Additonal Experiments with Nano Therm. vs. WTC Dust

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

You get funnier all the time Pteredine...

Have a look at the range of articles in the New Journal of Chemistry:
pubs.rsc.org...

Here is the blurb for the particular journal in question:

The Open Chemical Physics Journal is an Open Access online journal which publishes research articles, reviews and letters in all areas of chemical physics.

(my highlight)

And here is the suggested conflict of interest for said editor:
911blogger.com...

Really Pteredine, please try to be a little less predictable

Your reference to the genius blogger looking for a conflict confirms that misunderstanding is the keystone of the truther movement. The editor is in France. She lives and works in France. The adjunct professorship means only that she has professorial privileges at GaTech and that Tech could send students to her lab in France.

What Jones published is not chemical physics or physical chemistry and does not belong in a journal of chemical physics, hence the question of how it got in there and if it was ever reviewed by chemists rather than theologians and landscape architects.

Your lack of scientific training is becoming even more obvious. Maybe logic will help you solve your many problems.

reply to post by pteridine

What Jones published is not chemical physics or physical chemistry and does not belong in a journal of chemical physics, hence the question of how it got in there and if it was ever reviewed by chemists rather than theologians and landscape architects.

How is what Jones was doing NOT chemistry. What is the specific definition you are using?

chem·is·try/ˈkemistrē/ Noun:
The branch of science that deals with the identification of the substances of which matter is composed; the investigation of their properties and the ways in which they interact, combine, and change; and the use of these processes to form new substances.

physicsplural of phys·ics
Noun: The branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. The subject matter of physics, distinguished from that of chemistry and biology, includes mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism, and the structure of atoms.

I don't see anything in either the dictionary definitions or Bentham's own statement of scope that precludes analytics. If you find such statement be sure to let me know. Until you do you are just blathering random stuff. Again.

If he had published it in a nano-material journal you would complain that it only satisfies one of the criteria for nano-material )even though that is sufficient)

If he had published it a a forensics journal you would have insisted he publish in a physics and chemistry journal first.

Don't imagine that your tactic isn't transparent.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

If he had published it in a nano-material journal you would complain that it only satisfies one of the criteria for nano-material )even though that is sufficient)

If he had published it a a forensics journal you would have insisted he publish in a physics and chemistry journal first.

Don't imagine that your tactic isn't transparent.

I see that you are assuming, again. These are the kinds of things they publish:

"Electronic Structure and Substituent Effect of o-, m- and p-C6H4INCS"
Sheng-Rui Tong, Mao-Fa Ge, Li Yao and Lin Du Pp 12-22

"Catalytic Decomposition of H2O(D2O) on a Heated Ir Filament to Produce O and OH(OD) Radicals"
Hironobu Umemoto and Hiroki Kusanagi Pp 32-36

"Metallofullerene Series: Free-Metal Ionization-Potential Control of the Production Yields"
Zdenek Slanina, Filip Uhlík, Shyi-Long Lee and Shigeru Nagase Pp 1-5

"Effect of Increasing N,N-Dimethylformamide Concentration on the Structure of Polysorbate 80 Micelles"
Hideki Aizawa Pp 6-9

You really have no clue about any of this, do you? Look up "chemical physics." You will probably not understand why Jones paper is not chemical physics but then again you are limited by believing you are a logician, of sorts.

reply to post by pteridine


...and here is another sort of thing they publish:
“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen

Your logic once again fails you. There is no reason why if they publish one sort of thing they cannot publish another sort of thing which is related to the one sort of thing in one way or another.

Shockingly (for example) the New Journal of Chemistry
"Early history of asymmetric synthesis: who are the scientists who set up the basic principles and the first experiments?"
Henri B. Kagan and Kovuru Gopalaiah

What is this? A piece of history? Story-telling!?!?! Sociology research perhaps? FIRE THE EDITOR FORTHWITH!!!

Journal don't typically restrict themselves to one and only one methodology but fields often do use specific methodologies more often than others. This is not shocking.

Answer the question Pteredine, give me the appropriate journal where this CAN be published and is above any post hoc objections of the kind you make.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

Journal don't typically restrict themselves to one and only one methodology but fields often do use specific methodologies more often than others. This is not shocking.

Answer the question Pteredine, give me the appropriate journal where this CAN be published and is above any post hoc objections of the kind you make.

I see you still haven't looked up "chemical physics." You don't want to believe the ex-editor when she said that the paper did not belong in her journal. You are a reluctant pupil.
We already discussed the types of journals that the paper should have been submitted to. It may well have been submitted to other journals and not accepted for publication, which would be understandable.

Here is an example of a journal that has limited scope: logicandanalysis.org...
"Journal of Logic and Analysis:This journal examines the interaction between ideas or techniques from mathematical logic and other areas of mathematics, especially, but not limited to, pure and applied analysis. Journal of Logic and Analysis publishes papers in nonstandard analysis and related areas of applied model theory; papers involving interplay between mathematics and logic (including foundational aspects of such interplay); and mathematical papers using or developing analytical methods having connections to any area of mathematical logic."

If you would submit a logic paper to this journal with no connection to mathematical logic, would you expect it to be published in the journal? Would the editor change the scope of the journal for you or recommend another logic journal?

reply to post by pteridine


Uhm, earth to Pteredine...

Remind me again which part of this paper being an investigation of a chemical substance in terms of physics it is exactly that you are missing here? Browsing through past copies I see nothing that precludes publishing this paper in a chemical physics journal. If this had been a study discussing the physical characteristics of thermite residue as opposed to paint (though why one would do such a study I cannot imagine) there would be no issue, it is about the method not the subject matter.

You haven't answered the million dollar question: Which journal SHOULD it be published in? Remember that as per your approach the stated journal should have nothing possibly objectionable to it okay?

If it was published in that journal you need to be able to state that you would have accepted the paper 100% without any reservation purely on the basis of that publication.

Get back to me when you have an answer.

Here is an example of a journal that has limited scope: logicandanalysis.org... "Journal of Logic and Analysis:This journal examines the interaction between ideas or techniques from mathematical logic and other areas of mathematics, especially, but not limited to, pure and applied analysis. Journal of Logic and Analysis publishes papers in nonstandard analysis and related areas of applied model theory; papers involving interplay between mathematics and logic (including foundational aspects of such interplay); and mathematical papers using or developing analytical methods having connections to any area of mathematical logic."

But let's see now, in about five minutes of searching I found this:

jcp.aip.org...

Communication: Toward ultrafast, reconfigurable logic in the nanoscale

And the journal?

J. Chem. Phys.


Also, your link:
logicandanalysis.org...
appears to be dead...

But lets follow your reasoning. Here is a group theory journal: www.degruyter.de...
By your reasoning there would be no group theory articles in a mathematical logic journal then, right?
Something like the Journal of Mathematical Logic? Right? www.worldscinet.com...

But what's this? www.worldscinet.com...

Fire the editor? Right Pteredine?

reply to post by Darkwing01


Jones paper is a forensic analysis, poorly done, but an analysis all the same. It is not chemical physics or physical chemistry. It is an analysis of what he found.
Pileni, the editor, said it didn't belong in her journal. You, of course, having vast scientific training that you regularly display, know better than the editor of the journal. Soon, I expect you will spew logic jargon in an attempt to show that you were right all along and what could the pawn of the editor know about her own journal.

Journals suitable for Jones' work, as written, might be the National Inquirer, the Star, or the Journal of 911 Studies. All have equal scientific reputation and impact and at least two are widely available and read by the general public.

ETA: Your J Chem Phys reference was about nanoscale logic gates. What does that have to do with the discussion? jcp.aip.org... "We propose and illustrate numerically a class of nanoscale, ultrafast logic gates with the further advantage of reconfigurability. Underlying the operation of the gates and their versatility is the concept of polarization control of the electromagnetic energy propagating via metal nanoparticle arrays. Specifically, a set of different logic gates is shown to obtain from a single metal nanoparticle junction by modification of the polarization properties of the input light sources. Implications and extensions of the gates are discussed."

reply to post by pteridine

Jones paper is a forensic analysis, poorly done, but an analysis all the same.

If you continue to defend this absurd argument I am afraid there is nothing more to discuss.

This is one idiocy to far and I have other pressing things to do that are far more pressing and serious. Like braiding my toe-hair and stuff.

Forensic science (often shortened to forensics) is the application of a broad spectrum of sciences to answer questions of interest to a legal system.

If chemical physics can be applied to logic gates, why can it not be applied to forensics? These are in no way shape or form exclusive designations.

You still haven't stated which journal this could have been published in where you could find no fault in it being published in that journal.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

Jones paper is a forensic analysis, poorly done, but an analysis all the same.

If you continue to defend this absurd argument I am afraid there is nothing more to discuss.

This is one idiocy to far and I have other pressing things to do that are far more pressing and serious. Like braiding my toe-hair and stuff.

