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.
Reply
Old 30th May 2007, 04:26 PM   #1
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Fantasy Movement Suffers Knockdown

Our good friends James and Pat at SLC posted a small item that merely destroys the underpinnings of much pseudo-science peddled by charlatans like Steven Jones. Please see, "Source of the Glow Revealed."

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
pomeroo 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 30th May 2007, 04:49 PM   #2
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
yes the infamous "molten metal" claimed, is, in fact, a big flashlight...

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2007, 05:14 PM   #3
The Demon's Head
Crime cannot be tolerated
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,416
The theorists either didn't examine the evidence properly or just neglected it to posit a theory in it's place so that it would help their case.
__________________


Last edited by The Demon's Head; 30th May 2007 at 05:19 PM.
The Demon's Head 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 30th May 2007, 05:35 PM   #4
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
I think they're confusing two photos there. The upper one on that page shows ironworkers (they have distinctive helmets), apparently using a torch. The source caption mentions that cleanup was underway.

The lower photo is similar to the photo in Jones' paper that he claimed was firefighters apparently peering into the molten core, but which was simply a rescue or recovery scene lit by artificial light, and which had had its color altered. The "Jones" photo is on display with its original color at Ground Zero, and is in the collection "New York: A Democracy of Photographs." You can see it here, under "Photo follies." In his book "Aftermath," Joel Meyerowitz has a photo that may be of the same rescue/recovery effort as in Jones' paper.

I've never seen anyone but Jones misrepresent those photos, and he's aware of the problem, so I don't think this is much of a knockdown this is to the movement.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy 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 30th May 2007, 05:58 PM   #5
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
I think they're confusing two photos there. The upper one on that page shows ironworkers (they have distinctive helmets), apparently using a torch. The source caption mentions that cleanup was underway.

The lower photo is similar to the photo in Jones' paper that he claimed was firefighters apparently peering into the molten core, but which was simply a rescue or recovery scene lit by artificial light, and which had had its color altered. The "Jones" photo is on display with its original color at Ground Zero, and is in the collection "New York: A Democracy of Photographs." You can see it here, under "Photo follies." In his book "Aftermath," Joel Meyerowitz has a photo that may be of the same rescue/recovery effort as in Jones' paper.

I've never seen anyone but Jones misrepresent those photos, and he's aware of the problem, so I don't think this is much of a knockdown this is to the movement.

Mark, when you write that Jones is aware of the problem, has he made any corrections in his work? Does he continue to misrepresent the photo? A loon on Smasher's blog posted a photo of a forklift carrying some glowing substance, claiming that it was, of course, molten steel. He was typically oblivious to what molten steel would have done to the forklift.
pomeroo 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 30th May 2007, 06:27 PM   #6
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
JamesB made him aware of it. He was annoyed that James and I hadn't notified him about these errors, despite the fact that his paper had

1) supposedly been through three rounds of "peer review" and

2) he hadn't responded to previous emails

3) the suggestion that firemen kept their bare faces two feet from an area that's purportedly as hot as a blast furnace, is insane

I assume that these photos won't make the cut in "Why Indeed v.4.0"
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy 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 30th May 2007, 06:58 PM   #7
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,188
Thanks for the correction, Gravy; I knew there was another photo that had been used but Jones does appear to have removed that.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster 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 30th May 2007, 07:32 PM   #8
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
He was annoyed that James and I hadn't notified him about these errors, despite the fact that his paper had

1) supposedly been through three rounds of "peer review"
Is it known who peer-reviewed Jones' crap paper?

Does he claim they were at all qualified to do so?
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 30th May 2007, 07:37 PM   #9
Zep
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,699
That would be "pier reviewed", perhaps. That is, a boozy lunch at an outdoor seafood restaurant, perhaps??
Zep 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 30th May 2007, 07:42 PM   #10
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by CHF View Post
Is it known who peer-reviewed Jones' crap paper?

Does he claim they were at all qualified to do so?
It's hard to imagine that the peer reviewers could have missed anything, since the reviews were supervised by that paragon of honesty and scientific integrity, Kevin Ryan. The fact that he's Jones' buddy and that the Journal of 9/11 Stundies is run by Jones has no bearing on the outcome of the review, I'm sure.

To give you a serious answer, no, I don't think it's been made public who reviewed the paper each of the three times. To claim that the papers in the Journal are peer reviewed, which Jones constantly does, is to claim that the reviewers are qualified. That's part of the definition of peer review.

Man, these frauds sicken me.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy 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 30th May 2007, 08:06 PM   #11
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
 
Undesired Walrus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,690
Pomeroo, why do you consistently say "fantasists"? As factually accurate as it may be, it isn't all that productive.

Of course, IMHO.
Undesired Walrus 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 30th May 2007, 08:10 PM   #12
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus View Post
Pomeroo, why do you consistently say "fantasists"? As factually accurate as it may be, it isn't all that productive.

Of course, IMHO.

