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, 01:42 PM   #161
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,635
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
So Jones paid to have his paper published by a vanity publisher? Too funny, even funnier than the High Times and Mad magazine jokes, 5 laughing dogs!

This journal better pull this political tripe. Darn, they have an email. Anyone who calls that piece of false information paper, peer reviewed is lacking knowledge.

Did someone write them, I think it has been pulled. It is a joke.

Quote:
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.
Not if they publish that tripe. I found errors all over the paper. Poor.

Last edited by beachnut; 19th April 2008 at 01:44 PM.
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 19th April 2008, 01:45 PM   #162
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,548
How many proofs of purchases do you need to the publishing fee?
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 19th April 2008, 01:52 PM   #163
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
Why is it pathetic? Care to expand?
Not at all. It's pathetic because Dr. Jones has been telling everyone about his "peer-reviewed" journal, and all the great papers in it, for years.

Apparently that didn't exactly set the world on fire. So, he tries to publish for real. That's fine.

However, instead of publishing for real, he publishes in somebody else's sham journal. This gains him no credibility. The only change is, instead of trying to con other people, he falls for exactly the same con run by someone else... and even pays for the privilege.

That's pretty sad.

----

Upon reflection, however, I've decided that the general idea of an Open Access Journal, fees and all, is not inherently bad. The problem is that it makes it much, much harder for readers to distinguish a genuine OAJ from rabble producing their own whitepapers. As a result, the OAJ has to uphold the absolute highest standards of review, accuracy, transparency, and scientific rigor. If this is done, I support it.

I've just fired off a lengthy letter to the publishers at oa@bentham.org describing why this paper should have failed review, and asking them to reconsider it. We shall see their response. It's possible they were just completely blindsided by the Truth Movement.

If they can find and fix their problems, then I support the Bentham folks in their endeavors. But if they can't, then they're no Journal at all, whether they're trying to deceive or simply not up to the task regarding peer review.
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, 02:22 PM   #164
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,580
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.
Actually, I think it's a bit more like paying a female impersonator to be your prom date. Epic fail all around.
__________________
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, 03:20 PM   #165
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
I posted this on the ole blog, but thought this part was amusing enough to cross-post.

Quote:
I could not help but think of this quote from, A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America by Michael Barkun, which I am currently in the process of reading.


At the same time that stigmatization is employed as a virtual guarantee of truth, the literature of stigmatized knowledge enthusiastically mimics mainstream scholarship. It does so by appropriating the apparatus of scholarship in the form of elaborate citations and bibliographies. The most common manifestation of pedantry is a fondness for reciprocal citation, in which the authors obligingly cite one another. The result is that the same sources are repeated over and over, which produces a kind of pseudoconfirmation. If a source is cited many times, it must be true. Because the claims made by conspiracy theorists are usually nonfalsifiable, the multiplication of sources may leave the impression of validation without actually putting any propositions to the test of evidence.





Update: This is what I am talking about as far as their incestous self-referential claims. Let's take this paragraph from their "peer review" paper.



Published papers have argued that this negligence by NIST (leaving the near-free-fall speeds unexplained) is a major flaw in their analysis [13, 14].

Well, this has been argued in "published papers" so there must be some legitimacy to this claim to back up their argument, right? They were published after all.

Well let's look at the footnotes:



[13] S. E. Jones, “Why indeed did the WTC buildings completely collapse?”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 3, pp. 1-47, September 2006. [Online]. Available: www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].

[14] F. Legge and T. Szamboti, “9/11 and the twin towers: Sudden collapse initiation was impossible”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 18, pp. 1-3, December 2007. [Online]. Available: www. journalof911studies.com Accessed March 17, 2008].



Well, these papers were published by Jones, Legge, and Szamboti, who were 3 of the 5 authors of this paper in the first place, and it was published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, which Jones founded, and whose editors are, you guessed it, Steven Jones and Frank Legge!
__________________
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, 04:56 PM   #166
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
Jones responds (sort of) on the 911 Blogger thread.

Quote:
A page-charge is fairly common in technical journals,
especially OPEN-access journals, from what I've seen. Yes, some are making a big deal of this, overlooking this common practice -- it would be helpful if someone would research the page-charges for other journals, especially e-journals. Bentham explains, correctly, that having a publication fee in no way compromises the peer-review process.

I just found this at the JREF site -- so you can see what "R. Mackey" is doing (no doubt the same Ryan Mackey to whom Kevin Ryan replied, in the Journal of 911 Studies):
______________________________________

"Upon reflection, however, I've decided that the general idea of an Open Access Journal, fees and all, is not inherently bad. The problem is that it makes it much, much harder for readers to distinguish a genuine OAJ from rabble producing their own whitepapers. As a result, the OAJ has to uphold the absolute highest standards of review, accuracy, transparency, and scientific rigor. If this is done, I support it.

I've just fired off a lengthy letter to the publishers at oa@bentham.org describing why this paper should have failed review, and asking them to reconsider it. We shall see their response. It's possible they were just completely blindsided by the Truth Movement." [R. Mackey, JREF]

__________________

Interesting. Like I said in my blog, it would be nice to let the editors know that some readers of their journal SUPPORT the publication of this article.

