I imagine Steven Jones reviewed his own paper, but that wouldn't be a peer review, that would simply be a self review. Did you read the second link I posted? Just in case you didn't, this is part of what it says: Articles published at the journal are thoroughly reviewed by at least two peers whose credentials and experience indicate their ability to effectively evaluate the subject matter. Finding neat tricks regarding acronyms isn't a persuasive rebuttal, sorry. I can't speak for Bentham papers in general, but Steven Jones' papers have been seen by many people, and yet I have yet to find a single credible rebuttal to any of his points. For me, that's far better then trashy articles from Popular Mechanics and Scientific American that have been rebutted long ago: Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies | Prison Planet Scientific American's Dishonest Attack On 911Research | 911research.com
Based on a little research I did of the NAS, I find their research to be highly suspect. You may want to take a look at this article which mentions them: Is Industry Conspiring To Suppress That Formaldehyde Is Carcinogenic? | forbes.com Their views regarding Fluoridation: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/nas.htm Are gravely mistaken: The Fluoride Deception exposes the truth about water fluoridation and the phosphate mining industry That being said, I did find this member of the NAS to have the right idea: National Academy of Sciences Member Calls for New 9/11 Investigation | opednews.com
And all the other experts in the video? Are they all putz and schmucks as well? As for the illegal destruction of evidence and carting away of everything they could; perhaps you could common on that.
Bentham is known to have a questionable peer review process after two generated gibberish papers were submitted and passed the 'peer review'. The chief editor of Bentham papers resigned after she discovered Harrit/Jones rubbish had been printed. It is an open, pay to print, vanity journal. It is not a respected journal. At all. And to say this blockbuster evidence was only ever printed in a single, open physics journal? What? Come on. Jones has never attempted to have it published in any of the respected peer reviewed journals. In 4 years, all his 'blockbuster' evidence has done is circulated in the bowels of the internet in obscure internet conspiracy forums.. That should state enough on it's own to show the paper is dubious. I think Mike puts it well; [video=youtube;wbjYoINw5oI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbjYoINw5oI[/video] Edit; oh and this one; [video=youtube;ymFYBijuqJw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymFYBijuqJw[/video]
Worse. More than a few of them are wite nationalists. It was not illegal. There were scientists and investigators all over the steel at Fresh Kills. Leaving it in Manhattan was out of the question. The bits that got shipped off to China were stolen by a mobbed-up hauler.
She's a biologist. As a veteran fire fighter, I have more credentials than she has. Shyam Sunder has even more, in an applicable field.
What did you find highly suspect about NAS reseach? Have you actually read any of the research published by the NAS? The Forbes article you linked supports the position of the NAS and refers to the NAS as "the nations premier scientific body". As for the fluoridation of muncipal water supplies... I'm at a loss as to why you would think a TV documentary on fluoridation is more credible than the evidence based positions of the NAS and NRC. Have you actually read any of the evidenced based studies on fluoridation published by the NRC or the NAS or did you just accept the conclusions of an internet documentary? Do you know that the NAS and NRC positions are evidence based positions derived from the scientific method and a body of empirical evidence? Do you really think a TV or internet show that has not been subjected to the scientific method and has no data or citations is more credible than scientific method? - - - Updated - - - What did you find highly suspect about NAS reseach? Have you actually read any of the research published by the NAS? The Forbes article you linked supports the position of the NAS and refers to the NAS as "the nations premier scientific body". As for the fluoridation of muncipal water supplies... I'm at a loss as to why you would think a TV documentary on fluoridation is more credible than the evidence based positions of the NAS and NRC. Have you actually read any of the evidenced based studies on fluoridation published by the NRC or the NAS or did you just accept the conclusions of an internet documentary? Do you know that the NAS and NRC positions are evidence based positions derived from the scientific method and a body of empirical evidence? Do you really think a TV or internet show that has not been subjected to the scientific method and has no data or citations is more credible than scientific method?
How many times are you gonna repeat "I'm a firefighter" rhetoric????I guess you think it makes you sound more credible...geez...give it a rest.
How many times are you going to insist that tghe government should waste millions of tax payer dollars because some silly twit with no credentials relevant to fire fighting or aircraft accidents thinks there is something wrong about events that come as no surprise to a fire fighter? Why should we waste resources because some aircraft mechanic who witnesses a controlled flight into terrain claims that the investigation is not complete until we do a complete re-assembly to make sure that the brake pads were changed out on time? These things only look hinky to people who have no clue, or to people who are lied to by charlatans and criminals and domestic terrorists.
That may very well expalin Margullis. The Organization can throw a little money at useful idiots through their "legals" and get all sorts of people to prostitute their degrees. Some educated people whom you would expect to know better may also harbor Nazi sysmpathies.
