(video) 911, WTC, Wiki Threats and Peer Review (or why I could blog Wiki Talk till Armageddon)

Threats, and peer review information

Prof. Steven E. Jones about thermite melting WTC-steel

35:55 - 4 years ago

Prof. Steven E. Jones from BYU Brigham University and co-founder of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" examined the substances of WTC-steel pieces and found all clues indicating thermite/thermate was one of the used substances to do bring down the WTC at nearly freefall speed with molten metal smoldering for month in the basements. These melting can not result alone from cerosin fires burning for approx. 1 hour. NIST DID NOT investigate if thermite/thermate could be used. This video is an extract of the "American Scholars Symposium" in Los Angeles on 24th June `06 hosted by 9/11-Truth-Veteran Alex Jones and shows Prof. Jones reciting his inquiries, physical analyzes and results of what had melted the WTC-steel.

I have protected the page from editing. Please work out the disagreement here. The dispute seems to be whether or not there should be a seperate criticism section. Tom Harrison ^Talk 3:07 pm, 30 August 2006, Wednesday (4 years, 4 days ago) (UTC−5)

Since I protected the page, I'm not going to take part in the dispute for now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 4:15 pm, 30 August 2006, Wednesday (4 years, 4 days ago) (UTC−5)

Yes, Tom's role was to lock it in favor of the Levi P. version which includes derogatory statements critical of Jones in an area which is not criticism. Why not just delete those phrases, Tom, so that you are not favoring one side in locking it? bov 6:49 pm, 31 August 2006, Thursday (4 years, 3 days ago) (UTC−5)

 

In this video Jones explains the peer review process his paper has gone through (2 or 3 rounds, including peer review by PH Ds, according to him), and also details a series of threats made to him by someone with connections to the U.S. government. The still-unnamed engineer offered federal funds to Jones' university, BYU, if Jones agreed to shift the direction of his research. This, according to Jones, is the root cause of his issues with BYU early on. These issues have since been resolved, according to him, and the university agrees with him that his paper has been properly peer reviewed.

I think this information about both the peer review and the threats should be included in the article.

Yeah, it was "peer-reviewed" by David Griffin's staff -- another branch of the conspiracy theory religion. So much for peer review. Morton devonshire 1:22 am, 3 September 2006, Sunday (3 years, 11 months, 31 days ago) (UTC−5)

Do you know something that we don't? Because peer-review process is sort of secret and I couldn't find names of the persons that peer reviewed him second and third time. I would rather suspect that it was someone from his university and/or someone BYU asked to do it. Do you know that after those consecutive peer reviews BYU removed "disclaimer" about Jones's findings from their web page? It's meaningful and I think this fact could be somehow incorporated into the article, as there is info about BYU statement, yet there is none about it's removal. --SalvNaut 2:42 am, 3 September 2006, Sunday (3 years, 11 months, 31 days ago) (UTC−5)

Listen to the video tape cited above. He talks about it 15 minutes in. Morton devonshire 2:44 am, 3 September 2006, Sunday (3 years, 11 months, 31 days ago) (UTC−5)

About who made consecutive peer-reviews? I couldn't find it. There is nothing about it 15 minutes in. He talks about threats made to him. But I'm ok - no need to discuss that now. --SalvNaut 8:38 pm, 3 September 2006, Sunday (3 years, 11 months, 31 days ago) (UTC−5)

You're not listening to enough of the tape. He talks about the peer review in several portions, and about half-way through he reveals that the so-called peer review was done by Griffin's people, who are also conspiracy theorists. In addition, he is hardly a reliable source for determining whether or not his work has been peer reviewed. It would seem that his sponsoring academic institute is in the best position to determine whether his academic work has been peer reviewed. If this is not academic work, then it's not academic work, and peer review is not even relevant. Morton devonshire 4:24 pm, 4 September 2006, Monday (3 years, 11 months, 30 days ago) (UTC−5)

Morton: We are hearing what we want to hear. Listen for a minute or so starting 21:55 - he says about his relationship with BYU, that they have given him right to publish.He says about talks with his dean. Then he says "This question about peer review was settled" (with BYU college dean?). "My paper went to another publication, David Griffin's".(this only states who the publisher was) "It went through another set of peer reviews, this time by 4 Ph.Ds, and that settled the question. The college dean did...".

Look - first, this set of peer reviews apparently settled the case with his dean. Second - you don't know who were those 4 Ph.Ds (me neither) (Griffin's people? how do you know?) . All we know that it was enough for the dean to settle the "peer review question" and it seems that this was when BYU statements about Jones's work were removed from BYU site. (He referes to those statements couple of times in this video)

To state my opinnion clearly: I am absolutely against putting into an article information which suggests that a living person is a liar (contradiction with Jones's statement on his page - it would at least udermine Jones's credibility as a scientist), when the only reference,source that we cite to support it is an article which cites BYU statement, which since quite some time was removed! And guy has been quite a good scientist, so no other reason to do that, really. It does not follow WP:LIVING at all. I think we should name his paper controversial and that's it. What is your opinnion? --SalvNaut 5:38 pm, 4 September 2006, Monday (3 years, 11 months, 30 days ago) (UTC−5)

Ah, and I observed that you might see the "conspiracy theory" as a disease that eats human brain (although I agree that there might be cases like that :) and everyone who supports it in slightest way does no longer qualify as a scientist - that is wrong. It's just a point of view, and in every science there is a lot of disagreement like this one (official story vs CT). So even if some of those 4 Ph.Ds were "Griffin's people" they still were Ph.Ds (for sake!). --SalvNaut 5:38 pm, 4 September 2006, Monday (3 years, 11 months, 30 days ago) (UTC−5)

Interesting that Morton devonshire would keep such good track of professor Jones and others he calls Conspiracy Theorists, watching their videos, reading the books, listening to their radio interviews, etc. One would almost wonder if he wasn't . . . well, anyway. Locewtus 3:34 pm, 3 September 2006, Sunday (3 years, 11 months, 31 days ago) (UTC−5)

Don't resort to personal attacks Locewtus. Wikipedia:No personal attacks --Sloane 3:42 pm, 3 September 2006, Sunday (3 years, 11 months, 31 days ago) (UTC−5)

What, what, a false-flag-problem-reaction-solution-reptilian-agenda-Queen-of-England-loving-Heglian-dialectic-Bohemian-Grovist? Morton devonshire 8:50 pm, 3 September 2006, Sunday (3 years, 11 months, 31 days ago) (UTC−5)