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 20th April 2008, 08:01 AM   #241
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,956
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
I'll cover $100 of the $600 if one the working scientists here (I'm a politician now) would care to come up with a response. Who else will chip in?
I had the same initial thought yesterday, but on further reflection I realized that a rebuttal would be pointless. The whole letter is intellectually dishonest, violates well established principles of scholarly writing and at the end of the day, does not say anything new that is worth $600 to respond to, let alone rebut.

I mean, do we really need to point out that their very first point ignores the latest NIST update? What would our conclusion be: that the authors are incompetent or dishonest? Well that is obvious, anyway.

i am also befuddled by the authors. I mean, any engineer reading this document is going to first check on the authors. Disgraced former BYU Professor, Disgraced former water boy,
Software maker, lawyer and Tony Szamboti (of whom, I always think of that scene in Animal House: "Daniel Simpson Day has no grade point average. All classes incomplete.") Their expertise is in Twoofiness, not science.

That being said, because I am ornery as hell, I'll kick in $100 if someone feels the need to dismantle these jokers in this Journal.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 20th April 2008 at 08:03 AM.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2008, 08:06 AM   #242
fullflavormenthol
Master Poster
 
fullflavormenthol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,415
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
$600 is not chump change to me and I suspect it is not chump change to many on this board. Regardless, let it be "peer" reviewed. The shredding it will undergo might actually make you and other troothers realize that you have been wasting your time and supporting lies. You can't resolve lies, only expose them.
He is trying to treat a journal as if it is a discussion thread. Besides $600 is a lot of money to me given that I am a college student beginning my final year of school where every project I have to undertake costs money.

Besides if I was going to try anything it would be to expose Bentham as a vanity press, which means I would submit complete pseudo-scientific crap, lie about my credentials, submit a list of fake experts (all really me) and see if the journal publishes my findings.

I am not going to spend $600 for the privilage of seeing the same opinion I give here published in an open access journal.
__________________
"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 20th April 2008, 08:12 AM   #243
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Sizzler:
Is a scientific journal the place to "open a dialog"? This is the simple question I'm trying to get you to answer. I think you agree it isn't and your trying to justify this feeling. Am I wrong?
I do find this article unique in comparison to most other articles published in scientific journals. Whether it is worthy or not is up to the peer reviewers and the editor. Obviously, they found it worthy enough to publish.

More importantly, and what we haven't really addressed in any detail, is what the paper actually says.

I will be interested to read any real responses from any engineers that aren't openly aligned with either the truth movement or the debunking crowd.
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 20th April 2008, 08:16 AM   #244
gtc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,110
Sizzler, I suspect $600 is a lot of money in anyone's language (even hypothetical NASA engineers who read vanity journals). However, you apparently do not consider this to be an impediment to publication. Good for you. If you send me $600 I will gladly help author a reply to Jones' letter.

While it is your money that you will be spending, I have to ask you whether you think you are wasting your money. Who do you think will be saved from the 'disinformation' (your words, not mine, I prefer the term incorrect information) in Jones' letter? Few if any, people will read it who are not either truthers or debunkers; debunkers know that its points have been debunked elsewhere and truthers either know but don't care or are not bright enough to realise they are living lives based on lies.

Realistically, your fellow truthers will claim that this publication proves that 9/11 was an inside job irrespective of whether or not debunkers pony up the $600 needed to respond in print.

Personally, I feel that Jones' putting a price tag of $600 on the right of reply is only slightly less underhanded than the way his fellow truthers ban those who dare express a counter-opinion on truther discussion boards.
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 20th April 2008, 08:19 AM   #245
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,802
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
I'll cover $100 of the $600 if one the working scientists here (I'm a politician now) would care to come up with a response. Who else will chip in?
If one of the degreed experts here was to take up this offer, I'd be disappointed. I think the curiosity is whether or not the publisher will do anything honorable, not whether we can get up the ante to refute them with more thirty-pieces-of-silver articles.

