"VTR" <vexjorge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:d8GdnR-kaYP8GxXVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 9-11 Truth Movement: Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering
> Journal
>
>
> With publication in an established civil engineering journal,
Which is all of 2-years old... there are two issues. Yeah, that's
certainly established.
> the discussion on 9-11 has reached a new level.
>
> by Prof Jones
>
> Finally! After submitting a half-dozen papers to established
peer-reviewed
> technical journals over a period of nearly a year, we have two papers
> which have passed peer-review and have been accepted for publication.
One
> of these was published TODAY! In science, we say that we have “published
> in the literature,” a major step in a nascent line of scientific
inquiry.
>
> And many thanks to the editors for their courage and adherence to
science
Does that include a willingness to deliberately exclude relevant facts, as
the authors clearly do?
> in allowing us to follow the evidence and publish in their journal.
> (Indeed, expressions of thanks along these lines to the editors will be
> appreciated, as they will probably get a few letters chastising them… )
>
> The paper is here:
> http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm
(our paper is listed on top at the
> moment, the most recently entered paper); or go here:
> http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm
> (Click on “year 2008” then scroll down to the paper and click on it.)
>
> (HTML version below. -rep.)
>
> Yes, it is available on-line FOR FREE, since this is an “open
e-journal.”
> TOCEJ = The Open Civil Engineering Journal. You may download the paper
and
> make copies to give to local professors and engineers (hint, hint).
That's
> one reason this particular journal was chosen --
Another is no doubt that is standards appear to be questionable. Who
reviewed this paper and what reasons did they give for accepting its
shortcomings?
As an example of the mendacity of the authors:
<snippage>
> We agree that the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7 (which was not hit by a
> jet) is hard to explain from the point of view of a fire-induced
mechanism
Note that the authors deliberately avoid any mention of what WTC7 actually
*was* hit by, and which caused massive structural damage. They pretend
to
question the event while deliberately excluding highly relevant
information.
This does not appear to me to be good science.
No wonder genuinely established journals would not publish this.
Hope this helps.
-pk
<Snippage>
|
