Bentham Journal Accepted a Faked Paper

I interpret the ongoing attacks on Dr. Jones et al's publisher as a sign that the paper itself must be pretty solid. They did excellent research that should be commented on by those with similar backgrounds in physics and chemistry.

This is the 9/11 forum, not the "Open Scientific Journals" review forum.

reply to post by 1SawSomeThings


If it's that solid, why not get it reviewed by a non vanity journal?

This forum is 911 Conspiracies. You don't like the discussion? You don't have to read and or post in it.

Thank you.

I'm not sure being rejected or published in a non-vanity publication will necessarily reflect on a paper's solidity.

From the link mnemeth1 posted earlier today about the paper under discussion, it seems a "legitimate" journal got caught too, www.newscientist.com...:

What's more, it seems that even some journals that charge readers for their content may be prone to accepting utter nonsense. The SCIgen website reports another incident from 2007, in which graduate students at Sharif University in Iran got a SCIgen-concocted paper accepted by Applied Mathematics and Computation, a journal published by Elsevier (part of Reed-Elsevier, the publishing giant that owns New Scientist).

After the spoof was revealed, the pre-publication version of the paper was removed from Elsevier's ScienceDirect website. Still, the succinct proof-correcting queries sent to the hoaxers by Elsevier, made available here by the SCIgen team (pdf), make for interesting reading.

From this link en.wikipedia.org... about one fraud from earlier this decade:

On October 31, 2002, Science withdrew eight papers written by Schön

On December 20, 2002, the Physical Review journals withdrew six papers written by Schön

On March 5, 2003, Nature withdrew seven papers written by Schön

From this page en.wikipedia.org...(journal) about Nature's mistakes:

An earlier error occurred when Enrico Fermi submitted his breakthrough paper on the weak interaction theory of beta decay. Nature turned down the paper because it was considered too remote from reality. Fermi's paper was published by Zeitschrift für Physik in 1934, and finally published by Nature 5 years later, after Fermi's work had been widely accepted.

A quote from Nature about their review problems

"(T)here are unarguable faux pas in our history. These include the rejection of Cerenkov radiation, Hideki Yukawa’s meson, work on photosynthesis by Johann Deisenhofer, Robert Huber and Hartmut Michel, and the initial rejection (but eventual acceptance) of Stephen Hawking’s black-hole radiation."

Seems like this Akerlof guy won a Noble prize for Economics for some paper he wrote about Lemons and the Market. But it wasn't so easy going to get it published. From here nobelprize.org...:

The editor explained that the Review did not publish papers on subjects of such triviality.

I sent "Lemons" to the Journal of Political Economy, which sent me two referee reports, carefully argued as to why I was incorrect. ...... Besides — and this was the killer — (the Journal said) if this paper was correct, economics would be different.

Some examples of what was rejected in the past from a link I posted in another thread, michaelnielsen.org...:

* George Zweig’s paper announcing the discovery of quarks, one of the fundamental building blocks of matter, was rejected by Physical Review Letters. It was eventually issued as a CERN report.
* Berson and Yalow’s work on radioimmunoassay, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by both Science and the Journal of Clinical Investigation. It was eventually published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.
* Krebs’ work on the citric acid cycle, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by Nature. It was published in Experientia.
* Wiesner’s paper introducing quantum cryptography was initially rejected, finally appearing well over a decade after it was written.

Here's an article about censorship in the peer review process, iai.asm.org... Some quotes:

"In fact, studies of peer review have identified numerous problems, including confirmatory bias, bias against negative results, favoritism for established investigators in a given field, address bias, gender bias, and ideological orientation (reviewed in references 2, 13, 17, and 31)."

This quote from the same link might be the most relevant to any 911 studies:

"Bauer has noted that as a field matures, "knowledge monopolies" and "research cartels," which fiercely protect their domains, suppress minority opinions, and curtail publication and funding of unorthodox viewpoints, are established (3)."

So I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter if something is written in a "vanity" journal, a "legitimate" journal, or scribbled on a bathroom wall.

reply to post by CameronFox


Thanks! But I do like it; I think I'll stay!

Moving on... to use your logic of evaluating the journals for credibility to test the merit of Jones, et al, let's apply it to the scientists that contribute to these "non-vanity" journals. Some of them may have designed the "meds" many people here are on. How about the admission of falsification of research data uncovered in a recent poll conducted by a peer-reviewed journal. Don't like that because it's open-access? Just Google "falsifying research data" or "research fraud'. It goes way back. So all these "official journals" have some percentage of pencil-whipping in them. Ouch.

