2nd Open Chemical Physics Editor in Chief Resigns

grandmastershek · 13th December 2010, 01:52 PM

"...in no way do i agree with its conclusions. In fact i do not even know how the paper's peer reviewing was handled - or if it was reviewed at all. The journal never wanted to disclosed this matter to me...What may be even worse - noone seems to be at the helm of this Journal. Months ago -simply after becoming acquainted with the article you mention, its possible misshandling, etc- i submitted my immediate resignation as editor to the open chemical physics journal."

http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/

Thats not only the 2nd Editor in Chief, but #5 total of people resigning from Bentham due to their non standards.

1. Lucio Frydman
2. Marie Paule Pileni
3.Bambang Parmanto
4. Marc Williams
5. John Furedy

The Big Dog · 13th December 2010, 02:01 PM

Jonesy admitted in the last couple of weeks that one of the "peer reviewers" was a noted truther wackamole and all around crack pot David L. Griscom of the "passengers were in on it" theory.

hilarious! That article was so incompetent, it actually killed the freaking Journal.

grandmastershek · 13th December 2010, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by 16.5

Jonesy admitted in the last couple of weeks that one of the "peer reviewers" was a noted truther wackamole and all around crack pot David L. Griscom of the "passengers were in on it" theory.

hilarious! That article was so incompetent, it actually killed the freaking Journal.

Actually Jones states on blogger that he had no idea of Griscom's involvement in the "movement" in spite of Gris being "published" in the J.O.N.E.S.

The Big Dog · 13th December 2010, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by grandmastershek

Actually Jones states on blogger that he had no idea of Griscom's involvement in the "movement" in spite of Gris being "published" in the J.O.N.E.S.

Hee hee! Really?

WOW.

grandmastershek · 13th December 2010, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by 16.5

Hee hee! Really?

WOW.

Had to reread it, but its not exactly what he said.

"I wish to extend a warm welcome to Prof. Griscom to the 9/11 truth-seeking community, as he speaks out in his blog."
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-0...-himself-great

Why welcome someone if you know they are already involved?

http://www.journalof911studies.com/l...id-griscom.pdf

Someone on blogger called him out as to whether or not Jones suggested Griscom as a reviewer and he dodged it. After further prodding Jones got quite indignant, especially after the poster pointed out that they listed Griscom in the acknowledgements of the paper.

The Big Dog · 13th December 2010, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by grandmastershek

Someone on blogger called him out as to whether or not Jones suggested Griscom as a reviewer and he dodged it. After further prodding Jones got quite indignant, especially after the poster pointed out that they listed Griscom in the acknowledgements of the paper.

Jones is pathological. He previously admitted that he gave a list of proposed peer reviewers to the late great Bentham Open Journal.

Given the list of acknowledgments, I have to assume that Mark Brasile was the second "peer reviewer."

Oystein · 14th December 2010, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by grandmastershek

...

Why welcome someone if you know they are already involved?

http://www.journalof911studies.com/l...id-griscom.pdf

...

hahaha!
From that letter by Griscom on JONES (his own bolding!):

Quote:

Mercifully, we normally publish in refereed journals, where some of our inevitable mistakes are caught by anonymous peer reviewers prior to publication. Nevertheless, referees tend to be too busy to catch every error, so mistakes can still leak into print. I have made a horrendous number of mistakes in the process of publishing the 108 papers that I wrote fully myself. I know this because I’ve caught virtually all of them myself by double-, triple-, and quadruple-checking my data, logic, and mathematics before allowing my manuscripts to go to press.

Anonymous peer reviewers - anonymous to whom??

Josarhus · 14th December 2010, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by 16.5

Jones is pathological. He previously admitted that he gave a list of proposed peer reviewers to the late great Bentham Open Journal.

Given the list of acknowledgments, I have to assume that Mark Brasile was the second "peer reviewer."

That might be spot on!

I have asked one of Harrits fellow truthers here in Denmark, whom the two reviewers were and after several attempts he listed Mark Basile and Jeffrey Farrer as the two reviewers.

It’s unclear why he mentions these two, either that was his best answer, since Harrit is keeping it a secret, not only from the public, but also from his friends in the truth movement, or he actually knows something on this matter.

