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 3rd April 2008, 10:40 AM   #41
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,303
Originally Posted by Minadin View Post
This thread does raise an important question, though.

Where does one buy a can of oats?
I think the best you can do is buy a box and wrap it in tinfoil.
__________________
"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 3rd April 2008, 11:02 AM   #42
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
I could well imagine SJ writing a paper with a title something like:

“The characterization of iron-rich microspheres in dust samples collected in NYC after the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.”

If appropriately written, such a paper would be suitable for publication in a whole slew of journals such as Surface and Interface Analysis, Microchimica Acta, Environmental Science and Technology, etc, etc.

I could also see the paper dealing mostly with the X-ray (fluorescence and diffraction) analysis of microspheres. There could be a Discussion section where the possible sources of the particles would be reviewed. SJ could go through possibilities like fly ash, welding and cutting fume, wear particles, etc, and argue against these in various predictable ways. He could end the paper with the conclusion that the iron-rich microspheres indicate the presence of very high temperatures in the Twin Towers; temperatures that cannot be explained by conventional hydrocarbon/cellulosic fuelled fires.

Such a paper would be acceptable to reviewers while simultaneously satisfying the conspiracy-believer crowd. Furthermore, this approach would leave the door open for any number of follow-up articles.
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 3rd April 2008, 11:36 AM   #43
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
Apollo20,

I think you're right. If Jones is published in a real scientific journal (a big if) I'll be surprised if he has the balls to come out and say "I think thermite produced this."

Instead it'll be a few pages of: "oh look at these spheres...how interesting. I wish I knew what caused it. We'd better conduct a new investigation to find out...but not one funded by the government! Not that I'm saying the guv had anything to do with it...I'm just saying maybe they did. But I have no idea how. That's why we need a new investigation...one that hopefully points to thermite....not that I'm saying that's what it was."
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 3rd April 2008, 11:45 AM   #44
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,885
Apollo:

“The characterization of iron-rich microspheres in dust samples collected in NYC after the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.”

"If appropriately written, such a paper would be suitable for publication in a whole slew of journals such as Surface and Interface Analysis, Microchimica Acta, Environmental Science and Technology, etc, etc."

I strongly disagree. Jones cannot establish the provenance of his samples to the degree that any reputable journal would deem acceptable. Further, I seem to recall that he refuses to provide his samples to others.

This is all BS anyway: his claim that this is a technical paper seems to be bologna anyway. He tells his minions to "Please read the entire paper when it comes out -- not just the title! You will see a little humor coming through (I hope you'll see it), but the overall thrust is very serious: countering popular myths about the destruction of WTC 7 and the Towers -- and pointing out areas where we the authors find agreement with NIST (and FEMA). Yes, we agree with NIST that the Towers fell at nearly free-fall speed, for example -- and that the WTC fires were NOT hot enough to melt structural steel. Don't you?"

So it ain't about dust, it seems like a smart aleck paper written by a nitwit.
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 3rd April 2008, 01:38 PM   #45
Walter Ego
Illuminator
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 3,377
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
So am I to understand that the S. Jones paper was peer reviewed by his own paranoid crack pots, and then submitted and published in a throw away mag?

It will be interesting to see:

(1) Which journal/magazine it is published in
(2) Which section of the journal it is published in
(3) The replies to it, in future additions (should be priceless)

TAM
What the hell is Jones saying in this video? First he says his paper has been 'accepted' but then he says it's "in a book" by DMG.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Walter Ego 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 3rd April 2008, 02:42 PM   #46
Mince
Master Poster
 
Mince's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,009
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post


So what will the new "standard" be? Multiple peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals?

No. The new standard will be that we accept Stephen Jones' analysis (and actually start a message board thread about it) when we don't even know what the analysis is, who reviewed it and who will publish it.

