Is BBC really throwing out its own valuable 9/11 footage?

No, they claim to have accidentally "lost" the footage.

Pathetic five paragraph blog rebuttal does not answer questions as to source of report that Salomon Building was coming down, BBC claims tapes lost due to "cock-up"

The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of "clairvoyance" in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

You mean WTC 7 *didn't* come crashing down within its footprint after all?? You mean it wasn't actually a casualty from being "weakened by fire and debris"??

HA!! LOVE ANY confession/admission from Spooks -- even on their Highway-to-Hell death-bed.

Spook: “There were so many loose ends, so much evidence left behind. We thought the public would be all over it. We thought there would be a public uprising THAT THE MEDIA COULDN'T IGNORE.... We thought they’d find chemical composites in the area that would prove Building 7 was blown up."

Uh, um, yes...in an America world that ISN'T ALREADY hijacked.

Well about "The Media"....They *tried* to report honestly -- especially with respect to Building 7 coming down 20 minutes BEFORE it actually came down. But who can blame them for messing up their scripts that day?

How funny were the lines, ["We left] so much evidence left behind [that] we thought the public would be all over it. [And that] there would be a public uprising THAT THE MEDIA COULDN'T IGNORE."??

HA!!

So what are the Spooks gonna do now? Shut up a cadaver??

Gee, let's play "PREDICT THE FUTURE": I predict this guy's ID and every last vestige and verification of his existence is already scrubbed. As well of "confirmed" claims that he's a certifiable nut.

"FOLLOW THE MONEY"...Mr. Howard says that a serious study of who profited on the stock market from 9/11 would “tear the heart out of the oligarchy in America.”

A "serious" study"? Even cursory study of Poppy Bush's fake Iraq War I to 9/11 to 0bammy's buried dossier to the current not-so-soft-coup would expose this shadow goob and its shadow army of mercs as filthy, satanic traitors and saboteurs.

Let's face it, many well-meaning people -- patriots and incredible analytic minds -- can't and won't ever be able to wrap their head around the notion that mercenary Global-First Enemies Within plotted, *enabled*, engineered, and conducted the entire WTC take down, as well as the Pentagram Job. The Muzzies were convenient patsies. (btw, the Patriot Act was enacted 17 days after 9/11. Already conveniently penned, sitting in an "OUT" basket and jammed down America's throat WITHOUT ANYONE READING IT!! Ergo THE template of no longer examining bills was established.

After how they (the Media and the bi-partisan Globalist Firsters) have lied and gone after Trump, how can ANY one believe ANYTHING this Media and gubmint (and all its tentacles) have fed you in the past?

The amazing thing about YouTube is that nothing is ever really "lost".

But...but...but...

So what are the Spooks gonna do now? Shut up a cadaver??

Fairly easy to do.

How funny were the lines, ["We left] so much evidence left behind [that] we thought the public would be all over it. [And that] there would be a public uprising THAT THE MEDIA COULDN'T IGNORE."??

But wait a second. Wasn't this guy trained as a CIA demolitions expert with access to all their best explosives and accessory gear?

Why no info on the explosives, the detonators, the arming and detonation sequences, the placement of the charges, how they managed to enter secure buildings to do the demolition work, etc.?

It's not a credible account. There's almost nothing there offered as evidence.

I predict this guy's ID and every last vestige and verification of his existence is already scrubbed.

No need. Regular folk will not figure that out anyway.

Why no info on the explosives, the detonators, the arming and detonation sequences, the placement of the charges, how they managed to enter secure buildings to do the demolition work, etc.?

That's a whole bunch to cough up on yer death bed, I'd think.

Never-the-blinkin'-less, I can find no corroboration for the story at the head of this thread.

It's just a bit too cute.

There's almost nothing there offered as evidence.

I would like to see ANY evidence for ANY plausible cause. You said fire from the two towers did it - can you point to any evidence, I mean the evidence as opposed to bare assertions?

Or is it like with hound of the Baskervilles that did not bark? Or criminal case where all fingerprints are wiped out from the gun?

That's a whole bunch to cough up on yer death bed, I'd think.

Never-the-blinkin'-less, I can find no corroboration for the story at the head of this thread.

It's just a bit too cute.

Of course it is.

He says of 9/11 that it was unique in his career as the only CIA demolition job that they couldn't talk about and had to keep secret.

So what were these other CIA demolitions? Surely after he participated in the crime of the century in the worst attack on American soil in its history, he could cough up a few details about his other CIA demolition jobs that he claims were not a secret at all, just as he wheezes out his last breath?

Oh, wait! He isn't breathing his last breath. He's actually out of the hospital now and perking right along. Turns out this was no deathbed confession at all.

I really feel I'm wasting keystrokes even trying to debate a 9/11 fable that is so incredibly stupid and evidence-free.

If you're going to go Truthing, believing this guy is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I think this guy was never in the CIA at all (except maybe as a janitor or landscaper). Let's see some pay stubs and other records to prove he worked for them or one of their known fronts. I think he's just a Truther geezer that wants some attention.

I would like to see ANY evidence for ANY plausible cause. You said fire from the two towers did it - can you point to any evidence, I mean the evidence as opposed to bare assertions?

I said those were just my thoughts. I'm not starting my own Truther movement at all. I mentioned it because it is an explanation that you never hear and yet it is hardly unheard of for big NYC building projects to be completed with terrible quality construction materials due to graft and corruption and fraud. NYC is notorious for it. And if we listen to Occam, don't we have to consider bad materials and poorly executed designs to be just as likely as our own government deciding to murder thousands of its own citizens so it can gin up a war in the Mideast? Occam tells us both are relatively simple propositions. If anything, the MIHOP Truther theory is far far more complex than my simple proposal of bad building materials and inadequate build quality.

The real topic here is this supposed ex-CIA demolitions specialist who doesn't seem to know anything about the details of his own demolition of WTC 7 in the greatest act of treason in the country's history and the worst attack on American soil.

But, no, you're ready to believe him with no proof at all. It's a completely fact-free account. It really amounts to a kind of Truther religious belief, a matter of faith, not facts.

How do you know he even worked for the CIA? For that matter, if you're a mega-Truther and all more-Truthy-than-thou and stuff, how do you know this guy isn't a CIA ringer being sent out to make this big announcement just so he can be discredited and make all the sincere Truthers look like complete fools?

Do you really want to believe something like this so badly that you will suspend all sense of judgment and reasonable standards for evidence and testimony just so you can cling to this old attention whore geezer and his phony "deathbed confession" (which it wasn't because he got so much better that they released from the hospital and he's out tooling around Jersey now)?

I said those were just my thoughts. ... And if we listen to Occam, don't we have to consider ...

You misunderstand Occam. He did not say that the simplest explanation is true. He said that if two theories explain something equally well, we should pick the simpler one (what is a very common sense thing). When a new fact appears that makes these two theories not equally good, we should pick the better one no matter if more complex.

I would like first to see some explanation that makes sense. Your thoughts on the remote fire ie theory (theories are thoughts) do not seem more plausible to me than others.

Now, for the full disclosure, I have no clue what really happened. Maybe because I did not do my homework.

You misunderstand Occam. He did not say that the simplest explanation is true. He said that if two theories explain something equally well, we should pick the simpler one (what is a very common sense thing). When a new fact appears that makes these two theories not equally good, we should pick the better one no matter if more complex.

All three theories offered are about equally simple or plausible so Occam doesn't help us much.

I brought Occam in to point out that my theory is no more complex and therefore no more unlikely than the official explanation or the MIHOP/LIHOP Trutheries.

I brought Occam in to point out that my theory is no more complex and therefore no more unlikely

To repeat, Occam did not say that simpler theory is more likely to be true. Just that if two theories have equal predictive value, the simpler one is better to be picked.

For example the Newtonian explanations in most of situations are simpler. It does not mean that they are truer.

Beside, what Occam (or other philosopher) said is not a infallible dogma or final word. For example Russel "solved" certain key logical paradoxes by banning them, and most of people today accept his fatwa on their knees.

You cannot avoid the work - if you want to come closer to the truth you need to put your nose to the grindstone.

[Tooconservative #9] No one is going to take your crazy pills or subscribe to your ignorant debunked crackpot conspiracy theories.

Unless one believes it was a one-man operation, there was a conspiracy. The only real question is who were members of the conspiracy.

[Tooconservative #17] I tend to accept the official explanations mostly because I'm sick of the Truther nutjobs and their endless novel theories and their "experts" out to make a quick buck off these mentally ill misfits.

I am unable to explain what is readily available for observation in the destruction/collapse of the three towers. However, I am tired of official explanations that fly in the face of science, physics in particular.

The fall of 7WTC is documented as having reached and maintained gravitational acceleration, or free fall, and maintained said free fall for several seconds. This implies the lower parts of the building exerted zero resistance to descent of the falling parts. The official report of NIST makes no attempt to explain what it was forced to admit. The report only proceeds to the point of collapse initiation.

In 1WTC and 2WTC we can observe that the floors are being pulverized before reaching the bottom. Giant beams are thrown hundreds of feet horizontally into buildings across the street. This is supposedly a gravitational collapse.

In order to pulverize a floor due to gravity, a downward force must be applied. In order for the downforce to pulverize a floor, an equal and opposite resisting force must be exerted by the floor being pulverized. If the floor being pulverized did not offer such resistive force, it would simply move out of the way without being pulverized. If such a resistive force is present, it will slow the rate of descent.

It takes an enormous downforce meeting an enormous resisting upforce to create the enormous horizontal force needed to hurl a huge steem beam hundreds of feet. The existence of such a resisting force speaks against any collapse nearing free fall.

For a symmetrical collapse on all sides, a gravitational fall would require precise, simultaneous structural failure on all sides. Nature tends to chaos, not order. In nature, tall buildings do not tend to fall straight down into their own footprint. They never, ever, achieve gravitational acceleration.

I am not saying what did it, just that the official conspiracy theory is not more persuasive than some of the other theories out there.

("Why no info on the explosives, the detonators, the arming and detonation sequences, the placement of the charges, how they managed to enter secure buildings to do the demolition work, etc.?")

That's a whole bunch to cough up on yer death bed, I'd think.

Roger that.

Never-the-blinkin'-less, I can find no corroboration for the story at the head of this thread.

Why expect corroboration on something like this? Those people generally prefer to die of natural causes -- never mind the responsibility for family member "accidents."

I brought Occam

What about such theory - there were 4 planes and three buildings to go down (one plane was a reserve). But only two planes came so it took time for the third building to be destroyed. Otherwise all three would go in the same time.

Is it simpler, Sir? ;)

To repeat, Occam did not say that simpler theory is more likely to be true. Just that if two theories have equal predictive value, the simpler one is better to be picked.

And I repeat that my own pet theory is no more implausible than the official one or the MIHOP or LIHOP Trutheries.

You seem quite dense on this point.

I am not saying what did it, just that the official conspiracy theory is not more persuasive than some of the other theories out there.

I agree.

And I repeat that my own pet theory is no more implausible than the official one or the MIHOP or LIHOP Trutheries.

You seem quite dense on this point.

Well, a remote fire is hard for me to fathom. But what do I know.

Is it simpler, Sir? ;)

If we start heading for the weeds, then all of these theories fail the simpler-is-better-or-most-plausible test (or however you wish to state it).

You know you're starting to beat a dead horse here because you have no conclusive evidence to offer. Nor do I. What we have are suspicions.

Unless one believes it was a one-man operation, there was a conspiracy. The only real question is who were members of the conspiracy...I am unable to explain what is readily available for observation in the destruction/collapse of the three towers. However, I am tired of official explanations that fly in the face of science, physics in particular.

Amen.

And has ANY one YET explained the live report from the BCC that Building 7 HAD ALREADY COLLAPSED??

I mean, COME ON, MAN!! That indicated either a pre-written SCRIPT or tip from insider sources WHO KNEW what was coming.

The lying dung this global Ministry of Propaganda and its partners in NWO Crime -- the bi-wing, bi-partisan WHORE PARTY -- are allowed sell as "OFFICIAL" *without question* STILL -- as well as obedience TO our pathologically lying, seditious overlords, is astounding.

Since 911 we've just withstood 16 years of discredited bi-partisan/media bullsh*t, an over-officious state, AND subservient respect to our Islamic immigrants/jihadists-in-waiting...and yet SOMEHOW in retrospect the "Official" 911 report and supposed events are to be believed?? No difference in the lies surrounding the events of 911 and the SAME Ministry of Propaganda and gubmint globalists who've promoted and advanced the lies, treason, and sabotage of Donald Trump while shielding 0bama, Hillary, Lynch, Comey, etal.

Just...wow.

And has ANY one YET explained the live report from the BCC that Building 7 HAD ALREADY COLLAPSED??

I mean, COME ON, MAN!! That indicated either a pre-written SCRIPT or tip from insider sources WHO KNEW what was coming.

I'm gonna go with "the female news reader was transported into the future via Dr. Who's TARDIS time machine."

That's a lot more believable than the BBC's explanation that it was just a "cock-up".

You know you're starting to beat a dead horse here because you have no conclusive evidence to offer.

There is plenty of evidence that thermate (a type of thermite) was used to bring the buildings down. That you haven't made the effort to study it is not conclusive. So far what I've seen is that your knowledge of anything is 5 minutes on Google deep.

Nor do I.

Yet you blow and blow.

What we have are suspicions.

Some suspicions started before the event ;)

The Lone Gunmen episode aired March 4th, 2001, with the intrepid conspiracy theorists:

ranTing of a madman

bruce gender science - dynamics

love
boris

ps

dr mengele medical science too

When the real event happens the story has been pre-sold. Neat operational sequence, we call it a psy-op.

There is plenty of evidence that thermate (a type of thermite) was used to bring the buildings down.

You need to keep up with your reading. Among the MIHOP Truthers, it is an article of faith that nanothermite was used. Well, if it actually exists.

And has ANY one YET explained the live report from the BCC that Building 7 HAD ALREADY COLLAPSED??

No one has it. We also have no verification of exactly when that aired. We also know that the text crawl was not in sync with the rest of the broadcast.

We don't actually know whether that was a live broadcast. If they put a five minute or ten minute delay on broadcast that day, they could still splash it as a live feed on the chyron feed.

And why are there no other corroborating videos except this one from the BBC? All the major studios were in the area and had local affiliates as well (ABCNNBCBS)? Where are their time-coded videos of the same event? What about the amateur videos of these events that we have quite a few of? Why don't they show the same things at the same time?

The BBC is an entirely isolated piece of evidence with no other corroborating sources. We don't even know if that was actually a live feed.

Trump signs multi Billion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia

The establishment neocons like The Donald and Jared Kushner are cashing in on selling arms to both sides.

As President, the Donald is in charge now of covering up Saudi involvement in 911 and calling us K0ok$. It pays very well.

Hillary and Obama are has-beens, it's all on Trump now.

bruce gender science - dynamics

A bongo message for Boris, please translate.

And has ANY one YET explained the live report from the BCC that Building 7 HAD ALREADY COLLAPSED??

I do not know what happened there, but don't read too much into it.

Cops or firefighters on video were telling people to clear the area, that the building was going to come down. Faults had allegedly been observed by FDNY, leading them to question the structural integrity of the building. They were in the street saying the building was going to come down. It would seem the most likely explanation is BBC just had a miscomunication.

The beeb reporter might not have known which building was 7WTC, even had she been looking in that direction. Only 1WTC and 2WTC were famous before 9/11.

There is plenty of evidence that thermate (a type of thermite) was used to bring the buildings down.

A difficulty with a thermate theory is the synchronization needed on every floor to achieve a vertical drop into the building's own footprint. Unless the resistance at each floor is uniform on all sides (or removed), the descending part will tend to shunt off to the least resistant side.

It would seem the most likely explanation is BBC just had a miscomunication

The old "cock-up" story, pull it!

A difficulty with a thermate theory is the synchronization needed on every floor to achieve a vertical drop into the building's own footprint.

The link I posted above has two of Prof. Jones' papers. I have five reports he wrote from his analysis / experiments.

Edit: residue is the wrong word, tho it conveys the meaning. I am referring to the deposits of burned thermate on surfaces as evinced by the effects of it on those surfaces.

A difficulty with a thermate theory is the...

You've really stepped in it now! LOL

It is not a difficulty. I saw your comments above, which are consistent with a controlled demolition. Thermate residue* found on the building remains and on cars in the surrounding area is a part of the evidence.

My comments pointed to the problems with any offered collapse mechanism being consistent with the observed phenomena and the laws of physics. The buildings appear to have been brought down, but the mechanism is not clear.

The problem with thermate is how to cut the columns or beams on all sides at the same time with time synchronization to within a fraction of a second. Thermate is a pyrotechnic. It burns through steel. It is not normally used in controlled collapse. As far as I can tell, it is unusable as the primary agent. Dr. Jones does not claim that any building was brought down primarily by thermate. Explosives are used which cause structural failure of a column in a fraction of a second. A heat source is not as predictable on the timing of structural failure of columns on all sides of a building on multiple floors. Miss one by a little bit and the whole thing shunts sideways. That is why explosives are used.

Thermate residue* found on the building remains and on cars in the surrounding area is a part of the evidence.

This is part of speculation, never established as fact.

The link I posted above has two of Prof. Jones' papers. I have five reports he wrote from his analysis / experiments.

I am very familiar with Dr. Jones and his papers.

His research paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" was first posted as a full professor of physics at BYU on his physics department website. BYU announced a review. Jones took down the article on September 7, 2006 and resigned on January 1, 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

On September 22, 2005 Jones presented his views on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and World Trade Center 7 at a BYU seminar attended by approximately 60 people. Jones claimed that a variety of evidence defies the mainstream collapse theory and favors controlled demolition, using thermite. The evidence Jones cited included the speed and symmetry of the collapses, and characteristics of dust jets. Later, Jones claimed he had identified grey/red flakes found in the dust as nanothermite traces. He has also claimed that the thermite reaction products (aluminium oxide and iron-rich microspheres) were also found in the dust. He called for further scientific investigation to test the controlled demolition theory and the release of all relevant data by the government. Shortly after the seminar, Jones placed a research paper entitled "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" on his page in the Physics department Web site, noting that BYU had no responsibility for the paper.

Jones subsequently presented the WTC research in lectures at Idaho State University, Utah Valley State College, University of Colorado at Boulder and University of Denver, the Utah Academy of Science, Sonoma State University, University of California at Berkeley, and the University of Texas at Austin.

On September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave. The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones' work and that perhaps Jones' research had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review. The review was to have been conducted at three levels: BYU administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, and the Physics Department. However, BYU discontinued the review. Some of Jones' colleagues also defended Jones' 9/11 work to varying degrees, and Project Censored lists his 9/11 research among the top mainstream media censored stories of 2007.

Jones' placement on paid leave drew criticism from the American Association of University Professors and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Both organizations have long been critics of BYU's record on academic freedom. Jones "welcomed the review" because he hoped it would "encourage people to read his paper for themselves," however the school abandoned the review and Jones elected to retire, effective January 1, 2007.

Dr. Jones revised study paper does not claim demolition by thermate/pryotechnics. He hypothesises that a combination of explosives and incendaries were used on the core columns on lower floors, and cutting charges were detonated up higher. Regarding 7WTC, Dr. Jones argues for a serious investigation that it was brought down by pre-positioned cutter-charges; i.e., explosives. For 1WTC and 2WTC he argues for the ancillary use of thermate on the lower floors in addition to the primary use of explosives.

The requisite precise timing cannot be achieved with incendaries. He claims incendaries were used to weaken the columns and explosives to achieve actual structural failure.

His paper further asserts that his hypotheses deserve thorough scientific scrutiny. Such assertion openly declares that the hypothesis has not received thorough scientific scrutiny at the time asserted.

At page 1 of Dr. Jones' revised study paper, the abstract states,

ABSTRACT

In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges.

At page 42 of his revised study paper, Dr. Jones states,

Remarkably, the controlled demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives/incendiaries, near simultaneously, along with cutting charges detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus near symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs -- really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermate (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel columns readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles as well as the sulfidation observed in steel from both the WTC 7 and Towers rubble piles (points 1 and 2 above). I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable actually than the official hypothesis. It deserves thorough scientific scrutiny, beyond that which I have been able to outline in this treatise.

At page 43 of his revised study paper, Dr. Jones states,

AFTERWORD

In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the carefully planned use of explosives/incendiaries. I have presented ample evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is scientifically testable and yet has not been seriously considered in any of the studies funded by the US government.

Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 2 of 7 - Nano-thermite found in the WTC dust

[Also Dr. Steven Jones and his research paper.]

Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 3 of 7 -Thermate, thermite and glowing aluminium

You've really stepped in it now! LOL

Guilty as charged.

Bottom line, there is significant evidence that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

I was just a bit stunned that people on this forum have not made the effort to understand the case made by Jones, the most careful of the challengers to the official conspiracy theory.

I do not find the publications of Dr. Jones persuasive. They are in pay for play junk science publications. 7WTC may be a classic demolition job but 1WTC and 2WTC are different. They are pulverized or turned to dust in mid-air and settled as a covering of fine dust particles up to miles distant. Thermite and thermate did not do that. Fire did not do it, and neither did gravity.

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=52077&Disp=6#C6">

I only found one link to one paper at your #6.

The link for "download page" was:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/why-indeed-did-the-world-trade-center-buildings-completely-collapse/

I am aware of the Bentham Journal mentioned in one of the Youtube videos I provided, and also EuroPhysics News.

Bentham's play for play journal has a less than sterling reputation. Peer reviewed science it is not. Neither is Europhysics News. Bentham was caught in a scam where it accepted a paper for publication which was gibberish by a computer program with authors claiming to have been from the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology (CRAP).

Articles where the author pays for publication in a junk science journal tend not not be scientifically persuasive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers

Bentham Open journals claim to employ peer review;[4] however, the fact that a fake paper generated with SCIgen was accepted for publication, has cast doubt on this.[5][6][7] Furthermore, the publisher is known for spamming scientists with invitations to become a member of the editorial boards of its journals.[8]

In 2009, the Bentham Open Science journal The Open Chemical Physics Journal published a study contending dust from the World Trade Center attacks contained "active nanothermite".[9] Following publication, the journal's editor-in-chief Marie-Paule Pileni resigned stating, "They have printed the article without my authorization… I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them".[10]

In a review of Bentham Open for The Charleston Advisor, Jeffrey Beall noted that "in many cases, Bentham Open journals publish articles that no legitimate peer-review journal would accept, and unconventional and nonconformist ideas are being presented in some of them as legitimate science." He concluded by stating that "the site has exploited the Open Access model for its own financial motives and flooded scholarly communication with a flurry of low quality and questionable research."[11] Beall has since added Bentham Open to his list of "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers".[3]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers

Bentham Science Publishers straddles the fine line between "open access journal publisher" and "vanity press scam."

