Friday, December 03, 2010

Ready for a Laugh?

Guess who exposed himself as the peer-reviewer for Steven Jones' Active Thermitic Materials paper?

No, not Snoopy. That would be deserving of some respect. Instead it's that sack of fecal matter inhabiting the hockey jersey, David L. Griscom. Does that seem like a harsh assessment of such a kindly-looking old phart?

Well, Griscom has earned it and more. In a movement not exactly blessed with sensitivity, he came up with the single-most offensive theory put forth by the Truthers: All the passengers on the four doomed flights are alive and living it up in Tahiti.
I envision a similar 9/11 scheme, but one where the passengers boarded under their true names. Indeed, the seat occupancies on all four aircraft allegedly hijacked on 9/11 were very much lower that industry average (averaging 26% of capacity vis-à-vis 71% for all domestic flights in July 2001). So, here I extend my “all passengers survived” postulate to all four 9/11 “hijacked” flights on the notion that this small number of passengers might have been considered by conspirators as the minimum number for public credulity, while at the same time not exceeding the maximum number of “true believers in the cause” willing to accept long separations from their loved ones (sweetened by handsome Swiss bank accounts).

As I have pointed out in the past, the reason these retards believe that somebody could be persuaded to betray their friends, family and country, is because they themselves would jump at the opportunity, provided the Swiss bank account was handsome enough.

So yes, the guy who "peer-reviewed" Jones' paper is a Troofer moron himself. Professor Jones tries to put a smiley face on it:
The reviewer's name is Prof. David L. Griscom. Among his impressive credentials, Prof. Griscom is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and a Fellow of the AAAS.

Well, he's certainly an AAAS-hole, Steven. But even the Troofers have their limits, and in the comments, loosenuke points out:
Does his promotion of theories, for which there's no actual evidence, such as 'all passengers survived' and 'the Pentagon was hit by a fighter jet', affect your opinion of his credibility- why or why not?

And JO911S published a letter by Griscom Feb 07; why didn't you mention this?

I think you previously mentioned that Bentam was given suggestions for reviewers; was Griscom one of the people suggested?

Jones does a little shuffle:
I do not think that Prof. Griscom's studies on 9/11 "compromise" him as a reviewer -- he critiqued the paper critically as a scientist, giving (as he said) the authors twelve pages of comments and questions. This scientific thoroughness is unusual in a review (from my experience) -- very unusual.

I do not know how the editors selected the reviewers, and I do not know the name of the other reviewer.

Never mind that he's a nut; his nuttiness wasn't evident in his review of our paper. And the second part is a dodge; loosenuke didn't ask him how the reviewer was chosen, just whether Jones recommended him. Given that Jones used to point out Griscom as an example of another physics professional for 9-11 "Truth", it's not hard for me to guess the answer to that question.

But it gets even better. Jones says he doesn't know who the second peer-reviewer was. Not to worry, the next commenter says:
I do know the name of the second Peer Reviewer, who obviously wants to stay anonymous yet. All I can say is that his reputation is undoubtable, too.

Yeah, I'm sure that if Sitting Bull knows him, he must indubitably be another fruitcake.

Labels: , , , , ,

72 Comments:

At 03 December, 2010 09:18, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Cosmos, have you apologized yet for lying that Mickey Rothenberg was your uncle on that Australian broadcast?" -Fat PAThos

That's some Curleyan research on my identity, Nico. Bravo. Now what is your basis for melted iron spheres coming from an oxyacetylene torch? Any corroboration whatsoever? Are you going to just shut the fuck up again in fear, coward? Don't forget to ask GB, Phart Roberts, or the RJ Lee group for help. Show your work, you desperate, fat old failure.

 
At 03 December, 2010 09:44, Blogger TroyFromWV said...

Pat's stalker is becoming scary again.

BTW, very good write-up!

 
At 03 December, 2010 09:52, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Andrew, has Jon Gold ever accidentally shit on you during sex?

 
At 03 December, 2010 10:21, Blogger Pat said...

Fly ash in the concrete, Cosmos?

 
At 03 December, 2010 10:30, Blogger Garry said...

'I envision a similar 9/11 scheme, but one where the passengers boarded under their true names. Indeed, the seat occupancies on all four aircraft allegedly hijacked on 9/11 were very much lower that industry average (averaging 26% of capacity vis-à-vis 71% for all domestic flights in July 2001). So, here I extend my “all passengers survived” postulate to all four 9/11 “hijacked” flights on the notion that this small number of passengers might have been considered by conspirators as the minimum number for public credulity, while at the same time not exceeding the maximum number of “true believers in the cause” willing to accept long separations from their loved ones (sweetened by handsome Swiss bank accounts)'.

My God, this is so offensive and moronic its unreal. If Ben and Jerry's ever produced an ice cream that was Dog Shit and Pus-flavoured, it would never be as obnoxious as a statement like this.

Incidentally, in the academic world real peer review involves submitting your manuscript to an editor, who then nominates at least two fellow scholars working in the same field, and then asking them to review your work on the principle of anonymity. It does not involve asking your mate to provide a favourable write-up.

