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 18th April 2008, 05:55 PM   #81
Par
Master Poster
 
Par's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,768
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
The truther universe runs on an older version of Windows. Clock drift is a bitch...
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
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.

I hate to sound pedantic*, but Windows 2000 featured authoritative time synchronisation and was also relatively stable.

* = That’s false.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
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 18th April 2008, 05:55 PM   #82
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
older version of windows just working fine?
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 18th April 2008, 06:22 PM   #83
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 Dictator Cheney View Post
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
You think we don't need to look for natural sources of thermite? Stop and think about this for a minute:
  • At heart, thermite is iron oxide plus aluminum.
  • The Twin Towers were aluminum clad buildings with steel frames that, as all steel does in nature, had rust.
How sir would you rule out natural sources when two major components of the building in question are the same two components of the "planted" compound one is looking for? You cannot avoid natural generation of thermite; the only question is how much would be present. So despite the chip Steven Jones found - a chip that's not established as being anything other than the most likely candidate (paint or primer) - the question still stands: How does a person distinguish between emplanted thermite and naturally occuring thermite? No chip Steven Jones presents comes close to answering that question.
__________________
"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."

Last edited by ElMondoHummus; 18th April 2008 at 06:32 PM. Reason: Removed second quote linking Scholars paper; is not relevant to this post
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 18th April 2008, 06:25 PM   #84
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
You think we don't need to look for natural sources of thermite? Stop and think about this for a minute:
  • At heart, thermite is iron oxide plus aluminum.
  • The Twin Towers were aluminum clad buildings with steel frames that, as all steel does in nature, had rust.
How sir would you rule out natural sources when two major components of the building in question are the same two components of the "planted" compound one is looking for? You cannot avoid natural generation of thermite; the only question is how much would be present. So despite the chip Steven Jones found - a chip that's not established as being anything other than the most likely candidate (paint or primer) - the question still stands: How does a person distinguish between emplanted thermite and naturally occuring thermite? No chip Steven Jones presents comes close to answering that question.
there are many difrent therm?tes.
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 18th April 2008, 06:33 PM   #85
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 Dictator Cheney View Post
there are many difrent therm?tes.
Good. Now distinguish between natural occurances and planted thermite for us.
__________________
"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 18th April 2008, 09:45 PM   #86
alexg
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 539
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
This gives me a great get-rich-quick idea.

Start a journal called "Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal". Accept any paper from anyone willing to pay out $5,000 or more. They then have the bragging rights to having published in my journal, widely read by anyone who has paid me $5,000 or more.

Although, from the looks of things, it appears someone else has already thought of it.
But it should be called "A peer reviewed scientific journal". Then you can simply say I had my pape published in A peer reviewed . . . .
and you would not be lying.
alexg 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, 10:02 PM   #87
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
Jones, Ryan et al finally got their peer-reviewed paper, of course they had to water it down to basically agree with NIST in order to get it published.

http://911blogger.com/node/15081
__________________
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 18th April 2008, 11:53 PM   #88
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Jones: Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal!

Here it is....

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

It is a letter published in The Open Civil Engineering Journal online.

I'm going to reserve comment because all of the points raised in the article have been debated to death here and elsewhere.

I'll just say it is interesting to note that these "issues" passed legit peer review and are now published in a civil engineering journal.

How will this be received by the civil engineering community?

And here is Jones' message to Jref


Quote:
With publication in an established civil engineering journal, the discussion has reached a new level – JREF’ers and others may attack, but unless they can also get published in a peer-reviewed journal, those attacks do not carry nearly the weight of a peer-reviewed paper. It may be that debunkers will try to avoid the fourteen issues we raise in the Letter, by attacking the author(s) or even the journal rather than addressing the science – that would not surprise me.
Is that a challenge I smell?

Last edited by Sizzler; 19th April 2008 at 12:17 AM.
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 19th April 2008, 12:22 AM   #89
Walter Ego
Illuminator
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 3,377
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
Here it is....

