying mistake that led to that one -- I don't know, and I hope Bentham is forthcoming in their response. There are several possibilities, ranging from the simple clerical error (`we sent the "acceptance" letter by mistake and decided to honor it') through inexperience ("we didn't check the proposed reviewer's credentials closely enough, since we've never had to deal with this kind of controversial material before"), bad judgement ("well, the paper was controversial, but we need something that will attract eyeballs and this seemed a good topic") and incompetence ("uh, what do you mean I'm supposed to check the reviewers' credentials?") and into active fraud ("The check cleared. What else am I supposed to review?")

Sizzler

20th April 2008, 04:16 AM

The acceptance and publication of the paper, obviously.

As to the underlying mistake that led to that one -- I don't know, and I hope Bentham is forthcoming in their response. There are several possibilities, ranging from the simple clerical error (`we sent the "acceptance" letter by mistake and decided to honor it') through inexperience ("we didn't check the proposed reviewer's credentials closely enough, since we've never had to deal with this kind of controversial material before"), bad judgement ("well, the paper was controversial, but we need something that will attract eyeballs and this seemed a good topic") and incompetence ("uh, what do you mean I'm supposed to check the reviewers' credentials?") and into active fraud ("The check cleared. What else am I supposed to review?")

Ok so why exactly was it a mistake to publish the letter?

Sizzler

20th April 2008, 04:29 AM

Could you specify exactly what these unanswered questions are, and how they pertain to building safety?

For instance the sulfidation/oxidation is very important. It still hasn't been determined if it occurred before or after collapse. Also no scientific experiments have been done and/or published to identify or rule out possible causes/sources.

If for example the sulfur came from the gypsum, it is possible that it occurred pre-collapse and thus may have contributed to the weakening of the structure.

Lets not forget that this is an anomaly that several scientists who published reports on it think deserves further investigation.

I don't get it. What's the straw man being implied here? He mentioned Rosie in order to illustrate just how trivial Jones's point is. How is that a straw man? I think the strong point of the paper, besides the issues it raises with NIST's hypothesis, is that it passed peer review outside of his own journal.

He is implying that Jones is discussing melted steel in relation to Rosie's straw man. This in and of itself is a straw man because Jones is clearly discussing it in relation to microspheres found in the dust.

I think Mackey included it to belittle Jones, and it should be retracted.

Now whether or not the microspheres mean anything is an issue yet to be resolved. They were however discovered in several samples from both Jones and non truther scientists. They do not match the chemical characteristics of microspheres made during a torch cut. Hand waving will not wish away the well documented (published reports) microspheres. A well reasoned explanation still hasn't been offered, from either side of the fence.

drkitten

20th April 2008, 04:42 AM

Ok so why exactly was it a mistake to publish the letter?

Because it's a piece of (rule 10).

BigAl

20th April 2008, 04:43 AM

Here's some interesting info on Bentham.

Wikipedia has an interesting article on Open Access, in general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access

Sizzler

20th April 2008, 04:45 AM

Because it's a piece of (rule 10).

Here I thought you were discussing this topic critically and maturely. Apparently I was mistaken.

DGM

20th April 2008, 04:47 AM

One would hope that the strong point of a scientific/technical paper was that it was well-argued and factually accurate. Passing peer review is not a goal in and of itself, surely?

Sadly I think this was the goal. "Truthers" are jumping up and down screaming "we're published" and the few I've questioned don't even know the contents of the letter. Nothing in this letter has not been addressed before and most everything was also in a letter to NIST themselves and was responded to. This letter in my opinion is all about being "published in a mainstream journal". A feeble attempt to show legitimacy for the cause.

CptColumbo

20th April 2008, 04:48 AM

I know what the word initiate means. I asked you what you meant by the phrase, "the collapse initiating with pancaking."
What part of it are you not understanding? The part about the collapse initiating with pancaking, the initiation of the collapse due to pancaking, or where pancaking initiated the collapse? If you know what the word initiate means, the rest should be a piece of [pan]cake. :)

drkitten

20th April 2008, 04:50 AM

Here I thought you were discussing this topic critically and maturely. Apparently I was mistaken.

Something can be -- critically and maturely -- assessed as a turd. I admit to using "unparliamentary language," but this is a discussion forum, not a formal communication to a journal.

In my "formal" reviewer's report, I would have instead pointed out that the paper is badly written, inappropriate in tone and content, presents no new material and argument, does not advance the state of the discipline, and is almost certainly not of interest to the target audience of the journal.

