Is the NIST report flawless?

[runlikell]

Is it a perfect report, or does it have flaws, whether minor or major?

If so, what are they?

Thanks, Andy

[T.A.M.]

No, it is not perfect.

end of thread.

TAM:)

[TruthersLie]

Is it a perfect report, or does it have flaws, whether minor or major?

If so, what are they?

Thanks, Andy

troll
troll
troll
troll

twoof strawman. No it is not pefect. But they (because there are more than 1 NIST report) are VERY good.

Now since you are the one making the claims (you know powdered concrete, fbi says no calls, hani unable to make the turn, etc...)

Please provide any citations which REFUTE the NIST findings from any peer reviewed engineering journal IN THE WORLD.

I'll wait.

[Sam.I.Am]

I'll wait.

Do you have a good set of books to read? I've heard that the Harry Potter series takes a week or so to go through and that the Hardy Boys takes even longer. It'll help you follow the Truthers logic.

[T.A.M.]

yes, and Jones et al Bentham Scam Journal does not count, nor does the "journal of 9/11 lies".

TAM:)

[runlikell]

No, it is not perfect.

end of thread.

TAM:)

Why are you trying to end a thread when half of my questions have now been answered?

Why such haste? Are you nervous about where this thread may go?

Why are you yourself avoing answering my second question, if you know that there are flaws, then what are they?

[funk de fino]

Why dont you tell us?

[Arus808]

1) you were answered

the rest of your questions can be answered on your own, if you bothered to do your own reasearch (all of which would take a quick search on google)

ARE you going to pay us for the time for us to do your work? If so, I normally do contract work at $75K per annum.

[runlikell]

troll
troll
troll
troll

twoof strawman. No it is not pefect. But they (because there are more than 1 NIST report) are VERY good.

Now since you are the one making the claims (you know powdered concrete, fbi says no calls, hani unable to make the turn, etc...)

Please provide any citations which REFUTE the NIST findings from any peer reviewed engineering journal IN THE WORLD.

I'll wait.

What's with the name calling? You have resorted to very low tactics, my fellow citizen. Why not be the better man and treat others who are inferior with decency? Did you pick on kids that were smaller than you in HS?

I haven't made any claims in this thread. Please, Answer my second question, or just admit that you don't know. It's OK is you don't know. There's nothing wrong with not knowing.

[runlikell]

yes, and Jones et al Bentham Scam Journal does not count, nor does the "journal of 9/11 lies".

TAM:)

Why does the Betham journal "not count"?

[Arus808]

use the search function; bentham is a sham journal and was exposed when college students submitted a paper written by a freaking computer and it was accepted.

the journal has been covered under this forum already. would YOU at least make an effort here.

[runlikell]

1) you were answered

the rest of your questions can be answered on your own, if you bothered to do your own reasearch (all of which would take a quick search on google)

ARE you going to pay us for the time for us to do your work? If so, I normally do contract work at $75K per annum.

I'm just asking questions. If you don't want to answer them, then don't! If it bothers you so much that I am asking questions that have aleady been answered, then why not just quit reading this thread?

[UNLoVedRebel]

What's with the name calling? You have resorted to very low tactics, my fellow citizen. Why not be the better man and treat others who are inferior with decency? Did you pick on kids that were smaller than you in HS?

I haven't made any claims in this thread. Please, Answer my second question, or just admit that you don't know. It's OK is you don't know. There's nothing wrong with not knowing.

You're from the U.A.E. eh? I've heard they got some good submission wresting schools there. Maybe you should join one of those because trutherism is NOT something you want to spend your time on.

[dtugg]

Why does the Betham journal "not count"?

Because they will publish any old garbage as long as the author pays the $800. For example, they accepted a nonsensical "paper" generated by computer for publication. They also published Jones, et al's complete gargabe thermite paper. The lead editor quit, saying she wasn't even aware of it before publication.

[T.A.M.]

Why are you trying to end a thread when half of my questions have now been answered?

Why such haste? Are you nervous about where this thread may go?

Why are you yourself avoing answering my second question, if you know that there are flaws, then what are they?

No, I am answering the question in the OP.

I am nervous about NOTHING you can possibly bring to this conversation, as I have seen ALL of it before, numerous times, on this forum.

The flaws with the NIST report? Well I am hardly a science expert, so as to the exacts of their findings, I will leave that to the material scientists, engineers, and physicists that we have on this forum. They have been pointed out in various threads within the subforum. I was making a broader comment, in that no report is perfect, not NIST, not FEMA, not the 9/11 commission report.

You have any particular areas of it that you feel are flawed.

I personally have only read the executive summaries for all of the chapters of the report.

How much of it (if any) have you read?

TAM:)

[alienentity]

Is it a perfect report, or does it have flaws, whether minor or major?

If so, what are they?

Thanks, Andy

I think it's slightly less flawed than Alex Jones' analysis. You might want to do a point-for-point comparison and let me know if you agree. Failing that you could look into Dr. Judy Wood's website. I think she blows NIST away.:D

[Arus808]

I'm just asking questions. If you don't want to answer them, then don't! If it bothers you so much that I am asking questions that have aleady been answered, then why not just quit reading this thread?


care to make me? i dont see anywhere where you are the owner of this forum.

We are just showing to people how dishonest you are; and how lazy you are.

[T.A.M.]

Why does the Betham journal "not count"?

use the search function...or look up "JREF" and "Bentham Open Access" in google.

We could go at this for weeks, covering issues that have been done to death here.

Here let me help you out...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=141353
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4874722

in a nutshell, they are a vanity sham/scam journal, where you can get anything published if you pay the fee. Recently a couple of people actually submitted a "paper" which was simply random words and junk, and guess what? Bentham published it.

Go read!!!!

TAM:)

[Sam.I.Am]

Why are you trying to end a thread when half of my questions have now been answered?

Why such haste? Are you nervous about where this thread may go?

Why are you yourself avoing answering my second question, if you know that there are flaws, then what are they?

There are several flaws that involve minutia and not the "Big Picture". I'd like to know how a janitor in the lowest basement level of a 110 story building knew that "Bombs" went off before the planes hit (while not seeing anything above ground level, he was in a basement after all) and yet the last part of the building to fall was the core that was literally rock solid in Manhattans granite.

Step one of basic logic is how he knew that the planes hit while he was in the basement of the building being hit and that he discerned that as opposed to

[UNLoVedRebel]

Is it a perfect report, or does it have flaws, whether minor or major?

If so, what are they?

Thanks, Andy

It has flaws. NIST uses data as a singular noun when actually it is a plural noun. The singular of data is datum.

Incorrect: The data from the poll proves truthers are morons.

Correct: The data from the poll prove truthers are morons.

[TruthersLie]

What's with the name calling? You have resorted to very low tactics, my fellow citizen. Why not be the better man and treat others who are inferior with decency? Did you pick on kids that were smaller than you in HS?


because if you were really getting an MA you would be able to do even 5 minutes of REAL research. You know, looking things up in google. (as a minimum).

There are several valid complaints against NIST, but NONE of them refute or destroy any of their conclusions.

Try again.


I haven't made any claims in this thread. Please, Answer my second question, or just admit that you don't know. It's OK is you don't know. There's nothing wrong with not knowing.

Twoof, you can do 5 minutes of real research on your own.

getting an MA my ass.

[TruthersLie]

Why does the Betham journal "not count"?

why don't you do 5 minutes of research on why Bentham Open access journals are not peer reviewed.

Use the search function.

do you need to be spoon fed EVERYTHING?

[Architect]

I'm not convinced that Googling qualifies as "real" research, but it's still better than Run seems to be doing.

[TruthersLie]

You're from the U.A.E. eh? I've heard they got some good submission wresting schools there. Maybe you should join one of those because trutherism is NOT something you want to spend your time on.

Unloved.

I am a US citizen who is working and living in the UAE. So I still am a US citizen.

[TruthersLie]

Because they will publish any old garbage as long as the author pays the $800. For example, they accepted a nonsensical "paper" generated by computer for publication. They also published Jones, et al's complete gargabe thermite paper. The lead editor quit, saying she wasn't even aware of it before publication.

dtugg- don't forget that she called it a "sham journal" and the paper "doesn't belong in this journal."

I mean that is great peer review, right? Isn't their peer review process just "did the check clear?"

[Architect]

I am a US citizen who is working and living in the UAE. So I still am a US citizen.


Well, we can't all be perfect.

:p

[UNLoVedRebel]

Unloved.

I am a US citizen who is working and living in the UAE. So I still am a US citizen.

Thanks for clearing that up. I think runlikell is a UAE citizen. Why bother with trutherism when you live near a 2700' skyscraper?

[TruthersLie]

I'm not convinced that Googling qualifies as "real" research, but it's still better than Run seems to be doing.

Architect. I fully agree with you about it, but even this twoof seems unable to do even the most basic google search.

Since I teach research methods I could outline all of the materials, locations and things he needs to do and do, but hey he is supposed to be getting a MA. I shouldn't have to teach basic research methods to an MA student in neurosciences....

[TruthersLie]

Thanks for clearing that up. I think runlikell is a UAE citizen. Why bother with trutherism when you live near a 2700' skyscraper?

Unloved

There is no way he is an Emirati citizen. They ALL know that UBL did it and has confessed to doing it. They know of the 19 hijackers and specifically know of the 2 of the hijackers came from the UAE. Ras Al Khaimah (the emirate that I live in.) I have met their families and they are really nice folks, except for 2 of the younger brothers I have met who are schmucks... but I can't blame them. I was their teacher and an American. so they took the "my brother is my hero" attitude.

Understandable, and NO I didn't get into it with them... good way to lose my job. :)

[Hokulele]

To the OP, here you go. A public poll of the JREF forum indicating who has read it and who thinks it is flawless. When I use the term "public poll", it means you can see which posters chose which options by clicking on the underlined numbers.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79616

[UNLoVedRebel]

Unloved

There is no way he is an Emirati citizen. They ALL know that UBL did it and has confessed to doing it. They know of the 19 hijackers and specifically know of the 2 of the hijackers came from the UAE. Ras Al Khaimah (the emirate that I live in.) I have met their families and they are really nice folks, except for 2 of the younger brothers I have met who are schmucks... but I can't blame them. I was their teacher and an American. so they took the "my brother is my hero" attitude.

Understandable, and NO I didn't get into it with them... good way to lose my job. :)

Are you a professor at an extension campus of an American University? Northwestern has an extension there, I think. Maybe the University of Texas, too. IIRC.

[GlennB]

Well, runlikell, I have well over 100MB of various NIST WTC reports on my hard drive, amounting to thousands of pages of often highly technical analysis.

Bottom line - your question is absurd.

Try refining it somewhat.

[Hokulele]

Well, runlikell, I have well over 100MB of various NIST WTC reports on my hard drive, amounting to thousands of pages of often highly technical analysis.

Bottom line - your question is absurd.

Try refining it somewhat.


Says the man who voted "butt wipings"...


:D

[TruthersLie]

Are you a professor at an extension campus of an American University? Northwestern has an extension there, I think. Maybe the University of Texas, too. IIRC.

No I work and live in Ras Al Khaimah. Our emirate is rather small, and we have NO US extension campus here. I work for a local college (which I would rather not name, I had a truther on youtube find my myspace page and others, then post the name of a supervisor for a different college which I DO NOT WORK FOR and ask people to email him telling him that I was dishonest and a shill. We are a small city, most expats know each other, and I don't want to have anyone getting hate email by deranged individuals.)

Most of the extension schools are in Dubai and Abu Dhabi. There are a boat load in Dubai. Michigan State is the one that stands out. We used to have George Mason extension, but they pulled up last year. WE have an extension of an indian university, and Bolton from the UK.

[GlennB]

Says the man who voted "butt wipings"...
:D

wtf !!!!!!!!! I did too. What was I on? Better get some hard-copy going, or I'll look like a hypocrite :o ewwww, all that hard paper ......

eta: That option is the only one in italics. You hacked it didn't you?

[Hokulele]

It will cost you 1,243,999,000 Ameros for me to change it back.

[timhau]

I'm just asking questions.

Now where have I heard that before?

[JoeyDonuts]

Most of the extension schools are in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

[sea story derail]

I had the good fortune to visit Dubai when my ship pulled into Jebel Ali. The place literally blew me away - the City Centre, the fantastic architecture as far as the eye can see, and the world's largest Harley-Davidson dealership. To this day, my experiences in the Emirate, Bahrain, and Oman are my go-to rebuttals for some of the narrow minded Rush Limbaugh clones I'm acquainted with who like to say that stable government is impossible in the Middle East.

[/derail]

No, the NIST report isn't perfect. Neither is the Warren Commission report, the AAR on the Challenger disaster or any other investigation in human history. It does, however, represent the best scenario of what happened based on tireless research efforts, physical evidence, and intelligence. It's exhaustive and conclusive. Even if tiny little fragments here and there might not be as clear as we'd all like them to be, we're talking about data that would be quite inaccessible to the layman. And then we have to look at how many professional engineers and scientists have come out questioning the NIST report in its entirety. Now look at how many of those people have an axe to grind or a story to sell.

See how this works?

[TruthersLie]

I haven't made any claims in this thread. Please, Answer my second question, or just admit that you don't know. It's OK is you don't know. There's nothing wrong with not knowing.

No you are "just asking questions." Instead of doing even BASIC research into the claims you then spew, you come on here like a headstrong, gungho, sure of yourself, and damn the facts idiot.

There are aboud a dozen things that I have problems with in the NIST report, but many of them are because I don't have the full structural engineering necessary to fully understand huge parts of their reports, and the others are due to their wording of certain events (wtc 1 and 2 fell at virtual freefall, or the other wording issues)

But again twoof, if NIST is full of crap (which is what you are implying) I'd love to see ANY engineering journal ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD which has published a REFUTATION of NIST.

If they are full of crap like you twoofs like to imply, then you should find dozens of (if not HUNDREDS) peer reviewed engineering journals.
I'll take it in korean, japanese, chinese, russian, arabic or english. Feel free to provide JUST ONE.

But I expect that you will do the normal twoof dodge. "there aren't any because the engineers are afraid to lose their jobs" or the ever popular "they get a paycheck from the US government."

Neither of which account for the lack of those journal articles from countries who HATE the US, in places like Iran, Venezuela, North Koera (and to a lesser extent Russia and China). With hundreds of thousands of structural engineers around the world, you should have dozens of (if not HUNDREDS) engineering journal articles to choose from which refute NIST.