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

And here is Jones' message to Jref


Quote:
With publication in an established civil engineering journal, the discussion has reached a new level – JREF’ers and others may attack, but unless they can also get published in a peer-reviewed journal, those attacks do not carry nearly the weight of a peer-reviewed paper. It may be that debunkers will try to avoid the fourteen issues we raise in the Letter, by attacking the author(s) or even the journal rather than addressing the science – that would not surprise me.



Is that a challenge is smell?
When I went to the homepage of the presumably prestigious peer-reviewed online publication that has ‘accepted’ Dr. Jones’ paper, this immediately caught my eye.



Attractive open access fees? A little investigating found this.



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

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

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

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

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

http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/MSandI.htm
I’m not an engineer or academic, but is this standard for a peer-reviewed academic journal? This smells of a vanity publication to me.


Edit: Here's some more info on Bentham Publishers.

Quote:
Bentham Science Publishers is a publisher of 42 journals and from 2005 a further 19, making 61 journal titles together with 5 new book series. We publish primarily in areas of pre-clinical and pharmaceutical research for academic and pharmaceutical libraries. Many of our journals have high impact factors and we are fortunate to have the leading journal for reviews in medicinal chemistry, Current Medicinal Chemistry with an impact factor of 4.4. We also have other journals with rising impact factors like Current Pharmaceutical Design which is one of our leading titles. It publishes 32 issues a year and has an impact factor of 5.55.

http://www.aardvarknet.info/access/n...m?monthnews=11

Last edited by Walter Ego; 19th April 2008 at 12:36 AM. Reason: content
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 19th April 2008, 12:32 AM   #90
gtc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,110
Hmm, my University library gives me access to 1104 electronic journals that start with the letter 'O'. Everything from 'O' Oprah's magazine to the Journal of Ozone.

Nothing from The Open Civil Engineering Journal though.

Doesn't mean that the article is baloney, just that the journal is not well known.

Let's look at what the Journal itself says:

Let's look at what it says about peer reviewing manuscripts (letters appear to be counted as manuscripts):

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

Last edited by gtc; 19th April 2008 at 12:33 AM. Reason: Walter Ego beat me to the punch about the fees. Now MY ego is deflated
gtc 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 19th April 2008, 12:35 AM   #91
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 36,080
Hahahaha! I thought for a minute, "Publication Fee" might mean what Jones would be paid, but no... from Walter Ego's link:

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

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

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

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

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

Once the paper is accepted for publication, the author will receive by email an electronic invoice.
"We will publish your article, but only if you pay us."
__________________
Challenge your thoughts.
Don't believe everything you think.
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2008, 12:51 AM   #92
Panoply_Prefect
Graduate Poster
 
Panoply_Prefect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,075
Isn't this the same as in this thread? What new insights does this paper put forth to further the truthers agenda?
Panoply_Prefect 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 19th April 2008, 12:58 AM   #93
gtc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,110
It's a load of crud. Look at this section, ostensibly about whether the building was designed to withstand a jet impact:

Quote:
2. Withstanding Jet Impact

FEMA: “The WTC towers had been designed to withstand the accidental impact of a Boeing 707 seeking to land at a nearby airport…” [2]
...
Makes sense, right? They even admit that the operative words are 707 and 'seeking to land'. Then they insert this quote from Skilling taken from a Seattle newspaper in 1993:

Quote:
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building [which did not collapse], Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
Again, makes sense. But then they go off on a tangent by continuing the quote from the Seattle article:

Quote:
Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

…Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough
about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."
This has nothing to do with whether or not the WTC could withstand the impact of an airline. It merely shows that Skilling believed in 1993 that some hypothetical person could, if given sufficient resources and time, demolish the building with expolosives; without suggesting whether or not Skilling had ever actually researched the controlled demolotion of the towers (and why would he, when they weren't planning to demolish them). Does it have anything to do with whether the building was designed to withstand a plane crash? Nothing whatsoever. Does it have any relevance to the article, at all? No. How did this get past peer review? But it gets worse as the 'letter continues'

Quote:
Thus, Skilling’s team showed that a commercial jet would not bring down a WTC Tower, just as the Empire State Building did not collapse when hit by an airplane, and he explained that a demolition expert using explosives could demolish the buildings. We find we are in agreement.
The Empire State Building is completely irrelevant. It is a different building and a different plane travelling at a different velocity etc. Their conclusion is also completely wrong, the letter is supposed to be about where they agree with FEMA and NIST:

