Sunday, November 3, 2013
The 9/11 truth case stands, peer-reviewed and unrefuted
In a comment on my recent critique of Chomsky I pointed out:
There is actually a substantial peer-reviewed body of literature supporting 9/11 truth, including many books as well as dozens of articles. It isn't "just a couple of articles by architects and engineers" (as Chomsky is still saying). By contrast, there is virtually no peer-reviewed literature at all defending the claim that the 9/11 Commission's version is correct, or putting forth any evidence in support of this conclusion.
Some anonymous coward - a troll named Omni-Putz who spends his life stalking and harassing 9/11 truth-tellers - responded:
"Barrett’s facebook post caused me some humor. The exact opposite of what he said is the truth. There is (sic) almost no articles or papers that have been submitted to a valid peer review process, and the scant few that have been were ‘peer destroyed’. However there are many, many articles and papers in support of reality (sic) that have passed valid and credible peer review processes. Once again we see that what Barrett says is the polar opposite of reality."
Someone asked Omni-Putz to back up that statement. Omni-Putz replied:
"The JOD911.com site is an excellent place for you to start. It contains articles specifically debunking the conspiracy theorists. All of them are peer reviewed...."
This is hilarious. Let's compare the two bodies of literature.
On the pro-9/11-truth side, we have:
Full-length books published by major university presses:
Prof. Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11 (University of California Press)
Prof. Paul Zarembka (ed.) The Hidden History of 9/11 (Elsevier, Europe's #1 scholarly publisher)
(includes many articles by topnotch scholars and researchers)
Prof. Anthony Hall, The American Empire and the Fourth World (McGill University Press, Canada's top scholarly publisher, or tied for that distinction...this book extols my work - nice that it passed peer review!)
Prof. Lance DeHaven Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America (University of Texas Press)
Four Arrows, Teaching Truly, (Peter Lang - OK, this one isn't "major" but it's respectable)
I may have missed a few...
There are also many scholarly books that aren't put out through the peer-review academic-press process, including the one I co-edited with John Cobb, one of the bigger names in the American academy, called 9/11 and American Empire v.2, featuring many of America's leading religious studies professors acknowledging various degrees of assent to the 9/11 truth thesis. And let's not forget Prof. David Ray Griffin's many 9/11 books, which are scholarly works put out by a serious publisher.
Then there are the peer reviewed articles, including those in the Feb. 2010 issue of American Behavioral Scientist - just the tip of the iceberg of articles, including a number of pro-controlled-demolition articles published in mainstream scientific and technical journals.
All of this substantial body of scholarship is produced by respected scholars - Ph.D.s with serious academic track records.
There is nothing remotely comparable on the other side.
The JOD911 site is a complete joke. These people are not scholars; most don't even seem to have Ph.D.s or to know what a scholarly or scientific article looks like. I'm not sure they even got out of grade school. It's just a bunch of no-name no-credential trolls blogging on the internet, spewing nonsense that would be instantly annihilated by any actual critical peer review by anyone with a three-digit IQ or advanced degree. Omni-putz, are you trying to tell me that the garbage at this site could be published by University of California Press, Elsevier, U of Texas Press, McGill, etc. etc.?! I think a better venue would be the nearest rest room wall.
Please, Omni-Putz, pick up the books and articles I've indicated, print out the garbage at that laughable "JOD" blog, and take the two piles down to your nearest university. Find a professor there and ask him to take a look at the two piles and decide which one has more scholarly weight.
He'll think it's a practical joke: Some nut has printed a bunch of garbage off a worthless website with no credentials whatsoever, and is comparing it to actual published scholarship.
It's pretty ironic that despite the way the money guys have made it clear that 9/11 truth can kill your career, while the other side pays handsomely, nobody serious will defend the other side. You literally cannot pay actual scholars to defend the official story of 9/11!