ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Crockett Grabbe

Reply
Old 23rd September 2012, 01:02 PM   #41
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,111
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
... )and will be published in 10/12. It was either peer reviewed or it wasn't. Jones is either right or wrong. We might wait a few weeks and find out.

Just because you disagree with his earlier work, doesn't give you the license to employ fallacious argumentation, such as poisoning the well and ad hominem.
Aren't you in the academic community? Do you really think such attacks on the man's mental health is a responsible, persuasive argument?
He suffered mental problem before he made up the fantasy of CD. You can ignore all his problems, all he prior work. He remains someone who has a fantasy on 911, CD. No need to poison the well, his CD claims are crazy.

Bet his article rebutting Bazant is labeled delusional claptrap, like Heiwa's paper.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2012, 03:40 PM   #42
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oystein
The early FEMA-theory that NIST discarded was "pancaking" as the initiation mechanism for collapse, i.e. FEMA believed that the collapse started when some floor disconnected from columns and dropped onto the one below. NIST says this was not the first major failure that started the rapid phase of collapse, and that instead the rapid phase was iniated by the failure of inward bowing columns.
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I'm not sure where you find NIST making this distinction. Please provide a citation. In any case, the problems with the pancaking model became obvious very quickly, and pancaking was quietly discarded.
Unlike cranks and crackpots, that's what real scientists and engineers do. When data contradict theory, you modify your theory or discard it. In this case, the observed pancaking was moved from being the initiation of the collapse to the result.

Quote:
Oystein: In either case, the dominant mechanism for collapse progression was still what you might call "pancaking", i.e. floor failures racing ahead of column failures as the main driver.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
As I asked Orphia Nay, please cite the published engineering analysis that currently stands as the official explanation for the collapse progression.
This should help: http://www.aws.org/wj/supplement/wj0907-263.pdf

Quote:
...[O]ver 90% of floor truss connections at or below the impact floors of both buildings were either bent downward or completely sheared from the exterior wall suggesting progressive overloading of the floors below the impact zone following collapse initiation...
In other words, the collapse progression was the loss of the floor truss connections to the perimeter columns, resulting in pancaking. Read the whole thing. You'll get smarter.
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2012, 06:05 PM   #43
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
To which edition of the JEM are you referring? The discussion was published in 4/10, this new paper passed the peer review process (according to Jones )and will be published in 10/12. It was either peer reviewed or it wasn't. Jones is either right or wrong. We might wait a few weeks and find out.



Just because you disagree with his earlier work, doesn't give you the license to employ fallacious argumentation, such as poisoning the well and ad hominem.
I don't make this to a mud slinging match between you and me. Honestly, I have come to appreciate your presence here and I don't want try and be a jerk about our disagreement.

First, from my point of view, who cares what Jones says? He was forced out of his department.

But that's not my point. I said the comparison was similar. A letter to the editor of the NY Times goes through editorial review and, in fact, many are refused publication for the various reasons of the paper. Opinions in JME appear to have some kind of peer review. It's not clear to me what kind - because, as you know, there are many ways to do this...right? Opinions and responses often don't have the same process as other contributions to the journal.

In fact, his 2010 publication has review dates on it.
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...3-7889.0000025
Submitted: 16 July 2008
Accepted: 10 October 2008
reviewed in 3 months? This is extraordinary. Compare that with an academic paper that appeared in the same issue
Chen, F. and Qiao, P. (2010). ”Electromechanical Behavior of Interface Deformable Piezoelectric Bilayer Beams.” J. Eng. Mech., 136(4), 413–428.
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...3-7889.0000081
Submitted: 03 August 2008
Accepted: 18 August 2009
This took a year to be reviewed. So it's clear that something happened in the article in question that does not happen with research papers in the journal. I'm pretty clear on what that difference is. Are you?

Quote:
Aren't you in the academic community? Do you really think such attacks on the man's mental health is a responsible, persuasive argument?
I think I am being reasonable. Our JREF Truther friends here may want to make out like 9/11 Truth is some kind of mainstream academic discourse. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's fringe stuff. Why a respected guy would suddenly become involved in fringe stuff needs understanding. I don't think I'm being disrespectful to his achievements when I speculate this may have to do with a catastrophic neurological problem he experienced.

Of course if you want to pretend that 9/11 Truth is some kind of mainstream academic discourse, then that's another issue...
__________________
I've seen it here and in several other places that there is no Illuminati. That doesn't even make sense. There's a Wikipedia entry that talks about it. I'm not saying that everything on Wikipedia is true, but if you read it, it's just really clear how the Illuminati controls the world.
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2012, 09:24 PM   #44
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
Unlike cranks and crackpots, that's what real scientists and engineers do. When data contradict theory, you modify your theory or discard it. In this case, the observed pancaking was moved from being the initiation of the collapse to the result.
But where is this stated in the reports on the WTC failures? That's what I'm asking.

It's not up to anonymous internet posters to determine what failed. It's up to the agencies tasked with that job.

