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.
Originally posted by OptimistPrime
Taking into consideration that you were one of 2 master control operators
So you are just as a part of the topic as "truther movement" or "silly clubs".
Originally posted by Soloist
Originally posted by Cassius666
For some reason you think any professional who finds fault with the accounts of the 911 comission or the NIST report is a truther and can not be trusted, because they have some kind of agenda, which you did not elaborate on.
I did elaborate on that, as stated previously.
Either
(a) You didn't read it
(b) You are being dishonest
(c) You didn't like the answer
Now can you
(d) Get back on topic!
Originally posted by Cassius666
Okay back on topic. The journal seems to be genuine, the men involved in the paper experts in their field and the peer review process has been thourough. Only because the paper is not good enough for some people, does not mean there is any fault with the paper. I am not aware of any problems with the journal prior to the published article, then the paper is out and the next day the journal is being smeared.
One of the people who resigned admitted to having the necessary background to elaborate wether the paper is correct or not.
Originally posted by Soloist
Originally posted by OptimistPrime
Taking into consideration that you were one of 2 master control operators
Now you are just making up stuff.
This isn't helping your side much you know, and only serves to solidify my point.
So you are just as a part of the topic as "truther movement" or "silly clubs".
LOL. I don't see my name mentioned in the OP, but I do see A&E's silly little club there.
I would say you do the math, but I doubt that will produce any kind of positive outcome.
As a member of this site, and more importantly NOT what you claim above, I am not the topic. Let's see if you can stick to it, instead of trying to distract away from the OP's very own claim that the only people in his post that have found this "journal" credible are in fact truthers.
Originally posted by Cassius666
One can assume somebody is looking to poison the well. Now if you could point out 2 more papers that made people at the physics journal or even bentham resign, it would be different.
The editor-in-chief of an open access journal has stepped down from his post after learning that the journal accepted a fake, computer-generated article for publication. So has an editorial advisory board member of a second journal published by the same company, Bentham Science Publishers.
Originally posted by OptimistPrime
I don't see my name mentioned in the OP, but I do see A&E's silly little club there.
No, guy, A&E is NOT mentioned in the title.
Lets see if you can stick to Jones, whose name IS mentioned in the title.
Originally posted by impressme
1,398 “Valid” signers put their name on a list in support of Steven Jones scientific Journal and support it 100%? These are scientists, Architects, Engineers, and professionals.
BTW, the peer in peer-review does not refer to A&E.
Those people have names and those names arent truther.
Since there is typically 2 people running the master control room, and you claim not to be the janitor, you were still involved with what was being broad-casted that day.
Originally posted by Cassius666
Yes its the same story again. Strangely the woes for the paper started only after jonses paper was published in April 2009. Where are the woes and troubles and resignations at bertham prior to April 2009?
Originally posted by Soloist
Originally posted by bsbray11
Show me the post and the quote then.
Go back and re-read this thread, I'm not your monkey.
Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Soloist
That leaves you still with one case in a different journal. I wonder why the paper is not debunked as the hoax it supposedly is, instead of attacking the credibility of the journal. I am pretty sure if there is any fault with the paper, it would have been rendered public and reproduced over and over on this very site.
Originally posted by bsbray11
You never explained what "agenda" you think "truthers" are plotting that's so suspicious, and now you are blatantly lying. You claim to have explained why they are suspicious, but refuse to show a quote and refuse to repeat why you find them so suspicious.
Their only agenda, that you even admitted as a possibility earlier yourself, is that they honestly believe in what they are publishing, no different than any other honest scientists.