Disco08 said:
There's only a handful on the entire subject. Jones may have some bizarre religious beliefs but that doesn't deter from his expertise in physics does it? If he's putting his work up for peer review why should it be considered any less legitimate than the work of others?
Jones' area of expertise is in 'cold' fusion and area that has led to blushes in the past. How does this field of physics make him an expert in collapsing buildings? It doesn't.
As for his work that his has submitted for peer review, where does it state anywhere that it is considered less legitimate? Clearly it hasn't passed this stage, ie. his peers, the experts in the field see problems with his arguments, analysis of the evidence or conclusions. This is what the peer-review system is for, to filter out the scientifically unsound work. Although not foolproof (I have read some papers that I was surprised survived review) it certainly acts as an important process. To start up your own journal where, as editor, you have a say in the level of review raises questions on the quality of the research.
Jones' own university, BYU, considered the lack of acceptance of his research by mainstream science suitably worrisome to make comment.
The other thing that seems apparent is even the studies conducted which conclude the towers collapsed due to fire highlight the need for more research,
eg.:
The complete story may never be known. Indeed a theme throughout the report is a call for additional research.
I assume part of this reflects upon the lack of evidence to support the theory that the fires inside the twin towers reached heats capable of sufficiently weakening the core structure to the point that the entire buildings would collapse.
In the case of WTC7 there are no articles at all that I could find. Some pretty damning evidence exists that certain parties had prior warning that this building was coming down too. Unless that building was deliberately demolished, how could anyone have predicted it was going to collapse given not a single steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire previously?
You and others might have questions, but the absence of peer-reviewed data does not lead credence to those alternative theories. Have you read the peer-reviewed papers on the topic, or has your reading been limited to the alternative theories that have decided to engage in debate outside of the proper scientific channels? That is a classic woo trick.
If you have a large group of people with qualifications in relevant fields calling for more research and questioning the official report then I think it's fair enough to take notice.
This is also only looking at one line of evidence. What of all high ranking officials that question the commission report?
Many of the group do not have relevant qualifications, I would argue. Why aren't they questioning in official channels? Whenever you start down this path you always imply a grand conspiracy to prevent such official questioning. This, again, is classic woo. Do you really want to act like the Ben Stein of the 9/11 conspiracy movement?
)
