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

[deep]

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

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by deep44

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]

Originally Posted by deep44

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:

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by deep44

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]

Originally Posted by 16.5

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]

What the hell is Bubble Hash?

(from High Times)

[16.5]

Originally Posted by Sizzler

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]

Originally Posted by 16.5

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.

Originally Posted by Dr. Jones at 911blogger.com

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

Originally Posted by Cheri Roberts-Piper at 911blogger.com

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

Originally Posted by Dr. Jones at 911blogger.com

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]

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

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by deep44

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.

does this mainstream journal have a name?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert

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]

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]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

does this mainstream journal have a name?

"Hustler".

[LashL]

Originally Posted by deep44

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]

Originally Posted by deep44

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?)

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 16.5

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!

LOL. I just finished reading that too.

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.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Sizzler

LOL. I just finished reading that too.

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]

Originally Posted by deep44

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.]

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

[16.5]

Originally Posted by Sizzler

LOL. I just finished reading that too.

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

Mad Magazine?

[T.A.M.]

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]

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?

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

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]

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

Quote:

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

[OldTigerCub]

Originally Posted by Blender Head

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?!!

[The Almond]

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]

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

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by deep44

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]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

[CurtC]

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

[aggle-rithm]

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.

[CHF]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

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]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

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]

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.

[Myriad]

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]

Originally Posted by Myriad

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.]

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]

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]

This thread does raise an important question, though.

Where does one buy a can of oats?

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by slyjoe

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.

The peer-review process for humanities journals is quite similar to that for scientific journals. If a paper passes initial screening from the journal's editorial staff, it is sent out to be reviewed by a number of experts in the relevant field. After receiving comments from the reviewers, the journal may either choose to publish the paper, reject it outright, or send it back to the author(s) for revision.

As an exercise, one of my professors once gave everyone in a seminar a copy of a history textbook chapter that he'd been assigned to review, and had us pair off. Each pair was required to deliver a brief critique of one section. The reviews were almost universally poor. Afterwards the professor said that he was astounded that something so bad could have even been submitted for a textbook, let alone been sent out for review.