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: 12
96
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
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.


I remember hearing from him that it was interest and research on one of these papers that was what changed his mind, and that it was a gradual process, not something that changed his mind overnight.

Either way you are left with the same thing: a scientist, using his expertise, and coming to conclusions that differ from your opinions. This does not instantly make him "biased" and having an "agenda" any more than any other scientist is "biased" or has some "agenda" for accepting any scientific theory.




posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
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.


*My* instant labeling of the founder of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth"? He labeled himself, as do many others and their organizations, quite proudly I notice. It has nothing to do with anyone disagreeing with me, geez.

It almost sounds like you think it's an insult.



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


You're biased as well, you can answer that question by asking it to yourself.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
*My* instant labeling of the founder of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth"? He labeled himself, as do many others and their organizations, quite proudly I notice. It has nothing to do with anyone disagreeing with me, geez.

It almost sounds like you think it's an insult.


You post like the word "truther" is an insult, and an automatic, no-thinking-necessary reason to dismiss anything "truthers" say. You even admit being biased in this regard. What else is there to argue when you have no problem with being a bigot?




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


You're biased as well, you can answer that question by asking it to yourself.


I'm not biased. I never claimed I was biased; you did. I wasn't born a "truther." I don't call myself a "truther" and I wasn't a "truther" or even a conspiracy theorist for years after 9/11 happened.

You, on the other hand, have openly admitted to be being biased, while simultaneously accusing me of the same. No, that's why we have different opinions in the first place I'm afraid. I actually evaluate the data that is before me, before I start calling people names and slapping them with labels.


You are the one who is apparently proud of his bias. Don't shift the question away from yourself, take responsibility if you're so proud of it. What are the merits of you being biased?



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
What else is there to argue when you have no problem with being a bigot?


Wow, name calling. How sweet. It's quite funny how you try to take the focus off of the topic and try to turn it on me for so many posts, and it's not working.

I keep trying to talk about Jones and Co,. yet you want to make me the focus. Sucks that's against the rules, huh?

Stick to the topic, please. Thank you.



I'm not biased. I never claimed I was biased; you did. I wasn't born a "truther." I don't call myself a "truther" and I wasn't a "truther" or even a conspiracy theorist for years after 9/11 happened.


But you are one now, no? I've seen your posts many times, you certainly believe in this Jones snake oil junk science, so call yourself whatever you like. I don't care, but you are biased to their side whether you want to admit it or not.


You are the one who is apparently proud of his bias.


And truthers aren't? LOL!


Don't shift the question away from yourself, take responsibility if you're so proud of it. What are the merits of you being biased?


Merits? Simple. I've never seen any "truther" theory that comes close to making sense. I've watched them morph and wiggle into other junk that doesn't make sense. Each different group thinks they have all the answers and can't even agree with each other, that right there speaks volumes.

It's sickening. Most of them need severe mental help.

I am shifting it away from myself, I'm not the topic of this thread.

The topic is a "truther" posted that some "truthers" believe the report of yet another "truther" credible.

I find that highly suspect. Talk about that if you like. I've answered all the silly little personal jabs you've put out there, and you want to argue about it like it matters.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
WELL.............WHO DID IT???????



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
What else is there to argue when you have no problem with being a bigot?


Wow, name calling. How sweet. It's quite funny how you try to take the focus off of the topic and try to turn it on me for so many posts, and it's not working.

I keep trying to talk about Jones and Co,. yet you want to make me the focus. Sucks that's against the rules, huh?


In this case, your admitted bias against "truthers" and "conspiracy theorists" is the problem because it's why you are dismissing them without putting any thought at all into what they show. According to your own "reasoning" it would be impossible for an independent scientist to agree with "truthers," because as soon as these scientists do, you start calling them names and claiming they're not independent and are being influenced by something.

Your whole argument is that there has been no "independent" or "neutral" study, when there has been. You just refuse to acknowledge this out of your own bias and bigotry towards what you call "truthers." If they disagree with you, they're not independent or neutral, period. That's the basis of your whole tirade here, and it is completely dependent upon your admitted bias. I am repeating this in so many words in post after post to you and you can't seem to comprehend this issue at all. It is a problem of you dismissing things just because of pre-conceived ideas in yourself that you refuse to challenge.



