Loose Change - Part IV

[T.A.M.]

the same video showed men being shot by firing squad for voicing opinions against the reigning dictator, to set an example for the rest of the village they lived in.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So there is this guy who posts over on Abby's site, called rros...something or other. Anyway, he claims that now a full 60 out of 60 faculty at BYU who sat in on a talk of Steven Jones have now come out in support of him, saying an independent investigation of 9/11 is warranted.

Anyone got any info on the validity/exagerration of this comment?

Well, unless things have changed dramatically:
"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
http://www.et.byu.edu/ce/people/people.php?person=1&page=miller/vita.php

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department
http://www.et.byu.edu/index.php?m1=faculty&n=2

 

[CurtC]

That Killtown Jail/banning thread was like...like...I am having a hard time finding the words to describe it.

Describe it like this: Lord of the Flies

 

[T.A.M.]

That is a very astute analogy...well done...Lord of the Flies it is then.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

That is a very astute analogy...well done...Lord of the Flies it is then.

sucks to your truth movement!

 

[gumboot]

sucks to your truth movement!

Mod = conch?

Which would make it "Lord of the Flies" with dozens of conches...

Ouch.

-Andrew

 

[delphi_ote]

Well you better put me in touch with one of those people you said come on here then because my family is all dead. And phoning just don't work I guess. And I just lost a very near and dear friend lately which knew of everything that has happened to me. They said he died of a heart attack from other complications.

Standard passive aggressive pathological liar tactic: when your negative behavior becomes so obvious someone calls you out on it, immediately put up a smokescreen of vulnerability. Defend yourself by making yourself so pathetic nobody would attack you.

Your torrent of antisocial behavior makes me doubt everything you type, but you obviously need help. Pofessional help. You're not getting any sympathy from me until you see a doctor. Your behavior on this forum has been reprehensible and embarrassing. Whatever friends or family you have living or dead would be ashamed of what you're doing. Stop indulging these unhealthy fantasies and go talk to someone who can help you.

 

[delphi_ote]

Mod = conch?

Which would make it "Lord of the Flies" with dozens of conches...

Ouch.

-Andrew

They're all on Jack's side of the island, I'm afraid.

 

[WildCat]

That Killtown Jail/banning thread was like...like...I am having a hard time finding the words to describe it.

Does Killtown get a badge?

 

[Gravy]

In other news, after 53 pages, Killtown has admitted to the Shanksville crash!

 

[R.Mackey]

Does Killtown get a badge?

Fair is fair.

I'm hoping, now that he's seen the true face of his former associates, that he takes their words a little more... dare I say... skeptically.

 

[Brainster]

So there is this guy who posts over on Abby's site, called rros...something or other. Anyway, he claims that now a full 60 out of 60 faculty at BYU who sat in on a talk of Steven Jones have now come out in support of him, saying an independent investigation of 9/11 is warranted.

Anyone got any info on the validity/exagerration of this comment?

My guess this is about the WND article that claimed Jones had called for armed insurrection. I knew the moment I read it that the author had confused Fetzer for Jones. Jones has said that the article caused a fuss at BYU. Shame, because it was a good article otherwise. At any rate, I am sure they are supporting him over this particular charge, not his ridiculous theories.

 

[brumsen]

Well, unless things have changed dramatically:
"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" (..) - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
http://www.et.byu.edu/ce/people/people.php?person=1&page=miller/vita.php

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department
http://www.et.byu.edu/index.php?m1=faculty&n=2

Would you be so kind as to point us to where these quotes may be found, for they are not on the URLs you include.

 

[brumsen]

Please provide the evidence that these devices were ever manufactured. One of the posters on the “journal” forum said they called the company that held the patent, but they never said what they found out. They must not have gotten what they wanted. Please show in the patent where it says that the device can cut a nice clean diagonal cut through 12 inches of steel.

I don't have that evidence. FeO claims to have it, but OK, that is second-hand.

As to the next point, I was speaking more generally of the “scholars”. Face it, the “scholars” are the journal. It is not an independent entity, they created it, they control it.

Yes, the journal is published by the "Scholars", on that we agree. But even if they - especially Fetzer - do not cease to talk about their authority, this is not how they defend the reputation of the journal, to my knowledge at least. If so, please provide evidence of that.

The trees analogy wasn’t in the Journal, but it was made by Judy Wood and posted on the “Scholars” site. Wood was one of the original editors of the journal, although she has been removed for some reason and replaced by waterboy Kevin Ryan. I have no doubt if she had submitted her work it would have been published. Maybe that is why she is no longer an editor? Although I guess she can’t now . It has been “published” already and Jones would accuse her of violations of academic ethics.

Right, I suppose all this means that we can safely dissociate the credibility of Judy Wood's claims from the credibility of the journal?
ETA: Wood appears to have left the Scholars; she's no longer listed. Interesting.

