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: 21
96
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
You never explained what "agenda" you think "truthers" are plotting that's so suspicious, and now you are blatantly lying. You claim to have explained why they are suspicious, but refuse to show a quote and refuse to repeat why you find them so suspicious.


Wow, more name calling. That's 3 people who called me a liar in this thread that can't back it up. Figures, you would rather keep distracting away from the OP, and worry about me.


I only call someone a liar when they lie, and if two others are also calling you a liar then I guess you've been outed, haven't you? Just keep denying it, it's cool.

I am discussing the OP with you. You refuse to accept the credibility of established scientists with long professional resumes spanning decades and having been involved with research around the world, with the single word "truther." And when others verify their work, you just call those people "truthers" too.

You justify this by saying "truthers" have some suspicious agenda. You constantly refuse to state what exactly you think this agenda is. And now your new tactic is to lie, and say you already explained why they are suspicious, when I have been here the whole time and you never did. Yes, you are a liar, and I have seen all the proof I need to based on what I just said. You gave up on trying to argue your point because of how little sense it was making, and just started blatantly lying to give me the run-around instead. Congratulations. No, really, you've really accomplished something to be proud of here.



Now retract your claim of me being a liar and apologize.


Post the quote where you explain why "truthers" have some suspicious agenda that makes you automatically dismiss them.

I already know you can't, because I know you never posted any such thing, and are intentionally lying just to try to give me a hard time. Sorry but instead you just destroyed any chance of having any credible opinion on the issue at all.




Their only agenda, that you even admitted as a possibility earlier yourself, is that they honestly believe in what they are publishing, no different than any other honest scientists.


Why are you leaving off what else I wrote? ESPECIALLY after accusing me of lying above. You are being extremely dishonest here, or are just not paying attention.


Because you never gave a single reason that "truthers" are so suspicious that you can dismiss them out of hand.

Saying "they're truthers!!"
isn't an explanation of anything but pre-conceived bigotry towards anyone who disagrees with you, and that is not a reason. That is just stating the obvious. I am asking for a reason they are suspicious to you and you can't trust them. And you haven't been able to give one. And now you are lying, saying that you have, and refusing to clarify or show where after me repeatedly asking you. Because we both know you never did.




posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I only call someone a liar when they lie, and if two others are also calling you a liar then I guess you've been outed, haven't you? Just keep denying it, it's cool.


Actually neither one of them could prove it and neither could you.



Post the quote where you explain why "truthers" have some suspicious agenda that makes you automatically dismiss them.



You asked me to elaborate on it, I told you I already did...and it's quite telling and funny you just posted one part of the quote! You said you knew everything I said, so I must be lying, well all anyone has to do is read this thread to see you've been caught and you know it, but you just can't admit it.

So much "truth" in this "movement".



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
I only call someone a liar when they lie, and if two others are also calling you a liar then I guess you've been outed, haven't you? Just keep denying it, it's cool.


Actually neither one of them could prove it and neither could you.


I just explained to you in detail why it has been proven to me. I've been here for this whole discussion. You still refuse to give any reason, yet you keep saying you did earlier, even though we both know you didn't. That's a lie. And you're doing it on purpose just to give me a run-around instead of a straight answer.



Post the quote where you explain why "truthers" have some suspicious agenda that makes you automatically dismiss them.


You asked me to elaborate on it, I told you I already did...and it's quite telling and funny you just posted one part of the quote!


Sigh.... I didn't post a quote, I told you exactly what you said and explained why it means you are lying. Re-read my post.


You said you knew everything I said, so I must be lying, well all anyone has to do is read this thread to see you've been caught and you know it, but you just can't admit it.

So much "truth" in this "movement".


Yeah, you'd rather make everyone read through 21 thread pages that just restate what makes "truthers" so suspicious that you automatically dismiss them.


