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

reply to post by crimvelvet

PEER-REVIEWED Don't you mean PAL-REVIEWED

No, you're confused..That's the NIST report...

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Hmmm, did Steven Jones invent the word "thermitic" when he was six years old? It seems this term has been around for awhile:

Here the term is used many times in this patent submitted in 1955:

www.freepatentsonline.com...

Here's just one of the many examples from the patent:

"Where no appreciable time delay is desired the hot gases produced by the burning of this charge would be permitted to directly ignite the thermitic material."

And if you look through you can count at least 10 more instances of it.


Here it's even used in the title of this patent from 1968 "Acceleration Actuated Switch with Explosive Charge and THERMITIC Material":

www.freepatentsonline.com...


The internet is fun when it's used to look up stuff....

reply to post by Six Sigma


these people know that three thermo-nuclear explosions brought down the buildings but i guess the
implications are too grave for this info to become general knowledge. yet this could be our only hope...

reply to post by GoodOlDave

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.

Your opinions and assumptions are wrong as NIcon has just proved it.

Originally posted by NIcon

Hmmm, did Steven Jones invent the word "thermitic" when he was six years old? It seems this term has been around for awhile:

Here the term is used many times in this patent submitted in 1955:

www.freepatentsonline.com...

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

Really Dave,you are spreading disinformation by making up fallacies against Jones journal.
You cannot “disprove” Professor Jones scientific Journal, so you have resorted to name calling and making up fallacies perhaps in hoping ignorant people will follow your opinions and your ridiculous 911 OS beliefs. Is that the best you can do Dave?

Just because you do not believe in something, it doesn’t mean it is not true, regardless of how unbelievable it is. You should do some real research, instead of posting drivel nonsense against people who do not believe in the OS fairytales.
Perhaps the OS is your truth, but for many of us who have done the research, know it is mostly lies.


Defending a corrupt government is unpatriotic and ignorant.

I dont quite get the content, but I will try to recap. So the nanothermite theory has been peer reviewed in this journal (or it hasnt) and 5 men left the journal, or one more man left the journal turning the total to 5, because they did not want to be associated with that particular article because they fear they might be linked to truthers, or at the very least to the material that has been peer reviewed (or not peer reviewed and ended up in the journal). 5 men so fearfull to be linked to the truth movement because of one article that they left the journal. Is that about right? Did I get the content of the O. post?

Sounds to me like they really really fear being linked to the truth movement. I wonder why. Id like to get the opinion of more experts on this one, but I guess that paper cant be givent the same attention as the moon landing.

I dont see the need to quit the journal. If those 5 men think the thermite theory can be debunked, or that something is wrong with it, they should just go ahead and say why what has been presented in this paper does not add up.

reply to post by NIcon

Hmmm, did Steven Jones invent the word "thermitic" when he was six years old? It seems this term has been around for awhile:

Here the term is used many times in this patent submitted in 1955:

Star for that, but don't expect Dave to answer..
He'll just come back with,
"Them damn fool conspiracy sites claiming Nukes, Lasers and Holograms"..

It's his favourite line..Shame no on else agrees anymore..

reply to post by Six Sigma


Why do they not simply submit the paper to a peer review process on their own accord? Why resign just because others believe it was not peer reviewed correctly?

So this thread is basically pointing out some editors saying... "waaaaahhh"... Like a baby crying, right?

Hey, how about instead of telling us who's crying about it, you actually show us some proof of something?

Since you're apparently so damned sure the conspiracy theories are unfounded, why don't you show what the NIST report proved or what any other report has actually proved about the destruction of the towers? Once you realize there is no evidence to support the "official" story, that's when you start looking at everything else. Not, mock and dismiss and cry about how private citizens have no proof, when nobody else does either! And there's a good reason for that.

The work that Jones and Harrit and others are doing is actually the most that's been proven relevant to the collapses to date. Again, because the government has NOTHING to offer as evidence for any competing theories.

Everyone wants to be an armchair critic of Jones and Harrit and all the other highly qualified professionals, but nobody wants to ever show what the government's proven, because they know there is nothing there.

I dont quite get the content, but I will try to recap. So the nanothermite theory has been peer reviewed in this journal (or it hasnt) and 5 men left the journal, or one more man left the journal turning the total to 5, because they did not want to be associated with that particular article because they fear they might be linked to truthers, or at the very least to the material that has been peer reviewed (or not peer reviewed and ended up in the journal). 5 men so fearfull to be linked to the truth movement because of one article that they left the journal. Is that about right? Did I get the content of the O. post?

Sounds to me like they really really fear being linked to the truth movement. I wonder why. Id like to get the opinion of more experts on this one, but I guess that paper cant be givent the same attention as the moon landing.

I dont see the need to quit the journal. If those 5 men think the thermite theory can be debunked, or that something is wrong with it, they should just go ahead and say why what has been presented in this paper does not add up.

Also this peer review was more then what the NIST report or anything backing the OS got.

And finally I am really reall curious about one more thing.

Does it happen all the time, that up to 5 people quit a scientific journal over an article that was published there or was it YET ANOTHER never before, never again event related to something 911?

Originally posted by GoodOlDaveJones clearly invented the term "thermitic" to refer to how the compound burned when ignited.

Yes he did. And he also used the term as follows: "The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

If thermitic was simply another term for thermite-like flame as you imply, then why would he say thermitic AND highly energetic (ie explosive)? He wouldn't. So again, I believe its apparent Jones coined not only to refer to the burning of thermite but more specifically to describe something resembling but not identical to commercial thermite. If he said "thermite" he would be wrong, since what he describes to be found was actually something he describes as nano-thermite. The paper could not really be more clear and probably did explicitly state the explosive he found was not (ordinary) thermite. I think Jones is very clear about that point that the material found was not common thermite.

I have a beef against Jones becuase his horrid excuse for a research paper does nothing but incite false public unrest.

Thats fine, but Jones clearly found a substance in the WTC debris including parts where "Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in thin platelike structures. And furthermore it ignited upon heating. You seem to wish to write that evidence off. I see no reason to.

It's the same as your claim that the Gulf of Tonkin started the Vietnam War; it was North Vietnam's desire to...

No, I meant The Gulf of Tonkin incident started the Vietnam War United States involvement. The CIA admits it lied that it happened the way it did. I think you'd agree that the incident started the war *for the US*. As to whether it would have started one way or another, I doubt you can really know that.

reply to post by Six Sigma


You heard correctly. If after hearing George Bush himself tell us all he saw the first plane flying into the first tower (something that the rest of us with our regular old network access did not see for days or weeks later), I can only figure you must be too busy singing songs of praise to the government to realize Bush himself must have been involved in some way. All of us who were adults know exactly how and when we heard the news of what happened on that day. According to Bush's own mouth, the when for him was before he went into the school building in Florida, and the how was by a TV in his limo witnessing flight 11 fly into WTC 1... something the rest of us did not see until it was actually available on the news. That one fact alone is about as damning as you can get short of a direct confession.

So yes, I do believe the truthers are correct and I believe what they are offering is not snake oil... what the government is offering me clearly is exactly that.