Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!

Originally posted by OptimistPrime

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.

Yep, given my job at the time, I did not get "told".

Guess I missed that OS memo that went out! LOL!

reply to post by Soloist

Your "job"? Now that is the real LOL. Let me guess, you were airline security that SAW the terrorists hijacking the plane? Please, tell me what your job was that entitled you to such information long before the "officials" giving it out to the press.

Originally posted by Soloist

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?

So what evidence have you gathered to lead you to the OS? How did you come to that conclusion? That is conspiracy junk. I am baffled

Originally posted by bsbray11
Your refusal to respond to a straightforward hypothetical is what gives you away.

Ahh, so you cannot prove it. You're just accusing me then... ok, cool.

Just a minute ago you were saying we all need mental help. So really you're no psychology buff either? Imagine that.

I said most, not all. And that was in reference to the groups out there mainly, although looking back on my post it was a bit vague.

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?

Sorry, but without proper accepted qualifications of the scientific community at large using what I outlined, not only would I not accept it, no one else outside the truther community would either, at least not as it stands.

Fix the question and then we have something.

Now, let's say it was verified by qualified individuals after the fact? Then we may have something to look at with interest, yes.

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
reply to post by Soloist

 

Your "job"? Now that is the real LOL. Let me guess, you were airline security that SAW the terrorists hijacking the plane? Please, tell me what your job was that entitled you to such information long before the "officials" giving it out to the press.

Yes, my job.

And no, your guess is wrong. If you were paying attention in this thread you would know the answer, but once again let's get back on-topic. Thanks for the foe add!

Originally posted by Soloist
Sorry, but without proper accepted qualifications of the scientific community at large using what I outlined, not only would I not accept it, no one else outside the truther community would either, at least not as it stands.

Fix the question and then we have something.

Now, let's say it was verified by qualified individuals after the fact? Then we may have something to look at with interest, yes.

Im sorry to steal your line, but VARIABLES. If we took out the fear of losing ones life or livelihood or just plain doing the study on their own dime and not selling any information to cover the costs of such an investigation, then Im sure the "scientific community at large" would have no problems with conducting an "independent" study.

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
Im sorry to steal your line, but VARIABLES. If we took out the fear of losing ones life or livelihood or just plain doing the study on their own dime and not selling any information to cover the costs of such an investigation, then Im sure the "scientific community at large" would have no problems with conducting an "independent" study.

Please do try and keep up.

No one stated that the "scientific community at large" would be conducting an "independent" study. And fear mongering is no excuse. Has Jones or anyone in his little club lost their life?

Originally posted by Soloist

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?

Sorry, but without proper accepted qualifications of the scientific community at large using what I outlined, not only would I not accept it, no one else outside the truther community would either, at least not as it stands.

Fix the question and then we have something.

Now, let's say it was verified by qualified individuals after the fact? Then we may have something to look at with interest, yes.

So you're saying scientific proof, that we are assuming is already in place for the sake of argument, is not proof until "qualified individuals" look at it. Right.

Let's try this again.

Let's start with scientific proof. It follows a method, called the "scientific method," which is relatively well-known throughout the Western hemisphere and even high schoolers could verify by following the method. It's not dependent upon a "qualified" opinion, it rests on its own demonstration. Let me clarify even further. When Copernicus's theories were poo-poo'ed by all the "qualified experts" of his day, he was still right. And he knew this himself, not because he was biased or had an agenda, but because he knew how the scientific method worked.

That is the method I am talking about. I'm not talking about theories that experts gather around and beat their intellectual meat to, debating opinions and all of that. I'm talking about hard, self-demonstrating proof.

And we're even talking "hypothetically," to make this easier on you.

If this kind of proof was published by a group of independent scientists, and they documented their whole methodology and publish all of it, so anyone can reproduce their research and find the same results, and it contradicted the "official story,"

Would you listen, or would you ignore them and claim "agenda" and "bias" and "they need mental help" and all that other crap?

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
Im sorry to steal your line, but VARIABLES. If we took out the fear of losing ones life or livelihood or just plain doing the study on their own dime and not selling any information to cover the costs of such an investigation, then Im sure the "scientific community at large" would have no problems with conducting an "independent" study.

Please do try and keep up.

No one stated that the "scientific community at large" would be conducting an "independent" study. And fear mongering is no excuse. Has Jones or anyone in his little club lost their life?

No, but did lose his livelihood. I suppose that is fear mongering as well?

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.

You were mopping the floor in the control room of one of the "big 3 networks" (which all happened to be owned by the same people, but thats another thread) and this is what made you think it was muslims before the govt started telling everyone who did it? Those are expensive cameras that had superman vision and seen through the walls of those airplanes.

Originally posted by bsbray11
If this kind of proof was published by a group of independent scientists, and they documented their whole methodology and publish all of it, so anyone can reproduce their research and find the same results, and it contradicted the "official story,"

Would you listen, or would you ignore them and claim "agenda" and "bias" and "they need mental help" and all that other crap?

Assuming they are qualified, and it can be verified by other qualified scientists, of course I would take an immediate interest in it, whether in contradicts this so-called "official story" or not.

What if it doesn't though, would you listen?

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
You were mopping the floor in the control room of one of the "big 3 networks" (which all happened to be owned by the same people, but thats another thread)

This is what is comes down to when you have nothing else?

I guess it must be tough for a "janitor" (LOL) to be mopping the floor with you and all, but grow up already.

Got nothing to bring this back on-topic? Prove me wrong.

reply to post by Soloist


How many times are you going to ignore me? You are just here for a fight if you wont answer someone whos trying to be courteous. Maybe now you'll argue with me.

Originally posted by Soloist
I guess it must be tough for a "janitor" (LOL) to be mopping the floor with you and all, but grow up already.

Got nothing to bring this back on-topic? Prove me wrong.

And this makes any sense how?

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by Soloist

 

How many times are you going to ignore me? You are just here for a fight if you wont answer someone whos trying to be courteous. Maybe now you'll argue with me.

Uhm, not to be rude, but this thread seriously needs to get back on topic. While I'm guilty of engaging some of the more misinformed posters by putting them on the spot and then watch them drop out since they cannot prove their accusations, I've been trying to steer this back to the topic on several occasions.

I'm not here to fight, and I have no desire to argue with you, unless it's over the OP.

Asking me what I believe about the OS, or whatever is not helping getting this back on topic.

reply to post by Soloist


Your opinion, is that these scientists, the instant they look at data and leads them to a conclusion, is biased and therefore not credible. The instant you said you worked in the control room of one of the big 3 networks, says in my opinion that anything you have to say regarding any conspiracy theory, especially this one, becomes invalid. That being said, I have nothing more to say to you, because that would give you job security as a disinfo agent.

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
Your opinion, is that these scientists, the instant they look at data and leads them to a conclusion, is biased and therefore not credible.

No, that is not my opinion.

Please quote a post where I said that, or admit you're making that up and retract it.

That being said, I have nothing more to say to you, because that would give you job security as a disinfo agent.

LOL. That figures, like other posters on this thread you drop something that isn't true, then cut and run.

See ya!

reply to post by Soloist


I do not have to post any quotes. Its all in this thread. The truth is there, and like a broken record you spew the same tired line. Im done feeding the troll. I will be replying to others in this thread, so ya, you will see me, but as for interaction, there will be none on our part, just to keep this on topic, which is Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
I do not have to post any quotes.

You CAN'T post any, because you know you are not telling the truth, and you can't be honest enough to even admit that.

Another one bites the dust.

reply to post by Soloist

No, just not gonna play your game. That game is called Filibuster. Look it up. It fits quite well. Now, back on topic, which is Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!

Originally posted by Soloist
Assuming they are qualified, and it can be verified by other qualified scientists, of course I would take an immediate interest in it, whether in contradicts this so-called "official story" or not.

What if it doesn't though, would you listen?

Sure I would; what do you have to show me? We can talk about the NIST report if you want, or Bazant, Greening, I have looked through all of those guys' papers and would be happy to show you what I find "interesting" about their work.

Now given what you just said, look back at the title of the OP.

"Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible"

The scientists who wrote that paper have lengthy resumes spanning decades and were credible to begin with. The OP is redundant information and yet you still think the fact that these guys are "truthers" immediately makes their work null and void. Can you reconcile that with what you just said in the post I'm responding to?