I'm not biased. I never claimed I was biased; you did. I wasn't born a "truther." I don't call myself a "truther" and I wasn't a "truther" or even a conspiracy theorist for years after 9/11 happened.


But you are one now, no?


Again, I don't call myself a "truther." If you want to go by the technical definition of a conspiracy theorist, yes, I would be, and so are you, if you think however many Muslims did it, because that is a conspiracy theory too. Do you want me to post the definition of "conspiracy" now? The word itself implies nothing, and that you think it does is only another indication to you that you are completely bigoted towards the very idea that 9/11 was anything other than a bunch of Muslims who "hate our freedom."


I've seen your posts many times, you certainly believe in this Jones snake oil junk science, so call yourself whatever you like. I don't care, but you are biased to their side whether you want to admit it or not.


And once again, your own bias is blinding you to the fact that I do look at the data in these papers, instead of just calling names and accusing others of my own problems.



You are the one who is apparently proud of his bias.


And truthers aren't? LOL!


No?

You must not be too damned proud of your bias since you keep refusing to explain what you think is so marvelous about it.



Don't shift the question away from yourself, take responsibility if you're so proud of it. What are the merits of you being biased?


Merits? Simple. I've never seen any "truther" theory that comes close to making sense. I've watched them morph and wiggle into other junk that doesn't make sense. Each different group thinks they have all the answers and can't even agree with each other, that right there speaks volumes.


And people who believe the "official story" are different? You know how many people on here realize that the NIST report proved nothing and yet still believe in some faint whiff of official bull hockey anyway, as if science never mattered anyway and all they ever needed was a little faith? The official NIST and FEMA reports on the WTC even contradict each other as to the specific collapse mechanisms.


And none of the confused nonsense in this rant begins to explain why being biased could ever be seen as a good thing, or something to be proud of. You have no problem admitting being biased but when it comes to explaining why you think this is good, you can't seem to stay focused. Anyway we both know that bias is a bad thing, and even if I was inherently biased towards one theory or another regardless of any facts (which I never was) it still wouldn't excuse you from making a mistake in being biased, and on top of that being prideful of it and boasting about it, as if that's going to make a positive impression on anyone.


It's sickening. Most of them need severe mental help.


Almost sounds like someone who feigns pride in being biased but not proud enough to explain why being biased is supposed to be a good thing. Speaking of mental help, I'm no psychiatrist but with such a contradiction between the pride and the inability to justify it here there is something smacking of a dissociative disorder and then some. Then again you're no expert of psychiatry either, huh?


I am shifting it away from myself, I'm not the topic of this thread.

The topic is a "truther" posted that some "truthers" believe the report of yet another "truther" credible.


You just keep showing why your bias is the problem with your own argument. It isn't even an argument at all; the above statement exudes nothing but pure bias, if you haven't noticed yourself.

You want someone who is "independent," but according to you that already precludes any "truthers" because you think they're all influenced by some mystery agenda that you also never want to explain.

And you don't see how this relates directly to your admitted bias?

Really?


Btw I still want to hear what "outside influence" you think is acting upon all these "truthers" that make them all part of some malevolent agenda in your view. There's no way it could be that they all actually believe what they are saying is accurate, could it?
edit on 31-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
According to your own "reasoning" it would be impossible for an independent scientist to agree with "truthers,"


That is exactly NOT what I said. You have once again proven your lack of comprehension in this matter.

Now, back on topic, I am not the topic.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
According to your own "reasoning" it would be impossible for an independent scientist to agree with "truthers,"


That is exactly NOT what I said. You have once again proven your lack of comprehension in this matter.


Okay, so an independent scientist comes along, thinks the matter is worth investigating (is he arousing your suspicion yet?), does a study, and finds evidence that there is more to the story than what the government reported.

Now he's a "truther" and you're not going to listen to him, right?



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Okay, so an independent scientist comes along, thinks the matter is worth investigating (is he arousing your suspicion yet?), does a study, and finds evidence that there is more to the story than what the government reported.

Now he's a "truther" and you're not going to listen to him, right?



Once again in the context of the report in the OP, Jones was already deeply committed at that point. He could have for instance asked for an independent (not truthers, not government, got it?) team to collect samples, and to test those samples properly and report their findings.

THAT would carry alot more weight than how it was done.

Truthers don't trust Goverment reports, non-truthers don't trust truther reports. That is why you have only truthers finding Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible! as the OP states.

For all we know, they might find anomalies. Maybe not "government inside job conspiracy" types, but something that could give us more information that could help explain better why the towers failed.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 02:03 AM
link   
www.911myths.com...

Enough said. That and the fact that we know credibility determines a lot. When science tells us this, we expect high credibility, and highly credible people backing the claim in high numbers. Since "truthers" want truth so bad, stop claiming Jones is independent. Stop claiming we have to disprove in complete every theory that comes out of the woodword. That's not how it works. Religion still exists, we can't "completely" disprove that. We aren't the one making a claim here.

It's easy. Planes hit the towers, tower's collapsed. Beyond that, anyone trying to claim that anything BUT the two main things stated right there is additive and/or collaborative must provide utter and complete truth. Stop calling yourselves truthers until you get that. We've done the calculations of radiation levels that come from every point in the universe further backing the big bang "theory". That should be more than enough to make it more than a theory correct? Wait, the collab of Big Bang and Steady State since both of those sides have credible defenses and merged should make the collaborated theory perfectly proven correct?

If credibility is enough to get someone jailed during a trial... it sure as heck should count in something as huge as the claim this man is making. The way I look at it, the way any REAL scientist does... he would need samples of not only many zones of the debris... but he would need these samples collected before, during, and after. Under supervision of independent researchers, before EVER having concocted a theory. This would give no possible way to disprove.

He would need to run every single test imaginable, in a controlled environment, and outside. A lot of key parts of his paper push emphasis on materials we KNOW have other means than "THERMITE or THERMATE" for showing up in the debris of a steel building. Come on now. Make a claim, prove a claim. End all.

Scientists would be MORE than happy to get behind something like this. Think about it, every country WANTS scientists from each other. We know this is true throughout almost every war. Intelligence, ideas, etc. It's all very valuable. To think this isn't true to this date is ridiculous. The group of scientists that would provide irrefutable proof would undoubtedly be living large in any one of the other "super powers".

Until anyone else can provide irrefutable proof that the original reports were wrong, the original reports remain valid. It's the way of the world, been that way forever and a day, grow up and get used to it. People want to be heard they need to give reason to listen. In science, reason is proof. Or at least more than just circumstancial proof.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


I didn't say anything about Jones. I'm talking generically, in principle. A random scientist comes along, gets suspicious enough of the official story to do his own investigation, and ends up contradicting it. Then what? You slap him with the label "truther" too and ignore him?

So re-read my post and get back to me.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Soloist
 


I didn't say anything about Jones. I'm talking generically, in principle. A random scientist comes along, gets suspicious enough of the official story to do his own investigation, and ends up contradicting it. Then what? You slap him with the label "truther" too and ignore him?

So re-read my post and get back to me.



What's the point of this hypothetical hoop jumping? Your question has too many variables. Should anyone trust one person (no matter the side) with such a task. Probably not. But then again you've went and made the assumption on what I would do anyhow, so that speaks volumes.

Your question has nothing to do with what we've been discussing. I never slapped a "truther" label on anyone, those in question did it themselves, and did it years prior to the report in the OP.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


You're good at this.

So good, that I'll be deliberately ignoring you (without clicking 'ignore'... Need to be able to see what you're up to...). I'll be making sure that every now and then a summary of your 'input' to this and other similar threads gets posted.

Hopefully one per page, to highlight your clever twisting shenanigans.

You are deliberately seeking to inflame and distract, detract (and dissuade on the basis of zero factual data - just by sounding authoritative). You are calling researchers 'biased' simply because during the course of their scientific investigations they had developed opinions. You are actively seeking to spam this thread, in a way that suggests you have some sort of vested interest in damaging the construction of resource-based threads.

