Europhysics News article on the WTC collapses has been downloaded over 400,000 times - Page 2

Gorgonian · 11th January 2017, 07:59 AM

The idea that number of downloads/views/clicks/whatever = number of people agreeing that the document is truthful is absurd. It merely takes literally any work of fiction to disprove this. Just wanting to read or view something does not mean you think that thing is true.

Honestly, it's this type of failure of critical thinking that leads to these awful conspiracy theories and similar rubbish. Can you people please stop not thinking?

jaydeehess · 11th January 2017, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

Can you justify this judgement? To whom is it important, and why?
Are any lives made better by this?
Has anything new been learned by anyone?
Does somebody feel important now, and who would that be?
Would money or entitlements be lost if this notification had remained unwritten?

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Has it resulted in garnering that much ballyhooed 'new investigation' yet?

The supposed purpose of AE911T is to get a new investigation. To do so they must garner the support of a recognized professional organization (preferably an American one) such as the ASCE, or even the IEEE.
A dozen+ years and counting now (iirc) since AE911T's inception.

Lothian · 11th January 2017, 08:08 AM

I got as far as the Editor's warning that the article differed from the journal's other articles which are based on actual science.

BasqueArch · 11th January 2017, 08:24 AM

The Law of Large Numbers + Barnum’s Law

Total submittals of this TS paper to top tier structural and fire engineering journals = unknown

Total submittals of this TS paper to top tier peer reviewed structural and fire engineering journals that were accepted = zero

Total of this TS paper shotgunned to structural, fire, physics journals, newsletters on the web beginning with the letter “E”, not peer reviewed and accepted as speculation = one

jaydeehess · 11th January 2017, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

The Law of Large Numbers + Barnum’s Law

Total citations of this TS paper in top tier structural and fire engineering journals = unknown

Oystein · 11th January 2017, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Total citations of this TS paper in top tier structural and fire engineering journals = unknown

There is a rather safe bet, dontcha think?

ETA: Most scientific journal would cite the article's DOI - it has one: http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/epn/2016402
You can google site that link to that DOI: Use the search string

Code:

linkto:http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/epn/2016402 -site:europhysicsnews.org -site:facebook.com -site:blogspot.com -site:wordpress.com

This excludes the link by Europhysicsnews itself, and from Facebook, Blogger and Wordpress, none of which host serious journals.
I get 20 results - easily checked: There are - surprise - zero science journals. Some blogs, some marketing consulting firms, some political radicals.

Gamolon · 11th January 2017, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

It is important to note that the Europhysics News article on the WTC collapses has now been downloaded over 400,000 times. See

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/artic...016474p21.html

That is far beyond the number of downloads experienced by any other article ever published by them.

Of course, this is not necessarily indicative of a maximum for the number of people who have read it, since it is likely it has also been forwarded as a pdf. However, it can be construed to provide a minimum.

Tony,

I have just one question for you. Is this following quote from the paper a true statement?

Quote:

Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds.

Do you agree that the TOTAL collapse of WTC7 occurred in less than seven seconds?

Horatius · 11th January 2017, 09:10 AM

In comparison, an average Alex Jones video from Jan 4, 2017 already has over 186,000 views:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhZQEEdPXZg

His video about Prince exposing the NWO from April 2016 has over 1.6 million views:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwcYqFjvNpQ

So we already know there are hundreds of thousands of idiots who will download CT crap, so this 400,000 number isn't all that impressive.

phunk · 11th January 2017, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

[1] The idea that it would take less than 400,000 people to download a document 400,000 times is maybe a bit too subtle to introduce at this stage.

How about the idea that a single truther wanting to inflate that number could do so trivially.

Fonebone · 11th January 2017, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Lothian

I got as far as the Editor's warning that the article differed from the journal's other articles which are based on actual science.

Had you continued reading past the first eleven words in the editor's note
you would have discovered the editors true sentiments on the subject.

