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: 18
96
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
"Truthers" are independent scientists too.


LOL. No, they aren't. This has been proven already.

So, where is the 3rd party validation? The world has yet to see it. If this is so groundbreaking and as accurate as you are claiming then there should be no problem at all having a independent verification of these findings.




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


That makes no sense. Maybe read that again and then get back on topic.




posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
"Truthers" are independent scientists too.


LOL. No, they aren't. This has been proven already.


"LOL." What proves that "truthers" aren't independent scientists?


This'll be good.





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


That makes no sense. Maybe read that again and then get back on topic.


I've already read it probably 100 times from you. You think anyone who agrees with the paper in the OP is "suspicious" but you can't say why.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
What proves that "truthers" aren't independent scientists?


This has been proven much earlier in this thread. Please go back and read those posts.




I've already read it probably 100 times from you. You think anyone who agrees with the paper in the OP is "suspicious" but you can't say why.


I've already answered this. As above, please go back and read those posts.


So, on to something that hasn't been answered which you left out of your reply, perhaps you missed it so I'll help you out :


Originally posted by Soloist
So, where is the 3rd party validation? The world has yet to see it. If this is so groundbreaking and as accurate as you are claiming then there should be no problem at all having a independent verification of these findings.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
What proves that "truthers" aren't independent scientists?


This has been proven much earlier in this thread. Please go back and read those posts.


No, you never proved it, and you're just giving me the run-around.




You think anyone who agrees with the paper in the OP is "suspicious" but you can't say why.


I've already answered this. As above, please go back and read those posts.


Yeah, I remember. You said you didn't know what their agenda was but they might just believe what they're actually saying, which isn't an "agenda" at all. Scientists are supposed to say what they actually believe.



So, on to something that hasn't been answered which you left out of your reply, perhaps you missed it so I'll help you out :


Originally posted by Soloist
So, where is the 3rd party validation? The world has yet to see it. If this is so groundbreaking and as accurate as you are claiming then there should be no problem at all having a independent verification of these findings.


Look at the OP.

These "truthers" are independent scientists. They're not government, and there is no 2nd party influence to begin with. These were independent researchers and scientists the whole time. That's what you are in severe denial about.


Let's keep it going, Soloist. All your immature games are doing is helping the OP.

edit on 4-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


This has been going on for 10 pages, quit feeding the troll.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Look at the OP.


Where in the OP is the 3rd party validation? I wasn't aware that the samples have been submitted to a neutral lab. Please post the info that you have.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
This has been going on for 10 pages, quit feeding the troll.


Aww, if I don't tie him up here he's just going to troll elsewhere, with some false sense of accomplishment.

I think we're both having fun giving the OP ATS points anyway.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
Look at the OP.


Where in the OP is the 3rd party validation? I wasn't aware that the samples have been submitted to a neutral lab. Please post the info that you have.


The analysis of the samples was conducted by independent, non-government scientists with very lengthy resumes.

It must be heart-breaking when all of the independent scientists you ask for, only dismiss the government reports.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The analysis of the samples was conducted by independent, non-government scientists with very lengthy resumes.



Who were truthers prior.

So, as it stands we have no neutral, independent verification of the results in this "journal".

My original point still stands. Until someone can actually reproduce these results in a truly independent setting, there is no credibility here, except to truthers.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Yes if he finds somebody to play with elsewhere he will. If he defines anybody and everybody who refutes the official conspiracy tale as a truther and therefore not indipendent you aint going to change his mindset. You might as well go to a rabbi and explain to him that man went to the heaven and the moon and did not find no god anywhere.
edit on 4-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



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

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
The analysis of the samples was conducted by independent, non-government scientists with very lengthy resumes.


Who were truthers prior.


That's right, thanks for noticing.



So, as it stands we have no neutral, independent verification of the results in this "journal".


No, these "truthers" are also independent scientists.

You haven't proven otherwise.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, these "truthers" are also independent scientists.
You haven't proven otherwise.


Sure I have, with the very definition. Sorry you refuse to accept it, but it's reality. I know it must be hard to have to question the things you believe in. But you really should step back away from this junk for a minute and ask yourself:

Why hasn't anyone reproduced these results? Why have the samples not been submitted to a 3rd party lab for verification if they are so confident in their "journal".

What are they afraid of, isn't this supposed to be earth shattering news? Isn't this supposed to be the "truth" you guys want to claim victory for?

It's never going to be taken seriously outside the "truth" movement otherwise. So, what's the wait? Why hold on to the "truth"? How long has it been, almost 2 years or so now? Nothing has changed, why not?

Hmm, maybe, just maybe it's all fabricated? Surely NOT, Jones is so independent and all!

Pffft. LOL.

We'll be waiting for the verified results. Until then, this is nothing.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, these "truthers" are also independent scientists.
You haven't proven otherwise.


Sure I have, with the very definition. Sorry you refuse to accept it, but it's reality.


Yes, it's the reality of your own bias. Only for you and other bigoted individuals like you does "truther" automatically mean they have some mysterious agenda that you can't even describe, let alone prove, other than they are publishing honest science that offends your political beliefs.

The tests have been done using multiple collected samples and involving an international team of scientists with decades of research experience and lengthy resumes between them. All you have been left with is your bigotry to never take any of them seriously, which you can take to your grave as far any reasonable interests are concerned.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


So any scientist who believes the OS presently is also unfit to render judgement on the evidence and they are not credible because they have a preexistent bias?

According to your "logic" this must be so. It therefore invalidates all of the reports by scientists in support of the OS - which they already believed before doing the science.

Or does perceived bias only disqualify those who believe differently to you, while the bias and preexistent beliefs of scientists who agree with you is acceptable?

