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 19th April 2008, 06:03 AM   #121
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
 
CptColumbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lots of places
Posts: 9,213
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Sounds like you tell them who will review it.
It reads more like you can suggest reviewers, but the "editorial advisory board" still has to be consulted. Still, I'm not experienced enough in the process to know if this is unusual, or how rigorous their review process is.
__________________
I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office"
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling
CptColumbo 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, 06:08 AM   #122
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,321
Originally Posted by CptColumbo View Post
It reads more like you can suggest reviewers, but the "editorial advisory board" still has to be consulted. Still, I'm not experienced enough in the process to know if this is unusual, or how rigorous their review process is.
I agree. I'm sure they have to approve the reviewers. This type of journal wouldn't normally have it's own reviewers in the relevant fields. They publish such a wide variety of subjects.
__________________
"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, 06:09 AM   #123
fullflavormenthol
Master Poster
 
fullflavormenthol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,415
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post

1. Please provide proof that a fee was paid.
It was published, and they require a fee for publication.....

Quote:
2. Please define "vanity publisher".
Quote:
Encarta
van·i·ty pub·lish·ing


noun
Definition:

publishing at authors' expense: the business of publishing books at the author's expense
Quote:
If you're implying that the paper wasn't peer-reviewed, you're lying.
Well our definitions of peer-review seem a little different. I use it in the academic/professional term meaning that I don't get to choose my reviewers.

Quote:
..or feel free to continue embarrassing yourself and JREF by spouting those obvious lies. Like I said, you guys are only fooling yourselves.
Why lie? When the truth is oh so much more fun
__________________
"Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS

Last edited by fullflavormenthol; 19th April 2008 at 06:11 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, 06:12 AM   #124
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
The question of Jones suggesting reviewers or not is easily resolved.

Jones should release his Covering Letter.
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, 06:13 AM   #125
Minadin
Master Poster
 
Minadin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 2,469
Wow. Pretty lame all around. It's like they aren't even trying anymore.
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 19th April 2008, 06:17 AM   #126
Doctor Evil
Master Poster
 
Doctor Evil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,014
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
Sounds like it might be a little bit over your head.
I must say I find your response amusing. Self serving assumptions, definitely not the way to go.

Last edited by Doctor Evil; 19th April 2008 at 06:19 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, 06:20 AM   #127
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
For god sake. Read the publishing terms for the journal. Are you that research challenged?
Yes he is. Unless someone holds his hand and personally shows him, he's clueless as to what to do.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
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, 06:22 AM   #128
Walter Ego
Illuminator
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 3,377
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
1. Please provide proof that a fee was paid.


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

This is from the publishers webpage.
Quote:
PUBLICATION FEES: The publication fee details for each article published in the journal are given below:

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/MSandI.htm
It's possible the fee was waived but I kinda doubt it.

Quote:
2. Please define "vanity publisher".

Vanity publishers charge authors to get published. See above.

Quote:
If you're implying that the paper wasn't peer-reviewed, you're lying.
This from the publisher suggests Jones could have nonimated the 'peers' to review his paper (or letter or whatever it is).

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

Last edited by Walter Ego; 19th April 2008 at 06:35 AM. Reason: peer review
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, 06:24 AM   #129
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,312
Someday, truthers will learn that bluster and spittle is not an effective way to press their arguement.

On that day, they will probably stop being truthers.
__________________
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, 06:25 AM   #130
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Who wants to bet that Richard Gage was one of the reviewers?

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

Last edited by WildCat; 19th April 2008 at 06:25 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, 06:27 AM   #131
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,596
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.
That's it. You guys have officially become too pathetic to even be laughed at. A "paper" published in an obscure publication that they had to pay for (that's called "advertising" in the real world). And it's so watered down as to say absolutely nothing. And this to you is a major accomphishment. I can't laugh at you anymore, but it's not for the reason you probably anticipated.
__________________
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 19th April 2008, 06:42 AM   #132
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,321
Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
That's it. You guys have officially become too pathetic to even be laughed at. A "paper" published in an obscure publication that they had to pay for (that's called "advertising" in the real world). And it's so watered down as to say absolutely nothing. And this to you is a major accomphishment. I can't laugh at you anymore, but it's not for the reason you probably anticipated.
Jones is getting the effect he wanted. "Truthers" are jumping up and down about a paper reviewed and published in something other than a woo journal. The contents and context of this "break through" are irrelevant.
__________________
"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, 06:53 AM   #133
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
I guess the 911 blogger people read JREF religiously:

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

Quote:
(EDIT: FYI, it is extremely common for Open Access Journals to charge a publication fee. This in no way reflects upon the quality of the peer review process, or the contents of the paper. -rep.)
__________________
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 19th April 2008, 07:36 AM   #134
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
The actual paper makes me yawn. Old points. Like comparing WTC attacks to a 707 landing in a fog and the comparison to the Empire State Building accident. What was the size of the plane that hit ESB again, Jones? What is the structure of ESB like?

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

That's a dishonest yawner of a paper.
__________________
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, 07:40 AM   #135
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
So after all that hype what do we get?

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

Take a bow, TM!
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 19th April 2008, 07:44 AM   #136
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,368
Originally Posted by CHF View Post
So after all that hype what do we get?

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

Take a bow, TM!
I'm SO proud of the truth movement. Their most recent triumph just brings a little tear to my eye....sniff....
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead 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, 07:45 AM   #137
Unsecured Coins
Hoku-maniac
 
Unsecured Coins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,905
__________________
"If God wants 10% of my paycheck, he can get it himself. Or at least work for it -Kochanski
"I may not be easy, but I am fast." - Hokulele
"Oh CRAP... DQ!!" - Ol' Hokey, yet again
Unsecured Coins 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, 07:59 AM   #138
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
My God, Jones is still rambling about the "pancake" theory of collapse - ignoring the fact that it refers to how the collapse started.

Jones' next step would be to tackle the NIST theory that perimeter columns bending inwards started the collapse. Yet he won't touch it.
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 19th April 2008, 09:02 AM   #139
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by Panoply_Prefect View Post
Ummm:

Did Popular Mechanics promote the FEMA "Pancake-theory" as a cause for collapse initiation as suggested by this article? Source given is:
"When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

"Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report."
__________________
pomeroo: "Mark, where did this guy get the idea that you talked about holding aluminum in your hand?"

Undesired Walrus: "Why, Ron, Mark mentioned this on your very own show!"
tanabear 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, 09:19 AM   #140
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,855
Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post
I did provide proof. You must have missed it. Here it is again.

This is from the publishers webpage.


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




Vanity publishers charge authors to get published. See above.



This from the publisher suggests Jones could have nonimated the 'peers' to review his paper (or letter or whatever it is).
Interestingly enough, according to the web page list of fees, an individual would have to also pay a fee just to refute Jones paper!
$600 payment just to say "That's a load of ****, or $900 to say "This paper is suffused with that which causes growth, and is very powerful" makes it irrefutable!
__________________
"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 19th April 2008, 09:20 AM   #141
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
 
CptColumbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lots of places
Posts: 9,213
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
"When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

"Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report."
Where in there does it say that the collapse was initiated by pancaking?
__________________
I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office"
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling
CptColumbo 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, 09:42 AM   #142
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,368
Yup. I read it again and nowhere does any of this even imply that the collapse was initiated by pancaking. And, I checked Panoply_Perfect's question was indeed (bolding mine):
Quote:
Did Popular Mechanics promote the FEMA "Pancake-theory" as a cause for collapse initiation as suggested by this article?
So Tanebear how did your post answer the question? I suspect reading comprehension is becoming a lost art.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

Last edited by twinstead; 19th April 2008 at 09:43 AM.
twinstead 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, 09:59 AM   #143
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by CptColumbo View Post
Where in there does it say that the collapse was initiated by pancaking?
The collapse was initiated by a pancaking????? The initiation has been theorized either to be truss failure or column failure. The failure of the floor trusses creates a chain reaction of floors falling on top of each other, which eventually causes the entire tower to be destroyed. This is known as the pancake collapse theory.
__________________
pomeroo: "Mark, where did this guy get the idea that you talked about holding aluminum in your hand?"

Undesired Walrus: "Why, Ron, Mark mentioned this on your very own show!"
tanabear 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, 10:07 AM   #144
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,321
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
The collapse was initiated by a pancaking????? The initiation has been theorized either to be truss failure or column failure. The failure of the floor trusses creates a chain reaction of floors falling on top of each other, which eventually causes the entire tower to be destroyed. This is known as the pancake collapse theory.
Do you know the difference between the floors and the trusses? This is a serious question, please answer.
__________________
"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 10:08 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
Old 19th April 2008, 10:11 AM   #145
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
 
CptColumbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lots of places
Posts: 9,213
Originally Posted by Panoply_Prefect View Post
Did Popular Mechanics promote the FEMA "Pancake-theory" as a cause for collapse initiation as suggested by this article? Source given is:
You answered this question with:

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

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

Originally Posted by CptColumbo View Post
Where in there does it say that the collapse was initiated by pancaking?
Meaning, if you intention in posting those two quotes was to answer Panopoly, you failed to do so since neither quote mentioned the collapse initiating with pancaking.

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
The collapse was initiated by a pancaking????? The initiation has been theorized either to be truss failure or column failure. The failure of the floor trusses creates a chain reaction of floors falling on top of each other, which eventually causes the entire tower to be destroyed. This is known as the pancake collapse theory.
So, as twinstead wrote, your reading comprehension is not very good.
__________________
I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office"
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling
CptColumbo 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, 10:17 AM   #146
Panoply_Prefect
Graduate Poster
 
Panoply_Prefect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,075
I believe the pancake theory surfaced in FEMA chapter 2 (someone correct me if Im wrong). As I understood it FEMA theorised that progressive pancaking was the cause of the collapse, while NIST rejected this. I can see that PM suggest that progressive pancaking was the cause of the collapse either.