Major Premise: The publication of Jones' letter is wrong for the reasons mentioned (which seem to be beyond a certain troofer's grasp, but everyone else is cottoning to.

Minor Premise: Scientists don't refute advertising or propaganda by coming up with the funds to pay the same dubious journal to publish their refutation. If we don't trust them and assume the professional and scientific community won't trust them, why on earth would we follow the same route?

Conclusion: One Vote Against
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz 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 20th April 2008, 08:20 AM   #246
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 17,381
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair

Publishing so called scientific papers for a fee can be detrimental to the publisher's reputation.
applecorped 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 20th April 2008, 08:22 AM   #247
gtc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
I will be interested to read any real responses from any engineers that aren't openly aligned with either the truth movement or the debunking crowd.
Why do you think that anyone who wasn't aligned with either movement would care enough to pony up $600 to respond?

Why would you value the opinion of someone who is unaligned with either the truth movement or the debunkers over the opinion of someone who already knows that the truth movement is full of it? Or, if you prefer, why would you value the opinion of someone who hasn't already woken up to the truth that the US government conspired to kill 3000 of its own citizens over the opinion of someone who is already open to the 'truth'?
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 20th April 2008, 08:24 AM   #248
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 17,381
From the Skokal article at Wiki:

"'...They further note that scientific peer review does not necessarily detect fraud either, in light of the later Schön scandal, Bogdanov Affair, and other instances of poor science achieving publication."
applecorped 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 20th April 2008, 08:29 AM   #249
gtc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,110
I'm with foolmewunz. Jones was desperate enough to get his crazy ideas in print that he was prepared to pay $600 for the privilege. It seems they are now trying to get us to waste our money responding to his vanity article. At this point they win if we pay up or win if we fail to respond on their terms by using our lack of response in their propoganda. However, even if we did respond they would still use the vanity article in their propoganda.

Better to try to approach the publication about retracting their mistake and if anyone feels they have a spare dollar or two then I am sure there are some good charities helping the victims of 9/11 and the firefighters, police etc who responded.
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 20th April 2008, 08:31 AM   #250
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,309
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
I do find this article unique in comparison to most other articles published in scientific journals. Whether it is worthy or not is up to the peer reviewers and the editor. Obviously, they found it worthy enough to publish.

More importantly, and what we haven't really addressed in any detail, is what the paper actually says.

I will be interested to read any real responses from any engineers that aren't openly aligned with either the truth movement or the debunking crowd.

Did you take dance in school?

Everything in that letter has be discussed at great length (you said so yourself). Jones would gain more respect from the scientific community if he could show WHY these thing should be considered as issues. "Thermite" at the WTC? Why does he think we should look for it? Without a credible motive he's doing nothing more than looking for gun shots at a knife fight. Jones is starting with his conclusion and trying to find evidence to support it. Do you think that might have something to do with why no one pays attention to him?
__________________
"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 20th April 2008, 08:41 AM   #251
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Did you take dance in school?

Everything in that letter has be discussed at great length (you said so yourself). Jones would gain more respect from the scientific community if he could show WHY these thing should be considered as issues. "Thermite" at the WTC? Why does he think we should look for it? Without a credible motive he's doing nothing more than looking for gun shots at a knife fight. Jones is starting with his conclusion and trying to find evidence to support it. Do you think that might have something to do with why no one pays attention to him?
Ok then. Writing style and publication fees aside, what exactly does Jones get wrong in his paper. What do you know that the reviewers don't?
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 20th April 2008, 08:56 AM   #252
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,309
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
Ok then. Writing style and publication fees aside, what exactly does Jones get wrong in his paper. What do you know that the reviewers don't?
Does right or wrong have anything to do with whether this article belongs in a scientific journal? Isn't that what I've been asking you (article belonging)?
__________________
"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 20th April 2008, 08:58 AM   #253
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,802
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
Ok then. Writing style and publication fees aside, what exactly does Jones get wrong in his paper. What do you know that the reviewers don't?
Ask not what is wrong with Jones' paper, ask what you can find right with Jones' political tripe trash piece. Why are you unable to support the paper? 'Why can't you present the things that mean something to the failed 9/11 truth movement, in the 7th year of false information. But you are JAQ. Perfect truther, all talk no evidence.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2008, 09:10 AM   #254
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Does right or wrong have anything to do with whether this article belongs in a scientific journal? Isn't that what I've been asking you (article belonging)?
Well I hope right or wrong has everything to do with whether it belongs in a scientific journal. But I suspect that was not your point.

