Where did the towers go - directed free energy

Monty Burnz

Dew Drops wrote: »

The evidence that this secret technology exists was demonstrated on September 11, 2001 for the whole world to see.

I've recently come across a powerful argument that 9/11 is evidence for space fairies. Well, equally powerful.

Monty Burnz

Dew Drops wrote: »

Let’s start over again. To solve a problem, we must first begin with defining the problem ("Empirical Evidence is the Truth that Theory Must Mimic").


1. Were the towers once there? (yes or no)

2. Are the towers still there? (yes or no)

3. Did most (over 50%) of the towers turn to dust? (yes or no)

Choose the question that corresponds to their answer to #3 above:

4. (a) If your answer to question #3 was "no," Please review the empirical evidence contained in WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? more carefully or find someone who can.

4. (b) If your answer to question #3 was "yes," Does there exist a mechanism or technology capable of doing this? (yes or no)

==> If your answer to question #4b was "yes," we are in agreement.

==> If your answer to question #4b was "no," please explain your contradiction, claiming something occurred that was impossible to occur.

As I have said many times before:

"When 'white man' first arrived on the American continent with firearms, indigenous people did not need to know the serial numbers of their weapons to know what they can do. They didn't need to have seen such weapons in order to know that there exists a weapon that can fire a piece of metal fast enough to kill their brother. Likewise, by the end of the day on August 6, 1945, the people living near Hiroshima, Japan, did not need to understand how a nuclear bomb works in order to know that there exists a technology that can produce enormous amounts of heat or to know that there exists a super-duper Kinetic Energy Weapon (KEW) that is capable of destroying an entire city."

1.) Did an unknown (secret) technology kill Native Americans and Japanese civilians? Yes, both groups of people were killed with an unknown (secret) technology.

2.) Was a demonstration of the unknown (secret) technology proof that it existed? Yes, both groups of people knew that the unknown (secret) technology existed from witnessing its demonstration.

3.) Did both groups of people need to know how the unknown (secret) technology worked to know that it existed? No, neither group of people needed know how the unknown (secret) technology worked to know it existed.

4.) Was an unknown (secret) technology demonstrated on September 11, 2001 in New York City? Yes, the empirical evidence proves that an unknown (secret) technology was demonstrated.

5.) Was a demonstration of the unknown (secret) technology on September 11, 2001 in New York City proof that it existed? Yes, we know that the unknown (secret) technology exists from witnessing its demonstration.

Hai capito adesso?

PS I've read Dr. Judy Wood's book and nowhere in it does she mention "space laser". People who use this meme are connected to the cover-up.

I'd swear I've seen that post before...oh yes, it's the one I've debunked twice already.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I already took this post apart on this thread. But just to repeat: unknown/secret technology was not used against Native Americans or Japanese people - I doubt you could find any university physicist (or even school science teacher) in 1956 who did not understand the principle of the nuclear bomb, and you couldn't find anybody at all in the West who didn't understand the principle of gun powder since the 1500s.

Does every university physicist know about your amazing space mystery dustification super laser blaster emitter?

Dew Drops

humanji wrote: »

I've an easier way to solve this problem. Give us another example of this weapon in use. 9/11 isn't valid as the whole reason this thread exists is because it's claimed this weapon exists and was used then and there.

Actually, the easiest way to solve this problem is to read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? for yourself and not rely on ambiguation and disinformation.

I am sure that anyone who reads her book would agree - the evidence, without any analysis, stands on its own. I encourage anyone interested in this topic to check it out. After looking at the evidence, not necessarily any analysis of pieces of evidence, just the evidence itself, it is clear that no type of explosives could have been be used. This is based on the simple formula for a falling body, time = root of (height over 1/2 G), and the fact the buildings took around 10 seconds to completely collapse (video and seismic evidence.) If each floor waited for the floor above to touch it before it started moving down, it would take over 96 seconds for all 110 floors to reach bottom. This is assuming the floors offer no resistance (resistance would increase the time considerably.) If you are generous and assume that, say, every tenth floor gives away so the building collapses in 10-floor packages, then it would still take over 36 seconds. Any explosives, whether dynamite, thermate or mini-nukes, would had to have started the explosions on each collapsing floor about 2.4 seconds before the 10-floor package above reached it. The videos we have all seen over and over again have shown a single collapse wave, not one with 2.4 second gaps between huge explosions. On the particular topic of thermite and thermate, the chemical residue cannot actually be positively identified because it is simply a mixture a metal and a metal oxide, like Al and Fe2O3, and the addition of sulfur and barium nitrate in thermate. With or without the use of thermite/thermate, you would expect to find both aluminum and iron oxide in the dust because the outer skin "wheatchex" are aluminum and the core columns are steel. There are so many anomalies that indicate a directed energy weapon was used. If you read the book, it's too hard to refute the idea. I believe that the only way you could honestly disagree with her findings in the book is to not read it.

