A peer-reviewer of the "Active Thermitic Materials" paper identifies himself... Great!
As a Full Professor of Physics at BYU, I reviewed dozens of scientific papers as a peer-reviewer. I have reviewed papers since accepting early retirement from BYU in 2007. And I have published as author or co-author over fifty papers which have been subjected to peer-review. Based on my experience in the peer-review system, I can add that it is not the place of an author of a paper or even an editor to reveal the names of peer-reviewers, but it is precedented and generally acceptable in the scientific community for a peer-reviewer to disclose his/her OWN name and role in the review of an important paper. This is the case for a prominent reviewer of the Harrit, Farrer, et al. paper -- one of the reviewers discloses his name and further comments on our paper and his review of it here: http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2010/09/911-truth-evidence-of-energetic.html . 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. I quote a brief excerpt from his blog and encourage you to read all of it:
"II. The 2009 publication in The Open Chemical Physics Journal (TOCPJ) of a fabulous paper by Harrit et al. entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” 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."
Prof. Griscom also addresses the reason why pieces of paper in the Towers would survive an explosive demolition (see his blog, answers to questions).
As one of the authors of this paper, I can say that Prof. Griscom's twelve pages of review were very well thought-out and required us to do considerable further work on the paper, which improved the final version significantly. This was one tough review, more challenging than any other review I have received, excepting perhaps peer-reviews of papers in Scientific American (1987) and Nature (1989) on which I was co-author. 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).
I wish to extend kudos to Prof. Griscom for thus speaking out in his blog. He has done some relevant things before; now it seems he has decided to speak out boldly. He strikes me as a solid and creative scientist who can contribute much to our effort. I am excited that he has spoken out in his blog. Now, as is common among scientists, I may not accept all his ideas (e.g., drone planes hitting the Towers); but he clearly distinguishes between his hypotheses --conjectures to be tested-- and hard physical evidence which has been scrutinized, peer-reviewed and published. That is also proper in science.
Welcome, Professor Griscom.
[EDIT: Link to Dr. Griscom's blog: http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/ LW]
- ProfJones's blog
- Login to post comments
Link To Prof Griscom's Blog?
I don't see it. Hiding in plain sight?
A link to the specific blog post is in there,
and here is the link to the entire blog.
http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/
Very interesting fellow, Dr. Griscom, and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
I hope that you and yours are well.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
The link
to the particular blog of Prof. Griscom that I'm quoting from is here:
http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2010/09/911-truth-evidence-of-energet...
Prof. Jones: questions about Prof. Griscom
Prof. Jones, you said, "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). ... I wish to extend a warm welcome to Prof. Griscom to the 9/11 truth-seeking community, as he speaks out in his blog."
You've welcomed Griscom as a newcomer to 9/11 inquiry, but as has been pointed out in the comments here, Griscom is not new to the 9/11 truth movement- in fact, since at least 2007, he's published a number of articles promoting baseless and offensive theories; good summary here: http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/09/david-griscom-all-hijacked-pass...
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? http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/hand-waving-the%20physics-o...
Do you think Griscom's independence as a reviewer is compromised, or that there's an appearance of conflict of interest, due to his self-published writing on 9/11, and his letter published in JO911S; why or why not?
I think you previously mentioned that Bentam was given suggestions for reviewers; was Griscom one of the people suggested?
I welcome Prof. Griscom's disclosure that he was a peer-revie
Loosenuke: I welcome Prof. Griscom's disclosure that he was a peer-reviewer for the "Active Thermitic Materials" paper. This disclosure is new, and his comments on the paper in his blog are new (to me). I thought his explanation of how paper would survive an explosive demolition was particularly cogent .
In a similar way, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer of BYU recently came out with a public statement regarding the paper and his 9/11 research, in an interview with AE911Truth -- you may have seen his interview. I was so pleased to see Jeff speaking out in this way.
I hope both of these scientists will find a public voice that will benefit the 9/11 truth-seeking movement -- as Prof. Niels Harrit has done so wonderfully in Europe.
As long as he identifies conjectures as such while emphasizing the importance of published factual evidence, as he has done, then I don't mind that he makes conjectures. It is when conjectures are presented as though these were solid facts along with ad hominem attacks on those who do not agree (you may have seen such behavior in others) -- that is when a major problem arises. We have seen this with Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood and others. I have not seen such behavior in Professor Griscom, at all.
As regards to what hit the Pentagon -- I am awaiting further factual data, such as release of videos seized by the FBI or held by the Pentagon, that should disclose precisely what it was that hit the Pentagon. Meanwhile, I continue to think that Secretary Mineta's whistleblower testimony regarding the INACTION of VP Cheney is of critical importance -- I continue to emphasize Mineta's testimony in my talks. (Do you talk about Mineta's testimony regarding that morning's events?)
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. (There were two reviewers for this paper as I recall.)
This is absolutely news
and worth reporting on!
Thanks for further pointing out.
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.
ProfJones, as I did recall the BYU itself did an overview, too, didn't they? Because they wanted Dr. Farrer not to appear on first place at author, and the paper is linked there in your bio. I thought I once read that?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/
Yes, Sitting-Bull, BYU scientists
did a review of the "Active Thermitic Materials" paper before it was published. They did approve it for scientific publication, with a few suggested changes that actually strengthened the paper IMO, but they did not want Dr. Farrer from BYU listed as first author (he is second author on the published version). Correct.
questions for Prof. Jones, cont.
The Active Thermitc paper's been online since April 09, and, afaik, there's been no rebuttal, confirmation or commentary published in any refereed journal.
Wikipedia is entirely untrustworthy on some things (like 9/11), but on less controversial issues it can be helpful. Do you take issue with any of the following?
"Typically referees are not selected from among the authors' close colleagues, students, or friends. Referees are supposed to inform the editor of any conflict of interests that might arise. Journals or individual editors often invite a manuscript's authors to name people whom they consider qualified to referee their work. Indeed, for a number of journals this is a requirement of submission. Authors are sometimes also invited to name natural candidates who should be disqualified, in which case they may be asked to provide justification (typically expressed in terms of conflict of interest). In some disciplines, scholars listed in an "acknowledgments" section are not allowed to serve as referees (hence the occasional practice of using this section to disqualify potentially negative reviewers[citation needed])."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-review#Recruiting_referees
Certainly, Griscom's credentials establish him as qualified to review the Active Thermitic paper. And, I recall your commenting at the time of Active Thermitic's publication that one of the reviewer's had required additional work to be done before recommending publication, and that the peer-review process was one of the most rigorous you had been through- and your work has been published in Nature. This may all be true, and the peer-review may have been thorough, and the Active Thermitic research and writing may be free of weaknesses and errors. However, as you know, your own rep and the image of the 9/11 Truth Movement are continually being tarnished by those who promote baseless and offensive theories, and behave awfully (such as Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds), and by the MSM and internet pundits who seize on these things to portray the 9/11 truth movement as being composed of irresponsible whackos.
You said, "I have never met Prof. Griscom personally ... I wish to extend a warm welcome to Prof. Griscom to the 9/11 truth-seeking community, as he speaks out in his blog. He strikes me as a solid and creative scientist who can contribute much to our effort."
One might get the impression from statements like the above that you were unacquainted with Griscom at all; how well acquainted with him were you prior to his reviewing the Active Thermitic paper?
In addition to his 'Hand-waving' letter published Feb 07 at JO911S, in the Acknowledgments section of the Active Thermitic paper it says, "We thank David Griscom, ..."
And in your June 4, 2007 reply to Fetzer published at JO911S, you said, "I frequently refer to papers by David Griscom, ..." and "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, ..."
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/JonesRepliesToFetzer.pdf
What do you say to those who will say your association with Griscom means the peer-review process is tainted by the appearance of a conflict of interest?
I understand you and the other authors would not have been privy to TOCPJ's process for selecting reviewers; was Griscom one of those recommended to TOCPJ as being qualified to review the Active Thermitic paper? (If yes, what difference do you think it makes?)
You said, "As regards to what hit the Pentagon -- I am awaiting further factual data, such as release of videos seized by the FBI or held by the Pentagon, that should disclose precisely what it was that hit the Pentagon."
The FBI has said it has released all videos http://penttbom.com/, which strains credulity, but it hasn't been proven they have other videos, or that DOD did not turn over all videos. There are photographs and other records which might shed light on what happened at the Pentagon, which are being withheld from the public; absolutely, these should be released. However, reserving judgment on what happened while advocating for the release of these materials is quite different from making statements such as Griscom has, which are not supported by evidence, and will be extremely offensive to the family members as well:
"Most probably the specific aircraft type was Cold-War-era Navy A-3 converted to an unmanned air vehicle (UAV). ... According to eyewitness reports, this second aircraft arrived at the Pentagon simultaneously with American Airlines Flight 77 (AA-77) but from a different quarter, at higher speed, and at lower altitude. Thus, most witnesses caught a glimpse of one or the other of the two planes, but not both. The expanding fireball of the A-3 impact then distracted everyone from noting (or correctly interpreting) the escape of the Boeing 757. In this analysis of the Pentagon attack, the passengers and crew of American Airlines Flight 77 (AA-77) would have escaped unscathed. ... "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)"
http://www.drivehq.com/folder/p1720199/1443548345.aspx
More comments/questions for Prof. Jones (& Sitting-Bull at end)
Prof. Jones, the Active Thermitic paper has been available to the public for over a year and a half, so in one sense the issue of whether the pre-publication peer-review process was improper, and even the paper itself, are unimportant. So far, despite the enormous significance, these findings have not been confirmed, debunked or even commented on in the refereed literature, and there’s no indication NIST, FBI, the White House or any international agencies are addressing this. Still, the paper and the authors have gotten the attention of some mainstream media, and people connected to the US government’s WTC investigations have taken note of it.
"Dusting-off Corley: Is this the official response to the discovery of energetic materials in the WTC dust?"
However, in another sense, the paper and the process are important. When Fourteen Points was published, attempts were made to discredit it- and by association, the 9/11 Truth Movement- by attacking Bentham Open, and truth activists wasted time and energy responding to these. Therefore, I was really disappointed to see that Active Thermitic was published in a Bentham Open journal- again, time and energy was wasted addressing attacks on Bentham Open. One of my responses is here: "Dr. Moffett Smears ‘Active Thermitic’ Paper by Association- Again"
The controversy over Bentham Open was heightened by the exposure of a different Bentham Open journal accepting a bogus paper, and by the resignation of Marie Paul-Pilenie from TOCPJ, though her conflicts of interest are significant, as SnowCrash documented: "Editor in chief of Open Chemical Physics Journal resigns after controversial article on 9/11"
Now, we’ve learned that one of the reviewers of the Active Thermitic paper, if his claim is true, was David Griscom. Most people have questions about 9/11 and skepticism is not reason enough to question someone’s objectivity. But Griscom is someone who has made claims that mean elements in the US government were complicit. If this was based on evidence, that would be fine, but his claims are based on faulty reasoning, and are so outlandish, in addition to being offensive to victim’s families (see quotes/link in my comment above), that his competence can be questioned- in addition to his objectivity as a reviewer. Furthermore, it appears he may be an associate of yours on some level, which casts his objectivity into further doubt.
If I’m wrong or off-base on any of the above, I hope you will point it out. However, just the things I described in the 2nd paragraph above have undermined the influence of the Fourteen Points letter and the Active Thermitic paper, they’ve served as ammunition for those attacking the 9/11 truth movement, and they’ve made the challenge of getting to truth and justice for 9/11 more difficult. In this sense, the journal, the review process and the paper are important.
