ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th May 2009, 01:16 PM   #161
FactCheck
Muse
 
FactCheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 619
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
Bentham employs more than one editor.
So to undersand your view, if there is more than one editor on an "Explosive paper" you don't have to let the every editor in the field of expertise know about said paper...

Bottom line, she quit for a reason. Ether she quit because they should have told her and they didn't (As she says) or she quit because she didn't like the paper and is lying about her reason to quit. Both reasons are bad for the paper and the journal. I don't see the difference.
__________________
"Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!" - Groucho Marks
"The A.D.L. is the scum of the earth."... "You aren't going to use that last line out of context, are you?" - Alex Jones
http://www.debunking911.com Try the new POWER Debunker search engine!
http://www.jod911.com
FactCheck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2009, 05:06 AM   #162
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
 
volatile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,729
Great bit on the New Scientist today about just how reputable and rigorous Bentham are:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...d-journal.html

"Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham."

Guess what happened next...
__________________
- ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'.
volatile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2009, 06:23 AM   #163
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,266
And the scary thing is, it's only the third spoofed paper published there. Granted, the other two were unintentional spoofs, but still...
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2009, 06:45 AM   #164
Mancman
Graduate Poster
 
Mancman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,008
Originally Posted by volatile View Post
Great bit on the New Scientist today about just how reputable and rigorous Bentham are:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...d-journal.html

"Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham."

Guess what happened next...
Ha! Absolutely brilliant. Poor twoofers.
__________________
R.I.P Dr. Adequate
Mancman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2009, 07:32 AM   #165
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,915
Originally Posted by volatile View Post
Great bit on the New Scientist today about just how reputable and rigorous Bentham are:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...d-journal.html

"Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham."

Guess what happened next...


With lines like these in the paper:

Quote:
In this section, we discuss existing research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware [10]. On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9].
You'd think someone would catch on!

But no....
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2009, 08:12 AM   #166
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by volatile View Post
Great bit on the New Scientist today about just how reputable and rigorous Bentham are:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...d-journal.html

"Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham."

Guess what happened next...
Well there you have it. I think that about says it all. Cannot say I am surprised.

nice find.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2009, 09:10 AM   #167
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,095
Originally Posted by volatile View Post
Great bit on the New Scientist today about just how reputable and rigorous Bentham are:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...d-journal.html

"Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham."

Guess what happened next...
Publish this at 911Blogger so you can get banned for spreading truth.
Like Mickey Mouse signing up as an engineer at Gages club of idiot thinkers on 911 issues; Bentham pay to publish woo journal is alive and kicking.

Last edited by beachnut; 11th June 2009 at 09:45 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2009, 09:13 AM   #168
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Well I'd say this is the final nail in the coffin for Bentham but I have a feeling a few more nails will be driven into it before its well and truly destroyed.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2009, 10:23 AM   #169
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by volatile View Post
Great bit on the New Scientist today about just how reputable and rigorous Bentham are:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...d-journal.html

"Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham."

Guess what happened next...
Davis and Anderson have committed academic fraud. Amazing how the people here cheer the fraud.
Galileo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2009, 12:04 PM   #170
Mr.Herbert
Graduate Poster
 
Mr.Herbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,448
Quote:
Davis and Anderson, writing under the noms de plume David Phillips and Andrew Kent, also dropped a hefty hint of the hoax by giving their institutional affiliation as the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology, or CRAP.



Mr.Herbert is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2009, 07:58 PM   #171
dropzone
Master Poster
 
dropzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,028
So that leaves an opening for a group of phony-balony vanity scientific journals? And all I have to do is create a website, charge $600/page (12pt double-spaced Courier eats up LOTS of pages), and toss onto it any cr*p someone with a valid credit card sends me? SWEET! I was looking for a second source of income.
dropzone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 01:40 AM   #172
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,115
Originally Posted by volatile View Post
Great bit on the New Scientist today about just how reputable and rigorous Bentham are:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...d-journal.html

"Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham."

Guess what happened next...
Excellent find! I am posting to SLC as the lead post for Friday.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 03:02 AM   #173
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
 
volatile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,729
Latest: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...y-journal.html

"Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, responded to queries from New Scientist by email: "In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not."


