What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
174 Comments
- DOVZAKHEIM, on 04/19/2008, -12/+62This is historic. A paper advocating controlled demolition of the Twin Towers submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Kudos to the publishers of the journal as well as Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Kevin Ryan and everyone else involved in the research. This should be dugg by everyone who knows the truth about 9/11. So what are we waiting for America? LET'S GET 'ER DUGG!!!!!
- eltolete, on 04/19/2008, -8/+53Anyone who still maintains that the WTC7 collapse was not a controlled demolition is only deluding him/herself. Here we have a peer -reviewed paper. The NIST(filled with Bush appointees) has still not issued a report on the collapse of WTC7.
- Canada911truth, on 04/19/2008, -8/+50Even if George Bush came out and said that he and parts of his administration were responsible, these foolish deniers will still refuse to believe it. Sheesh. What's wrong with these people?
Way to go Steven Jones! Keep up the excellent work. - Carlhole, on 04/19/2008, -8/+48Wow! So much hostility to the mere idea of organizing a renewed independent investigation to settle many of the persistent, unanswered questions about the 911 events. Why shouldn't EVERYONE ,regardless of views, embrace a thorough-going investigation that everyone can trust?
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html - Look4Truth, on 04/19/2008, -12/+41The RLC doesn't want to admit to the truth guys, notice how they endlessly search for these threads? They want desperately to keep this under wraps because they can't fathom themselves admitting to the truth because that would require responsibility and cause for action, and they'd rather turn on the idiot box to get their daily programming.
Anyone who can't at the very least see building 7 for what it was, demolished, is so far in denial or brain washed that they'll probably never come out of it. But see, their problems is that our side grows every day while theirs shrinks and that frustrates them to the point that they come here and throw around propaganda like it's candy.
Sorry RLC, you're going to lose in the end. And for those of you who might be government shills *cough* Jerky *cough*, you can go tell your handlers that we're never going to go away and our numbers are going to continue to grow.
And also, when this nation falls apart because fools like you helped, just remember what we told you when your kids are starving in the camps. Oh yeah, you didn't think the government drills on the police state was a joke did you? Yep, get ready to take your mark you evil doers, you'll get what you deserve in the end. You might think you're cool and on the winning side now but I guarantee you that you'll get what you deserve in the end, if not here on this putrid rock then later when you're forced to kneel before a mighty God who will judge you for your deeds.
Truth > lies...good > evil. - Peakobserver, on 04/20/2008, -6/+35The first of many more peer-reviewed papers to come. Keep 'em coming.
- dordnuuv8, on 04/19/2008, -9/+36The paper is here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm (our paper is listed on top at the moment, the most recently entered paper); or go here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm
(Click on “year 2008” then scroll down to the paper and click on it.)
Full Title:
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
The authors are: Steven E. Jones*,1, Frank M. Legge2, Kevin R. Ryan3, Anthony F. Szamboti*,4, James R. Gourley - eltolete, on 04/19/2008, -8/+35Ivy Leaguers are getting in on the act. There's an Ivy Leaguers for an Independent Investigation.
http://www.joseabreu.com/ - dordnuuv8, on 04/20/2008, -7/+33Direct link here:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCI ... - ExplosivesWTC, on 04/20/2008, -7/+32There is your peer reviewed study Herkimer56. 9/11 was a controlled demolition and Dr.Jones proved it.
- dirka, on 04/20/2008, -6/+31If Dr. Jones is wrong about everything, then write peer published paper that explains why he is wrong....unless you all think that getting mad on digg is more helpful
- WaywardLad48, on 04/20/2008, -4/+23A fire burning at 650 degrees c cannot heat steel to the same temperature if that steel is all interconnected,the second law of thermodynamics is the reason why.Physical tests don,t show the steel got any hotter than 250 degrees c.Tests on floor trusses proved they would not fail after 2 hours of more intense heat than on 9/11.The WTC caught fire in 1975,burned for 3 hours at hotter temperature on multiple floors and caused no damage.Intergranular melting did occur in the steel but eutectic reaction will not occur until steel temperatures reach 1000 degrees c.Glass shatters at 700 degrees c and there was no evidence of glass shattering.How can a fire burning cooler heat steel to a higher temperature?it can,t.Stephen Jones picked up on all these points and they are cast iron,irrefutable reasons why the NIST official story is garbage.If Jones is wrong then let NIST sit down with him and tell him the reasons why he is wrong.That will not happen for the simple reason that he is not wrong,he is definitely correct in every point he makes in this paper.