When I'm striving for precision, I call them "conspiracy liars." I think "fantasists" fits the bill nicely and is as neutral as I care to be. Strictly speaking, the tinfoil-hat brigade's notion of a conspiracy of thousands is mathematically impossible and, therefore, a fantasy. I'd choke before I referred to frauds, charlatans, and scoundrels as the "Truth" movement.
pomeroo 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 31st May 2007, 12:34 AM   #13
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,188
Originally Posted by pomeroo View Post
When I'm striving for precision, I call them "conspiracy liars." I think "fantasists" fits the bill nicely and is as neutral as I care to be. Strictly speaking, the tinfoil-hat brigade's notion of a conspiracy of thousands is mathematically impossible and, therefore, a fantasy. I'd choke before I referred to frauds, charlatans, and scoundrels as the "Truth" movement.
Yes, this is a key point. Even though as a writer I want to vary the reference point, it just kills me to say "Truthers" or "Truth". Words mean things and we cannot give them a high ground by default.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster 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 31st May 2007, 12:49 AM   #14
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by Zep View Post
That would be "pier reviewed", perhaps. That is, a boozy lunch at an outdoor seafood restaurant, perhaps??

Maybe it means it was reviewed by a pear.

-Gumboot
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot 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 31st May 2007, 01:49 AM   #15
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
 
H'ethetheth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: among the machines
Posts: 2,682
Or perhaps from someones rectum, a review mysteriously appeered.
H'ethetheth 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 31st May 2007, 02:08 AM   #16
stilicho
Trurl's Electronic Bard
 
stilicho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,757
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
It's hard to imagine that the peer reviewers could have missed anything, since the reviews were supervised by that paragon of honesty and scientific integrity, Kevin Ryan....That's part of the definition of peer review.

Man, these frauds sicken me.
As I've said before on other forums, it becomes very obvious who has and who hasn't ever defended a Master's thesis. I start to wonder how these guys who actually have credentials (however unrelated) managed to obtain them in the first place. Maybe they cracked up after they graduated or seethed all the way through at being challenged and then resolved to prove to the world how abusive they could be of the whole academic process.

As a side note, I was on a different board when the Kevin Ryan email became public and found his name and email for the brief interval between his announcement and termination. I could well imagine that UL's Exchange Server overloaded that day.
stilicho 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 31st May 2007, 02:37 AM   #17
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
Maybe it means it was reviewed by a pear.

-Gumboot
My favourite is the beer review.
__________________
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 14th June 2007, 04:03 PM   #18
rcronk
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 728
My interactions via email and face to face with Steven E. Jones are here in four parts: http://ldspatriot.wordpress.com/2006...-jones-and-me/

I'm not a peer of his (I'm just a lowly software engineer) but I did review his paper and gave him evidence and testimony that he ignored repeatedly (read all four parts from above).

I also might have run into one of his peer reviewers on a forum - if the guy I ran into is a peer reviewer, then I no longer trust the peer review process as it would be the blind reviewing the blind - blinded by hatred that is. If I find that he did in fact peer review his paper, I'll publish his name here along with a link to his blind personal attacks on me during our 9/11 debate online.
rcronk 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 14th June 2007, 04:08 PM   #19
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by rcronk View Post
My interactions via email and face to face with Steven E. Jones are here in four parts: http://ldspatriot.wordpress.com/2006...-jones-and-me/

I'm not a peer of his (I'm just a lowly software engineer) but I did review his paper and gave him evidence and testimony that he ignored repeatedly (read all four parts from above).

I also might have run into one of his peer reviewers on a forum - if the guy I ran into is a peer reviewer, then I no longer trust the peer review process as it would be the blind reviewing the blind - blinded by hatred that is. If I find that he did in fact peer review his paper, I'll publish his name here along with a link to his blind personal attacks on me during our 9/11 debate online.
Trust me, you can have faith in a LEGITIMATE Peer Review process. That Sham of a journal, has a Sham of a peer review process, except in one sense...

They do have CT loony toons submitting papers that are likely reviewed by other CT loony toons, so in that way the papers are "Peer Reviewed".

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2007, 11:26 AM   #20
rcronk
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 728
lol - You're absolutely right!
rcronk 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 15th June 2007, 06:00 PM   #21
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
The essence of any legitimate peer review process is that the reviewers be selected by a third party and be "anonymous".
Apollo20 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 15th June 2007, 06:15 PM   #22
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,156
Originally Posted by rcronk View Post
I'm not a peer of his (I'm just a lowly software engineer) but I did review his paper and gave him evidence and testimony that he ignored repeatedly (read all four parts from above).
Hey RC -

I'm a software engineer myself, but not lowly. And neither are you. The reason why Jones is no peer of yours is that he does not have the mental capacity to design, code, test and sell programs that can solve a multitude of challenges. What he sells is something else entirely.
ConspiRaider 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 15th June 2007, 10:03 PM   #23
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by ref View Post
My favourite is the beer review.

The problem is you get caught out the following morning when you realise that "assignment" you beer reviewed isn't quite as outstanding as you first thought. This second review is known as the "clear review".

-Gumboot
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:26 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.