Reply #132: And you have yet to answer the question why, if Gourley's review was accepted by JEM

[Bolo Boffin]

...did Gourley feel that none of his criticisms had been addressed when he had read the published article? Enough so that he felt the need to submit his critique as a response to the paper?

If his criticisms had played a part in delaying and changing the paper, there would be some acknowledgement of that in the way the paper read as published. It appears however that Gourley's criticism was dispensed with before the paper was published. JEM gave every indication, after asking for the proper paperwork to be filled out, of ignoring and putting Gourley off. But Gourley begged and begged for the thrashing he received in the pages of the JEM, and 9/11 Truth advocate boast of his peer-reviewed JEM paper as if it were something other than it is: an embarrassment.

Your claims remain fucking idiotic, immune. I label them as such to encourage you to drop them. But it is your right to hold and make all the fucking idiotic claims you wish. How is that working out for you?