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

[tanabear]

in·i·ti·ate verb, -at·ed, -at·ing, adjective, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to begin, set going, or originate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/initiating

I know what the word initiate means. I asked you what you meant by the phrase, "the collapse initiating with pancaking." This is what Steven Jones wrote in his paper,

"Agreed: the “pancake theory of collapse” is incorrect and should be rejected. This theory of collapse was proposed by the earlier FEMA report and promoted in the documentary “Why the Towers Fell” produced by NOVA.7The “pancake theory of collapse” is strongly promoted in a Popular Mechanics article along with a number of other discredited ideas.8, 9 We, on the other hand, agree with NIST that the “pancake theory” is not scientifically tenable and ought to be set aside in serious discussions regarding the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC 7."

Are you saying that the pancake collapse theory was not proposed by FEMA and popularized by the NOVA documentary and Popular Mechanics?

I'd say I'm shocked that tanabear had to have that explained to him/her, but it's what I've come to expect from truthers.

He did not explain what he meant by the phrase, "the collapse initiating with pancaking." Would you like to explain what this phrase means?

The irony is that, what little content there is in the whitepaper is basically correct -- stale, uninteresting, and already beat to death, but nonetheless correct. What's wrong with this paper is that it isn't science. It's a bunch of guys publishing errata and their own unsupported opinions in challenge to another, much more rigorous publication.

It's not a science paper. Its inclusion in this Journal is completely unwarranted.

Had Dr. Jones actually done some science, that would be different. He could motivate an experiment based on NIST, do the experiment, publish results, and contrast his findings to NIST. That's perfectly acceptable. Of course, if he does that, then he has to follow rigorous procedures of experiment design, data analysis, and hypothesis testing, things he's failed to do in the past. But if he does a good experiment, then he should publish it.

In another thread, you seemed to suggest that the experimental method was so passé. When I asked if the NIST science could be reproduced experimentally, you seemed to scoff at the idea. You were asked if a computer model would suffice. You responded,

"It does for me, but that's a question for tanabear. I'm perfectly happy with scientific modeling of bounding cases, and in this particular instance, even simulation isn't required, just basic mathematical modeling. This evidently isn't sufficient for him."

So mathematical modeling is sufficient for the defenders of the official story, but experiment design, data analysis and hypothesis testing are required for those questioning the official story?

 

[AZCat]

Because they had to pool their resources to pay the publication fee when they couldn't get their crap accepted by any legitimate journal, and all five of them want to be able to later claim that they've had a letter (which they will subsequently call a "scientific paper" - just watch) published in a "mainstream peer reviewed journal."

At the moment, Jones is calling it a "formal publication" in what he says is a "established civil engineering journal." I will watch to see how this description changes as time goes by. I wouldn't make a bet on it, though - I have seen the same thing done too many times by the "truth movement".

If they're having difficulty with funds then maybe Jones and Ryan should get real jobs instead of trying to live off the "truth movement".

'Tis a thankless task, but somebody has to do it. Thank goodness for debunkers.

Bringing truthers to the light, that's us.

 

[beachnut]

Jones made thermite up 4 years ago? Geesh, why didn't you tell me that before. Oh wait, you did, in EVERY post you have EVER directed towards me.

Instead of repeating the same lines, why don't you tell me what part of Jones' letter is incorrect.

We would save time if you just point out the correct part of anything Jones ever said.

Zero.


And since it is true, why mention it again? You seem to believe Jones, yet he made it up. Oops again.

 

[Sizzler]

We would save time if you just point out the correct part of anything Jones ever said.

Zero.


And since it is true, why mention it again? You seem to believe Jones, yet he made it up. Oops again.

I'd say most, if not all of his letter is correct. More importantly though, do you agree that these "issues" need to be resolved? If your answer is no, then we certainly don't agree on that point and will have to agree to disagree But lets leave Jones out of it...

 

[AZCat]

I'd say most, if not all of his letter is correct.