You can't have it both ways.

Ah, but I forget, as you said earlier:



"I'm not here to be objective"


Quite.
edit on 4-1-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
So any scientist who believes the OS presently is also unfit to render judgement on the evidence and they are not credible because they have a preexistent bias?


For it to be truly independent no one from any government organization OR truther organization would need be involved. Neither side can truly be independent as the word is defined :


Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent


I don't trust the government as much as I don't trust the snake oil salesmen in the truther camp.

Neither side can be considered a neutral, un-biased, truly independent 3rd party in this case.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
For it to be truly independent no one from any government organization OR truther organization would need be involved. Neither side can truly be independent as the word is defined :


Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent


You are trying to say the "organization" of "truthers" is influencing the individual scientists, for some strange, unknown agenda.

Can you elaborate on this?

We already understand the conflict of interest with the government, but what has you so damned suspicious of "truthers" that you won't even accept the work of world-renown scientists who have done research work all over the world for decades? You think publishing work they honestly believe is an unacceptable "agenda"?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You are trying to say the "organization" of "truthers" is influencing the individual scientists, for some strange, unknown agenda.

Can you elaborate on this?


I already have.


We already understand the conflict of interest with the government, but what has you so damned suspicious of "truthers" that you won't even accept the work of world-renown scientists who have done research work all over the world for decades? You think publishing work they honestly believe is an unacceptable "agenda"?


You assume they are being honest. I do not make that assumption, because I do not believe that to be the case.

Why no 3rd party validation? This "credible journal" has not been accepted by what they are presenting to be their intended audience. Unless that audience is other truthers, which is all it appears to be at this point.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Well Soloist...I am independent...i am a structural Engineer...i am no way world Renown ...but i do pretty good at my job...i will say...did i come from Mit or Oxford...No, but i came from a fairly well respected school of learning...BCIT. I did my four years Engineering...and i have worked in the field for 20years now....Do i belong AE..no....But do respect the work of other Engineers...heck...when it is valid ....yes.....
Do I respect the work of Bazant...which NIST seems intent on backing...no...because it fails....
Do i respect the work of NIST on the 9/11 issues no Because it fails.

Do i respect the work of Steven Jones yes ...because it asks the questions that fail from NIST and Bazant.

Is there an Agenda...in a way (Besides them blantantly lying) yes because these reports affect how steel buildings are constructed based on complete and absolute and utter lies.
For the most part STEEL buildings do not need to be reconfigured to take in progressive collapse...because it is a THEORY based on a fallacy.

STEEL builings with a central core will not suffer a progressive collapse.....And i would like to see one that has...with a couple stipulations...fully constructed....with a central core....not syaing they wont suffer partial collapses...but a top down full prgressive collapse...nope...not going to believe it till i see CORRECT numbers and evidence....
Not only that we talk about peer review here....Bazants paper is right now suffering the Wrath of peer reveiw...that is what jones paper is all about.
edit on 023131p://f37Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 023131p://f38Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


Seen as you dont support the official conspiracy theory you are not an engineer, but an "engineer", just like that scientific journal, became a "scientific journal". Funny how everybody and anything not supporting the official conspiracy theory ends up in apostrophes.

"have a nice day".



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
...I can't imagine this hasn't been offered before but...
It was no mystery prior to 9/11 that the towers were a target.
Don't you think they might have thought, "gee guys, what would happen if these towers fell in any other direction than straight down"?
So they would obviously install their safety precaution. ( I imagine Silverman was aware of this prior to, or after he bought the buildings)
....so what? Is that criminal? Were they suppose to tell the public, "hey, don't worry about working in a building wired to be brought down in case of an emergency...oh, and now that we told you, we also have just told the evil doers out there that they just have to do enough damage to have us be the bad guys."

...now do you want to debate about whether; 1) someone panicked and "pulled" to early? 2) someone said, "the building is showing structural bowing and it might fall...so you better decided to "pull" or wait if you dare.
3) someone said, "this is it, this is the opportunity we have been waiting for, "pull" them suckers while there is still smoke coming out, I just heard some firefighter say that they think they have the fire almost under control, it will look to fishy if we don't "pull" soon.
4) someone said, "ooooops, those planes ignited a fuse that must have started a chain reaction"
.............
No matter what happened or what the reason was or if it was a matter of killing two birds with one stone, meaning that the evil doers in our government "allowed" the attack, or were "prepared" for the next unavoidable attack on those buildings. They knew how they were going to respond to this scenario. So what I say again.

...but I can see of course why they couldn't and still won't admit to "pulling" them. How do you tell or convince the American public that they had to sacrifice the few for the many? I would of course argue that the least they could do is let me know that I am working in a building that can be pulled down in a moments notice, so I can quit and get a job somewhere else. We all know that if we get stuck on a high-jacked plane they will shoot us down now. We still fly.....we understand why they would shoot us down....but I promise you that if and when this happens there will be a million people yelling about how it could have be avoided and 2nd guessing every single decision that went into the shooting, and certainly someone will take the fall and be fired.

...both sides of this debate...Truthers....Debunkers....need to answer this question....
If you were the "decision maker" and you were told that the buildings might, look like, will, 50-50, fall.
and you know that if they do, the loss of human life and property will be.....2x higher...or 5x higher....or whatever number that would cause "you" to make the decision to bring them straight down. (if you could even make that decision...and if you couldn't...I promise you, you never would have that job or responsibility given to you in the first place.) After you do it.....do you hold a press conference? do you expect the, "needs of the many..." speech to end with a standing ovation?
If they went off by accident, you really shut up.
anyway............you understand the gist of all of this rambling.



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join