"In No Way Do I Agree With Its Conclusions"- Another Editor Resigns From Bentham

Upon hearing about the controversial peer review process of the infamous "Nano Thermite" paper; Professor Lucio Frydman; Department of Chemical Physics,The Weizmann Institute of Sciences, has stepped down as editor in chief at Bentham.

Here are a few of his comments to former professor at the University of Ottawa, Denis G. Rancourt:

I was not involved in its handling, and in no way do i agree with its conclusions. In fact i do not even know how the paper's peer reviewing was handled - or if it was reviewed at all. The journal never wanted to disclosed this matter to me

What may be even worse - noone seems to be at the helm of this Journal. Months ago -simply after becoming acquainted with the article you mention, its possible misshandling, etc- i submitted my immediate resignation as editor to the open chemical physics journal.

To be frank, noone seems to be at the helm of this floundering ship...

activistteacher.blogspot.com...

This is now 5 people who has resigned due to this paper and it's obvious inappropriate label of being peer reviewed.

1. Lucio Frydman
2. Marie Paule Pileni
3.Bambang Parmanto
4. Marc Williams
5. John Furedy

Jones himself quite possibly may have had a truther review this paper! David L. Griscom is listed as a reviewer of the paper? More info to follow......

This just got very interesting. I hope to see more from you on this matter. Other members should be advised to flag this thread as it deserves to be read and the implications understood.

reply to post by Six Sigma




No , seriously ...

Be interesting to see what the truthers have to say about this . But , who wants to bet a dollar that the conversation will be steered toward something totally irrelevant ?

Can't wait for the hard-core defenders of "peer-reviewed" to get here to tell us how mis-construed we are and point out to us how we are taking this out of context ...

I do not see a response other than fear of being associated with 911 truth. So with no argument or evidence presented by Prof. Frydman disproving the original paper or peer review process how are we to make a decision on the merits of the paper??

My opinion is that Prof. Frydman wants nothing to do with this paper or Journal because it is a career killer. That is my take away.

Here Prof Frydman asks that his email be removed and is denied by Denis Rancourt.

From: Lucio Frydman
Date: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: Editorial concern, Open Chemical Physics Journal, possible fraudulent peer review
To: Denis Rancourt

I appreciate the copying of the correspondence.
While i sympathize with your arguments, I have noticed with worry, however, that you have posted in an open web site my email response of yesterday to you and to the journal. While i stand behind what i wrote, i sent that email under the reasonable assumption that i was corresponding with you in privacy. A privacy that i see violated by your posting of my message in a blog without asking for my prior consent. Please remove it from your blog site -together with any comments you have associated with that message
Thanks in advance and please confirm these actions have been taken
LF

I do not see a response other than fear of being associated with 911 truth.

The truth of 911 is feared by people who chose to stay ignorant of the facts and wants to believe in a fairytale of the OS. FACT, most people do not discuss 911 because they do not know what the truth is and what the many lies are. Most people do not have the luxury as many of you have to spend endless hours researching the lack of evidence of the OS.

The reason for the lack of responds is because Denis Rancourt just give his "opinions" with no scientific backing to support his theories.

physics professor/activist Denis Rancourt and I spent the first hour amicably discussing 9/11, and mostly agreeing with each other. During the second hour, we had a heated debate (temperatures almost high enough to vaporize steel!) about what happened to the Twin Towers: I argued that the controlled demolition hypothesis best explains the facts, while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, claimed that the Towers could have collapsed due to plane crashes and fires as the government says.

But wait – what about the unexploded nanothermite chips (making up as much as .1 percent of the WTC dust) found by chemistry professor Niels Harrit and eight other scientists? While I don’t know much about chemistry, I’m good at judging arguments.

Those who have attacked Dr. Harrit’s paper have used such blatantly bad arguments as to have made a prima facie case that the paper is unassailable. Let’s see whether Denis Rancourt, who knows something about nanotechnology, can do any better! (I wonder whether he thinks it’s a coincidence that much of the NIST cover-up crew, who pretended they had never heard of nanothermite, were in fact nanothermite experts!)
Niels Harrit is an Associate Professor at University of Copenhagen. He is an expert in organic chemistry, photochemistry, fluorescence, and nanotechnology, and the lead author of a potentially historic scientific paper on nanothermite residues in World Trade Center dust.

