Tuesday September 29, 2009, 2:54 pm


Thnx hun!!!

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 2:54 pm
What you need to know about "Peer-review"

"Useful information for "non-scientists" about the process of peer-reviewed publishing, such as has been the case with Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction, and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials ." - 911truth.org

April 7 2009
Steven Jones
911blogger.com

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.

Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.

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...

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 2:59 pm
Click HERE to see this article with extra back-up for the claims made added in the form of hyperlinks.

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 3:00 pm
Thanks, JohnMichael.

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 3:01 pm
Yes you have shown me this awhile back and I have a sinking feeling something is not right with the whole situation...Thanks for posting and staying on top of this horror...If they ever find out the government ever had anything to do with uh..................

Big gorilly Hugs

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 3:12 pm
I may have shown you the paper back in April Gorilly Girl, but this video is new. It includes clips from the recently released National Geographic special entitled Science and Conspiracy," as well as the newley released film entitled Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup. Please visit the video description for more info.

"Thanks for posting and staying on top of this horror."

YW, glad to reconnect with you!

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 3:14 pm
"newly released"

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 3:15 pm
My bad but If I remember right want there another vid on this??? Or maybe it just resembled it...But yes I watched this one....Feeeesheeeyyyyyyyy....

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 3:18 pm
I typed the word recently, so why I felt the need to type newley is anybody's guess! Spell check loves me, I just can't learn to appreciate it the same way it does me!

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 3:19 pm
There is similar information I have posted. No worries! ;)

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 3:37 pm
Good stuff as always JMT!:)

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 5:15 pm
Thanks for this informative video JohnMichael. I still think you should run for office. We need you.

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 10:35 pm
I suggest that this experiment be replicated exactly but also with the Thermite (and with Thermate) placed INSIDE the column.... once with the column sealed (with concrete perhaps) and once unsealed to see what happens. I think the results would be vastly different. Such a scenario is entirely possible since we know there was an "elevator modernisation" program occuring in the Towers over a period of 9 MONTHS prior to the demolitions !

Furthermore, with regard to Nat Geo itself, we know for a fact that all previous 911 media hit peices contained lies and gross misrepresentation of fact. I would not trust these people at fact value with regard to anything they are claiming including their experiments. They say they used commercial thermite but no independent observers were present here. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw the guys who set up that test.

The onus is fairly upon these people to make a credible case. Besides, the obsevations made by Jason Bermas in the clip, that they are substituting a weaker incendiary for the known materials that WERE used upon the WTC buildings (Nanothermite explosives and thermate), makes this Nat G experiment a ridiculous analogy.

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 10:59 pm
"I suggest that this experiment be replicated exactly but also with the Thermite (and with Thermate) placed INSIDE the column...."

Yes inside might work! Or in a shaped charge. http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/98195547/scientists-find-explosives-in-world-trade-center-dust. a target="_blank" href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/ThermiteDevicesMoore1.pdf">Or in a linear thermite cutting device. Anything but a friggin' upside down lampshade!

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 11:04 pm
OK screw the links, copy and paste it is!

"I suggest that this experiment be replicated exactly but also with the Thermite (and with Thermate) placed INSIDE the column...."

Yes inside might work!

Or in a shaped charge...

http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf

Or in a sol-gel...

http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/98195547/scientists-find-explosives-in-world-trade-center-dust

Or in a linear thermite cutting device...

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/ThermiteDevicesMoore1.pdf

Anything but a friggin' upside down lampshade!

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 6:57 am
Thanks John Michael for all you are doing. It all leads back to the people in power like Donald Rumsfield that says the only way to keep the american public backing the military is to create acts of terrorism on our own people.

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 1:45 pm
From the time of the occurence, everything in me said that 'things' were not as they seemed or were reported. After seeing what happened to your country after that horrible events, it became even more clear to me that forces were at work to deprive Americans of your Constitutional Rights which you rightly prize. There obviously are terrorist OUTSIDE your country, but there are also obviously terrorists INSIDE it. (eg the building in Oklahoma, the overwhelming power of the FBI to overrule your rule of law and keep people in prison on proven illegitimate grounds...I don't even believe that your President can overrule them, nor do I believe that they would protect him if he went against them...)

Thursday October 1, 2009, 8:34 am
"...I don't even believe that your President can overrule them, nor do I believe that they would protect him if he went against them..."

What happened to the Kennedy's may be a prime example of this.

Thursday October 1, 2009, 11:50 am
Thannnxxx John..sherbet would this not destabilize public opinion for the uninitiated regarding politics on this level.. Would this not add another page to th email of transparency... or would be be put down to another chapter in the history books... were we the real ones short changed through lack of knowledge... South African view my friend?

Saturday October 3, 2009, 12:38 am
We all appreciated the NGeo documentary, but knew the tests were far too flimsy to prove anything. They did share some very important truths, though.
THANK YOU, JM!!!!!