Charles Drago Wrote:

Peter Dawson Wrote:Please respond to the posts Evan Burton has made at the EF which challenge your theories about the moon landings. There are plenty of challenges you have left unaddressed over there. There is no point to discussing any additional material on this thread until you satisfactorily address the material already on the table...unless of course the point is for you to continue to avoid addressing the claims which challenge your theories.

I can't resist: Houston, we have a problem.

A strong-arm effort to get Jim Fetzer to engage on this forum one of the EF's better known disinformation agents just about gives away "Dawson's" game.

This stinks, ladies and gentlemen. It stinks of a set-up engineered to infiltrate into this forum -- albeit by proxy -- the hideous likes of Burton.

Who's next? "Colby"? Andy 9-Iron?

These poseurs and their masters cannot tolerate the fact that they are regularly exposed on and permanently banned from the Deep Politics Forum. So they constantly search for back doors (I suspect that 9-Iron is particularly adept at rear entries).

Hence the arrival of "Dawson?"

Know this action for what it truly is.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:I am convinced that the most widely accepted position about 9/11--that the towers were taken down with thermite/thermate/nano-thermite--is almost certainly wrong, since thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive. For thermite to become explosive, it would have to be combined with an explosive, which is also true of toothpaste. I therefore encourage the study of alternative explanations, including the possible use of third or fourth generation nukes (mico or mini), lasers, masers, and other forms of directed energy weapons. See, for example, "An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11", http://911scholars.ning.com, for an outline of my argument.

Quote:I was asked by 911 Truth movement researcher and radio host Kevin Barrett to debate Niels Harrit about nanothermite in WTC dust. I agreed and a two-hour live debate was held on November 9th, [URL="http://noliesradio.org/archives/25022"]HERE.
[/URL]
In preparation I read the 2009 paper of Harrit et al. (Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2, 2009, 7-31). I found many scientific errors and concluded that the editorial and/or peer review had been done very poorly. I tried to address some of my concerns with Harrit during the radio interview. Those concerns which I had time to express were mostly confirmed rather than alleviated.

Many members of the 911 Truth movement use an "appeal to authority" argument in advancing Harrit's paper as "peer reviewed" and Harrit himself as a scientific authority with relevant expertise. Anyone using "appeal to authority" arguments must expect that the authority in question can be questioned.

Even more boldly, some 911 Truthers, including Kevin Barrett, advance that since the Harrit paper has not formally been contested in any peer reviewed scientific article then its methods and conclusions must be valid. I don't know the name for this particular sophistry but I know that many papers on important topics are wrong, believed to be wrong, and are never contested. This relates more to the social careerism of science than anything else.

I accept that the 911 Truth movement is an important societal movement and for that reason I decided to help clean up some of this crap.

I wrote an expert critical peer review of the Harrit paper [URL="http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/peer-review-of-harrit-et-al-on-911-cant.html"]HERE.
[/URL]
Harrit was immediately informed and has not yet provided any substantive response.

There are a lot of very bad peer reviewed articles out there but it is so unusual for an editor of a peer review scientific journal to allow tenuous and extreme claims and elaborate suggestions that do not follow from the data that I decide next to contact the Editor in Chief of the journal.

Here is what I sent the Editor in Chief on November 10th:

Professor Lucio Frydman
Department of Chemical Physics,
The Weizmann Institute of Sciences

Editor in Chief,
Open Chemical Physics Journal

Re: Peer review concerns, Harrit et al., OCPJ 2, 2009, 7-31, "nanothermite in WTC dust"

Dear Editor Frydman,

As an expert in the relevant areas, I have written a criticism of the above-cited paper that was printed in your journal.

I have posted my report publicly on the web here:
http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/peer-review-of-harrit-et-al-on-911-cant.html

My report is also critical of your journal in this matter.

On the face of it, it appears that the peer review process for this article was significantly flawed, to the point of professional irresponsibility or worse. This, in a matter of vital public and political interest.