In addition to my questions in the comment above, please answer the following:
Where do things stand on this research in the scientific community?
What other journals was the Active Thermitic paper submitted to, and what was their response?
Why was David Griscom thanked in the Active Thermitic Acknowledgements?
Was Griscom consulted, or did he otherwise assist in the research, analysis and/or writing of the paper, or in any other way?
To Sitting-Bull: How’d you learn the name of the other reviewer? Did they tell you, or did someone they told tell you? How do you know it’s true?
Loosenuke: Have you read these papers?
Loosenuke -- a further barrage of questions when you did not address the question I posed to you -- is this fair in a friendly discussion? (question 1) I await your response.
2. Have you read the following papers? note that ALL of these appear in refereed journals:
Steven E. Jones, “What accounts for the molten metal observed on 9/11/2001?”, Journal of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, 83:252, 2006.
K. Ryan, J. Gourley and S.E. Jones, "Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials", Environmentalist, August 2008.
James Gourley, peer-reviewed paper challenging a Bazant paper, published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Dr. Crockett Grabbe, peer-reviewed paper challenging a Seffe paper, published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Please be specific about which of these papers you have read (before now), and your comments on those you have read.
3. Have you even HEARD of these papers before today?
Please be specific about which of these papers you have heard of (before now).
4. Are the above journals "acceptable" to you, or "better than" Bentham Scientific publications? (explain why)
5. In publishing the "Active Thermitic Materials" paper, we sought a journal that would have the following:
a. Ability to publish color photographs and graphs, at no extra page charge
b. Allow at least 25 published pages, in order to accommodate the large amount of data we had obtained
c. Be available ON-LINE at NO Expense to readers throughout the world
d. Subject the paper to peer-review
e. Be an established refereed journal
The Open Chemical Physics Journal satisfied all of the above -- yet you say you don't like this journal -- please explain?
6. Since you are so critical of Bentham (as opposed to critiquing the content of the paper) -- would you please suggest one or two other scientific journals that satisfy the above requirements? Really, I would like to know if you can find a better journal than the one the authors chose in this instance.
7. What was wrong with Dr. Griscom's 12-page review? I thought it was very thorough, yet you seem to question it. The power of the scientific method is that it allows us to seek the facts without regard to supposed "biases" because anyone CAN REPLICATE the results, if the results are correct. If not, then further experimentation will show the error. Note that an author felt to acknowledge Dr. Griscom (I don't recall whose idea this was), and I can't see why this is inappropriate.
8. What is wrong with the experimental replication of the main points of the paper by Mark Basile? (or perhaps you missed his interviews and public statements on this?) I am referring to the technical points of his replication -- Mark has told me that he intends to publish his results... this takes time.
9. Your name and location, please? (I really don't like to continue a friendly discussion with a person who declines to identify himself.)
I await your responses.
answering questions, clearing up misunderstandings
While it may have seemed like I was attacking the credibility of the Active Thermitic paper and Bentham, i don't see it that way. I read the paper and understood some of it, but don't have the experience to evaluate it. I am one of the many people who would like to see this study replicated, and additional research done. In my comment above, I linked to one article I wrote debunking attacks on Bentham and Active Thermitic- I've written at least one other, and spent time, energy and sometimes money raising awareness about Fourteen Points, Environmental Anomalies, the Gourley response to Bazant, and Active Thermitic when these letters and papers were published.
You've listed several good reasons for using Bentham or some other open access journal- TOCPJ may have been the best option, and, if so, this is just unfortunate, as the controversy surrounding Bentham's spamming in pursuit of authors, reviewers and editors, acceptance of a bogus paper, resignation of Paul-Pilenie (who was apparently not doing her job as editor-in-chief) have all served to undermine the influence of Fourteen Points and Active Thermitic. Perceptions may be entirely unjustified, but perceptions matter in government, the scientific community and the court of public opinion- it's how "9/11" has been able to be exploited to justify so many crimes, and why the cover ups have been successful so far.
I read the Environmental Anomalies paper. I also read the Gourley response to Bazant - correct me if I'm wrong; that was not a paper, it was a letter, or a comment, and the only peer-reviewer was the editor. I have no issue with these- again, it's not my area.
I had not heard of the Grabbe response to Seffe, or Jones 2006. I couldn't find them just now in a search of 911blogger or scholar.google.com. Please post links and submit them to 911blogger; I would like to read them, and I'm sure most people here would as well.
I haven't read Griscom's 12-page review, and didn't know it was available to the public; please post a link. Whoever wrote the piece at wiki that i posted didn't cite a source, but it said, "In some disciplines, scholars listed in an "acknowledgments" section are not allowed to serve as referees (hence the occasional practice of using this section to disqualify potentially negative reviewers[citation needed])." This is why I asked if you took issue with any of that paragraph. (see comment/link above)
I look forward to Basile's work being published; that will be a major step forward. And his putting his name and rep on the line by saying he's done this is significant, but it's not nearly as significant as publication in a refereed journal.
Question 1; did you mean your question about Mineta? I didn't see how this related to the OP and ignored it, but since you're asking again- and I'm not going to get into a discussion about it here- Mineta, Doug Cochrane (the young man), Cheney, Rice and everyone else who was in the PEOC that morning, along with many other Bush Administration officials and witnesses, should be subpoenaed to testify under oath about that morning, and many other things related to 9/11, as well as other activities and events. I have noted Mineta's testimony in conversation with people, but as elements of his testimony conflict with other elements of it, I don't claim it's proof of anything except the need for further investigation. For instance, Mineta said he arrived at the White House at 9:15 am and there were people running out of it- but according to other reports the evacuation didn't begin until 9:22 am and there was no order to RUN until about 9:45 am.
I'm not anonymous; my name and location are in my bio - Erik Larson, DC Metro area. We've communicated by email before. I apologize if I seemed rude, but Griscom's evidence-free assertion that 9/11 victims- people whose bodies, body parts and DNA were recovered at the WTC, Pentagon and Shanksville- are alive and enjoying "handsome swiss bank accounts," pisses me off. This kind of thing causes pain to the victim's families and it has made them targets of harassment. And the big picture is that the 9/11 truth movement is discredited by association, which frustrates the efforts for truth and justice.
I think I addressed the substance of all your questions.
Excuse me
"Resignation of Paul-Pilenie (who was apparently not doing her job as editor-in-chief) "
Now thats a kind of "debunker" conclusion. How you get there? Her resignation letter may be very well thinkable because of external pressure. Not by failing her job. As she also iy lying about the expertise, ever thought on that?
I think if Dr. Paul-Pilenie had been doing her job,
she either would have refused to review and publish the paper (thus acting as the diligent gatekeeper she was selected to be, so she was not doing her job in that role) or she would have been part of the review process and let the political chips fall where they will (and acting as an honest scientist pursuing science without regard to politics, pretty rare these days).
One would hope she would have chosen the latter, but I think she had a very strong economic reason for taking the course she did.
Instead, it appears she was asleep at her post until it was too late for her to do anything but resign quickly, throwing out a lame excuse as the door hit her on her way out. That is not my opinion of someone doing their job well.
I'm not sure if that is what Loose Nuke had in mind when he wrote the phrase in his comment above, but that is my take on her failure to do her job well.
Does that make sense to you?
Cheers.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Good description
I concur.
Paul-Pilenie indicated she didn't know
the Active Thermitic paper had been accepted and published. How can the editor-in-chief be doing their job if they don't know what's being published in their journal?
Sitting-Bull, I asked you in a comment above- "How’d you learn the name of the other reviewer? Did they tell you, or did someone they told tell you? How do you know it’s true?"
Exactly, if we take her at her word,
then it is quite obvious that she was not doing her job.
Cheers.
Why should we do that?
We can safely assume that there was enormous outside pressure on Bentham for publishing. And Paul-Pileni needs an excuse to fade away...
As I wote in my article
there's more to the story. I speculate that Marie-Paule Pileni looked at the paper closely only after she was contacted, and I further speculate that what she saw scared her. I'm suspicious about the gigantic AZF explosion in Toulouse shortly after 9/11, tied to the SNPE Pileni worked for, but I never got that far with it.
Last I checked, the OCPJ is now headed by an Israeli professor.
I looked in-depth- several hours research
on this aspect "Toulouse", seems suspicious, yes, but I found nothing of interest. If there is any connection it was covered completely.
The OCPJ is corrupted now, and I suppose any other magazine will refuse to publish any verifying info. But's that just my fear. Maybe I'm wrong.
Peer Review Study
I found these studies to alleviate the debunker in you Nuke.
Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication
Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors
Results Therewere788 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%confidence interval,1.02-2.66)or re-
vise(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 accep-
tance(P=.02).Where author-and editor-suggested reviewers differed in their recom-
mendations,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 rec-
ommendations 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
A second study done on open peer review:
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/318/7175/23.abstract?ijkey=8feca9dda2f29a07ec...
The Fed's View of 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.
My point? It doesn't matter if it is blind, double blind, or open peer review, the SCIENCE still stands! Sadly, you have a problem with Griscom's freedom of speech and his theories. Do you have a problem with his science or his review?
"What do you say to those who will say your association with Griscom means the peer-review process is tainted by the appearance of a conflict of interest?""I understand you and the other authors would not have been privy to TOCPJ's process for selecting reviewers; was Griscom one of those recommended to TOCPJ as being qualified to review the Active Thermitic paper? (If yes, what difference do you think it makes?)"
What conflict of interest? What political statement does the paper make or is it an expose of science? Did Griscom get funding from the paper? And finally, loose nuke, WHERE IS THE SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEWED (bind,double blind, or open) REBUTTAL from debunkers?
The two studies I linked to and the Federal Governments own position on peer review PROVE that the association between an author and a reviewer is meaningless and does not 'tain't the review when it comes to the science. Your simply using a debunking point which has just been debunked.
The main points in my comments
are about the perception of the paper and Bentham by the public and the scientific community, and about things that have been used to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement, and undermine its influence.
"And finally, loose nuke, WHERE IS THE SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEWED (bind,double blind, or open) REBUTTAL from debunkers?"
I specifically noted in two comments that there's been none- so why are you asking me? I don't see the point in responding to your other questions, as they're assuming I'm making arguments I'm not making.
It is unfortunate that
Griscom has promoted some extremely offensive, baseless, and easily discreditable theories. Regardless of the science, these types of ideas are ALWAYS used to discredit 9/11 Truth's validity. I've learned and respected Professor Jones's work for many years. I hope he will perhaps take the time to at least reach out to Griscom's sense of logic and correct him on his offensive ideas. Claiming falsehoods like 'the passengers are all alive and in witness protection' is most certainly baseless. Idea's like these have always served to weaken our credibility as a movement and can quickly destroy Griscom's credibility to the general public regardless of his scientific qualifications.
Apparently...
He believes in an A-3 Skywarrior crashing into the Pentagon, and "modifications" to the planes that struck the towers, among other things.
ENOUGH WITH THE THEORIES!!!
I'd say
the problem is baseless theories, not theorizing itself.
Putting forward...
Every theory PUBLICLY is the problem. Putting forward theories PUBLICLY that have no basis in fact whatsoever is the problem. Putting forward theories PUBLICLY that have no basis in fact whatsoever, but are presented AS FACT is the problem. Putting forward theories that just sound batshit crazy is the problem. Aligning ourselves with individuals that take part in these practices is the problem. Allowing the insanity continue is the problem.
This is all anyone needs in this movement.
Here is the 9/11 Report. I suggest you read it, and ask others to read it to understand the "official account."
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html
After that, I suggest you ask people to watch "9/11: Press For Truth"...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481#
Then I suggest you ask people to watch the companion DVD "In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories Of The 9/11 Families"...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4399917864007973679#
Then I suggest you recommend the "Complete 9/11 Timeline" to get people started...
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
Then I suggest you recommend this series of movies I made called "What's Being Covered Up?"...
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080326132655798
Here is what I call the "Gail Sheehy Collection." She is the reporter that reported on the "Jersey Girls" as they were doing their thing. It is essential reading...
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19899
Then I suggest you recommend the report on the inadequacies of the 9/11 Commission's Report compiled by 9/11 Family Members Lorie Van Auken and Mindy Kleinberg...
http://home.comcast.net/~gold9472/family_steering_cmte_review_of_report.pdf
Then I suggest you show people this list of unanswered questions compiled by the 9/11 Family Steering Committee...
http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html
Then I suggest you ask people to read the different letters sent out over the years by the September Eleventh Advocates...
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090720125107330
Then I suggest you show the archived statements of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee that took place during the Commission and after...
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18031
Then I suggest you ask people to read the FSC's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Especially Mindy Kleinberg, and Kristen Breitweiser...
http://www.911independentcommission.org/testimony.html
Here is an archive I made a few years ago called the "Who Is? Archives"...
http://visibility911.com/jongold/?p=157
Here is something several "veterans" for this cause wrote to better help activists...
http://www.truthmove.org/content/2008-declaration/
Then, if all of that fails to motivate people to fight for justice, you can show them my article, "The Facts Speak For Themselves"...
http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/
Good luck!
Okay
I was just making a little joke here Jon. It helps to keep some sanity in the face of adversity.
You've probably seen me lauding your work on numerous occasions. You deserve it.
I just want to know what the hell is wrong with the dust, too. Not exclusively.
You all Jon and SnowCrash are
You all Jon and SnowCrash are two of my most favorite loud bloggers. Pump Up the Volume! Baseless theories "will not stand, man." ;)
Please
don't tell me:
This is all anyone needs in this movement.
I would think that you would be the last one to dictate an exclusive approach to others, as that is exactly what you spend so much time railing against here, yes?
You are fully entitled to your approach to activism and to use the information you think most effective in educating the public, and to state your opinion about said approach and information.
While I fully agree that pushing baseless, complex or crazy sounding theories is counterproductive to sound public education and effective activism, everyone is entitled to approach the subject in their own way.
I fully acknowledge your right to pursue your activism in the way that you see fit, please do the same for me and others who choose to include educating people about the primary psyop event of the 9/11 false flag.
Can we please agree that everyone has the right to their own approach and move on?
The truth shall set us free ( and everyone has a different path to the truth).
Love is the only way forward ( and love means accepting that everyone has a right to their own path, and supporting them on their journey).
I repeat...
The links I posted above are all anyone needs in this movement. If they want to maintain their credibility. If they want to support the family members. If they want to put forward the most credible case.
Or, you can continue playing with the theorists. I fully acknowledge your right to pursue any crazy sounding bogus theory that you see fit. However unhelpful to this cause it may be.
Many Of "Your" "Facts" Are Also Speculative Allegations
You admonish others for considering "theories", while "your" "facts" paper (a collection of research by others with your name attached to it) addresses speculation about suspect happenings (theorizing?).
According to you, it seems that Truthers can only speculate and theorize regarding topics selected by you.
Name one "speculative allegation."
Please. If you're referring to instances where I admit there has been an allegation, that's usually how people refer to things that haven't been fully investigated. However, the FACT that something has been alleged is a fact. I didn't make up the ALLEGATION in my head. They were reported on by numerous agencies, etc...
A "collection of research by others with your name attached to it." Really. I've done no research of my own? I haven't read the mounds of books and news articles over the years, I haven't spoken to sources, I haven't called people mentioned, etc... and so on?
Shoo CIT endorsing man. You have no clue what you're talking about, and you aren't worth the time of day.
Citation please?
I've not seen anything in Jon's article that talks about "modified pod planes", or "all passengers are still alive and on the take" ... I found your comment abrasive and offensive. You may not enjoy Jon's style of interacting with the locals here, but lets not just make shit up about that article, which incidentally is one of the most read articles over at 9/11 Truth News.
This Is Not The Jon Gold Movement
Mr. Gold rudely criticizes people for openly speculating about 9/11 events, then he writes articles about certain information that may or may not suggest wider 9/11 foul play.
Speaking of rude...
From Aidan Monaghan on youtube messaging:
"You're that guy who swears 9/11 was an Inside Job and then attacks evidence supporting that view.
It would be closer to the truth to say that you are most concerned with promoting yourself as some great leader of the Truth cause and resent others who don't accept you as their leader. You are not taken seriously by most.
You also seem like an attention seeking 9/11 "groupie" for lack of a better term, who tries to befriend prominent members of the cause and then later boast of your very loose connections to these people.
Do the cause a favor and find another hobby please."
Don't think I've ever said two words to you before, in fact, I think I thanked you once for one of your FOIA requests, and I get a message like that. You say it was in response to something I said on one of your videos, and I asked you to provide me a link so I can see what it is that I said. You have not done so.
You are insistent it seems that I have never really done anything for this cause. I used to despise when Nico Haupt would "flaunt" his "9/11 Truth Resume"... he started this, he started that, etc... however, I would gladly and enthusiastically put the entirety of my "9/11 Truth Resume" against anyone in this movement. ANYONE.
If you've read my article, you know that it starts by saying:
I would like to say that theorizing about what happened on 9/11, when you’re not being given answers to your questions about that day by the people who SHOULD be able to do so, is PERFECTLY normal. As is suspecting that the reason these answers aren’t being given is “sinister” in nature. As Ray McGovern said, “for people to dismiss these questioners as “conspiratorial advocates”, or “conspiratorial theorists”… that’s completely out of line because the… The questions remain because the President who should be able to answer them, WILL NOT.” When you think about everything the previous Administration did in 8 years, the idea that they might not be giving us the answers we seek because of something “sinister” is not crazy. In fact, it’s the most logical conclusion one can come to at this point. After years of obfuscation, spin, lies, and cover-ups regarding the 9/11 attacks, it is unavoidable to think that criminal complicity is the reason why.
I don't have a problem with people theorizing about what happened. I have a problem with people (especially those considered to be "leaders" or "respected") putting forward theories publicly that are hurtful to the families, that sound crazy, that could be used against us. I have corresponded with Steven Jones in the past, and told him about what I thought was the responsible way a scientist should do something in this cause where MANY people are out to hurt us. That if you have a theory, you work to find information to back that theory up, and then share it amongst your colleagues, etc... and then if it checks out, put your findings forward. If I remember correctly, he agreed with me.
What Griscom, Fetzer, Wood, and MANY other "scientists" in this cause have done is the exact opposite, and it has hurt our credibility. My first comment in this thread was "Sigh... The scientists don't make it easy, that's for sure." That's not rude. That is the truth, and the truth hurts.
Jon & Aidan - enough already
This discussion is off-topic. You can continue it by email, or start a thread at truthaction.
Seconded, and thank you
Yes, off-topic and overly contentious.
Take it to another venue, if necessary.
Thanks.
Agreed
Thanks for being a good referee.
In YOUR opinion, Jon.
There is a word for your attitude here, and it is not pretty, but someone needs to say it straight out, as this is the truth movement, yes?
The word is:
Arrogance
I guarantee that longer you maintain this attitude, the less influence you will have over the direction, strategy and tactics of the movement.
Perhaps you revel in the lone wolf approach, but it really doesn't make it easy for you or anyone who may want to work with you.
That is also your choice, of course.
The truth shall set us free (and anyone is entitled to take the long road to the truth, if that is what they want).
Love is the only way forward (love means letting people make their own choices, especially when you disagree with them).
I prefer...
"Experience."
You're right though. Let's single me out as being the bad guy, the individual not putting forward an individual such as Griscom with his hurtful, outlandish theories, and forget about the problem of credibility with the nano-thermite paper. In case you haven't noticed, there is a large majority of people putting this information forward as the end-all/be-all of 9/11, and I would hate to think of what would happen if this was used against us in any way the way that it could be.
I have asked repeatedly for students to take the paper to their science teachers (people outside of the 9/11 Truth Movement) to get the science verified, and I honestly don't think I've seen anyone do this.
I'm not singling you out as "the bad guy"
and statements like this only reinforce the impression that you think that you and ONLY YOU know what is best for the 9/11 truth movement, which further underscores the arrogance you bring to your approach to activism.
Once again, your choice.
I don't consider you a "bad guy" at all, so you have me chuckling as I write this (it's not all about you, bro).
Now, as far as getting the "science verified", which science are you talking about? Basic Newtonian physics (which Mrs. Harnsberger taught us in the 8th grade!) or nanoscale chemical physics, which is way beyond 99.9% of school teachers? After the new year I'm going to talk to the local high school science teachers in my area and hopefully convince our group to do the same throughout the SF bay area. We shall see what comes of that.
Will you be satisfied that the science has been "verified" ( a somewhat comical concept for those that understand that science is a process and not an end product, but I digress) when one, two or more peer reviewed and published papers come out supporting the same findings?
Let me add here that one does not need to verify exactly how the controlled demolition was accomplished in order to understand that a controlled demolition was used. This also applies to the explosive demolitions that brought down the Twin Towers, btw.
The cops say the man jumped off the roof, but video evidence shows he was pushed off the roof by someone who remains unidentified. Are you going to believe the cops or your eyes? Are you going to wait until the perpetrator has been caught and confessed before you are willing to concede that the man was pushed and did not jump? Will you then wait until you know what the perpetrator had for breakfast the day of the murder and what the motive was before you will concede that a murder was committed and not a suicide, as the entire police force still contends?
Shall we add "pedantic" to our growing vocabulary list?
Let's take this off the blog and continue it via email, if you want. I actually have some other things I want to talk to you about, as I do value your opinion on many things and have great respect for your body of work.
Cheers!
The truth shall set us free (and then I can spend more time dancing!).
Love is the only way forward (love means setting aside minor differences with people and working for the greater good, at least to me it does).
Guess what...
The "nanoscale chemical physics" is "way beyond 99.9%" of everyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement to, and yet, it's pushed by 99.9% of the 9/11 Truth Movement. As being the end/all-be/all. Excuse me for my concern. The "basic" Newtonian physics is also out of the realm of a great many people in this movement, whether or not they admit it.
It's not "only me." There are many people who think as I do. Who share my concerns. Who approach people in a way similar to me.
We are not stupid.
It may not be only you but you are way off base here and I think it is insulting. I have no interest in dumbing down the movement because some people cannot grasp the significance of free-fall or the nano thermite in the dust. We want an intelligent movement and a High school education is sufficient. There is no way that we should ignore our strongest scientific evidence because you think we need to dumb things down.
Even if I am one of the strongest advocates
of the science and Prof. Jones, Harrit et al, I understand Jons point and share it.
I even made a lists to prove the inside job hypothesis without any claim or proof regarding the WTC demolition. It's not that difficult if you look at the facts.
Regarding the "problem of credilibity". There is no such a problem. This was created to make it appear to be bad science. We may not be able to get another peer reviewed paper to publish, or to get other scientists on the record, but that doesn't mean necessarily it was poor science. Fear explains the same. I wrote to most of the nanothermite scientists in the world and get not a single answer, begging them to confirm to me Harrits paper as bogus. What does this tell you?
I wrote also
to every german advisory board member of Bentham Chemical Physics. I found every single scientist (at last). All are real and well equipped to comment. I ask them to comment Bentham and the study itself. I received not a single answer (besides a scientist who complained about a mistaken homonym).
Same as ever. Fear is the key. The only possible explaination- as there is no conspiracy of silence thinkable of all agreed on.
Quite the coup, "ROBBY B". Congratulations.
regarding this:
[QUOTING "ROBBY B"] But get this,I question the integrity of a supposed truth activists who writes "and forget about the problem of credibility with the nano-thermite paper".[END QUOTE]
Sir, I question the integrity of someone who writes this beneath on a public email on September 17, 2010:
[QUOTING ROB BALSAMO] Paul T - Stop Your Whining
You made your bed, lay in it.
Want to play with the big boys? Learn to take it like a big boy.
I have zero respect for you, and never will.
By the way, you are now banned from our forum as I never want to hear your whining again.
Rob Balsamo
Co-founder
Pilotsfor911truth.org [END QUOTE]
Then writes this on his forum on November 1st, 2010:
[QUOTING ROB BALSAMO] It takes a lot of abuse, personal attacks and trolling to get banned around here. We don't arbitrarily ban people without warning for disagreements, as does 911Blogger, J.REF, etc. I can't remember the last person I banned other than an obvious spambot. Even the abusive GL's haven't been banned, only suspended. [END QUOTE]
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20736&view=fin...
http://truther911.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/to-robby-b-911blogger-com-...
Let’s show them all of it, Mr. Balsamo! What do you say? Let’s talk publicly about it, Mr. Balsamo! What do you say?
http://www.paulsdomain.libsyn.com/
regarding this:
[QUOTING "ROBBY B"] you cannot slap a stupid person without hurting your hand. [END QUOTE]
You appear to be in error, sir.
Paul
http://www.911artists.com/
http://www.911truther.com/
I don't think
that is Rob Balsamo. Balsamo is banned. It doesn't sound like Balsamo either.
As for Craig (and Aldo) 's honesty, which you appeared to mention in an earlier incarnation of your reply, please read this.
If I recall correctly, you frequent that forum too? Anyways, it's a great comment by Jim.
I am Robby B the mild
I am Robby B the mild mannered engineer from the UK who has been a member of this forum longer than either of you.Anyway I am glad you showed up Snowcrash,as I knew you would, because I have something to say to you as well.It is reference to your favourite youtube video,the cartoonish,made with solidworks,graphic of a plane knocking down light poles and hitting the Pentagon.That video serves an important purpose and has a specific name,A WORKING HYPOTHESIS.It is important because a working hypothesis is needed to open a debate because a hypothesis is not designed to be proven right but to be proven wrong.This is where you are all tripping yourselves up because you are not following the conventional norms.You post your working hypothesis as a way to close debate and because the video falls down on every conceivable level,you fail to do this.Yet when posters try to debate the working hypothesis which is exactly as is supposed to happen they get voted down and pounced on by a group,of which you are one,in a quite bullying manner.That is why the good posters have gone,I suspect Professor Jones will stop bothering with this forum when his professional integrity is constantly being attacked by people not fit to clean his boots.
If John Gold does not understand the nano thermite paper then would it not be better for him to stay silent on the issue rather than question the integrity of the authors.It is ,after all, better to stay silent in fear of looking foolish rather than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.Am I also supposed to believe that most posters don't even understand schoolboy physics or that science turns people off.It is science that has opened the floodgates on 9/11,not John Gold and not you.,Science is sacrosanct and I suspect Professor Jones is in despair after reading this comments page.I really doubt he expected the assinine crap that John Gold posted.
Mild mannered
Robby, that's not really mild mannered, is it?
Speaking of working hypothesis, falsification, verification, the scientific method, how does this sound to you?
http://www.ocweekly.com/content/printVersion/213848/
Sound scientific? Read Jim's comment, OC Weekly is hardly the only source revealing CIT's extreme confirmation bias. Which is why they cherrypicked their witnesses, refused to admit the plane hitting the Pentagon is part of the flight path, and snitchjacketed every single witness who disagreed.
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=44236&postcount=63
Still feel like you're about to school me about the Pentagon, Robby?
I suggest you start here.
And trust me, it's only the bare minimum of what I have in store for CIT.
Science is indeed sacrosanct, just not the pseudoscientists who pervert the scientific method.
"My see-saw analogy renders any need for "calculations" moot."
— Craig Ranke
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2148743&postcount=32
As for my tenure here at 911blogger, before I became a member, I always thought it was a closed community without the possibility to register. So one day, I decided finally to send an e-mail requesting membership, and then I realized that was all it took.
I've been at this for seven years Robby, before prof. Jones and Richard Gage were on the scene. I witnessed their rise to prominence and their invaluable contributions to this movement, but nobody is infallible, omnipotent, or omniscient. Steven and Richard are not divine entities. They are not above criticism. I have posted several important blog articles strongly in support of prof. Jones' research. I have recently posted an in-depth analysis of WTC 7.
For years, I have sacrificed hours and hours defending their work all over the internet. Although I wasn't credited, my work was sourced in David Ray Griffin's book on WTC 7, citing it via prof. Harrit's statement. (Cite note 118, page 286)
And if you want to criticize Jon Gold, at least spell his name right.
One of the first things R. Gage told me was...
if there's anything wrong in his work then tell him. (I was taken aback- me, a mere private cab driver with a 3rd class honours Maths degree from Birmingham Uni UK)
He's aware he isnt a deity!! and he's open to alternative information
Taking that, and the fact that Prof Jones posts and replys here, I think we have 2 amazing, adaptive professionals in our number.
Certainly
I agree. Both men have sacrificed incredibly.
Off topic
how thin can these replies go?
as thin as a girder blasted by nanothermite to the width of a slice of swiss cheese?
Hey, SnowCrash.
I'm very grateful to meet you. Respect to you, sir. Yes, please forgive the edits. I realize it's best form not to do that. It's a very delicate and complex situation though and I was trying to be as precise as possible with my words.
SnowCrash - "If I recall correctly, you frequent that forum too?" ( referring to http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT )
I'm not posting frequently on any forum right now, but I have posted a small number of times there. I keep a few forums open sometimes as I'm working on other things to see what's going on and because I have enjoyed them as an expression of the Truth Movement art and culture at times. I've personally broadcasted C.I.T content and opposition to C.I.T as well.
As long as you saw it and to clarify for any viewers, I originally had slightly different wording on some of the content and a postscript. The P.S. read something like this as follows:
"P.S. Craig Ranke appears to me at this time to be an honest person although we disagree on many things."
I wrote this originally in an attempt to separate individuals, actions, and responsibilities and then I decided to remove it for the same purpose. I stand by this though. I don't know Mr. Marquis. I've had two public exchanges with him, I think. To me, he acted well both times.
Also, I realized after posting that this may not be Mr. Balsamo. This is why I changed some of the quotes from "ROB BALSAMO" to "ROBBY B". I posted it that way originally because of the forum name and because of a great similarity in language style, content, and vocabulary to what I've seen from Mr. Balsamo.
Peace,
Paul
Paul
I don't mind you making edits, I do so all the time, but I was already responding to your previous comment, and in the mean time I was looking up and rereading Jim's forum comment.
You come across as a kind, well-willing individual. You and me can discuss CIT another time. I've studied CIT's work extensively. It's a long story, I can only do, say, and hyperlink so much. If I had the time and the wherewithal, I would go in depth with every topic, but unfortunately I don't, so sometimes things stand without full clarification. You probably feel the same way. When it comes to the Pentagon, I have slowly evolved to understand that everything the Truth Movement thought it knew about the physical/witness aspects of the Pentagon crash, is wrong. I fault myself for maintaining a position of relative agnosticism for so long. This is still the party line: "We don't know what happened at the Pentagon."
To me, there is no comparison in terms of strength of evidence with explosive demolition research, but even there there is plenty left to be said and discovered. What I do know with certainty, is that the NIST reports are elaborate exercises in obfuscation, willful ignorance and question begging.
As for Balsamo: I'd describe him as passionately wrong.
Cheers, Michiel
David Griscom has been on the list
of patriotsquestion911 for a long time, and I read his article of handwaving the physics of 911, in which he destroyed the ludicrous far fetched ideas and assumptions of one Manuel Garcia (who works for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory of all places).
Nothing wrong IMO with scientists who do an excellent job of deconstructing all kinds of myths that are floating around about certain aspects of 911.
But he's not a totally new figure in that respect, by any means. But he's certainly qualified to criticize the work of NIST and the 911-Commission.
But perhaps it's indeed not too wise to speculate on plane passengers.
Sigh...
The scientists don't make it easy, that's for sure.
Speculation
Jon was voted down, and I don't know why.. I too, am profoundly embarrassed by Mr. Griscom's hypothesis, or more like conjecture, that the plane passengers are alive and paid off. I knew of this long ago, of course. I'm reluctant to criticize the character of a peer reviewer of Steven Jones' work and Steven isn't responsible for Mr. Griscom's theories, .. but it's true that Griscom's public statements have been embarrassing.
Making such claims without evidence, in fact, in spite of solid evidence to the contrary, strikes deep into the heart of what it really means to have intellectual integrity about 9/11. For me personally, and I hope most in the TM, this is extremely important. I simply refuse to (1) lie about 9/11 and (2) make outrageous, speculative and offensive claims without basis.
We should have the courage to criticize not only our adversaries but also our friends.
You will never hear me...
Put forward anything like that. Ever.
http://www.truthmove.org/content/2008-declaration/
Well I don't know about that
Well I don't know about that Jon. Speculating that WTC7 could have fallen symmetrically at free fall speed without the help of explosive demolition sounds like a pretty far-fetched speculation to me.
Sigh...
The non-scientists don't make it easy, that's for sure.
Why Does One Try To Suppress The Demolition Evidence?
"Some non-scientists don't make it easy, that's for sure".
Especially those who apparently seek to suppress probably the strongest evidence of foul play on 9/11 (demolition), in favor of other less provable acts of 9/11 foul play.
I note also that one party in particular has also been critical of David Ray Griffin, the Loose Change film series as well as the demolition evidence, which all have provided a major boost to the Truth cause over the years.
Seems to me...
Like you should send those people nasty accusations in messages on youtube for not agreeing with your opinions about what is "probably the strongest evidence of foul play on 9/11." Clearly that seems logical.
As I said elsewhere, I have nothing to prove to anyone in this movement. My work over the last 8+ years speaks for itself. LOUDLY.
I love when people act as though I'm the one "suppressing" information, when it's the people who want to make our arguments solely about CD that are actually the ones "suppressing" anything.
I'm just curious. after you endorsed CIT (something I would never have done), did anyone send you nasty accusations in messages on youtube?
Do You Deny Posting Derogatory Comments At My Youtube Videos?
You fail to mention that my message to you was sent AFTER you posted a derogatory comment at a Youtube video I uploaded.
I have no idea...
What you're talking about. Which video? Post a link. None of your videos look even remotely familiar to me, and on top of that, I rarely comment on videos unless they are my own. Also, why didn't you bring this up after the first time I confronted you on your nasty message?
Well said, SnowCrash, and agreed
Many people, including some scientists, are oblivious to the political realities of unfounded speculation and careless language.
That said, everyone has the right to say and do as they choose. Others have the responsibility to call them on it and sanction them if and when necessary. This is all part of belonging to a social/political movement and dealing with sometimes irrational human beings.
My closest friends and family are my strongest critics (after myself, that is) and I love them even more for it.
Cheers!
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
I voted him down
I think of Jon as one of my strongest paragon and stand by his side as an ally almost ever.
