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.

 

Prof. David L. Griscom: "Pay for Publish" without Peer Review is False!

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   
As if the many scientists on this panel, and the recent reviews conducted on the dust analysis paper,
here is yet another professor coming forth. Just to clarify, Prof. Griscom had already reviewed the paper,
but was anonymous until now.

The reviewer's name is Prof. David L. Griscom. Among his impressive credentials, Prof.

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.

...

Some disparagers of the 9/11 Truth movement have alleged that TOCPJ is a place on the web where anybody can buy a publication without peer review. Absolutely false! I know this because I was one of the referees of the Harrit et al. paper. The editors asked for my opinion. And after about two weeks of studying what the authors had written, checking relevant references, and gathering my thoughts, I finally provided my advice to authors in 12 single-spaced pages, together with my recommendation to the Editors that they publish the paper after the authors had considered my suggestions.

Still, some skeptical readers may ask how anyone can rate a scientific paper as “fabulous.” Well, I am the principal author of 109 papers (and a co-author of an additional 81) in peer-review journals. And have refereed a least 600, and possibly as many as 1000, manuscripts. So you would be right in calling me an aficionado of articles published in scientific journals. And I found absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper! Apropos, twelve of my own publications have appeared in the American Institute of Physics’ Journal of Chemical Physics (an old fashioned paper journal), so it is accurate to say that chemical physics (of inorganic materials) is my main specialty."


Story here:
impactglassman.blogspot.com...

Also, an extended video of first responders and fire fighters talking about the WTC debris (new to me):


edit on 3-12-2010 by turbofan because: Prof. Griscom

edit on 3-12-2010 by turbofan because: Change Title




posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Some disparagers of the 9/11 Truth movement have alleged that TOCPJ is a place on the web where anybody can buy a publication without peer review. Absolutely false! I know this because I was one of the referees of the Harrit et al. paper.

Of course, the non-tinfoil hatter Editor of TOCPJ resigned after she saw what had been published, but let's just ignore that.

And Griscom is a truther himself, so excuse me for not being overly impressed that he agreed with the Therm*te pamphlet.

Especially since he also authored this little theory of what he thinks happened on 9/11:

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).

Charming.
edit on 3-12-2010 by roboe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Any time you, or any of your GL buddies want to debate the science, just let me know.

Your excuses and complaints are rather pointless with respect to the dust analysis paper.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 

There's nothing to discuss, it has been debunked repeatedly by people who knows the science. I trust them, over some guy who believes every single passenger is living off Swiss bank accounts in Tahiti.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


Name one person who has successfully refuted the paper, and link their study.

You and I will review it and discuss the conclusions.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 

Why would I want to review and discuss it with another layman?

It's a botched up paper, detailing botched up procedures, written to a conclusion (that nanuu-nanuu therm*te was used), by a bunch of people whose reputation within the 9/11 'truth' community depended on therm*te being found.

Or do you disagree that Harrit, Jones, et al has been doing the therm*te dog and pony-show for years, both before and after the therm*te pamphlet was released?
edit on 3-12-2010 by roboe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


I guarantee my comprehension of the science is at a much higher level than yours based on your comments.

If you care to prove me, and the rest of this forum wrong I'm willing to debate you on the points you see as,
"troublesome" in the paper.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 

Which part of "I'm not interested in a debate" did you not understand?

As it is, neither you or I have the scientific background to debate this paper, so why bother? And in any case, I don't have any reason to do so, as there are people who are more suited than me to discuss and debate the merits of the therm*te pamphlet.

If you're so hellbent on having a debate, why not contact your fellow 'truther', Denis Rancourt? He appears to have the scientific background to analyze the problems with the therm*te pamphlet:
climateguy.blogspot.com...

edit on 3-12-2010 by roboe because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-12-2010 by roboe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Right, so you comment on my thread and tell me this science paper has been 'debunked', but you wont
link the summary which I asked you to link.

You claim that I'm not qualified to discuss the science, but when given the chance to shut me down,
you dodge the opportunity to engage in a discussion...because "you're not interested".


Right about now, you have nothing but two claims that you can't back up. Amazing!

Come back when you're ready to learn something. I'd be happy to explain a few things and open your
eyes about science so you can debate from substance rather than ignorance.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Pteridine has already done a great deal of putting that "paper" to rest. Why dont you go ask him? He apparently knows the flaws of the paper better than you do or are willing to admit. He's offered to explain it to you many times, and yet you ignored his offers. Why is that?



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Any time you, or any of your GL buddies want to debate the science, just let me know.

Your excuses and complaints are rather pointless with respect to the dust analysis paper.



Soon as there is some "science" to review and debate I am sure the community of real scientist will have it. 'Til then this is a poorly written essay tantamount to some 9th grader's "What I did on my summer vacation", but more like "What I did with some bags of dust some people sent me".



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by turbofan
 


Pteridine has already done a great deal of putting that "paper" to rest. Why dont you go ask him? He apparently knows the flaws of the paper better than you do or are willing to admit. He's offered to explain it to you many times, and yet you ignored his offers. Why is that?



It seems you are a little behind the times, and wrong again.