Except really, you never gave a reason, and you're lying. Your arguments have gone from not making sense, to being intentionally deceitful.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


This guy is only out to do 1 thing and thats trolling. It does not matter how much beating around the bush, or just plain ignoring the questions, all he will do is exactly what he has been doing for pages on end. No matter what he says to try to twist things to make his side of the argument seem superior. Anyone who reads this will see the difference between truthers and liars. That in itself is a victory. He can paint it any color he wants, but he lost, big time. I am positive that he will come back with some snazzy new way to do the dance, but its still the twist. He doesnt agree with the credibility because those people are truthers, whose agenda is the truth, that is why he can not answer that question. He stated many times, these people belong to a club, and that is why they will never be right. That is bigotry and bias. Example: A mathematician doesnt know 2+2, simply because he belongs to the chess club and chess is boring to him. Failed logic.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yet you keep saying you did earlier, even though we both know you didn't. That's a lie. And you're doing it on purpose just to give me a run-around instead of a straight answer.


You sure you really want to go with that?



Except really, you never gave a reason, and you're lying. Your arguments have gone from not making sense, to being intentionally deceitful.


Except I did elaborate on it. You still don't like it, and instead of re-reading what I posted, you would rather call me a liar, and stay off topic since you don't seem to have an answer to my point of why this hasn't been verified by a neutral, independent 3rd party since the rest of the world doesn't seem to be listening.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
Anyone who reads this will see the difference between truthers and liars. That in itself is a victory.


Yes, let's take a look at "truthers" and "liars", shall we?

You (wrongly) asserted :


Originally posted by OptimistPrime
Your opinion, is that these scientists, the instant they look at data and leads them to a conclusion, is biased and therefore not credible.


I replied :


Originally posted by Soloist
No, that is not my opinion.
Please quote a post where I said that, or admit you're making that up and retract it.


And, OMG, what happened here?


Originally posted by OptimistPrime
I do not have to post any quotes.


LOL.

YOU made the claim, and couldn't prove it. So, we know you're not being truthful, and won't man up and admit you either misunderstood me, or were being dishonest about what my opinion actually is. An opinion I had stated quite clearly earlier in the thread.

So your quote above "Anyone who reads this will see the difference between truthers and liars." is spot on!

I guess "That in itself is a victory."



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
You sure you really want to go with that?


Yep.



Except I did elaborate on it.


Nope, you're still lying. You've had all this time to once again explain why "truthers" are so suspicious to you that you automatically dismiss them, and you keep refusing. You're just trolling and trying to yank our chains with a blatant lie.

Being a bigot is not a reason why you are a bigot, so just saying "because they're truthers" isn't a reason for dismissing anyone you deem a "truther."



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Ill play your game, I do not have to quote your opinion, you posted it many many times. Sorry its too hard for you to get that. You are the only one being dishonest about your own opinion, no misunderstanding there.


An opinion I had stated quite clearly earlier in the thread
Must be hard to look in the mirror. As for "man up" its very humorous you would quote momma grizzly, you both are on the same level.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
You are the only one being dishonest about your own opinion, no misunderstanding there.


So you say I'm lying about my opinion (LOL), ...and then precede to say what my opinion is...without any proof whatsoever.


Originally posted by OptimistPrime
Your opinion, is that these scientists, the instant they look at data and leads them to a conclusion, is biased and therefore not credible.


Ok, where did I say this? I noticed you said you would but you didn't post any quotes that state that.

But, since I happen to know what my opinion is here I'll help you out:


Originally posted by Soloist
The paper that is the subject of the OP was done in 2008. So...3 years at a minimum he was already involved in the "truth movement."
He was influenced, for at least 3 years by his own bias, and that of his "organization".



Originally posted by bsbray11
But he was not from the day of 9/11.

Originally posted by Soloist
We're not talking about the day of 9/11.
As already proven, he was a truther for a full 3 years at least BEFORE he did the "paper" that the OP is about.



