peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal re: 9/11

[elias7]

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

Also, it should be noted that scholars for 911 truth list Jones' work and Griffith's work as peer-reviewed, contrary to many discussants comments noted in this forum

[dailykoff]

1. Thanks for the link.

As far as peer review, this appears to meet every definition of a peer-reviewed scholarly journal that I know of, so any article appearing in it should be considered peer-reviewed, unless otherwise indicated, like a book review.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. You need to consult the definition of a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

Stat.

[Grateful for Hope]

3. Can you supply that definition?

If you are a nay-sayer, then it is up to you to supply the definition.

Thank you in advance.

[BuddyYoung]

4. Maybe we should demand that all OCT posts here be peer reviewed

Not so the CT'ers will be embarassed, rather, just to make sure they know what they're talking about and that they aren't here just to be promoting disinformation like a common shill might do.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Relying on actual peer-reviewed work would be sufficient.

Hell, just dealing with papers written by experts in the actual field of study would be a good start.

[greyl]

60. If the posts are advertised as being peer reviewed

go right the fuck ahead.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Glad to, Hope.

First, check out Wikipedia. The article on peer review is pretty decent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field. It is used primarily by publishers, to select and to screen submitted manuscripts, and by funding agencies, to decide the awarding of monies for research. The peer review process is aimed at getting authors to meet the standards of their discipline and of science generally. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields.

Stephen Jones has written a paper on 9/11, but he never even submitted it to actual experts in the field who worked for his university. Here's what they had to say when they got their hands on a copy:

http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/04/09/443801bdadd6e

April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

http://www.et.byu.edu/ce/people/people.php?person=1&page=miller/vita.php

"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Now that's peer review. People with doctorates in the field under consideration in the paper are saying Stephen Jones's 9/11 paper is full of shit. He has no business writing papers in this field, much less serving as the editor for a scholarly journal that reviews these kinds of matters. Plus the damn thing isn't even published - it's electronic only. Evidently Jones can't even get the BYU press to put the words down on paper, and college press are supposed to be publishing the works of their professors.

That's Jones. How about the other editor: Prof. Judy D. Wood - Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University

http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/pdfs/Wood1.pdf

Quote: She is a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), IADR (International Association for Dental Research), and the Academy of Dental Materials.

Therefore she's not qualified to review any scholarly paper for a peer-reviewed scholarly magazine. She's an assistant professor! At least Stephen Jones has tenure, for God's sake.

So much for the editors of this travesty of a "scholarly journal". How about the Advisory Editorial Board, the "referees", as it were, the ones reviewing the works for publication? They are listed as follows:

ADVISORY EDITORIAL BOARD

Alex Floum, Marcus Ford, Derrick Grimmer, Richard McGinn, Kimberly Moore, Robert Moore, Diana Ralph, Kevin Ryan, Robert Stevens, Lon Waters and Paul Zarembka.

Who are these people? Most of them are listed on this page:

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html

Alex Floum (Attorney), Marcus Ford, (Humanities, NAU) Derrick Grimmer (Derrick P. Grimmer, Physics, Alternative energy), Richard McGinn (Associate Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and Southeast Asian Studies, Ohio University. Former chair of Linguistics (10 years) and Director of Southeast Asian Studies (4 years) at Ohio University), Kimberly Moore (listed under Society Associates - no given profession; Robert's wife?), Robert Moore (Attorney, Member, Connecticut Pro Bono Network), Diana Ralph (Associate Professor Carleton University School of Social Work. Author of Work and Madness: The Rise of Community Psychiatry), Kevin Ryan (Former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories), Robert Stevens (not listed here), Lon Waters (High performance computing Software engineering Sandia National Laboratory) and Paul Zarembka (not listed here).

Attorneys? Software engineers? Linguistic professors? Humanities professors? Physics professors? These people have no business reviewing these types of "scholarly" papers.

Plus, the bulk of these people cannot claim neutrality to these topics - they are, with only two exceptions, listed on an advocacy website! This doubly disqualifies them from reviewing these papers - they are advocates, not neutral referees, and they have no post-graduate degress in the necessary fields to review these papers!

Therefore, this scholarly journal isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Claims that these articles are "peer-reviewed" are out-and-out lies.

[BuddyYoung]

8. Are there any PRO-Bushco911CT peer-reviewed papers that u can cite?

I know we shouldn't expect the outstanding research of all the intellectual giants that post here to have been peer-reviewed, but surely they RELY on peer-reviewed papers as the source for their opinions and beliefs, so how about telling us which peer-reviewed papers they base their claims on.

Thanks, I'll hold - but when you return bring a list, not a Quack-Quack.

[elias7]

9. if you would dig a little deeper

on the website you reference, you would find this page, http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Comments_Jones_05May2006.html, which not only has multiple, though often informal comments by structural engineers, mechanical engineers, professors in related fields, etc., as well as verification that a peer review process has occurred not once but twice for one of Jones' papers.

When you so vehemently and hastily call these people liars, one wonders what your agenda is. Though by my post, you could reasonably ask what mine is as well.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Multiple, as in maybe two.

The others are the other members of the asylum. One of them is Jones' co-editor.

If Jones' paper has been submitted to peer review and accepted, then it would be scheduled to be published in a reputable journal. The fact that it is not, combined with the premise that it has been submitted, means that the paper was rejected by experts in the field. There are no two ways about it.

Jones is a rightwing nutcase, btw. I feel no guilt whatsoever in exposing their lies and deceptions and calling them the liars that they are. They are big fat stinking liars with no agenda worth defending here at the Democratic (not Libertarian) Underground.

[BuddyYoung]

35. Too Funny!

"big fat stinking liars with no agenda worth defending here at the Democratic (not Libertarian) Underground"

Ditto the Bushco911FairyTale Supporters/Promoters/Truth Suppressors - we should also feel no guilt whatsoever in exposing THEIR lies, deceptions, disinformation, and bullying attempts to get people banned.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. Got some names, Buddy?

We've given our names (the advisory editorial board for this craptacular piece of deception masquerading as a scholarly journal.

You seem to be talking about actual DU posters, however. Why don't you alert the moderators?

[BuddyYoung]

43. Got some answers, bolo? See post #8

nt

[petgoat]

10. Those expert opinions are silly.

Dr. Firmage offers his opinion without having read the NIST report, and after reading
only a summary of the FEMA report. He cites the temperature at which steel weakens
and neglects to mention that there is no evidence that the WTC steel reached that
temperature. He appears to believe some form of the zipper theory, and to be unaware
that the NIST report repudiates that theory. Some expert.

Dr. Miller's objections are so vague as to be meaningless.

If these people want any credibility ascribed to their views they should address
specific points.

As to the qualifications of the st911 team, well, you have to work with the people
you've got. It would be nice if engineers were thronging the gates offering help, but
they're not.

The argument that an advocacy group lacks objectivity is somewhat circular. Certain
facts and issues naturally lead to certain positions. You might as well argue that
Amnesty International lacks credibility because it is not objective about torture.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Why aren't engineers "thronging the gates", petgoat?

Your phrase. Why do you think that is?

Could it be, oh, I don't, possibly...

...that they know Jones and his crew are full of shit?????

Could be...

[petgoat]

31. "Could it be that they know Jones and his crew are full of shit?"

Could be.

But I rather doubt it, because the experts you cite haven't even bothered
to investigate the issues enough to be able to comment without embarrassing
themselves.

Professional people have obligations to people other than themselves--clients,
partners, their families. Such obligations are generally inconsistent with
participating in controversial activities.

There would be much inhibition to commenting on the collapse of a 100-story
building when you'd never designed a 100-story building and when you can't
see the blueprints.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. Jones and his wacked out crew have no such inhibition.

Further evidence of their calumny in this Scholarly Journal debacle.

[BuddyYoung]

44. Sounds like the BushCT'ers are getting nervous about the scholars.

Further evidence that "it's" not working as well for the Bushco911 conspiracy apologists as it used to. At the rate things are going, Bushco is going to have to start paying people to defend it's 911 fairy tale AND try to suppress the truth from spreading any further than it already has. Maybe with some professional assistance the OCT'ers will acquire some effective new tactics.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Only the ignorant (whether willfully or innocently) will be fooled by this

And the innocently ignorant deserve better.

[petgoat]

49. Said counsel for the defence of the OCT nt

[Bolo Boffin]

51. If you think I'm Jazz2006

you're hopelessly wrong, and your ability to discern the truth about anything is fundamentally disabled.

[petgoat]

53. I don't think you are Jazz, I think you're acting like her. nt

[petgoat]

48. Jones is perfectly well qualified in freshman physics

and Fetzer and Griffin are qualified by a lifetime of philosophical reasoning
to spot bullshit when they see it.

[Bolo Boffin]

50. That doesn't qualify them to write articles on structural engineering

and it certainly doesn't qualify them to edit a scholarly journal that reviews these matters.

It's outright deception to claim otherwise.

[petgoat]

52. They aren't writing articles on structural engineering.

They're writing articles on physics.

Without access to the blueprints, you can't write an article
on structural engineering.

[wildbilln864]

86. and bolo...

Wy is it that some here are obviously against investigating the events of 911, is something that we should consider. Why the devotion to debunking the legitimate questions and those who ask them? He thinks he's smarter than those who disagree maybe? Then why come back daily to dispute them? It really doesn't matter to us what you believe! It doesn't answer the questions!

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

91. Hmmmm

I don't think I've ever advocated against a free, honest, open inquiry into the events of 9/11, nor that I don't think some of the things we have been told might turn out to be untruthful. You are, of course, free to find a post of mine where I claimed such a thing. Knock yourself out.

But Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

[wildbilln864]

110. thank you bolo and I didn't specifically mean...

you per say but I did get that impression. Sorry if it was wrong. Others here do seem to be content to accept the OCT however. 77 May indeed have hit the pentagon, but why not show the evidence? All the evidence!
The main thing to me is that this event never should have happened and someone is responsible and should be held accountable. Mainly the pResident of the U.S. And it all just fits so neatly with what the PNAC website lays out about it's need for a "New Pearl Harbor".
And so coincidentally most of those same PNACers are at large and in charge today!

http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm

[greyl]

93. "Legitimate questions"

There are many legitimate questions, yes. The horrifying thing is that illegitimate questions outnumber and outshine them. There's nothing wrong with mounting a valid argument showing how some lines of inquiry are fruitless. It's wrong to think all questions are valid and that they all need to be asked over and over even after they've been cogently addressed over and over.

[wildbilln864]

57. I think we...

all know who's full of shit here, blobo!

[Jazz2006]

13. Just the fact that the thing had to be introduced with a proviso about

its being "peer reviewed" - according to the website of the authors themselves and nobody else - was enough of a tip off that it has not, in fact, been peer reviewed in the usual and normal sense of the phrase.

But the fact that the structural engineering professors at Jones' own workplace "without exception" do not agree with Jones' claims and the fact that they think Jones' claims are inaccurate and without validity ~ well, that says a whole lot more.

It is obvious that the only reason it is "online only" is because it cannot pass any legitimate peer review process and is so faulty that it cannot be published in any legitimate scholarly publication.

Edit: typo.

[dailykoff]

14. Evidently you don't do much research.

Either that or you never passed freshman writing, or maybe both. Ditto Mr Bolo who has fallen into a mysterious silence.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. God d*mn.

I'm criticized for "spending all my time here" debating and debunking, and now you're criticizing me for "not spending all my time here" debating and debunking.

Get real.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dailykoff]

24. The question is whether you understand the term "peer-reviewed."

And the obvious answer is, you don't.

[Jazz2006]

26. I do. Obviously, you do not.

Nice try, though.

It seems that even your fellow tinhatters are not impressed with your posts. Oh well, that's your problem.

And your research skills still seem to be non-existent.

[dailykoff]

62. Then you should should know better

than to make yourself look foolish. This journal meets every definition of "peer reviewed."

