Bentham Editor In Chief Quits after Jones article - Page 3

T.A.M. · 28th April 2009, 12:33 PM

Here is a link to a blurb on the editor in chief in question...

http://www.chemistry.gatech.edu/faculty/Pileni/

TAM

Edit:

and a publication list

http://en.scientificcommons.org/marie-paule_pileni

Spud1k · 28th April 2009, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by lapman

So, G, who were these supposed PhD's that reviewed the paper?

I'd be more interested to know what their PhDs were in. They could be psychology postdocs for all we know.

FactCheck · 28th April 2009, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

are you a Marxist? You think $600 is hefty? That doesn't even begin to cover the costs of peer review or website maintainance.

I pay less than $5 a month for my site. Unless there is code to change every month I suspect there is little monthly cost. As far as peer review goes, admitedly I don't know what the price of a rubber stamp is these days. I would have to guess less than $600.

1337m4n · 28th April 2009, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

That's routine for peer reviewed papers. Hello? Anybody in there?

But it's already been established that THIS paper did not follow "routine". Hello? Anybody in there? Didn't you read the first post?

Galileo · 28th April 2009, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by FactCheck

I pay less than $5 a month for my site. Unless there is code to change every month I suspect there is little monthly cost. As far as peer review goes, admitedly I don't know what the price of a rubber stamp is these days. I would have to guess less than $600.

No, it wasn't a rubber stamp. You may believe that. But the paper was first submitted last August and was peer reviewed for 8 months, much longer than normal, because it was such an explosive paper.

timhau · 28th April 2009, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

"truther" is not a scientific term.

Please re-post using real scientific terms, not imaginary ones.

Get a hold of this book. It has plenty.

timhau · 28th April 2009, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Spud1k

Only amongst truthers. In real-world scientific circles, indexing services such as Thompson ISI spend half their time working out impact ratings and such like for credible journals that conform to a given level of quality and integrity. The fact that they won't go anywhere near any of Benthem Open's offerings (that I can find) speaks volumes.

I was just going to ask for Bentham's impact ratings. Thanks. Can't say I'm surprised.

FactCheck · 28th April 2009, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

No, it wasn't a rubber stamp. You may believe that. But the paper was first submitted last August and was peer reviewed for 8 months, much longer than normal, because it was such an explosive paper.

So what you're saying is that this "explosive paper" was peer reviewed for much longer than the average but the editor wasn't told about it? The editor wasn't told about an "explosive paper" being published in the editors journal... It just doesn't add up. (assuming the article is true)

If you were an editor of a journal, do you think you should be told of an "explosive paper" coming out in said journal? If you weren't told, what does that say about the paper? Why would they hold that information from you?

I understand perfectly why the editor would want to focus on not being told. If she says it was the paper she gets hounded by truthers.

ElMondoHummus · 28th April 2009, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

Self-contradiction with regards to the dust paper? Its not about chemistry or chemical physics but she can't judge whether the article is good or bad?

Maybe she can, maybe she can't. Who knows. She didn't say enough to know. But others can, and have demonstrated why it's bad.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

So why did she quit? She wasn't consulted. Of course nothing to do with the science of the paper. It does appear she wasn't too happy about the implications of the results.

It's true that she quit over not being consulted. She said as much. And you're right that she's not happy with the implications of the results. Shoddy science being used to forward conspiratorial fantasies should engender that doubt in any rational scientist. So that's good.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

After all, why can't terrorists get into a building to plant thermitic materials? They truck bombed in '93.

Why you equate parking a single vehicle in a garage and walking away from it with planting incendiaries on structural elements inaccessible without major construction work is beyond me. But, the truth movement was long ago reduced to proffering such unrealistic scenarios to make their proposals "work", so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

They were able to bypass all sorts of security measures entering and leaving the country and entering and leaving the airports, etc.

Yes... walking through metal detectors with legally permissible knives and boxcutters was truly special work. And entering an airport when they had plane tickets and identification... wow.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

They were able to bypass the nation's air defense. But can't get into a building to rig it? Nobody gives these terrorists enough credit.