Remember (as I said) that all three reviewers approved publication (I do NOT know who the reviewers were!), so it is unlikely that Mr. Mackey's objections will overturn the approval for publication. He could write me and explain why I should retract the paper, but it would need to have specific objections... (good luck)
__________________
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, 05:21 PM   #167
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,000
Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
Jones responds (sort of) on the 911 Blogger thread.

Quote:
I just found this at the JREF site [...]

S.Jones reads the Conspiracy Theories subforum of JREF? Huh...

Quote:
Quote:
Interesting. Like I said in my blog, it would be nice to let the editors know that some readers of their journal SUPPORT the publication of this article.

Somehow I doubt a bunch of emails saying "Thanks for publishing this" will outweigh a reasoned criticism. Unless, of course, this journal wants to merely please its "readers" without any regard to accuracy... but where would that leave the credibility of this paper?

Bad move, Jones, trying to turn this into a popularity contest. Bad, bad move...

Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 19th April 2008 at 05:22 PM.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2008, 05:23 PM   #168
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,359
But isn't good science all about popularity? No? Ouch.
__________________
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, 05:27 PM   #169
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
Somehow I doubt a bunch of emails saying "Thanks for publishing this" will outweigh a reasoned criticism. Unless, of course, this journal wants to merely please its "readers" without any regard to accuracy... but where would that leave the credibility of this paper?

The irony is that, what little content there is in the whitepaper is basically correct -- stale, uninteresting, and already beat to death, but nonetheless correct. What's wrong with this paper is that it isn't science. It's a bunch of guys publishing errata and their own unsupported opinions in challenge to another, much more rigorous publication.

It's not a science paper. Its inclusion in this Journal is completely unwarranted.

Had Dr. Jones actually done some science, that would be different. He could motivate an experiment based on NIST, do the experiment, publish results, and contrast his findings to NIST. That's perfectly acceptable. Of course, if he does that, then he has to follow rigorous procedures of experiment design, data analysis, and hypothesis testing, things he's failed to do in the past. But if he does a good experiment, then he should publish it.

This paper doesn't have anything new in it. There's not a repeatable conclusion in it anywhere. It also, incidentally, does not support any conspiracy theory, so I fail to see its utility to the Truth Movement except for the sheer PR value.
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, 05:35 PM   #170
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,606
Jones says:

"Remember (as I said) that all three reviewers approved publication (I do NOT know who the reviewers were!)"

I've located the reviewers! I don't know their names, but the review was very thorough!

Reviewer 1: Opened the envelope, found the check, confirmed the amount, made sure the check was signed.

Reviewer 2: Took the check from reviewer one, filled a detailed document known as a "deposit slip."

Reviewer Three: Received the most important document of all! The notice from the bank confirming that the check did not bounce.

And the Jones article was printed! Kudos!
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 19th April 2008, 05:55 PM   #171
MikeyMetz
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 68
Here's my favorite comment from the Jones disciples over at Blogger so far:

Quote:
I have a very short college paper to write this weekend for a Science class where I need to cite a Journal article. My paper is on the "evidence of explosives used on 9/11". I have a brief class presentation on Tuesday with instructors present as judges.

This is just the ticket I need for a source!

Thanks to you guys (Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley ) and others! Ya'll are changing the world.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If one does not thoroughly LOOK, the TRUTH is not visible.
-Tom T.

Ugh... His professor is going to beat his/her head against a desk. Hopefully, Tom gets torn apart by the judges during his presentation.
MikeyMetz 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, 07:05 PM   #172
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,290
Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
Jones responds (sort of) on the 911 Blogger thread.

Originally Posted by Jones
A page-charge is fairly common in technical journals,
especially OPEN-access journals, from what I've seen.

How common? I did a random check at doaj and of the 50 journals I checked, the only ones that charged "publication fees" were those of Bentham, another similar company called Hindawi, and a Nigerian published journal called the International Journal of Physical Science. The vast majority of the journals in my random sample do not charge publication fees.

Now, obviously, my random sampling of open access science journals is not definitive by any stretch, but I'm not the one claiming that the practice is "common".

Originally Posted by Jones
it would be helpful if someone would research the page-charges for other journals, especially e-journals.

Ha. As if Jones and his fellow pseudo-scholars didn't check into the publication fees after they failed to have any of their nonsense accepted by any legitimate, respected journal. My guess is that they went with the cheapest one they could find.


Originally Posted by Jones
Bentham explains, correctly, that having a publication fee in no way compromises the peer-review process.

Um, would Jones really expect the fellow charging him in order to accept his completely-devoid-of-science "letter" to say otherwise?


Originally Posted by Jones
Like I said in my blog, it would be nice to let the editors know that some readers of their journal SUPPORT the publication of this article.

Lol @ "readers of their journal". Jones means, "readers of my letter". As if any of the truther cult members - or any of us here, for that matter - had ever heard of this particular journal before now. It has all of two issues.

It's amusing that Jones seems worried enough about R. Mackey writing to Bentham that he has to call upon the cult members to write to Bentham in an appeal to popularity type of exercise. It is obvious that Jones hasn't any confidence in his ridiculous letter - for very good reason.


Originally Posted by Jones
He could write me and explain why I should retract the paper, but it would need to have specific objections... (good luck)

Too funny. Obviously, Jones is reading this very thread, so he can see R. Mackey's specific objections right here.

What an idiot.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2008, 08:12 PM   #173
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,580
For Dr. Jones

Originally Posted by LashL View Post
...Obviously, Jones is reading this very thread, so he can see R. Mackey's specific objections right here.
Really? In that case, I'd like to address this to you personally, Dr. Jones. In all seriousness, why are you doing this? Do you really need someone like me to remind you that the respect of your peers is worth infinitely more than the adulation of diseased little minds? Sure, your whoring yourself for the sake of the 9/11 CTers has made you a big fish in a small pond. But the water in that pond is exceedingly polluted and toxic. Shame on you for misleading these poor, deluded children (and adults with childish minds) just so you can get a little malignant attention.
__________________
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, 08:28 PM   #174
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
Perhaps Steven Jones (who is apparently reading this thread) would care to explain why he decided not to go with his microsphere/thermite research for this review and publication.

I'm sure I ain't the only one wondering what happened to all that "smoking gun" evidence.
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, 08:42 PM   #175
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by CHF View Post
Perhaps Steven Jones (who is apparently reading this thread) would care to explain why he decided not to go with his microsphere/thermite research for this review and publication.

I'm sure I ain't the only one wondering what happened to all that "smoking gun" evidence.
In Jones' defense, he did say in his post at 911Blogger that there were two papers accepted for publication. We still don't know the topic of the second paper. It is possible that he has chosen his microsphere work to appear in that one.
AZCat 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, 09:05 PM   #176
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
I just read through the article as it appears on the 911Blogger page. My first question is, "why did this require five authors?" It doesn't strike me as a particularly exhaustive article, primarily because it is pointless, stupid and wrong. Surely any one of the five is capable of producing such a steaming pile of crap all on his own. It's not like they bothered to be correct about their claims, or even make arguments that had a point.
AZCat 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, 09:22 PM   #177
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Not at all. It's pathetic because Dr. Jones has been telling everyone about his "peer-reviewed" journal, and all the great papers in it, for years.

Apparently that didn't exactly set the world on fire. So, he tries to publish for real. That's fine.

However, instead of publishing for real, he publishes in somebody else's sham journal. This gains him no credibility. The only change is, instead of trying to con other people, he falls for exactly the same con run by someone else... and even pays for the privilege.

That's pretty sad.

----

Upon reflection, however, I've decided that the general idea of an Open Access Journal, fees and all, is not inherently bad. The problem is that it makes it much, much harder for readers to distinguish a genuine OAJ from rabble producing their own whitepapers. As a result, the OAJ has to uphold the absolute highest standards of review, accuracy, transparency, and scientific rigor. If this is done, I support it.

I've just fired off a lengthy letter to the publishers at oa@bentham.org describing why this paper should have failed review, and asking them to reconsider it. We shall see their response. It's possible they were just completely blindsided by the Truth Movement.

If they can find and fix their problems, then I support the Bentham folks in their endeavors. But if they can't, then they're no Journal at all, whether they're trying to deceive or simply not up to the task regarding peer review.
I think the strong point of the paper, besides the issues it raises with NIST's hypothesis, is that it passed peer review outside of his own journal.

Now is this journal just another scam? Although I haven't seen anything that would suggest it is a scam journal, it might very well be.

With that said, I think it is important to once again look at the claims made in his paper. By your own admission you have claimed that his information is correct (in a different post), and I would agree.

I think this is a great start in bridging cooperation between the "truth movement" and NIST. We are all still waiting for WTC7 report to come out after all. This, and other efforts may be what some of the NIST scientists need to look outside of the fire induced collapse hypothesis, if indeed it is proving unfeasible.

Would you be willing to post your letter to the publishers that you mentioned?

Last edited by Sizzler; 19th April 2008 at 09:55 PM.
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, 09:47 PM   #178
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,290
Originally Posted by AZCat View Post
My first question is, "why did this require five authors?"
Because they had to pool their resources to pay the publication fee when they couldn't get their crap accepted by any legitimate journal, and all five of them want to be able to later claim that they've had a letter (which they will subsequently call a "scientific paper" - just watch) published in a "mainstream peer reviewed journal."

Members of the "truth" movement rarely, if ever, manage to live up to reasonable expectations, but they often manage to live down to the lowest of expectations (this particular piece of crap letter is a good example), and they often sink to such sub-levels of self-delusion and insanity that rational people can only pity them, shake their heads, turn away in disgust, or ... try to help them overcome their delusions by countering their nonsense with reality. 'Tis a thankless task, but somebody has to do it. Thank goodness for debunkers.

