IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 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.
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 28th April 2009, 12:45 PM   #82
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by lapman View Post
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
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 28th April 2009, 12:53 PM   #83
FactCheck
Muse
 
FactCheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 619
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
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.
__________________
"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 28th April 2009, 12:55 PM   #84
1337m4n
Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
 
1337m4n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,510
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
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
1337m4n 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 28th April 2009, 12:58 PM   #85
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by FactCheck View Post
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 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 28th April 2009, 01:15 PM   #86
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: 15,097
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
"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
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 28th April 2009, 01:18 PM   #87
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: 15,097
Originally Posted by Spud1k View Post
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
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 28th April 2009, 01:19 PM   #88
FactCheck
Muse
 
FactCheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 619
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
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.
__________________
"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 28th April 2009, 01:39 PM   #89
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,281
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.
__________________
"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 28th April 2009, 01:57 PM   #90
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by 1337m4n View Post
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 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 28th April 2009, 02:05 PM   #91
nicepants
Graduate Poster
 
nicepants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,723
Question ?

Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
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
nicepants 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 28th April 2009, 02:08 PM   #92
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by FactCheck View Post
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 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 28th April 2009, 02:12 PM   #93
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
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
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 28th April 2009, 02:13 PM   #94
lapman
Graduate Poster
 
lapman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,717
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
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.
__________________
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
lapman 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 28th April 2009, 02:16 PM   #95
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by Spud1k View Post
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 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 28th April 2009, 02:17 PM   #96
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
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.
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 28th April 2009, 02:20 PM   #97
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by lapman View Post
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 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 28th April 2009, 02:20 PM   #98
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
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
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 28th April 2009, 02:21 PM   #99
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
Harrit's peer reviewed paper confirmed Jones' peer reviewed paper of 2005.
Harrit's paper 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 28th April 2009, 02:21 PM   #100
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
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 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 28th April 2009, 02:22 PM   #101
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
The NIST report has not been peer reviewed.
Yes it has. It's been read by nearly the entire engineering community.
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 28th April 2009, 02:22 PM   #102
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
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 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 28th April 2009, 02:24 PM   #103
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
Originally Posted by lapman View Post
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
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 28th April 2009, 02:25 PM   #104
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
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 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 28th April 2009, 02:26 PM   #105
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
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 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 28th April 2009, 02:27 PM   #106
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
Harrit's peer-reviewed paper proves that the NIST report is false.
Harrit's paper was never 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 28th April 2009, 02:28 PM   #107
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
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 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 28th April 2009, 02:31 PM   #108
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
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 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 28th April 2009, 02:31 PM   #109
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,103
Originally Posted by timhau View Post
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.
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 28th April 2009, 02:35 PM   #110
nicepants
Graduate Poster
 
nicepants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,723
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
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
nicepants 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 28th April 2009, 02:36 PM   #111
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
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 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 28th April 2009, 02:37 PM   #112
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
Harrit's paper was peer reviewed.
Harrit's paper wasn't peer reviewed.

The Editor-in-Chief of Betham Chemical Physics stated as such.
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 28th April 2009, 02:44 PM   #113
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by nicepants View Post
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 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 28th April 2009, 02:47 PM   #114
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
The NIST report does not accunt for the nano-thermite found in the WTC debris.
No nano-thermite was found in the WTC debris.
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 28th April 2009, 02:47 PM   #115
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
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 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 28th April 2009, 02:50 PM   #116
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
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.
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 28th April 2009, 02:52 PM   #117
nicepants
Graduate Poster
 
nicepants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,723
Exclamation

Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
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.
__________________
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen -Einstein
nicepants 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 28th April 2009, 02:55 PM   #118
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by nicepants View Post
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."

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 28th April 2009, 02:57 PM   #119
nicepants
Graduate Poster
 
nicepants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,723
Question 3rd Attempt

Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
....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.
__________________
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen -Einstein
nicepants 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 28th April 2009, 02:59 PM   #120
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
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.
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
Reply

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

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 04:09 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, 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.