Originally posted by Soloist
Once again in the context of the report in the OP, Jones was already deeply committed at that point. He could have for instance asked for an independent (not truthers, not government, got it?) team to collect samples, and to test those samples properly and report their findings.



Originally posted by Soloist
Your question has nothing to do with what we've been discussing. I never slapped a "truther" label on anyone, those in question did it themselves, and did it years prior to the report in the OP.




Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
You are calling researchers 'biased' simply because during the course of their scientific investigations they had developed opinions.

Originally posted by Soloist
I have posted with external tags even, proof that Jones was well into the truth movement (even founding one of the silly little clubs) years before the "journal" referenced in the OP had been written.



Originally posted by bsbray11
If any group of independent researchers come together, and definitely prove critical aspects of the "official story" wrong, would you listen to them, or would you call them "truthers" and ignore them?


Originally posted by Soloist
How about if any QUALIFIED group if independent researchers came together and did PROPER tests on VERIFIED and PROPERLY gathered samples, and this group was NOT affiliated with one side OR the other, would I listen to them no matter the outcome?

Yes, most likely I would take quite a serious look at it, that's for sure. Either way.




Originally posted by Soloist
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.





Originally posted by bsbray11
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?

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





Originally posted by bsbray11

The analysis of the samples was conducted by independent, non-government scientists with very lengthy resumes.
Originally posted by Soloist
Who were truthers prior.

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



Your claims are bogus.



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

Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Soloist
You sure you really want to go with that?

Yep.


Alrighty then... remember that you had the chance to retract. Instead you chose to keep calling me a liar.




Originally posted by Soloist
Except I did elaborate on it.

Nope, you're still lying. You've had all this time to once again explain why "truthers" are so suspicious to you that you automatically dismiss them, and you keep refusing. You're just trolling and trying to yank our chains with a blatant lie.
Being a bigot is not a reason why you are a bigot, so just saying "because they're truthers" isn't a reason for dismissing anyone you deem a "truther."


A bigot and a liar, pretty strong words for someone who claimed :


Originally posted by bsbray11
Post the quote where you explain why "truthers" have some suspicious agenda that makes you automatically dismiss them.

I already know you can't, because I know you never posted any such thing, and are intentionally lying just to try to give me a hard time.

And now you are lying, saying that you have, and refusing to clarify or show where after me repeatedly asking you. Because we both know you never did.


Of course you also say


Originally posted by bsbray11

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.


So you remembered before calling me a liar, but then butchered what I said by leaving part of it off.

Well, guess what? Your memory bone ain't workin' too good!


Originally posted by Soloist
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".


Of course that's an agenda. You just don't like it. They might believe in it, so they publish a bogus paper with no verification since they are already in deep. Agenda. Jones was already in the truth club for 3 years prior and lost his job over it and wanted some sort of vindication, anything, even if it's bogus. Agenda.

You call me a liar, a bigot, who didn't elaborate what their agenda was. You are wrong. I gave you the chance to do your own work, but you kept saying I was lying, that you and I both knew it, etc.

I kept giving you rope, but all the while allowing you the ability to pull it back in, but no. You act to me the same way you claim I act to truthers.

Whether you like it or not, I elaborated on it, however I prefaced my statements with the fact that I don't know, and I would be making assumptions, but there are reasons why this might be the case.


Originally posted by Soloist
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.


Agenda. Elaboration. It's all there. Like I said you just don't like the answer, and would rather call me a liar.

Now, back on topic.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Same old dance, you may say its new but its still the twist. Your big long quoted reply only shows you using the term truther which was not a self-proclaimed title by Jones and friends which proves opinion and your bigotry. Thank you.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
reply to post by Soloist
 


Same old dance, you may say its new but its still the twist. Your big long quoted reply only shows you using the term truther which was not a self-proclaimed title by Jones and friends which proves opinion and your bigotry. Thank you.



Jones was a founding member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth for approximately one year as co-chair with James H. Fetzer until Jones and a majority of the scholars members left the organization. From mid-November 2006 until the end of that year, Jones, Fetzer and a series of other researchers and individuals engaged in an open dispute about the direction the organization should take.


The paper in question was published in 2009 (earlier I stated incorrectly it was 2008). Jones was a founding member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and :


In December 2006, Steven Jones and about 4/5ths of the members voted to leave the Scholars for 9/11 Truth organization to establish Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice


Proving your accusation :


Originally posted by OptimistPrime
Your opinion, is that these scientists, the instant they look at data and leads them to a conclusion, is biased and therefore not credible.


completely bogus...

Unless of course you can post a quote where I said the above. So, are you going to prove it, or just keep repeating the same false accusation?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
The paper has been peer reviewed by other people, probably many of which were not truthers and it has not been debunked as a hoax either. If there would be any fault with the paper, that fault would be splurged all over this section by the deniers, but the only recourse left for them seems to be to attack the journal.

If I am mistaken who are the critics of joneses paper, other than conspiracy nuts who ardently believe in the official conspiracy theory regardless of facts?
edit on 7-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by Soloist
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".


Of course that's an agenda. You just don't like it.


Are you not reading my posts? In the parts you even quoted back to me, I already explained that honestly believing what you are publishing is what all legitimate scientists do, it isn't an "agenda" that suddenly makes "truthers" suspicious.

You said you had a reason to be suspicious of all their work. You never gave it. And now you keep saying you have, and you are still lying. Unless you are saying that every scientist that publishes work they honestly believe is true has a perverse "agenda" and you don't trust any of them, then you haven't given a single damned reason to be suspicious of these people, and you are lying when you say you have.


And once again, for the umpteenth time, this is the topic:


Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!


And what are we talking about?

The fact that you automatically dismiss all of these people out of hand with the word "truther." You claim being a "truther" makes someone suspicious but you can't say what would warrant that suspicion.

The truth of the matter is that you're so prejudiced against any of these ideas that you will dismiss anything anyone proves and publishes that supports them. And you are so much in denial of this that you have been repeating the same non-reasons despite me having debunking in them in post after post, just to have you post them immediately after again, like you aren't even reading what I am posting, let alone thinking about any of it.

So again, if publishing something you honestly believe is an "agenda," then why aren't all other scientists that do this suspicious, including the ones that did any work in defense of the OS? You're smart enough to tell when something makes sense and when it doesn't, and you have been perpetuating a lie on this thread ever since you were backed into this corner just to fallaciously prop up your own argument.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
The paper has been peer reviewed by other people, probably many of which were not truthers and it has not been debunked as a hoax either. If there would be any fault with the paper, that fault would be splurged all over this section by the deniers, but the only recourse left for them seems to be to attack the journal.


There have been many problems with the paper, and there are lots of threads in this forum about it.


If I am mistaken who are the critics of joneses paper, other than conspiracy nuts who ardently believe in the official conspiracy theory regardless of facts?


Ask yourself this -- why are only truthers the only ones who believe in this "paper"?

Why hasn't it been verified if everything in it is the "truth"?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
In the parts you even quoted back to me, I already explained that honestly believing what you are publishing is what all legitimate scientists do, it isn't an "agenda" that suddenly makes "truthers" suspicious.



Why do you still leave the rest of the quote out? I even posted the entire quote for you, plus another.

It's quite telling since it destroys your accusation of me lying about not elaborating on what I think of their agenda.

Like I said earlier, you just don't like the answer. You accused me of lying about elaborating, and I proved you wrong, get over it and apologize.

Or keep looking like a fool, I really don't care.






And once again, for the umpteenth time, this is the topic:

Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!


Funny, that's what I've been saying for awhile now, yet you want to go on with your proven false accusations.