[TruthersLie]

[sea story derail]

I had the good fortune to visit Dubai when my ship pulled into Jebel Ali. The place literally blew me away - the City Centre, the fantastic architecture as far as the eye can see, and the world's largest Harley-Davidson dealership. To this day, my experiences in the Emirate, Bahrain, and Oman are my go-to rebuttals for some of the narrow minded Rush Limbaugh clones I'm acquainted with who like to say that stable government is impossible in the Middle East.

[/derail]



Hi JoeyDonuts. I concur. There are many good stable governments in this part of the world. Turkey, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Bahrain all have good stable governments with high standards of living, decent education for the citizens including women and are outstanding examples of Muslim traditions.

The real downside is that (speaking VERY GENERALLY HERE) Islam is broken into 2 real spheres... the City Islam, and the Desert Islam. The city Islam is best exemplified by Turkey, Egypt,Jordan and Dubai. It is much more relaxed, much more forgiving and more encompassing.

The desert islam is what comes out of Saudi and is in the other areas... very fundamental, very restrictive, very limiting. You can see it in the most extreme areas. And Abu Dhabi (the capital of the UAE) is like this.

When Dubai was going broke about 6 months ago, Abu Dhabi lent them literally BILLIONS, but with the condition that Dubai become more conservative. so there have been crackdowns on certain things. It is still extremely open, but less than it was last year and will continue to get so in the future.

One of the reasons we moved here was so the kids could experience the muslim culture (what little is available here) and to see muslims in everyday life so they would have points of reference that weren't just terrorists in black turbins on TV who blow up buses.

[/derail]

[MRC_Hans]

What's with the name calling? You have resorted to very low tactics, my fellow citizen. Why not be the better man and treat others who are inferior with decency? Did you pick on kids that were smaller than you in HS?

Why do you consider yourself smaller than the other posters here?

I haven't made any claims in this thread. Please, Answer my second question, or just admit that you don't know. It's OK is you don't know. There's nothing wrong with not knowing.

Right. I don't know. Now, enlighten me.

Hans

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Is it a perfect report, or does it have flaws, whether minor or major?

If so, what are they?

Thanks, Andy

No, it's not perfect.

Here's a good place to start reading about why and what flaws or errors there are and how they can be corrected.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/somecritiquesofnist%27swtcinvestigationbyk

Here's an example from Gravy's site:


Arup Study Sees WTC Collapse Likely Even Without Loss of Fireproofing (Consulting-Specifying Engineer, 10/5/2005)

Dr. Barbara Lane, an expert in structural fire design solutions with London-based global consulting and engineering firm Arup, has presented the firm's findings that the collapse of the WorldTradeCenter towers due to fire could have occurred even without the loss of structural fireproofing caused by aircraft impact.

Dr. Lane presented the results of Arup's detailed structural fire collapse study at a two-day National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) technical conference on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center (WTC) Disaster. She spoke at the public comment period of the session on Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis on Sept.15.

This is a prime example of NIST criticism that doesn't involve flatulent fantasies about ninajs and MIBs working for the Sith Lords.

[MG1962]

No, it's not perfect.

Here's a good place to start reading about why and what flaws or errors there are and how they can be corrected.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/somecritiquesofnist%27swtcinvestigationbyk

Here's an example from Gravy's site:............



An excellent example - and I am sure the NIST and others have looked at and considered this on an intellectual basis. The fireproofing of the towers was problomatic because the building code for fire prooding changed mid construction and the product applied was actually twice as thick as required by code.

So taking both point of views we arrive at two conclussions

1/ No amount of fireproofing was going to save the building. It was always doomed to come down

2/ Thank God the fireproofing was there and over applied. It helped buy time before the inevitable collapse occured.

I must confess I have always felt a little sorry for the NIST - In many areas of our lives we are impacted by decisions and studies they have done. Measuring the amount of fuel a pump puts into your tank, or the weight of cold cuts at the deli, all the way to multi-system failures in construnction methods

They have been doing this, and very well for nearly a 100 years. Suddenly they are propelled into the relm of some quasi government inept bunch of fools who said what they were told to say.

Most of the studies they produce rely heavily on outside consulting, using people considered to be leaders in their specific fields. These same people have reputations to protect. They would be the last to throw away a lifetime career producing a bunch of lies to support a government, who's members would not be around to answer difficult questions in years to come

[johnny karate]

I have to wonder what intellectually honest motives someone could possibly have for asking about the flaws of a 10,000 page, highly-technical engineering report they haven't read, and probably wouldn't understand if they did.

[TruthersLie]

the same intellectual honesty that makes him claim he is getting a masters in cognative neuroscience, and only watches documentaries... (too bad they are all twoof ones).

[psikeyhackr]

No, it is not perfect.

end of thread.

TAM:)
.
He asked what they are?

Let's start off with the fact that we are talking about skyscrapers. That actually says something about these buildings that a lot of people don't seem to think about. The towers were 110 stories tall therefore the 100th level had to have enough steel to support 10 levels. The 90th level had to have enough steel to support 20 levels. The 80th level had to have enough steel to support 30 levels. So the designers had to figure out how much steel to put on every level for the building to support its own weight throughout its height. Of course a lot of the weight was concrete.

The NCSTAR1 report does not even specify the total for the concrete in the towers. It says in 3 places that there were roughly 200,000 tons of steel but does not specify the distribution of the steel through the height of the building. So how much steel was in the fires that could supposedly weaken in less than 2 hours?

psik

[Dave Rogers]

Congratulations, psikeyhackr, on your first ever on-topic post.

Dave

[psikeyhackr]

I have to wonder what intellectually honest motives someone could possibly have for asking about the flaws of a 10,000 page, highly-technical engineering report they haven't read, and probably wouldn't understand if they did.
.
Yeah, everyone is supposed to admit to themselve that they are STUPID and need AUTHORITY to tell them what to think and not ask questions.

They are supposed to be like Sgt Schultz in Hogan's Heroes, I know nothing, NOTHING"

But what happens in the real world is that morons hide information and make things more complicated than necessary so they can pretend to be intelligent and then try to browbeat people into putting up with their crap.

Like Dr. Sunder Dunderhead saying the buildings were 90% air by volume. :D :D :D

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

psik

[beachnut]

psikeyhackr,
Bet you can't stop posting your mass distribution problem which any lay person could explain, and have explained to you as you SPAM your concrete steel distribution again in the post above. I have seen your whining all over the Internet as you continue to waste time whining about it and failing to tie it to a rational conclusion.
...

But what happens in the real world is that morons hide information and make things more complicated than necessary so they can pretend to be intelligent and then try to browbeat people into putting up with their crap.

Like Dr. Sunder Dunderhead saying the buildings were 90% air by volume. :D :D :D

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

psik Yes you must learn engineering if you want to understand engineering concepts and that is possible by research which many lay people are able to do and comprehend the complicated stuff you can't figure out.

The buildings are 95 percent air; you can't rent space taken up by concrete and steel. Fact one when making rented office space you have to have open space. I guess calling people names is your way of spewing your delusions.

Prove the buildings are not mostly air and your moronic post can be saved.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

.
He asked what they are?

Let's start off with the fact that we are talking about skyscrapers. That actually says something about these buildings that a lot of people don't seem to think about. The towers were 110 stories tall therefore the 100th level had to have enough steel to support 10 levels. The 90th level had to have enough steel to support 20 levels. The 80th level had to have enough steel to support 30 levels. So the designers had to figure out how much steel to put on every level for the building to support its own weight throughout its height.

Do you understand the difference between STATIC and DYNAMIC loads?

Take a brick. Place it on your bare foot. let it sit there for a while. This is a STATIC load.

Take this same brick, have a friend with a ladder drop it on your foot from a height of 10 0r 12 feet. Same brick, same weight. Except instead of a pristine foot, you now have a couple crushed toes and will likely need surgery to repair them if not outright amputation. This, by the way, is a DYNAMIC load.

Do you understand the difference now?


The NCSTAR1 report does not even specify the total for the concrete in the towers. It says in 3 places that there were roughly 200,000 tons of steel but does not specify the distribution of the steel through the height of the building. So how much steel was in the fires that could supposedly weaken in less than 2 hours?

psik

Steel will lose more than 60% of it's structural strength at 1100 degrees. A common house fire will reach 1100 degrees in 3.5 minutes. (http://redcross-cmd.org/Chapter/fireFactsMD.html)

The collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC7 aren't suprising or unusual (given the circumstances) to people who aren't psik in the head.

[twinstead]

So, is psikeyhackr still deciding what things the NIST should have specified, contrary to the vast majority of REAL experts, and then claiming foul because they didn't? How quaint.

[alexi_drago]

.
Like Dr. Sunder Dunderhead saying the buildings were 90% air by volume. :D :D :D

What percentage would you put it at?

[SteveAustin]

use the search function...or look up "JREF" and "Bentham Open Access" in google.

We could go at this for weeks, covering issues that have been done to death here.

Here let me help you out...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=141353
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4874722

in a nutshell, they are a vanity sham/scam journal, where you can get anything published if you pay the fee. Recently a couple of people actually submitted a "paper" which was simply random words and junk, and guess what? Bentham published it.

Go read!!!!

TAM:)

You are being dishonest here again TAM (and every other JREF'er that keeps stating that bentham published it)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html

"Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, responded to queries from New Scientist by email: "In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not." "

It was never published, they caught it and tried to find the culprit but that's enough for JREF to make the accusation.

[dtugg]

Yeah, that's their pathetic excuse.

[psikeyhackr]

Do you understand the difference between STATIC and DYNAMIC loads?
.
I explained static and dynamic loads in my video. Some people need to pretend trivia is SO COMPLICATED.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

The columns in the WTC mass falling from the top had to deal with that dynamic load also. Therefore the top falling portion would be crushing itself on impact. So how did the top 14 stories of the north tower crush 95 that had to get stronger all of the way down. That is what the NCSRAT1 does not explain.

They just hand us that "global collapse was inevitable" garbage.

They don't explain what they were supposed to explain.

psik

[Hokulele]

.
I explained static and dynamic loads in my video. Some people need to pretend trivia is SO COMPLICATED.


Why do this as a video rather than as a peer-reviewed paper?

Oh, right . . .

[johnny karate]

You are being dishonest here again TAM (and every other JREF'er that keeps stating that bentham published it)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html

"Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, responded to queries from New Scientist by email: "In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not." "

It was never published, they caught it and tried to find the culprit but that's enough for JREF to make the accusation.

Steve, do you believe the submission of this hoax paper was part of a false flag operation to discredit Bentham?

[Hokulele]

You are being dishonest here again TAM (and every other JREF'er that keeps stating that bentham published it)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html

"Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, responded to queries from New Scientist by email: "In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not." "

It was never published, they caught it and tried to find the culprit but that's enough for JREF to make the accusation.


Then why did they simply reject a similarly spoofed paper at one of their other journals? Is it only the Information Science tricksters that concern them?

I would suggest that the only reason this paper wasn't actually published is the fact that the authors of the hoax didn't think it worth $800.

[TruthersLie]

You are being dishonest here again TAM (and every other JREF'er that keeps stating that bentham published it)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html

"Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, responded to queries from New Scientist by email: "In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not." "

It was never published, they caught it and tried to find the culprit but that's enough for JREF to make the accusation.

Yes they never published it.

NOT because they knew it was a hoax, but because the person who submitted it didn't want to shell out the $800 for their "peer review" (read did the check clear).

I mean if it was completely known it was a hoax, why did the editor of that particular journal end up quitting? I mean if it was just an attempt to out a hoax, the editor wouldn't have quit over it.

Kind of like that other Bentham editor... you know the one, "this is a sham journal" or "this paper doesn't belong in this journal" over the craptacular nanothermite paper...

try again.

[alienentity]

You are being dishonest here again TAM (and every other JREF'er that keeps stating that bentham published it)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html

"Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, responded to queries from New Scientist by email: "In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not." "

It was never published, they caught it and tried to find the culprit but that's enough for JREF to make the accusation.


Oh, bulltweety. From one of the authors, Philip Davis:


'This is to inform you that your submitted article has been accepted for publication after peer-reviewing process in TOISCIJ. I would be highly grateful to you if you please fill and sign the attached fee form and covering letter and send them back via email as soon as possible to avoid further delay in publication.

The letter was written by a Ms. Sana Mokarram, the Assistant Manager of Publication. She included a fee schedule and confirmation that I would pay US$800, to be sent to a post office box in the SAIF Zone, a tax-free complex in the United Arab Emirates. The manuscript was subsequently retracted :

Dear Ms. Mokarram,
I’m afraid that we have to retract this article. We have discovered several errors in the manuscript which question both the validity of the study and the results.

I have yet to receive a response....

From this one case, we cannot conclude that Bentham Science journals practice no peer review, only that it is inconsistently applied. Earlier this year, I reported on a case in which a nonsensical article submitted to another Bentham Science journal was rejected after going through peer review.'

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/06/hoax-exposes-incompetence-or-worse-at.html

Bentham's should have simply rejected the paper outright, without accepting any fees. Why would they fraudulently accept payment for something they did not intend to publish? Are you saying they also are that unscrupulous?

The correct, professional course of action was to reject the paper. They did not do that.

The question posed by the authors of the paper was 'Would a publisher accept a completely nonsensical manuscript if the authors were willing to pay Open Access publication charges? ' The answer is, [B]without any doubt - YES.

Bentham's is a victim of it's own greed. Simple as that.

[lapman]

Rational adults know that there will be mistakes in any investigation results. Only twoofers require that NIST and the 9/11 Commission reports be 100% dead-on accurate from the first letter to the last period. Any mistake automagically disqualifies the entire report. And anything they think should have been included that wasn't also completely disqualifies the report even if their requirement is completely outside the scope of the investigation.

[phunk]

.
I explained static and dynamic loads in my video. Some people need to pretend trivia is SO COMPLICATED.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

The columns in the WTC mass falling from the top had to deal with that dynamic load also. Therefore the top falling portion would be crushing itself on impact. So how did the top 14 stories of the north tower crush 95 that had to get stronger all of the way down. That is what the NCSRAT1 does not explain.

They just hand us that "global collapse was inevitable" garbage.

