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: 16
96
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by 2bfree1776
 

It isnt quite clear exactly what he was referring to, according to UNESCO pamphlets are 5-48 pages long, making the initial paper fit this description, while we were referring to the more recent work as a journal. This is semantics, but explains my confusion. Thermite is included in the original paper as a hypothesis and he goes into detail as to why it is suspected. The only thing he is guilty of is being intelligent enough to know what to look for, lo and behold, he proved himself right by doing the proper tests. If he hadn't had reason to suspect thermite in the first place, the testing of the dust samples would have been a lot longer of a process and ultimately more expensive, but none the less, providing the same data.




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 

You are the one that seems to be having the "hard time", that is, with differentiating your opinion from fact. Sorry you cant get that. Snake oil just wouldnt be enough to treat the pain in the neck you caused with all the hoop jumping and twisting other peoples posts in order to try to make it seem as if others are guilty of the same, while making absolutely no sense in the process. I admit, it is a great tactic to use to deter people from making any contradictory remarks about your posts, so I will give you points for that alone. Dont let your emotions and opinions stand in the way of logic. It is your opinion of "truthers" that is preventing you from seeing the logic in this scientific journal, and dismissing it without even reading it. If you just spent a little less time trying to discredit this based on opinion and used that time reading the paper, you may just find something that could better your debate (or worse, it might just make you switch sides of the debate
).



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   

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


You just said you don't trust the government either. And you already said you don't even know what the "truther agenda" is, and that we might just believe what we are saying (what a shocking idea!).

So, you dismiss "truthers" out of hand because you think they have some agenda but you don't know what it is.

And then you say you don't trust the government, and the government has a history of lying to go to war, and even of planning false flags to go to war, but still you think the "truthers" are the ones with some hidden agenda that you don't understand.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Didn't you say you were going to be ignoring me? Yeah, you did...


Originally posted by OptimistPrime
reply to post by Soloist
 


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!


Yet you folks insist of keeping this thread off-topic by talking about me personally.

Can anyone deny that the "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible! -- that is the OP, has been accepted as "credible" by only truthers and truther organizations?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Soloist, that's a ridiculous catch 22, and you know it. This is exactly the kind of doublespeak you were exposed as employing earlier.

As soon as anyone accepts Jones paper as credible - even if they had not previously doubted the OS - they then, by definition, become a "truther" to you, so then you dismiss them.

For anyone to meet your criteria for acceptance as valid they would have to disagree with Jones' paper (so as not to be a "truther") and yet somehow agree with it at the same time. Obviously impossible.

Your question is meaningless and deceptive. But of course, you already know that.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
As soon as anyone accepts Jones paper as credible - even if they had not previously doubted the OS - they then, by definition, become a "truther" to you, so then you dismiss them.



Really, now?

So the 1,398 “Valid” signers who belong to an organization titled "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" are only truthers to me? Seems to me that's what that entire little club is about. Heck, they say so right on their website as I pointed out earlier in the thread.

Or did all these people not doubt the "OS" prior to the "journal" being released? I'm pretty sure that's not true. So which is it?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 

I suppose that double talk is just a product of working in the control room of MSM! No one has went off topic in this thread without it being because he made it so with his garbage. These scientists only became "truthers" when they saw the results with their own eyes. Apparently he has no clue as to what it is to be a scientist. Here is an example: scientist says, "that fire looks like it could be hot", sticks his hand in it, and then says wow it is hot! According to Soloist, anyone that saw him stick his hand in the fire and watched it get burnt and agrees its hot has an agenda. So what are those people in the example supposed to do, say "I watched the experiment and I dont feel you did it right and you gotta stick your hand further into the fire"? So basically, soloist, no one but yourself is going to have enough credentials to change your mind, so how about using your MSM connections to get in touch with someone with some samples and do the experiment yourself. You might not believe what your eyes are telling you because that would make you a truther.
Edit: sorry I replied to the wrong person, malcram
edit on 3-1-2011 by OptimistPrime because: wrong reply



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


I still don't have a satisfactory reason why "truthers" are automatically suspicious and you refuse to look at what they are trying to show you.

You even say yourself you don't know what their "agenda" is, and by some incredible stretch of the imagination they might honestly believe what they say. No kidding? Next you might even think that we actually believe what we're posting here too?

