Just wanted to encourage folks to download this interview and archive. It will only be up for 90 days on the www.kpfk.org website (all shows rotate after 90 days).
I want to extend my thanks again to Kevin for joining me on the show to talk about this incredibly important paper, and to thank all the other authors on this paper for their time and commitment. This is a ground breaking paper, and I hope that we can energize everyone to send links to their local papers and community groups to discuss its implications, and corresponding actions.
As a chemist myself, I have focused primarily on the scientific angle, and I think its this kind of work provides a framework for a discussion that breaks through the wall of silence/ridicule we see in the popular culture.
I would encourage everyone to give some positive feedback to KPFK (www.kpfk.org) so that the station in general knows how important their work is as a community radio station covering this issue. While I certainly don't get any resistance to covering this material, it always helps for the station mangers to get positive feedback from listeners so that they know how important this issue is to them.
Thanks again to 911Blogger.com for their support, and to the listeners for their engaged dialogue.
All the best,
Chris Burnett
Host of Indymedia On Air, KPFK 90.7 FM, Los Angeles _________________ Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
I gave up on US indymedia after having a 3 week run in with Mike Fluggenock at the Washington site and haven't been back since - so where's the Indy link to this? _________________ "We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl
"Timely Demise to All Oppressors - at their Convenience!" - 'Interesting Times', Terry Pratchett
Tiny red and gray chips found in the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center contain highly explosive materials — proof, according to a former BYU professor, that 9/11 is still a sinister mystery.
Physicist Steven E. Jones, who retired from Brigham Young University in 2006 after the school recoiled from the controversy surrounding his 9/11 theories, is one of nine authors on a paper published last week in the online, peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal. Also listed as authors are BYU physics professor Jeffrey Farrer and a professor of nanochemistry at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.
The dust study vindicates his earlier theories, Jones says, but he has mixed feelings about the implications. "As a young student said to me a while back: 'It's exciting from a scientific point of view, because things are now making sense. But I feel sad for my country.'"
Oh. Ok. Peer reviewed by whom? The other authors, every single one of which is a massive Twoofer, which was rather easy to look up? Kinda like how with anthropogenic global warming, the studies are being reviewed by others who Want To Believe. Sometimes I think I am living in an X Files world.
Oh. Ok. Peer reviewed by whom? The other authors, every single one of which is a massive Twoofer, which was rather easy to look up? Kinda like how with anthropogenic global warming, the studies are being reviewed by others who Want To Believe. Sometimes I think I am living in an X Files world.
No great surprise that an organisation opposed to Civil Liberties will of course be opposed to the aims of 911 truth.
Kind of like the jab at AGW too, it's just the usual substance free ranting allegations of the opposition.
The sound of powerless wind and p iss. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Global Research Editor's Note
The definition of thermitic material:
A trademark used for a welding and incendiary mixture of fine aluminum powder with a metallic oxide, usually iron, that when ignited yields an intense heat.
Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction. (Wikipedia)
What we are dealing with is the melting/ burning of metal structures.
“Metals are capable of burning under the right conditions, similarly to the combustion process of wood or gasoline. ... A thermite reaction is a process in which the correct mixture of metallic fuels are combined and ignited. Ignition itself requires extremely high temperatures.”
Readers can reach their own conclusions as to the far-reaching implications of these findings.
Although the authors do not address the broader issue of the 9/11 attacks, their findings have a direct bearing on the likely causes of the collapse of the WTC buildings on September 11, 2001. The findings also question the validity of the official report of the 911 Commission.
Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:12 pm Post subject: Nobel Laureates Have Endorsed Bentham Science Journals
Nobel Laureates Have Endorsed Bentham Science Journals
[Note - this is the science journal which just published a peer reviewed paper that announcing the discovery of military grade explosive nano-thermite in the WTC dust.]
Richard R. Ernst
Swiss Federal
Inst. of Technology,
Switzerland
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1991
For his contributions to the development of the methodology of high resolution nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy.