[Bolo Boffin]

64. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

The editors are not qualified to be editors of a scholarly journal, the reviewers are not qualified to be reviews of scholarly articles, the entire lot of them not only possess no neutrality on the issue but are advocates of a particular viewpoint, and the articles are not worth the paper they are printed on.

This journal meets exactly none of the definitions of "peer reviewed".

[BuddyYoung]

66. Well yes, bolo, not only all THAT, but READERS of it aren't even qualified

One of the many problems with all this is what happens when unqualified readers respond to articles in scholarly journals. The Disinformation Brigade fear the wrath of their bosses if the journal gets favorable publicity, Truth Suppressors read the articles and ratchet up efforts to discredit it, and Truth Seekers gain a better, deeper, understanding of not only what happened on 911 and how to explain it to people whose only knowledge about it is from FOX News, BUSHCO, OSAMA, and the hordes of Bushco apologists/promoters here on the Net; they also learn more about what all is being done to try and prevent the general public from getting any funny idas about how the real world works.

What needs to happen is to find SOME way to keep unqualified readers away from scholarly journals whose editorial content have not been Oficially approved for general audiences in Trailer Park, Alabama, Salvador Dalis, Texas, or all of those rubes living it up down in Sector 5.

[Jazz2006]

71. Yes, exactly so, boloboffin.

Nobody with any capacity whatsoever for rational, analytical or critical thought would believe for a second that this internet based faux "journal" has any legitimate basis upon which to call itself a "peer reviewed" scholarly journal at all.

[Jazz2006]

68. Nice try, dailykoff, but as usual, a ridiculous assertion on your part.

The faux "journal" does not meet the definition of peer reviewed, despite your repeated and unsupported assertions to the contrary.

You're not fooling anyone, you know.

[dailykoff]

72. Go to any college library

and ask a reference librarian what peer reviewed means. They'll probably give you a nice handout with a list of criteria.

p.s. don't forget to read it before dropping it on the floor.

[Jazz2006]

74. You aren't fooling anyone, dailykoff. Nice try but....

Get thee to a university ~ find out what "peer reviewed" actually means. Then come on back and play again.

Edit: to correct typo "trty: to "try"

[Grateful for Hope]

77. Really

:rofl:

Like we take you seriously.

[Jazz2006]

95. Really.

Like I care what the likes of you thinks of me.

:shrug:

[petgoat]

109. Whatever. Your avatar and your smiley make a revealing pair. nt

[Jazz2006]

113. ?? Say what you mean and mean what you say.

That should not be difficult for anyone posting from a truthful perspective. Ohhhhhhh, I guess that's the reason for your inability to do so.

Here's an example for future reference: Your repeated non sequiturs and lame posts reveal all that any reasonable reader needs to know about your dvd and tee shirt shilling agenda.

[petgoat]

114. I did. Hey Jazz, I hope you'll weigh in on the

"Video Evidence Reveals Debris From WTC 1 Collapse Hitting WTC 7" thread.

Bolo is having some serious trouble there.

[Jazz2006]

115. No, you haven't. And no, he isn't.

Despite your unfounded assertions.

[petgoat]

116. Ah I didn't say what I meant? Are you Madame Sosostris the

psychic, or did you hire a psychic instead?

My "unfounded" assertions, which you apparently failed to check, involve
the CNN screenshot that bolo claimed showed a WTC1 perimeter column
among the WTC7 debris.

My measurements of this structure show that its proportions are inconsistent
with the WTC1 perimeter columns. Since I've already shown two other pictures
of WTC7 wreckage which superficially appears to be WTC1 perimeter columns
but isn't, the conclusion that bolo's CNN wreckage is another imposter is
justified.

I also pointed out that the FEMA report figure 1-7 of collapse debris damage
based on analysis of aerial photos completely leaves WTC7 out of the heavy
debris field (someone on this board--I'm sorry I've forgotten who--pointed
this fact out to me).

I'm disappointed that you apparently did not check out the thread on this.
I wanted you to bring your considerable analytical, research, and legal reasoning
skills to bear on the controversy and provide some objective judgement.

:shrug:

[mirandapriestly]

28. They are not going to read in their time off

and they have to make abusive disinformation posts while they are working, that is why they never have links or their own research.

[BuddyYoung]

36. Very good points. They don't even pretend to be sincere,

objective, or interested in learning and spreading the truth. Only in suppressing the truth.

[salvorhardin]

58. Sincerity

"As conscious beings, we exist only in response to other things, and we cannot know ourselves at all without knowing them. Moreover, there is nothing in theory, and certainly nothing in experience, to support the extraordinary judgement that it is the truth about himself that is the easiest for a person to know. Facts about ourselves are not peculiarly solid and resistant to skeptical dissolution. Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial - notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit."

— On Bullshit, Harry G. Frankfurt, pg 66

[mirandapriestly]

76. So did you google "sincerity"

and come up with that?

[Grateful for Hope]

78. Good question MP n/t

[salvorhardin]

80. Just a book I recommend.

I think you'd enjoy it too.

On Bullshit
by Harry G. Frankfurt
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691122946

You can buy it as an audio download for $3.49.

[greyl]

94. Yes, it's a great one.

I think most people here could read it in less than a week.

[salvorhardin]

107. I agree

Both it and Sagan's Demon Haunted World have shaped my thinking greatly.

I particularly liked the distinction that Frankfurt drew between lying and bullshit.

[mirandapriestly]

98. So that's how you learn how to bullshit.

from a book.

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Good point.

Actual scholarly journals don't need to call themselves peer-reviewed.

And they might have online editions, but they do pony up the cash for some paper and ink.

[Jazz2006]

23. Indeed.

But when tinhatters can't get their work published in any legitimate peer reviewed scholarly journal or publication, what do they do?

Create an online tinhat "journal" which they try to fool the public into believing is a legitimate scholarly journal.

Pretty sad, that.

[Ka hrnt]

29. That caught my eye too;

You're right, the "peer reviewed" is nothing more than an appeal to authority; how many of these "reviewers" have any authority on matters of structural engineering? It'd be like having an atheist "peer review" the Bible... ;)

[dailykoff]

30. There are some here who need the label. (n/t)

[readmoreoften]

117. An atheist "peer review" the Bible.

That doesn't even make sense. An atheist would be no less objective than a Yahwehist.

[Bolo Boffin]

119. The Bible isn't science. n/t

[dailykoff]

120. Apparently it's political science

for a couple of well known nations.

[readmoreoften]

121. Uh, other things get "peer reviewed" besides science.

The post I was responding to was a poor analogy that was my basic point.

[mhatrw]

55. So it's "peer reviewed" if it confirms the official story.

And it's not "peer reviewed" if it doesn't.

"If you mention Jesus in your speech (usually about Abortion, Gay Marriage), it is Small Government. If you do the things Jesus asks you to do (such as help the poor and less fortunate, work for peace, provide healthcare), it is Big Government."

Stephen Colbert

[BuddyYoung]

56. With that excellent quote from Mr. Colbert. You've hit on

one of the many ways "they" are intellectually dishonest. What purpose is served by such a large (or seemingly large) group of usernames all using the exact same tactics as rightwingnuts use in their Bushco propaganda sales efforts? Aren't they concerned that thinking people will suspect they aren't sincere and have a hidden agenda that most DUers would not take kindly to?

[Bolo Boffin]

59. Not quite. It's peer reviewed if it's peer reviewed.

A if and only if A, in other words.

[dailykoff]

61. And it's peer reviewed.

Look it up.

[Bolo Boffin]

65. The hell it is. n/t

[Jazz2006]

69. No, it isn't. Look it up.

[dailykoff]

73. I did. (n/t)

[Jazz2006]

75. If so, you'll agree that this doesn't cut "peer reviewed".

[dailykoff]

81. Most law schools have librarians who can explain this to you.

Most real ones, anyway.

[Jazz2006]

96. I do not require any explanation, dailykoff.

I already know what it means. Unlike yourself, for instance.

[BuddyYoung]

67. Were the NIST, ASCE, FEMA, 911CR peer reviewed or not?

If they weren't, then I don't know, and it's just my opinion, but I'm wondering why anyone should you people seriously, seeing as how all of you rely on all that Propaganda (masquerading as "important", comprehensive Reports). If those Reports have not been peer reviewed, they are useless to anyone except Disinformation Agents.

[hack89]

111. All the draft NIST reports were posted for public comment.

but then you must know that , seeing how familiar you are with the NIST reports.

[dailykoff]

12. Please list any criteria that are lacking, thanks (n/t)

[Bolo Boffin]

18. I guess you missed my post #6. n/t

[dailykoff]

21. There are no missing criteria listed in post #6. Case closed. (n/t)

[Jazz2006]

25. Case closed, yes ~ it is certainly not peer reviewed and the team Jones

website is certainly no "scholarly journal".

Pretty cut and dry all right.

[WoodrowFan]

5. BOL

Apparently having the OTHER inmates in the asylum read your work now counts as "peer reviewed." :crazy:

[mirandapriestly]

11. Who are you referring to as

inmates in the asylum, specifically?

[Bolo Boffin]

15. The other inmates in the asylum are

the advisory editorial board of this bullshit "scholarly journal" we're talking about, miranda.

I think that's pretty clear.

[mirandapriestly]

27. So you think they are "crazy"? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

40. On this subject, they are fruit loops in the selfsame bowl.

I have no doubt that they are more than functional in the rest of their lives, but in this case? They're advocating a fantasy based on tissue-thin conjectures and outright deception. Yes, in this part of their lives, they are insane.

[WoodrowFan]

33. it reminds me of the IHR

It reminds me of the Institute for Historical Review and their journal, "The Journal of Historical Review." True-believers talking to other true believers, all pretending to do real research.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Historical_Review



Do the creationists have a "peer reviewed" (cough cough) journal as well??

[salvorhardin]

38. Rivista di Biologia

You can read about it here:
http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/blog/?p=351

A so-called list of "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)".
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640

[WoodrowFan]

63. why am I not surprised

When you can't get you blather past those who really undertsand the subject, create a "journal" for the other true believers, call it "peer reviewed" and fleece the suckers...

[Jazz2006]

70. Exactly.

Nothing at all surprising about it in these circumstances ~ this is a group of fake self-proclaimed "truth seekers" spouting unsubstantiated nonsense while hawking dvds and tee shirts, after all ~ no surprise at all that they also try to falsely assume legitimacy by attempting to pass off a lame internet "journal" as peer reviewed when they can't get their nonsense published in any legitimate journal.

Sad, really, but entirely predictable coming from this group of poseurs.


Edit: grammar.

[mirandapriestly]

54. This is the bunny picture that represents you guys.

[BuddyYoung]

37. They aren't at the Fried Chicken College of fundamentlist Bible Knowledge

in Greasyville, Deep South, so we're not talking about ignorant rightwingnuts. I think that's pretty clear. They may not be as scholarly as most of us experts here at DU, but at least they aren't trying to help keep the public ignorant of the EvilDoers in Bushcoville.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. No, they're kicking by the Salt Lake in Polygamiville, Utah.

You are unfamiliar with the rightwing nutcases that make up most of the Mormon church, I take it. Check out Orrin Hatch sometimes. That's a rightwing Bushco nutcase. You seem to have some problem telling which is which...

[BuddyYoung]

45. Crazy Orrin is another RWnut that supports the Bush911 conspiracy theory

You seem to be denigrating a fellow traveler as well as LDSers everywhere. Why do you hate them?

[Bolo Boffin]

47. After Greasy Fried Chickenville, you want to play the hatred card?

You don't even care how much of a hypocrite you appear to be, do you?

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

82. So wounded at an accusation? Stop flinging them all the damn day long.

Nope. You just don't care what you say. Your posts display no common thread but a feverish desire to stalk and excoriate me and any other actual Democratic progressive who dares stand against the monumental tide of ignorance unleashed against left-leaning Internet sites in the name of "9/11 truth".

You have a particular agenda against me, because I can so easily prove who I am, and what I stand for. I am the exception that blows your self-serving rules to shreds. Above all else, I have to be taken down and silenced, because I do stand for the truth, and I don't allow you and anyone else to get away with posting bullshit here. Your fear of me is so palpable that you have to resort to this latest crap: you have tracked down every available fact about me you can on the Internet and openly slurred every one.

You have posted about Dan Rather's demise. I played a small part in getting the word of Bush's Guard service record out there.

You slam Greasyville, Alabama. I'm from Alabama.

You slam Texas. I'm living in Texas right now.

You slam Bible Colleges. I graduated from a Bible college.

You insult me for being an actor, insinuating that I'm only acting out a part here.

You need to get a life, buddy, whoever the hell you are.

[BuddyYoung]

83. So, do you agree it's important to expose RW Disinfo agents/supporters?

If you "stand for the truth" then you should be willing to SPEAK truth to power and help us get the word out that the RW uses truth suppressors in all media outlets. Can we count on boloboffin to do that? You have a rather unique way of expressing yourself, very subtle yet blunt, as though without fear of failure of getting your message out there PERMANENTLY and without fear of losing your right to do so. That's why voices like yours are sorely needed to help get the word out about the dangers of using state-sponsored terrorism to further a right-wing agenda that isn't in the interests of a self-proclaimed actor, gay man, Dan Rather disliker, Bible College graduate, and former traveling salesman for the Red Goose Shoe Company (or is that somebody else?). Your fellow countrymen need you.

P.S. I'm Buddy Young. MervinFerd is one of YOUR fellow Progressive Troopers for Truth.

[Bolo Boffin]

84. Of all the lies you've ever spoken about me, BuddyYoung,

calling me a Dan Rather disliker is the worst one yet.

Who says I don't consider myself to be fighting a RW truth suppressor as I type this very post, B. Y...U?

[BuddyYoung]

85. Sorry. I thought that's what YOU meant about Mr. Rather.

You must have changed your views about him since I see that you do not now dispute the truthfulness of his report about OBL's hospitalization starting on 9/10/2001.

IMO - Rather is an ambitious man who lied about what happened on 11/22/63 and has never apologized or said he was wrong. He sold his soul by becoming a willing purveyor of lies and Agent of Disinformation.

[Bolo Boffin]

87. I've not changed my opinion of Mr. Rather at all. n/t

[BuddyYoung]

89. Oh, so you're saying you have always supported him here or not?

Please clarify, because it seems that you (or someone posing as you) HAS changed. Unless I'm mistaken, didn't you in effect accuse him of not being trustworthy when he reported that OBL was in the military hospital at Rawalpindi - or were you referring only to CBS, the network, not their anchorperson Dan Rather?

P.S. If it helps jog your memory, it was back when you were denying the truthfulness of Mr. Rather's report on CBS that OSAMA entered the military hospital at Rawalpindi on 9/10/2001.

If you'd like to clear all this up, now would be a good time.

[Bolo Boffin]

90. All cleared up, in the appropriate thread. n/t

[BuddyYoung]

92. Not really. Is it a flip-flop? Unwillingness to admit the truth? Ronald

Reagan defense ("I don't remember")? Too embarassed to talk about it?

What does "All cleared up, in the appropriate thread." MEAN? Are you saying anyone that goes to the trouble of checking the right threads will see that at one time bolo claimed that it wasn't true that Osama was hospitalized on 9/10/2001 and that the only source for that claim was Dan Rather, of CBS, and that the story wasn't true and Dan Rather's report shouldn't be trusted. Recently, YOU claimed that OBL WAS in the hospital and for evidence, you cited the very report you earlier said wasn't true and shouldn't be trusted!

Don't you understand that unless and until you clear that up, people should be skeptical of other claims you've made about this and other issues?

[Bolo Boffin]

97. "Is it a flip-flop?" Another Republican talking point from BuddyYoung.

"All cleared up in the appropriate thread" means just what it says, Buddy. I'm using English here. This thread is about one topic, and another thread is dealing with the Osama in the hospital/Dan Rather report, and I answered it there. Pack up your indignation and take it to the other thread to unload...

[BuddyYoung]

99. Your posts about Osama are contradictory, despite which thread they're in.

Let's recap what you did.

When Dan Rather reported that Osama was actually admitted to a military hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on 9/10/2001, boloboffin claimed that Dan Rather and CBS coudn't be trusted and that it wasn't true that Osama had been admitted to a hospital on 9/10. Incidentally, you did the same thing whenever it was first reported that Osama was hospitalized in Dubai from 7/01-7/10/2001. This was reported by the respected French newspaper "le Monde". You tried to discredit THAT story by saying that "le Monde" isn't a trustworthy source. Did you do that because it was also reported that the local CIA Station Chief visited Osama during his hospital stay?

Most recently, boloboffin posted a message saying that Osama WAS in the military hospital, and he cited DAN RATHER and CBS as his source for the story.

What is boloboffin's explanation for all of this as well as HIS OWN credibility and reputation for being reliably consistent?

[Bolo Boffin]

100. Why are you hijacking this thread?

Go to the Osama thread to talk about this.

[BuddyYoung]

101. Why won't you just clear up your problems right here? No one will care.

Your efforts to avoid having to come to grips with this issue can only make people wonder why.

[Bolo Boffin]

103. I will participate in your efforts to hijack this thread no longer.

Over in the Osama thread my post stands, where it belongs. Here, it's a distraction from the issue at hand.

I am not going to respond at all to this in this thread. I have responded to this in the Osama in the hospital thread.

Period.

[petgoat]

102. Maybe I'm missing something, but is it real simple-minded to

think that in the field of 9/11 Studies "peer-reviewed" means review by
other 9/11 scholars?

[Bolo Boffin]

104. Yes.

Otherwise, your criteria would make creationist journals "scholarly".

[petgoat]

105. Peer review is review by experts in the field.

Since only another 9/11 scholar can be an expert in the field of 9/11 scholarship,
where are you going to get your experts otherwise?

The experts you cited, Dr. Miller and Dr. Firmage, only demonstrated their
ignorance in their remarks.

Why can't creationist journals be scholarly? If a creationist writes a paper on
a technical geological subject and it's rigourous and facual, how is it not
scholarly?

[AZCat]

106. The creationist example you gave...

only becomes peer-reviewed if the paper is reviewed by peers in the geological field. Review of a scientific subject by those who are peers in a non-scientific field (or alternatively, "meta-field") does not qualify IMO.

I think that the field of 9/11 investigations is a meta-field (one that includes topics from several scientific areas) and in order for articles on 9/11-related topics to qualify as peer-reviewed they must be reviewed by peers in the scientific communities connected to that particular article.

Does this make sense or is it a bit convoluted? :shrug:

[petgoat]

108. It makes sense. My post was dumb.

:blush:

[AZCat]

112. No sweat.

Pursuit of truth, and all that. :)

[readmoreoften]

118. Ah, they used to say the same thing about gender studies.

We don't ask for right wing fundamentalist academics to review scholarly journals on gender theory to establish some Fox News sense of "fair and balanced." Many scholars are not disinterested when it comes to the work they review.

[petgoat]

122. Good point. What gender studies needs is some right-wing

MDs interpreting everything through a lens of "Women's natural role is to bear and raise
the children" and "They are unsuited for responsible positions because of their tendency to
feel icky at times, and any failure to acknowledge this is proof of their irrationality".

[KJF]

32. At first glance...

... it looks like a step in the right direction. It's basically the people from ST911. I had a look at a couple of the pieces and they are better (or perhaps less bad would be a better term) than the stuff on the scholars' website. I notice Fetzer doesn't seem to be mentioned; if he has not much to do with it, then this could well be the reason for the improvement. Here's hoping.

[elias7]

34. Agreed