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.

 

What evidence would accept to prove 9/11 was an inside job?

page: 28
7
<< 25  26  27    29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Do you think I'm blind? Now you are totally ignoring the magazine you cited to go with some JREF trash?

I'll give you a hint, if you have to cross-post from another forum, filled with armchair debunkers like yourself, because you don't even have your own excuse, then you aren't doing any critical thinking.




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Do you think I'm blind?


Yes, actually I do. You are blinded to anything that disproves your conspiracy theories, and thus refuse to see all the facts that debunk them.



Now you are totally ignoring the magazine you cited to go with some JREF


Who is ignoring it, it just points out that the timeline CT was around before the paper you posted, and so had been debunked before they posted their paper - so poor was their research they did not even bother checking!



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Okay, I can play this game.

No, you didn't debunk anything. I'm still right.

Your turn.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by pteridine
 


It's easy for you to claim Jones doesn't know chemistry when you know even less than he does.

I asked for a published paper refuting his. Why don't you post me one instead of criticizing the intellect or expertise of someone who is totally out of your armchair league?


As usual, you completely overestimate your knowledge of science and underestimate posters on this board. You have no idea how much chemistry I know; demonstrably more than Jones.

As to you asking for a published paper refuting his, there are two reasons why you will wait in vain. The first is that his paper was not published in a peer reviewed journal so the scientific community is generally unaware of his claims.
The second reason is that this is a forensic analysis. To properly do the analysis, one needs samples. The samples should have a legal chain of custody. None of the chips Jones tested has anything like a chain of custody, so no one really knows where they came from. Unless there were paint chips as part of a forensic evidence collection with a chain of custody, any analyses would not really prove anything and wouldn't be worth the effort.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
As usual, you completely overestimate your knowledge of science and underestimate posters on this board. You have no idea how much chemistry I know; demonstrably more than Jones.


If you think what you've posted on this forum makes you more of an authority on chemistry than Steven Jones then you are living in fairy land.

Do you have some kind of degree or educational history you'd like to share, or are your ATS posts the summation of your chemical experience?



As to you asking for a published paper refuting his, there are two reasons why you will wait in vain.


I don't need your excuses.

You will tell me there are trillions of engineers that disagree with Jones then you say all this garbage. Either show me a paper that refutes him or shut up. You're not more qualified than Jones, and your arrogant attitude doesn't change that.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I have refuted Jones paper on many threads using only the information Jones provided in his paper. Your knowledge of chemistry and science, in general, is too limited to judge my ability or to understand my explanation.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


So in other words you don't have any qualifications at all, you just post online and have an opinion. And you're arrogant about it.


Steven Jones still has you beat. He's probably had his Ph.D. and been doing work for major universities, the DoE and foreign governments for longer than you've even been alive. You can't even tell me what your major was or where you graduated from. Really, do you think kids on the internet with a 2 cent opinion is rare? I have no doubt you are very, very, very confident in yourself.


Come on man, show me a paper or shut up. If I believed everything everyone told me on the internet, I'd be as gullible as you must think I actually am.


[edit on 22-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You are wrong about my educational level and professional scientific experience. I do not worry about your opinion.
As to unfounded arrogance, you are certainly ahead of most posters on this thread.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You are wrong about my educational level and professional scientific experience. I do not worry about your opinion.


Yet you keep arguing with me?


As to unfounded arrogance, you are certainly ahead of most posters on this thread.


So far you've claimed to be more knowledgeable than Steven Jones (which is a laugh in itself), claimed that I can't even understand what you post, yet you can't even tell me where you got your degree or what your major is/was. As far as I know you're 15 years old and this is all part of you figuring out who you are in the world.


Listen, I know you don't want to keep going in circles about how inexperienced you are, either. We already have established there is no paper refuting Jones, et al's work yet. And you refuse to comment on whether or not you even have a college degree. What else is there to go over? You just feel like you have to keep getting in the last word? I thought you didn't care about my opinion?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Does anybody care to explain why so many government agencies reported the impact times so horribly off from one another?

www.journalof911studies.com...


...especially when it was on live TV that day, synchronized with atomic clocks from the beginning?

What kind of "expert" does it take to figure out when a plane hit a building when it's on live TV? These times are over 10 seconds off from each other in cases, even after being adjusted for all various delays that would have occurred.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
I would believe if a Bush/Bin Laden sex tape was released.

Bush would have be wearing a hat shaped like a building, and Osama would be wearing a pilot uniform.


