14 Points of Agreement with Gov. Report on WTC destruction

[scubadiver]

The following article was published yesterday (18th) in a peer-reviewed journal on civil engineering.

You can download it here for free

[JimB]

[pepik]

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/gen.php?file=35TOCIEJ.pdf or look here http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm

I see nothing new or interesting. The same slanted presentation of "fact", the same "just asking questions", implying the ridiculous but carefully avoiding saying it. Its hard to see what a civil engineer would peer review about it, how do you peer review "just asking questions"?

In other words, a re-hash.

[A Sharp Major]

An open journal? I was expecting the hoopla on the main pages of this forum to be due to Jones being published in the journals of an established engineering institution having had his calculations peer reviewed by members of that institution or those of another similarly focused one. I expect the 'authors' like many truthers don't understand what 'peer review' means and involves.

No calculations to review. As posted above, how do you peer review questions, rehashed (answered) or otherwise? Jones got his 'paper' in under the radar (if there is one) on a website. Not a breakthrough truthseekers, far from it.

[pepik]

I'm still wondering if this thing is actually peer reviewed, even if peer review in this context is meaningless. Its an "open letter", not a paper. Do open letters get peer reviewed?

I certainly don't see much civil engineering in it, and as far as I know none of the authors are civil engineers. Jones isn't (physics), Ryan isn't (chemistry), Legge isn't (chemistry). Szamboti is a mechanical engineer. Gourley is an attorney.

[sam]

Bentham is a "pay to publish" journal. Vanity publishing, perhaps?

[marky 54]

see here also. http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=115797#115797

[pepik]

I wonder what the second paper is about and where its getting published.

[Alex_V]

I welcome the attempt to at least engage the real world, even if it is an open letter, lacking any real scientific content, that seems like an incredibly watered-down version of Jones' theories, in a pay-to-publish journal.

The continual use of a quote from NIST ("…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse") is deliberately mischevous, as they know full well that NIST are referring to the complexity of the collapse precluding the use of computer simulations, rather than NIST admitting that they do not know how the collapse happened. Of course, there is no acknowledgement that other scientific papers have covered this exact topic without serious challenge.

Points 3, 4, 7 and 8 are utterly irrelevant points to make. There is no disagreement that fire cannot melt steel, and that there was no pancake collapse in the twin towers. Are the authors implying there is continuing disagreement over aged debates that NIST answered perfectly reasonably to everyone's satisfaction? If they agree with NIST here, why make the points?

Point 1 merely states that NIST has yet to release its report on WTC7, and here the authors choose to refer to a rather aged FEMA pronouncement rather than NIST's latest hypothesis which is surely more relevant. An honest mistake from Jones, or deliberate misdirection?

Point 2 is an irrelevance, because it fails to acknowledge the whole point of the NIST report on the twin towers. The authors ask "So why did a total collapse occur?", but that is the question that NIST answered in their report. You may not like the answer, and are free to argue against it, but to suggest that this question remains hanging unanswered is just deception.

Point 12 seems to be basically "NIST's computer simulations recreated a collapse scenario, so they cannot be right". Suspicion, but no actual evidence.

Points 10 and 11 outline areas which the truth movement may like to research. But there is no evidence that such anomolies support a conspiracy theory any more than they support the official theory.

Etc... I think it's a highly redundant piece of nonsense, that the truth movement may like to claim as a serious victory. But until they start hanging some real meat on the bones of their argument, there IS no argument.

[A Sharp Major]

Another truther great white hope goes 'phut'.

All the engineering institutions have technical journals. Contrary to what truthers claim, they are not for profit. Steven Jones seems to give them a body swerve.

[pepik]

Alex (or anyone), I never got the pancake story. As I understand it very preliminary analysis assumed a pancake collapse, which was later modified to something that involved inward bowing of the columns.

I don't really understand the difference (didn't the floors "pancake" in the end anyway?) or where the truthers see the drama in all this (that you probably cannot answer).

As simple as you can keep it please, help me out!

[Wibble]

I like the question about the samples form the WTC7 steel. Why did they only sample a small amount of the 200, 000 tons of steel. It's like asking why only a small mount of blood is used for a blood test!!! Why dont they test all 7+ pints in the human body?

Just where and how the NIST would store 200, 000 tons of steel is a question though?

[Alex_V]

[A Sharp Major]

Truthers still claiming that Jones has survived peer review and been published.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=117090#117090