I've already conceded that the writing style is unique, but lets not forget this was not intended to be a traditional scientific research paper. It is a letter and hasn't been promoted by Jones as a research paper so I see nothing wrong with it being published. I think the peer reviewers and editor have already answered your question. It belongs in a civil engineering journal because it passed peer review and the editor decided it worthy enough to publish.

Perhaps we should wait until Mackey reports back with a response from the journal before we continue this line of conversation.
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 20th April 2008, 09:12 AM   #255
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
are you saying you have to pay $600 to post a reply to a published article? Fat chance. I can imagine what our LEGITIMATE medical journals would be like if we had to do so...VERY EMPTY!

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 20th April 2008, 09:16 AM   #256
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
I've already conceded that the writing style is unique, but lets not forget this was not intended to be a traditional scientific research paper. It is a letter and hasn't been promoted by Jones as a research paper so I see nothing wrong with it being published.
But actually it has, or at least he is somewhat misleading on the point. From 911 Blogger (emphasis mine):

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

Quote:
Finally! After submitting a half-dozen papers to established peer-reviewed technical journals over a period of nearly a year, we have two papers which have passed peer-review and have been accepted for publication. One of these was published TODAY! In science, we say that we have “published in the literature,” a major step in a nascent line of scientific inquiry.

And many thanks to the editors for their courage and adherence to science in allowing us to follow the evidence and publish in their journal. (Indeed, expressions of thanks along these lines to the editors will be appreciated, as they will probably get a few letters chastising them… )

The paper is here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm (our paper is listed on top at the moment, the most recently entered paper); or go here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm
(Click on “year 2008” then scroll down to the paper and click on it.)

(HTML version below. -rep.)

Yes, it is available on-line FOR FREE, since this is an “open e-journal.” TOCEJ = The Open Civil Engineering Journal. You may download the paper and make copies to give to local professors and engineers (hint, hint). That's one reason this particular journal was chosen -- open access, free to download and make copies. What do Profs/Engineers say about it -- let us know would you?
__________________
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 20th April 2008, 09:18 AM   #257
fullflavormenthol
Master Poster
 
fullflavormenthol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,415
Quote:
I think the peer reviewers and editor have already answered your question. It belongs in a civil engineering journal because it passed peer review and the editor decided it worthy enough to publish.
Look anytime a journal charges $600 for publication, which is merely posting it on their website; I think the whole appeal to authority you are using gets thrown into question.
__________________
"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 20th April 2008, 09:21 AM   #258
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by Steven Jones
In science, we say that we have “published in the literature,” a major step in a nascent line of scientific inquiry.
In debunking, we say that we are "laughing at you now."
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 20th April 2008, 09:38 AM   #259
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,802
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
I'd say most, if not all of his letter is correct. More importantly though, do you agree that these "issues" need to be resolved? If your answer is no, then we certainly don't agree on that point and will have to agree to disagree But lets leave Jones out of it...
Oh, just say it. Most correct! Funny man! I say each point is flawed and your inability to even support one point makes the whole paper the political tripe it is. I mean educate me! Explain each point and support them. You can't? Why? What is wrong, are the members of 9/11 truth as shallow as the false information they support?