Pteridine has dodged my offers to debate several times with the excuse that, "He is out of the country"...yet
he posts several times per week.

My second call to him www.abovetopsecret.com...:

Futher to this, you have not joined my thread to debate the science which you "believe" to understand so well. I'm prepared and ready to begin our debate which we agreed upon. Awaiting your reply in the following thread:


Third request

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones said "Thermitic" which alludes to thermite; hence he claimed thermite.


[Turbofan]
Wrong again.

'Thermitic' is not a term to describe Thermite soley. This term has been around for years and also used by
Tillotson to describe his nano-super thermite.


Fourth attempt to debate him:

Originally posted by pteridineDid Jones claim to have found thermate? Was there elements of thermate or thermite present?


[Turbofan]
YOu can't be serious. You have obviously not read the paper if you're asking these questions.

Yes, there were elements of Thermate present; Sulphur namely.


Fifth and final request to debate him

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan
 


I seem to remember that I gave you time to write your thread after our proposed debate was aborted by the admin folks. Now, you want me to change my schedule to suit you. People in Hell want ice water, Turbo, and you both have the same chance of getting what you want.

Rebutting your claims is easy and 'off the cuff.' Jones' paper will take more time because I want to make sure I find every error and inconsistency so that we can have a fun discussion. Meanwhile, I will reply to individual posts and correct your misinterpretations.


My response:

Further, no combination of thermite and any energetic material shown in his paper as examples would produce the energies shown without combustion in air.


I had to repeat this line. This is going to be the quote that exposes your ignorance.

Please do not reply here. I'd rather you take the time to start your thread; its obvious you have some twisting
and fudging ahead of you.


So "Gen"., he has not replied to any of my threads since, and I have personally not seen him post on the
forum since this date.

He's either hard at work writing his paper (instead of responding to a thread I started just for him), or he's
running scared.

Quite the contrary to what you just said huh?



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I can't help but notice how vague and unsubstantiated the claims of GenRadek and hooper are especially when compared to turbofan's last post. He, as well as others like Impressme, consitstently show evidence of thier claims while you guys typically link to ridiculous sources such as yahoo answers and such. On numerous occasions I've checked links from some of you "truster guys" and its either non-existent, a link to google search, and many times doesn't even imply what you claim it to prove. However, I'm sure you will again see yourself as vindicated and victorious while everyone else watches you go down in flames. ADDRESS THE ACTUAL CLAIMS OF THE PEOPLE IN THE VIDEO FOR ONCE and you might earn some respect 'round here.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


Really good stuff. When unable to attack the substance in question, attack the person...

Lovely bit of three card monty.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Ah Turbo, once again you are wrong. This is my first post since mid-November, so I do not post "several times a week." I was in several small hotels which had no internet service and I had limited time at the internet/telephone exchange.
My work has kept me extremely and I have had no time to write a detailed review of the paper. I will write on the energy calculations and the errors in the analysis of the DSC data. I did read Jones' rebuttal of the criticisms and he is obviously hoping that his "explanations" will be good enough. Of course, they are not.
As to the topic, Dr. Griscom has done ESR which is a technique to measure free radicals; something that he would do in his research of defects and dopants in silica. DSC is a different technique entirely and he is apparently not familiar with it. Since his retirement, he may have subordinated his science training to his political desires. His theories on how "all passengers survived" and are living in witness protection programs does not speak well for him and this is even a point of contention among his fellow travellers arabesque911.blogspot.com... Given his desire for a conspiracy and his close association with Gage and Griffin, he should have not reviewed Jones' paper. Because of this bias, his review is flawed.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


No, I'm not wrong. I said:


he has not replied to any of my threads since, and I have personally not seen him post on the
forum since this date.


Besides this response, can you find another reply to any of my threads since that date?

At the time you said you were stuck in hotels, you responed on the forum several times. Shall I gather
those quotes too? I hope your review of the paper has more grip than these simple points I've just made!

August 22, 2010. Pteridine says he's too busy to debate:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since the week you told me you had no time to post these replies were recorded:

[url]http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/searchresults.php?cx=010913664321846374563%3Afzhl_cfnikq&cof=FORID%3A9&q=%22pteridine%22+&sa=Search#1037[/url ]

Note the dates from September to Mid November. That is quite a bit of of action for someone that declined a debate for being "busy".

You do a great deal of complaining for an anonymous internet guy who thinks he's better and more thorough
than several highly schooled and experienced scholars.


