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: 22
96
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


No I am not interested in your unqualified ideas. However I am interested in discussing what architects and engineers have to say on the event of 911. The delusion of some of the more whacky 911 deniers who think they can debunk PH.Ds with nothing at all bemuses me and makes me come back.




posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Not really since unless someone isn't reading our posts at all then anyone can see I included everything of relevance.



And there you have it. You finally admit to chopping my quote, while accusing me of not elaborating on it, which I did in the rest of that very quote you chopped and others.

Wow, you are a real piece of work.

Too bad you got caught and exposed. Hmm, who's being dishonest? A little introspection might help you understand that you're headed down the wrong road if you ever expect anyone to listen to you talk about the "truth". Maybe one day they will find a cure for rabid "trutherism".

So, good luck with that. I hope you get better.

Now, back on topic.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
No I am not interested in your unqualified ideas.


Try to make sense please. We cannot help you until you post with some clarity.


However I am interested in discussing what architects and engineers have to say on the event of 911.


So, why are you here on this forum? Why not go ask in an architect or engineering forum?


Th e delusion of some of the more whacky 911 deniers who think they can debunk PH.Ds with nothing at all bemuses me and makes me come back.


9/11 deniers? You mean truthers? Just because someone has a "PH.D" does not mean they are infallible, honest, or sane. Once again, clear up those thoughts and get back to us.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


No 9/11 deniers, the ardent believers in the official conpiracy theory. Truthers are people who associate themselves with the 911 truth movement, who are actually interested to what experts in their field have to say about 911 as oppose to the "there is no need to test for explosives" 9/11 comission report.

You know on opposite day you might actually be an authority, but as it is now, PH.D > conspiracyguy on ATS board.

When there were no experts to challenge the official accounts, because they were busy lookinto into all the details as opposed to making stuff up, you along with everybody else (including us truthers) wanted experts. Now you got all the experts you want. Now you claim they cant be trusted, they have an hidden agenda, they are truthers, they are lying to us to achieve their dark and twisted plot.

Do you even realize how crazy you sound? You are a conspiracy theorist, you act like a conspiracy theorist and you talk like a conspiracy theorist. That the conspiracy theory has a presidential seal does not make a difference. Where are the experts who back up your whacky conspiracy theory?
edit on 7-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


I see you're still at it. Disgraceful really. You aren't here to discuss and discern truth, you're here only to cause arguments, to split hairs and argue over the trivialities, semantics and irrelevancies. Is your PhD in a psychological discipline by any chance? Are you a natural? Were you groomed for this talent?

In agreement with Cassius666, I can see the way in which you operate, without any real qualification against the intellectual arguments being put forth, and it sickens my stomach, quite literally. I'm not trying to be offensive, just trying to explain how your attitude affects my human condition. You are continuing to spam the thread, seeking to dissuade people from remaining involved in this collective search for answers, this platform for the sharing of information. Your techniques of infuriation/ frustration inducement have worked quite well on many people, including me - to my shame. Kudos to those who stick at it. It's immensely depressing to come up against this type of behaviour...

That you would demean the quest for truth, bringing it down to the level of what can only be described as a sadistic game... 'He said, She said' with a spot of 'pot-ay-to, pot-ah-to'. It's a sight to behold, and it truly upsets me. I feel saddened for humanity when I witness this type of behaviour on a forum where so many are dedicated to finding the Truth behind the many deceptions prevalent in this world.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


And precisely what do you have that qualifies you to argue against the people searching for the truth of 9-11?

And what qualifies you to use a Royal "We" in referring to yourself?




posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
Not really since unless someone isn't reading our posts at all then anyone can see I included everything of relevance.


And there you have it. You finally admit to chopping my quote, while accusing me of not elaborating on it, which I did in the rest of that very quote you chopped and others.


What part did I cut out that you think is so relevant here? The part where you admit you have no idea what the "truther agenda" is, or the part where you say they could just be publishing what they honestly believe?


According to yourself, your "elaboration" on the whole 'truthers are suspicious because they're truthers' bigotry is (a) you don't know what their agenda is, and (b) they could just be publishing what they honestly believe. What a great argument for finding them so "suspicious" that you just dismiss them out of hand. You'll say anything but the bottom line is you just don't want to hear any of this.

So where is the reason to find them suspicious again?




posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Now you got all the experts you want.


Who is that pray tell? The tiny, pathetic membership of A&E?

If that is who you are calling "experts", then we don't want them.

If Jones and Co. want anyone to ever believe in their laughable "conspiracy theory" of super-duper nanu-therm*te then it's going to have to be handled by credible people outside their silly little club.

Until then, enjoy your "experts" who only agree with each other and not the rest of the logical, rational world.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

So where is the reason to find them suspicious again?



You got caught. Deal with it.

