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.

 

Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!

page: 20
96
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 

Taking into consideration that you were one of 2 master control operators (ensuring the transmission meets government regulations) for one of 3 MSM outlets on 9/11, your credibility is in jeopardy. You see by your logic, going against the NIST and 9/11 commission findings from a scientific standpoint makes someone a "truther" and therefore can not be taken seriously. Using that same logic, ensuring a transmission meets government regulations (sans scientific standpoint) makes you a "truster" and therefore can not be taken seriously. So you are just as a part of the topic as "truther movement" or "silly clubs".




posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

edit on 6-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

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!




Okay back on topic. The journal seems to be genuine, the men involved in the paper are experts in their fields 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. Evidence does not get any clearer than this. 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.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

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.



Well, we will certainly disagree about the peer review process in this pay per publish journal that 2 editors have already resigned after nonsense like this was put out. But that is for another thread, so I won't go on about that here.

But, you do get my thanks for being one of the few on this thread that is willing to get back on the topic!



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Actually it is pretty much the subject of the topic. One of the people who resigned admitted to NOT having the necessary background to elaborate wether the paper is correct or not. The reason of the resignation seems to be political in nature on all fronts, fear to be associated with the truth movement, something that is well known to impede or even end your career in academia or any field where tax dollars are involved. The resignation is curious, seen as the editors approved the publication. Maybe they were given one last chance to smear the paper or face ruin.

Charge for publish is different than pay for publish. Its like saying somebody who put down money for his diploma did not earn it. They were charged to get the paper published, but it was still submitted to a tough peer review according to the OP.

According to the opening post the peer review process was thourough and met by additional experiments. So your standtpoint is that the quotations of the opening post are a lie.
edit on 6-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Yes indeed the official story is a fraud. I'm not going to get involved with the poo slinging and hidden hands here. What has been written in officialdom about 9/11 is a crock. American government has lied its arse of! Anyone who can not see that needs surgery. Government's lie, it is within their very nature.

You need to take a step back, look at the run up to the event, then its aftermath to really understand the picture.


The term "truther" has no relevance here, the word belongs within the understanding of the term "conspiracy theorist"
If that be true, what the hell are we all doing here? Debate is healthy and the questions are blatant.

If one cannot see the flaws in the official version of the attacks of 09/11/2001, if you swallow the official line without questioning, you have no reason to contribute.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



One of the people who resigned admitted to having the necessary background to elaborate wether the paper is correct or not.


A little about "peer review", in terms of publishing the purpose of peer review is not to comment on the final conclusions of the paper, that is for the subscribers to the journal to decide for themselves. The purpose of the review is to determine if the paper meets certain mandatory minimum standards for applications like the scientific method and the ethical approach of the writers (that is to say that the paper does not contain data that was collected in an unethical manner). The idea is that a few trusted members of the specific community will review material submitted and try to determine if the paper is worthy of their colleagues time or not. Not whether the material is "right" or "wrong" but that its worthy of consideration.

Thats why the big uproar over there and all those people resigning. The paper slipped through their review and really was not worthy of consideration, let alone being correct or not in its final conclusions.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


But it was peer reviewed and like I said, some of the people who resigned admitted to NOT having the neccessary background to determine wether or not the paper is accurate in any way. So you are saying the quotations in the OP are not accurate.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



I replied in your new thread about this.

The point still remains that this "credible journal" is not taken seriously outside the truther community. Why is that do you think?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

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.





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. BTW, the peer in peer-review does not refer to A&E. Those people have names and those names arent truther. As it was mentioned before, you can not agree with the scientific data due to bias against those you deem to be a truther.
edit on 6-1-2011 by OptimistPrime because: none


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. Now that does justify my earlier and still makes my point valid.
edit on 6-1-2011 by OptimistPrime because: none



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Maybe its a bit suspicious that those stories have been published only AFTER the paper was published. Prior to rendering the work of Herrit, Jones public there seem to not have been any resignations over any published paper. There is not a history of editors resigning over published articles at bentham, it all seems to revolve around the paper of jones, which revolves around 911. 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.


edit on 6-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

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.



Here's one -- www.the-scientist.com...



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.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

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.


I never said it was in the title. Heck, I even left my quote above to prove to you that I didn't.



Lets see if you can stick to Jones, whose name IS mentioned in the title.


Do you not understand the OP? CL claims that

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.


He is talking about A&E, and goes on to provide a link to their verification team page.


BTW, the peer in peer-review does not refer to A&E.


When did I say it did?

Dang, you're confused.


Those people have names and those names arent truther.


Who? The "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" ? Or?



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.


You are way, way, WAY off here. You just completely make things up constantly. You have no idea what you are talking about, and it's getting rather sad.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
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?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

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?



You do realize there was only 1 edition(2008) put out prior to both of these that were in edition 2 in 2009, right? It's not like there was a ton of content in either one prior.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

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.


That settles it. 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.

You have been talking to me this entire time and I remember clearly what you have and haven't said. So now you've been reduced to flat-out lying to avoid having to explain your reasoning, because you know it would make no sense and you'd rather save yourself the embarrassment.

"Truthers" have no suspicious agenda. 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.

Much different, however, from blatant liars.
edit on 6-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

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.



Well, to be fair there is not alot of history in either one, which was the point I was making. But in 2009, both journals had "issues", no pun intended. This makes the credibility of the journal highly suspect in most people's eyes. There are other reasons as well, however we have no verification of it, so...

If truthers really believe in this "journal" then there should be no problems having a 3rd party, neutral and independent team do a thorough verification of it. Wouldn't you agree?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

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.


Wow, more name calling. That's 3 people who called me a liar in this thread that can't back it up. Figures, you would rather keep distracting away from the OP, and worry about me.

You asked me to elaborate, which I already did. Face it, YOU didn't like my answer, that what it comes down to.

Now retract your claim of me being a liar and apologize.



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.


Why are you leaving off what else I wrote? ESPECIALLY after accusing me of lying above. You are being extremely dishonest here, or are just not paying attention.



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join