What you need to know about "Peer-review"

Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.

Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.


So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. "

BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the "Fourteen Points" paper or the "Environmental Anomalies" papers we published last year.

IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.

Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).

We say that this paper has the "imprimatur of peer-review". That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings... We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO...

peace movement, justice, and science

Thank you for explaining more on the peer-review process and challenge.. It reminds me of when you mentioned how Noam Chomsky challenged you on this (before the publications of your work) on this issue. He seems to have shied away.. With President Obama building up for war in Afghanistan, the peace movement has no where left to turn for real peace and justice, but to demand a new investigation for the truth of what has been used as a WAR CRY/.

A new organization working with the 9/11 ballot initiative is www.nycCAN.org

I hope 9/11 this year will be the turning point, and November 3rd in NYC will enable a subpoena-driven investigation to be successful. This article should help immensely..

jonathan mark

Excellent write-up! -- LINKS TO Published paper below

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
AUDIO interviews
Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Kevin Ryan and Dr. Steven E. Jones

Thank you Dr. Jones...

for this write up. This is important for us all to understand which is why this was the first question I asked Dr. Jones in our recent interview. To hear the above explained in Dr. Jones' own words, please check out the recent interview we did found here:



This thoughtful breakdown of the scientific method and the peer review process is very helpful.

Thanks again, Prof Jones.

Great interview

Great interview Michael, you asked the questions I was wanting to hear the answers for.

Show "No Peer Review Needed Here!" by brian78046


With all due respect, the criminal (likely) failures of NORAD are well documented. A consideration for preferring charges was on the table (3 stories, obvious lying and obfuscation on the part of the military) That said, the subject here is the empirical determination of the presence of incendiaries at the WTC. Peace.

Show "Actually DNotice.org was the first" by brian78046


Not sure about that. From the Wilderness had articles about NORAD early on. Anyway, the problem is that you keep repeating the same song and dance on every single blog posting.

Im certain that you mean well and only wish to disseminate your discovery as far and wide as possible, but your actions here are almost akin to trolling.

Rep has stated on various occasions that this is not an 9/11 forum. If you wish to discuss your research, post a blog here, or visit one of the many of forums out there such as http://www.truthaction.org/forum

IF you have something to add to the topic at hand, please do; otherwise, please lower the frequency of your spamming.

“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.
Dont preach it, just mention it :)

True, but..............

Yes, many websites wrote broadly on NORAD before I came along. However, I concentrated on finding articles/government documents that dealt with NORAD's monitoring mission over America. Many before me wrote on the Payne Stewart incident and how NORAD intercept protocols stipulate that in ten minutes or so an errant aircraft will be intercepted. That in itself does not tell us if NORAD was actually tasked with monitoring American airspace. The fact that NORAD did intercept aircraft before 9/11 does not equate to NORAD was tasked with monitoring American airspace on 9/11. Two very different subjects.

You see, to this day NORAD has never denied it intercepted Payne Stewart's Lear jet, however it still does deny it monitored American airspace on 9/11. In may 2008 NORAD said, "Since the tragic events of 9/11, NORADs role which previously was outward-looking now includes monitoring airspace within North America." My articles prove that statement to be an outright lie.

The official 9/11 narrative rests upon four legs:

1. The World Trade Center;
2. The Pentagon;
3. Flight 93; and

Dr. David Ray Griffin said that if any of the major facts behind the official 9/11 narrative should prove false, then the whole narrative is false. I agree, and the articles on NORAD at DNotice.org have proved that the whole official 9/11 narrative to be laughably false.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC


Thanks. You have posted this information about 4 times over the last couple of days. This is now bordering on spam. Please give it a rest for a while, thank you.

Show "You Only Post Twice" by brian78046

This paper is well written

and very accessible, even to minor intellects like my own. Everyone should give this paper a read. One question for Dr. Jones. What was it that first brought you to the initial conclusion that a thermitic formulation might have been used in the destruction of the WTC towers?

thanks for the paper and this explanation.

I cruised the comments at JREF yesterday, it was up to 14 pgs, just looked now; it's up to 19 pgs. Major sense of desperation among JREFrs trying to shore up the OCT; no interest in facts or science. As Dr. Jones says, "And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO..."

