Showing posts with label 9/11 truth peer-review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9/11 truth peer-review. Show all posts

Friday, October 10, 2014

Peer-Reviewed 9/11 Truth

Posted by

The Peer-Review Process is Corrupt and on Its Own Means NOTHING

Papers from Scientists for 9/11 Truth...



Paper publication dates in purple.

Scientific and analytical papers, published in independent peer reviewed scientific journals, questioning the official Bush Story of 9/11.

Papers can be read in full detail on www.911CA.org

You can create your own Collected Articles binder, to take with you when you give presentations about 9/11. The instructions are at www.911CA.org/articles/collected

Music: Epic Hero's Welcome by Steven O'Brien

What you need to know about "Peer-review"

June 2023 - WEEKLY ACTION: Send new Building 7 paper to NIST!

APRIL 2022 - Debunking the 9/11 Debunkers Blog Contributor Adam Taylor Published in Peer-Reviewed Engineering Journal

SEPTEMBER 2019  - Externally Reviewed Open Source (NIST WTC 7 Report Was Neither) University Study Lead by Civil Engineering Professor: Fire Did Not Cause 3rd Tower’s Collapse on 9/11 - All its supporting columns needed to give way at the same time to cause the observed collapse.

JUNE 2017  - New Paper on 9/11 Published in Online Journal - “Peer Review in Controversial Topics – A Case Study of 9/11”

Academic Papers on 9/11
October 2, 2012
Compiled by University of Waterloo 9/11 Research Group

The following articles are peer-reviewed journal papers that address issues surrounding the day of 9/11/2001 from a critical perspective. Academics are encouraged to take an interest in 9/11 research.

http://911inacademia.com/journal-papers/

911truth.org: Academic Papers on 9/11

Papers Focused on Controlled Demolition of the WTC Twin Towers and WTC Building 7:

Some of the papers below are discussions papers published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. "Debunkers" have claimed that discussion papers in this journal are not peer-reviewed. This is conclusively shown to be incorrect here.

Dr. Robert Korol, professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, and a fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, has led a team of academic researchers in preparing two peer-reviewed scientific papers on the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7. Both papers were published in the Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics — the first one in July 2015, the second in February 2016. More Info... http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2016/09/peer-reviewed-science-concludes-there.html

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2014

IEEE Ethics Symposium Publishes 9/11 Truth Paper

The IEEE Ethics Symposium Process

 

Throughout the entire process of abstract and paper submissions, and the actual presentation in Chicago, the authors were treated cordially by the symposium's organizers and those who attended the conference. Initially, authors were asked to submit abstracts. The authors submitted abstracts for two different papers, one on World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7) and the other on the Twin Towers (WTC1/2). The abstract for the paper on WTC1/2 was reviewed by three anonymous reviewers and accepted for paper submission. The paper itself was presented at the symposium and published by IEEE without further review.

New Paper at Journal of 9/11 Studies, September 2014  

ASCE Journals refuse to correct fraudulent paper they published on WTC collapses, by Tony Szamboti and Richard Johns 

A new letter has been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies which expands upon the points made in the peer-reviewed paper “Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis.” As explained by the authors, what's particularly noteworthy is the JEM's unjustified reasons for rejecting their original paper. Very interesting considering that James Gourley also experienced problems with the JEM in publishing a response to Dr. Bazant et. al. I'm genuinely suspicious that the JEM may indeed have a bias towards Bazant and his "crush down/crush up" theory.

JULY 2013 - New Peer-Reviewed Paper on the WTC Collapses ---- Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

SEPTEMBER 2012 - PhD Physicist Grabbe: Peer-reviewed paper in Journal of Engineering Mechanics  ---- Discussion of "Why the Observed Motion History of World Trade Center Towers is Smooth," by Jia-Liang Le and Z.P. Bazant

Related:

One Thing Wrong and A Lot of Things Right
James Gourley Published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"

AUGUST 2008 - Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones - Published in "The Environmentalist"

 APRIL 2008 - 9-11 Truth Movement: Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal ---- Source

FEBRUARY 2008 - Dr. Crockett Grabbe published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"

Related:

9/11 Free Fall-- Dr. Crockett Grabbe, Controlled Demolition Evidence (10/11/12)

2006 - Not an open journal publication: Steven E. Jones, “What accounts for the molten metal observed on 9/11/2001?”, Journal of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, 83:252, 2006.

116th Peer-reviewed Paper Published in Journal of 9/11 Studies: 'The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis'

Commenting on the Journal of 9/11 Studies, physicist Steven Jones, PhD. has noted that:
The Editorial Board which oversees content and standards has not yet expressed concerns about the standards. The board has eleven members, seven of whom hold Ph.D. degrees, and one is a structural engineer (retired)...

Based on these facts, as well as my own experience in editing scientific publications before this one and authoring or co-authoring over forty peer reviewed publications, yes, I think that people should take the Journal articles seriously.
Mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti pointed out the following on the JREF Forum regarding the standards at the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, which features 11 papers as of 7/16/12:
On an earlier thread, concerning whether or not Mark Roberts' work on 911 was peer reviewed or not, I was surprised to hear from both him and Ryan Mackey, that although their respective papers appear on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, that they did not actually submit them to that journal. They both said that others had posted them there with no interaction with the authors of the papers.

What this means is that there could have been no review feedback and potential correction by the authors due to any peer review claimed by the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories. Hmm!

Ryan Mackey says straight out that his paper is not peer reviewed by a formal process, although he did put it out in the public domain to be viewed and commented on by many.

What is the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Studies claiming for their peer review process?
The Work of the National Institute for Standards and Technology Has Not Been Peer-Reviewed!

Employee of Government Agency That Investigated World Trade Center Collapses on 9/11 Realizes 9/11 Was An Inside Job

The Ultimate proof NIST is lying about WTC7

The NIST Investigation - National Institute for Standards and Technology Encounters Resistance, Pretends to Investigate

Debunking the Only Bad Review of 'The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False'

Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST
at
Labels: , , , ,

IEEE Ethics Symposium Publishes 9/11 Truth Paper

Posted by

 IEEE Ethics Symposium Publishes 9/11 Truth Paper

October 7, 2014

 

Collaborative Effort Between Scientists and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

 

In a collaborative effort, John D. Wyndham of Scientists for 9/11 Truth, and Wayne Coste and Michael Smith, both members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth as well as members of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), have published a joint paper that was presented at the 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Engineering, Science and Technology. The IEEE is the largest "professional association for the advancement of technology" in the world with almost half a million members.The title of the paper is Ethics and the Official Reports about the Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2) on 9/11: A Case Study.

The development of this paper over a three month period was supported by a number of individuals who are members of one, the other, or both of these 9/11 Truth organizations. These individuals are David Chandler, Jonathan Cole, Frank Legge, A. Hamid Mumin, Daniel Noel, Gregg Roberts, and Thomas Spellman. The paper was presented during a poster session at the symposium held in Chicago, May 23 -24, and attended by two of the authors, Wayne Coste and Michael Smith. View the paper and the poster by clicking the foregoing links.

Michael Smith and Wayne Coste
Michael Smith and Wayne Coste at the Symposium

 

Deficiencies in NIST's WTC1/2 Reports

 

Many researchers, some of whom are quoted in the paper's extensive list of references, have pointed out the deficiencies in the reports by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the Twin Towers' destructions. The emphasis in the present IEEE paper is on the ethical lapses by NIST. These lapses include a number of failures such as; failure to study the actual destructions and their aftermaths; failure to follow the guidelines established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA); failure to consider the consequences to public health; and failure to provide the most essential theory. NIST did not follow the scientific method in many important ways, and did not seek adequate review by independent engineers and scientists. The paper shows that these failures "go far beyond any reasonable excuse for their occurrence" and amount to a falsified and fraudulent investigation on NIST's part.

 

The IEEE Ethics Symposium Process

 

Throughout the entire process of abstract and paper submissions, and the actual presentation in Chicago, the authors were treated cordially by the symposium's organizers and those who attended the conference. Initially, authors were asked to submit abstracts. The authors submitted abstracts for two different papers, one on World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7) and the other on the Twin Towers (WTC1/2). The abstract for the paper on WTC1/2 was reviewed by three anonymous reviewers and accepted for paper submission. The paper itself was presented at the symposium and published by IEEE without further review.

The paper is copyrighted by IEEE. However, according to IEEE guidelines for authors, authors are "free to post the accepted version of their articles on their personal Web sites or those of their employers." Accordingly, this paper and poster can be viewed here at the links cited above in this article, or in the Papers section on this website. The paper can also be purchased on the IEEE Xplore website ($31 for non-members, $13 for members).
© 2011-2014, Scientists for 9/11 Truth. All rights reserved. Contact: the Coordinator.

Related:

at
Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Steven Jones Tells 9/11 'Debunkers' to Put up or Shut up!

Posted by
Editor's Note: "Put up or Shut up" is my title.

What you need to know about "Peer-review"

"Useful information for "non-scientists" about the process of peer-reviewed publishing, such as has been the case with Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction, and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials ." - 911truth.org

April 7 2009
Steven Jones
911blogger.com

Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.

Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.

Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.

So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. "

BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the "Fourteen Points" paper or the "Environmental Anomalies" papers we published last year.

IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.

Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).

We say that this paper has the "imprimatur of peer-review". That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings... We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO...

Related Info:

Controlled Demolition Theories Have Passed Peer-Review

What you need to know about "Peer-review"

Paper accepted by J of Engineering Mech challenges 1D fire-collapse equations, shows a >> g fall of the ST, etc:

Discussion of "Why the Observed Motion History of World Trade Center Towers is Smooth," by Jia-Liang Le and Z.P. Bazant

Anders Björkman Published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"

Another Peer Reviewed Paper Published in Scientific Journal - 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust...'

James Gourley Published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"

Not an open journal publication: Steven E. Jones, “What accounts for the molten metal observed on 9/11/2001?”, Journal of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, 83:252, 2006.

Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones - Published in "The Environmentalist"

9-11 Truth Movement: Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal

Dr. Crockett Grabbe published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"

9/11 Debunkers Hide From Slam Dunk Evidence Of Controlled Demolition

The Work of the National Institute for Standards and Technology Has Not Been Peer-Reviewed!

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

The Ultimate proof NIST is lying about WTC7

NIST's World Trade Center FAQ - A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's Answers to Frequently Asked Questions by Jim Hoffman

Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST
at
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)