Then you haven't been paying attention. These issues have all been addressed here, to the detriment of Jones' arguments.

 

[R.Mackey]

I think the strong point of the paper, besides the issues it raises with NIST's hypothesis, is that it passed peer review outside of his own journal.

And that is a miracle. I've never seen a paper like this, due to the sheer degree of editorializing, and the absence of results. I've informed the editors of this gross irregularity, and I expect them to respond.

Now is this journal just another scam? Although I haven't seen anything that would suggest it is a scam journal, it might very well be.

I did some digging on the background of the (suspiciously large) editorial board. At least some of them appear legitimate, if inexperienced. This "journal," or family of journals, is about as fledgling as they come -- there are a total of ten articles published in the history of the Civil Engineering branch, and other flavors have even less.

I'm guessing the Journal is legitimate, or trying to be anyway, but is still not quite ready for prime-time. If Dr. Jones "Recommended" four reviewers, it's pretty unlikely the editors would have any familiarity with the relationships in the Truth Movement, and may have just let it go without due diligence. It happens. I expect them to correct this oversight, if I'm right about their true goals.

With that said, I think it is important to once again look at the claims made in his paper. By your own admission you have claimed that his information is correct (in a different post), and I would agree.

There are no claims made in this paper. There are a few observations of known typos and poor phrasing that we've all known about for years, and there are a few unsupported opinions. Neither raises to the level of a "Claim."

I think this is a great start in bridging cooperation between the "truth movement" and NIST. We are all still waiting for WTC7 report to come out after all. This, and other efforts may be what some of the NIST scientists need to look outside of the fire induced collapse hypothesis, if indeed it is proving unfeasible.

It is not. You do not respond to NIST by tricking a journal into bearing your "letter to the editor." NIST has made itself abundantly available, and they know it; they just don't like the answers.

As I stated above, if they have conflicting results, then publishing here is appropriate. Their paper contains no results.

Would you be willing to post your letter to the publishers that you mentioned?

It's too long to post here, but I may post some excerpts. The issue is really quite simple.

 

[R.Mackey]

In another thread, you seemed to suggest that the experimental method was so passé. When I asked if the NIST science could be reproduced experimentally, you seemed to scoff at the idea.

I suggested nothing of the sort. What I said was that nobody was going to build a skyscraper and crash an airliner into it just to satisfy your own, absurdly naive, requirements to believe. Nobody will.

You were asked if a computer model would suffice. You responded...

So mathematical modeling is sufficient for the defenders of the official story, but experiment design, data analysis and hypothesis testing are required for those questioning the official story?

I'm beginning to comprehend the depth of your confusion, and it is far greater than I had imagined.

Experiment design, data analysis, and hypothesis testing are part of mathematical modeling. I've made no inconsistent statements.

Dr. Jones has presented none of this in his paper. Not a single bloody thing.

 

[Walter Ego]

I did some digging on the background of the (suspiciously large) editorial board. At least some of them appear legitimate, if inexperienced. This "journal," or family of journals, is about as fledgling as they come -- there are a total of ten articles published in the history of the Civil Engineering branch, and other flavors have even less.

Here's some interesting info on Bentham.

Science publishing is under attack. Librarians are unhappy with rising prices and the 'big deal' bundles favoured by large publishers. The voice of Open Access proponents grows louder and more influential with each passing day. And governments in Europe and America have mounted enquiries and debates into STM publishing. But where do the smaller, respected publishers of highly regarded science journals fit in? Are they prospering? Is the call of Open Access impacting on the way they do business?

------

Bentham Science Publishers is a publisher of 42 journals and from 2005 a further 19, making 61 journal titles together with 5 new book series. We publish primarily in areas of pre-clinical and pharmaceutical research for academic and pharmaceutical libraries. Many of our journals have high impact factors and we are fortunate to have the leading journal for reviews in medicinal chemistry, Current Medicinal Chemistry with an impact factor of 4.4. We also have other journals with rising impact factors like Current Pharmaceutical Design which is one of our leading titles. It publishes 32 issues a year and has an impact factor of 5.55.

