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: 19
96
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


There is no way to build a building in a way that it collapses into its own footprint in case it sustains damage that makes it collapse. The only way to achieve this is to make the path straight down the path of least resistance. That would mean taking out sturdy solid beams and putting frail beams into place. In other words, you would build a tower with the intent of it to collapse. Also there is no way to wire up a burning building within a couple of hours. If it has been pulled, the explosives were in place afore the attack.
edit on 5-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



Hey there. This is perhaps the biggest most valuable thread to me. Thank you very much.

In case anyone wishes to download PDF directly, go to
www.bentham.org...
then look for
[DOI: 10.2174/1874149500802010035]
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti and James R. Gourley Pp 35-40





edit on 1/5/2011 by wisdomnotemotion because: better remarks



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



...of course the buildings would have been wired before hand.
I would guess they would have done so either a) when they ever thought of them being targets. b) after the bomber ran into the empire state building it might have crossed their minds on how to control a potential skyscraper from falling where they didn't want it to, but had to wait until they had the technology to do so. c) after the first bombing of the Trade Centers.
....I didn't realize I came off as such a tard in my post.

...are you also implying that we haven't been bringing down buildings in their footsteps for years?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Sure we did, with explosives. Between a false flag attack act, which precluded every major war in the 20th century and rigging up the towers with explosives to bring them down in an orderly fashion in case of attack, the former sounds the more likely scenario.

False flag actions and lies are the rule, not the exception. I do not see why this should be any different.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Hmmmmm ---decisions to pull or not to pulll...that would be a difficult one...yes the recording of the firefighter on the 78th floor saying there were only two small pockets just about reaching the area of the crashes..."PSSSSt' man with a cigar giving the evil eye look with a bit of his uper lips raised "Boss...hey boss....they's gitten close to where Da planes were...Psst Boss they gonna find out there are no passengers bodies...psss.t...we need to pull"

Well the decision's made...no choice....had to be done.

One could come up with senaio after senario...so people have to Eliminate the things we know to find out the things we don't.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Damn and i always wanted to be in quotations...i have finally succeeded in life....WoooooHOOOOO!




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

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.


No, no, no.

For your logic to apply consistently then anyone with a belief regarding what happened on 9/11 is not fit to judge the evidence, not just "government".

Scientists with no ties to Government, yet who believe that Al Qaeda alone felled the towers have a preexisting belief, and hence, bias

They are the same as the "truther" Scientists you decry. They both hold opinions, just different ones.

It's disingenuous to limit this to "truther" Scientists and "government" Scientists when the parallel to "truther" Scientists, who don't believe the OS, is any Scientist who does believe the OS.

You display bias in accepting those who hold one belief as "independent" while you reject any who hold the opposite belief as being untrustworthy.
edit on 5-1-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
No, no, no.


Yes, yes, yes.


For your logic to apply consistently then anyone with a belief regarding what happened on 9/11 is not fit to judge the evidence, not just "government".


Wow, how wrong you are.

Sorry you couldn't get it.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Wow, well argued.

How can I possibly rebut that?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
 


Yes they would. Proving a conspiracy this big would land them a nice huge piece of property, and a lifelong job in any of the other super powers. That's fact. They would make history.

He has written a paper, I read it. It's vague at best. A nice theory, but still nothing more. The mayor admitted they brought WTC7 down purposely. So don't add that in. If the info I linked is "bullspit" then I can call Jones' theory bullspit. Bottom line, all of the things he claimed would mean thermite/thermate was used, could have been added by other means. Sulfur through acidic rain. Etc. That's not enough to prove.

He needs to completely prove it, not just further demonstrate he understands the basis of a theory he concocted...

In summation. Until such proof is attained, in the record books it is stated that the planes caused the crash. Calling each other names and fighting and going overboard rather than just entertaining the prospect, is ridiculous. You can believe as you wish, everyone has freedom of speech. The bottom line still remains. To give us a hard time for not buying into a paper written by Jone's, is moot. Another paper he wrote received publication through false means... credibility is gone. This man has not done a thing for the scientific community, and has not changed anything. His credibility doesn't exist.

