It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Steven Jones Thermite Paper: "Printed without permission"- Editor in Chief Quits.

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Cam I gotta say that i also am searching to understand what the point of this article is. I understand you claim you are not attacking Jones paper but it is simple that the editor is. Worse yet she openly states shes only quitting b/c she feels its not related to science and she was under the impression that the journal that printed the story would not be a part of these kinds of studies.

By that statement (my personal translation) it appears that she must not preview any of the submitted papers or does on a very limited basis. I would bet that she totally disagrees with Truthers and when she was confronted with the fact that it was going to look like she agreed with or supported this type of research she immediately quit her job in a effort to convince her colleagues she totally disagrees with it.

She plainly says as does the article that this unfortunate for her situation has no reflection on Jones papers findings. She just does not agree with printing political papers as she puts it.

[edit on 30-4-2009 by Stillresearchn911]




posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

posted by CameronFox
You should have stopped right there. The rest of you post is filled with typical truther paranoia, assumptions, and accusations.


posted by ipsedixit

Continuing in the same vein.

Maybe other people on the editorial board realized that they had been dealing with a lunkhead in Pileni all along and decided that her participation in the process wasn't really helping matters anyway.

All's well that ends well. Jones' paper got published and the journal was rid of Pileni.

Thankyou for bringing good news to our attention Cameron.


Amen brother. Thank you for your good deed of the year CameronFox.

You have been of great value to speeding up the self-destruction of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 

You should have stopped right there. The rest of you post is filled with typical truther paranoia, assumptions, and accusations.


There you go again camron, attacking the messenger. There is not one word of truth in your statement.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911


Cam I gotta say that i also am searching to understand what the point of this article is.



The paper is hailed as "PEER REVIEWED."

That is the issue here. We do NOT know who reviewed it. The editor was NOT contacted PRIOR to having it sent out. This goes against proper procedure.

Am I qualified to say the paper is trash? Nope. I am not saying it is. I'm also not saying it ISNT paint primer.

The Bretham VANITY Journal is just that. PAY TO PUBLISH. If it doesn't get published, the journal does not get paid. Another reason why the paper was sent back not once, not twice, but three times with errors.

You guys can babble all you want and tell me I'm trying to discredit Jones & his paper. I am clearly discrediting the media that published his article.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
Cam I gotta say that i also am searching to understand what the point of this article is.

The paper is hailed as "PEER REVIEWED."
That is the issue here. We do NOT know who reviewed it. The editor was NOT contacted PRIOR to having it sent out. This goes against proper procedure.
Am I qualified to say the paper is trash? Nope. I am not saying it is. I'm also not saying it ISNT paint primer.
The Bretham VANITY Journal is just that. PAY TO PUBLISH. If it doesn't get published, the journal does not get paid. Another reason why the paper was sent back not once, not twice, but three times with errors.
You guys can babble all you want and tell me I'm trying to discredit Jones & his paper. I am clearly discrediting the media that published his article.


Your in error of course by stating that the Journal does get paid if they don't publish a paper. In fact, you or an individual can sign up to become a member and pay a membership fee. Bentham's Membership Fees Not Publishing Fees Members get a discount to publishing fees. Sorry your argument fails again.

Cameron, can you cite a source showing that the Chief Editor of Benthem Open MUST be consulted and MUST read a paper before being published?

Can you cite Bentham's proper procedure you claim was not followed?
WAIT! Let me do it for you:



REVIEWING AND PROMPTNESS OF PUBLICATION: All manuscripts submitted for publication will be immediately subjected to peer-reviewing, usually in consultation with the members of the Editorial Advisory Board and a number of external referees.
Source: Bentham Open Journal
...notice usually, NOT ALWAYS! LOL.

Now run on back to JREF and tell all the Randi's kids you guys got it wrong again. The editor didn't resign because of 'bad protocol' she resigned because she felt 'stabbed in the back'. And most importantly, the science still stands.


