Steven Jones' sham paper that he submitted to a vanity journal has been discussed in depth by Ryan and others in this thread.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110489
Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It
- Thread starter R.Mackey
- Start date
Steven Jones' sham paper that he submitted to a vanity journal has been discussed in depth by Ryan and others in this thread.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110489
AZCat
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,672
There seems to be some confusion here. The NIST report, even with its faults, is an amazing resource. I have directed many people to various sections because they are relevant to the discussion, but doing so does not in any way imply that I or others believe the NIST report is "gospel". It is science, not a religious text.
This has always been the case, and I have never answered with references to NIST as though it was gospel. I published v1.0 of my whitepaper last September. It was largely an integration of discussions I've had here going back for years, using Dr. Griffin's wholly erroneous critique of NIST as a foil.
I am unaware of any such publication... If you are referring to Dr. Jones's recent letter in the Bentham Online Civil Engineering Journal, it was published much more recently than my whitepaper. It also appears you haven't read it, since it discusses "points of agreement," and in terms of "making NIST cheerleaders look like fools," it does nothing of the kind given that is has no valid criticism of NIST whatsoever. Furthermore, I contacted the editor-in-chief of the Journal in question, and discovered that the paper was either improperly peer-reviewed or never peer-reviewed at all. The paper itself is a complete cipher.
I've done or will do several things about it:
- I've summarized my concerns and distributed it freely
- I've discussed these concerns with a number of scientists and fire protection specialists
- I've done a literature search, and determined that my concerns are shared by scientists doing continuing research into exactly those areas -- real scientists, not Dr. Jones
- I've also identified specific requirements I have for the WTC 7 report, and if it does not address these in a satisfactory manner, I will discuss this with NIST as part of their Request For Comment process following release of the draft
Belz...
Fiend God
What is it with people like you, anyway ? If it's "taken as gospel" then it's a sign it's wrong, and if someone has doubts it's STILL a sign it's wrong ??
Nice all-or-nothing philosophy. Just because one has concerns over some aspects of the report does not invalidate its conclusions or its methodology.
1- It's not the "government's theory". If you had any amount of knowledge on the subject, you'd know. Or do you think the non-american experts are in on it, too ?
2- Why are we "defending" it ? Well, aside from the reason you're thinking, could it be that it just makes sense to someone who knows what he's talking about ? Surely, you didn't embrace an alternative theory just because you distrust the government or the experts, right ?
1337m4n
Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 3,510
So according to you, a handful of errors in 10,000 pages means the entire report should be thrown out?
In that case, we can throw out every Truther video and article ever made since they all have a much higher error rate than NIST. Right?
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Mr X,
If you read R.Mackey's paper, please take note of the difference between actual scientists and truthers. When scientists dispute the conclusions of a theory put forth by an organization like NIST, they provide an alternate hypothesis.
Truthers don't even try to do this. They claim that NIST is wrong, but they have no idea why.
If you read R.Mackey's paper, please take note of the difference between actual scientists and truthers. When scientists dispute the conclusions of a theory put forth by an organization like NIST, they provide an alternate hypothesis.
Truthers don't even try to do this. They claim that NIST is wrong, but they have no idea why.
Re '..........I have never answered with references to NIST as though it was gospel.'
Why? have you got a choice. NIST is your only resource.... unless there's been another investigation that we don't know about.
That fraud that doesn't explain anything... and couldn't even if it tried.
So Dr Jones and his fellow scientists decided to write a letter to Bentham telling them what wonderful work NIST did?..... you really believe that do you? Or are your just pretending for comic effect.
So much for 'unswerving honesty'.
On that note how about we get a copy of that letter/email you got from the 'editor-in-chief of the Journal in question'. You know, so we can check it's authenticity, if it really exists.... and maybe send a copy to Dr Jones...... who lets face it will be shocked to find that the people who published his paper, never bothered reading it.
As for your whitepaper. That wouldn't be that magnificent piece of work where you're completely incapable of telling the difference between 'didn't find any evidence of explosives' and 'didn't bother our backsides to look for any evidence of explosives'.
I suspect you can tell the difference, but decided not to...... cos to do so wouldn't been condusive to deluding the already ignorant. And that's the tactic that you and other debunkers rely so heavily on.
Re 'I've done a literature search, and determined that my concerns are shared by scientists doing continuing research into exactly those areas --'
Very poor arguement... for what, I don't know.
There's many highly qualified scientist, engineers, architects, pilots, aviation professionals and professors who have serious doubst/questions regarding NIST findings, and can see it for the nonsense it is.
Why? have you got a choice. NIST is your only resource.... unless there's been another investigation that we don't know about.
That fraud that doesn't explain anything... and couldn't even if it tried.