Here's a short list of evidence that must be explained:

• collapse in about 10 seconds
• cylindrical holes in WTC 6 about 25feet in diameter
• flipped over cars in between upright cars
• cars that looked burnt but were not heat damaged, up to a half mile away from the towers
• engine blocks completely destroyed but not by heat
• seismic data
• extreme magnetic anomalies in Alaska coinciding with the attacks
• unusual amounts of dust
• large amounts of 0.10 micron size dust (unusually small)
• Strange occurrence, media reporting and behavior of Hurricane Erin
• no damage to the fragile "bathtub" that keeps out the Hudson River
• the very unusual circumstances with the attempted repair of Bankers Trust building
• the huge volume of dirt brought in and out of the site

the list goes on and on and on...

Hai capito adesso?

Jonny7

Dew Drops wrote: »

The evidence that this secret technology exists was demonstrated on September 11, 2001 for the whole world to see.

I'm going to severely dumb this down in some vain hope it might aid your understanding on the matter.

My theory is that a space-fairy did it and I will "prove" that using your same logic.

The integrity, irrefutability, and solidity of Dr. Judy Wood's work, however, as well as its importance, have not protected it from programs of denial, disinformation, falsehood, and smear. In light of the seemingly indefatigable attack-and-disinformation campaign mounted against it, Dr. Judy Wood's research and book will outlive us all and hold a singular position in world history.

Interesting...

1. Were the towers once there? (yes or no)

Yup

2. Are the towers still there? (yes or no)

Nope

3. Did most (over 50%) of the towers turn to dust? (yes or no)

I'd check numbers and details with engineers and demolition experts on that

4. (a) If your answer to question #3 was "no," Please review the empirical evidence contained in WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? more carefully or find someone who can.

Into the basement, scattered around and into dust

4. (b) If your answer to question #3 was "yes," Does there exist a mechanism or technology capable of doing this? (yes or no)

"Yes"

==> If your answer to question #4b was "no," please explain your contradiction, claiming something occurred that was impossible to occur.

The space-fairy did it.

"When 'white man' first arrived on the American continent with firearms, indigenous people did not need to know the serial numbers of their weapons to know what they can do. They didn't need to have seen such weapons in order to know that there exists a weapon that can fire a piece of metal fast enough to kill their brother. Likewise, by the end of the day on August 6, 1945, the people living near Hiroshima, Japan, did not need to understand how a nuclear bomb works in order to know that there exists a technology that can produce enormous amounts of heat or to know that there exists a super-duper Kinetic Energy Weapon (KEW) space-fairy that is capable of destroying an entire city."

fixed that for you (inserted my theoretical thing in there)

1.) Did an unknown (secret) technology kill Native Americans and Japanese civilians? Yes, both groups of people were killed with an unknown (secret) technology.

Japanese were researching a nuclear weapon themselves. Gunpowder was invented thousands of years before.

2.) Was a demonstration of the unknown (secret) technology proof that it existed? Yes, both groups of people knew that the unknown (secret) technology existed from witnessing its demonstration.

Nope, they witnessed the technology, e.g. a native Indian could say, there's the object over there, he could say who used it, where it was located and what happened when it was used. He could give me a hell of a lot more info on a firearm than Dr Judy Wood or you is giving on this weapon.

3.) Did both groups of people need to know how the unknown (secret) technology worked to know that it existed? No, neither group of people needed know how the unknown (secret) technology worked to know it existed.

It was quite plain how each tech worked in each case. A physical bomb dropped from a physical plane. A physical bullet fired from a physical weapon

So, using this logic so far, since no one knows about my space fairy, it exists and it destroyed the Twin Towers.

4.) Was an unknown (secret) technology demonstrated on September 11, 2001 in New York City? Yes, the empirical evidence proves that an unknown (secret) technology was demonstrated.

Nope but my space-fairy theory is still just as strong as your directed energy weapon so far.

5.) Was a demonstration of the unknown (secret) technology on September 11, 2001 in New York City proof that it existed? Yes, we know that the unknown (secret) technology exists from witnessing its demonstration.

YES, space-fairy is finally proven, the Twin Towers falling down is proof of its awesome power and the fact that it exists.

PS I've read Dr. Judy Wood's book and nowhere in it does she mention "space laser". People who use this meme are connected to the cover-up.

Entire knowledge on energy weapon so far - it's not a space laser

Knowledge on "space-fairy" so far - well the "space" part kinda gives it away


What have we achieved? well using your faulty logic and reasoning you've proved it's just as likely my made-up space fairy destroyed the Twin Towers as your made-up energy weapon destroyed them

King Mob

Dew Drops wrote: »

[
collapse in about 10 seconds

The towers did not collapse in 10 seconds.
The very first thing on your list isn't true, thus doesn't need to be explained. That doesn't bode well for the other items...

humanji

I love how you think posting awful pictures somehow backs you up.

Again, you're not showing evidence. Let's take your list. I'm not going to debate the accuracy of it, because I've a feeling it'll lead nowhere. Let's assume it's all true. What that list is, is a list of things that were noted. They are not a list of evidence that the weapon exists or was used. The reason for this is because you have yet to show the existence of the weapon.

You don't know what the weapon is. You don't know how it works. You don't know the power requirements. You don't know where it was located. And you have no previous examples of it's use. Therefore you cannot claim that 9/11 is an example of it's use, as you have nothing to compare it to.

You can harp on about "empirical evidence" all you want, but the only empirical evidence we've witnessed leads to the conclusion that you don't understand what empirical evidence means.

Dew Drops

humanji wrote: »

I love how you think posting awful pictures somehow backs you up.

Again, you're not showing evidence. Let's take your list. I'm not going to debate the accuracy of it, because I've a feeling it'll lead nowhere. Let's assume it's all true. What that list is, is a list of things that were noted. They are not a list of evidence that the weapon exists or was used. The reason for this is because you have yet to show the existence of the weapon.

You don't know what the weapon is. You don't know how it works. You don't know the power requirements. You don't know where it was located. And you have no previous examples of it's use. Therefore you cannot claim that 9/11 is an example of it's use, as you have nothing to compare it to.

You can harp on about "empirical evidence" all you want, but the only empirical evidence we've witnessed leads to the conclusion that you don't understand what empirical evidence means.

Remember that "Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic." It's not in reverse order.

* Are you suggesting that because no other 110-story building in history has been demolished at one time that WTC1 and WTC2 are still standing?


* Are you suggesting that because no other 22-story building in history has gone missing in two sessions that WTC3 is all still there?
The first photo is dated 9/11/01 and the second one is dated 9/13/01.

* Are you suggesting that because no other 9-story building in history has had its main wing go missing at one time that WTC4 is all still there?


* Are you suggesting that because no other 9-story building in history has had cylindrical cut-outs appear in it one time that WTC5 is all still there?


* Are you suggesting that because no other 8-story building in history has had its center go missing at one time that WTC6 is all still there?


* Are you suggesting that because no other 47-story building in history has been demolished at one time that WTC7 is still standing?
(Not much debris for a 47 story building. It hardly even crosses the street!)



Hai capito adesso?

Monty Burnz

Dew Drops wrote: »

Hai capito adesso?

Rozumiemy, że rozmawiasz z tyłka.

humanji

Dew Drops, what I'm saying is you're theory is full of crap. Again, you cannot use 9/11 as the only proof of this weapons existence. You can repeat yourself over and over again if you want, but you're wasting your own time.

Using your own logic, we can easily claim that a magical giant pink unicorn trampled the towers. The proof is that the towers are no longer standing.

QED.

Dew Drops

Ask yourself these questions:

• Did those who planned 9/11 just forget to plan a cover-up?
• Do you think those who planned 9/11 could expect there to be people questioning the events?
• Do you think those who planned the cover-up anticipated people asking questions about 9/11 and that they would want to join forces with other like-minded individuals?
• Do you think those who planned the cover-up would leave the leadership of such a group to chance? The best way to control the opposition is to lead it.That is, "Build it and they will come."

