TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 [91] 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

call me a stickler, i'll go down looking like an ass for perpetuating this "conspiracy", but i can't see any other way to look at it.









http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Peer Reviewed.

Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal!


Finally! After submitting a half-dozen papers to established peer-reviewed technical journals over a period of nearly a year, we have two papers which have passed peer-review and have been accepted for publication. One of these was published TODAY! In science, we say that we have “published in the literature,” a major step in a nascent line of scientific inquiry.

And many thanks to the editors for their courage and adherence to science in allowing us to follow the evidence and publish in their journal. (Indeed, expressions of thanks along these lines to the editors will be appreciated, as they will probably get a few letters chastising them… )

The paper is here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm (our paper is listed on top at the moment, the most recently entered paper); or go here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm
(Click on “year 2008” then scroll down to the paper and click on it.)

(HTML version below. -rep.)

Yes, it is available on-line FOR FREE, since this is an “open e-journal.” TOCEJ = The Open Civil Engineering Journal. You may download the paper and make copies to give to local professors and engineers (hint, hint). That's one reason this particular journal was chosen -- open access, free to download and make copies. What do Profs/Engineers say about it -- let us know would you?

In this Letter, we emphasize “points of agreement” with FEMA and NIST, seeking to build bridges for further communications. Of course, we will send a copy to NIST for their comment and hopefully open a public discussion on these crucial evidences and analyses. Note the title – but then read more—the paper only six pages long:

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
The authors are: Steven E. Jones*,1, Frank M. Legge2, Kevin R. Ryan3, Anthony F. Szamboti*,4, James R. Gourley

Approaching this as “Points of Agreement” is NEW, I believe (obviously some “older” quotes are cited in this new context) and we hope this will be a fruitful approach! Mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti and I are the “corresponding authors,” the ones people are invited to write to with comments.

With publication in an established civil engineering journal, the discussion has reached a new level – JREF’ers and others may attack, but unless they can also get published in a peer-reviewed journal, those attacks do not carry nearly the weight of a peer-reviewed paper. It may be that debunkers will try to avoid the fourteen issues we raise in the Letter, by attacking the author(s) or even the journal rather than addressing the science – that would not surprise me.

Professor Chomsky wrote to several, who passed it on to me:
“You, or anyone who agrees with you, has a very simple task. Since the evidence is so obvious and compelling, submit an article about it to Science, or Nature, or even Scientific American, or more technical journals, say those in civil engineering, where your article can refute the conclusions of the professional society of civil engineers… To date, no one has been willing to submit an article -- at least, after probably hundreds of inquiries to Truth Movement advocates, no one has been able to mention one...”

Would someone who has received this note from Prof. Chomsky please send him a copy of the downloaded paper? Perhaps we can build a bridge with him. You might note that the paper is published in a “technical journal [one of those] in civil engineering,” to use his own words, which I took as sort of a challenge. I have published before in Nature (e.g., May 1986 and April 1989) AND Scientific American (July 1987), and this paper in a civil engineering journal I consider to be a very significant step in the history.

Further in the spirit of building bridges, I’d like to quote from Prof. Fetzer who wrote today – and I agree: “I would appreciate it… if those who are reaching out to the public would show a degree of appreciation for those who are trying to figure out how these things were done…. I believe we can succeed if we show more tolerance and less disrespect for one another.” Agreed! In this paper, the authors are both reaching out to the public (most can read this Letter with understanding, I think) AND seeking to progress in figuring out how the buildings were destroyed…

Now let’s work together to unify the 9/11 truth movement and show some mutual respect, shall we? Suggest we seek a focus on getting NIST (or other technical people) to work with us in doing a thorough and proper investigation which will include release of NIST-held photos AND the NFPA-921-mandated search for “thermite residues”. [Hint- good time to read the paper if you disagree or don’t know really what I’m talking about here.]

Finally, I should note that the editor that we worked with was polite and professional throughout the process. We hope others, in their responses, will maintain that decorum. In the final analysis, all THREE reviewers approved publication!

Time to celebrate, and move forward together.


From: The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, 2, 35-40

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, and James R. Gourley

Abstract: Reports by FEMA and NIST lay out the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. In this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for productive discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas where we find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses.

INTRODUCTION

On September 11, 2001, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (WTC) were hit by airplanes. Total destruction of these high-rises at near free-fall speeds ensued within two hours, and another high-rise which was not hit by a plane (WTC 7) collapsed about seven hours later at 5:20 p.m.

The US Congress laid out the charge specifically to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to “Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed”.1 The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was acting with a similar motivation in their earlier study of these tragic collapses.2 NIST and FEMA were not charged with finding out how fire was the specific agent of collapse, yet both evidently took that limited approach while leaving open a number of unanswered questions. Our goal here is to set a foundation for scientific discussion by enumerating those areas where we find agreement with NIST and FEMA. Understanding the mechanisms that led to the destruction of the World Trade Center will enable scientists and engineers to provide a safer environment for people using similar buildings and benefit firefighters who risk their lives trying to save others.

DISCUSSION

1. WTC 7 Collapse Issue

FEMA: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue”.2

FEMA analyzed the remarkable collapse of WTC building 7, the 47-story skyscraper that, even though it was not hit by a plane, collapsed about seven hours after the second Tower collapse. We certainly agree that FEMA’s best firebased hypothesis “has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST’s final report on WTC 7 has been long delayed and is eagerly awaited.3 Apparently it is difficult to fully explain the complete and rapid collapse of WTC 7 with a fire-based hypothesis alone.

2. Withstanding Jet Impact

FEMA: “The WTC towers had been designed to withstand the accidental impact of a Boeing 707 seeking to land at a nearby airport…” 2

NIST: “Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity”.4

Yes, we agree, as do previously published reports: “The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur?”5

John Skilling, a leading structural engineer for the WTC Towers, was interviewed in 1993 just after a bomb in a truck went off in the North Tower:

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer….

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building [which did not collapse], Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

…Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."6

Thus, Skilling’s team showed that a commercial jet would not bring down a WTC Tower, just as the Empire State Building did not collapse when hit by an airplane, and he explained that a demolition expert using explosives could demolish the buildings. We find we are in agreement.

