• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

90 Peer Reviewed Papers

JamesB

Master Poster
JamesB
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
2,152
It just amazes me how dishonest these truthers are. I was watching this video of Steven Jones posted on 911 Blogger, in which he is bragging about his Journal of 911 Studies. He amazingly claims that they have published "90 peer reviewed papers", not once, but twice.

http://911blogger.com/node/12469

Now one can obviously make a good argument that what they have is not "peer reviewed", but it is not even true. If you go to their website (since this journal does not exist anywhere in the real world) you can see the headline at the top:

40 Articles

The guy is lying about the publishing of his own freaking journal.
 
Last edited:
I am SHOCKED that the members of the Quote Mining for 9-11 Troof movement would stoop to such levels.
 
Steven Jones would never lie, thus your claims are all fake.
 
So he lies about thermite, lies about photos, lies about "peer-review" and is now lying about the number of articles he falsely claims are peer-reviewed.

Wow. :eek:

And this puke is the #1 scientist in the twoof movement.
 
Presumably Dr. Jones is referring to the "letters" as well to hit his total of 90.

Of course, we'll ignore for the moment that some of those letters refute some of the papers, some of the papers refute some others of the papers (e.g. Dr. Greening), or that none of them are peer-reviewed...

I'm still wondering just who he thinks he's fooling.
 
At over an hour in length the video may not last long on YouTube, since they have that 10 minute rule...though even in 10 minute sections, it's 10 minutes too much for my "stupid absorber" to handle.:hypnotize
 
R.Mackey said:
Presumably Dr. Jones is referring to the "letters" as well to hit his total of 90.

Of course, we'll ignore for the moment that some of those letters refute some of the papers, some of the papers refute some others of the papers (e.g. Dr. Greening), or that none of them are peer-reviewed...

I'm still wondering just who he thinks he's fooling.
Click to expand...


That is what I was thinking, but how anyone could consider them "peer reviewed papers" is beyond me. One of the letters is my exchange with Jones. One letter is a private e-mail I sent Laurie Manwell which I never intended to be "submitted" to a journal. One "peer reviewed paper" is Greg Palast apologizing for calling Jones a quack. Some elite academic research there.
 
Actually I should add, even one of his "40 peer reviewed papers" is nothing more than Jones' idiotic interview of Kevin Barrett in which he accuses Jews of every crime in history, and dances around the fact that over 3 million refugees have returned to Afghanistan since 9/11.

Yet another one is that idiotic Flying Elephants paper which they even admitted later was junk. A huge number of papers do nothing more than discredit the even stupider Star Wars theories. Hardly contributing much to the progress of science, but ironically that is among their best work.
 
JamesB said:
A huge number of papers do nothing more than discredit the even stupider Star Wars theories. Hardly contributing much to the progress of science, but ironically that is among their best work.
Click to expand...

Does that include Craig Jenkins' 56-page debunking of Judy Wood?
 
This thread reminds me of the "Truthers - lying or not" thread. Steven Jones was in academia, he KNOWS what peer reviewed means. I would guess most truthers (and the public) do not. This to me is lying.
 
If your going to lie about everything else, why not about your accomplishments.

TAM
 
I specifically told them that the letter I sent in was not a submission to their journal. Now he's claiming it is a paper they've peer-reviewed and published? I'm pretty sure publishing someone else's work when they've specifically told you not to is illegal.
 
Miragememories said:
You have to wonder why lawyers can ask for such a great hourly rate?

MM
Click to expand...
SPAM, short burst of spam;

No facts, just spam.

Jones is just like you; he makes up lies, like you make up spam. Other than the spam, what do you think about Jones and his journal of woo?
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
I specifically told them that the letter I sent in was not a submission to their journal. Now he's claiming it is a paper they've peer-reviewed and published? I'm pretty sure publishing someone else's work when they've specifically told you not to is illegal.
Click to expand...


It would be breach of copyright.

-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom