Official story: why believe it?

[peteweaver]

Yes my opinions are affected by scientist & experts with very good qualifications & history of doing excellent scientific work. Jones has a excellent history and just because he has done a paper on Jesus & the mayan(whatever) doesn't mean it wasn't done with the proper scientific method. Disagreeing with Jones does not make his work unscientific.
Gordon Ross has qualifications & good history, as does Tony Szamboti.
Even David Ray Griffin who is a PhD in theology has had his work noted as being very sound and well sourced by David Griscom.

Lisabob2, let me say this in language you will understand: The 'Journal' of 9/11 studies, is a fraud, a fake, a hoax, a con.

Jones couldn't get his work endorsed by any recognised scientific journal which covers the field of construction. Furthermore, he was suspended for putting BYU's name to works which were not peer reviewed by recognised scientific journals. Therefore, to give his papers some weight with the laymen he was preaching to, he invented a 'journal' where he could publish his work, and not have it laughed at.

Journal of 911 stundies is a joke.

 

[Drudgewire]

how does peer review change the facts & evidence?

It doesn't. It verifies it. Without it, neither the terms "facts" nor "evidence" apply to what is being presented.

 

[Good Lt]

I have not seen any fact or evidence that Jones or Ross is wrong about the collapses on 9-11. I have seen insults, opinions but no facts, only opinions that can be challenged.

We have seen no evidence supporting any conspiracy fantasy, from Jones or anyone else, put forth by the 9-11 Troof movement.

You might want to cite some.

 

[Dave Rogers]

building did not fall "perfectly" symetrically. But Most experts have called collapse symetrical. In fact Bazant says building collapsed staight down.

Clearly you don't understand symmetry. There's no such thing as nearly symmetrical, any more than there's any such thing as nearly pregnant. "Stright down" and "symmetrical" are completely different concepts.

The buildings were designed with 47 core columns and 240 exterior columns. If some of the columns were severed and others were damaged at impact area, but columns below impact areas were not damaged I don't see any reasons why part of the building could drop 3 feet. Now if something else besides the fires & impact affected the columns that further supports Griscom doesn't it?

Assuming that you meant "why part of the building couldn't drop three feet": Suppose this is true. What happens to the steel members connecting the part of the building that has dropped to the part that hasn't? The answer is that they must have failed, because they are no longer preventing the fallen part of the building from falling. So the suggestion that part of the building could have fallen without all of the columns supporting it having failed is not an inaccurate statement, it is a contradiction in terms. Griscom's whole argument is based on that contradiction not being a contradiction, and is therefore completely invalid. This is obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by ideology.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

I disagree, People are stating opinions and none of them are verified.
There are nothing but theories & hypothesis right now from either side.
I have not seen any fact or evidence that Jones or Ross is wrong about the collapses on 9-11. I have seen insults, opinions but no facts, only opinions that can be challenged.

Your argument is equivalent to an argument that the sky is pink. Because you have found a few other people who are prepared to agree with you, you have chosen to elevate their opinions to fact, and relegate actual fact to the status of opinion. When you say you have seen "opinions but no facts", what you have seen is not in fact what is before you to be seen, but what you have chosen to see. Feel free to continue to do so, of course, but don't expect anybody else to share your delusions.

Dave

 

[Newtons Bit]

I disagree, People are stating opinions and none of them are verified.
There are nothing but theories & hypothesis right now from either side.
I have not seen any fact or evidence that Jones or Ross is wrong about the collapses on 9-11. I have seen insults, opinions but no facts, only opinions that can be challenged.

Here's how Ross is wrong: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97584

Here's how one of the peer-reviewers at the "Journal" is wrong: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102813

These are facts, not opinions.

 

[Dave Rogers]

These are facts, not opinions.

I think we have a bit of a problem with definitions here. In Lisabob's world, "Facts" are things that agree with the conspiracy theory, and "Opinions" are things that disagree with the conspiracy theory. Therefore, these are "opinions", not "facts".

Dave

 

[lisabob2]

Jones has a publication record that is no better than average at best for a physics professor. To the best of my knowledge he has published some fairly pedestrian work in a field that has never produced any particularly useful results. His paper on Jesus in America is, to me, of no relevance other than for understanding after the fact Jones's reasons for departing so grossly from the scientific method. I'm happy for his papers on the WTC collapses stand or fall on their own merits, and in every case they fall.

