• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The sad case of Niels Harrit

SCIgen article was submitted January 2009 before Thermite

16.5 said:
The actual link? June 10, 2009:
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06/10/nonsense-for-dollars/
HAHAHA!! Edited to add, that cicorp is half right, after rejecting an article in March, the pranksters submitted another one, which was accepted in JUNE!!!
Click to expand...

If you read the link you sent me, it is only Phil Davis' blog entry in June, describing the same fake article he submitted in January. He is not talking about submitting a second fake article:
"The manuscript, entitled “Deconstructing Access Points” was submitted on January 29th, 2009, to The Open Information Science Journal (TOISCIJ), a journal that claims to enforce peer-review."

Thanks for pointing out the SCIgen paper was submitted even earlier, thus helping my argument that Bentham was alerted before the Thermite study was published. :)
 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
The "..." was a result of the JFEF quote process.



If you read the link you sent me, it only describes the same article submitted in January, not a new article:
"The manuscript, entitled “Deconstructing Access Points” was submitted on January 29th, 2009, to The Open Information Science Journal (TOISCIJ), a journal that claims to enforce peer-review."

Thanks for pointing out the SCIgen paper was submitted even earlier, helping my argument. :)
Click to expand...

Once again, do you know anything about journal publication? Do you know how wrong all this looks?
 
I'm not seeing a whole lot of legitimate response to our criticisms.

The paper is crap. Get over it already. The lead author believes that HAARP caused the Haiti earthquake to get at all the vast oil reserves. You've been misled by madmen.

The sooner you realize this, the better your life will be.
 
cicorp said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
The last paragraph under "WTC destruction controversy"
starts with "In April 2008..."
The next sentence starts with "In August 2008"
The next starts with "And in April 2009, Jones, along with Niels..."
Click to expand...

I saw that. My point is that Jones and his 911 crew have been publishing with Bentham since the beginning - that is, before you feel they had cleaned themselves up. In my other posts, I thought I had made it clear that a journal does not just 'clean itself up' and this would be impossible to do in a short period of time.

You might think a couple of days here or there makes all the difference, but that is just nonsense that sounds believable to the uninformed. These are crap journals. They are the laughing stock of professional scholarship. They have no standard.

And that is exactly why Jones and his crew were publishing there. They have no standard! And if Jones wanted to show that there was some misunderstanding and his work was able to meet proper review, he would have sent it to another journal.

Tell me I'm wrong? Maybe you know more about academic publishing that I do?
 
CRAP paper:

The manuscript, entitled “Deconstructing Access Points” was submitted on January 29th, 2009, to The Open Information Science Journal (TOISCIJ), a journal that claims to enforce peer-review.
Click to expand...

http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06/10/nonsense-for-dollars/

Harrit paper:

Formally published in a peer-reviewed Chemical Physics journal, today (04/04/2009):
Click to expand...

http://911blogger.com/node/19761

So, while the CRAP paper was submitted in Januari, the Harrit et al paper was published (eg made available on the net) in April. I don't know when Harrit submitted his paper.

However, from the CRAP-link above:

Yet four months after the article was submitted, "David Phillips" received an email from Sana Mokarram, Bentham's assistant manager of publication:
Click to expand...

Which means it was accepted in May 2009. Harrit:April, CRAP:May Edit: May, 21 and again in june, 3.

In short, if Bentham learned anything from the CRAP-incident, they did so after june 2009. Making your statement:

cicorp said:
Bentham was "on guard" after the SCIgen scandal by the time Jones submitted his paper.
Click to expand...

plain wrong.
 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
OK. Good question. That's what I came to JREF for (not for insults).
Definitely more studies need to be done on the WTC dust, in an inert environment.
Click to expand...

This MASSIVE METHODOLOGICAL ERROR is one of (about 20) which invalidates and calls into question ALL of the data in the "paper" you keep flogging.

As such it ISN'T a scientific paper, but instead psuedo science aimed at convincing people who don't know enough about research methods or science.

there are been several very good studies of the dust at ground zero (all published in peer reviewed journals from respected researchers) and NONE of them found anything that would be considered an anomaly, let alone a "nano engineered" substance.

Then you get to a pay to publish vanity journal filled with methodological errors...

