[Vision2020] Journal of 9/11 Studies: Peer Reviewed Work Raising Questions

Tue Mar 30 15:36:01 PDT 2010

Allow me to clarify...

I was making an attempt to explain why some people believe in conspiracy
theories about 9/11, not endorsing these theories.

As I indicated in my post, I noted that the "peer reviewed" status of the
"Journal of 9/11 Studies" publications was doubtful, so I already raised
questions about the "standards of academic rigor," as you phrased
it, involved.  I compared the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" to some of the junk
science publications on climate science, with questionable peer review
standards.  And I suggested some of those who believe in certain conspiracy
theories about 9/11 share with some anthropogenic climate warming
skeptics the same pattern of finding "experts" who support their doubts, as
though this proves a conspiracy, while they overlook a balanced
consideration of all professional peer review of the issues.

However, just because someone is researching cold fusion does not by itself
alone indicate they lack scientific expertise or integrity.  I do not know
the details of this individuals work on cold fusion.  If you can provide
evidence his work on cold fusion indicates a lack of scientific expertise or
integrity, please enlighten with the details.

*All three of the papers on the World Trade Center collapse I sourced were
peer reviewed in other publications, not the "Journal of 9/11 Studies."*

The paper from the "Journal of Engineering Mechanics" indicated what I
stated in my post, that the signature of thermite in the debris from the
collapse of the World Trade was from the materials contained in the
building, not from planted thermite.  This paper also argued that the
collapse of the WTC towers is explainable only from the aircraft strike and
resulting fire, which contradicts a common claim of many of those who are
skeptics of 9/11 orthodoxy, that the collapse of the towers as it occurred
would have been impossible merely from the aircraft strike and resulting
fire.
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ted --
>
> The "peer-reviewed" "Journal of 9/11 Studies" is run by a professor who was
> relieved of his teaching duties over the issue. Before publishing in the
> "Journal of 9/11 Studies," his research area was cold fusion. Does this meet
> anyone's standards for academic rigor?
>
> Additionally, for those of you that don't know, thermite is a mixture of
> finely powdered aluminum and iron oxide (rust), which is the sort of thing
> that one would expect to occur when a aluminum-bodied airframe crashes into
> a 45-year-old steel-framed structure.
>
> -- ACS
>
>   On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>   Keely wrote:
>>
>> "So I understand the "they shoulda known" element of the "conspiracy," I
>> suppose, but can someone explain what it is that makes some believe there
>> were specific acts committed in service of deliberate scenarios that left
>> more than 3,000 people dead in PA, NYC, and DC -- and that these acts were
>> committed by our government against its own people?"
>> -----------------
>> Some people believe alternative theories about the World Trade Center
>> collapse, and the other 9/11 attacks, because, amazingly, there are
>> seemingly credible sources of evidence and analysis to support
>> these theories, as you can read at the papers referenced here, which are
>> sourced from what appear to be peer reviewed professional journals.
>>
>> I directly reference papers suggesting thermite involved in the WTC
>> collapse, and that question the claim that the total collapse could happen
>> solely from the aircraft strike and fire on the upper floors *(I am not
>> endorsing these alternative theories).*  But others believe in seemingly
>> incredible theories about 9/11 because they have an emotional bias, for
>> whatever reason(s), to accept these theories; so any evidence, however
>> questionable, that suggests the official explanation for the 9/11 attacks is
>> doubtful, is seized as proof of a conspiracy.
>>
>> I think a comparison can be made between some of those who believe that
>> the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate warming (Examining the
>> Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Journal "EOS"
>> http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf ) is a deliberate
>> hoax or conspiracy among climate scientists, and those who accept incredible
>> conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks.  All that some people who claim
>> global warming is a hoax need to justify their belief is a list of "experts"
>> (MIT's Richard Lindzen, for example) who raise questions about the science
>> involved, to prove that the thousands of scientists around the planet, who
>> after exhaustive peer review argue that human activity is profoundly
>> altering climate, are engaged in a conspiracy to deceive the world.
>> Similarly, all that some who think the 9/11 attacks involved more than the
>> actions of the 9/11 terrorists require, to justify their belief, is a few
>> "experts" who raise questions, regardless if it can be shown via peer review
>> that these questions have plausible explanations that do not involve an
>> alternative conspiracy interpretation.
>>
>> One of the main alternative theories is that thermite was planted in the
>> World Trade Center towers to ensure a more total collapse, that would not
>> have happened from the aircraft strike alone.  I have read here (Journal
>> of Engineering Mechanics: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.pdf ) that
>> evidence for thermite in the WTC debris is due to chemical reactions in
>> material contained in the building, not because thermite was deliberately
>> planted in the building by conspirators; and that the total collapse can be
>> explained by the aircraft strike alone and resulting fire.  However, this
>> source raises serious questions that the total collapse can be explained
>> only by the aircraft strike and fire:
>>
>>
>> http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM
>>
>> The Open Civil Engineering Journal
>>
>> Volume 2
>> ISSN: 1874-1495
>>
>> Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World
>> Trade Center Destruction
>> -----------
>>
>> And this paper might be sourced by those who think thermite was planted in
>> the WTC:
>>
>>
>> http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
>>
>> The Open Chemical Physics Journal
>>
>> Volume 2
>> ISSN: 1874-4125
>> Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
>> Center Catastrophe
>> -------------------------
>>
>> Of course the thermite conspiracy theory implies some rather connected and
>> powerful people had inside knowledge that aircraft would be hijacked to
>> strike the towers, who had access to the WTC, and wanted to exploit maximum
>> damage for whatever agenda they were pursuing (perhaps the "new Pearl
>> Harbor" from page 51 of the "Project for the New American Century" document
>> "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New
>> Century" September 2000:
>> http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
>>
>> David Ray Griffin, a process theologian from the Claremont School of
>> Theology, presents evidence that 9/11 was anticipated.  A review of his
>> book, "*The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush
>> Administration and 9/11"*, by Dr. Rosemary Radford Ruether, a pioneer
>> Christian feminist theologian, is at this website:
>>
>> http://www.ratical.com/ratville/CAH/nPearlHarbor.html
>>
>> ----------------------
>>
>> The "thermite" claim is a rather incredible conspiracy theory.  The
>> conspiracy theory that those in the intelligence business who were "in the
>> know" about the 9/11 plot simply took no action to stop it, to exploit the
>> attacks for a certain agenda, is much more believable.  Think of Oliver
>> North and his illegal actions regarding Iran-Contra.
>> But if any of the 9/11 conspiracy plots were true, to say those involved
>> represented "our government," requires qualification.   There are "black-op"
>> activities that our kept "off the books": members of the US Congress, even
>> the president and his cabinet, may not be aware of these activities, by
>> design.  Was it "our government" who engaged in the "Iran-Contra" affair?
>>
>> --------------
>> The following website lists numerous sources suggesting "alternative"
>> theories regarding  9/11, some, not all, from professional science
>> journals.  It appears the claim that some of these papers are "peer
>> reviewed" means those who sponsor the website are the "peers" who review,
>> which is not how the peer review process works in professional science
>> publishing.  This approach is sometimes how junk science on anthropogenic
>> climate warming is presented as "peer reviewed," when the process is not
>> independent of bias, nor open to random selection of professional
>> reviewers.  A couple of scientists start a journal and accept papers that
>> fit their bias, to create the impression they are publishing credible
>> independently peer reviewed science:
>>
>> http://www.journalof911studies.com/
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>   Keely asks:
>>>
>>>
>>> "can someone explain what it is that makes some believe there were
>>> specific acts committed in service of deliberate scenarios that left more
>>> than 3,000 people dead in PA, NYC, and DC -- and that these acts were
>>> committed by our government against its own people?"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Governments have done way worse.
>>>
>>>
>>> History shows there are despicable people who use their power in such a
>>> way.
>>>
>>>
>>> Whether it was this government or a Saudi fanatic, some person chose to
>>> do such a thing, which shows that people can be very, very bad.
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, people are gullible and will believe anything.  I'm sure some think
>>> it was aliens who controlled the minds of some poor earthling who was the
>>> real terrorist.
>>>
>>>
>>> There's probably even someone out there who thinks it was me!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Garrett Clevenger
>>>
>>> --- On *Wed, 3/24/10, keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com>* wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com>