Editors warning
[excerpt]
NOTE FROM THE EDITORS
This feature is somewhat different from our
usual purely scientific articles ,
in that it contains some speculation.
However, given the timing and the
importance of the issue, we consider that this
feature is sufficiently technical and interesting
to merit publication for our readers. Obviously,
the content of this article is the responsibility
of the authors. [/excerpt]

beachnut · 11th January 2017, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Fonebone

NOTE FROM THE EDITORS
This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles ,

Yes, your bible faith based paper based on lies and nonsense, is not purely scientific. Do you understand this is a polite way to call them CTers with no evidence. Yes the authors have no evidence, the article is speculation based on paranoia, hate, and lots of BS.

This is funny and sad, 15 years and reading comprehension is banned from 9/11 truth.

Lothian · 12th January 2017, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by Fonebone

Had you continued reading past the first eleven words in the editor's note
you would have discovered the editors true sentiments on the subject.

Editors warning
[excerpt]
NOTE FROM THE EDITORS
This feature is somewhat different from our
usual purely scientific articles ,
in that it contains some speculation.
However, given the timing and the
importance of the issue, we consider that this
feature is sufficiently technical and interesting
to merit publication for our readers. Obviously,
the content of this article is the responsibility
of the authors. [/excerpt]

Indeed, You do understand the editors are distancing themselves as far as they possibly can without resorting to using the word crapola.

Fonebone · 12th January 2017, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by Lothian

Indeed, You do understand the editors are distancing themselves as far as they possibly can without resorting to using the word crapola.

Flapdoodle ! The editors clearly state in their " warning "
[excerpt]
.... this
feature is sufficiently technical and interesting
to merit publication for our readers. [/excerpt]

beachnut · 12th January 2017, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by Fonebone

Flapdoodle ! The editors clearly state in their " warning "
[excerpt]
.... this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. [/excerpt]

The paper is based on a lie and fools people who can't do science, and people who prefer lies. You like lies, and can't figure out CD is lie; 15 years, no evidence. Self critiquing; Yes, the authors of the paper lie about 9/11, and some people are fooled.

The paper is BS, and was not published in a journal. Why can't 9/11 truth liars get published in a real engineering journal. It is news, there are crazy ideas about 9/11 based on no evidence - the lies fool those who refuse to think for themselves. Did if fool you?

Mark F · 12th January 2017, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by Fonebone

Flapdoodle ! The editors clearly state in their " warning "
[excerpt]
.... this
feature is sufficiently technical and interesting
to merit publication for our readers. [/excerpt]

But not scientific, just sufficiently technical to be interesting. That's a pretty low standard.

They sure as XXXX aren't endorsing it.

LSSBB · 12th January 2017, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by Fonebone

Flapdoodle ! The editors clearly state in their " warning "
[excerpt]
.... this
feature is sufficiently technical and interesting
to merit publication for our readers. [/excerpt]

"This article on the novel new process for making baseball bats out of marble is sufficiently technical for our readers"

Horatius · 12th January 2017, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by Fonebone

Flapdoodle ! The editors clearly state in their " warning "
[excerpt]
.... this
feature is sufficiently technical and interesting
to merit publication for our readers. [/excerpt]

Have you ever heard of the Journal of Irreproducible Results? While being intended as humor, it also included some actual studies that were "sufficiently technical and interesting", even though they were funny as hell. Sometimes even scientists like to just run with some ******** to see what happens.

Heck, we're doing that right now, here on the ISF, in a thread about a ******** free energy device. Just for fun, we have people speculating about what the environmental impact of this "discovery" would be if it were true. I myself suggested that it might inadvertently turn into a hydrogen bomb.

So this disclaimer is possibly not so generous to the truthers as you might hope.

jaydeehess · 12th January 2017, 09:03 PM

Well, Horatius, a few years ago "South Park" did an episode involving 9/11 conspiracy and some truthers thought it was in support of their views. It wasn't.