It would also help if Bush spewed out lines like " Ram me like a 747" ... and Osama said " Take that like the trade center "


That might convince me !!



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


My degrees and schools are personal information [see T&C]. This forum is not an appropriate place to publish my vitae nor is it appropriate for you to ask for it.
Jones is a nuclear physicist craving attention and not a chemist. His lack of chemical knowledge is evident from his paper, as any competent chemist can tell you. His calculations of energetics alone show that his claims are in error. Claiming that the red chips are high-tech "fuse material" is ludicrous when he also estimates that there are ten tons of unburnt fuse.
You are out of your depth.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS##

Enhanced enforcement is underway.

All members are entitled to their own opinions on the topic and are welcome to express them.

Comments on anything else, especially personal commentary of any kind whatsoever directed toward other members, are subject to warnings or removal. Repeated behavior of this kind is subject to temporary post bans or permanent account bans.

Please stay focused on the topic, respect the rights of other members to express their own opinions, ALERT us to problems and do your best.


THIS IS A MODERATOR ADVISORY. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST. STAY ON TOPIC.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You are out of your depth.


I'll believe it when I've seen that you also have worked with large research institutions and universities for decades doing research science, complete with government funding, etc.


I'm still waiting for anyone to address my last post.

Do you guys even REALIZE that they couldn't even get the impact times straight? Between numerous sources you are given numerous contradictory and very off figures even after adjustments for delays and the like. Major media clocks are synchronized. Shouldn't be that damned hard should it? Unless something is confusing them or there is something they are trying to obfuscate?



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I have refuted Jones paper on many threads using only the information Jones provided in his paper. Your knowledge of chemistry and science, in general, is too limited to judge my ability or to understand my explanation.


Could you provide a link? Obviously these threads are closed now because thanks to you, case closed right?

I would be very interested in reading your debunkings unless there are really just threads that are still going but you feel like you won. You know the difference, right?



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
I would be very interested in reading your debunkings unless there are really just threads that are still going but you feel like you won. You know the difference, right?


I know a lot of "debunkers" will just post their garbage on multiple threads and then after they get responses to it, they just stop making their argument and say they've already debunked this or that when, exactly as you say, the original argument they made was never proven to begin with. Then they will refuse to reiterate their arguments, but instead go on post after post after post with ranting about how it's already been established without explaining how.

I've seen the pattern from a lot of different posters here. My attitude is, if you're going to spend 20 posts saying you've already proven something over and over, you might as well just go ahead and spend 1 post actually proving it again. And see where that takes you. Because more often than not there are huge holes in their reasoning and they know it.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by bsbray11
 


My degrees and schools are personal information [see T&C].


There is not one thing personal about a degree. There is not one bit of personal information that can be gleaned from listing a degree. Unless you made your own school and gave yourself some degree that it will turn out only one person in the world has and his name starts with a P, you are so so so horribly wrong here.

Let me show you how this works. I will pick a poster on ATS that I know personally. I have witnessed the two of you have exchanges with each other in one thread or another. This person has a masters degree in social work. Who is it? You must be able to figure it out now, right?

Sorry but anyone that has actually graduated from, well anything...should know there is no personal information in your degree.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I know a lot of "debunkers" will just post their garbage on multiple threads and then after they get responses to it, they just stop making their argument and say they've already debunked this or that when, exactly as you say, the original argument they made was never proven to begin with. Then they will refuse to reiterate their arguments, but instead go on post after post after post with ranting about how it's already been established without explaining how.


Oh yes, that and this neat trick of insisting on something until proven wrong or insisting you can prove it without ever doing it and then they stop. About a week or two later, they start all over like they went to the beginning of some script. The same posts and assertions.

So I cannot help but guess you are talking about things like

The wings folded back into the plane

Bodies were found strapped into seats

Hundreds of people saw AA77 hit the Pentagon

Hundreds or thousands of people watched AA77 knocking down lightpoles

Black boxes are not always recovered

There was a huge gash in the side of WTC7

Enormous fires engulfed WTC7

My fingers are getting tired but am I close to the type of thing you meant?



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Start here and work your way back through the thread. If you need explanations, you can send U2U's or post in the thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Sorry but anyone that has actually graduated from, well anything...should know there is no personal information in your degree.


Exactly. To the contrary, someone should be proud of a degree they worked hard for and earned. That is, if they have one. It's no more personal than knowing someone's name. That kind of information is shared all the time on these forums, names and degrees, and nothing "bad" ever results from it.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 25  26  27    29  30 >>

log in

join