What really happened ....11 september
- Thread starter NickBarings
- Start date
Amazing how people taught to believe in anything end up believing in nothing.
The tin foil hat people think they are always right AND they ask tons of questions. They have pre-conceived notions that nothing can be true, especially when more people believe in it. In the end, they become fodder for cults and fundamental religions because after a while of not trusting the reality of day and night, they go nuts and crave anything that provides order and answers to the images they see and the sounds they hear.
Sorry. I must have missed this post.
On listening through a second time it seems that I did mishear what was said
on the video. Jones was indeed referring to the WTC 7 collapse time when he
said 10 seconds.
So I withdraw any criticism of his presentation that I made based on that
misunderstanding.
I remain unimpressed, on the whole, with the presentation.
But I'll confine myself for now to saying that I think that the work that
Jones claims to have done on the collapses of WTC 7 is most certainly
important enough, assuming all of his many claims are true, that it
should long since have been submitted to and published in a major peer
reviewed journal, so that his claims could be subjected to wide criticism by
the larger community of scholars.
Given that this is my opinion, one of the more interesting points of the
presentation, for me, came near time reference 1:50:23 on the video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586&q=physics
There is some back and forth between Jones and a questioner on the issue
whether his work, the work he has been discussing, has been submitted for peer
review. The questioning goes as follows:
Q: `I keep hearing reference that you've published your paper in a peer
reviewed journal.'
Jones: `It's not been published, it's been accepted but that takes time.'
Q: `OK. That's just what I'm waiting for. Is that a significant journal, and
will it be newsworthy and is this going to break in the national media?'
Jones: `It's actually getting into the media (unintell) News has had, you
know, articles, lately. Miami Herald had an article today, pleased to say,
about our scholar's truth group, and as far as publication, I'm hoping, I uh,
haven't asked, uh, editor recently, but uh ... it's this spring.'
Q: `So, what's the journal again?'
Jones: `It's a book and it's actually Professor Griffin's book, and now in
Professor Griffin's book and in which the title is The Beginning of the
American Empire ... I don't remember exactly, something to the effect.
Q: `But my question is that in the academic world, for something to get
legitimacy, it needs to go through peer review in a substantial national or
international tier 1 journal, and I'm just wondering have you submitted
anything to such a journal.'
Jones: `Of course, we're calling for an investigation, and uh ... I do believe
that this material on the ... fake bin Laden ... will be publishable in a major
journal, that's what we're looking for is (unintell).
Q: `... Why not the stuff on WTC 7?'
Jones: `..aah'
Q: `That should be in the Washington Post and the New York Times. I don't even
know what the journals are in physics.'
Jones: `We're trying to find data so solid that we can get it into the major
journals now.'
Q: `Allright, I took enough time, thanks.'
The questioner has to be applauded for having had the sheer perseverance to
extract this last answer from Jones, in which he seems to admit that his data
is not solid enough as yet for peer review.
It is strange to me that Jones hasn't submitted the work.
It wouldn't necessarily have to go to a physics journal, though there is more
than one which I imagine it could be sent to. It could also go to an
engineering journal.
Thanks.
This is attributed to one Jim Hoffmann and it appears to be an extended
polemic about the NIST report. I can't identify what, if any, part of this
material is due to Jones, who I think you said participated in this study.
Is there any link to peer reviewed work, or work submitted for peer review,
that Jones has done personally on the tower collapses, besides this paper of
his that circulates on the web?
Pre-prints or peer reviewed articles would be much preferrable.
lemme tell u something; i did a lot of research lately on prof jones and after what i've found i wouldn't take all he's written that seriously. he jumps to conclusions on many instances and failed to identify alternatives on serious matters. this certainly doesnt change my views of 911 but his research is somewhat biased.
edit; yeah the work jones submitted is peer reviewed but received strong criticisms from the scholars for truth movement. will post links later and a thorough reply to your posts in the following days....i have to dig up links, statements. etc to back up my case.
edit; yeah the work jones submitted is peer reviewed but received strong criticisms from the scholars for truth movement. will post links later and a thorough reply to your posts in the following days....i have to dig up links, statements. etc to back up my case.
completely agree. this is the key sequence of everything he said
concerning WT7. though i do not see any possibility of getting
additional data. i mean, it is five years now.
though i would think that an article even in a peer reviewed
journal need not be a complete proof of what has happened, if it's
just providing reasonable doubt to what is officially said. actually
it must be "enough" to name substantial wholes in the NIST
version. the fact that has no happened so far does not sound too
good for their case.
does NIST publish in a peer review journal? or is a NIST report per
se equivalent to such publication?
well, as i understand it, there was not single factor that the whole
event can be directed to. impact damage, fire by fuel plus other
sources, specifics of the building with that significant core structure,
removal of fire resistant material just come to my mind now. i try
to say that it took the combination of circumstances to produce
the outcome. and this "coming together" of circumstances is what
i think brings the probability below 1. i would be interested what
NIST would answer if they were asked if a structure of this kind
has ANY chance to NOT fall into its footprint after such an attack.
if this probability of withstanding is above zero, my argument
of three independent cases (which they are in this respect) makes
sense.
basically i am saying, that before 911 scientist might have agreed
on 50:50 chance of fall into the footprint. and this cannot be at
all neglected. i mean there are several undisputable facts (here
comes the shaving):
before 911 there was the opinion (by the constructors, thus the
only ones who cared) that the tower chance to fall after and
impact was, well, below 1.
after 911 NIST implicitly state that it was 1, because if it was
below 1, the three independent cases that day would suggest
a not too low prob that it was the opposite.
consider they say in 5 out of 100 cases given all the facts a
buidling could withstand such impact. so 95% the offical story
is true. with all three cases this is only 80something percent,
in my eyes low enough to look in much detail at the demolition
hypothesis, given the importance of the case.
my point is that, well, before adding variable after variable to
make the 95% up to 99.99%, look at the other hypothesis. it
might need fewer variables.
that is actually the only thing i am missing. i think the number of
variables in case 2, the demolition, is huge. just to start with the
basic idea: explosive PLUS planes. what a stupid idea. why not
explosives alone? why not fabricating a much easier case? the
effect would be the same, pearl harbor, but with much less risk
and effort. the case that the hijackers were independet from the
ground team which knew what would happen and just increased
the effect is horribly-complicated-farfetched. the assumption that
it as remote controlled military planes require very many people
involved and so forth.
it is more likely from my perspective that william would go for
alternative "planes alone", but only after he has studied both
alternatives in more detail. and this lack of studying alternative2
is were i think they violate the razor.
the way of falling apart of three buildings alone is answered with
fewer variables by the demolition theory. but if you add the
organisation of such event it flips to the opposite.
at least i sound convincing to myself ...
