Science and Planes Versus No-Planes
Eric Salter got his crappy paper on planes being used on 9/11 published in "The Journal of 9/11 Studies".
Apparently there was supposed to be a paper published in the same issue arguing against planes, which was rejected. This is the paper that was rejected. Nothing really new there for me, but still a good summary of the no-plane evidence.
I can't see that Salter's paper is in anyway more scientific than Reynolds and Rajter's paper, and certainly Salter's paper is more severely flawed from my perspective.
"The Journal of 9/11 Studies" is a joke, in terms of being a scientific publication.
Apparently there was supposed to be a paper published in the same issue arguing against planes, which was rejected. This is the paper that was rejected. Nothing really new there for me, but still a good summary of the no-plane evidence.
I can't see that Salter's paper is in anyway more scientific than Reynolds and Rajter's paper, and certainly Salter's paper is more severely flawed from my perspective.
"The Journal of 9/11 Studies" is a joke, in terms of being a scientific publication.
posted by spooked at 9:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home