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.

 

Journal of 9/11 studies

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Hi friends,

I was cruising the web and found this...Anyone familiar with page?

www.journalof911studies.com...

An excerpt;

"Our mission in the past has been to provide an outlet for evidence-based research into the events of 9/11 that might not otherwise have been published, due to the resistance that many established journals and other institutions have displayed toward this topic."


This is just a link for those of us who want to read peer-reviewed articles about that fateful day when the world changed forever.

My purpose in opening this thread is not to really open a discussion, but to let friends here know about a site we might not otherwise know exists.

I haven't researched any links within this provided link as of yet, so I don't know what side of the fence these articles represent...

These articles are what I gather; written by the academia circle of peers.

Happy hunting!




posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
This in the page I'm reading now...

www.journalof911studies.com...

So far, I'm finding zero subjectivity. Awesome!!



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by loveguy
 


Aw - did you check the authors of the other papers?

Steven "thermite" Jones, Kevin "Waterboy" Ryan, Richard Boxboy" Gage,
Graeme MC Queen.....

More nuts here than a jar of Planters.....



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 

Hello,

Thanks for your reply. Please re-read OP. I am at the point where I am not going to make my own observations on the who says what cycle-babbling. I provided a link. If you have any constructive criticism, I'm all for it. If you wanna discuss how easy it is to go off topic, I invite you to discuss that with yourself...

Peace



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


And thedman's post sums up the debunker camp's way to debunk 9/11 truth: just attack the people and never have to show any evidence to the contrary. 9/11 truth debunked.


Way to make yourself look credible and look like people want to listen to what you have to say with all the immature, childish name-calling, thedman.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   
"And thedman's post sums up the debunker camp's way to debunk 9/11 truth: just attack the people and never have to show any evidence to the contrary. 9/11 truth debunked. Way to make yourself look credible and look like people want to listen to what you have to say with all the immature, childish name-calling, thedman."

Oh come on now, you're not being fair _Bonez_. Maybe the guy has access to all these people's psychiatric records. Maybe he is good friends with them and knows them personally. Maybe he can analyze their minds through remote viewing. The possibilities are endless.

As for the insulting middle names he gave them, that's defensible as well. When your brain matter is not capable of free thinking, insults are the only recourse. Since intelligence is probably hereditary, you can't really blame the guy if he came up on the short end of the stick.

So let's cut the guy some slack for his curt response, since he probably has little choice or free will as to how he responds. The best way to deal with such people is by showing them compassion and spreading the love. After all, unless you are in his shoes, one cannot even begin to comprehend such a limited intellectual existence.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
It's not entirely that I'm a slow reader, I took a dinner-break.

From here...link in my second post...www.journalof911studies.com... I found this...
"The most logical inference from the Pentagon attack evidence is that the perpetrators of 9/11
knew that there would be many members of the public who would become suspicious for
various reasons. The perpetrators realized that a powerful technique for weakening the impact
of the skeptics would be to have them arguing against one another. Like a skillful playwright
they balanced contradictory evidence to keep the public guessing. On cue the media critics
gave the blatantly false NIST report high praise and we were left guessing about the actions
and motives of the people behind the curtain."

These pages can't be read and digested very quickly. I'll have to find if the NIST report is proven to be false...Only because suggested in provided quotation. My opinion doesn't matter.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Falsifiability and the NIST WTC Report:
A Study in Theoretical Adequacy

www.journalof911studies.com...

A Word on Interpretation

"It has been said that the world is one continuous Rorschach inkblot test: we see what we expect to
see based on our fears and desires. All sides of the World Trade Centre (WTC) collapse issue
can see definitive corroboration in the same photos and videos, the same laboratory tests and the
same reports. In this way both authors of this paper initially accepted the official explanation for
the collapse of the buildings, as set out in the technical report of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), but they now undeniably approach the report from a
skeptical perspective."

Theoretical Adequacy
"It is our contention that the conclusions proffered by the NIST report, if analyzed against data
from within the report itself, demonstrate critical inconsistencies. The most obvious of these
relates to the temperature at which the structural steel is likely to fail. The NIST report does not
take into account the results of their own laboratory-controlled floor truss tests in which the steel
reached temperatures in excess of 800º C without failure, as we shall see. The fact that the test
trusses survived temperatures far beyond the temperature possible in the towers, while heavily
loaded, for far longer than either tower stood, should be indication enough that the NIST theory
of collapse may be incomplete at best. However, the report authors seem unwilling to account for these disparities despite repeated written requests for redress of this and other pivotal issues."

OK. Onto further study...



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Let get this straight guys. Of all these "studies" and "papers"... not one... again...not a SINGLE one has been properly reviewed for accuracy. (unless you count that na-nu na-nu super sekrit paint on thermite paper that Jones paid to publish)

[edit on 12-6-2010 by Six Sigma]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by loveguy
These pages can't be read and digested very quickly. I'll have to find if the NIST report is proven to be false...Only because suggested in provided quotation. My opinion doesn't matter.




NIST NCSTAR 1: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Tower

wtc.nist.gov...

Prior to wasting your time going to conspiracy theorists websites to search for the "truth", I suggest you read the NIST report. The above link is for WTC 1&2. More importantly, understand it. If you don't, find someone you trust that can help you. Go to a college in your city and speak to the professor in the engineering department. (structural engineering should be your first choice)

The report has not been proven false by anyone. Can there be errors in it? Sure! Do the errors have any effect on the conclusions drawn by the NIST? No, sir.

Since the NIST report came out, there have been MANY peer reviewed articles and conferences that have come out in support since the release of this report. The conspiracists have failed to publish 1 article that proves the report false.





[edit on 12-6-2010 by Six Sigma]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by loveguy
These pages can't be read and digested very quickly. I'll have to find if the NIST report is proven to be false...Only because suggested in provided quotation. My opinion doesn't matter.


"The conspiracists have failed to publish 1 article that proves the report false."
[edit on 12-6-2010 by Six Sigma]


Hello,

What's wrong with this statement? On a conspiracy site?

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Who are you?

Please attack the scientific findings.

Don't attack these people like the troll whack job you portray yourself to be. Only disinformation propagandists engage in these activities.

Just one important thing to remember buddy. When there is a regime change, propagandists don't do well financially, have their liberty curtailed, they go to prison, and some even get their neck stretched at the end of a rope.

Patriots rising...Ask yourself what thermate was doing in the WTC dust? Then have a good day!



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


I suggest you read the "half baked farce" known as the NIST "Nobody heard explosions 911" Report.

If this does not set you straight, go to the Popular Mechanics Article written by "Full Body Scan Salesman" Chertoff's cousin.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by beijingyank]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Some sixty years ago some innocent man walking down the street in Germany minding his own business had someone walk up to him and give him a copy of Hitler's, "Mein Kampf" and telling him to read it if he wants to learn the impartial REAL truth about the conspiracy that Jews made Germany lose the war to sell everyone out. Now, we have a guy coming here and posting a link to Steven Jones, "Journal of 9/11 Studies" and telling us to read it if we want to learn the impartial REAL truth about the conspiracy that the gov't staged 9/11 in a sinister plot to murder us all.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Some sixty years ago some innocent man walking down the street in Germany minding his own business had someone walk up to him and give him a copy of Hitler's, "Mein Kampf" and telling him to read it if he wants to learn the impartial REAL truth about the conspiracy that Jews made Germany lose the war to sell everyone out. Now, we have a guy coming here and posting a link to Steven Jones, "Journal of 9/11 Studies" and telling us to read it if we want to learn the impartial REAL truth about the conspiracy that the gov't staged 9/11 in a sinister plot to murder us all.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.


Hello,

Thanks for the lesson in history about Germany. That is a story I am not familiar with. It seems to lend some reason. However, as I can see how it may or may not relate to my posting this thread; if you re-read the opening post, you'll find that I do not endorse this link, but provide it to people who may not realize it is available for scrutiny. As it is, I'm not finished doing my own researching it, and it's numerous links. Steven Jones is someone I've never had the opportunity of acknowledging as someone to endorse, or discourage against his findings. Thusly.

I've only clicked on one link, which I noted in an earlier post. So, if you're addressing me over Steven Jones, I have yet to understand why. He doesn't write each article solely. He helps others provide a resource to use in doing ones own research studies. If it is of the opinion one has of the guy personally, well, I can't help you with that. Except maybe encourage you to write your own article for review by your peers, why this guy is propagating a fraudulent claim.

Maybe you have evidence to the backing-up of this claim... "Mein Kampf" and telling him to read it if he wants to learn the impartial REAL truth about the conspiracy that Jews made Germany lose the war to sell everyone out."

If the word Zionists was used instead of Jews, welcome to 2010. Sorry, I inserted an opinion lacking fact-based evidence.

Furthermore, I also stated in the opening post...My purpose in opening this thread is not to really open a discussion, but to let friends here know about a site we might not otherwise know exists...

From journal of 9/11 studies;

"Further papers are now in the peer-review cycle.

We will continue for the time being to provide a service for researchers who wish to present a new finding or a new point of view but who feel that their contribution would not be suitable for a mainstream journal. We will also be happy to receive sound, substantial work which has nevertheless been rejected by others. However, due to the volume of work, there may be substantial delays in publication here in the future. Thank you for your interest in careful research.

Sincerely,
Kevin Ryan, Frank Legge, and Steven Jones, co-editors

Link to 67 Published LETTERS
9/11 Commission, Cheney, Mineta; Thermite; Goals; Pentagon-hit; Responses to 911-debunkers and "alternative theorists"; Common Sense and Laws of Physics; International Contributions; WTC Towers and WTC 7 Destruction"

Thanks for visiting this thread. I've seen your posts around in the forums GoodOlDave. I'd have clicked "friend link" at the bottom of your posts by now if you wrote anything warranting it. I look forward to that day. Take care.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Do the errors have any effect on the conclusions drawn by the NIST? No, sir.

Do the errors that exist in the Journal of 9/11 Studies have any effect on the conclusions drawn by the authors of the articles in the Journal? No, sir.

NIST's conclusions on what happened are theories based on guesses and calculations. That doesn't make NIST's calculations and theories any more factual than the theories and calculations put forth by the 9/11 truth movement. So, make sure you got that clear when peddling the NIST report around.

You just choose to remain in denial and cling to NIST's conspiracy theory instead of the 9/11 truth movement's.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by thedman
 


And thedman's post sums up the debunker camp's way to debunk 9/11 truth: just attack the people and never have to show any evidence to the contrary. 9/11 truth debunked.


How many times do you wish it to be debunked before you'll accept it? How many times do we have to post this, for instance?:

sites.google.com...














posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
How many times do you wish it to be debunked before you'll accept it?

Not debunked. Just links full of attacks, opinions, and theories. Just like the NIST report. Thanks for stopping by.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by loveguy
 


The problem with a journal devoted to '911 studies' is that the name of the journal generally dictates the conclusions of the papers. Further, such a journal would attract papers generally unpublishable elsewhere, further skewing the slant of the journal. Who would review papers in the journal? So called 911 "experts" or outside reviewers in whatever field was being discussed?
I believe that this is an example of journalistic inbreeding at its finest and it has no impact whatsoever on the technical community, as a whole. It will provide grist for those who cannot see faults and only wish to have their predetermined conclusions confirmed by fellow travellers.

If the evidence is strong, papers should be published in journals that provide refereed reviews, rigorous examination of the evidence, and have a readership that would follow up with additional research. It is apparent that the evidence is too weak and the science is too flawed for any of the 911 'researchers' to have papers accepted in real journals.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by loveguy
 


The problem with a journal devoted to '911 studies' is that the name of the journal generally dictates the conclusions of the papers.


Hello,

I wonder why this topic is getting discussed? "It's so old and played out. The horse is dead, stop kicking it." When one enters this thread, they have several options. They can check-out the link. They can ignore the link. They can just read the other posts, and leave comment if they want. I just keep coming back to review who decided to thank me for the link, or if.

You folks coming in here and insert reasons why people shouldn't have the option to find new links to the grandest human deceit operation the world has ever seen, I'm just- WOW.

"The problem with a journal devoted to '911 studies' is that the name of the journal generally dictates the conclusions of the papers."

What would you name a journal which studies the mechanics of what went down that day, and all the evidence kept from public scrutiny to uncover?

You've obviously seen the declassified pentagon footage revealing the object entering the pentagon that morning, not just the blast-after the event?

You folks claiming the findings handed-down by the people in charge is enough to go-on, and all the mechanics are revealed to your satisfaction, is weak to me.

Look at the internal combustion engine for example. Say your car ran fine yesterday, but today it's making nasty backfire noises today. Heck, it won't even stay running if it starts at all. How would you know I went and took a push-rod out if it during the night and put it all back together without you aware of it? You can't see the push-rod from looking at the engine, you have to look inside the engine to see it is missing.

How far can we look into this issue of 9/11? We gotta go against what was handed-down to us to get to the facts regarding the matter of said event.

Why try to discourage those of us who want to realize the mechanics involved for ourselves, even though you yourself are satisfied without the knowledge of every aspect.

Explain to me why if Bin Laden was named as the master-mind, or whatever, why is he not listed in documents the FBI has in accordance with the previous WTC attacks? One act covers two episodes?

I appreciate the wanting to help me discover what happened that morning. I don't appreciate the discouraging me of the same...

For what it's worth, thanks for stopping by.




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join