>>> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Former US Senator & 9/11 Commissoner Max
>>> Cleland
>>> To: moscowrecycling at turbonet.com, lfalen at turbonet.com,
>>> garrettmc at verizon.net
>>> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> Date: Wednesday, March 24, 2010, 12:41 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> Excellent point, but I think it's also important to realize that it was
>>> the Bush administration, pre-9/11, which was laying the groundwork for war
>>> in Iraq -- facts be damned -- and led a devil's rush in precisely, exactly,
>>> the direction from which the attacks didn't come.  The Clinton presidency
>>> was highly imperfect, but it wasn't his administration that desperately
>>> sought reason to invade Iraq under the flimsiest of pretenses.
>>>
>>> I've looked over some 9/11 conspiracy sites and find them interesting but
>>> not terribly convincing.  I'm wondering how those who believe there was a
>>> conspiracy -- not of individual acts of omission, but of specific acts of
>>> comission -- explain jetliners full of victims vaporized on contact.  If I
>>> read correctly, some even think the planes were empty, or largely so, and
>>> the examination of passenger manifests surely would rule that out.
>>> (Manifests, and common sense).
>>>
>>> So I understand the "they shoulda known" element of the "conspiracy," I
>>> suppose, but can someone explain what it is that makes some believe there
>>> were specific acts committed in service of deliberate scenarios that left
>>> more than 3,000 people dead in PA, NYC, and DC -- and that these acts were
>>> committed by our government against its own people?
>>>
>>> Keely
>>> www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > From: moscowrecycling at turbonet.com
>>> > To: lfalen at turbonet.com; garrettmc at verizon.net
>>> > Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:24:11 -0700
>>> > CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Former US Senator & 9/11 Commissoner Max
>>> Cleland
>>> >
>>> > I'll put blame on the economy as far back as Reagan for deregulating
>>> wall
>>> > street.
>>> > Andy Boyd
>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> > From: "lfalen" <lfalen at turbonet.com>
>>> > To: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
>>> > Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>> > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:59 AM
>>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Former US Senator & 9/11 Commissoner Max
>>> Cleland
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > >I do not wish to exonerate Bush in this. I think that his people
>>> should
>>> > >have been more on top of it. It does seem funny to me though that
>>> Obama
>>> > >still blaming every thing wrong with the economy on Bush. You should
>>> > >remember that 9/11 occurred shortly after Bush took office. Why not
>>> put
>>> > >some of the blame on Clinton?
>>> > > Roger
>>> > > -----Original message-----
>>> > > From: Garrett Clevenger garrettmc at verizon.net
>>> > > Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:42:23 -0700
>>> > > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
>>> > > Subject: Re: Former US Senator & 9/11 Commissoner Max Cleland
>>> > >
>>> > >> Roger writes:
>>> > >> "There has many books written,lawsuits and movies about the Warren
>>> > >> Commission also. Anybody can write a book speculating on
>>> conspiracies.
>>> > >> This is not proof of anything."
>>> > >>
>>> > >> True, anybody could write a book about anything, including a
>>> particular
>>> > >> religion, but that is not proof of anything.
>>> > >> The ironic thing is that 911 was supposedly islamic terrorist based
>>> which
>>> > >> was leapt upon by christians, including WBush, both with religions
>>> based
>>> > >> upon mostly the same book speculating what God wants. But it doesn't
>>> make
>>> > >> it true.
>>> > >> A lot of damage is caused by people who believe what a certain book
>>> says,
>>> > >> so believe me, I'm skeptical about pretty much everything.
>>> > >> But, common sense dictates that if powerful people espoused a
>>> certain
>>> > >> belief as pointed out by Ted
>>> > >> (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)
>>> and
>>> > >> then that unfolds while they are in power, then I have to question
>>> that
>>> > >> coincidence.
>>> > >> I have no idea what the truth is around 911, but I do see that the
>>> > >> consequences were way worse than they needed to be, and I blame that
>>> on
>>> > >> those who were in power at the time.
>>> > >> Since there is a lot of evidence to suggest either incompetence or
>>> > >> purposeful malfeasance, as a conscious human I can't help but be
>>> > >> irritated by that, and at least have an open mind about possible
>>> > >> scenarios.
>>> > >> After all, truth is often more unbelievable than fiction...
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Garrett Clevenger
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > > =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100330/05578e0f/attachment-0001.html 