Bentham was founded in 1994 and enjoyed a reputation as a small but reputable and scholarly publisher. In April 2007, it announced that it would open more than 300 open access journals by the end of the year, though it later cut this to 200.[1]

The journals work on the model where the journal is available free, and authors pay to have their paper published. A new journal will often contact people in the field noting the journal's existence and requesting submissions. However, Bentham took it as far as repeatedly spamming people[2][3], often irrelevantly,[1] and offering scientists membership on its journals' editorial boards out of the blue.[4] (As of August 23, 2014, the Scientificspam.net DNS-based blocklist lists the 117.20.26.0/23 network from which Bentham spams in its entirety.) Membership of a journal's editorial board can be quite prestigious, but when people realised what sort of company they were dealing with and withdrew their acceptance, Bentham kept their names on the masthead and ignored all demands for removal.[1] In April 2009, the Open Chemical Physics Journal published an article advocating 9/11 conspiracy theories without anyone bothering to inform the journal's editor, who promptly resigned.[5]

This aroused the interest of the curious, and Bentham was busted in 2009 accepting a paper for the Open Information Science Journal consisting of random sentences computer-generated with SCIgen, whose imaginary authors both worked at the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology (CRAP).[6][7] The editor of said journal also quit when he found out what the publisher had done.[8] Bentham's director of publication claimed they merely sent a fake acceptance to flush out the hoaxer,[4] but no-one believes him.

Bentham's questionable behaviour, and the extensive documentation of it, led directly[3] to the formation of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association,[9] which endeavours to serve as a mark of respectability in OA publishers. Not only is Bentham not a member, OASPA has blogged specifically concerning it.[10]

Annoyingly, the scams continue.

http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/09/criticism-of-oa-publisher-bentham.html

Open Access News

News from the open access movement

Friday, September 11, 2009

Criticism of OA publisher Bentham

Jeffrey Beall, Bentham Open, The Charleston Advisor, July 2009; self-archived September 10, 2009. A review of OA publisher Bentham Open. Excerpt:

... The site is supported by fees charged to the author upon publication of an article, and the fees are high. ... The Bentham Open site makes no mention of [fee waiver/reduction in cases of financial need], but in response to an e-mail inquiry, a representative stated that authors from developing countries are granted a discount of 30 to 50 percent off the publication fee charges. ...

The site states that, “All submitted articles undergo a fast but rigorous peer-review procedure, followed by prompt submission of an article for publication.” However, the journals contain articles that take unpopular views on topics and were likely unacceptable in mainstream journals. An example is the article entitled, “Cosmological Constraints on Unifying Dark Fluid Models” that appears in The Open Astronomy Journal. The article offers the dark fluid model as an alternative to the widely-accepted theories establishing dark matter and dark energy in cosmology ...

Because the dark fluid theory is not accepted by mainstream cosmologists, it is likely that if this article were submitted to any mainstream journal it would be rejected, and the author sought to publish it here because of the less-rigorous or façade-like peer-review process. Alternatively, the author submitted the article to Bentham Open because he knew that merely by paying the fee he could get his work published. ... In many cases, Bentham Open journals publish articles that no legitimate peer-review journal would accept, and unconventional and nonconformist ideas are being presented in some of them as legitimate science. ...

Another example comes from The Open Chemical Physics Journal. In the article “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” the authors conclude that some of the dust found in the World Trade Center debris is unexploded bomb material. They lead the reader to conclude that planted explosives were the real source of the World Trade Center buildings’ collapse, and not the aircraft that struck them. This article has helped fuel 9/11 conspiracy theories. Thus, Bentham Open is a place for people to publish their theories, theses, and ideas that are out of the mainstream.

There is no journal impact factor data for these journals because the data takes three years to compile and all the journals Bentham Open offers are less than three years old. In response to an e-mail inquiry regarding rejection rates for Bentham Open journals, company representative Mehwish Akhter replied, “Rejection rate is different for different journals. Normally it’s 25–30%.”

The membership plan that Bentham Open Access offers is highly questionable, especially the individual membership. The cheapest individual membership is $1,600, and at this rate an author receives a 5 percent discount on author fees. For an article that costs $800 to publish, the discount is $40; to break even at that membership level, an author would need to publish 40 articles. Clearly, very little thought has been put into Bentham’s membership plan; it appears only to be a way to generate revenue for the company from the naive.

The Open Access model is a good one, for it makes research freely available to everyone. However, Bentham Open is exploiting the good will of those who established the Open Access model by twisting it and exploiting it for profit. Just because a journal is Open Access doesn’t make it legitimate or high quality. ...

Bentham Open’s emergence into scholarly publishing in 2007 has served mainly as a venue to publish research of questionable quality. The site has exploited the Open Access model for its own financial motives and flooded scholarly communication with a flurry of low quality and questionable research. By linking to sites such as Bentham Open, libraries are diluting scholarly research and making it more difficult for scholars to sort through the abundance of journal articles available. ...

N.B. This review was written before the Bentham fake article hoax from earlier this year.

See also our past posts on Bentham.

- - - - - - - - - -

The article 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses, is written by truthers Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti, and Ted Walter.

But a new forensic investigation into the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11, published in Europhysics News – a highly respected European physics magazine....

There is the Europhysics News itself.

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf

Page 1 of the issue of Europhysics News states:

Europhysics news is the magazine of the European physics community. It is owned by the European Physical Society and produced in cooperation with EDP Sciences. The staff of EDP Sciences are involved in the production of the magazine and are not responsible for editorial content. Most contributors to Europhysics news are volunteers and their work is greatly appreciated by the Editor and the Editorial Advisory Board.

The article is on pp. 21-26. Page 21 is a basic cover page.

Page 22 of the issue of Europhysics News leads off with:

NOTE FROM THE EDITORS

This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.

http://www.snopes.com/journal-endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/

[Excerpt]

For their part, EPN released a statement after having been pressed by podcaster Stephen Knight:

EPN is a magazine that publishes a range of news and views to stimulate discussion – unlike peer reviewed research which would be published in a scholarly journal. EDP Sciences [their parent company] follows the most rigorous peer review standards for its journals of which EPN is not one.

As a magazine, the editorial policy of EPN is to publish news and views, which are sometimes controversial. EDP Sciences recognizes that the article discusses some speculative and controversial issues. However EPN and EDP Sciences believe that the best (and the most scientific) way to settle such issues is to publish them and have an open discussion with all due arguments in which the truth will finally emerge. A counter article is to be published by EPN in the next issue.

http://www.skeptical-science.com/critical-thinking/scientific-proof-911-inside-job/

[Excerpt]

First a Few actual Facts

There are two rather important points to start with …

1. Europhysics News is not a peer-reviewed science journal, it is just a magazine

2. The article does not contain output from a formal study, it is just a magazine article

The editors did also add the following note:

This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.

In other words, they are telling you clearly that it is not scientific, and is instead just speculation.

I'm just glad we finally reached the inevitable nano-thermite portion of the discussion.

Dr. Judy Wood published Where Did The Towers Go?. It does an excellent presentation of the observed phenomena from 9/11. While her directed energy weapon theory of what could account for the phenomena is controversial, to say the least, her presentation of what was observed to have happened is excellent. At page 124, she addressed "thermitic material" found in the dust.

3. "Thermitic Material" in the Dust

A report has come out stating that "thermitic material,(59) was found in dust samples from lower Manhattan after 9/11/01. The authors of the report did not say they found thermite, but only that they found "thermitic material." What is "Thermitic Material?" Presumably, the term refers to the ingredients of thermite, which is a substance made of aluminum powder and iron oxide (rust). The Twin Towers were steel structures with aluminum cladding. "Steel is a term used for iron to which between 0.02 to 1.7% carbon has been added."(60) Typical low-carbon steel (e.g. ASTM A36) contains 99% iron. We know that a large portion of the towers was turned to dust (see Chapter 9, Dustification). And iron dust in atmospheric conditions will immediately rust. So it is natural and to be expected that materials the buildings were made of would be found in the nano-dust of their remains. The surprising thing would be if this nano-dust from the buildings did not contain "thermitic material." That the article is identified as having been "peer reviewed" is intended to imply the validity of the study. However, "peer reviewed" no longer means what it once did. Shortly after Bentham published the article about "thermitic material," The Boston Globe ran a news story about a hoax submission (an article made up of nothing but computer-generated nonsense) to another Bentham journal. This second article also passed "peer review."(61, 62) Others have written about this deliberately fraudulent study.(63)

The buildings were turned to dust, and therefore the dust would be expected to contain traces of all materials that were in the buildings.

The authors of the report did not say they found thermite, but only that they found "thermitic material." What is "Thermitic Material?" Presumably,...

Presumably.

What is "Thermitic Material?" Presumably, the term refers to the ingredients of thermite, which is a substance made of aluminum powder and iron oxide (rust).

I would read it differently. "Thermitic" suggest more general thing - thermite-like. It does not have to be aluminum and iron oxide, you need metal oxide and a substance that will binds oxygen from the oxide generating heat.

Perhaps there are more exotic non-metallic exothermic thermites?