You seem content to argue over semantics, to pretend you didn't say certain things, to pretend you didn't intend certain things by the tone of your posts, to cast aspersions on the reliability and credence of the research/researchers involved in seeking 9-11 truth...

Quite simply, muddying the waters and seeking to inflame a reaction from those who would otherwise simply be happy to seek out the truth.



Fly.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


And that is a plain old fashioned LIE. You most certainly did insinuate a 'truther' label. Which is why I said you're good at this. You cast your line and wait patiently for a bite - then twist everyone's words (including your own) to make certain that the impression you present is one of authority. In reality, you are a shark cruising, and your fin is clearly showing above the surface.

* awaits the inevitable response "now you're calling me names" *


Not name calling - simply providing an analogous example of what you can be compared to, if we are the ones who are casually fishing in the waters of truth.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by JustinSG
www.911myths.com...



It's easy. Planes hit the towers, tower's collapsed.


Bullspit. The buildings fell symmetrically - the damage sustained by planes and subsequent fire was not sufficient to cause even an asymmetric collapse.

And what about WTC7 then? No plane hit it, only minor fires occurred - and yet it fell, with all the hallmarks of controlled demolition.


Come on now. Make a claim, prove a claim. End all.


Jones has written a paper, not simply made a claim. Have you read it?


Scientists would be MORE than happy to get behind something like this.


No, they wouldn't. They are to afraid to lose their career prospects by putting their heads above the parapet; the carefully constructed disinformation campaign, beginning on the very day itself (though planned in advance for some time no doubt) has left the world concerned and yet confused, and worryingly at risk of ridicule if they are to question the administration who worked so hard to get their little wars going. In short, the scientific method is not welcomed by those who would have us brush 9-11 under the carpet, as noted by the fact that the steel beams were cut up and sent off to Asia for recycling instead of being analysed properly.


Until anyone else can provide irrefutable proof that the original reports were wrong, the original reports remain valid.


Nonsense and ignorance.

The original reports are proven inaccurate by multiple points of note, as highlighted in Jones' reports, presentations and peer-reviewed paper. Get out of the box dude.


edit on 1-1-2011 by FlyInTheOintment because: spelling



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


I am not new here matey - I preferred not to get involved in the 9-11 debate previously, simply because of the amount of disinformation and shadiness being perpetrated by folks with an agenda to keep the truth under wraps.

I realised recently that there is no excuse for inaction when the truth is clear, and when evil men are keeping lies and falsehood at the forefront of the public's perception of 9-11.

Moving on from that, I don't think it's really your place to decide what's fit for me to see, do you? For all you know, I could be a forensic pathologist. I have no issue with reviewing the reality of the situation in the quest for truth. I feel for the victims, and am saddened that so many died for the selfish goals of a few viciously evil men. And I don't think those men were all Saudi/ arab terrorists. I think most of them were part of the nazi-esque global elite, particularly in the US, but also scattered around the globe in non-national fraternities bent on control, profit and the generation of terror. The smoking gun video of 'Osama Bin Laden', used by the Bush administration as a proof of Al-Qaeda involvement is fake. 'Nuff said.

Oh, and your strawmans are evident, and I don't retract my accusation of such. Nobody in this thread with whom you are arguing has stated that the bodies weren't real, so yes, strawman. Stop lying, stop twisting your position and stop insinuating falsehood in respect of those with whom you are engaged in more or less 'solo' debate.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Soloist
 


I didn't say anything about Jones. I'm talking generically, in principle. A random scientist comes along, gets suspicious enough of the official story to do his own investigation, and ends up contradicting it. Then what? You slap him with the label "truther" too and ignore him?

So re-read my post and get back to me.



What's the point of this hypothetical hoop jumping? Your question has too many variables. Should anyone trust one person (no matter the side) with such a task. Probably not. But then again you've went and made the assumption on what I would do anyhow, so that speaks volumes.

Your question has nothing to do with what we've been discussing. I never slapped a "truther" label on anyone, those in question did it themselves, and did it years prior to the report in the OP.



