Okay, given that the debate thing is going nowhere (Tony will not debate except in a manner that would require Mark Roberts to tacitly acknowledge J911S as a legitimate venue, when that legitimacy is the very issue being debated), I'm going to return to the OP issue of peer review of Gravy's work.
My own overall impression of Mark's work is a bit different from others' interpretations here. Some have compared him to an investigative journalist, but I propose a different interpretation that I think is better. Mark's work is, basically, the work of a historian.
Please don't misunderstand; to my knowledge Mark has never claimed to have the training or the credentials of an academic historian. But that's the best characterization of the work he's done: collecting all available evidence from primary and secondary sources, critically evaluating it, and from it producing the most objectively accurate possible historical narrative. That the historical events in question are
recent is irrelevant (except insofar as it allows the possibly confusing juxtaposition of historical scholarship and journalism). That the narrative that Mark's work supports is not an original one is also IMHO irrelevant (but see below).
I have great respect for good historians, and for the difficulty of the endeavor they undertake. Unlike most scientists, they cannot resolve an uncertainty by repeating an experiment with better observing instruments in place. They are limited to the available documentary evidence, and finding and accessing even the evidence known to exist (let alone revealing evidence not previously known) can be a monumental task. Like scientists, their work, no matter how thorough, is always in jeopardy of being overturned by new evidence. And like scientists, they aspire to discover objective truth. Literary critics (who must also contend with a limited pool of information to work from) can endlessly debate either side of the question of whether Shakespeare's Hamlet was really insane or faking it, with no fear of ever being proved wrong -- because Shakespeare's Hamlet never existed. Historians don't have that luxury. Though they can never establish the truth of a historical narrative beyond all doubt (and the good ones acknowledge this), an objective truth does in fact exist. Either Roosevelt had actionable advance warning of Pearl Harbor or he did not. All the debate in the world will not alter past events into one possible course, if they actually took another. All that debate can accomplish is who has made the best case for their narrative being the correct one.
Of course, there are many bad historians. Historical scholarship sometimes seems to attract people with sociopolitical or religious ideologies and agendas to promote. These people take advantage of the fundamental difficulty of honest history to mask intellectually dishonest work -- and thereby increase the difficulty of the endeavor for everyone else. Many of those dishonest practices are familiar to this forum: cherry-picking evidence, taking evidence out of context, biased assessment of the relative validity of evidence, outright fabricated evidence, unsupported claims, and logical fallacies of all types. In the ghetto of "post-modern" historical scholarship, the claim of consensual reality prevails, a self-serving solipsistic view that plays into the hands of those who strive not to reveal the historical narrative but to alter it to their own ends -- and argue their right to do so. (From there, it's not a very great leap to the idea that if one can manipulate an online poll to show x% support for something, that that public support magically becomes reality.)
With all this in mind, I'd love to see Mark's work reviewed by honest scholarly historians well-versed in comprehensive collection and assessment of primary sources (David Hackett Fischer comes to mind). I think it's strong enough not only to withstand, but to merit, such review. I don't see anything wrong with calling it a "peer review" either. Though Mark hasn't claimed credentials as a historian, if he's educated himself sufficiently about the relevant history and practiced appropriate scholarship, then other historians are his peers.
Here's what the Council of the American Historical Association
says about peer review:
Peer review means that a manuscript or research proposal will be read and evaluated by other scholars with expertise in the time period, subject matter, languages, and documents with which the author deals.
I would suggest that the relevant subject matter expertise include the methodologies of international criminal and intelligence investigation, construction codes and practices, terrorism, the aviation and insurance industries, post-Cold War U.S. military history (readiness, force disposition, etc.), and the psychology of witness reactions in traumatic circumstances.
The AHA statement continues:
As peers of the author in a specialized field, these reviewers provide analysis to the review boards of agencies on the scholarly significance of the article: Does the author display knowledge of existing work in the field? Does the research design, processes and methodologies, for example, conform with professional standards? Does the author advance an original argument and provide valid evidence to support the work? If particular areas are weak or absent in the presentation, the peer reviewers suggest revisions that will strengthen the project and call for resubmission before funding is awarded or a manuscript is accepted for publication.
The "original argument" provision is the only one here that might give historian reviewers pause about Mark's work. Indeed, I personally wonder why originality is important; if evidence suports an old argument instead of an original one is that not worthwhile? I can see not wishing to waste time repeating welll-known historical information (especially where journal papers or funded research is concerned), but I don't think that applies to Mark's work, given that it's addressing the arguments made by a vocal (if not very large or very respectable) historical-revisionist "movement."
Bad 9/11 history concerns me far more than bad 9/11 science. The cost of false history is bad decisions. The cost of bad decisions, in a technological age, cannot be overestimated.
With or without credentials, with or without peer review, honest historians, among whom I number Mark Roberts, are to be treasured.
Respectfully,
Myriad
