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: 11
96
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   
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.




posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   

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.


Well, you've already made it obvious that you have problems with the very definition of the word 'independent' :


Originally posted by OptimistPrime
Your argument is petty and childish. Investigation done by "independent" scientists simply means from those used in the official investigation.


Until you can figure out your mistake, then yes, you have misunderstood. I would guess it's an intentional attempt to "spin things right round"...



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
Well, you've already made it obvious that you have problems with the very definition of the word 'independent'


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.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Double post.
edit on 31-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   

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]


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."

Again, *sigh* from the definition of the very word :

Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent: a decision independent of the outcome of the study.


He was influenced, for at least 3 years by his own bias, and that of his "organization".

So, to put it simply, he was the wrong person to have anything to do with this "test". Had he wanted to convince others outside the so called "truth movement" he would have taken this to an independent (got it now? someone not in the "truth movement" or in the big bad government) team to let them properly secure samples and properly perform the tests.

This is really simple stuff, I'm quite surprised it's stumped so many of you.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Actually Soloist...I think that you do fiegn any neutrality since in this last statment you used the term..."truthers"
I would suggest that a neutral position would not call any side names or label then as one side or the other.
But speaking as a truther...because i am not ashamed of picking a side of the fence I would say that the thing here is..I don't for one second believe that Three Steel Framed Skyscrapers came down from fire...or the impacts of the planes...I am a structural Engineer...And in my profeesional opinion, the buildings could have possibly come down....and hey maybe even all three...but they surely would have bucked...swayed...and been a considerably slower collapse....all three had more than robust central cores...all three buildings had reduntancies built in especially the towers...they had a rigid construction to stop sway even at such heights...building 7 seven was built so that every second floor could actually be Removed to give more hieght to clients.
The 23rd floor of building seven was known as "THE BUNKER" as it was New Yorks emergency respone centre...it had harden projectile resistant glass installed.
That section alone was built to withstand an bomb blast.
on sept 12 there was a planned excerise and all the prep work for setting up a temporary command centre was already in place on the port Authority...Coincedence...hmmmmm
but i am sure you have heard all this before Soloist....and i truely hope you are neutral...but your more than welcome over to the darkside....My age is showing when i Quote star wars LUKE
edit on 033131p://f51Friday by plube because: grammerical corrections



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
Actually Soloist...I think that you do fiegn any neutrality since in this last statment you used the term..."truthers"


Wow. Not to be insulting, but since this is the second truther to come away with this impression, I can only chalk it up to people not really reading or understanding the posts.

No, I am not feigning any tiny bit of neutrality at all.

I am NOT a neutral party in this discussion. I don't believe Steven Jones, I don't believe in any type of them*te, and I don't buy any of the "theory of the week" junk.

But get this, even though the OP on his current name and previous one have called me everything from "shill" to "government loyalist" I do NOT trust the government, not this one, or any, whatsoever. While I'm a free thinker, I'm not an idiot, and prefer to use logic and reason, and for years we've seen everything from conventional demo, to thermite, to thermate, to super-duper thermite, to nano-thermite, back to conventional demo, holograms, missiles, nukes,tv fakery, space lasers, magic trick flyover planes, and on and on.

I've seen comedians and actors accused of being in on it, and their lives threatened, on this very forum.

And in the end, I've never ever seen anything that has come close to convincing me that any of these "theories" are remotely true.

I lost in-laws on 9/11. Good people. No, I'm not feigning neutrality. I'm sickened by all the people who think they found the newest "truth".

On 9/11 I was working in the control room for one of the big 3 networks. Guess what? I've seen things that weren't ever broadcast, and hopefully will never see the light of day, it was that horrifying. You cannot possibly know what's it like to see producers and editors in tears making tough decisions out of respect for the dead and dying. But then I see people on this forum saying the bodies weren't real, and so on.

It's disgusting.

So am I a neutral party? Not even close.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


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?

And whyare you having such a hard time with Jones? He researched something which unsettled him. And he never claims the bodies aren't real? You are a shill, or a plant, whatever you claim, because it is possible to know a person by the fruit of their actions. Until you can empirically prove that you have a different source of evidence from what is available globally to research the 9-11 incident, then shut up and back up. Jones has researched off his own dissatisfaction with the 'answers' provided by the government. The government's fob-offs weren't answers - they were more full of holes than the 'swiss cheese steel beams' that were found in the trade centre wreckage.