You must not understand much if you agree with most of his letter. Thus you expose your lack of knowledge on 9/11 issues, to be complete.

Is it laziness in not addressing each point and presenting evidence to support each of Jones' points? Why expose your lack of research, and lack of knowledge on 9/11 by not supporting his points with some work?

You JAQs. Shallow, repetitive questions, exposing your lack of knowledge.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2008, 09:44 AM   #260
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
Even $100 is not chump change to me. I'm poor. I went all-in on this media venture of mine and who knows if it will ever pay off? Meanwhile I make about $5 an hour if you look at my 90 hour weeks...
__________________
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 20th April 2008, 10:00 AM   #261
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,802
Sizzler,
If Jones had said, "I'm tired of the establishment journals being pressured into rejecting my work, so I paid a journal to publish a letter.... hope you like it and hope you barrage them with emails so that it gets a wide circulation", I'd just ignore him as I normally do.

But.... he promoted this (and as JamesB offered you in his own words, continues to promote this) as a published paper, and lets us poor stoopid types in on some insider jargon, "published in the literature", to let us know just how serious and meaningful all this sciencey stuff is.

Ye seekers of truth! Can you be so blind as to not see a scam when it's unfolding right in front of you? First the old Dylan two-step of pre-announcing the impending important event to build up interest, then the disappointing announcement, yet conflating its importance. Then the ever-important rallying of the troops to send letters, bomb a poll, or whatever other propaganda tactic suits the occasion.

The worry I have over this is that it will be used in emails and posts in 2011, just as today's homeopath and ID fanboys cite articles in "journals" to support their points. When you take the trouble to track down the sources (as Rolfe and FLS did on a number of occasoins with homeopaths), it turns out that the respectable sounding journal is really a house organ for Bob's Homeopathic Supply Company or a "scientific" community of the homeopathic equivalent of flat-earthers. The homeopath(or ID) posters either just blindly accept the sources because they sound official-like, or they know how bogus they are and rely on you and me being the ones who won't cross-check them.

I can see the remnants of the TM citing these kinds of things in the future (like the jerk kid who's going to cite it in his term paper).
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz 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 20th April 2008, 10:31 AM   #262
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
After reading the paper, I am dumbfounded at how that could possibly pass any kind of peer-review.
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 20th April 2008, 10:37 AM   #263
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
We will see if they answer Mackey's letter inquiring as to the same.

TAM

Last edited by T.A.M.; 20th April 2008 at 10:38 AM.
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 20th April 2008, 10:48 AM   #264
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
talk about a manipulative lying bunch of a**hats...look at the abstract...

Quote:
Reports by FEMA and NIST lay out the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. In this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for productive discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas where we find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses.
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm

Last edited by T.A.M.; 20th April 2008 at 10:49 AM.
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 20th April 2008, 10:57 AM   #265
Par
Master Poster
 
Par's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,768
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
I think the peer reviewers and editor have already answered your question. It belongs in a civil engineering journal because it passed peer review and the editor decided it worthy enough to publish.

You keep doing that. You keep claiming that the paper is legitimate because it has passed review, and that it passed review because it is legitimate. This is circular reasoning. It is fallacious. Please refrain from it.

Whether or not the review process should have passed this paper is precisely the point in contention. Thus, presupposing that it should have passed is an illegitimate course of action.
__________________
(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 20th April 2008, 11:31 AM   #266
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by drkitten View Post
In my "formal" reviewer's report, I would have instead pointed out that the paper is badly written, inappropriate in tone and content, presents no new material and argument, does not advance the state of the discipline, and is almost certainly not of interest to the target audience of the journal.
Hello drkitten. I agree with your assessment entirely. The above is, in fact, a concise summary of the letter I sent to Bentham.

Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
600 bucks? Come on now, that is chump change for a lot of people that post on this board.

How much do you think a NASA engineer makes a year? Certainly enough to pay a 600$ fee to publish an article and save America from disinformation.

