• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Peer-review

tj15

Critical Thinker
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
425
Does anyone know where I can find a ranking of the best peer-reviewed science journals?

Also, why hasn't Steven Jones had his findings peer-eviewed by whatever journal is considered the best?

Where does the journal that Jones had his findings peer-reviewed in rank in terms of how good the peer-review is?
 
I don't know the answer to the first....I suspect the answer varies by the discipline involved.

You would need to ask Dr Jones about that but as far as I am aware they never even attempted to get their paper published in a reputable journal.

It does not rank at all, as its a pay to publish vanity publication not a recognized scientific journal.
 
You should start by looking at the Impact factorWP of those journals. That should at least be a reasonable indication of the standard of the publications in question.
 
Thermite-related question: Does molten aluminum (when poured) look like the stuff pouring out of the south tower?

Sorry for the old question.
 
Thermite related question? What does thermite have to do with molten aluminum? :confused:

Truthers claim that the stuff pouring out of the south tower is thermite (or has to do with thermite). I'm wondering what the stuff pouring out of the south tower really is. So I asked what molten aluminum looks like when it is poured.

Truthers claim molten aluminum looks silver (I'm not sure what temperatures they are talking about). Is there a temperature where (when poured) aluminum looks orangeish?

I have also read that the molten metal could be lead. How does poured, molten lead look?
 
The "stuff" pouring out of the tower, could be molten anything. Here is why.

1. We do not know if the colors gotten from the low rez, internet video, represents the actual colors of the images taken.
2. We do not know if the molten material was contaminated, and if so to what degree and with what.
3. Dozens of pictures have been presented on this forum showing glass, copper, steel, and other materials, that look near identical in terms of color, and appearance, to the material dripping from the tower in that video.

As for peer review, etc...

1. I suspect Jones etal did attempt (and failed) to get their "paper" into reputable peer reviewed journals.
2. Once they failed to get it published in any real, worthwhile journals, they decided to "pay to play" by paying a fee to have their paper published in a vanity sham journal. Said journal was shown to have abused the "open access" model to make lots of money off of wannabe scientists dying to publish, and intellectuals vain enough to become editors in areas they have no expertise in.

TAM:)
 
The "stuff" pouring out of the tower, could be molten anything. Here is why.

1. We do not know if the colors gotten from the low rez, internet video, represents the actual colors of the images taken.

Hmm... I never thought of that. Is there a way to figure this out? Like compare the actual color of the WTC and the color of the WTC in the video? Or something like that...

2. We do not know if the molten material was contaminated, and if so to what degree and with what.
3. Dozens of pictures have been presented on this forum showing glass, copper, steel, and other materials, that look near identical in terms of color, and appearance, to the material dripping from the tower in that video.

As for peer review, etc...

1. I suspect Jones etal did attempt (and failed) to get their "paper" into reputable peer reviewed journals.
2. Once they failed to get it published in any real, worthwhile journals, they decided to "pay to play" by paying a fee to have their paper published in a vanity sham journal. Said journal was shown to have abused the "open access" model to make lots of money off of wannabe scientists dying to publish, and intellectuals vain enough to become editors in areas they have no expertise in.

TAM:)

Has the color of the stuff pouring out of the south tower ever been duplicated in an experiment?
 
Does anyone know where I can find a ranking of the best peer-reviewed science journals?

Also, why hasn't Steven Jones had his findings peer-reviewed by whatever journal is considered the best?

Where does the journal that Jones had his findings peer-reviewed in rank in terms of how good the peer-review is?

Many scientific journals tend to be very interest-specific (Interfaces and Free Boundaries, Chaos Solitons and Fractals, etc.), so you would have to start with the ones where the topic might, theoretically, be of interest, or with one of the more general types like Physics Today or Nature. The peer-review process seems to be similar over the respected journals - a submitted article is sent to 2 or 3 people who have the relevant expertise to be read over. They may reject it outright, or make suggestions for how it might be improved upon.

Personally, if I were given one of their "articles" to review, I would politely send it back with just "UM, NO" written at the top. :rolleyes:
 
Hmm... I never thought of that. Is there a way to figure this out? Like compare the actual color of the WTC and the color of the WTC in the video? Or something like that...

Not really. You see home video cameras are not very good as scientific instruments, especially with regards to light. There are light balance issues, color correction features of the chip and camera software, the lens, the coatings, and the fact that a lot of home video cameras just don't deal with bright objects very well, especially as far as color goes.

Then you add in the computer software and compression issues and it all goes to hell.
 
similar flows of burning material can be seen in the Madrid Windsor tower fire so its not likely to be anything to do with Thermite.
 
Does anyone have a video showing molten aluminum being poured that gives off an orange-ish color?

Also, how do we know that the stuff pouring out of the south tower is even metal?
 
I believe the area where the “molten metal” was shown is the area of the building where several UPS systems were located.
 
Does anyone have a video showing molten aluminum being poured that gives off an orange-ish color?

Also, how do we know that the stuff pouring out of the south tower is even metal?

exactly. As I have said, molten GLASS has a similar appearance and color.

TAM:)
 
Just tell yourself there was no fire and no smoke, and you are saved from contemplating such matters - it didn't exist!:p
 
It should be pointed out that the colour of anything that glows is basically determined by its temperature. So solid iron at 1000°C will glow in the same colour as liquid aluminium at 1000°C as gas heated to 1000°C in a wood fire: These will all glow orange.
If you see something glowing red, it's probably somewhere between 500°C and 700°C hot, if you see something glow yellow, it may be around 1200°C, and beyond that you are approaching white.


Suppose you see some yellow-hot liquid: This tells you its temperature is in the vicinity of 1200°C. This alone in turn tells you it can't be, say, pure iron, because iron melts only at 1538°C, at which point it would already appear white hot.
It could also not be pure zinc, because it already boils (vaporizes) at 907°C, where it would still glow orange-red.

But it could be aluminum.
Or lead.
Or copper.
Or gold.
Or glass.
Or even concrete.
Or any number of alloys that may include iron or zinc.
Or a mix of several molten substances.

Pure aluminium would glow red when it melts at 660°C and not look silvery, but there may well be aluminium alloys that melt before visible (i.e. only infrared) glowing occurs, at which point it would look silvery still.

However, as posters have pointed out, it is not clear that the flow we see in some lo res video is really glowing yellow. You will often find in digital fotografy and film that objects that are overexposed will wash out to white regardless of their "true" colour, and before they do, some colour components might be saturated before others, so an orange glow might come out yellow (or red, or green, depending on the properties of the camera) in the picture when it is too bright.


ETA: Even if the flow was really yellow, it does not necessarily have to be all 1200°C. I can., for example, imagine* the following: UPS blocks, containg a lot of lead (Melting point: 327°C), but also other materials, some of which might be flammable, get heated to 400-500°, in an oxigene-starved air. They melt, and form a deep puddle in some "tub" that might have formed for whatever reasons. Any flammable material in that pool would be prevented from burning because it's surrounded and protected by the lead. Then, the floor gives partially way, the "dam" that formed the puddle goes, the whole liquid mess starts flowing downhill and out the building. There, our flammables get finaly exposed to fresh, oxigene-rich air as the flow disperses and turbulences bring materials to the surface, and they ignite at once, glowing yellow-hot on the surface, giving the whole flow the appearence of being yellow-hot.



*) Being able to imagine something is the standard truther benchmark for positive proof, just as not being able to imagine something "proves" it's impossible :D
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom