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: 17
96
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

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


"LOL" You left out your other quote and mis-attributed this one to me when I was actually quoting you "LOL FAIL."


I really wish you could make up your mind. First you say they call themselves "truthers," you didn't do it, then you say you choose to call them "truthers"...

Then when I point this out, you butcher my post when responding and respond to one of your own quotes, neglecting to show the other one that contradicts it. You are really chasing your own tail. LOLOL


Anyway this is all irrelevant because what I keep asking you is what the word "truther" has to do with any of it since you also claim to take issue with the data rather than the people presenting it, whether you have a name you choose to call them all or not.

Once again... can't seem to make up your own mind. I ask you what data you have a problem with and you go back to talking about the names you call them.



And so once again I will ask.... What specific data do you take issue with from the paper?

Let the record show this is the 3rd time I've asked this question, the 1st time resulting in the massive multi-page parade of "they're not independent, they're 'TRUTHERS'!"
and the 2nd attempt being outright ignored.




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?


The desperation all belongs to you my friend.

We have already seen that there are credible scientists associated with this paper, that you dismiss because you think they have some mysterious unknown truther agenda, which you also admit might just happen to be that they actually believe what they are saying. You've claimed that they aren't credible or even independent because of this unknown suspicious agenda, very much unlike the government which never has any suspicious agendas.


Then you claimed you didn't dismiss them because of your obvious bias, but because of the actual data in the paper.
More tail chasing.


I'm just asking, what data do you have trouble with in the paper? Or are you going to have to keep resorting to dismissing the authors with names and thinly veiled ad hominems?
edit on 3-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Do not feed the troll man.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I really wish you could make up your mind. First you say they call themselves "truthers," you didn't do it, then you say you choose to call them "truthers"...



LOL.

Holy cow, you're having a VERY tough time with this.


Do you not understand the following :


Originally posted by Soloist
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.


Do you get the context? I choose to call them by what they call themselves. You can call them fishsticks for all I care. It's all the same.

I don't ignore their "credibility" because of the word itself, but what it means and their beliefs.

Funny, how everyone is still stuck on the term "truther" and cannot find any groups outside their little club that finds this "journal" credible.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
LOL.

Holy cow, you're having a VERY tough time with this.


LOL

This shtick of yours is getting old.



Do you not understand the following :


Originally posted by Soloist
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.


Do you get the context? I choose to call them by what they call themselves. You can call them fishsticks for all I care. It's all the same.

I don't ignore their "credibility" because of the word itself, but what it means and their beliefs.


You just said you had a problem with the data they were presenting on the last page.


And when I question you about that, you keep retreating to simple statements of your bias and they're "truthers" so therefore you find them suspicious of some mystery agenda and won't listen to anything they say.

You're a lot of talk for someone who dodges any discussion of the paper itself like it was the plague.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You're a lot of talk for someone who dodges any discussion of the paper itself like it was the plague.



All you've done is talk, this thread is about the credibility of the "journal".

My original point still remains. Why are you dodging it? Can you show any respected organization outside of these little truther clubs that finds this journal "credible"? Where is the acceptance coming from? Only them, no?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
You're a lot of talk for someone who dodges any discussion of the paper itself like it was the plague.


All you've done is talk, this thread is about the credibility of the "journal".


Wow man, whatever happened to


Originally posted by Soloist
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.



It sure didn't take you long to drop that hot potato. Took you 1 post and then I can't get you to so much as hint at what you think is wrong with the paper again.




My original point still remains. Why are you dodging it? Can you show any respected organization outside of these little truther clubs that finds this journal "credible"? Where is the acceptance coming from? Only them, no?


Considering we just spent, oh, what, 3, 4 pages talking about this, I guess you have a very queer definition of "dodging."


We've been in circles about this, but I guess we can keep going since I enjoy seeing you chase your own tail so much. These people are credible and independent scientists. They have lengthy resumes and are under no influence but their own judgment. Even though you accuse them of some unknown agenda, you apparently can't even begin to imagine what it might be, except that they actually believe what they're saying.

You ask for independent, credible verification, but as soon as you get it you just label those people "truthers" too. You've demonstrated all kinds of fallacious and bigoted reasoning along these lines throughout the entire thread and I really think all the MSM propaganda hogwash you surround yourself with has started to take a very serious toll. It's a no-win situation unless someone strokes your ego and agrees with you, regardless of the facts. Otherwise they're a "truther" and of course that means, once again, they're a part of this evil unknown agenda that you think is so suspicious.



Does any of this sound familiar? I've only been posting it for several pages now.

I can keep coming back and reminding you every time you feel like responding though, and we'll just keep giving ATS points to the OP for posting on his thread.