Quote:
Thank you. I'll give it a read. Already it seems to be presenting some interesting questions.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 12:01 AM   #45
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
But where is this stated in the reports on the WTC failures? That's what I'm asking.
Try the NIST FAQ dated 12/14/2007. It's question #1 which has since been incorporated into the 9/19/2011 updated FAQ as question #12. Not knowing that the NIST report and its supplements have already covered this topic is either laziness or willful ignorance on your part considering that you have spent plenty of time here talking about the WTC collapses in general.
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.
Sam.I.Am is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 12:40 AM   #46
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,420
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I'm not sure where you find NIST making this distinction. Please provide a citation. In any case, the problems with the pancaking model became obvious very quickly, and pancaking was quietly discarded.

As I asked Orphia Nay, please cite the published engineering analysis that currently stands as the official explanation for the collapse progression.
Pretty sly questions, ergo, gotta give you that.

But: Why are you asking for links to any "official explanation"? Why aren't you asking for documentation of "reality"?

So here is a link to observed reality:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/
(That's Major_Tom's book, the website is currently down, and I never bothered to read it).

As for NIST, I think you know damned well that NIST simply does not describe the mechanism of collapse progession at all. Whereever they present a collapse sequence, their second-to-last stage is "perimeter columns bow inwards" and the last step is "global collapse ensues". So that's why I say: sly question, ergo


However, that would answer implicitly your question "where you find NIST making this distinction": They make this distinction (rejecting pancaking, i.e. failure of column-to-floor connections before column failure as mechanism for collapse initiation vs. pancaking as collapse for collapse progression) by simply not discussing collapse progression, and thus the rejection of pancaking does indeed only apply to collapse initiation.


Thankfully, Sam.I.Am linked to NIST's FAQ to show you that they think collapse progression was inevitable because floors must have failed at the column-to-floor connections.

The PDF that Redwood links to references NIST NCSTAR 1-3, which details observations on recovered steel. In particular, NIST noted that 90% of the floor connectors on the exterior columns below the aircraft impact zone were either missing completely or bent downwards. Above the impact zone, failure modes were somewhat randomly distributed (some bent up, some bent down, some torn out...) That's a pretty strong hint for what happened there, don't you think?

Now couple that with Major_Tom's detailed descriptions of the visual record, and you can't really deny there's a strong case that a cascade of floor failures, i.e. pancaking, did in fact happen.


Now ergo, if you still want to deny pancaking, can you now present to us
- the published engineering analysis that currently stands as the official explanation for the collapse progression and denies pancaking and supports another model
- your own research that supports another model
or
- anybody's research that supports another model?

I'll imply if you don't have any evidentiary support for any other collapse progression model, then pancaking remains the leading and current hypothesis, and I want you to acknowledge that.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 04:51 AM   #47
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Scott Sommers View Post
I don't make this to a mud slinging match between you and me. Honestly, I have come to appreciate your presence here and I don't want try and be a jerk about our disagreement.
Fair enough. A call for civility is always welcome.

Quote:
First, from my point of view, who cares what Jones says? He was forced out of his department.
This is faulty argumentation again. Like I said, he's right or wrong, and it has no bearing on his previous disargreements with BYU or his previous accomplishments as a scientist. Grabbe's paper was either peer reviewed or not. We should learn more about the process soon enough.

Quote:
But that's not my point. I said the comparison was similar. A letter to the editor of the NY Times goes through editorial review and, in fact, many are refused publication for the various reasons of the paper. Opinions in JME appear to have some kind of peer review. It's not clear to me what kind - because, as you know, there are many ways to do this...right? Opinions and responses often don't have the same process as other contributions to the journal.
YOu didn't answer my question about the previous publication of the discussion and this new paper.

Quote:
In fact, his 2010 publication has review dates on it.
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...3-7889.0000025
Submitted: 16 July 2008
Accepted: 10 October 2008
reviewed in 3 months? This is extraordinary. Compare that with an academic paper that appeared in the same issue
Chen, F. and Qiao, P. (2010). ”Electromechanical Behavior of Interface Deformable Piezoelectric Bilayer Beams.” J. Eng. Mech., 136(4), 413–428.
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...3-7889.0000081
Submitted: 03 August 2008
Accepted: 18 August 2009
This took a year to be reviewed. So it's clear that something happened in the article in question that does not happen with research papers in the journal. I'm pretty clear on what that difference is. Are you?
I don't see what this has to do with anything. There can be many reasons why one paper takes longer than another to review, such as length, complexity of the paper, review of sources, etc. I think you're charging at windmills trying to find some reason to discredit the paper before you even read it.

Quote:
I think I am being reasonable. Our JREF Truther friends here may want to make out like 9/11 Truth is some kind of mainstream academic discourse. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's fringe stuff. Why a respected guy would suddenly become involved in fringe stuff needs understanding. I don't think I'm being disrespectful to his achievements when I speculate this may have to do with a catastrophic neurological problem he experienced.
This must be what really bothers you. When a so-called "fringe" paper makes it into a respected engineering journal, it does enter mainstream academic discourse. This is a contingency I think you and your debunker buddies will have to get used to. I always wondered how jref would handle it when questioning 9/11 becomes the realm of mainstream discourse and leaves the world of goofy conspiracy.