Dave Rogers · 14th December 2010, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by Josarhus

I have asked one of Harrits fellow truthers here in Denmark, whom the two reviewers were and after several attempts he listed Mark Basile and Jeffrey Farrer as the two reviewers.

Hang on a moment. Is there a typo in there, or are you suggesting that Jeffrey Farrer was both an author and a peer reviewer of the paper?

If so, that's the most flagrant abuse of the peer review process possible.

Dave

ElMondoHummus · 14th December 2010, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Hang on a moment. Is there a typo in there, or are you suggesting that Jeffrey Farrer was both an author and a peer reviewer of the paper?

If so, that's the most flagrant abuse of the peer review process possible.

Dave

Agreed. If this is true - note: Conditional statement - then that's just insane. That would go beyond abuse into outright deception about the trustworthiness of the publication process (not that there's not already ample evidence denigrating that already

, evidence completely independent of this issue).

I would love to hear if there's any confirmation or refutation of this. It's necessary to know more before passing judgement on this specific issue.

------

ETA: Oh, BTW, I did notice that this was not directly from Harrit himself, but from "one of Harrits fellow truthers...". So to be fair, I do want to temper my post with the acknowledgement that this is currently hearsay. Again, we simply need to know more. But that said, the fact that this consideration is even possible, given what we already know of Bentham's practices, that speaks ill of Bentham's reputation, as well as the decisionmaking behind publishing that work with them.

R.Mackey · 14th December 2010, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Hang on a moment. Is there a typo in there, or are you suggesting that Jeffrey Farrer was both an author and a peer reviewer of the paper?

If so, that's the most flagrant abuse of the peer review process possible.

Dave

... and both David Griscom and Mark Basile, while not co-authors, are acknowledged in the paper.

Griscom's name alone destroys Bentham's credibility forever. Waiting for confirmation of the other two to see if we have a trifecta of fail.

Josarhus · 14th December 2010, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Hang on a moment. Is there a typo in there, or are you suggesting that Jeffrey Farrer was both an author and a peer reviewer of the paper?

If so, that's the most flagrant abuse of the peer review process possible.

Dave

I think that he finally realised what implications his “information” would do to Harrits paper and firstly he tried to dodge further questions by implying that any scholar who have read the paper and who endorse it is a peer reviewer, and that was why he mentioned Basile and Farrer.

I asked if scholars who have read the paper and who do not endorse it could be considered a peer reviewer, and apparently he thinks that ONLY scholars who agree with the paper can be considered peer reviewers.

After that he disappeared from the debate.

He is from Harrits inner circle in the Danish truth movement.

Oystein · 14th December 2010, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Josarhus

.... and apparently he thinks that ONLY scholars who agree with the paper can be considered peer reviewers.

After that he disappeared from the debate.

He is from Harrits inner circle in the Danish truth movement.

Who is "he"? Got a name?

beachnut · 15th December 2010, 06:58 PM

David L Griscom? He makes up moronic conspiracies, no wonder he was fooled by Jones' fake paper. http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/s...&max-results=3

Edx · 16th December 2010, 08:00 AM

That blog is interesting, he says he thinks the Truth Movement are a good thing, but then argues against all the demolition theories. I would say he is a truther on the way out the door

Dave Rogers · 16th December 2010, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by Edx

That blog is interesting, he says he thinks the Truth Movement are a good thing, but then argues against all the demolition theories. I would say he is a truther on the way out the door

You may also have noticed that he was rude enough to publish Frydman's private e-mail to him, and not only to refuse when asked to remove it, but to publish Frydman's request. He may be having his doubts, but he certainly hasn't departed from the usual truther level of misplaced arrogance.

Dave

Edx · 16th December 2010, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

You may also have noticed that he was rude enough to publish Frydman's private e-mail to him, and not only to refuse when asked to remove it, but to publish Frydman's request. He may be having his doubts, but he certainly hasn't departed from the usual truther level of misplaced arrogance.

Dave

Yea, well I put a comment on his blog and I'll see what he says.

He also still believes WTC7 was a demolition, but it was interesting to hear the debate/discussion between him and Barrett.

I may have been too optimistic about him being on the way out, I guess he could just stay in this middle ground.

Brainster · 16th December 2010, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by grandmastershek

Actually Jones states on blogger that he had no idea of Griscom's involvement in the "movement" in spite of Gris being "published" in the J.O.N.E.S.

And of course in spite of Jones pimping Griscom and his "paper" a few years ago:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Dave Rogers · 16th December 2010, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

And of course in spite of Jones pimping Griscom and his "paper" a few years ago:

Gosh, you're not suggesting that Steven Jones lied about not knowing Griscom was a truther, are you? How shocking!

Dave

grandmastershek · 16th December 2010, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

And of course in spite of Jones pimping Griscom and his "paper" a few years ago:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

ROFLMAO!!!!

What a lying d-bag.

R.Mackey · 16th December 2010, 08:14 PM

The thing I find funny / pathetic about this whole episode is this:

For years now (yes, years) anyone with even a modicum of science or attention span has known this paper is total crap. There's been about 500 pages of discussion on this Forum alone, and dozens of reasons why it's nonsense. There's been no serious attempt at replication of results. It's an absolute cipher and has been all along.

But now, it's another Truther whose noticed the glaring faults in it. So now, all of a sudden, the other Truthers are finally wising up.

I don't know which is worse -- the inherent narcissism of Truthers as a whole, or the fact that it took them this long to understand the paper's flaws even after we've literally shoved it up their noses.

Orphia Nay · 16th December 2010, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by grandmastershek

"...in no way do i agree with its conclusions. In fact i do not even know how the paper's peer reviewing was handled - or if it was reviewed at all. The journal never wanted to disclosed this matter to me...What may be even worse - noone seems to be at the helm of this Journal. Months ago -simply after becoming acquainted with the article you mention, its possible misshandling, etc- i submitted my immediate resignation as editor to the open chemical physics journal."

http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/

Thats not only the 2nd Editor in Chief, but #5 total of people resigning from Bentham due to their non standards.

1. Lucio Frydman
2. Marie Paule Pileni
3.Bambang Parmanto
4. Marc Williams
5. John Furedy

Link to the blog post in question, for posterity's sake:
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/...harrit-et.html

Could some kind person post links to the other editors' resignation announcements?

I note that Frydman has objected (with good reason) to his private email being published. While it may be embarrassing for him to have been associated with the journal, he has done a good thing by resigning, and the news of said resignation benefits the scientific community.

grandmastershek · 17th December 2010, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Link to the blog post in question, for posterity's sake:
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/...harrit-et.html

Could some kind person post links to the other editors' resignation announcements?

I note that Frydman has objected (with good reason) to his private email being published. While it may be embarrassing for him to have been associated with the journal, he has done a good thing by resigning, and the news of said resignation benefits the scientific community.

The only reputable source I know of is a danish newspaper:

http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/natur...artikel_om_911

The rest are 9/11 blogger's articles who claim that Marie Pileni Paule was lying about not being an expert because since nanothermite is explosive (cuz Jones says so) she must be lying.

Brainster · 17th December 2010, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by grandmastershek

The only reputable source I know of is a danish newspaper:

http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/natur...artikel_om_911

The rest are 9/11 blogger's articles who claim that Marie Pileni Paule was lying about not being an expert because since nanothermite is explosive (cuz Jones says so) she must be lying.

Translation from the Danish by one of our commenters here.

Panoply_Prefect · 17th December 2010, 10:52 AM

Just for the record, one of the two swedes on the editorial advisory board also resigned when I asked him about the publishing of Harrits paper (I couldn't get in touch with the other swede). According to videnskap.dk, same did Harrits superior at the University, Nils O. Andersen who was on the same board (although he says it had nothing to do with Harrits paper).

But do I understand it correctly, that people mentioned as authors of the paper, were also peer-reviewing them?

Edx · 4th January 2011, 02:29 PM

bump.

Whats the earliest date we have for involvement from Grisom in the truth movement and a source if possible?

Also what date was the nano thermite paper published in Bentham?

MikeW · 4th January 2011, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Edx

Whats the earliest date we have for involvement from Grisom in the truth movement and a source if possible?

He has a blog piece on January 2007 at http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2...cs-of-911.html

grandmastershek · 4th January 2011, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by Edx

bump.

