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: 15
96
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

"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?



But the NIST report wouldn't be considered independent either. We have seen that many many times on this forum.

My point remains, until the work is done by a truly independent qualified team using proper tests and procedures, no one outside the "truth movement" will accept it. It's too suspect, and that's just the way it is.




posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
My point remains, until the work is done by a truly independent qualified team using proper tests and procedures, no one outside the "truth movement" will accept it. It's too suspect, and that's just the way it is.


What is so suspicious about the guys who wrote this paper? What do you think their subversive agenda is, if not perform legitimate studies into what happened at the WTC?



You said:


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.


So again, look at the OP of this thread.

What does it say?

Like I said, this is redundant information considering the resumes of the people who authored this paper in the first place. Their credibility was never negated just by the fact that they think there is more to the WTC collapses than was officially reported.
edit on 2-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Soloist
My point remains, until the work is done by a truly independent qualified team using proper tests and procedures, no one outside the "truth movement" will accept it. It's too suspect, and that's just the way it is.


What is so suspicious about the guys who wrote this paper? What do you think their subversive agenda is, if not perform legitimate studies into what happened at the WTC?



Honestly, I don't know what their agenda is. Anything on that would be speculation. It could be something as simple as they really believe in this stuff, and needed to come up with something to help their cause. Jones has been pimping the therm*te theory in the years prior to this "journal".

It could just be attention, one only needs to look at what happened with John Lear to see there are people that quite enjoy that sort of thing.

Again, to be clear, that's all speculation.

All I know is that they were not neutral parties in the matter for years prior, and the tests and procedures are suspect. Until we have the proper people running the tests on verified samples, there really is nothing here to go on.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Like I said, this is redundant information considering the resumes of the people who authored this paper in the first place. Their credibility was never negated just by the fact that they think there is more to the WTC collapses than was officially reported.



You say that, but yet it was/is.

This paper has not been accepted outside the little club of friends and supporters they have. There may not just be one reason why, but I guarantee you previous bias which has an effect on credibility is one of them.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


It is quite apparent that both of you have not even taken the time to actually READ the paper that is referenced in this post. Neither of you even touch on or try to explain the unusual thermitic Red/Grey chips that the paper is all about. The paper PROVES that these chips were present not in just one sample of the dust but five different samples collected from all around lower Manhattan (one sample was excluded due to the donor not willing to provide an affidavit). If you are going to spend so much time and effort to attempt to debunk this exhaustively researched paper at least you could actually read it and then in your response talk about the main subject of the paper and not the ancillary issues of the iron spheres and some crazy notion that a "sculptor's" residual welding debris was in the dust. Talk about a STRETCH...



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Just so you know, Dr. Jones had no "agenda" when he began his research into the events of 9/11 particularly his professional interest as a phd in physics with an emphasis in forensic physics. His initial paper on "Why Indeed Did the Towers Fall" got him in hot water with the university he had taught at for twenty years eventually being forced to take "early retirement". This actually was a godsend because it allowed him to pursue his research and collaborate on this recent paper along with doing additional research in other areas related to 9/11. I know all this because I have personally spoken to and corresponded with Dr. Jones for over 4 years and can say that he is a stand up guy who is a true truth seeker.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Soloist
My point remains, until the work is done by a truly independent qualified team using proper tests and procedures, no one outside the "truth movement" will accept it. It's too suspect, and that's just the way it is.


What is so suspicious about the guys who wrote this paper? What do you think their subversive agenda is, if not perform legitimate studies into what happened at the WTC?


Honestly, I don't know what their agenda is. Anything on that would be speculation. It could be something as simple as they really believe in this stuff


And you think this unknown "agenda" is so "suspicious" that you refuse to take them seriously.

Yeah, makes total sense to me.




posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
And you think this unknown "agenda" is so "suspicious" that you refuse to take them seriously.

Yeah, makes total sense to me.


Funny. Kinda like how truthers think the government's agenda is so suspicious that they refuse to take them seriously either, eh?

Let's see, I've heard things along the lines of :

They did it to get cheap oil.

Bush wanted revenge on Saddam for his daddy.

They were covering up missing money.

Jews did it for various reasons.

Silverstein did it so he could get insurance money.

etc, etc,...

As you said - "Yeah, makes total sense to me."



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

What could an agenda by the "silly club" possibly be? To change their lives for the worse by losing jobs and being ridiculed by internet trolls? Seems the wrong club is coined "silly", if you ask me. A group of scientists with nothing to gain and everything to lose refuses to eat the load of bull and makes a stand for truth, and instead of being applauded they get accused of secret agendas and called crazy and silly. Can the term Cliche,or even stereotypical, be used to describe that last sentence? I feel we are beating a dead horse my friend, and that horse died of thirst, despite the effort. I commend you for your continued quest to enlighten those that wish to live in the dark. Good luck my friend.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


So instead of just answering my question which sort of leads back to OP, you'll continue argueing off topic with others? yeah makes sense.. I feel you dont want this on topic..

im out. but if you wish to answer my questions..

what lead you to believe or acknowledge the OS if you knew the OS and no one told you? When did you learn this was the case? please , whenever.. I got all lifetime..



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Soloist
My point remains, until the work is done by a truly independent qualified team using proper tests and procedures, no one outside the "truth movement" will accept it. It's too suspect, and that's just the way it is.


What is so suspicious about the guys who wrote this paper? What do you think their subversive agenda is, if not perform legitimate studies into what happened at the WTC?