Quote:
Of course if you want to pretend that 9/11 Truth is some kind of mainstream academic discourse, then that's another issue...
9/11 is no different than other complex historical events. It will deserve the same scrutiny, discourse and debate and raise any number of provocative questions.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 05:42 AM   #48
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Fair enough. A call for civility is always welcome.
Thank you. Actually, I think this is quite productive. Perhaps because we're not arguing about data, I feel less interest in 'winning' or humiliating you - and honestly, I'm glad about this.

Quote:
This is faulty argumentation again. Like I said, he's right or wrong, and it has no bearing on his previous disargreements with BYU or his previous accomplishments as a scientist. Grabbe's paper was either peer reviewed or not. We should learn more about the process soon enough.
I think this is wrong. Literally, "peer-review" mean a submission is read by a suitably qualified person. There are many types of peer-reviewed publications and many way to do this. The book that's listed in my signature Becoming Taiwan: from Colonialism to Democracy is peer-reviewed. The publishing house has an editorial board and all the chapters written by different authors were reviewed, recommendations sent to the authors and so on.

But this is not at all what anyone means when they talk about peer-reviewing articles addressing a 9/11 Truth. What they mean is the peer-review practices prescribed by journals listed on the Thompson ISI Science Citation Index. Now JEM is listed on the SCI. Crap Betham journals are not.

Nor is it clear to me how review practices for Opinion submissions compare with those of Research Article submissions. It appears that they go through review so quickly that something must be being done differently.

Quote:
This must be what really bothers you. When a so-called "fringe" paper makes it into a respected engineering journal, it does enter mainstream academic discourse. This is a contingency I think you and your debunker buddies will have to get used to. I always wondered how jref would handle it when questioning 9/11 becomes the realm of mainstream discourse and leaves the world of goofy conspiracy.
I agree generally...all accept the part about having to get used to it. A couple of things here and there won't change anything....

my wife wants the computer...have to go...more later....
__________________
I've seen it here and in several other places that there is no Illuminati. That doesn't even make sense. There's a Wikipedia entry that talks about it. I'm not saying that everything on Wikipedia is true, but if you read it, it's just really clear how the Illuminati controls the world.
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 06:06 AM   #49
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,420
I didn't find this scanning through the PDF with ASCE's submission guidelines, and I can't be bothered to search it now, but remember not long ago Tony Szamboti showed an ASCE's document describing also the peer-review process, and from that I remember that I had to concede that they do peer-review beyond merely having an editor proof-read it for appropriateness. It seems they do send out discussion papers to selected peers who may make recommendations for change. So in that sense, yes, discussions seem to be properly peer reviewed.

It would however make sense to think that this process isn't handled with quite the same effort and keenness as original papers, considering their desire to publish discussions and closures in a timely fashion, not too long after the original article.

Sooo I guess the truth of the matter is somewhere in the middle
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 07:52 AM   #50
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
...
Just because you disagree with his earlier work, doesn't give you the license to employ fallacious argumentation, such as poisoning the well and ad hominem.
He's the same man, making similar arguments on the same subject. It is perfectly reasonable to view his earlier body of work in order to gain insight into his present work.

Quote:
Aren't you in the academic community? Do you really think such attacks on the man's mental health is a responsible, persuasive argument?
Pointing out things which might affect someone's credibility is, in fact, a responsible argument, such as the fact that he suffered severe brain damage before becoming a Truther.

Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
This must be what really bothers you. When a so-called "fringe" paper makes it into a respected engineering journal, it does enter mainstream academic discourse. This is a contingency I think you and your debunker buddies will have to get used to. I always wondered how jref would handle it when questioning 9/11 becomes the realm of mainstream discourse and leaves the world of goofy conspiracy.
Trutherism is not, nor has it ever been, respected science. Even if this is published and has been peer-reviewed, that doesn't prevent other people from tearing it apart, just like any paper, and it doesn't mean it's "respected". Respect requires consensus.

Of course, it's taken 11 years to get this far, and the "official story" is being used in engineering textbooks. So if you want to achieve the same standing, you've got a long way to go.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 08:05 AM   #51
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
"Dr. Crockett Grabbe is a physicist who received his PhD from CalTech in 1978. He received a Bachelors of Science with Highest Honors from the University of Texas in 1972."

He "has succeeded in getting a paper successfully through peer-review with editors of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. His paper confronts Bazant who previously published a paper supportive of the "official 9/11 narrative" in the same journal." - Steven Jones

The paper will be published in the October edition.

http://<b>911blogger</b>.com/news/20...ring-mechanics
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Nice blend of poisoning the well and ad hominem you got there. You might wait until you read the paper and judge it on its own before you begin casting aspersions.
Responding to the puffery in the Flogger article is NOT fallacious. Further, the credibilty of the author is always a legitimate source of challenge.