Last edited by LashL; 19th April 2008 at 10:03 PM.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2008, 10:05 PM   #179
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,635
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
Now is this journal just another scam? Although I haven't seen anything that would suggest it is a scam journal, it might very well be.
Jones work is political tripe weaved into a supposedly technical paper. How scientific is an article with political rant. It is sad to see someone make up thermite 4 years after 9/11 and pathetically fail at backing in evidence, to keep his failed idea alive.

When someone support Jones, you know they lack knowledge, can not do basic research, and do not care for evidence.

It is very funny they paid to publish, and it makes this journal suspect for accepting such a failed paper. Their reputation, the journal, will suffer since 99.99 percent of all engineer and scientist see this type of work as pure opinions base on political biases and false information and conclusions. This is the reason Jones was fired in the first place; to go tilt at windmills, howl at the moon, and he is now only short taxi fare for happy dale.

OMG, he put in thermite! How much did they pay for that peer review?
When the paper is not pulled, you know the journal is a for pay, you can publish anything.
When a few people who do not usually read 9/11 truth junk see the paper/letter, they will make some noise and take action, unlike 9/11 truth.

Last edited by beachnut; 19th April 2008 at 10:15 PM.
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 19th April 2008, 10:25 PM   #180
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Jones work is political tripe weaved into a supposedly technical paper. How scientific is an article with political rant. It is sad to see someone make up thermite 4 years after 9/11 and pathetically fail at backing in evidence, to keep his failed idea alive.

When someone support Jones, you know they lack knowledge, can not do basic research, and do not care for evidence.

It is very funny they paid to publish, and it makes this journal suspect for accepting such a failed paper. Their reputation, the journal, will suffer since 99.99 percent of all engineer and scientist see this type of work as pure opinions base on political biases and false information and conclusions. This is the reason Jones was fired in the first place; to go tilt at windmills, howl at the moon, and he is now only short taxi fare for happy dale.

OMG, he put in thermite! How much did they pay for that peer review?
When the paper is not pulled, you know the journal is a for pay, you can publish anything.
When a few people who do not usually read 9/11 truth junk see the paper/letter, they will make some noise and take action, unlike 9/11 truth.
Jones made thermite up 4 years ago? Geesh, why didn't you tell me that before. Oh wait, you did, in EVERY post you have EVER directed towards me.

Instead of repeating the same lines, why don't you tell me what part of Jones' letter is incorrect.
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, 10:28 PM   #181
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 286
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 know what the word initiate means. I asked you what you meant by the phrase, "the collapse initiating with pancaking." This is what Steven Jones wrote in his paper,

"Agreed: the “pancake theory of collapse” is incorrect and should be rejected. This theory of collapse was proposed by the earlier FEMA report and promoted in the documentary “Why the Towers Fell” produced by NOVA.7The “pancake theory of collapse” is strongly promoted in a Popular Mechanics article along with a number of other discredited ideas.8, 9 We, on the other hand, agree with NIST that the “pancake theory” is not scientifically tenable and ought to be set aside in serious discussions regarding the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC 7."

Are you saying that the pancake collapse theory was not proposed by FEMA and popularized by the NOVA documentary and Popular Mechanics?

Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
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.
He did not explain what he meant by the phrase, "the collapse initiating with pancaking." Would you like to explain what this phrase means?

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
The irony is that, what little content there is in the whitepaper is basically correct -- stale, uninteresting, and already beat to death, but nonetheless correct. What's wrong with this paper is that it isn't science. It's a bunch of guys publishing errata and their own unsupported opinions in challenge to another, much more rigorous publication.

It's not a science paper. Its inclusion in this Journal is completely unwarranted.

Had Dr. Jones actually done some science, that would be different. He could motivate an experiment based on NIST, do the experiment, publish results, and contrast his findings to NIST. That's perfectly acceptable. Of course, if he does that, then he has to follow rigorous procedures of experiment design, data analysis, and hypothesis testing, things he's failed to do in the past. But if he does a good experiment, then he should publish it.
In another thread, you seemed to suggest that the experimental method was so passé. When I asked if the NIST science could be reproduced experimentally, you seemed to scoff at the idea. You were asked if a computer model would suffice. You responded,

Quote:
"It does for me, but that's a question for tanabear. I'm perfectly happy with scientific modeling of bounding cases, and in this particular instance, even simulation isn't required, just basic mathematical modeling. This evidently isn't sufficient for him."
So mathematical modeling is sufficient for the defenders of the official story, but experiment design, data analysis and hypothesis testing are required for those questioning the official story?
__________________
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, 10:31 PM   #182
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
Because they had to pool their resources to pay the publication fee when they couldn't get their crap accepted by any legitimate journal, and all five of them want to be able to later claim that they've had a letter (which they will subsequently call a "scientific paper" - just watch) published in a "mainstream peer reviewed journal."
At the moment, Jones is calling it a "formal publication" in what he says is a "established civil engineering journal." I will watch to see how this description changes as time goes by. I wouldn't make a bet on it, though - I have seen the same thing done too many times by the "truth movement".

If they're having difficulty with funds then maybe Jones and Ryan should get real jobs instead of trying to live off the "truth movement".

