• 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.

The Journal of 9/11 Studies is publishing again.

Dave Rogers

Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Dave Rogers
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
34,741
Location
Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
I see, after following a link in another thread, that the Journal of 9/11 Studies has an October issue out. The last I heard of that august journal was when, back in June, Gregory Urich submitted his paper demonstrating that the collapse times of the Twin Towers were consistent with gravity-driven collapse propagation and hence were not evidence for explosives. His paper was rejected on the grounds that the case was considered to be made already, and so no more papers were to be published by the journal.

GregoryUrich said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is this what I think it is?
Click to expand...


Yet now it seems the case is un-made, papers are being published again, and Gregory's is not among them. Could it be that there was never any intention to cease publication, and the message was simply a smokescreen to cover up the fact that they were rejecting a paper that was factually accurate but didn't support their agenda?

Alternative explanations would be received with skeptical interest.

Dave
 
All I know is that the phrase The Journal of 9/11 Studies is one of the biggest misnomers around.
 
does this result surprise you in any way.

Sham journal with singular agenda rejects paper that directly counters the premise of their agenda.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
does this result surprise you in any way.

Sham journal with singular agenda rejects paper that directly counters the premise of their agenda.

TAM:)
Click to expand...



...even though it was written by someone generally sympathetic to their position on 9/11.

Pathetic, that is.
 
Dave Rogers said:
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.
Click to expand...
Could it be that there was never any intention to cease publication, and the message was simply a smokescreen to cover up the fact that they were rejecting a paper that was factually accurate but didn't support their agenda?

Alternative explanations would be received with skeptical interest.

Dave
Click to expand...
i think the reactivation of the vanity journal is a direct result of the utter failure of the goal ive bolded :)
 
So the journal of 911 studies is not readily trusted by scientists? Wow, this is a quite a revelation. It's gonna take me some time to process this shocking piece of information, I mean it's like my whole world has been turned upside down. I don't know what to believe now. Next I'll be told that pilots for truth consists mainly of amateur pilots or even flight attendants who have never flown a commercial aircraft.
 
GregoryUrich is the one truther I have respect for. He genuinely seems to want to follow the evidence wherever it leads; hence the paper mentioned above.

It'a a shame that the "scientists" at JONES don't accept real science when it's handed to them by one of their own.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Could it be that there was never any intention to cease publication, and the message was simply a smokescreen to cover up the fact that they were rejecting a paper that was factually accurate but didn't support their agenda?
Click to expand...

How suspicious of you, Dave. One might even be so bold as to call this...conspiratorial.

I will venture to say that until you get an answer from the editors explaining their decision, you will be left with nothing but idle speculation.
 
sdemetri said:
How suspicious of you, Dave. One might even be so bold as to call this...conspiratorial.

I will venture to say that until you get an answer from the editors explaining their decision, you will be left with nothing but idle speculation.
Click to expand...


I hope you're not trying to put his "idle speculation" about a sham journal on the same level as truthers' "rabid speculation" about the circumstances surrounding the deaths of 3,000 people...

Because that would be crazy.
 
Dave,

At this point, I share your opinion regarding the Journal of 9/11 Studies. I consider both my "Open Letter to Richard Gage" and the paper on the meaning of the collapse times to be valid contributions to the discussion of controlled demolition. They have also ignored my paper on load distribution in WTC1. The journal's explanation is that these are not sufficiently ground breaking to spend their time on reviewing. I understand that the journal is understaffed and has no budget, but somehow they found time to review my 43 page paper on the Mass of WTC1 when they were publishing several papers a month. The three papers which they have refused to consider are short and simple and would together require much less effort than the mass paper. I no longer consider the Journal of 9/11 Studies to be a scientific journal but rather a propaganda outlet for a group of activists that has reached erroneous conclusions based on poor science.

/Greg
 
GregoryUrich said:
I no longer consider the Journal of 9/11 Studies to be a scientific journal but rather a propaganda outlet for a group of activists that has reached erroneous conclusions based on poor science.

/Greg
Click to expand...

That is wise. Welcome to our side of thought (at least on this matter).
 
GregoryUrich said:
Dave,

At this point, I share your opinion regarding the Journal of 9/11 Studies. I consider both my "Open Letter to Richard Gage" and the paper on the meaning of the collapse times to be valid contributions to the discussion of controlled demolition. They have also ignored my paper on load distribution in WTC1. The journal's explanation is that these are not sufficiently ground breaking to spend their time on reviewing. I understand that the journal is understaffed and has no budget, but somehow they found time to review my 43 page paper on the Mass of WTC1 when they were publishing several papers a month. The three papers which they have refused to consider are short and simple and would together require much less effort than the mass paper. I no longer consider the Journal of 9/11 Studies to be a scientific journal but rather a propaganda outlet for a group of activists that has reached erroneous conclusions based on poor science.

/Greg
Click to expand...

No sour grapes there, I trust, Greg? Where can your three papers be found? I'd be glad to look through them if they are available.
 
Like Greening, when it came to 9/11, G.U. did not let his views get in the way of science...at least from what I have read from him.

TAM:)
 
sdemetri said:
No sour grapes there, I trust, Greg? Where can your three papers be found? I'd be glad to look through them if they are available.
Click to expand...

I base my opinion of the journal more on it's content than the exclusion of my work from the review process. The articles by Kuttler and Ross are cited regularly even after the editors were well aware of problems with those articles.

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/FalaciousCdArguments2_14.pdf

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/loadDistribution_v1.pdf
http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/calcCriticalLoad.pdf

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/OpenLetterToRichardGage.pdf
 
GregoryUrich said:
I base my opinion of the journal more on it's content than the exclusion of my work from the review process. The articles by Kuttler and Ross are cited regularly even after the editors were well aware of problems with those articles.

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/FalaciousCdArguments2_14.pdf

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/loadDistribution_v1.pdf
http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/calcCriticalLoad.pdf

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/OpenLetterToRichardGage.pdf
Click to expand...
You have signed the petition claiming "ample evidence" for 9/11 truth, but have no evidence, just opinions!
You joined the terrorist apologist groups of AE911Truth and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice; without evidence to support the ideas.

Oops; you hold out hope for the fantasy of thermite. Not sure why, but you are trying to ignore reality and glom to thermite.

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/OpenLetterToRichardGage.pdf
Please don’t mistake me for a NIST apologist or an official cover-up story
believer.
Click to expand...
I would fear someone may mistake you for a terrorist apologist like the rest of 9/11 truth after signing the "ample evidence" petition of truth and joining evidence free 9/11 truth groups.
The truth movement needs to be very sure of its claims to avoid being dismissed as ignorant fools, nut-jobs or politically motivated manipulators. http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/OpenLetterToRichardGage.pdf
Click to expand...
Funny, ironic? The entire 9/11 truth movement is based on nut-job ideas, and has always smacked of biased political tripe misinterpretations spread as gospel and the faithful terrorists apologist just eat it up like candy as they go on a witch hunt.

0.001 percent of all world engineers are incapable of understanding how 19 terrorist did 9/11. How anti-intellectual of them; how did you suspect rational thought and join them?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom