Truth in publishing, as well as authors' comments

"With publication in an established civil engineering journal..."

Sooo, an online journal that's been in existence for a whopping 10 months is "established"?  What was it at six-months - "liberating"?  Dr. Jones and others need to look more closely at the publication and its origin and admit that it's (a) VERY new to the publishing world (it's only published a total of 10 articles in 10 months of existence), (b) regards research papers and opinion letters as essentially the same, and (c) fails to ackowledge perecived conflicts of interest between its publishing staff and article content.

Continuing to promote the letter as something it isn't (a validation of Truther science in a peer-reviewed paper) is ONLY self-deceiving.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1707 comments) on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 9:12:20 AM
 

GO, TOM, GO! Dig lots of dirt for Truth!

Pardon me while I point out the obvioius:

Things are on a

WHOLe NUTHa LEVULL

with publication in a mainstream, peer-reviewed, scientific engineering journal- as i replied before, Tom- it remains to be seen whether bentham.org - online at least since 2000 according to Archive.org - will go down a laughingstock- or whether the NIST & FEMA reports will prompt criminal investigations.

So, Tom, while you've been chasing my dumb ass all over these dinky diaries while working on your 14 point rebuttal to be published here, I and the rest of the Truth Movement have been posting links all over the Web.

So, while I look forward to reading your rebuttal here at the great OpEdNews.com, kim, it's not a peer-reviewed journal, and my opinion doesn't mean anything- except you, apparently

Thanks for posting, as always, Tom! 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 415 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 881 comments) on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 9:36:35 AM
 

7 Links- 1 more thing

Tom, if you’re not a real COINTELPRO agent, please visit this MoFo’s 5th column and unleash one of your worst attacks- I’ll be checking the thread later to see if you did. If you want to know why so many in the 9/11 Truth Movement have disowned him, read the Hey, Hot-Shot article and comments

Hey, Hot-Shot - GeorgeWashington's Blog at 911Blogger.com

TheMemoryHole.org Senator Graham Admits

Complete 9/11 Timeline - CooperativeResearch.org aka HistoryCommons.org

AMERICANS SLAM NEWS MEDIA ON BELIEVABILITY

The Indictment of Markos C.A. Moulitsas ZÚÑIGA by Justice and History (Updated with Additional Information and Counts)

Bin Laden: Key enabler of “imperial mobilization"

by Better World Order (4 articles, 415 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 881 comments) on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 10:37:48 AM
 

I'm digging... I'm digging

"Things are on a... WHOLe NUTHa LEVULL."

My repeated comments on the publisher address this very point. The paper does NOT bring the 9/11 Truth Movement and/or debate to a different level. The engineering community does NOT regard The Online Civil Engineering Journal as a reputable publication. The web site is too new and employs the open access method of information dissemination.

YOU and others may post links to your heart's delight and utter contentment. But where the links to this letter are confined mostly Truther or Truther-friendly web sites, how does this advance your cause? This is like telling the milk men that milk really does come from cows. The milk men already knew that and the cows remain oblivious.

The Online Civil Engineering Journal (heck, just call it Bob's Journal) is one of 200+ similar-styled journals that have been created by Bentham Science Publishers – since May 2007 - http://www.bentham.org/News/2.htm . This publisher does not represent a mainstream journal – period. BWO, you can call the letter and its publisher whatever you want, but it doesn't legitimize further the claims made by the Movement.

I don't need to post a rebuttal in a "peer-reviewed journal" when these papers exist:

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf ;

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/ ;

click here ;

click here ;

click here ;

click here ;

click here ;

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml ;

click here ;

Enjoy!

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1707 comments) on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 11:11:27 AM
 

good points, all

i suppose, to give you the benefit of the doubt, chum- but i'm an idiot, so what do i know? 

Which is why my point, again, last time, is; we shall see- there will be a response from many in the scientific community, if rebuttals actually can pass a peer review, that is- so I'm just gonna publicize the hell out of this, along with everyone else in the 9/11 TRUTH movement, so the truth can come out, on this new level, whatever the truth is.