 
At 03 December, 2010 14:22, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Pat's stalker is becoming scary again." ToyInPatsVagina

Then it sounds like you're an easily terrified coward, as well as a fat racist child abuser.


"Fly ash in the concrete, Cosmos?"
-Fat Coward

Translation:
I was full of shit when I said the spheres 'could easily' have come from the torches, and now, by my own definition I'm 'retarded' like GB, and I still don't understand what the RJ Lee Report says.

 
At 03 December, 2010 14:29, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"There was no molten steel. The iron microspheres reported in the RJ Lee report could easily have been caused by the steelworkers using acetylene torches on the steel during the rescue operation."
-Pat "9/11 Chewy Defense" Curley

 
At 03 December, 2010 14:31, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"It's a good thing I killed my father Hugh with shame earlier this year, because he'd be upset at how much I've shit on his name."
-Patricide Cur-ley

 
At 03 December, 2010 14:59, Blogger Pat said...

Just so you folks know what a piece of crap commenter "Pat Cowardly" is, my father Hugh did indeed pass away this summer from complications due to surgery.

As you can see, there is nothing too low for a "Truther".

 
At 03 December, 2010 15:12, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Just answer the fucking questions and explain your reasoning, dipshit. Stop crying to your cronies with your false umbrage, pussy, and own up to your lies.

 
At 03 December, 2010 15:13, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"There was no molten steel. The iron microspheres reported in the RJ Lee report could easily have been caused by the steelworkers using acetylene torches on the steel during the rescue operation."

Why did you say this, Pat? What's your source? Where did the RJ Lee Group say the spheres came from, Pat?

 
At 03 December, 2010 15:15, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

And don't forget to source your work, you fat failure.

 
At 03 December, 2010 15:33, Blogger paul w said...

"As you can see, there is nothing too low for a "Truther"."

Considering they accuse the pilots, police, fire fighters, media, government agencies and the general public of either being cowards or in on the thing, is it a surprise?

No.

It's just another example of how pathetic they are.

Sorry to hear about your father.

 
At 03 December, 2010 17:25, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Pat Curley isn't just uninterested in the salient evidence relating to the mass murder of nearly 3,000 people, he actively discourages honest scrutiny of it, and tosses out nonsensical "explanations" as if they were fact. He mocks the 9/11 dead every time he does this, and is nothing but a coward for weaseling his way out of any informed written debate.

 
At 03 December, 2010 17:25, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

But it's an easy way of getting him to SHUT THE FUCK UP, huh Pathos Beachnut?

 
At 03 December, 2010 17:32, Blogger paul w said...

Yup, pathetic.

 
At 03 December, 2010 17:36, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Ready for a laugh?"

"We maintain open comments on this blog..."

-Pathetic Cur

 
At 03 December, 2010 17:37, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Yup, pathetic."
paul w.

Well said, Paul. He IS pathetic. If only you were always this observant.

 
At 03 December, 2010 17:44, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Pat Cowfart keeps citing the RJ Lee report, yet the real scientists who put together the RJ Lee report found nothing that alarmed them.

Why would you cite a report that you think was written by idiots?

They didn't find anything that was inconsistent with a plane crash-fire-building collapse. If they had they would have said so in the introduction and in the conclusion.

So fuck your spheres and the troofer whore they rode in on.

 
At 03 December, 2010 17:47, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"The investigation has established that WTC Dust is a carrier of toxic
substances." -RJ Lee Report (not in the intro or conclusion).

Really, M. Gargling detritus? Is it the role of a scientific paper to express 'alarm' based in the findings? Can you cite some examples?

 
At 03 December, 2010 17:54, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"They didn't find anything that was inconsistent with a plane crash-fire-building collapse." M. Gurgling Feces.

...except for temperatures hot enough to vaporize lead, which would never happen with jet fuel.

"So fuck your spheres and the troofer whore they rode in on."

Brilliant analysis son. Curley would be proud.

 
At 03 December, 2010 18:07, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"The iron microspheres reported in the RJ Lee report could easily have been caused by the steelworkers using acetylene torches on the steel during the rescue operation." -Pathetic Cur.

"the presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures DURING THE COLLAPSE which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool" -RJ Lee Report. (caps mine)

 
At 03 December, 2010 18:19, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

You would think Pat and James would feel more comfortable debating on their own turf here at Spew Loose Crap, but I guess they really can't explain the unpleasant facts (even if they pretend to), and they have to resort to slinging feces and "building a narrative" (eh, James?). What happens if your narrative doesn't fit the facts and evidence? Does it matter to you?

 
At 03 December, 2010 18:34, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Where does melted molybdenum fit into your narrative, James? Is it just 'anomaly hunting' when the facts are inconvenient to you?

Can you discuss 9/11 seriously, without giggling like a nervous bitch? (See Bermas debate)

 
At 03 December, 2010 19:10, Blogger Billman said...

