Journal of 9/11 Studies

[Max Photon]

They're probably just a bunch of Swede-haters.

 

[LashL]

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



Is this what I think it is?

Link, please?

ETA: Oh, never mind. I've found it now.

The *cough* "journal" of 9/11 Stundies has always been a pathetic mockery of a "journal" and has never had any legitimacy whatsoever. It's always been a crock of BS for presenting itself as a "journal" at all, and it has never had any legitimacy, so you're not lost anything there, GregoryUrich.

The illegitimate Journal of 9/11 Stundies deserves to die. If any of the work that you submitted there is worthy of publication in a legitimate journal, it will find a home elsewhere. So, don't sweat it.

 

[Dog Town]

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

...

-Ben

Agreed, he reminds me of Russ P. Wonder what ever happened to Russ? My fave Pentagon twoofer, in the "good O'l days".
Good luck Greg. Remember... we have cookies!

 

[R.Mackey]

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?

Astonishing.

My first instinct about what it means was, "Even Dr. Jones is bored of the Truth Movement."

After re-reading their bizarre spin, however, it smells a little more like money. Either somebody is tired of footing the bill, or somebody else wants more say in the Movement. That would be consistent with your getting locked out elsewhere.

But I won't behave like a conspiracy theorist. It's possible the events have nothing to do with each other.

In any case, this simply demonstrates what we've been saying all along -- the Truth Movement is not scientific in nature. What we have here is a demonstration of good science, being carried out by its own members, excluded without justification. Draw your own conclusions. In contrast, while I haven't always agreed with your work, I respect and even support it. I've even learned from it.

I don't know where to publish your latest findings. Conferences would probably accept them as-is, journals I'm not so sure of. You might want to consider teaming with an academic, such as Dr. Benson, who has an interest as well as ties to journals such as JOM or ASCE J. Perf. Struct. I don't have special insight into those journals myself.

 

[Minadin]

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 Kevin Ryan will continue to fall somewhere between "fool" and "idiot" on the academic scale. I might not agree with all of your opinions or findings, Greg, but you are by far his superior.

 

[zorro99]

The demise of the Journal coupled with the near-simultaneous failure of the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative are pretty good signs that the sun is rapidly setting upon the Truth Movement.

 

[jhunter1163]

I find it ironic that a "truth" movement would blacklist someone who appears to be honestly seeking the truth. I'll echo the other posters here; GU, while I may not agree with your conclusions, your papers are several cuts above most of the rest of the Truth* movement and certainly worthy of discussion. I hope they find a home somewhere.

* - Truth as spun by Bush-haters and sold for $15 with free added extras

 

[Dave Rogers]

Gregory,

I was thinking of making a bet with you that your work on the WTC collapses would never be published in the Journal of 9-11 Studies. I'm glad I didn't, because I wouldn't want to profit from the treatment you're getting from a group of unashamed liars. You and your work deserve better from them.

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

To put it bluntly, this stinks. I think Gregory deserves better and I hope this is a lesson to lurkers as regards the integrity of the so called truth movement.

I tend to enjoy most of the threads involving Gregory's work unfortunately they do tend to get spoiled by the likes of hewia and others with the usual nonsense.

 

[cludgie]

I do like how they've declared victory on establishing an irrefutable case for the troof before closing the doors though. Bless.

 

[bje]

I don't know where to publish your latest findings. Conferences would probably accept them as-is, journals I'm not so sure of. You might want to consider teaming with an academic, such as Dr. Benson, who has an interest as well as ties to journals such as JOM or ASCE J. Perf. Struct. I don't have special insight into those journals myself.

I note that Journal of 9/11 Studies proudly claims that, "One paper has already been published in a mainstream civil engineering journal: Fourteen Points... and more are being prepared for submission," refers to Bentham Open Access, who "are launching up to 200 peer-reviewed open access journals. These free-to-view online journals cover all major disciplines of science, technology, and medicine."

Never heard of it, much less if they are credible. Perhaps it's a legit place for Gregory to explore.

 

[boloboffin]

I wonder if the Bentham model is something J911S has been looking at and kicking themselves over.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Never heard of it, much less if they are credible. Perhaps it's a legit place for Gregory to explore.

They charge authors for publication, something that the serious scientific press tends not to do. "Legit" isn't the first word that springs to mind.

Dave

 

[deep]

I note that Journal of 9/11 Studies proudly claims that, "One paper has already been published in a mainstream civil engineering journal: Fourteen Points... and more are being prepared for submission," refers to Bentham Open Access, who "are launching up to 200 peer-reviewed open access journals. These free-to-view online journals cover all major disciplines of science, technology, and medicine."

Never heard of it, much less if they are credible. Perhaps it's a legit place for Gregory to explore.

Many of the regular contributors here feel that Bentham Open Access is a "vanity journal", even though I personally explained the concept of an "open access journal" to them at least 4-5 different times.