How many years have you been here? And you, of all people, are still trying to pass the "bypass the nation's air defense" chestnut around? Time to go back to basics, Swing:

You should remember that the search feature, as well as the sticky links at the top of this subforum, are proof against the tired tactic of bringing up long disproven myths as if they've never been refuted. I can understand a new truther not realizing this, but you've had your butt handed to you too many times to not understand the pitfalls of doing so.

New readers, new members, etc.: Feel free to search the archives and click the links I've provided. Those are some truly old myths that Swing Dangler is presenting at the end there. Understand that even experienced conspiracy peddlers like Swing here have very little new to offer. I can't think of any claim that hasn't already been addressed in some fashion at some point in the past. Don't trust me; go look for yourselves.

Galileo · 28th April 2009, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by 1337m4n

But it's already been established that THIS paper did not follow "routine". Hello? Anybody in there? Didn't you read the first post?

Nothing has been established except in your mind.

A different editor had the paper published.

nicepants · 28th April 2009, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

Nothing has been established except in your mind.

A different editor had the paper published.

An editor other than the editor of the paper in which it was published? Who might that have been?

You aren't making up lies again, are you?

Galileo · 28th April 2009, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by FactCheck

So what you're saying is that this "explosive paper" was peer reviewed for much longer than the average but the editor wasn't told about it? The editor wasn't told about an "explosive paper" being published in the editors journal... It just doesn't add up. (assuming the article is true)

If you were an editor of a journal, do you think you should be told of an "explosive paper" coming out in said journal? If you weren't told, what does that say about the paper? Why would they hold that information from you?

I understand perfectly why the editor would want to focus on not being told. If she says it was the paper she gets hounded by truthers.

Bentham employs more than one editor.

Spud1k · 28th April 2009, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

more JREF drivel.

Please direct us to a peer reviewed scientific paper that shows even one "error" or "incorrect conclusion".

There's Henry62's article. This has been read and reviewed by his peers within the bloggosphere. You might claim that this isn't in a credible scientific journal. But then I could say the same about Jones' material and we'd be equally correct.

Besides, I hate to rob your of your security blanket, but even being in a peer-reviewed paper in a real journal doesn't make something fact. That is one vital step on the way to recognition. The second step is typically for someone else to independently replicate the result. Given that Jones is very unlikely to ever release his samples, I don't see it getting any further.

lapman · 28th April 2009, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

more JREF drivel.

Please direct us to a peer reviewed scientific paper that shows even one "error" or "incorrect conclusion".

Show us a real peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal that supports Jone's paper. Hint: The Bentham open journals are not in that category.

Galileo · 28th April 2009, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Spud1k

There's Henry62's article. This has been read and reviewed by his peers within the bloggosphere. You might claim that this isn't in a credible scientific journal. But then I could say the same about Jones' material and we'd be equally correct.

Besides, I hate to rob your of your security blanket, but even being in a peer-reviewed paper in a real journal doesn't make something fact. That is one vital step on the way to recognition. The second step is typically for someone else to independently replicate the result. Given that Jones is very unlikely to ever release his samples, I don't see it getting any further.

That so-called paper has already been debunked. No legitimate scientific journal will print it.

Sword_Of_Truth · 28th April 2009, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

Prove it. Show me a peer-reviewed scientific paper that makes that case.

http://wtc.nist.gov/

That one is ten thousand pages. It might take you a while to read it.

Galileo · 28th April 2009, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by lapman

Show us a real peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal that supports Jone's paper. Hint: The Bentham open journals are not in that category.

Harrit's peer reviewed paper confirmed Jones' peer reviewed paper of 2005.

Spud1k · 28th April 2009, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

No, qualified scientists confirmed that it was nano-thermite, confirming that the by-products of a thermite reaction were indeed created by nano-thermite.

Hang on... did you say 'qualified'? So having a background in looking for evidence of muon-catalysed (cold) fusion based on neutron measurements makes you an authority on looking for traces of largely hypothetical explosives based on electron microscopy?