As the moderator was saying, look at how many floors were above the crash. They come crashing down, they will not receive any amount of substantial resistance, and that would become less and less as the mass keeps adding up. Those towers were built to withstand a 727, not a 747. To say that this isn't a big difference is to say that anti-matter and regular matter aren't a big difference. That is lack of mathematics and science.

Again, until his paper is proven, and until tens of thousands of credible scientists sign on, it's nothing.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

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.


No, you never clarified what "agenda" you think is influencing all of these scientists. Do you really think my memory is that bad? Produce the quote if you really said what you think their corrupt "agenda" is anywhere in this thread.

So what do you think they're plotting?
edit on 5-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Can you elaborate on this?

I already have.

No, you never clarified what "agenda" you think is influencing all of these scientists. Do you really think my memory is that bad?


I already elaborated on it, so I guess your memory is that bad.

It's off topic anyway.

Funny how no one can produce any 3rd party, neutral, independent verification of these totally earth shattering findings.How long has it been, almost 2 years or so? And still the only people claiming this is "credible" are truthers. Why is that?

Something smells fishy, Jones!



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustinSG
Again, until his paper is proven, and until tens of thousands of credible scientists sign on, it's nothing.


Boom!

Someone who gets it finally!



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustinSG
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
 


Yes they would. Proving a conspiracy this big would land them a nice huge piece of property, and a lifelong job in any of the other super powers. That's fact. They would make history.



When did that ever happen to anyone? Right now only a reporter comes to mind getting shiny prices for rendering public something on the scale of the pentagon papers, but other than that...



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, you never clarified what "agenda" you think is influencing all of these scientists. Do you really think my memory is that bad?


I already elaborated on it, so I guess your memory is that bad.


Show me the post and the quote then.


To clarify, your next post should have an elaboration on what you think the hidden "truther agenda" is that makes all these independent scientists suspicious, or show where you've already posted this anywhere else.
edit on 5-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Show me the post and the quote then.


Go back and re-read this thread, I'm not your monkey.



To clarify, your next post should have...


How about you stop telling people what to post, and get back on topic.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 

Watching the way you respond to every single post is very disturbing. How is it someone that "worked in the control room of one of the big 3 MSM" so diverse in double talk and running in circles? Is that how they trained you? Whatever happened to journalism? No investigation prowess coming from you whatsoever. This in itself makes MSM seem even more unreliable. It appears its not the secret agenda of "truther" architects and engineers we need to be worried about. These big 3 do not investigate, but rather regurgitate things involving 9/11. No crime scene investigation+no journalistic investigation=Out of sight, out of sheeple mind. So who is more credible, the MSM that is supposed to be credible investigators doing absolutely nothing but talking, or the group that consists of people with proper credentials getting off of their butts and actually doing the investigating? Hmmm... The people in the media are supposed to be some of those "independent" guys you keep talking about.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
Whatever happened to journalism? No investigation prowess coming from you whatsoever.


I'm not a journalist.

Do you have anything on topic to talk about? I'm not the topic, and neither is the media.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11

Show me the post and the quote then.


Go back and re-read this thread, I'm not your monkey.



To clarify, your next post should have...


How about you stop telling people what to post, and get back on topic.


The topic is the credibility of the journal, which you extended to the credibility of professionals involved in the truth movement. For some reason you think any professional who finds fault with the accounts of the 911 comission or the NIST report is a truther and can not be trusted, because they have some kind of agenda, which you did not elaborate on.

I can see the agenda if the truth movement would revolve around the countries which have been targeted in the war on terror, however the truth movement is mostly Americans and the relatives of the people who died on 911.
edit on 6-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
For some reason you think any professional who finds fault with the accounts of the 911 comission or the NIST report is a truther and can not be trusted, because they have some kind of agenda, which you did not elaborate on.


I did elaborate on that, as stated previously.

Either

(a) You didn't read it
(b) You are being dishonest
(c) You didn't like the answer

Now can you

(d) Get back on topic!



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join