Claim: He's a PhD and got High Honors!
Response: It appears he has suffered severe brain damage.
Claimant: FALLACY!

Swing and a miss Red, don't you ever tire of getting stuff wrong?
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 08:30 AM   #52
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
It's also interesting how the mainstream scientific community is always a bunch of closed-minded sheep right up until a CT manages to gain any kind of standing with them.

It's also interesting that neither Red nor ergo has addressed the possibility that there is a causal link between the severe brain damage and becoming a Truther. Or even whether his earlier work is right or not, or even anyone's criticism of such in this thread. Ergo seems to be doing his level best to drag us off-topic.

Last edited by 000063; 24th September 2012 at 08:47 AM.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 08:53 AM   #53
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,420


Folks, seriously, this "brain damage" argument - it's weak.

As someone alread pointed out in a post that was sent to AAH, Grabbe's tumor did not affect the brain but a gland - and isn't particularly known for causing permanent changes of personality. It certainly would not affect cognitive ability.

The hemorhage he suffered could of course, in theory, affect cognitive abilities or personality when and if it damages the brain. How to test that?

Well, I'd say since Grabbe was able to write a structured engineering piece and have it survive some level of serious peer-review at a prestigeous engineering journal, I'd take that as prima facie evidence that his cognition is still doing fine. If you want to argue it isn't, I'd want to see better evidence that just pointing to the potential effects of possibly significant brain damage.

I have little doubt that we have people here in this forum who have serious events in their medical history that might affect adversely their capacity to reason rationally. Would you insinuate they might imbeciles if they happen agree with your opinion?

Please review your standards
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 09:08 AM   #54
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Problem is, we don't know what level of peer review it went through. Sommers pointed out that there is a rather substantial gap between peer review for one type of piece as compared to another. We've also seen the actual arguments he uses in other papers on the same general subject, and they're not really that different from other Truthers, including using outright incorrect facts.

"The only thing this author knows of which could create a virtual free-falling state is massive explosions below the fires, which could effectively liquify the lower structure. Direct evidence for explosions...was presented in Grabbe (2007)."

We've seen what happens when Truthers claim steel was "dustified" or "pulverized" or whatever buzzword they use this week.

He also claims the top part of WTC 2 "fully disintegrated into grey clouds...in midair". He even uses the color of the cloud as indicative of its contents. He says the South Tower fires were nearly put out by firemen when suddenly "horizontally moving masses of materials" broke through the walls of floors below those with fires initiated by the impact, with no source for such a claim. And this is just the first page.

Last edited by 000063; 24th September 2012 at 09:12 AM.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 09:22 AM   #55
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Responding to the puffery in the Flogger article is NOT fallacious. Further, the credibilty of the author is always a legitimate source of challenge.

Claim: He's a PhD and got High Honors!
Response: It appears he has suffered severe brain damage.
Claimant: FALLACY!

Swing and a miss Red, don't you ever tire of getting stuff wrong?
So you disagree with Oystein's concise and dead-on post?
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 09:23 AM   #56
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
He's the same man, making similar arguments on the same subject. It is perfectly reasonable to view his earlier body of work in order to gain insight into his present work.



Pointing out things which might affect someone's credibility is, in fact, a responsible argument, such as the fact that he suffered severe brain damage before becoming a Truther.
So you disagree with Oystein's concise and dead-on post?
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 09:25 AM   #57
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,681
I'm baffled by all the negative and (truther side) positive comments about an article no one has actually seen.

"Truthers" are praising him for his achievement? What exactly is this? He got something published? Anders Björkman got his discussion published, Funny, no "truthers" consider this "significant".

"Debunkers". Brain damage? Really? What exactly is the article about? Why are you assuming his response is nuts? Was Bazants paper perfect?

Yeah, this 9/11 forum is done.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 09:34 AM   #58
swright777
Muse
 
swright777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 897
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
...
Read the whole thing. You'll get smarter.
Do you really think so?
swright777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 09:35 AM   #59
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
So you disagree with Oystein's concise and dead-on post?
I disagree that Grabbe's cognitive ability was probably not affected, and that being able to publish a work means it held up to the same standards of peer review as actual papers and thus is evidence toward his cognition not being affected. I also think that the paper I referred to makes a number of incorrect and bizarre assertions, as I have pointed out.

Sommers has already pointed out that one of his earlier pieces on 9/11 clearly went through a much shorter review process than one in the same issue. You presented several possibilities, none of which you backed up, for the discrepancy, and said that it was irrelevant anyway. Sommers asserted that there was clearly some sort of difference between the two, and he didn't know what it was.

But if you'd like to try and pit debunker against debunker instead of actually addressing the claims yourself, feel free. It doesn't work for ergo, and it won't work for you.