They don't explain what they were supposed to explain.

psik

The columns didn't have to deal with the load during the collapse. The truss seats had to deal with the weight of the load falling on the floors. They couldn't, and the building essentially 'unzipped' as the floors were destroyed leaving the core and perimeter columns unbraced. Very few columns were 'crushed'.

[psikeyhackr]

The columns didn't have to deal with the load during the collapse. The truss seats had to deal with the weight of the load falling on the floors. They couldn't, and the building essentially 'unzipped' as the floors were destroyed leaving the core and perimeter columns unbraced. Very few columns were 'crushed'.
.
So you are trying to tell us that the core of the falling top portion of the north tower didn't come down on the core of the lower stationary portion of the north tower? How could that happen?

psik

[Sam.I.Am]

.
So you are trying to tell us that the core of the falling top portion of the north tower didn't come down on the core of the lower stationary portion of the north tower? How could that happen?

psik

Not entirely. Part of the lower section of both of the cores remained standing for a few seconds.

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/3613/corelowsbk5.jpg

[tfk]

Why are you yourself avoing answering my second question, if you know that there are flaws, then what are they?
.
Because, as sad as it is to say, and sadder to realize to be true, a WHOLE PASSEL of you guys have proven yourselves incapable of accurately & truthfully passing on the information that we might provide you.

As a result of that, you have also taken yourselves out of the group that "deserves" to be told the facts. Because you do not treat the facts, or the truth, with the respect that it deserves.

Think of yourselves as "the obnoxious, rambunctious little brats that can not be allowed to play with the shiny toy. Because, the last 100 times they did, they broke it."

If you'd like any clarification, just ask.

Tom

[psikeyhackr]

Not entirely. Part of the lower section of both of the cores remained standing for a few seconds.
.
What does that have to do with the upper core coming down on the lower core in the first second of collapse?

He was talking about the trusses and ignoring the core on core impact.

psik

[Grizzly Bear]

.
What does that have to do with the upper core coming down on the lower core in the first second of collapse?

He was talking about the trusses and ignoring the core on core impact.

psik
There was no "core on core" impact. Once they buckled in the impact regions the upper and lower sections were by definition out of alignment. Columns need to be plumb and in-line with the columns above and below in order to support the weight of the building. Once the load is applied eccentrically they do not have the same load bearing capacity as before and the same loads they carried normally overwhelmed them when the application of it changed.

[FineWine]

.
Yeah, everyone is supposed to admit to themselve that they are STUPID and need AUTHORITY to tell them what to think and not ask questions.

They are supposed to be like Sgt Schultz in Hogan's Heroes, I know nothing, NOTHING"

But what happens in the real world is that morons hide information and make things more complicated than necessary so they can pretend to be intelligent and then try to browbeat people into putting up with their crap.

Like Dr. Sunder Dunderhead saying the buildings were 90% air by volume. :D :D :D

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

psik


But Sunder is a real engineer. He is much smarter than you and knows vastly more than you do. His assertion was, of course, correct. Why do you feel compelled to belittle your intellectual superiors?

[FineWine]

.
I explained static and dynamic loads in my video. Some people need to pretend trivia is SO COMPLICATED.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

The columns in the WTC mass falling from the top had to deal with that dynamic load also. Therefore the top falling portion would be crushing itself on impact. So how did the top 14 stories of the north tower crush 95 that had to get stronger all of the way down. That is what the NCSRAT1 does not explain.

They just hand us that "global collapse was inevitable" garbage.

They don't explain what they were supposed to explain.

psik



When you called Mike Newman of NIST to announce that you had overturned the conclusions of a thousand real engineers, physicists, fire safety experts, and architects, what he did he say? Oh, you still haven't bothered to call him? When you asked the simulation teams at Berkeley and Purdue how they obtained information that still eludes you, after being told where to find it countless times, did they take pity on you? Oh, you haven't bothered to contact them either?


So, how exactly did you learn the stuff that real engineers don't know? I realize I ask this question over and over, but eventually you will figure out how ridiculous it makes you appear.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm just asking questions.


/facepalm

[psikeyhackr]

When you called Mike Newman of NIST to announce that you had overturned the conclusions of a thousand real engineers, physicists, fire safety experts, and architects, what he did he say?
.
When did Mike explain how it is the NIST can tell us that the original design called for 14 types of exterior wall panels and yet they can't tell us the number and weights of the 12 that were actually used? Why was it so important to tell us about the 14?

And of course they just had to tell us that one plane had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9. That was REALLY IMPORTANT!

Why do you have such a need to fawn over AUTHORITY and yet can't think of obvious questions yourself? And then expect other people to be like you.

psik

[twinstead]

So what did they say when you asked them, psik? I'm sure all those experts would like to be made aware that their work is so obviously bogus, and the world's experts...oh, sorry, I mean a few ignorant ideologues on some obscure internet forums...have some major issues with their ultimate conclusion that the impact and resulting fires are what brought the building down.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

There was no "core on core" impact. Once they buckled in the impact regions the upper and lower sections were by definition out of alignment. Columns need to be plumb and in-line with the columns above and below in order to support the weight of the building. Once the load is applied eccentrically they do not have the same load bearing capacity as before and the same loads they carried normally overwhelmed them when the application of it changed.


Also, a "core-on-core" impact is absolutely out of the question for WTC 2: http://www.waarheid911.nl/wtc2collapse.jpg

[psikeyhackr]

So what did they say when you asked them, psik? I'm sure all those experts would like to be made aware that their work is so obviously bogus, and the world's experts...oh, sorry, I mean a few ignorant ideologues on some obscure internet forums...have some major issues with their ultimate conclusion that the impact and resulting fires are what brought the building down.
.
Have you found the total of the concrete in the NCSTAR1 report yet?

Do you think that information should be there? They gave a total for the steel.

Aren't you impressed by those EXPERTS?

psik

[twinstead]

.
Have you found the total of the concrete in the NCSTAR1 report yet?

Do you think that information should be there? They gave a total for the steel.

Aren't you impressed by those EXPERTS?

psik


I don't expect to find the total of the concrete in the NCSTAR1 report yet because it's not important!!. It's irrelevant to all but YOU. So NO, I certainly DO NOT think the information should be there, nor do the folks on this forum who have shown me they know what the hell they are talking about.

I'm impressed by REAL experts. I'm not impressed by people like you who think they are smarter than they, and while away your days debating 'debunkers' and going for the "pwnage" on an obscure internet forum instead of actually doing something, actually convincing somebody who can actually DO something about it.

I don't claim to have any expertise in these matters, so I rely on these experts that you think don't know what they are talking about. Pardon me if after reading your observations and demands if I desire a second opinion, mkay?

[FineWine]

.
When did Mike explain how it is the NIST can tell us that the original design called for 14 types of exterior wall panels and yet they can't tell us the number and weights of the 12 that were actually used? Why was it so important to tell us about the 14?

And of course they just had to tell us that one plane had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9. That was REALLY IMPORTANT!

Why do you have such a need to fawn over AUTHORITY and yet can't think of obvious questions yourself? And then expect other people to be like you.

psik


Stop this nonsense. You haven't bothered to make a simple phone call because you are a typical "truther," intellectually uncurious and devoid of critical thinking skills. You've demonstrated that you don't have the slightest idea of what you'd actually do with the information you pretend to want. Who are you to decide what is or isn't important? You are an unteachable agenda-driven crank who wastes time asking trivial questions. When you're told where to find your answers, you can't make the effort. I spent too much time in college listening to angry, empty-headed kids pontificate on subjects they knew nothing about. Grow up.

[FineWine]

.
Have you found the total of the concrete in the NCSTAR1 report yet?

Do you think that information should be there? They gave a total for the steel.

Aren't you impressed by those EXPERTS?

psik


Behind your mindless disdain for real experts is envy, pure and simple. They are experts and you are very far from being one.

Tell us why they are wrong and how you know this.

(Notice that you can never hope to deflect this rather obvious question.)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

And of course they just had to tell us that one plane had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9. That was REALLY IMPORTANT!


Actually, it's very important for an accurate calculation of the force of impact.

Tell us why they are wrong and how you know this.


I know you know this, but he can't. Like the vast majority of truthers, he's simply destructive, not constructive. He prefers to destroy that which is already established rather than build something better and let it stand on its own.

[Sam.I.Am]

WTC floor space = 3.8 million square feet each or 1,266,667 cubic feet of concrete (4" slabs*3) which is 46,914 cubic yards per building, or ~426 cubic yards per floor (about 47 standard truckloads). Seeing as it was lightweight concrete we will go with the median weight for lightweight which is 1,080 lbs per yard dry (it could be as low as 540 lbs or as high as 1,620 lbs) . That's 460,080 lbs (low= 230,040 lbs high= 690,120 lbs) of concrete per floor or thereabouts, while that sounds high it works out to 13.3 lbs per square foot (PSF) (Low= 6.6 PSF High = 20 PSF) Just to compare regular concrete would have been 50 PSF or more depending on the PSI rating.

You've got to keep in mind that the way they get the lighter weight is to use foam as the aggregate instead of stone so it doesn't really have that much strength to it and you can drive a standard nail into it, and yes I've poured a lot of mud back in the day.

Now will you please stop asking this question?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

.
I explained static and dynamic loads in my video. Some people need to pretend trivia is SO COMPLICATED.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

I stopped watching your video after you explained that you understood that scale models were ineffective tools for simulating the collapses...

...and you then went straight into using a scale model to simulate the collapse.

The columns in the WTC mass falling from the top had to deal with that dynamic load also. Therefore the top falling portion would be crushing itself on impact. So how did the top 14 stories of the north tower crush 95 that had to get stronger all of the way down. That is what the NCSRAT1 does not explain.

Because the steel was designed to support a STATIC load, not a DYNAMIC one (I thought you said you understood this?).



They just hand us that "global collapse was inevitable" garbage.

They don't explain what they were supposed to explain.

psik

That's because the DYNAMIC load was several times greater than the STATIC load the towers were designed to handle.

[runlikell]

Because they will publish any old garbage as long as the author pays the $800. For example, they accepted a nonsensical "paper" generated by computer for publication. They also published Jones, et al's complete gargabe thermite paper. The lead editor quit, saying she wasn't even aware of it before publication.

Why would the lead editor not quit over a nonsensical computer generated paper, but quit over a (allegedly garbage) thermite paper?

[runlikell]

Well, runlikell, I have well over 100MB of various NIST WTC reports on my hard drive, amounting to thousands of pages of often highly technical analysis.

Bottom line - your question is absurd.

Try refining it somewhat.

OK. People on here try to claim that Bush didn't lie about Iraq, which is absurd, so I thought maybe folks would try to claim that the report was flawless.

How about this: What are the most significant flaws in the NIST final report on the collapse of the twin towers?

[runlikell]

How much of it (if any) have you read?

TAM:)

Very little. I don't have the proper education for it to be worthwhile for me to read the whole report. I've read summaries, and the FAQs.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

How about this: What are the most significant flaws in the NIST final report on the collapse of the twin towers?

From what I have read, the most significant potential flaw in the NIST report (if it is a flaw, the issue is far from settled) is the role that fireproofing, or the lack thereof, played in the failure of the structural supports that triggered the collapse.

That fire is the primary culprit has long been settled. The fireproofing is the main issue now. Should another disaster like this occur again someday, improvements in fireproofing technology, squeezing another hour of life out of the building could be what saves hundreds or even thousands of lives.

[runlikell]

Why do you consider yourself smaller than the other posters here?
Hans

I do not personally consider myself inferior to anyone else; nor superior. We are all at different stages in our personal growth, but to rank people is to over simplify. But I've been called a moron, an idiot, a twoofer, a troll, and probably many other names that I can't recall, on here, just because I apparently have a few misconceptions about 9/11. Amazing how quick people are to judge others over the internet.

[runlikell]

I have to wonder what intellectually honest motives someone could possibly have for asking about the flaws of a 10,000 page, highly-technical engineering report they haven't read, and probably wouldn't understand if they did.

Mainly I'm trying to see if you guys have applied the same level of skeptisim towards both sides of the argument. But I'm also curious.

[runlikell]

Rational adults know that there will be mistakes in any investigation results. Only twoofers require that NIST and the 9/11 Commission reports be 100% dead-on accurate from the first letter to the last period. Any mistake automagically disqualifies the entire report. And anything they think should have been included that wasn't also completely disqualifies the report even if their requirement is completely outside the scope of the investigation.

Personally, I don't think any report is capable of being perfect, so no, having several mistakes does not necessarily disqualify the entire report. But I do think that we should be able to talk about them without getting super defensive.

[runlikell]

.
Because, as sad as it is to say, and sadder to realize to be true, a WHOLE PASSEL of you guys have proven yourselves incapable of accurately & truthfully passing on the information that we might provide you.

As a result of that, you have also taken yourselves out of the group that "deserves" to be told the facts. Because you do not treat the facts, or the truth, with the respect that it deserves.

Think of yourselves as "the obnoxious, rambunctious little brats that can not be allowed to play with the shiny toy. Because, the last 100 times they did, they broke it."

If you'd like any clarification, just ask.

Tom Quit stereotyping me and putting me into a group that I am not a part of, and I will engage with you. Otherwise I will put you on ignore. It is a waste of my time to have to sit here and defend myself against baseless judgements.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Why would the lead editor not quit over a nonsensical computer generated paper, but quit over a (allegedly garbage) thermite paper?


Umm... he did (http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55759/). I found that link in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=145354&highlight=bentham).

For Christ's sake, man... learn to use the Search function. If you don't know how, just ask.

[runlikell]

Why I am asking questions that have already been answered: It is not because I do not know how to use the search function. It is very navie to assume that the is the only reason why someone would do such a thing. The reason why it, every thread on this forum is so full of junk answers that it is highly inefficient way to spend time to read through all of the threads. Since some people actually have the courtesy to take 60 freaking seconds to give me a direct answer, I choose this route. I don't care if you don't like it.

For those of you dissing on the paper published in Bentham by Jones and Harrit, I'm wondering how you view them as individuals character wise. They claim that it is the most vigoursly peer reviewed paper they've ever writter, out of I think over 100 total combined, some of which were published in 'real,' respectable journals. Are they dishonest? Because it seems to be that they are pretty honest people, although there is the possibility that they have some weird complex where the lie to themselves, consciously beleiveing that they are being honest.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Are they dishonest? Because it seems to be that they are pretty honest people, although there is the possibility that they have some weird complex where the lie to themselves, consciously beleiveing that they are being honest.


