3292 replies to this topic

[Q24]

Q24, on 15 October 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

Liquid Gardens, on 13 October 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

I've been meaning to rip into you about pretty much flat out misleading me that Gourley's paper was peer-reviewed as that term is used in reference to normal papers, it appears that this was an editorial review which is different, but it's Friday we'll let it go.

I'm sorry if you feel I misled you about the review process, though it made no difference to the point - that the paper met standards of the journal - and I'm still not convinced myself that Gourley's paper received no peer-review - it doesn't seem right that a technical paper can be published with no such review.

This point was irking me: -

1) as you accused me of being misleading.
2) because it didn't sit right that a technical paper could be published with no peer-review.

I have now had chance to take a closer look at the ASCE review process and realise I should have known better than to accept flyingswan's selective quoting of the guidelines and skewed understanding – god almighty, how many times have I derided him for his lack of English comprehension skills in the past?  It was thoroughly naïve on my part to take what he said at face value, though as I mentioned, it made no difference to the argument at the time and didn't seem worth disputing, until arrival of your accusation.

The fact is that Discussion and Closure papers (Gourley's included) are peer-reviewed - the process is simply different to that of a standalone paper, apparently to speed up publishing.  Whereas the initial standalone paper must receive two positive reviews to be published, Discussion and Closure papers require only one positive review.  That's it.  That is the only difference.  Any of the papers can be peer-reviewed by the editor(s), who themselves are professionals in the field of engineering and mechanics, or forwarded to an external reviewer deemed fit.  Of course having two reviewer approvals is more stringent than only having one reviewer approval, but each are equally and accurately described as a "peer-review".

Please see both links here: -

ASCE Policy on Peer Review
http://poc.smartlogi...ypeerreview.htm

ASCE Discussions and Closures
http://poc.smartlogi...discussions.htm

So Gourley's paper was peer-reviewed – it had to be, to be published, which is the assumption I was working to from the start.  I was correct.  Flyingswan was incorrect.  I trust that you retract your accusation and better consider who may be misleading you in future.

[Babe Ruth]

Ah, now it's "pieces of the puzzle".  Most interesting.

Seems like before it was the unqualified and absolutely certain evidence, now it's pieces of the puzzle.

What about that little piece "no aircraft assignment on FDR"?  How does that fit in as a piece of the puzzle?

[Babe Ruth]

Q

Welcome to the club of naivete here at UM.

You were naive about taking at face value what Swanny posted.

I was naive months ago in taking at face value what Sky posted regarding F-18s and buildings.

Caveat Emptor is still valid today.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 16 October 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

was naive months ago in taking at face value what Sky posted regarding F-18s and buildings.

How amusing!!

You have been challenged to produce evidence to refute what I have posted and each time you came up empty-handed.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 16 October 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

What about that little piece "no aircraft assignment on FDR"?

Question for you! What other means and data does the FAA and the NTSB use to verify FDR data?

[Babe Ruth]

Question for you Sky--why was the FDR unassigned?

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 16 October 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

Question for you Sky--why was the FDR unassigned?

What difference does that make when the FAA and the NTSB use data and other evidence to verify FDR data? Seems you are unaware that data from the FDR of  American 77 has been verified.

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon

http://journalof911s...ltimeter_92.pdf

Edited by skyeagle409, 16 October 2012 - 08:55 PM.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 15 October 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

Exactly – which is why it is biased that Bazant was allowed to break the word limit guideline when Gourley was not.  Especially after JEM had promised Gourley that Bazant would be required to adhere to the guideline but then published his extended article anyway.  And even more unfair that Bazant was allowed to criticise Gourley for his limited paper when there was nothing Gourley could do about that due to the word limit being upheld in his case.

Guidelines are not typically 'broken', and even that is an empty charge when they come flat out and say that part of their guidelines is that they allow longer articles as they see fit.

Quote

To your question - it would be naive to believe that political considerations are not taken into account by publishing editors.

"I'll take that as a 'no' ", you don't have any evidence that the bias you perceive was because of political sensitivity.

Quote

The truth movement must do more work and convincing than other professionals who already have the media and political establishment on their side.

The media and political establishment that you haven't shown to be relevant at all to this decision?