----

Bentham's geographic profile is unique. Where is the company based?

We're an international company officially based and registered in the United Arab Emirates. UAE is close to Pakistan where many of our staff work. So it's strategically well placed. We chose Pakistan for similar reasons why other publishers have chosen India, Malaysia and Indonesia. Our production people were looking at the cost of production especially printing and typesetting. We found that Pakistan offered very competitive prices and that the staff we could employ were highly educated, often with Ph.Ds. While the editorial work is done largely by our teams in The Netherlands and USA, Pakistan assists with the collection of manuscripts from the editors world wide. All the production and printing – we've just bought 3 presses – is done in-house in Pakistan. So there was reason enough to go there. It was a little risky at first because of political tensions but these have eased and the economy is improving. So it's a stable place for us to do our business.

http://www.aardvarknet.info/access/number50/monthnews.cfm?monthnews=11

 

[R.Mackey]

Here's some interesting info on Bentham.

Yes, but let's not turn this into an ad hominem against Bentham.

If you look at the other articles in their Civil Engineering journal (all nine of them...) they're pretty ordinary. I wouldn't call this a prestigous journal by any stretch, but they may be trying to do it right. How they respond to the problem of Dr. Jones's paper will be a useful data point. I'm optimistic until proven wrong.

 

[Sizzler]

And that is a miracle. I've never seen a paper like this, due to the sheer degree of editorializing, and the absence of results. I've informed the editors of this gross irregularity, and I expect them to respond.

I see the merit in your criticism except that this is a letter, and not a "paper" with results. It is what it is Mackey.

I did some digging on the background of the (suspiciously large) editorial board. At least some of them appear legitimate, if inexperienced. This "journal," or family of journals, is about as fledgling as they come -- there are a total of ten articles published in the history of the Civil Engineering branch, and other flavors have even less.

I'm guessing the Journal is legitimate, or trying to be anyway, but is still not quite ready for prime-time. If Dr. Jones "Recommended" four reviewers, it's pretty unlikely the editors would have any familiarity with the relationships in the Truth Movement, and may have just let it go without due diligence. It happens. I expect them to correct this oversight, if I'm right about their true goals.

I'm not totally familiar with the particulars of scientific review. I think this is a bold claim and you do to, demonstrated by your use of "if".

However you then claim it is an "oversight". I think you are getting ahead of yourself here because you haven't shown an oversight to exist yet.

There are no claims made in this paper. There are a few observations of known typos and poor phrasing that we've all known about for years, and there are a few unsupported opinions. Neither raises to the level of a "Claim."

From Jones et al

"NIST and FEMA were not charged with finding out how fire was the specific agent of collapse, yet both evidently took that limited approach while leaving open a number of unanswered questions. Our goal here is to set a foundation for scientific discussion by enumerating those areas where we find agreement with NIST and FEMA."

The central thesis, or claim of this letter is that there are several unanswered questions. These questions are explored by identifying areas of agreement between them and NIST/FEMA which in turn exposes the unanswered questions.

The final opinion in the letter is that these questions need answers before anyone can fully understand the collapses.

Lets not forget that this is a letter.

It is not. You do not respond to NIST by tricking a journal into bearing your "letter to the editor." NIST has made itself abundantly available, and they know it; they just don't like the answers.

Well it certainly can't hurt.

As I stated above, if they have conflicting results, then publishing here is appropriate. Their paper contains no results.

Right, because it is a letter. It identifies areas of agreement, exposing unanswered questions. I see nothing wrong with it given it isn't meant to be a traditional scientific paper.

It's too long to post here, but I may post some excerpts. The issue is really quite simple.

That would be great. I'd like to see your criticisms in more detail. Eagerly waiting.

 

[Sizzler]

Yes, but let's not turn this into an ad hominem against Bentham.