So air crash investigations are carted away and dumped because it was a bit messy? Perhaps you can provide a link to your claim of theft.
First of all, there was nothing to investigate about the aircraft crashes at any location that required that the wreckage remain in situ, or that required a reassembly of the wreckage as is the case in a crash for unknown reasons. It was established the instant that the first plane hit that it was a controlled flight into terrain. The second established that it was not accidental. There was no reason to get the serial numbers of any of the major parts or to see whether all the jack screws had been properly lubricated. It was not an accident or a malfunction of the aircraft. It was a crime. This, of course, takes it outside the jurisdiction of NTSB and gives full jurisdiction to the FBI, although the FBI could ask for such assistance as needed from NTSB. Whatever else could be learned about the crash from the wreckage could be learned off-site. The steel had to be removed to fight the fires that were burning under it. There was no place to stack the steel on-site where it would not interfere with rescue and recovery and fire fighting. Again, the reason the towers were on the ground was obvious to any fire fighter or arson investigator. It is taught in the first week of Fire Science 101 that steel bcomes weak when it gets hot. No mystery there. The only questions to be asked, to the minds of any competent persons working the scene, had to do with whether better design or assembly could have prevented or reduced the severity of the collapse. That could be studied at Fresh Kills. The most important thing missing in the physical evidence collected and transported to Fresh Kills for examination was the black boxes. However, since these were in the rear of the aircraft, thus destined to lofge within the perimeters of the structures they hit, it was always a long shot at best that they would be found. There is no indestructible man-made object. A fire ibvestigator at Fresh Kills would have been hard-put to tell the difference between a mashed up data recorder and an office worker's boom box after passing through the maelstrom of clashing concrete slabs that fell down into the footprint of the building. Throw a cell phone and a pocket scientific claculator into a rock crusher and see if you can tell which of the pieces that come out of the device belong to which bit of electrical gear. The steel had to be moved to fight the fire and it had to be moved off of the pile and out of Manhatten to allow firefighting and the recovery to continue. This is not an enigma or a mysterious foul deed. Don't have the link right here, but there is better documentation of the theft than of the steel's being all shipped of to China.
You can't just gloss over the "whole scale issue" Scale is the issue with Gage's poor understanding of the mechanics of the collapse. The strength of any object is proportional to the shape of the object, not just the material the object is made out of. A steel structure the height of the WTC shaped the way Gage's boxes are shaped could not be constructed, let alone arrest a force applied from above. Let's bring the dimensions of the box out to the dimensions of the tower. Gage's 10x10x48 box becomes a box that is 1368 x 283 x 283 with corrugated steel walls that are 7 feet thick from the bottom all the way to the top. The sheets of steel used to form the corrugation are almost a foot thick. The real WTC towers didn't have anywhere near that much steel in them, and there's a good reason why. It's the mass of the steel that's the problem. The problem is due to square cube law. As you increase the scale of something, the area increases by the square of the scaling factor, and the volume increases by the cube of the scaling factor. This means that an object becomes much more massive as it gets larger, but it does not get equally as strong. There isn't enough cross sectional area (area moment of inertia) to reduce the instability induced by the force generated by the mass of the scaled up structure. In short, at 10x10x48 the box is much stronger than it needs to be to support itself. I'm sure you have no trouble accepting that you can stack 3 or 4 boxes the same size on top, and it would still stand. At 5 or 6 you'll probably start to get instability due to slenderness, but the strength of the corrugated walls wouldn't be the issue. The issue would be the simple gravitational connections between the boxes. Imagine doing the same thing with the WTC tower. Do you think we could have a 202 story building by simply stacking one WTC on top of the other? Scale isn't just an issue. It's THE issue. That Gage would attempt to demonstrate his principal in the manner he did leaves you with a dichotomy. Either he doesn't understand the mechanics, or he does understand them and he's intentionally trying to be deceptive. Either way, this is not the hallmark of a guy you should trust more than you would trust the studies conducted by MIT, Purdue, NIST, et al.
Dick Gage is self debunking, I insult him because he is using the deaths of thousands of my brothers and sisters to line his pockets withy money. There's a reason why he's a laughing stock in the professional world. Ever wonder why he doesn't get any projects anymore? Ever wonder why no one wants to hire him to work on anything? He uses the money donated to his website to pay his own salary, and travel the world peddling his lies. CJ posted the Chris Mohr video, that's better than any link. He step by step debunks that video. I'll be looking forward to your inevitable handwave. I don't really care if you like my insults or not, you're supporting someone who makes a living off of the destruction of human life. You don't deserve any better.