So Dr Jones and his fellow scientists decided to write a letter to Bentham telling them what wonderful work NIST did?..... you really believe that do you? Or are your just pretending for comic effect.
So much for 'unswerving honesty'.
On that note how about we get a copy of that letter/email you got from the 'editor-in-chief of the Journal in question'. You know, so we can check it's authenticity, if it really exists.... and maybe send a copy to Dr Jones...... who lets face it will be shocked to find that the people who published his paper, never bothered reading it.
As for your whitepaper. That wouldn't be that magnificent piece of work where you're completely incapable of telling the difference between 'didn't find any evidence of explosives' and 'didn't bother our backsides to look for any evidence of explosives'.
I suspect you can tell the difference, but decided not to...... cos to do so wouldn't been condusive to deluding the already ignorant. And that's the tactic that you and other debunkers rely so heavily on.
Re 'I've done a literature search, and determined that my concerns are shared by scientists doing continuing research into exactly those areas --'
Very poor arguement... for what, I don't know.
There's many highly qualified scientist, engineers, architects, pilots, aviation professionals and professors who have serious doubst/questions regarding NIST findings, and can see it for the nonsense it is.
Dear Belz...
Few things more useless on this planet than philosophy. Anway I wouldn't trust your government to find a WMD........ nuff said.
Dear 1337m4n
Re 'So according to you, a handful of errors in 10,000 pages means the entire report should be thrown out?
In that case, we can throw out every Truther video and article ever made since they all have a much higher error rate than NIST. Right?'
Go ahead.
Dear aggle-rithm
Re 'Truthers don't even try to do this. They claim that NIST is wrong, but they have no idea why'
The knowledge amongst you debunkers isn't all that better.
Few things more useless on this planet than philosophy. Anway I wouldn't trust your government to find a WMD........ nuff said.
Dear 1337m4n
Re 'So according to you, a handful of errors in 10,000 pages means the entire report should be thrown out?
In that case, we can throw out every Truther video and article ever made since they all have a much higher error rate than NIST. Right?'
Go ahead.
Dear aggle-rithm
Re 'Truthers don't even try to do this. They claim that NIST is wrong, but they have no idea why'
The knowledge amongst you debunkers isn't all that better.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
All the steel from the collapses were carefully examined before being recycled. Evidence of explosives would be so obvious that it is highly doubtful that it would be missed just because they weren't looking SPECIFICALLY for explosives.
If you think the evidence would be subtle, like chemical residue that could only be picked up by careful forensic examination, then ask yourself how such weak explosives could possibly bring down a building.
Also, if you think the large number of structural engineers and demolition experts who examined the steel were not competent to do this, please present your evidence.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
I wasn't talking about knowledge. I was talking about the willingness to present a hypothesis on what happened on 9/11.
Most rational people will say that Muslim extremists carried out a terrorist attack that resulted in all the carnage that was observed on 9/11. Everything is explainable in this context, and the more information becomes available, the more things fall into place. This theory is simple, straightforward, and is both internally and externally consistent.
Truthers don't even have a starting point. They say "the government did it" and can offer up nothing as evidence but a few "anomalies" that look suspicious to them, ignoring any explanations offered by people who are actually in a position to explain them. If asked to produce a theory about what happened, they hem and haw and mumble something about needing "a new investigation", despite the fact that they appear to be unaware of the many investigations that have already taken place.
So, although lack of knowledge may be a factor, it's not the main problem, IMO.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Here's some supporting information for the above post:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/groundzerocleanup,freshkillssortingopera
Also, after the debris had been removed from Ground Zero and transported to the Fresh Kills site:
Just figured that it helps more to cite the specifics of what was done, rather than just say "everything was carefully examined". There's nothing wrong with saying that, but the detailed info seems to pack more of a punch. I'm of course aiming this post at lurkers and new folks, to show that aggle-rithm wasn't merely making a blind assertion, but rather knows of the scope of the work done post collapse. Like all of us, myself included, we often post these remarks without thinking that someone new might wonder where the information comes from. There's one example.
Read the stuff at http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/groundzerocleanup%2Cfreshkillssortingopera for Ground Zero cleanup details. It makes for handy background info.
Carefully examined???......... really.. this is news. Where can I read these reports that examined the steel debris. Let me have the website addresses... if you don't mind.
I don't share your view that evidence would be so obvious. You know the investigators could've made an effort to look if only to clear up the question re exposives. Then we could all be sitting here happy in the knowledge that no explosives were used.... no?
Belz...
Fiend God
What the hell does this have to do with what I wrote ?
Why the hell would the Canadian government look for WMDs and, again, what does this have to do with my post ?
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Thanks for providing that link. I knew the information was out there, but didn't have it handy.