But I tell you why I voted this down.
I suppose: Some truthers, leaded by truthful aims, already behave like "debunkers". It's like a new reaction class amongst us. The sligthest conjecture about Prof. Griscom was used to attack him or derail his role in the publication process. Look please at loose nukes questions. They all are important, of course, however, I think it''s not the right place to show them our enemys or behave like them.
As in regards to the planes: The answer isn't that easy. Sure the idea that plane swaps or something alike is outlandish, but once the demoltion hypothesis was too. Look at Jons statement, he still think it is not good to convince people. Peoples convincing has not necessarily to do with the facts.
And we do have facts to support the theory that something stinks with the planes. One is the demolition itself: If this was planned, the flights have to be planned too. There are many other facts, most of them not even known to english natives, because one of the best books on was published only in german language so far- "Censored day- how media, machines and men are steered." In it is proven without doubt that there were no flight deroutes recorded on 9/11 till in every case it was far too late to reach their aims. AA11 stress signals are send to early, the tracking missing 30 miles northeast and so on. No relatives await flight 93. No ceremonials, candles or something else reported in SF and on and on and on. I know it was said that DNA tests were made and I know the flight parts were found in the WTC rubble, but we were also told that KSM made a confession but nobody can proof or check this. The same for the flight parts- every FOIA question denied...
Please remember that a Psy-Op means to put an enormous high barrier of emotional shock onto a case. As scientist, it doesn't matter. Such conjecture theories are not published in peer reviewed papers- only scientifically facts are.
One of them
is among us: Cosmos/YT lost his uncle Mickey (family friend) on UA 93:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJDVijJWjbw#t=5m36s
I'm sure you know who he is. If you think his uncle is alive and paid off, as Griscom suggests, you should ask him. I don't think he would agree, but obviously I can't speak for him. So, I think the remark "No relatives await flight 93. No ceremonials, candles or something else reported in SF and on and on and on." is a bit strange, don't you think?
KSM's confession is made irrelevant because of him being tortured. Whatever the course of action was before 9/11 when prisoners (civilian, military, I don't care) were grievously tortured, it should be the course of action now.
With respect to flight 93, I suggest you read through this. Especially when making these claims, you have a moral obligation to know everything there is to know about this flight.
For the record
I did not vote you down. If we have victims relatives on board, good for them and us.
You don't have to link me the historycommons, I work with this database nearly on daily basis for years now. It's a kind of superior behaviour of yours, it surely should make me look like that I did not study enough facts yet to make my "false assumption".
Maybe cosmos can explain this historycommons entry:
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a215norelatives#a215norel...
This was certainly the first time in history of any flight catastrophe that no relatives await their loved ones or didn't rush to the airport to gather information and for grieving together. So this is a major anomaly in the oct. Maybe there is a easy explanation. But to dismiss thinking about it at first hand because it could hurt someones feeling is like creating Verboten thoughts.
As in regard to KSM: We do not even know if he died back in 2003, there were reports on it, so in no case the treatment and infos about him are irrelevant. They show us without doubts that the government can make any unprovable claims and the most fall for it. Torture maybe a great distraction in this case.
Sure, no problem
About you linking to History Commons, what about it? It doesn't support your position in any way, and neither did I say this did not happen, I am saying the passengers of UA 93 are not "alive and paid off", because there is not a scintilla of evidence for it.
The link you posted explains quite adequately why no family members showed up. Why do you cite it?
You know what you do when you have intellectual integrity (but no taste)? You ask the family members why they didn't show up at the airport, and you then, of course, pop the big question: "Hey, I've been looking into this theory that your husband, brother, wife, is not actually a victim, but a perpetrator."
You could discuss the details over a cup of coffee. I'm sure they'd be wildly interested. During the course of the discussion, maybe you could extract a 'confession' out of them.
About Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, would you like to hear him talk (May 2007)?
I downloaded this from DoD at some point, it appears it's not there anymore.
Khalid is not dead. UA 93 passengers aren't alive. Their family members aren't "in on it". I'm trying to convey this you as diplomatically as I can muster. If being a 9/11 Truther means accusing victims and their family members baselessly, then I want no part of it.
When Assange said he was "constantly annoyed" by false conspiracy theories, this one would surely qualify.
Why do you put words in my mouth?
I never made these allegations and my point doesn't lead to it either. I am not Prof. Griscom. And if we do look at all the facts without emotional brouwhaha, I am not so sure that there is no point in plane swap or exersice part theories.
My thoughts: Flight 93 was most probably some sort of hijack exercise part. I do not think the passengers were in on it. You can get involved even without any knowlegde. They are dead.
I suppose you are one of the most active reactive candidate here around. First acknowledged this regarding Ahmadinedschad. We may differ in our views, but you behave different. You attack causes that could help us spreading truth by stating this will harm us. This tends to distrust only a so called "debunker" shows. It's clearly reactive.
KSM: OK, it was his voice! Are you sure? Why? You were told so? Did you prove it? Has anyone else? You probably believe the phony UA93 CVR is genuine, too? That's a new low for appeal to autorithy- dumb and dumber. Sorry for that. That grade of believe in authorities sayings is one of our biggest problem fields besides emotional resistance on facts.
Words from your mouth
"Maybe cosmos can explain this historycommons entry:"
"This was certainly the first time in history of any flight catastrophe that no relatives await their loved ones or didn't rush to the airport to gather information and for grieving together. So this is a major anomaly in the oct."
Ultimately, Cosmos doesn't have to explain anything, you do, since you are promoting innuendo and insinuation. I feel awkward talking about this very personal issue (for Cosmos) though.
About KSM: did you even listen to the entire recording? There were witnesses at his 'trial'. There were photos of him published online. The onus for the claim that he's dead rests with you. Same with the reports of Bin Laden's death: if he was reported dead in several different places and at several different dates, say ten times, then nine reports were false. (Given that it is logically impossible that Bin Laden could have died ten times, of course. I'm not given to paranormal stories about superhuman terrorists, are you?)
"You probably believe the phony UA93 CVR is genuine, too?"
Loaded question. You don't even care about the answer, that much is clear.
You attempt to falsify, but you don't attempt to verify. Verify KSM is dead. The CVR may have been edited, but verify that it was entirely fabricated. Your personal suspicions don't qualify as evidence. Promoting speculation as fact is not evidence. Mere incredulity is not evidence. Do you understand the difference between verification and falsification?
Lastly, could you explain if you believe Mr. Griscom's claims, and if you think these claims "could help us spreading truth"? Could you explain what the anomaly is with the victim's family members of UA 93? You cited History Commons, then asked Cosmos for an explanation, but you backed up over your own argument in doing so: the source you cited destroys your claim that what happened there was a "major anomaly in the oct".
What do you think this "anomaly" implies anyway? Where are you going with it? What is it supposed to say about the family members of UA 93 victims? Do you have any particular point you wish to make?
In fact, I'd say such claims are a major anomaly in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Or maybe not, and maybe I'm a minority, which would be a pretty depressing reality.
We are talking about this in the context of Mr. Griscom's claims, evidently, you believe the passengers are dead. Then why cite the 'anomaly' you cited?
Note that I support a wide range of research, as long as it's carefully executed and cautiously put into context. I believe evidence for plane swapping in the case of UA 93 is weak, given the counterevidence, and I believe evidence for Mr. Griscom's theory (which is extremely offensive to many, and detrimental to the 9/11 Truth Movement) is non-existent.
Some things YOU and I can't verify
without prosecution and courts with full subpoena power.
E.g: You can't prove KSM identity. Without open court appearance where he identifies himself or another identified process checked. So you have to believe authorities we already knew they were lying about every aspect on 9/11. We should not forget that "he" admits almost every thinkable terror plot including a name of a bank building that hadn't this name as he was "captured".
The CVR: "Edited"- clear- the automatic warnings missing, not in normal form, not persons named who made it and on and on.
"Entirely fabricated": Hints: The voices recorded from behind the cabin, with sentences a muslim would not say in face of death, the audio kept secret for long time still no one cares. Even If I can not prove that it's entirely fabricated, you have to admit it stinks.
There is something terrible wrong with the planes. I only have to read Aidan Monaghans posts and Shoestrings blog to know that.
And that's your problem: We still have no plausible theory because reactionists embattle everyone who make any hypothesis on the flights. Look at us- I'm not "big tent" advocat, best infos first, verification and falsification are not unknown to me, I am not CIT or pilots associated, nor Pentagon freak, I'm in this mess since 2002, vocal since 2003, with my own enlighting book and blog for nearly a year now, I am in no way provided with less facts than you. But I don't trust any authority. More at the other reply.
For good measure
Have you spoken to the people who performed the identification of the Pentagon victims? If they were part of a cover up, these would be the people to ask.
Am I a 'debunker'? Absolutely. I debunk bunk and I promote fact. That's why I'm here. The people over at JREF are not 'debunkers', nor are they 'skeptics'... they simply reject anything that implicates the US government in 9/11, with prejudice. They are pseudoskeptic dilettantes and stooges, but in the Truth Movement, we have our share of quacks as well.
I will not choose between the two. I choose sincerity and quality research. I truly don't care about peer popularity, because groupthink has never enlightened anyone or elucidated anything, it merely serves to reinforce bias through its echo chamber. I reject no passenger, no plane and no hijacker theories on the basis that they have no merit, rely on insinuation, innuendo, and attempts to falsify without attempts to verify.
Speculation is okay, but promoting baseless conjecture as the best explanation for a certain sub-event on 9/11, while being aware of counterevidence, is not.
Where did I spoke about the Pentagon
Why do you generalize in such manner? You fought a fight on me in which I never engaged. Why is that?
As regards to your pictures- They "prove" nothing. Another military facility uncheckable and unproveable for every other claims something. Hierarchies could be compromised very early- esp. military. That doesn't mean that I say all are in on it. That defies logic.
Why do you trust authorities we know already they were fooling us? Think it's a psychological problem.
I think I made my point. I think you made yours. I will not engage in further discussions on this because it has no merits. You won't change your course, I won't, too.
Wrong!
*You* were defending Griscom and *you* broadened the debate when you said:
"No relatives await flight 93. No ceremonials, candles or something else reported in SF and on and on and on. I know it was said that DNA tests were made and I know the flight parts were found in the WTC rubble, but we were also told that KSM made a confession but nobody can proof or check this. The same for the flight parts- every FOIA question denied..."
...In which you mixed sensible claims with nonsensical ones. Of course KSM's confession is worthless! ....And?
What about my picture? Where is the top picture from, Sitting-Bull? Surely you can tell me this instantly from memory, or maybe I should give you some time to Google it?
You are way off the mark on the burden of proof question: I don't have to prove diddly squat. I could have cited you a mainstream news report claiming DNA tests were performed and that would've been that. It would have sufficed, your doubts and suspicions would have been your problem.
Instead, I cited you a Pentagon victim map and a photo of the laboratory where the identification took place. I could go even further, but now it is about time for some quid pro quo.
Now you cite me some evidence for your theory. Who cares what you believe? What matters is what evidence you have for DNA fakery. A plane hit the Pentagon, and the authorities have always told the truth about that, unlike Thierry Meyssan, Eric Hufschmid, Killtown, Dave Von Kleist, and the whole sorry gaggle of 'paranoid first, research later' paleo-'truthers'.
Thus, your authority-trust argument is no longer tenable under all circumstances. The DNA evidence invalidates 'no plane/no passenger/no hijacker' all at once. No plane swap. Tough shit. Deal with it. I'm not Johnny Cochran, my goal is truth, not acquittal.