So why is this such a problem for you, that you refuse to listen to anything we have to say? Are you afraid that we might be right?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


I do not think it ever occurred to you that these valid signers signed the paper BEFORE joining the "club" and by witnessing the results for themselves is actually what made them want to join in the first place? Nahhhh I guess thats out of the realm of possibility.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
reply to post by Soloist
 


I do not think it ever occurred to you that these valid signers signed the paper BEFORE joining the "club" and by witnessing the results for themselves is actually what made them want to join in the first place? Nahhhh I guess thats out of the realm of possibility.



Care to show us the proof of that?

I'll be waiting.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


So is your contention that all signatories were "truthers" before reading Jones' paper? It appears to be.

If so, what is YOUR evidence for that claim?

We'll be waiting.

The truth is you don't know either way, yet are prepared to take a definite stand on it, without evidence. That shows clear bias.


edit on 3-1-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by Soloist
 


So is your contention that all signatories were "truthers" before reading Jones' paper? It appears to be.



My contention? The OP states that 1,398 “Valid” signers who belong to an organization titled "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" find Jones "journal" credible.

I choose to call anyone who belongs to an little club called "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" a "truther".

My contention is that no one outside this very tiny minority seems to be supporting this nonsense. That is nothing more than cheer leading and back patting.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
So is your contention that all signatories were "truthers" before reading Jones' paper? It appears to be.

If so, what is YOUR evidence for that claim?


More to the point, what difference does it make?

Apparently Soloist requires everyone to instantly become a "truther" and churn out papers supporting their positions without putting any prior thought into it at all. Wouldn't that be an even worse situation? Of course information is going to inform professional opinions, that's why these studies were done and papers written in the first place. That's not unique to "truthers." That's how all science is done, except the purely accidental.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
I choose to call anyone who belongs to an little club called "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" a "truther".


It doesn't matter what you call them. What matters is your decision to ignore them based on the name you have called them.

You suspect they have some "agenda" that you don't even understand and can't describe. Yet you think the same suspicions directed at government officials are baseless. What makes "truthers" more suspicious than government and corporate insiders?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
It doesn't matter what you call them.


According to others it does.


What matters is your decision to ignore them based on the name you have called them.



I don't ignore them based on the name *I* have called them, which they choose to call themselves.

I don't believe them or find them credible on the basis of their claims. There is a difference yaknow.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

What matters is your decision to ignore them based on the name you have called them.



I don't ignore them based on the name *I* have called them, which they choose to call themselves.


What happened to this?


Originally posted by Soloist
I choose to call anyone who belongs to an little club called "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" a "truther".




I don't believe them or find them credible on the basis of their claims. There is a difference yaknow.


Actually this is new to me. So far all you've been saying is "they're truthers, they're truthers, I'm not listening..."

So now you're actually going to pretend that you dismiss them on the basis of what they say, rather than your obvious pre-conceived bias which you have been parading across multiple pages of this thread.


So what specifically about their claims do you think is missing? Specifically in regards to the paper in the OP. I know we've talked about this before and that's when you quickly changed your tune to "they're not credible" and "they're not independent, they're 'TRUTHERS'!"
and all this other biased doubletalk.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Its funny how anything criticizing the official conspiracy theory is being attacked, from people on the board who refer to experts, qualified engineers or achritects as "experts" (attack the messenger) to people who are being sacked over what they have to say, to attacking the medium, be it the internet, or a journal.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I choose to call anyone who belongs to an little club called "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" a "truther".



Wow, you fail at this, don't you? LOL

Yes I choose to call anyone a truther who belongs to "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth".

It's a name to reference them by. This isn't hard stuff, it really isn't. As I stated I don't ignore them on the basis of what I call them but what they believe.


So now you're actually going to pretend....SNIP


You're coming across as desperate here. Can you NOT find anyone credible that agrees with this "journal" besides those already in the club or not?

Why must everyone try and distract away from that original point?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth isnt about what they believe. You and many other 911 deniers are trying to paint a picture of the guy who claims he saw bigfoot on one side and everybody else on the other side.

But the 911 truth movement isnt about what people believe, its actually the other camp which revolves mostly around faith.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
If I may address this thread's participants? I was reading the thread until I encountered the first reason to post this...

Please do not engage the debunkers;

Only the deluded or the paid-off still believe amateur Arab pilots did it

From an article published on Friday, June 06, 2008 by John Kaminski

Old article

I appreciate when researchers bring their findings to ATS.

I've read the OP. I appreciate the source too.

Further reading for me to exercise my ability to discern for myself.

Because the TODAY show isn't bringing this to my attention.

I've seen too many researchers get banned from posting on ATS for engaging the "hide the truth" movement.
edit on (1/3/1111 by loveguy because: spelling



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join