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.
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?
he submitted a peer reviewed later in the yr but it's not as a good work as i would expect from a scientist. i got the links, will post later.
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 ...