Quote

I agree that the truth movement has the opportunity to continue their work and are doing so – that is my main point since booNy challenged that they were not in mainstream avenues, rather than this side-point of ‘fairness’ you have jumped on.  In fact, there is another article to be published in JEM this month, by yet another physicist pointing out error of the official theory: -

http://911blogger.co...t=450&width=850

It will be interesting to hear how Dr. Grabbe is treated.

I'm less interested with how he will be treated and more interested if he turns out to be scientifically correct.  And you've reviewed his paper fully and come to the fully educated opinion that he has legitimately pointed out an error of the official theory?  Already?  It will be interesting to see if that's the case.

Quote

Because the media and political establishment very apparently held a pre-conceived conclusion from day one.

It's not 'pre-conceived', it's 'post-conceived' from evidence and the conclusions of experts qualifed to examine the scientific questions.

Quote

It is always possible to fit another answer to the evidence.  As I said elsewhere... when the suspect with a grudge against the victim was witnessed at the scene, found in possession of the murder weapon and with the victim’s blood on his shirt... that was due to a chance meeting, planting of the weapon and cross-contamination... right?  Through such explanations people claim that no thorough investigation is needed.

Your analogy here is nowhere near the mark.  "Found in possession of the murder weapon?"  Is this the Israeli agents stuff?  They were found with a van full of explosives..., no, it was a bomb-sniffing dog that may have alerted to explosives present, and we know they are eminently reliable.  Who was found in possession of thermite in the vicinity of WTC?

Quote

But I actually like your paragraph above, because I could throw it all right back at you – that official story with it’s information gaps.

You could but it would be a false equivalency; your demolition theory involves tons more missing data than the official story.  The demolition theory that you sell as 'blatant' by the way.

Quote

And I say to you again:  my argument supports a thorough investigation, what matter if my certainty were unfounded?  Your argument props up a war, what are the stakes if you are wrong?  I really think it's official story adherents that needs to keep their confidence in check, not I.

What matters if your certainty is unfounded is only nearly every data point that you touch on in support of your demolition scenario.  Your certainty distorts your argumentation, such as your non-analogous murder analogy above.  And as I've said before, since the theories of the truth movement are for the most part not accepted at this point by the scientific establishment, you are just inviting further disregard and eyerolling.  When you establish that honesty is not the overriding attribute of your argument, then you give whatever establishment good reason to require more work on truthers' part to make their case and legitimize that higher standard (assuming the correctness of your argument that they actually have 'more' work to do).  If this was really about 'stakes', then we have misplaced our priorities, we should both be thoroughly investigating the possibility that extraterrestrials are visiting the earth and lowering the evidential bar by which we propose that it is true; the downside of that is far greater than any puny human war.

Quote

None of those points you mention make it anymore ‘fair’ on Gourley’s argument.

The question is whether he was treated fairly or not, not 'more fair'.  He was not limited in word count below their general guidelines, he was treated fairly.  Don't blame the journal if he decided to not use his limited word count as constructively as possible.  This 'fairness' point can be made any time the journal allows longer submissions, people who disagree with these longer submissions can always claim that their word-count restricted counterpoint was treated unfairly. Thus the term, 'whiny'.  Despite what you said earlier, this doesn't seem to me to be a 'formal debate'.  Scientific papers are supposed to note and address all conceivable counterpoints; debates have opposing sides and you don't address all counterpoints unless in rebuttal to something specifically asserted, you don't want to make your opponent's argument for them.

Quote

The consequences are a potential civil war and political overhaul the likes of which have not been seen in our lifetime – you don’t initiate that lightly on the chance of gaining some ‘credibility’ or ‘fame and fortune’ which might not even be recognised until after we’re all gone.

Puhleeze, what potential civil war?  You don't have to initiate it lightly if you actually have the convincing conclusive case that you've been arguing for; to not initiate it risks the potential for something worse than a civil war and political overhaul, you've got govt officials plotting the murder of the country's citizens.  What is more accurate is that you don't initiate it based on the incomplete evidence and case that the truthers currently have.

Quote

You cut the supportive expert opinion I provided from Quintiere out of my post and then isolate and attack the point as my opinion?  That’s kind of.. wrong.  Not to mention that my argument is based on that of an attorney and demonstrated to be more widely backed by thousands of architects, engineers and scientists.

