|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Quote: |
| By Jones' own admission he presented a version of this paper at a conference at Berkeley. Didn't exactly set the scientists there on fire, eh? |
|
In the PDF he mentions presenting his paper. Here is a video here.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/4622
He does not mention who he presents it to. I have not watched the video. I have no idea if he presented in front of subject matter experts. My point remains, if he thinks he has good science he should attend an appropriate scientific conference and present his ideas before such a body.
Regarding the microspheres and where they come from:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91019
Ask on the jref forum if there's an alternate explanation. Seems to me some people think organic matter present could result. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Quote: |
| By Jones' own admission he presented a version of this paper at a conference at Berkeley. Didn't exactly set the scientists there on fire, eh? |
|
In the PDF he mentions presenting his paper. Here is a video here.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/4622
He does not mention who he presents it to. I have not watched the video. I have no idea if he presented in front of subject matter experts. My point remains, if he thinks he has good science he should attend an appropriate scientific conference and present his ideas before such a body.
Regarding the microspheres and where they come from:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91019
Ask on the jref forum if there's an alternate explanation. Seems to me some people think organic matter present could result. |
the link to the berkley conference is a 9-11 conference.
and about the blog your posted...
why would you refer me to a blog site? isn't this one enough? I seriously don't see the merit in linking me to that blog.
I'm sure the article I posted has already been peer reviewed online. Wouldn't that be a better link, instead of a blog? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
watch that video when you get the chance.
a lot your questions surrounding peer review are answered.
his paper was peer reviewed.
please watch the video MM2.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/4622
-even just the first 20 minutes is good, it is about his research and peer review and future for mainstream journals.
thanks for the link. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
his paper was peer reviewed.
|
Where? Still curious what evidence you require to falsify your belief. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
his paper was peer reviewed.
|
Where? Still curious what evidence you require to falsify your belief. |
did you watch the first 20 minutes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
At the moment he is trying to get his findings published in a 'mainstream' journal.
However, because of the implications of his findings, he is experiencing difficulties breaking into the mainstream.
Good science will eventually rise to the top. That is why science is so great, wouldn't you agree? |
This upon we can agree. If his science is good and he has truly considered alternative explanations, then he should have no problem publishing his findings in a real engineering or scientific journal.
|
The implications of his research cannot be dismissed when determining the difficulty of being published.
It is often difficult to get things published, even if the science stands up. Sometimes even science is held down by opposite political and economic goals.
The trans fat debate is a prime example. |
Junior and Rteacher use this "science conspiracy" line. I really do not subscribe to it. The balance to journals is conferences and paper presentations. Anyone is free to read a non-peer reviewed paper. A scientist takes his message directly to his peers and has to defend his ideas before his peers. If they bash away at it and the science survives, it would be pretty hard for the journals to ignore it. Jones would not be a stranger to this, surely. The quantum mechanics vs wave mechanics was won in this venue, the young radicals against the old guard. Their idea stood up to the critics and eventually won the day.
If Jones really thinks he has something, if he really feels the journals are not publishing him for political reasons, surely he can bring his paper before his peers at a conference. It's really that simple.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?s=a6f9596ffd61e8edd6d595395f9a95ea&p=2546858&postcount=15
"I've already reviewed Jones's work on X-Ray spectrometry. It's crap. Like many people with only a cursory knowledge of microanalysis, it is easy to misinterpret the data." |
from a blog? come on MM2, that was weak. Who is that guy anyway?
__________________
His first paper took 4 years before it was published, the scientific process, as you know, takes a lot of time.
Do you have any ideas as to how temperatures were raised to 1000C, well above office fire temperatures?
And what could be the source of the microspheres?
It seems you follow the same line as a lot of people that actually read what I post.
"If it isn't in a mainstream journal, it is meaningless"
that's fine.
but I hope you are willing to accept such findings when they do reach the mainstream. |
Bolding added to above for effect.
...and this from a poster that holds Robert Byrd of the KKK in high esteem.
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=108586 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
MM2
and to answer your question;
if science can demonstrate these spheres occur under the official hypothesis, and it is natural for them to occur at the frequency they do, then i would reject jone's evidence.
Last edited by loose_ends on Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:38 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
At the moment he is trying to get his findings published in a 'mainstream' journal.
However, because of the implications of his findings, he is experiencing difficulties breaking into the mainstream.
Good science will eventually rise to the top. That is why science is so great, wouldn't you agree? |
This upon we can agree. If his science is good and he has truly considered alternative explanations, then he should have no problem publishing his findings in a real engineering or scientific journal.
|
The implications of his research cannot be dismissed when determining the difficulty of being published.
It is often difficult to get things published, even if the science stands up. Sometimes even science is held down by opposite political and economic goals.
