Twooferism Lives! Highly Engineered Explosives
Posted on April 6, 2009
Still not as amusing as the chicken wire recreation of the fire at the World Trade Center (that’s a classic!), but, maybe it is about time for the Twoofers to join us in Reality Land®
A team of scientists claim to have unearthed startling data from dust and debris gathered in the days and weeks after the World Trade Center towers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001.
In a study published by the Open Chemical Physics Journal — a peer-reviewed, scientific publication — Steven E. Jones and Niels Harrit level a stark allegation: that within the dust and rubble of the World Trade Center towers lays evidence of “a highly engineered explosive,” contrary to all federal studies of the collapses.
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. And then we find out that, according to Screw Loose Change, that Bentham Open Journals is “a vanity publishing outfit based in… wait for it… Pakistan.”
This latest report, Jones told Visibility 9/11, “explodes the official story that ‘no evidence’ exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings. The red/gray chips are the ‘loaded gun’ of 9-11.”
Know what really explodes the Twoofer story? How anyone could wire up all those buildings with explosives without anyone seeing it and without anyone involved in wiring it up narking in the middle of placing the explosives. It takes a long time to get a building ready for demolition. It’s something Twoofers cannot really explain. Unless everyone involved was a zombie. Hypnotized by Darth Cheney and the Dark Side of the Force.
On the bright side, Twooferism keeps the loons out of real mischief that can cause real world problems.
» Filed Under 9-11, News, Stupidity, Unhinged, WTC/Memorial, terrorism
Trackback URL
Comments
2 Responses to “Twooferism Lives! Highly Engineered Explosives”
Leave a Reply
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.”
http://www.bentham.org/Nobel.htm
And a response from the main author:-
What you need to know about “Peer-review”
ProfJones Blog — April 7, 2009
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19780
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…