Who, exactly, "peer-reviewed" Jones' paper on "nano-thermitic" materials?

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/bentham-editor-resigns-over-steven.html

I can hardly wait to see how the "truthers" will try to defend this piece of crap publication.

Who peer reviewed the NIST publication?

Who vetted the POLITICIANS (aren't all politicians liars in general?) on the 911 Omission panel? Was it those 2 paragons of virtue Dick Cheney and George Dumbya Bush?

Who approved of the 911 Omission report? Was it the used car salesman coalition? Or was it the crooked lawyers guild? Or was it more likely the 911 perps, the inbred blue-blood filthy richers that run the death-skull MIMC?

I can hardly wait to see how the "OCTers" will try to defend these piece of crap publications.

never made the claim that they were "peer reviewed", unlike this pathetic attempt at bootstrapping.

I think it's important to remember that peer review is a means to an end, not the end itself. The NIST had comment periods for their reports, which serves a similar purpose to peer review.

""I think it's important to remember that peer review is a means to an end, not the end itself.""

So the NIST report never got to the end, since it was never peer reviewed. So that must mean it's not scientifically valid.

""The NIST had comment periods for their reports, which serves a similar purpose to peer review.""

OIC, since something "similar" was "offered", although no career suiciders were "available", that makes it equal to a peer review?

Has this chain of scientific method ever been used in other credible scientific studies?

Please post a link, inquiring minds want to know.

So when you open someone's post and click "reply", type some words in the little boxes and click on "Post message" that's not an actual response?

what is it a pretend response?

FYI, that post you claimed was gibberish was not. If you can't respond substantively, that's not really my problem.

Did you have problems with the colorful wording? Are you easily distracted from the gist of the argument? Would you like me to re-phrase it in a bland but simpler, more understandable way?

If you're genuinely interested in a discussion, I suggest that you focus on writing posts worthy of a substantive response, rather than filling them with garbage. Try staying away from logical fallacies, for example.





Edit: Typo.

how in the world will he be able to write posts?

for improvement. Perhaps his condition is not permanent.

however, he does appear to be even less cogent than normal today.

I tried "cogent" with you guys, it doesn't work.

""I think it's important to remember that peer review is a means to an end, not the end itself.""

So using peer review and "open comment periods" means, was NIST scientifically validated?

So if the "similar to peer review" "open comment period" means of validation is a valid method of scientific validation, you should be able to show us some examples of other scientific studies being validated in the same manner?

Please post them right here>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Both peer review and comment periods are tools. Neither guarantees validity.

""Both peer review and comment periods are tools. Neither guarantees validity.""

but aren't most CREDIBLE scientific studies peer reviewed as a method to validate them as much as possible?

And NEITHER of these methods was actually used with NIST? How is it considered valid then?

And wouldn't any normally sane scientist logically dismiss a scientific study if it was not peer reviewed?

Please post a scientific study that's taken seriously, that's not peer reviewed, right here>>>>>>>>>

A study of the worst attack ever on US soil. Don't you want the most valid method possible?

Then you will understand the basis of the NIST WTC Investigation and subsequent reports.

""Perhaps you should read the National Construction Safety Team Act.
Then you will understand the basis of the NIST WTC Investigation and subsequent reports.""

So does the enactment of a law from the government now GUARANTEE the validity of scientific studies?

You can't answer questions consisting of just a few sentences, but you expect me to search and read some bureaucratic BS?

So what are you saying, the government is now in the business of validating scientific studies? Is Dr. Frist going to be in on this, giving a video diagnoses on brain dead women?

This is getting to be quite tiresome.

His point seemed valid to me...

It should be obvious that what I am claiming and what Kalun D thinks I am claiming are not the same thing.

Perhaps you could point me to a post where this is apparently made clear?

that you keep avoiding valid questions

I answer almost all questions

they usually answer 1 out of 10 of mine

and their *hit, bull*hit, *uck, *ucking is okay

but my humor is not.

laughing is not allowed.

It's Sunday, we're kicking back resting from a hard week at work

but laughter is not allowed, STOP THAT RIGHT NOW.

Your comprehension unfortunately doesn't live up to the size of your ego.

""Both peer review and comment periods are tools. Neither guarantees validity.""

What guarantees validity then?

Is not the peer review method the highest standard we have available to validate scientific studies?

"comment periods" is a smoke screen to avoid the fact NIST wasn't peer reviewed.

Since you can't give examples of it being used to properly validate real scientific studies we have to assume it's not close to the standard of the peer review.

If Scientific studies are not guaranteed to be valid by their peer reviews then where does the NIST report stand since it obviously doesn't even rise to the peer review standard? In the dumper?

Nor do I agree that a comment period is a smoke screen, as you claim.

"If Scientific studies are not guaranteed to be valid by their peer reviews then where does the NIST report stand since it obviously doesn't even rise to the peer review standard? In the dumper?"

If the shoe fits...

Some of the info in the NIST reports is good and has been backed up by 9/11 Researchers. Other portions of it, however, are just.. bad.

No procedure guarantees validity. That said, public comment periods provide more opportunity for input than peer review. Formal peer review is an expedient used by journals (and other publishers) that are rationing scarce resources, and turn to a handful of experts per manuscript to help determine whether the manuscript should be published. It's far from "the highest standard we have available" for refining an immense project like the NIST reports on WTC 1, 2, and 7.

I'm not even quite sure what you're asking. Are you under the impression that most NIST publications undergo external peer review by a handful of experts who decide whether the reports should be published? Are you under the impression that scientists ordinarily ignore anything that doesn't undergo peer review?

Pay attention.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So your defense of NIST and the 9/11 Commission is "Bentham did it, too"?

Which is more important to deciding whether 911 was the inside job that it is, Bentham or the crooked death-skull MIMC "government"?

If as anyone in their right mind would admit the "government" is "deciding", then isn't it more important that they be peer reviewed?

Of course it's going to be next to impossible finding peers for death-skulls that are this evil.

And why do the OCTers and disinformants have their panties all in a wad about this Bentham guy? Are they trying to distract us from their own "investigations" and "reports" that look like the absolute crooked lying phony crap that they are?

Why would anyone respond to silly posts with phrases like these?

""Why would anyone respond to silly posts with phrases like these?""

Why did you then?

Duh.

that's why you clicked the "reply" button on my post

Duh.

Instead of talking about Bentham, you throw up squid ink about NIST and the 9/11 Commission. You're hijacking the thread, with the help of Subdivisions.

Knock it off.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Does "crooked death-skull MIMC government" also refer to the Osama administration?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

nt

He's the one that was comparing Obama to Osama. I merely typed it Osama when I obviously meant Obama.

Too busy to change the "s" to a "b"?

Please get familiar with the joint.

forum works...

Are you feeling foolish yet? You should.

they can't answer a simple question.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I think part of the response of this thread addresses your OP, but, as fate would have it, never satisfies your quest to get behind everything under the NIST that's ever weighed the so called physical evidence of the world trade center towers. This becomes so secondary for you, as you're more interested in getting "truthers all riled up"!

Please try to be constructive or we'll all have to jump up and down while calling you "a silly person"!

figures.

Silly person...

the question was, "what are the names of the peer-reviewers?", not "who are the authors?".

... to your very strange question.

First, tell me... do you understand the peer review process? I can't think that you would when you want to know the individual names of reviewers associated to that particular blue journal. They would be assigned particular and ever changing articles that submitted articles for their field of expertise. Publication is a predictable process in medical journals, and you can find out who reviewed it by contacting the journal board to see who actually did it.

Are you predicting that you would know who this individual is? Is there some litmus test going on here? You do not seem to understand that if this article did not meet the criteria for publication, it would be sent back for a re-submission.

Again, what are you looking for? A particular person you could point to and say, "he/she is not a credible reviewer?"

does Bentham provide detail about its "peer-review" process? If it does and it's satisfactory, why are hoax papers passing review and why are scientists assailing Bentham's "peer-review process"? You seem to be saying, well, Bentham says it's peer-reviewing properly, so it must be. Given what we already know about Bentham, don't you think that sounds highly unlikely?

Why are you defending this "paper mill"? Is it because if you don't, your latest "smoking gun" will be shown to be the cap pistol it is?

It is dishonest of you to keep saying that without also disclosing that Bentham disputes that claim.

they easily should have been able to document it.

You can trust their word if you'd like but, frankly, they've given us plenty of reasons not to. Do any of you ''truthers'' have any criticism of Bentham or are you all just automatically unquestioning fanboys.

When I ask my academic friends about Bentham, they dissolve into laughter.

What I said was: disclose the fact that they dispute it and how they dispute it. Then everyone can form their own opinion based on all the facts.

Another fact that should be disclosed is that they did not publish the article. The main thing, if not the only thing, a scientific journal should be judged by is what they actually publish. You are trying to impugn their reputation based on peripherals that are mostly beside the point.

Your perspective is totally biased towards Bentham. We have the confirmation that the paper was accepted from two people and that team was notified by Bentham that the paper had passed peer review. If Bentham had truly known it was a hoax, they could very easily have gotten a third party involved to document their suspicions aid document the details. They didn't.

Ordinarily, I would be inclined to give Bentham the benefit of the doubt this one time, however, there are way too many academics calling Bentham's credentials into question and for good reason. As I have stated before, I have approached several friends who are academics about Bentham and they openly laugh. I am not asking anyone else to believe that because there is no way for someone else to independently verify my experience. You're free to believe Bentham if you want, but I believe there is more than enough reason to highly question Bentham's credentials and credibility.

They are under no obligation to do that. Their obligation is to only publish articles that meet a reasonable standard of scientific merit.

Your obligation in order to impeach them is to show where they published an article that wasn't up to snuff, scientifically. Failing your ability to do that then perhaps you could impeach them by showing that their internal process is not up to snuff. But they aren't under any obligation to open up their internal process to you and apparently they haven't opened up their internal process to you so you are left trying to blow smoke.

If you can show me an article that they published that should not have been published then I will give your claims some credence.

Alternatively if you can show me the internal details of their peer review process and prove that it is insufficient then I will give your claims some credence.

Until you do one of those two things then I'll just note your claim and file it away as an unproved allegation.

what are the NAMES of the two "referees" who supposedly "peer-reviewed" Jones' paper?

You don't know, do you...

""what are the NAMES of the two "referees" who supposedly "peer-reviewed" Jones' paper?""

They are anonymous because they belong to people who are not career suiciders.

Anyone who asks their names is asking them to commit career suicide.

What specifically do you object to in the report on Nano-therite?

do you deny that it exists?

Couldn't a publication then just claim a paper had been " peer-reviewed" when it, in fact, hadn't? what would be the point of that? Or, as I suspect, are you just in over your head again?

The idea is (inter alia) that reviewers can state blunt criticisms of manuscripts without entering into career-long feuds with the authors. It's not uncommon for the authors to thank "anonymous referee(s)" for their editorial suggestions.

With a reputable journal, it would never cross one's mind that the peer review was actually faked. I doubt the Bentham review was actually faked, but given what we know about the editorial standards, I wouldn't bet on the actual competence of the reviewers.

thanks OTOH.

Formally published in a peer-reviewed Chemical Physics journal, today:

“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

The paper ends with this sentence: “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

In short, the paper explodes the official story that “no evidence” exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings.

What is high-tech explosive/pyrotechnic material in large quantities doing in the WTC dust? Who made tons of this stuff and why? Why have government investigators refused to look for explosive residues in the WTC aftermath?

These are central questions raised by this scientific study.

The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter (see Figures 20, 25 and 26).

The nine authors undertook an in-depth study of unusual red-gray chips found in the dust generated during the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. The article states: “The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 ˚C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.” The images and data plots deserve careful attention.

Some observations about the production of this paper:

1. First author is Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University in Denmark, an Associate Professor of Chemistry. He is an expert in nano-chemistry; current research activities and his photo can be found here:
http://cmm.nbi.ku.dk/
Molecular Structures on Short and Ultra Short Timescales
A Centre under the Danish National Research Foundation

The Centre for Molecular Movies was inaugurated 29th November 2005, at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. The Centre is made possible through a five year grant from the Danish National Research Foundation (see e.g. www.dg.dk). We aim to obtain real time “pictures” of how atoms are moving while processes are taking place in molecules and solid materials, using ultrashort pulses of laser light and X-rays. The goal is to understand and in turn influence, at the atomic level, the structural transformations associated with such processes.

The Centre combines expertise form Risø National Laboratory, University of Copenhagen, and the Technical University of Denmark in structural investigation of matter by synchrotron X-ray based techniques, femtosecond laser spectroscopy, theoretical insight in femtosecond processes, and the ability to tailor materials, and design sample systems for optimal experimental conditions.”

We understand that the Dean of Prof. Harrit’s college, Niels O Andersen, appears as the first name on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Bentham Science journal where the paper was published.

2. Second author is Dr. Jeffrey Farrer of BYU.

3. Dr. Farrer is featured in an article on page 11 of the BYU Frontiers magazine, Spring 2005: “Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, lab director for TEM” (TEM stands for Transmission Electron Microscopy). The article notes: “The electron microscopes in the TEM lab combine to give BYU capabilities that are virtually unique… rivaling anything built worldwide.” The article is entitled: “Rare and Powerful Microscopes Unlock Nano Secrets,” which is certainly true as regards the discoveries of the present paper.

4. Kudos to BYU for permitting Drs. Farrer and Jones and physics student Daniel Farnsworth to do the research described in the paper and for conducting internal reviews of the paper. Dr. Farrer was formerly first author on this paper. But after internal review of the paper, BYU administrators evidently disallowed him from being first author on ANY paper related to 9/11 research (this appears to be their perogative, but perhaps they will explain). Nevertheless, the paper was approved for publication with Dr. Farrer’s name and affiliation listed and we congratulate BYU for this. We stand by Dr. Farrer and congratulate his careful scientific research represented in this paper.

5. Perhaps now there will finally be a review of the SCIENCE explored by Profs. Harrit and Jones and by Drs. Farrer and Legge and their colleagues, as repeatedly requested by these scientists. We challenge ANY university or established laboratory group to perform such a review. This paper will be a good place to start, along with two other peer-reviewed papers in established journals involving several of the same authors:

and you submit a lengthy piece that tells us who the authors were. No wonder the "truth movement" is backsliding. Maybe you should look up the term "non sequitur".

It pointed some things right out to you, but... you had no idea what it was, and now you're showing your ignorance.

You have no idea what backsliding is until you've seen the kind of people who will do anything to make an argument by wanting to know exactly which person or persons selected to peer review peer review. If you really understood what you were talking about when you see the article showing up in a blue journal, you recognize that in order to be published in a peer review journal, your piece is indeed PEER reviewed. Do you get this, or not? Forget it, I know you do not.


You do not seem to know the meaning of your own question. Do you want to contact the committee? Would you prefer one person over the other within that committee? Perhaps you just want to know their names and then resort to name calling when someone hands you over that information. Your own comprehension is dulled by your own stupidity. Do you want me to contact them for you?

Oh yes, you're not only silly, you posts are getting pretty fucking old.

Non sequitur's do not follow, so use some other term. You follow pretty well, it's just that you don't follow logic.

Try this- don't limit your posting to one DU group all the time. Maybe your interaction with others will broaden and you won't end up embarrassing yourself by this buffoonery.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You really didn't know.

I guess you weren't interested in understanding, just bating someone for another insult.

as I explained before, the question was who peer-reviewed the paper, not who authored it. Maybe if I say that enough times, it'll sink in.

You don't even know the process of peer-review.

Quit now, while you've only displayed your gross ignorance of this process, and not your sour insult baiting skills.

You keep trying to make this about me when it's really about that paper mill, Bentham, and the fact that Jones, etal, apparently could not find a legitimate journal that would publish their "paper". I know that peer-reviewers can be anonymous or not but the problem is Bentham doesn't really define what their process actually is, so how do we know whether Bentham really peer-reviewed Jones' "paper" or not?
Add to the mix the fact that Bentham is under fire from multiple quarters for their shoddy practices and it's not looking too good for Jones and the "truth movement". However, I'm certain that 40+ years from now, the "9/11 truth movement" will have grown into a cottage industry, a la the JFK CT, and "truthers" will still be parading around sporting "9/11 was an inside job!" t-shirts. Maybe they make them for cats and you can get one for Mr. Mickey!

In the meantime, a serious question. How many years will need to go by with no smoking gun discovered ny the "truth movement" before you guys will stop boring us with this nonsense?

As far as the spelling tips, I just thought you could use them because your command of language is so limited.

You DO go on...

There are plenty of smoking guns for what happened November 22, 1963. You would have to be hit over the head with them and actually read for understand timelines, physical evidence and conclusions of the House Select Committee to understand why there was a clear conspiracy to murder JFK.

I wouldn't expect you to show interest in such things because you would actually have to care about the motives. You clearly DO NOT. People such as yourself specialize in distraction. They always have and they probably always will... that is, until something better comes along to stir their libmic system.

I'm so tired of people who are posers.

upon which the HSCA based their findings was later shown by another investigation to be invalid, right? Or, did you even bother to look for disconfirming evidence of your beliefs? The HSCA confirmed the findings of the Warren Commission with respect to the shots being fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD and, on the basis of the "acoustic evidence" thought there was "likely" a conspiracy and possibly a shot from the grassy knoll.

