A Peer-Reviewer of the "Active Thermitic Materials" paper identifies himself.

Once again the Brentham's credibility as a legitimate publisher is shot to hell.

As you will see here:
911blogger.com...

On December 2nd, Professor Jones states this:

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

(same as above link)

Jones goes on to state:

I wish to extend a warm welcome to Prof. Griscom to the 9/11 truth-seeking community,....

Wait?? WELCOME?

Professor Jones, you welcomed him 3 YEARS AGO TO YOUR JOURNAL OF 911 STUDIES!

A member of your truther club you mentioned here 3 years ago as being a part of your group admits to peer reviewing YOUR paper??

Here is a paper YOU Professor Jones "published" on behalf of this "anonymous" reviewer of the said article.
www.journalof911studies.com...

And here you are Professor Jones speaking of Professor Griscom 3 years ago:

I dont see it. How is his credibility shot to hell? The man is educated in a related field, isnt he? At least his work was peer reviewed. The findings of the NIST were not peer reviewed.

However just like Id want to see a peer review of the NIST report, id like to see more peer reviews on other findings, given the scale and importance of the matter at hand. Sadly many professionals fear investigating 911 and rightfully so, because they might be terminated if their position is linked in any way to goverment funds.

In the early days after 911 a professor who challenged the official version was terminated over a letter signed by over 60 senators who demanded he be sacked.

Originally posted by Cassius666
I dont see it. How is his credibility shot to hell? The man is educated in a related field, isnt he? At least his work was peer reviewed.

Dude, his FRIEND was one of the reviewers!! Read the links, mate.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by Cassius666
I dont see it. How is his credibility shot to hell? The man is educated in a related field, isnt he? At least his work was peer reviewed.

Dude, his FRIEND was one of the reviewers!! Read the links, mate.

The Bush family and Salim bin Laden (Osama's brother) are friends too. What's your point?

Originally posted by nick112


The Bush family and Salim bin Laden (Osama's brother) are friends too. What's your point?

Dude, really? First of all, please refresh your knowledge regarding Osama Bin Laden and his family. Please!

Then... next time you take a test at school...ask the teacher / professor if you can take it home and have your friends correct it.

Yes. It is disingenuous of Dr Jones to pass Professor Griscom off as a newcomer to the 9/11 truth movement as though he was a prize-catch member of the physics establishment who had "turned", whereas he had already published an article in Jones' 9/11 research journal!

As Professor James Fetzer pointed out, the peer-review process in that journal is totally incestuous - friends passing around between themselves their latest papers for inspection and then calling them "peer reviewed" is not my understanding of the term.

Dr Jones is the Pied Piper of Hamelin in the 9/11 truth movement. Even if he were to show irrefutibly (yes, can we compare your sample, Dr Jones, with a control sample, please. Oh, you never bothered to procure one? Well, so much for your "explosive" findings, then) that superthermate was present in the WTC dust, this would NOT be proof of a conspiracy, as the US government could (and no doubt would be ready to, if forced) dismiss Jones' finding by admitting that this material had been painted onto girders in the towers some years before 2001 (in great secrecy, of course, so as not to worry WTC office leaseholders) in order to assist their controlled demolition when the decision was finally made to bring the towers down. Where would THAT leave the 9/11 truth movement then? Up the garden path leading nowhere.

I am more curious with the contents of the papers. There might have been colleagues on board the NIST report who were friends, so what. The issue i have with it is not their friendship, but that it presents a theory that is astronomically unlikely to have occoured.

We have shown many reasons for the administration and the people involved to decieve the public, which was put down to a convenient coincidence by the deniers, despite preparations for an invasion having been underway before 911 and drafts for the patriot and victory acts put toegether before 911.

If those people were Iranians I would definetly see your point. But seen as how professors in related fields put their careers at risk for challenging the official version, what would be the motivation of these professionals for their actions, other than that they want to expose the truth?

You basically call them liars. I dont see their motive.
The people behind the NIST report have been called liars or at least deceivers, very good motives have been supplied. Do you realize how you are grasping at straws?

There is no paper in the Journal by Prof. Griscom. Maybe Prof. Griscom had second thoughts and decided he didn't want his name associated with 9/11 truth at that time.

There is also a paper and book written by someone in the Journal based on some of my research. I chose not to give my full name back in those days as well due to the threats and propaganda being spewed by government agencies.

It's possible that Prof. Griscom decided to remove his name and paper and not be associated with the truth movement for those prior years and only now chooses to be a public figure again.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
There is no paper in the Journal by Prof. Griscom. Maybe Prof. Griscom had second thoughts and decided he didn't want his name associated with 9/11 truth at that time.

There is also a paper and book written by someone in the Journal based on some of my research. I chose not to give my full name back in those days either due to the threats and propaganda being spewed by government agencies.

It's possible that Prof. Griscom decided to remove his name and paper and not be associated with the truth movement for those prior years and only now chooses to be a public figure again.

Bonez I posted the paper above, but here it is again from 2007:

www.journalof911studies.com...