Yesterday it was mostly juvenile insults and attacking Jones and Bentham- maybe 5 commenters attempt to debunk claims made in the paper, using "science"- including "911Files", who is John Farmer, 9/11 Commission Team 8 leader, who organized/participated in the Commission's "failure" to provide an explanation for the FAA not following SOP for FOUR off-course flights. Farmer discredits himself by claiming thermite is 70% titanium. He, and none of the attackers, show any interest in why "paint" contains nano-engineered aluminum and iron, and produces iron microspheres at 430 C when heated in a DSC; iron melts at 1400 C, so this indicates an intense, heat-producing chemical reaction was occurring.

Here Ryan Mackey declines John Farmer’s suggestion that they (along with “Sunstealer”) write up the JREF thread and “pay” to have it published by Bentham

James Redford debunks the claims about the open access model and Bentham

Jon Gold made a really good suggestion on the Active Thermitic thread;
"In my opinion, what I think should happen now, is that students should take this to the physics professors, engineers, etc... of their colleges/universities, and ask them to take a look at it. Random people that have no relationship to the movement at all, and especially not to the Government. If you can get enough of them to sign off on the science, then that would give it even more credibility."

And chemists, too- the point being, the more impartial people examining the paper, even doing the experiments on the dust themselves, the better. Putting it in front of them will also help raise awareness.

Also- ScrewLoose and JREFrs; you're probably here looking for material- as Jones says, the world still awaits peer-reviewed published rebuttals to these:

"there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the "Fourteen Points" paper or the "Environmental Anomalies" papers we published last year."


Thank you very much for you're work

& explaining the process you have gone thru.

I would have never known that professionals studied the material & then submitted their objections or questions.

That seems like a fair way of evolving & testing one's material.

Did any of the prof. who challenged the work, come to the realization that you are on to something & volunteer to help you?.. or at least express their encouragment of you're work?

Can you take you're work to other University's Science Dep't & try & have high minded Q & A sessions?

Ryan Mackey

Ryan Mackey, "I see no reason to pay them[Bentham] for the privilege of explaining why they're idiots with an illustration. Nor do I want such a paper on my C.V. The way to deal with this, once no reasonable doubt remains, is to repudiate and then ignore."

Of course, you don't need to explain to them why they are idiots. You just need to show that Steven Jones, Jeffrey Farrer et al. are incorrect in their conclusions. This would require you to do actual experiments(i.e. real science) instead of just bloviating. Apparently, real science is to much for a debunker.

On the subject of uber-lengthy threads at JREF:

It's obvious that a few of the super-prolific posters at JREF are most definitely shills paid to oppose us. Who knows who they work for. Perhaps a government agency, but I think more likely a private corporation; I immediately think of the major PR firm Hill & Knowlton orchestrating the 1991 incubator babies hoax.

The point being, they're paid propagandists in the Popular Mechanics sense of the term. And we know that PM, along with the government itself, loves to use as part of its propaganda machine impressive numbers to convince us all is OK with the 9/11 investigation. There is the "ten thousand page NIST report." Popular Mechanics purports to refute the "9/11 conspiracy theories" by claiming to have contacted "hundreds of experts."

Imagine a person on the fence with this issue, someone too afraid to trust their own instincts and desperately wants the official story to be true, and needs some experts to whom to gravitate to feel better. This person knows that there is a lot of 9/11 truth material out there, and also knows that there are some publications and forums who are fiercely adamant that the OCT is true, and desperately maintain that Jones, Gage, et al, are engaging in pseudoscience. They then find the JREF thread on the current subject. Even before viewing it, this person might think, "Damn! 20 pages! 800 replies! That must be some pretty industrial strength debunking! Jones et al must be getting debunked to shreds here!"

Since JREF promotes itself as a place that engages in critical thinking, where every claim is tested, and since the clear majority view there is that the OCT is true, that must mean it IS true, because those critical thinkers have debunked all of our claims in their massive, 27-page threads, and so forth. The "9/11 CT forum" there didn't exist before Loose Change, and the original "debunking loose change" thread was I believe somewhere like 200 pages long, enough for many observers to probably convince themselves, "Those Loose Change boys got an ass-whoopin' there!" In the early prominence of "debunkers" in 2006, there mere existence of the JREF 9/11 CT forum was good enough to re-assure some people of the "truth" of the OCT, just like the existence of the Popular Mechanics book on the shelf at Barnes & Noble.

It reminds me of trying to convince a co-worker about WTC7's demolition, and this was right after NIST released their final report. His answer to my "theory": "What about that group of scientific experts who just came out with a major study debunking that claim?" People truly will believe what they want to believe.