Quote:
'Tis a thankless task, but somebody has to do it. Thank goodness for debunkers.
Bringing truthers to the light, that's us.
AZCat 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, 10:33 PM   #183
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,635
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
Jones made thermite up 4 years ago? Geesh, why didn't you tell me that before. Oh wait, you did, in EVERY post you have EVER directed towards me.

Instead of repeating the same lines, why don't you tell me what part of Jones' letter is incorrect.
We would save time if you just point out the correct part of anything Jones ever said.

Zero.


And since it is true, why mention it again? You seem to believe Jones, yet he made it up. Oops again.

Last edited by beachnut; 19th April 2008 at 10:46 PM.
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 19th April 2008, 10:50 PM   #184
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
We would save time if you just point out the correct part of anything Jones ever said.

Zero.


And since it is true, why mention it again? You seem to believe Jones, yet he made it up. Oops again.
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...
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, 10:54 PM   #185
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
I'd say most, if not all of his letter is correct.
Then you haven't been paying attention. These issues have all been addressed here, to the detriment of Jones' arguments.
AZCat 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, 11:28 PM   #186
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
I think the strong point of the paper, besides the issues it raises with NIST's hypothesis, is that it passed peer review outside of his own journal.
And that is a miracle. I've never seen a paper like this, due to the sheer degree of editorializing, and the absence of results. I've informed the editors of this gross irregularity, and I expect them to respond.

Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
Now is this journal just another scam? Although I haven't seen anything that would suggest it is a scam journal, it might very well be.
I did some digging on the background of the (suspiciously large) editorial board. At least some of them appear legitimate, if inexperienced. This "journal," or family of journals, is about as fledgling as they come -- there are a total of ten articles published in the history of the Civil Engineering branch, and other flavors have even less.

I'm guessing the Journal is legitimate, or trying to be anyway, but is still not quite ready for prime-time. If Dr. Jones "Recommended" four reviewers, it's pretty unlikely the editors would have any familiarity with the relationships in the Truth Movement, and may have just let it go without due diligence. It happens. I expect them to correct this oversight, if I'm right about their true goals.

Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
With that said, I think it is important to once again look at the claims made in his paper. By your own admission you have claimed that his information is correct (in a different post), and I would agree.
There are no claims made in this paper. There are a few observations of known typos and poor phrasing that we've all known about for years, and there are a few unsupported opinions. Neither raises to the level of a "Claim."

Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
I think this is a great start in bridging cooperation between the "truth movement" and NIST. We are all still waiting for WTC7 report to come out after all. This, and other efforts may be what some of the NIST scientists need to look outside of the fire induced collapse hypothesis, if indeed it is proving unfeasible.
It is not. You do not respond to NIST by tricking a journal into bearing your "letter to the editor." NIST has made itself abundantly available, and they know it; they just don't like the answers.

As I stated above, if they have conflicting results, then publishing here is appropriate. Their paper contains no results.

Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
Would you be willing to post your letter to the publishers that you mentioned?
It's too long to post here, but I may post some excerpts. The issue is really quite simple.
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, 11:32 PM   #187
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
In another thread, you seemed to suggest that the experimental method was so passé. When I asked if the NIST science could be reproduced experimentally, you seemed to scoff at the idea.
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.

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
You were asked if a computer model would suffice. You responded...

So mathematical modeling is sufficient for the defenders of the official story, but experiment design, data analysis and hypothesis testing are required for those questioning the official story?
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.
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, 11:49 PM   #188
Walter Ego
Illuminator
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 3,379
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post

I did some digging on the background of the (suspiciously large) editorial board. At least some of them appear legitimate, if inexperienced. This "journal," or family of journals, is about as fledgling as they come -- there are a total of ten articles published in the history of the Civil Engineering branch, and other flavors have even less.

Here's some interesting info on Bentham.

Quote:

Science publishing is under attack. Librarians are unhappy with rising prices and the 'big deal' bundles favoured by large publishers. The voice of Open Access proponents grows louder and more influential with each passing day. And governments in Europe and America have mounted enquiries and debates into STM publishing. But where do the smaller, respected publishers of highly regarded science journals fit in? Are they prospering? Is the call of Open Access impacting on the way they do business?

------

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

----

Bentham's geographic profile is unique. Where is the company based?

We're an international company officially based and registered in the United Arab Emirates. UAE is close to Pakistan where many of our staff work. So it's strategically well placed. We chose Pakistan for similar reasons why other publishers have chosen India, Malaysia and Indonesia. Our production people were looking at the cost of production especially printing and typesetting. We found that Pakistan offered very competitive prices and that the staff we could employ were highly educated, often with Ph.Ds. While the editorial work is done largely by our teams in The Netherlands and USA, Pakistan assists with the collection of manuscripts from the editors world wide. All the production and printing – we've just bought 3 presses – is done in-house in Pakistan. So there was reason enough to go there. It was a little risky at first because of political tensions but these have eased and the economy is improving. So it's a stable place for us to do our business.

http://www.aardvarknet.info/access/n...m?monthnews=11
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, 11:57 PM   #189
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post
Here's some interesting info on Bentham.
Yes, but let's not turn this into an ad hominem against Bentham.

