What is Digg?42 Comments
- inactive, on 04/22/2008, -7/+16They had to hold a *special meeting* or, at least, they gathered in Herk's or jcm's basment and started *holding* something. -- markvand nailed it!
- Jimmyb207, on 04/22/2008, -8/+16We finally have an "officially peer reviewed paper". This is more good news for the Truth movement, which there has been a lot of lately. Even this journal is saying that the NIST completely neglected the fact that the towers came down at nearly free fall speed, which should have led them to the possibility of controlled demolition which they completely failed to investigate also....I wonder why? Anyway. great news. There is a very pleasant absence of trolls in this thread.....I wonder why?
- inactive, on 04/22/2008, -7/+14I've no doubt that they are most likely *holding* something in Herkimer's basement. But I don't think it's exactly a *special meeting*!!!
- Look4Truth, on 04/22/2008, -8/+15"There is a very pleasant absence of trolls in this thread.....I wonder why?"
Truth > lies. - inactive, on 04/23/2008, -1/+7It doesn't matter...Lihop, Mihop, (boxcutter conspiracy theory)...The outcome is the same. Advancement of tyranny, empracement of torture, acceptance of genocide. ---That is my *in my own words*
- LumpyRevolution, on 04/21/2008, -9/+159-11 Was a lie. When are the rest of you going to wake up America? The truth is easier to believe than it is to accept isn't it?
- inactive, on 04/21/2008, -12/+18Hahahahaha! Poor trolls. All they used to say was: "Show me any peer reviewed articles that proves your conspiracy theories." (Or something like that) I bet they're panicking now, holding a special meeting in Herkimer's basement about what to do now.
- theblueprint, on 04/22/2008, -3/+9"Truth > lies."
Amen!!! As the Bible says: "But above all things truth is victor." - JoeRW, on 04/22/2008, -5/+10THeyre in this more popular version of this article: "http://digg.com/general_sciences/Fourteen_Points_o ..."
- inactive, on 04/23/2008, -1/+6Are you one of those guys that puts "don't use drugs" in the urinals so that the piss splashes all over the place when trying to use it? {I was just wondering as you seemed to have some *knowledge* about what is put in *restrooms*}
- inactive, on 04/22/2008, -8/+12What, no Willie Nelson?
- inactive, on 04/22/2008, -8/+12You didn't read the letter, or the article asking to pass it out to get someone to look into his claims, did you?
see, there is no science. He is begging others to try to convince someone to do his scientific work for him. You can't seem to grasp that, even though he says it clearly in the post. - inactive, on 04/23/2008, -1/+5If you write a letter to Maxim and it gets published, I'm going to have to research the fact that you're not {redacted}.
- Hortnon, on 04/22/2008, -9/+13Hey, a couple lawyers read this letter before it was published! That counts for peer-review and SCIENCE, right?
- inactive, on 04/22/2008, -10/+14LOL. Now a letter to the Editor is being passed off as a peer reviewed paper?!?!?! You guys will swallow any ***** Alex Jones feeds you. Did you even look at the three level of submission? This is a "letter to the Editor" level submission, not an actual scientific paper.
Thanks for the laugh. - Hortnon, on 04/22/2008, -5/+9By your standard, if I write a letter about 9/11 to Maxim and it gets published, it should be taken as the word of God. Think about that...
- inactive, on 04/22/2008, -9/+12You have to hand it to old AJ. He knows how dense his audience is. He found a way to submit a letter, asking for scientists to look into his claim, then tell the deniers "look! Peer Reviewed!", knowing they wouldn't read the doc, check the facts, etc.
He even managed to put in already disputed theories, agree that they are wrong, and STILL tell the deniers "check out my paper!"
That is some truly hilarious stuff. - inactive, on 04/22/2008, -10/+13Even BETTER, is that it is obvious none of you deniers read the letter. The conclusion? Alex Jones is asking someone to research for him! He makes no conclusions, just asks for other scientists to please do some research for him.
Too funny. - theblueprint, on 04/22/2008, -7/+10"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
Now, perhaps, the demand will meet the supply of the many sources we've provided: "Loose Change", Rosie O'Donnell, Jesse Ventura, and of course, Mr. Alex Jones. - hadees, on 04/21/2008, -11/+14Published in a peer reviewed journal =/= truth. And a quick search of google for this journal seems to show it isn't a very prominent one. The first few results are about the journal then the a bunch about the 9/11 article that got published. For an e-journal you would think there would be more interesting results that don't focus on one particular article. I await the reponse papers that will likely be submitted, that is the real test of validity of a peer reviewed paper, if others with no vested intrests can duplicate their findings.
