Stephen Jones nano thermite not peer reviewed

[Luntoc]

I was on you tube the other day and I was watching a video in whcih Alex Jones was interviewing Stephen Jones and they both were saying that jones' nano thermite paper has been reviewed. It turns out that his work didn't go through the entire process. Or at least it's what this site says.

http://forthardknox.com/2009/07/20/april-09-thermite-paper-not-peer-reviewed-published-in-journal-with-questionable-reputation/

What do you think?

[CHF]

It turns out that his work didn't go through the entire process.

That's putting it mildly.

He appears to have skipped the peer-review process entirely.

[Dumb All Over]

What do you think?
I think we've gone over this. It's called beating a dead horse.

[T.A.M.]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=141353
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5034942
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110489

ought to keep you busy for a while.

TAM:)

[dudalb]

Kind of hard to peer review a paper about a substance for which there is no solid evidence that it even exists.

[Juniversal]

Kind of hard to peer review a paper about a substance for which there is no solid evidence that it even exists.Of course that's meaningless to the "Truthers" considering they believe the Gov't was behind it. Not proof it exist? Well umm..umm..it was being developed in secret Government laboratories!! :rolleyes:

[Josarhus]

Arguments from the debate about the 12 Pentagon tapes comes to mind, so provide the names of the reviewers or I don't believe that it was ever peer reviewed.

[Justin39640]

SJ's paper review process
Guy A: "Hey, whats up with that nano-thing paper?"
Guy B: "The check cleared."
review complete

[fourtoe]

Though this has already been covered a bunch of times in the forums, that is a pretty solid article you linked us to. It summarizes the whole situation pretty nicely and supplies a lot of sources.

[paulheinze]

Kind of hard to peer review a paper about a substance for which there is no solid evidence that it even exists.

Do you suggest that the papers about nano energetic materials are faked?

[BigAl]

Do you suggest that the papers about nano energetic materials are faked?

I've seen no evidence that Jones and Herrit have ever possessed any nano-thermite.

[paulheinze]

I've seen no evidence that Jones and Herrit have ever possessed any nano-thermite.

Me neither, but do you think nano-thermite and analogues exist or not? If you do not believe the existence, it means the publications are faked. BTW it would be a conspiracy theory.:D

[Dave Rogers]

Do you suggest that the papers about nano energetic materials are faked?

I think it's well enough established that nanoparticle thermite formulations have been made and their properties investigated, though the barrage of misinformation from Jones and his colleagues can lead even the most rational skeptic automatically to assume something is untrue simply because Steven Jones has said it. It's equally certain that the energy yield of nanoparticle thermite is much lower than that of coarser formulations, leaving Jones's conclusions even less well supported by his evidence; for more information, read some recent posts by Ryan Mackey, and for more obfuscation read some recent ones by metamars.

Dave

[triforcharity]

I think that nano-thermite exists, but not in the quantities that would have been required on 9/11.

It's all a lie from Jones et el.

[paulheinze]

I think it's well enough established that nanoparticle thermite formulations have been made and their properties investigated.

I agree.

[T.A.M.]

The nanothermite is the ultimate.

Lets take a substance that only the military has, and claim it was used to cause the collapse of the twin towers. That way we can have a material that fits the situation (no series of loud visible explosive detonations seconds before the collapse), is essentially undetectable, and when asked to compare our findings to controls, we can cry,

"but only the military has access to it, so we couldn't test against it."

How *********** convenient.

A scam...beginning to end.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

I think that nano-thermite exists, but not in the quantities that would have been required on 9/11.

It's all a lie from Jones et el.

Oh thats not true. In a letter to Dr. Frank Greening, Steven Jones, when cornered, confessed that the nano-thermite might have only been used in FUSES to ignite/set off more traditional explosives.

See...when confronted with evidence or science that contradicts your theory, do not admit your theory is bunk...merely change it to fit the new evidence and/or science.

I call it part of the "Truther Escape Clause".

TAM:)

[dtugg]

Nanothermite exists but the fraud Steven Jones didn't find any and a painted on layer sure as hell couldn't destroy a steel column like he says.