Wow, really, Pat Cowardly? You're that despicable and deplorable over this 9/11 fantasy, you resort to that?

I'd ban him if I were you, Pat. Fuck freedom of speech and expression. There are limits to what you can say and do without some kind of accountability.

 
At 03 December, 2010 21:10, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Actually, the whole point of any scientific report is analyze the information and draw a conclusion. Then if during the analysis the scientists discover anomalous data then they make a big deal out of it.

You know, like this:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rising-acidity-in-the-ocean

Then there are those papers written by Einstein and Chucky Darwin that got people excited.

Where's your awsome paper by the way? What did the crew that put together the RJ Lee report say in response to your helpful enquiries?

You have contacted the RJ Lee folks with your concerns, right? I mean, that would be the intelligent thing to do.

 
At 04 December, 2010 03:02, Blogger Garry said...

'"It's a good thing I killed my father Hugh with shame earlier this year, because he'd be upset at how much I've shit on his name."
-Patricide Cur-ley'

I hope you fucking die of bone cancer, you sick little piece of shit.

 
At 04 December, 2010 08:11, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"I hope you fucking die of bone cancer, you sick little piece of shit."

*yawn* Good for you, Err-y. If only you showed the same respect for the 9/11 victims...

 
At 04 December, 2010 08:33, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Cowardly, you talk to Rachel and Sara lately? What do they think of you trading on their dad's name?

 
At 04 December, 2010 08:41, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Cowardly, you talk to Rachel and Sara lately? What do they think of you trading on their dad's name?"

Why don't you ask them, Troy? Some people actually do research, you know. If you weren't too dulled from the drugs you take for your disorder, you might know this.

 
At 04 December, 2010 09:03, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I'm not Troy, fucknozzle. Answer the question. What do Uncle Mickey's daughters think about you? Do they know you use their dad's name to raise money and get laid?

 
At 04 December, 2010 09:08, Blogger Garry said...

'Err-y. If only you showed the same respect for the 9/11 victims...'

I do, cocksucker, which is why I take exception to scum like you trying to exculpate the real criminals (al-Qaeda), and why I take exception to troofer filth peddling stories irrespective of the grief this causes the relatives of the dead. As if sewer rats like yourself gave a damn about the victims and their families.

ESAD.

 
At 04 December, 2010 09:54, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"I'm not Troy, fucknozzle."

It's okay, son. Be proud of who you are. Not everyone is a racist, a convicted child abuser, AND drugged for Intermittent Explosive Disorder. It's an important trifecta, and you should wear it with dignity. I know Pat would agree.

 
At 04 December, 2010 10:06, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

It's okay, son. Be proud of who you are.

I am, thanks. Could I also ask you about ChrisC and what the hell is problem is? He just kicked me off #truthaction for asking where you were. Fucking drama queens, you guys are.

 
At 04 December, 2010 10:16, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Yeah, with a name like "Richard Gage's Testicles", I can see why you would demand to be taken seriously, son.

Go play with Chewy Defense, Mackey. He's clearly your only intellectual equal.

 
At 04 December, 2010 10:30, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Go play with Chewy Defense, Mackey. He's clearly your only intellectual equal.

If you're gonna obsess over my identity, try and get it right. That's twice in a row you've fucked up.

Anyway, you do admit to knowing Mickey Rothenberg's daughters. Do they know about your secret life as Troof Warrior / Jon Gold Jockstrap washer? Just answer the question and I'll tell you anything you want to know about me.

 
At 04 December, 2010 12:22, Blogger Garry said...

Just to get away from 'Pat Cowardly's' attempts to derail this thread with his obnoxious, obsessive ranting. This comment from Jones stands out:

'I do know the name of the second Peer Reviewer, who obviously wants to stay anonymous yet'.

The whole point about peer review - and Jones, as a former academic should know this - is that you do not know who is reading and commenting on your work. That way there's no conflict of interest, and no way that cronies of yours can give your work a pass irrespective of its scholarly merit.

 
At 04 December, 2010 14:17, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Anyone seen a published peer-review rebuttal to the Jones & Harrit active thermite paper?

*crickets* *chirp, chirp*

Ahh never mind, it doesn't exist.

The paper still stands. Please post the link to a peer reviewed journal that publishes the rebuttal.

 
At 04 December, 2010 14:25, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Garry, why are you assuming he knew the identity of the reviewer? Are you using time traveling technology or what?

So Jone's knows NOW. Yet you are assuming he knew before he submitted the paper. Oh well, fallacy of assumption on your part.

EF4U!

 
At 04 December, 2010 14:39, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Anyone seen a published peer-review rebuttal to the Jones & Harrit active thermite paper?

Don't hold your breath. There's little to be gained by refuting already shaky theories. Plus, it's just considered bad manners in academia to call attention to peoples' mental illnesses.

If Steven Jones or his ideas were important, things might be different.

 
At 04 December, 2010 15:00, Blogger Ian G. said...

Have you ever heard of "Russell's Teapot", mask boy? You and Brian Good need to step away from youtube and learn what it is.

 
At 04 December, 2010 15:19, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Have you ever heard of "Russell's Teapot", mask boy?"

Does Russell's teapot pour thousands of tons of melted iron into the dust for Pat? Or does it simply eclipse your ability to discern how important the observable evidence is for this crime?

 
At 05 December, 2010 08:16, Blogger James B. said...

Why would anyone spend time refuting a paper nobody cares about? How many scientific papers spend time refuting creationism or the existence of the Loch Ness monster?

 
At 05 December, 2010 08:40, Blogger Garry said...

'Anyone seen a published peer-review rebuttal to the Jones & Harrit active thermite paper?'

No, but then I haven't seen a published peer-reviewed rebuttal to the publications of the Flat Earth Society either.

Proper scientists have better things to do with their time. And it's not as if Jones and Harrit have actually let anyone else examine their WTC samples.

'Garry, why are you assuming he knew the identity of the reviewer? Are you using time traveling technology or what?

So Jone's (sic) knows NOW. Yet you are assuming he knew before he submitted the paper. Oh well, fallacy of assumption on your part'.

He's not supposed to know his/her identity at all. Period. Learn to fucking read, mask-boy,

 
At 05 December, 2010 08:40, Blogger Ian G. said...

Does Russell's teapot pour thousands of tons of melted iron into the dust for Pat?

Yes it does.

 
At 05 December, 2010 09:35, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

James-Why would anyone spend time refuting a paper nobody cares about?

Ahh yes, emotional disengagement proves science wrong. The same reson Hardfire does shows on a topic nobody cares about. The same reason you blog on a topic nobody cares about. The same reason Ryan Mackey can produce videos and papers on a subject nobody cares about. The same reason JREF's exists regarding an event nobody cares about.
Very nice, James. If I were you, I would choose not to care either. Because science

Garry-Read this study and you can fix your facts:
Conclusion Telling peer reviewers that their signed reviews might be available in the public domain on the BMJ’s website had no important effect on review quality. ...we believe that the ethical arguments in favour of open peer review more than outweigh these disadvantages.
Source: http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c5729.full
So much for trying to discredit the Jone's work because 1 of the peer reviewers identity was known AFTER the paper was published.

Genius, knowing the identity after the fact does not harm any peer reviewed process be it in physics, engineering, or the medical field.
Not only that, the author and reader's can be sure that the credentials of the reviewer.
"After all, who wants expert opinions of any kind when we can't see for ourselves that the expert is credible? Given what could be at stake, hospitals and other healthcare organizations requiring external peer review have every reason to insist, at a minimum, on their own verification of the reviewer's credentials. Further, it is not unreasonable to demand involvement in reviewer selection."
Jon Moses, MHA. Mr. Moses is Principal and CEO of MDReview which he co-founded. He is a former hospital CEO with over 20 years senior hospital leadership experience.
Now that quote is prior to review. Let alone after it. Do you have a source stating the reviewer should NEVER be known to the author after publication?

EF4U part 2

 
At 05 December, 2010 09:35, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

James-Why would anyone spend time refuting a paper nobody cares about?

Ahh yes, emotional disengagement proves science wrong. The same reson Hardfire does shows on a topic nobody cares about. The same reason you blog on a topic nobody cares about. The same reason Ryan Mackey can produce videos and papers on a subject nobody cares about. The same reason JREF's exists regarding an event nobody cares about.
Very nice, James. If I were you, I would choose not to care either. Because science

Garry-Read this study and you can fix your facts:
Conclusion Telling peer reviewers that their signed reviews might be available in the public domain on the BMJ’s website had no important effect on review quality. ...we believe that the ethical arguments in favour of open peer review more than outweigh these disadvantages.
Source: http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c5729.full
So much for trying to discredit the Jone's work because 1 of the peer reviewers identity was known AFTER the paper was published.

Genius, knowing the identity after the fact does not harm any peer reviewed process be it in physics, engineering, or the medical field.
Not only that, the author and reader's can be sure that the credentials of the reviewer.
"After all, who wants expert opinions of any kind when we can't see for ourselves that the expert is credible? Given what could be at stake, hospitals and other healthcare organizations requiring external peer review have every reason to insist, at a minimum, on their own verification of the reviewer's credentials. Further, it is not unreasonable to demand involvement in reviewer selection."
Jon Moses, MHA. Mr. Moses is Principal and CEO of MDReview which he co-founded. He is a former hospital CEO with over 20 years senior hospital leadership experience.
Now that quote is prior to review. Let alone after it. Do you have a source stating the reviewer should NEVER be known to the author after publication?

EF4U part 2

 
At 05 December, 2010 09:38, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

James-Why would anyone spend time refuting a paper nobody cares about?
Ahh yes, emotional disengagement proves science wrong. The same reason you blog on a topic nobody cares about. The same reason Ryan Mackey can produce videos and papers on a subject nobody cares about.
Very nice, James. If I were you, I would choose not to care either. Because science sucks for the OCT.
Garry-Read this study and you can fix your facts:
Conclusion Telling peer reviewers that their signed reviews might be available in the public domain on the BMJ’s website had no important effect on review quality.
Source: http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c5729.full
So much for trying to discredit the Jone's work because 1 of the peer reviewers identity was known AFTER the paper was published.
Genius, knowing the identity after the fact does not harm any peer reviewed process be it in physics, engineering, or the medical field.
Not only that, the author and reader's can be sure that the credentials of the reviewer are appropriate.
"After all, who wants expert opinions of any kind when we can't see for ourselves that the expert is credible? Given what could be at stake, hospitals and other health care organizations requiring external peer review have every reason to insist, at a minimum, on their own verification of the reviewer's credentials. Further, it is not unreasonable to demand involvement in reviewer selection."Jon Moses, MHA. Mr. Moses is Principal and CEO of MDReview.
Now that quote is prior to review. Let alone after it. Do you have a source stating the reviewer should NEVER be known to the author after publication?

EF4U part 2

 
At 05 December, 2010 12:36, Blogger Bill said...

"So Jone's knows NOW. Yet you are assuming he knew before he submitted the paper. Oh well, fallacy of assumption on your part. "

Considering the factor that Jones lied about not knowing about Griscom's truthiness & dodging the question about being a suggested reviewer its rather irrelevant.

The guy just happens to be a truther and a reviewer for the paper. Seems while truthers want to believe this grants credibility to Bentham's peer review process, all it proves is that its worse than we imagined. The process is tainted by the authors recommending the reviewers and in this case those reviewers already agreeing with the conclusions.

 
At 06 December, 2010 04:12, Blogger Garry said...

'The process is tainted by the authors recommending the reviewers and in this case those reviewers already agreeing with the conclusions'.

Which, again, is a blatant breach of academic practice. As is the process (which the Bentham Journals inexplicably employs) of accepting articles for payment.

 
At 06 December, 2010 04:24, Blogger Triterope said...

Anyone seen a published peer-review rebuttal to the Jones & Harrit active thermite paper?

Why should anyone write a peer-received rebuttal to a non-peer reviewed paper?

Another example demanding of Twoofkiddies demanding much higher standards of others than they do of themselves.

 
At 06 December, 2010 09:48, Blogger Steve Horgan said...

Pat, it doesn't get said often enough, but well done for the great work that you do. The 'Truther' meme is poisonous, as has been attested by some brave souls who have managed to shake it off and then write about their experiences. For most it just leads to interpersonal and family problems, but for a small minority we know that it leads to madness and death. This site has almost certainly saved some lives and you are to be commended for your tenacity when faced with the crazies that occasionally pop up in the comments.

Of course, the current big question is with the biggest security breach in US, or anyone else's, history not on word about the supposed 'inside job' has appeared. Perhaps the resident nutter could stop his ranting and answer that one...


...crickets...

 
At 06 December, 2010 15:34, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Here you go Gary and others who THINK you understand peer review...
In general, an agency conducting a peer review of a highly influential scientific assessment must ensure that the peer review process is transparent by making available to the public the written charge to the peer reviewers, the peer reviewers’ names, the peer reviewers’ report(s), and the agency’s response to the peer reviewers’ report(s). ... This Bulletin requires agencies to adopt or adapt the committee selection policies[3] employed by the National Academy of Sciences(NAS).-Original Source:
The National Academies. Uncle Sam gets it, but you don't? LOL.
A study done between author versus editor peer reviewed process:
Conclusions: Author-and editor-suggested reviewers did not differ in the quality of their reviews,but author-suggested reviewers tended to make more favorable recommendations for publication.-http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/295/3/314.full.pdf
So the worst criticism you can muster that might make sense, is that the paper was easier to get published based upon a favorable recommendation by Griscom because Jone's recommend him as one of the many reviewers. That does NOTHING to the science itself of course. Which is why I asked, if the science is bad, where is the rebuttal??
Surely you can find someone with similar credentials as Griscom like a Ph.D. in Physics, Brown University, 1966. Fellow, American Physical Society. Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science. Fellow, American Ceramic Society. Member, Geological Society of America. Research Physicist at Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), Washington, DC, 1967-2001. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1997. Invited Professor of Research at Universités de Paris-6 & 7,Lyon-1, et St-Etienne (France) and Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2000-2004. Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona, 2004-2005. Principal author, 109 papers in peer-reviewed journals and books. Consultancy: impactGlass research international, 2005-present.

 
At 06 December, 2010 16:00, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Oops sucks to be u part 2:

Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial
Objectives: To examine the effect on peer review of asking reviewers to have their identity revealed to the authors of the paper.

Conclusions: Asking reviewers to consent to being identified to the author had no important effect on the quality of the review, the recommendation regarding publication, or the time taken to review, but it significantly increased the likelihood of reviewers declining to review.

So, move on. It was properly peer reviewed. The science stands now get off your keyboard asses and get that peer-reviewed rebuttal published. PLEASE!!!

 
At 06 December, 2010 17:59, Blogger Triterope said...

If you can't bring 9/11 Truth to peer review, bring peer review to 9/11 Truth.

 
At 06 December, 2010 19:30, Blogger Ian G. said...

So, move on. It was properly peer reviewed. The science stands now get off your keyboard asses and get that peer-reviewed rebuttal published. PLEASE!!!

Sure mask boy, whatever you say.

 
At 06 December, 2010 20:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 06 December, 2010 20:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Masked Prevaricator lies, "...That does NOTHING to the science itself of course. Which is why I asked, if the science is bad, where is the rebuttal??"

There's only one problem with the "science," Pinocchio.

A French scientist obtained "dust samples" from Steven Jones; however, he was UNABLE TO REPRODUCE JONES' RESULTS.

The French scientist wrote, "...These chips do not react even when heated to 900 degrees C: remain red, burn most of their carbon but other elements remain in the same proportion."

Source: Independent Analysis of WTC Dust in Marseille.

Non-repeatability of the alleged "results" automatically invalidates the "science" and the conclusions found therein.

The troofers, moreover, refuse to cooperate with requests for access to their "dust samples." Thus, the troofers will not allow independent confirmation of their results. This policy is not consistent with the scientific method as I understand it.

Enjoy your bowl of crow, Pinocchio.

 
At 07 December, 2010 09:33, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

let me gut Guitar-Bill yet again....GB-So what does the Frenchmen conclude at the Peer-Reviewed blog at Darksideofgravity.com??
So, may be, the red-red chips are just fragments originating from red-grey chips that already reacted
at the WTC and for this reason cannot react anymore.
Uhhh GB, you fucktard, the guy even claims he is testing a sample shown in the picture(red/gray) yet his analysis he links to is to red/red chips. Dam GB, your not a bright reader.
But GB, what did Jones and Co. focus on? Ahh yes red/gray chips! Imagine that a scientific process done using a red/red chip when he should have used red/gray chips as the Jone's study did.
The Frenchie clearly states that Jone's and Co. didn't even mention red/red chips yet here he is doing his tests on red/red chips. On top of that,he explained why they didn't ignite in the first place!!
"In my samples the red-red chips replace the red/gray ones reported to be found in other samples...
except for, may be, one exceptional red/gray chip i found and described elsewhere..."
He even provides an explanation for the non-reaction!!-
"So, may be, the red-red chips are just fragments originating from red-grey chips that already reacted
at the WTC and for this reason cannot react anymore." He even states Kevin Ryan found red/red chips that would not react.GB as agood debunker should, you also left out:
Chemical Engineer Mark Basile's scientific analysis of 9/11's WTC dust. His research runs parallel to a recently released peer reviewed scientific study that unequivocally states that a highly engineered nano-themite is found throughout this dust. He confirmed Jone et al. findings and even obtained a completely independent sample of dust from a NYC museum.This nano-thermite is both an intense incendiary and explosive.
Your a liar of course as most debunkers are. Because you linked to a faulty study whose dust came from Jone's. LOL. Dipshit. Basile's work should shut you the fuck up for good on this issue. Stop making an ass of yourself. The fact is if you want to get truly indpendendt you do exactly what Basile did. Get the dust from a completely different source, in this case a museum and perform the scientific process.Go ahead, Billy, what did Basile's work show again? The scietific process repeating and confirming Jone's results as per the scientific process.Don't ever challenge me, chief, it is a waste of your time and an embarassment to what intellect you do have.
Oh, GB, you have some juicy crow hanging from your lips.

 
At 07 December, 2010 09:50, Blogger Garry said...

Mask-boy, do you work in academia? Because I do, and I can tell you now that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

What you are referring to is the retrospective process by which members of the public can - if they choose to do so - see for themselves how a piece of published research was treated by its third party reviewers. Was it subjected to a sufficiently rigorous critique, or was it just passed off as fit for publication with barely the level of critical scrutiny required?

This is not the same as scholars either having advanced knowledge of who is going to read and critique their work, or a right to know who has read it once it has been published or rejected.

The process the FAS is designed to ensure transparency and honesty, and it is noticeably one which Jones has not followed by ensuring that his 'research' is reviewed by fellow nut-jobs. If he wants to do this right, he can find a genuine specialist publication on structural engineering or any related discipline, and submit his paper to its editors. The fact that he hasn't done so speaks volumes, and the fact that you are either too stupid - or too wilfully obtuse - to recognise this does likewise.

Furthermore, as GuitarBill has noted, when a scientist not attached to the troofer crowd tested Jones' findings, he found them wanting.

 
At 07 December, 2010 11:52, Blogger Triterope said...

If (Jones) wants to do this right, he can find a genuine specialist publication on structural engineering or any related discipline, and submit his paper to its editors. The fact that he hasn't done so speaks volumes

Not to mention this is at least the third different way he's tried to pass off his work as "peer reviewed" when it was no such thing. First there was his own "peer-reviewed journal" that was only reviewed by other Truthers. Then the Bentham Journals fiasco. Now this.

 
At 08 December, 2010 10:46, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

What you are referring to is the retrospective process by which members of the public can - if they choose to do so - see for themselves how a piece of published research was treated by its third party reviewers.
No, no not, really. Before you open up again, please go read----
Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication
Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors

Results There were 788 reviews for 329 manuscripts.Review quality (mean difference in Review Quality Instrument score,−0.05; P=.27)did not differ significantly between
author-and editor-suggested reviewers.The author-suggested reviewers were more likely
to recommend acceptance(odds ratio,1.64;95%confidenceinterval,1.02-2.66)or revise(odds ratio,2.66;95%confidence interval,1.43-4.97).This difference was larger in the open reviews of BMJ than among the blinded reviews of other journals for acceptance(P=.02).Where author-and editor-suggested reviewers differed in their recommendations,the final editorial decision to acceptor reject a study was evenly balanced(50.9%of decisions consistent with the preferences of the author-suggested reviewers).Conclusions Author-and editor-suggested reviewers did not differ in the quality of
their reviews,but author-suggested reviewers tended to make more favorable recommendations for publication.

Editors can be confident that reviewers suggested by authors will complete adequate reviews of manuscripts,but should be cautious about relying on their recommendations for publication. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/295/3/314.full.pdf
Secondly,
Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial
Conclusions: Asking reviewers to consent to being identified to the author had no important effect on the quality of the review, the recommendation regarding publication, or the time taken to review, but it significantly increased the likelihood of reviewers declining to review. http://www.bmj.com/content/318/717/23.abstract?ijkey=8feca9dda2f29a07ec..

Sorry, GB example was shreded as you apparently didn't read my retort.

 
At 08 December, 2010 13:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Masked Prevaricator lies, "...Sorry, GB example was [SIC] shreded as you apparently didn't read my retort."

Another bald-faced lie from the illiterate Masked Charlatan.

In fact, you quote mined Mark Basile's paper, as I'll prove below.

The masked prevaricator wrote, "...Imagine that a scientific process done using a red/red chip when he should have used red/gray chips as the Jone's study did."

Why did you conveniently omit this portion of Mark Basile's paper--you underhanded liar?

Mark Basile wrote, "...Red Layer: Fe, O, Al, Si, C, Iron Oxide largely predominant over Iron: bright red! Insulating layer (shiny at spectro) ==> homogeneous mixture of Iron oxide and non
conductive elements such as Al, Si. Low variability (aspect, color, spectrum ) ==> homogeneous mixture at a sub-micron scale. Carbon: probable organic residue from the sol-gel solvents (isopropanol, organic epoxide)...Gray conductive layer: Fe, O sometimes Mn and Cr trace. Compatible with structural steel. Iron not much oxidized."


Source: Independent Analysis of WTC Dust in Marseille.

So much for the "when he should have used red/gray chips as the Jone's study did" lie.

Clearly, Basile tested the red/gray chips--your lies to the contrary notwithstanding.

Continued...

 
At 08 December, 2010 13:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

The Masked Prevaricator lies, "...Go ahead, Billy, what did Basile's work show again? The scietific [SIC] process repeating and confirming Jone's results as per the scientific process."

Really? No kidding?

Why did you conveniently omit the following passage from Basile's paper?

Mark Basile wrote, "...The nanothermitic hypothesis remained to be confirmed by the ignition crucial test: the chips must react at less than 500°C. We had to heat other identical chips (the previously analyzed chip could not be recovered for an ignition test) but...great surprise!: Not even one chip of the same kind in the 7g of dust from our four samples (instead of dozens expected according to the authors of the publi). Instead, dozens of chips showing the same red aspect on both faces, aspect and chemical composition difficult to distinguish from the one found in the red layer of the red/gray chips. Some chips already carry light gray deposits with spherical metal particles they can expel when heated."

Source: Independent Analysis of WTC Dust in Marseille.

Keep reading that passage over-and-over again until you get it through your lying, thick skull, stupid: "...The nanothermitic hypothesis remained to be confirmed by the ignition crucial test."

Got it--you acephallic moron?

Thus, you stand exposed as a liar, Mr. Masked Prevaricator.

Did you learn something today, Pinocchio? Here's the moral of the story--you underhanded liar: Don't fuck with me, chump, because I'll eat you alive.

Get back to us when you learn the difference between your and you're--you brainless, trailer park-educated charlatan.

Now go lick your wounds, Pinocchio.

 
At 08 December, 2010 13:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

The Masked Prevaricator lies, "...Go ahead, Billy, what did Basile's work show again? The scietific [SIC] process repeating and confirming Jone's results as per the scientific process."

Really? No kidding?

Why did you conveniently omit the following passage from Basile's paper?

Mark Basile wrote, "...The nanothermitic hypothesis remained to be confirmed by the ignition crucial test: the chips must react at less than 500°C. We had to heat other identical chips (the previously analyzed chip could not be recovered for an ignition test) but...great surprise!: Not even one chip of the same kind in the 7g of dust from our four samples (instead of dozens expected according to the authors of the publi). Instead, dozens of chips showing the same red aspect on both faces, aspect and chemical composition difficult to distinguish from the one found in the red layer of the red/gray chips. Some chips already carry light gray deposits with spherical metal particles they can expel when heated."