The trans fat debate is a prime example. |
Junior and Rteacher use this "science conspiracy" line. I really do not subscribe to it. The balance to journals is conferences and paper presentations. Anyone is free to read a non-peer reviewed paper. A scientist takes his message directly to his peers and has to defend his ideas before his peers. If they bash away at it and the science survives, it would be pretty hard for the journals to ignore it. Jones would not be a stranger to this, surely. The quantum mechanics vs wave mechanics was won in this venue, the young radicals against the old guard. Their idea stood up to the critics and eventually won the day.
If Jones really thinks he has something, if he really feels the journals are not publishing him for political reasons, surely he can bring his paper before his peers at a conference. It's really that simple.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?s=a6f9596ffd61e8edd6d595395f9a95ea&p=2546858&postcount=15
"I've already reviewed Jones's work on X-Ray spectrometry. It's crap. Like many people with only a cursory knowledge of microanalysis, it is easy to misinterpret the data." |
from a blog? come on MM2, that was weak. Who is that guy anyway?
__________________
His first paper took 4 years before it was published, the scientific process, as you know, takes a lot of time.
Do you have any ideas as to how temperatures were raised to 1000C, well above office fire temperatures?
And what could be the source of the microspheres?
It seems you follow the same line as a lot of people that actually read what I post.
"If it isn't in a mainstream journal, it is meaningless"
that's fine.
but I hope you are willing to accept such findings when they do reach the mainstream. |
Bolding added to above for effect.
...and this from a poster that holds Robert Byrd of the KKK in high esteem.
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=108586 |
ur a dork move along.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
At the moment he is trying to get his findings published in a 'mainstream' journal.
However, because of the implications of his findings, he is experiencing difficulties breaking into the mainstream.
Good science will eventually rise to the top. That is why science is so great, wouldn't you agree? |
This upon we can agree. If his science is good and he has truly considered alternative explanations, then he should have no problem publishing his findings in a real engineering or scientific journal.
|
The implications of his research cannot be dismissed when determining the difficulty of being published.
It is often difficult to get things published, even if the science stands up. Sometimes even science is held down by opposite political and economic goals.
The trans fat debate is a prime example. |
Junior and Rteacher use this "science conspiracy" line. I really do not subscribe to it. The balance to journals is conferences and paper presentations. Anyone is free to read a non-peer reviewed paper. A scientist takes his message directly to his peers and has to defend his ideas before his peers. If they bash away at it and the science survives, it would be pretty hard for the journals to ignore it. Jones would not be a stranger to this, surely. The quantum mechanics vs wave mechanics was won in this venue, the young radicals against the old guard. Their idea stood up to the critics and eventually won the day.
If Jones really thinks he has something, if he really feels the journals are not publishing him for political reasons, surely he can bring his paper before his peers at a conference. It's really that simple.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?s=a6f9596ffd61e8edd6d595395f9a95ea&p=2546858&postcount=15
"I've already reviewed Jones's work on X-Ray spectrometry. It's crap. Like many people with only a cursory knowledge of microanalysis, it is easy to misinterpret the data." |
from a blog? come on MM2, that was weak. Who is that guy anyway?
__________________
His first paper took 4 years before it was published, the scientific process, as you know, takes a lot of time.
Do you have any ideas as to how temperatures were raised to 1000C, well above office fire temperatures?
And what could be the source of the microspheres?
It seems you follow the same line as a lot of people that actually read what I post.
"If it isn't in a mainstream journal, it is meaningless"
that's fine.
but I hope you are willing to accept such findings when they do reach the mainstream. |
Bolding added to above for effect.
...and this from a poster that holds Robert Byrd of the KKK in high esteem.
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=108586 |
ur a dork move along.... |
Ad Hominen  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
At the moment he is trying to get his findings published in a 'mainstream' journal.
However, because of the implications of his findings, he is experiencing difficulties breaking into the mainstream.
Good science will eventually rise to the top. That is why science is so great, wouldn't you agree? |
This upon we can agree. If his science is good and he has truly considered alternative explanations, then he should have no problem publishing his findings in a real engineering or scientific journal.
|
The implications of his research cannot be dismissed when determining the difficulty of being published.
It is often difficult to get things published, even if the science stands up. Sometimes even science is held down by opposite political and economic goals.
The trans fat debate is a prime example. |
Junior and Rteacher use this "science conspiracy" line. I really do not subscribe to it. The balance to journals is conferences and paper presentations. Anyone is free to read a non-peer reviewed paper. A scientist takes his message directly to his peers and has to defend his ideas before his peers. If they bash away at it and the science survives, it would be pretty hard for the journals to ignore it. Jones would not be a stranger to this, surely. The quantum mechanics vs wave mechanics was won in this venue, the young radicals against the old guard. Their idea stood up to the critics and eventually won the day.
If Jones really thinks he has something, if he really feels the journals are not publishing him for political reasons, surely he can bring his paper before his peers at a conference. It's really that simple.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?s=a6f9596ffd61e8edd6d595395f9a95ea&p=2546858&postcount=15
"I've already reviewed Jones's work on X-Ray spectrometry. It's crap. Like many people with only a cursory knowledge of microanalysis, it is easy to misinterpret the data." |
from a blog? come on MM2, that was weak. Who is that guy anyway?
__________________
His first paper took 4 years before it was published, the scientific process, as you know, takes a lot of time.
Do you have any ideas as to how temperatures were raised to 1000C, well above office fire temperatures?
And what could be the source of the microspheres?
It seems you follow the same line as a lot of people that actually read what I post.
"If it isn't in a mainstream journal, it is meaningless"
that's fine.
but I hope you are willing to accept such findings when they do reach the mainstream. |
Bolding added to above for effect.
...and this from a poster that holds Robert Byrd of the KKK in high esteem.
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=108586 |
ur a dork move along.... |
Ad Hominen |
you win, you are a better man.
now move along please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
his paper was peer reviewed.
|
Where? Still curious what evidence you require to falsify your belief. |
did you watch the first 20 minutes? |
I don't really have the time right now. You can't simply tell me the name of the journal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
His first paper was published in a book, written by DR Griffin (title is too small to read from slide show on video).
4 PhDs, 2 of which were physicists, reviewed his paper.
The paper was published in the book.
That was without the micro sphere evidence.
Now with the micro sphere evidence and additional findings, his team believes they will be able to show their findings in a mainstream journal soon.
His new paper, the one you read parts of, was peer reviewed by the Journal of 9-11 Studies.
I've seen responses to his paper by scientists that back the official collapse theory. And I�ve seen his counter responses. It is all very scientific MM2, just not in the mainstream as of yet.
The hope is that his third paper will be able to go mainstream.
You know how science works, and especially controversial science, step-by-step, taboo-by-taboo.
He has a staff of people working with him, and he is doing primary research in a lab.
Remember, there is no official report of building 7, collapse hypothesis. So science can be slow, right?
If the micro spheres are a signature of thermate, and the presence of such is not expected in the official theory, then that is pretty hard evidence.
All one needs to do is confirm that it is a unique signature of thermate and unexpected under the official story, right?
How hard could that be?
Well, Jones claims that is exactly what he has already demonstrated.
I believe it without the mainstream article. You are cautious and choose to wait for the mainstream publication. Fair enough.
You are a man of science MM2, you will see problems with the official story if you look deep enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| 4 PhDs, 2 of which were physicists, reviewed his paper |
Reviews for books are not necessarily the same as for academic journals. The Dover trial is illustrative of this. The ID book of Pandas and People was "peer reviewed" but as the trial reveals, it wasn't quite the same.
| Quote: |
| His new paper, the one you read parts of, was peer reviewed by the Journal of 9-11 Studies. |
Here's a test of good journals vs not good journals. There are, for example, a lot of peer reviewed journals of complimentary medicine. Now when you review the CAM literature, basically no CAM journal ever runs a negative study. "The evidence did not support the hypothesis." Where as many medical journals not only run negative studies but studies that over turn ideas considered rather established. So how many papers in the 9-11 study support the government position?
| Quote: |
| The hope is that his third paper will be able to go mainstream. |
And if it's rejected?
| Quote: |
If the micro spheres are a signature of thermate, and the presence of such is not expected in the official theory, then that is pretty hard evidence.
All one needs to do is confirm that it is a unique signature of thermate and unexpected under the official story, right? |
And what if microspheres can form under other circumstances consistent with the collapse and trash pile? What if thermite signatures can't be distinguished from the chemicals expected in a modern building?
| Quote: |
| You are a man of science MM2, you will see problems with the official story if you look deep enough. |
I don't have the time. I am trusting that publications like Popular Mechanics and major scientific and engineering associations find nothing out of the ordinary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Look. The science is moving ahead. The video you posted demonstrates such. We have both admitted that if jone's findings are correct then that is direct evidence for controlled demolition.
I believe it now, and you choose to wait for the mainstrream to report on it.
If the mainstream responds to this issue with equal scientific method and demonstrate the micro sheres are not unusual, then I will disregard the evidence. why do you keep asking me that question anyway? as a scientist you must understand that is a must, right?
| Quote: |
| I don't have the time. I am trusting that publications like Popular Mechanics and major scientific and engineering associations find nothing out of the ordinary. |
| Quote: |
Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence. 1
The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.
A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html#ref1
(follow this link to primary sources: FEMA report and JOM) |
Remember, it isn't a hoax.
JOM and FEMA report this is NOT ordinary
circular logic brought you back here.
trust science MM2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
you can trust popular mechanics just like people in the day trusted popular mechanics parent company: hearst.
you know hearst, right? the creator of "yellow journalism" and fabricated wars because wars sold copy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