His name is all over it. Watch the Youtube video...his picture and name are mentioned by Jones.

reply to post by Six Sigma


I am still more curious about the content of the papers. Id like more of his peers to review the paper as well. Sadly professionals who have their career directly or indirectly linked to the goverment risk being bullied to the point that they are terminated (their employment), therefore I can see why many professionals attempt to steer clear from the 911 issue. There have been many examples of professionals who had their career terminated over it. In the early days a professor was sacked from an university over a letter signed by over 60 senators, because he put the official version up for debate.

So many professionals are bullied into being silent when it comes to the truth movement and the 911 deniers reaction is Naa na naa naaa na many professionals are silent about the truth movement. Where are they??

Of course there are still many professionals who do not fear being terminated or are employed in the private sector or foreign nationals organised in factions such as engineers for truth pilots for truth etc. .
But somehow these university educated people are crazy nutters for some reason.

reply to post by Six Sigma


I figured out how I missed Prof. Griscom's paper in the Journal. However, I don't see the big deal of reintroducing Prof. Griscom to the 9/11 truth movement since he's been out of the loop for several years.

reply to post by Cassius666


Just a thought - if - as you contend - professionals are "bullied" into steering away from the truth movement, who is doing the bullying? And based on what order or directives? And if you are a government official tasked with "bullying" professionals wouldn't you be a little curious why? Unless, of course, you believe that everyone involved in government is "in on it" in which case what are the chances that 9 years hence that millions of goverment officials are able to keep mum?

reply to post by hooper


The 60 mentioned senators for one.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by hooper

 

The 60 mentioned senators for one.

So, are your contending that those 60 senators all know that 9/11 was an "inside job" perpetrated by the US government?

reply to post by hooper


No I know they know they needed to silence debate on the topic, for whatever reason and it is still ongoing to this day. You want to get anywhere in academia you better not touch that subject.

But back on topic. Regardless of what you think of the peer review, something neither the NIST report nor the 911 comission got and dont need by the way because they are not scientific papers per se, but rather an explanation of events to the public, which means though that at least the NIST report is not an investiagtion or research.

Explosives and even thermite are far more rational explanations for the events to unfold as we whitnessed them, than the explanation given by the NIST report. Chances for random fires and damage to do what we whitnessed are so small, they cant be taken into consideration as the reason.

What about the other peer reviewers? We know anybody who says anything on behalf of the truther movement is a crazy nutter by default. But are the other reviewers crazy America hating nutters with an education in related fields?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

I figured out how I missed Prof. Griscom's paper in the Journal. However, I don't see the big deal of reintroducing Prof. Griscom to the 9/11 truth movement since he's been out of the loop for several years.

Do you have a problem with him peer reviewing the Thermite paper? Curious.

reply to post by Cassius666

Chances for random fires and damage to do what we whitnessed are so small, they cant be taken into consideration as the reason.

This statement creates pause for thought . So , after thinking about it , I can only 'assume' that you witnessed the same events that the rest of the world did that day . I cannot prove that .

How educated are you about the design and construction of the towers ? Did you know that there were Several Architects and Engineers who were publicly voicing their concern for the design and safety of the structures even before they were built ?

Looking at it from the perspective of a design draftsman , I can see the concerns also . The chief architecture critic for the New York Times in 1969 , Alda Louise Huxley , unknowingly prophesied the demise of the towers when she stated " ... could become the biggest tombstones in the world . "

She was an architecture critc . Why would she make such a statement ? Numerous proffessionals , with hands-on-experience in the field , attempted to raise the alarm that there were concerns about the safety of these structures , that they felt needed to be addressed , or "peer-reviewed" if you will .

Why do none of you guys want to research and talk about this aspect of 9/11 ? I am certain you will find a host of answers to your questions if you would research the towers themselves .

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Then... next time you take a test at school...ask the teacher / professor if you can take it home and have your friends correct it.

Where do you get off calling Prof. Griscom Dr. Jones' friend? Prof. Jones specifically states:

"I should also add that I have never met Prof. Griscom personally and that I just learned of his blog disclosing himself as a peer-reviewer today (thanks to Dirk Gerhardt)."

Prof. Griscom is a peer. Prof. Griscom is not a friend of Dr. Jones. What more do you want?

Originally posted by okbmd
Why do none of you guys want to research and talk about this aspect of 9/11 ?

If you want to talk about that particular subject, why don't you start your own thread and put some items up for debate? But it's off topic in this thread.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Where do you get off calling Prof. Griscom Dr. Jones' friend? Prof. Jones specifically states:

"I should also add that I have never met Prof. Griscom personally and that I just learned of his blog disclosing himself as a peer-reviewer today (thanks to Dirk Gerhardt)."

Prof. Griscom is a peer. Prof. Griscom is not a friend of Dr. Jones. What more do you want?

Like you BoneZ...the truth..They are at the least colleagues. Just like the BYU professor that was also a peer reviewer of this paper.

Do you know Professor Griscom was actually acknowledged in the paper?

We thank David Griscom,........for elucidating discussions and encouragement.

www.bentham.org...

Also on June 4, 2007 Jones replied to Fetzer at JO911S, saying,

"I frequently refer to papers by David Griscom, ..."

"Just one year after initiation (by me), the Journal [of 9/11 Studies] makes available over sixty peer-reviewed technical papers by authors such as: ... Prof. David Griscom, ..."

www.journalof911studies.com...

Again Bonez... do you think it was appropriate for Professor David Griscom to be a reviewer of the paper?