Perhaps you could explain how the buildings crashed to the ground in seconds through the path of most resistance?
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.
Here are summaries of a hoax article being published in a Bentham periodical. There is a factual basis for critiques of Bentham publishing.
libraryjournal.com /article/ CA6664637
blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2009/06/hoax_paper_accepted_for_public]Index of /peer-to-peer/2009/06/hoax_paper_accepted_for_public
The 9/11 conspiracy theories are supported by little more than youtube videos, websites and faux science. For all their claims, the 9/11 conspiracy movement is supported by ZERO credible peer reviewed scientific papers. Why haven't any reputable publications accepted anything related to the 'truther' movement? Are all the investigative journalists on staff at the Atlantic, New Yorker and Vanity Fair a part of the conspiracy too? If you believe the physics of WTC collapses is direct evidence of a conspiracy you should have no trouble publishing it in a scientific engineering journal. Good luck!!!