• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

2nd Open Chemical Physics Editor in Chief Resigns

grandmastershek

Graduate Poster
grandmastershek
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
1,461
"...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
 
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.
 
16.5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
16.5 said:
Hee hee! Really?

WOW.
Click to expand...
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/2010-12-02/peer-reviewer-active-thermitic-materials-paper-identifies-himself-great

Why welcome someone if you know they are already involved?

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/hand-waving-the%20physics-of-911-by-david-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:
grandmastershek said:
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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
Last edited:
grandmastershek said:
...

Why welcome someone if you know they are already involved?

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/hand-waving-the%20physics-of-911-by-david-griscom.pdf

...
Click to expand...


hahaha!
From that letter by Griscom on JONES (his own bolding!):
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.
Click to expand...
Anonymous peer reviewers - anonymous to whom?? :D
 
16.5 said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
Josarhus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Dave Rogers said:
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
Click to expand...

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 :rolleyes:, 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.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
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
Click to expand...

... 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. :boggled:
 
Dave Rogers said:
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
Click to expand...


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.
 
Josarhus said:
.... 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.
Click to expand...

Who is "he"? Got a name?
 
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 said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

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
 
Dave Rogers said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
grandmastershek said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

 
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.
 
grandmastershek said:
"...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
Click to expand...

Link to the blog post in question, for posterity's sake:
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/11/editor-in-chief-resigned-over-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.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Link to the blog post in question, for posterity's sake:
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/11/editor-in-chief-resigned-over-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.
Click to expand...

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

http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/naturvidenskab/chefredaktor_skrider_efter_kontroversiel_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.
 
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:
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 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

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

[qimg]http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/4688/sexymelongriscom.png[/qimg]

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?
Click to expand...

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."
 
Edx said:
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?
Click to expand...
Griscom's 2007 piece contains this:

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/griffin/nyc1.html#multipleevidence

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/2007/01/hand-waving-physics-of-911.html
Click to expand...

It doesn't specifically reference thermite, but it's clear that he's ready to accept the idea.
 
Edx said:
Guess what a truther replied to on this youtube video with. The first underlined part is a quote from my comment.

[qimg]http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/4688/sexymelongriscom.png[/qimg]

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?
Click to expand...

Melon is a plain liar.

grandmastershek said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom