[Merged]Peer-reviewed technical paper to appear in mainstream journal

[DGM]

This thread does raise an important question, though.

Where does one buy a can of oats?

I think the best you can do is buy a box and wrap it in tinfoil.

 

[Apollo20]

I could well imagine SJ writing a paper with a title something like:

“The characterization of iron-rich microspheres in dust samples collected in NYC after the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.”

If appropriately written, such a paper would be suitable for publication in a whole slew of journals such as Surface and Interface Analysis, Microchimica Acta, Environmental Science and Technology, etc, etc.

I could also see the paper dealing mostly with the X-ray (fluorescence and diffraction) analysis of microspheres. There could be a Discussion section where the possible sources of the particles would be reviewed. SJ could go through possibilities like fly ash, welding and cutting fume, wear particles, etc, and argue against these in various predictable ways. He could end the paper with the conclusion that the iron-rich microspheres indicate the presence of very high temperatures in the Twin Towers; temperatures that cannot be explained by conventional hydrocarbon/cellulosic fuelled fires.

Such a paper would be acceptable to reviewers while simultaneously satisfying the conspiracy-believer crowd. Furthermore, this approach would leave the door open for any number of follow-up articles.

 

[CHF]

Apollo20,

I think you're right. If Jones is published in a real scientific journal (a big if) I'll be surprised if he has the balls to come out and say "I think thermite produced this."

Instead it'll be a few pages of: "oh look at these spheres...how interesting. I wish I knew what caused it. We'd better conduct a new investigation to find out...but not one funded by the government! Not that I'm saying the guv had anything to do with it...I'm just saying maybe they did. But I have no idea how. That's why we need a new investigation...one that hopefully points to thermite....not that I'm saying that's what it was."

 

[The Big Dog]

Apollo:

“The characterization of iron-rich microspheres in dust samples collected in NYC after the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.”

"If appropriately written, such a paper would be suitable for publication in a whole slew of journals such as Surface and Interface Analysis, Microchimica Acta, Environmental Science and Technology, etc, etc."

I strongly disagree. Jones cannot establish the provenance of his samples to the degree that any reputable journal would deem acceptable. Further, I seem to recall that he refuses to provide his samples to others.

This is all BS anyway: his claim that this is a technical paper seems to be bologna anyway. He tells his minions to "Please read the entire paper when it comes out -- not just the title! You will see a little humor coming through (I hope you'll see it), but the overall thrust is very serious: countering popular myths about the destruction of WTC 7 and the Towers -- and pointing out areas where we the authors find agreement with NIST (and FEMA). Yes, we agree with NIST that the Towers fell at nearly free-fall speed, for example -- and that the WTC fires were NOT hot enough to melt structural steel. Don't you?"

So it ain't about dust, it seems like a smart aleck paper written by a nitwit.

 

[Walter Ego]

So am I to understand that the S. Jones paper was peer reviewed by his own paranoid crack pots, and then submitted and published in a throw away mag?

It will be interesting to see:

(1) Which journal/magazine it is published in
(2) Which section of the journal it is published in
(3) The replies to it, in future additions (should be priceless)

TAM

What the hell is Jones saying in this video? First he says his paper has been 'accepted' but then he says it's "in a book" by DMG.

 

[Mince]

So what will the new "standard" be? Multiple peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals?

No. The new standard will be that we accept Stephen Jones' analysis (and actually start a message board thread about it) when we don't even know what the analysis is, who reviewed it and who will publish it.

Don't worry, you guys have a couple weeks to think about it

You do also. I highly suggest you use that time wisely.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

History Journals

Question here - for one off events (most of history), does anyone know what the peer review process is? I am familiar with science and engineering journals. The OP said "mainstream journal", not scientific journal. I'm thinking he may be going the history journal route.

I can chime in a bit here as I've been on both sides of that process. The article draft is sent to a minimum of 2 other specialists in the same field with an established record of publication. The review process is "blind" (only the editor knows who is who). The reviewers write individual reports stating if they think the paper thesis is original, if the author has made a logical argument, and if the author has presented sufficient evidence to support their conclusion. The reviewers' reports are sent to the author who can then do one of three things…

- revise the article to meet suggestions or complaints
- decide to shop the article elsewhere (and risk getting the same reviewer a second time if it's a small field)
- bag the entire thing and start over

The first option is pretty common. There are always suggestions to improve the original draft. Once the author makes the changes then the paper may be resubmitted and it is sent back to the original reviewers (usually). Once the reviewers are satisfied, and if the journal editor is satisfied, then the article usually goes before an editorial board for their approval.

