Journal of 9/11 Studies

[GregoryUrich]

From the home page of the Journal of 9/11 Studies

It is now our belief that the case for falsity of the official explanation is so well established and demonstrated by papers in this Journal that there is little to be gained from accepting more papers here. Instead we encourage all potential contributors to prepare papers suitable for the more established journals in which scientists might more readily place their trust.

Is this what I think it is?

 

[AZCat]

It seems they are rejecting your paper, or any new paper. Is the JONES shutting down?

 

[Myriad]

I'd be very interested in your perspective on what you think it is, Gregory.

It looks to me like a "quick, declare victory and get the hell out" maneuver.

The more interesting question is why. Was it just boredom/stagnation, or did your recent submission(s) on the collapse dynamics put them into a dilemma that helped nudge them in that direction?

I agree with them that your papers are worthy of a better venue.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[GregoryUrich]

I'd be very interested in your perspective on what you think it is, Gregory.

It looks to me like a "quick, declare victory and get the hell out" maneuver.

The more interesting question is why. Was it just boredom/stagnation, or did your recent submission(s) on the collapse dynamics put them into a dilemma that helped nudge them in that direction?

I agree with them that your papers are worthy of a better venue.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I have an e-mail into Kevin Ryan asking if papers refuting already published articles will be considered. Somehow I don't think so.

In the past few days, I've been banned at TruthAction and 911Blogger has put me on moderation and won't publish my blog posts or comments.

To me it looks like they are circling the wagons.

What journal would possibly publish the type of stuff I've been working on?

 

[GregoryUrich]

It seems they are rejecting your paper, or any new paper. Is the JONES shutting down?

More from the home page:

We will continue for the time being to provide a service for researchers who wish to present a new finding or a new point of view but who feel that their contribution would not be suitable for a mainstream journal.

I believe my articles should qualify, but Kevin Ryan has suggested I try for other journals. What other journal could possibly be interested in that NIST got the load distributions wrong? I'm suspicious.

 

[AZCat]

More from the home page:



I believe my articles should qualify, but Kevin Ryan has suggested I try for other journals. What other journal could possibly be interested in that NIST got the load distributions wrong? I'm suspicious.

I would not be surprised if you are being blacklisted by certain people in the "truth movement".

Maybe some of the others here could suggest other venues for publication of your articles if JONES refuses to accept them.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I have an e-mail into Kevin Ryan asking if papers refuting already published articles will be considered. Somehow I don't think so.

In the past few days, I've been banned at TruthAction and 911Blogger has put me on moderation and won't publish my blog posts or comments.

To me it looks like they are circling the wagons.

What journal would possibly publish the type of stuff I've been working on?

I predict that in only a short few weeks you'll become an acerbic grumpy debunker like the rest of us.

 

[Drudgewire]

Is this what I think it is?

An admission that nobody outside their own cheering section takes anything on their site seriously is how I read it.

"If you have something substantial, don't submit it here. It automatically loses all credibility before it even gets read."

 

[WildCat]

In the past few days, I've been banned at TruthAction and 911Blogger has put me on moderation and won't publish my blog posts or comments.

And what do you think about a "truth" movement so obviously opposed to... truth?

 

[beachnut]

You should know, after signing the “ample evidence” petition of 9/11 truth yourself, 9/11 truth has proven they pure fraud and truth NAZIs.

When did they prove their point and win the Pulitzer Prize? Those guys are pure nuts.

 

[Brainster]

What amuses me is the claim that due to the volume of work, it may take a long time to get published over there (with papers that have been rejected elsewhere). What volume of work? Since January, they have published two papers; one a four-page piece of fluff on probability, and the other a 27-pager on the economic impact of 9-11 that still (despite several corrections by JamesB) contains hilarious mistakes like this:



Only off by three orders of magnitude; close enough for "Truther" work.

 

[Newtons Bit]

What amuses me is the claim that due to the volume of work, it may take a long time to get published over there (with papers that have been rejected elsewhere). What volume of work? Since January, they have published two papers; one a four-page piece of fluff on probability, and the other a 27-pager on the economic impact of 9-11 that still (despite several corrections by JamesB) contains hilarious mistakes like this:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_9777486933a581507.jpg[/qimg]

Only off by three orders of magnitude; close enough for "Truther" work.

What's off by three orders of magnitude?

 

[BenBurch]

I have an e-mail into Kevin Ryan asking if papers refuting already published articles will be considered. Somehow I don't think so.

In the past few days, I've been banned at TruthAction and 911Blogger has put me on moderation and won't publish my blog posts or comments.

To me it looks like they are circling the wagons.

What journal would possibly publish the type of stuff I've been working on?

Greg, I am sorry that they are doing this to you. If anybody deserves both the respect of "truthers" and "debunkers" it is you.

I suggest a few ideas on categories of journals to attempt to publish in;

1. Any architectural or mechanical engineering journal that will accept letters of correspondence.

2. Any journal of recent history.

You will likely have to change the focus of your papers in ether case, but you should be able to get in the main points of your research.

Again, it is crappy that they are treating you like this.

-Ben

 

[JamesB]

What's off by three orders of magnitude?

I think Pat inadvertently quoted the one part in that paper where they actually got the number right.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/04/hey-who-said-that-jones-is-not-peer.html

 

[Brainster]

What's off by three orders of magnitude?

US Military expenditures in 2000 were not 301,697,000,000. (The table says the expenditures are in "Millions of Dollars".)

ETA: Okay, my bad. That number is right.

 

[JamesB]

That is the correct number, 301 billion, where they got it wrong is where they quoted.

Yet, expenditures climbed due to the fighting of two wars as part of the government’s War on Terror policy, going from $301,697 billion in 2000 to $546,018 billion in 2006.

and

Note, however, that deficits existed from 1992 (-$365.6 trillion) to 1997 (-$66.1 trillion). Only during the 1998-2000 period was there a surplus ranging from $37.9 trillion in 1998 to $159 trillion in 2000. While the 2001 deficit following the attacks ballooned from -$39.3 trillion in 2001 to -$529.7 trillion by 2003, the deficit appears to be on the decline, and by 2006 (-$344.8), shows it falling below 1992 levels (-365.6).

Now presumably if your post had undergone 3 rounds of peer review by PhDs in the appropriate fields (or by a little MBA like me), they would have caught that problem.

 

[JamesB]

Incidently, I sent Jones my "critique" and asked him how this paper managed to get through 3 peer reviews. I got no response, but the paper magically changed, with no note of revision, so the paper on there now does not match what was originally published.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/04/we-dont-need-no-stinking-academic.html

 

[CHF]

It is now our belief that the case for falsity of the official explanation is so well established and demonstrated by papers in this Journal that there is little to be gained from accepting more papers here. Instead we encourage all potential contributors to prepare papers suitable for the more established journals in which scientists might more readily place their trust.

Translation: "Well we think we've proven that 9/11 was an inside job but unfortunately the scientific/academic community views our publication as the complete joke that it is so we've really been wasting our time these past few years by pretending to be a real journal."

 

[The Big Dog]

Hee, hee! I had almost forgotten that ridiculous Economics paper they published: Horrible writing, worse analysis and completely destroyed on this very forum in less than two hours.

No wonder Jones and Waterboy pulled the plug on that silly web site.

 

[metamars]

I have an e-mail into Kevin Ryan asking if papers refuting already published articles will be considered. Somehow I don't think so.

In the past few days, I've been banned at TruthAction and 911Blogger has put me on moderation and won't publish my blog posts or comments.

To me it looks like they are circling the wagons.

What journal would possibly publish the type of stuff I've been working on?

Maybe the less insulting and monotonous truthers and "debunkers" could join forces and create a new journal. We could "cross the beams", as it were. I suggest calling it Journal of 911 Collapsology

OK, maybe that's not the best name in the world, but it's a concept.

But seriously, I find the timing of this somewhat off-putting. I'm sympathetic with the demands on Prof. Jones' and Ryan's time. However, I believe you are developing a number of papers. In light of recent marginalization and censorship (by banning) at the stj911 forum, I can't help but wonder if protecting intellectual turf (especially against your work) has more to do with this.

One thing you might try is talking to university engineers who don't follow 911 stuff. Some of them are pretty friendly, and will be impressed by your unrenumerated endeavors, to boot. Maybe they know of some kind of axiv.org for engineering papers.

Speaking of arxiv, maybe you should shoot for that? Charles M. Beck has published a collapse paper there. Unfortunately, there's no peer review.

Ooo, looking up Beck's URL, I see he now has a new paper on the WTC 7 collapse. I'll start a new thread.