However, the National Academy of Science (wait, don't tell me THEY'RE in on it, too!) commissioned the Ramsey Panel, which essentially disproved the conclusions of the HSCA regarding the acoustic evidence.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/scally.htm

I dunno. Does anyone on the paper have any experience in the forensic analysis of nanothermite, or of anything else? The paper reads like a fishing expedition to me, no matter how spiffy BYU's TEM lab.

And under the circumstances, anyone who doesn't have doubts about the quality of the peer review process must not be paying attention. Why wasn't this paper submitted to a reputable journal? (Or was it?) Could it be because it reads like a fishing expedition?

they are so invested in their fantasy, they are not going to risk watching it evaporate by asking the hard questions they should. It's really a fascinating dynamic to observe.

As far as Jones' "paper" is concerned, upon reading it, I found it to be so poorly written, I suspected it had been prepared by the "SciGen" program

Isn't that requirement pretty much like insisting that the NIST WTC team should consist of only include engineers who have experience in the forensic analysis of the total collapse of buildings taller than 100 stories?

Is there anyone, anywhere who is an expert in forensic analysis of nanothermite? What incidents would they have gotten their field experience from?

Edit: change "consist of only" to "include" to make it more parallel to your post.

In a nutshell, the paper gives me no reason to believe that the authors have found nanothermite. They seem to have found something that reminds them of nanothermite, or perhaps even of some alleged properties of nanothermite.

And, as I said, I don't know if the authors have any experience in forensic analysis of anything whatsoever. And the paper reads like a fishing expedition. And the journal seems almost satirically poor. And Harrit hardly seems to care what his purported finding has to do with the event he presumably intends to explain. Otherwise.... :shrug:

If I'm right that there is no such thing as an expert in the forensic analysis of nanothermite then we are forced to make do with either an expert in forensic analysis of other stuff or an expert in nanothermite. My guess is that the latter would be the better choice.

I think a fair criticism would be that the Harrit team has some expertise in nanotechnology but not specifically in nanothermite.

But up to this time they are the only scientists who have actually done any science. Until other scientists, with whatever expertise they bring, actually work through the appropriate steps that their scientific discipline calls for, then the existing paper is all we have to go by. In other words, I think that drive-by opinions are more likely to reveal the bias of the person delivering them than they are to shed any useful light on the question. I wouldn't dream of expressing an opinion whether some other actuary's calculation of pension liabilities was correct without running through the calculation myself. If I did then you would be justified in wondering what my motivation was.

By the way, there is not just the evidence of the red/grey chips to explain. There is the earlier paper concerning the high temperatures implicated in the WTC events due to finding that the WTC dust contained a large amount of iron-rich spherules, some findings about volatized lead, some of the swiss-cheese appearance of steel, and other findings.

Seems to me that people without experience identifying materials are likely to ad-lib their protocols and make avoidable errors, regardless of their knowledge of nanothermite. But I don't really know.

As far as I know, these folks are the only ones with access to the material they're testing, so it's not obvious to me what opportunities exist for other scientists to do any science. If these folks want to be taken seriously, I can't for the life of me understand why they don't go out of their way to do things credibly. It's a damn shame.

Maybe that would make sense.

If there is no such thing as experience in forensic analysis of nanothermite then ad lib is the best we would be able to do.

I wholeheartedly agree that we (and truth) would be better served if all the scientists would do things credibly. Not to put words in your mouth, but what that means to me, among other things, is that any scientific work should include a very careful explanation of the limitations on the conclusions that its science can produce. I believe that NIST is a much worse offender in this regard than Harrit, et al. NIST tells the story of the collapse as if it is exactly what happened, no doubt about it. They use bluster and feigned confidence when they should give us humility and apologies for the fact that they can't really say for sure.

A fair amount of their material is just... bad. Steven Jones, amoung others, has shown how awful some of it is. Steven Jones is certainly humble concerning his own theories, but he is not gullible and rightfully points out the absurdity of many of NIST's claims.

that you've been taken in by Jones. Numerous well-respected engineers like Bazant, Zhou, Greening, etc. have verified and validated NIST's work and conclusions and organizations such as ASCE have as well. With all due respect, you need to evaluate whether you have enough technical knowledge to evaluate NIST and not be bamboozled by Jones.

The science that NIST used to prove which one of the following two possibilities was actually the case:

1. The towers collapsed due to the combined effects of the plane impacts and the fires.
   
2. The towers collapsed due to the combined effects of the plane impacts, the fires, and explosives (low and/or high) applied to structural elements.

What is that science and where is it described?

we have "Lared's Rule" which observes that it doesn't really make any sense to engage with "no-planers".
In this case here, I am invoking a corollary called "Dude's Rule" which holds that it's similarly unproductive to engage CD advocates. No offense. Let me know when you discover that smoking gun.

P.S. Jones doesn't know where it is.

Looks to me like your "Dude's Rule" is really convenient when you've got no answer or you don't like the answer.

some theories are just too fucking goofy to deal with...controlled demolition is one of them. You get extra bonus points if you're a "no-planer" too.

Sorry, dude.

You've been spending lots of time posting ad hominem attacks about a CD paper. It's only the substance that you can't be bothered with.

no offense, dude...Controlled Demolition theories are too fucking goofy to deal with. You can change my mind when you find that smoking gun. Let me know when you do. You guys have had close to eight years and I have yet to see anything remotely convincing and, in fact, I think most of the "evidence" for controlled demolition is almost as embarrassing to the "truth movement" as the controlled demolition theory itself.

If you don't want to engage in discussion about the debate over CD, you are free to spend your time on something else.

But to repeatedly post that the opposing theory in a debate is "fucking goofy" is a logical fallacy called "begging the question".

I'm not obligated to "debate" it with you, however, I would be glad to and would, in fact, likely embrace it, when and if you discover a smoking gun.

In order to save time in the future, CDTAFG = Controlled Demolition Theories are Fucking Goofy. If you see CDTAFGD, it means I decided to make it slightly less "ad hominem" by saying Controlled Demolition Theories are Fucking Goofy, Dude.

ETA: actually, it's not "begging the question" because I am not making a claim and I am not presenting it as a statement of fact. It's my opinion or, if you will, an evaluative claim, much like "The San Francisco Giants are the absolute best team ever". See, I'm presenting that as my opinion and not a statement of fact, even though it happens to be absolutely true.

"Fucking Goofy" is in the eyes of the beholder, dude.

without providing any basis or argument.

Maybe it takes a while to sink in...CDTAFGD also signifies it's fruitless engaging with you on this "issue" because it's impossible to reason with CD theorists...no offense, dude

You're seriously getting yourself into some hot water with these types of insults here, "dude". You've already tried to hijack upthread when addressing me. Talking on and on as if you and a few other annoying individuals are supposed to be in charge of these threads has really worn itself dry.

Try your very best not to confuse insults with debates and stop the nonsense.

ooh, really? Do you understand the difference between insulting a Member and skewering their idea? Fucking goofy theories deserve to be called just that. You know who to talk to about this. Your warning about "hot water" is idle chatter. Don't your have something better to do?

It's also why Mickey divorced Minnie.

otherwise, you'll get in "hot water". Just ask MMM.

Meep.

Mickey Mouse voice with just the right inflection.

it's impossible to rule out explosives, provided they don't actually have to contribute anything to the collapse.

I'm sure you've already read the FAQ that explains why NIST concluded that its progressive collapse theory fits the data and a controlled demolition theory does not -- and you're aware of the supporting documentation. I'm mostly interested in this Harrit stuff because you are, but I can't figure out why you are, so....

is not to do a study to determine whether it is theoretically possible that the house burned down without the help of any accelerants.

Rather, it is to check for the presence of accelerants.

My interest in Harrit and in all of the more exotic theories is driven more, I think, by the intriguing details than it is by the plausibility of the theories themselves. They become subplots that drive themselves. The red/grey chips together with the indicators of too-high temperatures (iron-rich spherules, etc), together with eye witness reports of explosions -- what is the explanation? It is a mystery.

Why are there so many witnesses who saw the plane at the Pentagon fly by to the north of their location (the Citgo station, etc) when it had to have flown by to the south of their location in order to knock down the lightpoles and to produce the damage to the Pentagon (the angle of it)? It is a mystery.

All of the supposed cell phone calls from the planes -- how were those possible? It is a mystery.

The strange appearance of the crash site in Pennsylvania together with so many eye witnesses whose reports don't match the official flight version -- how can that be explained? It is a mystery.

The countdown of a plane that is 50 miles out, 30 miles out, and so on, officially occurring at a time when the plane it is claimed to be about was in the middle of nowhere. 50 miles out from what? It is a mystery.

The strange behavior of the people at the top of the chain of command: Bush and Rumsfeld putting themselves out of the loop for trivial reasons, Cheney taking actions that seem designed to also put the proper decision makers out of the loop and thereby ending up having to run the response himself -- why would they need to do that? It is a mystery.

The inability of our military to scramble any air response for more than an hour during a time when there was a known threat within the US and when we knew of the possibility of planes being used -- how is that possible? It is a mystery.

Why so many actions by FBI HQ and CIA that seem to intentionally sabotage the work of agents who were on the verge of uncovering the plot -- why would they do that? It is a mystery.

How did the 19 suspects and their 1 sponsor end up executing their plot at a time with such a convergence of multiple training exercises that provided such a perfect cover of fog and also pulled virtually all the defenses out of the way -- were they really just that lucky? It is a mystery.

Why is there so much video that doesn't look real (strange coloration, planes disappearing into steel buildings as if they were butter, nose out, etc) and videos that contradict each other (the same plane flying level in one shot, diving dramatically in another) -- how can all that video possibly be real or if it's not then who would have done it and why? It is a mystery.

Why are there eye witnesses interviewed who appear to be actors and network interviewers who appear to be carrying out a scripted event -- who would have had the time (without foreknowledge) to put that together and why would they do it? It is a mystery.

But then, I guess, to tie it all together -- why are there so many mysteries?

I think that anyone with a normal level of curiosity would be intrigued.

If no one involved even knows what nanothermite looks like, then claiming to have found it isn't analogous to applying "the protocol for arson."

At various times over the last few years, I've looked at most of these "mysteries," and in general they don't seem all that mysterious or interesting to me. To mention one that I don't think we've discussed before, I'm not aware that training exercises pulled any defenses out of the way. My family just visited the Woodstock museum at Bethel Woods, where an informational plaque states that there is no consensus on the set lists or even the order of performances, even though (or because?) hundreds of thousands of people attended. Sure enough, with a bit of Googling I found one authoritative-looking set list that shows Country Joe on the first day, and another that has them on the second day. In order to judge whether 9/11 poses an unusual number of mysteries -- many of which at least might be construed as legends -- we would have to examine some control event at a similar level of scrutiny. That would be hard, although I rather like the concept of someone going through Woodstock videos to look for tell-tale evidence of fakery.


Well, yes, and that is close to the heart of my concern.

I don't see why you prefer Harrit et al. to NIST. Considering that NIST is actually trying to do explanatory work, whereas for Harrit it seems to be low on the task list, to me NIST doesn't come across as dogmatic about the sequence of events. Probably this has something to do with our respective priors. If Harrit et al. can convince some credible folks outside their clique that there is strong forensic evidence of skulduggery, I'll reassess. (I'll bear in mind your point that events after 9/11 can be construed as skulduggery in themselves.)

looks to me to be the kind you would expect out of an expert witness who knows which side is paying his fee.

A purely scientific approach would have laid out all the possible explanations and only discarded the ones that can actually be ruled out by science. I believe that CD theories were already prevalent when NIST began its work. They should have tried to answer the question of whether explosives were present or not. The fact (allegedly) that the buildings theoretically could have collapsed without explosives does not demonstrate that they did collapse without explosives. Any scientist who doesn't grasp that logic has his hands over his eyes.

I don't see what separates this assertion, in principle, from a defense of Intelligent Design theory -- which AFAIK cannot be ruled out by science (although, to my mind, it is rendered extremely implausible).

It's not just that the buildings "theoretically could have collapsed without explosives." That's neither an accurate nor a complete paraphrase of NIST's analysis.

If you mean one that ends up with the earth 6000 years old then I agree with you. If, OTOH, you mean one that looks for God in what we know, rather than holing him up in the gaps between science, then I don't agree. What's wrong with the latter (even though I personally do not believe it in the least)?

A thorough treatment of creation theory in a philosophy class would include the more intelligent version of intelligent design (the one that is not the "of the gaps" version). A treatment of creation in a science class would not include any discussion of intelligent design because science is agnostic and orthogonal to any question of God or no God.

The question of arson or no arson is clearly not orthogonal to the causes of the WTC collapse the way that God or no God is orthogonal to evolution science.

I wrote this quickly so there's surely some sloppy thinking all through it. But you were going to let me know anyway so I won't worry over it.

I'm not aware that there are two disparate versions of intelligent design theory, that "looks for God in what we know" and one that "hol(es) him up in the gaps between science." Everything that I've seen termed "intelligent design theory" postulates that an intelligent designer is needed to account for (in Behe's terms) the irreducible complexity observed in living nature. I think this could fall in either of your categories depending, perhaps, on whether one believes it or not.

If you're saying that some forms of theism are compatible with science, I agree: in that sense, God/no God is orthogonal to evolution science, and it seems to me that in that sense, theism isn't a "theory" (ETA: i.e., it isn't competing with evolution science to explain observed events). But I don't think that we need an intelligent designer to account for living nature -- nor that we need CD to account for the collapse of the towers.

Thanks for cleaning them up a bit.

I'm sure you're right in your definition of intelligent design theory, but I think that puts it firmly in the "God of the gaps" category, doesn't it? Isn't it essentially the same definition? The complexity in living nature that some feel cannot be explained by science then has to be explained by God. So I think my other category is a different way of working God into creation, one that is by definition not intelligent design. This second category accepts the idea that everything in nature can (theoretically) be explained by science but keeps God in the system by concluding that God is behind science itself, or else best buddies with it. In my defense (of where my earlier sloppiness came from) I think that intelligent design sometimes is more of a catchall in popular discourse, but I accept your more precise version of it.

Scientists don't search for God in their experiments because whatever they find there they are going to attribute to science and nature. Forensic scientists obviously cannot rule out arson on those metaphysical grounds.

I think we've been here before. I think that any crime in which several thousand people were killed and in which multiple explosions were heard should be meticulously tested for explosives. Even if engineers believe there is a theoretical explanation for building collapse and even if engineers believe there is a theoretical explanation for sounds of explosions -- I believe there is still an obligation to check. It is a mass murder.

I agree that ID theory is God-of-the-gaps -- although if I accepted ID theory, I'm not sure I would accept that categorization, and I would probably think of it as compatible with your second phrase. To put it differently, I wasn't convinced that the dichotomy as you stated it was a true dichotomy. Now that I understand your intent better, I think ID theory clearly falls in the first camp.


I think it's possible in principle for scientists to be persuaded by ID theory -- which, I suppose, would render God a part of "nature," but one construed as relatively autonomous (much as we construe ourselves with respect to, say, suspension bridges). Scientists' prior commitment to naturalism doesn't predetermine their rejection of ID theory. However, as specific claims of ID theory are rebutted, it collapses into an increasingly desperate (well, from my perspective) God-of-the-gaps improvisation with two basic moves: "We can always come up with something that you haven't explained yet," and "Even if you think your theory is adequate, can you really rule out ours?"

That's pretty much exactly how I feel about the CD argument. In its strong form ("it's pretty much inconceivable that WTC 1, 2, and/or 7 could have fallen without CD"), it isn't facially incoherent, it's just wrong. But it rapidly devolves into something that looks to me more like an accumulation of purported anomalies for their own sake than an attempt at explanation. That still doesn't mean that the issue is settled in principle: if someone really does find compelling evidence for explosives, then we start again with that. Or if someone comes up with strong evidence for 'too-high' temperatures, that would presumably require some rethinking (depending on the meaning of 'too-high') even if the correct inferences have nothing to do with CD.


I suspect if you sat down with one of the NIST folks over a beer (or whatever) and talked about this, s/he would say something to this effect: "If you mean that the material evidence should have been better preserved so there could have been more forensic analysis of it, I don't disagree in principle. But what I want you to understand is that we really did take a close look at the CD hypothesis. I concede that I never especially believed it, but we tried to understand what it might entail and how to test it. We kept coming up empty. We don't need it to account for the data, we don't even know how to reconcile it with what we know -- it just didn't work. I know people are going to keep coming up with ideas of what combination of exotic explosives, or whatever, could mimic a progressive collapse, and some of them may be unfalsifiable, but I have yet to see one that does any explanatory work. But it's been a pleasure trying to explain this to someone who is at least willing to listen."

And s/he might add, "Of course, if you ever come up with anything solid on explosives, let me know. But I have a hard time believing it from people who run around telling interviewers that there's no doubt the towers were blown up -- after years of marinating in the analysis, I just think that's nuts. Sorry. Again, it's been a blast talking with you."

I'd probably ask (him or her), why should I believe anything else you've told me when you said the following with a straight face:



Followed by, "yeah, it's been fun. Have a great life."

BTW, thanks for the interesting thoughts on ID.

...another way of saying that thermite doesn't do any explanatory work. (Of course I personally don't know for a fact that it doesn't.) It isn't very clear. On the other hand, writing an FAQ is not as easy as it looks on TV. If you get bogged down in details, no one reads it; if you cut corners, people ask questions like "why should I believe anything else you've told me?" ;) Seriously, it may be that I judge them less harshly because I've done it myself -- although I shouldn't assume that you aren't an accomplished FAQ-writer. You'd be good at it.

If you look at the various places where they say why they didn't look into explosives, they all amount to either this same reasoning that explosives were theoretically not required (they don't do any explanatory work) or else a thinly veiled begging of the question.

Regarding the former, I still say it is not an appropriate protocol in forensics. If you see a dead man floating in the bay, you could go ahead and finalize your determination of cause of death because -- any cause other than drowning will not do any explanatory work. You may want to get some NIST engineers to write a simulation that shows it is theoretically possible for a man to die from nothing more than submersion in water and there you have it -- then it must be submersion in water. Of course, when somebody with a bit more curiosity turns him over and looks, there is a knife in his chest.

Regarding the latter, take this other explanation from their FAQ:



There isn't any science in this reasoning, it really just amounts to an assumption that explosives wouldn't have been used this way. It is just begging the question. To that I say, how so? Why couldn't explosives have been used in such a way that they weakened structural elements and contributed to the collapse. They've given me no scientific analysis on that question since they really just assumed it away: "well, they wouldn't have done it that way". Really, how so? What makes you say that?

I'll ask again my earlier question: what is the science and where is it described? The science that shows how they established that one of the following, and not the other, is the actual case:

1. The collapse was caused by the combined effects of plane impacts and fires weakening the buildings' structure.
   
2. The collapse was caused by the combined effects of plane impacts, fires, and explosives (low and/or high) weakening the buildings' structure.
   

Edit to add: later on when evidence of explosives has come out, NIST can hire Condie as their PR spokesperson and she can say "who could have imagined that they would have used explosives in that way? We never even considered it."

Funny. I think they say they did look into explosives.

As far as I can tell, the people criticizing NIST's treatment of the CD hypothesis aren't people who are neutrally interested in getting the science right, but people who have a strong predisposition to believe in CD. Under those circumstances, I treat the claim that NIST "didn't look into explosives" with similar deep reservations as the assertions that I and my colleagues never took the 2004 election fraud allegations seriously. It's logically possible that NIST skipped some appropriate step (or missed crucial evidence), but the argumentation I've read doesn't convince me of it.

Somehow I'm not communicating the idea of "explanatory work," or our different priors are impeding the broader communication. The analogy to a dead man floating in a bay isn't apposite: in the absence of any evidence that the man actually drowned, it would be incompetent to attribute his death to drowning, and even such evidence wouldn't be construed as a full explanation in itself. To me it's facially obvious that NIST's investigation doesn't have much in common with spotting a dead man floating in a bay and assuming he drowned -- it would be pretty hard to eke a 300-page report with 42 companion reports out of that.


Meanwhile, it's 2009, and we have Harrit telling an interviewer that he thinks it's inappropriate to speculate how the (purported) nanothermite was used. The mere supposition of intelligent design stands in for causal analysis.

There's clearly science in the answer, taken as a whole. 'Hypothesis A explains the observations, and we found no evidence for hypothesis B, so we prefer hypothesis A.' If NIST had said 'We proved that CD is physically impossible,' that would be over the top -- but it's correct and responsible to say that NIST's findings don't support CD. Occam's razor, y'know. (Of course, if you're convinced by the evidence for nanothermite, then to hypothesize that it was involved in the collapse doesn't violate Occam's razor.)


Heck, why stop there? Why do they just assume away theory 3, which attributes the collapse to the combined effects of plane impacts, fires, and invisible fairies? Where's the science that rules that out?

Answer: There is no way to rule out invisible fairies -- especially in the absence of any specific testable assertion about how fairies contributed to the collapse. However, NIST's findings don't support the IF hypothesis, because NIST found no evidence for invisible fairies, and invisible fairies aren't needed to account for the observations.

Now, is it fair to analogize explosives to invisible fairies? Yes and no. Probably every single poster here regards explosives as intrinsically more plausible than invisible fairies (although I can think of one possible exception). The record indicates (to me) that the explosive hypothesis was taken seriously, while the IF hypothesis was not. But at a high level of analysis, the causal logic is identical. At a lower level of analysis, it's not clear what would count as evidence for invisible fairies (I'm not saying that nothing would -- I just haven't thought much about this alternative), but lots of things would count as evidence for explosives, and NIST says that its analysis didn't find these things.

The way to move this debate isn't to complain about NIST's assumptions: it's to make alternative explanations more analytically useful.

You perform specific, detailed tests for their presence.

You say they found no evidence for the explosives hypothesis. But my point is that the reason they didn't find that evidence is because they didn't look. I'd be satisfied by your argument if NIST can show me the steps they went through to look for such evidence and if those steps rise to some reasonable level of diligence. That's what I mean by science. Where are those steps that they went through to say there is no evidence. Specific, detailed, steps. What were they and where are they described?

In fact, NIST admits in their FAQ that they didn't look:



The argument looks circular to me. Maybe that's why we've gone in circles on it a couple of times now. They didn't seriously consider explosives because they found no evidence of it. They found no evidence of it because they didn't look. They didn't look because there's no reason to think explosives were used. There's no reason to think that explosives were used because they found no evidence of it.

Edit to add: Let me improve my analogy. Let's say that the dead man in the bay did not have a knife in his chest. Further, an autopsy was performed and there was water in his lungs, a sign that he drowned. If NIST were the medical examiner they would wrap it up at that point with drowning as cause of death. If the family complained, "why didn't you check for toxic substances in his system?", NIST would reply that there was no need to because the water in the lungs was already enough to kill him. Toxic substances would have no explanatory power. NIST saw no evidence of toxic substances so there's no need to look any further. But, of course, the reason they saw no evidence of it was that you won't see any unless you check for it and they didn't check. I imagine that forensic protocol is to always run the tests for toxic substances when you find a dead man floating in the bay, even if he's got water in his lungs.

How many pounds of thermite (or thermate, or whatever) do you think would have had to be held in contact with how many steel columns in order to... well, do whatever you think was done, which appears to be indistinguishable from progressive collapse without any thermite at all? And what kind of testing could rule out this hypothesis? How many columns would have to be tested before you regarded the results as relevant?

I'm not qualified, but that's not really the point. A wild guess by someone who is qualified is still a wild guess. The actual scientific steps would need to be performed for there to be any value. NIST's estimate was worse than a wild guess because it was based on some nonsensical assumptions.

What, then, is my hypothesis? As you allude, it is not very specific. It is that explosives of some type may have been used to either take out or else just weaken some of the structural elements.

I'm not an expert on what type of testing could be done. I imagine there would be tests for residues and telltale effects just like there are for other types of arson.

I don't know how many columns would have to be tested or even whether the columns would be the best thing to test if one were earnestly seeking the answer. Edit to add: obviously, in the dust is another place to possibly look.

These are all questions for someone with the proper expertise.

You can probably draft my response to your post, so probably we should leave it here for now. I don't concede that NIST's estimate was "based on some nonsensical assumptions": that line of criticism would probably seem fairer to me if someone had been working harder, then or now, to sharpen the alternative hypothesis.

They make the nonsensical assumption that the explosives would have needed to weaken the same columns as the ones that were weakened by impact and fires. Wouldn't it be the columns that weren't weakened by planes and fires that needed to be weakened by explosives? I think they are the ones that need to sharpen their hypothesis because this is unintelligible to me.

Also, the investigation (or lack thereof) is not at the stage yet of narrowing down to one hypothesis. Evidence needs to be collected and tested and then you see where it takes you. Unfortunately the ability to collect evidence has decreased with time, but it is still not too late to do any at all:



I think one of the reasons we're talking past each other is that we have different ideas of the end goal. Yours seem to be to prove what caused the towers to collapse. Mine is to solve a crime: to determine whether someone planted explosives as part of this operation (or even not as part of this operation). If someone did plant explosives then the FBI needs to determine the chemical signature of the explosive and start tracking down where it came from, and so on. Even if explosives turned out to be a foolish part of the plan, if someone planted them then they could still be a lead to pursue in solving the crime.

Perhaps the same team at the FBI that worked on overturning historical beliefs about Napolean's cause of death is not working on anything at the moment that is more important than the questions of whether explosives were the cause of the explosions heard at the WTC and, if so, where that clue may lead.

You may be willing to concede that the planes and fires contributed to the collapse, but I haven't seen any consensus among CD theorists that that was even possible, much less that the extent of the contribution could have been even approximately foreknown. I think NIST is addressing an actual instantiation of the CD hypothesis, whereas you are criticizing NIST for not addressing a far more subtle, nuanced version that unfortunately no one appears to have the wherewithal actually to state. It may be interesting to debate whether NIST should have come up with the more nuanced version itself, but by golly, it's 2009 and I still haven't seen one. (Granted, I spend the vast majority of my time doing other things.)

I'm not sure I'm parsing this right. Understanding what caused the towers to collapse is, at the very least, integral to the crime investigation, no? And it was at the heart of the charge to NIST. Determining whether someone planted explosives might be part of the crime investigation, but I doubt you intended to characterize it as the end goal.

But the question is what the FBI should do given the very real possibility that no one planted explosives. Otherwise, it's much like Steve Freeman insisting that if had access to the "raw exit poll data," by God he would... well, anyway, by God he should have access to the raw exit poll data! It's not your responsibility to come up with a reasonable testing plan, but someone would have to do it; hand-waving cries for further investigation just don't cut any ice.

The end goal is to find out every single person who had any part, even the smallest one, in the crimes on 9/11 and to bring them to justice.

The stage we're at is still trying to get a serious investigation started.

At this stage, what's needed and appropriate is to have an investigation team that will pursue every lead, even the ones that seem unlikely.

Unfortunately, the government jumped entirely over this stage and many others because they already knew what they wanted as the final conclusion. They knew this within hours after (or arguably months before) the event and they locked it down. While the public was told the FBI had hundreds of agents pursuing every lead, that was a lie. In fact, leads that headed away from the government's preferred theory were shutdown. This is obviously, famously, one of the easiest ways for justice to go off track. The government decides early on that they've found their man and they've got their theory. Then they ignore or, much worse, destroy evidence that doesn't fit the result they are driving toward. Many men have been executed or spent decades behind bars due to this hazard (see John Grisham's The Innocent Man for a great example). I believe this hazard was realized in this case. The government announced that they had solved the crime long before there could have been any creditable investigation. Then they locked down the theory and stubbornly refused to consider any alternatives.

Now, like a blind pig, the government could still possibly have gotten it right. But if they did it was by shear luck, not by way of proper methods.

BTW, I'm not conceding that the plane impacts and fires contributed to the collapse; what I'm saying is that there are many possible scenarios, this being just one of them, that have been discarded without having a good reason. The reason they were discarded was that the government already knew what it wanted.

I say there is a very real possibility that someone did plant explosives. There is a large body of eyewitness reports of explosions, some by people who were inside the towers and were actually injured by them.

And, to clarify a point I alluded to earlier, it may be the case that explosives were part of the plan but were a foolish, unnecessary part. I don't see how it is necessary to believe that the planners calculated just how many columns needed to be weakened in order to augment the effects of the impact and fire. They could well have been total amateurs and just trying to do whatever they thought (by wild guesses) they needed to do. Did Timothy McVeigh have an engineering degree?

And it is a ridiculous approach, anyway, to first try to narrow down to and finely hone one specific and detailed hypothesis and use that hypothesis to determine what investigations should be permitted. That is exactly backwards. Obviously, the right way to do it is to first start investigating basically everything you can think of. With multiple eyewitnesses reporting explosions (including even the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department), there is more than enough of a clue to warrant investigation of explosives at the site.

Sorry for the double reply, but I'm amazed that we do not agree on this, and more than a bit disturbed over it.

I assume a big part of the problem is that the reports you've read about explosions predispose you to believe that explosives were present. And I see no way to rebut that hypothesis, at that level of generality, no matter how much effort was spent in testing: there would always be something else that hadn't been tested. So it seems like the reddest of herrings to me.

If the FDNY Chief of Safety is calling for further tests, I'm happy to back him up.

The reports I've read have me more than predisposed -- they have me convinced that there is no reasonable doubt, but of a different conclusion: that explosions inside the towers occurred.

From there I wouldn't say that the first conclusion predisposes me to think that explosives were present. Rather, it is an obvious clue that they might have been present. The sounds of explosions are about at the same level, if you ask me, as the drops of blood on the sidewalk outside Nicole Brown Simpson's house. I can't imagine how anyone could think it's reasonable to not run tests to investigate the cause.

BTW, do we at least agree that explosions occurred inside the towers, beyond any reasonable doubt?

_{Footnote: I believe that Albert Turi is retired and choosing to remain silent. Since we have no way of knowing his opinion on that, it isn't of any help. Even if we did, who knows what his political ideas and other thoughts are and how they might color his opinion? In other words, it's an irrelevant distraction.}

I think there's solid eyewitness evidence for loud sounds and for 'fireballs.' There may well be for explosions, as well. As to whether any of this evidence provides a basis for criticizing the NIST report, well, I would pretty much be repeating myself. I'd be surprised if there were nothing in the towers capable of blowing up in a fire.

Albert Turi's stated opinions, per se, may indeed be irrelevant. But, then, so are OTOH's and eomer's.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The Open Access Interviews: Matthew Honan


Matthew Honan, Editorial Director, Bentham Science Publishers


No one, surely, would now dispute that the Internet is hugely disruptive, and poses a significant threat to many existing business models. For scholarly publishers the primary challenge comes from the so-called Open Access movement, which calls for research papers to be made freely available on the Web. As a result, publishers face an inevitable decline in their traditional journal subscription business.

How have publishers responded? Initially most ignored Open Access. Then they attacked it, arguing that it was unrealistic, anti-capitalist, or just plain dangerous. But eventually they began to embrace it, and today most scholarly publishers offer an Open Access option that allows researchers to pay publishers an "article processing charge" (APC) if they want their research to be made freely available on the Web. Alternatively, they can continue to publish without having to pay an APC, but then self-archive their papers on the Web, and around 91% of scholarly publishers now permit some form of self-archiving, although often only after an embargo period has passed.

Large publishers like Elsevier, Springer and Wiley were particularly reluctant to migrate to Open Access. As a result, a number of small publishers — e.g. Biomed Central (BMC) and Hindawi — saw in Open Access an opportunity to outmanoeuvre their larger competitors, and generally they have proved successful in this. Other smaller publishers, however, have adopted this strategy less successfully. Bentham Science Publishers would seem to be a case in point.

Last April Bentham announced its intention of launching 300 new Open Access journals by the end of the year. The audacity of this announcement should not be underestimated. After all, it has taken BMC eight years to build up a portfolio of 185 OA journals. And at the time of its announcement, Bentham itself was publishing less than 100 subscription journals. Unsurprisingly, therefore Bentham later reduced the number of new journals it planned to launch to 200.

Badly targeted

Even so, it was clear that an aggressive marketing campaign would be needed: For if Bentham was to achieve its goal it would need to recruit hundreds of researchers to act as chief editors, thousands to sit on the editorial boards of the new journals, and thousands more to submit papers to these journals. Consequently before long a constant stream of email invitations was flowing into the inboxes of researchers around the world.

At first the strategy appeared to be working. After all, being on the editorial board of a scholarly journal is a much-cherished ambition for researchers, and the kudos attached to being a chief editor an even more attractive goal; likewise, their constant hunger to be published means that researchers are always on the lookout for publishing opportunities. All in all, therefore, many of those receiving Bentham's invitations initially responded positively.

After the first flush of enthusiasm, however, researchers began to question Bentham's activities, not least because many of the invitations they were receiving seemed decidedly badly targeted. For instance, psychologists were being invited to contribute papers on ornithology, health policy researchers were being invited to submit papers on analytical chemistry and economists were being invited to submit papers on sleep research or, even more oddly, invited to join the editorial board of educational journals. This inevitably raised concerns about the likely quality of the new journals, particularly as researchers were being asked to pay from $600 to $900 a time for the privilege of being published in them.

To add insult to injury, some of the invitations researchers were receiving were addressed to a completely different person, or the name field was empty, and addressed simply to "Dear Dr.,". It was hard not to feel more insulted than flattered on receiving such letters.

Moreover, what was clearly an automated mass mailing exercise was proving a little profligate with its invitations, sending them out not just to researchers, but to any Tom, Dick or Harry. On at least one occasion, for instance, a journalist (who asked not to be named) was surprised to receive a letter from Bentham inviting him to submit a paper, "Based on your record of contributions in the field of information science." As he explains, "I was rather surprised by this, since — as a practicing science journalist — I wasn't aware that I had made any such contributions!"

At first the tide of increasingly inappropriate invitations was greeted with a mixture of good humour and head scratching. However, as the flood of email invitations continued unabated the recipients' response shifted from amusement to frustration, and then to anger — especially when they discovered that all requests to be removed from the mailing list were ignored.

Spam plague

By March of this year, senior health care research scientist at the University of Toronto Gunther Eysenbach had had enough. Publicly criticising Bentham's activities on his blog, Eysenbach complained, "In the past couple of months I have received no less than 11 emails from Bentham, all mostly identical in text and form, all signed by 'Matthew Honan, Editorial Director, Bentham Science Publishers' or 'Richard Scott, Editorial Director, Bentham Science Publishers', 'inviting' me to submit research articles, reviews and letters to various journals."

He added, "All pleas and begging from my side to stop the spamming, as well as clicking on any 'unsubcribe' links did not stop the spam plague from Bentham."

For others, the experience of being targeted by Bentham proved even more frustrating. When Professor John Furedy, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, received an invitation to be editor-in-chief of the Open Behavioral Science Journal he initially accepted. But after doing so he found himself being bombarded with further invitations. And when Bentham failed to reply to the questions he raised about the new role he had taken on he decided the best course of action was to withdraw his acceptance, reluctant to be associated with a company that behaved in this way. Even though he had resigned, however, Furedy was surprised to see that his name had been added to the list of editors on the journal's web site. And despite repeated requests to Bentham to remove it his name remains there to this day.

I too had by now begun receiving copies of Bentham's invitations — not because I was on its mailing list, but because frustrated researchers were forwarding them to me, and asking me to find out what the dickens was going on.

So I emailed various Bentham directors (including Richard Scott and Matthew Honan), all of whom — with the exception of publications director Mahmood Alam — completely ignored my messages. Moreover, while Alam replied, he proved decidedly unwilling to answer my questions, despite repeated promises that he would. He was equally unwilling to put me in contact with anyone else at the company.

I also tried calling the various telephone numbers on the Bentham web site, only to be greeted by voicemail messages. Personally I knew nothing whatsoever about Bentham, so for all I knew it might have been the front for some form of Internet scam.

In the hope of enlightening myself, therefore, I posted a message to a couple of mailing lists, and shortly afterwards Ted Bergstrom, a professor of economics at the University of California Santa Barbara posted a response — a response that confirmed everything I had been hearing from other researchers. I also began to receive private emails with information about Bentham, including the home phone number of Honan, which was sent to me by a publisher concerned that Bentham would bring the scholarly publishing industry into disrepute.

A few small errors

To his credit, when I called Honan he agreed to speak to me then and there and, with one notable exception, answered all my questions. He was, however, adamant that Bentham is not engaged in any kind of spamming. "The criticisms that you have levelled against the company for spamming are unjustified," he said, adding that by posting my message I had only served to "amplify" a few small errors that the company had made.

Honan also insisted that the company always honours requests to be removed from its mailing list, and added that it is doing no more than any other scholarly publisher. As he put it, "Like Bentham, for instance, other publishers periodically send unsolicited emails to mailing lists. The recipients are able to unsubscribe from these publishers' mailing lists if they want to, just as they can from our list." Those researchers who had continued to receive messages after opting had had multiple email addresses, he explained, saying, "We have had very few complaints, and we respond to the complaints that we receive — which are very few in comparison to the number of emails we send out." He did however apologise for any errors that had been made.

The recipients of Bentham's unwelcome invitations, however, remain critical of the company. One of those targeted was Professor Stevan Harnad, professor of cognitive science at Université du Québec à Montréal. He comments, "It is not possible to judge, from the data available, whether Bentham has been negligent or just naive in sending automatic mass form-letters soliciting editors and authors for their many new journal start-ups."

But what has most puzzled researchers is why Bentham would risk damaging its reputation in this way, and so the standing of its pre-existing subscription journals, some of which have over the years earned a respectable impact factor. "Bentham once enjoyed a reputation as a high-priced reputable scholarly publisher," comments Charles Oppenheim, professor of information science at UK-based Loughborough University, another researcher to be targeted by Bentham.

"In my view, it has damaged that reputation by the flood of emails it has sent inviting people to join the editorial board of, or contribute to, new OA journals it has launched. Not merely are the emails sometimes misaddressed, but when the publisher has been emailed by the recipient with queries, the publisher rarely replies." Oppenheim concludes, "Bentham has made a mistake by launching so many OA journals and by bombarding scholars with email invitations."

Illegal?

Eysenbach, meanwhile, is less forgiving. Indeed, he is so angry that he is considering suing Bentham under anti-spam laws. Arguing that it is illegal for businesses to send unsolicited emails to people that have not agreed to receive them, or where no previous contractual relationship exists, he comments, "The law is clear: I didn't have any other previous business relationship with Bentham . Unsolicited bulk email is spam, and illegal, and even offering to remove names is not an appropriate remedy." He adds, "I am not a litigious person, but this seems to be worth the effort to take one step further."

Were Eysenbach to take that step, however, it is not clear how successful he would be. As is now evident, Bentham is not a communicative company. And while it has a presence in four countries — the United Arab Emirates, the Netherlands, Pakistan, and Illinois, USA — in all four jurisdictions the contact point is either a PO Box, or c/o address. Moreover, Eysenbach is based in Canada, so even were he to be successful in the courts, enforcing a ruling in another jurisdiction could prove both difficult and expensive. Moreover, his task might be complicated by the fact that the one thing that Honan refused to tell me is who owns Bentham Science Publishers.

Clearly Bentham's activities raise a number of questions about Open Access. Perhaps the most important is this: "Does the incident paint a picture of the future, or was it a one-off event?" After all, in his blog post Eysenbach pointed the figure not just at Bentham, but at other publishers too, including BMC.

For Harnad there is a clear lesson to be learned. "Let it be an example to Bentham and other publishers that this is not the way to go about starting up journals. It merely gives the publisher, as well as online- and OA-journal publishing, a bad name."

Those wishing to read Honan's response to critics in detail are invited to read the interview by clicking on the link below. OA advocates may also be interested to hear details of Bentham's soon-to-be-announced self-archiving policy, and its "limited Open Access option". These too may prove controversial.

####

If you wish to read the interview please click on the link below. I am publishing it under a Creative Commons licence, so you are free to copy and distribute it as you wish, so long as you credit me as the author, do not alter or transform the text, and do not use it for any commercial purpose.

If after reading it you feel it is well done you might like to consider making a small contribution to my PayPal account.

I have in mind a figure of $8, but whatever anyone felt inspired to contribute would be fine by me. Payment can be made quite simply by quoting the e-mail account: richard.poynder@btinternet.com. It is not necessary to have a PayPal account to make a payment.

What I would ask is that if you point anyone else to the article then you consider directing them to this post, rather than directly to the PDF file itself.

If you would like to republish the interview on a commercial basis, or have any comments on it, please email me at richard.poynder@btinternet.com.

To read the interview (as a PDF file) click here.

posted by Richard Poynder at 15:18


http://poynder.blogspot.com/2008/04/open-access-interviews-matthew-honan.html

It's not looking too good for Bentham:


Bentham假论文事件详情和更新（转载）
Hoax exposes incompetence or worse at a Bentham OA journal

Peter Suber, Open Access News

Philip Davis, Open Access Publisher Accepts Nonsense Manuscript for Dollars, Scholarly Kitchen, June 10, 2009. Excerpt:

Would a publisher accept a completely nonsensical manuscript if the authors were willing to pay Open Access publication charges? After being spammed with invitations to publish in Bentham Science journals earlier this year, I decided to find out.

Using SCIgen, a software that generates grammatically correct, “context-free” (i.e. nonsensical) papers in computer science, I quickly created an article, complete with figures, tables, and references. It looks pretty professional until you read it. The opening sentences are typical:

The synthesis of the Ethernet is a confusing grand challenge. Given the current status of knowledgebased archetypes, statisticians particularly desire the refinement of superpages, which embodies the practical principles of software engineering. In order to address this riddle, we investigate how web browsers can be applied to the construction of the Ethernet.

The manuscript, entitled “Deconstructing Access Points” was submitted on January 29th, 2009, to The Open Information Science Journal (TOISCIJ), a journal that claims to enforce peer-review.

The manuscript was given two co-authors, David Phillips and Andrew Kent. Any similarity to real or fictitious, living or dead academics is purely coincidental, as was their institutional affiliation: The Center for Research in Applied Phrenology based in Ithaca, New York....

Bentham confirmed receipt of my submission the very next day (January 30, 2009). Nearly four months later, I received a response — the article was accepted. The acceptance letter read:

This is to inform you that your submitted article has been accepted for publication after peer-reviewing process in TOISCIJ. I would be highly grateful to you if you please fill and sign the attached fee form and covering letter and send them back via email as soon as possible to avoid further delay in publication.

The letter was written by a Ms. Sana Mokarram, the Assistant Manager of Publication. She included a fee schedule and confirmation that I would pay US$800, to be sent to a post office box in the SAIF Zone, a tax-free complex in the United Arab Emirates. The manuscript was subsequently retracted :

Dear Ms. Mokarram,
I’m afraid that we have to retract this article. We have discovered several errors in the manuscript which question both the validity of the study and the results.

I have yet to receive a response....

