A peer-reviewer of the "Active Thermitic Materials" paper identifies himself... Great! (posted by Steven Jones) http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-02/peer-reviewe...
Info about Griscom and questions I posed to Jones- his response follows: http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-02/peer-reviewe...
Screw Loose is making the most of it, unsurprisingly: screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2010/12/ready-for-laugh.html
Predictable.
Pathetic.
Was he "a peer reviewer" or "the peer reviewer?"
Jones:
I do not think that Prof. Griscom's studies on 9/11 "compromise" him as a reviewer -- he critiqued the paper critically as a scientist, giving (as he said) the authors twelve pages of comments and questions. This scientific thoroughness is unusual in a review (from my experience) -- very unusual.
I do not know how the editors selected the reviewers, and I do not know the name of the other reviewer.
So, there was one other reviewer?
How about this for some speculation:
Jones and this BYU operation were a disinformation setup. Maybe one or more of them is earnest in their research, but the situation was played to get more and more people talking about sure-fire evidence for controlled demolition.
How about this for some speculation:
Jones and this BYU operation were a disinformation setup. Maybe one or more of them is earnest in their research, but the situation was played to get more and more people talking about sure-fire evidence for controlled demolition.
It is certainly a distinct possibility - but at the moment i think the only thing we can say with any level of credibility and conviction is that the nano-thermite 'theory' has not been independently verified - and remains unproven and dangerously speculative to our cause.
Given how this "theory" was used to discredit the 9/11 truth movement, that probably answers the speculation.
NORAD? suppressed warnings? No need to highlight those things for the "new truth" movement.
You must log in to post.