Riiiigggghhhhhtttt.....
__________________
- ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'.
volatile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 03:58 AM   #174
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
Davis and Anderson have committed academic fraud. Amazing how the people here cheer the fraud.
It is done all the time. Investigative journalism. Testing security at airports, secret cameras to catch pediphiles, you name it...it is done, it is valid, stop complaining about it, and admit that Bentham Open Access Journals are the real frauds.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 04:03 AM   #175
Panoply_Prefect
Graduate Poster
 
Panoply_Prefect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,075
More writes about it:

http://scienceblogs.com/sunclipse/20...timoline_a.php

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2...-worse-at.html

http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55756/
Panoply_Prefect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 08:30 AM   #176
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by volatile View Post
"Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, responded to queries from New Scientist by email: "In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not."
Now that's comedy.

Just to review, Mr. Alam is the exact same person who greenlit the first "Fourteen Points" paper in the Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal, just in case anyone tries to make the claim that the above hijinks involve a totally separate Journal. He's pretty much the only guy running the show.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 09:09 AM   #177
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
Davis and Anderson have committed academic fraud. Amazing how the people here cheer the fraud.
.

Not even close...!!

They have EXPOSED academic fraud. More than that, they have exposed gross, incompetent, blatantly obvious academic fraud.

Exactly as police run sting operations.

In this case, based on the "subtlety" of the paper, they had a "bait car" with about six cops sitting on the hood, and their patrol cars parked with their lights flashing.

And Bentham STILL stole the car...!!

Mind boggling...

tom
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 12:43 PM   #178
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
.

Not even close...!!

They have EXPOSED academic fraud. More than that, they have exposed gross, incompetent, blatantly obvious academic fraud.

Exactly as police run sting operations.

In this case, based on the "subtlety" of the paper, they had a "bait car" with about six cops sitting on the hood, and their patrol cars parked with their lights flashing.

And Bentham STILL stole the car...!!

Mind boggling...

tom
That's absolutely the point. It's also worth mentioning that one of the reasons they didn't go all the way to publication is because that would have crossed the line. That and not wanting to waste $800...

But whichever way, this is just the self-restoring nature of science in action yet again. I think it exposes beautifully the complete lack of standards Benthem Open have; it's not evident the manuscript had even been read, much less peer-reviewed.
__________________
"I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes if I hadn't believed it" - Kevin McAleer

"Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error" - Thomas Jefferson
Spud1k is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 01:06 PM   #179
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,816
I like how the intentionally phony paper is already getting more attention in the scientific community than Jones' "nano-thermite" paper ever did.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 06:21 PM   #180
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,647
"On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9]."

Damn that Takahashi! Methodology is NOT sufficient. We MUST HAVE implementation.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2009, 01:26 PM   #181
FineWine
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,070
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
Davis and Anderson have committed academic fraud. Amazing how the people here cheer the fraud.

Uh, no. Alan Sokal did not commit fruad; he exposed fraud. We understand that you don't the slightest idea of what I'm refferring to. But, Davis and Anderson didn't commit fraud.
FineWine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2009, 03:12 AM   #182
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 36,430
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I like how the intentionally phony paper is already getting more attention in the scientific community than Jones' "nano-thermite" paper ever did.


Yep!!!
__________________
Challenge your thoughts.
Don't believe everything you think.
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2009, 02:03 PM   #183
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
 
newton3376's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
I just read that article...the paper is so obviously a joke that I am surprised no one at Bentham noticed. Some of the sentences don't make any sense AT ALL.

And of course the overall paper is nonsensical....this should be the nail in the coffin for any truthers who want to point to the Jones paper as an example of a published, peer reviewed journal article supporting truther claims.
newton3376 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2009, 01:37 PM   #184
Lenbrazil
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 974
“Johnny Karate” at JREF made and apt observation:

“I like how the intentionally phony paper is already getting more attention in the scientific community than Jones' "nano-thermite" paper ever did”

Quite true as far as I know, over two months after its release, the only attention the Harrit/Jones paper has received in the scientific community / press was in the Danish science news site http://videnskab.dk/ when it reported on the resignation of the editor-in-chief. I think debunkers were wrong to dismiss all pay to publish open journals a small number it seems are serious. The Peter Suber blog entry includes several links to other articles. Bentham was already a a bit of a pariah among OA publishers this seems to have sealed its ill repute.

Update. Klaus Graf calls for a boycott of Bentham. See his comments in German or Google's English.

Update. Also see Paul Basken's article on the Chronicle of Higher Education News Blog. The comment section is starting to grow.

Update. JURN, the search engine for OA journals in the arts and humanities, has stopped indexing Bentham journals.

Update. Tom Wilson argues that the Bentham scandal is another reason to prefer no-fee OA journals.

Update (6/11/09). Peter Aldhous in New Scientist reviews similar hoaxes in which journals or conferences were caught accepting outright nonsense.

Update (6/11/09). Also see Norman Oder's article in Library Journal.

Update (6/11/09). The Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) points out several ways in which practices at Bentham Science appear to fall short of the association's code of conduct, and that Bentham is not a member of OASPA.

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2...-worse-at.html

See also http://pipeline.corante.com/archives...ublication.php

http://www.boston.com/news/health/bl...paper_tes.html

http://libcom.org/blog/hoax-academic...xists-11062009

http://staringatemptypages.blogspot....-enablers.html

The total number of academics who had made negative comments about Bentham Open is probably over 50. The consensus is that there are only a small number of reputable pay to publish open journals and Bentham Open definitely is NOT among them OR that such journals (especially for profit ones) are inherently suspect. The only positive comments I’ve seen about the publisher’s “open” journals are the two on their site without links or indications as to the source. One it is true was from a Nobel laureate but the other is from one of their own, not especially well known, editors-in-chief.

Thought some truthers including ones here seem to have their heads in the sand about this the gravity of this was not lost on a few posters at 911 Blogger:

“This posting [an article about the incident] is going to be some bad news” – rebel patriot

“This is not good.” – zombie bill hicks

“It seems that none of the sites publishing this story have attacked the nano-thermite paper. That doesn't mean it isn't good ammunition for those who want to denounce it. In my opinion anyway.” – Jon Gold

“I agree. I haven't seen anyone linking this to the thermite papers, or others, but the direct implications are crystal clear. I saw it and immediately I knew this was going to be a problem.”– rebel patriot

“So much has been gained by the gaining of peer review works that question what happened, and now we have the publishing house falling into disrepute because an article got through that was a hoax.” – rebel patriot

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20378

Jones dropped in to reasure the faithful but typically deals in half truths.


Quote:
Bentham Science publishes a large number of journals, a quick google search gives this info:

"Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. Home Page
"A major STM journal publisher of 92 online and print journals, 200 plus open accessjournals, and related print/online book series, "

Each journal has an a different editorial board, as far as I can see. So an error by someone on ONE of 200-plus journals has very close to zero bearing on what is published in the other 200 journals. The problem was not in the Open Chemical Physics Journal.

Further, our paper was reviewed prior to publication by the Physics dept. chair at BYU -- and he approved it for publication. His peer-review was NOT under the auspices of Bentham. (This peer-review was done because two of the authors are from this dept. at BYU... and Dr. Farrer requested the review.)

I think debunkers will look for any way to criticize the Active Thermitic Material paper without actually dealing with doing experiments or papers themselves. Our results are based on experiment, not on who published the results.
"Each journal has an a different editorial board, as far as I can see. So an error by someone on ONE of 200-plus journals has very close to zero bearing on what is published in the other 200 journals."

Not relevaant since as he is well aware the editorial boards don't really run the show Bentham's Pakistan office does. hacks with NO specialisation in the subject matter choose the referees. People in the same office they asked people to be authors in, board members of or even editor's in cheif of journals outside their specialty

"Further, our paper was reviewed prior to publication by the Physics dept. chair at BYU"

But we have no idea what sort of minimal standards they set.

"I think debunkers will look for any way to criticize the Active Thermitic Material paper without actually dealing with doing experiments or papers themselves. "

Truther love this trick. Jones has engaged in it as well. When debunkers critique the paper's data and conclusions they say 'it was peer review, any critique that wasn't doesn't count' when we point out the peer review is suspect they say 'debunk the paper'
Lenbrazil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2009, 01:47 PM   #185
Lenbrazil
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 974
Even Jones is jumping the hoax infested S.S. Bentham Open. From the same 9/11 Blogger thread:

"...experiments continue, and future results will certainly be published in a non-Bentham journal next time."

Of course they can find some other obscure pay to publish journal, there seem to be quite a few. As to them getting publishing a paper that clearly spells out their thermite / CD theories in an established journal that will probably happen as they say here in Brazil when "Chickens grow teeth"
Lenbrazil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2012, 07:06 PM   #186
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,358
Originally Posted by Fjolle View Post
Heh. That means "Stabbed in the back".. Google apparently needs some help with danish..
Bumped for Ergo.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Not sure what the problem is. All the article says is that she felt a little snigløbet about it. I get those feelings sometimes too. I'm sure it's made me quit a job or two.
I have no doubt you'd quit a job if you felt snigløbet. I certainly would.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2012, 07:17 PM   #187
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Hmm, I just got stabbed in the back by a tack sticking out of a cushion. I think I'll quit my job.

Seriously though, pgimeno, if she didn't actually read the article, claiming it was outside her area of expertise (which Harrit points out it clearly isn't) why would she feel stabbed in the back about it? Why would she claim it contains no "physical chemistry or chemical physics" if she hasn't actually read it? Doesn't this kind of make her remarks a little questionable?
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2012, 07:22 PM   #188
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Seriously though, pgimeno, if she didn't actually read the article, claiming it was outside her area of expertise (which Harrit points out it clearly isn't) why would she feel stabbed in the back about it?
Does it matter?

As the person with the ultimate say over whether it goes to publishing, she has to read it.

If she didn't approve it, then it wasn't peer-reviewed. If she didn't read it, then it wasn't peer-reviewed.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2012, 07:31 PM   #189
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,358
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Seriously though, pgimeno, if she didn't actually read the article, claiming it was outside her area of expertise (which Harrit points out it clearly isn't) why would she feel stabbed in the back about it? Why would she claim it contains no "physical chemistry or chemical physics" if she hasn't actually read it? Doesn't this kind of make her remarks a little questionable?
How do you know she didn't read it? That claim of hers sounds to me like an insinuation that politics isn't her area of expertise. The actual words quoted from her say that she doesn't consider it to have to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, that she believes it pushes a political viewpoint, and that she wouldn't have allowed the publication if she was ever asked.

Coming from a nanomaterials expert, that's not a good review.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2012, 09:34 PM   #190
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Well, I'm not sure how you got all that from what was translated. I'm still trying to figure out

Quote:
People in New York took the legs on his back, because dust cloud from the combination controlled the World Trade Center flew through the streets
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2012, 12:02 AM   #191
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,859
This whole Bentham thing is just hilarious. There's this article that claims to change the world, challenging what we thing about government and all kinds of other cool stuff. Yet no one seems to even know it exists except the conspiracy theory crowd. It's certainly not making the rounds of the energetic materials research world. Some of the JREF members may talk about taking it seriously, but there are no scientists who do. The most controversial aspect of this work is that an editor for a third-rate pay-to-publish journal from Pakistan got fired for publishing it.

I guess Truthers - the ones who are left being active - have to hang on to something. I'd recommend joining David Ike. At least they all know people laugh at them.
__________________
I've seen it here and in several other places that there is no Illuminati. That doesn't even make sense. There's a Wikipedia entry that talks about it. I'm not saying that everything on Wikipedia is true, but if you read it, it's just really clear how the Illuminati controls the world.

Last edited by Scott Sommers; 5th June 2012 at 12:49 AM.
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2012, 12:47 AM   #192
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,307
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
...if she didn't actually read the article ... why would she feel stabbed in the back about it?
If she actually didn't read it, and it was published anyway, then that is the very reason why she OUGHT to feel stabbed in the back, because it is HER responsibility to approve or reject papers; if Bentham published without her approval, they are fiddling with her reputation, and that is an outrage.