From this one case, we cannot conclude that Bentham Science journals practice no peer review, only that it is inconsistently applied. Earlier this year, I reported on a case in which a nonsensical article submitted to another Bentham Science journal was rejected after going through peer review.

While one should be careful not to generalize these results to other Open Access journals using similar business models, it does raise the question of whether, at least in some cases, the producer-pays-to-publish model may unduly influence editorial decision-making. One may also question whether publishers like Bentham see a lucrative opportunity from the OA movement, considering that academic libraries are establishing author publication funds to pay Open Access charges.

Also see Kent Anderson's follow-up post in the same blog:

...Our hope was that this experiment would fail. We hoped that Bentham Science Publishers would prove to be rigorous and uniform in their application of peer-review....Unfortunately, Bentham wasn’t up to the task. But there’s a larger issue this incident reveals, tangential to the story about Bentham....

It’s important that everyone in academic publishing realize there is a feeder issue at play — the swelling pools of author-pays funding, how they’re being managed, and policies around their use.

As Phil Davis has pointed out in other posts on this blog, there is a lack of transparency to how author funds are being spent and the oversight of these funds may not be adequate. In addition to pots of money coming from institutions, other pots of money have also opened up to support author-pays publishing — in early May, Pfizer agreed to cover author fees for any of their employees submitting to BioMed Central.

Institutions should contemplate how their policies and practices supporting author publication fees may encourage the emergence of publishing programs aimed at soliciting and accepting as many papers as possible. With poorly managed sources of funding (i.e., easy money), blaming these publishers is akin to treating a symptom of a more fundamental and deleterious malady....

But it may not be the author-pays model itself that introduces the fatal flaw.

Instead, it may be the administrators of the funding who have shown an Achilles‘ heel — lax oversight, a lack of transparency, motivations to support the “publish or perish” culture of academia today, and an inability to hold publishers accountable for services rendered....

Comments

* There has been public suspicion about Bentham's operation for more than a year now (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). In April 2008, Richard Poynder interviewed the Bentham Editorial Director, Matthew Honan, to get the company's response to criticism, especially criticism for spamming researchers to submit papers or join editorial boards. In the interview Honan would not identify the owners of the company and would not say why.
* The Davis-Anderson hoax clearly uncovered incompetence at this Bentham journal. We have to ask whether the journal lies about performing peer review or just performs it so badly that it's equivalent to no review at all. Even if the journal were cynically trying to maximize revenue from publication fees, a competent scam would not have accepted the Davis drivel.
* The Sokal hoax proved something important about lax standards, either within a given journal or within the larger field of postmodern cultural studies. So I don't criticize this sort of hoax as such and prefer to focus on the conclusions to draw from it.
* There's no doubt that OA journals can be strong or weak, just as TA journals can be strong or weak. The question is whether we're dealing with a very weak journal or with something larger. Davis himself wants to be "careful not to generalize these results to other Open Access journals using similar business models, it does raise the question of whether, at least in some cases, the producer-pays-to-publish model may unduly influence editorial decision-making." Anderson builds on Davis' question to ask a slightly different one --not whether publication fees unduly influence editorial decisions but whether institutions willing to pay those fees on behalf of authors should take greater responsibility for the quality of the work they fund.
* We've known since the Kaufman-Wills report in 2005 that many more TA journals (by numbers and percentages) charge author-side fees than OA journals. At that time, a slight majority of OA journals charged no fees at all, while only 23.4% of ALPSP journals overall charged no fees. Kaufman and Wills reported similar numbers for other collections of TA journals. Since then, a new study has put the percentage of no-fee OA journals at over 70%. I haven't seen a new study of the percentage of no-fee TA journals. These studies should help us avoid a careless generalization. As I put it in a 2006 article:

insofar as charging fees for accepted papers is an incentive to lower standards, many more subscription journals are guilty than OA journals. We know this even before we take into account that OA journals with many excellent submissions can often accept more papers without lowering standards (because they have no size limits) and OA journals with a dearth of excellent submissions can accept fewer papers without shortchanging subscribers (because they have no subscribers). We know it before we take into account that OA journal fees are much closer to "subsistence-level" compensation than typical subscription fees. We know it before we take into account that subscription journals justify price increases by pointing to the growing volume of published articles....We know it before we take into account that subscription journals with lower standards and lower rejection rates have higher profit margins (because they perform peer review fewer times per published paper).

* Anderson is right that institutions paying publishers should take responsibility to monitor how their money is spent. But the principle is a general one. It doesn't matter whether the journal pays reader-side subscription fees or author-side publication fees. Or if author-side publication fees somehow call for greater vigilance, then institutions should exercise that vigilance over the larger set of fee-charging TA journals as well as the smaller set of fee-charging OA journals. The fake Elsevier journals show that money can corrupt editorial judgment at TA journals, even at publishers with better reputations to uphold and astronomically more money in the bank to buffer against temptation. I raise this here only to prevent a one-sided conclusion. I have no desire to shift attention away from dishonest practices the OA side of the line. On the contrary, I want to drive dishonest OA journals out of the field. They give OA a bad name and impede its growth. This matters to OA proponents even more than to its critics. We know that OA is compatible with the highest levels of quality (1, 2) and want to put it to work accelerating high-quality research in every field.

Update. Also see Bob Grant's article in The Scientist. One new nugget:

...I called Richard Morrissy, who's listed as the US contact for Bentham Science Publishers on the company's website, but he declined to answer my questions and instead directed me to his supervisor, Matthew Honan, who works in Bentham's France office. Honan does not have a phone number, according to Morrissy....

Update. Klaus Graf calls for a boycott of Bentham. See his comments in German or Google's English.

Update. Also see Paul Basken's article on the Chronicle of Higher Education News Blog. The comment section is starting to grow.

Update. JURN, the search engine for OA journals in the arts and humanities, has stopped indexing Bentham journals.

Update. Tom Wilson argues that the Bentham scandal is another reason to prefer no-fee OA journals.

Update (6/11/09). Peter Aldhous in New Scientist reviews similar hoaxes in which journals or conferences were caught accepting outright nonsense.

Update (6/11/09). Also see Norman Oder's article in Library Journal.

Update (6/11/09). The Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) points out several ways in which practices at Bentham Science appear to fall short of the association's code of conduct, and that Bentham is not a member of OASPA.

Update (6/11/09). According to Bob Grant in The Scientist, the editor of the journal accepting the computer-generated nonsense paper, Bambang Parmanto, an information scientist at the U of Pittsburth, has resigned.

WILD KINGDOM

When Disinformants Attack

""posted by Richard Poynder at 15:18""

""Peter Suber, Open Access News""

""Philip Davis, Open Access Publisher""

totally incoherent response.

there is coherency there, but you have to decipher the message

what's wrong? can't pass the test?

would be my guess.

WRONG ANSWER

I conceded that it's not uncommon for peer-reviewers to be anonymous. But, in this case, Harrit says he knows their names but won't disclose them because, in principle, they are anonymous.

1) If Harrit knows their names, how are they anonymous?

2) Accordingly, why doesn't Harrit reveal their names so the "peer-review" process Bentham employed can be verified? 0ne probable reason is that Harrit does not want Bentham's sham "peer-review" process to be exposed, for obvious reasons.

Assuming that Harrit is telling the truth -- and although he doesn't operate in a fashion that I admire, I have no basis for thinking that he just makes stuff up -- a couple of scenarios spring to mind. One is that Harrit has inferred the reviewers' identities based on the content and/or style of the comments. A variant of that scenario is that Harrit checked out his inference, and the presumed reviewers either conceded the point or did not contest it. The other scenario is that for some reason, the reviewers actually revealed their identities to Harrit (or perhaps initially to another coauthor, which also applies throughout the first scenario) -- which would be an odd play, but not inconceivable.

It would be very strange for Bentham to reveal the identities of the reviewers, although I guess Bentham seems weird enough that anything is possible.

It may well be true that Harrit would be (or should be) embarrassed if the identities came to be known -- but I don't think he is wrong on the principle. Even if he knows, or thinks he knows, who the reviewers are, it isn't really for him to "out" them. I haven't thought deeply about this, but I don't think the AE is especially entitled to anonymity, and I think it's pretty weird that Harrit wouldn't know the AE's name.

As far as I know, we don't know what the reviewers recommended with respect to the manuscript. It's possible that the reviewers gave revise-and-resubmit recommendations (or the equivalent), or worse, and the AE overruled them. I'm reminded of a situation where a fairly respectable journal (perhaps the Journal of Conflict Resolution) published a study on how Transcendental Meditation influenced violence in the Middle East because, as I remember it, the journal editor felt that the manuscript was objectively as strong as other studies with less heterodox conclusions and merited wider scrutiny -- not because he was persuaded that TM had promoted peace. He made it clear that at least one reviewer didn't agree with his decision to publish.