Now, back on topic. How's the search for credibility going? I still have yet to see any outside verification of this wacky little "theory".



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment

You aren't here to discuss and discern truth.. *SNIP*


Truth?

Didn't you accuse me of lying and then run away from this thread when I proved you wrong?


Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
Nobody in this thread with whom you are arguing has stated that the bodies weren't real, so yes, strawman. Stop lying

Originally posted by Soloist
I keep asking why don't you quote me when you accuse me of "lying", or making "strawmans", etc.... so here I did the work for you, and lookie look...

Originally posted by Soloist
But then I see people on this forum saying the bodies weren't real, and so on.


You cannot deny it. It's all there for you. You could choose to be a bigger person, admit your mistake and apologize.




In agreement with Cassius666, I can see the way in which you operate, without any real qualification against the intellectual arguments being put forth, and it sickens my stomach, quite literally. I'm not trying to be offensive, just trying to explain how your attitude affects my human condition.


This coming from someone who got caught calling me a liar, which was completely false.

Sorry about your condition, maybe you should get that checked out?


You are continuing to spam the thread, seeking to dissuade people from remaining involved in this collective search for answers, this platform for the sharing of information. Your techniques of infuriation/ frustration inducement have worked quite well on many people, including me - to my shame. Kudos to those who stick at it. It's immensely depressing to come up against this type of behaviour...


Depression too? Maybe this is the wrong place for ya, I hate to be so blunt, but this is a heated forum.


I feel saddened for humanity when I witness this type of behaviour on a forum where so many are dedicated to finding the Truth behind the many deceptions prevalent in this world.


Are you sure it's because you're not used to someone exposing the fraud people pimp on here as the "truth"?

Don't you want the whole world to know this "truth"? Do you think Jones his silly little club really want that? If so, why aren't they pushing for verification?

Hope you get better soon.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
And precisely what do you have that qualifies you to argue against the people searching for the truth of 9-11?


I wasn't aware this forum required qualifications. If that's the case then I have to wonder how all the misguided truthers got in.

But ok, let's talk about qualifications, shall we?

How about:

1) John Lear - a highly accomplished pilot, several world records, son of the designer of the Lear Jet, and a well known and somewhat popular public figure.

Believes the planes on 9/11 were holographs. When I pressed him about the sound, he claimed "someone probably hung some speakers out of some windows." LOL

2) Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D(Materials Engineering Science, 1992) - former assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Clemson University

Believes space beams took out the towers. LOL

3) Dr. Morgan Reynolds - professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.

Also believes in space beams, so much that they filed a suit over it :


One case claims that No Planes hit the Twin Towers. The other case claims that Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) destroyed the Twin Towers and that some of the effects are ongoing.


4) Rob Balsamo - founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Got blasted by some of his own "experts" for buying into the whole "cockpit door closed" fiasco. Also believes that the plane flew over the Pentagon and attempts to use the FDR data from the plane that he said didn't even crash. LOL


5) Steven E Jones - former physics professor at BYU

Wrote a paper entitled "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America - LOL.

Forced to retire from BYU after they wanted nothing to do with his paper :


Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".



The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."



6) Anders Björkman - Naval architect & Marine engineer -- AE911 petitioner

Author of the hilarious "pizza box experiment". He is also a no-planer and has stated the impacts were fake.

7) James H. Fetzer, Ph.D - co-founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth along with (surprise) Steven Jones.

Believes that the use of directed energy weapons or small nuclear bombs were used to destroy the Twin Towers.



All qualified people, do you agree? What's the problem with that picture?

Looking at the list of AE911 folks, I notice they even have listed software developers, software engineers, and just plain ole engineers.

LOL, what makes me think I'm qualified to " argue against the people searching for the truth of 9-11"?

Well, I know for a fact I'm at least or if not more qualified them some of the AE911 people, that's for sure!




And what qualifies you to use a Royal "We" in referring to yourself?


I wasn't aware "we" was a royal term. But just to keep you informed I'll tell you a secret...

Shhh...

*whispers* -- there's more than one of us that don't believe this silly truther stuff.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
You got caught. Deal with it.

Now, back on topic. How's the search for credibility going? I still have yet to see any outside verification of this wacky little "theory".


Back to more intentionally deceitful posting behavior I see.

Again I will ask the obvious question that you can't answer for the life of you. What makes the authors of this paper so suspicious to you?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11

So where is the reason to find them suspicious again?



You got caught. Deal with it.

Now, back on topic. How's the search for credibility going? I still have yet to see any outside verification of this wacky little "theory".


Actually it has, that is what peer review is for. You keep on dismissing a tidal wave of PH.Ds who do not support the whacky conspiracy theoy with a presidential seal. 1400 signers on that particular paper are not enough for you? How much will it take to convince you? 1 Trillion signers? Where are your experts, where is the peer review for the NIST report? Oh thats right, its just a report to begin with. Where are your experts to champion the official conspiracy theory?