I want to see the public discussion and the free debate

You yourself said you like open access in a previous diary on this same subject, where i made the same points- you go find the link- you had such a lengthy and brilliant replies, after all.

c ya

Anyone else want to weigh in? 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 415 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 881 comments) on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 12:03:34 PM
 

Re: Fourteen Points: World Trade Center Destruction

Mr. Murphy:

I gather you are enjoying the fascism and tyranny?  

Have you yet seen this video http://youtube.com/watch?v=1jMfhR3ueOA ? Please make certain to watch all four parts. You might just learn something. There was molten metal beneath all three buildings and isn't it amazing though that the jet fuel only burned at 800° to 1500°F, not nearly hot enough to create this molten steel (2750°F). How could that be, Mr. Murphy?

by Munich (0 articles, 64 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 808 comments) on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 1:10:57 PM
 

Right on, Munich

got to go- look for Open Letter to the People & Google- what do you think of the 14 points and the historic event of publication in a so-called peer-reviewed open access journal?

by Better World Order (4 articles, 415 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 881 comments) on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 4:27:33 PM
 

*sigh*

"I gather you are enjoying the fascism and tyranny?"

München, if you truly believe that America today is a home for fascism and tyranny, then you seem to have lived a sheltered life. There are locales on this globe that DO represent your claims, but I KNOW that America is NOT one of them. Your concerns are misplaced given the threats facing not just the nation but the world today.

However, it is certainly your right (as well as others) to chase that "nth" degree of democracy in the hopes of a utopian goal being fulfilled, claim infringement of your rights if the threat assessment is raised and liquid containers are banned from air travel, assert that 9/11 is THE TRUTH that'll set us free in the 21st century, and demand that President Bush be impeached because it's the "sexy" thing to do among progressives. At day's end, though, I'm pretty certain that your expectations haven't been met, you remain frustrated at the lack of action, and yoru anger at the government flares up whenever you hear a sound bite from Bush or Cheney.

No offense, but THAT sort of life is not for me. You may THINK that you are the patriot, but there'll always be the unvoiced questions of "what if we're all wrong about this?" that linger in the mind's darker shadows. The occasional Truther meeting will, though, beat done the fears, angers, resentments like a Step Meeting in AA. After all, a problem shared is a problem halved is it not?

As to the video, I have seen it previously and quite frankly, I fail to grasp the obsession that Truthers have with molten metal. If you're alleging that it's a by-product of a thermite/thermate reaction that lasted for weeks, then you need to review the characteristics of exothermic reactions... again. I will say that Mr. Gage gives good face for the camera but the Infowars production of the video parts is a turn off for me. I have very little regard for Alex Jones and his "artistically shrill" propaganda pieces.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1707 comments) on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 9:10:26 PM
 

Re: Fourteen Points: World Trade Center Destruction

Mr. Murphy:

I never once mentioned thermite/thermate. I am asking, what do you believed caused the molten metal that was founds at the base of each of the three buildings and which lasted for weeks? It wasn't the jet fuel. So what was it?

Mr. Murphy have you ever been down at the base of high-rise building during it's construction?  The steel is huge and it is very, very thick and it is also quite strong! An impressive and rather humbling sight, looking at this raw material that will support what will eventually be a fifty floor office building that will occupy many business's and people.  I've been there and done that.

So what I'm thinking is that in order to bring down any structure that big, it is imperative that you first get to those base columns which are located almost a hundred feet below the Earths surface. The other reason you take out these massive columns is to accommodate the steel above which would come crashing down in nicely cut pieces, making the clean up a bit easier.

I understand that you are a "faither" however, something other than the jet fuel brought down those Trade Towers. The Police and Fireman all heard explosions and then seen the Towers begin to plummet. What were all of those explosions Mr. Murphy? I want to know!

I have a challenge for you Mr. Murphy. If there is nothing to hide, then let us have another investigation into 9/11. A public investigation with real hearings into what brought down those Trade Towers. Can you handle this? If there is nothing to hide then demand such an investigation. If you truly love your country then you would agree to such a challenge so we can clear the air. If you don't, then it tells me one thing.  

by Munich (0 articles, 64 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 808 comments) on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 10:38:44 PM
 

9/11 Truth is your cause - not mine

"I never once mentioned thermite/thermate. I am asking, what do you believed caused the molten metal that was founds at the base of each of the three buildings and which lasted for weeks? It wasn't the jet fuel. So what was it?"

I mentioned thermite/thermate because that's the presumed cause of the molten metal among a majority of Truthers. I believe, and mentioned in the cut and pastes below, that the molten metal was most likely the result of the heat of compression associated with the collapses, followed by the slow but sustained burning of combustibles buried within the debris piles.

When you take a 110-story building and condense it into a 10-story pile, you're going to have a lot of waste heat generated. The thickness of the debris piles acts as insulation and the reduced oxygen within the pile but abundant source of combustible materials permit the sustained burning. Eventually, the heat retained by the insulated debris cap will reach temperatures where aluminum could melt (660 degrees C) but not steel (about 1,500 degrees C). And there was much aluminum mixed in amongst the debris because of the exterior covering on the towers.

"Mr. Murphy have you ever been down at the base of high-rise building during its construction? The steel is huge and it is very, very thick and it is also quite strong!"

The senses can be deceived – period. Given the masses and forces that were in play during the collapses, the thickness and size of the structural members was relative. Under static conditions, the steel framework performed flawlessly – and did so for several decades. But... under a rapidly changing and dynamic load, the steel structure was overwhelmed. This is Physics 101 – honestly!

"The Police and Fireman all heard explosions and then seen the Towers begin to plummet. What were all of those explosions Mr. Murphy? I want to know!"

I've commented previously at length on the sounds of explosions. Overloaded equipment (e.g., electric transformers), changing structural loads (e.g., a 20-foot tower sway and transfer of load from the core to the perimeter columns), and believe it or not falling bodies all made sounds that could best be described as "explosions". Again, don't let your senses be deceived. Just because you hear the sound of an explosion – in person or on audio – doesn't mean that the explsion was caused by explosives.

"I have a challenge for you Mr. Murphy. If there is nothing to hide, then let us have another investigation into 9/11. A public investigation with real hearings into what brought down those Trade Towers. Can you handle this? If there is nothing to hide then demand such an investigation. If you truly love your country then you would agree to such a challenge so we can clear the air. If you don't, then it tells me one thing."

There IS nothing to hide. If you and other Truthers want another investigation, then by all means continue to pursue one. For me, though, I am satisfied (mostly) with the reports that have been presented.

Therefore, I am not compelled to seek or demand another investigation that starts at square one (e.g., the Ramsey Clark Commission or HCSA for the JFK assassination). I'd find such an investigation counterproductive, wasteful of taxpayers' money, and psychologically scarring to a nation that's working on a collective closure of the attacks of 9/11.

Now, an investigation that supplements the reports released thus far makes more sense to me.

Love of country has nothing to do with the investigation into the attacks of 9/11. You and other Truthers may reference this and couch it in terms of being "true" patriots, but that's done to reassure your convictions and assuage any doubts you may have in calling for an investigation. From my perspective, the air is okey-dokey, but I understand that Truthers do not think so. And that is why I encourage them to seek another investigation, but please don't expect me to support your cause – it's just not my cause.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1707 comments) on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 8:54:21 AM
 

codswallop!

"When you take a 110-story building and condense it into a 10-story pile, you're going to have a lot of waste heat generated. The thickness of the debris piles acts as insulation and the reduced oxygen within the pile but abundant source of combustible materials permit the sustained burning."

....huh? Did I miss something in Physics 101? Since when does "reduced oxygen within the pile...permit the sustained burning"? What a load of absolute codswallop!

"Eventually, the heat retained by the insulated debris cap will reach temperatures where aluminum could melt (660 degrees C) but not steel (about 1,500 degrees C). And there was much aluminum mixed in amongst the debris because of the exterior covering on the towers."

