There IS No New World Order

Who said it was nonsense? The editor claimed that she wasn't qualified to pass judgment on it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

I thought I convinced you that you need to sign up for a reading course because of your inability to read accurately with significant comprehension. I guess not. But that's just an error on your part.

 

I certainly know that. My comment was meant mostly to mock Read-Only since he believes that Wikipedia trumps peer-reviewed journals.

 

Just to let ya'll know...the Bentham open journal is a "pay to play" vanity journal....they published a nonsense paper made my a random word generator:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-crap-paper-accepted-by-journal.html#.UsICh7T0edA

Now that's scientific integrity!

 

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.

 

Dummy - that's NOT a peer-reviewed journal! You're not even intelligent enough to check your sources! Man!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The publisher and the editor.

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?

 

This is a discussion of super thermite explosives:
http://www.rense.com/general77/geddno.htm

It says that the detonating velocity of super thermites can be as fast as gunpowder.

 

Sorry. Ed Ward, MD, is not a credible expert on the chemistry of nanothermite.

 

No comment on the validity of the Bentham Journal? I expected as much. Ignore and move on....

 

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.

 

Quit avoiding answering my question, which requires viewing 10 minutes worth of unquestionably important evidence.

 

I never heard of it.

 

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]

 

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!