On the other hand, in my "informal" reviewer's report -- the part that the editor sees, but that is not passed on to the author -- I might well have used exactly that language. You seem to be under the impression that academics don't know words like "turd"?

Sizzler

20th April 2008, 04:52 AM

Sadly I think this was the goal. "Truthers" are jumping up and down screaming "we're published" and the few I've questioned don't even know the contents of the letter. Nothing in this letter has not been addressed before and most everything was also in a letter to NIST themselves and was responded to. This letter in my opinion is all about being "published in a mainstream journal". A feeble attempt to show legitimacy for the cause.

The "issues" in Jones' paper might be old but they have yet to be resolved, and at least one civil engineering journal believes they are worthy enough to at least be published.

That is the truth now. Accept it so we can move forward and try to find the answers to the "issues" raised.

Sizzler

20th April 2008, 04:55 AM

The "issues" in Jones' paper might be old but they have yet to be resolved, and at least one civil engineering journal believes they are worthy enough to at least be published.

That is the truth now. Accept it so we can move forward and try to find the answers to the "issues" raised.

And if you believe you have the answers to the "issues" raised in Jones' paper then by all means submit a response paper to the journal. That is the arena now.

drkitten

20th April 2008, 04:56 AM

Sadly I think this was the goal.

Subtlety obviously doesn't work well on teh InterWebs.

I agree entirely, and in fact, that was the "gentle" point that Sizzler apparently missed. So in the space of two posts, I've been criticized for being both too direct and not direct enough.

I can't win.

Nothing in this letter has not been addressed before and most everything was also in a letter to NIST themselves and was responded to.

Which, in and of itself, is a reason that publishing it was a mistake. As a research report, it presents nothing new. As a survey article, it ignores a major portion of the discussion to misleading effect. Add to that the poor writing quality and the unprofessional tone, and what's left?

Perhaps a better way of expressing it -- journal editors are not looking for reasons to reject submitted papers. Journal editors are looking for reasons to ACCEPT papers; in any decent publication, the default answer to "should we publish this" should be "no, we shouldn't." To do otherwise weakens the impact of the genuinely good papers and creates unnecessary work for the staff. Seeing no reason for publication, its acceptance was a mistake.

Sizzler

20th April 2008, 05:00 AM

Something can be -- critically and maturely -- assessed as a turd. I admit to using "unparliamentary language," but this is a discussion forum, not a formal communication to a journal.

In my "formal" reviewer's report, I would have instead pointed out that the paper is badly written, inappropriate in tone and content, presents no new material and argument, does not advance the state of the discipline, and is almost certainly not of interest to the target audience of the journal.

On the other hand, in my "informal" reviewer's report -- the part that the editor sees, but that is not passed on to the author -- I might well have used exactly that language. You seem to be under the impression that academics don't know words like "turd"?

Well that is just a lot of opinion. Obviously the editor and reviewers don't agree with you. Or, are they in on the conspiracy to promote 911 truth too? How big is this conspiracy getting now? I've lost count.

DGM

20th April 2008, 05:03 AM

The "issues" in Jones' paper might be old but they have yet to be resolved, and at least one civil engineering journal believes they are worthy enough to at least be published.

That is the truth now. Accept it so we can move forward and try to find the answers to the "issues" raised.
Do you believe that a scientific journal is the place to try to find someone to answer your questions? Isn't that just using this letter (and the journal) as a promotional device?

CptColumbo

20th April 2008, 05:03 AM

Well that is just a lot of opinion. Obviously the editor and reviewers don't agree with you. Or, are they in on the conspiracy to promote 911 truth too? How big is this conspiracy getting now? I've lost count.I think you missed one of the reasons that they agreed to publish the paper and why it leads to a problem of credibility.

Sizzler

20th April 2008, 05:06 AM

Subtlety obviously doesn't work well on teh InterWebs.

I agree entirely, and in fact, that was the "gentle" point that Sizzler apparently missed. So in the space of two posts, I've been criticized for being both too direct and not direct enough.

I can't win.

Which, in and of itself, is a reason that publishing it was a mistake. As a research report, it presents nothing new. As a survey article, it ignores a major portion of the discussion to misleading effect. Add to that the poor writing quality and the unprofessional tone, and what's left?