"Vanity" Journal? No such thing exists. But lets see what qualified experts think about Bentham:



"Free open access to information is vital to scientific and socio-economic progress." H. W. Kroto (Nobel Laureate)
"Bentham’s open access journals offer a creative avenue towards the goal of rapid publication and dissemination of relevant science results." Richard R. Ernst (Nobel Laureate)
"The advantage of the Open Journal series is that it is just that: open, and accessible to anyone with a PC at no charge I appeal to scholars across the disciplines to consider the Open Journal series as a forum for their work." J.C. Jones (University of Aberdeen, Scotland)
"Open access journals represent a major break-through in publishing. They provide easy access to the latest research on a wide variety of issues. Relevant and timely articles are made available in a fraction of the time taken by more conventional publishers. Articles are of uniformly high quality and written by the world's leading authorities."
Robert Looney
(Naval Postgraduate School, USA)
"There are many scientists who can not afford the rather expensive subscriptions to scientific journals. Open access journals offer a good alternative for free access to good quality scientific information."
Fidel Toldrá
(Instituto de Agroquimica y Tecnologia de Alimentos, Spain)


Keep in mind, Cameron, because of your description of Bentham as a 'vanity' journal you as a non-expert are stating all of the following articles at this site are now meaningless:
www.bentham.org...
I'm sure every author would disagree with you.

They are using science and you are using a political viewpoint. Those two don't mix very well at all, do they?

Thanks for playing, your point fails.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

posted by Swing Dangler

Keep in mind, Cameron, because of your description of Bentham as a 'vanity' journal you as a non-expert are stating all of the following articles at this site are now meaningless:

www.bentham.org...

I'm sure every author would disagree with you.

They are using science and you are using a political viewpoint. Those two don't mix very well at all, do they?

Thanks for playing, your point fails.


All of those scientific articles, and you would sacrifice them for political expediency? Doesn't pure simple truth have any role at all?

Good thing former editor-in-chief and nanomaterials professor Marie-Paule Pileni didn't let the door hit her in the butt. Science wins again and political hacks lose.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 

The paper is hailed as "PEER REVIEWED."

That is the issue here. We do NOT know who reviewed it. The editor was NOT contacted PRIOR to having it sent out. This goes against proper procedure.


Again, cam this article is “NOT” about Jones paper being peer reviewed. It is about Marie-Paule Pileni being betrayed by her own people who help Jones get his journal published in her journal. What is it you do not understand? This article “does not” discredit Jones paper, however in your desperate attempts to smear Professor Jones and his scientific journal, it show what your agenda is doesn’t it.


Am I qualified to say the paper is trash? Nope. I am not saying it is. I'm also not saying it ISNT paint primer.


Cam, no one in the scientific world has even made such ridiculous statement “only you camron”. You can HOPE Steven Jones paper is trash so you can go on pushing the OS in the pancake collapse conspiracy. Again, cam, this article is NOT about “paint primer,” nice try though.


The Bretham VANITY Journal is just that. PAY TO PUBLISH. If it doesn't get published, the journal does not get paid. Another reason why the paper was sent back not once, not twice, but three times with errors.


Care to show those errors camronfox? Was the errors of misspelling?


You guys can babble all you want and tell me I'm trying to discredit Jones & his paper. I am clearly discrediting the media that published his article.


No one is BABBLING camromfox, the FACT is you are trying to discredit Jones & his paper. One only needs to read your posts to see that. Jones paper punches another hole in the OS lie that you have been supporting. Another move by the spin-doctors, trying desperately to disprove Professor Steven Jones and it is NOT working.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Your in error of course by stating that the Journal does get paid if they don't publish a paper. In fact, you or an individual can sign up to become a member and pay a membership fee. Bentham's Membership Fees Not Publishing Fees Members get a discount to publishing fees. Sorry your argument fails again.



I didn't say that. I said if you DON'T get published, you don't have to pay. Meaning you don't have to pay any fee. So, you have a group of reviewers going over a paper. The paper fails the review. Bentham gets nothing. (unless the person has become a member and already paid their dues for the year)

If I want to become a member there for $4,800.00, I can get a 25% discount off my publishing fee!


