Thursday, April 15, 2010

Put up or Shut up: A Year in Review



Update September 17, 2011:

So it's been a little bit over a year since physicist Steven Jones told us "what we need to know about peer-review" while also essentially telling 9/11 "debunkers" to put up or shut up. Let's see if they have stopped just being loud and have gotten loud and clear...

In October 2008, long time 9/11 "debunker" Dr. Frank Greening and three of his colleagues were published in the American Society of Civil Engineers' peer reviewed Journal of Engineering Mechanics (JEM). Their paper "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York" promoted the pile-driver or crush-down theory in which the tops of the Towers act as giant sledgehammers. Greening was the third author of the paper, the first being engineer Zdenek Bazant who wrote another paper also published by the JEM on 9/13/01 essentially promoting the theory.

As the website 911research.wtc7.net pointed out, "Bazant must be a super-genius to understand how two skyscrapers could crush themselves to rubble, a newly observed behaviour for steel structures, and write a paper about it in just two days."

The problem for Greening and company is that JEM published a peer-reviewed refutation of his hypothesis by chemical engineer James R. Gourley and are now set to publish another such peer-reviewed refutation by Anders Björkman, M.Sc. in July of this year, making it the 6th mainstream peer-reviewed paper published by members of the 9/11 truth movement.

Björkman's paper can currently be read at his personal website. It closes with the following statement, "Simple observations of any video of the WTC1 destruction prove the Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson model wrong."
 
Indeed.



Dr. Greening, why don't you do as James Gourley has done with your work and write a peer-reviewed refutation of the latest paper he was involved in regarding 9/11?
You know, the one in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal, published by Bentham.org, that reports to have found remains of nano-thermite, a high-tech military explosive, in dust recovered from the WTC.

Photobucket
The one that you have only attempted to refute on an internet forum where you presented disputed calculations regarding how energenic the material was, but no argument that the material was anything but nano-thermite.
As Steven Jones said:
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...

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...

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.
Being a chemist this is right up your alley, and you don't need his samples to refute his work. So what are you waiting on Dr. Greening? Related Info:

Debunking Dave Thomas, Ryan Mackey, and Zdenek Bazant et al.

Super Duper Thermite: A Year in Review

Thermite Denial - A Year in Review

9/11 Truth Movement: Year in Review