"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him."
"Pentagon searchers encounter grisly scenes"
"I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats."
Rense.com (no alternative)
Some people,
including some scientists, don't make it easy.
That is the nature of human beings, Jon, you can either come to terms with it or allow that reality to frustrate you.
It's your choice.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
You are correct...
Some people don't make it easy either. Regardless, you will never hear me put forward something like that, and especially not publicly.
Jon,
tell me something I already don't know....
devilish grin
You have to know that your ambiguous public position on the CD of WTC 7 does not make it easier for you, or other activists who align themselves with you on your great body of work and/or your general approach to activism.
I do believe a clarification on this from you is still waiting to be made, yes?
[Although, I grant you your right to maintain said ambiguity, if that is what you choose to do (as well as your right to have your own reasons for doing so, and keeping said reasons to yourself, even though it causes unnecessary friction in the opinion of many, myself included).]
Thank you for your tireless work on behalf of the family members, first responders and getting the truth out.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
I have...
Made my position clear regarding "Controlled Demolition" several times.
I have suggested not leading with Controlled Demolition as our message because it is hard to believe for a lot of people. As I have learned from being on facebook, it is also hard for a lot of 9/11 First Responders to believe. People who were there. I have also mentioned several times the amount of hit pieces that have been written over the years using the "hard to believe" point of Controlled Demolition AGAINST us. I have also mentioned that production companies like the BBC and National Geographic have also focused on the "hard to believe" point of Controlled Demolition in an effort to "debunk" us. I have also pointed out that our job is to reach people, and that as a movement, our message shouldn't be something "hard to believe" or something hard to digest for the masses. It should be easy to understand, and people should WANT to participate. I have also pointed out that I am not qualified one way or the other to tell you who is right, and who is wrong. I have also pointed out that people believe what the TV tells them, and that the TV has told them that we are a group of people who think that "explosives were planted in the buildings," that "a missile hit the Pentagon," that we are "anti-semitic holocaust denying murdering psycho terrorist sympathizers who drink kool aid," and that it might be in our best interest to act DIFFERENTLY than what the TV tells people.
My "ambiguous public position" has made it ridiculously easy for me to reach people. And believe it or not, believing in the "Controlled Demolition" of the towers and wtc7 is not a prerequisite for wanting to participate in this cause so my "ambiguous public position" really doesn't mean a damn thing (other than to those who want to continue making CD our core message).
Jon -
You and I have clearly had vastly different experiences with the public on this issue, so I am not trying to determine who is "right or wrong" on this issue or as an approach to activism, so let's not try to make that an issue.
When I saw the demise of WTC 7 on television for the first time in the dead of night I knew immediately what I was looking at, a classic controlled demolition.
When my oldest brother and parents saw the video of WTC 7 going down, they also knew immediately what they were looking at.
Well over 50% of the people I talk to in public about 9/11 who already know it is a false flag operation of some kind cite WTC 7 as what got their attention, and I'm guessing that I talk to as many people as you do about this issue. Most of the remainder of the people I talk to mistakenly cite the Pentagon and AA77 as the thing that first caught their attention, and far too many of these never venture any further (sad, but true).
When I just start to mention 9/11 to the grocery clerk at the bottom of my hill or the guy I buy tires from and they cut me off and say "building 7" and smile knowingly, that registers with me as an activist and a movement builder.
What I am asking, and what I really want to know, is your personal opinion regarding the destruction of WTC 7.
I am already well aware of your public position on it as an activist and steadfastly defend your right to your approach.
This is not a difficult question to answer and yet you avoid it like a trip to an oral surgeon.
Does the fact that a peer reviewed and publicly published paper in a scientific journal proving the presence of a military grade incendiary/explosive in the dust of the WTC not carry any weight with you at all? (This, for all intents and purposes, proves that "bombs" were, in fact, in the buildings, to put it bluntly).
Tell me Jon, when the msm pits one group of family members against the other, as it appears they are setting up to do (and it gets ugly), will you then abandon them because it will be too "difficult "?
Finally, I have found for most of those that don't want to "believe" that some elements of the U.S. government may have been involved find it equally hard to believe anything you present to them (but the seven second video of WTC 7 leaves most of them speechless and dumbfounded). I have also found that while Sibel Edmonds was gagged, just calling attention to the fact that she was the most gagged woman in the U.S. started many conversations and caused a lot of people to take literature from me.
We have to hook a distracted public by whatever means possible, and WTC 7 is still the most consistent lure I have for catching the public.
That said, I find it far more interesting to talk about everything other than the destruction of the WTC and whatever happened at the Pentagon. But as an activist, I have to go with what works for me on the street.
Jon, I hope you know by now that I have great respect for your work and your right to pursue your activism as you see fit, the results speak for themselves, imo. That is not what I am questioning here.
A simple answer to a simple question will suffice.
Thanks.
The truth shall set us free (everyone has their own path to the truth).
Love is the only way forward (and means you allow everyone to choose their own path to the truth).
I have never abandoned the families...
And as a matter of fact, I have been their biggest advocate for years, as well as for the responders. I have nothing to prove to anyone in this movement. Nothing at all.
I repeat, you will never see me do anything but my best, and you will never see me promote anything like that which is mentioned above.
Did you not read this when I wrote it on 8/26/2008? My opinion hasn't changed.
Please choose one of the following answers to this question:
WTC 7 was destroyed by means of a controlled demolition.
1) Yes
2) No
3) I don't know (after nine years I have not studied the question enough to have an informed position).
The link you provided does not answer this very simple question.
Thanks.
Excuse me
Are you a moderator on this site? Or chief interrogator? What possible relevance could Jon Gold's opinion on WTC 7 have to this blog? Does his opinion change any of the facts... relating to anything at all? What relevance does your questioning of Jon have to the subject of this blog? And considering your dalliance with Jon's attackers at one of the lousiest cesspits on the internet (you know, the one that calls 911blogger.com "islamophobic") - and your open invitation for all of them to come here and post - do you really think this is a good look for a moderator of this site?
Point taken,
clearly this sub-thread has gotten off topic and I have slid down the slope toward badgering, which is uncalled for, as well as against the rules (and something I really don't like, frustration got the better of me).
That said, it should not take anyone more than a few weeks to inform themselves of the relevant facts and physics and form an opinion on the demise of WTC 7. That is, if they choose to.
No one's opinion changes the facts, but some people could choose to express their opinion of the facts in a clear and unambiguous way. This tends to make things much easier, yes?
All I am asking for is clarity.
Finally, I would not call my attempt at diplomacy as a "dalliance" and had I known all the facts before, I would not have bought chest waders and made the attempt.
I hope that you and yours are well, and that you are having a good spring/summer down under and over.
Cheers!
Thanks John
I think I can understand the challenges you face in your position and I appreciate your willingness to admit to mistakes and move forward with open dialogue. It's a benefit to the site. Say hi to the folks back home for me ~
The place that shall not be named
Obviously debating "controlled demolition" raises the temperature. I hate to see people I appreciate going at each other, but then again, let's not be too squeamish in our discussions, this is a process which ultimately leads to commonly established viewpoints based on which avenues of research stand the test of time.
In all fairness, John's task is to provide some recourse or some form of appeal for people whose accounts have been suspended or put into the moderation queue, as such he was recently vilified by the same group of bottom feeders. John's trying to build bridges, he's more or less the envoy and the diplomat of 911blogger at this point, which forces him into the awkward position of having to engage in dialogue with people who would prefer to see us crucified as 'fake truthers'.
I wouldn't be able to do it, because these people are full-fledged psychopaths, and here's one reason (of many) why I think so.
Cache: http://www.webcitation.org/5us2wwt5P
Ugh yeah
Thanks for the cache, I make a habit of not giving that creepy site any traffic.
I dig what you're saying, SC.
In the cache
it doesn't jump to the right location in the "article", but if you scroll down, you'll see a Pentagon victim photoshopped with a "funny" text balloon. That's what we're dealing with here...that is if they're not attacking John Feal .. or you.. or Jon Gold.. or Kevin Ryan.. or me, or... etc. etc.
Thanks SnowCrash
Diplomacy is a dying art, and I still see the need for it.
I still have not gotten to the bottom of the mass bannings of folks before I began moderating ( and I don't think anyone should be banned just because they became a user at another site, there has to be something more than that, imo), but that is on me and unfortunately with everything else going on will take more time than some would like.
Yes, even though we may not all want to share the same tent(s), I think it worthwhile to at least have a footbridge connection and keep a dialogue open (although I can easily see why some choose not to and even take offense at the effort, but I have very thick skin and am, perhaps, overly optimistic about most things).
All this said, I am very happy to be part of the moderating team at 911Blogger, this is one of the main crossroads in the movement and I know all the moderators want to make it the best site we can, and appeal to a wide variety of people (experienced users and new comers alike).
Thanks again for all of your great input, you help make this site the valuable resource that it is.
Cheers!
The truth shall set us free (but we need as many truth seekers as possible in order to create global freedom).
Love is the only way forward (and means giving everyone the chance to grow and/or change).
Thanks
I appreciate that very much.
I didn't even see this question...
How about...
4) I'm not qualified to tell you what happened to any of those buildings? Something I have in common with many people in this movement.
Ya know, it's funny that Cosmos pointed out that thread. They used to ask this litmus test of me over and over and over again, as if my answer dictated whether or not I was a "real truther."
It's not a prerequisite to believe those buildings were brought down in a "controlled demolition" to participate in this cause. It's really not.
I'm not saying anything is a prerequisite for anything,
and there are certainly no prerequisites for participating in activism, including 9/11 truth activism, imo.
Although a grounding in critical thinking certainly comes in handy.
An understanding of basic science and logic are also quite useful.
An open and inquisitive mind is even more helpful, if one wishes to learn and teach as effectively as possible (and we are very much still at the learning/teaching stage, yes?).
Jon, it truly is unfortunate that you choose to frame this in terms of "litmus tests" etc.
Tell me, does one have to be an air defense expert in order to be qualified to have an opinion on NORAD's non-response?
Does someone have to have an advanced degree in financial analysis in order to know that some of the pre-9/11 financial transactions (e.g. "put options") clearly indicate foreknowledge of the event(s)?
Just out of curiosity, exactly what do you consider yourself qualified to have an opinion on?
What are your qualifications in political science, sociology and social psychology? You seem to have no problem expressing opinions on what a sociopolitical movement should and should not do.
Finally, I don't "believe" they were brought down in a "controlled demolition". Belief has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I know that there was not sufficient potential energy within the three buildings for them to come down in the manner observed, thus additional energy was required to create the observed phenomenon. It is really quite simple if one understands rudimentary Newtonian physics, which I was taught in the first semester of my eighth grade year in public school.
I know that you have said in the past that you're not a "science guy", but one would think after all this time you would take the time to learn the basic science and form an informed opinion. ( An hour or two with David Chandler should do the trick, imo.)
Once again, that is your choice (and you are entitled to it and your own reasons for said choice).
If at anytime you thought that I was doing anything other than attempting to draw you out on this subject, you have my apologies.
But I would advise you to not comment on threads where you have no stated opinion on the main subject of the blog, or bemoan the fact that your preferred approach is being neglected in favor of something you won't even educate yourself about in order to have an informed opinion.
Instead, I suggest that you work like crazy in every positive and pro-active way you can to advance your approach, your strategy and demonstrate objectively how it is equal or superior to other approaches and strategies. Ignore that which does not interest you or for which you have no use.
As my mother used to say, "the proof is in the pudding" (more properly, '"the proof of the pudding is in the eating").