Their subversive agenda (or, rather, Steven Jones' purpose) is to lead the 9/11 truth movement up a dead-end. Even if it were ever proved by a several, independent university research teams that thermate was, indeed, in the dust at WTC, all that the US government or New York bureaucrats would need to do in order to defuse this issue is to admit that the substance as nano-thermate was secretly painted onto columns years before 9/11 during renovations in order to facilitate the controlled demolition of the towers when the decision was finally made to bring them down for commercial reasons (they had become white elephants because their asbestos contamination meant that Larry Silverstein would have had to pay for their clean-up in order to get the insurance on them renewed). In other words, far from being a smoking gun for 9/11 being an inside job that would trigger another investigation, all this issue of whether Jones et al have detected thermate at the WTC is a damp squib that will get the 9/11 truth movement NOWHERE. Which is what was intended from the beginning.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11

"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?



But the NIST report wouldn't be considered independent either. We have seen that many many times on this forum.

My point remains, until the work is done by a truly independent qualified team using proper tests and procedures, no one outside the "truth movement" will accept it. It's too suspect, and that's just the way it is.


The NIST report has been composed by a biased and dependent source. Harrit and Jones investigated 911 DESPITE knowing that they would risk their bread and butter and it indeed did cost their jobs. I really do not see how they are an biased source? What did they gay from doing what they did? And if the paper can be debunked, why isnt it being debunked?

Also the main problem with the NIST report isnt who presents it, its the content. Niels and Harrit did tests that should have done by the 911 comission and the people who composed the NIST report, yet they did never even test for explosives or accelerants.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
The NIST report has been composed by a biased and dependent source. Harrit and Jones investigated 911 DESPITE knowing that they would risk their bread and butter and it indeed did cost their jobs. I really do not see how they are an biased source? What did they gay from doing what they did? And if the paper can be debunked, why isnt it being debunked?

Rubbish.

Jones had lost his job at BYU years before the therm*te pamphlet, and to my knowledge Harrit still has his job at the University of Copenhagen.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
just a reference, if you've not found it or lost it....most of this site has stories from the main stream media, not all, and some of these has been disputed openly. if you have not downloaded most of these, i would suggest doing so. i do not know how long these referenced stories will be available, if the heat get too hot for those involved.

killtown.911review.org...



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by Cassius666
The NIST report has been composed by a biased and dependent source. Harrit and Jones investigated 911 DESPITE knowing that they would risk their bread and butter and it indeed did cost their jobs. I really do not see how they are an biased source? What did they gay from doing what they did? And if the paper can be debunked, why isnt it being debunked?

Rubbish.

Jones had lost his job at BYU years before the therm*te pamphlet, and to my knowledge Harrit still has his job at the University of Copenhagen.

WRRRRRROOONNGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!! That Paper was originally written in Sept 2006, he was put on leave in that SAME month until Oct 20 2006 when he RETIRED.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.journalof911studies.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...
Do a little research before spreading false information that you can not back up.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimistPrime

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by Cassius666
The NIST report has been composed by a biased and dependent source. Harrit and Jones investigated 911 DESPITE knowing that they would risk their bread and butter and it indeed did cost their jobs. I really do not see how they are an biased source? What did they gay from doing what they did? And if the paper can be debunked, why isnt it being debunked?

Rubbish.

Jones had lost his job at BYU years before the therm*te pamphlet, and to my knowledge Harrit still has his job at the University of Copenhagen.

WRRRRRROOONNGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!! That Paper was originally written in Sept 2006, he was put on leave in that SAME month until Oct 20 2006 when he RETIRED.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.journalof911studies.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...
Do a little research before spreading false information that you can not back up.


Jones' initial "Why Indeed..." paper was written in 2006 which got him suspended and eventually forced to take early retirement. The Harriet et al paper was completed in 2009 with Dr. Jones and other BYU physics professors and post grads contributing to it.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
And you think this unknown "agenda" is so "suspicious" that you refuse to take them seriously.

Yeah, makes total sense to me.


Funny. Kinda like how truthers think the government's agenda is so suspicious that they refuse to take them seriously either, eh?


Yeah, what are we thinking? There are never any crooks in the government, and "false flags" to go to war never happen in the modern era.


Once again, you think you are defending your own arguments by accusing us of the same thing? If anything that's only a back-handed way of admitting your own reasoning doesn't make any sense. And your attempt to project the problems of your own reasoning onto us are also a total failure.


You don't know what the "truther" agenda is, but maybe we actually believe what we say (freaking imagine that!!!
), but you find this unknown "truther" agenda suspicious anyway, AND you don't find the government suspicious.


I think all the garbage you are hearing in that MSM control room is starting to corrode your mind. I can't even take 5 minutes of MSM without feeling like my IQ is sinking faster than the USS Maine. What else does that ship and the media have in common? (Here's a hint: another pack of lies that got us into war.)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You don't know what the "truther" agenda is, but maybe we actually believe what we say (freaking imagine that!!!
), but you find this unknown "truther" agenda suspicious anyway, AND you don't find the government suspicious.


Making up stuff again I see...


Originally posted by Soloist
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.


It's funny that you wonder why I consider "truthers" suspicious, when on this very thread my words have been twisted, mis-represented, and I've even been called a liar, yet when called on these people to back up their accusations by posting quotes, they can't or won't and turn tail and run.

Yes, "truthers" are a suspect lot indeed!



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


You don't think the government's actions and whitewash reports surrounding the events of 9/11 are suspicious, my bad.


And yet "truthers" of some unknown "agenda" that might just believe what they are saying, are suspicious.

Have I got it right yet, or is there some other 2 cents you want to throw in like it suddenly makes your argument make sense?



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


It sure does seem that you guys have a hard time with this.

Not everyone who doesn't believe the big bad government has to buy into the snake oil these truther sites are selling.

Sorry, you can't get that. I tried. Enjoy the snake oil!



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join