"Current Medicinal Chemistry has established itself as an important review journal in the field of medicinal chemistry. It provides research scientists in the field with comprehensive review articles written by eminent experts. It allows them to keep abreast with the latest relevant developments. The journal is highly recommended to all scientists active in the field of medicinal chemistry."
Sir James W. Black
London University,
King's College Hospital
London, U.K.
The Nobel Prize in Physiology 1988
For the discoveries of important principles for drug treatment.
"Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry provides medicinal chemists and scientists in allied disciplines an invaluable resource for thematic coverage of keen new developments in their field of study."
Robert Huber
Max-Planck-Institut
für Biochemie Martinsried,
Martinsried, Germany
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1988
For the determination of the three-dimensional structure of a photosynthetic reaction centre.
"Current Medicinal Chemistry is a frontier review journal, which contains comprehensive reviews written by leading scientists in their respective fields. The journal presents the latest developments in various areas of medicinal chemistry. I strongly recommend it to scientists working in the field."
"Current Genomics represents a frontier review journal, which contains comprehensive reviews written by leading scientists in the respective fields. This journal presents the latest developments in the area of genomics. This is strongly recommended."
"The 4 new journals Recent Patents on Anti-Cancer Drug Discovery, Recent Patents on Cardiovascular Drug Discovery, Recent Patents on CNS Drug Discovery, Recent Patents on Anti-Infective Drug Discovery are important patents journals in the field of Anti-Cancer Drug Discovery, Cardiovascular Drug Discovery, CNS Drug Discovery and Anti-Infective Drug Discovery, which should provide research scientists in the fields with recent developments in various frontier areas. These journals are strongly recommended to the scientific community".
Jean-Marie Lehn
Université Louis Pasteur Strasbourg, France
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1987
For the development and use of molecules with structure-specific interactions of high selectivity.
"In view of the growing volume of literature, the role of a high quality review journal has become increasingly important.
Current Medicinal Chemistry presents expert overviews in the field of medicinal chemistry of general interest to the scientific community."
"In view of the growing volume of literature, the role of high quality review journals has become increasingly important.
Current Drug Targets is an important journal in the field of medicinal chemistry and drug design, which is strongly recommended to the scientific community."
"Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry represents an important review journal of great value to pharmaceutical scientists."
"Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry is recommended as a forum for the publication and review of important aspects of medicinal chemistry including the design and synthesis of compound libraries for bioactivity testing."
Herbert C. Brown † (1912 - 2004)
Purdue University
West Lafayette, USA
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1979
For the development of the use of boron- and phosphorus-containing compounds, respectively, into important reagents in organic synthesis.
"Current Medicinal Chemistry has established itself as an important review journal in the field of medicinal chemistry. It provides research scientists in the field with comprehensive review articles written by eminent experts. It allows them to keep abreast with the latest relevant developments. The journal is highly recommended to all scientists active in the field of medicinal chemistry."
"Current Organic Chemistry is an important review journal, which should prove to be of wide interest to organic chemists and provide them with a convenient means of keeping up with the current flood of advances in the field."
Sir Derek H. R. Barton † (1918 - 1998)
Imperial College
London, U.K.
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1969
For the development of the concept of conformation and its application in chemistry.
"Current Medicinal Chemistry represents an important review journal of great value to medicinal chemists in universities and pharmaceutical industries."
"Current Organic Chemistry is an important chemistry review journal, which will present frontier reviews in organic chemistry. The journal will prove to be a very useful source of up-to-date information. The eminent international stature of the Guest Editors will guarantee the high standards expected of an international journal."
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:23 pm Post subject:
@ chek-
Some home truths about the no planes and media fakery scams exposed:
'Course, 'PLANES', (physical airoplanes, made of aluminium basically), can 'melt' into buildings, irrespective of steel beams covering the whole of the outside of the 'Twins'; another case of the laws of physics 'suspending' for the day (try watching 'Confronting the Evidence' again). _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.