Just to eliminate any potential confusion, here's an excerpt from a book titled "How to Find Information: A guide for researchers, Second Edition" (Sally Rumsey, pg. 94):

Open Access

Access to scholarly information is an issue that is exercising many working at the cutting edge of research. Open access has two related facets: (1) open access journals which are free at the point of access, payment having been made earlier in the publishing process by for example, the author’s institution or the funder of the research and (2) open access repositories where the research material is placed in an online store provided by, for example the researcher’s institution, and made freely available via the Internet.

For a directory of open access journals, check out the Directory of Open Access Journals @ http://doaj.org .. as a matter of policy, they will only list peer-reviewed journals (or journals with some equivalent form of editorial quality control). The Bentham journals are all listed there.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Many of the regular contributors here feel that Bentham Open Access is a "vanity journal", even though I personally explained the concept of an "open access journal" to them at least 4-5 different times.

Nobody's failing to understand you. The problem is that the commercial pressures on an open access online journal are always in favour of reducing editorial standards and hence obtaining more paying contributors. Hosting content is cheap, so more authors paying for more publications results in more revenue at minimal extra cost. A traditional journal where the recipients pay to read is subject to a very different pressure. If perceived quality falls, readers are likely to switch to other journals, resulting in a loss of revenue. That's not to say there isn't merit in the open access journal concept, but there are reasons to be highly skeptical of the model. And the responses to Ryan Mackey's enquiries appear to have shown some disturbing irregularities in the way Jones et al's paper was peer reviewed, which in itself doesn't give a good impression of the journal.

Dave

 

[The Big Dog]

Gee, deep44, "even though I personally explained the concept of an "open access journal" to them at least 4-5 different times" gosh, thank you for taking the time!

Now why don't you go read the thread on this very website talking about Bentham and the investigation that was conducted into their "peer review" process.

"as a matter of policy, they will only list peer-reviewed journals (or journals with some equivalent form of editorial quality control)."

O'Rly? You did not read that thread before posting this, now did you?

Go do it. We'll wait. In the meantime, I will continue counting the gross violations of fourth grade grammar in the Journal of Stundies “peer reviewed” article about the economic impact of 911 I’m up to 212.

 

[deep]

Gee, deep44, "even though I personally explained the concept of an "open access journal" to them at least 4-5 different times" gosh, thank you for taking the time!

Hey - you're very welcome. It would literally be impossible to respond to all of the laughably ignorant statements that debunkers try to pass off as the truth in any given day, but I do what I can.

Now why don't you go read the thread on this very website talking about Bentham and the investigation that was conducted into their "peer review" process.

"as a matter of policy, they will only list peer-reviewed journals (or journals with some equivalent form of editorial quality control)."

O'Rly? You did not read that thread before posting this, now did you?

As strange as it may sound, I'm not responsible for creating the policies over at doaj.org. If the thread you're referring to has any real merit (highly doubtful), I'm sure the folks over @ DOAJ would be interested in hearing about it.

Here's the answer from their FAQ to backup my earlier claim:

http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=loadTempl&templ=faq#definition

 

[deep]

In the meantime, I will continue counting the gross violations of fourth grade grammar in the Journal of Stundies “peer reviewed” article about the economic impact of 911 I’m up to 212.

Do you understand the difference between "peer review" and "copy editing"?

Given the fact that the Journal of 9/11 Studies is an open access journal w/o any charge for publication (or any other form of revenue generation), I'm not surprised that they can't afford to hire a copy editor. Perhaps you should volunteer -- it sounds like fourth grade grammar is still pretty fresh in your mind.

 

[The Big Dog]

As strange as it may sound, I'm not responsible for creating the policies over at doaj.org. If the thread you're referring to has any real merit (highly doubtful), I'm sure the folks over @ DOAJ would be interested in hearing about it.

[/URL]

That highlighted portion of the post is the epitome of the Twoof movement. He "doubts" whether the thread was worthwhile, BUT HE DID NOT TAKE THE TIME TO FIND IT LET ALONE READ IT!

I was going to link to it, but you know what, Deep, your research skills have been destroyed by the Truth movement, so baby steps.....

 

[JamesB]

Do you understand the difference between "peer review" and "copy editing"?

Given the fact that the Journal of 9/11 Studies is an open access journal w/o any charge for publication (or any other form of revenue generation), I'm not surprised that they can't afford to hire a copy editor. Perhaps you should volunteer -- it sounds like fourth grade grammar is still pretty fresh in your mind.

LOL, so you are telling me that a paper written by a PhD, that supposedly underwent 3 series of "peer reviews" by other PhDs, cannot be expected to follow at least grade school standards of grammar and spelling unless they hire someone professionally to edit it? And this is not even getting into the numerous errors of fact, incorrect math, contradictory statements and poor analysis.

If so I fear for the state of higher education in this country.