It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Steven Jones Thermite Paper: "Printed without permission"- Editor in Chief Quits.

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 

You think this is an opinion? You obviously failed to read the first post. Can you point out what is not scientific? Can you point out what is opinion?


Yeah, all of it is his opinions.



The thread had an abundance of information and the third link was filled with even more information.


Yeah, well I disagree with most of the information’s like you disagree about professor Jones report.


Sorry, you didn't read any of it. You fail.


No camron you failed, you fail to stay on topic and you just railroaded your own thread.

The topics you have presented here have “nothing” to do with Marie-Paule Pileni and why she quit her job.




Really! But calling Professor Jones work trash, is part of you discrediting the process from Bentham.
Show me where I stated it was trash. Where I said it was trash. You like Swing D. attempt to put words in my mouth. Sorry, wont work.






The few scientists I know of that have read the paper that was published say it is trash.


Really, how about demonstrating to everyone on here of who said it was “trash” and show where these creditable scientists wrote this, and I am sure you will give us the links to these comments, thank you. For you to make such a comment shows you support it, and that’s not putting words in your “mouth.”


I am not happy how these people went about publishing Jones’ report and yes, I think it was underhanded to say the lease.

Great, we agree on this 100%. Write to Jones and ask him to have it resubmitted.


Camron, I have no interest in writing professor Jones however, I don’t think a scientist of his stature would waste his time on such dribble.




posted on May, 5 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
just for the record:

Jones' paper is (considered) 'false' because it is not correctly peer reviewed.

There is no peer reviewed paper that corraborates the entire offical story.

Therefore the official story is also false by your own standards.

Have a pleasant day.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 
just for the record:


Jones' paper is (considered) 'false' because it is not correctly peer reviewed.


Says whom?


There is no peer reviewed paper that corraborates the entire offical story.


The 911 Commission report or as you refer to it “…the entire official story.” Is not a scientific experiment. Instead, it is as you mention a story. The Merriam Webster dictionary provides the following definitions for story:


1archaic a: HISTORY 1 b: HISTORY 3
2 a: an account of incidents or events b: a statement regarding the facts pertinent to a situation in question c: ANECDOTE ; especially : an amusing one
3 a: a fictional narrative shorter than a novel ; specifically : SHORT STORY b: the intrigue or plot of a narrative or dramatic work
4: a widely circulated rumor
5: LIE, FALSEHOOD
6: LEGEND, ROMANCE
7: a news article or broadcast
8: MATTER, SITUATION


www.merriam-webster.com...



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
1. The OP implies it and millions of people believe it.

2. I never even mentioned any report.

3. While its true that a story is a story, it certainly can be proven true or false.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
just for the record:

Jones' paper is (considered) 'false' because it is not correctly peer reviewed.


Who said it was false?


There is no peer reviewed paper that corraborates the entire offical story.


Why would you need a peer review for non scientific aspects of the events?


Therefore the official story is also false by your own standards.


nope


Have a pleasant day.


Thank you, you too!



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
name something forensic science cant explain and then relate to me what it has to do with september 11th please. I dont mean something forensic science cant explain if it doesent have evidence either.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
name something forensic science cant explain and then relate to me what it has to do with september 11th please. I dont mean something forensic science cant explain if it doesent have evidence either.



Um... what?

You talkin to me?



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
1. Cameron, I DID NOT put words into your mouth. Here is what you said:


The Bretham VANITY Journal is just that. PAY TO PUBLISH. If it doesn't get published, the journal does not get paid. Your Words Not Mine


The journal does get paid if a paper is published or not published. I cited the membership fees paid to Bentham destroying your argument. You can be a member and not publish an article. Strike 1.

2. Bentham Publishers (online and in print) requires a submitted piece of work to be read by the Editor in Chief. This is pay to view of course by readers as printing costs are expensive you know. Perhaps the editor gets paid a fee for their services in this example. I'm not sure.

Bentham Open does not require the Editor in Chief to read each paper, Bentham Online and in print do. They are two separate services. Perhaps the editor does not get paid a fee and volunteers to serve for the Open service. I'm not sure. The point is, they are two separate services. You claim you don't know of any other service that operates this way. I say, "So what?" Your lack of knowledge doesn't change the science or the publication.
Strike 2

3. The science stands. Why do you refuse to accept that experts read and agreed to publish the paper? You claim it wasn't properly peer reviewed, but in a previous post, you state the paper was returned 3 times pointing out the errors!! Does that sound like a paper that wasn't properly peer-reviewed? Why do you accept JREF's 'opinion' instead of the experts who published the paper?
If the science was bad, it wouldn't have been published, and it wasn't 3 different times, correct? It sounds like it was indeed properly peer reviewed, which brings us to the editor.
Strike 3

4. At least we both agree that the editor in chief of Bentham Opened quit because her feelings were hurt and not because she read the paper and found the science to be in error. You and the rest of the critics would have two legs to stand on if the editor made a comment like, "The science behind the paper was faulty based upon my expert opinion but it was published against my wishes, therefore I resign." It appears the more you examine her reasoning she resigned because of her feelings and the political ramifications behind the paper's conclusion. Feelings and politics have no place in science with regards to this paper.
Strike 4

5. Vanity Press- Your source, an open access, anyone can change encyclopedia states: This article needs additional citations for verification. So your using an unverified source that refers to books that get paid to be published. Vanity press is not selective, yet pay to publish open source Science publications are selective and peer-reviewed.
Here is another debunker tactic I need to expose: your fallacy of omission that harms your case.



Although vanity presses are a legitimate publishing option, the term “vanity press” has become derogatory, and is often used to imply that an author who self-publishes using such a service is only publishing out of vanity, and that his or her work could not be commercially successful, an assumption that is not true in all cases.




Scholarly journals often ask authors to pay page charges but use peer review to keep a high scientific standard. This is to be distinguished from the true vanity publisher, who will publish anything within their general market that will be paid for.


Geez, Cam why did you leave that part out? Scholary journals versus TRUE vanity publisher?? Why do you need to be dishonest?

Strike 5

6. I did call it correctly by stating you should run back to JREF as you admit you do post there. I stopped posting because of the ad-hom attacks, the biased moderation of posts by Admins, and the constant fallacy of omission.

Again, you have no case and all of your points fail. Thanks again for playing.

[edit on 12-5-2009 by Swing Dangler]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join