Another conspiracy theorist so in love with the official conspiracy theory who pouts in the face of facts.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Well well All semantics here...I am a Structural Engineer....does that make me a Expert...well i would say it gives me some Qaulifications in the area of structural integrity and building design....Does it matter when i became a truther..well i can tell you i became a truther FROM DAY 1 when i saw that first building collapse from a plane striking it...Knowing that it was designed to take the hits of 707's, why would i know this....because it was fasinating right from the time...way back in 1993 when a truck bomb went off in the building and it did not collapse and many Engineers such as myself looked into the construction of the building because it was amazing that it did not come down in that attempt...and the truck bomb was much more well placed to achieve it .(but it didn't).
I wear the name truther with pride...It is not a bad thing....but the way people try to sling it at individuals like it is something to be despised is something that intrigues me....so someone in the movement retaliated with a name called Trusters....but you know something the truthers still do not as often tend to throw that around because personally i don care what you call me..
I care to find out what really happened on the day....because i know the OS is so full of holes that it is just unbelievable...I talk to pilot Robert Balsamo becuase i wanted to know more about the aircraft side of it and he is kind enough to offer ideas sugestions and places to look and i have not been required to buy any material from him....And then you have an Engineer in the likes of Jon Cole who took it upon himself with..LOWTECH common materials and demostrated with a high degree of success (which Nat Geo) with unlimited funds were not able to show...that thermate....could cut steel...Imagine what he could have shown with actual nano thermite.
He showed with a tenth of the material it was possible...in which big media has lied OUT RIGHT....When i watched the Nat Geo...i busted my gut laughing because they skirted a beam and didn't even compress or direct the explosion and said ohhhh look it can't be done.
Then we still have people who believe the OS coming and saying these people are not for real....well frankly we don't care.
Frankly we will with our limited budgets....complete lack of funding.....with only our hearts and minds show the truth and great cost to careers and to livelyhoods....and still people who will only believe the OS will say we are nuts and throw out these outlandish claims which...yes i too find outlandish...but we have to look at the outlandish to whittle our way down the the ones that work...as we are...get this word...INVESTIGATING...Which the OS did not do...they wrote articles and papers and paid large sums of money to have people say what they wanted them to say.
Now Soloist...I respect your opinion...but you tell us you work for a major network saw many things that have not been realeased cause it was offensive...well i myself have seen many offensive things....i have seen..Fallujah footage that makes me ill...Yes i believe there were bodies....i mean of course there were....now the one where people question about bodies...is where were the bodies from the planes.....
I dont care what you say personally but when an aircrash occurs....the media will always show listen to this...BODY BAGS...i am not talking about at the towers...i am talking about flight 93 here.....what a farce.
do you remember the crash from when the polish pres went down...into a wooded area...the plane was in pieces....yet there you saw it.....but hey....your the professional on that end....I thought the media was a money making entity...since when did you hold back too much...you mean you only hold back when your told to hold back....hmmmm...that right there is suspect my friend.
so therefore if a building goes down and i am sent in to investigate i should hold back VITAL info to the success of catching the perpetrators of the collapse...wether it be faulty spandrel joints or shotty welding....I would be a disgusting individual in that case.
which leads me to state that the whole investigation is a complete and utter whitewash on the investigative part...
so please do not use this network stuff that is unseen cause it just shows there is more to hide.


Just because this is someone working hard for the truther with responsible and concisive work
But i know people will find some way to discredit him because it is their job

Thank You Jon for your Valuble work.

edit on 093131p://f55Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 103131p://f02Saturday by plube because: grammar and vid



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
how stupid would the media have people be....two plane crashes...and many many others that could be shown for comparison.....what a joke.

a crash that is a farce and a total whitewash...

A crash that is real and shows a debrisfield and everything....hmmmm...strange.

strange the difference...one filmed by a major network...the other filmed by an Amatuer

can you spot the difference and tell me the one who is being truthful here.

and this can be shown over and over and time after time.
And yes some debris fields are smaller....and smaller pieces....but i will put those up in other places...this is sticking to the point of the discussion.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


How do you explain the difference between the 2 videos.



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join