I would read it differently. "Thermitic" suggest more general thing - thermite-like. It does not have to be aluminum and iron oxide, you need metal oxide and a substance that will binds oxygen from the oxide generating heat.

By whatever definition, it is exceedingly difficult to see how to synchronize the failure of large steel columns with the use of heat as the primary agent.

Take the 47 Minute Building 7 Challenge!

LibertyDefender84

Published on May 16, 2015

This is a 47 minute challenge about Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper, which collapsed at 5:20pm on September 11th, 2001.

The challenge is to watch this 47 minute video and try to maintain your belief in the official story of what happened on September 11th, 2001. This is a difficult challenge because this video features testimony from Structural Engineers, Architects, Demolition Experts, and eyewitnesses who provide evidence that Building 7 collapsed as a result of a controlled demolition. After looking at the evidence, it will be challenging to maintain the belief that fire caused Building 7 to collapse in the manner that was observed.

Take the 47 Minute Building 7 Challenge!

No thanks.

The 9/11 hucksters have re-made the same videos over and over.

If I want preaching, there's plenty of churches around here.

The 9/11 hucksters have re-made the same videos over and over.

Well, there is always the NIST report.

Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A)

http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

At page xxxvii:

Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. The building withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood fires involving typical office combustibles on several floors for almost seven hours. The debris damaged the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams, only in the vicinity of the structural damage from the collapse of WTC 1. This was near the west side of the south face of the building and was far removed from the buckled column that initiated the collapse. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001. The transfer elements such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7.

Structural damage from debris did not cause the collapse.

NIST identifies specific fire observations and their earliest times.

"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 194]

"A larger area of the west face near the south edge is visible in the photograph shown in Figure 5-1 10, which was taken shortly after Figure 5- 109 at 12:27:30 p.m. At this time flames were not evident in window 22-14A, but light smoke continued to flow from the window. Higher up on the face, smoke was coming from the six adjacent open windows 29-11 to 29-14A on the 29th floor, with heavy flames filling windows 29-11 and 29-12. As discussed in Section 5.5.2, the condition of windows 29-13A to 29-14A immediately following the collapse of WTC 1 could not be determined, while the glass was intact in windows 29-11 and 29-12. This suggests that the fire burning on this floor had opened windows 29-11 and 29-12 by 12:27:30 p.m." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 196]

"Prior to 12:10 p.m., there was no evidence of fire on the upper floors of WTC 7. Between 12:10 p.m. and 2:10 p.m., the only fires directly or indirectly observed were on Floors 19, 22, 29, and 30." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 194]

- - - - -

"Between roughly 2:00 p.m. and the collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20:52, fires were observed spreading on the 7th floor through the 13th floor, with the exception of the 10th floor. One short video clip indicated that a small fire was present on the north side of the 14th floor shortly prior to the collapse. In the following descriptions of these fires, approximate times are used. Details are included in the previous subsection." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 243]

"7th Floor. Early indications of a developing fire were observed on the west side of the 7th floor shortly after 2:00 p.m." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 243]

"8th floor. The earliest fires observed on the 8th floor were on the north face in windows near the center of the face. As late as 3:22 p.m., there was no indication of fire in this area, but about 17 min later a substantial fire spreading to the east was visib le between windows 8-47C and 8-53C." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 243]

"9th Floor. There was no indication of fire in the available imagery on this floor until late in the day. Shortly before 4:00 p.m., a small area of fire was observed in windows 9-54A and 9-54B on the west side of the north face. There are no images suggesting how fire reached this location." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 244]

"10th Floor. No fires were observed burning on this floor." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 244]

"11th Floor. A fire was first observed on this floor at 2:08 p.m. on the east face." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 244]

"12th Floor. The first observation of a fire on the 12th floor was on the east face around 2:08 p.m." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 245]

"13th Floor. The first visual evidence for burning on the 13th floor was seen on the east face around 2:30 p.m." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 245]

"14th Floor. A low resolution image recorded around 5:03 p.m. indicated the presence of a fire between Columns 45 and 46 on the north face. Fire at this location or elsewhere on the floor was not evident in similar images recorded roughly ten minutes earlier and six minutes later. This was the only observation of a fire on this floor." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 246]

"Fires on Other Floors. With the exception of the fires on the 19th, 22nd, 29th, and 30th floors discussed at the start of this section, there is no direct visual evidence of fires on other floors of WTC 7. Heavy smoke was observed coming from the opening created on the south face of WTC 7 by debris falling from WTC 1. This smoke suggests that internal burning was taking place, but provides little indication of specific locations. Light smoke was observed at the height of the louvers on the east side of the 5th and 6th floors around 4:10 p.m. It was not possible to identify the source of this smoke. [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 246]

SOURCE: NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Volume 1