Merged 14 Points of Agreement

Pardalis

Banned
P
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
25,817
I just learned on another board that S Jones and friends have published a paper in a peer-reviewed forum:

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

Isn't it pathetic and lame that the only way they can find to prove their CD theory is to show points where they agree with the official explanation? From what I can read from their short paper, there's nothing there that supports their theories. They are not even trying to prove their theories.

I bet it's just so that they can refer to it later as an example of a paper of theirs that has been peer-reviewed.

It has been mentioned on Screwloosechange:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/04/steven-jones-gets-his-paper-published.html

Has there been any reaction to it in the engineering community, how was it received? I'm no engineer but there doesn't seem to be anything in there that's worthy of any kind or reaction.
 
Last edited:
Should someone w/ professional standing write to the real journal to point out the footnote foolishness?
 
This is the board, I think, of the "peer reviewed" "open source" journal, where YOU PAY them to publish your work....there is a big long thread about this somewhere.

oh, by the way, what is a Peer Reviewed "forum"?

TAM:)
 
I read some of the paper..... Wow, forgetting the content and just looking at the structure and actual wording, it is a terrible paper. The content is then terrible. He quotes the official reports and statements and then says that he and others don't agree with this. There is such great contribution to the scientific and engineering communities here :rolleyes:
 
The Open Civil Engineering Journal said:
The publication fee details for each article published in the journal are given below:

Letters: The publication fee for each published Letter article submitted is $600.

Research Articles: The publication fee for each published Research article is $800.

Mini-Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Mini-Review article is $600.

Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Review article is $900.
Click to expand...

Do scientific peer-reviewed journals require publication fees?
 
Tomblvd said:
T.A.M., is this an actual peer-reviewed study, or just a paper?
Click to expand...

IIRC, it is an "Open Access" journal, which in and of itself is a good thing, but in this case, it seems to be using the ease of publishing for authors, to cash in, charging authors $600 to publish. Now one has to wonder how legitimate the Peer Review is when you have charged someone $600 to submit. I think if the journal would do so, they would be biased to publish almost everything they have submitted to them, as if they got a rep for NOT DOING SO, scientists would soon stop submitting, as the $600 is not that easy to come by.

Beyond that, in the thread elsewhere here on the matter, R. Mackey tried to get in touch with the editor to discuss some of these issues, and the editor, in a bizarre and unprofessional spin, threw it back to Mackey to discuss it with the author of the paper.

The consensus, here anyway, was that it was not a very valid journal...kind of a "pay us and we'll publish you" scenario.

As well, they had a huge, abnormally huge, editorial board of near 50 members (there were some weblinks about this particular journal, that stated that UNQUALIFIED people, simply with Uni degrees, were approached to be part of the editorial board, and of course got a discount on the journal and an extra thing to put on their CV in exchange).

Here is an example of some legit "Open Access" journals. Note the part about not charging for submissions.

http://www.medknow.com/aboutus.asp
http://www.medknow.com/journals.asp?gclid=CIPEku_tg5QCFQE0xgodKCoPXQ#49

(Yes I know, foreign, but this was on a very simple, quick google search).

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
Well that explains it. Funny how they always want to seem legitimate, but as soon as you scratch a little off the surface, everything they claim falls completely...
 
Pardalis said:
Well that explains it. Funny how they always want to seem legitimate, but as soon as you scratch a little off the surface, everything they claim falls completely...
Click to expand...

and that, my friend, in a sentence, describes their entire movement.

TAM:)
 
Not to mention how irrelevant the paper is as far as proving controlled demolitions goes.
 
Last edited:
Someone got in contact with the editor in cheif, who said that he would look in to the letter. Was there ever a response?
 
Looks like they tried to cover their asses from any attack: they chose a peer-reviewed venue that they could publish in without too much scrutiny, and at the same time the paper they offered to be reviewed can't really be criticized since it's about the points where they agree with the official explanation, which of course is correct. So even if someone bothers to answer that paper, they won't get totally grilled.