I don't know what you think is 'wrong' here.  Here's the part that I quoted from you that I was referring to:

Quote

I don’t see that official theorists have done much better in the area of proving their case in journals. Apart from Bazant’s papers, there was that ridiculous Chinese paper supporting the collapses, which flyingswan once linked – which, so desperate to produce a global collapse, began by placing the WTC1 impact in completely the wrong location in the model. Certainly the NIST study, if it ever were to be peer-reviewed, would be derided for not proving the case of what happened on 9/11...

So to be clearer, I don't trust your non-expert appraisal of Bazant, the ridiculous Chinese paper, nor the NIST study.  As I said, you would be derided for expecting the NIST study to 'prove' the case of what happened on 9/11.  And of what relevance is the presence of an attorney in this discussion?  They don't bring any obvious scientific credentials or expertise, and I'm really hoping that you aren't offering up an attorney as having some special expertise in, ha, 'fairness'.

Quote

I’ll take that as a “no”; you cannot provide numbers of professionals who have definitely evaluated the points I argue and disagree with me, to rival the truth movement professional membership.  If you want to use alchemy as a comparison, we would first need a large group of professionals who still agree with the practice.

Your ridiculous argument here is that unless someone provides you with the number of professionals who have specifically voiced opposition to your position, and have definitely evaluated your points (nice 'out' that you've built in), then we should be impressed by the 1700+ professionals in the truther movement a decade later.  If we're really going to go to this extent, you haven't provided me any evidence that the 1700+ professionals have all definitely evaluated all your points.  And which points are sufficient?  "You have no best evidence", but can you even say what a couple of your killer arguments that are not explicitly being rebutted by a preponderance of available experts?  Experts usually don't spend time on topics that do not, possibly 'yet', have any scientific traction.  Thus, the truthers have a lot more work to do.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 16 October 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

So Gourley's paper was peer-reviewed – it had to be, to be published, which is the assumption I was working to from the start.  I was correct.  Flyingswan was incorrect.  I trust that you retract your accusation and better consider who may be misleading you in future.

Thanks for the info Q.  I retract my accusation that you were being misleading about Gourley's paper being peer-reviewed.  It apparently wasn't as thoroughly peer-reviewed, but at this point I think it's fair for you to use the term.  I'm not that intimate with standards for scientific studies and that should have tempered my accusation.  I will say I'm surprised that only two reviews are required, I was thinking it would require more than that.

As long as we're clearing the air, I'll take this opportunity to return the favor on two irking points myself:

1 - Your original statement, "There have also been a number of papers published in mainstream journals, which unfortunately have been proven biased in applying publishing rules when it comes to 9/11 truth, such is political sensitivity of the subject" is now down to "it would be naive to believe that political considerations are not taken into account by publishing editors.".  Those two statements are a significant distance apart, 'proven' is not based on the standard of what one thinks is or is not 'naive to believe'.  You don't seem to have any evidence of political sensitivity and therefore don't have any evidence that the differing word count standards is actually 'biased', meaning applying different standards illegitimately.  I believe this results from what we just talked about, your over-certainty, and here's a prime example of the problem with it.  It not only retards the progress of the conversation, it leads to statements that are at this point unsupported and not true.

2 - You've quoted this from swan a few times:  "NIST's conclusion would be "It's more likely to stand up than collapse, but we can't rule out collapse".  You are not including the rest of the context, "Engineers don't put safety factors into their calculations for fun, they do it because no-one ever knows everything, there are always margins of error. You don't design a building to stand up, just. You design it to stand up under the worst conditions you can think of, and then make it stronger again by a substantial factor. That means that a prediction of a collapse within the margins of error of the input parameters would be enough to declare the building unsafe.".  The part that you exclude is relevant to what you are quoting from swan and directly qualifies what he means by it, which means you are pretty much quote-mining which is fallacious.

[MID]

Babe Ruth, on 16 October 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

Neither you nor Sky can PROVE that a 757 struck the Pentagon, that it was AA77, OR that it was piloted by HH.

You can make that claim, repeat it ad nauseam, provide cool links and specious pictures, but you cannot PROVE it.

There is too much evidence that contradicts the story, from the Citgo witnesses to the doctored FDR, to the absurdity of a lousy pilot flying like God, to specious cell phone calls, and on and on.

Too many flies in the ointment for your story to be true MID.

Uh, Babe...
First of all, the "doctored FDR" is an impossible thing, and of course, you have nothing to show that any phone cells made from cells aboard those doomed craft were specious...and on and on, as you say.

