| >> |
Résumé: Nous avons découvert des morceaux rouges/gris distinctifs dans tous les échantillons
de poussière produite par la destruction du World Trade Center
que nous avons étudiés. L'examen de quatre de ces échantillons,
récoltés
dans des emplacements séparés, est décrit dans ce document. Ces
morceaux rouges/gris montrent des similitudes marquées dans chacun
des quatre échantillons. Un échantillon a été récolté par un
résidant de Manhattan dix minutes environ après l'effondrement
de la deuxième
tour de WTC, deux autres le jour suivant, et un quatrième environ
une semaine plus tard. Les propriétés de ces morceaux ont été analysées
en utilisant de la microscopie optique, de la microscopie à balayage
électronique (SEM), de la microscopie à spectroscopie dispersive
à rayon X (XEDS), et de la calorimétrie à balayage différentiel
(DSC). Le matériel rouge contient des grains d’approximativement 100 nanomètres
de diamètre constitués en grande partie d'oxyde de fer, alors que
l'aluminium est contenu
dans des minuscules structures en plateau. La séparation des composants,
en utilisant de la cétone éthylique méthylique, a démontré la présence
d'aluminium élémentaire. L'oxyde et l'aluminium de fer sont intimement
mélangés dans le matériau rouge. Une fois mis à feu dans un dispositif
de DSC, les morceaux montrent des exothermiques importants mais
étroits se produisant à environ 430°C, loin au-dessous de la température
d'inflammation normale du thermite conventionnel. Suite à l'ignition
de ces morceaux rouges/gris particuliers, on observe clairement
des nombreuses sphères riches en fer dans le résidu. La partie
rouge de ces morceaux s'avère être un matériel thermitique n’ayant
pas réagi et à haut potentiel énergétique. |
>> |
Ce qu'il faut savoir sur les revues scientifiques à comité de lecture, par prof.
Steven Jones, 7 avril 2009
What you need to know about peer review
Since the days
of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication
of peer-reviewed
papers. Peer-review
means a thorough reading and commentary by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed
with several pages of tough comments that required of our team
MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest
peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was
first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first
author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would
allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR
IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find.
Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and
are typically paid by the University of the first or second author
(as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.
A peer-reviewed journal is also called
a "refereed" journal.
Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications
like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While
authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors
usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did
NOT mention -- and that is the case with this paper.
Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections
on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense,
but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide
answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show
that the answers are already in it.
Here's what you need to know (especially if
you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES
HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes
that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION
IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD
NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.
So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern
whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal.
Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al.
stands. "
BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED
paper yet that counters either the "Fourteen Points" paper or the "Environmental Anomalies" papers we published last year.
IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific
journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors
write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published??
The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.
Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including
in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there
are two authors from BYU).
We say that this paper has the "imprimatur
of peer-review". That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis
sightings... We are now in a different world from such things,
the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE
THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents
so worried IMO...
|