More codswallop! Paper fires will not burn at 660 degrees C in the open air and they certainly won't burn at all under piles of steel and concrete with no oxygen.

You're a complete fraud.

by ken (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments) on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 9:30:15 AM
 

codswallop!

thanks, Ken, you just made my day

by Better World Order (4 articles, 415 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 881 comments) on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 10:53:49 AM
 

Subsurface landfill fires

The elevated temperatures (600 degrees C or more) were present at the time the debris piles were formed due to the heat of compression - not unlike the manner of operation for a diesel engine.

As to the fuel and oxygen sources that contrinute to a sustained burn, I suggest you read about subsurface landfill fires:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_fire

click here

click here

Codswallop, indeed!

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1707 comments) on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 12:18:08 PM
 

Coal fires

Underground coal seam fires commonly reach very high temperatures with almost no oxygen input!

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 1:44:37 PM
 

Yes, and it's still codswallop.

None of the three links you give indicate temperatures rising to 600 degrees C as a result of landfill and none of them mention temperatures that would be sufficient to melt steel or aluminium. You have provided no evidence that the ground temperature at the WTC following 911 reached 600 C or that it occurred as a result of landfill compression. Only one link mentions 315 degrees C as a temperature at which wood spontaneously combusts. However, even they felt no need to state the obvious -- that such combustion can still only occur where there is available oxygen. Carbon materials, even heated ones, need oxygen to burn. Let me remind you of your previous statement:

"reduced oxygen within the pile...permit the sustained burning"

Utter nonsense.

by ken (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments) on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 1:53:32 PM
 

You may have the record for intellectual laziness, ken

"None of the three links you give indicate temperatures rising to 600 degrees C as a result of landfill and none of them mention temperatures that would be sufficient to melt steel or aluminium."

You are correct, ken. What I referenced was the fact the fires DO burn within buried piles of trash. The low oxygen concentration sustains the burning of combustibles over a prolonged time period, as opposed to an oxygen-rich but quick burn. And roark also detailed that similar fires occur in buried coal seams. Thank you roark!

The initial heat of 600 degrees C or more was present once the debris piles were created. The heat input came from the compression of the debris as a result of the massive release of kinetic energy associated with the towers' collapses. In fact, the elevated heat caused the surrounding material to combust immediately resulting in temperatures that approached 1,300 degrees F several days after the collapses - click here .

NASA/JPL, at the request of the EPA and USGS, collected temperature readings on the debris piles on September 16, 18, 22, and 23, 2001 using an Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (IRIS). The data from September 18 and 22 were discarded due to cloud cover. The results if the September 16 IRIS imaging revealed that temperature within the debris piles ranged between 700 and 1,020 Kelvin (about 425-725 degrees C). Where aluminum melts at 660 degrees C, it's quite possible that the molten metal at the base of the debris piles was aluminum and NOT steel.

"You have provided no evidence that the ground temperature at the WTC following 911 reached 600 C..."

Happy now?

By the way, I agree that your intellectual laziness, as you've brilliantly displayed in just a handul of comments here, is... utter nonsense!

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1707 comments) on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 8:57:52 PM
 

Fourteen Points: World Trade Center Destruction

"Love of country has nothing to do with the investigation into the attacks of 9/11."

No Mr. Murphy, you are wrong! And you wear the uniform?

You are a deluded individual, and it is quite apparent that you are afraid of the Truth of what really occured on 9/11. I have no more time for either you or your ilk.

by Munich (0 articles, 64 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 808 comments) on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 11:00:08 AM
 

Opinions

"No Mr. Murphy, you are wrong!"

That is your opinion to which you are entitled.  My opinion, to which I'm entitled, differs from yours.

Move out and receive fire, troopie!

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1707 comments) on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 12:20:28 PM
 

Since we are talking about laziness, Wing Cmdr Tom...

Go over to scholars for 911 Truth and read any of the articles about the FEMA or NIST reports. Or just google. I could give you a list of articles and detailed chapter and verse arguments but there is no point. Others on this page are already doing so, it has been done at