I look forward to reading your blogs.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Let's take the example
of first responders and what they think of what they witnessed or suffered through, regarding the collapses:
First responder Scott Aline:
First responder "Mike"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/080207building7.htm
First responder "Pierre"
First responder Craig Bartmer
First responders David Miller, Kevin McPadden, John Feal and Alan Forcier:
I guess John Feal's position echoes yours somewhat, although he does say that if he were a betting man...I understand and sympathize with his reluctance to pursue things beyond that. I have the luxury to do so in my research. If I recall correctly, you introduced John Feal to the 9/11 Truth Movement, thank you.
That last clip gets me emotional. It's very hard to watch these good men struggle this way.
You know...
That there are more 9/11 First Responders than that, right?
Yes I do
I'm still trying to recover from that last clip. It really hits me when I see it. It's been a while, I wish I could buy "The Elephant In The Room" somewhere. I think the website is down.
When it comes to research w.r.t. WTC 1, 2 and 7, I propose employing the precautionary principle when falsifying, and when verifying (the nanothermite paper) I propose not moving too far beyond what can be factually established through such research. In my opinion, the temperature anomalies at Ground Zero are undebunkable and demand attention, but on an equal footing with the massive volumes of evidence covering 9/11 as a whole.
Anyways, if you want a poised and objective analysis of WTC 7, I hope you'll take the time to read this document. It's not a promotional document, in the "Discussion" section, there's a dispassionate analysis of several issues with WTC 7's collapse, some of which you may be unaware about. You'll note I am self-critical of the Truth Movement as well as NIST. You don't need to be a scientist to understand it; to paraphrase Steven Colbert: I'm not a scientist and so can you.
I hope you don't think of me as a 'CD-only' researcher or a single issue truther, because I'm not, and I hope none of us confine ourselves to 'CD', or give undue weight to a particular line of inquiry. That would be detrimental. In the same vein, I ask of you not to marginalize this avenue of research but to support only those aspects of this research which are unimpeachable. I think you already do something along these lines, but as John Wright pointed out, the ambiguity causes strife, and it's not necessary.
John Judge doesn't think the buildings were blown up and guess what: I'm not vilifying him. There is room for debate. The only position I fight actively is that of vicious, unfair, defamatory smearing of the 9/11 Truth Movement using the very tactics we all come to know intimately. We don't live in a black and white world, so I reserve my harshest of judgments only for those clear-cut cases of deceit.
I cited you some examples of first responders who have severe doubts about what happened that day, and I take them seriously. They may be a minority among their peers, yes. But there is some physical evidence strengthening their suspicions. In my opinion, this vindicates Kevin Mcpadden's claim about a pre-collapse explosion.
"Fabulous" warm and hearty welcome
Prof. Griscom! Join the party. Things are really starting to swing. You will, of course, catch some flak for the drone speculation but we all agree a new investigation is paramount.
Congrats ProfJones on another feather in your cap. As you alluded, we here don't need more confirmation of your work's validity but those pesky naysayers, apologists, the perps and their PR/sunsteinian minions are another story.
rollin', rollin', rollin'..............
Dr. Griscom Joined the "Party" Long Ago
Just to set the record straight, here is Dr. Griscom's entry at PatriotsQuestion9/11:
David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005).
Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.
* Personal blog 2/9/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True: This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories] and 7 were brought down by explosives.
... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.
The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the "official" assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus (a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215).
Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!" http://impactglassman
* Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice
* Bio: http://www.impactglassresearchinternational.com/index.html
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Griscom
Thank you,
I thought I recalled seeing his name there.
Cheers!
Peer-reviewed plus
Thanks Prof. Griscom for revealing that you were part of the peer-review for the "Nanothermite Paper"-- it is great to have a name and a face backing up the process. Very impressive credentials.
I would submit that Mark Basile's work counts as replication of the paper. A chemical engineer who independently came to the same findings.
A scientific paper with nine authors that was published. And peer-reviewed. And replicated.
Pretty spiffy.
Thanks for letting us know
I may add two points: It took Prof. Griscom 4 long years to become convinced of 9/11 truth. Science did it.
And: Some "Debunkers" already claim he was chosen because he was a "truther". That's totally bogus. He did not play a vocal or any role in the 9/11 truth movement prior 2007/2008, Bentham surely did not find his rare blog entries on the issue for selecting him, but did search their database for valuable scientific referees in the field of research with good experience- no wonder they found Prof. Griscom.
A warm welcome and don't give a shit about the so called "debunkers" delusion and following attacks!
Great News
Thank you Professor Jones for sharing this most important refreshing information.
May science live..
I just posted it under critical breaking news at Flyby News.
This is great news & its very crucial
for Scientists involved to come out in the open. Now is the time
the BYU team has done well
but we really need NEW growth & new Universities to get involved with this.
West Coast/South West/North West/ Central/East & South East.
We need the academic community to fully examine
every aspect of the events of 9/11/01, yes.
We discussed this at our local group's meeting last night, actually.
The SCADS papers are a very good start, as is the work done by Dr. Zarembka and his peers, but much more is needed.
We need more post graduate students like Josh Blakeney, more professors like Anthony Hall.
Perhaps we can create stipends for scholars and students to undertake scholarly works (endow a chair of false flag studies at Georgetown or Stanford? yes, I'm dreaming now...).
As the truth movement continues to grow and evolve, many things will become more possible. But we really have to begin actively embracing our real power now, and acting on it in a concerted and coordinated manner.
The truth shall set us free (but truth seeking never ends and requires a determined, disciplined approach).
Love is the only way forward (and provides the courage to press on against all odds and overcome our own personal foibles).
It...
"pisses you off." Well said. It's not people like you or I that put forward bullshit, associate with those who put forward bullshit, defend those who put forward bullshit that can be, and will be used against us.
This is in response to loosenuke above.
Issac Newton and Griscom-Nuke..
1. Your first comment was of the peer review process as conducted for the paper. I posted 3 rebuttals to your concern and why it did not matter. In this case you are arguing that the review process is more important that the science. I countered with 2 scientific studies and the Federal Government's own position showing that the process (author suggested reviewers or open review) does not harm the science nor the credibility in any way. This was your first discussion point of your original post as well as the launch pad for the remainder of your argument and directly related to my other questions posed to you.
2. Your second major point of the arguement: "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?"
Issac Newton believed there was a secret code in the bible that if unraveled could enable the reader to predict the future!!! Has that fact harmed your opinion of Issac Newton's as one of the worlds greatest if not the greatest scientist throughout history?
How does one's opinion of an event harm their credibility as a scientist who is beyond qualified to peer review Dr. Jones and Co. paper among many others? It doesn't. I addressed this as an issue with Griscom's freedom of speech and reader sensititvies as apparently you do have a problem with both.
3.I do apologize for not remembering you stating there has been no peer-reviewed rebuttal to the Jone's paper. Which begs the question, if there has been no rebuttal to the paper by anyone, what is the issue? The science stands, plain and simple! JREF, as you are well aware, is loaded with self-proclaimed scientsts. Surely one of them could put the time, effort, and research to publish a rebuttal.
4. One of the questions I posed to you, "Do you have a problem with his science or his review?" you choose not to answer. We are led to believe that you have a problem with the review process and not the science. Which is why I posted the two studies and the Federal view of peer review to alleviate your concerns about the process. I noticed you did ignore those rebuttals to your concern.
5. Another question I posed to you "What conflict of interest?" This of course was one of your major arguement points. As this was one of your questions that you refused to address, we are left to speculate. I suspect you believe that the review process of the paper is flawed because of the political ramifications behind the sciense. Because one of the reviewers who was unknown to Jones at the time believes the same thing as Jones, then the review itself is tainted, and therefore the science must be tainted. However, if you re-read the paper, you will discover there are NO political ramifications alluded to in the paper therefore no conflict of interest. So this conflict of interest is non-existent.
The paper's conclusion-
"Based on these observations, we conclude that the red
layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC
dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating
nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or
explosive material."
What conflict of interest do you take from this conclusion? I don't see "9/11 was an inside job...Bush Knew, etc." I see the conclusions to an observation. Nothing more, nothing less.
6. After rethinking this question, " Did Griscom get funding from the paper?" it was unfair of me to ask that of you. You nor I would know at this point if Griscom received any material benefit from reviewing,critiquing, and finally recommending publication. However, it was a possibility in discussion about one of your main arguement points, "conflict of interest."
"I don't see the point in responding to your other questions, as they're assuming I'm making arguments I'm not making.-Loose Nuke"
Actually they had everything to do with the arguements you were making...review process, conflict of interest, and personal theories made public. But that is ok. I don't post here much but when I do things tend to get voted down without explanation for whatever reason or ignored all together in this particular case.
(excellent! Voted down -1 within 5 minutes of appearing. Any explanation?)
I'll tell you why I'm voting this down
Your Newton argument doesn't work for me. It does not apply here. Now, in 2010, public perception and what earns credibility is different then it was when Newton was around. Baseless ignorant ideas about jet's hitting the pentagon or all the passengers living in witness protection have been used to discredit the movement for years. If the average person who doesn't know the truth about 9/11 see's Griscom on tv, then the host of the show remarks something like, 'this 9/11 truther scientist who just endorsed _____ paper, also claims that all the passengers from the 9/11 planes survived and made a sweet deal with the gov't. ' most people will conclude that Griscom's research lacks quality.
Thanks for your responses, Loosenuke -- Dr Grabbe's paper
and for stating that you had not heard of Dr. Grabbe's paper, although it was published in the respectable Journal of Engineering Mechanics (April 2010 issue).
They have a page limitation and further make it difficult in general to get at the papers they do publish -- I asked Dr. Grabbe how to get a copy of his published response to Dr. Seffe, and he gave me the following steps:
[quote]
1. Go to: scitation.aip.org/emo
and click on "All Online Issues" for Feb, 1983 - Oct 2010.
2. Click on the 1st link for the page that comes up, which is Volum136 for year 2010, then
3. Go down on that page to click on the "HTML TOC" for April, 2010.
4. When you do it brings up the articles for that issue, & my "Discussion" is the last one on the list. [Seffen could have replied to the article and it would have been called a "Closure". However, he did not.]
Click on the PDF listed for it.
5. That brings up 2 options for viewing it. One is to log in as a subscriber to
JEM. The other is as a nonsubscriber, to indicate you want to buy. The cost
is $30. You should be able to pay for it on a credit card.
Hope this helps you get it.
Crockett [/unquote]
You see, we could have put our "Active Thermitic Materials" paper in a journal with restrictions like that (or at least we could have submitted there) -- but it would have been largely hidden from the public and much shorter had we done so. We chose an "open" journal where we could publish 25 pages including color photographs and graphs to increase the data content -- and where anyone, world-wide, could view the paper for free.
And you have not yet suggested a journal that would have been better for this paper. Have debunkers suggested a better journal, that would meet the criteria I noted above? I doubt it. They like to complain but offer few positive alternatives (that I have seen).
If you do succeed in acquiring Dr. Grabbe's published paper in JoEM, please let me know. It should be read and publicized.
Now, as for my 2006 paper which you noted you had not heard of, it was also published in a journal that is not (currently) available on-line, and therefore hard to acquire. I recently had a request for a copy of the publication -- which I have in paper form only at this time, copied from the published journal. I mailed a copy of the short paper to the requestor. I should get it scanned and I will work on that. One of the handicaps of having early-retired is that I no longer have access to the office scanner at the University, and my home scanner broke down... This paper was basically a sub-set of my "Why Indeed" paper of 2006, although at the time, it had some important new material.
