Official story: why believe it?

[lisabob2]

... But an extremely important one.

If you're looking for accurate, unbiased information anyway.

opinions you have do not prove anything. In what way are any of the articles at journalof911studies.com inacurate or unbiased? Like I said before being specific about issues is the only way we can discuss anything.

 

[realitybites]

I am looking for good scientific evidence, and I find that the websites I listed do a good job there, unlike 911myths or debunking911.
But that is a matter of opinion and I am not about to claim that 911myths are nut cases or morons like others here do when the disregard Jones & company. Jones follows the proper scientific method, his hypothesis might be wrong, but further proof one way or another will figure that out, it is immature and childish to insult highly educated and qualified people just because they don't see things they way you do. If you can read what Greening has put on journalof911studies.com you will see how mature educated people discuss differences of opinions or of evidence. Greening disagrees with Ross, Ross disagrees with Greening. No insults, nothing but what each has to say on the issues.

Lisa, you're not getting it. Scientific evidence is not a matter of opinion. It doesn't matter who you think is doing a better job. This is not American Idol. You do not dial *11 to vote for Jones.

Part of the scientific method IS the peer-review. Jones HAS NOT done that, and yet you continue to be of the mind that he does "good scientific research."

Why?

Hint: To answer that, please just stop pretending you're interested in science and admit you're in this based strictly off of a belief system.

 

[CptColumbo]

I am looking for good scientific evidence, and I find that the websites I listed do a good job there, unlike 911myths or debunking911.
But that is a matter of opinion

Scientific evidence isn't a matter of opinion. Whether 1+1=2 doesn't depend on who presents the case in a way that is pretty.

and I am not about to claim that 911myths are nut cases or morons like others here do when the disregard Jones & company.

I'm still waiting to read how the qualifications of those on the sites you mention trumps those of the NIST.

Jones follows the proper scientific method, his hypothesis might be wrong, but further proof one way or another will figure that out, it is immature and childish to insult highly educated and qualified people just because they don't see things they way you do.

Did you see where you contradicted yourself within the same sentence.

If you can read what Greening has put on journalof911studies.com you will see how mature educated people discuss differences of opinions or of evidence. Greening disagrees with Ross, Ross disagrees with Greening. No insults, nothing but what each has to say on the issues.

They disagree with each other, yet apparently you think both are right?

 

[R.Mackey]

A brief interruption, if I may...

Why is anyone impressed with Gordon Ross?

Here are my two demolitions of Gordon Ross's ridiculous progressive collapse whitepapers.

Here's Newton's Bit's even more thorough thrashing.

Here's a reminder of Gordon Ross's extraordinary seismic paper with Craig Furlong.

No science, just crap. All of it blessed by the "Journal" of 9/11 Studies, and still loudly promoted to the gullible and the uneducated. These are just examples. Everything in the "Journal" is either lies or garbage -- or not at all inconsistent with the consensus on September 11th.

To put this caliber of "work" against the combined weight of literally dozens of real articles, by real scientists, in real journals, exposes a particularly ludicrous bias. Nothing more.

 

[realitybites]

In what way are any of the articles at journalof911studies.com inacurate or unbiased?

I think you meant biased.

And in all fairness, who knows!?!?!?!

A really good way to find out if they are inaccurate or biased would be to SUBMIT THEM FOR PEER-REVIEW!

 

[LashL]

opinions you have do not prove anything.

Indeed.

And your opinions are particularly useless since they are clearly based on nothing but nonsensical prattle from tinhat conspiracy sites.

So why do you offer nothing but your own "opinion" based on nonsensical prattle?

In what way are any of the articles at journalof911studies.com inacurate or unbiased? Like I said before being specific about issues is the only way we can discuss anything.

The search function is your friend. The articles from that pseudo "journal", the link to which you keep spamming, have been discussed here in great detail in the past.

You should make an effort to educate yourself.

You could start by reading the following post, clicking on the underlined parts (those are called "links") and reading what you find there.

Here are my two demolitions of Gordon Ross's ridiculous progressive collapse whitepapers.

Here's Newton's Bit's even more thorough thrashing.

Here's a reminder of Gordon Ross's extraordinary seismic paper with Craig Furlong.

No science, just crap. All of it blessed by the "Journal" of 9/11 Studies, and still loudly promoted to the gullible and the uneducated. These are just examples. Everything in the "Journal" is either lies or garbage -- or not at all inconsistent with the consensus on September 11th.

To put this caliber of "work" against the combined weight of literally dozens of real articles, by real scientists, in real journals, exposes a particularly ludicrous bias. Nothing more.

 

[lisabob2]

Lisa, why does the lack of any peer-reviewed paper from the truth movement NOT bother you???

Jones said he has his paper peer reviewed. David Griscom says it was peer reviewed. Why should your opinion mean more to me than theirs?
Besides the real issues are the evidence not supporting the official theory about the 3 wtc building collapses on 9-11.
You have one group of experts, from the goverment . You have another that banded together because they found major issues with the investigations so far.
Both sides has experts & qualified people.
Insulting either side is immature & waste of time. discussing different opinions on the evidence & facts is not.

 

[LashL]

Why is anyone impressed with Gordon Ross?

Here are my two demolitions of Gordon Ross's ridiculous progressive collapse whitepapers.

Here's Newton's Bit's even more thorough thrashing.

Here's a reminder of Gordon Ross's extraordinary seismic paper with Craig Furlong.

No science, just crap. All of it blessed by the "Journal" of 9/11 Studies, and still loudly promoted to the gullible and the uneducated. These are just examples. Everything in the "Journal" is either lies or garbage -- or not at all inconsistent with the consensus on September 11th.