Perhaps a better way of expressing it -- journal editors are not looking for reasons to reject submitted papers. Journal editors are looking for reasons to ACCEPT papers; in any decent publication, the default answer to "should we publish this" should be "no, we shouldn't." To do otherwise weakens the impact of the genuinely good papers and creates unnecessary work for the staff. Seeing no reason for publication, its acceptance was a mistake.

This is opinion just like many think publishing Bazant et al was a mistake. In fact a paper refuting Bazant's model is claimed to be in the process of publication.

At least we know Jones et al are sincere when they say they are getting published.

Perhaps the next one will be more traditional.

Sizzler

20th April 2008, 05:09 AM

I think you missed one of the reasons that they agreed to publish the paper and why it leads to a problem of credibility.

Do you have information pertaining to the reasons why the article was published?

Please explain if you will.

drkitten

20th April 2008, 05:14 AM

Well that is just a lot of opinion.

Yes. The opinion of a domain expert, based on experience and evidence.

Obviously the editor and reviewers don't agree with you.

Or they screwed up. Remember the "mistake" question you asked?

I'm wondering why my opinion of the quality of the paper (and by extension, the journal) is somehow less valid than that of the other domain experts.

Sizzler

20th April 2008, 05:14 AM

Do you believe that a scientific journal is the place to try to find someone to answer your questions? Isn't that just using this letter (and the journal) as a promotional device?

That is a great question. It has been awhile since I've opened a scientific journal but if I'm not mistaken, at least some journals will publish letters and/or articles that don't follow the strict scientific writing guidelines.

I think their questions deserve attention and I guess another word for gaining attention is promotion. So as long as their sources and information are correct, I see nothing wrong with it. Especially for an issue with such large consequences as this.

At the very least it will "promote" responses from civil engineers.

Sizzler

20th April 2008, 05:18 AM

Yes. The opinion of a domain expert, based on experience and evidence.

Or they screwed up. Remember the "mistake" question you asked?

I'm wondering why my opinion of the quality of the paper (and by extension, the journal) is somehow less valid than that of the other domain experts.

It isn't less valid, it is just that it is your opinion. How about the actual content Jones discusses? I'm more interested in that than writing style and the age of the material.

drkitten

20th April 2008, 05:19 AM

That is a great question. It has been awhile since I've opened a scientific journal but if I'm not mistaken, at least some journals will publish letters and/or articles that don't follow the strict scientific writing guidelines.

... and such letters are generally not peer-reviewed.

You can't have it both ways, Sizzler. If the paper passed the peer-review guidelines (legitimately), then the guidelines that this particular journal enforces are worthless and it's a vanity journal with no effective peer-review. (At the minimum, reviewers should be competent to establish novelty and completeness, neither of which this paper has).

If the paper was not subject to the peer-review guidelines, then it's inappropriate to present it as a peer-reviewed publication.

The most charitable -- and indeed, the simplest -- explanation is editorial error.

drkitten

20th April 2008, 05:23 AM

It isn't less valid, it is just that it is your opinion. How about the actual content Jones discusses? I'm more interested in that than writing style and the age of the material.

As DGM points out, it's already been addressed and refuted in the NIST letter and response. Is it appropriate for a thermodynamics journal to publish a paper that I write in support of already disproven theories about phlogiston?

DGM

20th April 2008, 05:23 AM

That is a great question. It has been awhile since I've opened a scientific journal but if I'm not mistaken, at least some journals will publish letters and/or articles that don't follow the strict scientific writing guidelines.

I think their questions deserve attention and I guess another word for gaining attention is promotion. So as long as their sources and information are correct, I see nothing wrong with it. Especially for an issue with such large consequences as this.

At the very least it will "promote" responses from civil engineers.
Letters are normally used in response to other articles in the same journal. I don't remember ever reading a journal article (or letter) that was looking to expose issues (without conclusions), this is highly irregular.

Why do you think this would be the place for this? Why are they not getting the attention they want(being the operative words) for these issues? All of these issues have been addressed before (and some are still ongoing).

gtc

20th April 2008, 06:03 AM

The "issues" in Jones' paper might be old but they have yet to be resolved, and at least one civil engineering journal believes they are worthy enough to at least be published.

That is the truth now. Accept it so we can move forward and try to find the answers to the "issues" raised.

Can you list the issues that you are talking about? The letter was purportedly about areas in which the authors agreed with the major reports.

At the very least it will "promote" responses from civil engineers.

I doubt it. To respond, an engineer would have to pony up $600. How many people would be willing to do that?