There is a reason why cover-ups work. Understanding this can help you see past them. Like a magic show, distraction is the main tool. For a successful cover up, all that is needed is to distract people into assuming what happened and they will immediately jump to conclusions and start pointing fingers and arguing over how "it" was done. But until you have determined what "it" is (i.e. what happened), you go nowhere. It is amazing how many people choose to jump on the latest "theory" bandwagon instead of looking for the truth or even apply critical thinking. Meanwhile, the truth gets covered up or is simply ignored by the latest distraction. Some view this as a spectator sport, pitting one researcher against another and asking, "What about this? or What about that?" not realizing that a game of debunking or cherry-picking data is not a path to finding out what happened, either. If you want to find out what happened, you must look at ALL of the data.

As a forensic scientist and engineer, Dr. Judy Wood knows that you must first determine WHAT happened before you can determine HOW it happened, which you must do before you can determine WHO did "it" or WHY they did "it". That is, you must first determine what "it" is before you can determine how "it" was done. If you begin with looking at how it was done or who did it before you've determined what "it" is, you will ASSUME what was done. Once you ASSUME what was done, you are no longer solving a REAL problem, but an IMAGINED one. Once you are working on solving an IMAGINED problem, you've stopped solving the REAL problem and the cover up is safe. So, those running a cover-up need only to get people arguing about OPINIONS of IMAGINED problems. They'll argue round and round in circles and get nowhere and the cover-up is safe. You must first determine WHAT happened before you can determine HOW it happened or WHO did it. To date, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? is the only comprehensive forensic investigation in the public domain. Dr. Judy Wood doesn't tell the reader what to think. She merely shows the reader the evidence. The evidence is overwhelming, conclusive, and indisputable. No one has refuted anything in WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, nor can they. There is a reason why Dr. Judy Wood's research is covered up. The evidence ALWAYS tells the truth. Most people want others to just give them the answer. But if they don't know what problem was solved, they have no way of knowing if the answer is correct. It's really predictable and an easy way to maintain a cover-up. As long as people are looking to someone else to tell them what to think, it is likely the cover-up will be maintained. Do you think those managing the cover-up would want it any other way? The biggest challenge for our civilization is to re-learn how to tell the difference between falsehoods and what is possible. It is something we must each be able to determine, otherwise we are no different than trained lab rats.

Hai capito adesso?

Juicee

Fair play to you dew drops for your persistence and thanks for posting those images which not only beg the question of where did the towers go but where did the rest of the wtc's go? in the case of the 47 story wtc7, not even the short distance across the road it would seem!

These guys are showing their desperation in their responses that's for sure. Super duper space laser beam emitting fairy laser canon jiggly gizmo indeed!

Forget all the missing buildings forget the super duper space hydraulics that can lift 'molten' metal forget the John Hutchison research which demonstrates the principle of this technology, just pretend this doesn't exist and keep claiming that that no evidence of the technology has been shown. These bunkers aren't the people we are trying to get through to, you can only hope honest readers can easily see through the dirty tactics.. Peace!

humanji

That doesn't answer any of the many questions asked on this thread.

Juicee

humanji wrote: »

That doesn't answer any of the many questions asked on this thread.

They've been answered several times Asking the same questions over and over again doesn't make them unanswered.

You've ignored quite a few questions yourself btw

King Mob

Juicee wrote: »

Fair play to you dew drops for your persistence and thanks for posting those images which not only beg the question of where did the towers go but where did the rest of the wtc's go? in the case of the 47 story wtc7, not even the short distance across the road it would seem!

These guys are showing their desperation in their responses that's for sure. Super duper space laser beam emitting fairy laser canon jiggly gizmo indeed!

Forget all the missing buildings forget the super duper space hydraulics that can lift 'molten' metal forget the John Hutchison research which demonstrates the principle of this technology, just pretend this doesn't exist and keep claiming that that no evidence of the technology has been shown. These bunkers aren't the people we are trying to get through to, you can only hope honest readers can easily see through the dirty tactics.. Peace!

Again, why can't you or dew drops or dr woods just not directly address any of the questions put forward or the very very obvious issues that are in your theory.

How do you know that this weapon exists?
How do you know what the characteristics of this weapon are when you can't show it exists?
How do you know that the effects are describing cannot be produced by something else such as psychic powers?
How do you know that the weapon produces "hutcheson effects"?

Have you considered the possibility you are just finding things you can't explain (and promptly ignoring the explanations) and using that to invent this nonsense?
How can we tell this isn't the case especially when you guys so childishly refuse to engage in any discussion? How can you be so pissy when no one then takes your theory any more seriously that it being about space lasers?

humanji

Juicee wrote: »

They've been answered several times Asking the same questions over and over again doesn't make them unanswered.

You've ignored quite a few questions yourself btw

Firstly, no the questions haven't been answered. All that's been said is there's evidence, but a failure to demonstrate that a weapon actually exists. Yourself and Dew Drops have simply been talking in circles and avoided some very salient points.

And I'm not aware of any questions that were aimed at me which I haven't answered.. If you point them out, I'll answer them to the best of my ability.

Juicee

Km - Funny that you attribute childishness to us when you are one of the main users of terns such as space fairies etc, something that highlights your hypocrisy and desperation perfectly.

The Hutchison effect illustrates the principle of the technology used on 911. The lack of debris, seismic signal and significant damage to the bathtub shows that a million + tonnes of building could not have crashed to the ground, ruling out the conventional explanations of gravity driven collapse caused by structural failure resulting from airplane fuel or explosives or nukes.

Juicee

humanji wrote: »

Firstly, no the questions haven't been answered. All that's been said is there's evidence, but a failure to demonstrate that a weapon actually exists. Yourself and Dew Drops have simply been talking in circles and avoided some very salient points.

And I'm not aware of any questions that were aimed at me which I haven't answered.. If you point them out, I'll answer them to the best of my ability.

When you posted the picture of wtc6 with a cylindrical empty hole at its centre, I asked you directly, where did wtc6 go and you did not respond. You and others have also ignored the question of how a hydraulic digger could possibly move molten metal without failing. Look into the maximum operating temperatures of hydraulics and get back to me on that one

King Mob

Juicee wrote: »

Funny that you attribute childishness to us when you are one of the main users of terns such as space fairies etc, something that highlights your hypocrisy and desperation perfectly.

That's because every single inane argument and faulty logic can be used to show that space fairies or whatever we can dream up.
The fact you're crying and whining about us just using the terms make you guys the children.

Juicee wrote: »

The Hutchison effect illustrates the principle of the technology used on 911.

How do you know this?
How do you know it wasn't fairies who are well known to be able to produce hutchison effects?

Juicee wrote: »

The lack of debris, seismic signal and significant damage to the bathtub shows that a million + tonnes of building could not have crashed to the ground, ruling out the conventional explanations of gravity driven collapse caused by structural failure resulting from airplane rule or explosives or nukes.

But you haven't been able to show this lack of debris seismic signal or damage.
You've had to ignore and avoid and lie about all of the points we've raised against those claims.
So you can't rule out any of those.

And even if we ignore reality, and assume you can rule those out there is not a single reason to believe your idea is in any way close to a sane or likely alternative.

humanji

Juicee wrote: »

When you posted the picture of wtc6 with a cylindrical empty hole at its centre, I asked you directly, where did wtc6 go and you did not respond. You and others have also ignored the question of how a hydraulic digger could possibly move molten metal without failing. Look into the maximum operating temperatures of hydraulics and get back to me on that one

Right, sorry, I didn't see that question. WTC6 is shown in the picture. There's a big whole in it. I'm not sure what you think happened to it. There's plenty of rubble all around it and inside it. Why would a weapon be fired high up at the two towers and then fired again at WTC6?

As for the hydraulic digger, the molten steel wasn't touching the hydraulics. This goes back to the picture I posted of the men working in the forge, where I asked why the men didn't burst into flames? Heat dissipates, and treated metals, such as those that the digger machinery is made mostly of, don't conduct heat as much. While there will undoubtedly some damage to the digger, it wouldn't be rendered immediately useless.

Also, do we even know that that's molten metal? The pictures are small and blurry. It would be better to have clear evidence. The other pictures in that batch didn't seem to be what was claimed.

Dew Drops

Dr. Judy Wood will be speaking at the Breakthrough Energy Movement Conference while those sitting in the dark will continue to unsuccessfully try to debunk her research. :rolleyes:

http://youtu.be/v2uzN2NBk1o

Monty Burnz

I note that Judy Wood is described as a 'former professor'. I wonder did her fondness for pseudoscience cost her her job?

Jonny7

This just gets weirder and weirder.. read the reviews

http://www.amazon.com/Towers-Evidence-Directed-Free-energy-Technology/product-reviews/0615412564/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Pity they aren't peer reviews.

Monty Burnz

Jonny7 wrote: »

This just gets weirder and weirder.. read the reviews

http://www.amazon.com/Towers-Evidence-Directed-Free-energy-Technology/product-reviews/0615412564/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Pity they aren't peer reviews.

It looks like a few of the reviews are written by Dew Drops/Juciee/Judy herself.