- card51short, on 04/20/2008, -3/+21herkimer are you saying that peer reviewed papers don't count anymore?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha - FunnyBunnyBo, on 04/20/2008, -4/+21Who in their right mind would be against a new investigation into the attacks of 9/11?
Who is scared of a new investigation? The government and their sheeple, of course. The rest of us want a new, REAL investigation. Let the chips fall where they may. - Look4Truth, on 04/19/2008, -10/+27You've seen tons of proof from links that have been posted but you choose to take the side of government propaganda. Like I said, if you can't see building 7 for what it is...
And if you think the government isn't monitoring sites like Digg, YOU'RE delusional. But then again, you believe the government and lamestream media has your best intentions in mind. The government has publicly ADMITTED to making up stories and paying money for ones but yet you STILL can't get a grasp on reality.
Go back to the boob tube, everything's fine. I'm sure all those government-run police state drills are just for fun, nothing to see here. After all, they love us. - obliviousfool, on 04/20/2008, -2/+18The same kind of ***** that come in every 9/11 thread and crap all over it with jingoism, lies, and free kool-aid.
- dordnuuv8, on 04/20/2008, -5/+21what kind of ahole would down digg the direct link? Someone afraid of people reading it for themselves and seeing if it's BS or not? That's your defense of the official 9/11 story?
- card51short, on 04/20/2008, -6/+22you want these guys to write their own peer-reviewed paper? They've already conceded the fact that peer reviewed papers don't matter because you can use your buddies to peer review it AND you usually have to pay to have your paper published.
Weird how they only said that the VERY DAY we get a peer reviewed paper after demanding one of us for 5+ years.
Oh well, another coincidence! - Winston451, on 04/19/2008, -9/+25Nothing is going to satisfy you and the other Ziono-trolls on Digg, however just for the record:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/
The Open Civil Engineering Journal is an Open Access online journal, which publishes research articles, reviews, and letters in all areas of civil engineering.
The Open Civil Engineering Journal, a peer-reviewed journal, aims to provide the most complete and reliable source of information on recent developments in civil engineering. The emphasis will be on publishing quality articles rapidly and freely available to researchers worldwide. - FunnyBunnyBo, on 04/20/2008, -4/+19There's "no reason" to re-investigate the murder of nearly 3,000 people. "No reason" at all. Who cares if the free-fall pulverization of WTC7 was never investigated? America is number one! We bombed all those Afghani and Iraqi children's asses to hell, who the wants to actually know WHY the official government conspiracy theory ***** is a lie? America is number one! Number 1 Number 1 Number 1. Who cares if it's a lie, I still believe it! Who cares if scientist debunk it, my government told me so, it absoluetly must be the truth! Right?
Right?
Ummm, right? - rexblade, on 04/20/2008, -3/+17Tell the truth? Herkimer? This joke writes itself.
- dordnuuv8, on 04/20/2008, -5/+19what kind of aholeZ would down digg the direct link? People afraid of People reading it for themselves and seeing if it's BS or not? That's your defense of the official 9/11 story?
- medicis, on 04/20/2008, -3/+17The reason why Herky, LeBot and their ilk don't want a fully independent investigation with subpoena power is because they essentially work for the gov. most probably part of the Pentagon's 'Operation Information Roadmap'. They cannot afford an independent investigation. So the gov and its web minions are constantly trying to put their fingers in the dike as truth and dissent leak through. But now it's becoming a flood which accounts for their desperation. Each person has to make a choice. Whether to support the offal which is the current government of the Empire or fight for the Republic. I know which side I stand on. Transparency, justice and the Republic of the United States. I know which side the employees of the Pentagon's 'Information Roadmap' are on. And it isn't the side for preserving the Republic.
- card51short, on 04/20/2008, -1/+14spin deniers, spin!!!
So far we have :
1) He paid to publish it
2) It doesn't say anything...it's just a paper saying "Hey, how ya doing?!"
3) It was peer reviewed by Al Qaeda
Any others? hahahahahaha - honestjoe, on 04/20/2008, -4/+17Dr. Jones papers regarding 9/11 have been published 3 times and in those peer reviews 8 of the peers were Professors with a PhD in Physics! That happens to be the related field of Dr. Jones paper though there were peers from other fields the ones that really matter are the 8 with a PhD in Physics!
By they way even though his first 9/11 paper has only been published 2 times it has undergone 4 sets of peer reviews and only one of those was by the Journal of 9/11 Studies!
2 was because of BYU and 1 of those should never of had to been done and the fact that it was shows IMO that BYU was disloyal to one of their professors and long-term colleague. I understand BYU being afraid but damn to say they needed another set of peer review is the same as saying we can’t trust any of our own staff and colleagues to be able to properly peer review a paper!
In his over 40 published papers in scientific Journals Dr. Jones has never had to undergo such extensive (far more than normal) review as he has for his 9/11 papers. Yet papers in support of the government account hardly have a review (if any at all) of their papers. Why is that?
It seems rather odd that one of the most qualified experts in the scientific field related to this evidence has been had to undergo far more scrutiny than has ever been applied to other 9/11 papers regarding the collapse of the WTC buildings.
There is NO one who has more experience or who has more published peer reviewed scientific papers in relation to this evidence as a physicist/archaeometrist who has been dealing with the physical and chemical behavior of metallic elements IN THE WORLD!!!!
This evidence is exactly in the area of his expertise for he has done more study and research in metallurgy wich is in relation to this evidence (the physical and chemical behavior of metallic elements) as a physicist/archaeometrist than he has to cold fusion/Muon-catalyzed fusion!
As a matter of FACT the majority of the over 40 peer reviewed scientific papers that he has written are related to the evidence (dealing with the physical and chemical behavior of metallic elements) NOT cold fusion or cool fusion or Muon-catalyzed fusion!!! Though he does end up combining the two (Muon-catalyzed fusion from the chemical behavior of metallic elements) but that is another subject.
Who better to explain the greatest mystery of the WTC collapse concerning "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.”
http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm FEMA, Appendix C
• http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
• NY Times: "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.“
Oh that prestigious teaching award that he received in 2006 is far from his first for teaching and of course does not count the many other achievement awards he has received as well. Such as his OVER 40 published papers! This is why the debunkers are desperate to down play the significance of Dr. Jones 9/11 papers being published three (3) times! - card51short, on 04/20/2008, -5/+17keep spinning, guys it's pure comedy!
- honestjoe, on 04/20/2008, -6/+18Please tell me how Bazant and Zhou's paper was published even though their theory of the temperature becoming so high that it melted the steel defies the law of physics! Maybe thats why no one will admit to peer reviewing Bazant and Zhou's paper that was published just two (2) days after the collapse! It seems if your a debunker wanting to spread disinformation even if it defies the laws of physics your paper will be published no matter how absurd it is.
How long was that review process any way since it was published in just two days after the collapse it couldn't have been more than a few hours. But that was good enough for the debunker's wasn't it onetimer? - inactive, on 04/20/2008, -4/+16I would love to hear what the "real agenda" of a "truther" is in your words.
Tell us. - inactive, on 04/20/2008, -6/+18theright you are either retarded or else suffering from cognitive dissonance
"Published papers have argued that this negligence by NIST (leaving the near-free-fall speeds unexplained) is a major flaw in their analysis [13, 14]. NIST ignores the possibility of controlled demolitions, which achieve complete building collapses in near free-fall times by moving the material out of the way using explosives. So, there is an alternative explanation that fits the data without violating basic laws of physics.
We should be able to agree from observing the near-free-fall destruction that this is characteristic of controlled demolitions and, therefore, that controlled demolition is one way to achieve complete collapse at near free-fall speed. Then we are keen to look at NIST’s calculations of how they explain near-free-fall collapse rates without explosives." - honestjoe, on 04/20/2008, -7/+18@DOVZAKHEIM
I was so happy/excited that I mistakenly dugg you down so here is 1000000 diggs and my sincerest apology.
To the debunker's I say DEBATE the facts and stop with your cowardly ad hominem attacks. LET THE DEBATE BEGIN!!!!!!! - rexblade, on 04/20/2008, -6/+17How is it bigotry? Whats all the fuss against a new and genuine independent investigation that has access to all info/evidence (all pentagon footage) and witnesses (even the ones in the government under oath)?
- honestjoe, on 04/20/2008, -5/+16@theright
No one has proven that the collapse of building 7 which displayed all the unique characteristics of a controlled demolition was not a controlled demolition. The ASCE WTC investigation, the FEMA Report, the Weidlinger study, the 9/11 commission report and NIST still have not been able to explain the collapse of WTC #7 for 7 LONG YEARS!
So lets start with evidence that is looked for and used in any arson investigation.
NATIONAL STANDARD FOR FIRE INVESTIGATION: NFPA 921.
Sec 12-4: Unusual residues ...could arise from thermite, magnesium or other pyrotechnic materials!
Note that sulfur is:
“The most popular vaporizing agent due to the fact it lowers ignition temperature for most pyrotechnic mixtures.” --From the web page: Pyrotechnic Chemicals
http://web.archive.org/web/20040415193823/http://m ...
The Twin Towers and WTC 7 had the puzzling sulfur residue! World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Appendix C Source”Limited Metallurgical Examination”, shows evidence of explosives used, by way of photographs, microscopic, and chemical examination.
“Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure."… “The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation."..."The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper."..."A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel."… “The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.” - Carlhole, on 04/20/2008, -4/+15The truth about 911 is that we do not know what happened on 911. We want to find out and you do that through a thorough-going investigation with subpoena power, which releases classified video, documentation, wreckage, etc and which tests for hypotheses such as the use of explosives. You're complaint about the Truth Movement basically says, "Since you are not omniscient about what actually happened, it is not worth attempting to discover what actually happened". If the police had to have a fully fleshed out theory of a crime before every criminal investigation, they would never discover anything. But I'm really only stating the obvious.
- honestjoe, on 04/20/2008, -7/+18Just two days (2 days!) after the attack, a scientific paper purported to fully explain the unprecedented engineering failures using "elastic dynamic analysis." "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE on 9/13/01. Peer review of this paper and of other theories volunteering to explain the collapses was conspicuously absent but debunker's ate it up as gospel and still refer to it as a credible peer reviewed paper!
- card51short, on 04/20/2008, -3/+14hahaah only fools would prepare for emergency when there are billboards all over every US town saying to do so and the homeland security director is warning of nuke attacks every other week.
Foolish, I tells ya!!! - FunnyBunnyBo, on 04/20/2008, -2/+13"We have had investigations. Thorough investigations."
Liar, misinformation, disinfo agent. - deepbl, on 04/19/2008, -9/+20So why don't you share those differences with us? Explain where the peer-review process broke down on these fourteen points of *agreement*. While you're at it, why not share some of the properly peer-reviewed research to support your position?
- card51short, on 04/20/2008, -2/+12the burden of proof is on those who said 19 hijackers did it...where's the evidence?
Can you provide one single piece of credible evidence? - BrapAllgood, on 04/20/2008, -3/+13You could start with WTC7, for one EASY example. Or you can keep the blinders on...cuz it's a free country, right?
- BrapAllgood, on 04/20/2008, -6/+16Um...yeah. Open your eyes, maybe?
- inactive, on 04/20/2008, -5/+15You don't stand alone.
- card51short, on 04/20/2008, -2/+12a thorough detailed report that was funded 1/10th of other major disasters, where bush and cheney didn't have to testify under oath and where the family steering committee said "only 30% of our questions were answered".
Not to mention they let out the money trail and WTC7's collapse.
Very thorough, liar. - card51short, on 04/19/2008, -11/+21hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahah
hilarious.
Many, many journals charge fees to be published.
But...I understand you guys.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahah - card51short, on 04/20/2008, -5/+15@honestjoe:
AND they used the pancake theory that has been thoroughly debunked
hahahahaha i love it. This thread is comedic gold...where's JCM? - BoDeeDoe, on 04/20/2008, -2/+12Herkimer56 and theright are the same person.
- card51short, on 04/21/2008, -2/+12"You want to live in fear, go ahead. That's what Alex Jones wants you to do."
Is putting a seatbelt also living in fear according to you?
How about getting alarm systems installed into your house?
Paranoid fear?
What if most of the people during Katrina had an extra storage of food?
I guess it's not worth it living in fear. - card51short, on 04/20/2008, -3/+12Ahhh! So you have a website that says it.
Case closed ;) - card51short, on 04/20/2008, -6/+15read it. He points out that it is common practice to charge for peer reviewed publications.
Show me what journal Dr. Seffen got published in.
I'll see if they charge. - gretavo, on 04/21/2008, -2/+11http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?Art ...
Everywhere you look the perpetrators and their apologists are losing it and resorting to their usual schoolyard tactics. Check out the above! -
Show 51 - 100 of 175 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is