- Hortnon, on 04/22/2008, -6/+9You honestly think Alex had nothing to do with this?
- inactive, on 04/23/2008, -2/+5I could help you with "hold {your} breath." I'm pretty good at *static apnea*; But I wouldn't trust me if I were you!
- card51short, on 04/22/2008, -5/+7no way! Ur denying the validity of the paper? No way man!
That's so unlike you guys!!!
Cmon please accept our paper, you guys! PLEASE!!!
If onetimer and the two grumpy old men (Herky and ssn) cant' accept this paper then we have failed :(
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - inactive, on 04/23/2008, -4/+6Proof?
- Hortnon, on 04/23/2008, -3/+4None, of course. I just think it's incredibly likely.
- inactive, on 04/23/2008, -3/+4I've been busy all day, dstat. Don't worry, I came here to bury this as inaccurate.
- Hortnon, on 04/23/2008, -2/+3I never know what you're trying to say anymore, I just assume that you've gone crazy these days...
- card51short, on 04/22/2008, -6/+7"I bet they're panicking now, holding a special meeting in Herkimer's basement about what to do now."
Oh, they aren't panicking. Any honest truth seeker with any integrity would acknowledge the paper and concede a victory for us.
However, there's no need for these guys to attend a meeting because they already know what to do : deny. It's that simple. Just deny the validity of the journal. Say they paid the owner's of the journal off to print their paper. Just make something up! It's really quite easy, actually. - Look4Truth, on 04/21/2008, -13/+14Hahaha! Another brick crumbles out of the Rabid Lemming Cult conspiracy theories.
*queue the RLC with lame excuses and attacks...* - Hortnon, on 04/22/2008, -10/+11Why? This is the same 14 point list that was posted before that you guys circle jerked over.
It's not a paper, and it doesn't need to be peer-reviewed. It is a bulleted list. - inactive, on 04/22/2008, -10/+10Congatulations troofers, you have reached a whole new level of fail.
Not only is this NOT a credible journal (we call journals that let you choose who gets to peer-review, and then charge a LARGE publishing fee's a "Vanity Journal"), but this isn't even a paper that proposes a hypothesis using any kind of technical analysis! If you actually read the damn thing (you guys basically jerked off to it before even reading it), you'll see it's more like a letter to the editor, with some critiques of NIST, but that's it! There's not a single part of it that proposes any kind of theory whatsoever! This does nothing for the troofer movement, as it doesn't prove any of their hypothesis in anyway.
Better luck next time. - card51short, on 04/22/2008, -6/+6wait...alex jones?
You realize it's steven jones right?
Great research there. - Hortnon, on 04/22/2008, -7/+7Explain, in your words, why this is a victory for 9/11 truth. Keep in mind, this is not a scientific paper, nor does it present any evidence.
- inactive, on 04/22/2008, -6/+6Well carD, if you disagree with my claims, please feel free to enlighten me by pointing out in this "paper" where it suddenly proposes a theory about how the towers were brought down in a CD, and then uses scientific and technical analysis to explain it. Because that seems to be how the troof movement is describing it; a paper that PROVES 9/11 was an inside job...
Moreover, you can explain to me how a journal that lets a paper that was only looked over by a couple of lawyers before being sent to the presses is somehow a legitimate scientific journal.
I won't hold my breath... - inactive, on 04/22/2008, -11/+10Proof? This "paper" sure as hell isn't it.
- Hortnon, on 04/22/2008, -12/+11I like your clever misrepresentation. It's cute that you used the word 'article', because that's what this is. It's not a scientific paper, by your own admission.
- Hortnon, on 04/23/2008, -4/+3Well, I didn't ask you.
- card51short, on 04/22/2008, -6/+5hahhahahaahhahahaahaahhahaahhahahahahaaahahhahahahahhhhhahahhhaahahahahahha
peer reviewed? Yes
Deniers still denying? Yes
hahhahahaahhahahaahaahhahaahhahahahahaaahahhahahahahhhhhahahhhaahahahahahha - inactive, on 04/22/2008, -11/+9You do not have an "officially peer reviewed paper you arrogant ass. You have a letter to the editor.
- inactive, on 04/22/2008, -12/+9Someone's ego is completely out of control. This is NOT a properly peer reviewed paper. It's simply a letter to the editor, which Jones had to pay to have published, that outlines the ***** of the truther movement. Any reputable journal would have put a copy of it in the restroom so the employees would have something funny to read while sitting on the toilet.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is