Actually, put like that...

Sword_Of_Truth · 28th April 2009, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

Harrit's peer reviewed paper confirmed Jones' peer reviewed paper of 2005.

Harrit's paper wasn't peer reviewed.

Galileo · 28th April 2009, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

http://wtc.nist.gov/

That one is ten thousand pages. It might take you a while to read it.

The NIST report has not been peer reviewed. They won't release their magic computer program to independent scientists.

Sword_Of_Truth · 28th April 2009, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

The NIST report has not been peer reviewed.

Yes it has. It's been read by nearly the entire engineering community.

Galileo · 28th April 2009, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Harrit's paper wasn't peer reviewed.

Harrit's paper was subjected to a rigorous peer review process before it was accepted for publication.

Spud1k · 28th April 2009, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

Originally Posted by lapman

Show us a real peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal that supports Jone's paper. Hint: The Bentham open journals are not in that category.

Harrit's peer reviewed paper confirmed Jones' peer reviewed paper of 2005.

So where was Harrit's paper then?

Galileo · 28th April 2009, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Yes it has. It's been read by nearly the entire engineering community.

No, it hasn't. The NIST report has never been peer reviewed and they will not release their magic computer program to independent scientists for review. Nor has the NIST report been published in a legitimate peer reviewed scientific journal.

Harrit's peer-reviewed paper proves that the NIST report is false.

Sword_Of_Truth · 28th April 2009, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

Harrit's paper was subjected to a rigorous peer review process before it was accepted for publication.

No it wasn't. The just-resigned Editor-in-Chief of Bentham Chemical Physics journal says the process wasn't followed.

No peer-review process = no peer review.

Sword_Of_Truth · 28th April 2009, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

Harrit's peer-reviewed paper proves that the NIST report is false.

Harrit's paper was never peer-reviewed.

Galileo · 28th April 2009, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

No it wasn't. The just-resigned Editor-in-Chief of Bentham Chemical Physics journal says the process wasn't followed.

No peer-review process = no peer review.

She is not the editor-in-chief so what she says means nothing. She is a disgruntled former employee.

Galileo · 28th April 2009, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Harrit's paper was never peer-reviewed.

Harrit's paper was peer reviewed. In fact, the referees were so tough on Harrit that he had to re-write certain parts three times so the paper was airtight.

beachnut · 28th April 2009, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by timhau

He doesn't have to. One crappy paper in a vanity journal that nobody reads trumps any number of studies in respected journals that actually get read and cited. It's in the woo rulebook, look it up.

Standard procedure for 911Truth delusion believers like Galileo.

nicepants · 28th April 2009, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

The NIST report has not been peer reviewed.

How many scientists worked on the NIST report?

How many worked on Jones' paper?

Sword_Of_Truth · 28th April 2009, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

She is not the editor-in-chief so what she says means nothing.

She resigned because Harrit's paper wasn't peer reviewed.

Quote:

She is a disgruntled former employee.

Harrit's co-authors, Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan are disgruntled former employees of BYU and Underwriters Laboratories.

Sword_Of_Truth · 28th April 2009, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

Harrit's paper was peer reviewed.

Harrit's paper wasn't peer reviewed.

The Editor-in-Chief of Betham Chemical Physics stated as such.

Galileo · 28th April 2009, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by nicepants

How many scientists worked on the NIST report?

How many worked on Jones' paper?

NIST's paper has not been published in a legitimate peer reviewed scientific journal. Harrit's paper proves that the NIST report is false. The NIST report does not accunt for the nano-thermite found in the WTC debris.

Sword_Of_Truth · 28th April 2009, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

The NIST report does not accunt for the nano-thermite found in the WTC debris.

No nano-thermite was found in the WTC debris.

Galileo · 28th April 2009, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Harrit's paper wasn't peer reviewed.

The Editor-in-Chief of Betham Chemical Physics stated as such.

Sorry, the genie is out of the bottle. The train has already left the station. The paper was published a month ago, and scientists all over the world are reading Harrit's paper.

