• 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.

peer review.

Gravy said:
A Journal? How about the American Journal of Enology?

You mean that something is about to happen that will render you incapable of dealing with me directly, as you are now?

Cut the crap, Tony, and leave out the cowardly and incompetent middlemen. This is a debate challenge. Either you agree to defend your paper in direct correspondence with me or you don't. Which is it?
Click to expand...

I told you I would not debate the scientific issues with you here any longer, and you are trying to do an end around. I told you to write a letter to a journal critiquing my paper. It can be any journal. However, I believe the only chance your paper, on this subject, has of being published is in the Journal of 911 Studies. Are you afraid you will get cooties if you submit a letter to them? Journals ensure civility and legitimate debate.

In an e-mail I informed Dr. Jones that I had challenged you to write a critiquing letter of my paper. I am sure it would be published, as was Newton's Bit's letter concerning his critique of one of Gordon Ross' papers.

I also said you are welcome to reprint the letters, yours and mine, here after they are published.

Feel free to take your time writing it.
 
Last edited:
realcddeal said:
As complete as your reply here is I am surprised you didn't mention the fact that some publications in history have also been started because the controversial nature of what was being discussed couldn't get a fair hearing in established publications.
Click to expand...

There are three very good reasons for that. It's not relevant, it's not relevant, and it's not relevant.

First of all, I'm not aware of any such journals -- I assume you would like to claim that J9/11S is one such, but the quality of the papers makes it clear that a "fair hearing" would result in their rejection from established publications. Granted, with tens of thousands of publications out there, there may be a very few that started due to the process you describe, but they're rare enough to qualify as "noise in the system," especially when what you were asking was the process by which "all those other journals" started.

As a matter of fact, prior to about ten years ago (-ish), the process you describe wouldn't really have even been possible. In the age of print (as opposed to electronic) publishing, the individual unpopular scholars wouldn't have been able to get together to share their views outside of the ordinary channels of scholastic publishing. If I am the only person in California with an interest in Elvish Linguistics, and you're the only person in Ireland with the same interest.... how will we find each other without the Web?

If you are aware of any now-reputable journals that started because the early researchers couldn't get quality research published in mainstream journals, please let me know.

The second reason that it's not relevant is because that's a common lie, told by hundreds if not thousands of quacks, frauds, and reprobates -- a good
example of how that lie is told is through the "Journal of Historical Review," essentially a quasi-journal devoted to Holocaust Denial, claims simply to be providing an alternative channel for politically unacceptable writing. The actual situation is now a matter of public record following Irving's loss in Irving vs. Penguin Books. In point of fact, that lie almost always covers the fact that the journal was in fact, created to avoid standard standards of scholarship -- in the case of JHR, "don't falsify evidence" was one such standard.

The third reason it's not relevant is because the quality of the articles published in J9/11S make it clear that "a fair hearing" in the mainstream press would have resulted in outright rejection for all the papers I read. Not just for the fact that their conclusions are unpopular, but for the simple reason that the papers are appalingly badly-written. The paper is rife with minor errors such as missing footnotes and bad formatting, and with major errors such as a complete lack of any background or reference to the existing literature with the single exception of the NIST report. Perhaps some of the papers could be cleaned up and made acceptable for publication. The fact that they weren't is a good illustration of how bad the "review" is at the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

So: not relevant, not relevant, and not relevant.
 
Gravy said:
Correct. The expert opinion of someone who produces and reviews actual scholarly work for reputable journals.
Click to expand...

I believe the subjectivity of the peer review process has been brought to light here by experienced people like Dr. Greening and others.
 
realcddeal said:
I told you I would not debate the scientific issues with you here any longer, and you are trying to do an end around.
Click to expand...
Any longer? You haven't even started. You have repeatedly refused to read the information I've cited, and your entire criticism of NIST here has been to claim the the investigators are frauds and the witnesses liars.

I told you to write a letter to a journal critiquing my paper. It can be any journal.
Click to expand...
Tony, do you even read what you write? Why in the world would I write to "any" journal about your paper? Please try to make sense.

Here's the only journal I'd actually consider writing to about your paper.

Your paper is not published in a journal that has any credibilty. JONES is a dumpster filled by frauds and cowards and I won't have my work on their website. Remember, its supervisor of peer review just ran away from the chance to debate me, after proclaiming that no one was willing to defend the official version of the tower collapses. He had to hide behind the skirts of the 9/11blogger mods and have them ban me. He never responded to my emails. Yep, the people at JONES are fearless seekers and defenders of truth. These are the leaders of your movement, Tony. Think about it.

Your refusal to defend your paper is noted by all. You couldn't even refute the points I raised against it before people knew you were the author.

Man, I hate intellectual cowards.
 
realcddeal said:
I told you I would not debate the scientific issues with you here any longer, and you are trying to do an end around. I told you to write a letter to a journal critiquing my paper. It can be any journal. However, I believe the only chance your paper, on this subject, has of being published is in the Journal of 911 Studies. Are you afraid you will get cooties if you submit a letter to them? Journals ensure civility and legitimate debate.
Click to expand...


So, if I or someone else here created the Journal of Gravy Critiques, complete with web site and official sounding statement of purpose and editorial board and everything like that, that would qualify as a journal, right?
 
realcddeal said:
I believe the subjectivity of the peer review process has been brought to light here by experienced people like Dr. Greening and others.
Click to expand...
An amazing statement, if you're trying to defend JONES.
 
realcddeal said:
I told you I would not debate the scientific issues with you here any longer, and you are trying to do an end around. I told you to write a letter to a journal critiquing my paper. It can be any journal. However, the only chance your paper on this subject has of being published is in the Journal of 911 Studies.
Click to expand...

Tony, you seem to be operating on the assumption that Journal of 911 Studies is an actual journal worthy of scientific or public respect. It's not! It's a kook rag created by one of your "brightest" minds because he couldn't get a real journal to give his mindless idiocy the time of day.

He created a journal and hired his pal Kevin Ryan in order to get his work "peer-reviewed" because no one else could be bothered. How many other journals started up for that reason, Tony? How do you expect people to regard a journal like that?

I told you to write a letter to a journal critiquing my paper. It can be any journal.
Click to expand...

It can be any journal. That's how serious you take publication and peer-review.
 
jsfisher said:
So, if I or someone else here created the Journal of Gravy Critiques, complete with web site and official sounding statement of purpose and editorial board and everything like that, that would qualify as a journal, right?
Click to expand...


Quite possibly a better one than J9/11S. Depending upon who you got for the board. For example:

  • Yourself (as Editor-in-Chief)
  • Wile E. Coyote
  • Santa Claus
  • King Theoden of Rohan
  • Captain Jean-Luc Picard
  • Iron Man
  • The Tin Woodsman
  • Darth Maul
  • and Captain Nemo

would probably work. I'd trust the technical expertise of your board over theirs....
 
Revolutionary91 said:
Why are these scientists even lowering themselves to debate these laymen?
Click to expand...

Because -- for my sins -- I am not just a "scientist." I am, unfortunately, an "educator," and part of my penance is therefore that I have to teach people things.

In this case, I'm trying to teach whoever will listen exactly what is involved in the peer-review process, exactly what distinguishes a good journal from the bottom of a bird cage, and how scientific publication really works.
 
Revolutionary91 said:
Why are these scientists even lowering themselves to debate these laymen?
Click to expand...

Mark's actually doing you guys a favour, Rev.

No real scientist can be bothered wasting their time on twoofer idiocy; just like how famous historians don't sit down and debate Holocaust Deniers.

People like Mark are at least offering you guys someone to debate - someone who doesn't have degrees in engineering but has read up on twoofer lore and is willing to take twoofers on.

Thus far we've seen that your brightest minds don't have the balls to take on a NYC tour guide.

So what bloody hope do you have against real scientists?
 
Revolutionary91 said:
So you are saying Greening isnt a real scientist?
Click to expand...

You're right for once. I forgot about Frank.

Yes, Greening is indeed a scientist, and his published work on 9/11 has demolished its share of twoofer claims.

Good example, Rev.
 
CHF said:
He created a journal and hired his pal Kevin Ryan in order to get his work "peer-reviewed" because no one else could be bothered. How many other journals started up for that reason, Tony? How do you expect people to regard a journal like that?
Click to expand...

First banana : I say, I say, I say,... How is the Journal of 9/11 Studies' web page like the bottom of a bird cage?

Second banana : I don't know, how is the Journal of 9/11 Studies' web page like the bottom of a bird cage?

First banana : Because they're both simply covered with ****!

[rimshot]
 
CHF said:
Mark's actually doing you guys a favour, Rev.

No real scientist can be bothered wasting their time on twoofer idiocy; just like how famous historians don't sit down and debate Holocaust Deniers.

People like Mark are at least offering you guys someone to debate - someone who doesn't have degrees in engineering but has read up on twoofer lore and is willing to take twoofers on.

Thus far we've seen that your brightest minds don't have the balls to take on a NYC tour guide.

So what bloody hope do you have against real scientists?
Click to expand...


Rev is hilarious. Remember, it was Rev who challenged me to debate Kevin Ryan, who ran like a scared bunny. In case Rev missed it, these "scientists" aren't debating these laymen, because they know they'll be humiliated.

realcddeal is an aerospace engineer. You'd think he could handle someone with no science training, but he can't, because he has abandoned the principles of science in favor of political rants.
 
CHF said:
You're right for once. I forgot about Frank.

Yes, Greening is indeed a scientist, and his published work on 9/11 has demolished its share of twoofer claims.

Good example, Rev.
Click to expand...

So if they have a real scientist like Greening to tangle with, why would they bother to debate a tour guide? Greening is also a true skeptic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom