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 peer review goalposts

Reply
Old 21st April 2008, 10:58 AM   #361
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
It would be unfortunate because Alam isn't listed as an editor, and if he really isn't involved in editorial decisions and/or lacks expertise in civil engineering, he shouldn't be the one responding.
Isn't that like saying that the judge's secretary shouldn't answer the phone because she doesn't have a legal degree? Most of the questions that a journal gets do not require editorial expertise (I bet the biggest one is "why won't the page download?"). Most of the questions that a journal PUBLISHER get probably don't even apply to a specific journal, let alone a specific editor.
drkitten 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 21st April 2008, 11:30 AM   #362
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
Originally Posted by volatile View Post
So why did you think that the info your provided was relevant, then? All it said was that some people in Pakistan think 9/11 was an inside job. So what? Some people in America think that 9/11 was an inside job.
Not to the same degree, I assure you.

Twoofism runs deep in much of Muslim world - not among everyone, of course, but by a far higher percentage of the population than in the West.

Frankly, I'm amazed that the TM doesn't translate their crap into Arabic or Urdu and market it to the Middle East and Pakistan.

In fact, they probably wouldn't have a hard time getting it taught in schools. I'm serious.
CHF 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 21st April 2008, 01:05 PM   #363
Slayhamlet
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,423
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Perhaps I should have made myself clearer in my first post; I didn't mean to imply that I'm sure that this is the case. I just feel that the matter warrants further investigation.
Questioning this guy's motivations before even knowing what his position in the journal's staff is, especially with nothing but pure speculation, strikes me as very premature and makes you look desperate. Let's not go this route, okay?
Slayhamlet 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 21st April 2008, 01:21 PM   #364
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
Some thoughts about SJ et al's. new paper:

No one has commented, as far as I know, on the fact that Jones' paper has "Fourteen Points"

Why 14?

I suspect this is Jones' little inside joke because of the other famous "14 Points"; namely those of Woodrow Wilson first pronounced I believe in Jan 1918.

WW's 14 points were both a statement of war aims and also terms for the surrender of the enemy - Germany.

Could Jones, with his very own 14 points, be alluding to WW's original 14 points and the fact that he (Jones) is stating his personal "war" aims and his requirements for the "surrender" of his enemies: FEMA, NIST, the US Government....

I think so, because the fact that Jones has 14 points is obviously quite contrived. Some of the points are in fact very silly: Consider these three:

No. 2: The Towers survived the jet impacts... we know that!

No. 4: The Towers had massive columns... we know that!

No. 8: The fires did not melt steel.... we know that!

Yet Jones put these points in to get to his target of 14 points, just like Woody!

But what is MOST interesting is that Jones totally AVOIDS many other points about the destruction of the Twin Towers that would have been much more worthy of debate:

* The loss of thermal insulation was/was not a factor in the collapse mechanism

* Creep buckling of the columns was/was not a factor in the collapse mechanism

* Collapse initiation did/did not involve inward bowing of perimeter columns

* The elastic strain absorbing capacity of the buildings was/was not exceeded

On these important points Jones et al. remain strangely silent ......
Apollo20 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 21st April 2008, 01:33 PM   #365
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by Minadin View Post
See, I was going to say that I can understand why Dr. Jones would want to publish in a paper that would be accessible by the majority of folks in the "Truth Movement", but I was wondering why legitimate open journals, as opposed to vanity publications, would charge the author instead of simply having some advertising to cover their expenses.

I thought it might be some sort of academic faux-pas to have advertisers, and that might explain it. But apparently that isn't the case here. So what is the deal?
It's not actually unusual for respectable journals to incur page charges, even open access ones. Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics, which is my main stomping ground, is a good example. The reason they get to charge a lot (and they do) is because they have the prestige that comes with high editorial standards and the resulting high impact rating (average number of cites per article). All of these mean that scientists are very keen to get themselves published there and are more than willing to pay for the pleasure. Even so, despite being produced by the European Geosciences Union and a number of influential scientists, it was free to publish there initially for a couple of years while it was getting established.

On the other hand, its Bentham counterpart, The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, is a bit poor on all of these fronts. The fact that it has so far attracted 9 papers since it began last year says it all. Given that there are infinitely more prestigious journals in the field that will publish work for free (they make their money on subscriptions), this is hardly surprising. I can only assume that it's the same story for the structural engineers.
Spud1k 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 21st April 2008, 01:37 PM   #366
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 3,718
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
Some thoughts about SJ et al's. new paper:

No one has commented, as far as I know, on the fact that Jones' paper has "Fourteen Points"

Why 14?

I suspect this is Jones' little inside joke because of the other famous "14 Points"; namely those of Woodrow Wilson first pronounced I believe in Jan 1918.

WW's 14 points were both a statement of war aims and also terms for the surrender of the enemy - Germany.

Could Jones, with his very own 14 points, be alluding to WW's original 14 points and the fact that he (Jones) is stating his personal "war" aims and his requirements for the "surrender" of his enemies: FEMA, NIST, the US Government....

I think so, because the fact that Jones has 14 points is obviously quite contrived. Some of the points are in fact very silly: Consider these three:

No. 2: The Towers survived the jet impacts... we know that!

No. 4: The Towers had massive columns... we know that!

No. 8: The fires did not melt steel.... we know that!

Yet Jones put these points in to get to his target of 14 points, just like Woody!

But what is MOST interesting is that Jones totally AVOIDS many other points about the destruction of the Twin Towers that would have been much more worthy of debate:

* The loss of thermal insulation was/was not a factor in the collapse mechanism

* Creep buckling of the columns was/was not a factor in the collapse mechanism

* Collapse initiation did/did not involve inward bowing of perimeter columns

* The elastic strain absorbing capacity of the buildings was/was not exceeded

On these important points Jones et al. remain strangely silent ......

Good catch, A20; I'm a bit embarrassed that I didn't notice that.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX 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 21st April 2008, 01:49 PM   #367
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
I suspect this is Jones' little inside joke because of the other famous "14 Points"; namely those of Woodrow Wilson first pronounced I believe in Jan 1918.
Well spotted.

Quote:
But what is MOST interesting is that Jones totally AVOIDS many other points about the destruction of the Twin Towers that would have been much more worthy of debate:

* The loss of thermal insulation was/was not a factor in the collapse mechanism

* Creep buckling of the columns was/was not a factor in the collapse mechanism

* Collapse initiation did/did not involve inward bowing of perimeter columns

* The elastic strain absorbing capacity of the buildings was/was not exceeded

On these important points Jones et al. remain strangely silent ......
But those are all legitimate engineering issues that one might look at in order to explain how/why the WTC collapsed.

Jones, meanwhile, is hoping to one day prove that the WTC collapsed because of something he found in a dust sample.

Last edited by CHF; 21st April 2008 at 01:50 PM.
CHF 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 21st April 2008, 02:18 PM   #368
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
 
Alferd_Packer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,746
Jones is a Mormon and there are either 13 or 14 articles of faith in the Mormon church. (depending on who you ask. There seems to be a scism regarding the acual number).
__________________
No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post
Alferd_Packer 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 21st April 2008, 02:49 PM   #369
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 12,721
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
"Fourteen Points"

Why 14?

I suspect this is Jones' little inside joke because of the other famous "14 Points"; namely those of Woodrow Wilson first pronounced I believe in Jan 1918.

WW's 14 points were both a statement of war aims and also terms for the surrender of the enemy - Germany.

Could Jones, with his very own 14 points, be alluding to WW's original 14 points and the fact that he (Jones) is stating his personal "war" aims and his requirements for the "surrender" of his enemies: FEMA, NIST, the US Government....

If this is indeed the case, then either Jones is using an extraordinarily subtle and complex metaphor, or he's confused about 20th century history.

Wilson's Fourteen Points were not surrender terms being demanded of the enemy; they were surrender terms being offered. These terms were fair and generous to the Central Powers, so much so that copies of the Fourteen Points were dropped behind enemy lines as propaganda. ("Look how fair a deal you'll get, if you surrender.") The main goal, however, appeared to be a genuine desire on Wilson's part to untangle and defuse Europe, resolving several longstanding disputes over territory and sovereignity, and establishing various economic freedoms whose infringement by one power or another had been root causes of conflict.

The contempt of the European leaders for this plan set the stage, instead, for many more decades of chaos and blood in Europe. Clemenceu's adept comment, "God Himself had only ten...," is arguably the most destructive witticism in human history.

So, how does any of that relate to 9/11 conspiracy? Jones's 14 points are presented as points of fact, not of principle. The number coincides, but the analogy is strained.

Apollo20's assessment of Jones's points (and omissions) themselves are spot on.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 21st April 2008, 04:36 PM   #370
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Ahem.

Bentham publishes the book on spam.

Quote:
Description
Authored by a former spammer, this is a methodical, technically explicit expose of the inner workings of the SPAM economy. Readers will be shocked by the sophistication and sheer size of this underworld.

From the Author: 'You may hate spam and think all spammers are evil, but listen to my story and see why I do this and more importantly, HOW.'

For most people, the term 'SPAM' conjures up the image of hundreds of annoying, and at times offensive, e-mails flooding their inbox every week. But for a few, SPAM is a way of life that delivers an adrenaline rush fueled by cash, danger, retribution, porn and the avoidance of local, federal, and international law enforcement agencies. 'Inside the SPAM Cartel' offer readers a never-before seen view inside this dark sub-economy. You'll meet the characters that control the flow of money as well as the hackers and programmers committed to keeping the enterprise up and running. You may disagree with their objectives, but you can't help but to marvel at their ingenuity and resourcefulness in defeating spam filters, avoiding being identified, and staying one step ahead of the law.

Contents
Who I am and why I SPAM: How SPAM works and Revenue behind it: The art of SPAMMING: Spam and Phishing: Legal Efforts against SPAM: Analyzing SPAM: Statistics behind SPAM: The future of SPAM
boloboffin 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 21st April 2008, 04:37 PM   #371
Par
Master Poster
 
Par's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,768
Originally Posted by volatile View Post
So why did you think that the info your provided was relevant, then? All it said was that some people in Pakistan think 9/11 was an inside job. So what? Some people in America think that 9/11 was an inside job... You don't know what Mr Alam believes, or even if he's a Muslim. That you assume to know (or presume) based purely on his nationality is inappropriate, unnecessary and, yes, racist.

The important point was not merely that conspiratorial beliefs exist there, but rather that they are not a minority view. If it is true that they are not the minority view, then the probability of this paper having found an illegitimately sympathetic reception there is appreciably higher than it is for many other counties. Seemingly this assessment is correct, and as I understand it, nothing further than this is being claimed.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

Last edited by Par; 21st April 2008 at 04:38 PM.
Par 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 21st April 2008, 04:48 PM   #372
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
Some thoughts about SJ et al's. new paper:

No one has commented, as far as I know, on the fact that Jones' paper has "Fourteen Points"

Why 14?

1+4=5, 14-5=11. 5+4 (from 14) =9. Thus it means 9/11. coincidence? yeah right. Do the math, 911 was an inside job.
Jonnyclueless 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 21st April 2008, 04:52 PM   #373
Slayhamlet
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,423
Originally Posted by Alferd_Packer View Post
Jones is a Mormon and there are either 13 or 14 articles of faith in the Mormon church. (depending on who you ask. There seems to be a scism regarding the acual number).
I'm having trouble understanding why the number of points he chose should be conceived of as symbolic.
Slayhamlet 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 21st April 2008, 04:54 PM   #374
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,255
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
Some thoughts about SJ et al's. new paper:

No one has commented, as far as I know, on the fact that Jones' paper has "Fourteen Points"

Why 14?

I suspect this is Jones' little inside joke because of the other famous "14 Points"; namely those of Woodrow Wilson first pronounced I believe in Jan 1918...

So if Jones with his 14 points is the Wilson in this discussion, who's going to play Clemenceau and complain that 'God only needed 10'?
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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 21st April 2008, 04:56 PM   #375
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,255
Originally Posted by Spud1k View Post
It's not actually unusual for respectable journals to incur page charges, even open access ones. Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics, which is my main stomping ground, is a good example. The reason they get to charge a lot (and they do) is because they have the prestige that comes with high editorial standards and the resulting high impact rating (average number of cites per article). All of these mean that scientists are very keen to get themselves published there and are more than willing to pay for the pleasure. Even so, despite being produced by the European Geosciences Union and a number of influential scientists, it was free to publish there initially for a couple of years while it was getting established.

On the other hand, its Bentham counterpart, The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, is a bit poor on all of these fronts. The fact that it has so far attracted 9 papers since it began last year says it all. Given that there are infinitely more prestigious journals in the field that will publish work for free (they make their money on subscriptions), this is hardly surprising. I can only assume that it's the same story for the structural engineers.