Seriously - you bang on about 'independence'. Is it some sort of crime against the science police to feel passionate and angry about something which, the more you research, the more it upsets you? No. So enough of the 'independence' BS already. Provide some kind of input - some kind of alternative source of evidence, then we'll care what you say, and possibly believe a word or two of the poisonous, carefully crafted rhetoric.

As it stands, having taken the same tack, (more or less - accounting for deliberate position changes aimed at causing distraction and off-topic complaints) right the way through this thread, you have been simply trying to detract from serious consideration of the evidence.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Good reply...And for me i am not one who is putting forward outlandish theories...I put forward people whom could be involved with the money and ability to pull off a false flag OP...and i put forward that as a structural engineer...these steel structures did not come down in the fashion they did without outside assistance.
Also as the Gov and others try to slander people who look for edvidence it shows that there is something not right...plus The heasrt own pm magazine actually in there trying to debunk it...is shameful...plus we have Nat geo placing a skirt around a beam and just pouring thermite into it and saying look it can't cut it....Now people know in order for explosives to work they need to be directed...So please tell me who are the ones trying to baffle people with nonsense and for what reason.
now Jon Cole gave some great demo's of directed compressed explosive reactions with thermite...may not be completely accurate but at least they are showing othersides to the story of...IT CAN"T BE DONE...now JEROME HAUER the man in charge of emergency services was an amazing man...part of KROLL INC security consultants A man who knew explosives....working for the New Yorks mayors office...also knows about bio terrorism.
Now this is the man that also had the ability to perpetrate the anthrax scare...who also Identified the body FBI agent John Patrick O'Niel who amazingly was one of ONLY 12 out 2780 victims that was found intact in the bottom of the south tower stairwell on sept22 where he had laid for 11days.
but you are more than welcome to read all this is a thread i made....www.abovetopsecret.com...
but like i say my reason for doubt lays in the fact three steel structures came down in the same day under circumstances that in my own professional opinion reeks of dog do do.
edit on 063131p://f45Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

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.


Hey..

This is an incorrect statement
What Jones and others have found in the dust is nano-thermite-COMPOSITE ..a sol-gel nano-thermite composite
..so not just residue or elements that fit in with thermite, but laboratory, high technology nano-composite

Here's a link to an articleby Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory explaining the sol-gel.
www.llnl.gov...


Some of the chips had multiple-layers on them



..and here's a patent for such 'laminate nano-thermite-composite' ..this patent was filed in 1996
Metal nanolaminate composite, United States Patent 5912069
www.freepatentsonline.com...

What they also found was ‘iron rich micro spheres’ which are a by-product of thermite-reaction.


Proof that thermite can cut horizontally..
9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate
911blogger.com...

Video evidence of cutting charges/individual demolition charger in the WTC Towers:

Cutter Charges in the North Tower of the World Trade Center
www.youtube.com...

Here is another great video analysis by David Chandler, a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, showing the explosion “squibs” below the collapsing North Tower:
EXCELLENT Analysis of the North Tower Exploding
www.youtube.com...

Another good video analysis by David Chandler showing the South Tower demolition.
South Tower Coming Down
www.youtube.com...

Peace.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by cee420
 


Sir/ Madam. Thanks for the info and clarification, very much appreciated by me and others who support the presentation of truth in ATS threads. You'll be aware that the whole 'paint chips' nonsense is one of the key 'debunk-points' used in the (boringly familiar) rhetoric of the pseudo-skeptic/ troll/ plant community..

It is only by putting up such documented evidence, in carefully constructed 'houses of evidence' (threads, sites and books) that the truth movement will inspire public confidence and professional/ scholarly/ political support.

In the battle to achieve real, lasting 9-11 truth, a ray or two of light are starting to filter into the darkened room.

Good show!



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   

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?


There are people here that know where I was, however I've been asked not to give out details. Not only that but I'm under an NDA, and I also could care less about providing you evidence of what I and others saw. It's not for your eyes anyway. I wish it wouldn't have been for mine, but I can't change that.