3. Pancake Theory Not Supported

NIST: “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers… Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon”.3

Agreed: the “pancake theory of collapse” is incorrect and should be rejected. This theory of collapse was proposed by the earlier FEMA report and promoted in the documentary “Why the Towers Fell” produced by NOVA.7 The “pancake theory of collapse” is strongly promoted in a Popular Mechanics article along with a number of other discredited ideas.8, 9 We, on the other hand, agree with NIST that the “pancake theory” is not scientifically tenable and ought to be set aside in serious discussions regarding the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC 7.

4. Massive Core Columns

NIST: “As stated above, the core columns were designed to support approximately 50% of the gravity loads”.4 “The hat-truss tied the core to the perimeter walls of the towers, and thus allowed the building to withstand the effects of the aircraft impact and subsequent fires for a much longer time—enabling large numbers of building occupants to evacuate safely”.10

“Pacific Car and Foundry of Seattle, Washington, fabricated the closely spaced exterior wall column panels that gave the buildings their instantly recognizable shape. Stanray Pacific of Los Angeles, Cal, fabricated the enormous box and wide-flange columns that made up the core… The core of the building, which carried primarily gravity loads, was made up of a mixture of massive box columns made from three-story long plates, and heavy rolled wide-flange shapes.” “The core columns were designed to carry the building gravity loads and were loaded to approximately 50% of their capacity before the aircraft impact.... the exterior columns were loaded to only approximately 20% of their capacity before the aircraft impact”.11

We totally agree that the WTC Towers included “massive” interconnected steel columns in the cores of the buildings, in addition to the columns in the outside walls. The central core columns bore much of the gravity loads so the Towers were clearly NOT hollow. Yet the false notion that the Towers were “hollow tubes” with the floors supported just by the perimeter columns seems to have gained wide acceptance. For example, an emeritus structural engineering professor asserted, “The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube…”.12

The fact is the Towers were constructed with a substantial load-supporting core structure as well as perimeter columns – and on this point we agree with NIST in dispelling false popular notions.

The fact is the Towers were constructed with a substantial load-supporting core structure as well as perimeter columns – and on this point we agree with NIST in dispelling false popular notions.

5. Essentially in Free Fall

NIST: [Question:] “How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2) — speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?” [Answer:] …As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that: “… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos”.3

We agree with some of this, that the building “came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.” This is an important starting point. (Because of obscuring dust clouds, it is difficult to determine the exact fall times, but the statement that the buildings “came down essentially in free fall” seems correct when accelerations are viewed, for the WTC Towers and also for WTC 7.)13, 14 Further, we agree with NIST that “the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance” to the fall – but we ask – how could that be? NIST mentions “energy of deformation” which for the huge core columns in the Towers would be considerable, and they need to be quantitative about it (which they were not) in order to claim that the “intact structure” below would not significantly slow the motion.

Beyond that, NIST evidently neglects a fundamental law of physics in glibly treating the remarkable “free fall” collapse of each Tower, namely, the Law of Conservation of Momentum. This law of physics means that the hundreds of thousands of tons of material in the way must slow the upper part of the building because of its mass, independent of deformation which can only slow the fall even more. (Energy and Momentum must both be conserved.)

Published papers have argued that this negligence by NIST (leaving the near-free-fall speeds unexplained) is a major flaw in their analysis.13, 14 NIST ignores the possibility of controlled demolitions, which achieve complete building collapses in near free-fall times by moving the material out of the way using explosives. So, there is an alternative explanation that fits the data without violating basic laws of physics. We should be able to agree from observing the near-free-fall destruction that this is characteristic of controlled demolitions and, therefore, that controlled demolition is one way to achieve complete collapse at near free-fall speed. Then we are keen to look at NIST’s calculations of how they explain near-free-fall collapse rates without explosives.

We await an explanation from NIST which satisfies Conservation of Momentum and Energy for the rapid and complete destruction of all three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11, or a discussion of alternative hypotheses that are consistent with momentum and energy conservation in these near-free-fall events.

6. Fire Endurance Tests, No Failure

NIST: “NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11”.4

We agree that NIST had actual fire tests completed and that all four “trusses like those in the WTC towers” survived the fire-endurance testing “without collapsing.” We also agree that “the fires in the towers on September 11 … were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces;” the test furnaces were hotter and burned longer. NIST may wish to perform a series of different tests in an endeavor to discover some other hypothesis for collapse initiation. As it stands, however, we have no physical evidence supporting the concept of total collapse due to fire from real fire-endurance tests. On the contrary, these real-life tests indicate that the buildings should not have completely collapsed. In addition, we have hundreds of cases of fires in tall steel-frame buildings and complete collapse has never occurred.

But experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country…. Although the fireproofing was intended to withstand ordinary fires for at least two hours, experts said buildings the size of 7 World Trade Center that are treated with such coatings have never collapsed in a fire of any duration. Most of three other buildings in the complex, 4, 5 and 6 World Trade, stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire.15

Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:

Almost all large buildings will be the location for
a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire… The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service.16

Yet three such high-rise buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7) completely collapsed on a single day, 9/11/2001, and could not be returned to service. There is much left to learn here.

7. Fires of Short Duration

NIST: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes”.4 “At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below”.4

We agree. But then, given that the fires were brief and patchy, how did both towers experience sudden-onset failure of structural steel over a broad area in each tower and how could the collapses of all three WTC high-rises have been so symmetrical and complete?13, 14, 17 We seek discussion on these points.

8. WTC Fires Did Not Melt Steel

NIST: “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, figure 6-36)”.3

Agreed. We also find agreement with Prof. Thomas Eagar on this point:

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the
WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.18

We are in remarkable agreement, then: the WTC fires were not capable of melting steel. Of course, NIST then may have trouble explaining the molten material flowing out of the South Tower just before its collapse, as well as evidence for temperatures much higher than NIST’s reported 1,100 °C.13 We offer to discuss explanations for the observed high temperatures.

9. Destruction of WTC Steel Evidence

NIST: “NIST possesses 236 structural steel elements from the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings. These pieces represent a small fraction of the enormous amount of steel examined at the various recovery yards where the debris was sent as the WTC site was cleared. It is estimated that roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of steel used in the construction of the two towers was recovered.” “The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure…”.1

Thus, only a tiny fraction of steel was analyzed from the WTC Towers, and none of the WTC 7 steel was analyzed by NIST. What happened to the rest of the steel from the crime scene?

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.19

And although only a small fraction of the steel was saved for testing, it is clear that an “enormous amount” of the WTC steel was examined either for or by NIST, and the samples selected were chosen for their identified importance to the NIST investigation.20

We agree that only a “small fraction of the enormous amount of steel” from the Towers was spared and the rest was rapidly recycled. The destruction of about 99% of the steel, evidence from a crime scene, was suspicious and probably illegal, hopefully we can agree to that.

10. Unusual Bright Flame and Glowing Liquid (WTC 2)

NIST: “An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out”.4

“NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower”.3

We agree and congratulate NIST for including these observations of an “unusual flame... which is generating a plume of white smoke” 4 “followed by the flow of a glowing liquid” having “an orange glow” [3]. With regard to the “very bright flame… which is generating a plume of white smoke”, NIST effectively rules out burning aluminum, because “Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures…”.3

Again, we agree.

The origins of this very bright flame and of the associated flow of an orange-glowing liquid remain open questions in the NIST report. NIST opened a very appropriate line of investigation by publishing these significant clues from the data, 3, 4 providing an important starting point for further discussion which we seek.

11. High-Temperature Steel Attack, Sulfidation

FEMA (based on work by a Worchester Polytechnic Institute investigative team): “Sample 1 (From WTC 7)… Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure…. Sample 2 (From WTC 1 or WTC 2)… The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. …The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified… A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed…”2

We agree that the physical evidence for “severe high temperature corrosion attack” involving sulfur is compelling. Here we have grounds for an interesting discussion: How were “severe high temperatures” reached in the WTC buildings? What is the source of the sulfur that attacked the steel in these buildings? The answers to these questions may help us find the explanation for the “total collapse” of the Towers and WTC 7 that we are all looking for.

The WPI researchers published their results2, 21 and called for “a detailed study” of this “high-temperature” “oxidation and sulfidation” phenomenon. Yet the results were unfortunately ignored by NIST in their subsequent reports on the Towers’ destruction.3, 4 Their failure to respond to this documented anomaly is a striking phenomenon in itself. Perhaps NIST will explain and correct this oversight by considering the high-temperature sulfidation data in their long overdue report on the collapse of WTC 7. The existence of severe high temperatures in the WTC destruction is by now very well established.22 It appears that NIST has inadvertently overlooked this evidence and we offer to investigate the matter with them, in pursuit of understanding and security.

12. Computer Modeling and Visualizations

NIST: “The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted...4 “The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns.4 “The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse…4

We agree that NIST resorted to complex computer simulations and no doubt “adjusted the input” to account for the Towers’ destruction, after the fire-endurance physical tests did not support their preordained collapse theory.

But the end result of such tweaked computer models, which were provided without visualizations and without sufficient detail for others to validate them, is hardly compelling. An article in the journal New Civil Engineer states:

World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators. …A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said. “The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls”.23

Further detailed comments on the NIST computer simulations are provided by Eric Douglas.24

We would like to discuss the computer modeling and extrapolations made by NIST and the need for visualizations using numerical and graphical tools to scrutinize and validate the finite-element analysis.

13. Total Collapse Explanation Lacking

NIST: “This letter is in response to your April 12, 2007 request for correction… we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”.25

This admission by NIST after publishing some 10,000 pages on the collapse of the Towers shows admirable candor, yet may come as a bit of a shock to interested parties including Congress, which commissioned NIST to find a full explanation.

We agree that NIST so far has not provided a full explanation for the total collapse. Indeed they take care to explain that their report stops short of the collapse, only taking the investigation up to the point where each Tower “was poised for collapse”.4 We offer to help find that elusive “full explanation of the total collapse” of the WTC Towers which killed so many innocent people, in the hope that it does not happen again. We have a few ideas and can back these up with experimental data.13, 22 Our interest is in physical evidence and analysis leading to a full understanding of the destruction of the WTC.

14. Search for Explosive or Thermite Residues

From a NIST FAQ: [Question: ] “Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter." [Answer: ] NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel”.3

We agree; there is no evidence that NIST tested for residues of thermite or explosives. This is another remarkable admission. Probing for residues from pyrotechnic materials including thermite in particular, is specified in fire and explosion investigations by the NFPA 921 code:

Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.26

Traces of thermite in residues (solidified slag, dust, etc.)
would tell us a great deal about the crime and the cause of thousands of injuries and deaths. This is standard procedure for fire and explosion investigations. Perhaps NIST will explain why they have not looked for these residues? The code specifies that fire-scene investigators must be prepared to justify an exclusion.26

NIST has been asked about this important issue recently, by investigative reporter Jennifer Abel:

Abel: "..what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?” Neuman [spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]: "Right, because there was no evidence of that." Abel: But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first? Neuman: "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time... and the taxpayers’ money.”.27

The evident evasiveness of this answer might be humorous if not for the fact that NIST’s approach here affects the lives of so many innocent people. We do not think that looking for thermite or other residues specified in the NFPA 921 code is “wasting your time.” We may be able to help out here as well, for we have looked for such residues in the WTC remains using state-of-the-art analytical methods, especially in the voluminous toxic dust that was produced as the buildings fell and killed thousands of people, and the evidence for thermite use is mounting.13, 22

CONCLUSIONS

We have enumerated fourteen areas where we are in agreement with FEMA and NIST in their investigations of the tragic and shocking destruction of the World Trade Center. We agree that the Towers fell at near free-fall speed and that is an important starting point. We agree that several popular myths have been shown to be wrong, such as the idea that steel in the buildings melted due to the fires, or that the Towers were hollow tubes, or that floors “pancaked” to account for total Tower collapses. We agree that the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7 (which was not hit by a jet) is hard to explain from the point of view of a fire-induced mechanism and that NIST has refused (so far) to look for residues of explosives [3, 22, 27]. Our investigative team would like to build from this foundation and correspond with the NIST investigation team, especially since they have candidly conceded (in a reply to some of us in September 2007):

“…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”.25

We are offering to discuss these matters in a civil manner as a matter of scientific and engineering courtesy and civic duty. The lives of thousands of people may very well depend on it.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many thanks for useful discussions with Jim Hoffman, Dr. Gregory Jenkins, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, Prof. Kenneth Kuttler, Prof. David R. Griffin, Gregg Roberts, Brad Larsen, Gordon Ross, Prof. David Griscom, Prof. Graeme MacQueen, and researchers at AE911Truth.org and STJ911.org.


http://www.911blogger.com/node/15081

hahahaha.

that's the best they can do? what an absolute joke. surely they're not serious?

im not surprised they received online peer review, there is absolutely no scientific analysis in that at all. fuck, i could've written it (well, leaving out the unprofessional insinuations). all they've done is cherry-picked the massive, massive report, and pulled out things that they think rule out natural collapse.

notice there isn't a single analysis of how the collapse did occur, according to them. which is what i and other sceptics have been asking of them for what seems like forever.

this paper, more than anything, illustrates the disingenuous scientific approach taken by these discredited "scientists". wake me up again when they produce a proper paper (that actually proposes an alternative theory with evidence) and submit it to a real journal.

gee, surprise surprise

quote:

REVIEWING AND PROMPTNESS OF PUBLICATION: All manuscripts submitted for publication will be immediately subjected to peer-reviewing, usually in consultation with the members of the Editorial Advisory Board and a number of external referees. Authors may, however, provide in their Covering Letter the contact details (including e-mail addresses) of four potential peer reviewers for their paper. Any peer reviewers suggested should not have recently published with any of the authors of the submitted manuscript and should not be members of the same research institution. All peer-reviewing will be conducted via the Internet to facilitate rapid reviewing of the submitted manuscripts. Every possible effort will be made to assess the manuscripts quickly with the decision being conveyed to the authors in due course.

and, what kind of journal is this again?

quote:

Bentham Science Publishers is a publisher of 42 journals and from 2005 a further 19, making 61 journal titles together with 5 new book series. We publish primarily in areas of pre-clinical and pharmaceutical research for academic and pharmaceutical libraries. Many of our journals have high impact factors and we are fortunate to have the leading journal for reviews in medicinal chemistry, Current Medicinal Chemistry with an impact factor of 4.4. We also have other journals with rising impact factors like Current Pharmaceutical Design which is one of our leading titles. It publishes 32 issues a year and has an impact factor of 5.55.

http://www.aardvarknet.info/access/...fm?monthnews=11

so i wonder which 4 phonies were put forward to review this paper? not that it really matters, considering it doesn't actually say anything anyway. i cant believe they waitied 7 years to write that pathetic excuse for a paper, and then submitted it to a medical journal

that was pretty pathetic, not to mention poorly written.

So can you guys actually prove anything wrong within the peer reviewed paper or are you just going to continue blowing hot air?


















Never mind I already know the answer....

Apparently Osama's son does not think it was Osama in the tape.


Osama Bin Laden's son: "Maybe they made a copy of my father"


This was broadcasted yesterday on Belgian Public Television channel Eén, in the programme "Koppen"

Omar Bin Laden, Osama's Son speaks:

"Last time i saw my father on TV, he looked like my father...but sometimes...something very strange...makes you feel difficult to believe this is the same person as your father. ... Maybe they made a copy of my father and say he says this or he says that"




http://www.een.be/televisie1_master...x.shtml?video_1

quote:

so i wonder which 4 phonies were put forward to review this paper? not that it really matters, considering it doesn't actually say anything anyway. i cant believe they waitied 7 years to write that pathetic excuse for a paper, and then submitted it to a medical journal

We are still waiting for the official story of the WTC 7 collapse from the same liars that brought you the official story of the WTC 1 and 2.

Phonies? Not likely.


Background information about Bentham Science Publications


Bentham Science Publishers have gained a longstanding international reputation for their excellent standards and top quality science publications. Many journals published by Bentham Science Publishers have received high impact factors in their respective fields. For the current list of publications, please visit www.bentham.org. Seven Nobel Laureates have endorsed a number of Bentham Science's journals; please read their quotes at www.bentham.org/nobel.htm

The publishers are now undertaking a new publication venture by launching a number of Open Access journals in 2007, devoted to various disciplines in the fields of science and technology.

Open Access Journals are freely accessible via the Internet for immediate worldwide, open access to the full text of articles serving the best interests of the scientific community. All interested readers can read, download, and/or print open access articles at no cost! There is no subscription fee for Open Access journals. The modest open access publication costs are usually covered by the author's institution or research funds. Moreover, authors who publish in our Open Access journals retain the copyright of their article. Open Access journals are no different from traditional subscription-based journals; they undergo the same peer-review and quality control as any other scholarly journal.


The journals aim to provide the most complete and reliable source of information on current developments in the field. The emphasis will be on publishing quality articles rapidly and making them freely available to researchers worldwide. All published articles will be deposited immediately upon publication in at least one widely and internationally recognized open access repository...

quote:

Originally posted by culorut So can you guys actually prove anything wrong within the peer reviewed paper or are you just going to continue blowing hot air?

the point being that the article doesn't actually say anything worth noting. this isn't a peer review of an analysis of the collapses. there is no hypothesis. merely a few unrelated issues that the authors feel are important. the fact that they're STILL trotting out building 7 "not hit by a plane" shows exactly what kind of game they are playing.

bring me a paper that actually proposes a theory of controlled demolition. characterising this piece of shit as a peer-reviewed analysis that supports the controlled demolition hypothesis is plain dishonesty.

oh, and as far as osama's son goes, he hasn't seen him since 2001. are the CIA also making "copies" of all the other ranking members of al qaida? coz osama is in videos with many of the likely suspects.

oh, and here's the other fun part of this reputable journal

quote:

PUBLICATION FEES: The publication fee details for each article published in the journal are given below: Letters: The publication fee for each published Letter article submitted is $600. Research Articles: The publication fee for each published Research article is $800. Mini-Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Mini-Review article is $600. Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Review article is $900. Once the paper is accepted for publication, the author will receive by email an electronic invoice. The fee form is also available on the Web site at www.bentham.org/open/feeform Submissions from the Editorial Board Members of the journals will receive a special discount of 50% on the total publication fee. Submissions by authors from developing countries will receive a discount of 30% on the total publication fee charge.

so basically its a vanity publication. ha. i honestly can't believe they even bothered. reading those 14 points, and they're just so...toothless. i can't imagine why you're pleased culorut. did you actually read the paper?

which points in particular do you think have advanced the troofer cause? and which parts do you see as particularly scientific?

quote:

so basically its a vanity publication. ha. i honestly can't believe they even bothered. reading those 14 points, and they're just so...toothless. i can't imagine why you're pleased culorut. did you actually read the paper?