If your theroy was true, why did she wait until she was a disgruntled former employee to say anything?

Sword_Of_Truth · 28th April 2009, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

If your theroy was true,

No theory. Dr. Marie-Paule Pileni says that she resigned because the process wasn't followed for the Harrit-Jones-Ryan paper.

nicepants · 28th April 2009, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

NIST's paper has not been published in a legitimate peer reviewed scientific journal. Harrit's paper proves that the NIST report is false. The NIST report does not accunt for the nano-thermite found in the WTC debris.

That's not what I asked:

How many scientists worked on the NIST report?

How many worked on Jones' paper?

Hint: If your answers to the above are not integers, then you haven't answered the question.

Galileo · 28th April 2009, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by nicepants

That's not what I asked:

How many scientists worked on the NIST report?

How many worked on Jones' paper?

Hint: If your answers to the above are not integers, then you haven't answered the question.

NIST relieved after 'missing link' found
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.c...=s5i51615#this

"Now we can all drop this charade and finally believe what our eyes have been telling us all along, that the towers exploded rather than collapsed. It is a huge relief for NIST staff, who have been under a lot of pressure. A virtual epidemic of cognitive dissonance had left several departments severely understaffed."

nicepants · 28th April 2009, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

....misc drivel...

You still haven't answered my questions:

How many scientists worked on the NIST report?

How many worked on Jones' paper?

Hint: If your answers to the above are not integers, then you haven't answered the question.

ETA: I will be ignoring any more of G's posts in this thread until he answers the questions above.

Galileo · 28th April 2009, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

No theory. Dr. Marie-Paule Pileni says that she resigned because the process wasn't followed for the Harrit-Jones-Ryan paper.

She is a disgruntled former employee, with sour grapes added.

28th April 2009, 12:33 PM	#81
T.A.M. Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,795	Here is a link to a blurb on the editor in chief in question... http://www.chemistry.gatech.edu/faculty/Pileni/ TAM Edit: and a publication list http://en.scientificcommons.org/marie-paule_pileni
	Last edited by T.A.M.; 28th April 2009 at 12:35 PM.

28th April 2009, 12:45 PM	#82
Spud1k +5 Goatee of Pedantry Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 844	Originally Posted by lapman So, G, who were these supposed PhD's that reviewed the paper? I'd be more interested to know what their PhDs were in. They could be psychology postdocs for all we know.
	__________________ "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

28th April 2009, 12:53 PM	#83
FactCheck Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 619	Originally Posted by Galileo are you a Marxist? You think $600 is hefty? That doesn't even begin to cover the costs of peer review or website maintainance. I pay less than $5 a month for my site. Unless there is code to change every month I suspect there is little monthly cost. As far as peer review goes, admitedly I don't know what the price of a rubber stamp is these days. I would have to guess less than $600.
FactCheck Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 619	__________________ "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

28th April 2009, 12:55 PM	#84
1337m4n Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 3,510	Originally Posted by Galileo That's routine for peer reviewed papers. Hello? Anybody in there? But it's already been established that THIS paper did not follow "routine". Hello? Anybody in there? Didn't you read the first post?
	__________________ http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...2b728514ea.gif "The evidence that the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job just keeps not coming in." --pomeroo

28th April 2009, 12:58 PM	#85
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by FactCheck I pay less than $5 a month for my site. Unless there is code to change every month I suspect there is little monthly cost. As far as peer review goes, admitedly I don't know what the price of a rubber stamp is these days. I would have to guess less than $600. No, it wasn't a rubber stamp. You may believe that. But the paper was first submitted last August and was peer reviewed for 8 months, much longer than normal, because it was such an explosive paper.
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368

28th April 2009, 01:15 PM	#86
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I? Posts: 15,097	Originally Posted by Galileo "truther" is not a scientific term. Please re-post using real scientific terms, not imaginary ones. Get a hold of this book. It has plenty.
	__________________ 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