If she did read it, and they published without her approval, it's an even bigger outrage.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2012, 12:53 AM   #193
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,307
Originally Posted by Scott Sommers View Post
... The most controversial aspect of this work is that an editor for a third-rate pay-to-publish journal from Pakistan got fired for publishing it.
...
Who was fired?

Marie Pileni wasn't fired, she stepped down.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2012, 01:34 AM   #194
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
 
timhau's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I?
Posts: 13,016
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Who was fired?

Marie Pileni wasn't fired, she stepped down.
... and what's more, pay-to-publish journals from Pakistan only dream about being third-rate.
__________________
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
- Emo Philips
timhau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2012, 02:44 AM   #195
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,307
Originally Posted by timhau View Post
... and what's more, pay-to-publish journals from Pakistan only dream about being third-rate.
Urrr...
Invalid argument.

Neither being a pay-to-publish journal nor being from Pakistan is necessarily a reason to be less than first rate. People in Pakistan surely have the ability to define, and stick to, high quality standards; and pay-to-publish could be an interesting and valid alternative business model in science publishing, provided there are effective safe-guards against the influence of obvious conflicts of interest. (For example, Bentham, according to their own assessment, see Scott's link, is strong in pre-clinical medical and pharmaceutical testing. Such studies are usually done for and by large research companies who may have a vested interest in having their studies freely available for all, as a matter of marketing perhaps, and who can easily pay the Bentham fee - that's peanuts in the context of development of modern drugs and medical methods)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2012, 06:22 AM   #196
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,358
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Well, I'm not sure how you got all that from what was translated. I'm still trying to figure out
I used a better translation
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2012, 06:42 AM   #197
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Who was fired?

Marie Pileni wasn't fired, she stepped down.
So then we change the word. My point is that this thermite crap that Benthem published generated no international or scholarly interest at all. If you don't read the JREF or some of the pro-conspiracy, you wouldn't know anything about it. It made no impact at all.
__________________
I've seen it here and in several other places that there is no Illuminati. That doesn't even make sense. There's a Wikipedia entry that talks about it. I'm not saying that everything on Wikipedia is true, but if you read it, it's just really clear how the Illuminati controls the world.
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2012, 07:35 AM   #198
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
Originally Posted by Scott Sommers View Post
So then we change the word. My point is that this thermite crap that Benthem published generated no international or scholarly interest at all. If you don't read the JREF or some of the pro-conspiracy, you wouldn't know anything about it. It made no impact at all.
This is one of the red flags for me. If the science in the paper was sound one would think it would have raised more than a few eyebrows. Instead, the indifference it met from the engineering and scientific communities was deafening.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2012, 09:16 AM   #199
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,358
Originally Posted by Scott Sommers View Post
So then we change the word. My point is that this thermite crap that Benthem published generated no international or scholarly interest at all. If you don't read the JREF or some of the pro-conspiracy, you wouldn't know anything about it. It made no impact at all.
There are good reasons. See post #184 in this same page.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2012, 09:52 AM   #200
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
grandmastershek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
How do you know she didn't read it? That claim of hers sounds to me like an insinuation that politics isn't her area of expertise.
Well anyone who has gone to a 2 year college knows you only need to read the abstract to find out what the paper is about without reading it. Secondly, her area of expertise has no indication of nano-energetics. But I guess when you include "nano" in whatever you are saying its very easy to dupe truthers. It would be like saying if you are an expert in macrobiology you are also an expert in macroeconomics. When one skims through her publication list, it looks like her her area of expertise is in nanocrystals.

She did consult for the National Society of Powders & Explosives, but being that thermite is not an explosive no matter how many times truthers say it, and consulting does not make you an expert in the field, its fairly irrelevant.

But then again Jones et al didn't bother to look to anyone with actual experience in forensic science to assist them in developing their methods, so it figures they would consider just about anyone an expert.

Lets not forget this gem. Bottom line is things are not on the up & up over at "Bentham Science Publishers".
__________________
For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)

Last edited by grandmastershek; 5th June 2012 at 09:56 AM.
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:50 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.