If that's the case, then you'll have to explain how they managed to extend that delusion to others, like yourself. You seem to be implying that you believe they are honest people simply because they believe they are honest people. There's a fairly obvious problem with that.

[FineWine]

OK. People on here try to claim that Bush didn't lie about Iraq, which is absurd,



No, it is absurd to pretend that he knew something he obviously didn't. The notion that he invaded Iraq promising to find WMD he knew he wouldn't find is beyond stupid. You've grown so accustomed to chanting the left's Big Lie that you've never paused to consider how implausible it is. Confronted with the truth about a myth you swallowed uncritically, you are forced either to rethink your position or close your mind and continue chanting. For a "truther," there is really no choice.



so I thought maybe folks would try to claim that the report was flawless.

How about this: What are the most significant flaws in the NIST final report on the collapse of the twin towers?


Nobody here has ever claimed that the NIST report was "flawless." The claim is that it is based on solid science.

[Travis]

Things that aren't flawless:

Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica
General Relativity
Mona Lisa
NIST report on WTC collapse
Theory of Evolution
This Chick (http://www.mademan.com/chickipedia/olivia-munn/)
This movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/)


I think the NIST report on the WTC is in good company.

[tfk]

.
Because, as sad as it is to say, and sadder to realize to be true, a WHOLE PASSEL of you guys have proven yourselves incapable of accurately & truthfully passing on the information that we might provide you.

As a result of that, you have also taken yourselves out of the group that "deserves" to be told the facts. Because you do not treat the facts, or the truth, with the respect that it deserves.

Think of yourselves as "the obnoxious, rambunctious little brats that can not be allowed to play with the shiny toy. Because, the last 100 times they did, they broke it."

If you'd like any clarification, just ask.

Tom

Quit stereotyping me and putting me into a group that I am not a part of, and I will engage with you. Otherwise I will put you on ignore. It is a waste of my time to have to sit here and defend myself against baseless judgements.
.
runlikell,
.
I don't know you, and I apologize for having chapped your butt right out of the gate.

But aren't you getting a little soap opera here?

In every single paragraph, I made it clear, with the use of plurals ("yourselves") and group descriptors ("a whole passel of you guys") that I was talking about the group, not you.

So I was explicitly not stereotyping you (singular). Which would be inappropriate, because I don't know you. I was stereotyping the group known in these parts as "Truthers". Which is completely appropriate, because I DO know those guys. You know: "That Group To Which You Don't Belong".

If you'd like 1, 5, 10 or 100 examples of TGTWYDB's irresponsible misinterpretation of engineering concepts that were presented to them, we can start with the moldy-oldies.

"Free fall speed"
"into their own footprint"
"fires don't melt steel"
"top gun maneuvers"
"standard operating procedure to intercept off-course planes"

I can go on for many pages, if you'd like...

Furthermore, if, as you say, you do not belong to that group, then why the drama?

So, how about you unbunch your panties, grow a pair & have a fun adult conversation.

You can be hard, demanding and challenging to me. And I promise to reciprocate.

Tom

[lapman]

Personally, I don't think any report is capable of being perfect, so no, having several mistakes does not necessarily disqualify the entire report. But I do think that we should be able to talk about them without getting super defensive.Since you have stated that you do not have the education to understand the paper, explaining the flaws in the report is pointless for the same reason. Whatever flaws in the report are meaningless to me since I do not design buildings. I take it that you don't design them either, so the same should apply to you, IMHO. Why are you asking if you are unable to understand what would be told you? From what I've seen, every competent scientist and engineer that has objectively studied the report and pointed out flaws has agreed that the cause of the collapse was the crashing of airplanes into the towers and the subsequent fires. It's certain details that they do not agree with.

[TruthersLie]

Why would the lead editor not quit over a nonsensical computer generated paper, but quit over a (allegedly garbage) thermite paper?

Oh twoof. Again you are earning an MA in cognative neurosciences? Really?

an editor at ANOTHER BENTHAM Open journal quit because that journal accepted for publication a computer generated paper becaues they said it passed peer review. Look it up.

The editor of the Bentham Open Chemical Physics journal quit over the craptacular Nanothermite paper because she NEVER SAW IT.

now what does that say about the ENTIRE line of Bentham open journals?
In one they accept for publication a paper filled with computer generated garbage.

in another the HEAD editor isn't show a paper for publication in her journal, but they publish it anyways...

rather amazing standards there twoof.

[TruthersLie]

just because I apparently have a few misconceptions about 9/11.

********.

You come on here with typical twoofer bull and try to pass it off without EVER doing one check on the claims.

If you were actually earning an MA in cognative neuroscience, you should at least have the reading comprehension to look over 911myths.com, wtc7lies, and the simple papers listed for you.

Instead you whine, whinge, and bitch about how you want it all given to you.

that isn't "a few misconceptions." That is a whole load of bullcrap.

try again twoof... we are crying a river for you.

[TruthersLie]

For those of you dissing on the paper published in Bentham by Jones and Harrit, I'm wondering how you view them as individuals character wise. They claim that it is the most vigoursly peer reviewed paper they've ever writter, out of I think over 100 total combined, some of which were published in 'real,' respectable journals. Are they dishonest? Because it seems to be that they are pretty honest people, although there is the possibility that they have some weird complex where the lie to themselves, consciously beleiveing that they are being honest.

again another truther strawman. Play the pity party again.

do they believe they are right? I'm sure of it.

Unfortunately they use confirmation bias in any paper they write. Their "peer reivew" consists of handing their junk to OTHER TWOOFS, who couldn't design their way out of a wet paper bag.

There are over 20 massive methodological errors in the bentham nanothermite craptacular journal article.

[lapman]

They claim that it is the most vigoursly peer reviewed paper they've ever writter, out of I think over 100 total combined, some of which were published in 'real,' respectable journals. If "did the check clear" is the most vigorous peer-review they have had, then that says a lot about the lack of peer-review of the other papers. So I guess looking at the cover sheet to make sure the names are spelled correctly is a less vigorous peer-review. Now please list the papers that have been published in a 'real,' respectable journal.

[TruthersLie]

For those of you dissing on the paper published in Bentham by Jones and Harrit, I'm wondering how you view them as individuals character wise. They claim that it is the most vigoursly peer reviewed paper they've ever writter, out of I think over 100 total combined, some of which were published in 'real,' respectable journals. Are they dishonest? Because it seems to be that they are pretty honest people, although there is the possibility that they have some weird complex where the lie to themselves, consciously beleiveing that they are being honest.



GREAT. Please show us these fantastic research skills and show us one that was published in a respectable journal.

There is ONE that I know of in any type of REAL engineering journal, which was a reply to Bazant and was fully and completely demolished.

Please do the research and tell me how many of these "papers" (snicker) that are in real peer reviewed journals. (lets see... The environmentalist, and another Bentham open journal (not counting the nanothermite bunk)).

I'd love to see any of these peer reviewed articles in "respectable journals."

Please provide a link or citation to ONE.

ETA. Lapman. you beat me to it... but I figured if TWO of us ask, he might actually try to find one... <sarcasm> I mean with earning that MA he should have good research skills. </sarcasm>

[jhunter1163]

Run, if you have reservations about the NIST report, why don't you have them published in Bentham? ANYONE can be published in Bentham*. Hell, I could be published in Bentham. I could write 12 pages about how beer tastes better when noisily swilled rather than sipped and get it published in there.

* - As long as they have $800.

[TruthersLie]

Jhunter.

To be completely honest, we do know of an article from the CRAP journal about phreneology which was rejected from a bentham open journal...

and I do think that with all of the stink over their accepting a completely made up paper filled with computer gibberish, with their second head editor of different open journals quitting in disgust over their standards, that they may just tighten up that peer review...

if that is the case, Jones, et al will have to find another crap journal to peddle their woo in.

[T.A.M.]

Why would the lead editor not quit over a nonsensical computer generated paper, but quit over a (allegedly garbage) thermite paper?

I believe the thermite paper came first (in terms of what she was made aware of), so once quit, yah can't really quit again.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

OK. People on here try to claim that Bush didn't lie about Iraq, which is absurd, so I thought maybe folks would try to claim that the report was flawless.

How about this: What are the most significant flaws in the NIST final report on the collapse of the twin towers?

I think most here believe that a combination of flimsy intelligence, and blinders to that fact, by the Bush admin, were both at play in this scenario. What others demand, is ACTUAL PROOF, that George W. Bush himself KNEW the intelligence was false, and yet continued to promote that Saddam had WMDs.

There is a difference...a very distinct one.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

I do not personally consider myself inferior to anyone else; nor superior. We are all at different stages in our personal growth, but to rank people is to over simplify. But I've been called a moron, an idiot, a twoofer, a troll, and probably many other names that I can't recall, on here, just because I apparently have a few misconceptions about 9/11. Amazing how quick people are to judge others over the internet.

If you were actually called these things, you can report it, and people will be warned. BUT...but, be careful what you accuse people of.

For instance,

"truthers are idiots" or "You are acting like an idiot" is not the same as saying,

"runlikell, you are an idiot".

TAM:)

[jhunter1163]

Jhunter.

To be completely honest, we do know of an article from the CRAP journal about phreneology which was rejected from a bentham open journal...

and I do think that with all of the stink over their accepting a completely made up paper filled with computer gibberish, with their second head editor of different open journals quitting in disgust over their standards, that they may just tighten up that peer review...

if that is the case, Jones, et al will have to find another crap journal to peddle their woo in.

I wasn't aware that Bentham had actually rejected a paper. My sarcasm was apparently unduly harsh.

And, if they are in fact tightening their editorial standards, that can only be a good thing for science and a bad thing for Twoofers.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[tfk]

I wasn't aware that Bentham had actually rejected a paper. My sarcasm was apparently unduly harsh.

And, if they are in fact tightening their editorial standards, that can only be a good thing for science and a bad thing for Twoofers.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
.
I applaud your correction.

But I do not think that Bentham, no matter what they do, will ever be a "good thing for science".

They have announced a business plan that calls for them to open (IIRC) over 200 "open access publications" in the course of a couple of years. This is an attempt at a "get rich quick, internet scheme".

It is the antithesis of "careful, considered, rigorous publication advancing the dissemination of knowledge".

I applaud the concept of open access, ready access for authors & researchers. I don't want PT Barnum running the business.

JMO.

Tom

[TruthersLie]

I wasn't aware that Bentham had actually rejected a paper. My sarcasm was apparently unduly harsh.

And, if they are in fact tightening their editorial standards, that can only be a good thing for science and a bad thing for Twoofers.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

Hey Jhunter.

Here is the article... but notice what it was about
phreneology...and read what the reviewer said....

http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/03/12/bentham-publishers/

Now it just shows that any peer review they were doing was completely hit or miss.. (ie did the check clear).

So hopefully they will tighten up the peer review, and then Jones and company will have to find another cheap, piss poor "journal" to claim peer review from.

But with that said we can see from their history that they are just a P.O. Box for payment with spammers running to get some credibility. It is beyond a doubt now a days....

[jhunter1163]

I doubt that Bentham will ever be a bastion of scholarship, but any improvement over the current OA system would be a good thing.

[ferd burfle]

Why I am asking questions that have already been answered: It is not because I do not know how to use the search function. It is very navie to assume that the is the only reason why someone would do such a thing. The reason why it, every thread on this forum is so full of junk answers that it is highly inefficient way to spend time to read through all of the threads. Since some people actually have the courtesy to take 60 freaking seconds to give me a direct answer, I choose this route. I don't care if you don't like it.

So you are lazy. Lazy, lazy, lazy. If you are in fact studying for a master's in cognitive neuroscience, it will take you 20 years to get your degree. A key skill is the ability to skim and sort and glean the pertinent information from large amounts of reading material; I suggest you acquire this skill if you don't want to be old when you get this degree.

For those of you dissing on the paper published in Bentham by Jones and Harrit, I'm wondering how you view them as individuals character wise. They claim that it is the most vigoursly peer reviewed paper they've ever writter, out of I think over 100 total combined, some of which were published in 'real,' respectable journals. Are they dishonest? Because it seems to be that they are pretty honest people, although there is the possibility that they have some weird complex where the lie to themselves, consciously beleiveing that they are being honest.

They are phonies. They cherry-picked some "interesting" particles from their samples that they thought would support their agenda. They didn't perform a survey of all the particles in their samples, count them and construct a histogram by type, and characterize the prominent types. They misused and misinterpreted the analytical techniques, again to further their agenda. I say this as someone with formal training and industry experience in identification of fine particles to solve "real world" industrial problems.

And oh yeah, thank you in advance.

Ferd

[lapman]

So you are lazy. Lazy, lazy, lazy. If you are in fact studying for a master's in cognitive neuroscience, it will take you 20 years to get your degree. A key skill is the ability to skim and sort and glean the pertinent information from large amounts of reading material; I suggest you acquire this skill if you don't want to be old when you get this degree.



They are phonies. They cherry-picked some "interesting" particles from their samples that they thought would support their agenda. They didn't perform a survey of all the particles in their samples, count them and construct a histogram by type, and characterize the prominent types. They misused and misinterpreted the analytical techniques, again to further their agenda. I say this as someone with formal training and industry experience in identification of fine particles to solve "real world" industrial problems.

And oh yeah, thank you in advance.

Ferd
Add to that the fact that they give no comparison to the actual paint used or real "nano-thermite." Instead, they extrapolate on the fact that the particles are tiny and they burn.

[CORed]

Is it a perfect report, or does it have flaws, whether minor or major?

If so, what are they?

Thanks, Andy

It would be a miracle if a report as large and complex as the NIST report on the WTC collapses were perfect.

However, only in trutherland does any error or inconsistency automatically prove that the truthers areright.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It would be a miracle if a report as large and complex as the NIST report on the WTC collapses were perfect.

However, only in trutherland does any error or inconsistency automatically prove that the truthers areright.


I think he may be going for the "any sign of imperfection is cause to be suspicious" angle, rather than "any sign of imperfection proves us right" angle.

It's like how many of them are now settling for demanding a "new investigation", rather than incessant claims of "inside job". The former is slightly more palatable (better PR) and means they can't really be called out for making claims they obviously can't defend. Too bad for them that they've realized this far too late in the game.

Absurd either way...

[TruthersLie]

Wow...
it appears that runlikehell has lived up to his username and runlikehell away.

Or maybe he is actually out trying to do some REAL research. One can only hope.