Sizzler

20th April 2008, 06:14 AM

Letters are normally used in response to other articles in the same journal. I don't remember ever reading a journal article (or letter) that was looking to expose issues (without conclusions), this is highly irregular.

Why do you think this would be the place for this? Why are they not getting the attention they want(being the operative words) for these issues? All of these issues have been addressed before (and some are still ongoing).

It is true that some of these issues are still ongoing. WTC7 for example. It is also true that these issues have been addressed before, over and over and over again.

But exactly where have these specific issues been adequately resolved? I don't think any explanation for the questions Jones raises have been sufficiently and conclusively answered.

Lets take the sulfidation/oxidation for example. Reports have proposed possible mechanisms but they have also called for scientific experimentation to confirm or rule out possibilities. These recommendations have not been carried through.

Perhaps the NIST team will read this article and make it a point to adequately validate their forthcoming WTC7 hypothesis. Perhaps this time they will model fire tests more accurately and share their computer models with the public.

drkitten

20th April 2008, 06:23 AM

But exactly where have these specific issues been adequately resolved? I don't think any explanation for the questions Jones raises have been sufficiently and conclusively answered.

Lets take the sulfidation/oxidation for example. Reports have proposed possible mechanisms but they have also called for scientific experimentation to confirm or rule out possibilities. These recommendations have not been carried through.

And you need a journal article to point this out again?

At best, the Jones paper repeats stuff that has already been said -- and is therefore unsuitable for publication.

At worst, the Jones paper repeats stuff that has already been said and refuted.

I can only imagine the news flashes coming out of the Journal of Pathology -- a new "letter" from someone claiming that "Princess Di is still dead!"

DGM

20th April 2008, 06:31 AM

It is true that some of these issues are still ongoing. WTC7 for example. It is also true that these issues have been addressed before, over and over and over again.

But exactly where have these specific issues been adequately resolved? I don't think any explanation for the questions Jones raises have been sufficiently and conclusively answered.

Lets take the sulfidation/oxidation for example. Reports have proposed possible mechanisms but they have also called for scientific experimentation to confirm or rule out possibilities. These recommendations have not been carried through.

Perhaps the NIST team will read this article and make it a point to adequately validate their forthcoming WTC7 hypothesis. Perhaps this time they will model fire tests more accurately and share their computer models with the public.
Your reaching to justify his decision to USE this journal to advance his agenda.

What's stopping Jones from doing this research and finding conclusions for his issues. How are these issues even related to what NIST was tasked to do? They have done the experiments to support their claims and to address these issues, Jones just doesn't like the answers. This is the problem with his letter. He only posses questions with no claims. He's trying to use the journal to find someone to do his work.

Again do you think this journal is the right forum for this? I don't think so that's why I believe what I said as far (him using it) as a promotional tool.

Edmund Standing

20th April 2008, 06:32 AM

Perhaps the NIST team will read this article and make it a point to adequately validate their forthcoming WTC7 hypothesis.

I think you're somewhat over-estimating the importance of this letter that seems to say precisely nothing of significance.

T.A.M.

20th April 2008, 06:54 AM

lol...yes that NIST scientists have the interest or predilection to even acknowledge the article, let alone read it, is quite...over-estimating.

TAM:)

fullflavormenthol

20th April 2008, 07:02 AM

And if you believe you have the answers to the "issues" raised in Jones' paper then by all means submit a response paper to the journal. That is the arena now.

You know I am pretty certain that we could take all the opinion on this thread opposing you. Write it out into a letter with no scientific merit whatsoever. Submit it with a check for $600 and list of suggested reviewers, and next thing we know the truth movement will be screaming that this Open journal is engaging in a hit piece.

When Jones brings some actual science to this arena than there will be a response; but personally I have better things to spend $600+ on than stroking my ego be pretending to be published in "the literature".

gtc

20th April 2008, 07:18 AM

I was wondering how long it would take a truther, conveniently ignoring the $600 cover charge, to mention the fact that no one will reply to the letter as proof that the letter is correct and conv

BenBurch

20th April 2008, 07:20 AM

I'll cover $100 of the $600 if one the working scientists here (I'm a politician now) would care to come up with a response. Who else will chip in?

Sizzler

20th April 2008, 07:37 AM

Your reaching to justify his decision to USE this journal to advance his agenda.

What's stopping Jones from doing this research and finding conclusions for his issues. How are these issues even related to what NIST was tasked to do? They have done the experiments to support their claims and to address these issues, Jones just doesn't like the answers. This is the problem with his letter. He only posses questions with no claims. He's trying to use the journal to find someone to do his work.

