University of Alaska Fairbanks Professor Launches New 9/11 Research Project

a reply to: hellobruce

The editor-in-chief’s dramatic departure gives critics additional reason to doubt the article’s conclusions, but Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.

She probably just doesn't want to get involved in any controversies. Or end up suicided. Isn't her area of expertise so this is really irrelavent Just a straw man argument.

DOES NOT CHANGE THE INVESTIGATION The editor-in-chief’s decision is viewed as regrettable by the Danish chemist Niels Harrit, who is one of the authors to the controversial article on nanothermite in the dust from the WTC. “It surprises me, of course, and it is regrettable, if it discredits our work. But her departure doesn’t change our conclusions, for it is a purely personnel related thing she his angry about. I still believe that we have carried out chemical physics, and if there is something wrong with our study, she is welcome to criticize us for it,” says Niels Harrit, Associate Professor at the Institute of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen.

This is the type of nonsense Bentham Science Publishers will publish, if you pay them.

www.newscientist.com...

Earlier this year, Davis started receiving unsolicited emails from Bentham Science Publishers, which publishes more than 200 “open-access” journals – which turn the conventional business model of academic publishing on its head by charging publication fees to the authors of research papers, and then making the content available for free.

As the emails stacked up, Davis was not only encouraged to submit papers, but was also invited to serve on the editorial board of some of Bentham’s journals – for which he was told he would be allowed to publish one free article each year. “I received solicitations for journals for which I had no subject expertise at all,” says Davis. “It really painted a picture of vanity publishing.” Sheer nonsense

So Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham’s editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham.

The paper, entitled “Deconstructing Access Points” (pdf) made no sense whatsoever, as this sample reveals: In this section, we discuss existing research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware [10]. On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9]. Acronym clue Davis and Anderson, writing under the noms de plume David Phillips and Andrew Kent, also dropped a hefty hint of the hoax by giving their institutional affiliation as the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology, or CRAP.

Yet four months after the article was submitted, “David Phillips” received an email from Sana Mokarram, Bentham’s assistant manager of publication: This is to inform you that your submitted article has been accepted for publication after peer-reviewing process in TOISCIJ. I would be highly grateful to you if you please fill and sign the attached fee form and covering letter and send them back via email as soon as possible to avoid further delay in publication. The publication fee was $800, to be sent to a PO Box in the United Arab Emirates. Having made his point, Davis withdrew the paper.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

No doubt a health physicist would know that and have a scintillation counter which measures gamma radiation

As for thorium - it is a natural occurring element found in traces in many rocks

Thorium is not fissionable - it is used to breed U 233 which is fissile .....

Thorium is also used in electronics in vaccum tubes and in magnetrons for microwave production, ie microwave ovens

Care to estimate how many microwave oven were in those buildings.....??

Thus there were many other sources of thorium present

a reply to: Salander

Original article does not exist anymore on line - was originally in a journal NEHA.ORG

I excerpted it in post few years back

Here is what I had

A major concern was that terrorists could have unleashed a so-called “dirty bomb,” an explosive device containing radioactive compounds like cesium.

Within minutes of the crash, McKinney sent a radiological health inspector to check the site for any radiation sources. He reached Richard Borri, a senior scientist in the department’s office of Radiological Health, who like most people from DOH, was on his way to work when the first tower was hit.

Borri checked the World Trade Center site for signs of radiation before and after the collapse of the buildings. Radiation could have originated in industrial radiology sources, such as the installing beams of the huge office buildings, which may have contained some radioactive elements from x-rays taken, and from depleted uranium used in ballasts in aircraft wing tips (such counterweights in airplane wing tips give the most weight for least volume, says Borri). It might also be left from any medical or dental offices.

That was fortunately not the case, Borri found, using a portable liquid scintillation counter, which measures radioactivity like a Geiger counter. The high-tech portable gadget he carried, one of the few available in the United States, is far more precise than its century-old cousin, the Geiger, counter with a much more refined ability to detect any kind of radioactivity.

Although Borri didn’t turn up any problematic radioactive readings by the end of the day, his work would be supplemented by the federal Department of Energy, whose technicians remained on site and continued to sample. [Only during the last days of the Ground Zero cleanup would radioactive testers find any evidence of radioactive emissions, from a pharmacy laboratory located within one of the buildings.]

Borri had with him a Scintillation counter to measure gamma radiation

a reply to: hellobruce

The bottom line.

If the powers that be wanted to do a real investigation. They would be reworking Jone's results. Their are more samples that they can test. Yet they don't. That's not what they want to do. They want to sweep it under the rug and discredit Jones or anyone else. I don't buy it.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

If the powers that be wanted to do a real investigation.

