Critical reviewers

Hello everyone. I have recently penned an article which looks at the four different narratives concerning the hijackings that took place on 911. It ultimately comes out in favour of the drone swap theory. I've sent this work around to a few people for critical review, and its quality has improved significantly because of this. However, I still don't feel its up to snuff.



Now, I realise that the die-hard debunkees will never be able to consider any position other than the official story as having validity, but I would like you to leave this agenda at home. This paper is not about truther vs debunker (which has already been conclusively settled, IMHO), but truther vs truther. There are two different papers, a condensed and full length version.



Ideally, a reviewers criticism should focus on the drone swap hypothesis as much as possible. I want to know where my analysis errs in its judgement! Hit me with your best shot, even if its just minor nitpicking and grammatical caveats. So honestly, if you have a complaint to make, come to me directly and voice it (don't veil it behind insipid faux-politeness, or discuss it with other OCTers as if I'm not present).



Now, whose up to bat?

via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=262724&goto=newpost