Welcome, Spud1k, and thanks for the information!
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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 21st April 2008, 05:05 PM   #376
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless View Post
1+4=5, 14-5=11. 5+4 (from 14) =9. Thus it means 9/11. coincidence? yeah right. Do the math, 911 was an inside job.
Hmmmm, no. 14-5 is not 11, it is 9.
AZCat 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 21st April 2008, 06:25 PM   #377
Mr.D
Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,178
Originally Posted by AZCat View Post
Hmmmm, no. 14-5 is not 11, it is 9.
Which is proof of the conspiracy! You must be new at this, right?

Mr.D 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 21st April 2008, 06:30 PM   #378
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,697
Originally Posted by AZCat View Post
Hmmmm, no. 14-5 is not 11, it is 9.
There you go, hiding behind reaLITY and equations just to mess up a good post.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is online now   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 21st April 2008, 06:32 PM   #379
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
Hmmm. Apparently the TRUTH and mathematics are not compatible. Mr.D, rwguinn, I stand corrected. Please prepare the Punishment Chambers for one more occupant.
AZCat 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 21st April 2008, 06:50 PM   #380
mrbaracuda
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,797
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
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.
Woo woo!
Thanks for the laugh!

So from what I read here after a brief look is Jones is another one of those fear mongering people like Alex Jones is? The whole business of "get a bunker and some oats" is new to me. He always seemed so keen on maintaining a somewhat professional-front.
mrbaracuda 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 21st April 2008, 08:01 PM   #381
mrbaracuda
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,797
So after sifting through 10 pages of this, I noticed two things:

Steven Jones apparently makes enough money off the twoofers to spend it on bogus papers

and

deep44 has become suspiciously quiet over the last ~5 pages.

Heh.

Actually I noticed three things: I really appreciate this forum and the people posting on it.

Last edited by mrbaracuda; 21st April 2008 at 08:01 PM.
mrbaracuda 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 21st April 2008, 09:22 PM   #382
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by drkitten View Post
Isn't that like saying that the judge's secretary shouldn't answer the phone because she doesn't have a legal degree? Most of the questions that a journal gets do not require editorial expertise (I bet the biggest one is "why won't the page download?"). Most of the questions that a journal PUBLISHER get probably don't even apply to a specific journal, let alone a specific editor.

Just an update, I haven't heard anything further from Bentham yet.

I contacted their "contact" e-mail from their website. The publisher is a reasonable person to receive e-mail, since he knows which editor or board member should be contacted for further information. It would be unusual for the publisher to respond to technical criticism, but they're more than adequate for coordination.

And regarding your restaurant analogy, there's nothing wrong at all with setting up the business concern and hiring talent to do the technical work. But there would be a problem with you simply buying the names of technical experts, advertising their talents, and then doing all the work yourself on the cheap. That's the scenario I want to put to rest here.

If I get responses from actual scientists and academics, all is well. If I only get responses from the publisher and the rest is a dead end, then we're dealing with open fraud. So far, I remain optimistic.
R.Mackey 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 21st April 2008, 10:12 PM   #383
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,375
Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
Good God, is there anyone they didn't add to their editorial board? I should e-mail them to see if I can get on it.

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

No doubt, you could easily get on their editorial board. You're probably over-qualified, in fact. It appears as though they will add anyone with a degree and a valid e-mail address. Or maybe just a valid e-mail address, for that matter.


They claim to have a law journal as well - the Bentham Open Law Journal - but it's non-existent and it hasn't a single paper (or review, or "letter" for that matter). I suspect that's because no reputable lawyer would, for a second, lend his or her good name, good reputation, or his or her actual, real life expertise to such a bogus operation in its quest to pretend to be a legitimate journal.

Last edited by LashL; 21st April 2008 at 10:21 PM.
LashL 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 22nd April 2008, 01:43 AM   #384
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,410
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
Some thoughts about SJ et al's. new paper:
A question for you, Dr. Greening.

I see that Professor Jones is claiming in his fourteen points that the collapse time of the Twin Towers violated the law of conservation of momentum. He seems to be strongly wedded to the conservation of momentum argument at present, and it seems surprising given how comprehensively it's been refuted. It's possible he hasn't read the Kenneth Kuttler paper, published in his own journal, that shows a conservation of momentum calculation which gives a collapse time less than was observed (or that he chose to accept Kuttler's rather absurd approach of refusing to state the collapse time and instead comparing his time with some other value), or Gregory Urich's recent submission to the same journal which shows that the collapse time was as expected after considering all likely sources of resistance. However, I know you've corresponded with Professor Jones, and I wondered whether you had specifically made him aware of your own calculations?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   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 22nd April 2008, 05:46 AM   #385
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
A question for you, Dr. Greening.

I see that Professor Jones is claiming in his fourteen points that the collapse time of the Twin Towers violated the law of conservation of momentum. He seems to be strongly wedded to the conservation of momentum argument at present, and it seems surprising given how comprehensively it's been refuted. It's possible he hasn't read the Kenneth Kuttler paper, published in his own journal, that shows a conservation of momentum calculation which gives a collapse time less than was observed (or that he chose to accept Kuttler's rather absurd approach of refusing to state the collapse time and instead comparing his time with some other value), or Gregory Urich's recent submission to the same journal which shows that the collapse time was as expected after considering all likely sources of resistance. However, I know you've corresponded with Professor Jones, and I wondered whether you had specifically made him aware of your own calculations?

Dave
The momentum thing has always been a particularly lame strawman that the truthers can latch onto. I often wondered if he picked that particular line because that was the exact reason the original 'faster than freefall' model was invalid, a kind of 'we DID consider momentum and still found NIST to be wrong, so we were never wrong in the first place'. His ignoring of everything that even suggests the contrary is just a career-long habit of Jones'.

Saying 'you need to consider momentum' in a mechanics model is akin to saying 'you need to use wires' when building an electronic circuit. I tried doing a version of the over-simplified 'pancake' model and after putting conservation of momentum in with perfect plastic collisions, the predicted collapse times were under 12 seconds for both towers. I'm not trying to say I have a perfect model here, that would have to include all manner of mind-boggling structural considerations, but it does give lie to the glib 'if you consider momentum, the observed collapse times were too quick' statement. If Jones wants to back that assertion up, the onus is on him to produce some serious calculations that can be validated by a third party.
Spud1k 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 22nd April 2008, 06:18 AM   #386
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
Dave Rogers:

I HAVE told SJ about several of my papers, (several times!), especially those available on 911myths. His usual response is:

1. To claim he is NOT aware of the exsistence of these papers.

2. To request that I e-mail him the papers or a link to them.

I have provide links but always after that I am met with total silence.

The one exception is my "Aluminum in the WTC" paper which Jones has attempted to ridicule in one of his missives! Apart from that it appears that, in Jones' Universe at least, I do not exist.... He ceratinly has ignored Bazant's latest paper to which I am a co-author. A paper, I might add, that went through a VERY rigorous peer review process before it was finally accepted for publication.

It is however interesting that Jones claims to have done his very own collapse calculations, which I am yet to see, and feels comfortable making pronouncements about the WTC collapse times. If he has done any such calculations he should be in a position to report his estimates of the collapse times which I would love to hear about. Perhaps then Jones could elaborate on his claims about violations of the law of conservation of momentum......

Anyone who is at all familiar with my calculations would know that I explicitly use this law (M1V1 = M2V2) in my estimate of the collapse times. For me the real problem is that NIST claims that WTC 2 fell in "9 seconds". This is simply not true and I have written to NIST about this over the weekend to ask it to change the wording of that particular FAQ. If NIST do not change this statement then NIST will only have itself to blame when guys like Jones make mileage over the observation that the structures apparently offered very little resistance to the collapse, and guys like Jones conclude (erroneously!) that a controlled demolition was involved. The truth is that WTC 1 & 2 offered lots of resistance to the downward motion of the upper block but still collapsed in less than 15 seconds.

By the way, I am working on my own submission to the Bentham Journal,... all I need is cash contributions towards the $600 publication fee. I am planning on calling it:

"Seven Points of Agreement"

It will go something like this:

1. NIST says that there were TWO very tall towers at the WTC in New York City. I agree with NIST on this observation.

2. NIST says that A36 steel was used in the construction of these towers. I agree with this but would like to discuss the use of other steels with NIST.

3. NIST and FEMA state that TWO aircraft hit the Towers; one hitting WTC 1 and one hitting WTC 2. I agree with NIST and FEMA on this.

4. NIST claims that jet fuel from the aircraft started fires near the impact zones of WTC 1 & 2. Yes, I agree with this as do other previously published reports.

5. NIST says that WTC 7 collapsed late in the afternoon on Sept 11, 2001. I noticed that too and would like to discuss this further with NIST.

6. NIST report in NCSTAR 1-5A that black smoke poured out of some windows in the impact zones of both towers. I suspect that this was due to the fires and would like to discuss this possibility with NIST. There is much to learn here.

7. NIST and FEMA report that WTC 1 & 2 totally collapsed very rapidly within 2 hours of the aircraft impacts. Here I may be able to help since I have used state-of-the-art software (EXCEL) to calculate the collapse times.


So, guys, what do you think..............
Apollo20 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 22nd April 2008, 06:24 AM   #387
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,816
I think it looks very suspicious that you mention PRECISELY 7 "Points of Agreement"!
__________________
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan
Firestone 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 22nd April 2008, 06:30 AM   #388
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 23,974
Apollo20;
You might consider asking them if they have a "postcard" rate. It might save some money.
__________________
"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 22nd April 2008, 06:32 AM   #389
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,255
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
By the way, I am working on my own submission to the Bentham Journal,... all I need is cash contributions towards the $600 publication fee. I am planning on calling it:

"Seven Points of Agreement"

It will go something like this:

1. NIST says that there were TWO very tall towers at the WTC in New York City. I agree with NIST on this observation.

2. NIST says that A36 steel was used in the construction of these towers. I agree with this but would like to discuss the use of other steels with NIST.

3. NIST and FEMA state that TWO aircraft hit the Towers; one hitting WTC 1 and one hitting WTC 2. I agree with NIST and FEMA on this.

4. NIST claims that jet fuel from the aircraft started fires near the impact zones of WTC 1 & 2. Yes, I agree with this as do other previously published reports.

5. NIST says that WTC 7 collapsed late in the afternoon on Sept 11, 2001. I noticed that too and would like to discuss this further with NIST.

6. NIST report in NCSTAR 1-5A that black smoke poured out of some windows in the impact zones of both towers. I suspect that this was due to the fires and would like to discuss this possibility with NIST. There is much to learn here.

7. NIST and FEMA report that WTC 1 & 2 totally collapsed very rapidly within 2 hours of the aircraft impacts. Here I may be able to help since I have used state-of-the-art software (EXCEL) to calculate the collapse times.


So, guys, what do you think..............
Professor, I was working on my own submission to that journal that had nothing to do with 9/11. The tentative title would be "Point of Agreement With Astronomers: The Sun Rises in the East". You think I can get a grant to publish this?

__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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 22nd April 2008, 06:54 AM   #390
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
For me the real problem is that NIST claims that WTC 2 fell in "9 seconds". This is simply not true and I have written to NIST about this over the weekend to ask it to change the wording of that particular FAQ.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the NIST collapse time refer to the time it took for the first debris to hit the ground - as opposed to the entire collapse itself which was largely obscured by dust?

Quote:
By the way, I am working on my own submission to the Bentham Journal,... all I need is cash contributions towards the $600 publication fee. I am planning on calling it:

"Seven Points of Agreement"

It will go something like this:

1. NIST says that there were TWO very tall towers at the WTC in New York City. I agree with NIST on this observation.

2. NIST says that A36 steel was used in the construction of these towers. I agree with this but would like to discuss the use of other steels with NIST.

3. NIST and FEMA state that TWO aircraft hit the Towers; one hitting WTC 1 and one hitting WTC 2. I agree with NIST and FEMA on this.

4. NIST claims that jet fuel from the aircraft started fires near the impact zones of WTC 1 & 2. Yes, I agree with this as do other previously published reports.

5. NIST says that WTC 7 collapsed late in the afternoon on Sept 11, 2001. I noticed that too and would like to discuss this further with NIST.

6. NIST report in NCSTAR 1-5A that black smoke poured out of some windows in the impact zones of both towers. I suspect that this was due to the fires and would like to discuss this possibility with NIST. There is much to learn here.

7. NIST and FEMA report that WTC 1 & 2 totally collapsed very rapidly within 2 hours of the aircraft impacts. Here I may be able to help since I have used state-of-the-art software (EXCEL) to calculate the collapse times.

So, guys, what do you think..............
Hmmmm.....not quite as detailed as your preview work, Mr. Greening, but still good enough for "peer-review" if Jones' paper is any indication.