Maybe that's why it's better to argue the research and data in Dr. Jones' paper, than the straw man of who published it.

not to mention:

"What peer reviewed paper supports the official story again?"

Originally posted by jprophet420
not to mention:

"What peer reviewed paper supports the official story again?"

Here's the obvious answer: /bazant-blbg

Of course many others can be found by doing a literature search, obviously none as in depth as the NIST report but various important bits also exist in various journal articles.

Indeed, and that accounts for heating sufficient for structural failure but not heat/energy sufficient to provide the molten steel. Secondly the paper quotes the physics behind the energy to create the pulverized concrete but fails to analyze the iron found in the concrete dust.

If this were just a paper showing purely the physics behind the debunking that would be fine as I must say I can't prove the work (math) wrong. However when forming a scientific theory you must eliminate all other hypotheses. Failure to address these only proves that it could have happened 'this way'. We could use the example a+b=c does not make x+y=c false.

As is the trend with a lot of papers I see they agree with the pre-final drafts of the NIST report, which of course changed. So this paper is peer reviewed but contradicts the NIST final draft, thats interesting to say the least.

Originally posted by CameronFoxThey entire paper was a sham. You, JP would have rejected it. It didn't even
make sense!!

What in this paper does not make sense to you?

Specifically the quote you highlighted in the original post?

Please elaborate.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by jprophet420
not to mention:

"What peer reviewed paper supports the official story again?"

Here's the obvious answer: /bazant-blbg

Of course many others can be found by doing a literature search, obviously none as in depth as the NIST report but various important bits also exist in various journal articles.

You realize that Frank Greening, a co-author of the paper, stated that Newton's Third Law, one of the fundamental laws in physics, did not apply to collapsing buildings? Completely in error which of course casts doubt on the paper itself.

Not only that, the Bazant paper has been shown to be in error. After all, can you or anyone for that matter take 1/10th of a sold block and have it crush down the remaining 9/10ths of a structure? No one can of course because it is not possible in the realm of physics unless of course you remove the support of the 9/10 part of the structure. You may have heard of Hewia's Challenge at JREF that has never been completed or satisfied and never will because it is physically impossible thereby making the Bazant theory impossible.

Cam-
That is your opinion and of a few others. Even Bambang Parmanto's opinion? What about Marc Williams opinion? Marie-Paule Pileni. Does her opinion count? All three of these editors resigned from the journal since. Marie-Paule did at the end of April, Bambang and Marc just the other day.

Cam, why did Parmanto resign? And Cam, why do ignore the purpose behind accepting the fake paper?

Parmanto resigned...

"because of the potential for abuse,"

He didn't even see the hoax paper. Why? I would suggest because they were trying to determine the identity of the hoaxers! LOL


Pileni resigned because her feelings were hurt.

Williams appears to have resigned without knowing the full story... the purpose behind accepting the hoax paper was to find the identity of the unethical authors.

Few others opinion on Bentham?? You may want to look at the number of experts in their relative fields who have published in Bentham Open or do you ignore Nobel Nobel Laureates? Besides, this whole thread is pointless. Benthem Open didn't publish the paper, they accepted to determine the true identify of the hoaxers. Do you ignore this fact?

You sure are insulting 100's of authors who have published in Bentham Open and Bentham in general with your blanket opinions.

The unethical authors have done it before....

In February, Davis had submitted another computer-generated paper to The Open Software Engineering Journal, also published by Bentham Science Publishing, but this paper was rejected one month later.

You see, Cam, a lot of time was wasted peer-reviewing the previous hoax paper, so I'm not surprised they wanted to try to find out the true identity in order to alert other academia about the hoaxers.

There might be a case here if Bentham did publish the article, but they didn't. This of course has nothing to do with Jone's paper.

Now can you source a hoax paper that Bentham actually did publish?????

Originally posted by jprophet420
not to mention:

"What peer reviewed paper supports the official story again?"

Here are a few more:

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions Co-author Verdure. PDF. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 133 (2007): pp. 308–319
Discussion and replies to June 2006 Bazant & Verdure paper: James Gourley, G. Szuladinski

Bazant & Zhou, 2001-2002: Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis J. Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Sept. 28, 2001, addendum March, 2002.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation. Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C., JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Dissecting the Collapses Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. By: Quintiere, J.G.; di Marzo, M.; Becker, R.. Fire Safety Journal, Oct2002, Vol. 37 Issue 7, p707, 10p.

S. W. Banovic, T. Foecke, W.E. Luecke, et al. “The role of metallurgy in the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center towers collapse”, JOM, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 22-29, November 2007.

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.

Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse?; Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Journal of Engineering Mechanics; 2002 Vol. 128 Issue 7, p795-800, 6p.

"Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers" Clifton, Charles G., HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625, 25p

Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires. By: Usmani, A. S.. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Jun2005, Vol. 131 Issue 6, p654-657.

Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks. Omika, Yukihiro.; Fukuzawa, Eiji.; Koshika, Norihide. Journal of Structural Engineering v. 131 no1 (January 2005) p. 6-15

The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers. Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W.; Foecke, Tim. Advanced Materials & Processes v. 162 no10 (October 2004) p. 37-9

WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design. Post, Nadine M. ENR v. 253 no17 (November 1 2004) p. 10-11

"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations" Monahan, B., Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, and Andre Marshall "Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1" Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities Volume 21, Issue 6, pp. 414-421


Engineering Conference Papers
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" Marechaux, T.G. JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Abboud, N., M. Levy, D. Tennant, J. Mould, H. Levine, S. King, C. Ekwueme, A. Jain, G. Hart. (2003) Anatomy of a Disaster: A Structural Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapses. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 360-370

Beyler, C., D. White, M. Peatross, J. Trellis, S. Li, A. Luers, D. Hopkins. (2003) Analysis of the Thermal Exposure in the Impact Areas of the World Trade Center Terrorist Attacks. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 371-382

Thater, G. G.; Panariello, G. F.; Cuoco, D. A. (2003) World Trade Center Disaster: Damage/Debris Assessment In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 383-392



Fire Protection and Fire Modeling Papers
How did the WTC towers collapse? A new theory; Usmani, A. S.; Chung, Y. C.; Torero, J. L. Fire Safety Journal; 2003 Vol. 38, p501-533, 33p.

Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses. Fire and Materials, 29:4, July/August 2005. pp. 181 - 194. Chang, Jeremy; Buchanan, Andrew H.; Moss, Peter J.

"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings" Brannigan, F.L. Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

"Construction and Collapse Factors" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Corbett, G.P. "Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Collapse Lessons" Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Burgess, I.W., 'Fire Resistance of Framed Buildings', Physics Education, 37 (5), (2002) pp390-399.

G. Flint, A.S. Usmani, S. Lamont, J. Torero and B. Lane, Effect of fire on composite long span truss floor systems, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (4) (2006), pp. 303–315.



Fire Protection Conference Papers
"Coupled fire dynamics and thermal response of complex building structures" Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, Volume 30, Issue 2, January 2005, Pages 2255-2262 Kuldeep Prasad and Howard R. Baum

Choi, S.K., Burgess, I.W. and Plank, R.J., 'The Behaviour of Lightweight Composite Floor Trusses in Fire', ASCE Specialty Conference: Designing Structures for Fire, Baltimore, (Oct 2003) pp 24-32.

Jowsey et all, Determination of Fire Induced Collapse Mechanisms in Steel Framed Structures, 4th European Conference on Steel and Composite Structures, 10 June 05, 69-76

Usmani et all, Collapse scenarios of WTC 1 & 2 with extension to generic tall buildings, Oct-2006 Proceedings of the International Congress on Fire Safety in Tall Buildings



Related Papers
Interactive Failure of Two Impacting Beams Xiaoqing. Teng and Tomasz Wierzbicki. J. Engrg. Mech., Volume 129, Issue 8, pp. 918-926 (August 2003)

Use of High-Efficiency Energy Absorbing Device to Arrest Progressive Collapse of Tall Building Qing Zhou and T. X. Yu Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130, 1177 (2004)

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30:2, January, 2005. pp. 2247-2254. Baum, Howard R.; Rehm, Ronald G.

Reconnaissance and preliminary assessment of a damaged high-rise building near Ground Zero. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings. 12 :5, 15 December 2003. pp. 371 - 391. Warn, Gordon; Berman, Jeffrey; Whittaker, Andrew; Bruneau, Michel

"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center" Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A., The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48

John K. McGee et al, “Chemical Analysis of World Trade Center Fine Particulate Matter for Use in
Toxicologic Assessment”, Environmental Health Perspective (June 2003)

UC Davis Aerosol Study: Cahill et al., “Analysis of Aerosols from the World Trade Center
Collapse Site, New York, October 2 to October 30, 2001”, Aerosol Science and Technology,

Lioy et al, “Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center
(WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001”, Environmental Health
Perspectives, Volume 110 #7

reply to post by CameronFox


Now how about you address the facts I brought up about the last paper before citing all these papers, and also how about you go over your list and erase every one of them that agreed with the NIST report before they changed it. That would be a more realistic approach to "debunking".