This is what happens when an unstoppable force (reason) meets an immovable object (complete bias), huh? And feel free to try and turn that around on me, because I'm not the one claiming every independent scientist who disagrees with me has some unknown-yet-suspicious agenda.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


So that would be a no, then?

No one outside the silly little club? You keep referencing them, but that doesn't answer the question now does it?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
So that would be a no, then?

No one outside the silly little club? You keep referencing them, but that doesn't answer the question now does it?


What "silly club" does Niels Harrit belong to?

You ask for independent verification, you get it, and then you start calling names and slinging accusations.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Right.

So, no non-truthers huh?

I guess we'll have to wait on that one. I suspect we'll be waiting for a long, long time.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


How is it possible for a "non-truther" to verify any of this when as soon as they do, you call them a "truther" too?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 



Well fortunately i can only speak for myself...I am a so called truther...i have not signed any of the docs(even though i would be entilted to) I speak to Robert balsamo through email and he is helpful from pilots for truth,
I will be writting Jon Cole...and asking him for some details soon as get the paperwork together.
But i came to the conclusions from my expertise....I draw my own conclusions based on the data that is availible and the data i can conclude from my own workings of the numbers...heck maybe i will even publish a paper for peer review....
Does it really matter when people come to the point of when they no longer believe the OS...i mean someone always has to be first in most endeavors.
I haven't any shame in disagreeing with a bunch of lying Officials...as i am sure people have had run ins themselves with lying officials.
Steven Jones wrote a paper...it agrees with and disagrees with 14 points of the NIST report...that is all...He questions the validity Of the NIST report as we all should...the day of 9/11 was a crime scene...and all the evidence was gathered up quickly and destroyed...now the only people who gather up evidence and destroys it...are the criminals themselves....i mean that is a question right there....the evidence should have been gathered up and stored until the crime had been solved...I mean the Gov says it was Muslim terroist's...so they go out and capture said terrorist's....now when they take them to court...wheres the evidence to show them what they did... A good Lawyer would wipe the GOVERNMENTS A$$ with the lack of evidence...i mean really.



edit on 023131p://f15Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


These are the more than 1000 prosecution trial exhibits in the case of US v Zacarias Moussaoui :-

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Apparently his defence was not able to " wipe the GOVERNMENTS A$$ ".



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



These are the more than 1000 prosecution trial exhibits in the case of US v Zacarias Moussaoui :-

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Apparently his defence was not able to " wipe the GOVERNMENTS A$$ ".




I would say I was guilty if I was water board as many times as he was.
Force to confess to crimes he didn’t commit.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Alfie1
 



These are the more than 1000 prosecution trial exhibits in the case of US v Zacarias Moussaoui :-

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Apparently his defence was not able to " wipe the GOVERNMENTS A$$ ".




I would say I was guilty if I was water board as many times as he was.
Force to confess to crimes he didn’t commit.


I haven't seen any evidence that Moussaoui was water-boarded ; can you direct me to some ?

I think you are confusing him with Khalid Sheik Mohammed.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Dont you get it? As soon as somebody finds fault with the official conspiracy theory he becomes a truther and is therefore not credible.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Soloist
 


How is it possible for a "non-truther" to verify any of this when as soon as they do, you call them a "truther" too?



Harrit was a truther well before this "journal", not "as soon as" like you seem to enjoy saying.



This is a translation of a feature article printed in the Danish Newspaper, Information, on 31 March 2007


www.911truth.dk...


I guess we'll still be waiting on some credibility for this "Scientific Journal".



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Dont you get it? As soon as somebody finds fault with the official conspiracy theory he becomes a truther and is therefore not credible.


Yeah, that's what I keep pointing out, but he doesn't come here to actually be reasonable about anything so I think this is actually pretty funny.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
Harrit was a truther well before this "journal", not "as soon as" like you seem to enjoy saying.


I asked what "silly club" he belonged to.

And yes, everyone would have to be a "truther" before they confirmed the paper in the OP by your standards. As soon as another independent scientists realizes their work is credible, *poof*, they're a "truther" and you're plugging your ears going "lalalala."



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
And yes, everyone would have to be a "truther" before they confirmed the paper in the OP by your standards. As soon as another independent scientists realizes their work is credible, *poof*, they're a "truther" and you're plugging your ears going "lalalala."



Wrong.

But we've been over this. I know you have a hard time getting it. You can try and switch up the words all you like, but the fact remains as I just proved in the above post that Harrit was anything but a neutral independent scientist BEFORE this "journal".

How about independent 3rd party lab verification?

Has this been done yet?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
But we've been over this. I know you have a hard time getting it. You can try and switch up the words all you like, but the fact remains as I just proved in the above post that Harrit was anything but a neutral independent scientist BEFORE this "journal".


"Truthers" are independent scientists too.

You still haven't shown what hidden agenda is influencing them all.



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join