Whats the earliest date we have for involvement from Grisom in the truth movement and a source if possible?

Also what date was the nano thermite paper published in Bentham?

He also has a letter in the Jo911S from 2/07. The NT paper was "published" in April of 09 IIRC. A dip on youtube recently tried to tell me that Gris became a truther after reviewing the paper. I of course pointed out Jones was still collecting samples up to 11/07 after Gris was first featured in Jones' "journal". Make it up as you go I guess. He has has been dancing around the fact that the Bentham peer review process was negligible at best.

Edx · 4th January 2011, 05:35 PM

Guess what a truther replied to on this youtube video with. The first underlined part is a quote from my comment.

Its amazing how that guy can just lie so easily, but I do wonder if even the claim that Griscom didn't mention thermite before the 911 paper was published is true. Anyone know?

9/11 Chewy Defense · 4th January 2011, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by Edx

Guess what a truther replied to on this youtube video with. The first underlined part is a quote from my comment.

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/4...longriscom.png

Its amazing how that guy can just lie so easily, but I do wonder if even the claim that Griscom didn't mention thermite before the 911 paper was published is true. Anyone know?

Damn, I can't reply to that video: You have been blocked by the owner of this video.

I wanted to say: "Wow, you were right TheSkepticalIdealist, Sexy Melon is a liar. Keep making him dodge your facts & evidence. The more you do it, the more he/she will squeal."

MikeW · 5th January 2011, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by Edx

Its amazing how that guy can just lie so easily, but I do wonder if even the claim that Griscom didn't mention thermite before the 911 paper was published is true. Anyone know?

Griscom's 2007 piece contains this:

Quote:

But there IS one way that all 250 some columns could have lost all strength simultaneously. It's called CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True”:

http://911review.com/articles/griffi...ltipleevidence

This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2, and 7 were brought down by explosives.
http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2...cs-of-911.html

It doesn't specifically reference thermite, but it's clear that he's ready to accept the idea.

grandmastershek · 5th January 2011, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Edx

Guess what a truther replied to on this youtube video with. The first underlined part is a quote from my comment.

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/4...longriscom.png

Its amazing how that guy can just lie so easily, but I do wonder if even the claim that Griscom didn't mention thermite before the 911 paper was published is true. Anyone know?

Melon is a plain liar.

Originally Posted by grandmastershek

A dip [Sexy Melon] on youtube recently tried to tell me that Gris became a truther after reviewing the paper. I of course pointed out Jones was still collecting samples up to 11/07 after Gris was first featured in Jones' "journal". Make it up as you go I guess. He has has been dancing around the fact that the Bentham peer review process was negligible at best.

grandmastershek · 5th January 2011, 11:52 AM

A good approach might be to ask Melon if nanothermite is an explosive. I am pretty sure I have seen him say as such; in fact I know he does because he told me the spike in Jones's calorimetry was evidence it is and then I showed him another spike from another study of regular thermite and he just pissed and moaned that he couldn't get access to the whole article even though I provided the citation. Point being, in Gris's Jo9/11S article he supports the demo by explosive hypothesis. If Melon was a rational person he would either have to abandon that NT is an explosive or concede that he was biased ahead of time. But as I am sure cognitive dissonance will kick in, and he will do the cha cha of twoof.

Not to mention Griscom is acknowledged in said paper on none other than alleged nanothermite. Get ready for some hoop jumping!

13th December 2010, 01:52 PM	#1
grandmastershek Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,461	2nd Open Chemical Physics Editor in Chief Resigns "...in no way do i agree with its conclusions. In fact i do not even know how the paper's peer reviewing was handled - or if it was reviewed at all. The journal never wanted to disclosed this matter to me...What may be even worse - noone seems to be at the helm of this Journal. Months ago -simply after becoming acquainted with the article you mention, its possible misshandling, etc- i submitted my immediate resignation as editor to the open chemical physics journal." http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/ Thats not only the 2nd Editor in Chief, but #5 total of people resigning from Bentham due to their non standards. 1. Lucio Frydman 2. Marie Paule Pileni 3.Bambang Parmanto 4. Marc Williams 5. John Furedy