Can you produce any? No? Thought so. You cant produce any architects and engineers to back the whacky official conspiracy theory, the only course of action left for you is to pout your feet, which you have been doing for the past couple of pages.
edit on 8-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
Sorry pal but that's just a really good story.

Until you provide evidence of what you're talking about it won't matter what you claim you saw in the 'control room of one of the three biggest networks'.

Stop chalking up strawmans. Where did we say the bodies weren't real?


There are people here that know where I was, however I've been asked not to give out details. Not only that but I'm under an NDA, and I also could care less about providing you evidence of what I and others saw. It's not for your eyes anyway. I wish it wouldn't have been for mine, but I can't change that.

Plenty of people claim the bodies weren't real, although it looks like your rather new here you might want to look into some of the older threads in case you were thinking of claiming otherwise and accuse me of "strawmans".




So If I may quote you as above noted.

you signed a NDA (Non-disclosure agreement) With who? the united states government or one of your big three media outlets? I ask this because it throws your credibility into question also I'd think it was more with the U.S Government than the big three you work for.

Speaking from a medically retired military police officer's prospective we take violating a NDA very seriously as part of a NDA. if what you say is true you may not in any way discuss what was seen or not seen that day by you or any information that was seen by you. by admitting that you witnessed video of the events violates the NDA which has stiff Penalty's all on its own.

While I am retired was hurt over seas, any one and I mean any one can report you. your IP can be traced and you have given enough information in your post to figure out who you are based on your own posts. while I will not just giving you a little warning.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

even if it was with the media outlets its some thing that can lose you your job. just looking out for you! have a good day.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Looking at the list of AE911 folks, I notice they even have listed software developers, software engineers, and just plain ole engineers.

LOL, what makes me think I'm qualified to " argue against the people searching for the truth of 9-11"?

Well, I know for a fact I'm at least or if not more qualified them some of the AE911 people, that's for sure!


What's the problem with software developers and software engineers?

It seems to me 75% of the NIST study would have been impossible without them.

Who was it that developed and engineered the ANSYS and SAP2000 software they used?

edit on 8-1-2011 by NIcon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
You keep on dismissing a tidal wave of PH.Ds who do not support the whacky conspiracy theoy with a presidential seal. 1400 signers on that particular paper are not enough for you? How much will it take to convince you?


Tidal wave? LOL. Hardly.

I still think neformore said it best about that very weak argument.


You cant produce any architects and engineers to back the whacky official conspiracy theory


You think there should be some little club for everyone else NOT in the truther organizations, or? LOL

That makes no sense.

The reality is no one outside the tiny little subset of the truther world takes this whacky ex-professor's paper seriously. Jones said he is confident his paper will withstand another peer-review, has that been done?

Where is the 3rd party verification? With such earth shattering results(LOL), why in the world would you choose not to handle the matter properly? A questionable journal, with questionable "peer-review" process, questionable samples, and a couple of questionable authors.

So many questions to ask yourself!



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reaper2137
you signed a NDA (Non-disclosure agreement) With who? the united states government or one of your big three media outlets? I ask this because it throws your credibility into question also I'd think it was more with the U.S Government than the big three you work for.


Where did I say I worked for the US Government?

I know I didn't so where did you come up with this? I think that "throws your credibility into question" right away.



if what you say is true you may not in any way discuss what was seen or not seen that day by you or any information that was seen by you. by admitting that you witnessed video of the events violates the NDA which has stiff Penalty's all on its own.


Here is why I automatically doubt what you're saying and question your motives. You are saying something in reference to whatever NDA you are under, however (I'll even use your own link) :


It is a contract through which the parties agree not to disclose information covered by the agreement.


In my case, I have nothing to fear, and know exactly what I can and cannot say. Your NDA could be radically different.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
What's the problem with software developers and software engineers?


Nothing. Well, other than the fact that they have no "qualifications" in the areas of building demo, super-duper-secret-nanu-therm*te, building construction, etc.

Did you read what I wrote in context of the question that was asked:


And precisely what do you have that qualifies you to argue against the people searching for the truth of 9-11?


My point was I'm equally or more qualified than some of the people AE911 put on their silly little "petition".



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


They tackle different points. But if a chemist composes a paper about a thermitic material you are not happy either. Everybody who is a troofer is not trustworthy in your opinion, which is everybody who finds fault with the NIST report and wants a proper investigation. If you disagree to begin with you are not trustworthy, thats an easy argument.

Where are the PH.Ds to defend the NIST report? Did they take an oath of silence?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

Where are the PH.Ds to defend the NIST report? Did they take an oath of silence?


You make no sense.

Should they be marching in the streets or something?



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join