Last edited by CHF; 22nd April 2008 at 06:57 AM.
CHF 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 22nd April 2008, 07:00 AM   #391
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by AZCat View Post
Hmmmm, no. 14-5 is not 11, it is 9.
(suspiciously) How much is the government paying you...?
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm 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 22nd April 2008, 07:02 AM   #392
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,410
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
Anyone who is at all familiar with my calculations would know that I explicitly use this law (M1V1 = M2V2) in my estimate of the collapse times. For me the real problem is that NIST claims that WTC 2 fell in "9 seconds". This is simply not true and I have written to NIST about this over the weekend to ask it to change the wording of that particular FAQ.
A good idea. NIST's only actual statement about the collapse times is "NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2", a statement that doesn't actually quantify the collapse time, but what the FAQ fails to do is to knock down the strawman it sets up in its own question: "How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)". I wonder whether the writers of the NIST report are a little too naive when faced with truther quote-mining.


Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
By the way, I am working on my own submission to the Bentham Journal,... all I need is cash contributions towards the $600 publication fee. I am planning on calling it:

"Seven Points of Agreement"


This really exposes the duplicity of Jones's approach. Establishing points of agreement is indeed a way of progressing a constructive debate, but it might be more conventional to establish that there are valid points of disagreement first.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   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 22nd April 2008, 07:04 AM   #393
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 16,589
I don't suppose there is anyone out there with $600 to spare who would be naughty enough to write a totally bogus paper to test the rigour of this journal's peer review process? I heard of people doing similar things before...
__________________
Words cannot convey the vertiginous retching horror that enveloped me as I lost consciousness. - W. S. Burroughs

Invert the prominent diaphragm!!!

I have eaten breakfast and have not written an Epistle to any Church. - dejudge.
Brainache 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 22nd April 2008, 07:10 AM   #394
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
Firestone:

OK, I admit, WTC 7 was behind my thinking. But I also chose 7 Points because there are 7 Pillars of Wisdom; 7 Wonders of the World; 7 Days of Creation; 7 Virtues; 7 Ages of Man; 7 Metals of Alchemy; 7 Planets; 7 Last Words of Christ and, finally, because I'm only half as smart as Jones with his 14 Points!

And, yes, if Jones was charged $600 for 14 Points, I think I could request a charge of $300 for just 7 Points!
Apollo20 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 22nd April 2008, 07:16 AM   #395
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 16,589
7 Dwarfs? 7 Deadly sins? 7 Brides for 7 brothers?
__________________
Words cannot convey the vertiginous retching horror that enveloped me as I lost consciousness. - W. S. Burroughs

Invert the prominent diaphragm!!!

I have eaten breakfast and have not written an Epistle to any Church. - dejudge.
Brainache 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 22nd April 2008, 07:18 AM   #396
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,857
Originally Posted by CHF View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the NIST collapse time refer to the time it took for the first debris to hit the ground - as opposed to the entire collapse itself which was largely obscured by dust?
Absolutely! They say:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A)."

So they are clearly referencing the exterior panels. The problem is that those exterior panels shear off the building and do in fact fall without resistance from the rest of the building! But they fail to make this clear. Instead they say:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation."

With regard to certain of the exterior panels, the rest of the building appears to offer NO RESISTANCE because they were truly free falling.

This is demonstrated very clearly in a video, taken from ground level within a block of the collapse. I will have to find it. It is hand held amateur footage. The key is just before the cameraman turns to run, there is at least a half a second of footage of a HUGE exterior panel smashing to the ground, well before the bulk of the building. In addition there are smaller bits of debris also falling at “free fall speed” and hitting the ground long before the bulk of the building.

NIST’s calculation, therefore, is incredibly conservative, if anything. The problem is that alleged experts publishing in alleged “Mainstream Woornals” do not hesitate to mislead their audience.

/any help you all can offer finding that video would be much appreciated. I do recall that early on, it briefly showed a victim of falling debris laying in the street (I don’t know if this helps).
The Big Dog is online now   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 22nd April 2008, 07:18 AM   #397
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,410
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
And, yes, if Jones was charged $600 for 14 Points, I think I could request a charge of $300 for just 7 Points!
I would agree with you on that, but then I'd owe you $42.86.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   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 22nd April 2008, 07:20 AM   #398
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
(suspiciously) How much is the government paying you...?
$600.
AZCat 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 22nd April 2008, 07:20 AM   #399
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,857
If someone writes an article with exactly 16 and one-half points, I will pay for it!
The Big Dog is online now   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 22nd April 2008, 07:20 AM   #400
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
Don't forget the Magnificent 7, or the original Seven Samurai.
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-
JamesB 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 06:15 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.