13th December 2010, 02:01 PM	#2
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742	Jonesy admitted in the last couple of weeks that one of the "peer reviewers" was a noted truther wackamole and all around crack pot David L. Griscom of the "passengers were in on it" theory. hilarious! That article was so incompetent, it actually killed the freaking Journal.
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742

13th December 2010, 04:45 PM	#4
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742	Originally Posted by grandmastershek Actually Jones states on blogger that he had no idea of Griscom's involvement in the "movement" in spite of Gris being "published" in the J.O.N.E.S. Hee hee! Really? WOW.
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742

13th December 2010, 08:58 PM	#6
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742	Originally Posted by grandmastershek Someone on blogger called him out as to whether or not Jones suggested Griscom as a reviewer and he dodged it. After further prodding Jones got quite indignant, especially after the poster pointed out that they listed Griscom in the acknowledgements of the paper. Jones is pathological. He previously admitted that he gave a list of proposed peer reviewers to the late great Bentham Open Journal. Given the list of acknowledgments, I have to assume that Mark Brasile was the second "peer reviewer."
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742	Last edited by The Big Dog; 13th December 2010 at 09:00 PM.

14th December 2010, 08:31 AM	#8
Josarhus Thinker Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Aarhus, Denmark Posts: 231	Originally Posted by 16.5 Jones is pathological. He previously admitted that he gave a list of proposed peer reviewers to the late great Bentham Open Journal. Given the list of acknowledgments, I have to assume that Mark Brasile was the second "peer reviewer." That might be spot on! I have asked one of Harrits fellow truthers here in Denmark, whom the two reviewers were and after several attempts he listed Mark Basile and Jeffrey Farrer as the two reviewers. It’s unclear why he mentions these two, either that was his best answer, since Harrit is keeping it a secret, not only from the public, but also from his friends in the truth movement, or he actually knows something on this matter.
	__________________ Niels Harrit: "I do not actually understand why they fire insulates steel structures. It just slows the heating of the steel by one hour. There must be money in it."

13th December 2010, 03:43 PM	#3
grandmastershek Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,461	Originally Posted by 16.5 Jonesy admitted in the last couple of weeks that one of the "peer reviewers" was a noted truther wackamole and all around crack pot David L. Griscom of the "passengers were in on it" theory. hilarious! That article was so incompetent, it actually killed the freaking Journal. Actually Jones states on blogger that he had no idea of Griscom's involvement in the "movement" in spite of Gris being "published" in the J.O.N.E.S.

13th December 2010, 07:56 PM	#5
grandmastershek Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,461	Originally Posted by 16.5 Hee hee! Really? WOW. Had to reread it, but its not exactly what he said. "I wish to extend a warm welcome to Prof. Griscom to the 9/11 truth-seeking community, as he speaks out in his blog." http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-0...-himself-great Why welcome someone if you know they are already involved? http://www.journalof911studies.com/l...id-griscom.pdf Someone on blogger called him out as to whether or not Jones suggested Griscom as a reviewer and he dodged it. After further prodding Jones got quite indignant, especially after the poster pointed out that they listed Griscom in the acknowledgements of the paper.
	Last edited by grandmastershek; 13th December 2010 at 08:21 PM.

14th December 2010, 05:51 AM	#7
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 17,235	Originally Posted by grandmastershek ... Why welcome someone if you know they are already involved? http://www.journalof911studies.com/l...id-griscom.pdf ... hahaha! From that letter by Griscom on JONES (his own bolding!): Quote: Mercifully, we normally publish in refereed journals, where some of our inevitable mistakes are caught by anonymous peer reviewers prior to publication. Nevertheless, referees tend to be too busy to catch every error, so mistakes can still leak into print. I have made a horrendous number of mistakes in the process of publishing the 108 papers that I wrote fully myself. I know this because I’ve caught virtually all of them myself by double-, triple-, and quadruple-checking my data, logic, and mathematics before allowing my manuscripts to go to press. Anonymous peer reviewers - anonymous to whom??

14th December 2010, 08:38 AM	#9
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 33,054	Originally Posted by Josarhus I have asked one of Harrits fellow truthers here in Denmark, whom the two reviewers were and after several attempts he listed Mark Basile and Jeffrey Farrer as the two reviewers. Hang on a moment. Is there a typo in there, or are you suggesting that Jeffrey Farrer was both an author and a peer reviewer of the paper? If so, that's the most flagrant abuse of the peer review process possible. Dave
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

14th December 2010, 08:47 AM	#10
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 12,279	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Hang on a moment. Is there a typo in there, or are you suggesting that Jeffrey Farrer was both an author and a peer reviewer of the paper? If so, that's the most flagrant abuse of the peer review process possible. Dave Agreed. If this is true - note: Conditional statement - then that's just insane. That would go beyond abuse into outright deception about the trustworthiness of the publication process (not that there's not already ample evidence denigrating that already , evidence completely independent of this issue). I would love to hear if there's any confirmation or refutation of this. It's necessary to know more before passing judgement on this specific issue. ------ ETA: Oh, BTW, I did notice that this was not directly from Harrit himself, but from "one of Harrits fellow truthers...". So to be fair, I do want to temper my post with the acknowledgement that this is currently hearsay. Again, we simply need to know more. But that said, the fact that this consideration is even possible, given what we already know of Bentham's practices, that speaks ill of Bentham's reputation, as well as the decisionmaking behind publishing that work with them.
	__________________ "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." Last edited by ElMondoHummus; 14th December 2010 at 08:50 AM.

14th December 2010, 10:42 AM	#11
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 7,854	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Hang on a moment. Is there a typo in there, or are you suggesting that Jeffrey Farrer was both an author and a peer reviewer of the paper? If so, that's the most flagrant abuse of the peer review process possible. Dave ... and both David Griscom and Mark Basile, while not co-authors, are acknowledged in the paper. Griscom's name alone destroys Bentham's credibility forever. Waiting for confirmation of the other two to see if we have a trifecta of fail.
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 7,854

14th December 2010, 12:32 PM	#12
Josarhus Thinker Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Aarhus, Denmark Posts: 231	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Hang on a moment. Is there a typo in there, or are you suggesting that Jeffrey Farrer was both an author and a peer reviewer of the paper? If so, that's the most flagrant abuse of the peer review process possible. Dave I think that he finally realised what implications his “information” would do to Harrits paper and firstly he tried to dodge further questions by implying that any scholar who have read the paper and who endorse it is a peer reviewer, and that was why he mentioned Basile and Farrer. I asked if scholars who have read the paper and who do not endorse it could be considered a peer reviewer, and apparently he thinks that ONLY scholars who agree with the paper can be considered peer reviewers. After that he disappeared from the debate. He is from Harrits inner circle in the Danish truth movement.
	__________________ Niels Harrit: "I do not actually understand why they fire insulates steel structures. It just slows the heating of the steel by one hour. There must be money in it."

14th December 2010, 04:08 PM	#13
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 17,235	Originally Posted by Josarhus .... and apparently he thinks that ONLY scholars who agree with the paper can be considered peer reviewers. After that he disappeared from the debate. He is from Harrits inner circle in the Danish truth movement. Who is "he"? Got a name?

15th December 2010, 06:58 PM	#14
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,013	David L Griscom? He makes up moronic conspiracies, no wonder he was fooled by Jones' fake paper. http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/s...&max-results=3

16th December 2010, 08:00 AM	#15
Edx Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5,642	That blog is interesting, he says he thinks the Truth Movement are a good thing, but then argues against all the demolition theories. I would say he is a truther on the way out the door
Edx Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5,642

16th December 2010, 09:22 AM	#16
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 33,054	Originally Posted by Edx That blog is interesting, he says he thinks the Truth Movement are a good thing, but then argues against all the demolition theories. I would say he is a truther on the way out the door You may also have noticed that he was rude enough to publish Frydman's private e-mail to him, and not only to refuse when asked to remove it, but to publish Frydman's request. He may be having his doubts, but he certainly hasn't departed from the usual truther level of misplaced arrogance. Dave
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

16th December 2010, 09:28 AM	#17
Edx Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5,642	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers You may also have noticed that he was rude enough to publish Frydman's private e-mail to him, and not only to refuse when asked to remove it, but to publish Frydman's request. He may be having his doubts, but he certainly hasn't departed from the usual truther level of misplaced arrogance. Dave Yea, well I put a comment on his blog and I'll see what he says. He also still believes WTC7 was a demolition, but it was interesting to hear the debate/discussion between him and Barrett. I may have been too optimistic about him being on the way out, I guess he could just stay in this middle ground.
Edx Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5,642

16th December 2010, 10:33 AM	#19
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 33,054	Originally Posted by Brainster And of course in spite of Jones pimping Griscom and his "paper" a few years ago: Gosh, you're not suggesting that Steven Jones lied about not knowing Griscom was a truther, are you? How shocking! Dave
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

16th December 2010, 08:14 PM	#21
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 7,854	The thing I find funny / pathetic about this whole episode is this: For years now (yes, years) anyone with even a modicum of science or attention span has known this paper is total crap. There's been about 500 pages of discussion on this Forum alone, and dozens of reasons why it's nonsense. There's been no serious attempt at replication of results. It's an absolute cipher and has been all along. But now, it's another Truther whose noticed the glaring faults in it. So now, all of a sudden, the other Truthers are finally wising up. I don't know which is worse -- the inherent narcissism of Truthers as a whole, or the fact that it took them this long to understand the paper's flaws even after we've literally shoved it up their noses.
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 7,854

16th December 2010, 09:42 PM	#22
Orphia Nay Penguilicious Spodmaster. Tagger Photo Contest Winner Join Date: May 2005 Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables). Posts: 39,992	Originally Posted by grandmastershek "...in no way do i agree with its conclusions. In fact i do not even know how the paper's peer reviewing was handled - or if it was reviewed at all. The journal never wanted to disclosed this matter to me...What may be even worse - noone seems to be at the helm of this Journal. Months ago -simply after becoming acquainted with the article you mention, its possible misshandling, etc- i submitted my immediate resignation as editor to the open chemical physics journal." http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/ Thats not only the 2nd Editor in Chief, but #5 total of people resigning from Bentham due to their non standards. 1. Lucio Frydman 2. Marie Paule Pileni 3.Bambang Parmanto 4. Marc Williams 5. John Furedy Link to the blog post in question, for posterity's sake: http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/...harrit-et.html Could some kind person post links to the other editors' resignation announcements? I note that Frydman has objected (with good reason) to his private email being published. While it may be embarrassing for him to have been associated with the journal, he has done a good thing by resigning, and the news of said resignation benefits the scientific community.
	__________________ "We stigmatize and send to the margins people who trigger in us the feelings we want to avoid" - Melinda Gates, "The Moment of Lift".

17th December 2010, 10:15 AM	#23
grandmastershek Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,461	Originally Posted by Orphia Nay Link to the blog post in question, for posterity's sake: http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/...harrit-et.html Could some kind person post links to the other editors' resignation announcements? I note that Frydman has objected (with good reason) to his private email being published. While it may be embarrassing for him to have been associated with the journal, he has done a good thing by resigning, and the news of said resignation benefits the scientific community. The only reputable source I know of is a danish newspaper: http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/natur...artikel_om_911 The rest are 9/11 blogger's articles who claim that Marie Pileni Paule was lying about not being an expert because since nanothermite is explosive (cuz Jones says so) she must be lying.

17th December 2010, 10:46 AM	#24
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,523	Originally Posted by grandmastershek The only reputable source I know of is a danish newspaper: http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/natur...artikel_om_911 The rest are 9/11 blogger's articles who claim that Marie Pileni Paule was lying about not being an expert because since nanothermite is explosive (cuz Jones says so) she must be lying. Translation from the Danish by one of our commenters here.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

17th December 2010, 10:52 AM	#25
Panoply_Prefect Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,075	Just for the record, one of the two swedes on the editorial advisory board also resigned when I asked him about the publishing of Harrits paper (I couldn't get in touch with the other swede). According to videnskap.dk, same did Harrits superior at the University, Nils O. Andersen who was on the same board (although he says it had nothing to do with Harrits paper). But do I understand it correctly, that people mentioned as authors of the paper, were also peer-reviewing them?
	Last edited by Panoply_Prefect; 17th December 2010 at 11:08 AM.

