Debunk Alert: New Ryan/Jones Article in Peer Reviewed Journal

[The Big Dog]

And you, sir, are not being intellectually honest.

What reasonable person seeing the continual sequestering of critical information would not have reason to suspect something is amiss?

Information has been or is being sequestered in:

the NIST data, documentation, parameters regarding WTC 1 and 2,
data, documentation, parameters regarding WTC 7,
steel and other samples from GZ,
the Oral Histories,
the positive ID'ing of some or all of the aircraft,
video and other mechanical data from around the Pentagon showing the event,
debris from the Pentagon,
debris from Shanksville,
data in EPA studies,
data in USGS studies,
private witness testimony to the 9/11 Commission, including Bush and Cheney,
information regarding programs such as Able Danger,
huge sections of the Joint Congressional investigation,
how and why the UN investigation was shut down...

It doesn't end there... a little intellectual honesty is in order to admit that.

Cripes, how many days has it been since Super Truther actually addressed the OP?

 

[lapman]

Regarding the Vanity Fair article, the author as I recall was given special access to NORAD and the tapes in writing his description.

You do know that those same tapes are now publicly available?

I don't hold it as completely unbiased or objective. Tapes can be manipulated. Cozy relationships don't guarantee objectivity, honesty, accuracy.

Typical truther copout. The onus is on you to prove that the tapes were manipulated.

A sympathetic author with a flair for language can present ideas that mask inconsistencies, failures, deceptions.

The same can be said for a dishonest author with an agenda to twist the facts and outright lie to sell truther DVD's.

Some of you, no doubt, might think that of me.

I don't. I just think that you either lack the intelligence to comprehend the real facts or your hatred of the Bush administration has clouded your judgment.

NORAD response, by many appearances, was confused that day. With all the war games, and simulations going on at the exact time of the attacks, that is not surprising. It creates a scenario of plausible deniability, while making NORAD and the FAA look somewhat like Keystone Cops.)

There were not any war games or simulations that would have cause any confusion. There was only one that was scheduled that day, Vigilant Guardian, that might have, but it was canceled before it even started. Neither NORAD nor the FAA were prepared for what happened that day.

 

[DavidJames]

Cripes, how many days has it been since Super Truther actually addressed the OP?

An inherent attribute of CTists is the inability to remained focused on one topic.

While it clearly shows up in forums like this, I suspect that trait is, somehow, is part of the defining DNA of the CTists.

 

[jaydeehess]

Really? So that is a "chain of custody" type of thing... Whose word are you trusting that that is where the samples came from? You have evidence, affadavits? My point, which several of you keep missing, is DNA analysis identifying an individual reveals only so much information. What it doesn't reveal is where the sample was collected.

If you are questioning the chain of custody of the DNA samples then you must have some reason to suspect it was tampered with. What is the evidence that it was tampered with?

I believe that the chain of custody was maintained in secure fashion. I have no reason to doubt it, the friends and families of the deceased have no reason to doubt it. If you require the chain of custody docuements you would also have a reason to doubt the security and veracity of the chain of custody so what is it that gives rise to that doubt?
If you were given those chain of custody docuements and personal assurance from the people who collected, transported and worked on the samples would you then derive some other 'doubt', possibly involving 'planted' samples or the veracity of the people who say they collected, transported and worked on the samples?


What is evident is that the people identified by the DNA samples are no longer among their living relatives and friends. I admit that in some arcane, complex, complicated and, at best, wholly unneccessary Rube-Goldberg style plot the aircraft passengers could have been spirited away and killed elsewhere only to have their remains 'planted' in the ruins of the buildings. However, this takes on an even more massive and complex and ridiculous nature if it also has to apply to the dead in the WTC complex. How, pray tell, does one arrange to have the remains of close to 3000 people 'planted'? Were those dead people and the DNA that identified them, real?

Now if if is then only the aircraft occupants that you question then what possible gain was there in spiriting away the plane and passengers, killing them elsewhere and then arranging their DNA to be 'planted'?

It begs the question (again, and again, and again) why it was neccessary to carry out the incredibly stupid and complex commadeering of an aircraft in order to substitute yet another aircraft, or hologram, or faked live TV feeds, and requiring the hiding of security camera videos, and faked DFDR's, and faked downed lamp posts, and fake eyewitnesses, and possibly the coercion of real eyewitnesses to stay silent or change their story,,,,etc,,,,,,
WHEN IN FACT
it would be so much simpler, and result in the same amount of destruction, and obviously put the DNA of said plane occupants right where they belong, IF you just arrange to have the blinkin' plane fly into the blinkin' building in the first place!

Why is it that the TM feels the need to devise such arcane and ridiculous senarios? Is it simply out of spite? A hatred of the Bush administration that drives such illogical reasoning?

,,, and now good readers, I return you to the OP topic and why it is obvious that the characterization of the paper as "peer reviewed" is incorrect at best.

 

[jaydeehess]

An inherent attribute of CTists is the inability to remained focused on one topic.

While it clearly shows up in forums like this, I suspect that trait is, somehow, is part of the defining DNA of the CTists.

It is obvious, in a purely seat-of-the-pants, common sense, way, that the reason the OP has been derailed is that the paper's citations ahve been shown to be incredibly suspect and that the characterization of 'peer review is questionable at best, and that the characterization of the benzene concentration as suspicious is bunk, and that no one then wishes to continue defending the paper.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

 

[peteweaver]

The Environmentalist ? not The American Society of Civil Engineers then...

So really, when it comes down to it; no peers to review da troof...

Its like getting an architect, to do a peer review of a chemistry paper.

 

[johnny karate]

What reasonable person seeing the continual sequestering of critical information would not have reason to suspect something is amiss?

I'm going to go with every single professional investigator and law enforcement official on the entire planet, since none of them in seven years have expressed even a mild interest in the bunk your movement peddles.

 

[Newtons Bit]

And you, sir, are not being intellectually honest.

What reasonable person seeing the continual sequestering of critical information would not have reason to suspect something is amiss?

Information has been or is being sequestered in:

the NIST data, documentation, parameters regarding WTC 1 and 2,
data, documentation, parameters regarding WTC 7,
steel and other samples from GZ,
the Oral Histories,
the positive ID'ing of some or all of the aircraft,
video and other mechanical data from around the Pentagon showing the event,
debris from the Pentagon,
debris from Shanksville,
data in EPA studies,
data in USGS studies,
private witness testimony to the 9/11 Commission, including Bush and Cheney,
information regarding programs such as Able Danger,
huge sections of the Joint Congressional investigation,
how and why the UN investigation was shut down...

It doesn't end there... a little intellectual honesty is in order to admit that.

Why do you keep feeling the need to change the subject? What's so hard about answering the physics problem I posted? You don't have to figure it out correctly, but you do need to try. Or are you so dependant on Gordon Ross being correct on the building magically not being able to collapse that it is psychological painful to consider that he makes a fundamental error?

Here it is again (with the accidental arithmatic error fixed)

There are two cars, car A and car B. Car A is moving at 10 m/s. Car B is stationary. Both weigh 1000kg. Car A impacts car B (which was in neutral). The two objects stick together and start rolling together. I have video evidence of this. However car A and B were really dirty so right at the impact they both through up a big cloud of dirt obscuring what happened next. The evidence does show that the cars continue to roll for quite some distance.

Using some basic back of the envelope calculations, I calculate correctly that the strain energy damage to each car should be about 20KJ each.

Now then, the intial energy of the impact was 1/2 M * V^2 or

0.5*1000kg*(10^2) = 50,000J or 50KJ

Using conservation of momentum, I can calculate the velocity of the two cars after impact.

M1V1 = M2V2
1000kg * 10 m/s = 2000kg * V2
V2 = 5 m/s

The new energy is 1/2 M * V^2 or
0.5*2000kg*(5^2) = 25,000J or 25.0KJ

The loss of energy is thus 50KJ - 25.0KJ = 25.0KJ

Total Energy In
+50kj

Total Energy out
-25.0KJ
-20KJ
-20KJ

Leaving a deficit of -15.0KJ. I thus conclude that the dust flying during the impact was due to explosives.

What did I do wrong?

 

[jaydeehess]

There are two cars, car A and car B. Car A is moving at 10 m/s. Car B is stationary. Both weigh 1000kg. Car A impacts car B (which was in neutral). The two objects stick together and start rolling together. I have video evidence of this. However car A and B were really dirty so right at the impact they both through up a big cloud of dirt obscuring what happened next. The evidence does show that the cars continue to roll for quite some distance.

Using some basic back of the envelope calculations, I calculate correctly that the strain energy damage to each car should be about 20KJ each.

Now then, the intial energy of the impact was 1/2 M * V^2 or

0.5*1000kg*(10^2) = 50,000J or 50KJ

Using conservation of momentum, I can calculate the velocity of the two cars after impact.

M1V1 = M2V2
1000kg * 10 m/s = 2000kg * V2
V2 = 5 m/s

The new energy is 1/2 M * V^2 or
0.5*2000kg*(5^2) = 25,000J or 25.0KJ

The loss of energy is thus 50KJ - 25.0KJ = 25.0KJ

Total Energy In
+50kj

Total Energy out
-25.0KJ
-20KJ
-20KJ

Leaving a deficit of -15.0KJ. I thus conclude that the dust flying during the impact was due to explosives.

What did I do wrong?

[CT]the dust, the dust, you have to count the energy contained in moving that dust, and just how did that dust get moving in a direction 90 degrees from the direction of travel. Obviously your energy deficit is even greater than what you calculated and explosives must have been used since the dust came out perpendicular to the original direction of travel. [/CT]

Seriously , sdemetri , please at least try to respond to this question. I want to have Newton's Bit post the answer so that I see if I am correct in my understanding.

 

[jaydeehess]

In post 131 I noted

Quick google search bolds mine
http://www.aip.com.au/industry/fact_benzene.htm

Medical aspects

Benzene concentrations in the atmosphere can range from one part per billion (1 ppb) in natural bush land to 25 ppb at a service station. There is no evidence of any adverse effects on human health from typical atmospheric levels of benzene.

Only in cases where there have been frequent exposures in industrial situations to concentrations in excess of 1000 times greater than that typically found at a service station over a period of years, have adverse health effects - specifically, an increase in the incidence of myeloid leukemia - been associated with benzene. The current work place exposure limit in Australia is 10,000 ppb 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA). This limit is related to employee work place exposure. The general public are unlikely to be exposed to annual average levels of benzene approaching one thousandth of the occupational limits. .

 

[jaydeehess]

In post 131 I noted

Quick google search bolds mine
http://www.aip.com.au/industry/fact_benzene.htm

Medical aspects

Benzene concentrations in the atmosphere can range from one part per billion (1 ppb) in natural bush land to 25 ppb at a service station. There is no evidence of any adverse effects on human health from typical atmospheric levels of benzene.

Only in cases where there have been frequent exposures in industrial situations to concentrations in excess of 1000 times greater than that typically found at a service station over a period of years, have adverse health effects - specifically, an increase in the incidence of myeloid leukemia - been associated with benzene. The current work place exposure limit in Australia is 10,000 ppb 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA). This limit is related to employee work place exposure. The general public are unlikely to be exposed to annual average levels of benzene approaching one thousandth of the occupational limits. .

But Jones states(again bolds mine)

Benzene is a major product of the combustion of plastics
and other organic materials. In a typical structure fire, when
plastics are abundant, benzene levels have been seen at
levels as high as 26 ppb (MOEE 1997). Apart from fires,
benzene is seen in high-traffic areas of urban settings, with
mean levels of *4 ppb (Crebellia et al. 2001).

So one wonders how it can be that in Australia, in the vicinity of a service station the benzene concentration would be the same as it would be in the smoke from a structure fire.

Well it seems that the MOEE paper concerns the air near the Platimet company fire in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Benzene was used as a marker of the actions of the smoke plume.
The concentrations given in the paper are in micrograms per cubic meter and range from less than 1ug/cubic meter to 79 ug/cubic meter depending on the wind direction and which sampling station one is looking at. Here's the kicker, while the samples at the WTC were right over the smoke plume, the sampling done in hamilton was blocks away from the fire (suprise suprise, they did not put the monitors close enough to be damaged by the fire or get in the way of the FF effort.
Jones makes no attempt to reconcile the location of the sampling done at the Platimet fire with the levels at the WTC underground fire's smoke plume. However in noting that the Plastimet concentrations are similar to that cited in the Australian article as coming from the off gassing at a service station it would seem that in an area where hundreds of automobiles had had their tanks crushed and in which fires were burning through areas where plastics, rubber and gasoline were present that the concentrations of benzene in the smoke plume should be at least the same as in air contaminated simply with gasoline fumes.

 

[beachnut]

"The NTSB reports regarding the FDR's recovered from AA 77 and UA 93 are virtually the only ones during the past 20 years of major U.S. aviation mishaps, within which FDR part and serial numbers were not published


By FAA documents identified as "Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events", pages 4 and 13, it is indicated that American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA) and United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA) were not transmitting proper transponder identification data at the time of their respective destructions and that therefore, proper aircraft identification cannot have been obtained from this absent or erroneous data.

What the heck does the absent of serial numbers on a FBI support work from the NTSB have to do with the idiot ideas of 9/11 truth? What a dumb post! While you and 9/11 truth make up stupid ideas who is taking all your "ample evidence" to the authorities and the Pulitzer Prize committee? You have nothing but hearsay and made up ideas to raise the suspicion of people who lack knowledge on 9/11. What a waste, you false information is only good for fooling people who can't understand 9/11 or do anything about it but spew your junk ideas.

What a bunch of junk. The FDR reports were for the FBI. The FDR for 93 and 77 start out with;

"20 years of major U.S. aviation mishaps"

How can you spew such dumb ideas! These were acts of TERRORISM smart guy, and the reports are not mishap reports and therefore are not governed by NTSB mishap reporting rules! Good work doing standard truther regurgitation of junk ideas, instead of thinking for yourself.

I just want to beat this dead dog again!

According to the NTSB "Flight Data Recorder Handbook for Aviation Accident Investigations", FDR serial numbers are required for data readout:

Let me give you a clue! Accident Investigations, is not equal to TERRORIST ACT! The report the NTSB did was data readout of the FDR the FBI gave the NTSB to decode. End of Story, you ideas are pure junk! You should not spew the junk ideas of others without judgment and knowledge.

Do you understand a mishap is an accident and 9/11 was a terrorist act, not an accident or a mishap. Do you need help understanding this?



As for identifying 11 and 175! Oops, the radars keep painting flights 11 and 175. Darn, all you have to do is pull the "tapes" (which they DID!) on the radar data and you can follow 11, and 175, blimp, per blimp, into the WTC. There goes your lack of knowledge hearsay junk floating down the river of pure ignorance and lies! Do you get anything right about 9/11? Bye, bye.

 

[lapman]

Beach, I've pointed the fact that it wasn't an accident investigation a few times now. All I get is silence.

 

[jaydeehess]

As for identifying 11 and 175! Oops, the radars keep painting flights 11 and 175. Darn, all you have to do is pull the "tapes" (which they DID!) on the radar data and you can follow 11, and 175, blimp, per blimp, into the WTC. There goes your lack of knowledge hearsay junk floating down the river of pure ignorance and lies! Do you get anything right about 9/11? Bye, bye.

[CT] The answer is 'shadow aircraft' or fake returns inserted in the data stream of course. [/CT]


Which comes back to the sentiment I expressed above;

It begs the question (again, and again, and again) why it was neccessary to carry out the incredibly stupid and complex commandeering of an aircraft in order to substitute yet another aircraft, or hologram, or faked live TV feeds, and requiring the hiding of security camera videos, and faked DFDR's, and faked downed lamp posts, and fake eyewitnesses, and possibly the coercion of real eyewitnesses to stay silent or change their story,,,,etc,,,,,,
WHEN IN FACT
it would be so much simpler, and result in the same amount of destruction, and obviously put the DNA of said plane occupants right where they belong, IF you just arrange to have the blinkin' plane fly into the blinkin' building in the first place!

Why is it that the TM feels the need to devise such arcane and ridiculous senarios? Is it simply out of spite? A hatred of the Bush administration that drives such illogical reasoning?

 

[SDC]

Some are born to be woo, some achieve woo-ness, some have woo-ness thrust upon them... This one is all tangled up in woo.

I think that may be a song. I imagine Ella Fitzgerald or the like... "All tangled up in woo..."

 

[WildCat]

I think that may be a song. I imagine Ella Fitzgerald or the like... "All tangled up in woo..."

Or Bob Dylan's "Tangled Up In Blue".

 

[volatile]

The week is up, and still no response from the editors. I have all the information I need to disqualify this paper. It's very disappointing. I'll be interested to find if there's anyone in authority who even tries to defend it, either at the publisher or at their university. I'm guessing "no."

This is a shame, and an indictment on the journal and its editors. Bear in mind that this is the period of the year when most academics are on holiday and incommunicado, so let's hope that explains the lag. Is it worth forwarding the message to anyone else - publishing director, editorial director etc.?

Springer Verlag are a reputable and serious publishing organisation - I'm sure you can pass this up the chain of command. The people responsible for this journal are listed at http://www.springer.com/life+sci?SGWID=0-10027-12-70841-0, though I imagine few of them are qualified to judge the engineering claims made in the paper, given that the journal is an Environmental Science publication!

Paul Roos (http://www.springer.com/environment?SGWID=0-198-19-124197-0) seems to be the man ultimately responsible for the journal; his title is 'Editorial Director of Environmental Science', the subdivision of Springer which publishes The Environmentalist. There are also five Publishing Directors.

 

[LashL]

Or Bob Dylan's "Tangled Up In Blue".

I am going to see Bob Dylan in concert this week. Now, if he sings that song, you just know I'm going to hear it as "tangled up in woo".

/OT