A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.
Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.
Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.
So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. "
BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the "Fourteen Points" paper or the "Environmental Anomalies" papers we published last year.
IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.
Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).
We say that this paper has the "imprimatur of peer-review". That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings... We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO... _________________ Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
The excellent work by Niels Harrit, Farrer, Jones and Ryan et. al in the recent journal article (Thermitic Material Discovered in WTC Dust) has paved the way for some very good media coverage in Denmark. At around 10:30 pm on Monday April 6, Harrit was interviewed for 10 minutes during the late news program on one of the two most respected Danish television channels (TV2). On Wednesday April 8, Harrit was interviewed for 6 minutes at 8:45 am during a live news and entertainment program on the same channel. In both cases, Harrit, and the claims of the article, were treated with refreshing seriousness and respect.
The first interview has been subtitled in English and loaded onto youtube, below:
The clip is also available on our server:
http://agenda911.dk/article.php?story=nanothermite_tv2news
with links to various alternative (higher quality) formats and the full text of the English subtitles. Some readers may want to download a high quality version and mirror it on other servers (put the URL in a comment to this blog entry), in case our server struggles with demand and/or youtube lets us down.
We are working on subtitles for the second 6 min. interview (covers similar material) and will post this later. The journal article has also received reasonably fair coverage in a number of mainstream Danish newspapers (these articles are in Danish, the headlines are translated below):
- JyllandsPosten: Researchers: Explosives in dust from WTC
- Videnskab.dk: Danish researcher: Explosive nano-material found in dust from WTC
- Videnskab.dk: Niels Harrit: Scientific evidence for old knowledge about 9/11
- Politiken: 9/11 conspiracy theories revitalised
- EkstraBladet: WTC mystery: Nano-thermite in the towers
- Ingeniøren: Research team claims to have found nano-explosive in the World Trade Center
- Kristeligt Dagblad: Dane resurrects September 11 conspiracy theory
We hope this precedent may serve to encourage journalists in other countries to take the article's findings seriously, and start looking more critically at 9/11. Do what you can to make them aware of this coverage in your country. _________________ Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:45 pm Post subject: Here is another explosive interview with Niels Harrit:
Here is another explosive interview with Niels Harrit:
Danish 9/11 truth in MSM with subtitles, Niels Harrit on "GoodMorning Denmark" in december 2007.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jze33vZCpwo
Your jig is up, debunkers. Time to switch, rather than fight.
Further Implications:
1)
Those who are sick from breathing in toxic WTC dust are now known to have breathed in nano-thermite. This paper will be evidence at their lawsuits.
2)
Military grade, explosive nano-thermite is probably a guarded military secret. If so, the military should not have spread 10 tons of it in the World Trade Center.
3)
Some claim the media is in on the conspiracy. Well, I can tell you categorically that Danish TV is not in on the conspiracy!
Oh darlings, doesn't it make you want to dance and sing.
Look, the stars are shining and its raining too! How wonderful everything is!
What lovely people the Danish are. How very civil. How very decent and true.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:59 pm Post subject:
Moon-in-Taurus wrote:
Oh darlings, doesn't it make you want to dance and sing.
Look, the stars are shining and its raining too! How wonderful everything is!
What lovely people the Danish are. How very civil. How very decent and true.
Tra la.....
Could I respectfully suggest you stick to painting and poetry? Pity Bliar didn't stick to his guitar; it wouldn't have got him anywhere, but at least he wouldn't have sold his soul.... _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Eh bien! _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:08 pm Post subject:
!~'I wonder, wonder when,
dah, dah, dah,
Judy Wood is going to present something for 'Peer Review'?!~
Don't hold your breath!!!! _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
So Jones et al have detected traces of the thermite originally (and secretly) coated on girders by the builders of the towers in order, when ignited electrically, to cut through them and aid demolition by pre-planted explosives when the decision was eventually made to bring the towers down.
