Official story: why believe it?

[Drudgewire]

I find what Jones has written very scientific and that he follows scientific procedures.

That's exactly what my hippie girlfriend tried to say about "What the Bleep Do We Know?"

"But they prove it with physics. QUANTUM Physics."

Using sciencey sounding words does NOT mean something is scientifically sound.

 

[lisabob2]

I realize that people are making a huge issue of being peer reviewed, thus they are avoiding the scientific issues that Jones brings up.
many people here seem to think 911myths is a valid source for scientific data, and I find it very unscientific. A lot of "what if" there. It bother me that 911myths attacks personally the scientist that they disagree with instead of sticking to the facts or evidence. At journalof911studies.com they allow opposing views for example Greening has a paper there. So you can read one view then another that disagrees with it.
The way Greening writes is very scientific, so is Ross who answers Greening. They stick to the issue and that example is how I believe the discussing of any issue should be handled.

 

[CptColumbo]

I realize that people are making a huge issue of being peer reviewed, thus they are avoiding the scientific issues that Jones brings up.

You started down this road by stating that the many in the scientific community endorse the "twoof" movement and/or don't believe the "official" story with your OP. Many here are responding to that statement by asking you to back it up.

 

[beachnut]

so why should you trust 911myths.com? what qualifications do they have? and since they have no papers ever peer reviewed for anything why even read thru the site?

they do not fall for nut case ideas on 9/11
they use facts, 9/11 truth and you do not
they expose the lies of 9/11 truth, you fall for them
they display rational thought, 9/11 truth does not
they are not fools, 9/11 truth is

 

[defaultdotxbe]

engineers have said they have reviewed Jones paper at ae911truth.org and of course at journalof911studies.com

I have read thru 911myths.com debunking911.com. I have read thru journalof911studies.com & ae911truth,org I find the last 2 much more scientific with much more qualified people presenting papers or articles.
I find what Jones has written very scientific and that he follows scientific procedures.
David Griscom with his very impressive resume also has influenced my opinion.

what would you say about a scientific paper that purports to disprove evolution and prove biblical creation that was peer reviewed by answersingenesis.org and the discovery institute?

 

[beachnut]

most engineers would say it is BS, jones journal! Ask some

again I will try to answer any specific questions, what exactly is bs at the site?

lisabob2, you need to present what you found, the exact things, you found at the Journal of Jones that is real and effective proof of any conclusion you have on 9/11. You have to, not me, you!

Post the real facts you have from the Journal you hold so dear. BTW, it is mostly BS! I am an engineer, and I say it is BS, so it is since I have shown you Jones has mislead you to think the cuts of columns was not really done during clean up. That makes him a poor researcher and you have yet to present some facts, or did i miss your fact fest of truth?

 

[tsig]

You must be reading a different paper from Jones that I read. he did find barium. In fact he shows all the signatures of thermate were found.
At least in the paper I read

Do they charge for autographs?

 

[Newtons Bit]

again I will try to answer any specific questions, what exactly is bs at the site?

You mean you want actual problems?

How about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97584 for starters. I'm not going to write up a detailed summary of the BS on each paper, but they've still yet to address that. And their editors can't even figure out how to calculate effective length factors as seen in the tail end of this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102226&page=5

They're snake oil salesmen.

 

[The Almond]

I realize that people are making a huge issue of being peer reviewed, thus they are avoiding the scientific issues that Jones brings up.

The scientific issues of Jones's work have been discussed ad nauseum on this forum. I know myself, Architect, Newton's Bit, and R.Mackey have all written articles criticizing aspects of Jones's work.

The truth of the matter is, peer review isn't some gold standard, it's simply a necessary prerequisite for any type of real scientific research. Having a driver's license doesn't make you a good driver, it just makes driving legal. My issue with Jones is that he hasn't bothered to follow standard scientific protocol. Science isn't done by disparate groups of people publishing results whenever they feel like it. Publication is the first step, presentation of the evidence the second, and the third step is the replication and validation of the hypothesis by outside parties. If Jones isn't yet on step one, how can he possibly expect to be taken seriously?

many people here seem to think 911myths is a valid source for scientific data, and I find it very unscientific.

Except that 911myths actually directs readers to genuine scientific information written by scientists.

A lot of "what if" there. It bother me that 911myths attacks personally the scientist that they disagree with instead of sticking to the facts or evidence. At journalof911studies.com they allow opposing views for example Greening has a paper there. So you can read one view then another that disagrees with it.

And neither paper needs to have any standard of credibility or factuality. Do you see where the problem is?

The way Greening writes is very scientific, so is Ross who answers Greening.

Do you not see that someone simply writing using scientific language could still be wrong?

 

[FactCheck]

- "The fact that not one peer-reviewed paper has yet to be published on your side of the aisle."

The fact is Steven Jones, Gordon Ross both have peer reviewed papers published.
Steven Jones has had over 35 peer reviewed papers during his career.
David Griscom who has over 185 peer reviewed papers also says Jones paper has been peer reviewed.
the obvious question is why should we not take Griscoms view in this matter? Who has more qualifications to judge whether a paper has been peer reviewed then sombody who has so many himself.
Why should we disregard such a well respected scientist because some "critical thinkers" don't agree with his professional assesment?