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by CameronFoxThey entire paper was a sham. You, JP would have rejected it. It didn't even
make sense!!

What in this paper does not make sense to you?

Specifically the quote you highlighted in the original post?

Please elaborate.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by jprophet420
not to mention:

"What peer reviewed paper supports the official story again?"

Here's the obvious answer: /bazant-blbg

those aren't peers...there are the SAME people who were involved with the NIST report

Bazant OVERESTIMATED the JOLT, or FORCE that was suppose to have started the collapse

Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis

This, 01-21-09, paper, points out 'critical' flaws in Bazant/NIST hypothesis that there has to be a 'jolt, 'force', in order to overcome the lower sections.. This paper also points out, Bazant was off by a factor of ten in his calculation of the stiffness of the columns, with his 71 GN/m estimate, This error overestimate the potential amplifying effect of the jolt he claims occurred

no jolt

and Greenlings data is discredited here

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
You realize that Frank Greening, a co-author of the paper, stated that Newton's Third Law, one of the fundamental laws in physics, did not apply to collapsing buildings? Completely in error which of course casts doubt on the paper itself.

Oh Swing Dangler, words cannot express how hilarious I find this quote.

You will defend Steven Jones and his ilk to the end, even when good evidence has been shown that their paper was not sufficiently reviewed, but as soon as another paper has actually been reviewed by a well known and notable journal then it's out with the Ad Hominems.

Tell me, even if he did say this, what doubt does it cast on the paper? Can I cast doubt on Steven Jones' paper by showing dumb things he's said, or will I get shouted at and called disinfo for doing so? You don't seem to have taken any flak for it.

Not only that, the Bazant paper has been shown to be in error. After all, can you or anyone for that matter take 1/10th of a sold block and have it crush down the remaining 9/10ths of a structure? No one can of course because it is not possible in the realm of physics unless of course you remove the support of the 9/10 part of the structure. You may have heard of Hewia's Challenge at JREF that has never been completed or satisfied and never will because it is physically impossible thereby making the Bazant theory impossible.

Wow what a great refutation of a detailed paper, it's wrong because "it is not possible" hmm? It's a shame that their paper shows it actually is possible.

As for Heiwa's challenge, you may have missed that over at JREF a plan more detailed than any produced by the truth movement was constructed, and Heiwa was consulted. He repeatedly changed his position and is not being truthful about the money available.

If the existence of a challenge that has yet to be met proves something to be impossible then I challenge truthers to take down a large structure with thermite.

You have yet to do that, which proves conspiracy theories impossible.

Originally posted by hgfbob
those aren't peers...there are the SAME people who were involved with the NIST report

No they're not.

Bazant OVERESTIMATED the JOLT, or FORCE that was suppose to have started the collapse

No he didn't, the paper you refer to is unable to even detect a jolt within its own data due to their methedology. As expected it is published in an unreviewed journal operated by people who already agree with it.

You are unable to even spell "Greening" so I don't expect you can refute the paper with any actual science.

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
And Cam, why do ignore the purpose behind accepting the fake paper?

Not ignoring it at all. But, to be honest I call it the Pee Wee Excuse.

Originally posted by CameronFox


If it's that solid, why not get it reviewed by a non vanity journal?

Jones must be reading this thread!

(well sort of)

"...experiments continue, and future results will certainly be published in a non-Bentham journal next time."

-Steven Jones @911 Blogger

reply to post by CameronFox

Jones must be reading this thread!

I think you might be overrating this thread's importance to someone who by now has probably seen it all. Anyway, could you please provide a link to

"...experiments continue, and future results will certainly be published in a non-Bentham journal next time."

Isn't that usually done when you quote someone at an external source?

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings


I think you might be overrating this thread's importance to someone who by now has probably seen it all. Anyway, could you please provide a link to

Did you bother to read what I put in parentheses?

"...experiments continue, and future results will certainly be published in a non-Bentham journal next time."

The name (steven Jones) and website (911 Blogger) was listed. But, since I am such a nice guy I will give you the link.

www.911blogger.com...

[edit on 17-6-2009 by CameronFox]

reply to post by CameronFox


Wow thanks, you are a nice guy!

I did not know Dr. Jones said this (in the same post):

Further, our paper was reviewed prior to publication by the Physics dept. chair at BYU -- and he approved it for publication. His peer-review was NOT under the auspices of Bentham. (This peer-review was done because two of the authors are from this dept. at BYU... and Dr. Farrer requested the review.)

I think debunkers will look for any way to criticize the Active Thermitic Material paper without actually dealing with doing experiments or papers themselves. Our results are based on experiment, not on who published the results.