Gee... which ones to believe... respected scientists in respected journals or someone who can't get past peer review at ANY of these journals who has to set up their own JONES.... and then "publishes" in a pay to publish vanity journal?
 
Wait...

If bentham was soooooo on guard after the Scigen scandal... why did the EIC (Editor in chief) quit in disgust at the journal AFTER the "nanothermite paper" was published?

I mean, if Bentham was on guard not to accept any bogus or CRAP papers, why would the EIC quit stating that she had "never seen that paper." And that the 'paper' "doesn't belong in this journal?"

After all they were "on guard." Oh... so the publisher was "on guard" against accepting bs papers, but the Editor in Chief was completely out of the publishing loop...

how does that work again at a real journal? oh it doesn't. Thanks for demonstrating that even "on guard" they were completely incompetent and not a real peer reviewed journal.

ETA:
Links
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/bentham-editor-resigns-over-steven.html
 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
If you read the link you sent me, it is only Phil Davis' blog entry in June, describing the same fake article he submitted in January. He is not talking about submitting a second fake article:
"The manuscript, entitled “Deconstructing Access Points” was submitted on January 29th, 2009, to The Open Information Science Journal (TOISCIJ), a journal that claims to enforce peer-review."

Thanks for pointing out the SCIgen paper was submitted even earlier, thus helping my argument that Bentham was alerted before the Thermite study was published. :)
Click to expand...

Cicorp:

FAIL. You claim that AFTER Bentham was "on guard" against junk ppers, that they ACCEPTED Jones' junk paper. Nice.

Jones paper is *********** junk, upon that we can all agree, correct?
 
16.5 said:
Cicorp:

FAIL. You claim that AFTER Bentham was "on guard" against junk ppers, that they ACCEPTED Jones' junk paper. Nice.

Jones paper is *********** junk, upon that we can all agree, correct?
Click to expand...

No, no...you've got it all wrong. After thinking about the whole thing, I realized that publishing in Bentham is what it's all about. I'll sending all my papers to a Bentham journal from now on.

http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55759/
The editor-in-chief of an open access journal has stepped down from his post after learning that the journal accepted a fake, computer-generated article for publication. So has an editorial advisory board member of a second journal published by the same company, Bentham Science Publishers...I didn't like what happened," Parmanto told The Scientist. "If this is true, I don't have full control of the content that is accepted to this journal." Parmanto said that he had never seen the phony manuscript that was accepted by TOISCIJ. "I want to lessen my exposure to the risk of being taken advantage of." ...Parmanto said that upon reading the story about Davis and Andrew's hoax on our website yesterday, he contacted the publisher of TOISCIJ to ask what was going on. Parmanto said that he was told that "someone on the editorial board reviewed" the fake paper. I contacted Parmanto yesterday in reporting the original story, but the researcher told me today that he wanted to hear from TOISCIJ's publisher before getting back to me.

Read more: Editors quit after fake paper flap - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55759/#ixzz1FY7lRUMM

Here's discussion of the problem from Above Top Secret
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread647676/pg1
 
Last edited:
David Griscom PhD (with 193 publications) reviewed Thermite paper

Sunstealer said:
Griscom is a blind fool.
Click to expand...

One of the reviewers for the Thermite study was David Griscom PhD (Physics, Brown University). He worked for over 30 years at the Naval Research Lab. He was a Principal Investigator in a study of moon rocks for NASA. He has 193 peer reviewed studies and conference presentations, including the respected journals of the American Chemical Society, and the American Institute of Physics.
http://DavidGriscom.com/vitae

Dr. Jones has about 50 studies, including the American Journal of Physics, and Journal of Physical Chemistry.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm

Dr. Harrit has 55 (not counting Bentham) including the Journal of Organic Chemistry and Acta Chemica Scandinavica.
http://NielsHarrit.org
 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
One of the reviewers for the Thermite study was David Griscom PhD (Physics, Brown University). He worked for over 30 years at the Naval Research Lab. He was a Principal Investigator in a study of moon rocks for NASA. He has 193 peer reviewed studies, in respected journals such as J. Am. Chem. Soc. and AIP's journal.
http://DavidGriscom.com/vitae

Dr. Jones has about 50 studies
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm

Dr. Harrit has 55 (not counting Bentham)
http://NielsHarrit.org
Click to expand...

You are chasing a loser. The real issues are not the credibility of the writers of that paper. There are two real questions and only one of them of significance in the context of 9/11 events.

The first real question is "Was there thermite on site?" The answer to that is "No?"

More importantly it matters not if the answer is "Yes - there was therXte on site."

Why does it not matter? Simple. The only reason that thermXte (i.e. thermite or any of its derivatives.) is of any significance is if it was used in demolition of any WTC building.

So the second and only question of real significance in 9/11 conspiracy is "Was there any demolition of WTC buildings on 9/11?" You may add "....using thermXte" if you wish - it does not affect the logic.

And there was no demolition of WTC buildings on 9/11. That fact available to any honest clear thinking person who will consider evidence and/or listen to honest accurate professional advice.

So, with no demolition, it matters not if there was ThermXte on site. It wasn't used for demolition.

Now some persons may have a personal interest in examining conspiracy claims of this type. They are free to pursue their interests. Bottom line remains - no thermXte used in demolition. So who wrote what paper, how many papers they had written, whether peer reviewd or not remain the truther inspired diversion, evasion or derail they always were. Simple trickery to avoid facing the realities - no demolition at WTC.

Which is all that any person interested in finding the truth needs to know.
 
Last edited:
How many studies have you published?

ozeco41 said:
You are chasing a loser.
Click to expand...

How many studies do you have published in scientific journals?

It would be logical to carefully consider the findings of scientists who have more than 50.

The Bentham thermite study is in the process of being replicated, along with additional tests, by Mark Basile, a chemical engineer from Worcester Polytechnic University. He saw Dr. Jones speak at a conference and decided to check the WTC dust out for himself. He encourages other scientists to check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmFsGpOwpvk
 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
One of the reviewers for the Thermite study was David Griscom PhD (Physics, Brown University). He worked for over 30 years at the Naval Research Lab. He was a Principal Investigator in a study of moon rocks for NASA. He has 193 peer reviewed studies and conference presentations, including the respected journals of the American Chemical Society, and the American Institute of Physics.
http://DavidGriscom.com/vitae

Dr. Jones has about 50 studies, including the American Journal of Physics, and Journal of Physical Chemistry.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm

Dr. Harrit has 55 (not counting Bentham) including the Journal of Organic Chemistry and Acta Chemica Scandinavica.
http://NielsHarrit.org
Click to expand...
Appeal to Authority noted.

Go back and read these posts and then comment on them.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=329

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=333

They got it wrong because they are blinded by their ideology.
 
cicorp said:
How many studies do you have published in scientific journals?

It would be logical to carefully consider the findings of scientists who have more than 50.
Click to expand...

It was logically considered. Numerous times, by a wide variety of people. The fact that the internet denizens of this forum could come up with 20 some odd errors in analysis, methodology and logic indicates that the authors were not using their vaunted scientific reasoning skills. They were dressing up their ideology with enough science-ish stuff to fool the gullible.

You seem to think that we're dismissing this paper sight unseen. We're not. There are more than a dozen threads in this forum alone on this paper, all of them rehashing the figures, text, logic and conclusions of the paper. Invariably, the result is the same. The paper is hokum, and the truther arguing for it just proves that truthers are easily fooled.
 
cicorp said:
One of the reviewers for the Thermite study was David Griscom PhD (Physics, Brown University). He worked for over 30 years at the Naval Research Lab. He was a Principal Investigator in a study of moon rocks for NASA. He has 193 peer reviewed studies and conference presentations, including the respected journals of the American Chemical Society, and the American Institute of Physics.
http://DavidGriscom.com/vitae

Dr. Jones has about 50 studies, including the American Journal of Physics, and Journal of Physical Chemistry.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm

Dr. Harrit has 55 (not counting Bentham) including the Journal of Organic Chemistry and Acta Chemica Scandinavica.
http://NielsHarrit.org
Click to expand...

I think the point is not that these people are not real scientists. The problem is they know nothing about the research related to the paper. That's pretty cool that David Griscom got to look at the Moon rocks, but what's that got to do with any of this?

You may have missed earlier posts on the JREF from someone named WTC Dust. She has a real PhD and several publications in top-ranked journals in the biological sciences. She believes space-based energy beams turned the WTC buildings into dust. She says that Dr. Judy Wood, who also has a PhD, is her hero. Why didn't Jones & Harrit have their articles sent to them? Oh, that's right, Jones had them kicked out of 9/11 Truth group because he thought they were nuts.

It's been said many time, but let me say it again. There have been numerous studies of WTC dust. No one found anything like thermite in it except for the Jones Gang. Until someone else finds or confirms similar conclusion, no one is going to care about this.

Look, there are dozens and maybe even hundreds of scientists in the USA who do research on thermite. There are conferences and all kinds of places Jones can talk about this. Why isn't presenting a paper here
http://www.grc.org/programs.aspx?year=2010&program=energetic
or sending his paper here
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713770432~db=all
You'd think that if the findings are real and the data sound, it would change the world. But no, 911 Truth's very own Drs Jones and Harrit send their paper to an obscure and disgraced venue that no one even reads.

All he would have to do to shut everyone here, including me, is publish it in the Journal of Energetic Materials. In fact, I'll tell you what, I promise that if this 911 thermite-crap gets published in the Journal of Energetic Materials, I will join and donate money to a 911 Truth group. I will apologize and identify myself as a Truther. I will join the fight to uncover the government-led conspiracy that masterminded the 911 attacks.

But I think my money's pretty safe.
 
Last edited:
Sunstealer said:
Appeal to Authority noted.

Go back and read these posts and then comment on them.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=329

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=333

They got it wrong because they are blinded by their ideology.
Click to expand...

Links accidentally got malformed. Here are working ones:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6928201&postcount=329
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6928217&postcount=333

-----

And if I may add to this: Both Dave Rogers and I have referenced this thread before - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140017. Cicorp, you will see that the very "specifics" you are looking for will be found in it. That thread was not linked for you to ignore, it was linked for you to go back and see that this argument has already been conducted, and the fact that you missed it does not mean that the issue is somehow unresolved.

If you want to argue substance, go read that thread, then pick points out of it to discuss.

Furthermore, there are other posts in this thread that you, Cicorp, seem to be ignoring as well:
And even more posts in past threads where we list the specifics of why the paper is flawed:
I can go on, but this pretty much gets the point across. Furthermore, you'll note in those linked threads people bemoaning the fact that, by that time, the discussion was already old hat why is it being beaten to death let it pass away, and those posts were from 2009. This should tell you why you shouldn't just jump into a thread and presume that nobody involved has dealt with the topic in the past. Go look.

Instead of picking up and complaining about minor points, Cicorp, you need to confront the substantive points. You are not doing that. It's time to start. There are the specifics you requested. Go read, and only then comment.
 
cicorp said:
One of the reviewers for the Thermite study was David Griscom PhD (Physics, Brown University). He worked for over 30 years at the Naval Research Lab. He was a Principal Investigator in a study of moon rocks for NASA. He has 193 peer reviewed studies and conference presentations, including the respected journals of the American Chemical Society, and the American Institute of Physics.
http://DavidGriscom.com/vitae

Dr. Jones has about 50 studies, including the American Journal of Physics, and Journal of Physical Chemistry.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm

Dr. Harrit has 55 (not counting Bentham) including the Journal of Organic Chemistry and Acta Chemica Scandinavica.
http://NielsHarrit.org
Click to expand...

Appeal to false authority noted.

Hey, Truther, how many of those other "peer reviewed" article written by your heroes had the peer review done by hand selected reviewers who were chosen because they already agreed with the authors?

Yeah, probably just the Bentham papers, huh, sport?

Academic dishonesty much?

/by the way, when you bumped that Chandler thread to JAQ off, we answered your questions.
 
Mark Basile (C.E. from WPI) replicated finding of thermitic material in WTC dist

Scott Sommers said:
There have been numerous studies of WTC dust. No one found anything like thermite in it except for the Jones Gang.
Click to expand...
Mark Basile, a Chemical Engineer from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, had questions about the official story on his own, heard Dr. Jones speak, and decided to replicate the WTC dust examination for himself. He points out that nano-aluminum was found, a controlled substance difficult to purchase. He encourages independent scientists with equipment, such as a Differential Scanning Calorimeter, to examine the dust.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom