I honestly don’t know about other topics in the journal, but in general, to keep it fair, I’m sure you know that academic debates set an equal word or time limit for the opposing sides to present their arguments. Does the fact that Bazant was permitted two to three times more words than Gourley, and that he has the more impressive past resume on paper, make it fair? Perhaps the fact that Bazant was permitted two to three times more words than Gourley, and that he has the more impressive resume on paper, and also has the political and media establishment on his side, makes it fair? Perhaps the fact that Bazant was permitted two to three times more words than Gourley, and that he has the more impressive resume on paper, and also has the political and media establishment on his side, and that the truth movement is attacked from within, makes it fair? Well then, perhaps it’s fair that scientists were silenced during the time of Lysenkoism?
No, none of this is genuinely fair; it is illegitimately biased.
I do respect the way you begin and end the quoted section above with, “I’m not sure”, almost accepting the bias is apparent, but holding out for another answer which you cannot grasp (most likely because it does not exist). It’s nothing to do with technical standard of the journal which you brought up again in your post – that is for the peer-review to decide, which Gourley’s paper passed. The decision to limit Gourley/de-limit Bazant is an editorial/political decision. And of course 9/11 is a political issue. Can you imagine the attack JEM would be open to from powerful pro-war elements of the establishment if the journal gave appearance of the official and alternative 9/11 theories being on equal standing?
Anyhow, as I said, the difficulty of publishing such sensitive papers is really just a sideshow. Those seeking 9/11 truth have managed to publish papers, not only many at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but in mainstream journals – that was the real point. I don’t see that official theorists have done much better in the area of proving their case in journals. Apart from Bazant’s papers, there was that ridiculous Chinese paper supporting the collapses, which flyingswan once linked – which, so desperate to produce a global collapse, began by placing the WTC1 impact in completely the wrong location in the model. Certainly the NIST study, if it ever were to be peer-reviewed, would be derided for not proving the case of what happened on 9/11...
Perhaps the most telling external analysis came from NIST’s own former chief of the fire science division, James Quintiere, at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference: -
“I wish that there would be a peer review of this ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable ... Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another ... In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.”
People should really not criticize efforts of the truth movement and bias they face before getting their own house in order.
I have shown 1,700+ experts, still growing in number, and of which there are many hundreds more in other professional/scientific fields, who do agree with me. Can you show me all these experts who have definitely evaluated the points I argue and disagree with me? If not, it seems that my support is built upon facts and figures, whilst that you appeal to would be founded more in possibilities and speculation.
I don't think the vast majority of actual professionals care about positions like the one you promote.
I just met with a pile of AIAA members, all engineers, aerospace folks. The only response I ever get from these folks is a stare, and a smile (or not...depends)...if I say, "Hey folks, check this out and tell me what you think!"
Then I hand them a pile of your posts. Or just read one.
This is nut case stuff. Unsubstantitated nonsense. Always has been.
No actual professional accepts it, or acknowledges it!
Yet, no matter how much that's known, you people will continue, to insist on your unsubstantiated positions.
Wonder why I am here at all?
Hmmm. Me too!