Official story: why believe it?

[CHF]

So if a Holocaust denier said their work was peer-reviewed you'd take their word for it?

Isn't it revealing that NONE of the defenders of Jones' "journal" ever answer this question?

I don't blame them. Being consistent on such an issue would put someone in a very awkward position.

 

[FactCheck]

How and where you peer review is the key. If Jones creates his own journal which is peer reviewed by people who said they were already conspiracy theorists before the journals first publication then it is a sham on its face.

Its like the evolution/creation debate. Scientists say there is no evidence of creation and to prove it they say there is no scientific "Theory of Creation" Realizing they are right the creationists create a journal of creation and publish a paper called "The Theory of Creation" which is not recognised by any respected scientific entity. If you can't see how dishonest that is then the thread is a waste of time. Nothing we say will matter.

Its also dishonest to say it is the opinion of people here. It is the opinion of the scientific community which has not embrassed the conspiracy story.

 

[lisabob2]

My point exactly. Both are kook journals, as you well know. A rather odd choice of publication to review research that could expose the greatest cover-up in history, don't ya think?

Is that where you'd publish such vital information? Personally I'd go with something that actually commands respect in the scientific world - that is if I actually believed what I claimed.

So tell me....would you trust "research" published in Holocaust denial journals if the authors said it had undergone extensive review?

You think journalof911studies.com & Global Outlook are kook journals. That is a biased unqualified opinion. Just by insulting something does not make it wrong. As a matter of opinion, just by resorting to that kind of immature behavior shows a lack of anything better to add.

 

[lisabob2]

You're just not making sense.

It isn't an issue of "having a problem getting published there." Heck, Newton's Bit had a private e-mail of his "published" there, without his asking or even consent!

The "Journal" of 9/11 Studies is not a journal. It has nothing in common with a journal. There are things present on that website that you will never, ever in your life see in any legitimate journal on any subject, including but not limited to:

• Publications by "anonymous" authors
• Rampant revisions of papers without notice, and no revision history
• A total lack of style guidelines, evident in the many "papers" that are actually more like pamphlets
• A total lack of scientific rigor, evinced by the fact that virtually every paper there is demonstrably wrong (search the Forum or read my previous posts for examples, this is not even remotely disputable)
• "Replies" and "rebuttals" appearing as papers in their own right, sometimes in the same issue
• A confusion between "articles" and "letters," with no clearly defined publication standards for either
• Blatant violation of what few guidelines they do provide in articles written by their own senior editors (e.g. Kevin Ryan)

Get the picture?

It's not science. No scientists are fooled. The "Journal" is an embarrassment to anyone claiming to be a scientist.

Their papers are so grossly wrong that, even if there is review of submissions, the reviewers are utterly incompetent, or deliberate frauds. I neither know nor care which. Once again, take a gander at the Ross/Furlong seismic paper for an example of just how mind-bogglingly idiotic those "papers" truly are. And then ask yourself, who reviewed this? Who approved it? Why? What are they trying to pull?

I would also recommend you learn about real scientific papers. The works of Drs. Bazant and Greening have been mentioned here and are one place to start. If that's too dry for you, start slow, something like Nature perhaps -- it should be available in your local public library. The gulf between real publications and the "Journal" of 9/11 Studies is impossible to miss.

you are posting personal opinions. I don't even know who newton is or what his qualifications are. David Griscom who is one of the worlds most respected scientist and with over 185 peer reviewed papers says journalof911studies.com is a peer reviewed journal. What qualifications does "newton" have that anybody with common sense take his opinion over Griscoms?

 

[Newtons Bit]

You think journalof911studies.com & Global Outlook are kook journals. That is a biased unqualified opinion. Just by insulting something does not make it wrong. As a matter of opinion, just by resorting to that kind of immature behavior shows a lack of anything better to add.

Unfortunately, the peer-reviewers at J911 are biased and unqualified. Their lack of relevant technical expierence is easily shown, such as here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102813

 

[uk_dave]

J.O.N.E.S is a peer reviewed 'publication' because it contains articles about 911 conspiracy theories written by 911 conspiracy theorists and read by 911 conspiracy theorists.