Please clarify your journal's peer review of this article, the number of reviewers, their relevant expertizes, whether any changes were requested, etc. You will understand that the article is of such substandard quality as to give rise to serious questions about its review. What was your own involvement in accepting this article it its final form?

Please indicate when you will be able to respond.

Sincerely,
Denis G. Rancourt
Former professor, University of Ottawa
Ottawa, Canada


This was the former editor's immediate response:

From: Lucio Frydman
Date: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:46 AM
Subject: Editorial concern, Open Chemical Physics Journal, possible fraudulent peer review
To: Denis Rancourt <>
Cc: The Open Chemical Physics Journal , Shehzad , Editorial

Dear Prof. Rancourt

What you describe is indeed very worrisome indeed. To be frank, however, I should clarify to you two points that will probably derive this discussion through alternative channels

1) I was not editor of the journal at the time the manuscript you refer to was received and processed. 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

2) 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. As you can see from the email below, my letter of resignation was received and acknowledged. However, i still appear as the journal's editor - in fact i'm still receiving manuscripts to handle (which i naturally ignore).

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

I am hereby using the opportunity to copy the journal managers and publishers both of your concerns, as well as my renewed request that they officially and finally relieve me from any duties and/or relationship in connection to this journal

I hope this clarifies your concerns - at least in what they relate to my role in this sad story

Sincerely
Lucio Frydman

Peter Dawson Wrote:I'm glad we didn't waste much time taking Fetzer and White seriously about the Moontruth.com footage. As Dave Greer says: Game, set and match.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIsvkz_QGI8&feature=player_embedded


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16393&st=555

Does anybody still want me to address Fetzer's "multiple arguments" one by one?

Peter Presland Wrote:

James H. Fetzer Wrote:I am convinced that the most widely accepted position about 9/11--that the towers were taken down with thermite/thermate/nano-thermite--is almost certainly wrong, since thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive. For thermite to become explosive, it would have to be combined with an explosive, which is also true of toothpaste. I therefore encourage the study of alternative explanations, including the possible use of third or fourth generation nukes (mico or mini), lasers, masers, and other forms of directed energy weapons. See, for example, "An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11", http://911scholars.ning.com, for an outline of my argument.

This is a fascinating thread on many levels and the parts focusing on 9/11 detail probably deserve to be separate. But here goes anyway, since the above paragraph defines an issue of major importance to 9/11 truth:

The following is from Denis Rancourt's "Activist Teacher" blog. He is another academic pilloried for his allegedly anti-semitic views which are unrelated to 9/11. Nevertheless his positions on Zionism and Canadian politics generally have secured my attention and respect:

Quote:I was asked by 911 Truth movement researcher and radio host Kevin Barrett to debate Niels Harrit about nanothermite in WTC dust. I agreed and a two-hour live debate was held on November 9th, [URL="http://noliesradio.org/archives/25022"]HERE.
[/URL]
In preparation I read the 2009 paper of Harrit et al. (Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2, 2009, 7-31). I found many scientific errors and concluded that the editorial and/or peer review had been done very poorly. I tried to address some of my concerns with Harrit during the radio interview. Those concerns which I had time to express were mostly confirmed rather than alleviated.

Many members of the 911 Truth movement use an "appeal to authority" argument in advancing Harrit's paper as "peer reviewed" and Harrit himself as a scientific authority with relevant expertise. Anyone using "appeal to authority" arguments must expect that the authority in question can be questioned.

Even more boldly, some 911 Truthers, including Kevin Barrett, advance that since the Harrit paper has not formally been contested in any peer reviewed scientific article then its methods and conclusions must be valid. I don't know the name for this particular sophistry but I know that many papers on important topics are wrong, believed to be wrong, and are never contested. This relates more to the social careerism of science than anything else.

I accept that the 911 Truth movement is an important societal movement and for that reason I decided to help clean up some of this crap.