If you look at the other articles in their Civil Engineering journal (all nine of them...) they're pretty ordinary. I wouldn't call this a prestigous journal by any stretch, but they may be trying to do it right. How they respond to the problem of Dr. Jones's paper will be a useful data point. I'm optimistic until proven wrong.

Sorry to be frank but you are basically saying it is a legit journal as long as they agree with you and your supposed criticisms, which you haven't really clearly identified or proven to be true.

 

[R.Mackey]

I see the merit in your criticism except that this is a letter, and not a "paper" with results. It is what it is Mackey.

One does not post "letters" in scientific journals. In general, if you have to put a special name on something, you're making excuses for it.

If you read their (very slender) guidelines, you note they only refer to technical and review articles. This paper is neither. That is one of the complaints I have for the publishers.

However you then claim it is an "oversight". I think you are getting ahead of yourself here because you haven't shown an oversight to exist yet.

Here's an "oversight," quoted from my letter to the editors:

Another problem with the paper in question is its combative tone. For example, from Page 39:

"The evident evasiveness of this answer might be humorous if not for the fact that NIST's approach here affects the lives of so many innocent people. We do not think that looking for thermite or other residues specified in the NFPA 921 code is 'wasting your time.' We may be able to help out here as well, for we have looked for such residues in the WTC remains using state-of-the-art analytical methods, especially in the voluminous toxic dust that was produced as the buildings fell and killed thousands of people, and the evidence for thermite use is mounting."

In this brief passage alone, the authors (a) accuse fellow researchers at NIST of being "Evasive;" (b) suggest without evidence that NIST failed to discharge its duties in investigation; (c) advertise their own purported abilities; and (d) assert that there is evidence of "thermite," citing in support only two articles from the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" rather than any reliable scientific result.
I trust you can accept that this passage is totally unacceptable in a formal scientific communication. I have never seen anything so incendiary or so transparently unsupported in any article, in any journal, in any subject.

I'm trying to imagine the three peer-reviewers reading this and all deciding, independently, to give it a thumbs-up. I'm failing. Help me out with this.

The final opinion in the letter is that these questions need answers before anyone can fully understand the collapses.

But this is false. None of the "issues" raised by Dr. Jones have any impact on our understanding of the collapses. If he had results showing thermite was at work, that would be something, but questions are not evidence.

Honestly, did we need a "journal article" to remind us that the fires didn't melt steel? (point #8 in Dr. Jones's paper) Hmm? The only person in the world who hasn't gotten that message is Rosie O'Donnell.

 

[R.Mackey]

Sorry to be frank but you are basically saying it is a legit journal as long as they agree with you and your supposed criticisms, which you haven't really clearly identified or proven to be true.

Absolute balderdash. I'm saying it's a legitimate journal if they perform due diligence in review and adhere to scientific standards. I am not insisting that I am the one who gets to set those standards. Those standards are pretty well established and universal in the world of publication.

As I said before, there is not a single result in this paper. It is neither science nor engineering. It is editorializing. That is not the function of a scientific journal. The editors must respond to this criticism, and I trust that they will.

 

[Sizzler]

One does not post "letters" in scientific journals. In general, if you have to put a special name on something, you're making excuses for it.

It is what it is Mackey. The editors obviously thought it merited being published and it also passed peer review.

If you read their (very slender) guidelines, you note they only refer to technical and review articles. This paper is neither. That is one of the complaints I have for the publishers.

I would like to know their answer.

Here's an "oversight," quoted from my letter to the editors:

I agree with you on this point. Thanks for sharing.

I'm trying to imagine the three peer-reviewers reading this and all deciding, independently, to give it a thumbs-up. I'm failing. Help me out with this.

I would like to know what their response is to this particular issue.

But this is false. None of the "issues" raised by Dr. Jones have any impact on our understanding of the collapses. If he had results showing thermite was at work, that would be something, but questions are not evidence.

This is a fallacy you have presented here. One does not need to prove CD to show that the fire induced hypothesis is insufficiently supported.