I think you are upset because all you had left in your argument was that there was no peer reviewed paper.

And yes publication fees are very normal.

http://authors.aps.org/

Sorry for destroying the last thing you where grasping on. You should lay off the JREF/Demo Underground forums and learn to speak for yourself for once.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut I think you are upset because all you had left in your argument was that there was no peer reviewed paper. And yes publication fees are very normal. http://authors.aps.org/ Sorry for destroying the last thing you where grasping on. You should lay off the JREF/Demo Underground forums and learn to speak for yourself for once.

which points in particular do you think have advanced the troofer cause? and which parts do you see as particularly scientific?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut And yes publication fees are very normal.

No, paying for publication is NOT the usual thing. It�s a little more common amongst open source journals but the open source journals aren't exactly the cr�me de la cr�me of scientific review now are they?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut I think you are upset because all you had left in your argument was that there was no peer reviewed paper.

You STILL don't understand do you?

1) Firstly, it�s a "letter" not a "paper". You don't write letters to scientific journals. No really, you don't. the fact that they have done so just illustrates the desperation of the movement, nothing more.

2) they wrote a letter claiming "peer review" to an online journal, that asks you to pay to be published, where you can choose your peer reviewers,

3) they haven't provided a single hypothesis or any scientific method, and

4) the manner and tone in which they have written it is unprofessional and unscientific.

You can't call something "peer reviewed" if there was no science to review. This is purely a stunt so that the ignorant truthers feel they have their peer reviewed scientific vindication. Interesting to note you fell for it with little or no thought on your part. Again, im not that surprised because thus far you have shown exactly zero knowledge of how academia works.

Writing an open letter to NIST doesn't count im afraid. Especially an open letter that is watered down so far to be basically meaningless. I mean honestly, are you happy with what they have provided? because I can't imagine why you would be.

I'll leave it now with words from someone that actually does know how to get published in reputable scientific journals.

quote:

It's pathetic because Dr. Jones has been telling everyone about his "peer-reviewed" journal, and all the great papers in it, for years. Apparently that didn't exactly set the world on fire. So, he tries to publish for real. That's fine. However, instead of publishing for real, he publishes in somebody else's sham journal. This gains him no credibility. The only change is, instead of trying to con other people, he falls for exactly the same con run by someone else... and even pays for the privilege. That's pretty sad. �. The irony is that, what little content there is in the whitepaper is basically correct -- stale, uninteresting, and already beat to death, but nonetheless correct. What's wrong with this paper is that it isn't science. It's a bunch of guys publishing errata and their own unsupported opinions in challenge to another, much more rigorous publication. It's not a science paper. Its inclusion in this Journal is completely unwarranted. Had Dr. Jones actually done some science, that would be different. He could motivate an experiment based on NIST, do the experiment, publish results, and contrast his findings to NIST. That's perfectly acceptable. Of course, if he does that, then he has to follow rigorous procedures of experiment design, data analysis, and hypothesis testing, things he's failed to do in the past. But if he does a good experiment, then he should publish it. This paper doesn't have anything new in it. There's not a repeatable conclusion in it anywhere. It also, incidentally, does not support any conspiracy theory, so I fail to see its utility to the Truth Movement except for the sheer PR value.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110489&page=5

sums it up pretty nicely imo.

and some more criticism for this backyard journal from pakistan

quote:

Chris Reed, Distinguished Professor of Chemistry (University of California, Riverside), offers the following modest proposal on CHMINF-L: Colleagues: In last week's interesting CHMINF-L discussion on Nature's proliferation of new journals, faculty habits, and the serials market, I saw no mention of an ongoing parallel onslaught by Bentham. In the past month, I have received no less that three invitations to join the editorial boards of new Bentham journals -- "Current this", "Frontiers of that" -- none in areas of my real expertise. The same old tactics are being used: exploiting a faculty weakness for seeing one's name in print, offering a career advance by having Editorial Board appointments on one's CV at promotion time, flattering authors with invitations to contribute papers in special issues, etc. All this effectively silences faculty from speaking out, or even caring about, the issues librarians understand so well. It is one of the reasons I am advocating that promotion policies at the University of California specify that appointments to the editorial boards of low quality, overpriced journals should count against promotion. The idea may not be so outrageous in five or ten years time.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110489&page=8