Source: Independent Analysis of WTC Dust in Marseille.

Continued...

 
At 08 December, 2010 13:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

Keep reading that passage over-and-over again until you get it through your lying, thick skull, stupid: "...The nanothermitic hypothesis remained to be confirmed by the ignition crucial test."

Got it--you acephallic moron?

Thus, you stand exposed as a liar, Mr. Masked Prevaricator.

Did you learn something today, Pinocchio? Here's the moral of the story--you underhanded liar: Don't fuck with me, chump, because I'll eat you alive.

Get back to us when you learn the difference between your and you're--you brainless, trailer park-educated charlatan.

Now go lick your wounds, Pinocchio.

Continued...

 
At 08 December, 2010 13:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

Another nail in The Masked Prevaricator's coffin.

Mark Basile wrote, "...Eventually the presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed. The chips of my sample either already reacted on 9/11 (other searchers have found similar chips) or my sample was deactivated to prevent my independent corroboration of a crucial proof."

Source: Photomicrograph and SEM Image of the Red/Gray Chips from Jones' Sample.

Yeah, Basile's sample was magically "deactivated" by the New World Order.

LOL!

Enjoy your bowl of crow, Pinocchio.

 
At 09 December, 2010 03:41, Blogger Garry said...

Mask-boy, my question still stands. Jones has the option of submitting his findings to a proper peer-review proposal conducted by the editors of any journal with a world-wide reputation for academic integrity and high-quality scholarship. He can pick out any of the ones in the links below:

http://www.journal-ranking.com/ranking/listCommonRanking.html?selfCitationWeight=1&externalCitationWeight=1&citingStartYear=1901&journalListId=406
http://sciencewatch.com/dr/sci/09/mar1-09_1/
http://journalseek.net/cgi-bin/journalseek/journalsearch.cgi?field=category&query=eng.mech
http://in-cites.com/research/2001/february_26_2001-2.html
http://journalseek.net/cgi-bin/journalseek/journalsearch.cgi?field=category&query=eng.civ

Instead, he's decided to farm this paper off to his pals. What does that tell you?

 
At 11 December, 2010 10:03, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Hello! I'm 9/11 Chewy Defense from the JREF forum & I'd like to say that my name isn't "Pat Curley". My name's Wil Clark!

I just don't want Truthers assuming that I'm "Pat" when I'm not.

 
At 13 December, 2010 07:55, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

GB the dunce gets it wrong again. I was quoting the Frenchman's paper in my post you twit, not Baisles. Why can't you get your shit straight?

I briefly mentioned Basile's paper yet you try to twist it into quoting Basiles when I specifically quoted rthe Frenchie's paper. You a terrible fucking liar or an incompetent reader which I'm leaning towards the later.
Here is Basile's words from 9/11 blogger...
Mark Basile:
Well in the little chip that I've... The biggest one that I've reacted at this point is about one and a half by two millimeters across, and the thickness of the red layer is.. They vary a little bit, but basically they're on the order of a few sheets of paper, actually is... is the layer.. You know it's anywhere from like .. say then to thirty thousands in thickness. They vary from one to the next. Uhm... and then the gray layer on the other side is of a comparable thickness. But the gray layer basically seems to be largely iron, although there's some other stuff that's integrated into it too, it seems to have a fairly high carbon and oxygen content as well. But it doesn't ignite, it's just the red layer that ignites. I think if you had a big enough chunk of this, uh.. that I can envision that the gray layer would probably wind up getting consumed into this molten mass of iron that might be produced, but with these small chips you don't get the progression of the event to that level... But I can only speculate.


Again, don't respond to me anymore, Guitar Bill. It is a waste of your time and you make yourself look stupid.

 
At 13 December, 2010 08:20, Blogger Garry said...

Mask-boy, you still haven't answered my question. Jones and Harrit could have submitted their 'paper' to a reputable scientific journal and had it reviewed by academic specialists. Instead, they've chosen to farm it out to their buddies in the 'troof' movement. Explain why.

 
At 13 December, 2010 11:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Masked Prevaricator lies, "...Again, don't respond to me anymore, Guitar Bill."

I'll respond to you as many times as I wish--you lying scumbag.

I don't give a God damn if Basile or Frédéric Henry-Couannier wrote the conclusion. The fact is the author clearly states the "presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed."

"...Eventually the presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed. The chips of my sample either already reacted on 9/11 (other searchers have found similar chips) or my sample was deactivated to prevent my independent corroboration of a crucial proof."

Face it, the PROVEN non-repeatability of the alleged "results" automatically invalidates the "science" and the conclusions found therein.

Thus, you lose.

Now, get the Hell out of here, charlatan, and don't come back until you understand the difference between your and you're--you jackass.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home