New guy here: Questions for official hypothesis

[Sizzler]

You still didn't answer my question. I have tried to answer your questions as completely and honestly as I can. Why aren't you offering the same courtesy?

Your question:

What do you think the peer review process is meant to accomplish?

From wikipedia.

Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It is used primarily by editors to select and to screen submitted manuscripts, and by funding agencies, to decide the awarding of grants. The peer review process has a normative function by encouraging authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to prevent the dissemination of unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields. Even refereed journals, however, can contain errors.

The bold part is my answer.

 

[Good Lt]

The peer review process has a normative function by encouraging authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to prevent the dissemination of unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views.

And now you can understand why the "experts" in the Troof movement avoid the peer review process like the plague.

 

[Sizzler]

And now you can understand why the "experts" in the Troof movement avoid the peer review process like the plague.

I don't prescribe to this line of argument.

Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability -- not the validity -- of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

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

That is why I am not satisfied reading an article and then accepting it as truth, even if it has passed peer review.

I have to satisfy myself, and that is why I came here.

This also works in the other direction in that a sound article may be rejected due to a bias.

These are all possibilities in this complex world where politics often influences science (I believe this to be true for only the short term, not the long term. Good science will always prevail given enough time)

That is why I am skeptical and ask the questions I do.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Your fall time with mass shedding of 50% is different that Bazant's.

Why?

and, you said some people still aren't satisfied with Bazant's paper even though he has corrected some mistakes.

Why are people still unsatisfied?

Why is the collapse time different? My mass is different, but that shouldn't make such a big difference. Other than that I don't know. First, I'll check my calc, then I'll have to look at Bazant's calculation. Might take a few days.

Bazant's latest paper still does not take early collapse of the upper part into account, the mass is incorrect and the mass sheading is only 20%. I have seen estimates of mass sheading from 20-80%. I would be thankful if someone could provide sources other than Bazant and whats-his-name, the demolition guy who said 80%. There may be other issues. I haven't looked at that paper for a while.

 

[Hokulele]

OK, now I think we may be able to make some progress. Here is your bolded statement.

The peer review process has a normative function by encouraging authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to prevent the dissemination of unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views.

And here is the post you made that triggered my question regarding your understanding of the peer-review process.

Is it at all possible to take my question seriously? (this is a serious question)

I mean, is Bazant's theory rock solid?

Or are there areas of it that are debatable?

And if so, what is the debate?

I think this is a serious question considering the persistence of the truth movement.

So, the peer review process does not exclude debate, but it does ensure that the debate will focus on the topic of the paper to the highest standard of the discipline. There have been revisions to several of Bazant's papers, and most of the revision history is available on-line if you care to see the debate and how it was resolved.

The issue I had with your post is the portion that I bolded above. The debate amongst those of the truth movement, that I have seen, do not reach even the lowest standards of the disciplines involved.

For a very good example of what I mean, please refer to the letter by Kuttler you mentioned earlier, and the response by Dave Rogers I linked.

 

[LashL]

Sizzler,

From what country are you currently posting?

(Yes, yes, I realize that it may seem an odd or irrelevant question at first blush, but it really isn't, so please just provide a straightforward answer. Thanks in advance.)

 

[Sizzler]

Hokulele:

I read the link you provided.

I think the issues Dave Rogers brought up are debatable.
_________
And about the Bazant paper.

Video clearly shows that crush up occurs before crush down. I forget how many floors but it occurs.

Bazant does not take this into consideration in his model.

So, I see debatable issues here.

 

[Sizzler]

Sizzler,

In what country are you currently posting?

(Yes, yes, I realize that it may seem an odd or irrelevant question at first blush, but it really isn't, so please just provide a straightforward answer. Thanks in advance.)

Um, I will answer this question when you give me a detailed reason why you are asking.

I am scared of giving out any information on the net.

I will kindly answer if you provide details why you are asking.

 

[beachnut]

If none of the buildings floors contributed to the weight of the falling section, the collapse would only proceed to the ground only energy consumed at each floor is less than 225 MJ. Most people use an energy loss between 500-1000MJ. At 500 MJ the collapse arrests at floor 62.

With 50% mass sheading of the lower part only and 500MJ loss per floor, the collapse time is 17.8 seconds for the lower part.

With 50% mass sheading of the lower part only and 1000MJ loss per floor, the collapse arrests at floor 49.

This is why I remain skeptical.

The numbers above refer to WTC1 and I did them very quickly. It would be good if someone could confirm them. I am including momentum transfer, energy loss per floor and mass sheading.

Still trying to back in explosives I fear.

But the mass did get larger. Darn, that means what happen on 9/11 with a full scale model was due to impact and fire. Your talk is bordering on BS now. I wonder what time you use for the real fall time? I mean do you discount the 60 to 80 stories of core standing for 20 to 30 seconds? Do you discount the sections still standing? Do you understand the 9/11 truth demolition charges were silent and left people alive in the WTC Core? You are one character.

You could help clean up the out right lies in the journal you post in! The lies that surround your work make the credibility of your work go down the drain.

But you sure have no idea what caused the extra energy for your false assumptions listed. OMG, are you a thermite fantasy guy? That is it. Thermite. OMG. Confess early. Trying to back in thermite. Now it is clear why your research is so shallow and you fail to answer real easy questions.

I mean you joined Jones! You are a thermite guy and you are going to prove it or die shaving reports.

cool

 

[LashL]

Um, I will answer this question when you give me a detailed reason why you are asking.

I am scared of giving out any information on the net.

I will kindly answer if you provide details why you are asking.

It is a simple and straightforward question. Why are you afraid of answering it?

I am posting from Canada, and I'm not at all afraid of saying so.

So, what country are you posting from?

 

[Hokulele]

Hokulele:

Yo, still here.

I read the link you provided.

I think the issues Dave Rogers brought up are debatable.

Which ones? Are there any arguments brought up on the CT side of the issue that you feel are debatable as well?

Lash, Sizzler is from Canada. I do not know where in Canada (it's kinda big in case you hadn't noticed. )

 

[Sizzler]

My straightforward answer is a question.

Why would you like to know?

Isn't this a little silly?

If you truly want to know where I am posting from then provide a reason why.

If you don't, I will simply ignore you because this is borderline creepy.

 

[Sizzler]

Yo, still here.




Which ones? Are there any arguments brought up on the CT side of the issue that you feel are debatable as well?

Lash, Sizzler is from Canada. I do not know where in Canada (it's kinda big in case you hadn't noticed. )

Amount of concrete pulverization is debatable for the link you gave. I'd have to go over it again.

As I said before, crush up before crush down is a huge flaw in the bazant paper.

There are tonnes of debatable issues for the CT side, in fact, probably all of the issues there are debatable.

 

[Good Lt]

As I said before, crush up before crush down is a huge flaw in the bazant paper.

Maybe you can submit a paper correcting him. Make sure it gets peer reviewed.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Your fall time with mass shedding of 50% is different that Bazant's.

Why?

and, you said some people still aren't satisfied with Bazant's paper even though he has corrected some mistakes.

Why are people still unsatisfied?

Because their belief is that 9/11 is an inside job and done with therm*te, explosives or space beams and that anything that says otherwise is obviously incorrect, regardless of scientific merit.

 

[Hokulele]

As I said before, crush up before crush down is a huge flaw in the bazant paper.

Depending on which paper you are talking about, this has been discussed and, AFAIK, at least somewhat resolved. I would have to go back through the links, but I think the latest Bazant paper (the first link in this whole mess) is the one that addresses this.

There are tonnes of debatable issues for the CT side, in fact, probably all of the issues there are debatable.

Just curious, can you give a specific example of a debatable issue on the CT side? This is mostly so I can get an understanding of the types of arguments you find understandable and the ones you do not.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Still trying to back in explosives I fear.

But the mass did get larger. Darn, that means what happen on 9/11 with a full scale model was due to impact and fire. Your talk is bordering on BS now. I wonder what time you use for the real fall time? I mean do you discount the 60 to 80 stories of core standing for 20 to 30 seconds? Do you discount the sections still standing? Do you understand the 9/11 truth demolition charges were silent and left people alive in the WTC Core? You are one character.

You could help clean up the out right lies in the journal you post in! The lies that surround your work make the credibility of your work go down the drain.

But you sure have no idea what caused the extra energy for your false assumptions listed. OMG, are you a thermite fantasy guy? That is it. Thermite. OMG. Confess early. Trying to back in thermite. Now it is clear why your research is so shallow and you fail to answer real easy questions.

I mean you joined Jones! You are a thermite guy and you are going to prove it or die shaving reports.

cool

Please play nice.

 

[Gravy]

There are tonnes of debatable issues for the CT side, in fact, probably all of the issues there are debatable.

Every issue can be argued. That doesn't mean a valid argument can be made for a particular point.

Here's a challenge. It's 2008. Truthers have made hundreds of claims regarding 9/11. Name one significant claim they got right.

 

[Sizzler]

Just curious, can you give a specific example of a debatable issue on the CT side? This is mostly so I can get an understanding of the types of arguments you find understandable and the ones you do not.

Sure.

FEMA and JOM both reported steel pieces that melted.

Sulfur was involved so the melting point was lowered to 1000 degrees.

So a debatable issue is;

How did rubble fires get this hot?

Is the gypsium (sp?) a realistic source of elemental sulfur? I mean, is it fair to make an assumption that sulfur freed itself from the gypsium and was able to play a role in lowering the melting point of steel?

I am not an expert so I have to depend on others. Thus far I haven't seen a paper that seriously addresses these questions.

But this does not mean I must accept the alternative.

It just means I have more questions.

 

[Sizzler]

Maybe you can submit a paper correcting him. Make sure it gets peer reviewed.

Why wasn't this flaw seen when it was peer reviewed in the first place?

It is very obvious in the videos.

This makes me think it is ignored for a reason.

Thus I have more questions and must consider both sides of the debate.

This is fair.