90 Peer Reviewed Papers

[JamesB]

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.

[Good Lt]

I am SHOCKED that the members of the Quote Mining for 9-11 Troof movement would stoop to such levels.

[Mancman]

Steven Jones would never lie, thus your claims are all fake.

[CHF]

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.

And this puke is the #1 scientist in the twoof movement.

[Bell]

Originally Posted by Mancman

Steven Jones would never lie, thus your claims are all fake.

That JamesB has to resort to such low meassures

[R.Mackey]

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.

[OldTigerCub]

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.

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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.

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.

[uk_dave]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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

Bofors and 90% of LCF

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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

Look around, some of them mingle among us. In fact, I expect a couple may just drop into this thread.

[LashL]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

...I expect a couple may just drop into this thread.

Hopefully not on their heads. They seem to have had quite enough of that in their childhoods.

[JamesB]

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.

[CHF]

Originally Posted by JamesB

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.

Does that include Craig Jenkins' 56-page debunking of Judy Wood?

[slyjoe]

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.

[T.A.M.]

If your going to lie about everything else, why not about your accomplishments.

TAM

[Newtons Bit]

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.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

You have to wonder why lawyers can ask for such a great hourly rate?

MM

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?

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

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.

It would be breach of copyright.

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

Can Jesus be far from Tijuana?

[CptColumbo]

I wonder what it is like to be such a liar, with his pants constantly on fire?

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by CptColumbo

I wonder what it is like to be such a liar, with his pants constantly on fire?

Pants are expensive; I'd go broke if every pair I wore burst into flames.

[CptColumbo]

Originally Posted by twinstead

Pants are expensive; I'd go broke if every pair I wore burst into flames.

Mine only do it occasionally, and for a much different reason.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by CptColumbo

Mine only do it occasionally, and for a much different reason.

Oh, I hate when THAT happens...

[Swing Dangler]

Originally Posted by JamesB

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.

Lets review the definition of "paper":written or printed document or the like,
stationery; writing paper, a newspaper or journal, an essay, article, or dissertation on a particular topic: a paper on early Mayan artifacts.

Actually Genius, the Journal of 9/11 Studies has 90 "papers" listed. Those papers are divided up into 50 letters and 40 articles. Please revisit elementary school for the definition of paper and basic math...or just stop being deceitful..

I expect more from a debunker than that, JamesB.
.

[SDC]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

Lets review the definition of "paper":written or printed document or the like,
stationery; writing paper, a newspaper or journal, an essay, article, or dissertation on a particular topic: a paper on early Mayan artifacts.

Actually Genius, the Journal of 9/11 Studies has 90 "papers" listed. Those papers are divided up into 50 letters and 40 articles. Please revisit elementary school for the definition of paper and basic math...or just stop being deceitful..

I expect more from a debunker than that, JamesB.
.

Your statement is either intentionally deceitful or based on ignorance. Take your pick. In the academic world -- the one in which "peer review" is a concern -- letters or reviews or other brief and incidental communications are not regarded as papers. If on my professional CV I listed the like as "papers" I'd be laughed out of the room. How about this; don't try to defend or justify indefensible statements such as the 90 papers claim. It only makes you look very, very silly.

Oh yeah. CV = curriculum vitae, high-falutin' academic talk for resume.

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

Lets review the definition of "paper":written or printed document or the like,
stationery; writing paper, a newspaper or journal, an essay, article, or dissertation on a particular topic: a paper on early Mayan artifacts.

Actually Genius, the Journal of 9/11 Studies has 90 "papers" listed. Those papers are divided up into 50 letters and 40 articles. Please revisit elementary school for the definition of paper and basic math...or just stop being deceitful..

I expect more from a debunker than that, JamesB.
.

They published one of my letters. It is not peer-reviewed. Get it?

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

They published one of my letters. It is not peer-reviewed. Get it?

You are all being unfair about this whole peer-review thing. According to Merriam-Webster, a perfectly valid definition of "peer" is "companion."

Hire a hooker. Show her the article. Viola! Peer-reviewed.

[slyjoe]

Viola - is that her name or what she plays?

[Swing Dangler]

Originally Posted by SDC

Your statement is either intentionally deceitful or based on ignorance. Take your pick. In the academic world -- the one in which "peer review" is a concern -- letters or reviews or other brief and incidental communications are not regarded as papers. If on my professional CV I listed the like as "papers" I'd be laughed out of the room. How about this; don't try to defend or justify indefensible statements such as the 90 papers claim. It only makes you look very, very silly.

Oh yeah. CV = curriculum vitae, high-falutin' academic talk for resume.

One, your reading comprehension skills and knowledge of vocabulary are lacking substantially to offer a rebuttal to my comment.

Lets take a look at my statement in regards to peer reviewed:

Quote:

Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It is used primarily by editors to select and to screen submitted manuscripts, and by funding agencies, to decide the awarding of grants. The peer review process aims to make authors meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields. Even refereed journals, however, can contain errors.-WIKI

Lets examine the definition of article-# A nonfictional literary composition that forms an independent part of a publication, as of a newspaper or magazine.

As you probably don't know, composition means: the act of combining parts or elements to form a whole. In this case letters and articles from the parts of the whole (Journal of 9/11 Studies). A short essay, especially one written as an academic exercise.

A letter is a written or printed communication addressed to a person or organization and usually transmitted by mail, in this case email.

Finally, your bunk is junk.

Quote:

Newtons Bit-They published one of my letters. It is not peer-reviewed. Get it

?
I didn't see the author, Newton's Bit, anywhere in the journal.

[Apollo20]

There are journals that have titles like: "Chemical Physics Letters"; "Geophysical Letters";
"Physical Review Letters".......

Articles in these journals are considered to be on a par with papers in journals without the word "letters" in their titles. Some landmark papers were "letters". Papers are often submitted as "letters" because publication times are shorter and some researchers want a paper out in a hurry to avoid being scooped.

I think people are placing far too much importance on this issue and on the question of peer review. Some research is very difficult to review. For example, the chemical analysis of a corrosion deposit cannot be verified unless the reviewer has the same sample to work with.

I have seen falsified data submitted to the ASTM and accepted for publication. It's a fine line between "massaging" data and fudging data...

There is a famous misprint in a journal I have seen: "The data were plotted and produced a straight lie" (instead of "line"!)

I read papers in the Journal of 9/11 Studies and decide on the value of the paper on a case by case basis. I have seen a lot of junk papers in what are considered to be "good" journals....

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

I didn't see the author, Newton's Bit, anywhere in the journal.

Letter to Gordon Ross June 12, 2007
Anonymous (NB: Anonymous letters are strongly discouraged)

You have an incredible investigative ability. And yes, that's sarcasm. And no, my letter is not peer-reviewed.

[Par]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

Lets examine the definition of article-# A nonfictional literary composition that forms an independent part of a publication, as of a newspaper or magazine.

As you probably don't know, composition means: the act of combining parts or elements to form a whole. In this case letters and articles from the parts of the whole (Journal of 9/11 Studies). A short essay, especially one written as an academic exercise.

Etymological Fallacy

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

Finally, your bunk is junk.

What does this mean? Is it hip-hop language?

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

I have seen a lot of junk papers in what are considered to be "good" journals....

I imagine that has something to do with the publish or perish philosophy in academia.

[SDC]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

One, your reading comprehension skills and knowledge of vocabulary are lacking substantially to offer a rebuttal to my comment.

Lets take a look at my statement in regards to peer reviewed:



Lets examine the definition of article-# A nonfictional literary composition that forms an independent part of a publication, as of a newspaper or magazine.

As you probably don't know, composition means: the act of combining parts or elements to form a whole. In this case letters and articles from the parts of the whole (Journal of 9/11 Studies). A short essay, especially one written as an academic exercise.

A letter is a written or printed communication addressed to a person or organization and usually transmitted by mail, in this case email.

Finally, your bunk is junk.

?
I didn't see the author, Newton's Bit, anywhere in the journal.

This whole "response" ranks as one of the silliest bits of disconnected word-chopping since the glory days of, well, whatever. It really comes down to your apparent claim that JONES is a well-respected mainstream publication. Nope. It isn't.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

There are journals that have titles like: "Chemical Physics Letters"; "Geophysical Letters";
"Physical Review Letters".......

Articles in these journals are considered to be on a par with papers in journals without the word "letters" in their titles. Some landmark papers were "letters". Papers are often submitted as "letters" because publication times are shorter and some researchers want a paper out in a hurry to avoid being scooped.

I think people are placing far too much importance on this issue and on the question of peer review. Some research is very difficult to review. For example, the chemical analysis of a corrosion deposit cannot be verified unless the reviewer has the same sample to work with.

I have seen falsified data submitted to the ASTM and accepted for publication. It's a fine line between "massaging" data and fudging data...

There is a famous misprint in a journal I have seen: "The data were plotted and produced a straight lie" (instead of "line"!)

I read papers in the Journal of 9/11 Studies and decide on the value of the paper on a case by case basis. I have seen a lot of junk papers in what are considered to be "good" journals....

While I agree, that some topics are hard for the peer reviewers to verify in terms of data/results, all papers can be peer reviewed to make sure the "science" used in them is legit, to make sure the paper meets a certain standard.

For instance, while I would not expect a LEGITIMATE peer review panel to decide on the legitimacy or authenticity of Steven Jones' samples prior to publishing, I would expect them to review and approve or disapprove of the science he uses in his analysis. I would also expect them to make some comment, and perhaps consider disapproval of such, if he could not show a "chain of custody" for said samples.

TAM

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

.....

I have seen falsified data submitted to the ASTM and accepted for publication. It's a fine line between "massaging" data and fudging data...

.....

Give citations, or retract.
Your unsupported BS and hatred is getting tiresome and libelous.

[1337m4n]

Originally Posted by Par

Etymological Fallacy




What does this mean? Is it hip-hop language?

Yo Yo Yo! Yo' bunk is junk, yo! Crackaz be hatin' on me n' mah G'z cuz we be bringin' da Trooth! Y'all get down wit it dat yo' bunk is junk! You be hatin' on me, cuz I spreadin' tha Trooth, you be hatin' on me cuz I raisin tha roof! Yo bunk is junk, yo!

[Swing Dangler]

Originally Posted by Par

Etymological Fallacy
What does this mean? Is it hip-hop language?

I'm suprised. You can't even call a fallacy correctly. Because my definition of Peer Review came from Wikipedia as of today. If you analyze Wikipedia's explanation of Peer Review, then the Journal of 9/11 Studies indeed qualifies for that definition.

And to end any further discussion of this not a "peer-reviewed" journal I submit this following definition from Cal Poly Library Services, Robert E. Kennedy Library:
Finding Peer-Reviewed Journals and Journal Articles

Quote:

There is no comprehensive source for identifying all peer-reviewed journals. To help determine if a particular journal is peer-reviewed, refer to the journal itself (either to an individual issue of the journal or to the publisher's web site) or to Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory (volume 5 of Ulrich's lists the major peer-reviewed journals within the "Refereed Serials" section). The Directory may be requested at the Reference Desk at Kennedy Library.Source: http://www.lib.calpoly.edu/research/guides/peer.html

Oh and one other thing, the next time a debunker calls the Journal of 9/11 Studies not a Peer Reviewed publication, make sure you debunk them with the above information so I don't have to.

Your bunk is still junk.

Quote:

SDC-It really comes down to your apparent claim that JONES is a well-respected mainstream publication. Nope. It isn't.

Please cite that claim that I supposedly made or retract that statement. Well respected is of course a matter of personal opinion which has no bearing on the definition of 'Peer-Reviewed'.

Hey T.A.M. Nice picture. I'm not sure what to think. Although for humor's sake, I liked your other one with Mel Gibson's Braveheart.

[CHF]

Swing, if a Holocaust Denier wrote a paper and got it reviewed by other Holocaust Deniers in a Holocaust Denial publication...would you consider it "peer-reviewed?"

Yes, apparently you would.

Quote:

To help determine if a particular journal is peer-reviewed, refer to the journal itself (either to an individual issue of the journal or to the publisher's web site)

So take their word for it, in other words.

[T.A.M.]

SO your arguement, swing, is that if Stephen Jones tells us that his journal is peer reviewed, than that is good enough?

Quote:

To help determine if a particular journal is peer-reviewed, refer to the journal itself (either to an individual issue of the journal or to the publisher's web site

uh huh....ya that seems reasonable.

Oh, thanks wrt the avatar. The mask is not meant to represent you, but rather the truth movement (through their favorite movie hero) as a whole.

TAM