Jonny7

The most credible CT I see here is someone with a few letters after their name selling a very far-fetched theory using techniques and tricks that appeal to a certain audience.. for 45 dollars a pop. With a small army of disciples to plug it for her.

Dew Drops

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It looks like a few of the reviews are written by Dew Drops/Juciee/Judy herself.

Maybe you missed this peer review by a mechanical and electrical engineer with 20 years’ consulting experience.

WTC buildings’ destruction unlike what we’ve ever seen before
The Gazette 29 January 2012
http://thegazette.com/2012/01/29/wtc-buildings%E2%80%99-destruction-unlike-what-we%E2%80%99ve-ever-seen-before/

Could it be that you are just caught in a time warp?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6827163268088648679

King Mob

Dew Drops wrote: »

Maybe you missed this peer review by a mechanical and electrical engineer with 20 years’ consulting experience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Monty Burnz

Dew Drops wrote: »

Maybe you missed this peer review by a mechanical and electrical engineer with 20 years’ consulting experience.

WTC buildings’ destruction unlike what we’ve ever seen before
The Gazette 29 January 2012
http://thegazette.com/2012/01/29/wtc-buildings%E2%80%99-destruction-unlike-what-we%E2%80%99ve-ever-seen-before/

Could it be that you are just caught in a time warp?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6827163268088648679

Peer review occurs in peer-reviewed journals, not in an opinion column in a newspaper - but as an academic you should know that. The opinion of a single person who does not even seem to hold an academic or research position is worth...well, worth about the same as your magical Hutchison pseudoscience.

Dew Drops

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Peer review occurs in peer-reviewed journals, not in an opinion column in a newspaper - but as an academic you should know that. The opinion of a single person who does not even seem to hold an academic or research position is worth...well, worth about the same as your magical Hutchison pseudoscience.

It's just a jump to the left
And then a step to the right
With your hands on your hips
You bring your knees in tight
But it's the pelvic thrust that really drives you insane,
Let's do the Time Warp again!

The author of the peer review was not just a person. He is a mechanical and electrical engineer with 20 years’ consulting experience...

The truth is that peer review is largely hokum. What happens if a peer-reviewed journal rejects a paper? It gets sent to another peer-reviewed journal a bit further down the pecking order, which is happy to publish it. Peer review seldom detects fraud, or even mistakes. It is biased against women and against less famous institutions. Its benefits are statistically insignificant and its risks – academic log-rolling, suppression of unfashionable ideas, and the irresistible opportunity to put a spoke in a rival's wheel – are seldom examined.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/nigel-hawkes-peerreviewed-journals-arent-worth-the-paper-theyre-written-on-2058067.html

Monty Burnz

Dew Drops wrote: »

The author of the peer review was not just a person. He is a mechanical and electrical engineer with 20 years’ consulting experience...

He's some guy who agrees with you. That's all. The internet is full of people with wacky theories.

Dew Drops wrote: »

The truth is that peer review is largely hokum. What happens if a peer-reviewed journal rejects a paper? It gets sent to another peer-reviewed journal a bit further down the pecking order, which is happy to publish it. Peer review seldom detects fraud, or even mistakes. It is biased against women and against less famous institutions. Its benefits are statistically insignificant and its risks – academic log-rolling, suppression of unfashionable ideas, and the irresistible opportunity to put a spoke in a rival's wheel – are seldom examined.

Yes, it's hokum - and so is the scientific method. :rolleyes:

That's why making up sh!t and making claims you can't prove is the way forward.

King Mob

Dew Drops wrote: »

The author of the peer review was not just a person. He is a mechanical and electrical engineer with 20 years’ consulting experience...

So what about all the other mechanical and electrical engineers, as well as architects and other experts all who disagree with this one guy?
They are all just as, if not more qualified than he is, so how could they be wrong?

Dew Drops wrote: »

The truth is that peer review is largely hokum. What happens if a peer-reviewed journal rejects a paper? It gets sent to another peer-reviewed journal a bit further down the pecking order, which is happy to publish it. Peer review seldom detects fraud, or even mistakes. It is biased against women and against less famous institutions. Its benefits are statistically insignificant and its risks – academic log-rolling, suppression of unfashionable ideas, and the irresistible opportunity to put a spoke in a rival's wheel – are seldom examined.

Ah so when you think "peer review" works in your favour it's good, but when real peer review shows your nonsense to be what it is, it's somehow broken and worthless....