Do you agree with Oys' "concise and dead-on" assertion that the hemorrhage could have affected Grabbe's cognitive ability? Not did, could. Whether it is possible to any notable degree, not whether if actually happened.

Heck, I'm perfectly willing to bow out until the report is actually released.

Last edited by 000063; 24th September 2012 at 09:37 AM.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 09:39 AM   #60
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I'm baffled by all the negative and (truther side) positive comments about an article no one has actually seen.

"Truthers" are praising him for his achievement? What exactly is this? He got something published? Anders Björkman got his discussion published, Funny, no "truthers" consider this "significant".

"Debunkers". Brain damage? Really? What exactly is the article about? Why are you assuming his response is nuts? Was Bazants paper perfect?

Yeah, this 9/11 forum is done.
Maybe having a bad day. But, yeah, it's weird. Given the limits of what Jones claims, I am not expecting to have my world shaken, but I'm happy to wait to see what the paper actually says.

ETA: We don't know yet whether it is an article, a "discussion," or something else. Whatever the case, the article stands, falls, leans, (?) on its merits, not on speculations about the author or even the peer review standard applied.

Last edited by MarkLindeman; 24th September 2012 at 09:42 AM. Reason: ETA
MarkLindeman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 09:45 AM   #61
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
So you disagree with Oystein's concise and dead-on post?
Face palm.

Red, I was simply explaining to you why you were completely wrong about the alleged fallacious arguments in response to the appeal to authority, and used an EXAMPLE which appears to have caused much unnecessary hand-wringing.

Let me assuage everyone by modifying my example:

CLAIM: SHE is PhD and Engineering Professor
Response: SHE is brain damaged.
Claimant: That is a fallacy and therefore inadmissible.

Claimant is wrong.

Everybody cool now?
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 10:26 AM   #62
TexasJack
Penultimate Amazing
 
TexasJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,906
I agree with Oystein. Let the truthers continue to be the hypocrites as they base their arguments solely on conjecture, anomalies, and coincidences. Remember, the facts and evidence are on the side of the rationalists.

Does anyone have any idea when in October this is coming out?
TexasJack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 12:42 PM   #63
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post

Heck, I'm perfectly willing to bow out until the report is actually released.
Probably a good idea.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 12:48 PM   #64
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,950
Originally Posted by TexasJack View Post
I agree with Oystein. Let the truthers continue to be the hypocrites as they base their arguments solely on conjecture, anomalies, and coincidences. Remember, the facts and evidence are on the side of the rationalists.

Does anyone have any idea when in October this is coming out?
You can sign up on their website for alerts when the ToC is released.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 01:19 PM   #65
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Probably a good idea.
You asked me a question. You seem uninterested in my response. Naturally.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 01:39 PM   #66
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
So you disagree with Oystein's concise and dead-on post?
You asked me a question. You seem uninterested in my response. Naturally.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 06:04 PM   #67
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Stating the Obvious:
"Peer review" is NOT the same as "everyone who previewed it agrees with it". Tons of articles in engineering & science journals get peer reviewed & published annually. A sizable percent, perhaps even the majority of them, turn out to be flat out wrong.

Peer review simply means that the article passed an examination by others, usually (not always) with experience in related fields, and did not have obvious errors.

One fine calibration of the level of "peer review" that letters receive is the fact that our own Anders Bjorkman managed to have his letter pass thru the same process & get published. And it was patently obvious to any competent structural engineer, on the most cursory of examinations, that it was massively flawed & massively wrong. So wrong as to be "not even wrong".

I am perfectly happy to wait for his letter to be published. I LOVE it when truthers actually get around to publishing anything. That is precisely when their errors become obvious.

It is no accident that they survive by publishing little to nothing. That way, there is no need to be rigorous, careful, diligent in their writing.

A little prose, a few equations & the amateurs become mesmerized.

tk

PS. Does anyone remember if it was Grabbe who was one of the identified reviewers of Farrer, Harrit, Jones Bentham paper?
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 07:38 PM   #68
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I didn't find this scanning through the PDF with ASCE's submission guidelines, and I can't be bothered to search it now, but remember not long ago Tony Szamboti showed an ASCE's document describing also the peer-review process, and from that I remember that I had to concede that they do peer-review beyond merely having an editor proof-read it for appropriateness. It seems they do send out discussion papers to selected peers who may make recommendations for change. So in that sense, yes, discussions seem to be properly peer reviewed.

It would however make sense to think that this process isn't handled with quite the same effort and keenness as original papers, considering their desire to publish discussions and closures in a timely fashion, not too long after the original article.

Sooo I guess the truth of the matter is somewhere in the middle
I don't remember Tony's comment to this effect. I have now looked through a large number of JEM articles. It does not appear that Tony is correct.

It appears typical for a Research Paper to take more than a year from submission to final acceptance. Some research articles took more than one or two years.

I looked at the submission/acceptance dates for all the published discussions from Jan 2010 to the most recent issue. I originally had the idea of calculating this all out, but the amount of work is significant. There are some Discussion publications that took several months to be accepted, but typically, they were accepted within very short periods of time - a few months or less.

