John D Wyndham sent me an email notification of his new paper "Peer Review in Controversial Topics -- A Case Study of 911". And in this paper, he provides links to a discussion about our old work at 911-strike.com, specifically the famous Eyewitness Spreadsheet. We had engaged in a brief email debate about this topic in 2013, when his article about the Pentagon attack first appeared.
As to the problems with peer review, Wyndham presents his scientificmethod911.org website as a prototype example of a more open approach. He suggests a process in which critics openly post their reviews. In Wyndham's case, however, he appointed himself as the "moderator" -- and he rather aggressively limited the range of comments I was allowed to make. If there's going to be a real debate, the moderation needs to be even-handed and fair. Even at this web site & forum, I feel we're much more open to public debate than Wyndham was (although we draw the line at personal attacks); but I wouldn't be so bold as to consider this forum as an alternative to academic peer review.
The article by Wyndham, "The Pentagon Attack: Eyewitnesses, Debris Flow and Other Issues", has been extensively revised and updated as of March 2016. Much of our analysis is addressed in much greater detail than before.
The 911 Pentagon debate has certainly moved on from where it stood in 2004, when our "Five-Sided Fantasy Island" article was last updated. Wyndham's re-appearance, coincidentally with a notice that the old 911-strike web hosting is no longer being bundled with my electric bill, has motivated me to move the old materials to the postflaviana.org web hosting account. Hopefully this will be a transitional phase, as the old pages need to be either updated or permanently retired.
In terms of specific criticism of our earlier work, Wyndham says:
He goes on to argue with our criticisms of many of the eyewitness accounts. He has also written an entire appendix on CIT's interview of the taxi driver, Lloyde England, which asserts that "CIT’s treatment... of the taxi driver, Lloyde England, goes well beyond a lack of ethics to the libelous persecution of an inoffensive man."
As to the problems with peer review, Wyndham presents his scientificmethod911.org website as a prototype example of a more open approach. He suggests a process in which critics openly post their reviews. In Wyndham's case, however, he appointed himself as the "moderator" -- and he rather aggressively limited the range of comments I was allowed to make. If there's going to be a real debate, the moderation needs to be even-handed and fair. Even at this web site & forum, I feel we're much more open to public debate than Wyndham was (although we draw the line at personal attacks); but I wouldn't be so bold as to consider this forum as an alternative to academic peer review.
The article by Wyndham, "The Pentagon Attack: Eyewitnesses, Debris Flow and Other Issues", has been extensively revised and updated as of March 2016. Much of our analysis is addressed in much greater detail than before.
The 911 Pentagon debate has certainly moved on from where it stood in 2004, when our "Five-Sided Fantasy Island" article was last updated. Wyndham's re-appearance, coincidentally with a notice that the old 911-strike web hosting is no longer being bundled with my electric bill, has motivated me to move the old materials to the postflaviana.org web hosting account. Hopefully this will be a transitional phase, as the old pages need to be either updated or permanently retired.
In terms of specific criticism of our earlier work, Wyndham says:
My detailed examination of Russell’s 31 “explicit” witnesses (see appendix D) resulted in different numbers. By my count there are no more than nine (9) individuals one might classify as “elite” insiders, not 13 as Russell finds. Of the 31, I can count only 19 individuals who “worked for either the federal Government or the mainstream media,” rather than 24. Furthermore, I can identify among them only four (4) mainstream media journalists rather than seven (7), as found by Griffin.
He goes on to argue with our criticisms of many of the eyewitness accounts. He has also written an entire appendix on CIT's interview of the taxi driver, Lloyde England, which asserts that "CIT’s treatment... of the taxi driver, Lloyde England, goes well beyond a lack of ethics to the libelous persecution of an inoffensive man."
Last edited: