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

[CptColumbo]

Originally Posted by DGM

Sounds like you tell them who will review it.

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

[DGM]

Originally Posted by CptColumbo

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

I agree. I'm sure they have to approve the reviewers. This type of journal wouldn't normally have it's own reviewers in the relevant fields. They publish such a wide variety of subjects.

[fullflavormenthol]

Originally Posted by deep44

1. Please provide proof that a fee was paid.

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

Quote:

2. Please define "vanity publisher".

Quote:

Encarta
van·i·ty pub·lish·ing


noun
Definition:

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

[boloboffin]

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

Jones should release his Covering Letter.

[Minadin]

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

[Doctor Evil]

Originally Posted by deep44

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

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

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by DGM

For god sake. Read the publishing terms for the journal. Are you that research challenged?

Yes he is. Unless someone holds his hand and personally shows him, he's clueless as to what to do.

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by deep44

1. Please provide proof that a fee was paid.

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

This is from the publishers webpage.

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

2. Please define "vanity publisher".

Vanity publishers charge authors to get published. See above.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

[kookbreaker]

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

On that day, they will probably stop being truthers.

[WildCat]

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

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

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by deep44

1. Please provide proof that a fee was paid.

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

--

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

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

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

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

Jones is getting the effect he wanted. "Truthers" are jumping up and down about a paper reviewed and published in something other than a woo journal. The contents and context of this "break through" are irrelevant.

[JamesB]

I guess the 911 blogger people read JREF religiously:

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

Quote:

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

[ref]

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

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

That's a dishonest yawner of a paper.

[CHF]

So after all that hype what do we get?

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

Take a bow, TM!

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by CHF

So after all that hype what do we get?

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

Take a bow, TM!

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

[Unsecured Coins]

[CHF]

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

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

[tanabear]

Originally Posted by Panoply_Prefect

Ummm:

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

"When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

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

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

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

This is from the publishers webpage.


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




Vanity publishers charge authors to get published. See above.



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

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

[CptColumbo]

Originally Posted by tanabear

"When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

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

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

[twinstead]

Yup. I read it again and nowhere does any of this even imply that the collapse was initiated by pancaking. And, I checked Panoply_Perfect's question was indeed (bolding mine):

Quote:

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

So Tanebear how did your post answer the question? I suspect reading comprehension is becoming a lost art.

[tanabear]

Originally Posted by CptColumbo

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

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

[DGM]

Originally Posted by tanabear

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

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

[CptColumbo]

Originally Posted by Panoply_Prefect

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

You answered this question with:

Originally Posted by tanabear

"When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

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

I posted asking.

Originally Posted by CptColumbo

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

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

Originally Posted by tanabear

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

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

[Panoply_Prefect]

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


/S

[16.5]

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

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

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

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

[tanabear]

Originally Posted by DGM

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

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

Originally Posted by CptColumbo

You answered this question with:

I posted asking.

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

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

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

[Panoply_Prefect]

From the NIST WTC faq (my bolding):

Quote:

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


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

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

Quote:

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

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

[CptColumbo]

Originally Posted by tanabear

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



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

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

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

[Par]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

older version of windows just working fine?

[Edmund Standing]

Originally Posted by deep44

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

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

Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research

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

[kookbreaker]

Cardboard tube model is to WTC 1 & 2 construction

as

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

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by JamesB

I guess the 911 blogger people read JREF religiously:

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sizzler]

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

[Unsecured Coins]

write your congressman

[Sizzler]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is it pathetic? Care to expand?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by CptColumbo

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

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

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

[Unsecured Coins]

Originally Posted by Sizzler

Why is it pathetic? Care to expand?

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

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

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Unsecured Coins

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