Discussion such as this
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...6%3A2%28260%29
and
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...3A2%28260.2%29
have no submission and acceptance dates, leaving me to think that only the editors reviewed them.

This may because they are short. Technical Notes in the JEM are also short. Many of these took more than a year between initial submission and acceptance.

So while it is not uncommon for Research Papers and Technical Notes to take huge amounts of time in between submission and acceptance, it is unheard of for Discussions (at least from 2010 to 2012) to take this long, and some seem to be accepted immediately.

I don't know what the editors of the JEM would say about this. It is an SCI ranked journal and they are audited by Thompson ISI. But it does appear there is a lower standard of review for Discussion pieces. My guess is that this does not affect the general quality of the journal, nor would the SCI view it this way.
__________________
I've seen it here and in several other places that there is no Illuminati. That doesn't even make sense. There's a Wikipedia entry that talks about it. I'm not saying that everything on Wikipedia is true, but if you read it, it's just really clear how the Illuminati controls the world.

Last edited by Scott Sommers; 24th September 2012 at 08:03 PM.
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2012, 12:32 AM   #69
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,420
@ tfk: No, The known Harrit e.al. peer reviewer was David Griscom, not Grabbe. I heard they had two peer reviewers and am not aware that the second has yet been identified. I suspect Marc Basile.


@ Scott: I see no contradiction between what Tony showed and what you now found. It was previously claimed (and perhaps still is) that discussions are not peer-reviewed by JEM or other ASCE journals; but the ASCE, from what I rememeber, describes the procedure, and it does come with a peer-review. So Tony was correct: Discussion submissions get "peer-reviewed".

Now "peer-review" <> "peer-review" - as I said, as you say: There seem to be different levels of scrutiny applied to papers on one hand and discussions and closures on the other. I am not sure Tony did or would deny that.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2012, 03:15 AM   #70
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
@ tfk: No, The known Harrit e.al. peer reviewer was David Griscom, not Grabbe. I heard they had two peer reviewers and am not aware that the second has yet been identified. I suspect Marc Basile.


@ Scott: I see no contradiction between what Tony showed and what you now found. It was previously claimed (and perhaps still is) that discussions are not peer-reviewed by JEM or other ASCE journals; but the ASCE, from what I rememeber, describes the procedure, and it does come with a peer-review. So Tony was correct: Discussion submissions get "peer-reviewed".

Now "peer-review" <> "peer-review" - as I said, as you say: There seem to be different levels of scrutiny applied to papers on one hand and discussions and closures on the other. I am not sure Tony did or would deny that.
I guess I owe Tony an apology here. I haven't read his comment about JEM review and was assuming the worst, which I agree is not fair.

In my mind, the label "peer-review" is justified even if the editor-in-chief reviews a submission for whatever characteristics. My point is somewhat different that challenging the label.

9/11 Truth Scientists have produced 'research papers'. None of them have been able to meet any credible standard of peer-review. The only submissions they have been able to successfully produce for credible journals have been of the type that demand the least amount of review.

All the Truther boys and girls may be jumping up and down with excitement over this newest of Truther announcements. But it's really not a very impressive claim at this stage in the game. Despite a huge amount of written material, including what appears to be original research making tremendous claims, the only thing the Truther Scientists can produce are marginal claims that meet the lowest standard of review.

My point to Red Ibis was first, a thanks for a fairly civil disagreement. But more particularly, this is really nothing that anyone of us conspiracy skeptics would feel threatened by. It's only not even really marginal level of support for such fantastic claims.
__________________
I've seen it here and in several other places that there is no Illuminati. That doesn't even make sense. There's a Wikipedia entry that talks about it. I'm not saying that everything on Wikipedia is true, but if you read it, it's just really clear how the Illuminati controls the world.

Last edited by Scott Sommers; 25th September 2012 at 03:17 AM.
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2012, 05:13 AM   #71
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
This must be what really bothers you. When a so-called "fringe" paper makes it into a respected engineering journal, it does enter mainstream academic discourse. This is a contingency I think you and your debunker buddies will have to get used to. I always wondered how jref would handle it when questioning 9/11 becomes the realm of mainstream discourse and leaves the world of goofy conspiracy.
Questioning 9/11 has been within mainstream discourse all along. The trouble seems to be with the meaning of "questioning." The questions favored by the 9/11 Truth Movement have very disproportionately been bad questions -- questions grounded in false premises, rhetorical equivocation, and/or a failure to canvass alternative hypotheses. That's actually the cause of the attribution of "goofy conspiracy."

If Grabbe managed to write a solid free-standing paper, maybe he can learn something from the experience that he then can apply to correcting the errors in past work. For instance, as 000063 pointed out, Grabbe's assertion in his discussion of Seffen that the top part of the South Tower "fully disintegrated into gray clouds (produced from pulverizing concrete from areas on fire) in mid-air, above the lower part of the Tower" makes no sense as a statement of observable fact. Although we can't assess a paper that hasn't been published yet, Grabbe's record does not inspire high expectations.

