peer review.

[CHF]

I did. Written letters/papers. That's it take it or leave it. That is the only real acceptable way for scientific debate to take place.

No the only real acceptable way for scientific debate to take place is in an actual scientific journal - not the Mickey Mouse rag created by Thermite Man as a way of sidestepping peer-review.

 

[CHF]

And what makes you qualified to be the judge of what is or isn't a REAL JOURNAL? How would you know what journals people give a toss about?

A real journal is one that has a history of reviewing and publishing the subject matter in question.

A real journal is one where the brightest minds submit their work.

A real journal is not created for the sake of avoiding a real peer-review in a real journal!

 

[Gravy]

I did. Written letters/papers. That's it take it or leave it. That is the only real acceptable way for scientific debate to take place.

Excellent. I accept, as long as those letters/papers can be reprinted here. I have no unique hypotheses. You can assume that I generally accept the official version of the tower collapses as plausible and backed by good science.

I'll await your dissertation. Send it to nyctours (at) gmail (dot) com.

 

[drkitten]

And what makes you qualified to be the judge of what is or isn't a REAL JOURNAL? How would you know what journals people give a toss about?

You don't want to go there. There are people on this thread with substantial experience judging the quality of journals.

In direct answer to your question, what makes me qualified to be the judge of what is and isn't a "real journal" is professional experience. It's part of my job to sit in judgment upon my peers and students, especially at tenure review time, but also when doing hiring, graduate student evaluation, grant review, merit awards, and so forth.

As to how I know -- well, I'm an expert, and I've been in the field for some time. There's also a well-developed support system in place to help me make those judgements; for example, ISI publishes a periodicals index that includes concepts like "impact factor" to help me determine the degree to which a paper is read, and more importantly, cited. Other factors include the quality of the editorial board, the quality of any sample papers that I've read, and so forth.

And by all those measures, the Journal of 911 Studies does not score well. The editorial board is frankly pathetic, the articles that I've read are drivel, and the impact factor doesn't even make the radar.

I would in fact be hard-pressed to name a journal less valuable, less informative, and in general less. I suggest that J911 is not worth the paper it's written on -- and I say this in the complete belief that it is an electronic-only journal. This journal is literally of negative value. Any faculty candidate who appeared before me with this journal in his/her CV would probably be passed over for an interview as a result; any student who cited this journal in any work they submitted to me for credit would receive a lowered grade.

It's a vanity journal run by a bunch of unqualified near-illiterates. I feel sorry for you that you bother to write for it.

 

[beachnut]

What a laugh you are. You are truly a legend in your own mind. What you in your limited scientific abilities are claiming as errors were not errors and I explained that earlier. Who do you think are you kidding? You sound like you went to the Joseph Goebbels school of debate. That is, to just keep repeating a lie and sooner or later people will believe it. I am tempted to say it is you who may actually be a fraud and a liar to boot. It is starting to look like you have a strategy to constantly accuse others of what you actually may be, to shift the focus off of your distortions. Unfortunately , some people fall for it. I doubt it is many though.

Like Abe Lincoln said "You can fool some of the people all the time, you can even fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

You are starting to be seen for who you really are. I doubt many know for sure but I believe they are starting to put it together about you.

You obviously aren't qualified to peer review any scientific paper so you have no basis to call Jones and Ryan frauds. You are truly disgraceful and without shame. I am beginning to believe you are a professional propagandist. How long did you say you have been a NYC tour guide? Oh, I forgot you didn't answer those questions I asked. How long have you lived in NYC and what else besides being a tour guide have you done in your life?

Go debate Jim Fetzer, he is more your speed, although more respectful to some degree. You can do Hardfire again with your fellow propagandist Ronald Wieck. What a fraud that show was as Wieck's attempt to appear impartial was an obvious failure.

But not only has Gravy hit this one out of the park, Jones and Ryan are frauds and everyone who is able to read and comprehend agrees. Jones started a journal on line because real journals do not publish junk. Most of the papers the Jones institute of fraud and 9/11 lies contain political rant. If you can not see the junk in the papers go get help from real scholars.

 

[Slayhamlet]

You don't want to go there. There are people on this thread with substantial experience judging the quality of journals.

In direct answer to your question, what makes me qualified to be the judge of what is and isn't a "real journal" is professional experience. It's part of my job to sit in judgment upon my peers and students, especially at tenure review time, but also when doing hiring, graduate student evaluation, grant review, merit awards, and so forth.

As to how I know -- well, I'm an expert, and I've been in the field for some time. There's also a well-developed support system in place to help me make those judgements; for example, ISI publishes a periodicals index that includes concepts like "impact factor" to help me determine the degree to which a paper is read, and more importantly, cited. Other factors include the quality of the editorial board, the quality of any sample papers that I've read, and so forth.

And by all those measures, the Journal of 911 Studies does not score well. The editorial board is frankly pathetic, the articles that I've read are drivel, and the impact factor doesn't even make the radar.

I would in fact be hard-pressed to name a journal less valuable, less informative, and in general less. I suggest that J911 is not worth the paper it's written on -- and I say this in the complete belief that it is an electronic-only journal. This journal is literally of negative value. Any faculty candidate who appeared before me with this journal in his/her CV would probably be passed over for an interview as a result; any student who cited this journal in any work they submitted to me for credit would receive a lowered grade.