I suggest you stick to the topic, and not me from now on. Anything not pertaining to the topic will not be acknowledged by me.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Problems such as what? So the paper has been debunked by whom? By Conspiracy guy on ATS board? If the paper can be debunked, how come the peers of Jones and Herrit do not do so, instead of greenlighting it? If there are problems with the paper, why are they not pointed out by his peers? It aint like there wasnt enough time to find any fault with the paper.

Conspiracy guy on ATS board might have a noble price for all I know, but chances are bigger, that his problem with the paper is that he does not fully understand it. I do not claim to fully understand the work of an PH.D in his field of expertise, but I do not set out to debunk it either, or defend it, if educated people come forward and point out the flaws in the paper.

In 2001 you guys wanted experts (and with good reason its a matter that only PH.Ds should deal with), now you got experts, you are up to your neck in experts. Where are your experts? Where are the experts who defend the official conspiracy theory? You are just conspiracy guy on ATS board, I am not really interested in what you have to say, give me some experts.
edit on 7-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Soloist
 


Problems such as what? So the paper has been debunked by whom? By Conspiracy guy on ATS board? If the paper can be debunked, how come the peers of Jones and Herrit do not do so, instead of greenlighting it? If there are problems with the paper, why are they not pointed out by his peers? It aint like there wasnt enough time to find any fault with the paper.


There are suspicions about the "peer review" process of this specific paper, but as I said that's off topic for this thread, there are others for discussing that.

You still have to ask why it's never been verified by a neutral, independent, 3rd party. They would have the finding of their lifetime with this, no? But until it's done properly, no one is paying attention.



Conspiracy guy on ATS board might have a noble price for all I know, but chances are bigger, that his problem with the paper is that he does not fully understand it. I do not claim to fully understand the work of an PH.D in his field of expertise, but I do not set out to debunk it either, or defend it, if educated people come forward and point out the flaws in the paper.


Many educated people have pointed out numerous flaws in not only the paper, but the journal's problems itself, the collection of the samples, and the lack of verification. They are out there, you just have to look outside the 9/11 forums on ATS.

But as is stated in the OP, only truthers are the ones who agree that this "Scientific Journal Found Credible!"

Now, why do you think that is the case?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
You are just conspiracy guy on ATS board, I am not really interested in what you have to say, give me some experts.


Ok, lol... i am not a 9/11 conspiracy guy, I'm not a "truther". But, whatever floats your boat.

If you're not interested in what people here have to say you're welcome to go elsewhere!



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
In the parts you even quoted back to me, I already explained that honestly believing what you are publishing is what all legitimate scientists do, it isn't an "agenda" that suddenly makes "truthers" suspicious.


Why do you still leave the rest of the quote out? I even posted the entire quote for you, plus another.

It's quite telling since it destroys your accusation of me lying about not elaborating on what I think of their agenda.


Not really since unless someone isn't reading our posts at all then anyone can see I included everything of relevance.

You said yourself, you don't even know what "agenda" they have, and for all you know they could just be publishing what they believe is accurate, and that's exactly what I believe they are doing. There is no evidence to the contrary and you're not even TRYING to come up with a good reason why they should be seen as suspicious.





And once again, for the umpteenth time, this is the topic:

Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!


Funny, that's what I've been saying for awhile now, yet you want to go on with your proven false accusations.


Since I apparently have to repeat myself infinitely, because something is not sinking in for you, you have been dismissing everyone involved with this paper with a single word: "truther."

"Truther" doesn't actually mean "someone who you should disregard entirely," except to a bigoted person, and repeating "they're truthers!"
over and over again doesn't suddenly make it a valid dismissal. It's nonsense every single time you post it, and you have expanded this thread a great deal by simply refusing to correct a fallacious argument. So what you are saying is wrong, and every time you pretend you've given a good reason you are lying, either to yourself, or everyone else here, or both. I think you lie intentionally just to try to frustrate us personally, but I'm still going to be here responding to every time you repeat this nonsense dismissal of "truthers."
edit on 7-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join