I don't think it is possible for the 9/11 Truth Movement as a whole to limit itself to good science and still be recognizable as the 9/11 Truth Movement. (I can't think of a scientific research program that proceeds primarily through video presentations and attempts to collect petition signatures.) But I would be delighted to see it. Surely it should be possible to write a sound critique of Bazant.

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers View Post
All the Truther boys and girls may be jumping up and down with excitement over this newest of Truther announcements. But it's really not a very impressive claim at this stage in the game. Despite a huge amount of written material, including what appears to be original research making tremendous claims, the only thing the Truther Scientists can produce are marginal claims that meet the lowest standard of review.

My point to Red Ibis was first, a thanks for a fairly civil disagreement. But more particularly, this is really nothing that anyone of us conspiracy skeptics would feel threatened by. It's only not even really marginal level of support for such fantastic claims.
I think I basically agree with this, but maybe I would sharpen a few distinctions. In principle, a Truther Scientist should be able to meet a high standard of review; I would expect the resulting paper's claims to be "marginal" not in the sense of dubiousness, but in the sense that they don't support a broader inference of CD or any other major assertion or conjecture of the Movement. (I think that is your meaning as well, but it isn't entirely clear.) I would further expect the paper to be portrayed by some as the entering wedge that dooms the Official Story.

We can revisit all such expectations once the paper is actually published.
MarkLindeman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2012, 05:17 AM   #72
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
grandmastershek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,457
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post

@ Scott: I see no contradiction between what Tony showed and what you now found. It was previously claimed (and perhaps still is) that discussions are not peer-reviewed by JEM or other ASCE journals; but the ASCE, from what I rememeber, describes the procedure, and it does come with a peer-review. So Tony was correct: Discussion submissions get "peer-reviewed".

Now "peer-review" <> "peer-review" - as I said, as you say: There seem to be different levels of scrutiny applied to papers on one hand and discussions and closures on the other. I am not sure Tony did or would deny that.
Given what I linked to regarding their submissions, aside from actual studies, it appears discussions are not formally peer reviewed; which may fall in line with your closing statement. If they are, I am not sure why the ASCE makes the distinction in their own instructions that specific types of submissions are, yet are silent on the subject for others.

Ultimately, it boils down to the same old smoke n' mirrors show truthers constantly peddle. They present their work as upholding the standards of academia, but when you look at the details it's hardly even close. Fake journals, stacked peer reviews, ad infinitum...
__________________
For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)

Last edited by grandmastershek; 25th September 2012 at 05:19 AM.
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2012, 05:21 AM   #73
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,420
Originally Posted by MarkLindeman View Post
...
We can revisit all such expectations once the paper is actually published.
Right, and I'll repeat my expectation:

Grabbe will go along with Bazant on the points where Bazant is "wrong" in the sense that Bazant's theoretical considerations and assumptions differ significantly from observed reality, and merely criticize and perhaps correct details within a model that is not representative of the actual collapse mechanisms. In particular, Grabbe will pretend, like Bazant, that column strength is the main force resisting collapse progression, when in fact almost all of the accelerating mass bypassed the columns by tearing out and breaking the much weaker truss connectors.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2012, 05:25 AM   #74
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,420
Originally Posted by grandmastershek View Post
Given what I linked to regarding their submissions, aside from actual studies, it appears discussions are not formally peer reviewed; which may fall in line with your closing statement. If they are, I am not sure why the ASCE makes the distinction in their own instructions that specific types of submissions are, yet are silent on the subject for others.

Ultimately, it boils down to the same old smoke n' mirrors show truthers constantly peddle. They present their work as upholding the standards of academia, but when you look at the details it's hardly even close. Fake journals, stacked peer reviews, ad infinitum...
You are correct that the document you linked to does not inform us that discussion submissions are peer-reviewed, but I don't see that it rules it out, either.

Like I said, I remember having read another PDF documenz from ASCE that goes into more specific detail about which submissions are subjected to a "peer-review", and discussions were among them. I'd have to search for that...
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2012, 06:04 AM   #75
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by MarkLindeman View Post
I think I basically agree with this, but maybe I would sharpen a few distinctions. In principle, a Truther Scientist should be able to meet a high standard of review; I would expect the resulting paper's claims to be "marginal" not in the sense of dubiousness, but in the sense that they don't support a broader inference of CD or any other major assertion or conjecture of the Movement. (I think that is your meaning as well, but it isn't entirely clear.) I would further expect the paper to be portrayed by some as the entering wedge that dooms the Official Story.

