As we’ve come to the 13th anniversary of
the 9/11 attacks, I’ve decided to release one of my long-overdue projects. As
many of you probably know, in 2011 Chris Mohr released a series of videos
responding to Richard Gage’s presentation 9/11 – Blueprint for Truth. Shortly
thereafter I began work on a lengthy response to these videos, with the intent
of posting it on the 911debunkers blog. Eventually, the plan became that my
response would instead be published at ae911truth.org as their official
response to his video series. However, due to some disagreements between me and
ae911truth regarding the content, the publication of my response was put on
hold for further review. My response has actually been finished for a few years
now, and I’ve decided that its publication has been put off for long enough.
So
today, I am releasing my paper on my own site, which you are encouraged to use
in any way you see fit. I’m very grateful for the help ae911truth provided in
editing my paper (especially Chris Sarns for his extensive review and recommendations),
but I’ve decided that the wait is over. And at the end of the day, this was
always going to be MY response to Chris Mohr. So to my fellow truth seekers, I
release to you the most extensive work I’ve ever written on the events of 9/11.
Looking back on it, there are probably a few things in it that I would tweak
here and there. But for the most part, I can vouch for it. There’s a lot of
really good information in it, with nearly 400 references included. I merely
ask that you use this paper in the most responsible way possible. Use it not
only to answer our critics, but also to educate others in the hope that we will
finally see justice served for everyone who tragically perished that day.
The "debunker" Oystein at the JREF Forum replied, commenting that my post "presents Discussion pieces at the JEM [Journal of Engineering Mechanics] as 'peer-reviewed articles', which shows the author (Talboo) know nothing about scientific discourse, or he flat-out lies ('discussions' about a peer-reviewed paper are published by the journal without peer-review)."
First off, after being told on YouTube that, "There is a rebuttal to Zdenek Bazant's January 2011 paper with an editor at JEM right now, "grandmastershek" responded, "You mean Bjorkmans comments? Yeah discussion papers are not peer reviewed."
No, it is not Bjorkman's comments. It is a substantial correction of major errors in the Bazant and Le January 2011 paper in JEM which are not ambiguous and that their claim that deceleration of the North Tower upper section in a natural collapse would be too small to be visible is erroneous. I hate to burst your little bubble here bubba but I would tend to think Discussion papers are more rigorously reviewed than standard papers, owing to the fact that they are criticizing a published paper and the author of the paper being criticized gets to respond.
Further backing up Szamboti's argument, is chemical engineer James Gourley, who described the process of getting his discussion paper refuting Bazant published in the JEM on 911blogger.com. Gourley states, "Not much is ever written about what we go through to get these papers published. The publication of this paper is a case study in the struggles we face." He notes that he had to "remove language that the editors thought was too argumentative" and that he left out a number of points he could have raised, knowing that "it would be difficult to get a paper critical of the official story published in a mainstream scientific journal" and "didn't want to give JEM any reason to reject it."
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), which oversees the JEM and many other scientific journals, makes essentially the same point, in their "ASCE Authors’ Guide," as Szamboti did, that "Discussions present significant comments or questions about the technical content of a technical paper." The guide goes on to state that "Discussions follow the requirements for other manuscripts except that they do not have abstracts, introductions, or conclusions." [All above emphasis added.]
Considered in sum, it certainly looks like discussion papers are indeed peer-reviewed. But just to make certain, I contacted Szamboti as well as esteemed scientist Dr. Crockett Grabbe, who replied:
I know they are peer reviewed in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, as Richard Johns and I just went through that with our Discussion of the Le and Bazant January 2011 paper [mentioned here]. There was at least one reviewer other than the editor.
Crockett Grabbe
PhD in Applied Physics, Caltech, 1978
As Scootle recently noted, stay tuned for an upcoming "post about the red-gray chips that addresses Millette's report and outlines an
upcoming, blind study of the WTC dust commissioned by chemical engineer Mark Basile." The article will kick off a fundraising campaign for the study that I am helping spearhead. Let the red chips fall where they may!
What Does it Mean for the 9/11 Truth Movement if James R. Millette Proves Nano-thermite Wasn't Used to Take down the WTC Towers on 9/11?
This begs the question, "What does it mean for the 9/11 truth movement if Millette proves nano-thermite wasn't used to take down the WTC Towers on 9/11?"
First off, to do that he will need to address an issue debated on 911blogger.com between physicist Steven Jones Steven, PhD. and chemist Dr. Frank Greening shortly after the release of the nano-thermite findings. Jones highlighted how he informed Greening that during the ignition of the material iron-rich spheres were formed, such as would be expected during a thermite reaction. He pointed out that the device in which the chips were heated only reaches 700°C, but that "the melting points of iron and of iron oxide are both above 1200 C." This is evidence of a high-temperature chemical reaction and was already addressed in the paper, which notes that the samples ignited at about 430ºC.
Greening argued that, "The microspheres reported in the Harrit paper could at best be described as 'iron-rich', with Al, Si and O always present. But let me remind you, this is also true for the magnetically separated microspheres found in incinerator ashes – they contain mostly Fe, Al, Si, and O."
Jones replied, "Dr. Farrer and Danny and I have looked at many of these post-DSC spheres, many do NOT contain Al. See for example Fig 21 in our paper."
Greening then admitted to some error on that point. He also seemed to agree that the materials could not be primer paint used on the WTC.
Furthermore, as Jim Hoffman has pointed out, the Thermitic Material paper analyzes iron-rich spheres from three different sources: residue from the ignition of commercial thermite, residue from the ignition of the red-gray chips found in the WTC dust, and the spheres found by themselves in the dust. Take a look; the chemical compositions are almost indistinguishable, or "strikingly similar" as the paper puts it. This again requires an impeccable explanation.
If all of this is done and the original study is effectively debunked then the question remains, "What does this mean for the truth movement?" The answer is nothing. Because most of us are not scientists, we must act like jurors in a trial, who often are asked to disseminate forensic evidence. The situation as it has existed is thus: the government skipped key forensic tests, while independent scientists did not and presented longstanding unrefutedpeer-reviewed evidence of explosive material being present. This is akin to a prosecution in a murder trial demonstrating through forensics that there was blood on a knife, while the defense simply claimed it was only red wine, while also refusing during a nearly three year window of opportunity to test their hypothesis. In essence, our position has been the logical one.
On the other hand, scientists from the truth movement have refuted the most prominent paper promoting gravity-driven collapse as the culprit on 9/11, three times in the same journal it was published in, the American Society of Civil Engineers' peer-reviewed Journal of Engineering Mechanics (JEM). Another major paper published in JEM supportive of gravity-driven collapse was also refuted in that same journal in a paper published by the impeccably credentialed scientist Crockett Grabbe, who also published one of the aforementioned three refutations. Still yet another three important peer-reviewed papers published in mainstream journals by members of the truth movement remain unchallenged. Learn more about all of these papers and read some by clicking here.
Again, this is all to say that the widely agreed upon physical evidence for demolition has not been debunked and the official investigations unquestionably were deplorably inadequate. One win in the scientific literature for debunkers in no way changes the very clear need for a new independent investigation. All of this this is best demonstrated by the following video of mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti with accompanying factual back-up.