[paulheinze]

Oh thats not true. In a letter to Dr. Frank Greening, Steven Jones, when cornered, confessed that the nano-thermite might have only been used in FUSES to ignite/set off more traditional explosives.

See...when confronted with evidence or science that contradicts your theory, do not admit your theory is bunk...merely change it to fit the new evidence and/or science.

I call it part of the "Truther Escape Clause".

TAM:)

I would say it is just developing your knowledge. I mean competent debunkers are incredibly helpful in distinguishing wrong from useful leads.
I would not say FEMA guys are liars just because of their use of the pancake theory.

[Longfellow]

I thought Jones found paint?

[Dave Rogers]

I agree.

And how about the bit where they were found to have energy yields of 40% that of conventional thermite, in contradiction to Harrit and Jones's handwaving? Did you see anything in there that you might like to agree with?

Dave

[T.A.M.]

I would say it is just developing your knowledge. I mean competent debunkers are incredibly helpful in distinguishing wrong from useful leads.
I would not say FEMA guys are liars just because of their use of the pancake theory.

ok, so does that mean (A) Frank Greening is a competent Debunker? (B) that the nanothermite as fuse is the current smart lead (as opposed to the impossible nanothermite as steel column cutter theory)?

So paul, what do you think of Jones stating that the nanothermite they allegedly found was likely used for fuses for traditional explosives?

TAM:)

[CHF]

In a letter to Dr. Frank Greening, Steven Jones, when cornered, confessed that the nano-thermite might have only been used in FUSES to ignite/set off more traditional explosives.

What would be the benefit of a super-dooper-nano-thermite fuse as opposed to a regular one?

[Dave Rogers]

What would be the benefit of a super-dooper-nano-thermite fuse as opposed to a regular one?

It's the same reason sharks with lasers are better than regular sharks, I think.

Dave

ETA: Oh, and happy birthday!

[Undesired Walrus]

Why would you need nanothermite? The building would have collapsed anyway.

[TruthersLie]

Me neither, but do you think nano-thermite and analogues exist or not? If you do not believe the existence, it means the publications are faked. BTW it would be a conspiracy theory.:D

Oh no twoof. nanothermite exists in the LAB.

And when they test it, I'm sure they test it in an inert environment.

[TruthersLie]

I agree.

Nice datamining. And you wonder why people laugh at truthers.

did you even bother to read the REST of his reply?

of course not.

[TruthersLie]

It's the same reason sharks with lasers are better than regular sharks, I think.

Dave

ETA: Oh, and happy birthday!

well they are.

[T.A.M.]

What would be the benefit of a super-dooper-nano-thermite fuse as opposed to a regular one?

Bingo!

TAM:)

[fourtoe]

TAM, is there a link to a thread or anything that has the conversation between Greening and Jones that you're talking about?


Happy birthday CHF!

[T.A.M.]

TAM, is there a link to a thread or anything that has the conversation between Greening and Jones that you're talking about?


Happy birthday CHF!

Not a link to the actual convo, but Greening tells everyone here,

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-30.html


...So when I bounced my calculations and conclusions off Jones et al, all he could come up with was the suggestion that there were probably other explosives used in the WTC and the nanothermite chips were maybe just fuses!

Thus, after all the fuss about high-tech nano-thermites, we are back to good-old "bombs in the buildings" as the answer to how the buildings were destroyed.

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

Yes, I think the actual conversation was conducted by email between Greening and Jones. That's the sense I took away from that site.

[Scott Sommers]

I was on you tube the other day and I was watching a video in whcih Alex Jones was interviewing Stephen Jones and they both were saying that jones' nano thermite paper has been reviewed. It turns out that his work didn't go through the entire process. Or at least it's what this site says.

http://forthardknox.com/2009/07/20/april-09-thermite-paper-not-peer-reviewed-published-in-journal-with-questionable-reputation/

What do you think?

You sound surprised like you didn't expect this. Of course it's not peer-reviewed. Not at all. Not even a little bit. And in case you wonder how I know, I peer review articles for publication - only these are proper journals.