Originally Posted by bill smith
I think you mean "authoritative work on the WTC red/gray chips". (Certainly, it's subject isn't even the dust, as a whole, so how could it be authoritative?)
In this layman's opinion, there are far too many questions to consider the Jones, et. al., paper authoritative. E.g., the screamingly obvious question of whether or not you can create Al/Si in platelet form. I leave it to domain experts to tell us whether the test used by Jones, et. al., is foolproof for identifying elemental Al. If it is, then it's probably academic as to whether or not the methodology to create Al/Si in platelet form can be determined.
Notice that I used the word "probably", in the last sentence. These sort of issues should be debated by domain experts, not "truthers" and "debunkers". If "truthers" and "debunkers" want to entertain themselves, fine, but as you can see from this thread, e.g., it's not very enlightening.
I repeat what I've said before: 911 truthers are fools if they go running to debunkers, media, or government, at the expense of taking this paper to domain experts. And domain experts are not going to pay any attention to the paper, unless they are directed there.
The Bentham Journal that this paper was published in has only been around for less than 2 years. I expect that only a tiny fraction of the scientific community reads it "regularly". In it's less than 2 years of existence, there's only 12 articles.
If the paper holds up, then it's fine to try and push it further to government and media. If it doesn't hold up, why would any reasonable and honest person want to push forward something that's a mistake, in the name of "truth"?
(Another possibility is that the paper will simply be considered doubtful, with insufficient evidence to convince a community of domain experts, who are paying attention to it, one way or the other.)