Jones has NEVER been peer reviewed by a REAL civil or structural engineering journal with standing in the scientific community. The evidence is, the places which Jones says he been peer reviewed in never had a single paper on any other structures. The peer review is no different than the peer review of jod911.com. If you think Jones has been peer reviewed then you think his debunking is peer reviewed.

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

http://www.jod911.com

Anyone can open a web site and call it a journal. I know because both Jones and I did.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I realize that people are making a huge issue of being peer reviewed, thus they are avoiding the scientific issues that Jones brings up.
many people here seem to think 911myths is a valid source for scientific data, and I find it very unscientific. A lot of "what if" there. It bother me that 911myths attacks personally the scientist that they disagree with instead of sticking to the facts or evidence. At journalof911studies.com they allow opposing views for example Greening has a paper there. So you can read one view then another that disagrees with it.
The way Greening writes is very scientific, so is Ross who answers Greening. They stick to the issue and that example is how I believe the discussing of any issue should be handled.

If we're ignoring the valid source for scientific data, then why do you constantly refuse to address the claims you make based on this supposed valid source? Why is it you ignore the posts where people show scientifically where Jones is wrong and then pretend it's personal attacks?

Lisa, seriously, grow up. Stop pretending that people who tell you what you want to hear are scientific and those who don't tell you what you want to hear aren't. Eventually you're going to have to face reality and come to grips that these guys you think are scientifically valid have been proven frauds right down to their fraudulent claims of peer reviewing.

 

[lisabob2]

You started down this road by stating that the many in the scientific community endorse the "twoof" movement and/or don't believe the "official" story with your OP. Many here are responding to that statement by asking you to back it up.

All you have to do is check out ae911truth.org or journalof911studies.com or patriotsfor911truth.com for list of scientist who do not believe official story.
Peer review is a different issue.

 

[realitybites]

All you have to do is check out ae911truth.org or journalof911studies.com or patriotsfor911truth.com for list of scientist who do not believe official story.
Peer review is a different issue.

... But an extremely important one.

If you're looking for accurate, unbiased information anyway.

 

[lisabob2]

they do not fall for nut case ideas on 9/11
they use facts, 9/11 truth and you do not
they expose the lies of 9/11 truth, you fall for them
they display rational thought, 9/11 truth does not
they are not fools, 9/11 truth is

why don't you talk about specific issues? I could easily write the exact same thing you just did but say it about 911myths. It would be a matter of opinion.
Now if you can back up your claims with specifics then we can get a discusion going

 

[lisabob2]

lisabob2, you need to present what you found, the exact things, you found at the Journal of Jones that is real and effective proof of any conclusion you have on 9/11. You have to, not me, you!

Post the real facts you have from the Journal you hold so dear. BTW, it is mostly BS! I am an engineer, and I say it is BS, so it is since I have shown you Jones has mislead you to think the cuts of columns was not really done during clean up. That makes him a poor researcher and you have yet to present some facts, or did i miss your fact fest of truth?

I asked for specific things to discuss because all this stating of opinions as fact is a waste of time. For example, in Bazants theory:

"that all of the available
energy would be utilised exclusively in the destruction of the uppermost storey of the
lower section. This is physically impossible under any and all circumstances."

now we can discuss this, it is specific.
Ross says:
"It is impossible for all of the energy of the falling section to act on only the one
topmost storey in the lower section, since the very act of transmission of the energy
to that storey, dictates that all of the storeys in the upper section will come under
load and consume energy"

same topic maybe you disagree with Ross?

 

[CHF]

lisabob2,

if I wrote a paper on how the WTC towers were destroyed with nuclear ICBMs and then created my own journal where it was "peer-reviewed" by my friends
...would you believe it? Would you consider my work peer-reviewed?

If not, how come?

 

[realitybites]

Lisa, why does the lack of any peer-reviewed paper from the truth movement NOT bother you???

 

[CptColumbo]

All you have to do is check out ae911truth.org or journalof911studies.com or patriotsfor911truth.com for list of scientist who do not believe official story.
Peer review is a different issue.

Yet none have the courage to submit their findings to their peers for closer scrutiny. Don't you wonder why?

 

[realitybites]

Lisa, real quick. Let's switch roles here.

In this world, the conspiracy crowd has science on their side. Their theories have been subjected to, and passed, peer-review.

Now... us lowly skeptics are disputing those claims with NO papers published. NO peer-review. Nothing except for a website or two where like-minded skeptics gather and write essays.

.... Would you take us seriously?

.... Would you consider those essays to be of equal value to your peer-reviews?

 

[lisabob2]

... But an extremely important one.

If you're looking for accurate, unbiased information anyway.

I am looking for good scientific evidence, and I find that the websites I listed do a good job there, unlike 911myths or debunking911.
But that is a matter of opinion and I am not about to claim that 911myths are nut cases or morons like others here do when the disregard Jones & company. Jones follows the proper scientific method, his hypothesis might be wrong, but further proof one way or another will figure that out, it is immature and childish to insult highly educated and qualified people just because they don't see things they way you do. If you can read what Greening has put on journalof911studies.com you will see how mature educated people discuss differences of opinions or of evidence. Greening disagrees with Ross, Ross disagrees with Greening. No insults, nothing but what each has to say on the issues.