At best, it's enough to make people simply shrug and go, "Well... I don't know what to believe."

With regard to that last statement: Remember that quote in the doco "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Jouralism" where the guy says, "The thing that Fox News does, and right wing republicans do, is, they don't have to win every argument. But if they can *muddy* the argument, if they can turn it into a draw, that to them is a victory, because it denies the other side a victory."

Propaganda at its finest.

note: the John Farmer aka 911Files at JREF

is apparently not the Team 8 leader- thx for the tip, Tanabear.


The Gov has these same samples

The Gov has wtc dust samples of their own, which means this material has been under their nose for nearly 8 years. They have never been mentioned. Why? The Gov at the bare minimum should give their take on what this is and why it has not been mentioned by them.

That material can be used in a new investigation

If there is WTC dust material held in U.S. government agency labs then it could be used in a new investigation as it's chain of custody should be solid.

One would believe this material was held by the USGS and EPA.

Wouldnt be surprised if they

Wouldnt be surprised if they "lost" it ..

“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.
Dont preach it, just mention it :)

FOIA TO USGS re samples

I sent a FOIA request to the USGS sample collectors and asked for all their associated documents, records, field notes, videos, audios, photos. The reply? No records exist.

The USGS sent a team of two scientists to the WTC on 9/17 and 9/18/2001 They managed to collect just 37 samples between them. None of the samples were from the WTC site proper.

MY FOIA request reference number is: USGS-2010-0160 in case you want to ask for the reply. Address
your request to


If you want to see the lengthy correspondence including the links to the published papers please email me at


Include the word USGS in the subject line

I will send it back to you as a word document, with personal data redacted.

Bravo Prof. Jones!!!

Thank you!

I just want to point this out

I just want to point out something that I think is unique: evidence, e.g. varying volumes of dust, is in the hands of private citizens, it is not "sealed" from view by the State.

That is unique and, as this "imprimatur of peer-review" proves, exploitable.


Thanks To All Those That Contributed To This Peer-Reviewed Paper

When the student is ready the teacher will come.

I want to thank everyone who contributed to this paper and the evidence it uncovered to prove that explosive materials were used to bring down WTC 1, 2 and 7. Now I'm anxious to hear how the mainstream media buffoons will broadcast this evidence. Most likely they will just omit it from their broadcasts and treat it like they treated most of the evidence the 9/11 Truth Movement uncovered the last 7 plus years. We still have to stay the course and be vigilant. Take Care Matt

Thank you and

Thank you and congratulations Dr. Jones, for both your excellent paper and your informative comment here, I'm sure all of this data will be extremely helpful. Thank you for all the work you do.

rock on!

Rock on Professor Jones!

I second that suggestion to take this paper to your local physics and chemistry professors. Get people talking!

National secrecy is a threat to human security.

This is a beautiful and

This is a beautiful and amazing achievement, fantastic! It would have been interesting to see Chomsky's reaction to this after all the disparaging and frankly cowardly comments, but "who cares" anymore about what that fraudulent clown has to say? Not me at least.

Huge congrats to Dr Jones & team! BRAVO!!

This info get's out the East Coast's fighter jet


It's pretty eye-opening,for me.

Langley AFB in Langley, Virginia is the home of the USAF First Fighter Wing.

Langley AFB is part of the Ninth Air Force Region and the headquarters of the Air Combat Command for the United States.

Langley AFB is home is to the:

• 1st Operations Support Squadron
• 27th Fighter Squadron (F-22A)
• 71st Fighter Squadron (F-15C/D)
• 94th Fighter Squadron (F-22A)
The 27th fighter squadron is comprised of an estimated 20 Lockheed Martin / Boeing F-22A raptors. The most advanced jet fighter in the world.
The 71st fighter squadron is comprised of an estimated 40 McDonnell Douglas F -15C Strike Eagles capable of 1600 MPH at altitude.
The 94th fighter squadron is comprised of an estimated 20 F – 22A Raptors as above.

Also at Langley is the 192nd Fighter Wing an Air National Guard unit co-located with the active duty 1st Fighter Wing at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. The 192d Fighter Wing has a dual mission. The federal mission is to maintain a well-trained, well-equipped unit to be available for prompt mobilization during war and provide assistance during national emergencies (such as natural disasters or civil disturbances). Under the state mission, the 192d Fighter Wing provides protection of life, property and preserves peace, order and public safety. These missions are accomplished through emergency relief support during natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes and forest fires; search and rescue operations; support to civil defense authorities; maintenance of vital public services and counterdrug operations.