Hokulele · 13th January 2017, 11:14 AM

Or when CTists link to Washington Times or Onion articles to support their points.

benthamitemetric · 15th January 2017, 08:56 PM

The editors of Europhysics News have posted a follow up re Tony's article. I'll let it speak for itself.

pgimeno · 15th January 2017, 09:08 PM

I've archived it on webcitation.org too:

http://www.webcitation.org/query?url...ate=2017-01-15

This part is worth highlighting:

It is shocking that the published article is being used to support conspiracy theories related to the attacks on the WTC. The Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views.

jaydeehess · 15th January 2017, 09:15 PM

So, as most of us already knew, this changed nothing.
AE911T and the truther conjectures remain a fringe conspiracy theme. No formal or peer reviewed paper. No respect from the scientific or engineering communities.

jaydeehess · 16th January 2017, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by benthamitemetric

The editors of Europhysics News have posted a follow up re Tony's article. I'll let it speak for itself.

By now, Tony and AE911T must be aware of this further disclaimer by Europhysics News.
The questions are:
- Will AE911T post this disclaimer on their website?
- Will Tony Szamboti or AE911T post a response to this damning disclaimer?
- Or will they ignore it and pretend that their POV is most certainly not shared by the Editors? "The Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views"

LSSBB · 16th January 2017, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

By now, Tony and AE911T must be aware of this further disclaimer by Europhysics News.
The questions are:
- Will AE911T post this disclaimer on their website?
- Will Tony Szamboti or AE911T post a response to this damning disclaimer?
- Or will they ignore it and pretend that their POV is most certainly not shared by the Editors? "The Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views"

They not only don't endorse it, they are changing their review process to help keep crap like that from slipping through again.

jaydeehess · 16th January 2017, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

They not only don't endorse it, they are changing their review process to help keep crap like that from slipping through again.

Obviously the NWO(NorthWestern Ontario)/Illogimatt got-to-them.
The ONLY question in AE911T's collective minds, would be, "Was it bribery, or threats of death and injury to the editors and their families?".

CORed · 17th January 2017, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Gorgonian

...
Cann you people please stop not thinking?

I'm pretty sure that they can't.

jaydeehess · 17th January 2017, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Lothian

Indeed, You do understand the editors are distancing themselves as far as they possibly can without resorting to using the word crapola.

Originally Posted by Fonebone

Flapdoodle ! The editors clearly state in their " warning "
[excerpt]
.... this
feature is sufficiently technical and interesting
to merit publication for our readers. [/excerpt]

In light of the new disclaimer, it appears Lothian was quite correct, Fonebone.

Quote:

It is shocking that the published article is being used to support conspiracy theories related to the attacks on the WTC. The Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views

jaydeehess · 18th January 2017, 08:31 AM

Anyone else notice that this was a drive-by Tony Szamboti thread?

Seems this:

Quote:

The Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views

might have taken wind out of the sails.

ETA: oooh, just noticed my mixed metaphors....

Oystein · 28th August 2017, 04:56 PM

Europhysics News published a response to the Truther article in the first 2017 issue - by Bazant an Le:

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/arti...n2017-48-1.pdf
(starting on page 18)

The two basically rehash their own old papers.

Dave Rogers · 29th August 2017, 01:55 AM

It's worth skimming through this edition of Europhysics News, BTW, just to see the XKCD reference in one of the other articles.

Dave

pgimeno · 29th August 2017, 06:13 AM

Two points worth remarking:

There is a (succinct) explanation for the collapse of WTC7.
The editor's note:
This manuscript represents a response to the view presented in the article on the WTC collapse, published in EPN 47/4. In line with the new criteria for publication in EPN as outlined on the EPN webpage and in EPN 47/5&6, it was decided to publish this manuscript in order to conclude the discussion on this subject.

"new criteria" suggests that when they realized how the article was used by CTists to prop up CTs, they had to establish new safety measures.

pgimeno · 29th August 2017, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

It's worth skimming through this edition of Europhysics News, BTW, just to see the XKCD reference in one of the other articles.

I'm wondering if they acquired a separate license directly from Munroe, as they are not honouring the CC BY-NC 2.5 license terms.

Oystein · 29th August 2017, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by pgimeno

Two points worth remarking:

There is a (succinct) explanation for the collapse of WTC7.
The editor's note:
This manuscript represents a response to the view presented in the article on the WTC collapse, published in EPN 47/4. In line with the new criteria for publication in EPN as outlined on the EPN webpage and in EPN 47/5&6, it was decided to publish this manuscript in order to conclude the discussion on this subject.

"new criteria" suggests that when they realized how the article was used by CTists to prop up CTs, they had to establish new safety measures.

EPN 47/5&6 can be found here:
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/arti...016-47-5-6.pdf

The Twoof article spawned an editorial (page 3) that is inspired by its "Science denial", a couple of letters to the editor on page 43 (one Peter Ketcham's infamous "I know nothing but was a little NISTian and I saw all the twoofy YouTubes" letter), a response by the Editors on page 44 with the proposed change of policy, and a response by NIST (Michael E. Newman) on the same page.

The Editors say:

Originally Posted by EPN Editors

It is the policy of EPN to publish by invitation. Prospective authors are suggested by members of our Editorial Advisory Board, who cover various disciplines and come from different countries. ... EPN does not have a formal review/rejection policy for invited contributions.
...
In future, prospective authors will be asked to provide an abstract of the proposed article, as well as an indication of other related publications to allow the editors to better assess the content of the invited articles.

Also:
Note from the editors regarding: 15 years later: On the physics of high-rise building collapses
This is largely the content of page 44 in the issue discussed above.

11th January 2017, 07:59 AM	#41
Gorgonian Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 201	The idea that number of downloads/views/clicks/whatever = number of people agreeing that the document is truthful is absurd. It merely takes literally any work of fiction to disprove this. Just wanting to read or view something does not mean you think that thing is true. Honestly, it's this type of failure of critical thinking that leads to these awful conspiracy theories and similar rubbish. Can you people please stop not thinking?
Gorgonian Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 201

11th January 2017, 08:24 AM	#44
BasqueArch Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,869	The Law of Large Numbers + Barnum’s Law Total submittals of this TS paper to top tier structural and fire engineering journals = unknown Total submittals of this TS paper to top tier peer reviewed structural and fire engineering journals that were accepted = zero Total of this TS paper shotgunned to structural, fire, physics journals, newsletters on the web beginning with the letter “E”, not peer reviewed and accepted as speculation = one
	__________________ In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum

11th January 2017, 08:30 AM	#46
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 16,299	Originally Posted by jaydeehess Total citations of this TS paper in top tier structural and fire engineering journals = unknown There is a rather safe bet, dontcha think? ETA: Most scientific journal would cite the article's DOI - it has one: http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/epn/2016402 You can google site that link to that DOI: Use the search string Code: linkto:http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/epn/2016402 -site:europhysicsnews.org -site:facebook.com -site:blogspot.com -site:wordpress.com This excludes the link by Europhysicsnews itself, and from Facebook, Blogger and Wordpress, none of which host serious journals. I get 20 results - easily checked: There are - surprise - zero science journals. Some blogs, some marketing consulting firms, some political radicals.
	__________________ Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) Last edited by Oystein; 11th January 2017 at 08:51 AM.

11th January 2017, 08:45 AM	#47
Gamolon Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,145	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti It is important to note that the Europhysics News article on the WTC collapses has now been downloaded over 400,000 times. See http://www.europhysicsnews.org/artic...016474p21.html That is far beyond the number of downloads experienced by any other article ever published by them. Of course, this is not necessarily indicative of a maximum for the number of people who have read it, since it is likely it has also been forwarded as a pdf. However, it can be construed to provide a minimum. Tony, I have just one question for you. Is this following quote from the paper a true statement? Quote: Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds. Do you agree that the TOTAL collapse of WTC7 occurred in less than seven seconds?
Gamolon Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,145

11th January 2017, 09:10 AM	#48
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 26,824	In comparison, an average Alex Jones video from Jan 4, 2017 already has over 186,000 views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhZQEEdPXZg His video about Prince exposing the NWO from April 2016 has over 1.6 million views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwcYqFjvNpQ So we already know there are hundreds of thousands of idiots who will download CT crap, so this 400,000 number isn't all that impressive.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

11th January 2017, 08:05 AM	#42
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 40 miles north of the border Posts: 20,821	Originally Posted by Oystein Can you justify this judgement? To whom is it important, and why? Are any lives made better by this? Has anything new been learned by anyone? Does somebody feel important now, and who would that be? Would money or entitlements be lost if this notification had remained unwritten? Originally Posted by jaydeehess Has it resulted in garnering that much ballyhooed 'new investigation' yet? The supposed purpose of AE911T is to get a new investigation. To do so they must garner the support of a recognized professional organization (preferably an American one) such as the ASCE, or even the IEEE. A dozen+ years and counting now (iirc) since AE911T's inception.

11th January 2017, 08:08 AM	#43
Lothian should be banned Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: on the edge Posts: 14,089	I got as far as the Editor's warning that the article differed from the journal's other articles which are based on actual science.

11th January 2017, 08:26 AM	#45
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 40 miles north of the border Posts: 20,821	Originally Posted by BasqueArch The Law of Large Numbers + Barnum’s Law Total citations of this TS paper in top tier structural and fire engineering journals = unknown

11th January 2017, 11:36 AM	#49
phunk Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,874	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers [1] The idea that it would take less than 400,000 people to download a document 400,000 times is maybe a bit too subtle to introduce at this stage. How about the idea that a single truther wanting to inflate that number could do so trivially.
phunk Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,874

11th January 2017, 01:50 PM	#50
Fonebone persona non grata Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 486	Originally Posted by Lothian I got as far as the Editor's warning that the article differed from the journal's other articles which are based on actual science. Had you continued reading past the first eleven words in the editor's note you would have discovered the editors true sentiments on the subject. Editors warning [excerpt] NOTE FROM THE EDITORS This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles , in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors. [/excerpt]
	__________________ Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured; but, like the sun, only for a time __Bovee Truth once elicited never dies -Bancroft *twoofers versus twidiots , twaitors , twusters and boil-thuckers* Last edited by Fonebone; 11th January 2017 at 01:54 PM. Reason: correct protocol violation

11th January 2017, 02:03 PM	#51
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 25,093	Originally Posted by Fonebone NOTE FROM THE EDITORS This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles , Yes, your bible faith based paper based on lies and nonsense, is not purely scientific. Do you understand this is a polite way to call them CTers with no evidence. Yes the authors have no evidence, the article is speculation based on paranoia, hate, and lots of BS. This is funny and sad, 15 years and reading comprehension is banned from 9/11 truth.
	__________________ "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

12th January 2017, 04:16 AM	#52
Lothian should be banned Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: on the edge Posts: 14,089	Originally Posted by Fonebone Had you continued reading past the first eleven words in the editor's note you would have discovered the editors true sentiments on the subject. Editors warning [excerpt] NOTE FROM THE EDITORS This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles , in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors. [/excerpt] Indeed, You do understand the editors are distancing themselves as far as they possibly can without resorting to using the word crapola.
	Last edited by Lothian; 12th January 2017 at 04:17 AM.

12th January 2017, 06:32 PM	#53
Fonebone persona non grata Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 486	Originally Posted by Lothian Indeed, You do understand the editors are distancing themselves as far as they possibly can without resorting to using the word crapola. Flapdoodle ! The editors clearly state in their " warning " [excerpt] .... this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. [/excerpt]
	__________________ Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured; but, like the sun, only for a time __Bovee Truth once elicited never dies -Bancroft *twoofers versus twidiots , twaitors , twusters and boil-thuckers* Last edited by Fonebone; 12th January 2017 at 06:42 PM.

12th January 2017, 07:08 PM	#54
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 25,093	Originally Posted by Fonebone Flapdoodle ! The editors clearly state in their " warning " [excerpt] .... this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. [/excerpt] The paper is based on a lie and fools people who can't do science, and people who prefer lies. You like lies, and can't figure out CD is lie; 15 years, no evidence. Self critiquing; Yes, the authors of the paper lie about 9/11, and some people are fooled. The paper is BS, and was not published in a journal. Why can't 9/11 truth liars get published in a real engineering journal. It is news, there are crazy ideas about 9/11 based on no evidence - the lies fool those who refuse to think for themselves. Did if fool you?
	__________________ "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

12th January 2017, 07:35 PM	#55
Mark F Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,616	Originally Posted by Fonebone Flapdoodle ! The editors clearly state in their " warning " [excerpt] .... this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. [/excerpt] But not scientific, just sufficiently technical to be interesting. That's a pretty low standard. They sure as XXXX aren't endorsing it.
Mark F Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,616	__________________ So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.

