ozeco41
Philosopher
Oh goodie goodie! Now we can read the idiotic drivel for ourselves - and read the comprehensive rebuttals which are readily available.
The Open Chemical Physics Journal ? Disappeared...
- Thread starter moorea34
- Start date
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Anyone know why they "split" the two "journals?"
Fifteen articles in three years just too much to keep up with?
Probably could not hire editors given the fact that Jonesy crap article was associated with the old rag.
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
Anyone know why they "split" the two "journals?"
Fifteen articles in three years just too much to keep up with?
Also,Bentham Open has revised its publishing rates:
1. Peer reviewed = $800
2. Non-peer reviewed = $8,000
Good, it is best fraud is available to be seen. Up and visible as a content reminder Jones and his scholars are mentally ill on 911.
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
Corrected that for you.
TruthMakesPeace
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
- Messages
- 291
Bentham's Webmaster needs to be more careful. The links I posted last week are broken again.
Here are two that work.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/activethermitic_911.pdf
www.NielsHarrit.org
The study was reviewed by Dr. David Griscom (who has more then 190 published studies)
and was independently replicated in part by Mark Basile who has a paper in progress.
We should evaluate the study, not the journal,
the message, not the messenger,
the pizza, not the deliverer,
Here are two that work.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/activethermitic_911.pdf
www.NielsHarrit.org
The study was reviewed by Dr. David Griscom (who has more then 190 published studies)
and was independently replicated in part by Mark Basile who has a paper in progress.
We should evaluate the study, not the journal,
the message, not the messenger,
the pizza, not the deliverer,
Last edited:
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,866
This is not correct. This research has been around for years now. If it were any good, the nature of the statement is making would make it some of the most important work in the world. The fact that it can only get published in a pay-to-publish journal speaks for itself.
There is a large body of research on the dust and disease related to the 911 attacks. None of the reviewers of these papers are part of this group. None of the reviewers of this paper have published research on thermite. None of them have done any work in areas related to the paper they are a part of.
You're going to have to give up on this one. If the paper were the important statement that you seem to think it is, it would be important. After years, it has been cited 9 times and 4 of those have been by David Ray Griffin. It is a completely inconsequential piece of work in the study of 911, in the study of thermite, in the study building demolitions, in the study of anything. It has made no impact at all on the world outside of the rumours about 911 that travel through the Internet.
Just stop this nonsense. No one cares about this paper.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Another sign of how this crap journal is not delivering quality.
Griscom was selected as reviewer not by the editor or editors of the Bentham journal, but by the authors of the paper. A grave breach of the peer review process which renderes the whole paper practically worthless in terms of prima facie credibility. In fact less credible than a white paper that wasn't peer reviewed at all. He was selected based on his bias pro 9/11 woo, not based on his expertise in the analysis of thermitic materials.
This is FALSE. Basile admits he didn't even have access to a DSC calorimeter, much less the more advanced methods that would be able to identify the chemical structure of the materials. He basically only watched some chips go "poof". Which isn't surprising, given the fact that we arleady know (per the Harrit paper) already the kaolinite and hematite crytals are embedded in an organic matrix (possibly resin).
It is usually wise to study the different pizza deliverers before ordering pizza, especially if you have no other criteria to choose by.
It is also usually wise to consider the trustworthiness of a messenger, especially if you have no other criteria to choose by.
However we have studied the journal, the message and the pizza, and found them all to be rotten.
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,715
Sorry..
we have evaluated the "study" (almost 20 methodological errors which invalidate any "data" they have). We have evaluated the "data" which shows a higher than possible energy output for any form of therm*te, which shows it wasn't therm*te.
And we have evaluated the journal which published this crap. the Head editor quits in a huff because she never even saw this article. The publication rates and "amazing" peer review.
By evaluating EVERYTHING about this "paper" (snort), we see that is is complete and utter garbage.
your fail train has arrived.
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,866
I just don't get all this. Let's review the whole thing.
What's the question? Is this thermite paper any good?
Is this an important paper? Truthers tell us that it's one of the most important papers of our lifetime. And in fact, I agree. If it's true, this would be one of the most important papers ever published.
Does it have the quality that anyone else would make anyone else care about this? Once again, on the JREF Truthers yell this over and over, that it does.
But is it an important paper? Well, no one in related relevant fields has cited it. There is absolutely no scholarly interest in the thing. Despite the magnitude of the claim made in it, no one in related relevant fields seems to even be aware of the thing. The journal it's published in is questionable and unrelated to the research. It's possible that experts in related relevant fields don't even know about it.
So the real answer to the opening question is that the paper appears to be completely neglected. It is like claims of anti-gravity machines or Lamarckian genetics or - dare I say - creation science. It's just another one of those crack pot claims that gets sneaked into science when no one's looking.
cicorp, real question here. If this isn't just a crackpot claim, then it would be important, now wouldn't it? So the real issue isn't whether or not the paper's important - because it's not. The real question is why it's not important.
cicorp, another real question. Why do you think it's not an important paper? Is this part of a global conspiracy to suppress the real truth? Is the government - perhaps a one world government - forcing scientists to say these things? Come on, give us an answer here. I want to know what you really thing. Given the magnitude of its claim, why is this paper so inconsequential?
What's the question? Is this thermite paper any good?
Is this an important paper? Truthers tell us that it's one of the most important papers of our lifetime. And in fact, I agree. If it's true, this would be one of the most important papers ever published.
Does it have the quality that anyone else would make anyone else care about this? Once again, on the JREF Truthers yell this over and over, that it does.
But is it an important paper? Well, no one in related relevant fields has cited it. There is absolutely no scholarly interest in the thing. Despite the magnitude of the claim made in it, no one in related relevant fields seems to even be aware of the thing. The journal it's published in is questionable and unrelated to the research. It's possible that experts in related relevant fields don't even know about it.
So the real answer to the opening question is that the paper appears to be completely neglected. It is like claims of anti-gravity machines or Lamarckian genetics or - dare I say - creation science. It's just another one of those crack pot claims that gets sneaked into science when no one's looking.
cicorp, real question here. If this isn't just a crackpot claim, then it would be important, now wouldn't it? So the real issue isn't whether or not the paper's important - because it's not. The real question is why it's not important.
cicorp, another real question. Why do you think it's not an important paper? Is this part of a global conspiracy to suppress the real truth? Is the government - perhaps a one world government - forcing scientists to say these things? Come on, give us an answer here. I want to know what you really thing. Given the magnitude of its claim, why is this paper so inconsequential?
Last edited:
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
Pizza man fails to deliver
But where’s the pizza.
No pizza; only flunked study, overlooked cement filler, ignored kaolinite and paint, impotent gossamer energetics toppings on cheesy delusions, illusory message, atop a bed of extra fail methodology sauce inside an imaginary empty conspiracy box.
But where’s the pizza.
No pizza; only flunked study, overlooked cement filler, ignored kaolinite and paint, impotent gossamer energetics toppings on cheesy delusions, illusory message, atop a bed of extra fail methodology sauce inside an imaginary empty conspiracy box.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
This is not exactly consistent with your suggestion that:
...the content, not the details of the peer review process.
Harrit's results disprove his conclusions. That alone invalidates them. If other researchers repeat the work and find their results are consistent, then that adds to the evidence that the red chips aren't therm*te.
Dave