So long as those articles aren't allowed to enter the wild, I say ignore them.

 

[lisabob2]

Yet your opinion is what your relying upon to judge the merits of Jones' work.

Yes my opinions are affected by scientist & experts with very good qualifications & history of doing excellent scientific work. Jones has a excellent history and just because he has done a paper on Jesus & the mayan(whatever) doesn't mean it wasn't done with the proper scientific method. Disagreeing with Jones does not make his work unscientific.
Gordon Ross has qualifications & good history, as does Tony Szamboti.
Even David Ray Griffin who is a PhD in theology has had his work noted as being very sound and well sourced by David Griscom.

 

[lisabob2]

It was Jones's paper "Why Indeed...". I believe he edits it from time to time. As for it being "mostly opinions", the same is true of Jones; the question is, whose opinions have merit? At the moment you're making a blanket assumption that everythin Jones says is correct because he's a physicist. I'm a physicist with a doctorate and 20 years' experience, and I disagree with his opinions. Now you need to weigh them up on their merits, decide, and justify your decision. Anything short of that and you're simply showing your confirmation bias.



The link I gave you is stuffed full of issues with Jones's science. I've pointed out flaws in his methodology, areas where he's making authoritative statements that are outside his area of expertise and incorrect, areas where he's simply speculating without evidence, and even outright contradictions in the paper. If you don't recognise these as issues, then you don't understand the scientific method, so you're not really qualified to judge how well Jones is applying it.



Read it some time ago. Here are my comments from back then.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2940721#post2940721

Again, feel free to dispute.

Dave

Your opinion I think is not as sound as Grsicom's. Your idea "remaining columns must fail almost simultaneously" has no scientific backing, especially when you considered some columns were damaged, some were not. Some columns had severe damage some had very little so the strength of the columns were different in different areas. The columns below impact area had no evidence of any damage.
The damage was very asymetrical so to expect a symetrical collpapse is hard to understand.

 

[lisabob2]

No Lisabob, Bazant was proven RIGHT.
Bending moment occuring in collapse of south tower, (image taken from public domain footage, and is hosted on my webspace):
http://www.infowhores.co.uk/images/collapse/collapsing.jpg

Jones, dare not go to a recognised civil engineering journal, and David Griscom has not done that either.

All they have to do is send their stuff to http://pubs.asce.org/journals/

But they won't.

Just because they call their biassed, fraudulent 'journal'of911studies a "peer reviewed journal", it doesn't make it a recognised scientific publication like asce, nature or the lancet.

the nist report specifically mentions Bazants 1st theory and says it wrong.

 

[lisabob2]

Because when we do, you magically skip those posts and pretend they aren't there.

please show a post where I skipped a specific issue?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Your opinion I think is not as sound as Grsicom's. Your idea "remaining columns must fail almost simultaneously" has no scientific backing, especially when you considered some columns were damaged, some were not. Some columns had severe damage some had very little so the strength of the columns were different in different areas. The columns below impact area had no evidence of any damage.
The damage was very asymetrical so to expect a symetrical collpapse is hard to understand.

OK, explain to me how the top part of the structure can fall three metres when some of the supporting columns are still intact. That's what Griscom is implying, and it's utterly absurd.

As for the symmetrical collapse, there wasn't one. Not one of the three towers that collapsed on 9-11 fell symmetrically. That's not an opinion, it's verifiable fact; in all three cases the buildings rotated as they fell. In fact, Griscom himself is basing his argument on the fact that the buildings rotated as they fell.

If it were just a matter of opinion, you'd have an argument. As it is, you're simply stating without evidence that everything Jones and Griscom says is fact, and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. That's not the scientific method, it's confirmation bias.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes my opinions are affected by scientist & experts with very good qualifications & history of doing excellent scientific work. Jones has a excellent history and just because he has done a paper on Jesus & the mayan(whatever) doesn't mean it wasn't done with the proper scientific method.

Jones has a publication record that is no better than average at best for a physics professor. To the best of my knowledge he has published some fairly pedestrian work in a field that has never produced any particularly useful results. His paper on Jesus in America is, to me, of no relevance other than for understanding after the fact Jones's reasons for departing so grossly from the scientific method. I'm happy for his papers on the WTC collapses stand or fall on their own merits, and in every case they fall.

Dave

 

[lisabob2]

You're dodging again. Blatantly.

And see. Here's the difference between rational people and the truth movement. I know my educational constraints. I know that I cannot begin to comprehend the details, the math, the science behind the collapse of the towers. This is why I have this crazy tendency to lean towards the majority of experts who DO understand this stuff and what their conclusions are.

Truthers are different. They know better than everyone. Or at least pretend to.

your belief in the "majority of experts" has no real evidence. I find the same 4 or 5 engineers who have studied the evidence that support the official story. Funny that all of them have goverment connections.
I find that the majority of experts who have looked at the evidence don't believe official story, or as some put it the "official conspiracy theory"
Many qualified, much more qualified that any here, explain why they don't find the goverments story credible.
People here trying to avoids the real issues and insulting experts who are much more qualified then them do not make any scientific reasons to discount Steven Jones, or Gordon Ross. Even if you think the journals used for peer review are not good, it does not take away the facts & evidence or makes fact & evidence wrong.

 

[Drudgewire]

Even if you think the journals used for peer review are not good, it does not take away the facts & evidence or makes fact & evidence wrong.

Yes. Yes it does. In fact, that's exactly what it does.

 

[Dave Rogers]

People here trying to avoids the real issues and insulting experts who are much more qualified then them do not make any scientific reasons to discount Steven Jones, or Gordon Ross. Even if you think the journals used for peer review are not good, it does not take away the facts & evidence or makes fact & evidence wrong.

But that's not what people here are doing. There are simple, factual, verifiable reasons why Ross and Jones are wrong, and people are trying to point them out to you. The fact that you refuse to see them doesn't mean either that they aren't there, or that everybody outside the truth movement can't see them either.

Dave

 

[lisabob2]

OK, explain to me how the top part of the structure can fall three metres when some of the supporting columns are still intact. That's what Griscom is implying, and it's utterly absurd.

As for the symmetrical collapse, there wasn't one. Not one of the three towers that collapsed on 9-11 fell symmetrically. That's not an opinion, it's verifiable fact; in all three cases the buildings rotated as they fell. In fact, Griscom himself is basing his argument on the fact that the buildings rotated as they fell.

If it were just a matter of opinion, you'd have an argument. As it is, you're simply stating without evidence that everything Jones and Griscom says is fact, and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. That's not the scientific method, it's confirmation bias.

Dave

building did not fall "perfectly" symetrically. But Most experts have called collapse symetrical. In fact Bazant says building collapsed staight down.
The buildings were designed with 47 core columns and 240 exterior columns. If some of the columns were severed and others were damaged at impact area, but columns below impact areas were not damaged I don't see any reasons why part of the building could drop 3 feet. Now if something else besides the fires & impact affected the columns that further supports Griscom doesn't it?

 

[lisabob2]

Yes. Yes it does. In fact, that's exactly what it does.

how does peer review change the facts & evidence?

 

[Good Lt]

I don't see any reasons why part of the building could drop 3 feet.

That is meaningless. Just because you fail to see reality doesn't mean reality ceases to exist.

 

[Good Lt]

how does peer review change the facts & evidence?

You have no facts or evidence supporting your conspiracy fantasies.

 

[lisabob2]

But that's not what people here are doing. There are simple, factual, verifiable reasons why Ross and Jones are wrong, and people are trying to point them out to you. The fact that you refuse to see them doesn't mean either that they aren't there, or that everybody outside the truth movement can't see them either.

Dave

I disagree, People are stating opinions and none of them are verified.
There are nothing but theories & hypothesis right now from either side.
I have not seen any fact or evidence that Jones or Ross is wrong about the collapses on 9-11. I have seen insults, opinions but no facts, only opinions that can be challenged.