Quote:
Don't worry, you guys have a couple weeks to think about it
You do also. I highly suggest you use that time wisely.
Mince 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 3rd April 2008, 03:20 PM   #47
Myron Proudfoot
Master Poster
 
Myron Proudfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Northern VA/DC
Posts: 2,361
History Journals

Originally Posted by slyjoe View Post
Question here - for one off events (most of history), does anyone know what the peer review process is? I am familiar with science and engineering journals. The OP said "mainstream journal", not scientific journal. I'm thinking he may be going the history journal route.
I can chime in a bit here as I've been on both sides of that process. The article draft is sent to a minimum of 2 other specialists in the same field with an established record of publication. The review process is "blind" (only the editor knows who is who). The reviewers write individual reports stating if they think the paper thesis is original, if the author has made a logical argument, and if the author has presented sufficient evidence to support their conclusion. The reviewers' reports are sent to the author who can then do one of three things…

- revise the article to meet suggestions or complaints
- decide to shop the article elsewhere (and risk getting the same reviewer a second time if it's a small field)
- bag the entire thing and start over

The first option is pretty common. There are always suggestions to improve the original draft. Once the author makes the changes then the paper may be resubmitted and it is sent back to the original reviewers (usually). Once the reviewers are satisfied, and if the journal editor is satisfied, then the article usually goes before an editorial board for their approval.

This is the process in a nutshell. It can vary from publication to publication. I have seen articles go to one specialist for review for very specialized subjects.

Frankly, knowing the major history journals, I find it very hard to believe that any of the first or second string history journals would touch anything written by a 9-11 twoofer. I can see some "C-List" journal publishing something LIHOP, but suspect only an unknown cellar-dwelling journal would touch MIHOP.
Myron Proudfoot 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 3rd April 2008, 03:43 PM   #48
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,596
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
...Don't worry, you guys have a couple weeks to think about it.
Yes, we always have a couple of weeks. Or months. Or some unspecified short interval. Because the Big Truther Event, that epochal blow-the-lid-off-everything happening that will finally justify all those lonely hours you guys spent on the internet when you could have been out living a real life, is always just about to take place. Real soon. Really, really, really, we mean it this time soon. Any day now.

Only it doesn't. It's been what, going on seven years now? And you guys haven't advanced your cause a single angstrom. (If you're unfamiliar with the term, trust me, it isn't far.) You've gone backwards even. They talk about Peak Oil, well, I think you guys have had your Peak Truth moment a long time ago, and now you're reduced to a tiny core of bitter kids whose only purpose in life seems to be to provide entertainment for us bored, semi-mean JREFer's. All because that Big Thing That's Always Just About To Happen never does. Always so close, just out of reach. You need it so desperately, to provide a little much needed enthusiasm to your strange little group, and here it is a mere two weeks away. But why won't those two weeks ever come to pass?

How do you guys do it? Seriously, how do you do it?? Never mind the much bigger (and far more disturbing) question of why anyone would even want to do it. How do you manage to go through life like that, always being told vindication is just around the corner, everything you worked for will be proven true and you'll finally stop being considered a weird joke and be able to shut up all those people who thought they were so smart, only again and again and again it always falls through, right at the last second? Good Gravy, what drives a person to voluntarily subject themselves to such constant disappointment and mental torture? Can't you spot the trend here?

My advice: give it up. Whatever answers you think you're looking for, they're not going to be provided by Dr. Griffin or Dylan Avery or anyone else whose need for attention has warped their common sense beyond recognition. They're always going to string you along, promising Christmas, fame, and popularity will all be yours, if you just hang on and follow them for just a little longer. They need you, but trust me, you don't need them.

Just two more weeks, and everything will be different. Sure it will. I've been hearing that for years now, and nothing ever changes. I swear, for 9/11 CTers, it's like today will always be September 12, 2001, forever.
__________________
Another Shameless Googlebomb Plug for www.stopsylvia.com

Last edited by Stellafane; 3rd April 2008 at 03:47 PM.
Stellafane 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 3rd April 2008, 04:00 PM   #49
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
Yes, we always have a couple of weeks. Or months. Or some unspecified short interval. Because the Big Truther Event, that epochal blow-the-lid-off-everything happening that will finally justify all those lonely hours you guys spent on the internet when you could have been out living a real life, is always just about to take place. Real soon. Really, really, really, we mean it this time soon. Any day now.

Only it doesn't. It's been what, going on seven years now? And you guys haven't advanced your cause a single angstrom. (If you're unfamiliar with the term, trust me, it isn't far.) You've gone backwards even. They talk about Peak Oil, well, I think you guys have had your Peak Truth moment a long time ago, and now you're reduced to a tiny core of bitter kids whose only purpose in life seems to be to provide entertainment for us bored, semi-mean JREFer's. All because that Big Thing That's Always Just About To Happen never does. Always so close, just out of reach. You need it so desperately, to provide a little much needed enthusiasm to your strange little group, and here it is a mere two weeks away. But why won't those two weeks ever come to pass?

How do you guys do it? Seriously, how do you do it?? Never mind the much bigger (and far more disturbing) question of why anyone would even want to do it. How do you manage to go through life like that, always being told vindication is just around the corner, everything you worked for will be proven true and you'll finally stop being considered a weird joke and be able to shut up all those people who thought they were so smart, only again and again and again it always falls through, right at the last second? Good Gravy, what drives a person to voluntarily subject themselves to such constant disappointment and mental torture? Can't you spot the trend here?

My advice: give it up. Whatever answers you think you're looking for, they're not going to be provided by Dr. Griffin or Dylan Avery or anyone else whose need for attention has warped their common sense beyond recognition. They're always going to string you along, promising Christmas, fame, and popularity will all be yours, if you just hang on and follow them for just a little longer. They need you, but trust me, you don't need them.

Just two more weeks, and everything will be different. Sure it will. I've been hearing that for years now, and nothing ever changes. I swear, for 9/11 CTers, it's like today will always be September 12, 2001, forever.
Great post, nominated.
stateofgrace 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 3rd April 2008, 04:01 PM   #50
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,303
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Apollo:

“The characterization of iron-rich microspheres in dust samples collected in NYC after the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.”

"If appropriately written, such a paper would be suitable for publication in a whole slew of journals such as Surface and Interface Analysis, Microchimica Acta, Environmental Science and Technology, etc, etc."

I strongly disagree. Jones cannot establish the provenance of his samples to the degree that any reputable journal would deem acceptable. Further, I seem to recall that he refuses to provide his samples to others.

This is all BS anyway: his claim that this is a technical paper seems to be bologna anyway. He tells his minions to "Please read the entire paper when it comes out -- not just the title! You will see a little humor coming through (I hope you'll see it), but the overall thrust is very serious: countering popular myths about the destruction of WTC 7 and the Towers -- and pointing out areas where we the authors find agreement with NIST (and FEMA). Yes, we agree with NIST that the Towers fell at nearly free-fall speed, for example -- and that the WTC fires were NOT hot enough to melt structural steel. Don't you?"

So it ain't about dust, it seems like a smart aleck paper written by a nitwit.
I tend to agree with Apollo20. What Jones has found is in fact interesting. As long as he drops his speculation as to what caused these spheres I see no reason for his paper not to be published.

The only thing Woo about Dr Jones work is his interpretation of his "evidence".
__________________
"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 3rd April 2008, 04:36 PM   #51
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
I agree that if he has written a strictly scientific paper on the iron microspheres, and had a few other scientists review it for scientific accuracy and content, he could get it published in a proper journal.

The problem, is beyond the academic, the unbias evidence, he gets into gaga land. If his "Discussion" of the evidence even hints at the words "Thermite" or "Explosives" the majority of academics reading the paper would tear it to shreds...that is if such ridiculous and evidence-less suggestions would pass Peer Review at any decent journal.

TAM

Last edited by T.A.M.; 3rd April 2008 at 04:37 PM.
T.A.M. 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 3rd April 2008, 07:28 PM   #52
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
I agree that if he has written a strictly scientific paper on the iron microspheres, and had a few other scientists review it for scientific accuracy and content, he could get it published in a proper journal.

The problem, is beyond the academic, the unbias evidence, he gets into gaga land. If his "Discussion" of the evidence even hints at the words "Thermite" or "Explosives" the majority of academics reading the paper would tear it to shreds...that is if such ridiculous and evidence-less suggestions would pass Peer Review at any decent journal.

TAM
While I understand the sentiment, I don't find what Jones has done in terms of microanalysis to be worthy of publication. Indeed, there are numerous publications on particle analysis, and a publication on the analysis of the WTC dust. What he's done is neither original, nor very good, so why should anyone bother to publish it?
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member

Last edited by The Almond; 3rd April 2008 at 07:34 PM.
The Almond 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 4th April 2008, 12:30 PM   #53
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 28,978
I've just been accepted for sex with a gorgeous Hollywood woman, who's been at the top of many "hottest" lists.

I'll let you know which one in a few months. Meanwhile, here's a link to my site where you can order stuff.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina 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 4th April 2008, 12:42 PM   #54
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,303
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
I've just been accepted for sex with a gorgeous Hollywood woman, who's been at the top of many "hottest" lists.

I'll let you know which one in a few months. Meanwhile, here's a link to my site where you can order stuff.
Will there be video?
__________________
"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 4th April 2008, 01:55 PM   #55
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
I'll wait and download the video via P2P...lol

TAM
T.A.M. 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 4th April 2008, 06:21 PM   #56
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,885
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I tend to agree with Apollo20. What Jones has found is in fact interesting. As long as he drops his speculation as to what caused these spheres I see no reason for his paper not to be published.

The only thing Woo about Dr Jones work is his interpretation of his "evidence".
Dude, read what Dr. Woo wrote:

"Please read the entire paper when it comes out -- not just the title! You will see a little humor coming through (I hope you'll see it), but the overall thrust is very serious: countering popular myths about the destruction of WTC 7 and the Towers -- and pointing out areas where we the authors find agreement with NIST (and FEMA). Yes, we agree with NIST that the Towers fell at nearly free-fall speed, for example -- and that the WTC fires were NOT hot enough to melt structural steel. Don't you?"

He will not mention dust at all. It will be some smarmy bs article misrepresenting the NIST report, and claiming that their ideas are not woo because they are close to the Nist report.

Bull ****.
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 14th April 2008, 09:01 AM   #57
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,596
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
Just noticed this over on 911blogger.com - it's from Steven Jones:

(bolding mine)

So what will the new "standard" be? Multiple peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals?

Don't worry, you guys have a couple weeks to think about it.
It's been (almost) a couple of weeks now. Any progress on this paradigm-shifting report?

As an aside, you may well wonder why I'm bumping this for all to see. After all, shouldn't I wait until the two weeks are well past, so if the report doesn't come out I can safely gloat along the lines of "Hey CTer's, where's your precious report? HA HA!" But what if the report does come out, and it has some real meat and controversy to it (not just some nothing-to-do-with-anything topic dressed up in cheap gift wrapping and breathlessly hyped as a breakthrough like oh say, WTC floorplans)? Then bumping this thread is a risk, because it gives the CTers a chance to gloat at debunkers, right?

Well, if I were a CTer, I probably would wait until I can safely see how things pan out. But I'm not (a CTer, that is). Therefore I welcome the chance to be proven wrong, because it means I may learn something very important. And that's precisely one of the core differences between the way CTers think and how the rest of us see the world: I'm willing to change my views to conform with reality, rather than the other way around.

And if the article doesn't come out, or is some meaningless piece of nothing, that's a non-event worth noting too, since it represents the demise of yet another right-around-the-corner stupendous breakthough upon which CTers seem to forever pin all their fevered little hopes.
__________________
Another Shameless Googlebomb Plug for www.stopsylvia.com
Stellafane 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 14th April 2008, 10:04 AM   #58
Evilgiraffe
Scatterer of X-rays
 
Evilgiraffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 760
I too would like to see Jones' new paper.

Having read another of his (this one), I'll be interested to see if he has made any attempt to identify any of the phases present in his "iron-rich microspheres".

In the previous paper there are elemental analyses from energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy. This technique can only analyse samples as an average. Essentially it can tell you that there is "some iron", "some aluminium" etc, but there can be no detailed examination of microstructure. There are comments about one of his samples having a Fe:O ratio commensurate with Fe2O3, one of the components of thermite, commonly known as rust. This is hardly compelling evidence of the presence of thermite.

If Jones wants to use the microspheres as evidence of thermite, there needs to be some kind of crystallography going on to identify phases present in his samples. Only then can he compare what he has picked up off the floor (or in someone's flat) with genuine thermite residues to confirm whether or not thermite was used at the WTC site.

For those who have access (and are remotely interested):

Duraes et al, Mat. Sci. & Eng. A, 465, (2007), pp 199-210

Has a discussion of which phases are formed during and after a Fe2O3 + Al thermite reaction.
Evilgiraffe 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 14th April 2008, 10:35 AM   #59
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
I think the goal is to write a non-conspiracy paper as Apollo suggested, but then be able to claim to have had their work published. They can then just make blanket statements about their work being published in a legitimate journal without mentioning that the only paper that was actually published didn't prove any kind of controlled demolition or conspiracy.
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 14th April 2008, 10:45 AM   #60
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,257
Originally Posted by Evilgiraffe View Post
I too would like to see Jones' new paper.

Having read another of his (this one), I'll be interested to see if he has made any attempt to identify any of the phases present in his "iron-rich microspheres".