Forensic science (often shortened to forensics) is the application of a broad spectrum of sciences to answer questions of interest to a legal system.

If chemical physics can be applied to logic gates, why can it not be applied to forensics? These are in no way shape or form exclusive designations.

We discussed this. Routine analyses are not studies in chemical physics.

Pileni said it was not a suitable topic to be published in her journal and she resigned over the irregularity of it being published without her knowledge. Do you, with only a rudimentary knowledge of the science involved, know better than the editor? Is this the idiocy you were speaking of?


Outside the scope of her journal and published without her knowledge. Something was amiss. Was it peer reviewed or just slipped in?

reply to post by pteridine

Outside the scope of her journal and published without her knowledge.

How long after a journal is published do the articles in that edition usually come to the attention of the editor-in-chief of that journal?

You don't have to be exact as different journals use different editorial practices, but give me a ballpark. Does the editor-in-chief usually review a day, week a month, several years after the edition is in print?

You still haven't answered my question though Pteredine... (it is almost like you know I can apply the same ridiculous standards and reasoning you apply to anything you care to suggest).

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

Outside the scope of her journal and published without her knowledge.

How long after a journal is published do the articles in that edition usually come to the attention of the editor-in-chief of that journal?

You don't have to be exact as different journals use different editorial practices, but give me a ballpark. Does the editor-in-chief usually review a day, week a month, several years after the edition is in print?

You still haven't answered my question though Pteredine... (it is almost like you know I can apply the same ridiculous standards and reasoning you apply to anything you care to suggest.)

The editor approves publication of the paper before it is published. To have a paper appear that had not been approved by the editor is unacceptable, which is why Pileni resigned.
I have answered your question many times. Maybe you aren't asking it properly. Do you want to know what sorts of journals would publish material on the topic of forensic analysis? I already told you that what Jones did wouldn't be considered physical chemistry or chemical physics. This is because it is only a series of analyses. If he has a new way to analyze something, such as using conductivity to analyze coatings, he has to do studies to show that the method works and develop protocols and standards. Then, he could submit those studies to an analytical chemistry journal as a method development. With an unusual sample matrix that proved a challenge, an analytical chemistry journal might also be interested. Given what he did, he would be rejected by any real primary journal. He must have wanted to publish in something other than the captive J. 911 Studies so that more people would pay attention to his paper.
His biggest problem is the peer review process which he seems to have avoided with Bentham. This paper would require much more laboratory work and major revisions before being accepted for publication in any archival journal.

reply to post by pteridine

The editor approves publication of the paper before it is published. To have a paper appear that had not been approved by the editor is unacceptable, which is why Pileni resigned.

Oh, wow, I wasn't aware of that! Gosh.

So how long after this paper was maliciously inserted in the publication did the editor-in-chief become aware of the fact?

Surely immediately after it was published she issued an apology and retracted the paper and subsequently re-issued the edition, firing the staff members who allowed this to happen? That waht happened right?

have answered your question many times. Maybe you aren't asking it properly. Do you want to know what sorts of journals would publish material on the topic of forensic analysis? I already told you that what Jones did wouldn't be considered physical chemistry or chemical physics.

I don't care what you think it is NOT!!!!

Tell me where it should have been published such that you would have no objections, and nobody could have any objections, purely on the basis of it being published where it was.

I am waiting and you are evading the question.

reply to post by Darkwing01


After it was published, she realized what a lightweight journal it was and severed all ties with it. She didn't bother trying to retract the paper.

I suggested that a forensic journal would be appropriate for a paper claiming to have discovered malfeasance, such as Jones'. It appears that you are unable to locate a forensic journal on the web by yourself. The Journal of Forensic Sciences is one journal where Jones could have submitted his paper as a case study. The standards of the journal are much higher than those of the Bentham pubs and the paper would have to undergo a peer review. I predict that it would not be published in its present form.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...(ISSN)1556-4029/homepage/ForAuthors.html

reply to post by pteridine


So you are saying that the fact that the editor-in-chief was not aware what was being published in a journal she was in charge does not reflect poorly on the editor and her judgement?

You are saying that is the paper had been published in a forensics journal you would have NO objections to it?

You don't don't have any substantive objections that have any merit, but we are supposed to believe that you would not have said that it should have been published in a chemistry journal (or physics or chemical physics) if it was published in a forensics journal.

Somehow I find that hard to believe.