We can revisit all such expectations once the paper is actually published.
Further to my point is the belief that Truther Science is so marginal it is not even capable of producing this research paper with marginal claims. It is only advanced enough right now to inform a 1-2 page discussion under highly relaxed conditions of peer review. That's how pathetic things are. Truther Science is only somewhat more significant than its predescender - Creation Science
__________________
I've seen it here and in several other places that there is no Illuminati. That doesn't even make sense. There's a Wikipedia entry that talks about it. I'm not saying that everything on Wikipedia is true, but if you read it, it's just really clear how the Illuminati controls the world.
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2012, 08:21 AM   #76
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by Scott Sommers View Post
Further to my point is the belief that Truther Science is so marginal it is not even capable of producing this research paper with marginal claims. It is only advanced enough right now to inform a 1-2 page discussion under highly relaxed conditions of peer review. That's how pathetic things are. Truther Science is only somewhat more significant than its predescender - Creation Science
If we disagree, it is subtly. I agree about the insignificance of Truther Science as such. Truther Science per se presumably can't advance, for the same reason as Creation Science: fundamentally, the conclusions (e.g., "the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives") precede the inquiry, and they are specious.

Now, if anyone wants to dispute that operational definition of Truther Science -- hey, whatever. I for one, contrary to RedIbis's conjecture, am not looking for excuses to discount interesting work; I'm simply trying to explain why I don't expect Grabbe's work to be very interesting. But it might, at least, be competent.

It may be the case that the characteristics necessary to practice Truther Science essentially preclude publishing competent work related to 9/11. I can't think of a counterexample off-hand, and I won't offer odds in the present case. But as a matter of logic, I think it should be possible. I don't think that would constitute a watershed of Progress in Truther Science -- except perhaps from the standpoint of communications strategy.
MarkLindeman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2012, 07:13 PM   #77
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by MarkLindeman View Post
It may be the case that the characteristics necessary to practice Truther Science essentially preclude publishing competent work related to 9/11. I can't think of a counterexample off-hand, and I won't offer odds in the present case. But as a matter of logic, I think it should be possible. I don't think that would constitute a watershed of Progress in Truther Science -- except perhaps from the standpoint of communications strategy.
I disagree here. I believe is logically impossible for a Truther Scientist to produce competent scientific work. Now, they may produce a competent piece of research and fool others into believing it has some relevance to the Truther question. Grabbe appears capable of highly competent work in other fields. I have no doubt he can do something and then pretend - maybe even to himself - that it is somehow related to all this.

Truther Science is much the same operation as Creation Science. It's not derived from the same historical roots as contemporary scientific reasoning. It's a form of theology that looks for natural causes for miraculous events. This is the source of my observation that almost all the Truther activists left in the USA are some brand of Christian, and most of the others have been heavily exposed to some form of faith-based practice. There have many Truther activists who are not Christians. It is my experience that largely these people stop their public activity. I doubt this has affected their Truther beliefs, but I can imagine it's hard for them to find the energy to continue in the face of overwhelming doubt and ridicule.
__________________
I've seen it here and in several other places that there is no Illuminati. That doesn't even make sense. There's a Wikipedia entry that talks about it. I'm not saying that everything on Wikipedia is true, but if you read it, it's just really clear how the Illuminati controls the world.
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2012, 09:21 AM   #78
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by Scott Sommers View Post
I disagree here. I believe is logically impossible for a Truther Scientist to produce competent scientific work. Now, they may produce a competent piece of research and fool others into believing it has some relevance to the Truther question. Grabbe appears capable of highly competent work in other fields. I have no doubt he can do something and then pretend - maybe even to himself - that it is somehow related to all this.
I don't think we are actually disagreeing. As I think we both understand "the Truther question" (something close to "CD or not CD?" although often not framed in that way), it seems impossible to produce competent and relevant work on the Truther side.

I think it is possible that Grabbe can do something competent on 9/11, and that he and/or others can pretend that it is relevant to the Truther question.
MarkLindeman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2012, 01:36 AM   #79
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 36,505
As I understand it, Bazant was published in the JEM.

Since Grabbe is responding to Bazant's article, it's not surprising the JEM are publishing his response.

The media are well known for keeping the wheels turning by publishing green ink letters.

I expect Bazant will probably respond to Grabbe and that will put an end to it.
__________________
Challenge your thoughts.
Don't believe everything you think.
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2012, 05:04 AM   #80
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,420
Orphia,

yes. Again, this is a standard procedure at the journals published by the ASCE:
  • "Papers"(up to 10,000 words, fully-peer-reviewed) contain original research
  • Within 5 months of publication of a Paper, other authors can submit a "Discussion" of the Paper. The Discussion is shorter, only 2,000 words, and has no Abstract, Introduction and Conclusion. It really is just a Discussion. Discussions undergo some peer-review, which however is probably not as strict, owing to the desire to publish faster than papers normally do
  • The author of the original Paper is given the opportunit to respond to the Discussion by writing a "Closure" - same size and level of peer-review as Discussion.
  • Discussion and Closure are published in the same issue of the journal, a few months after the Paper

So in the october issue of JEM, expect to find a Discussion of a recent Bazant Paper, followed by a Closure by Bazant.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.