Membership fee and discount structure:
Individual Membership Fee (US$) Discount (off publication fees)
$ 1600 5%
$ 2400 10%
$ 3200 15%
$ 4000 20%
$ 4800 25%


www.bentham.org...




Cameron, can you cite a source showing that the Chief Editor of Benthem Open MUST be consulted and MUST read a paper before being published?


Well:


Online Manuscript Submission:

To facilitate speedy and cost-effective submission of abstracts and manuscripts, an online submission and tracking service via Internet is being offered. Once the Editor-in-Chief of the journal has accepted your abstract, we would prefer that you submit your full manuscript online via our online submission service available at www.bentham-mps.org

www.bentham.org...

Can you cite Bentham's proper procedure you claim was not followed?
WAIT! Let me do it for you:


"BENTHAMS" is the key word here. Can you please show me any other reputable journal that follows the same procedure as Benthams? I honestly don't know if one does.




...notice usually, NOT ALWAYS! LOL.


Hmm wonder what that means?


Now run on back to JREF and tell all the Randi's kids you guys got it wrong again.


run back? Why don't you go back there cowboy? You know, where you posted twice on a similar thread to this, were laughed at, shown your were wrong,and didn't return? Where you have almost twice as many posts as me? Your post count there is over 1,000.

forums.randi.org...


The editor didn't resign because of 'bad protocol' she resigned because she felt 'stabbed in the back'. And most importantly, the science still stands.


Yes, I believe she felt that way. Does the science stand? I can't say. It hasn't been properly reviewed.


"Vanity" Journal? No such thing exists. But lets see what qualified experts think about Bentham:


the term is "vanity press" or "publisher"and does exist, and you know it exists. Poor me got the term wrong and you thought you would run with it like the hero you are:


A vanity press or vanity publisher is a publishing house that publishes books at the author's expense.

A vanity press will generally agree to print and bind any author's work if the author is willing to pay for the service; these fees typically form a vanity press's profits.


en.wikipedia.org...




Keep in mind, Cameron, because of your description of Bentham as a 'vanity' journal


Do they pay to get published? yes or no?



you as a non-expert are stating all of the following articles at this site are now meaningless:
www.bentham.org...


Knock off putting words in my mouth. This is what you do, I understand. I did not once say ANY articles were meaningless. I CLEARLY stated MANY times that the process they use is not typical for reviewed articles.






Thanks for playing, your point fails.


As always, so do yours.



[edit on 1-5-2009 by CameronFox]

[edit on 1-5-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by TheLoony

If she is the editor-in-chief, shouldn't she know what is going to be printed in her magazine? Isn't that her job?


Yes, the reason why she quit. The staff did it behind her back. The staff failed to follow proper procedure.



I have a hard time believing this.

If you are the "editor-in-chief" of a magazine(journal) and your staff puiblishes something without permision you don't quit!

YOU FIRE YOUR STAFF!

Seriously, in what reality does the boss quit because his employees disregard his authority. If you're the boss, you're the boss. It's pretty simple right?

Sounds like we don't have all the info to me.

Vas


[edit on 1-5-2009 by Vasilis Azoth]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 

Knock off putting words in my mouth. This is what you do, I understand. I did not once say ANY articles were meaningless. I CLEARLY stated MANY times that the process they use is not typical for reviewed articles.


Camron, we all know they didn’t follow the typical process for publishing Professor Jones’ journal, however that does not discredit Jones journal. You are trying to make something out of nothing, in hoping people will disregard Professor Jones report. It is YOU that is spinning the issues here. The only thing we should be discussing is how upset Marie-Paule Pileni is after being betrayed by her coworkers.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme


Again, cam this article is “NOT” about Jones paper being peer reviewed. It is about Marie-Paule Pileni being betrayed by her own people who help Jones get his journal published in her journal. What is it you do not understand? This article “does not” discredit Jones paper, however in your desperate attempts to smear Professor Jones and his scientific journal, it show what your agenda is doesn’t it.


impressme,

Say you are working for a company that does independent testing of tires. ok?

You are the president, head of marketing, whatever.

