This paper (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html), by Steven Jones, has been peer refereed and is scheduled for publication in The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy, Volume 23, P. Zarembka, editor, Amsterdam: Elsevier, forthcoming in Spring 2006.

I guess though that you won't be impressed. Therefore I challenge you: name me a scientific journal in which publication of the above paper would impress you, and which, given its editorial policy (on the types of topics published on, not soundness of claims), would be interested in it.

Last point: peer refereeing does often go wrong. Have we all forgotten the case of Jan Hendrik Schon? http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/20...ics/index.html
If peer refereeing can err one direction, it can also err in the opposite direction.

One Very Last Point: "how cute... they've formed their own little club"
The author of this remark shows his ignorance of the already widespread practice, in 'mainstream' science, of peer refereeing communities.
ST9/11 is nothing else.

Why don't you all engage with the content of the papers on the www.st911.org site, instead of these ridiculous ad hominem remarks?