It's a vanity journal run by a bunch of unqualified near-illiterates. I feel sorry for you that you bother to write for it.

Oh, so realcddeal is a contributor to the "Journal" of 9/11 Studies? That explains a lot.

 

[bonavada]

....
firefighters mentioned seeing, feeling, and hearing explosions both before and during the collapses of the towers....

this firefighter mentions something else. should his comments be taken as literally? people say the same things differently. it's called analogy. look it up.



BV

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You don't want to go there. There are people on this thread with substantial experience judging the quality of journals.

In direct answer to your question, what makes me qualified to be the judge of what is and isn't a "real journal" is professional experience. It's part of my job to sit in judgment upon my peers and students, especially at tenure review time, but also when doing hiring, graduate student evaluation, grant review, merit awards, and so forth.

As to how I know -- well, I'm an expert, and I've been in the field for some time. There's also a well-developed support system in place to help me make those judgements; for example, ISI publishes a periodicals index that includes concepts like "impact factor" to help me determine the degree to which a paper is read, and more importantly, cited. Other factors include the quality of the editorial board, the quality of any sample papers that I've read, and so forth.

And by all those measures, the Journal of 911 Studies does not score well. The editorial board is frankly pathetic, the articles that I've read are drivel, and the impact factor doesn't even make the radar.

I would in fact be hard-pressed to name a journal less valuable, less informative, and in general less. I suggest that J911 is not worth the paper it's written on -- and I say this in the complete belief that it is an electronic-only journal. This journal is literally of negative value. Any faculty candidate who appeared before me with this journal in his/her CV would probably be passed over for an interview as a result; any student who cited this journal in any work they submitted to me for credit would receive a lowered grade.

It's a vanity journal run by a bunch of unqualified near-illiterates. I feel sorry for you that you bother to write for it.

drkitten, if you noticed I was addressing CHF with the question, based on his comment. Why did you think you needed to answer? Unless you are CHF also.

 

[stateofgrace]

drkitten, if you noticed I was addressing CHF with the question, based on his comment. Why did you think you needed to answer? Unless you are CHF also.

I actually think drkitten gave a very well worded, very informative answer; maybe you should address what he wrote, rather than trying to side step it and making unsubstantiated claims.

 

[jsfisher]

drkitten, if you noticed I was addressing CHF with the question, based on his comment. Why did you think you needed to answer? Unless you are CHF also.

Drkitten, I warned you. You need to raise your hand if you have a question or need to make a comment. Realcddeal will call on you when it's your turn. Stop trying to butt in. How can you learn if you continue to be disruptive?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Excellent. I accept, as long as those letters/papers can be reprinted here. I have no unique hypotheses. You can assume that I generally accept the official version of the tower collapses as plausible and backed by good science.

I'll await your dissertation. Send it to nyctours (at) gmail (dot) com.

Not so fast there Mark. You are the one who is supposed to write a critique of the paper you were chastising and have it published on a Journal. Otherwise there is no basis for the debate. I told you I would then reply with a letter to that Journal. I have no problem with you providing links to or reprinting your critiquing letter and my reply on this forum so long as you get your critique published in a Journal first.

In fact, I might as well tell everyone here I am Tony Szamboti so you have no holds on you. As far as I know, you did keep your word that you would not reveal my identity if I told you who I was, when you asked me to send you an e-mail due to your questioning whether or not I was an engineer.

You need to write your letter Mr. Roberts. What Journal will you submit your letter to?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

A real journal is one that has a history of reviewing and publishing the subject matter in question.

A real journal is one where the brightest minds submit their work.

A real journal is not created for the sake of avoiding a real peer-review in a real journal!

Just astounding logic here.

Maybe it's just me but did you actually say something in all those words? I guess when those other journals you talk about started maybe they were avoiding a real peer-review in a real journal too.

No wonder drkitten answered.

 

[beachnut]

Not so fast there Mark. You are the one who is supposed to write a critique of the paper you were chastising and have it published on a Journal. Otherwise there is no basis for the debate. I told you I would then reply with a letter to that Journal. I have no problem with you providing links to or reprinting your critiquing letter and my reply on this forum so long as you get your critique published in a Journal first.

In fact, I might as well tell everyone here I am Tony Szamboti so you have no holds on you. As far as I know, you did keep your word that you would not reveal my identity if I told you who I was, when you asked me to send you an e-mail due to your questioning whether or not I was an engineer.

You need to write your letter Mr. Roberts. What Journal will you submit your letter to?

I was wondering how you would weasel out of this. Nice backpedaling truther. Run away home. CD, is a joke, you are now the same.

 

[Gravy]

In fact, I might as well tell everyone here I am Tony Szamboti so you have no holds on you. As far as I know, you did keep your word that you would not reveal my identity if I told you who I was, when you asked me to send you an e-mail due to your questioning whether or not I was an engineer.

You need to write your letter Mr. Roberts. What Journal will you submit your letter to?

Hey, he admitted it!

I'll be submitting my letter to you by email, Tony, and will post it here. Give me a few days. I've got many things on my plate.

Also, I reserve the option to retain the holds on me.

 

[drkitten]

drkitten, if you noticed I was addressing CHF with the question, based on his comment. Why did you think you needed to answer?

Because the questions "how do you evaluate the worth of a journal" and "is the journal of 9-11 studies meritorious" are both questions worth answering, regardless of the person who answers. If you're under the impression that CHF's statement that J911 is worthless cat-box liner can somehow be dismissed because he, personally, doesn't have the expertise to make that statement, I thought I would "head you off at the pass."

I do have the expertise, and I agree with that statement.

Maybe it's just me but did you actually say something in all those words? I guess when those other journals you talk about started maybe they were avoiding a real peer-review in a real journal too.

No, they weren't. Granted, every journal has to start somewhere, and there's always a first volume/issue, at which point, the journal doesn't have a track record.

Oddly enough, we are aware of this. A lot of researchers, myself included, are nervous about submitting to a newly launched journal for precisely this reason; the fear that the journal will be total drek. This is where the other criteria come in. "A real journal is one where the brightest minds submit their work." One of the duties of the editorial board is to solicit articles and write them themselves, so you can get an idea of who will be writing in a brand-new journal by looking at the board. Ask yourself this question : "would I be proud to have an article in the same issue as these people?" "Would I be embarassed?" In the case of J9/11S, I'd be embarassed....

Furthermore, most journals are started, not to avoid peer review in "real" journals, but because there is an existing reseach community that has grown to the point where the then-existing journals can't really handle the publication load. When half of the Journal of XYZ is about W, then it's probably time to spin off the Journal of WXYZ. Again, J9/11S doesn't score well; I haven't seen an overabundance of high quality papers in the mainstream engineering press about 9/11 -- in fact, I don't think I've seen any high quality papers supporting 9/11 conspiracies in the mainstream engineering press.

But that's still largely irrelevant, because J9/11S is not a new publication and we can see it's publication history. And the most damning evidence that it's a lousy journal is that it publishes lousy, badly-written, badly-edited, badly-reviewed papers.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Hey, he admitted it!

I'll be submitting my letter to you by email, Tony, and will post it here. Give me a few days. I've got many things on my plate.

Also, I reserve the option to retain the holds on me.

You mean you aren't going to submit it to a journal?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Because the questions "how do you evaluate the worth of a journal" and "is the journal of 9-11 studies meritorious" are both questions worth answering, regardless of the person who answers. If you're under the impression that CHF's statement that J911 is worthless cat-box liner can somehow be dismissed because he, personally, doesn't have the expertise to make that statement, I thought I would "head you off at the pass."

I do have the expertise, and I agree with that statement.



No, they weren't. Granted, every journal has to start somewhere, and there's always a first volume/issue, at which point, the journal doesn't have a track record.

Oddly enough, we are aware of this. A lot of researchers, myself included, are nervous about submitting to a newly launched journal for precisely this reason; the fear that the journal will be total drek. This is where the other criteria come in. "A real journal is one where the brightest minds submit their work." One of the duties of the editorial board is to solicit articles and write them themselves, so you can get an idea of who will be writing in a brand-new journal by looking at the board. Ask yourself this question : "would I be proud to have an article in the same issue as these people?" "Would I be embarassed?" In the case of J9/11S, I'd be embarassed....

Furthermore, most journals are started, not to avoid peer review in "real" journals, but because there is an existing reseach community that has grown to the point where the then-existing journals can't really handle the publication load. When half of the Journal of XYZ is about W, then it's probably time to spin off the Journal of WXYZ. Again, J9/11S doesn't score well; I haven't seen an overabundance of high quality papers in the mainstream engineering press about 9/11 -- in fact, I don't think I've seen any high quality papers supporting 9/11 conspiracies in the mainstream engineering press.

But that's still largely irrelevant, because J9/11S is not a new publication and we can see it's publication history. And the most damning evidence that it's a lousy journal is that it publishes lousy, badly-written, badly-edited, badly-reviewed papers.

Nobody says you aren't entitled to your opinion but that is all it is.

As complete as your reply here is I am surprised you didn't mention the fact that some publications in history have also been started because the controversial nature of what was being discussed couldn't get a fair hearing in established publications.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I was wondering how you would weasel out of this. Nice backpedaling truther. Run away home. CD, is a joke, you are now the same.

Don't tell me your just another pretty face backing up your words with nothing.

I told Mark that I would not debate him on this forum. Just writing a paper and reprinting it here is the same thing. Go back and read my earlier posts from yesterday on this.

 

[Gravy]

You mean you aren't going to submit it to a journal?

A Journal? How about the American Journal of Enology?

You mean that something is about to happen that will render you incapable of dealing with me directly, as you are now?

Cut the crap, Tony, and leave out the cowardly and incompetent middlemen. This is a debate challenge. Either you agree to defend your paper in direct correspondence with me or you don't. Which is it?

 

[Revolutionary91]

Welcome to the forum Tony. As you can see, it's a bit bereft of any actual science at the moment. Lets hope you can help change that.