Several members of your staff found that the Goodyear 200xe falls apart at 65 mph on all Toyota Corollas.

Your staff, then without consulting you publishes these findings. The media is now aware of it and it spreads like wild fire.

Would you be upset? Feel betrayed? Wouldn't you have wanted to see the results prior to them going public?

This paper (although had zero impact on anyone outside the internet CT's) was a potentially huge deal. It allegedly shows the possibility that the WTC was demolished.

Don't you think the editor should have been at least consulted?? No other journal has done it.


Am I qualified to say the paper is trash? Nope. I am not saying it is. I'm also not saying it ISNT paint primer.



Cam, no one in the scientific world has even made such ridiculous statement “only you camron”. You can HOPE Steven Jones paper is trash so you can go on pushing the OS in the pancake collapse conspiracy. Again, cam, this article is NOT about “paint primer,” nice try though.


First of all, the legitimate scientific community does not give a rats butt about this paper from Jones & Co. Oh yeah, it must be the media covering it up keeping it from them huh?

The few scientists I know of that have read the paper that was published say it is trash.


This means that there is very little doubt remaining as to what these platelets are. In light of this evidence it is safe to say that these platelets consist of Kaolinite, which does not contain any "elemental aluminum". The SEM examination in Jones' paper does not show any other particle type (other than the rhomboidal Fe2O3) and no other data in the EDS spectra for samples a-d indicate it's presence.

Therefore these samples CANNOT be thermite.


source

There is a thread where scientists and engineers are talking about it:

here

and here









Care to show those errors camronfox? Was the errors of misspelling?


The journal did not release the information that I am aware of. Sorry.




No one is BABBLING camromfox, the FACT is you are trying to discredit Jones & his paper. One only needs to read your posts to see that. Jones paper punches another hole in the OS lie that you have been supporting. Another move by the spin-doctors, trying desperately to disprove Professor Steven Jones and it is NOT working.


You are babbling. You are starting to sound like a broken record. You repeat the same thing over and over. If I wanted to discredit his work, I would go to the thread where it is being discussed. I am discrediting the process from Bentham.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

Camron, we all know they didn’t follow the typical process for publishing Professor Jones’ journal,


Thank you. That is what this thread is about.


however that does not discredit Jones journal.


Didn't say it did.




The only thing we should be discussing is how upset Marie-Paule Pileni is after being betrayed by her coworkers.


This definitely is part of what the discussion should be, I agree. It should also be about how the paper was reviewed. Who reviewed it? etc. Why is there process different? Why do the authors get to choose who reviews their work?







posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 





Keep in mind, Cameron, because of your description of Bentham as a 'vanity' journal you as a non-expert are stating all of the following articles at this site are now meaningless: www.bentham.org... I'm sure every author would disagree with you.

-Swing Dangler

I think this point needs to be addressed b/c if you haven't taken time to explore the www.benthlam.org site you would not realize that there are hundreds if not thousands of papers that have been submitted and published.

Papers on every possible thing you can possibly imagine most are technical and/or field specific.

Listening to Cam's portrayal of this journal you would think that this is some up start journal with no one except wild researchers endeavors that would never be published anywhere else and not only that they paid big money just to get it done.

It couldn't be further from the truth. I encourage anyone to check the site yourself and look at there archives.

Cam wants us to think that out of all these several hundred papers that have been published that some how THIS ONE (Jones&Co's Paper) was able to by pass all of the editors and was published under their noses.

I'm not buying it, especially from someone who would spend his dying breath defending the government.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Perhaps she was always going to quit - and she decided the best thing to bring herself into complete credibility was to expose 911 and then make sure it looked like she wasn't aware of what she'd done?

Speculative yes, but I have seen stranger things - like the official 911 'story'.

wZn



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 

The few scientists I know of that have read the paper that was published say it is trash.


You mean these scientists



source

There is a thread where scientists and engineers are talking about it:

here

and here


Really camron, these people are only spouting their “opinions” and they fail to use real science, and these people have not submitted a peer review report of science to disprove Jones’ report. Nothing but a desperate attempt to debunk Jones’ work. I thought you could do better than this.


