Steven Jones post 3 days ago:
"When I jumped into the ring to study 9/11 events in early 2005, I found that there were numerous wild and even conflicting claims. It was the “wild, wild west.” Some were saying that no planes hit the WTC Towers at all, and some said (in 2005 or soon thereafter) an energy beam from space knocked the Towers down. There were NO published peer-reviewed scientific papers in the field. To make a long story VERY short, this confused situation changed via experimental data and peer-reviewed papers published by Kevin Ryan, Dr. Niels Harrit, Dr. Frank Legge, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, James Gourley, Dr. Crockett Grabbe, Tony Szamboti, and myself and others. Now the science of 9/11 and the use of pyrotechnics/explosives is on firm experimental footing and serious challengers to our papers will need to find a way to publish peer-reviewed papers of their own (in established journals preferably) if they can. (They have not done so.) That's how science works-- peer-reviewed published papers stand until challenged by another peer-reviewed paper. This has been the pattern for scientific progress for over 300 years, since Isaac Newton.
In a parallel way, experimental science came to the rescue when there were conflicting claims regarding Cold Fusion back in 1989. Unless you were on another planet or too young, you will recall the fervor generated by claims of working water-heaters by means of d-d fusion in metals by two chemists, P&F. They claimed “excess heat” production without neutron production via d-d fusion. I was thrown into the middle of the fray because a team (which I headed) claimed a MUCH smaller effect, but again involving d-d fusion in metals, with certain metals facilitating fusion better than other metals. Our paper was published in the peer-reviewed journal NATURE in April 1989; P&F withdrew their paper which they had submitted to the same journal about the same time."
He goes on to talk about cold fusion here
True science? This is a very dishonest post.
It sounds like the JREF forum. He cares about promoting his own narrow research only. Only a small group of researchers are ever mentioned by this person, yet it is promoted as the only legitimate research existing.
Steven Jones: "To make a long story VERY short, this confused situation changed via experimental data and peer-reviewed papers published by Kevin Ryan, Dr. Niels Harrit, Dr. Frank Legge, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, James Gourley, Dr. Crockett Grabbe, Tony Szamboti, and myself and others."In reality, he is personally responsible for increasing the confusion as the blogs posted on 9/11 Blogger demonstrate daily. They represent just a more advanced layer of confusion, blind to any research other than their own. Dishonest in presenting their research as the only legitimate "professional" research available. Unaccountable for mistakes they present to the public as the truth to other researchers. This is false advertising.
This confused situation changed? What a bunch of self-serving crap. How is the air up there. guys?
They do not give a shit about the truth. If they did they wouldn't promote themselves so much. They would present themselves honestly. If they cared about the truth they would promote those doing the most interesting research. They would have noticed the work of femr, for example.
They wouldn't simply ignore the measurements of femr. They would change their presentation as research develops. 2010 was an excellent year for research, but they ignored everything but their own stuff.
Sounds like JREF, just reversed.
There is no recognition of HTFCPNST-type perimeter movement. There is no comprehension of collapse mechanics. No interest
in learning about the actual collapse mechanics. No comprehension of much of anything but his fixation on dust.
Just a lecture about peer review as some ultimate symbol of "truth". HTFCPNST-type movement has not been "peer reviewed" so it doesn't exist.
They are accountable to other researchers though they act as if they are not. Continuing to ignore the obvious hypocrisy is immoral.