Official story: why believe it?

[defaultdotxbe]

journalof911studies.com
Like I said if it is good enough for David Griscom it is good enough for me.
Maybe you have some qualifications that makes your opinion more valid than Griscom's?
185 peer reviewed papers, being one of the worlds most sourced scientist Grsicom is hard to ignore if your being scientific.

isnt that jones's own journal? isnt he one of the reviewers for it? does this not strike you as the slightest conflict of interest? why is it so much trouble for jones to submit his paper to a journal that he doesnt run himself?

 

[lisabob2]

Steven Jones had to set up his own journal to get anyone to publish his papers, because he couldn't get past a peer review process anywhere else. As for Griscom, yes, he is clearly unable to judge such matters. I've looked at the glaring errors in the Journal of 9/11 Studies and posted rather a lot of them here, and the only conclusion I can draw is that the peer reviewing done for that journal is utterly incompetent.

Having said that, why exactly should you believe Steven Jones when he says he has his papers peer reviewed? Are you in the habit of taking the word of strangers as gospel? You might find that thinking for yourself would lead to some rather different conclusions.

Dave

Jone's history, David Griscom opinion has me believing Jones. It has nothing to do with personal interaction but what has been written by both Jones & Grsicom
I have read what Jones has written & I find his point well taken, I find him to be very scientific on the issues of 9-11 especially the collapses.

 

[lisabob2]

isnt that jones's own journal? isnt he one of the reviewers for it? does this not strike you as the slightest conflict of interest? why is it so much trouble for jones to submit his paper to a journal that he doesnt run himself?

I do not know what journals Jones has his paper peer reviewed, but again thats really not the issue. Bazant had his first theory peer reviewed and accepted by engineering journals, but later it was disproven by the nist report so peer review is a process but it does not add or take away evidence. Also I believe Quintiere said nist investigation needed to be peer reviewed. So if it hasn't been peer reviewed should we trust it?
I admitt I could be wrong about Quintiere, or that it is a older quote so maybe nist has been peer reviewed I am not sure.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I do not know what journals Jones has his paper peer reviewed, but again thats really not the issue. Bazant had his first theory peer reviewed and accepted by engineering journals, but later it was disproven by the nist report so peer review is a process but it does not add or take away evidence. Also I believe Quintiere said nist investigation needed to be peer reviewed. So if it hasn't been peer reviewed should we trust it?
I admitt I could be wrong about Quintiere, or that it is a older quote so maybe nist has been peer reviewed I am not sure.

so when jones says his paper has been peer reviewed you accept it without proof, and when quintiere says the NIST report hasnt been peer reviewed, you accept that too without evidence

it just comes down to whatever you want to believe doesnt it?

BTW the NIST report was not formally peer reviewed, however NIST's investigation was, they held many meetings that were open to the public and hundreds of engineers attended them to address any concerns they had about the progress or the procedures of the investigation. NISTs report was compiled by some 200 independent engineers, this in itself can constitute a peer review

has jones's paper (or even bazant's for that matter) been reviewed by 200 engineers?

 

[Drudgewire]

...peer review is a process but it does not add or take away evidence.

If you can't even begin that process because your work is so flawed/inaccurate/fraud-laden then it's pointless to worry about what happens next.

And "peer review" does not mean "guys in your inner circle who already agree with you" any more than a gang member being tried by "a jury of his peers" means all the jurors have to be bloods or crips. It means that independent, unbiased experts in their scientific fields have determined its accuracy.

That will never happen with Jones, at least in the realm of 9/11 study. Not because "everyone else is in on it," but because his work is flawed... mightily flawed even (often willfully).

 

[Dave Rogers]

glaring errors

lets discuss any you want to.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/commentsonstevenjones'hypothesesbydavero

Lisabob, feel free to start at the top and work down.

Dave

 

[CptColumbo]

I think the problem here is a misunderstanding of what a "scientific journal" and "peer review" are.

A scientific journal is a publication, usually specialized in a particular discipline, mainly targeted towards academics and other scientists. Nature is probably the best known to the general public in the US, along with medical journals like The Journal of the AMA and the New England Journal of Meicine. To maintain high standards and a credible reputation (and keep people and institutions buying it) journals ask for papers submitted to be peer reviewed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_journal

Peer review is when a scientist (or group of scientists) have other scientist, in the relevant field, review their research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

These are very simplistic explanations. I would suggest going to a local college library and look at some journals, to get a better idea of what one is.

A list of journals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_journals

Simply calling a web site a "journal" doesn't make it one.

 

[Good Lt]

Exactly.

The Journal of the American Medical Association is a scientific, peer-reviewed, reputable journal.

Bob MD's Journal of Homeopathic Medicine, a website put up by Bob the MD with his other homeopathic medicine adherents publishing papers on it, is not a scientific journal, nor is it peer reviewed, nor is it reputable.

Hence, lisabob, Jones has not gotten (or submitted) ONE SINGLE PAPER ON 9-11 to a scientific, reputable journal. This is because even he understands what a scientific journal is.

The "Website of 9-11 Stundies..." I mean, the "Journal" of 9-11 "Studies" is not a scientific, reputable, peer reviewed journal.

But keep worshipping the ground Jones walks on. He's got you right where he wants you.

 

[GStan]

has jones's paper ... been reviewed by 200 engineers?

yes, and every one of them said it was pure rubbish.

 

[uk_dave]

But keep worshipping the ground Jones walks on. He's got you right where he wants you.

And Lisabob, don't forget to Donate

 

[Good Lt]

The Troof needs your $$$ to survive!!

 

[lisabob2]

LOL

Getting quotes from the Urinal of 9-11 Studies? A site put up to avoid having to submit papers to real journals for peer review? That's 'scientific.'

Unfortunately, it's a website created by Steven Jones so that he doesn't have to suffer the embarassment of having his "work" on 9-11 rejected by every major, reputable physics and engineering journal on the planet. And you just lap it up.

Ask your boy Steven why he won't submit his papers to real journals.

That's like me creating a website, posting things on it, and then claiming that everything on it is peer reviewed and on par with any real scholarly journal out there.

Keep self-debunking. You're doing a bang-up job.

so why should you trust 911myths.com? what qualifications do they have? and since they have no papers ever peer reviewed for anything why even read thru the site?

 

[WildCat]

so why should you trust 911myths.com? what qualifications do they have? and since they have no papers ever peer reviewed for anything why even read thru the site?

You do realize that 9/11 myths is not, and doesn't claim to be, a scientific journal, don't you?

 

[lisabob2]

so when jones says his paper has been peer reviewed you accept it without proof, and when quintiere says the NIST report hasnt been peer reviewed, you accept that too without evidence

it just comes down to whatever you want to believe doesnt it?

BTW the NIST report was not formally peer reviewed, however NIST's investigation was, they held many meetings that were open to the public and hundreds of engineers attended them to address any concerns they had about the progress or the procedures of the investigation. NISTs report was compiled by some 200 independent engineers, this in itself can constitute a peer review

has jones's paper (or even bazant's for that matter) been reviewed by 200 engineers?

engineers have said they have reviewed Jones paper at ae911truth.org and of course at journalof911studies.com

I have read thru 911myths.com debunking911.com. I have read thru journalof911studies.com & ae911truth,org I find the last 2 much more scientific with much more qualified people presenting papers or articles.
I find what Jones has written very scientific and that he follows scientific procedures.
David Griscom with his very impressive resume also has influenced my opinion.

 

[johnny karate]

Lisabob, I think you're just about there. If you repeat this same assertion another 20 or 30 times, I'll be convinced.

 

[Newtons Bit]

engineers have said they have reviewed Jones paper at ae911truth.org and of course at journalof911studies.com

I have read thru 911myths.com debunking911.com. I have read thru journalof911studies.com & ae911truth,org I find the last 2 much more scientific with much more qualified people presenting papers or articles.
I find what Jones has written very scientific and that he follows scientific procedures.
David Griscom with his very impressive resume also has influenced my opinion.

I'm an engineer, I've read through some of the papers at the "journal". They're mostly complete BS. They do occasionly get a few things right, but more often than not their papers have more errors than correct statements.

 

[lisabob2]

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/commentsonstevenjones'hypothesesbydavero

Lisabob, feel free to start at the top and work down.

Dave

read thru your link. seems like mostly opinions and Rogers must be reading a different paper from Jones that I read, perhaps he has read a incorrect copy of Jones Paper?
again specify a issue with Jone's science & I can respond.
it would be good to read "hand waving the physics of 911" by David Griscom
It's only fair I read what you asked me too

 

[lisabob2]

I'm an engineer, I've read through some of the papers at the "journal". They're mostly complete BS. They do occasionly get a few things right, but more often than not their papers have more errors than correct statements.

again I will try to answer any specific questions, what exactly is bs at the site?

 

[Drudgewire]

so why should you trust 911myths.com? what qualifications do they have? and since they have no papers ever peer reviewed for anything why even read thru the site?

Perhaps you missed this little disclaimer... you know, right there on the front page:

But does this make us an authority? No. If we’ve an overall message here, it’s check things for yourself. Don’t trust a site just because it’s telling you what you want to believe. Don’t believe us without evaluating our arguments and checking the references we provide, either (we’re as likely to make mistakes as anyone else). Look into the claims yourself, discover both sides of the argument, and make your own mind up. The truth deserves nothing less.

Contrary to what twoofers consider the definition of the term, THAT is what "open minded" is. NOT only believing alternate theories simply because they're "not the official one." That is being as close-minded as any dogmatic religious fundie or government shill.

 

[CptColumbo]

engineers have said they have reviewed Jones paper at ae911truth.org and of course at journalof911studies.com

I have read thru 911myths.com debunking911.com. I have read thru journalof911studies.com & ae911truth,org I find the last 2 much more scientific with much more qualified people presenting papers or articles.
I find what Jones has written very scientific and that he follows scientific procedures.
David Griscom with his very impressive resume also has influenced my opinion.

What about it is "very scientific?" Does he use a lot of words that seem scientific? Do you know what those word mean?

What is your basis for the statement "more qualified people?"

You are again demonstrating a lack of knowledge about what a scientific paper is.

What about the resume of the researchers on the NIST report do you find unimpressive? Are qualifications and the use of big words your basis for influence on your opinion? Are you able to do research on your own?