Care to show those errors camronfox? Was the errors of misspelling?

The journal did not release the information that I am aware of. Sorry.



So why all the hype, eh!



I am discrediting the process from Bentham.


Really! But calling Professor Jones work trash, is part of you discrediting the process from Bentham.


You are babbling. You are starting to sound like a broken record. You repeat the same thing over and over.


Yes camron, I have to repeat my self over and over because, you are having a hard time understanding the original article that you posted.


If I wanted to discredit his work, I would go to the thread where it is being discussed.


Then I suggest you do that, and try to stay on topic.

I am not happy how these people went about publishing Jones’ report and yes, I think it was underhanded to say the lease.





[edit on 1-5-2009 by impressme]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Cameron, can you cite a source showing that the Chief Editor of Benthem Open MUST be consulted and MUST read a paper before being published?


Can you cite Bentham's proper procedure you claim was not followed?
WAIT! Let me do it for you:



REVIEWING AND PROMPTNESS OF PUBLICATION: All manuscripts submitted for publication will be immediately subjected to peer-reviewing, usually in consultation with the members of the Editorial Advisory Board and a number of external referees.
Source: Bentham Open Journal
...notice usually, NOT ALWAYS! LOL.



I updated my post above. But just in case you didn't notice Swing D:



Please go to :www.bentham.org...


Online Manuscript Submission:

To facilitate speedy and cost-effective submission of abstracts and manuscripts, an online submission and tracking service via Internet is being offered. Once the Editor-in-Chief of the journal has accepted your abstract, we would prefer that you submit your full manuscript online via our online submission service available at www.bentham-mps.org



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Did id you bother reading what was typed? Maybe understanding what was typed? How can you be sure that its just "their opinion"? Why not research it properly?



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by CameronFox
 

The few scientists I know of that have read the paper that was published say it is trash.


You mean these scientists



posted by CameronFox

source

There is a thread where scientists and engineers are talking about it:

here

and here



All of CameronFox's sources of scientists are from the James Randi Foundation of Magicians and Illusionists?
Is this a joke?


From the weeping well of government loyalists and 9-11 apologists?
This is hilarious.




[edit on 5/1/09 by SPreston]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston


All of CameronFox's sources of scientists are from the James Randi Foundation of Magicians and Illusionists?
Is this a joke?


From the weeping well of government loyalists and 9-11 apologists?
This is hilarious.


SPreston, if you haven't reread any of your posts lately, perhaps you haven't noticed that you are constant at one thing. You are saying nothing.

Please take the time to list the scientists that you know or have read about that have read and commented on the paper the Jone & Co. put out.

You try your pathetic strawman antics and they don't work. The gentleman that posted his findings is a scientist. Ryan Mackey is a scientist. Brentham actually asked Mr. Mackey to peer review for them.

So, again SPreston. Instead of cheer leading, why not attempt to post something with substance. .....



oh wait...... here comes the Liberty Bell with the 911 slogan!



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

Really camron, these people are only spouting their “opinions” and they fail to use real science, and these people have not submitted a peer review report of science to disprove Jones’ report.


You think this is an opinion? You obviously failed to read the first post. Can you point out what is not scientific? Can you point out what is opinion?

The thread had an abundance of information and the third link was filled with even more information.

Sorry, you didn't read any of it. You fail.






I am discrediting the process from Bentham.


Really! But calling Professor Jones work trash, is part of you discrediting the process from Bentham.

Show me where I stated it was trash. Where I said it was trash. You like Swing D. attempt to put words in my mouth. Sorry, wont work.



Yes camron, I have to repeat my self over and over because, you are having a hard time understanding the original article that you posted.


No, sir/man I understand quite well what I posted. It was you, that on your very first post went on the defensive about her resignation.




Then I suggest you do that, and try to stay on topic.


Um? What?


I am not happy how these people went about publishing Jones’ report and yes, I think it was underhanded to say the lease.


Great, we agree on this 100%. Write to Jones and ask him to have it resubmitted.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join