This is the process in a nutshell. It can vary from publication to publication. I have seen articles go to one specialist for review for very specialized subjects.

Frankly, knowing the major history journals, I find it very hard to believe that any of the first or second string history journals would touch anything written by a 9-11 twoofer. I can see some "C-List" journal publishing something LIHOP, but suspect only an unknown cellar-dwelling journal would touch MIHOP.

 

[Stellafane]

...Don't worry, you guys have a couple weeks to think about it.

Yes, we always have a couple of weeks. Or months. Or some unspecified short interval. Because the Big Truther Event, that epochal blow-the-lid-off-everything happening that will finally justify all those lonely hours you guys spent on the internet when you could have been out living a real life, is always just about to take place. Real soon. Really, really, really, we mean it this time soon. Any day now.

Only it doesn't. It's been what, going on seven years now? And you guys haven't advanced your cause a single angstrom. (If you're unfamiliar with the term, trust me, it isn't far.) You've gone backwards even. They talk about Peak Oil, well, I think you guys have had your Peak Truth moment a long time ago, and now you're reduced to a tiny core of bitter kids whose only purpose in life seems to be to provide entertainment for us bored, semi-mean JREFer's. All because that Big Thing That's Always Just About To Happen never does. Always so close, just out of reach. You need it so desperately, to provide a little much needed enthusiasm to your strange little group, and here it is a mere two weeks away. But why won't those two weeks ever come to pass?

How do you guys do it? Seriously, how do you do it?? Never mind the much bigger (and far more disturbing) question of why anyone would even want to do it. How do you manage to go through life like that, always being told vindication is just around the corner, everything you worked for will be proven true and you'll finally stop being considered a weird joke and be able to shut up all those people who thought they were so smart, only again and again and again it always falls through, right at the last second? Good Gravy, what drives a person to voluntarily subject themselves to such constant disappointment and mental torture? Can't you spot the trend here?

My advice: give it up. Whatever answers you think you're looking for, they're not going to be provided by Dr. Griffin or Dylan Avery or anyone else whose need for attention has warped their common sense beyond recognition. They're always going to string you along, promising Christmas, fame, and popularity will all be yours, if you just hang on and follow them for just a little longer. They need you, but trust me, you don't need them.

Just two more weeks, and everything will be different. Sure it will. I've been hearing that for years now, and nothing ever changes. I swear, for 9/11 CTers, it's like today will always be September 12, 2001, forever.

 

[stateofgrace]

Yes, we always have a couple of weeks. Or months. Or some unspecified short interval. Because the Big Truther Event, that epochal blow-the-lid-off-everything happening that will finally justify all those lonely hours you guys spent on the internet when you could have been out living a real life, is always just about to take place. Real soon. Really, really, really, we mean it this time soon. Any day now.

Only it doesn't. It's been what, going on seven years now? And you guys haven't advanced your cause a single angstrom. (If you're unfamiliar with the term, trust me, it isn't far.) You've gone backwards even. They talk about Peak Oil, well, I think you guys have had your Peak Truth moment a long time ago, and now you're reduced to a tiny core of bitter kids whose only purpose in life seems to be to provide entertainment for us bored, semi-mean JREFer's. All because that Big Thing That's Always Just About To Happen never does. Always so close, just out of reach. You need it so desperately, to provide a little much needed enthusiasm to your strange little group, and here it is a mere two weeks away. But why won't those two weeks ever come to pass?

How do you guys do it? Seriously, how do you do it?? Never mind the much bigger (and far more disturbing) question of why anyone would even want to do it. How do you manage to go through life like that, always being told vindication is just around the corner, everything you worked for will be proven true and you'll finally stop being considered a weird joke and be able to shut up all those people who thought they were so smart, only again and again and again it always falls through, right at the last second? Good Gravy, what drives a person to voluntarily subject themselves to such constant disappointment and mental torture? Can't you spot the trend here?

My advice: give it up. Whatever answers you think you're looking for, they're not going to be provided by Dr. Griffin or Dylan Avery or anyone else whose need for attention has warped their common sense beyond recognition. They're always going to string you along, promising Christmas, fame, and popularity will all be yours, if you just hang on and follow them for just a little longer. They need you, but trust me, you don't need them.

Just two more weeks, and everything will be different. Sure it will. I've been hearing that for years now, and nothing ever changes. I swear, for 9/11 CTers, it's like today will always be September 12, 2001, forever.

Great post, nominated.

 

[DGM]

Apollo:

“The characterization of iron-rich microspheres in dust samples collected in NYC after the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.”

"If appropriately written, such a paper would be suitable for publication in a whole slew of journals such as Surface and Interface Analysis, Microchimica Acta, Environmental Science and Technology, etc, etc."

I strongly disagree. Jones cannot establish the provenance of his samples to the degree that any reputable journal would deem acceptable. Further, I seem to recall that he refuses to provide his samples to others.

This is all BS anyway: his claim that this is a technical paper seems to be bologna anyway. He tells his minions to "Please read the entire paper when it comes out -- not just the title! You will see a little humor coming through (I hope you'll see it), but the overall thrust is very serious: countering popular myths about the destruction of WTC 7 and the Towers -- and pointing out areas where we the authors find agreement with NIST (and FEMA). Yes, we agree with NIST that the Towers fell at nearly free-fall speed, for example -- and that the WTC fires were NOT hot enough to melt structural steel. Don't you?"

So it ain't about dust, it seems like a smart aleck paper written by a nitwit.

I tend to agree with Apollo20. What Jones has found is in fact interesting. As long as he drops his speculation as to what caused these spheres I see no reason for his paper not to be published.

The only thing Woo about Dr Jones work is his interpretation of his "evidence".

 

[T.A.M.]

I agree that if he has written a strictly scientific paper on the iron microspheres, and had a few other scientists review it for scientific accuracy and content, he could get it published in a proper journal.

The problem, is beyond the academic, the unbias evidence, he gets into gaga land. If his "Discussion" of the evidence even hints at the words "Thermite" or "Explosives" the majority of academics reading the paper would tear it to shreds...that is if such ridiculous and evidence-less suggestions would pass Peer Review at any decent journal.

TAM

 

[The Almond]

I agree that if he has written a strictly scientific paper on the iron microspheres, and had a few other scientists review it for scientific accuracy and content, he could get it published in a proper journal.

The problem, is beyond the academic, the unbias evidence, he gets into gaga land. If his "Discussion" of the evidence even hints at the words "Thermite" or "Explosives" the majority of academics reading the paper would tear it to shreds...that is if such ridiculous and evidence-less suggestions would pass Peer Review at any decent journal.

TAM

While I understand the sentiment, I don't find what Jones has done in terms of microanalysis to be worthy of publication. Indeed, there are numerous publications on particle analysis, and a publication on the analysis of the WTC dust. What he's done is neither original, nor very good, so why should anyone bother to publish it?

 

[Beerina]

I've just been accepted for sex with a gorgeous Hollywood woman, who's been at the top of many "hottest" lists.

I'll let you know which one in a few months. Meanwhile, here's a link to my site where you can order stuff.

 

[DGM]

I've just been accepted for sex with a gorgeous Hollywood woman, who's been at the top of many "hottest" lists.

I'll let you know which one in a few months. Meanwhile, here's a link to my site where you can order stuff.

Will there be video?

 

[T.A.M.]

I'll wait and download the video via P2P...lol

TAM

 

[The Big Dog]

I tend to agree with Apollo20. What Jones has found is in fact interesting. As long as he drops his speculation as to what caused these spheres I see no reason for his paper not to be published.

The only thing Woo about Dr Jones work is his interpretation of his "evidence".

Dude, read what Dr. Woo wrote:

"Please read the entire paper when it comes out -- not just the title! You will see a little humor coming through (I hope you'll see it), but the overall thrust is very serious: countering popular myths about the destruction of WTC 7 and the Towers -- and pointing out areas where we the authors find agreement with NIST (and FEMA). Yes, we agree with NIST that the Towers fell at nearly free-fall speed, for example -- and that the WTC fires were NOT hot enough to melt structural steel. Don't you?"

He will not mention dust at all. It will be some smarmy bs article misrepresenting the NIST report, and claiming that their ideas are not woo because they are close to the Nist report.

Bull ****.

 

[Stellafane]

Just noticed this over on 911blogger.com - it's from Steven Jones:

(bolding mine)
​

So what will the new "standard" be? Multiple peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals?

Don't worry, you guys have a couple weeks to think about it.

It's been (almost) a couple of weeks now. Any progress on this paradigm-shifting report?

As an aside, you may well wonder why I'm bumping this for all to see. After all, shouldn't I wait until the two weeks are well past, so if the report doesn't come out I can safely gloat along the lines of "Hey CTer's, where's your precious report? HA HA!" But what if the report does come out, and it has some real meat and controversy to it (not just some nothing-to-do-with-anything topic dressed up in cheap gift wrapping and breathlessly hyped as a breakthrough like oh say, WTC floorplans)? Then bumping this thread is a risk, because it gives the CTers a chance to gloat at debunkers, right?

Well, if I were a CTer, I probably would wait until I can safely see how things pan out. But I'm not (a CTer, that is). Therefore I welcome the chance to be proven wrong, because it means I may learn something very important. And that's precisely one of the core differences between the way CTers think and how the rest of us see the world: I'm willing to change my views to conform with reality, rather than the other way around.

And if the article doesn't come out, or is some meaningless piece of nothing, that's a non-event worth noting too, since it represents the demise of yet another right-around-the-corner stupendous breakthough upon which CTers seem to forever pin all their fevered little hopes.

 

[Evilgiraffe]

I too would like to see Jones' new paper.

Having read another of his (this one), I'll be interested to see if he has made any attempt to identify any of the phases present in his "iron-rich microspheres".

In the previous paper there are elemental analyses from energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy. This technique can only analyse samples as an average. Essentially it can tell you that there is "some iron", "some aluminium" etc, but there can be no detailed examination of microstructure. There are comments about one of his samples having a Fe:O ratio commensurate with Fe₂O₃, one of the components of thermite, commonly known as rust. This is hardly compelling evidence of the presence of thermite.

If Jones wants to use the microspheres as evidence of thermite, there needs to be some kind of crystallography going on to identify phases present in his samples. Only then can he compare what he has picked up off the floor (or in someone's flat) with genuine thermite residues to confirm whether or not thermite was used at the WTC site.

For those who have access (and are remotely interested):

Duraes et al, Mat. Sci. & Eng. A, 465, (2007), pp 199-210

Has a discussion of which phases are formed during and after a Fe₂O₃ + Al thermite reaction.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I think the goal is to write a non-conspiracy paper as Apollo suggested, but then be able to claim to have had their work published. They can then just make blanket statements about their work being published in a legitimate journal without mentioning that the only paper that was actually published didn't prove any kind of controlled demolition or conspiracy.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I too would like to see Jones' new paper.

Having read another of his (this one), I'll be interested to see if he has made any attempt to identify any of the phases present in his "iron-rich microspheres".

In the previous paper there are elemental analyses from energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy. This technique can only analyse samples as an average. Essentially it can tell you that there is "some iron", "some aluminium" etc, but there can be no detailed examination of microstructure. There are comments about one of his samples having a Fe:O ratio commensurate with Fe₂O₃, one of the components of thermite, commonly known as rust. This is hardly compelling evidence of the presence of thermite.

If Jones wants to use the microspheres as evidence of thermite, there needs to be some kind of crystallography going on to identify phases present in his samples. Only then can he compare what he has picked up off the floor (or in someone's flat) with genuine thermite residues to confirm whether or not thermite was used at the WTC site.

For those who have access (and are remotely interested):

Duraes et al, Mat. Sci. & Eng. A, 465, (2007), pp 199-210

Has a discussion of which phases are formed during and after a Fe₂O₃ + Al thermite reaction.

Not to nitpick or move the goalposts, but even if he finds phases consistent with a thermite reaction, how does he separate naturally occuring reactions arising just from the presence of rust, aluminum, etc. from deliberately planted thermite? Seems to me that even if Jones found any such phases he would still be quite a long way from establishing thermite demolitions.