Plenty of people claim the bodies weren't real, although it looks like your rather new here you might want to look into some of the older threads in case you were thinking of claiming otherwise and accuse me of "strawmans".



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

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."


But 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.

"Truther" doesn't mean they have some "agenda," it means THEY DISAGREE WITH YOU. 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!



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

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!



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   

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.


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. I'm going to have to quote our resident "Joey Canoli" on this one: "Durrrrrrrrrr."

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.


And again, that means nothing. "Truther" doesn't mean he has an agenda, it doesn't mean he's biased, and as far as I know he doesn't even call himself a "truther.". He is an independent scientist who disagrees with your opinions. You're the one that's branding everyone with this bigoted, nonsense word, "truther." I think it's immature to even be grouping everyone that disagrees with you into some broad category for convenient blanket-insulting, because that's the only reason you do it and you know it.



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 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. Every time I call you out on your stubbornness of admitting any of these scientists are independent of any outside influences, you just agree that you're biased and immediately try to bury the whole issue under the rug. The whole problem here is YOU are biased, not that these scientists are! These are people with credentials you no doubt lack, and they understand the scientific process no doubt better than you do. The whole issue here, is your not accepting them just because you are so biased, you refuse to even accept that they have not been influenced into these positions by some "agenda" that you can't seem to elaborate on in any detail.


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.


The number of scientists who are with "the movement" is increasing every year. And for every one that agrees with us, is one more you brand "truther" and refuse to listen to anymore. Constantly plugging your ears is not the same as truly asking for an independent review. You've received the independent review. Now all you are doing is making lame excuses that anyone who is not as bigoted as you are can see right through.


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!


Your one and only defense has become branding your opponents with polarized, immature labels, and then dismissing them out of hand.

If this was supposed to be a science-based or even reasonable discussion, you abandoned that approach pages ago. You are not going to prove to me that your position is the result of anything other than being a bigot when your entire argument is that anyone who agrees with "truthers" instantly has some mysterious agenda.
edit on 31-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   

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, but that's just the way it is. A truther, especially one who creates an organization for that purpose, cannot by definition be independent in this matter.

You can argue about that all you want, I know it's hard, since it's your guy and all, but in the end it changes nothing. No one is buying his snake oil that wasn't already.



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.


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.


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.



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.


And again, that means nothing. "Truther" doesn't mean he has an agenda, it doesn't mean he's biased, and as far as I know he doesn't even call himself a "truther.". He is an independent scientist who disagrees with your opinions. You're the one that's branding everyone with this bigoted, nonsense word, "truther." I think it's immature to even be grouping everyone that disagrees with you into some broad category for convenient blanket-insulting, because that's the only reason you do it and you know it.



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.


There is no reliable science here, so entertaining banter is all there is. You don't have to participate you know.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   

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


I didn't say you invented the definition, sorry.

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.



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.


Again, where is the "agenda" and where is the "bias"? If by "agenda" you mean exactly what is stated, that they are pursuing a more thorough investigation of the attacks, I'm not disputing that.


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.


So, you use the same logic you are making fun of, to back your own arguments. A form of "logic" that I've not once cited during our whole discussion.


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.


I never claimed such reasoning in the first place. You apparently love "snake oil" since you've gladly found "us" as an excuse to knowingly use fallacious reasoning yourself.


There is no reliable science here, so entertaining banter is all there is.


One person's entertainment is another's heathenism I guess.


So what do you think is so becoming of being biased, knowing it, and being proud of it? Can you explain the merits of that?
edit on 31-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   

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.

Blatantly false.

Harrit has been an active truther since late 2006/early 2007, sending articles to Danish newspapers on the subject and being interviewed on Danish morning television.
edit on 31-12-2010 by roboe because: Clarification



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   

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.



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?



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   

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?


If you haven't figured out the whole message I'm trying to deliver about your instant labeling of those who disagree with you as "truthers" and "conspiracy theorists" and immediately dismissing them with those too-simple words, then there is no point in trying to communicate anything at all to you. And I'm believing more and more that to be the case.


I asked you to explain the merits of being biased. You've admitted you're biased, and seem proud of it. Would you please explain the advantages of that again?



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join