And to repeat my answer, yes, I want our work to earn a favorable reputation, but for the merits of its arguments. I couldn’t care less whether people consider us a “journal” or not. Although it is amusing to be given that status by Jones.

Edit: I should point out that I am just one of the people who has posted there. I did not create the site, nor do I control it. If you want to help shape its future, send in a submission.

In your earlier post you said you were one of the editors?
Anyway, it's the editors that shape the future of the journal - and that also means solliciting good articles. But authors just want their work published - they do not care about shaping the future of a journal - they just want their work to get the best possible exposure.

 

[Gravy]

Would you be so kind as to point us to where these quotes may be found, for they are not on the URLs you include.

They university took them down when a BYU colleague of Jones (a humanities prof. who is also a "Scholar") complained that Jones' paper had been submitted for a second, and proper, peer review.

However, Jones himself only says that two of the four reviewers are physicists. For all we know, the other two are charwomen.

Same schtick, different day.

So, the removal of the comments was not because the physics and engineering people at BYU changed their minds, but because an outsider complained about them.

 

[brumsen]

They university took them down when a BYU colleague of Jones (a humanities prof. who is also a "Scholar") complained that Jones' paper had been submitted for a second, and proper, peer review.

In the version I know it was a scholar from another university (Ohio University) - Richard McGinn.

So, the removal of the comments was not because the physics and engineering people at BYU changed their minds, but because an outsider complained about them.

An outsider complained, pointing out that there might well be grounds for an ethics complaint with ASCE. Isn't the removal of the comments an indication that they agreed with that?
Now it is their business whether they actually changed their minds.... however, would you actually want to suggest that the ASCE code enforces the removal of comments made to one's best professional judgment?

ETA: be all this as it may - it is a bit dubious to quote the comments here on this forum as if they were still standing.

 

[Gravy]

In the version I know it was a scholar from another university - Richard McGinn.

Ah. Sounds right. It's been a while since I looked into this.

An outsider complained, pointing out that there might well be grounds for an ethics complaint with ASCE. Isn't the removal of the comments an indication that they agreed with that?

That could be indicative of many things, such as the University wanting to avoid public controversy.

Now it is their business whether they actually changed their minds....however, would you actually want to suggest that the ASCE code enforces the removal of comments made to one's best professional judgment?

I don't understand the question. BYU administration, not the ASCE, issued the statements and removed them. And the ASCE certainly doesn't rule over Jones' physics colleagues, who also issued a statement that they did not agree with him.

The department statements were apparently in response to media stories that suggested that Jones had the support of the BYU science community:

Reached for comment, structural engineering professors Steven Benzley and Rick Balling both said they supported the statement as written.

Balling said he and Benzley have made contact with Jones on more than one occasion, engaging him in a dialogue about the more technical aspects of his research.

Once again, Jenkins said top university officials did not influence the structural engineering faculty or the College of Engineering and Technology to challenge Jones’ work.

She said the college administration wrote the statement in response to media reports that Jones’ colleagues “had given in essence a vote of confidence to his hypotheses.”

“In fact,” Jenkins said, “the faculty hadn’t supported that further research be done in this area, and so they were concerned about misrepresentation in the media.”

On Sept. 22, prior to going public with his provocative suggestions, Jones gave a seminar to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy.

After the seminar, all but one of Jones’ colleagues said they agreed an investigation was in order, Jones said. And the lone dissenter came around the next day.

In a Nov. 11 interview, Physics Professor Harold Stokes, one of several faculty members who attended the seminar, said the explosive demolition hypothesis “certainly raises some interesting questions” and that Jones’ claims “certainly appear to be valid.”

Like many of his other colleagues, though, Stokes was up front in saying that he didn’t have the technical expertise to properly scrutinize Jones’ claims.

In an effort to accommodate administration and others, Jones said he has modified his paper, and submitted it to another journal and another round of peer reviewing.
http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724

ETA: be all this as it may - it is a bit dubious to quote the comments here on this forum as if they were still standing.

Agreed. The full story should be told.

 

[gumboot]

Right, I suppose all this means that we can safely dissociate the credibility of Judy Wood's claims from the credibility of the journal?

Isn't her area of expertise dentistry? And she compares the WTC to TREES?

That's all I need to know about Ms Wood.

-Andrew

 

[brumsen]

Isn't her area of expertise dentistry? And she compares the WTC to TREES?

That's all I need to know about Ms Wood.

-Andrew

Yeah, but she has left the scholars and is no longer an editor of the journal. So it may be all you need to know about ms Wood, it is not all you need to know about the credibility of the journal.

 

[brumsen]

That could be indicative of many things, such as the University wanting to avoid public controversy.

True. But it's not very courageous not to stand behind one's judgement and withdrawing it for fear of controversy, is it?

I don't understand the question. BYU administration, not the ASCE, issued the statements and removed them.

Parkinson, the Fulton College Dean, is a member of ASME (not ASCE - my mistake; but it makes little difference here) and as such is governed by their code; the comments were issued under his authority.