So in effect they can say they got published in a peer-reviewed journal that didn't get too much criticized.

Sneaky.
 
Pardalis said:
I just learned on another board that S Jones and friends have published a paper in a peer-reviewed forum:

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

Isn't it pathetic and lame that the only way they can find to prove their CD theory is to show points where they agree with the official explanation? From what I can read from their short paper, there's nothing there that supports their theories. They are not even trying to prove their theories.

I bet it's just so that they can refer to it later as an example of a paper of theirs that has been peer-reviewed.

It has been mentioned on Screwloosechange:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/04/steven-jones-gets-his-paper-published.html

Has there been any reaction to it in the engineering community, how was it received? I'm no engineer but there doesn't seem to be anything in there that's worthy of any kind or reaction.
Click to expand...
It gets far worse when you also find out that the paper is full of stupid errors and misrepresentations.
For Example: 3. Pancake Theory not supported

They state that they agree with NIST that the pancake theory is not supported. Then they mention that Popular Mechanics promotes the discredited theory.

However they fail to mention that the Pancake theory NIST is referencing to (footnote 3) is the INITIATION and that Popular Mechanics is in fact quoting NIST's lead investigator with reference to pancaking during the collapse.

Popular mechanics
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4
FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air — along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse — was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

In fact one of Jones previous papers shows reference to the pancaked floors.
Go down to the bottom. http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
Looks like they tried to cover their asses from any attack: they chose a peer-reviewed venue that they could publish in without too much scrutiny, and at the same time the paper they offered to be reviewed can't really be criticized since it's about the points where they agree with the official explanation, which of course is correct. So even if someone bothers to answer that paper, they won't get totally grilled.

So in effect they can say they got published in a peer-reviewed journal that didn't get too much criticized.

Sneaky.
Click to expand...

And since their non-sheeple followers will hail whatever it is as the validation they've needed without analyzing it or likely without even reading it, it's an even greater victory. Of course, the truthists would have run with whatever it was and called it a total destruction of "the official conspiracy theory".
The other day, I went round and round on a different site with a former poster here. Apparently their 14 points of agreement paper disproved "the official story" to where they didn't even need to mention their therm*te hushaboom + random things that go boom demolition theory. Oh, and all the other scientific journals are censoring teh twoof.
 
TAM provided some very interesting links in post #13 regarding Bentham Science Publishers:

For if Bentham was to achieve its goal [of launching 200 new Open Access journals by the end of the year] it would need to recruit hundreds of researchers to act as chief editors, thousands to sit on the editorial boards of the new journals, and thousands more to submit papers to these journals. Consequently before long a constant stream of email invitations was flowing into the inboxes of researchers around the world.

After the first flush of enthusiasm, however, researchers began to question Bentham's activities, not least because many of the invitations they were receiving seemed decidedly badly targeted. For instance, psychologists were being invited to contribute papers on ornithology, health policy researchers were being invited to submit papers on analytical chemistry and economists were being invited to submit papers on sleep research or, even more oddly, invited to join the editorial board of educational journals. This inevitably raised concerns about the likely quality of the new journals, particularly as researchers were being asked to pay from $600 to $900 a time for the privilege of being published in them.

To add insult to injury, some of the invitations researchers were receiving were addressed to a completely different person, or the name field was empty, and addressed simply to "Dear Dr.,".

Moreover, what was clearly an automated mass mailing exercise was proving a little profligate with its invitations, sending them out not just to researchers, but to any Tom, Dick or Harry.
Click to expand...

Linky: http://poynder.blogspot.com/2008/04/open-access-interviews-matthew-honan.html
 
Peer-reviewed paper?

I asked a Truther to give me a link to a peer-reviewed paper that supports the controlled demolition theory and he gave me the "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction" paper (I believe it was written by Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, and some others). Is this a peer-reviewed paper and what are your thoughts on this paper?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom