Skeptic Project

And the reviews are in!

Muertos spewed:
"Example: you can’t find a legitimately peer-reviewed scientific paper claiming that the World Trade Center towers were blown up. Papers of that nature simply don’t exist."

Apparently this dumb fuck troll has never seen this web site:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/<br /> "The Journal of 9/11 Studies, a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal, covering the whole of research related to the events of 11 September, 2001. Many fields of study are represented in the journal, including Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Psychology. All content is freely available online. Our mission in the past has been to provide an outlet for evidence-based research into the events of 9/11 that might not otherwise have been published, due to the resistance that many established journals and other institutions have displayed toward this topic. The intention was to provide a rapid acceptance process with full peer review. That has been achieved. 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. Refereed papers have already been published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals: Fourteen Points...[Bentham] and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for energetic materials [SpringerLink], and Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe [The Open Chemical Physics Journal] . Further papers are now in the peer-review cycle.
We will continue for the time being to provide a service for researchers who wish to present a new finding or a new point of view but who feel that their contribution would not be suitable for a mainstream journal. We will also be happy to receive sound, substantial work which has nevertheless been rejected by others. However, due to the volume of work, there may be substantial delays in publication here in the future. Thank you for your interest in careful research.

Sincerely,
Kevin Ryan, Frank Legge, and Steven Jones, co-editors

"

Kindly tell this dumbfuck troll, after he's read those peer reviewed papers, several of which have been peer reviewed by "mainstream" science journals that are "credentialed" and respected, he can address any specific points he disagrees with in any of those papers. I love that this lazy prick doesn't take two minutes to try to falsify his claims with a little research, when you do try to falsify them, the evidence is readily available. This makes it so much more likely that every time he opens his fat mouth, he'll stick his foot in it. It seems the guy can only ever be right by accident, and his bias is toward error. If he were just guessing at shit randomly surely he'd be right at least half the time.

PS: I know you butt pirates will never publish this, you're too cowardly.

As I posted in the comments:

""Whoever you are, thanks for your response, but you're totally wrong.

The Journal of 9/11 Studies is not a peer-reviewed journal. It's entirely a sham conjured up by Steven Jones and other 9/11 Truthers to provide the illusion of peer review. You can read all about the dishonesty inherent in this scam here:

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/theyoughtaknowbetter:critiquesoftheinept

There are no legitimate peer-reviewed articles supporting 9/11 conspiracy. None. Zero. The ones that the commenter is referring to are absolutely fraudulent."

And btw...

Kindly tell this dumbfuck troll, after he's read those peer reviewed papers, several of which have been peer reviewed by "mainstream" science journals that are "credentialed" and respected,

Completely false, as usual.

As Muertos said, absolutely no mainstream journals have truthers papers published, except for that one in Bentham... but you really dont want to try and cite that shoddy enterprise as a well respected legitimate journal...

In other words, as usual, truthers are wrong about just about everything back to front.

I love that this lazy prick doesn't take two minutes to try to falsify his claims with a little research, when you do try to falsify them, the evidence is readily available.

I also love how truthers project their own faults onto others. Googling "911 Truth Journal" is apparently all this guy felt he needed to do.

PS: I know you butt pirates will never publish this, you're too cowardly.

Quoted to laugh at ...

With a little research, I think it shouldn't be too hard to determine the credible journals from the ones without much credibility. Anyways Muertos, good read; both the original post and the rage-filled response.

Ed, yes. Why do you ask?

Creationism journals are a joke, whereas the credibility of journals of medicine and science require more analysis.

These peer-reviewed journal articles boasted by quack doctors and scientists have a major impact in the CT world. A CTer who has supposedly scientific support for his or her beliefs will see an increase in ego and arrogance. Stripping them of the "scientific" evidence they think they have works a lot better than rationalizing their logic.

For example, telling me there's no way Bush could pull off 9/11 does nothing. Showing me that the peer-reviewed, scientific evidence of a demolition is fraudulent does something.