Like I said before, the arena is now in this peer reviewed journal. Will anyone take the challenge?
I know exactly how much a NASA engineer makes and I can spare $600, but your proposal is ludicrous. The basic error with this "letter" of Dr. Jones's is that (a) it is terribly written, and (b) it is a procedural mistake. It isn't a ground-breaking result that demands scientific challenge. It's an embarrassment that should be quietly disposed of. Publishing a rebuttal would only accentuate the problem.

I'm not trying to save America from disinformation, or defend the flanks of the NWO. I'm trying to help a fledgling publisher avoid a minefield that they seem to have accidentally stepped in.

Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
This is opinion just like many think publishing Bazant et al was a mistake. In fact a paper refuting Bazant's model is claimed to be in the process of publication.

At least we know Jones et al are sincere when they say they are getting published.

Perhaps the next one will be more traditional.
You're using the word "refute" incorrectly. Bazant & Zhou is correct, to the extent of their assumptions. I'm familiar with Gregory Urich's work, I've commented on it extensively, and I support it. Some of his assumptions are better. Ultimately, perhaps his work should be published. This is not a refutation of Bazant & Zhou, but a refinement, even if it ultimately leads one to an opposite conclusion (which it does not).

I also have no problem with Dr. Jones publishing, in general. I only insist that, if he does, he should be a little more scientific about it.
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 20th April 2008, 12:05 PM   #267
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
I suggested nothing of the sort. What I said was that nobody was going to build a skyscraper and crash an airliner into it just to satisfy your own, absurdly naive, requirements to believe. Nobody will.

I'm beginning to comprehend the depth of your confusion, and it is far greater than I had imagined.

Experiment design, data analysis, and hypothesis testing are part of mathematical modeling. I've made no inconsistent statements.

Dr. Jones has presented none of this in his paper. Not a single bloody thing.
I didn't say that someone needed to crash an airliner into a building. I said that someone needs to prove that impact damage and fire can cause a steel-frame high-rise to be destroyed in the same way WTC 1,2 and 7 were destroyed.

What experiments have been designed to test the validity of the progressive collapse hypothesis in regards to WTC 1,2 and 7? Do these tests show that a total progressive collapse of a steel-frame high-rise is possible?
__________________
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 20th April 2008, 12:09 PM   #268
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
I didn't say that someone needed to crash an airliner into a building. I said that someone needs to prove that impact damage and fire can cause a steel-frame high-rise to be destroyed in the same way WTC 1,2 and 7 were destroyed.

What experiments have been designed to test the validity of the progressive collapse hypothesis in regards to WTC 1,2 and 7? Do these tests show that a total progressive collapse of a steel-frame high-rise is possible?
You did indeed say that, and you said it right here.

Those experiments have been conducted, and they are Bazant & Zhou (2002), Bazant & Verdure (2003), Bazant, Le, Benson, and Greening (in press), and Seffen (2008). And the answer is Yes.
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 20th April 2008, 12:33 PM   #269
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by Slayhamlet View Post
You are horribly confused. No, obviously nothing of the sort was said by anyone here. How you could read that into what was written is beyond me.

The "pancake collapse" hypothesis was proposed by FEMA; that much of your statement is correct. The second part, namely that this disproved hypothesis was represented in Popular Mechanics, you have utterly failed to support. It could be true, but we actually require evidence of it.
I gave two quotes from the Popular Mechanics article where the term "pancake" was used. Here they are:

"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."

"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."

So what theory did Popular Mechanics advance for the destruction of the towers, the Pancake Collapse Theory or the Pile-Driver Theory?

Quote:
He means, of course, the "pancake collapse" hypothesis itself:
Okay, that is what I meant too.

Quote:
ETA: Just in case you missed it: we're talking about collapse initiation from local truss connection failures here, not the progression of global collapse, which NIST was not tasked with modeling.
That is what I wrote in a previous post. "The initiation has been theorized either to be truss failure or column failure." However, your statement that NIST was not tasked with modeling the global collapse is your opinion. They wrote that one of the goals of their investigation was to determine

"why and how the WTC 1 and 2 (the WTC towers) collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft, and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;"

They theorized as to "why", inward bowing of the perimeter columns, but not "how" the buildings collapsed. As well, they are still working on WTC7.
__________________
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!"

Last edited by tanabear; 20th April 2008 at 02:27 PM.
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 20th April 2008, 12:58 PM   #270
TellyKNeasuss
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,890
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
I've already conceded that the writing style is unique, but lets not forget this was not intended to be a traditional scientific research paper. It is a letter and hasn't been promoted by Jones as a research paper so I see nothing wrong with it being published.
Exactly. It is a letter, NOT a scientific research paper. Therefore, the point that no 9/11 conspiracy theory paper has been published in a refereed journal (even in one that loses money when papers are rejected) still stands.

Quote:
I think the peer reviewers and editor have already answered your question. It belongs in a civil engineering journal because it passed peer review and the editor decided it worthy enough to publish.
I'm guessing that the "peer review" standards for letters aren't as high as for papers.
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan



Last edited by TellyKNeasuss; 20th April 2008 at 12:59 PM.
TellyKNeasuss 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 20th April 2008, 01:33 PM   #271
Doctor Evil
Master Poster
 
Doctor Evil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,014
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
Exactly. It is a letter, NOT a scientific research paper. Therefore, the point that no 9/11 conspiracy theory paper has been published in a refereed journal (even in one that loses money when papers are rejected) still stands.


I'm guessing that the "peer review" standards for letters aren't as high as for papers.
You are quite wrong. This is a typical example where science jargon is not equal to everyday language.

Scientific publications are typically divided into review papers, research papers and letters. I would assume everyone here know, or can easily guess, how a research papers should look like. Review papers are meant to cover a whole branch of research, giving the readers an overview of different results and opinions.

The goal of a letter is to convey an important result, with the aim of getting it published fast. The letter must contain original results, which are considered to be of interest to a large part of the research community. The results contained in a letter must be clearly explained and justified as if it was a regular research paper. (It is customary to omit some details. Letters are meant to be short.)

I can not figure how this 'letter' got published. It really does not pass any of the relevant criteria. During my short career I have read over a thousand papers, and in my opinion, this has a strong claim of being the worst.
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 20th April 2008, 02:10 PM   #272
quicknthedead
Thinker
 
quicknthedead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Sizzler:
Is a scientific journal the place to "open a dialog"? This is the simple question I'm trying to get you to answer. I think you agree it isn't and your trying to justify this feeling. Am I wrong?
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/index.htm
The Open Civil Engineering Journal
Aims & Scope

The Open Civil Engineering Journal is an Open Access online journal, which publishes research articles, reviews, and letters in all areas of civil engineering.

The Open Civil Engineering Journal, a peer-reviewed journal, aims to provide the most complete and reliable source of information on recent developments in civil engineering. The emphasis will be on publishing quality articles rapidly and freely available to researchers worldwide.

[snip]

Jones et al may have worded it nicely, "to open a dialog", but the clear intent is a critique of major problems found in NIST's WTC reporting, which suffered deficiencies in overlooking glaring questions and issues (as pointed out in the abstract).

The editorial board of The Open Civil Engineering Journal obviously thought the review had merit worth publishing and did fall under its aim and scope.
quicknthedead 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 20th April 2008, 02:19 PM   #273
fullflavormenthol
Master Poster
 
fullflavormenthol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,415
Or it is possible the journal felt the letter had ($)Merit($)....
__________________
"Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS

Last edited by fullflavormenthol; 20th April 2008 at 02:20 PM.
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 20th April 2008, 02:29 PM   #274
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
600 merits...
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 20th April 2008, 02:52 PM   #275
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
I am really not buying the whole $$$ issue. 600 bucks is not a lot of money, plain and simple.