4th January 2011, 02:29 PM	#26
Edx Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5,642	bump. Whats the earliest date we have for involvement from Grisom in the truth movement and a source if possible? Also what date was the nano thermite paper published in Bentham?
Edx Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5,642

4th January 2011, 03:38 PM	#27
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by Edx Whats the earliest date we have for involvement from Grisom in the truth movement and a source if possible? He has a blog piece on January 2007 at http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2...cs-of-911.html
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,910

4th January 2011, 04:05 PM	#28
grandmastershek Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,461	Originally Posted by Edx bump. Whats the earliest date we have for involvement from Grisom in the truth movement and a source if possible? Also what date was the nano thermite paper published in Bentham? He also has a letter in the Jo911S from 2/07. The NT paper was "published" in April of 09 IIRC. A dip on youtube recently tried to tell me that Gris became a truther after reviewing the paper. I of course pointed out Jones was still collecting samples up to 11/07 after Gris was first featured in Jones' "journal". Make it up as you go I guess. He has has been dancing around the fact that the Bentham peer review process was negligible at best.
	Last edited by grandmastershek; 4th January 2011 at 04:08 PM.

4th January 2011, 05:35 PM	#29
Edx Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5,642	Guess what a truther replied to on this youtube video with. The first underlined part is a quote from my comment. Its amazing how that guy can just lie so easily, but I do wonder if even the claim that Griscom didn't mention thermite before the 911 paper was published is true. Anyone know?
Edx Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5,642

4th January 2011, 05:46 PM	#30
9/11 Chewy Defense Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,593	Originally Posted by Edx Guess what a truther replied to on this youtube video with. The first underlined part is a quote from my comment. http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/4...longriscom.png Its amazing how that guy can just lie so easily, but I do wonder if even the claim that Griscom didn't mention thermite before the 911 paper was published is true. Anyone know? Damn, I can't reply to that video: You have been blocked by the owner of this video. I wanted to say: "Wow, you were right TheSkepticalIdealist, Sexy Melon is a liar. Keep making him dodge your facts & evidence. The more you do it, the more he/she will squeal."

5th January 2011, 07:21 AM	#31
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by Edx Its amazing how that guy can just lie so easily, but I do wonder if even the claim that Griscom didn't mention thermite before the 911 paper was published is true. Anyone know? Griscom's 2007 piece contains this: Quote: But there IS one way that all 250 some columns could have lost all strength simultaneously. It's called CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True”: http://911review.com/articles/griffi...ltipleevidence This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2, and 7 were brought down by explosives. http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2...cs-of-911.html It doesn't specifically reference thermite, but it's clear that he's ready to accept the idea.
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,910

5th January 2011, 08:09 AM	#32
grandmastershek Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,461	Originally Posted by Edx Guess what a truther replied to on this youtube video with. The first underlined part is a quote from my comment. http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/4...longriscom.png Its amazing how that guy can just lie so easily, but I do wonder if even the claim that Griscom didn't mention thermite before the 911 paper was published is true. Anyone know? Melon is a plain liar. Originally Posted by grandmastershek A dip [Sexy Melon] on youtube recently tried to tell me that Gris became a truther after reviewing the paper. I of course pointed out Jones was still collecting samples up to 11/07 after Gris was first featured in Jones' "journal". Make it up as you go I guess. He has has been dancing around the fact that the Bentham peer review process was negligible at best.
	Last edited by grandmastershek; 5th January 2011 at 08:11 AM.

5th January 2011, 11:52 AM	#33
grandmastershek Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,461	A good approach might be to ask Melon if nanothermite is an explosive. I am pretty sure I have seen him say as such; in fact I know he does because he told me the spike in Jones's calorimetry was evidence it is and then I showed him another spike from another study of regular thermite and he just pissed and moaned that he couldn't get access to the whole article even though I provided the citation. Point being, in Gris's Jo9/11S article he supports the demo by explosive hypothesis. If Melon was a rational person he would either have to abandon that NT is an explosive or concede that he was biased ahead of time. But as I am sure cognitive dissonance will kick in, and he will do the cha cha of twoof. Not to mention Griscom is acknowledged in said paper on none other than alleged nanothermite. Get ready for some hoop jumping!
	Last edited by grandmastershek; 5th January 2011 at 11:57 AM.