At Hancock Field in Syracuse, NY is the New York State Air National Guard 174th fighter wing which is comprised of 25 Lockheed Martin F-16C Fighting Falcons.

The Massachusetts Air National Guard 104th fighter squadron is located in Westfield, Mass at Barnes Airport. The unit is comprised of 20 F- 15 C strike eagles.

The New Jersey Air National Guard 177th fighter wing is stationed at the Atlantic City Airport. The 177th Fighter Wing is made up of primarily F-16C/D aircraft.

The Massachusetts Air National Guard 102nd Fighter wing was stationed at Otis AFB in Barnstable, Mass and consisted of 16 F-15C Eagles.

The US Naval station at Norfolk, Virginia is the homeport for our five largest aircraft carriers, each with one Carrier Air Wing. Each of these Air Wings consists of three fighter squadrons manned by some of the finest pilots in the world. Average number of flights per day is 100. This suggests that there were no fewer that 20 to 30 naval aircraft airborne the morning of September 11th. Total fighter count at Norfolk is estimated at over 250 jets.

Oceana Naval Air Station at Virginia Beach is home to seventeen strike fighter squadrons of F/A-18 Hornets and F/A-18 Super Hornets, the base is the sole East Coast Master Jet Base and home to all the east coast strike-fighter (VFA) units (excluding VFA-86 and Marine Corps VMFA squadrons). Training is conducted by VFA-106 Gladiators in their F/A-18C/D Hornets and F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

There are a half dozen other air bases within 35 minutes flight time or less of NYC and DC, that will not be included here including Andrews AFB whom launched three F 16-s and directed them to North Carolina.

Related to the above, the aircraft carrier USS George Washington was “off of Long Island” as of 9am September 12. This is difficult as the necessary 400 miles at full steam is plausible, except she was supposedly “in port” at Norfolk on the morning of September 11th. This type of vessel requires more than a few hours to get underway.

The USS John F Kennedy was at sea at the time of the attacks and was within 100 miles of Long island on the morning of the 12th. Both of these vessels are armed with one or two fighter squadrons depending on the requirements of their deployment.

We are under attack from the air. Our air defense is in the hands of the flight officers and pilots of the most powerful Air Force and Naval Air Command in the world. Four commercial airliners, flying at about 400 mph for over an hour and are being driven into important buildings with two Air Guard fighters from Massachusetts (one of the most distant bases from NYC in our list) aloft and three Air Guard fighters from Andrews sent to North Carolina.

Folks, I don't care if you are truther or a whatever. If you, as an American, assume that the 400 east coast based fighter jets on the above list were inoperable/on break/on another mission/in an effing meeting/being repaired/on exercises in effing Alaska/ on September 11, then I reserve the right to disagree with you

Its embarrassing for us that

Its embarrassing for us that you have to explain why a peer reviewed paper is not like a big-foot sighting... I'm glad you wrote this!

If your travels take you to the Lubbock-Amarillo area I'd love to buy you lunch. Thanks for all you do.

Thank you for comments...

and for keeping the well-written DesNews article in the top-10 list of most popular for about 4 days now... Keeps it in front of the public, which is an important goal. The Danish newspaper article was also very well-written and favorable IMO -- and Prof Harrit tells me he is very busy with interviews (including TV) in Europe.

pduveen: "This paper is well written
and very accessible, even to minor intellects like my own. Everyone should give this paper a read. One question for Dr. Jones. What was it that first brought you to the initial conclusion that a thermitic formulation might have been used in the destruction of the WTC towers?"

It was a short paper by Derrick Grimmer -- then the observation of flowing material from the South Tower along with the strong evidence for high-temperature corrosion and oxidation of WTC steel samples in the early FEMA report, Appendix C. Now we have active energetic thermitic material found in all samples we have surveyed so far from the dust generated by the WTC destruction on 9/11/2001.

Thanks to all for the support. Yes, confirmatory work is being done in France now and in New Hampshire -- I have seen the results privately and hope these results will be published in peer-reviewed journals soon.

Google Search Reveals Over 12,600 Results as of Thursday

“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”


Google shows 21,000 6pm Sat
Google's search was mysteriously stuck at 12,500 now for a couple of days.
BUT...a Yahoo search yields more than 58,000


Saturday 6pm central 125,000

New Streamlined Peer Review Process

Nobel Laureates Have Endorsed Bentham Science Journals

Nobel Laureates Have Endorsed Bentham Science Journals

Richard R. Ernst
Swiss Federal
Inst. of Technology,

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1991
For his contributions to the development of the methodology of high resolution nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy.