I highly doubt the journal would have published something they considered garbage just to make 600 bucks.

I am eager to hear their response to Mackey and the issues (at least one of them is legit IMO) he has raised.
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 20th April 2008, 03:00 PM   #276
lozenge124
Scholar
 
lozenge124's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 83
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
You did indeed say that, and you said it right here.

Those experiments have been conducted, and they are Bazant & Zhou (2002), Bazant & Verdure (2003), Bazant, Le, Benson, and Greening (in press), and Seffen (2008). And the answer is Yes.
I'm not familiar with Seffen, but the 3 Bazant et al. papers are mathematical models developed by making a series of simplifying assumptions. No experiments were conducted to back up the assumptions or to show that they were indeed 'reasonable'.

These are the assumptions:

Quote:
One-Dimensional Continuum Model for Crushing Front Propagation:

Detailed finite element analysis simulating plasticity and break-ups of all column and beams, and the flight and collisions of broken pieces, would be extremely difficult, as well as unsuited for extracting the basic general trends. Thus it appears reasonable to make four simplifying hypotheses:
(i) The only displacements are vertical and only the mean of vertical displacement over the whole floor needs to be considered.
(ii) Energy is dissipated only at the crushing front (this implies that the blocks in Fig.2 may be treated rigid,i.e., deformations of the blocks away from the crushing front may be neglected).
(iii)The relation of resisting normal force F transmitted by columns of each floor to the relative displacement u between two adjacent floors obeys a known load-displacement diagram (Fig.4,terminating with a specified compaction ratio (which must be adjusted to take into account lateral shedding of a certain known fraction of rubble outside the tower perimeter)).
(iv)The stories are so numerous, and the collapse front traverses so many stories, that a continuum smearing(i.e.,homogenization)gives a sufficiently accurate overall picture.

Last edited by lozenge124; 20th April 2008 at 03:02 PM.
lozenge124 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 20th April 2008, 03:06 PM   #277
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,309
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
I am really not buying the whole $$$ issue. 600 bucks is not a lot of money, plain and simple.

I highly doubt the journal would have published something they considered garbage just to make 600 bucks.

I am eager to hear their response to Mackey and the issues (at least one of them is legit IMO) he has raised.
I am too. This "letter" is in my opinion highly irregular (for a journal). Given the past performance and antics of the "truth" movement my BS sensors are set to ultra sensitive. I don't think anyone can truly fault me for this skepticism given their past performance.
__________________
"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; 20th April 2008 at 03:07 PM.
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 20th April 2008, 03:10 PM   #278
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
Sizzler, $600 is the difference between me eating and not eating. Maybe for YOU it is nothing, but not for many of us here. Should you care to give me the $600, as it means nothing to you, I will be happy to refute Jones' incompetent rambling letter.
__________________
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 20th April 2008, 03:11 PM   #279
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
 
volatile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,729
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
I am really not buying the whole $$$ issue. 600 bucks is not a lot of money, plain and simple.

I highly doubt the journal would have published something they considered garbage just to make 600 bucks.

I am eager to hear their response to Mackey and the issues (at least one of them is legit IMO) he has raised.
It is a lot of money when, as it has been pointed out to you, the standard fee is ZERO.
__________________
- ""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 20th April 2008, 03:27 PM   #280
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,309
Originally Posted by quicknthedead View Post
Jones et al may have worded it nicely, "to open a dialog", but the clear intent is a critique of major problems found in NIST's WTC reporting, which suffered deficiencies in overlooking glaring questions and issues (as pointed out in the abstract).
Care to start a new thread and demonstrate these "glaring questions and issues" that Jones and co have so carefully tip-toed around but you feel important enough to mention? Where are you going with this response to my simple question? Do you feel that this "letter" was appropriate for a scientific journal?
__________________
"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
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 04:10 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.