See above.
You don't think the effects of explosives are obvious? Even to trained investigators?
Such knowledge wouldn't make me happy or sad. Explosives are simply not necessary to explain what happened.
You seem to be confused here. Reports did not examine the steel debris. People did. Thousands of them.
Respectfully,
Myriad
Are you seriously suggesting there would be a series of reports from an inspector which would essentially say:
"Looked at a piece of steel. No evidence of explosives".
"Looked at a piece of steel. No evidence of explosives".
"Looked at a piece of steel. No evidence of explosives".
"Looked at a piece of steel. No evidence of explosives".
"Looked at a piece of steel. No evidence of explosives".
"Looked at a piece of steel. No evidence of explosives".
"Looked at a piece of steel. No evidence of explosives".
"Looked at a piece of steel. No evidence of explosives".
"Looked at a piece of steel. No evidence of explosives".
"Looked at a piece of steel. No evidence of explosives".
"Looked at a piece of steel. No evidence of explosives".
"Looked at a piece of steel. No evidence of explosives".
"Looked at a piece of steel. No evidence of explosives".
"Looked at a piece of steel. No evidence of explosives".
"Looked at a piece of steel. No evidence of explosives".
"Looked at a piece of steel. No evidence of explosives".
"Looked at a piece of steel. No evidence of explosives".
"Looked at a piece of steel. No evidence of explosives".
Really? Is that how you would structure an investigation?
Hi everyone. I am new to JREF and I must say that I am relieved to finally find a place about rational thinking. Even though I think that sometimes debunkers are really aggressive, I find Mackey's initiative really useful for people who are not necessarily following the discussions from the beginning.
I have a question: it is often claimed that a large majority of engineers and scientists are supporting the government's theory. Actually I was wondering how can that be asserted?
I have a question: it is often claimed that a large majority of engineers and scientists are supporting the government's theory. Actually I was wondering how can that be asserted?
Well, you can:
1. View the lack of dissent as tacit approval (though 'truthers' scoff at this as, apparently, you can't take it for granted that someone agrees with something unless they explicitly state that they agree with it, even if they are directly affected on a professional level with the implications of any lack of agreement)
2. Study every architectural and structural engineering journal and collect together all of the articles which discuss the wtc towers collapse and do not consider it impossible or in need of additional help (such as pre-planted explosives)
3. Make alot of phone calls to a large number of structural engineers and ask them directly.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
First of all, the reference to "the government's theory" is a highly charged one. The generally accepted understanding of the events of 9-11 does not come from the US Government, but from a wide variety of sources, including the media of many different countries, university studies carried out in the USA and elsewhere, engineering reports from independent companies both in the USA and elsewhere, court hearings including but not limited to the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, peer-reviewed papers published in science and engineering journals, and direct eyewitness testimony. Calling it "the government's theory" is a common truth movement tactic to suggest, very dishonestly, that this vast body of evidence doesn't exist. Round here this sort of thing is known as "the mark of woo", so if you start getting some accusations that seem to you to be unfounded, those three words are probably the main basis for them.
If the question is "how can that be supported", then there's the personal experience of those of us on the forum who are practising scientists and engineers and have never met a single person in our professional lives who has ever suggested that they have any areas of agreement with the 9-11 truth movement. There's the absence of a single peer-reviewed paper in a respectable journal that puts forward any other view; I don't consider Bentham's online open-access journals to be respectable in this context, and neither would many other serious scientists. There's the existence of a Code of Practice for engineers, which would specifically require them to make any suspicions public; there's been talk of a similar code for physicists, which I personally would support. But mostly, with the exception of a few individuals whose work is full of egregious flaws, there's a roaring silence from a group of professions whose practitioners are not, in my experience, the type to be quietly complicit in anything. Put simply, we're an arrogant and uncooperative bunch, and most of us would be more than happy to stir things up a bit if we thought we had the means to do it.
Dave
The important thing is for the 'truth' movement to commission an analysis of the wtc collapse by a reputable firm of structural engineers (preferably independant, i.e not engineers who have expressed a view that 9-11 was an inside job because (for example) they don't think the shanksville crash site looks right) and, if that analysis is at variance with the investigation carried out by NIST, then have it published in a properly accredited journal for comment by their peers.
Until they do this, the 'truth' movement will always be pinning their hopes on half baked ideas by people prejudiced and/or incompetent to comment and totally lacking in detailed analysis which can stand up to proper scrutiny.
The ball is in the 'truthers' court and always has been.
Until they do this, the 'truth' movement will always be pinning their hopes on half baked ideas by people prejudiced and/or incompetent to comment and totally lacking in detailed analysis which can stand up to proper scrutiny.
The ball is in the 'truthers' court and always has been.