So you see some of the reasons for our choice of Open (on-line and free-to-readers) journals, both the "Fourteen Points" and the "Active Thermitic Materials" papers. Note that for the paper published in the Environmentalist (also had page limits as I recall), we paid thousands of dollars to have the paper be OPEN to the public, free on-line. Otherwise, it would just have been in paper form -- not available for free on-line -- as is quite common for scientific journals in my experience.
I hope this clarifies matters. We had no idea in advance that the editor of TOCPJournal would resign -- but note that she admitted she had not read our "Active Thermitic" paper! Therefore, it seems unfair to argue that her resignation reflects on the scientific content of our paper, but I understand debunkers have attempted such a tenuous argument.
I am working on another paper... since it will be quite short and for the sake of publishing in a variety of journals, I plan to submit to a journal other than Bentham for this one. Again, any suggestions on where to submit the paper are welcomed by me... until the paper is submitted, of course. After publication, there will no doubt be debunkers and whiners who will object WHATEVER venue I choose for publication.
Keep up the good work, loosenuke.
ProfJones
Care to comment on Griscom's insidious, baseless suggestion that the passengers have somehow survived and his equally as baseless assertion of a jet fighter plane hitting the pentagon. We need your help convincing Griscom that these theories are debunked and appear completely ridiculous to boot.
"Insidious" is a bit strong, don't you think?
It also implies a treacherous intent. What evidence do you have for that?
Let's not inject hyperbole and exacerbate a situation before first trying to come to a better understanding, shall we?
Dr. Griscom is not a street activist, nor has he started speaking publicly on this issue. He is a scientist, an individual entitled to his own opinions, just as you and I are.
Why not engage him on this subject and create a learning/teaching situation where everyone has the potential to benefit?
Let's not turn potentially strong allies into adversaries, brothers and sisters, we need as many people with us as we continue climbing up the mountain, as possible.
No, I'm not espousing the "big tent" approach here. I'm saying let's ask him if he would consider not lighting the tent on fire or chopping the tent poles down before we tell him to use his own tent and where to pitch it.
Does that sound reasonable to you?
The truth shall set us free (and everyone takes a different path to the truth).
Love is the only way forward (part of love is understanding and tolerance).
Waste of time
LeftWright said...."Why not engage him on this subject and create a learning/teaching situation where everyone has the potential to benefit?"
You mean like Arabescue already did more than two years ago?
"Update: September 28, 2008
Upon contacting Griscom, I suggested that he remove his article from circulation and offer an apology for its content. After some debate he has not retracted the article from circulation at this point in time. Instead, he has published a revised version which still contains many of the statements that I marked as objectionable above."
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/09/david-griscom-all-hijacked-pass...
Sure
It does sound reasonable and "insidious" was not the appropriate choice of word. I don't mind the gentleman expressing his own opinions. It is also ok for me to then derive my opinions of Griscom's ideas and how he presents them. The problem is indeed in the way things are worded and the presentation. This is an area I personally have been critiqued heavily in and I appreciate it. I embraced many ideas which I know were now quite bunk. If it weren't for people calling me out on the B.S., like we do here (sometimes way to harshly) I would have continued to be mislead and spread bad info. There for I will continue to be critical of my alley's ideas and also try harder to do so in a diplomatic way. PS. I am in San Francisco. It would be cool to link up sometime. I'd be happy to put you on the list for some shows I'm playing as well. I appreciate all you have done and your perspectives on the subject. We probably hung out at a few 11th of the Month actions I'm sure a while back. Peace.
One of the characteristics of people I consider good friends,
is their ability and willingness to call me out on my BS and for me to do the same for them (YT just did this here not long ago, god bless him).
This is actually one of the reasons I feel honored to be a moderator here, is this remains one of the best sites for critiquing (albeit in a somewhat focused area) I have ever found.
Yes, we should definitely get together sometime soon. Do you ever come to the NorCal 9/11 Truth Alliance meetings (the next one is next Thursday in Berkeley)?
I hope that you and yours are well.
Cheers!
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Prof. Jones, cont.
I read Why Indeed when it was first posted online and found it helpful. I have now read Grabbe’s discussion of Seffen (I’m an undergrad in sociology and have access to a number of databases). It was simple to comprehend; Grabbe has pointed out serious flaws in both Seffen and Bazant et al, and Seffen hasn’t responded. At the same time, Grabbe made a good case that explosives could account for the observed effects. Incidentally, Grabbe’s discussion is available online- the formatting is substantially different from the official version, but I didn’t notice any differences in the text, other than Bazant and Zhou being abbreviated. http://www2.ae911truth.org/docs/Seffenrevpub.pdf
Just in case it was not clear, I want to stress that I have not been questioning the science, research or findings that went into Active Thermitic – as I’ve acknowledged, some of it I understood, other things I didn’t - I lack experience, and can’t verify it one way or the other. Again - my concerns are related to 1) the credibility of TOCPJ and Bentham Open, 2) the credibility of Griscom due to his promotion of the ‘A3 hit the Pentagon, plane flew over, passengers are alive w/ Swiss bank accounts’ claim, 3) appearance of conflict of interest due to his association with you, in addition to his being someone who endorses dubious 9/11 theories. You don’t share these concerns.
As I noted in comments above, Active Thermitic has been open to the entire world for peer-review for over a year and a half. No flaws have been pointed out in any refereed journal, and no experiments have been reported on which would confirm or deny the results and analysis. You’ve said Basile is working on this; great. The research and analysis will stand or fall on its own merits, but all the same, I hope he keeps his public image clean, because, even though it’s a logical fallacy, discrediting by association and ad hom works.
You’ve asked for recommendations on journals; physics, chemistry, engineering, etc. are not my field. As far as general principles go, I think open access is a better model, and that in the near future it will be the preferred model. However, open access or not, it seems to me that publishing in a journal that has been established for at least several years, and is widely read and respected, is a good idea. Bazant and JoEM are influential, even though they are not accessible to the general public. Even if you publish in a limited access journal, the abstract would be available to the public, and indy/alt media and bloggers will write about the paper. Publication in a higher profile journal means it's more likely to receive media coverage.
In addition to any response you have to the above, I am still interested in your answers to the following questions; three of these are derivations of those I posed in comments elsewhere in this thread:
1. How has Active Thermitic been received in the scientific community; where do things stand?
2. Do you think the reception of Active Thermitic would have been different if it had been published in a more established journal- why or why not, and if different, in what ways?
3. How well acquainted were you and Griscom prior to his reviewing the Active Thermitic paper?
4. Was Griscom consulted, or did he otherwise assist in the research, analysis and/or writing of the Active Thermitic paper, or in any other way?
PS Please post a link to Griscom's 12 page review
Ok....
So Griscom chooses to explore a hypothesis first suggested by Operation Northwoods and now his credibility is questioned?
If I remember correctly, when Op North first came out, the 9/11 Truth Community jumped all over it.
Sorry Swing Dangler
But we are not questioning his credibility for exploring a particular hypothesis. I think people are upset about Griscom's putting up these debunked ideas on his website as "carefully researched hypotheses." and his unwillingness to correct them (say when Griscom see's the DNA evidence but still thinks the passengers are in witness protection). It is why Griscom indeed is used to discredit our movement by people like ScrewLooseChange . It is indeed a bit weird that Prof. Jones has put forward this like he is a brand new figure to our movement then I see that you all already knew each other or that Griscom has already attached his bunk theories to the movement. But that is not even the main big a deal to me. It's Griscom's papers about the fighter jet at the pentagon and the passengers surviving that destroy his credibility. There is no getting around that Swing Dangler. If Griscom won't be corrected on these points and frankly apologize for his mistakes he is not just useless to us as a movement. Griscom is actually very useFUL to the debunkers who now can easily rip up a supposed Dr. who '9/11 Truthers claim as one of their experts who think it was an inside job'!
Prof Jones
http://911blogger.com/user/161
The rest of you chillax
His Hypothesis is based upon...
a Project Northwoods via the Federal Government. Did anyone examine that bit?
A lot of good comments, thank you --
and some not-so-good, but which gave a hearty laugh this morning.
I am encouraging the authors of the "Active Thermitic Materials" paper to put together a paper responding to various questions we have received about the paper. It is true that no one has published a peer-reviewed paper challenging this peer-reviewed paper, yet I think we can respond responsibly to the questions received. It may include a compilation of responses already written in defense of the paper to such folks as Dr. Frank Greening (famous for his not understanding Newton's Third Law).
Again, thanks for the comments.
It's good to know
that we can still find ways to amuse you, Dr. Jones.
Life is too short to be serious all the time, yes?
Thanks for all the hard work, for taking the time to post and respond here, and for letting us know when new developments arise.
Any idea when any third party papers might be published regarding the "active thermitic materials" ?
Brett Smith was an absolute delight to meet and work with, hope we can start showing his great film soon.
Thanks again and I look forward to seeing you on your next trip to the SF bay area (whenever that is).
Warm regards,
John
Prof Jones, did you see these questions?
Prof Jones, perhaps you missed my response to your last address to me
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-02/peer-reviewer-active-thermitic-mat...
I've responded to all your questions and you've responded to some of mine- I reduced my "barrage" to the four unanswered one that I think are the most important.
I think these are reasonable and relevant questions, and am not trying to waste your time; I'm sincerely interested in your answers.
Thanks!
Just saw your questions, loose nuke --
we should use email for faster responses.
You wrote above:
"As far as general principles go, I think open access is a better model, and that in the near future it will be the preferred model. "
I agree. Plus the fact that the Open Chemical Physics Journal was the ONLY established scientific journal we could find that allowed for essentially unlimited color photographs and graphs, and 25 pages for the complete paper.
"However, open access or not, it seems to me that publishing in a journal that has been established for at least several years, and is widely read and respected, is a good idea. Bazant and JoEM are influential, even though they are not accessible to the general public. Even if you publish in a limited access journal, the abstract would be available to the public, and indy/alt media and bloggers will write about the paper. Publication in a higher profile journal means it's more likely to receive media coverage."
Hmmm... we did have media coverage, in Deseret News, quite a good article in fact. But JoEM, as I noted above, published Dr. Grabbe's paper which you have not read and did not even KNOW about until I called it to your attention in this thread. Further, it had no media coverage. So clearly, this is evidence against the notion that publishing a paper in JoEM or the like guarantees media coverage -- it does not.
"In addition to any response you have to the above, I am still interested in your answers to the following questions; three of these are derivations of those I posed in comments elsewhere in this thread:
1. How has Active Thermitic been received in the scientific community; where do things stand?"
There are no peer-reviewed papers published which contradict this paper or its conclusion, so in the scientific community sense, it stands. I have received favorable comments from numerous scientists and engineers; a scientific poll would be interesting, expensive I suppose.
"2. Do you think the reception of Active Thermitic would have been different if it had been published in a more established journal- why or why not, and if different, in what ways?"
Of course it would have been different, but which journal would publish a 25-page paper with dozens of photos + graphs (including color)?
"3. How well acquainted were you and Griscom prior to his reviewing the Active Thermitic paper?
4. Was Griscom consulted, or did he otherwise assist in the research, analysis and/or writing of the Active Thermitic paper, or in any other way?
PS Please post a link to Griscom's 12 page review"
Very little acquainted.
For this paper, he provided a 12-page review and as I said before, this impacted the paper -- as expected with ANY solid review of any scientific paper.
It is not my position to publish Griscom's 12 page review, and I know of only one case where a referee has published his review for any of my 50-plus peer-reviewed paper -- that would be the referee's call.