In the previous paper there are elemental analyses from energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy. This technique can only analyse samples as an average. Essentially it can tell you that there is "some iron", "some aluminium" etc, but there can be no detailed examination of microstructure. There are comments about one of his samples having a Fe:O ratio commensurate with Fe2O3, one of the components of thermite, commonly known as rust. This is hardly compelling evidence of the presence of thermite.

If Jones wants to use the microspheres as evidence of thermite, there needs to be some kind of crystallography going on to identify phases present in his samples. Only then can he compare what he has picked up off the floor (or in someone's flat) with genuine thermite residues to confirm whether or not thermite was used at the WTC site.

For those who have access (and are remotely interested):

Duraes et al, Mat. Sci. & Eng. A, 465, (2007), pp 199-210

Has a discussion of which phases are formed during and after a Fe2O3 + Al thermite reaction.

Not to nitpick or move the goalposts, but even if he finds phases consistent with a thermite reaction, how does he separate naturally occuring reactions arising just from the presence of rust, aluminum, etc. from deliberately planted thermite? Seems to me that even if Jones found any such phases he would still be quite a long way from establishing thermite demolitions.
__________________
"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 14th April 2008, 10:51 AM   #61
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
Not to nitpick or move the goalposts, but even if he finds phases consistent with a thermite reaction, how does he separate naturally occuring reactions arising just from the presence of rust, aluminum, etc. from deliberately planted thermite? Seems to me that even if Jones found any such phases he would still be quite a long way from establishing thermite demolitions.
when his newest claims of red/grey chips that according to him seems to be a sort of thermite, are true and provable in other samples, i think we dont need to look for natural sources. If
DC 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 14th April 2008, 10:57 AM   #62
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
could it be just this paper that will be printed in a journal?

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction
DC 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 14th April 2008, 11:26 AM   #63
Evilgiraffe
Scatterer of X-rays
 
Evilgiraffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 760
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
Not to nitpick or move the goalposts, but even if he finds phases consistent with a thermite reaction, how does he separate naturally occuring reactions arising just from the presence of rust, aluminum, etc. from deliberately planted thermite? Seems to me that even if Jones found any such phases he would still be quite a long way from establishing thermite demolitions.
Yup you're right, slightly poor phrasing on my part.

Finding thermite consistent residues would be the first step toward determining whether thermite was present. It certainly wouldn't be proof. However, so far Jones hasn't even done this.
Evilgiraffe 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 14th April 2008, 11:34 AM   #64
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
First Jones published his research in a Marxist economics journal.

Then he published it multiple times in his own journal.

Now he appears ready to publish what appears to be a comedic piece in a "maintrsteam" journal.

For someone trying to expose a conspiracy and prevent a fascist NWO police state, Jones sure is taking his sweet time. In fact it's almost as if he isn't serious about it at all.

Last edited by CHF; 14th April 2008 at 11:54 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 14th April 2008, 09:43 PM   #65
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by CHF View Post
First Jones published his research in a Marxist economics journal.

Then he published it multiple times in his own journal.

Now he appears ready to publish what appears to be a comedic piece in a "maintrsteam" journal.

For someone trying to expose a conspiracy and prevent a fascist NWO police state, Jones sure is taking his sweet time. In fact it's almost as if he isn't serious about it at all.
Hmmmm...now where else in Trutherville have I seen that particular fire in the belly...?

Ah, that's it, fighting against the murderous government by arguing against a tiny population of skeptics on the internet.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill
Sporanox 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 14th April 2008, 09:45 PM   #66
Minadin
Master Poster
 
Minadin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 2,469
But where do I get a can of oats?
Minadin 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 14th April 2008, 09:56 PM   #67
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
Originally Posted by CHF View Post
First Jones published his research in a Marxist economics journal.

Then he published it multiple times in his own journal.

Now he appears ready to publish what appears to be a comedic piece in a "maintrsteam" journal.

For someone trying to expose a conspiracy and prevent a fascist NWO police state, Jones sure is taking his sweet time. In fact it's almost as if he isn't serious about it at all.
And ironically when I submitted my Legge paper to him he rejected it on the basis that it had already been published in a journal, our semi-parody Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.
__________________
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
Old 14th April 2008, 09:58 PM   #68
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
And ironically when I submitted my Legge paper to him he rejected it on the basis that it had already been published in a journal, our semi-parody Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.
Submit a PDF or Microsoft Word Document to the Journals E-mail address. Check manuscript length limitations listed below. Papers under review, accepted for publication, or published elsewhere are not accepted. E-mail the Journals Department for JD911 for complete instructions for manuscript preparation. Submit your documents for review at submissions@jod911.com
DC 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 14th April 2008, 10:34 PM   #69
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,454
Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney View Post
Submit a PDF or Microsoft Word Document to the Journals E-mail address. Check manuscript length limitations listed below. Papers under review, accepted for publication, or published elsewhere are not accepted. E-mail the Journals Department for JD911 for complete instructions for manuscript preparation. Submit your documents for review at submissions@jod911.com
88.


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 14th April 2008, 10:50 PM   #70
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,419
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
Just noticed this over on 911blogger.com - it's from Steven Jones:

Quote:
1. Recently had a technical paper accepted for publication following peer-review (three reviewers!), in a mainstream journal. Hopefully it will be out soon. Please read the entire paper when it comes out -- not just the title! You will see a little humor coming through (I hope you'll see it), but the overall thrust is very serious: countering popular myths about the destruction of WTC 7 and the Towers -- and pointing out areas where we the authors find agreement with NIST (and FEMA). Yes, we agree with NIST that the Towers fell at nearly free-fall speed, for example -- and that the WTC fires were NOT hot enough to melt structural steel. Don't you? The paper should come out about the same time as Truth Week, and hopefully add to the momentum of that week (beginning April 16th).

God... Don't tell me he's going with "the towers fell too fast" and "the fires weren't hot enough to melt steel, therefore the collapses were anomalous" crap...

Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 14th April 2008 at 10:51 PM.
Cl1mh4224rd 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 14th April 2008, 10:53 PM   #71
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,531
Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert View Post
What the hell is Bubble Hash?

(from High Times)
I dunno, but don't Bogart it!
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch 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 17th April 2008, 03:19 PM   #72
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,885
Bumped:

I just got my latest Edition of High times, and Mad Magazine: no peer reviewed article in sight.

Anybody seen this alleged article?
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 17th April 2008, 04:58 PM   #73
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,454
Originally Posted by Minadin View Post
This thread does raise an important question, though.

Where does one buy a can of oats?

Jones was considerate enough to provide a link over at 911bloviater so that tinhatters can purchase cans of oats from his church in Utah. Along with cans of wheat, pinto beans, rice, tin foil pouches, and pouch sealing machines.

They seem to be expecting some kind of catastrophe to strike ... hmm, is that foreknowledge?

Last edited by LashL; 17th April 2008 at 05:01 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 17th April 2008, 05:11 PM   #74
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
 
Drudgewire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,421
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
I just got my latest Edition of High times, and Mad Magazine: no peer reviewed article in sight.
What's #1 on the Hemp 100 this month? I'll just die if it isn't Metalocalypse.
__________________
"You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc."
-lapman describing every twoofer on the internet
Drudgewire 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 17th April 2008, 09:53 PM   #75
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
God... Don't tell me he's going with "the towers fell too fast" and "the fires weren't hot enough to melt steel, therefore the collapses were anomalous" crap...
He is but not how you think. He is referring to the microspheres and the Lee report that states the fires caused iron contents to melt and form microspheres.

This isn't in reference to fire melting the steel structures.
Sizzler 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 17th April 2008, 10:01 PM   #76
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
As you well recall, we've been over the Lee Report, and the microspheres therein -- by virtue of being found after cleanup was nearly completed -- have everything to do with cutting of the material post-collapse, and little to nothing to do with the fires.

Surely you haven't forgotten.
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 18th April 2008, 05:42 AM   #77
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
So what will the new "standard" be? Multiple peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals?
When or "when" an article casting doubt on the collapse is published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, then the debate can actually begin. Up till then, any attention given to these absurd theories is probably pointless. There's certainly no scientific controversy.



Quote:
Don't worry, you guys have a couple weeks to think about it.
At least.
westprog 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 18th April 2008, 10:57 AM   #78
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,596
Sooooo, where's that article? Did I miss it? Or is today still September 12, 2001?
__________________
Another Shameless Googlebomb Plug for www.stopsylvia.com
Stellafane 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 18th April 2008, 05:27 PM   #79
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,419
Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
Sooooo, where's that article? Did I miss it? Or is today still September 12, 2001?

The truther universe runs on an older version of Windows. Clock drift is a bitch...
Cl1mh4224rd 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 18th April 2008, 05:44 PM   #80
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
It's not a problem if you re-boot your system often - I find two or three times a day and older versions of Windows work just fine.
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
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 05:32 PM.
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.