"Current Medicinal Chemistry has established itself as an important review journal in the field of medicinal chemistry. It provides research scientists in the field with comprehensive review articles written by eminent experts. It allows them to keep abreast with the latest relevant developments. The journal is highly recommended to all scientists active in the field of medicinal chemistry."

Sir James W. Black
London University,
King's College Hospital
London, U.K.

The Nobel Prize in Physiology 1988
For the discoveries of important principles for drug treatment.

"Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry provides medicinal chemists and scientists in allied disciplines an invaluable resource for thematic coverage of keen new developments in their field of study."

Robert Huber
für Biochemie Martinsried,
Martinsried, Germany

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1988
For the determination of the three-dimensional structure of a photosynthetic reaction centre.

"Current Medicinal Chemistry is a frontier review journal, which contains comprehensive reviews written by leading scientists in their respective fields. The journal presents the latest developments in various areas of medicinal chemistry. I strongly recommend it to scientists working in the field."

"Current Genomics represents a frontier review journal, which contains comprehensive reviews written by leading scientists in the respective fields. This journal presents the latest developments in the area of genomics. This is strongly recommended. "

"The 4 new journals Recent Patents on Anti-Cancer Drug Discovery, Recent Patents on Cardiovascular Drug Discovery, Recent Patents on CNS Drug Discovery, Recent Patents on Anti-Infective Drug Discovery are important patents journals in the field of Anti-Cancer Drug Discovery, Cardiovascular Drug Discovery, CNS Drug Discovery and Anti-Infective Drug Discovery, which should provide research scientists in the fields with recent developments in various frontier areas. These journals are strongly recommended to the scientific community".

Jean-Marie Lehn
Université Louis Pasteur Strasbourg, France

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1987
For the development and use of molecules with structure-specific interactions of high selectivity.

"In view of the growing volume of literature, the role of a high quality review journal has become increasingly important.
Current Medicinal Chemistry presents expert overviews in the field of medicinal chemistry of general interest to the scientific community."

"In view of the growing volume of literature, the role of high quality review journals has become increasingly important.
Current Drug Targets is an important journal in the field of medicinal chemistry and drug design, which is strongly recommended to the scientific community."

"Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry represents an important review journal of great value to pharmaceutical scientists."

"Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry is recommended as a forum for the publication and review of important aspects of medicinal chemistry including the design and synthesis of compound libraries for bioactivity testing."

Herbert C. Brown † (1912 - 2004)
Purdue University
West Lafayette, USA

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1979
For the development of the use of boron- and phosphorus-containi ng compounds, respectively, into important reagents in organic synthesis.

"Current Medicinal Chemistry has established itself as an important review journal in the field of medicinal chemistry. It provides research scientists in the field with comprehensive review articles written by eminent experts. It allows them to keep abreast with the latest relevant developments. The journal is highly recommended to all scientists active in the field of medicinal chemistry."

"Current Organic Chemistry is an important review journal, which should prove to be of wide interest to organic chemists and provide them with a convenient means of keeping up with the current flood of advances in the field."

Sir Derek H. R. Barton † (1918 - 1998)
Imperial College
London, U.K.

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1969
For the development of the concept of conformation and its application in chemistry.

"Current Medicinal Chemistry represents an important review journal of great value to medicinal chemists in universities and pharmaceutical industries."

"Current Organic Chemistry is an important chemistry review journal, which will present frontier reviews in organic chemistry. The journal will prove to be a very useful source of up-to-date information. The eminent international stature of the Guest Editors will guarantee the high standards expected of an international journal."

http://www.bentham. org/Nobel. htm

Was a paper...

Peer reviewed and published to refute this paper?


point Jon- I would expect our boffins to be ready to refute the cambridge paper.

With my education in Math and Physics I can see that it takes time to do work so there should be a delay to the freefall as work is done smashing through the intact floors below the crash zones.

For the buildings to fall accelerating as a coin in freefall through air implies no resistance which implies no structure below which implies a giant hole opened up or CD

I don't push CD too much as people dont all have my education

It suffices solely to shoot down the 9/11 conspiracy theory as it led to war.

Also we can show how compromised the Zelikow commission was.

This shows we need a new investigation.