Quote:
Our goal here is to set a foundation for scientific discussion by enumerating those areas where we find agreement with NIST and FEMA.
Here they are not agreeing with NIST or FEMA, instead they are agreeing with an 1993 article from a Seattle newspaper (actually a straw man argument they have created from the newspaper article). It appears that they are either dishonestly trying to suggest that NIST or FEMA have suggested that the WTC should have withstood an impact or they have no idea what they have written.

I suspect that they might have used the loophole that lets you nominate your peer reviewers to get around the, apparently minimal, scrutinisation process.

All I can suggest is that the authors were forced to pay $600 to publish their letter there because it would have been torn to shreds if it was published in these forums.

Last edited by gtc; 19th April 2008 at 01:01 AM.
gtc 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 19th April 2008, 01:04 AM   #94
Panoply_Prefect
Graduate Poster
 
Panoply_Prefect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,075
Ummm:

Quote:
“Why the Towers Fell” produced by NOVA [7]. The “pan-
cake theory of collapse” is strongly promoted in a Popular
Mechanics article along with a number of other discredited
ideas [8, 9]. We, on the other hand, agree with NIST that the
“pancake theory” is not scientifically tenable and ought to be
set aside in serious discussions regarding the destruction of
the WTC Towers and WTC 7.
Did Popular Mechanics promote the FEMA "Pancake-theory" as a cause for collapse initiation as suggested by this article? Source given is:

Quote:
wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html [Accessed March 17, 2008].
[8] J. B. Meigs, D. Dunbar, B. Reagan, et al. “Debunking the 9/11
myths, special report”, Popular Mechanics, vol. 182, pp. 70-81
March 2005.
I don't have that paper so I have no way of checking. (And as a side note: who uses the pancake-theory as explanation for the initiation of the collapse nowadays anyhow, and have anyone ever used it in connection with WTC7?)

Last edited by Panoply_Prefect; 19th April 2008 at 02:14 AM.
Panoply_Prefect 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 19th April 2008, 01:14 AM   #95
Panoply_Prefect
Graduate Poster
 
Panoply_Prefect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,075
One thing more:

Quote:
13. Total Collapse Explanation Lacking
NIST: “This letter is in response to your April 12, 2007
request for correction… we are unable to provide a full ex-
planation of the total collapse” [25].
This admission by NIST after publishing some 10,000
pages on the collapse of the Towers shows admirable candor,
yet may come as a bit of a shock to interested parties includ-
ing Congress, which commissioned NIST to find a full ex-
planation.
Doesn't NIST mean that they haven't modelled, or tried to explain, the events that took place after collapse initiation? Here it appears as if NIST can't really explain what happened - but isn't that a strawman?

Was the mission really to "find a full explanation" e.g modell the collapse itself as well?

Last edited by Panoply_Prefect; 19th April 2008 at 01:19 AM.
Panoply_Prefect 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 19th April 2008, 01:48 AM   #96
Edmund Standing
Thinker
 
Edmund Standing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 188
This is extraordinary - an academic journal that charges a hefty sum for an author's work to be featured?!

There are also some oddities in his references section.

Given this is supposed to be a technical scientific paper, what is he doing citing a theologian (David Ray Griffin), the Seattle Times, Public Broadcasting System, the New York Times, and the Hartford Advocate? Where are all the references to other scientists, and to credible mainstream research papers that support his views? (*cough*) I also notice he repeatedly cites a spurious journal that he just happens to edit, the peer review process of which has been shown to be a joke.
Edmund Standing 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 19th April 2008, 02:11 AM   #97
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
do peer reviewer for known journals, review papers for free?
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 19th April 2008, 02:20 AM   #98
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
I have asked Bentham, who did the peer-reviewing for this paper.