They already did.
You just don't like the outcome.

Hey, wasn't there that huge tower in Dubai that caught fire last year?
Whatever did happen to that, I wonder?

It'll be nice to hopefully see an investigation that properly releases their methodology and data to be peer-reviewed, rather than keeping their modelling numbers in a lockbox. Lookin' at you, NIST.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
If the powers that be wanted to do a real investigation. They would be reworking Jone's results.

They have done a real investigation, which is why only a few truthers believe a non peer reviewed paper, claiming nanoo thermite!

Their are more samples that they can test. Yet they don't.

Samples of dust to show... it was dust! If Jones wanted credibility he would have had his work peer reviewed, and not just published in a "you pay, we publish" Journal!

Also have a look here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: hellobruce

Samples of dust to show... it was dust! If Jones wanted credibility he would have had his work peer reviewed, and not just published in a "you pay, we publish" Journal!

Yes! Release all your data so it can be appropriately verified by independent sources, just like NIST di-

Ohh... Nevermind. The model they used was never released, at all.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

A building that wasn't hit by jets or had impact damaged from two buildings twice it's size falling? Oh I forgot the truther mantra and attempt to diminish the role of the jet strikes, an office fire never caused a building collapse. Why again is it required by code to insulate steel supports from fire? How is this even a comparable event. Are you talking about the report that never existed for the use of controlled demo that never took place. Funny use of locked away.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

What's locked away? Where all these people bought off?

m.reddit.com...

Awesome a person would do the actually research showing how well the NIST reports are and how extensive they have been reviewed. The expensive list of credible persons that supports the NIST. Oh. I forget the truthers have Jones and his one peer reviewed paper from a group that can be bought. It's ironic truthers suffer from the bad science they claim credible groups are practicing? The truther hypocrisy.

a reply to: neutronflux

I am talking about the model data NIST used for their report. This has nothing to do with controlled explosions or whatever, the building could have been collapsed by a solar flare for all I care. The point is that NIST withheld some of their data and to my knowledge it still has not been released.

Their analysis cannot be peer reviewed because it is not complete.

Here's the quote from the director.

FINDING REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I hereby find that the disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11,2001, might jeopardize public safety. Therefore, NIST shall not release the following information: 1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities. 2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities. Patrick Gallagher Director National Institute of Standards and Technology Dated: JUL 09 2009

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

So, then it's should be simple of coming up with a model supporting truther claims, having it peered reviewed, and have wide exceptice amoung the engineering desiplains. I know telling truther to use science and go do their own model to be scrutinized by the world is like telling the wind to stop blowing. Start a lawsuit to have it released. It's like you guys don't want to produce real evidence the can be put to the scientific method. Again. Truther hypocrisy. You supposed truth is common sense, yet your movement never provides tanagae evidence, or tries legal action to have the reports labled as lies retracted. You like the shodows and half truths. Really scrutiny would expose you for the frauds you are stop the attention you seek.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

I guess the WTC 7 construction files are of public record. Why not hide those. Again, the information for other engineers to build their own computer models are out there. Good luck with the peer review. I think Steve Jones can help you out. Why don't you go do a formal peer review of the NIST reports and create a list of falsehoods, provide counter arguments, and have the NIST lies retracted. After all, their lies are right there on paper. I bet you could have a college host the whole event. Better than bitching online about shills......or is it shrills? I still think truthers work for the saudies as disinfomationalist .....

a reply to: neutronflux

Maybe you should watch this video...

a reply to: Flatcoat

I'm sure it's a great video. Post when it's a academic research project peered reviewed by the engineering community and excepted by that community as scientific fact. There are videos on YouTube that claim the WTC jets were holograms? Maybe you should research why the majority of engineers support the NIST. It's not a percentage of the community, it's the community as a whole.

How much research by truthers had been submitted for peer review? Out of that, what has been citied as scientific fact and cretibele by any science discipline community?

Remember, not only are truthers trying to prove something scientifically happen, but the crime of conspiracy engineering organizations are part of. So how is that whole chain of evidence working for you in your aligation of crimes by engineers. Are all the engineers in favor of the NIST reports part of the conspiracy and criminals?

a reply to: neutronflux

Ah..so you didn't watch the video then. Good to see you have such an objective and open-minded approach to the subject. Funny how the supporters of the official story clap their hands over their eyes and hum loudly when evidence to the contrary is presented. BTW, mind posting a link to this majority of engineers voicing their support for NIST?

a reply to: Flatcoat

I don't watch the videos on halogram jets, nuclear bombs, and laser beams in relationship to the WTC. Let's us know when the peer reviews are completed.