[color=gold]Denis Rancourt was a tenured professor of physics at the University of Ottawa. His activism on many issues, including the conflict in Occupied Palestine, led to his being fired and dragged off campus in handcuffs by police – an amazing moment in Denis’s ongoing academic freedom struggle.

noliesradio.org...

Let’s look at some of the “opinions” and “assumption” Rancourt states in his paper that lacks no scientific backing for his opinions, shell we?
I will highlight some of Rancourt “unscientific opinions”.

made by Rancourt in his paperThe authors argued that since the red layers were seen by SEM (back scattered electron images) to be aggregates of dense nanoparticles and less dense nanoflake-like particles and since the EDXA spectra showed the presence of both Fe (iron) and Al (aluminum) that the flake-like particles [color=gold]must be elemental aluminum, whereas the smaller nanoparticles were presumed to be iron oxide.

climateguy.blogspot.com...

Must be? Where is his evidence?

They further argued that a nano-scale mixture of Fe-oxide and Al-metal is by definition a nanothermitic material.

And what has Rancourt proven that it is not? Nothing.

The Al slugs would give inhomogeneous background Al signals in the EDXA spectra. This was not considered or discussed in the paper. There could be no or little Al in the red-layer.

climateguy.blogspot.com...

There could be no or little Al in the red-layer? This is Rancourt “opinion” based on what? Again Rancourt assumes there could be no or little Al in the red-layer.
Where is Rancourt science to prove this allegation? There is none.

The carbon adhesive tape will give inhomogeneous background C signals in the EDXA spectra. This was not considered or discussed in the paper. [color=gold]There could be no or little C in the red-layer

climateguy.blogspot.com...

There could be no or little C in the red-layer? What scientific evidence does Rancourt give to prove that there could be no or little C in the red-layer? None.

There is as much or more Si (silicon) in the EDXA results than Al in all the red-layer results and Si and Al are closely correlated in their spatial distributions (e.g., their Figure 10). No probable explanation is given for this. This is not consistent with the presence of metallic Al.

climateguy.blogspot.com...

Again, what science does Rancourt give us that (EDXA results) are not consistent with the presence of metallic Al.? None. Just his opinion based on what?
This is just the beginning, there is no point even debating Rancourt conclusion because he show no science to back his opinions.

In my opinion, Rancourt did a very sloppy job on this paper, especially given the importance of 911 as a historic event and societal phenomenon.
Rancourt failed,and lost miserable in his debate in the Niels Harrit vs. Denis Rancourt _on The Kevin Barrett Show. Anyone can see that Denis Rancourt is a sore loser. To bad Denis paper is not recognized by real science, or in the “scientific community.”

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

No , seriously ...

Be interesting to see what the truthers have to say about this . But , who wants to bet a dollar that the conversation will be steered toward something totally irrelevant ?

Can't wait for the hard-core defenders of "peer-reviewed" to get here to tell us how mis-construed we are and point out to us how we are taking this out of context ...

I have something irrelevant; And not from a blog for the moment...
Please forgive me OP if I steer off course. I've just compiled a little something I was going to start a new thread with. But it doesn't really deserve it's own thread because it is short and to the point, rather a little blunt too.

Thank you in advance for this opportunity to post in your thread. S&F!

Circumstantial Evidence vs Lack of Evidence

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein

Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal - Albert Einstein

C-E

C-E-2

W-T

W-T 2

T-E

T-E 2

Research guide by IsaacKoi

It’s well documented that the clean up on ground zero was initiated prior, and/or during an investigation.
It’s also well documented that witnesses interviewed who had “objectionable” testimony are no longer alive to change their stories to better coincide with “official” reports.

Pathological criminals are using technology and support of its backers to relinquish whatever liberties remain in the way of utter and complete dominance of the entire world.

Finally, when they have only themselves to wage their wars against; the world will finally be rid of them.

It’s well documented that the clean up on ground zero was initiated prior, and/or during an investigation.

How do you get to the bottom of the pile if you don’t remove the top?
What if your spouse was last seen on one of the lower floors? Do you want them to dig or computer locate each and every chunk of debris? What do you expect? We are all human and each and every one of us wanted every effort made to locate any and all survivors. You are not being the least bit reasonable.

It’s also well documented that witnesses interviewed who had “objectionable” testimony are no longer alive to change their stories to better coincide with “official” reports.

You are implying that they were killed. Prove it! Anyway how does it affect what they have already said?

Originally posted by samkent

It’s well documented that the clean up on ground zero was initiated prior, and/or during an investigation.

How do you get to the bottom of the pile if you don’t remove the top?
What if your spouse was last seen on one of the lower floors? Do you want them to dig or computer locate each and every chunk of debris? What do you expect? We are all human and each and every one of us wanted every effort made to locate any and all survivors. You are not being the least bit reasonable.

It’s also well documented that witnesses interviewed who had “objectionable” testimony are no longer alive to change their stories to better coincide with “official” reports.

You are implying that they were killed. Prove it! Anyway how does it affect what they have already said?

Sorry Samkent,

None of this is relevant in this thread.

Please refer back to OP.

You are welcome to utilize cognitive reasoning while researching the facts, and the lack of facts in your pursuit of the answers kept hidden from you, and everybody else who's been researching this of their own constitution.
Welcome to the advocacy of truth. Seasons Greetings and Happy New Year.

reply to post by impressme


impressme ~

You seemed to be focused on Denis Rancourt, his activism, and his response to the nano-paper. This thread is actually about Professor Lucio Frydman; Department of Chemical Physics, at the Weizmann Institute of Sciences. He is the 2nd Editor in Chief to have resigned and 5 employee overall. Those are his quotes in the OP not those of Rancourt.

Mr. Frydman clearly states that Bentham is a joke and they were unwilling to cooperate with him when he requested details about the paper.

"To be frank, noone seems to be at the helm of this floundering ship..."

I think this is quite telling though:

"In fact i do not even know how the paper's peer reviewing was handled - or if it was reviewed at all. The journal never wanted to disclosed this matter to me."

Hmmmm... editor in chief and the journal wouldn't even share the reviewing process with him??

None of this is relevant in this thread.

Tell that to the guy above me. He posted and I responded.

You are welcome to utilize cognitive reasoning while researching the facts, and the lack of facts in your pursuit of the answers kept hidden from you, and everybody else who's been researching this of their own constitution.

No the facts are there. You and others just don’t like the results. You feel there has to be something more to the story. Not every movie has a sequel.

This is event is like an onion. You can peal as many layers as you want, but it’s still going to look and taste the same.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
I do not see a response other than fear of being associated with 911 truth.

THANK YOU! *That's* the word I've been looking for, exactly: "fear".

Regardless of whether it's the con artists behind these damned fool conspiracy web sites inventing these sinister plots to murder us all to make a quick buck, or the conspiracy theorists here pushing every conceivable paranoid delusion from the towers being destroyed by lasers from outer space to 10,000 secret disinformation agents planted everywhere, the 9/11 truther movement is literally an industry of fear mongering. If they can't convince us the moon landing was faked, then they'll try to convince us that JFK was assassinated by the CIA, and if they can't do that, they'll try to convince us that vapor trails from overhead planes are chemical trails loaded with something sinister, and if they can't do that, they'll try to convince us that 9/11 was a false flag inside job. The particular reason why we should be hiding under our beds is immaterial, just as long as we actually are hiding under our beds over something.

The editors realize Jones' hack job has absolutely nothing to do with honest research, and everything to do with attempting to spread abject paranoia. All you need to do is Google the word, "thermitic" to find out Jones invented the term himself to get people to think he found thermite, without actually coming out and saying it. Jeez even the editor in chief of Bentham resigned becuase she didn't want to be connected in any way to this thing so it's obvious that there's gotta be something severely wrong with the report.

reply to post by impressme


Alas, the fact is that OS defenders have been given carte blanche to dismiss most research into the collapse simply by citing baseless but possible explanations which supoprt the OS.