12th January 2017, 08:16 PM	#56
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 19,950	Originally Posted by Fonebone Flapdoodle ! The editors clearly state in their " warning " [excerpt] .... this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. [/excerpt] "This article on the novel new process for making baseball bats out of marble is sufficiently technical for our readers"
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

12th January 2017, 08:31 PM	#57
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 26,824	Originally Posted by Fonebone Flapdoodle ! The editors clearly state in their " warning " [excerpt] .... this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. [/excerpt] Have you ever heard of the Journal of Irreproducible Results? While being intended as humor, it also included some actual studies that were "sufficiently technical and interesting", even though they were funny as hell. Sometimes even scientists like to just run with some ****** to see what happens. Heck, we're doing that right now, here on the ISF, in a thread about a ****** free energy device. Just for fun, we have people speculating about what the environmental impact of this "discovery" would be if it were true. I myself suggested that it might inadvertently turn into a hydrogen bomb. So this disclaimer is possibly not so generous to the truthers as you might hope.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

12th January 2017, 09:03 PM	#58
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 40 miles north of the border Posts: 20,821	Well, Horatius, a few years ago "South Park" did an episode involving 9/11 conspiracy and some truthers thought it was in support of their views. It wasn't.

13th January 2017, 11:14 AM	#59
Hokulele Deleterious Slab of Damnation Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: The Biggest Little City in the World Posts: 29,576	Or when CTists link to Washington Times or Onion articles to support their points.
	__________________ "Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon

15th January 2017, 08:56 PM	#60
benthamitemetric Muse Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 539	The editors of Europhysics News have posted a follow up re Tony's article. I'll let it speak for itself.
benthamitemetric Muse Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 539

15th January 2017, 09:08 PM	#61
pgimeno Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Spain Posts: 3,356	I've archived it on webcitation.org too: http://www.webcitation.org/query?url...ate=2017-01-15 This part is worth highlighting: It is shocking that the published article is being used to support conspiracy theories related to the attacks on the WTC. The Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views.
	__________________ Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

15th January 2017, 09:15 PM	#62
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 40 miles north of the border Posts: 20,821	So, as most of us already knew, this changed nothing. AE911T and the truther conjectures remain a fringe conspiracy theme. No formal or peer reviewed paper. No respect from the scientific or engineering communities.

16th January 2017, 07:43 AM	#63
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 40 miles north of the border Posts: 20,821	Originally Posted by benthamitemetric The editors of Europhysics News have posted a follow up re Tony's article. I'll let it speak for itself. By now, Tony and AE911T must be aware of this further disclaimer by Europhysics News. The questions are: - Will AE911T post this disclaimer on their website? - Will Tony Szamboti or AE911T post a response to this damning disclaimer? - Or will they ignore it and pretend that their POV is most certainly not shared by the Editors? "The Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views"

16th January 2017, 08:05 AM	#64
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 19,950	Originally Posted by jaydeehess By now, Tony and AE911T must be aware of this further disclaimer by Europhysics News. The questions are: - Will AE911T post this disclaimer on their website? - Will Tony Szamboti or AE911T post a response to this damning disclaimer? - Or will they ignore it and pretend that their POV is most certainly not shared by the Editors? "The Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views" They not only don't endorse it, they are changing their review process to help keep crap like that from slipping through again.
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

16th January 2017, 01:21 PM	#65
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 40 miles north of the border Posts: 20,821	Originally Posted by LSSBB They not only don't endorse it, they are changing their review process to help keep crap like that from slipping through again. Obviously the NWO(NorthWestern Ontario)/Illogimatt got-to-them. The ONLY question in AE911T's collective minds, would be, "Was it bribery, or threats of death and injury to the editors and their families?".
	Last edited by jaydeehess; 16th January 2017 at 01:23 PM.

17th January 2017, 10:32 AM	#66
CORed Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Central City, Colorado, USA Posts: 8,427	Originally Posted by Gorgonian ... Cann you people please stop not thinking? I'm pretty sure that they can't.

17th January 2017, 10:36 AM	#67
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 40 miles north of the border Posts: 20,821	Originally Posted by Lothian Indeed, You do understand the editors are distancing themselves as far as they possibly can without resorting to using the word crapola. Originally Posted by Fonebone Flapdoodle ! The editors clearly state in their " warning " [excerpt] .... this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. [/excerpt] In light of the new disclaimer, it appears Lothian was quite correct, Fonebone. Quote: It is shocking that the published article is being used to support conspiracy theories related to the attacks on the WTC. The Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views

18th January 2017, 08:31 AM	#68
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 40 miles north of the border Posts: 20,821	Anyone else notice that this was a drive-by Tony Szamboti thread? Seems this: Quote: The Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views might have taken wind out of the sails. ETA: oooh, just noticed my mixed metaphors....
	Last edited by jaydeehess; 18th January 2017 at 08:33 AM.

28th August 2017, 04:56 PM	#69
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 16,299	Europhysics News published a response to the Truther article in the first 2017 issue - by Bazant an Le: https://www.europhysicsnews.org/arti...n2017-48-1.pdf (starting on page 18) The two basically rehash their own old papers.
	__________________ Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

29th August 2017, 01:55 AM	#70
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 28,312	It's worth skimming through this edition of Europhysics News, BTW, just to see the XKCD reference in one of the other articles. Dave
	__________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right

29th August 2017, 06:13 AM	#71
pgimeno Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Spain Posts: 3,356	Two points worth remarking: There is a (succinct) explanation for the collapse of WTC7. The editor's note: This manuscript represents a response to the view presented in the article on the WTC collapse, published in EPN 47/4. In line with the new criteria for publication in EPN as outlined on the EPN webpage and in EPN 47/5&6, it was decided to publish this manuscript in order to conclude the discussion on this subject. "new criteria" suggests that when they realized how the article was used by CTists to prop up CTs, they had to establish new safety measures.
	__________________ Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place. Last edited by pgimeno; 29th August 2017 at 06:28 AM. Reason: OCD

29th August 2017, 06:21 AM	#72
pgimeno Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Spain Posts: 3,356	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers It's worth skimming through this edition of Europhysics News, BTW, just to see the XKCD reference in one of the other articles. I'm wondering if they acquired a separate license directly from Munroe, as they are not honouring the CC BY-NC 2.5 license terms.
	__________________ Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

29th August 2017, 01:18 PM	#73
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 16,299	Originally Posted by pgimeno Two points worth remarking: There is a (succinct) explanation for the collapse of WTC7. The editor's note: This manuscript represents a response to the view presented in the article on the WTC collapse, published in EPN 47/4. In line with the new criteria for publication in EPN as outlined on the EPN webpage and in EPN 47/5&6, it was decided to publish this manuscript in order to conclude the discussion on this subject. "new criteria" suggests that when they realized how the article was used by CTists to prop up CTs, they had to establish new safety measures. EPN 47/5&6 can be found here: https://www.europhysicsnews.org/arti...016-47-5-6.pdf The Twoof article spawned an editorial (page 3) that is inspired by its "Science denial", a couple of letters to the editor on page 43 (one Peter Ketcham's infamous "I know nothing but was a little NISTian and I saw all the twoofy YouTubes" letter), a response by the Editors on page 44 with the proposed change of policy, and a response by NIST (Michael E. Newman) on the same page. The Editors say: Originally Posted by EPN Editors It is the policy of EPN to publish by invitation. Prospective authors are suggested by members of our Editorial Advisory Board, who cover various disciplines and come from different countries. ... EPN does not have a formal review/rejection policy for invited contributions. ... In future, prospective authors will be asked to provide an abstract of the proposed article, as well as an indication of other related publications to allow the editors to better assess the content of the invited articles. Also: Note from the editors regarding: 15 years later: On the physics of high-rise building collapses This is largely the content of page 44 in the issue discussed above.
	__________________ Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)