Btw, the Open Civil Engineering Journal means, that it is an open access journal at Bentham Open. The Civil Engineering Journal is one of Bentham's over 200 open access journals.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro
ref 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 19th April 2008, 02:27 AM   #99
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
 
volatile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,729
Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
Jones, Ryan et al finally got their peer-reviewed paper, of course they had to water it down to basically agree with NIST in order to get it published.

http://911blogger.com/node/15081
Subtle, but stupid. It's too subtle for the truthers, and to get any traction in the discipline, I'd imagine. It reads like a giant, unfunny in-joke that no-one who isn't involved in 9-11 forums will get, and I can't see any of the usual readers of this journal (is it really so respected?) giving a flying monkey's.
__________________
- ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'.

Last edited by volatile; 19th April 2008 at 02:29 AM.
volatile 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 19th April 2008, 02:44 AM   #100
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
 
volatile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,729
Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney View Post
do peer reviewer for known journals, review papers for free?
Yes. Authors submit for free too, and they should certainly never be asked to pay a fee to get published (unless the article contains images that need to have rights clearance, which never happens in technical papers, I'd imagine).

This paper is the Truth Argument with all the interesting parts removed. It's just so limp-wristed.
__________________
- ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'.
volatile 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 19th April 2008, 03:34 AM   #101
Nick Terry
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,929
I hope the Troofers hear realise this is a truly spectacular own goal. After seven years, the best they can do is BUY space in a vanity journal.
Nick Terry 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 19th April 2008, 03:40 AM   #102
Doctor Evil
Master Poster
 
Doctor Evil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,014
Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
I hope the Troofers hear realise this is a truly spectacular own goal. After seven years, the best they can do is BUY space in a vanity journal.
I am still not sure that this is a vanity journal. There is a new aspect of scientific publishing, called open access. The idea is that the author of a paper pay a fee, and then their paper can be read by anyone, even without subscription to the Journal.

If you would ask for my guess, this is the case here. I would also guess that the paper will not contain anything which is related directly to 'da troof'. It will most probably be an analysis of microspheres as was discussed in another thread.

ETA here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=110489 I suggest the MODS will merge this thread into that one.

Last edited by Doctor Evil; 19th April 2008 at 03:42 AM.
Doctor Evil 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 19th April 2008, 04:34 AM   #103
fullflavormenthol
Master Poster
 
fullflavormenthol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,415
Ahh! Yes, I will take that challenge given that I could easily find four people that agree with me that are college Professors, and pay $600.

Peer-Review is like regular legitimate publishing. You are not supposed to pay to be published, at all. That and the peer-review process is supposed to be anonymous in that you are not supposed to know who have reviewed your work.

So let them brag on this sad testament vanity publications. I'll go write my counter thesis and publish the abstract on Poetry.com and publish the Novelization through Publish America. Lets see Jones stand up to that.
__________________
"Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS

Last edited by fullflavormenthol; 19th April 2008 at 04:36 AM.
fullflavormenthol 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 19th April 2008, 05:10 AM   #104
deep
Graduate Poster
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,367
The paper passed peer-review. It's been peer-reviewed and published.

Stephen Jones also included this in his message over at 911blogger.com:

Quote:
With publication in an established civil engineering journal, the discussion has reached a new level – JREF’ers and others may attack, but unless they can also get published in a peer-reviewed journal, those attacks do not carry nearly the weight of a peer-reviewed paper. It may be that debunkers will try to avoid the fourteen issues we raise in the Letter, by attacking the author(s) or even the journal rather than addressing the science – that would not surprise me.
(bolding mine)

He hit the nail right on the head.

I find this to be especially satisfying, because I now get to watch you guys squirm, as you try desperately to find a reason to ignore this peer-reviewed publication. You'll probably just move the goalposts.. again.

Stephen Jones was correct, until you start published peer-reviewed research, your opinions are meaningless to anyone but yourselves.


deep 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 19th April 2008, 05:18 AM   #105
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,148
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
The paper passed peer-review. It's been peer-reviewed and published.

Stephen Jones also included this in his message over at 911blogger.com:

(bolding mine)

He hit the nail right on the head.

I find this to be especially satisfying, because I now get to watch you guys squirm, as you try desperately to find a reason to ignore this peer-reviewed publication. You'll probably just move the goalposts.. again.