They were given this freedom by the very truthers themselves who made the semantic error of calling the OS "Impossible." Ever since, the burden of proof for OS defenders has been to merely prove the OS possible no matter how improbable it may be. Meanwhile, truthers have saddled themselves with a requirement of completely and absolutely proving their story to the utter exclusion of any even remotely possible alternative.

These are the circles that this whole miserable clusterfornication will run in until something even more terrible befalls humanity and we can begin this sorry debate anew.

reply to post by Six Sigma


None of the five editors who resigned seemed to find any mistakes in the paper whatsoever. What they did find was an objective paper regarding 9/11. Its much the same as people in prior centuries being embarrassed and resigning if someone under their supervision were to publish a suggestion the world were round... definitely a reputation ruiner that was not allowed to be discussed.

reply to post by Leo Strauss


Leo ~

The only "fear" this man has is that he will now get harassed by some stalkers in the truther cult. He was clear on WHY he left the Vanity Rag.... read his quotes!

Originally posted by civilchallenger
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

None of the five editors who resigned seemed to find any mistakes in the paper whatsoever. What they did find was an objective paper regarding 9/11. Its much the same as people in prior centuries being embarrassed and resigning if someone under their supervision were to publish a suggestion the world were round... definitely a reputation ruiner that was not allowed to be discussed.

Rubbish. There is nothing objective whatsoever with Jones' inventing the term, "thermitic" on his own accord to get people thinking the material he found was actually thermite, without coming out and actually saying it.

reply to post by okbmd

Can't wait for the hard-core defenders of "peer-reviewed" to get here to tell us how mis-construed we are and point out to us how we are taking this out of context ...

PEER-REVIEWED Don't you mean PAL-REVIEWED

Originally posted by civilchallenger
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

None of the five editors who resigned seemed to find any mistakes in the paper whatsoever. What they did find was an objective paper regarding 9/11. Its much the same as people in prior centuries being embarrassed and resigning if someone under their supervision were to publish a suggestion the world were round... definitely a reputation ruiner that was not allowed to be discussed.

The paper was already published. As he states in his e-mail; he had nothing to do with it. Why does he have to list the faults in it? He is Chemical Physics professor and states he does not agree with it's findings. Perhaps you can reach out to him and request a white paper on the subject? I have his phone number if you would like me to send it to you.

Originally posted by GoodOlDaveAll you need to do is Google the word, "thermitic" to find out Jones invented the term himself to get people to think he found thermite, without actually coming out and saying it. Jeez even the editor in chief of Bentham resigned becuase she didn't want to be connected in any way to this thing so it's obvious that there's gotta be something severely wrong with the report.

Your suggestion makes no sense. He clearly invented the term "thermitic" (in the paper referred to in the OP) to refer to the fact the material found was similar to commercial thermite but *not* identical due to the smaller particle sizes. He repeatedly then calls it nano-thermite meaning its a different form than common commercial grades. You act like there is something wrong with that, but there doesn't seem anything wrong with it at all to me. In fact it sounds like a good idea for him to use the terms he did. It seems like you have something against Jones personally. I can imagine what it is... I suppose you can't stand the fact that your government participated in the killing of 3,000 people to start a war, despite that you probably accept the CIA's admission that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was entirely made up tale to start the Vietnam war.

As to the reasoning behind the resignation, no errors in the paper were ever cited. In fact, I've never seen anybody, skeptic or not, find anything actually wrong with the paper. Personally I consider myself a skeptic. And I'm very skeptical when it comes to government stories were told in the news media. I laugh out loud sometimes thinking about how so-called skeptics suddenly get all religious when it comes to worshiping their government and pretending its out there doing good and setting people free.

Originally posted by civilchallenger
Your suggestion makes no sense. He clearly invented the term "thermitic" (in the paper referred to in the OP) to refer to the fact the material found was similar to commercial thermite but *not* identical due to the smaller particle sizes. He repeatedly then calls it nano-thermite meaning its a different form than common commercial grades. You act like there is something wrong with that, but there doesn't seem anything wrong with it at all to me.

Ask Mr. Jones how much of the nano-thermite would be needed to weaken the steel. Then let us know. okay?

It seems like you have something against Jones personally.

He is a charlatan. Not as good as Richard Gage....but he sure is one. Can you ask Jones why he has yet to get the paper properly reviewed?

I suppose you can't stand the fact that your government participated in the killing of 3,000 people to start a war,

Proof? Nah... didn't' think so.

despite that you probably accept the CIA's admission that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was entirely made up tale to start the Vietnam war.

So...they weren't lying? Or were they?

As to the reasoning behind the resignation, no errors in the paper were ever cited. In fact, I've never seen anybody, skeptic or not, find anything actually wrong with the paper.

It was a truther that posted a scientific response to the paper! The link is above. There are also several problems pointed out. If I have some time later, I will try to dig one up.

Personally I consider myself a skeptic. And I'm very skeptical when it comes to government stories were told in the news media. I laugh out loud sometimes thinking about how so-called skeptics suddenly get all religious when it comes to worshiping their government and pretending its out there doing good and setting people free.

Worshiping government? Please explain how one does that. skeptic?? no way. You seem like a purchaser of the snake oil that is the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Originally posted by civilchallenger

Originally posted by GoodOlDaveAll you need to do is Google the word, "thermitic" to find out Jones invented the term himself to get people to think he found thermite, without actually coming out and saying it. Jeez even the editor in chief of Bentham resigned becuase she didn't want to be connected in any way to this thing so it's obvious that there's gotta be something severely wrong with the report.

Your suggestion makes no sense. He clearly invented the term "thermitic" (in the paper referred to in the OP) to refer to the fact the material found was similar to commercial thermite but *not* identical due to the smaller particle sizes.

Not true. Jones clearly invented the term "thermitic" to refer to how the compound burned when ignited. There are other words as used in the scientific field of chemistry (I.E. combustible) to describe the actual physical reaction that he found so his invention of the term "thermitic" all on his own is a conscious attempt to link what he had found with actual thermite. Jones' field in in fusion, not explosives, and he has zero experience with thermite or nano-thermite, so such inventiveness in his terminology usage is blatant dishonestly on his part.

...unless he's intentionally trying to get people to believe he found thermite without actually coming out and saying it, in which case it's very good methodology. It's just very bad honesty.

. In fact it sounds like a good idea for him to use the terms he did. It seems like you have something against Jones personally. I can imagine what it is... I suppose you can't stand the fact that your government participated in the killing of 3,000 people to start a war, despite that you probably accept the CIA's admission that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was entirely made up tale to start the Vietnam war.

I have a beef against Jones becuase his horrid excuse for a research paper does nothing but incite false public unrest. Someone has gotten the Wile E. Coyote cartoon idea there was some sinister gov't plot to blow up the towers and it kicked off an out of control brush fire of abject paranoia, and instead of actually answering any questions, Jones' irresponsibile research methodology is only pouring gasoline onto the fire. It's the same as your claim that the Gulf of Tonkin started the Vietnam War; it was North Vietnam's desire to conquer the south and unite the area under it's own Communist flag that started the Vietnam war, and since they did in fact conquer the south and united the area under its own Communist flag it's not up for debate this is what they were up to. The gulf of Tonkin thing isn't the WHY we went to Vietnam. It's the HOW we went to Vietnam. Cold war politics demanded we were heading to war in Vietnam regardless of whatever happened at the Gulf of Tonkin...but you don't care. You simply want to inflate the Gulf of Tonkin beyond it's actual importance to satisfy your paranoia in that field.

This has absolutely nothing about nothing to do with 9/11 or Jones paper and it's obvious you're trying to create a strawman argument here- you cannot defend Jones' travesty of a research project so you try to lead the debate into a different area in the hopes you can win the debate in a proxy argument. I am immune to such games so I will leave that thread to others to bicker over.