Honestly, did we need a "journal article" to remind us that the fires didn't melt steel? (point #8 in Dr. Jones's paper) Hmm? The only person in the world who hasn't gotten that message is Rosie O'Donnell.

Again another fallacy; this time a straw man. You are suggesting that this is pertaining to the claim that fire can't melt steel and thus can't cause the building to collapse by your inclusion of Rosie. However Jones explicitly states that this is in conflict with reports by Lee et al describing dust particles that needed high temperatures to form, including once molten iron microspheres.

 

[Sizzler]

Absolute balderdash. I'm saying it's a legitimate journal if they perform due diligence in review and adhere to scientific standards. I am not insisting that I am the one who gets to set those standards. Those standards are pretty well established and universal in the world of publication.

As I said before, there is not a single result in this paper. It is neither science nor engineering. It is editorializing. That is not the function of a scientific journal. The editors must respond to this criticism, and I trust that they will.

Ok, your criticisms are a little clearer now. I agree with the one you previously posted.

Care to make a list, or post more of that letter?

 

[R.Mackey]

It is what it is Mackey. The editors obviously thought it merited being published and it also passed peer review.

The review process was breathtakingly short. Their review policy also includes accepting reviewers suggested by the authors, provided they aren't from "the same institution." Since the Truth Movement is not an institution, it is possible (though I do not know this took place) that Dr. Jones got his own friends to "review" the paper, and the editors did not adequately verify its quality.

I've already demonstrated a passage that should have never seen the light of day, so we know the review was inadequate.

This is a fallacy you have presented here. One does not need to prove CD to show that the fire induced hypothesis is insufficiently supported.

I didn't say that one did.

Dr. Jones could show the NIST hypothesis is insufficient through a variety of methods -- running his own models, finding flaws in the assumptions, etc. -- without even mentioning explosives. He's done none of this. All he's done is go over a few nitpicks and wild assertions.

Compare, if you will, Dr. Jones's paper to those of Dr. Quintiere. Dr. Quintiere is equally hostile towards NIST, but his papers have content. He doesn't just speculate that NIST might be wrong, he gets his own data, runs his own experiments, and publishes that. We learn from Dr. Quintiere.

What did we learn from Dr. Jones's paper? Nothing.

Again another fallacy; this time a straw man. You are suggesting that this is pertaining to the claim that fire can't melt steel and thus can't cause the building to collapse by your inclusion of Rosie. However Jones explicitly states that this is in conflict with reports by Lee et al describing dust particles that needed high temperatures to form, including once molten iron microspheres.

No, no no. Once again, the samples in the RJ Lee report were taken months afterward. I told you this myself. There is no reason at all to assume these microspheres were created prior to or during collapse. And unless you make that assumption, there is no conflict.

The strawman is Dr. Jones's, not mine.

ETA: I've already received an acknowledgment from the publishers, and I'll let you know what transpires. I only gave them a few examples of problems with the paper.

Realistically, what may happen in the long term is Dr. Jones is forced to revise his paper, but perhaps some variant of what he has now will persist. It'll never be a great paper, but it could at least be banged into a semblance of an ordinary paper. But like I said, he makes no claims, and we learn nothing from its publication. I therefore fail to see the point.

 

[Foolmewunz]

hey mods why did you merge these two threads. This deserves a new thread for sure. 911 truth movement hits a mainstream journal and you merge the thread with an old one????? Come on now........sad imo

Firstly, the definition of "mainstream journal" that you use must be coming from the same Big Book of Picture Words that you guys use to define "peer review".

Secondly, the threads were merged because they were identical topics. No conspiracy here, move along.

 

[ref]

To no surprise, they will not release the names of the reviewers. But at least they really seem to be other than JONES people

 

[Slayhamlet]

I know what the word initiate means. I asked you what you meant by the phrase, "the collapse initiating with pancaking." This is what Steven Jones wrote in his paper,

"Agreed: the “pancake theory of collapse” is incorrect and should be rejected. This theory of collapse was proposed by the earlier FEMA report and promoted in the documentary “Why the Towers Fell” produced by NOVA.7The “pancake theory of collapse” is strongly promoted in a Popular Mechanics article along with a number of other discredited ideas.8, 9 We, on the other hand, agree with NIST that the “pancake theory” is not scientifically tenable and ought to be set aside in serious discussions regarding the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC 7."

