Sorry to stick my nose in here, so late... but would I be correct in making the following observations?
1. The initial complaint is nothing other than one huge ad hominem tu quoque fallacy -- specifically, since Mr. Szamboti's paper was never peer-reviewed, despite claims to the contrary, he seeks to deflect attention by remarking that one of his critics is also not peer-reviewed (though has never claimed to be).
2. Upon failure of the opening gambit, Mr. Szamboti then desires some sort of "official" debate on his "work," either (a) to bring badly needed traffic to the "Journal" for 9/11 Studies, or (b) to cloak his whitepaper in a veneer of plausibility simply by generating controversy.
If so, neither point is valid. As an un-reviewed whitepaper, un-reviewed responses are more than adequate. And the "Journal" for 9/11 Studies, being both hostile and misrepresentative of its true nature, is not an acceptable venue for discussion.
We can discuss (and have discussed) Mr. Szamboti's work in threads here, but I see absolutely no value to the Original Post. Whether or not Gravy's works are reviewed has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of Mr. Szamboti's opinions.
