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
reply to post by Soloist
Ever hear that song? You spin me right round baby right round.....You run around in circles avoiding every important question given to you and tell everyone they misunderstand you. No one can really understand you if you dont have anything to say.
Originally posted by OptimistPrime
Your argument is petty and childish. Investigation done by "independent" scientists simply means from those used in the official investigation.
Originally posted by Soloist
Well, you've already made it obvious that you have problems with the very definition of the word 'independent'
Originally posted by bsbray11
Once again... Steven Jones, Niels Harrit, all of those guys are independent scientists.
As soon as you slap them with the label "truther," you instantly refuse to listen to anything else they have to say. So you will only accept hearing 1 side of this. That is not "independent," that is FORCED.
The original Scholars for 9/11 Truth, founded by James H. Fetzer and Steven Jones on December 15, 2005, was a group of individuals of varying backgrounds and expertise who rejected the mainstream media and government account of the September 11 attacks.[3][91]
Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent: a decision independent of the outcome of the study.
Originally posted by plube
Actually Soloist...I think that you do fiegn any neutrality since in this last statment you used the term..."truthers"
Originally posted by micpsi
Steven Jones claims he is in possession of dust samples from the WTC site, and that those samples contain thermite residue.
Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
Sorry pal but that's just a really good story.
Until you provide evidence of what you're talking about it won't matter what you claim you saw in the 'control room of one of the three biggest networks'.
Stop chalking up strawmans. Where did we say the bodies weren't real?
Originally posted by Soloist
The original Scholars for 9/11 Truth, founded by James H. Fetzer and Steven Jones on December 15, 2005, was a group of individuals of varying backgrounds and expertise who rejected the mainstream media and government account of the September 11 attacks.[3][91]
The paper that is the subject of the OP was done in 2008. So...3 years at a minimum he was already involved in the "truth movement."
Originally posted by bsbray11
But he was not from the day of 9/11.
That means he was not a "truther" until something convinced him as a scientist.
If that's "bias" or "agenda" then you have some problems. If that's your way of looking at things then you're automatically biased and have an agenda too. So if that's your simple view of things, then pot, kettle, hello!
Originally posted by Soloist
Originally posted by bsbray11
But he was not from the day of 9/11.
We're not talking about the day of 9/11. Please re-read the posts since you seem to be having a very hard time understanding this fact.
That means he was not a "truther" until something convinced him as a scientist.
If that's what you want to go with fine. As already proven, he was a truther for a full 3 years at least BEFORE he did the "paper" that the OP is about.
If that's "bias" or "agenda" then you have some problems. If that's your way of looking at things then you're automatically biased and have an agenda too. So if that's your simple view of things, then pot, kettle, hello!
Of course they are biased. One only needs to read this forum to understand that. Am I biased, you bet! Everyone in this forum is, so what? While it makes for entertaining banter, it does NOT make for reliable science.
I know it's hard for the "truthers" to understand, since Jones is their latest hero and all, but as previously stated, until we see something from a team that is not involved in the "movement" it won't convince anyone outside the small circle that already agree with it anyway.
My point in all this, which was stated in my first post still rings true. A bunch of conspiracy theorists agree with a conspiracy theorist. Wow! Stop the presses!
Originally posted by bsbray11
Just because you're not talking about it doesn't mean I can't. It demonstrates perfectly how you are trying to force your definition of "independent" despite facts and common sense to the contrary.
As soon as someone says something that brands them a "truther" in your eyes, "independent" immediately goes out the window and now they suddenly have an agenda and are biased.
Jones was a founding member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth for approximately one year
Here's another example: You just totally ignored the fact I mentioned that Niels Harrit was not a "truther" until he began research on the paper in the OP. How is that not "independent" even by your own manipulated standards? No wonder you just gloss right over inconvenient facts like that. And the definition is not where the manipulation comes into play; it's your interpretation of the definition of the word, since you invented the idea that "truther" automatically means "agenda," and there is not a credible source on the face of the planet to back you on that.
That means he was not a "truther" until something convinced him as a scientist.
If that's what you want to go with fine. As already proven, he was a truther for a full 3 years at least BEFORE he did the "paper" that the OP is about.
I don't find this "banter" entertaining, and you must realize when you say this you are admitting your own "banter" on here must have nothing to do with reliable science.
Originally posted by Soloist
Originally posted by bsbray11
Just because you're not talking about it doesn't mean I can't. It demonstrates perfectly how you are trying to force your definition of "independent" despite facts and common sense to the contrary.
I didn't invent the definition, sorry
As soon as someone says something that brands them a "truther" in your eyes, "independent" immediately goes out the window and now they suddenly have an agenda and are biased.
In my eyes? LOL
Jones was a founding member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth for approximately one year
He founded that silly club! That has nothing to do with branding him a "truther" in my eyes. He did it himself!
Can you really not see that? Or are you trying to blame me in hopes that others don't? Geez, it's there in black and white, just accept it.
I did address this already in a previous post. I used the famed "truther logic" that states if one part of the data is suspect, then none of it can be trusted.
I know you guys don't like it when it's thrown back at you, but once again, no one is buying the snake oil.
There is no reliable science here, so entertaining banter is all there is.
Originally posted by bsbray11But he was not from the day of 9/11. That means he was not a "truther" until something convinced him as a scientist. He was 100% independent from the government or any other organization, besides BYU, at that point in time. Niels Harrit similarly, and only much more recently, during the course of doing research for this paper was he convinced that the official story did not make sense. So stop cherry-picking, stop making lame excuses, and shut up about independent scientists already when you have 100's of them on record.
Originally posted by bsbray11
I said you manipulated it by inventing the idea that "truther" = "outside influence" or "agenda." Read my post, for real this time. That's just the way it is.
Originally posted by Soloist
I didn't invent the idea that Jones has an agenda or is influenced and biased by his "trutherism".
He made it quite clear with is little club. Once again I state the point of this thread is nothing more than truthers agreeing with other truthers. Do you not agree?