And, as you should known, no lousy pilot flew like a miracle worker then, and indeed, mild pilots flew mildly, and  executed not a heck of alot that resembled anything miraculous.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 16 October 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

The fact is that Discussion and Closure papers (Gourley's included) are peer-reviewed - the process is simply different to that of a standalone paper, apparently to speed up publishing.  Whereas the initial standalone paper must receive two positive reviews to be published, Discussion and Closure papers require only one positive review.  That's it.  That is the only difference.  Any of the papers can be peer-reviewed by the editor(s), who themselves are professionals in the field of engineering and mechanics, or forwarded to an external reviewer deemed fit.  Of course having two reviewer approvals is more stringent than only having one reviewer approval, but each are equally and accurately described as a "peer-review".

I suggest you read all those guidelines very carefully again.

An original paper gets peer-review, ie it is sent out to specialists on the subject of the paper for their comments.  The editor himself is only one of the reviewers if he considers himself such a specialist.  Being a professional engineer doesn't make the editor enough of a specialist on every subject carried in his journal to normally do the peer-review himself.

A discussion piece gets editorial review.  It's reviewed by the editor or a member of his team, not by a specialist on the subject.

And you accuse me of not understanding English.

Edited by flyingswan, 17 October 2012 - 10:29 AM.

[booNyzarC]

flyingswan, on 17 October 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

I suggest you read all those guidelines very carefully again.

An original paper gets peer-review, ie it is sent out to specialists on the subject of the paper for their comments.  The editor himself is only one of the reviewers if he considers himself such a specialist.  Being a professional engineer doesn't make the editor enough of a specialist on every subject carried in his journal to normally do the peer-review himself.

A discussion piece gets editorial review.  It's reviewed by the editor or a member of his team, not by a specialist on the subject.

And you accuse me of not understanding English.

This is the way I read it as well Swanny.  The key distinction is in who is performing the review.  Closures and Discussions are reviewed either by the Editor himself or is assigned to an Associate Editor.  At no point is this sent out for Peer Review like a normal paper is handled.

[Babe Ruth]

MID, on 17 October 2012 - 02:45 AM, said:

Uh, Babe...
First of all, the "doctored FDR" is an impossible thing, and of course, you have nothing to show that any phone cells made from cells aboard those doomed craft were specious...and on and on, as you say.

And, as you should known, no lousy pilot flew like a miracle worker then, and indeed, mild pilots flew mildly, and  executed not a heck of alot that resembled anything miraculous.

The expert who received the FDR data from NTSB, Dennis Cimino, says that ALL FDRs are assigned, for the obvious reason--if there is a midair collision and the wrecks end up in a ball on the ground, there must be SOME way to determine which FDR belongs to which aircraft.  Common Sense, you guys, common sense.

Sky thinks it does not matter if the FDR is assigned, but then he thinks low level flight is anywhere below 10,000 feet.

That the recorder was unassigned demonstrates clearly that the data was made up.  It would NEVER pass in any court of law as being legitimate evidence.  The only thing that it evidences is FRAUD AND DECEIT on the part of the person submitting it.

Thus, the FDR evidence WORKS AGAINST the official narrative.  It and almost every other piece of evidence available.

[booNyzarC]

flyingswan, on 16 October 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

Here's the draft version from Grabbe's website:
http://www.sealane.o.../Bazantrpy.html

and the first page as published:
http://ascelibrary.o...rnalCode=jenmdt

Usual stuff, lots of claims, nothing to back them up.  Where on earth does he get the "four times gravity" stuff - he doesn't give a reference?  Top of the building being accelerated down by enormous rockets?

Hoffman's ridiculous energy claims have been long demolished.

That was a painful read...  and he actually cites Bjorkman...  I'm shaking my head right now.  Stunned by the stupidity.  How on earth did this pass editorial review?  It's like a badly written comic book.

I bet Bazant gets tired of this foolishness.

[Liquid Gardens]

booNyzarC, on 17 October 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

This is the way I read it as well Swanny.  The key distinction is in who is performing the review.  Closures and Discussions are reviewed either by the Editor himself or is assigned to an Associate Editor.  At no point is this sent out for Peer Review like a normal paper is handled.

Interesting, I may have read that a little too quickly last night.  Thanks for the info guys.