/S

Last edited by Panoply_Prefect; 19th April 2008 at 10:26 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, 10:29 AM   #147
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,975
I am absolutely appalled that Jones is passing off this CRAP, as a technical, peer reviewed article "published in the literature."

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

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

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

Last edited by The Big Dog; 19th April 2008 at 10:31 AM.
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 19th April 2008, 10:31 AM   #148
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Do you know the difference between the floors and the trusses? This is a serious question, please answer.
Yes, I'm aware of the difference. Explain why it is a serious question.

Originally Posted by CptColumbo View Post
You answered this question with:

I posted asking.

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

So, as twinstead wrote, your reading comprehension is not very good.
That is because pancaking is the result of truss failure. It is an effect not a cause. What is meant by the phrase, "the collapse initiating with pancaking
"??????
__________________
pomeroo: "Mark, where did this guy get the idea that you talked about holding aluminum in your hand?"

Undesired Walrus: "Why, Ron, Mark mentioned this on your very own show!"
tanabear 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, 10:38 AM   #149
Panoply_Prefect
Graduate Poster
 
Panoply_Prefect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,075
From the NIST WTC faq (my bolding):


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


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

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


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



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

Last edited by Panoply_Prefect; 19th April 2008 at 10:45 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, 10:45 AM   #150
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
 
CptColumbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lots of places
Posts: 9,213
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Yes, I'm aware of the difference. Explain why it is a serious question.



That is because pancaking is the result of truss failure. It is an effect not a cause. What is meant by the phrase, "the collapse initiating with pancaking
"??????
in·i·ti·ate verb, -at·ed, -at·ing, adjective, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to begin, set going, or originate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/initiating
__________________
I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office"
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling
CptColumbo 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, 10:57 AM   #151
Par
Master Poster
 
Par's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,768
Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney View Post
older version of windows just working fine?

__________________
(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 19th April 2008, 12:00 PM   #152
Edmund Standing
Thinker
 
Edmund Standing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 188
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
As for whether or not a fee was paid - I'm not sure; however, I wouldn't be surprised, considering it is an open access journal. How else would you suggest they pay to host and maintain the website + cover general operational costs?
An example of a peer-reviewed open access journal that does not charge for publication is:

Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research

There are 1,120 open access journals listed at the Directory of Open Access Journals (doaj.org), go and take a look and see how many charge ridiculous fees for publication.
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, 12:04 PM   #153
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,312
Cardboard tube model is to WTC 1 & 2 construction

as

Paid-to-publish-'peer' Journal is to Real Professional Technical Journals.
__________________
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, 12:05 PM   #154
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Epic Fail!

Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
I guess the 911 blogger people read JREF religiously:

Quote:
(EDIT: FYI, it is extremely common for Open Access Journals to charge a publication fee. This in no way reflects upon the quality of the peer review process, or the contents of the paper. -rep.)
http://911blogger.com/node/15081
I saw that, but I read too quickly and assumed they meant you'd have to pay in order to read the article. That is common.

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

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

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

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

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

Last edited by R.Mackey; 19th April 2008 at 12:06 PM.
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 19th April 2008, 01:10 PM   #155
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
hey mods why did you merge these two threads. This deserves a new thread for sure. 911 truth movement hits a mainstream journal and you merge the thread with an old one????? Come on now........sad imo
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, 01:11 PM   #156
Unsecured Coins
Hoku-maniac
 
Unsecured Coins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,905
write your congressman
__________________
"If God wants 10% of my paycheck, he can get it himself. Or at least work for it -Kochanski
"I may not be easy, but I am fast." - Hokulele
"Oh CRAP... DQ!!" - Ol' Hokey, yet again
Unsecured Coins 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, 01:12 PM   #157
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
I saw that, but I read too quickly and assumed they meant you'd have to pay in order to read the article. That is common.

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

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

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

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

Honestly, this is a supremely pathetic move on the part of Dr. Jones. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it.
Why is it pathetic? Care to expand?
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, 01:17 PM   #158
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by CptColumbo View Post
in·i·ti·ate verb, -at·ed, -at·ing, adjective, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to begin, set going, or originate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/initiating
I'd say I'm shocked that tanabear had to have that explained to him/her, but it's what I've come to expect from truthers.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
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, 01:22 PM   #159
Unsecured Coins
Hoku-maniac
 
Unsecured Coins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,905
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
Why is it pathetic? Care to expand?
certainly. "After submitting a half-dozen papers to established peer-reviewed technical journals over a period of nearly a year" they had to PAY to get published in a journal that even allowed them to peer review their own work before submission.

That's like paying a stripper to be your prom date, if you ask me. Yeah, it looks good, but it cost you out the ass.
__________________
"If God wants 10% of my paycheck, he can get it himself. Or at least work for it -Kochanski
"I may not be easy, but I am fast." - Hokulele
"Oh CRAP... DQ!!" - Ol' Hokey, yet again
Unsecured Coins 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, 01:39 PM   #160
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Unsecured Coins View Post
That's like paying a stripper to be your prom date, if you ask me. Yeah, it looks good, but it cost you out the ass.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
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
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 08:29 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.