If you look at the other articles in their Civil Engineering journal (all nine of them...) they're pretty ordinary. I wouldn't call this a prestigous journal by any stretch, but they may be trying to do it right. How they respond to the problem of Dr. Jones's paper will be a useful data point. I'm optimistic until proven wrong.
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, 11:57 PM   #190
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
And that is a miracle. I've never seen a paper like this, due to the sheer degree of editorializing, and the absence of results. I've informed the editors of this gross irregularity, and I expect them to respond.
I see the merit in your criticism except that this is a letter, and not a "paper" with results. It is what it is Mackey.


Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
I did some digging on the background of the (suspiciously large) editorial board. At least some of them appear legitimate, if inexperienced. This "journal," or family of journals, is about as fledgling as they come -- there are a total of ten articles published in the history of the Civil Engineering branch, and other flavors have even less.

I'm guessing the Journal is legitimate, or trying to be anyway, but is still not quite ready for prime-time. If Dr. Jones "Recommended" four reviewers, it's pretty unlikely the editors would have any familiarity with the relationships in the Truth Movement, and may have just let it go without due diligence. It happens. I expect them to correct this oversight, if I'm right about their true goals.
I'm not totally familiar with the particulars of scientific review. I think this is a bold claim and you do to, demonstrated by your use of "if".

However you then claim it is an "oversight". I think you are getting ahead of yourself here because you haven't shown an oversight to exist yet.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
There are no claims made in this paper. There are a few observations of known typos and poor phrasing that we've all known about for years, and there are a few unsupported opinions. Neither raises to the level of a "Claim."
From Jones et al

"NIST and FEMA were not charged with finding out how fire was the specific agent of collapse, yet both evidently took that limited approach while leaving open a number of unanswered questions. Our goal here is to set a foundation for scientific discussion by enumerating those areas where we find agreement with NIST and FEMA."

The central thesis, or claim of this letter is that there are several unanswered questions. These questions are explored by identifying areas of agreement between them and NIST/FEMA which in turn exposes the unanswered questions.

The final opinion in the letter is that these questions need answers before anyone can fully understand the collapses.

Lets not forget that this is a letter.


Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
It is not. You do not respond to NIST by tricking a journal into bearing your "letter to the editor." NIST has made itself abundantly available, and they know it; they just don't like the answers.
Well it certainly can't hurt.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
As I stated above, if they have conflicting results, then publishing here is appropriate. Their paper contains no results.
Right, because it is a letter. It identifies areas of agreement, exposing unanswered questions. I see nothing wrong with it given it isn't meant to be a traditional scientific paper.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
It's too long to post here, but I may post some excerpts. The issue is really quite simple.
That would be great. I'd like to see your criticisms in more detail. Eagerly waiting.

Last edited by Sizzler; 20th April 2008 at 12:03 AM.
Sizzler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2008, 12:01 AM   #191
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Yes, but let's not turn this into an ad hominem against Bentham.

If you look at the other articles in their Civil Engineering journal (all nine of them...) they're pretty ordinary. I wouldn't call this a prestigous journal by any stretch, but they may be trying to do it right. How they respond to the problem of Dr. Jones's paper will be a useful data point. I'm optimistic until proven wrong.
Sorry to be frank but you are basically saying it is a legit journal as long as they agree with you and your supposed criticisms, which you haven't really clearly identified or proven to be true.
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, 12:07 AM   #192
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
I see the merit in your criticism except that this is a letter, and not a "paper" with results. It is what it is Mackey.
One does not post "letters" in scientific journals. In general, if you have to put a special name on something, you're making excuses for it.

If you read their (very slender) guidelines, you note they only refer to technical and review articles. This paper is neither. That is one of the complaints I have for the publishers.

Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
However you then claim it is an "oversight". I think you are getting ahead of yourself here because you haven't shown an oversight to exist yet.
Here's an "oversight," quoted from my letter to the editors:

Originally Posted by Ryan Mackey
Another problem with the paper in question is its combative tone. For example, from Page 39:

"The evident evasiveness of this answer might be humorous if not for the fact that NIST's approach here affects the lives of so many innocent people. We do not think that looking for thermite or other residues specified in the NFPA 921 code is 'wasting your time.' We may be able to help out here as well, for we have looked for such residues in the WTC remains using state-of-the-art analytical methods, especially in the voluminous toxic dust that was produced as the buildings fell and killed thousands of people, and the evidence for thermite use is mounting."

In this brief passage alone, the authors (a) accuse fellow researchers at NIST of being "Evasive;" (b) suggest without evidence that NIST failed to discharge its duties in investigation; (c) advertise their own purported abilities; and (d) assert that there is evidence of "thermite," citing in support only two articles from the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" rather than any reliable scientific result.
I trust you can accept that this passage is totally unacceptable in a formal scientific communication. I have never seen anything so incendiary or so transparently unsupported in any article, in any journal, in any subject.
I'm trying to imagine the three peer-reviewers reading this and all deciding, independently, to give it a thumbs-up. I'm failing. Help me out with this.

Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
The final opinion in the letter is that these questions need answers before anyone can fully understand the collapses.
But this is false. None of the "issues" raised by Dr. Jones have any impact on our understanding of the collapses. If he had results showing thermite was at work, that would be something, but questions are not evidence.

Honestly, did we need a "journal article" to remind us that the fires didn't melt steel? (point #8 in Dr. Jones's paper) Hmm? The only person in the world who hasn't gotten that message is Rosie O'Donnell.
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, 12:10 AM   #193
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
Sorry to be frank but you are basically saying it is a legit journal as long as they agree with you and your supposed criticisms, which you haven't really clearly identified or proven to be true.
Absolute balderdash. I'm saying it's a legitimate journal if they perform due diligence in review and adhere to scientific standards. I am not insisting that I am the one who gets to set those standards. Those standards are pretty well established and universal in the world of publication.

As I said before, there is not a single result in this paper. It is neither science nor engineering. It is editorializing. That is not the function of a scientific journal. The editors must respond to this criticism, and I trust that they will.

Last edited by R.Mackey; 20th April 2008 at 12:11 AM.
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, 12:23 AM   #194
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
One does not post "letters" in scientific journals. In general, if you have to put a special name on something, you're making excuses for it.
It is what it is Mackey. The editors obviously thought it merited being published and it also passed peer review.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
If you read their (very slender) guidelines, you note they only refer to technical and review articles. This paper is neither. That is one of the complaints I have for the publishers.
I would like to know their answer.


Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Here's an "oversight," quoted from my letter to the editors:
I agree with you on this point. Thanks for sharing.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
I'm trying to imagine the three peer-reviewers reading this and all deciding, independently, to give it a thumbs-up. I'm failing. Help me out with this.
I would like to know what their response is to this particular issue.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
But this is false. None of the "issues" raised by Dr. Jones have any impact on our understanding of the collapses. If he had results showing thermite was at work, that would be something, but questions are not evidence.
This is a fallacy you have presented here. One does not need to prove CD to show that the fire induced hypothesis is insufficiently supported.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Honestly, did we need a "journal article" to remind us that the fires didn't melt steel? (point #8 in Dr. Jones's paper) Hmm? The only person in the world who hasn't gotten that message is Rosie O'Donnell.
Again another fallacy; this time a straw man. You are suggesting that this is pertaining to the claim that fire can't melt steel and thus can't cause the building to collapse by your inclusion of Rosie. However Jones explicitly states that this is in conflict with reports by Lee et al describing dust particles that needed high temperatures to form, including once molten iron microspheres.
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, 12:24 AM   #195
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Absolute balderdash. I'm saying it's a legitimate journal if they perform due diligence in review and adhere to scientific standards. I am not insisting that I am the one who gets to set those standards. Those standards are pretty well established and universal in the world of publication.

As I said before, there is not a single result in this paper. It is neither science nor engineering. It is editorializing. That is not the function of a scientific journal. The editors must respond to this criticism, and I trust that they will.
Ok, your criticisms are a little clearer now. I agree with the one you previously posted.

Care to make a list, or post more of that letter?
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, 12:34 AM   #196
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
It is what it is Mackey. The editors obviously thought it merited being published and it also passed peer review.
The review process was breathtakingly short. Their review policy also includes accepting reviewers suggested by the authors, provided they aren't from "the same institution." Since the Truth Movement is not an institution, it is possible (though I do not know this took place) that Dr. Jones got his own friends to "review" the paper, and the editors did not adequately verify its quality.

I've already demonstrated a passage that should have never seen the light of day, so we know the review was inadequate.


Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
This is a fallacy you have presented here. One does not need to prove CD to show that the fire induced hypothesis is insufficiently supported.
I didn't say that one did.

Dr. Jones could show the NIST hypothesis is insufficient through a variety of methods -- running his own models, finding flaws in the assumptions, etc. -- without even mentioning explosives. He's done none of this. All he's done is go over a few nitpicks and wild assertions.

Compare, if you will, Dr. Jones's paper to those of Dr. Quintiere. Dr. Quintiere is equally hostile towards NIST, but his papers have content. He doesn't just speculate that NIST might be wrong, he gets his own data, runs his own experiments, and publishes that. We learn from Dr. Quintiere.

What did we learn from Dr. Jones's paper? Nothing.

Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
Again another fallacy; this time a straw man. You are suggesting that this is pertaining to the claim that fire can't melt steel and thus can't cause the building to collapse by your inclusion of Rosie. However Jones explicitly states that this is in conflict with reports by Lee et al describing dust particles that needed high temperatures to form, including once molten iron microspheres.
No, no no. Once again, the samples in the RJ Lee report were taken months afterward. I told you this myself. There is no reason at all to assume these microspheres were created prior to or during collapse. And unless you make that assumption, there is no conflict.

The strawman is Dr. Jones's, not mine.

ETA: I've already received an acknowledgment from the publishers, and I'll let you know what transpires. I only gave them a few examples of problems with the paper.

Realistically, what may happen in the long term is Dr. Jones is forced to revise his paper, but perhaps some variant of what he has now will persist. It'll never be a great paper, but it could at least be banged into a semblance of an ordinary paper. But like I said, he makes no claims, and we learn nothing from its publication. I therefore fail to see the point.

Last edited by R.Mackey; 20th April 2008 at 12:36 AM. Reason: As marked
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, 12:36 AM   #197
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 35,720
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
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
Firstly, the definition of "mainstream journal" that you use must be coming from the same Big Book of Picture Words that you guys use to define "peer review".

Secondly, the threads were merged because they were identical topics. No conspiracy here, move along.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
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, 02:19 AM   #198
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
To no surprise, they will not release the names of the reviewers. But at least they really seem to be other than JONES people
__________________
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 20th April 2008, 02:57 AM   #199
Slayhamlet
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,423
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
I know what the word initiate means. I asked you what you meant by the phrase, "the collapse initiating with pancaking." This is what Steven Jones wrote in his paper,

"Agreed: the “pancake theory of collapse” is incorrect and should be rejected. This theory of collapse was proposed by the earlier FEMA report and promoted in the documentary “Why the Towers Fell” produced by NOVA.7The “pancake theory of collapse” is strongly promoted in a Popular Mechanics article along with a number of other discredited ideas.8, 9 We, on the other hand, agree with NIST that the “pancake theory” is not scientifically tenable and ought to be set aside in serious discussions regarding the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC 7."

Are you saying that the pancake collapse theory was not proposed by FEMA and popularized by the NOVA documentary and Popular Mechanics?
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.

Originally Posted by tanabear
He did not explain what he meant by the phrase, "the collapse initiating with pancaking." Would you like to explain what this phrase means?
He means, of course, the "pancake collapse" hypothesis itself:

Originally Posted by FEMA 2.2.1.4
As the temperature of floor slabs and support framing increases, these elements can lose rigidity and sag into catenary action. As catenary action progresses, horizontal framing elements and floor slabs become tensile elements, which can cause failure of end connections (Figure 2-21) [right] and allow supported floors to collapse onto the floors below. The presence of large amounts of debris on some floors of WTC 1 would have made them even more susceptible to this behavior.

In addition to overloading the floors below, and potentially resulting in a pancake-type collapse of successive floors, local floor collapse would also immediately increase the laterally unsupported length of columns, permitting buckling to begin. As indicated in Appendix B, the propensity of exterior columns to buckle would have been governed by the relatively weak bolted column splices between the vertically stacked prefabricated exterior wall units. This effect would be even more likely to occur in a fire that involves several adjacent floor levels simultaneously, because the columns could effectively lose lateral support over several stories
Originally Posted by FEMA 2.2.2.5
The same types of structural behaviors and failure mechanisms previously discussed are equally likely to have occurred in WTC 2, resulting in the initiation of progressive collapse, approximately 56 minutes after the aircraft impact. Review of video footage of the WTC 2 collapse suggests that it probably initiated with a partial collapse of the floor in the southeast corner of the building at approximately the 80th level. This appears to have been followed rapidly by collapse of the entire floor level along the east side, as evidenced by a line of dust blowing out of the side of the building. As this floor collapse occurred, columns along the east face of the building appear to buckle in the region of the collapsed floor, beginning at the south side and progressing to the north, causing the top of the building to rotate toward the east and south and to begin to collapse downward (Figure 2-32). It should be noted that failure of core columns in the southeast corner of the building could have preceded and triggered these events.
FEMA403 2

According to the observations of NIST, this is not what happened. Their reasons for discounting the hypothesis, as R. Mackey explains in his whitepaper "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking", are such:

Quote:
1.Close examination of video prior to the collapses proved that the exterior walls were being pulled inward, which suggests floors remained attached up to the moment of collapse.

2. Photographs also showed floors sagging severely but still attached to the walls.

3. Modeling of the perimeter wall bowing proved that the amount of inward pull required to bow the exterior columns was not enough to sever the floor truss connections.

4. Modeling of a single floor tearing free and falling onto an undamaged floor suggested that the undamaged floor would not be destroyed, thus casting doubt on the ability of the “pancake theory” to sustain a progressive collapse.
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 modelling.

Last edited by Slayhamlet; 20th April 2008 at 03:18 AM.
Slayhamlet 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, 03:08 AM   #200
Edmund Standing
Thinker
 
Edmund Standing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 188
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
I think this is a great start in bridging cooperation between the "truth movement" and NIST.
The problem is, NIST doesn't need anyone from the 'truth movement'. NIST has enough real experts who are not emotionally invested in a very partisan and scientifically vacuous conspiracy world view to get along just fine without help from the likes of Jones et al. Of course, should NIST decide to investigate pictorial evidence for Jesus' alleged visit to ancient America, or another area in which Jones has particular expertise they probably lack (for example, pre-Columbian horse remains), then I'm sure some cooperation would be helpful.
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
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 11:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.