Stephen Jones was correct, until you start published peer-reviewed research, your opinions are meaningless to anyone but yourselves.


What new ground breaking evidence has been presented here? How does this help your movement? Bragging rights to another meaningless paper on one will pay attention to? The paper essentially says we think the investigations so far are wrong. This is nothing more the paying to say we are "just asking questions".
__________________
"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 19th April 2008, 05:21 AM   #106
Doctor Evil
Master Poster
 
Doctor Evil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,014
Quote:
I find this to be especially satisfying, because I now get to watch you guys squirm, as you try desperately to find a reason to ignore this peer-reviewed publication. You'll probably just move the goalposts.. again.
Following the link, I have found this:
Quote:
In this Letter, we emphasize “points of agreement” with FEMA and NIST, seeking to build bridges for further communications. Of course, we will send a copy to NIST for their comment and hopefully open a public discussion on these crucial evidences and analyses.
What is your point? That they manage to publish a letter telling us how they agree with previous results. How lame.
Doctor Evil 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 19th April 2008, 05:22 AM   #107
deep
Graduate Poster
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,367
Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
I hope the Troofers hear realise this is a truly spectacular own goal. After seven years, the best they can do is BUY space in a vanity journal.

Are you suggesting that the paper was not peer-reviewed? Care to provide your proof? Or is that just another pathetic JREF lie?

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

The bottom line is this: the paper was peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal. There's nothing you can say or do to change that fact.
deep 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 19th April 2008, 05:33 AM   #108
fullflavormenthol
Master Poster
 
fullflavormenthol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,415
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
Are you suggesting that the paper was not peer-reviewed? Care to provide your proof? Or is that just another pathetic JREF lie?
You get to pick the people that "review" your work. You can literally pick four people willing to give it a pass.

Quote:
As for whether or not a fee was paid - I'm not sure; however, I wouldn't be surprised, considering it is an open access journal. How else would you suggest they pay to host and maintain the website + cover general operational costs?
Well in the non-academic world this is through advertising. In the academic world you pay for it through professional memberships and subcription fees. That is why most peer-reviewed journals are put out by professional organizations. Still look to the issue of choosing your own reviewers as a means to criticise this publication.

Quote:
The bottom line is this: the paper was peer-reviewed (potentially by people of the author's choosing) and published in a scientific (vanity) journal. There's nothing you can say or do to change that fact.
(I fixed that for you)

We all did. There are issues that cast suspicion upon viewing this as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. And it is funny how Jone's specifically mentions how we bad people will attack the publication, because he obviously knows there is something wrong with any review structure that allows you to hand pick your reviewers.
__________________
"Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS
fullflavormenthol 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 19th April 2008, 05:34 AM   #109
Doctor Evil
Master Poster
 
Doctor Evil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,014
I took the time to look the this 'so called paper'. And, yes, 'so called paper' is the correct term for it. Is that supposed to present an original work? It is just a few pages of various citations from other work or from people, without any serious discussion of any technical point. Frankly, I would have been ashamed to publish such a paper. I am not familiar with the standards of publication in the engineering community, but still wonder how it got published.
Doctor Evil 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 19th April 2008, 05:35 AM   #110
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,220
I'll take 'Letter of the law, not the spirit' for $600, Alex.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker 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 19th April 2008, 05:36 AM   #111
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,148
deep44:
Out of curiosity, Have you read this letter yet? I'm kind of puzzled why you seem so excited about it. I think you demonstrate perfectly the reaction Jones was trying to get with this letter.
__________________
"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 19th April 2008, 05:43 AM   #112
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
So Jones paid to have his paper published by a vanity publisher? Too funny, even funnier than the High Times and Mad magazine jokes, 5 laughing dogs!

__________________
Vive la liberté!

Last edited by WildCat; 19th April 2008 at 05:44 AM.
WildCat 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 19th April 2008, 05:47 AM   #113
fullflavormenthol
Master Poster
 
fullflavormenthol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,415
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
So Jones paid to have his paper published by a vanity publisher? Too funny, even funnier than the High Times.....
I doubt High Times would even touch this letter. They probably even have higher standards of integrity.
__________________
"Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS
fullflavormenthol 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 19th April 2008, 05:47 AM   #114
deep
Graduate Poster
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,367
Originally Posted by Doctor Evil View Post
What is your point? That they manage to publish a letter telling us how they agree with previous results. How lame.

Sounds like it might be a little bit over your head.
deep 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 19th April 2008, 05:48 AM   #115
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by orphia nay View Post
Hahahaha! I thought for a minute, "Publication Fee" might mean what Jones would be paid, but no... from Walter Ego's link:



"We will publish your article, but only if you pay us."
My reading of that rate list suggests that $600 doesn't get the author any review, peer or otherwise.

Am I wrong?
BigAl 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 19th April 2008, 05:50 AM   #116
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
I love No. 4 -

Quote:
We totally agree that the WTC Towers included “massive”
interconnected steel columns in the cores of the buildings,
in addition to the columns in the outside walls. The
central core columns bore much of the gravity loads so the
Towers were clearly NOT hollow. Yet the false notion that
the Towers were “hollow tubes” with the floors supported
just by the perimeter columns seems to have gained wide
acceptance. For example, an emeritus structural engineering
professor asserted, “The structural design of the towers was
unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of
closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The
resulting structure was similar to a tube…” [12].
The fact is the Towers were constructed with a substantial
load-supporting core structure as well as perimeter columns
– and on this point we agree with NIST in dispelling
false popular notions.
One of their "points of agreement" is that the Towers had massive, load-bearing columns. Oh, excellent.

Are we all agreed that the attacks happened on 11 September 2001? Yes? Dang, that could have been 15 points of agreement. Maybe Jones could slip the journal a quick $50 and get an addendum in the next issue.
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 19th April 2008, 05:52 AM   #117
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,148
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
My reading of that rate list suggests that $600 doesn't get the author any review, peer or otherwise.

Am I wrong?
Quote:
REVIEWING AND PROMPTNESS OF PUBLICATION: All manuscripts submitted for publication will be immediately subjected to peer-reviewing, usually in consultation with the members of the Editorial Advisory Board and a number of external referees. Authors may, however, provide in their Covering Letter the contact details (including e-mail addresses) of four potential peer reviewers for their paper. Any peer reviewers suggested should not have recently published with any of the authors of the submitted manuscript and should not be members of the same research institution.All peer-reviewing will be conducted via the Internet to facilitate rapid reviewing of the submitted manuscripts. Every possible effort will be made to assess the manuscripts quickly with the decision being conveyed to the authors in due course.
Sounds like you tell them who will review it.
__________________
"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 19th April 2008, 05:56 AM   #118
deep
Graduate Poster
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,367
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
So Jones paid to have his paper published by a vanity publisher? Too funny, even funnier than the High Times and Mad magazine jokes, 5 laughing dogs!

1. Please provide proof that a fee was paid.

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

--

..or feel free to continue embarrassing yourself and JREF by spouting those obvious lies. Like I said, you guys are only fooling yourselves.
deep 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 19th April 2008, 05:59 AM   #119
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
On a not-so-scientific note, their paper uses a total of 7 times their very own journalof911studies (JONES) as a source. As we all know, peer-reviewers for JONES include Kevin Ryan and Tony Szamboti. And who are among the five authors of this new paper? Kevin Ryan and Tony Szamboti! So they use papers that are peer-reviewed by themselves as sources. How scientific indeed.

Of those citations, two of the most important seem to be the ones discussing the molten material pouring out of WTC, and the thermite evidence. Both are Steven Jones papers. Steven Jones cites his own (not properly peer-reviewed) papers to bring the point through.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro

Last edited by ref; 19th April 2008 at 06:02 AM.
ref 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 19th April 2008, 06:01 AM   #120
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,148
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
1. Please provide proof that a fee was paid.

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

--

..or feel free to continue embarrassing yourself and JREF by spouting those obvious lies. Like I said, you guys are only fooling yourselves.
For god sake. Read the publishing terms for the journal. Are you that research challenged?
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 19th April 2008 at 06:01 AM.
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
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 03:42 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.