There IS No New World Order

billvon said:
The publisher dropped that journal after it published that piece of nonsense. The editor tried to claim that she never read it (and thus could not be blamed for allowing its publication) but when that didn't work she resigned.
Click to expand...
Who said it was nonsense? The editor claimed that she wasn't qualified to pass judgment on it.
 
Eugene Shubert said:
Who said it was nonsense? The editor claimed that she wasn't qualified to pass judgment on it.
Click to expand...

Well, first she said she hadn't read it, then she said she wasn't qualified to pass judgment on it, then she gave up and quit.

So anyway - got any credible sources, in non-discredited journals? Whose editors are willing to admit they actually read the paper?
 
billvon said:
So anyway - got any credible sources, in non-discredited journals? Whose editors are willing to admit they actually read the paper?
Click to expand...
Who said that the journal was discredited? Journal editors aren't expected to be experts on everything. If you insist on blaming someone, blame the referees. But try to justify that by citing a peer-reviewed rebuttal of Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. To date, that article stands uncontested. Keep praying for a peer-reviewed rebuttal.
 
Eugene Shubert said:
Who said that the journal was discredited? Journal editors aren't expected to be experts on everything. If you insist on blaming someone, blame the referees. But try to justify that by citing a peer-reviewed rebuttal of Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. To date, that article stands uncontested. Keep praying for a scientific rebuttal.
Click to expand...

You should still just go away quietly. You've not convinced ANYONE and you never will. Looser.
 
I humbly suggest that you might want to correct the editors of Wikipedia’s article on nanothermite first. Try to listen this time. I'm not going to repeat this obvious fact again.

Wikipedia isn't sent down from heaven on tablets of stone you know.
I wouldn't believe everything I read if I were you.
You might start believing nonsense.
 
To be fair, the paper looks as though a lot of work has gone into it.
Of course, that doesn't mean that its conclusions are valid.
I would like to see some other scientists look at the particles.
 
Eugene Shubert said:
Who said that the journal was discredited?
Click to expand...

The publisher and the editor.

Journal editors aren't expected to be experts on everything. If you insist on blaming someone, blame the referees. But try to justify that by citing a peer-reviewed rebuttal of Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. To date, that article stands uncontested. Keep praying for a peer-reviewed rebuttal.
Click to expand...

No need. The publishers and the editor did a far better job of that than I could ever do.

Now, for the third time - got any credible sources, in non-discredited journals?
 
No comment on the validity of the Bentham Journal? I expected as much. Ignore and move on....
 
billvon said:
The publishers and the editor did a far better job of that than I could ever do.
Click to expand...
What was going on with the publishers is completely unknown. And there's no need to divert attention away from plain facts. I'm still waiting for an answer to a simple question.

[video=youtube;lESol88wOi0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lESol88wOi0[/video]

What’s so great about this video is that the testimony of John Gross, the Lead Engineer of the NIST Report, is contrasted back-to-back with the consistent and numerous eyewitness testimonies of Firemen and First Responders that were actually present at the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 on 9/11. There is a contradiction. Who should we believe? Are all the Firemen lying or is John Gross lying?
 
Nice dodge. and quit spamming videos. Typical CT behavior...ignore what you have no answer for, and try to change the subject.
 
Someone, please tell me why the Firemen and First Responders that were actually present at the Twin Towers and WTC 7 on 9/11 are not credible witnesses to what they actually saw and heard?

[video=youtube;mT3hdV6mW3g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT3hdV6mW3g[/video]
 
Eugene Shubert said:
Someone, please tell me why the Firemen and First Responders that were actually present at the Twin Towers and WTC 7 on 9/11 are not credible witnesses to what they actually saw and heard?

[video=youtube;mT3hdV6mW3g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT3hdV6mW3g[/video]
Click to expand...

And I've already answered that - because they were NOT QUALIFIED to describe what they saw and heard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now... move along or, better yet, leave!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top