oh, and some more

quote:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: Bentham Science Publishers -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: [email protected][/email] Subject: Re: Bentham Science Publishers From: Ted Bergstrom Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:03:21 EDT Reply-to: [email protected] Sender: [email protected] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard, I enjoyed hearing about your efforts to contact Bentham Publishers. I, too, have been curious about them. I looked at www.journalprices.com to check on whether Bentham has ISI-listed journals and how they are priced. Journalprices.com lists 14 Bentham journals, 12 are classified as "bad values" in terms of price per article and price per citation, and 2 as "medium values". It appears to me that they are an established publisher that has fallen into "bad hands". Not only does Bentham spam for authors. They are also spamming for editors. I have received unsolicited messages from Bentham inviting me to be an editor of the Open Journal of Education as well as the Open Journal of Economics. They also sent me an email inviting me to contribute an article to the Open Journal of Sleep. I was particularly pleased with the following: Based on your record of contributions in the field of Education, I would like to invite you to submit to me your CV with current list of publications so that we may consider you as a possible *Editorial Board Member* for the journal. Since I my record in the field of Education is nil, I feel particularly well-qualified. I have never written a thing in an Education journal. I don't know whether or not to be honored to be invited to contribute to the Open Journal of Sleep. If you look at the web page of the "Open Journal Advisory Board" http://www.bentham.org/open/toeconsj/EBM.htm you will find something remarkable. There is a list of about 40 economists who are "members of the advisory board," all but one of whose last names start with the letters A-C and only one of whom I have ever heard of. I suppose these are the top of the list of people who responded to the spam letters. What an embarrassing list to have one's name on. The spam letters say Bentham Science Publishers have gained a longstanding international reputation for their excellent standards and top quality science publications. Many journals published by Bentham Science Publishers have received high impact factors in their respective fields. For the current list of publications, please visit <http://www.bentham.org/> . Seven Nobel Laureates have endorsed a number of Bentham Science's journals; please read their quotes at <http://www.bentham.org/Nobel.htm> The quotes from Nobelists endorse a couple of journals in medicine and chemistry published by Bentham. There is a particularly delightful touch at the bottom of the Open Economics Journal web page: "Indexed by Google, Google Scholar." Just who would be gullible enough not to notice that this means "indexed by nobody other than search engines"? Well, I can show you a list of 40 economists whose names start with the letters A-C. Cheers, Ted Dear All, I would be grateful if anyone could help me. I am interested in an Open Access publisher called Bentham Science Publishers (http://www.bentham.org/). I have been contacted by a number of researchers who say that the company is bombarding them with invitations to contribute papers to its journals. Apparently requests by the recipients to remove them from Bentham's mailing list have little or no effect. I have tried to make contact with a number of people in the company including Richard Scott, who is most often the person whose name appears at the bottom of the invitation letters, and was until recently listed as the editorial director of the company on its web site (http://www.bentham.org/Contact.php). I also copied into my emails Bentham's US contact Richard Morrissey, and Matthew Honan, who earlier this year was also described as the company's editorial director (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/...ng-program.html). Likewise I copied in Professor Thomas Salt, since he too has signed some of the offending emails in his capacity as Editor-in-Chief of a Bentham journal called Current Neuropharmacology. Tom Salt appears to be based in the Department of Visual Science at the Institute of Ophthalmology in London. Despite all my attempts to make email contact with the company and its representatives, however, the only response I have received has come from someone called Mahmood Alam who seems to be based in Pakistan. He informed me that Richard Scott was too busy to speak with me, but invited me to email my questions to him. After I sent some questions through to Mahmood Alam, however, he failed to answer them. I have also tried calling the telephone numbers listed on the Bentham web site, but have only been able to get through to voice mail messages. The number listed for Richard Morrissey simply invites callers to email him (the address given is the one that I have failed to get any response from). I would be most grateful if anyone who has any knowledge of Bentham, or any experience of publishing with the company, or editing any of its journals, or anyone who regularly reads any of the Bentham journals, could contact me on: [email][email protected]. Thank you. Richard Poynder www.richardpoynder.co.uk

http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicen...4/msg00027.html

and one last one for good luck!

quote:

My first spam award goes to Bentham Publishers, a "publisher" of "over 200" author-pays open access journals. In the past couple of months I have received no less than 11 emails from Bentham, all mostly identical in text and form, all signed by "Matthew Honan, Editorial Director, Bentham Science Publishers" or "Richard Scott, Editorial Director, Bentham Science Publishers", "inviting" me to submit research articles, reviews and letters to various journals (I got one email per journal!), including "The Open Operational Research Journal", "Open Business Journal", "Open Management Journal", "Open Bioinformatics Journal", "Open Ethics Journal", "Open Analytical Chemistry Journal" and so on - all of them sent to me "because of your eminence in the field" (wow, I didn't know I was so eminent in so many fields! As an aside, the claim that "this is no spam because you are eminent" defies any commonly accepted definition of spam - a message is spam if it is bulk and unsolicited, whether the recipients are all Nobel prize winners or not is irrelevant). All pleas and begging from my side to stop the spamming, as well as clicking on any "unsubcribe" links did not stop the spam plague from Bentham. The bulk email "invites" me to submit articles and to pay for publication - "modest open access publication costs are usually covered by the author's institution or research funds.".

http://gunther-eysenbach.blogspot.c...s-journals.html

yep! quality journal jones got himself there!

Hilarious, first you complain about no peer reviewed paper and now that there is you cannot handle it and post nit picking bullshit from disinformation forums like JREF, demo underground and randi.

How about you read the links I provided which shows that paying for the publishing is normal in science publications first, would that help or you cannot read either?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Hilarious, first you complain about no peer reviewed paper and now that there is you cannot handle it and post nit picking bullshit from disinformation forums like JREF, demo underground and randi.

"nitpicking" ? lol. only those unfamiliar with research and journals would call these concerns "nitpicking".

your sincere lack of education and experience is quite telling. only someone without a shred of knowledge would confuse this letter with a real, peer-reviewed scientific paper (which is what i and others have been asking for).

but, let's humour you. let's say it really is a paper, and got a really good peer review to boot.

the question remains, what does it have to say that's of any importance at all? it merely highlights points of agreement from another peer-reviewed paper that has already been published (the NIST report).

why is this regurgitation of the NIST report deemed as important to you?

where's the science? its pointless crying "peer review peer review!" if you don't actually have any new science to brag about being reviewed.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut How about you read the links I provided which shows that paying for the publishing is normal in science publications first, would that help or you cannot read either?

given that i have friends that are published and i have experience in the process of publication, i am merely happy to say that you're wrong, and wouldn't know any better because you lack the necessary education credentials and experience.

so, myself and the rest of the sceptics will continue to wait for a scientific peer-reviewed paper that challenges the NIST report or provides new and compelling science (which is what ive been asking for all along and it should be embarrassing to you that you can't tell the difference).

the funniest part is that i agree with most of the things in this letter(leaving out the unprofessional conduct contained therein) so again i must ask why its important to you considering it doesn't actually say anything?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut How about you read the links I provided which shows that paying for the publishing is normal in science publications first, would that help or you cannot read either?

Hrmm really? last time i checked, the only journals that did charge a publication fee to teh author were the so called "open source" journals, which might i add have not been openly embraced by the academic community as it is felt that the business aspect of seeking publishing fees may degrade the academic and scientific quality of the reviewing and article standards.


Furthermore, the most reputed civil engineering journals are not open access. the three biggest civil engineering journals in north america are all subscription based and charge no publishing fees to authors, those beening the Structural engineering journal published by the ASCE, the structrual engineering journal published by the CSCE and the NRC-CAN journal of structural mechanics. both CSCE and ASCE are NGO status so you can take your ideas of CIA infiltration right out of the picture.


moreover the "peer reviewed article" is an opinion piece and a letter, not a journal article, hence does not go through the same review process.

quote:

Hrmm really? last time i checked, the only journals that did charge a publication fee to teh author were the so called "open source" journals, which might i add have not been openly embraced by the academic community as it is felt that the business aspect of seeking publishing fees may degrade the academic and scientific quality of the reviewing and article standards.

Which is exactly what the link explains, that open source journals do usually have a publication fee. No where was anyone hiding that and this is what is called nit picking. I guess you did not bother to read the link I provided either, good one mr. engineer.

As for the advancements made because of this now peer reviewed paper, well it's a little obvious...to shut up the critics and let the truth about what happened on 9/11 continue to spread like wildfire.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut to shut up the critics and let the truth about what happened on 9/11 continue to spread like wildfire.

why do you care so much?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut As for the advancements made because of this now peer reviewed paper, well it's a little obvious...to shut up the critics and let the truth about what happened on 9/11 continue to spread like wildfire.

hahahahahaahaha.

you mean it gives the poor ignorant folk a reason to clamour for a new investigation whilst the world's engineers couldn't give a shit (which is really the only reason to publish, to influence world opinion). and in this case it is a spectacular failure.

i bet i could get something published in that journal.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 why do you care so much?

Because over 3000 innocent people died on 9/11 and thousands more are going to die because of more government lies (air quality).

The official story does not hold enough weight to convince me (and millions of others) that these people deserved to die in such a manner. It is full of thousands of holes and anyone in their right mind after looking at all the facts regarding 9/11 would be retarded for not voicing themselves.

Of course if you like having these same said government(s) which have been proven to lie and lie again to your face continue to murder your neighbours, family and friends be my guest. I will not sit back and lower my stance.

As you can tell I am the sort of person who will call out bullshit and tell anyone straight to their face. Thousands of people dying is a dam good reason to care so much, maybe you should start caring a little too.

Good enough of an answer for you? no? too bad.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN hahahahahaahaha. you mean it gives the poor ignorant folk a reason to clamour for a new investigation whilst the world's engineers couldn't give a shit (which is really the only reason to publish, to influence world opinion). and in this case it is a spectacular failure. i bet i could get something published in that journal.

Well then put your money where your mouth is and publish something instead of trolling.

So far I only notice ignorance in you, millions of people on a global scale continue to spread word of a truth and it continues to grow because the story fits better than the official one. Not all are poor and the majority of these millions of people are also smarter than you.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut As you can tell I am the sort of person who will call out bullshit and tell anyone straight to their face. Thousands of people dying is a dam good reason to care so much, maybe you should start caring a little too.

ok buddy, i actually live in NYC (actually jersey city, but it's much closer than canada), i take the train into the world trade center 5 days a week, and those 3000 people that died were MY neighbors. I have much more at stake in this than you, and almost everyone on this board. The thing i don't care about is stupid conspiracy theories. Since you conspiracy theorists think it's a big Bush administration plot, your concerns about these sorts of lies are increasingly becoming moot because the Bush administration has only 9 months remaining in office.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Which is exactly what the link explains, that open source journals do usually have a publication fee. No where was anyone hiding that and this is what is called nit picking. I guess you did not bother to read the link I provided either, good one mr. engineer. As for the advancements made because of this now peer reviewed paper, well it's a little obvious...to shut up the critics and let the truth about what happened on 9/11 continue to spread like wildfire.

Open source journals are shit. Any loon can get published if they have cash and a few friends willing to "review" their article. What's the point? Can't you find a publication in a legit academic source to support such an evident theory?

REAL peer-review is anonymous - an academic will submit a paper for publication to a journal, the journal will distribute the article to a panel of editors and experts on the subject (usually more than just a few), who will then critique the article from front to back. The article will then often get published with a critique, establishing an intellectual discussion so to speak on the topic at hand.

This fails to meet any sort of academic standard for multiple reasons, not least of which it was published just because the author sought out his own reviewers and then footed the bill (where is the standard it met here?), didn't advance anything remotely new or innovative to the field, and spawned absolutely no academic discussion (probably because there was nothing new here).

Again, what's the point of digging this up? Do you really believe it advanced your cause at all? If so, please explain it to me, because I'm at a loss on this one.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Well then put your money where your mouth is and pvublish something instead of trolling.

yeah, like i wanna waste $600 on some shitty vanity journal.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut So far I only notice ignorance in you, millions of people on a global scale continue to spread word of a truth and it continues to grow because the story fits better than the official one. Not all are poor and the majority of these millions of people are also smarter than you.

"millions"? do you really believe that? how embarrassing.

if that's really the case, why then:

quote:

I stumbled across Quantcast this afternoon - it is a survey organisation monitoring website traffic. http://www.quantcast.com/index.jsp Now some of you may be familiar with e.g. Alexa rankings, which are somewhat opaque as to their accuracy. Quantcast is different - it is apparently both a traditional broadcast-media panel survey but also has some sites which use its software to produce web traffic figures directly. The thing I like about Quantcast is they have acknowledged the great problem with site meters and the like - cookie deletion, which can inflate the number of 'unique visitors' to a site very easily. By using traditional panel survey methods along with direct clicker-counter methods for the sites that sign up to Quantcast, their results strike me as being possibly quite accurate. So... there are a lot of websites out there. Whether or not these figures are entirely accurate cannot be said for certain. But the relative rankings I think must be accurate. And if so, they are rather intriguing. Searches conducted today, 21 April 2008. N.B. the figures relate to unique visitors from the US only, per month, for the month of March 2008. They are estimates only. Thus, think of these figures as the equivalent of the number of subscribers to a monthly magazine. I didn't just tap-tap with the Twoof, but also my primary interest, Holocaust denial and the far right, and threw in some CT sites, creationist sites and some skeptic sites of various kinds. Naturally, I included JREF as a whole and this forum does unsurprisingly very well in comparison to the overwhelming majority - heck, every single Twoof website. apologies if the formatting comes out messy. - investigate911.se less than 2000 - 911oz.com less than 2000 - 911truthcampaign.net less than 2000 - 911pressfortruth.com less than 2000 - 911mysteries.com less than 2000 - 911inplanesite.com less than 2000 - seeloosechange.com less than 2000 - loosechange911.blogspot.com less than 2000 - loosechange911.info less than 2000 - killtown.blogspot.com less than 2000 - arabesque911.blogspot.com less than 2000 - 911citizenswatch.org less than 2000 - proposition911.org less than 2000 - justicefor911.org less than 2000 - septembereleventh.org less than 2000 - philly911truth.org less than 2000 - 911eyewitness.com less than 2000 - 911revisited.com less than 2000 - 911inquiry.org less than 2000 - weekoftruth.org less than 2000 - killtown.911review.org 1,955 - 911docs.net 2,084 - forum.911movement.org 2,216 - scholarsfor911truth.org 2,348 - loose-change-911.com 2,606 - journalof911studies.com 2,606 � down from 20K in 9/07 - thepentacon.com 2,606 - stj911.org 3,000 - - 911scholars.org 3,917 - nineeleven.co.uk 4,458 - pilotsfor911truth.org 4,510 - physics911.net 4,562 � down from c 13 K in 11/07 (late spike!) - ae911truth.org 4,795 � down from c. 13K in 9/07 - Question911.com 6,256 - pentagonstrike.co.uk 6,388 - Patriotsquestion911.com 6,517 - 911blogger.com 8,591 - 911review.com 9,645 - LooseChange911.com 12,907 - 911truth.org 18,883 - 911review.org 21,674 � down from nearly 50K in 9/07 - oilempire.us 23,335 - 911research.wtc7.net 27,988 � down from 80K in 9/07 - wtc7.net 32,944 � down from c 90K in 9/07 - ufocrashbook.com 34,158 - prisonplanet.tv 53,612 - ufodigest.com 95,478 - infowars.com 178,112 - prisonplanet.com 193,527 - unexplained-mysteries.com 203,361 - paranormal.about.com 317,927 - whatreallyhappened.com 333,247 - abovetopsecret.com 580,403 - kent-hovind.com 4,953 - creationresearch.org 7,336 - trueorigin.org 11,867 - creationwiki.org 12,650 - answersincreation.org 14,659 - creationontheweb.com 15,232 - newcreation.net 24,696 - blogs.answersingenesis.org 27,175 - allaboutcreation.org 36,373 - godandscience.org 69,227 - creationmuseum.org 91,228 - answersingenesis.org 281,096 - clavius.org less than 2000 - skepticwiki.org 3,780 - skepticforum.com 5,734 - screwloosechange.blogspot.com 6,989 - publiceye.org 26,519 - skeptic.com 31,343 - bautforum.com 37,227 - atheists.org 40,086 - forums.randi.org 56,159 - talkorigins.org 110,688 - richarddawkins.net 259,187 � global = 439,489 - scienceblogs.com 840,803 � global = 1,291,229 - skepdic.com 904,646 - forum.codoh.com less than 2000 - thephora.net less than 2000 - solargeneral.com less than 2000 - germarrudolf.com less than 2000 - codoh.info less than 2000 (same for codoh.org) - theoccidentalquarterly.com less than 2000 - reportersnotebook.com less than 2000 - zampir.litek.ws less than 2000 - nazigassings.com less than 2000 - air-photo.com less than 2000 - nafcash.com less than 2000 - faem.com less than 2000 - hoffmann-info.com less than 2000 - truthinstitute.org less than 2000 - thetruthseeker.org less than 2000 - Ziopedia 2,009 down from 11,000 - normanfinkelstein.com 2,166 - kevinmacdonald.net 2,742 - overthrow.com 3,032 - globalfire.tv 3,258 - thecivicplatform.org 3,393 - historiography-project.org 3,518 - cwporter.com 3,522 - jewishracism.blogspot.com 4,273 - codoh.com 4,562 - iamthewitness.com 5,085 - radioislam.org 5,866 - zundelsite.org 6,310 2-9,000/month - jewishtribalreview.org 6,389 - vanguardnewsnetwork.com 7,428 - majorityrights.org 10.097 - vho.org 13,960 - onethirdoftheholocaust.com 14,341 shot up from 2000/month - tbrnews.org 14,418 - revisionisthistory.org 14,537 - geniebusters.org 14,577 - natall.org 14,934 - thebirdman.org 15,640 - texemarrs.com 15,700 - libertyforum.org 15,975 - aryan-nations.org 18,279 - erichufschmid.net 19,070 - thetruthseeker.co.uk. 20,978 - nsm88.org 21,857 - fpp.co.uk 22,052 � has reached 60K - heretical.com 22,554 - vnnforum.com 24,349 - jewwatch.com 26,460 - wakeupfromyourslumber.com 29,703 - amren.com 30,351 - davidduke.org 30,554 15-30,000/month - ihr.org 32,729 20-40,000/month - adelaideinstitute.org 34,677 � normally under 10,000 - americanfreepress.net 41,263 - biblebelievers.org.au 66,981 - judicial-inc.biz 76,150 - stormfront.org 101,787 - lewrockwell.com 137,083 - rense.com 387,545 The upshot: da Twoof is indeed dying. The drop off in traffic is very marked in the cases I looked at. September 2007, six months ago, would have been a natural peak anyhow, but still the fall is dramatic. Many sites have gone virtually dead, which means anything below 2000 unique visitors a month, which Quantcast can hardly measure accurately. Yes, there are still about 30,000 US residents who click on Truther websites every month - out of maybe 200,000 Alex Jones readers (casual and committed). Quantcast runs numbers for 'passersby', regulars and addicts - about 1% of prisonplanet.com's audience check in daily. That works out at 2000 hardcore Alex Jones fans. I would estimate, on the basis of these site-traffic figures, that a year ago, the audience for the Twoof, passive and active, was about 100,000. If there were ever more than that many, it would be surprising. Bear in mind that the 'passerby' traffic for many of the sites listed can be upwards of 95%. And the traffic for the 'highbrow' end of the Truth movement is simply disastrous. It doesn't seem like a lot, especially when compared to the major control group, the neo-Nazi world. There are probably about 100,000 far-right-sympathising types in the US, judging by the above web traffic, of whom a third might be passive Holocaust deniers and maybe 20,000 'committed' antisemites. Finally, just to compare with what mainstream sites look like salon.com - 2,619,395 popularmechanics.com - 2,614,195 amazon.com - 47,469,260

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=111956

are these "millions" of people not interested in following the truth online?

from 911truth.org

quote:

April '08: THANKS TO THOSE OF YOU RESPONDING! We've cut to bare bones, but are still far short of our basic budget needs--Please help all you can so we can continue to provide needed services to the Truth Movement Please take a moment right now to support the organization supporting your movement. Click Here Now to donate online, by mail, or to become a regular monthly supporter. Thank you!!

Obviously the millions and millions of people that think 911 was a conspiracy don't feel strongly enough to donate their money

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.