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 FlyInTheOintment
You are calling researchers 'biased' simply because during the course of their scientific investigations they had developed opinions.
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...
Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
And that is a plain old fashioned LIE.
You most certainly did insinuate a 'truther' label.
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.
Nobody in this thread with whom you are arguing has stated that the bodies weren't real, so yes, strawman. Stop lying
Originally posted by Soloist
But then I see people on this forum saying the bodies weren't real, and so on.
Originally posted by OptimistPrime
It is quite disturbing that someone can post threads promoting the existence of extra-terrestrials, yet they can not seem to fathom something as simple and closer to home as a Zionist motivated destruction of a few buildings in order to further their agenda.
***** Off topic personal attacks/rants removed ****
The fact is, Jones's paper is peer reviewed, plain and simple whether you chose to accept it or not. Now your opinion, which is that those peers are biased. Nothing you say here will change that.
Congrats on being the first ignorant post I read in 2011.
Originally posted by Soloist
Originally posted by OptimistPrime
It is quite disturbing that someone can post threads promoting the existence of extra-terrestrials, yet they can not seem to fathom something as simple and closer to home as a Zionist motivated destruction of a few buildings in order to further their agenda.
LOL! Nice off topic reply! Being able to fathom something is one thing, but lack of credible evidence is another thing entirely. I've not seen one thing ever that has even come close to convincing me off any of these silly little "theories". The people that promote them typically come off as fanatics who hate the government, and that's a red flag to most people, as it smells like agenda.
But believe what you wish, and watch out for those crazy "Zionists"! LOL!
***** Off topic personal attacks/rants removed ****
The fact is, Jones's paper is peer reviewed, plain and simple whether you chose to accept it or not. Now your opinion, which is that those peers are biased. Nothing you say here will change that.
That's right, nothing I say here will change the fact that those who consider this "journal" "credible" are biased. LOL!
Of course, you do realize it's not my opinion, right? Have you read the OP?
I guess "1,398 “Valid” signers" (who just happen to be truthers) is all YOU might need, but in reality it proves nothing. My original assessment still stands.
Congrats on being the first ignorant post I read in 2011.
Same to you! LOL!
Originally posted by Soloist
Originally posted by bsbray11
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.
Originally posted by OptimistPrime
You accusing anyone of being "biased" is your opinion. Claiming it as fact just proves your ignorance.
We believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the World Trade Center buildings #1 (North Tower), #2 (South Tower), and #7 (the 47 story high-rise across Vesey St.) were destroyed not by jet impact and fires but by controlled demolition with explosives.
We believe that our website, our DVD “9/11: Blueprint for Truth”, and the other referenced material, contain the information necessary to demonstrate that this is the case, and that such an investigation is warranted and overdue.
Originally posted by bsbray11
It was a simple question and you won't even answer it, because you already know you're lying when you say you would accept any independent investigation.
If any group of independent researchers come together, and definitely prove critical aspects of the "official story" wrong, would you listen to them, or would you call them "truthers" and ignore them?
I already know the answer, I just want to see if you realize how deep your own bias goes.
Originally posted by OptimistPrime
No one will ever be "credible" in his opinion other than those that told him the OS. As soon as the data is looked at and the scientist concludes that there may be foul play, that instant he/she loses validity. The entire world could tell him, he would call us all crazy truthers. What a lonely world that would be.
Originally posted by OptimistPrime
reply to post by Soloist
Big letters, small letters, however you would like to write qualified, still doesnt answer what you deem is worthy of that description. When the proper credentials are given to you, and those are no longer acceptable by you, what is left to be able to convince you? Jesus Christ? Im willing to bet you would say he is a biased truther as well.
Originally posted by Soloist
No one "told me the OS", what a predictably biased thing to say.
Originally posted by Soloist
No one "told me the OS", what a predictably biased thing to say.
Your comments about what I would do/say have only solidified my point that much further and you have obviously either not read or chosen to ignore my above post.
Originally posted by Soloist
Originally posted by bsbray11
It was a simple question and you won't even answer it, because you already know you're lying when you say you would accept any independent investigation.
Prove I'm lying or retract and apologize. I never said anything like that, but let's see what you have, hmm?
If any group of independent researchers come together, and definitely prove critical aspects of the "official story" wrong, would you listen to them, or would you call them "truthers" and ignore them?
Variables again.
Originally posted by bsbray11
So what, you did your own investigation and found some overwhelming evidence it was 19 Muslims in the first few minutes before CNN and the other stations were already making the accusation based on nothing? Is that what you're saying?
Originally posted by Soloist
Nice to see on their website they are also selling $1238 worth of their snake oil as well.....hmmm...makes you think huh? Well maybe not some people, but it sure as heck makes me think... I wonder did anyone get their $175 "Christmas Special! Activist Pack" from Santa??
I hope so, because according to them it's -- "Designed only for the Serious Activists... Do you Qualify??"
Pffft. LOL. Open your mind already, you're being fed garbage.
Originally posted by Soloist
No one "told me the OS", what a predictably biased thing to say.