It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

“Hand Waving” the Physics of 9/11

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

What is a scholarly or peer reviewed journal?
Scholarly and professional journals feature articles written by researchers and practitioners in a particular subject area. The authors often have particular specialties. Peer groups of researchers, scholars and professionals within a specific discipline are the audience for scholarly literature.
Peer review is a well-accepted indicator of quality scholarship. It is the process by which an author's peers read a paper submitted for publication. A number of recognized researchers in the field will evaluate a manuscript and recommend its publication, revision, or rejection. Articles accepted for publication through a peer review process implicitly meet the discipline's expected standards of expertise.
Articles in some scholarly and professional journals are not peer-reviewed, but are selected by an editor or board. Standards of scholarship in such journals are often equal or comparable to those of peer-reviewed publications, although this is not always the case.

this is not the case with any 'official' 911 report, sorry. if i am mistaken, please correct me by showing me the peer review.

Source


Actually it most certainly is the case. But at the same time the argument is simply a petty attempt to discredit a highly established and recognized report because those opposed to it are unable to do the same.




posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 07:40 AM
link   


Actually it most certainly is the case. But at the same time the argument is simply a petty attempt to discredit a highly established and recognized report because those opposed to it are unable to do the same.

The peer-review process means that the article has been reviewed/approved by *independent* scientists (in the same field of expertise) who did *not* contribute to the article. Needless to say this is not the case here (if let's say 100 people contributed to an article, it doesn't mean it's peer-reviewed).

The problem is actually worse than this, because this report:
1) was not send to a peer-reviewed journal;
2) wouldn't make it in a peer-reviewed journal, because the reviewers are missing relevant data (such as the FEM model) to recalculate the results.

Reading the comments of James Quintier about the NIST process (leading up to the report) i would be very interested to know how
!) many contributions actually agree with the main conclusions of NIST's report;
2) which people are the *main* contributors of the report.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Willie911
Reading the comments of James Quintier about the NIST process (leading up to the report) i would be very interested to know how
!) many contributions actually agree with the main conclusions of NIST's report;
2) which people are the *main* contributors of the report.


I'd like to know the answers to these questions as well. Also, how compartmentalized was the report and the analysis process?



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   
i've posted evidence with explanations and sources many times for you snoopy. since you wont do the same its time to GG you.

GG
&
T_T



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 03:32 AM
link   
It's actually really strange of what is going to happen in the next few years.

There's going to be the "truthers" against the "disneylanders". It's going to be beyond bizzarre because no author could have forseen this future.

Of course the "disneylanders" will lose in the end because they live in a make believe world, but they will create so much damage that it will be very hard to recover from.

The whole Bush family name will become a stigma just as the name Hitler is.




top topics
 
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join