I wrote an expert critical peer review of the Harrit paper [URL="http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/peer-review-of-harrit-et-al-on-911-cant.html"]HERE.
[/URL]
Harrit was immediately informed and has not yet provided any substantive response.

There are a lot of very bad peer reviewed articles out there but it is so unusual for an editor of a peer review scientific journal to allow tenuous and extreme claims and elaborate suggestions that do not follow from the data that I decide next to contact the Editor in Chief of the journal.

Here is what I sent the Editor in Chief on November 10th:

Professor Lucio Frydman
Department of Chemical Physics,
The Weizmann Institute of Sciences

Editor in Chief,
Open Chemical Physics Journal

Re: Peer review concerns, Harrit et al., OCPJ 2, 2009, 7-31, "nanothermite in WTC dust"

Dear Editor Frydman,

As an expert in the relevant areas, I have written a criticism of the above-cited paper that was printed in your journal.

I have posted my report publicly on the web here:
http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/peer-review-of-harrit-et-al-on-911-cant.html

My report is also critical of your journal in this matter.

On the face of it, it appears that the peer review process for this article was significantly flawed, to the point of professional irresponsibility or worse. This, in a matter of vital public and political interest.

Please clarify your journal's peer review of this article, the number of reviewers, their relevant expertizes, whether any changes were requested, etc. You will understand that the article is of such substandard quality as to give rise to serious questions about its review. What was your own involvement in accepting this article it its final form?

Please indicate when you will be able to respond.

Sincerely,
Denis G. Rancourt
Former professor, University of Ottawa
Ottawa, Canada


This was the former editor's immediate response:

From: Lucio Frydman
Date: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:46 AM
Subject: Editorial concern, Open Chemical Physics Journal, possible fraudulent peer review
To: Denis Rancourt <>
Cc: The Open Chemical Physics Journal , Shehzad , Editorial

Dear Prof. Rancourt

What you describe is indeed very worrisome indeed. To be frank, however, I should clarify to you two points that will probably derive this discussion through alternative channels

1) I was not editor of the journal at the time the manuscript you refer to was received and processed. 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

2) 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. As you can see from the email below, my letter of resignation was received and acknowledged. However, i still appear as the journal's editor - in fact i'm still receiving manuscripts to handle (which i naturally ignore).

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

I am hereby using the opportunity to copy the journal managers and publishers both of your concerns, as well as my renewed request that they officially and finally relieve me from any duties and/or relationship in connection to this journal

I hope this clarifies your concerns - at least in what they relate to my role in this sad story

Sincerely
Lucio Frydman

Denis is NOT a committed "9/11 was an inside job" man - he's sort of getting there slowly - but his disciplined scepticism is healthy - VERY healthy IMO

Seems to me that "Truthers" are investing just a tad too much in the nano-thermite issue and risk riding for a nasty fall. I agree with Jim on this: other - ostensibly fantastic alternatives tick more of the evidence boxes than 'nano-thermite' as the primary demolition method.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Burton, corrupt to the bitter end, has "merged" the discussion thread and the debate thread, making it impossible to follow. Where there were 12 pages, now there are 38 -- most of which I have never even read! You have to admire the simplicity and ingenuity of creating such a morass, which has the effect of diluting and obfuscating what Jack and I were accomplishing there, which, of course, was the point. Here is the post I have just made there, where I have saved the original 12 pages. This is a very nasty guy, who has no scruples whatsoever, as Peter Lemkin, Duane Damen, and others have long known. I really did not expect he would do something so underhanded.

Quote:I'm glad we didn't waste much time taking Fetzer and White seriously about the Moontruth.com footage. As Dave Greer says: Game, set and match.

Quote:Burton, corrupt to the bitter end, has "merged" the discussion thread and the debate thread, making it impossible to follow. Where there were 12 pages, now there are 38 -- most of which I have never even read!