Dave

Your opinion is your opinion. I think Jones work has been solid, and his methods scientific.
Nobody is ever 100% right. But Jones has a solid record and a history of finding mistakes by others in their work, most notably Fons & Fleishman and now the 9-11 investigations.
I don't think there is a scientist around who has been sourced more than Griscom.
If his work is trusted so much by other scientist then I would guess that he knows the proper scientific methods. So for now unless I see other evidence, I will continue to trust Griscoms views on the collapses on 9-11 over the "critical thinkers' here on this forum. Griscom says Jones work is solid. I have read Jone's papers and I can not find anything wrong with them. Jones does specify that he has a working hypothesis now, but it could change as more evidence is found. From his writting Jones is being very carefull.
I have read most of nist & I have found issues: Physical evidence not supporting their findings. Useing computer simulations and not showing the data used, useing simulations in ways they were not meant to be used. Saying fire proofing was knocked off steel coulmns with no evidence of that, except at impact areas. A scientific investigation looks at all availble evidence, nist was confined from the beginning to look at only certain things & up to a certain point. Not scientific at all.

 

[lisabob2]

We have seen no evidence supporting any conspiracy fantasy, from Jones or anyone else, put forth by the 9-11 Troof movement.

You might want to cite some.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf

 

[Pardalis]

But Jones has a solid record

Like being fired?

 

[lisabob2]

I think we have a bit of a problem with definitions here. In Lisabob's world, "Facts" are things that agree with the conspiracy theory, and "Opinions" are things that disagree with the conspiracy theory. Therefore, these are "opinions", not "facts".

Dave

please post facts that I posted that are opinions

 

[lisabob2]

Like being fired?

I have seen the video where BYU & Jones go on the record that Jones has retired. BYU does not fire him.
Besides what difference does that make? It does not change the facts or change the evidence

 

[The Almond]

I disagree, People are stating opinions and none of them are verified.
There are nothing but theories & hypothesis right now from either side.
I have not seen any fact or evidence that Jones or Ross is wrong about the collapses on 9-11. I have seen insults, opinions but no facts, only opinions that can be challenged.

People have pointed out to you verifiable errors in the works of Jones, Ross and their ilk. It appears you simply have not bothered to read those threads.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Your opinion is your opinion. I think Jones work has been solid, and his methods scientific.

Your opinion is your opinion. Mine has a solid train of reasoning to back it up. Yours is based on a faith in Jones that you have yet to justify.

Nobody is ever 100% right. But Jones has a solid record and a history of finding mistakes by others in their work, most notably Fons & Fleishman and now the 9-11 investigations.

This, in fact, is a classic example of Jones's mendacity. Fleischmann and Pons's work was rejected by the scientific community as a whole after they tried to circumvent the peer-review process, just as Jones has done since. At the time, he was in fact trying to publish his results together with those of Fleischmann and Pons, and was upset because they went to the press rather than through the scientific press. Jones has retold the tale of Fleischmann and Pons and recast himself as the hero of the piece, but this is sheer invention on his part as far as I can tell. Therefore, your faith in Jones is again justified soleley by your faith in Jones.

I don't think there is a scientist around who has been sourced more than Griscom.

Really? Give me a few examples of his work that have made a major impact on the scientific community. I must confess that I'd never heard of him before seeing his 9-11 paper.

If his work is trusted so much by other scientist then I would guess that he knows the proper scientific methods. So for now unless I see other evidence, I will continue to trust Griscoms views on the collapses on 9-11 over the "critical thinkers' here on this forum.

Name me some of these other scientists who view Griscom as a model of propriety.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

please post facts that I posted that are opinions

"I think Jones work has been solid, and his methods scientific."

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

griscom lies and pushing of lies

This is very different response than in the wake of 9/11, when the commander of NORAD wasn’t even given a rap on the knuckles for prearranging for the nation's capital to be totally without an air defense on that fateful morning.

The following link notes the subsequent deaths of six servicemen who took part in the mission at Minot AFB, which I suspect means that these six (and likely others) sacrificed their lives to thwart what was likely to have been a false-flag nuclear attack ...which, if on American soil, would have been the trigger for marshal law and cancellation elections, in addition to crashing the financial markets and sending the dollar the way of the peso.

 

[Drudgewire]

please post facts that I posted that are opinions

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf

 

[Pardalis]

I have seen the video where BYU & Jones go on the record that Jones has retired. BYU does not fire him.
Besides what difference does that make? It does not change the facts or change the evidence

Well, he was relieved of his duties and put on review, that's not what I call a good record.

 

[Good Lt]

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...impossible.pdf

THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE. THIS IS AN OPINION PIECE WRITTEN ON A TROOFER WEBSITE.

PROVIDE EVIDENCE 9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.

Besides what difference does that make?

Credibility. Look it up.

It does not change the facts or change the evidence

You don't have any facts or evidence to report. Sorry. When asked, you cite opinion pieces from Troofer websites.

You have no idea what evidence is, do you?

 

[Newtons Bit]

People have pointed out to you verifiable errors in the works of Jones, Ross and their ilk. It appears you simply have not bothered to read those threads.

Lisabob2 has his eyes wide shut. Links provided showing exactly how papers on Jones are scientifically wrong, and he ignores them.

What's it called? JAQIA (Just Asking Questions Ignoring Answers)?