Activist Editors at Wikipedia Censor 'Active Thermitic Material'
Activist editors at Wikipedia have changed the name of the "World Trade Center Controlled Demolition Hypothesis" page to "World Trade Center Demolition Conspiracy Theories", are removing all links to the paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" recently published in the refereed Open Chemical Physics Journal (including from the 9/11 Truth Movement page and even Dr. Steven Jones' page), and have banned and/or restricted some users that re-add the links and question their policy.
See the discussion thread at TruthAction.org- many links to relevant pages at Wikipedia; the "Talk" page is very revealing of their bias, hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.
The new paper has pulled the rug out from under the wikipedia front lines defending the official story and they have now suddenly changed the title of the demolition page from --
Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center
World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories
Here is their discussion. They are clearly on the defensive. They removed the link to the paper, claiming it is an "unreliable source". It's been reposted and removed again. Consider joining in . . .
This is the paper they don't want you to see:
I'm posting my replies to Sven Monk and BS Sniffer here (see comment thread), cuz for some reason, when I try to post more than 1 comment reply on articles I post, I'm getting a Spam rejection notice. I haven't gotten a reply from tech support since my first message to them a couple days ago, trying again after this.
""refereed" journal. This journal is published by Bentham Scientific, do a quick google of that name + "scam" they solicit undergrad students for ""peer review" and will publish anything as long as the author has the money. I'd call that an unreliable source. If it was in "Nature" then this would be a story."
Another attack, without evidence to support it. Yes, look into Bentham Science; they publish nearly 200 open access journals, have been around since 2007 and papers published by them are cited in other journals- and Wikipedia allows Bentham articles as sources in other articles!!! As a start up with an initial goal of creating 300 journals, they sent out a huge number of emails. They may have made some mistakes, but notice how sven monk hasn't pointed any flaws in their editorial standards or peer review process, or provided a source cite or link to back up its claim that Bentham "will publish anything as long as the author has the money". Sven has also not pointed out any flaws in the paper. Where did these red-gray nano-engineered chips with thermitic properties come from?
Funny u should mention Nature- a Journal that has published work by Jones:
· S.E. Jones, E.P. Palmer, J.B. Czirr, D.L. Decker, G.L. Jensen, J.M. Thorne, and S.F. Taylor & J. Rafelski, "Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter," Nature 338: 737-740 (April 1989). Results confirmed:2001: "Enhancement of the electron screening effect for d+ d fusion reactions in metallic environments", Europhysics Letters, 54:449 “...the observed enhancement of the electron screening in metal targets can, in tendency, explain the small neutron production rates observed in the cold-fusion experiment of Jones [reference 1989 Nature paper].” Also, K. Czerski, et al., Eur. Phys. J. A27:S01,83 (2006) “ As shown in [Europhys. Lett. 68:363 (2004)], the screening energy of order 300 eV determined in accelerator experiments can explain the neutron production rate observed by Jones et al. [Nature 338:737, 1989] at room temperature.”
BS Sniffer: "Steven Jones latest paper..I love a good joke. I hope it is as funny as his last "peer-reviewed" papers. Complete junk science on samples of unknown origin. No chain of custody of specimens. Jones is too biased to be writing a paper like that. I am more likely to believe his story of Jesus having tea with the Mayans, then his super-duper super-nano thermite theory."
Actually, Jones isn't the lead author; Harrit is. And there are 7 other authors besides those 2. By saying "Jones latest paper", Sniffer is likely referring to the peer-reviewed Fourteen Points letter published in Bentham's Open Civil Engineering Journal which uses NIST's own words and shows their conclusions are unsupported, and has never been rebutted, let alone debunked, in any journal. And don't forget the full paper published in The Environmentalist, which uses the EPA's own data to support the energetic materials hypothesis. Also never rebutted or debunked. And be sure to also check out James Gourley's 2000 word rebuttal to Bazant's joke of a BS paper accepted by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics- somehow, both met editorial standards.
October 19, 2008. “Discussion of “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions” by Zdene k P. Bazant and Mathieu Verdure” Journal of Engineering Mechanics. (pg. 915)
Gourley comments on the process: http://www.911blogger.com/node/18196
August 4, 2008. “Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials”. The Environmentalist.
April 19, 2008. “Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction”. The Open Civil Engineering Journal.
BS- "Complete junk science on samples of unknown origin. No chain of custody of specimens."
Notice how BS has no evidence to support its claim of "junk science". Also no evidence to support the insinuation that Jones or the private citizens, none of which have the equipment or expertise to manufacture aluminothermic nanocomposite materials, salted the specimens. Again- how did these red-gray chips get in the dust?
Most Recommended Comment
Washington, District Of Columbia, United States