Are you saying that the pancake collapse theory was not proposed by FEMA and popularized by the NOVA documentary and Popular Mechanics?

You are horribly confused. No, obviously nothing of the sort was said by anyone here. How you could read that into what was written is beyond me.

The "pancake collapse" hypothesis was proposed by FEMA; that much of your statement is correct. The second part, namely that this disproved hypothesis was represented in Popular Mechanics, you have utterly failed to support. It could be true, but we actually require evidence of it.

He did not explain what he meant by the phrase, "the collapse initiating with pancaking." Would you like to explain what this phrase means?

He means, of course, the "pancake collapse" hypothesis itself:

As the temperature of floor slabs and support framing increases, these elements can lose rigidity and sag into catenary action. As catenary action progresses, horizontal framing elements and floor slabs become tensile elements, which can cause failure of end connections (Figure 2-21)

and allow supported floors to collapse onto the floors below​

. The presence of large amounts of debris on some floors of WTC 1 would have made them even more susceptible to this behavior.

In addition to overloading the floors below, and potentially resulting in a pancake-type collapse of successive floors, local floor collapse would also immediately increase the laterally unsupported length of columns, permitting buckling to begin. As indicated in Appendix B, the propensity of exterior columns to buckle would have been governed by the relatively weak bolted column splices between the vertically stacked prefabricated exterior wall units. This effect would be even more likely to occur in a fire that involves several adjacent floor levels simultaneously, because the columns could effectively lose lateral support over several stories​

The same types of structural behaviors and failure mechanisms previously discussed are equally likely to have occurred in WTC 2, resulting in the initiation of progressive collapse, approximately 56 minutes after the aircraft impact. Review of video footage of the WTC 2 collapse suggests that it probably initiated with a partial collapse of the floor in the southeast corner of the building at approximately the 80th level. This appears to have been followed rapidly by collapse of the entire floor level along the east side, as evidenced by a line of dust blowing out of the side of the building. As this floor collapse occurred, columns along the east face of the building appear to buckle in the region of the collapsed floor, beginning at the south side and progressing to the north, causing the top of the building to rotate toward the east and south and to begin to collapse downward (Figure 2-32). It should be noted that failure of core columns in the southeast corner of the building could have preceded and triggered these events.

FEMA403 2

According to the observations of NIST, this is not what happened. Their reasons for discounting the hypothesis, as R. Mackey explains in his whitepaper "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking", are such:

1.Close examination of video prior to the collapses proved that the exterior walls were being pulled inward, which suggests floors remained attached up to the moment of collapse.

2. Photographs also showed floors sagging severely but still attached to the walls.

3. Modeling of the perimeter wall bowing proved that the amount of inward pull required to bow the exterior columns was not enough to sever the floor truss connections.

4. Modeling of a single floor tearing free and falling onto an undamaged floor suggested that the undamaged floor would not be destroyed, thus casting doubt on the ability of the “pancake theory” to sustain a progressive collapse.

ETA: Just in case you missed it: we're talking about collapse initiation from local truss connection failures here, not the progression of global collapse, which NIST was not tasked with modelling.​

 

[Edmund Standing]

I think this is a great start in bridging cooperation between the "truth movement" and NIST.

The problem is, NIST doesn't need anyone from the 'truth movement'. NIST has enough real experts who are not emotionally invested in a very partisan and scientifically vacuous conspiracy world view to get along just fine without help from the likes of Jones et al. Of course, should NIST decide to investigate pictorial evidence for Jesus' alleged visit to ancient America, or another area in which Jones has particular expertise they probably lack (for example, pre-Columbian horse remains), then I'm sure some cooperation would be helpful.