What is a "White Paper?"
OK, obviously some folks are confused about the meaning of a "white paper." Truthers are obviously confused, but they're apparently not the only ones.
I note with amusement that my paper has been out for about four years, and this is the first time this has come up...
As others have noted, there are several types of "white papers." Obviously mine is not a policy document, as I am in no position to make or advise policy. Mine instead, as should be apparent, is a
technical white paper.
Technical white papers are common. You can find them out there on practically every topic, from future space transportation systems to low-voltage lighting options to home entertainment speaker design. A technical white paper is a self-published research paper. They usually contain a blend of original work and a survey of previous efforts, and typically reference many other results, from peer-reviewed science, conference papers, other white papers, brochures, interviews, and so on.
A technical white paper differs from a journal article in three major respects. First, they are self-published. As a result, they do not have to conform to anyone's particular editorial standards. This frees the writer of the white paper to tailor the paper for any specific audience, whereas journal articles are almost always intended for seasoned specialists in a particular discipline. Typically white papers are written to have much broader appeal, requiring less training to be relevant to readers.
Second, they are not peer reviewed. Some white papers are reviewed, as mine was, but this review is understood to be a "friendly" review rather than a rigorous, double-blind, challenging procedure. Just as two experts may not agree on something, you may find two white papers with differing results on any given subject. This is not a bad thing.
Third, they are understood to be papers written from a position of advocacy. Strong personal opinions are discouraged in journal articles, but in white papers the author is expected to provide some expert guidance, even where this guidance is in the form of personal experience rather than something that can be rigorously quantified. A well-written journal paper does not give advice, it merely states what can be proven and how this leads to a hypothesis. A white paper will go further, leaning on these conclusions and adding recommendations for readers and users of the subject technology.
A similar type of communication is the "position paper," where the author expresses an opinion on a topic, which may or may not be technical. There is no clear dividing line between a white paper and a position paper, however in general the white paper will contain more technical detail and less extrapolation or unsupported opinion.
My white paper fulfills these guidelines in every respect save one, that being it is unusually large. For the size, I can only lay blame at the feet of Dr. Griffin, who generated or repeated an incredible number of errors spanning everything between simple mistakes, unbridled speculation, and deliberate falsehood. As the Truth Movement has sparked rambling, pointless discussions at the JREF alone totalling something like 8,000
threads, some of which have over
100,000 posts each, surely you can forgive me for writing a mere 290 pages on the topic.
Regarding the matter of "appeal to authority," there is none implied nor required. As others have noted, I am not a structural engineer or an architect, not a metallurgist nor a forensic investigator. In fact, the tragedy of September 11th is so vast that there is no one profession that can cover it all. My background is easy to figure out, and it's somewhat relevant, particularly with respect to the aircraft, the role they played in the collapses, and other fluid phenomena such as abrasion of fireproofing material and behavior of the various plumes. But that's not the point. Nowhere in the paper do I rely on my own authority. The paper contains literally hundreds of references to published papers, experts, and so on. Where I've added original research, those calculations are done in longhand so they may be verified. Where I'm applying my own opinion or speculation, it is clearly marked.
The white paper is intended, among other things, to be a summary of existing investigations rather than competing with them. You will all agree that it is simply not useful to tell someone who asks a question, "go read NIST, go read these twelve papers from Arup and U. Edinburgh and Sheffield and Northwestern, and figure it out already." That works for scientists and specialists, but that won't be particularly valuable to most readers.
As a result, my paper does not conflict with NIST or what have you any more than the television specials done by
National Geographic or
The History Channel. It's just another way to explain and try to draw connections between the vast array of real data and real research out there -- research that many people, even today, are only dimly aware of. My own effort differs from theirs in that it specifically addresses the mystifications of one, evidently influential individual, namely Dr. Griffin, who is only peripherally treated by others.
The reason I wrote it in the first place is because I was asked to. For those who don't recall, it wasn't my original intent to write such a thing. Instead, Ron Wieck asked me to prepare him with a brief for a planned (ultimately cancelled) debate with Dr. Griffin. I expected to write a mere 20 pages or so of simple explanation and be done with it, but after I actually read Dr. Griffin's book, it quickly became clear that the sheer volume of nonsense was far greater. I could then either choose to punt, or to undertake a much larger effort. I did the latter. Along the way, it seemed that my work could be more useful to others, thus the project experienced some scope creep to become the publicly readable article it is today.
Upon completion it also provided me with one final opportunity: To demonstrate to the Truth Movement just how impotent they actually are. To date only a scant handful of them have dared to challenge it, as I explain in detail in the later versions of the paper itself. And now we have Richard Gage who won't even read the thing, even though he promised to do so, and promised to respond. Now, three years after my last edit, it stands there unchallenged, unrefuted, and yet still ever present
in the minds of Truthers. Ask practically any Truther if they've heard of it, and chances are they have, but they'll make some weak excuse as to why they ignore it just like Gage did.
This tells you all you need to know about Gage, and about the Truth Movement. They are charlatans.