Can't wait to debate the science and check out your sources for all of that heat! Hurry up with that 'review' of yours and those calculations...ESPECIALLY for this one:


Further, no combination of thermite and any energetic material shown in his paper as examples would produce the energies shown without combustion in air.



edit on 4-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


I'm not an airplane mechanic with a 9 to 5 job. A comprehensive review takes time and I don't have it right now. I will address the energetic anomalies and let you and your consultants respond.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
This what I have been saying for a long time now. There are many respected institutions who use and cite this particular publication in their coursework and research, therefore if it was a vanity journal, these institutions certainly would not. In fact, the only thing that official conspiracy theorists are going on, is some anonymous blogger who claims that he was offered an oppurtunity to publish a bogus study for a little money, though he provides no proof and his bogus study was obviously never published. He claims that he conducted this little experiment to show that the publisher is a vanity publisher, yet he didn't follow through with publishing the bogus paper because he figured people would just take his word for it? LOL! In fact, this anon blogger can't provide any proof, no letter, no email, nothing. He is basically making an extraordinary claim, without a shred of evidence, in fact with evidence against his claim, yet people are buying it hook, line and sinker. I guess you couldn't expect anything different from someone who also buys the OCT (official conspiracy theory or OS)

It just goes to show how official conspiracy theorists and trusters will just run with anything regradless of whether there is no evidence or contradictory evidence. They just seem to agree with whatever confirms their world-view. These people are like the anti-thesis of applied science and common-sense.

The sad fact of the matter is that they can't counter this very sound piece of evidence (or a mountain of other evidence), so they use shady tactics to side-step or subvert the issue and attack the messenger instead of the message. Talk about embracing ignorance!


--airspoon



reply to post by pteridine
 


You are an anonymous poster on an internet BB, yet you claim to know better than a consenus of experts in that particular field. Do you not see the problem with this? If you feel that this peer-reviewed, scientific paper is wrong, then by all means publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. In fact, if you still believe that this journal is a vanity operation, then publish your findings in this journal. However, I doubt anyone is going to take the word of anon poster on an internet BB over the conseus of experts in a particular field.

Lets break this down:

  • These scientists have credentials, sound credentials.

  • You don't, as far as we can tell.

  • There is a peer-reviewed, scientific paper on their findings.

  • There isn't one on your alleged or supposed findings.

  • A consenus of experts who have actually looked for evidence of demolitions, have found said evidence.

  • All experts who agree with the official conspiracy theory and have come out public with their opinion, admit that they won't even consider controlled demolitions.


    While you are obviously free to express your opinion, I think you should understand why nobody would take you seriously or believe what you say, over established science and a consensus of experts.


    Have a wonderful day.


    --airspoon
    edit on 4-12-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



  • posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:22 AM
    link   
    reply to post by airspoon
     


    I already replied to you in another thread with a similar reply. What I basically said is that there is no consensus whatsoever. There is a very small group of "scientists" who support the theory that the material is thermite (or something similar). Even the "truther" Denis Rancourt strongly objects against the used methodology and conclusion. Since the link that was posed earlier was ignored, I will post the problems he had:



    • The Al slugs would give inhomogeneous background Al signals in the EDXA spectra. This was not considered or discussed in the paper. There could be no or little Al in the red-layer. The carbon adhesive tape will give inhomogeneous background C signals in the EDXA spectra. This was not considered or discussed in the paper. There could be no or little C in the red-layer. There is as much or more Si (silicon) in the EDXA results than Al in all the red-layer results and Si and Al are closely correlated in their spatial distributions (e.g., their Figure 10). No probable explanation is given for this. This is not consistent with the presence of metallic Al.
    • Oxygen (O) is more closely spatially correlated with Al and Si than with Fe (e.g., their Figure 10). No probable explanation is given for this. This contradicts the conclusion of the presence of metallic Al.
    • No effort was made to estimate the Fe:Al elemental ratio in the red-layer. Synthetic thermite or nanothermite would have a ratio of 1:1. The point is never discussed.
    • The exothermic peak in the DSC traces occurs at a temperature (420 C) approximately 90 C below the temperature for the thermite reaction. No explanation is proposed for this. Chemical activation energies of known reactions cannot be so sample dependent, whether nano-sized or not. This is not the thermite reaction.
    • In the reacted product (after heating in DSC), no Al-oxide is observed as a residue, as required by the thermite reaction. No explanation is given for this.
    • The obvious needed measurement of X-ray diffraction was not used to confirm the solid mineral species (oxides or metals). This is unacceptable in a materials chemistry paper. This is not considered by the authors.
    • Much is made of the fact that Fe-rich spheroids are present after reaction but there is no discussion of the grey-layer or of the origin of the Si-rich spheroids. Heating causes many things and there is an exothermic reaction so the conclusions about the presence of Fe-rich spheroids (which are reported to contain oxygen) as evidence for the thermite reaction is tenuous.


    I will say on forehand I am not an expert, but you can ask yourself why Harrit has not yet addressed these issues to satisfaction. In fact, he seems to ignore them by just stating that he has expert on his team who know what they are doing. Not a convincing rebuttal.
    edit on 4-12-2010 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



    posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:24 AM
    link   
    Very obvious and excellent points.

    I'm awaiting the day that these 'anonymous experts' actually show some proof of their claims. Hopefully
    Pteridine can shock the world and show that combustion in air is significant enough to raise the temperature
    of a thermitic reaction beyond the melting point of iron!

    We all know that's going to be a monumental task as there are several documented, and scientific sources
    of conventional thermite and thermate that exceed such temperatures alone...and these elements are clearly
    found in the red-gray chips.

    They're running out of excuses! First it was, "pay for publish"; then it was "the paper was not peer reviewed", and the latest is, "combustion in air was a factor".



    new topics

    top topics



     
    6
    <<   2 >>

    log in

    join