To put this caliber of "work" against the combined weight of literally dozens of real articles, by real scientists, in real journals, exposes a particularly ludicrous bias. Nothing more.

Nobody is impressed with Gordon Ross, except for a few uneducated and too-stupid-to-realize-that-they're-incapable-of-learning twoofers.

 

[LashL]

Jones said he has his paper peer reviewed. David Griscom says it was peer reviewed.

They lied.

 

[lisabob2]

Lisa, real quick. Let's switch roles here.

In this world, the conspiracy crowd has science on their side. Their theories have been subjected to, and passed, peer-review.

Now... us lowly skeptics are disputing those claims with NO papers published. NO peer-review. Nothing except for a website or two where like-minded skeptics gather and write essays.

.... Would you take us seriously?

.... Would you consider those essays to be of equal value to your peer-reviews?

like I have pointed out. others who disagree with the scientist at journalof911studies.com have articles there. Greening is one. some Anonymous is another, James Bennet has sent letter there that are published for all to see, although after reading them I am sure he wishes they weren't published.
I find people who listen then respond to issues rather then insult people have much more to offer. Anybody can insult, it takes a little wisdom to present your view and stick to issues.

 

[CHF]

Jones said he has his paper peer reviewed. David Griscom says it was peer reviewed. Why should your opinion mean more to me than theirs?

So if a Holocaust denier said their work was peer-reviewed you'd take their word for it?

Both sides has experts & qualified people.

Bullcrap.

One side has experts who welcome peer-review and the other has frauds who fear it. Guess which side you're on....

 

[CptColumbo]

Jones said he has his paper peer reviewed. David Griscom says it was peer reviewed.

Really, by whom? List the names please...or didn't you ask?

Why should your opinion mean more to me than theirs?
Besides the real issues are the evidence not supporting the official theory about the 3 wtc building collapses on 9-11.

And what evidence doesn't support it?

You have one group of experts, from the goverment .

And others from academia and independent research groups and the private sector who used proper scientific method.

You have another that banded together because they found major issues with the investigations so far.

Who write papers outside of their field and not submit them for review by people within those fields, and play to those who don't understand science and are gullible.

Both sides has experts & qualified people.

While not bringing the number of "experts and qualified" people into the discussion, both cannot be right and one has performed research that has stood up to review of those in the particular discipline.

Insulting either side is immature & waste of time. discussing different opinions on the evidence & facts is not.

Presenting an opinion as a fact is insulting. Expecting me to accept an opinion as fact is insulting.

 

[realitybites]

like I have pointed out. others who disagree with the scientist at journalof911studies.com have articles there. Greening is one. some Anonymous is another, James Bennet has sent letter there that are published for all to see, although after reading them I am sure he wishes they weren't published.
I find people who listen then respond to issues rather then insult people have much more to offer. Anybody can insult, it takes a little wisdom to present your view and stick to issues.

I'm sticking to the issue of peer-review and scientific legitimacy. The fact that you continually dodge or dismiss this as even being remotely important is telling.

Tell me Lisa, where else have the articles on your favorite sites been published? And printing them out at home to stick on the fridge does not count as "publishing".

 

[lisabob2]

Nobody is impressed with Gordon Ross, except for a few uneducated and too-stupid-to-realize-that-they're-incapable-of-learning twoofers.

your opinion is just that a opinion. I don't think your demoltions prove anything except you believe Greening is right. You could write to journalof911studies.com with your take on Ross. Maybe you two can have a exchange like Ross & Greening did?

As for being impressed, Greening takes him seriously enough to respond to.
Ross resume seems credible.

 

[CptColumbo]

your opinion is just that a opinion. I don't think your demoltions prove anything except you believe Greening is right. You could write to journalof911studies.com with your take on Ross. Maybe you two can have a exchange like Ross & Greening did?

As for being impressed, Greening takes him seriously enough to respond to.
Ross resume seems credible.

Can't he disagree with both.

 

[LashL]

like I have pointed out. others who disagree with the scientist at <spam removed> have articles there. Greening is one. some Anonymous is another, <moronic nonsense removed>

I find people who listen then respond to issues rather then insult people have much more to offer. Anybody can insult, it takes a little wisdom to present your view and stick to issues.

Read

Learn

 

[R.Mackey]

your opinion is just that a opinion. I don't think your demoltions prove anything except you believe Greening is right. You could write to journalof911studies.com with your take on Ross. Maybe you two can have a exchange like Ross & Greening did?

As for being impressed, Greening takes him seriously enough to respond to.
Ross resume seems credible.

No.

My "opinion" is based on independently verifiable facts. Ross and Furlong concocted this whole ridiculous paper about bombs going off before the plane impacts based on their inability to read the correct time off of a seismograph. This is irrefutable.

I don't have to go to the "Journal" of 9/11 Studies and write my own whitepaper -- which also will go unreviewed, even should they accept it -- to point this out. If someone says 2 + 2 = 3, they're wrong. End of story.

It's not opinion, it's fact. Ross is a fraud. You're only hiding from this because you are desperately biased. End of story.

 

[lisabob2]

So if a Holocaust denier said their work was peer-reviewed you'd take their word for it?



Bullcrap.

One side has experts who welcome peer-review and the other has frauds who fear it. Guess which side you're on....

Jones & Grsicom have over 200 peer reviewed papers between them. I believe they know what peer review is and how to have a paper peer reviewed.
Your claim that one side is in fear has no basis, you just don't accept the journal they used. denial is not scientific

 

[LashL]

<removed blather>

Stop spamming. You really need to read and learn.


Read

Learn

 

[LashL]

Jones & Grsicom<removed spam>

Read

Learn