Umm, how does this help prove that the towers were blown up on 9/11?
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 4:50 pm Post subject:
Micpsi wrote:
So Jones et al have detected traces of the thermite originally (and secretly) coated on girders by the builders of the towers in order, when ignited electrically, to cut through them and aid demolition by pre-planted explosives when the decision was eventually made to bring the towers down.
Umm, how does this help prove that the towers were blown up on 9/11?
And just where did you come up with the idea that the nano-thermate was 'coated on girders by the builders of the towers'? Certainly not from Prof. Jones.
Also, at the time of the building of the 'Twins', nano-thermate had not been invented.
I'm still wondering when Judy Woods is going to present a paper for peer review... _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 Posts: 413 Location: South Essex
Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 8:57 am Post subject:
outsider wrote:
Micpsi wrote:
So Jones et al have detected traces of the thermite originally (and secretly) coated on girders by the builders of the towers in order, when ignited electrically, to cut through them and aid demolition by pre-planted explosives when the decision was eventually made to bring the towers down.
Umm, how does this help prove that the towers were blown up on 9/11?
And just where did you come up with the idea that the nano-thermate was 'coated on girders by the builders of the towers'? Certainly not from Prof. Jones.
Also, at the time of the building of the 'Twins', nano-thermate had not been invented.
I'm still wondering when Judy Woods is going to present a paper for peer review...
A quick Google reveals an audio of Prof Jones stating paint on thermite:
Regardless, this seems an excellent advancement of some of the truth
coming out. _________________ The poster previously known as "Newspeak International"
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:24 am Post subject:
@ Frank Freedom:
'A quick Google reveals an audio of Prof Jones stating paint on thermite:'
There is a mile of difference between 'paint on thermite' and 'coated on girders by the builders of the towers'. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 Posts: 413 Location: South Essex
Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:22 am Post subject:
Ah, I see what you mean there Outsider.
Paint on thermite seems to be promoted as protection against Wi-Fi transmissions too _________________ The poster previously known as "Newspeak International"
I'm a mid-rank academic in a mid-rank UK university. I'm not a chemist or materials scientist, but I do have some knowledge of the chemical properties of iron oxides in the context of my work. I'm very familiar with the peer review process for scientific publications. I'm impressed by the Harrit et al. thermite paper. I'm not fully qualified to judge it scientifically, but as best as I can judge the findings seem to be valid. The main thing is that although I've been convinced for some years that the WTC buildings were taken down controlled demolition, I've been rather timid in expressing my views to colleagues. However, the Harrit et al paper has given me much more confidence to speak out. In fact I've just emailed it to a very eminent colleague (he's an FRS - Fellow of the Royal Society) and asked him to comment on it. So in terms of spreading the word to the scientific community, this paper offers by far the best chance so far, IMO.
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1850 Location: Currently Andover
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:34 pm Post subject:
Boris wrote:
Hi All,
I'm a mid-rank academic in a mid-rank UK university. I'm not a chemist or materials scientist, but I do have some knowledge of the chemical properties of iron oxides in the context of my work. I'm very familiar with the peer review process for scientific publications. I'm impressed by the Harrit et al. thermite paper. I'm not fully qualified to judge it scientifically, but as best as I can judge the findings seem to be valid. The main thing is that although I've been convinced for some years that the WTC buildings were taken down controlled demolition, I've been rather timid in expressing my views to colleagues. However, the Harrit et al paper has given me much more confidence to speak out. In fact I've just emailed it to a very eminent colleague (he's an FRS - Fellow of the Royal Society) and asked him to comment on it. So in terms of spreading the word to the scientific community, this paper offers by far the best chance so far, IMO.
I may keep you posted on my progress.
Cheers,
Boris
it is hard to have the confidence to tell colleagues your views for fear of being ridiculed.
