Official story: why believe it?

[CHF]

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

Lisa...Jones used his OWN JOURNAL to "review" his BS on 9/11.

Why do you suppose he did that?

Why do you suppose it is that nobody outside of the twoof movement takes his "peer-review" seriously?

Why do you suppose Holocaust Deniers also feel the need to start their own journals in order to get published?

 

[lisabob2]

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".

why don't we discuss what you believe they have wrong?
Bazant's first theory of the collapse was peer reviewed and later proven wrong, so peer review is a important step but it does not take away facts or the truth.
About scientific legitimacy, Steven Jones has a outstanding record of following proper scientific methods. David Griscom is one of the worlds most sourced scientist, you do not get more legit than Griscom. If other scientist trust his work that much, he obviously knows the proper scientific method.

 

[CHF]

About scientific legitimacy, Steven Jones has a outstanding record of following proper scientific methods.

Indeed.

Cold fusion was one of the greatest scientific discoveries of the 20th century and it's a proven fact that Jesus Christ did visit America

Back on planet earth, Steven Jones is a complete quack and his 9/11 lies have NOT been peer-reviewed and never will be.

 

[lisabob2]

Lisa...Jones used his OWN JOURNAL to "review" his BS on 9/11.

Why do you suppose he did that?

Why do you suppose it is that nobody outside of the twoof movement takes his "peer-review" seriously?

Why do you suppose Holocaust Deniers also feel the need to start their own journals in order to get published?

I can't answer why Jones does anything only what he has written about.
He has had his paper published in journalof911studies and " Global outlook" ( David ray Griffin's magazine)
There also are different kinds of peer review, some to be published in a journal, some for grants, some just to promote a theory or hypothesis. Jones claim was that his paper was peer reviewed. He did not specify in what form it was peer reviewed in.

 

[lisabob2]

Indeed.

Cold fusion was one of the greatest scientific discoveries of the 20th century and it's a proven fact that Jesus Christ did visit America

Back on planet earth, Steven Jones is a complete quack and his 9/11 lies have NOT been peer-reviewed and never will be.

Jones proved thru proper scientific methods that Pons & Fleshman were wrong.
Saying Jones is a quack shows your limited contribution to this discusion.
what Jones say about the investigations being unscientific is right on the money as far as I can tell.

 

[lisabob2]

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.

more opinions, not facts. Greening had no problem getting his paper published there.
James bennet is there too.

 

[lisabob2]

Can't he disagree with both.

of course he can disagree with what he wants, but opinions are not facts.
Trying to pass them off as such is dishonest, to himself and to us.

 

[CHF]

He has had his paper published in journalof911studies and " Global outlook" ( David ray Griffin's magazine)

My point exactly. Both are kook journals, as you well know. A rather odd choice of publication to review research that could expose the greatest cover-up in history, don't ya think?

Is that where you'd publish such vital information? Personally I'd go with something that actually commands respect in the scientific world - that is if I actually believed what I claimed.

So tell me....would you trust "research" published in Holocaust denial journals if the authors said it had undergone extensive review?

 

[R.Mackey]

more opinions, not facts. Greening had no problem getting his paper published there.
James bennet is there too.

You're just not making sense.

It isn't an issue of "having a problem getting published there." Heck, Newton's Bit had a private e-mail of his "published" there, without his asking or even consent!

The "Journal" of 9/11 Studies is not a journal. It has nothing in common with a journal. There are things present on that website that you will never, ever in your life see in any legitimate journal on any subject, including but not limited to:

• Publications by "anonymous" authors
• Rampant revisions of papers without notice, and no revision history
• A total lack of style guidelines, evident in the many "papers" that are actually more like pamphlets
• A total lack of scientific rigor, evinced by the fact that virtually every paper there is demonstrably wrong (search the Forum or read my previous posts for examples, this is not even remotely disputable)
• "Replies" and "rebuttals" appearing as papers in their own right, sometimes in the same issue
• A confusion between "articles" and "letters," with no clearly defined publication standards for either
• Blatant violation of what few guidelines they do provide in articles written by their own senior editors (e.g. Kevin Ryan)

Get the picture?

It's not science. No scientists are fooled. The "Journal" is an embarrassment to anyone claiming to be a scientist.

Their papers are so grossly wrong that, even if there is review of submissions, the reviewers are utterly incompetent, or deliberate frauds. I neither know nor care which. Once again, take a gander at the Ross/Furlong seismic paper for an example of just how mind-bogglingly idiotic those "papers" truly are. And then ask yourself, who reviewed this? Who approved it? Why? What are they trying to pull?

I would also recommend you learn about real scientific papers. The works of Drs. Bazant and Greening have been mentioned here and are one place to start. If that's too dry for you, start slow, something like Nature perhaps -- it should be available in your local public library. The gulf between real publications and the "Journal" of 9/11 Studies is impossible to miss.

 

[LashL]

(no "perhaps" about it in the case of "lisabob2")

 

[CptColumbo]

of course he can disagree with what he wants, but opinions are not facts.
Trying to pass them off as such is dishonest, to himself and to us.

Yet your opinion is what your relying upon to judge the merits of Jones' work.

 

[beachnut]

I asked for specific things to discuss because all this stating of opinions as fact is a waste of time. For example, in Bazants theory:

"that all of the available
energy would be utilised exclusively in the destruction of the uppermost storey of the
lower section. This is physically impossible under any and all circumstances."

now we can discuss this, it is specific.
Ross says:
"It is impossible for all of the energy of the falling section to act on only the one
topmost storey in the lower section, since the very act of transmission of the energy
to that storey, dictates that all of the storeys in the upper section will come under
load and consume energy"

same topic maybe you disagree with Ross?

It is really sad, Ross is dead WRONG, as in wrong that the WTC would not fail under fire and impact damage. I guarantee you would not risk your life for Ross. You lack any facts to support Ross’s failed junk! And you do not even know it! Why?

You should have been an engineer, my mom made me take engineering; she thought they made more money! You failed to see Ross’s errors! Too bad, you would die with Ross cause he said the towers could not fall, funny if you were on the top and Ross said this! What about your failure to see the errors of Ross? Kind of a Darwin thing! Funny failure; and now you have zero, zip, no idea since you are not even qualified to understand Ross, or his errors. LOL < darn, engineering was hard, I had to study! What did you do?

 

[Dave Rogers]

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?

It was Jones's paper "Why Indeed...". I believe he edits it from time to time. As for it being "mostly opinions", the same is true of Jones; the question is, whose opinions have merit? At the moment you're making a blanket assumption that everythin Jones says is correct because he's a physicist. I'm a physicist with a doctorate and 20 years' experience, and I disagree with his opinions. Now you need to weigh them up on their merits, decide, and justify your decision. Anything short of that and you're simply showing your confirmation bias.

again specify a issue with Jone's science & I can respond.

The link I gave you is stuffed full of issues with Jones's science. I've pointed out flaws in his methodology, areas where he's making authoritative statements that are outside his area of expertise and incorrect, areas where he's simply speculating without evidence, and even outright contradictions in the paper. If you don't recognise these as issues, then you don't understand the scientific method, so you're not really qualified to judge how well Jones is applying it.

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

Read it some time ago. Here are my comments from back then.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2940721#post2940721

Again, feel free to dispute.

Dave

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Lisa, I am, giving myself a PHD and am going to put that PHD I gave myself on a web site called myphd.com.

Does that now make me an a doctor?

How much credibility would you give me now that I have a PHD I gave to myself? Do you see the problem with this? (Keep in mind it will say so on a web site too!)

 

[peteweaver]

why don't we discuss what you believe they have wrong?
Bazant's first theory of the collapse was peer reviewed and later proven wrong, so peer review is a important step but it does not take away facts or the truth.
About scientific legitimacy, Steven Jones has a outstanding record of following proper scientific methods. David Griscom is one of the worlds most sourced scientist, you do not get more legit than Griscom. If other scientist trust his work that much, he obviously knows the proper scientific method.

No Lisabob, Bazant was proven RIGHT.
Bending moment occuring in collapse of south tower, (image taken from public domain footage, and is hosted on my webspace):
http://www.infowhores.co.uk/images/collapse/collapsing.jpg

Jones, dare not go to a recognised civil engineering journal, and David Griscom has not done that either.

All they have to do is send their stuff to http://pubs.asce.org/journals/

But they won't.

Just because they call their biassed, fraudulent 'journal'of911studies a "peer reviewed journal", it doesn't make it a recognised scientific publication like asce, nature or the lancet.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

why don't we discuss what you believe they have wrong?

Because when we do, you magically skip those posts and pretend they aren't there.

 

[realitybites]

why don't we discuss what you believe they have wrong?

You're dodging again. Blatantly.

And see. Here's the difference between rational people and the truth movement. I know my educational constraints. I know that I cannot begin to comprehend the details, the math, the science behind the collapse of the towers. This is why I have this crazy tendency to lean towards the majority of experts who DO understand this stuff and what their conclusions are.

Truthers are different. They know better than everyone. Or at least pretend to.

 

[eeyore1954]

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

The fact that they know what peer review is and have had over 200 papers published is what makes this worse. They know the difference between a legitimate journal and a biased website that will publish almost anything submitted to it as long as the paper agrees with the 9/11 conspiracy point of view. Yet they choose to have their work reviewed and published on that site instead of a legitimate journal. Are you so blind that you don't know why they make this choice?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Jones proved thru proper scientific methods that Pons & Fleshman were wrong.
Saying Jones is a quack shows your limited contribution to this discusion.
what Jones say about the investigations being unscientific is right on the money as far as I can tell.

jones has proven that he knows a lot about muon-catalyzed fusion

jones has shown he knows a lot about mormon dogma

jones has NOT shown he knows anything about structural engineering

jones has NOT shown he knows much of anything about thermite

 

[FactCheck]

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 pointed this out at the time. I knew they would use Greening and others as credibility for their sham.

lisabob2 must think jod911.com is peer reviewed. It exposes the deception of 911studies.

http://www.jod911.com