Your credibility was zero to begin with, bickering over where it was published doesn't do much improve it, since it effectively an ad hominem attack.

reply to post by Darkwing01


The fact that you think that questioning where the paper was published is an ad hominem attack kind of shows your lack of affiliation with science. The place where a paper is published has a major impact on its credibility. On the faculty on my university it was advised to threat any paper that was not published in a couple of specific journals with high skepticism. I can tell you that Bentham was not one of those journals.

This is just such a ridiculous debate. A person that is pretty much completely ignorant of both the specific subject and science in general is arguing that a certain paper published in a certain journal should be taken seriously, or even more ridiculous, is taken seriously. It is not. It is ignored. No professional scientist cares about the paper as it is crap. End of story.

On JREF there is an interesting thread by the way: forums.randi.org... This will pretty much put the final nail in the red chips = thermite coffin if these people decide to proceed with their work. Although the material composition found by Mark Basile should be enough proof for any rational person. 73% carbon, ~1,5% aluminum and ~2% iron. How on earth can anyone think that a material that contains at most for ~5% of the ingredients of thermite is actually thermite.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

So you are saying that the fact that the editor-in-chief was not aware what was being published in a journal she was in charge does not reflect poorly on the editor and her judgement?

You are saying that is the paper had been published in a forensics journal you would have NO objections to it?

You don't don't have any substantive objections that have any merit, but we are supposed to believe that you would not have said that it should have been published in a chemistry journal (or physics or chemical physics) if it was published in a forensics journal.

Somehow I find that hard to believe.

Your credibility was zero to begin with, bickering over where it was published doesn't do much improve it, since it effectively an ad hominem attack.

I did not say that if the paper had been published in a forensics journal I would have no objections to it. I said that the circumstances under which it was published were suspicious. As published, it was poorly written, biased, and the conclusions were not justified. I doubt that it was peer reviewed. Had it been published in the journal I showed you, it would have been much different and may not have even come to the same conclusions.
You don't have the knowledge to know whether my objections are substantive.
Check your class notes for a definition "ad hominem."

On JREF there is an interesting thread by the way: forums.randi.org... This will pretty much put the final nail in the red chips = thermite coffin if these people decide to proceed with their work. Although the material composition found by Mark Basile should be enough proof for any rational person. 73% carbon, ~1,5% aluminum and ~2% iron. How on earth can anyone think that a material that contains at most for ~5% of the ingredients of thermite is actually thermite.

The fact is” randi.org” is an opinionated forum that supports the lies of the OS of 911 and nothing else.
Read it, and judge it for yourselves.

reply to post by impressme


If a bias is an argument to dismiss someones work, you should hold that same standard for Jones work. Fact is, the experiments they plan to do can be reproduced by anyone.

reply to post by pteridine

I did not say that if the paper had been published in a forensics journal I would have no objections to it.

That's exactly my point Pteredine.

Your argument against the article on the basis of where it was published is nothing but a smear tactic, because no matter where it was published a different variation of the same objection could be applied.

reply to post by -PLB-

The place where a paper is published has a major impact on its credibility. On the faculty on my university it was advised to threat any paper that was not published in a couple of specific journals with high skepticism. I can tell you that Bentham was not one of those journals.

I will grant you there is some validity to your argument.

But only if you are a belligerent reader. Strictly this paper should not have been published in a journal to begin with, 100% true.

There is no journal where this meets the standard criteria for research, 100% true.

But what is ALSO highly irregular is that there was no proper investigation done on the WTC dust in the first place. The proper place to publish this would be in the court records.

What is irregular is that you INSIST on peer reviewed publication, but then invent a series of backpedaling prevarications when it is.

The fact that something is published in one of the top 10 journals and reviewed by the leading scholars in any particular field is NO GUARANTEE WHATSOEVER that the information found therein is true. The fact that it published in a backwater journal no-one has heard about reviewed by the head writer's spouse IN NO WAY suggests that it is false.

Peer review and place of publication are administrative and academic shortcuts, at best. At worst they are misleading entrenchments of sometimes catastrophically misguided ideas.

Saying that something is true or false because of where it is published or who reviewed it is intrinsically a logical fallacy because it is not a substantive. It does not address THE ACTUAL FACTS.

It doesn't matter if it is the dean of Harvard who endorses these practices (although I would be shocked and chagrined if any academic actually argued that these measures are measures of veracity), they are logical fallacies.

Address the substance.

But I forget, you HAVE addressed the substance, but all your arguments have been found to be either wholly baseless, unfalsifiable or wholly in error. That and ONLY THAT, is the reason we are even talking about where it was published right now.

You know it, I know it. The only one you fool is yourself.