I have sent a link to this paper to 50 chemistry and physics lecturers at Reading university. _________________ Currently working on a new website
it is hard to have the confidence to tell colleagues your views for fear of being ridiculed.
I have sent a link to this paper to 50 chemistry and physics lecturers at Reading university.
Indeed. Many people (friends, family and colleagues) consider me a nut case because of my outspoken views on 9/11. However I have rarely gone along with the "majority view" and have ended up being proven right again and again. It doesn't help though... to survive in the corporate world you just have to "tow the line", be a "radiator" and not a "drain".
Meanwhile, I hope everybody here signs up to wikipedia and start influencing the discussion on the value of Harrits' paper and its inclusion within wikipedia. Apparently a peer-reviewed scientific paper is insufficient for the "high credibilitiy" of wikipedia - as you'll see here:
The excellent work by Niels Harrit, Farrer, Jones and Ryan et. al in the recent journal article (Thermitic Material Discovered in WTC Dust) has paved the way for some very good media coverage in Denmark. At around 10:30 pm on Monday April 6, Harrit was interviewed for 10 minutes during the late news program on one of the two most respected Danish television channels (TV2). On Wednesday April 8, Harrit was interviewed for 6 minutes at 8:45 am during a live news and entertainment program on the same channel. In both cases, Harrit, and the claims of the article, were treated with refreshing seriousness and respect.
The first interview has been subtitled in English and loaded onto youtube, below:
The clip is also available on our server:
http://agenda911.dk/article.php?story=nanothermite_tv2news
with links to various alternative (higher quality) formats and the full text of the English subtitles. Some readers may want to download a high quality version and mirror it on other servers (put the URL in a comment to this blog entry), in case our server struggles with demand and/or youtube lets us down.
We are working on subtitles for the second 6 min. interview (covers similar material) and will post this later. The journal article has also received reasonably fair coverage in a number of mainstream Danish newspapers (these articles are in Danish, the headlines are translated below):
- JyllandsPosten: Researchers: Explosives in dust from WTC
- Videnskab.dk: Danish researcher: Explosive nano-material found in dust from WTC
- Videnskab.dk: Niels Harrit: Scientific evidence for old knowledge about 9/11
- Politiken: 9/11 conspiracy theories revitalised
- EkstraBladet: WTC mystery: Nano-thermite in the towers
- Ingeniøren: Research team claims to have found nano-explosive in the World Trade Center
- Kristeligt Dagblad: Dane resurrects September 11 conspiracy theory
Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.
A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.
Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.
Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.
So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. "
BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the "Fourteen Points" paper or the "Environmental Anomalies" papers we published last year.
IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.
Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).
We say that this paper has the "imprimatur of peer-review". That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings... We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO...
The FBI: cast on TV as a legendary law enforcement agency. The best of the best - at least we are told. Heck they can solve any crime, even if there are only traces of evidence left, like hair, saliva, fingerprints - they are the ones we Americans turn to when all we have are straws to grasp for evidence...well ... that is ... as long as the evidence discussed has nothing to do with the 911 attacks on America! Whenever the topic turns to the discussion of evidence regarding the 911 attacks the FBI is AWOL (Absent WithOut Leave) - suddenly unable to comprehend concepts like conspiracy, or analysis of crime scene evidence. For some reason our dauntless FBI has better things to do, like chasing pirates off the horn of Africa. From the article:
"FBI spokesman Richard Kolko described the bureau's hostage negotiating team as "fully engaged" with the military in strategizing ways to retrieve the ship's captain and secure the Maersk Alabama and its roughly 20-member U.S. crew.
...Other analysts say the U.S. will be reluctant to use force as long as one of its citizens remains hostage. French commandos, for example, have mounted two military operations against pirates once the ransom had been paid and its citizens were safe."
Contrast that with the deep concern for American citizens' lives of the FBI Hostage Roasting Team in Waco, Texas , USA. From the article:
"...at Waco, where the FBI oversaw the largest single spasm of slaughter of civilians by law enforcement in US history, when nearly a hundred Branch Davidians died amid an assault by tanks, flame-throwers and snipers."
Somehow this contradiction in actions of the FBI triggers my logic circuits to doubt that the actions of the FBI are based on their concern for American citizens' lives. Their words mean nothing - just look at their actions.
What is the role of the FBI? They make grandiose claims on their website regarding their expertise in solving crimes - especially regarding trace evidence with explosives...that is... as long as it has nothing to do with the 911 attacks. In the case of 911 the FBI is blind, and even if they could see, their actions demonstrate that they have no interest in the evidence remaining from the attacks - they have better things to do; like brainwashing children on their website into thinking it's cool to wear fake mustaches so they can deceive others. I don't know what the reason is for the fake mustaches - it's probably classified information. So who can we rely on to examine the forensic evidence left over from the attacks of 9-11-01?
Enter Dr. Jones and Company - scientists interested in finding the truth. I urge every reader to digest the rigorous scientific examination of the dust remaining from the 911 attacks CLICK FOR SCIENTIFIC PAPER HERE. Make sure to click the "Active Thermitic Material... " link on the page referenced. Why hasn't the FBI done this work? Why isn't the FBI examining this landmark study? Perhaps their agenda differs from the agenda of Americans interested in finding the truth regarding the perpetrators of the 911 attacks? I cannot think of any other reason they are AWOL regarding 911.
I think it is important to point out that the analysis of the WTC dust linked above MUST be answered by SCIENTISTS. A failure to examine this evidence is inexcusable, unpatriotic, cowardly, unscientific, and most of all, a betrayal of every American predecessor that fought for American ideals. Perhaps silence really is agreement.
I wonder if there is a lesson to be learned by all Americans during this festive tax season by the mission statement of the explosives branch of the FBI, our dutiful public servants:
"Perform chemical analyses to determine the type of explosives used in an improvised explosive or incendiary device; and
Assist investigators in determining if debris from a fire of suspicious origin has an accelerant present."
Perhaps American citizens should realize the FBI really doesn't do what they say they do, unless, that is, they are asked to support an agenda that has nothing to do with securing America, but more with securing American Empire? If you think that's a stretch, I'll leave you with the FBI mission statement , revamped for the New World Order and the Global War on Terror whatever the hell that means:
"Our mission is to help protect you, your communities, and your businesses from the most dangerous threats facing our nation—from international and domestic terrorists to spies on U.S. soil…from cyber villains to corrupt government officials…from mobsters to violent gangs…from child predators to serial killers. Learn more here about our work with law enforcement and intelligence partners across the country and around the globe."
Remember - they do all of the above - unless the crime involves September 11, 2001. That is something to think about . That is something that should make every American citizen question where our "public servants" are leading us.
So Jones et al have detected traces of the thermite originally (and secretly) coated on girders by the builders of the towers in order, when ignited electrically, to cut through them and aid demolition by pre-planted explosives when the decision was eventually made to bring the towers down.
Umm, how does this help prove that the towers were blown up on 9/11?
And just where did you come up with the idea that the nano-thermate was 'coated on girders by the builders of the towers'? Certainly not from Prof. Jones.
.
Also, at the time of the building of the 'Twins', nano-thermate had not been invented.
It is well known that classified technology for the US military advances decades ahead of public patents. You can be sure nano-thermate was known years before it became "officially" invented, i.e., de-classified and allowed to be used by demolition companies.
I'm still wondering when Judy Woods is going to present a paper for peer review...[/quote]
A quick Google reveals an audio of Prof Jones stating paint on thermite:
Regardless, this seems an excellent advancement of some of the truth
coming out.[/quote]
Actually, this is just a smoking gun that fires blanks. 9/11 truthers desperate to find irrefutable proof of an inside job are just duping themselves if they think this evidence would stand up in court as proof that the towers were demolished.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
