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: 13
96
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
You are calling researchers 'biased' simply because during the course of their scientific investigations they had developed opinions.


Wow, you're really not very good at this are you? I have posted with external tags even, proof that Jones was well into the truth movement (even founding one of the silly little clubs) years before the "journal" referenced in the OP had been written.

Can you disprove that? No one else has.

If so, let's see it. If not, then well you're free to move on!



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...


I haven't pretended anything, I have been upfront with everything I say, and have asked others to quote my posts that they accuse, yet they don't, instead choosing to post other things while taking them out of their very obvious context.

Yeah, you're better off ignoring me as you said you will. I welcome it and I'll hold you to it.




posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
And that is a plain old fashioned LIE.


Thought you said you were ignoring me?

What is a lie? Maybe you should quote me on what I lied about, hmm?


You most certainly did insinuate a 'truther' label.


I assume you're talking about my response earlier talking about Jones being a truther years prior to this "journal" in the OP.

I'm not insinuating anything, I'm directly stating he was and is a truther since at least 2005.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
For someone who said they are ignoring me, you are doing a terrible job.


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.


Even if you were, it doesn't matter. It's private footage, in private hands, and all of it is heart breaking. While it's not up to me what happens to it, I know and fully agree with the reasons why it didn't get shown.


Nobody in this thread with whom you are arguing has stated that the bodies weren't real, so yes, strawman. Stop lying


I keep asking why don't you quote me when you accuse me of "lying", or making "strawmans", etc.... so here I did the work for you, and lookie look...


Originally posted by Soloist
But then I see people on this forum saying the bodies weren't real, and so on.


Well, well, it appears you are the one either lying, or making up the strawmans.

Kind of hard to deny that one, eh? Once again, I ask for you to retract your accusation and apologize. But we all know you won't, don't we?



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


That is precisely the point....the polish one makes sense....the Flight 93 one...makes absolutely no sense....the debris field....the lack of fire...the lack of some sizable debris....now i am not talking huge chunks of planes...but some reasonable size of plane...wheels...engines....seats....Seats are almost always a few in tack....out of what 200.....the whole flight 93 is fishy....I will not make fanciful stories of what occured to it...but the answers given do not add up to me.
You see there is a lot of us who look at things and the OS comes up with these senarios...but you know what....they don't make sense and are really just as fanciful as they were all abducted and the planes came straight down and disappeared into the ground.
but as i say the MSM puts out a vid saying things could not be a certain way and it is left to the regular joes out there to show to people they are being lied to.
So for me i will remain on the side of the fence that deems me as crazy much rather than allowing myself to be duped by the OS who has everything to gain by lying.
And i won't go into why i think this when i have written lots on it in another thread.


edit on 063131p://f12Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


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. It must have become boring trolling the skeptics that have little evidence to discredit that theory, so you have switched to a 9/11 truster just for the pleasure of trolling a group that has mounds of evidence. You never have anything that contributes to your claimed side of the debate, but rather resort to condescending remarks and your so-called opinions as your "evidence", when in fact its your posts that are only evidence of your real agenda, which is entertaining yourself by trolling on an alternative news/conspiracy theory website. You have accomplished your goal of derailing the thread and making it to where no one wants to really read the topic because that would mean reading through pages of your nonsense to get to the facts. 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.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

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!



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   

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!

Thank you for futher proving my point. You accusing anyone of being "biased" is your opinion. Claiming it as fact just proves your ignorance. You might be able to use those tactics in your schoolyard, but here where adults capable of fully formed thoughts (yourself excluded) that sort of thing just does not work, no matter how big your dictionary may be. Credibility no matter what side of the debate is merely opinion, but the fact remains it was peer reviewed. It does not matter who signs this paper, as soon as they write their name they lose validity in your eyes. It would not matter if Bush came out and said it was a conspiracy, you would say he is just a biased truther now and anything he said is no longer credible in your opinion. You may as well take your deflated ball and go home.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   

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.


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. Btw "truther" doesn't mean "scientifically illiterate," again, unless you are so biased and arrogant that you think you know better than so many tenured PhDs and world-renowned research scientists, which it seems you really do.


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.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
You accusing anyone of being "biased" is your opinion. Claiming it as fact just proves your ignorance.


But yet it is a fact. How would you classify people that belong to a little club called "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth"? You think they are not biased truthers? Really??

Let's look at what they say in their own words, shall we?


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.


Yes, they are biased, they believe in their own "controlled demolition theory", they say so right on their own damn web page!

Oh, and of course :



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.


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.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   

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.

How about if any QUALIFIED group if independent researchers came together and did PROPER tests on VERIFIED and PROPERLY gathered samples, and this group was NOT affiliated with one side OR the other, would I listen to them no matter the outcome?

Yes, most likely I would take quite a serious look at it, that's for sure. Either way.


I already know the answer, I just want to see if you realize how deep your own bias goes.


Since you know the answer, care to share it with us and see if yours matches mine?



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


For a long time I believed the information given on the morning of 911 to be the truth. I was just like the rest of the sheep. I started to see that things just didnt add up, so I started to research things for myself. It was then when I ran into many others that were running into the same problem and it led me to ATS. I was a lurker for a very long time. Any time I wanted to know more about anything, the search for knowledge led me here. So I suppose that the moment I started to question what happened on that fateful day, it made me by Soloist's definition a "truther" and automatically biased. 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.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

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.



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.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   

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.


It's not up to me to determine qualified, it's up to the scientific community at large.

If you would have been following along instead of attempting to attack me you might get that.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
No one "told me the OS", what a predictably biased thing to say.


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?



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

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.





How'd you decipher what you believe to be the truth of 9/11? If you weren't told the OS, well... is it the OS you believe? When did you come to whichever conclusion you chose.?



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

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?


Your refusal to respond to a straightforward hypothetical is what gives you away. Just a minute ago you were saying we all need mental help. So really you're no psychology buff either? Imagine that.



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.


The only variable is whether or not they actual prove it with the hardest of hard evidence. And I'll give you that variable for our hypothetical situation: they do. So now would you accept it, hypothetically, or would you reject it anyway?



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

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?


No, that's not what I'm saying.

I took all things in account, and I had quite a different advantage than those outside the media at the time. I have found nothing else that makes me buy into this "conspiracy" junk yet.

Now, were you going to match up our answers on your question from earlier?



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

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.

It couldnt possibly be to cover the costs of running a website or the costs of running the labs, could it? It is not enough to call them names and spit on their credentials, but to add further insult to injury, you feel they have to go broke trying to coax the blind into seeing the truth as well? The only garbage Im being fed is coming from your computer. Some people should just stay asleep.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
No one "told me the OS", what a predictably biased thing to say.

No one told you what supposedly happened on 911? You came to the conclusion that muslim terrorists did it all by yourself? Thats an amazing talent.



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join