Again do you think this journal is the right forum for this? I don't think so that's why I believe what I said as far (him using it) as a promotional tool.

Jones is indeed doing real research in other areas, in particular, dust analysis. For him to succeed in demonstrating the validity of his hypothesis, he will of course need to publish experimental results in a journal some time in the future. The publishing of this article does not suggest to me that he is being lazy and doesn't want to do real research. Learning is a step by step process. We ask questions and then try to find the best answers. Jones has posed his questions to the civil engineering community and at least one journal found enough merit in them to be published as a letter. Although the issues are not new, such recognition is a first. It is a big stepping stone for him and his team. A dialogue has now been established in an engineering journal and his areas of agreement and questions passed the peer review process.

I find it funny that "debunkers" have been calling for the truth movement to undergo the peer review process. Now that they have, and have been published, there suddenly seems to be less value placed on the peer review process and its implications. Suddenly it is very conceivable that the peer review process is flawed and/or can be used to promote certain agendas. Why were such assumptions not acceptable in discussions of Bazant et al?

I agree that his paper doesn't prove anything beyond finding areas of agreement between NIST/FEMA and the truth movement, and noting glaring questions that have been left unresolved.

Obviously this journal found those questions to be worthy of publication.

And I wouldnt be too doubtful that this might have an effect on some of the NIST investigators. If any of them are having problems with the fire induced collapse hypothesis, they might be looking else where for other options. Perhaps this paper might make "other options" more socially and scientifically acceptable.

Lets not forget that they are trying to demonstrate that a 47floor steel framed building can completely and symmetrically collapse at near free fall speed from a single column failure. It is conceivable that such a hypothesis might be difficult to prove.

Sizzler

20th April 2008, 07:41 AM

I was wondering how long it would take a truther, conveniently ignoring the $600 cover charge, to mention the fact that no one will reply to the letter as proof that the letter is correct and conv

600 bucks? Come on now, that is chump change for a lot of people that post on this board.

How much do you think a NASA engineer makes a year? Certainly enough to pay a 600$ fee to publish an article and save America from disinformation.

Like I said before, the arena is now in this peer reviewed journal. Will anyone take the challenge?

DGM

20th April 2008, 07:47 AM

applecorped

20th April 2008, 07:52 AM

16.5

20th April 2008, 08:01 AM

I'll cover $100 of the $600 if one the working scientists here (I'm a politician now) would care to come up with a response. Who else will chip in?

I had the same initial thought yesterday, but on further reflection I realized that a rebuttal would be pointless. The whole letter is intellectually dishonest, violates well established principles of scholarly writing and at the end of the day, does not say anything new that is worth $600 to respond to, let alone rebut.

I mean, do we really need to point out that their very first point ignores the latest NIST update? What would our conclusion be: that the authors are incompetent or dishonest? Well that is obvious, anyway.

i am also befuddled by the authors. I mean, any engineer reading this document is going to first check on the authors. Disgraced former BYU Professor, Disgraced former water boy,
Software maker, lawyer and Tony Szamboti (of whom, I always think of that scene in Animal House: "Daniel Simpson Day has no grade point average. All classes incomplete.") Their expertise is in Twoofiness, not science.

That being said, because I am ornery as hell, I'll kick in $100 if someone feels the need to dismantle these jokers in this Journal.

fullflavormenthol

20th April 2008, 08:06 AM

$600 is not chump change to me and I suspect it is not chump change to many on this board. Regardless, let it be "peer" reviewed. The shredding it will undergo might actually make you and other troothers realize that you have been wasting your time and supporting lies. You can't resolve lies, only expose them.
He is trying to treat a journal as if it is a discussion thread. Besides $600 is a lot of money to me given that I am a college student beginning my final year of school where every project I have to undertake costs money.

Besides if I was going to try anything it would be to expose Bentham as a vanity press, which means I would submit complete pseudo-scientific crap, lie about my credentials, submit a list of fake experts (all really me) and see if the journal publishes my findings.

I am not going to spend $600 for the privilage of seeing the same opinion I give here published in an open access journal.

Sizzler

20th April 2008, 08:12 AM

Sizzler:
Is a scientific journal the place to "open a dialog"? This is the simple question I'm trying to get you to answer. I think you agree it isn't and your trying to justify this feeling. Am I wrong?

I do find this article unique in comparison to most other articles published in scientific journals. Whether it is worthy or not is up to the peer reviewers and the editor. Obviously, they found it worthy enough to publish.

More importantly, and what we haven't really addressed in any detail, is what the paper actually says.

I will be interested to read any real responses from any engineers that aren't openly aligned with either the truth movement or the debunking crowd.

gtc

20th April 2008, 08:16 AM

Sizzler, I suspect $600 is a lot of money in anyone's language (even hypothetical NASA engineers who read vanity journals). However, you apparently do not consider this to be an impediment to publication. Good for you. If you send me $600 I will gladly help author a reply to Jones' letter.

While it is your money that you will be spending, I have to ask you whether you think you are wasting your money. Who do you think will be saved from the 'disinformation' (your words, not mine, I prefer the term incorrect information) in Jones' letter? Few if any, people will read it who are not either truthers or debunkers; debunkers know that its points have been debunked elsewhere and truthers either know but don't care or are not bright enough to realise they are living lives based on lies.

Realistically, your fellow truthers will claim that this publication proves that 9/11 was an inside job irrespective of whether or not debunkers pony up the $600 needed to respond in print.

Personally, I feel that Jones' putting a price tag of $600 on the right of reply is only slightly less underhanded than the way his fellow truthers ban those who dare express a counter-opinion on truther discussion boards.

Foolmewunz

20th April 2008, 08:19 AM

I'll cover $100 of the $600 if one the working scientists here (I'm a politician now) would care to come up with a response. Who else will chip in?

If one of the degreed experts here was to take up this offer, I'd be disappointed. I think the curiosity is whether or not the publisher will do anything honorable, not whether we can get up the ante to refute them with more thirty-pieces-of-silver articles.

Major Premise: The publication of Jones' letter is wrong for the reasons mentioned (which seem to be beyond a certain troofer's grasp, but everyone else is cottoning to.

Minor Premise: Scientists don't refute advertising or propaganda by coming up with the funds to pay the same dubious journal to publish their refutation. If we don't trust them and assume the professional and scientific community won't trust them, why on earth would we follow the same route?

Conclusion: One Vote Against

applecorped

20th April 2008, 08:20 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair

Publishing so called scientific papers for a fee can be detrimental to the publisher's reputation.

gtc

20th April 2008, 08:22 AM

I will be interested to read any real responses from any engineers that aren't openly aligned with either the truth movement or the debunking crowd.

Why do you think that anyone who wasn't aligned with either movement would care enough to pony up $600 to respond?

Why would you value the opinion of someone who is unaligned with either the truth movement or the debunkers over the opinion of someone who already knows that the truth movement is full of it? Or, if you prefer, why would you value the opinion of someone who hasn't already woken up to the truth that the US government conspired to kill 3000 of its own citizens over the opinion of someone who is already open to the 'truth'?

applecorped

20th April 2008, 08:24 AM

From the Skokal article at Wiki:

"'...They further note that scientific peer review does not necessarily detect fraud either, in light of the later Schön scandal, Bogdanov Affair, and other instances of poor science achieving publication."

gtc

20th April 2008, 08:29 AM

I'm with foolmewunz. Jones was desperate enough to get his crazy ideas in print that he was prepared to pay $600 for the privilege. It seems they are now trying to get us to waste our money responding to his vanity article. At this point they win if we pay up or win if we fail to respond on their terms by using our lack of response in their propoganda. However, even if we did respond they would still use the vanity article in their propoganda.

Better to try to approach the publication about retracting their mistake and if anyone feels they have a spare dollar or two then I am sure there are some good charities helping the victims of 9/11 and the firefighters, police etc who responded.

DGM

20th April 2008, 08:31 AM

I do find this article unique in comparison to most other articles published in scientific journals. Whether it is worthy or not is up to the peer reviewers and the editor. Obviously, they found it worthy enough to publish.

More importantly, and what we haven't really addressed in any detail, is what the paper actually says.

I will be interested to read any real responses from any engineers that aren't openly aligned with either the truth movement or the debunking crowd.

Did you take dance in school? :boggled:

Everything in that letter has be discussed at great length (you said so yourself). Jones would gain more respect from the scientific community if he could show WHY these thing should be considered as issues. "Thermite" at the WTC? Why does he think we should look for it? Without a credible motive he's doing nothing more than looking for gun shots at a knife fight. Jones is starting with his conclusion and trying to find evidence to support it. Do you think that might have something to do with why no one pays attention to him?