28th April 2009, 01:18 PM	#87
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I? Posts: 15,097	Originally Posted by Spud1k Only amongst truthers. In real-world scientific circles, indexing services such as Thompson ISI spend half their time working out impact ratings and such like for credible journals that conform to a given level of quality and integrity. The fact that they won't go anywhere near any of Benthem Open's offerings (that I can find) speaks volumes. I was just going to ask for Bentham's impact ratings. Thanks. Can't say I'm surprised.
	__________________ 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

28th April 2009, 01:19 PM	#88
FactCheck Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 619	Originally Posted by Galileo No, it wasn't a rubber stamp. You may believe that. But the paper was first submitted last August and was peer reviewed for 8 months, much longer than normal, because it was such an explosive paper. So what you're saying is that this "explosive paper" was peer reviewed for much longer than the average but the editor wasn't told about it? The editor wasn't told about an "explosive paper" being published in the editors journal... It just doesn't add up. (assuming the article is true) If you were an editor of a journal, do you think you should be told of an "explosive paper" coming out in said journal? If you weren't told, what does that say about the paper? Why would they hold that information from you? I understand perfectly why the editor would want to focus on not being told. If she says it was the paper she gets hounded by truthers.
FactCheck Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 619	__________________ "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

28th April 2009, 01:39 PM	#89
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 12,281	Originally Posted by Swing Dangler Self-contradiction with regards to the dust paper? Its not about chemistry or chemical physics but she can't judge whether the article is good or bad? Maybe she can, maybe she can't. Who knows. She didn't say enough to know. But others can, and have demonstrated why it's bad. Originally Posted by Swing Dangler So why did she quit? She wasn't consulted. Of course nothing to do with the science of the paper. It does appear she wasn't too happy about the implications of the results. It's true that she quit over not being consulted. She said as much. And you're right that she's not happy with the implications of the results. Shoddy science being used to forward conspiratorial fantasies should engender that doubt in any rational scientist. So that's good. Originally Posted by Swing Dangler After all, why can't terrorists get into a building to plant thermitic materials? They truck bombed in '93. Why you equate parking a single vehicle in a garage and walking away from it with planting incendiaries on structural elements inaccessible without major construction work is beyond me. But, the truth movement was long ago reduced to proffering such unrealistic scenarios to make their proposals "work", so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Originally Posted by Swing Dangler They were able to bypass all sorts of security measures entering and leaving the country and entering and leaving the airports, etc. Yes... walking through metal detectors with legally permissible knives and boxcutters was truly special work. And entering an airport when they had plane tickets and identification... wow. Originally Posted by Swing Dangler They were able to bypass the nation's air defense. But can't get into a building to rig it? Nobody gives these terrorists enough credit. How many years have you been here? And you, of all people, are still trying to pass the "bypass the nation's air defense" chestnut around? Time to go back to basics, Swing: The NORAD/FAA 9-11 response The NORAD response, background and details "The NORAD Tapes" "Info on NORAD, FAA, NTSB, Aircraft Capabilities,Piloting Issues, Phone calls from planes, "War Games"" You should remember that the search feature, as well as the sticky links at the top of this subforum, are proof against the tired tactic of bringing up long disproven myths as if they've never been refuted. I can understand a new truther not realizing this, but you've had your butt handed to you too many times to not understand the pitfalls of doing so. New readers, new members, etc.: Feel free to search the archives and click the links I've provided. Those are some truly old myths that Swing Dangler is presenting at the end there. Understand that even experienced conspiracy peddlers like Swing here have very little new to offer. I can't think of any claim that hasn't already been addressed in some fashion at some point in the past. Don't trust me; go look for yourselves.
	__________________ "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."

28th April 2009, 01:57 PM	#90
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by 1337m4n But it's already been established that THIS paper did not follow "routine". Hello? Anybody in there? Didn't you read the first post? Nothing has been established except in your mind. A different editor had the paper published.
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368

28th April 2009, 02:05 PM	#91
nicepants Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,723	? Originally Posted by Galileo Nothing has been established except in your mind. A different editor had the paper published. An editor other than the editor of the paper in which it was published? Who might that have been? You aren't making up lies again, are you?
	__________________ Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen -Einstein

28th April 2009, 02:08 PM	#92
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by FactCheck So what you're saying is that this "explosive paper" was peer reviewed for much longer than the average but the editor wasn't told about it? The editor wasn't told about an "explosive paper" being published in the editors journal... It just doesn't add up. (assuming the article is true) If you were an editor of a journal, do you think you should be told of an "explosive paper" coming out in said journal? If you weren't told, what does that say about the paper? Why would they hold that information from you? I understand perfectly why the editor would want to focus on not being told. If she says it was the paper she gets hounded by truthers. Bentham employs more than one editor.
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368

28th April 2009, 02:12 PM	#93
Spud1k +5 Goatee of Pedantry Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 844	Originally Posted by Galileo more JREF drivel. Please direct us to a peer reviewed scientific paper that shows even one "error" or "incorrect conclusion". There's Henry62's article. This has been read and reviewed by his peers within the bloggosphere. You might claim that this isn't in a credible scientific journal. But then I could say the same about Jones' material and we'd be equally correct. Besides, I hate to rob your of your security blanket, but even being in a peer-reviewed paper in a real journal doesn't make something fact. That is one vital step on the way to recognition. The second step is typically for someone else to independently replicate the result. Given that Jones is very unlikely to ever release his samples, I don't see it getting any further.
	__________________ "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

28th April 2009, 02:13 PM	#94
lapman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,717	Originally Posted by Galileo more JREF drivel. Please direct us to a peer reviewed scientific paper that shows even one "error" or "incorrect conclusion". Show us a real peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal that supports Jone's paper. Hint: The Bentham open journals are not in that category.
lapman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,717	__________________ They take their paranoia, mix in a healthy dose of mistrust in anything "gubmint", and then bake it in that big ole EZ Bake oven of ignorance, and come to the delusional conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. - Seymour Butz

28th April 2009, 02:16 PM	#95
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by Spud1k There's Henry62's article. This has been read and reviewed by his peers within the bloggosphere. You might claim that this isn't in a credible scientific journal. But then I could say the same about Jones' material and we'd be equally correct. Besides, I hate to rob your of your security blanket, but even being in a peer-reviewed paper in a real journal doesn't make something fact. That is one vital step on the way to recognition. The second step is typically for someone else to independently replicate the result. Given that Jones is very unlikely to ever release his samples, I don't see it getting any further. That so-called paper has already been debunked. No legitimate scientific journal will print it.
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368

28th April 2009, 02:17 PM	#96
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,494	Originally Posted by Galileo Prove it. Show me a peer-reviewed scientific paper that makes that case. http://wtc.nist.gov/ That one is ten thousand pages. It might take you a while to read it.

28th April 2009, 02:20 PM	#97
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by lapman Show us a real peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal that supports Jone's paper. Hint: The Bentham open journals are not in that category. Harrit's peer reviewed paper confirmed Jones' peer reviewed paper of 2005.
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368

28th April 2009, 02:20 PM	#98
Spud1k +5 Goatee of Pedantry Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 844	Originally Posted by Galileo No, qualified scientists confirmed that it was nano-thermite, confirming that the by-products of a thermite reaction were indeed created by nano-thermite. Hang on... did you say 'qualified'? So having a background in looking for evidence of muon-catalysed (cold) fusion based on neutron measurements makes you an authority on looking for traces of largely hypothetical explosives based on electron microscopy? Actually, put like that...
	__________________ "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

28th April 2009, 02:21 PM	#99
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,494	Originally Posted by Galileo Harrit's peer reviewed paper confirmed Jones' peer reviewed paper of 2005. Harrit's paper wasn't peer reviewed.

28th April 2009, 02:21 PM	#100
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth http://wtc.nist.gov/ That one is ten thousand pages. It might take you a while to read it. The NIST report has not been peer reviewed. They won't release their magic computer program to independent scientists.
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368

28th April 2009, 02:22 PM	#101
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,494	Originally Posted by Galileo The NIST report has not been peer reviewed. Yes it has. It's been read by nearly the entire engineering community.

28th April 2009, 02:22 PM	#102
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth Harrit's paper wasn't peer reviewed. Harrit's paper was subjected to a rigorous peer review process before it was accepted for publication.
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368

28th April 2009, 02:24 PM	#103
Spud1k +5 Goatee of Pedantry Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 844	Originally Posted by Galileo Originally Posted by lapman Show us a real peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal that supports Jone's paper. Hint: The Bentham open journals are not in that category. Harrit's peer reviewed paper confirmed Jones' peer reviewed paper of 2005. So where was Harrit's paper then?
	__________________ "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

28th April 2009, 02:25 PM	#104
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth Yes it has. It's been read by nearly the entire engineering community. No, it hasn't. The NIST report has never been peer reviewed and they will not release their magic computer program to independent scientists for review. Nor has the NIST report been published in a legitimate peer reviewed scientific journal. Harrit's peer-reviewed paper proves that the NIST report is false.
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368

28th April 2009, 02:26 PM	#105
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,494	Originally Posted by Galileo Harrit's paper was subjected to a rigorous peer review process before it was accepted for publication. No it wasn't. The just-resigned Editor-in-Chief of Bentham Chemical Physics journal says the process wasn't followed. No peer-review process = no peer review.

28th April 2009, 02:27 PM	#106
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,494	Originally Posted by Galileo Harrit's peer-reviewed paper proves that the NIST report is false. Harrit's paper was never peer-reviewed.

28th April 2009, 02:28 PM	#107
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth No it wasn't. The just-resigned Editor-in-Chief of Bentham Chemical Physics journal says the process wasn't followed. No peer-review process = no peer review. She is not the editor-in-chief so what she says means nothing. She is a disgruntled former employee.
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368

28th April 2009, 02:31 PM	#108
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth Harrit's paper was never peer-reviewed. Harrit's paper was peer reviewed. In fact, the referees were so tough on Harrit that he had to re-write certain parts three times so the paper was airtight.
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368

28th April 2009, 02:31 PM	#109
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,103	Originally Posted by timhau He doesn't have to. One crappy paper in a vanity journal that nobody reads trumps any number of studies in respected journals that actually get read and cited. It's in the woo rulebook, look it up. Standard procedure for 911Truth delusion believers like Galileo.

28th April 2009, 02:35 PM	#110
nicepants Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,723	Originally Posted by Galileo The NIST report has not been peer reviewed. How many scientists worked on the NIST report? How many worked on Jones' paper?
	__________________ Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen -Einstein

28th April 2009, 02:36 PM	#111
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,494	Originally Posted by Galileo She is not the editor-in-chief so what she says means nothing. She resigned because Harrit's paper wasn't peer reviewed. Quote: She is a disgruntled former employee. Harrit's co-authors, Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan are disgruntled former employees of BYU and Underwriters Laboratories.

28th April 2009, 02:37 PM	#112
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,494	Originally Posted by Galileo Harrit's paper was peer reviewed. Harrit's paper wasn't peer reviewed. The Editor-in-Chief of Betham Chemical Physics stated as such.

28th April 2009, 02:44 PM	#113
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by nicepants How many scientists worked on the NIST report? How many worked on Jones' paper? NIST's paper has not been published in a legitimate peer reviewed scientific journal. Harrit's paper proves that the NIST report is false. The NIST report does not accunt for the nano-thermite found in the WTC debris.
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368

28th April 2009, 02:47 PM	#114
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,494	Originally Posted by Galileo The NIST report does not accunt for the nano-thermite found in the WTC debris. No nano-thermite was found in the WTC debris.

28th April 2009, 02:47 PM	#115
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth Harrit's paper wasn't peer reviewed. The Editor-in-Chief of Betham Chemical Physics stated as such. Sorry, the genie is out of the bottle. The train has already left the station. The paper was published a month ago, and scientists all over the world are reading Harrit's paper. If your theroy was true, why did she wait until she was a disgruntled former employee to say anything?
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368