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: 24
96
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


You know as well as the rest of us on this thread that he is going to continue playing his disinfo game. His argument will only make sense to someone whose intelligence can not make it beyond hitting the CH+/- button on the TV remote. If you have ever read the 25 rules of disinformation, he has hit just about every one of those in this thread. Of course, he isnt going to read those and have an epiphany of "OMG, thats what Ive been doing this whole time?!", just like he hasnt bothered to read Jones's paper, and sure as hell isnt going to answer anyones questions regarding the topic, or why his opinion is what it is, other than that it is what it is.




posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, you got caught blatantly lying,

Every time I ask now you say you've already answered, which is a lie, and refuse to answer again. The real reason you won't answer is because your "reasoning" is embarrassing even to you.


Boom! Busted yet again, here ya go, since you don't seem to be paying attention too well


Originally posted by Soloist
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.



You're the one butchering my posts.

I asked you why you find the authors of the paper in the OP suspicious.

You think "It could be something as simple as they really believe in this stuff" is a reason to find someone suspicious?

That is not a reason, and every time you say you have given one, you are lying.



All you had to do is read. But no, you would rather spam this thread with insults, name calling, and accusations.


All the spam is coming from you friend. Every time I try to point out the obvious you resort to reposting the exact same things over and over and refusing to consider what I am even posting. It was wrong the first 100 times you post it and it will continue to be wrong the next 10,000 times you post it.


You seem to be the only person here who cannot understand.


Not according to all these other people who are also responding to you, but I guess you're totally ignoring them too.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

You think "It could be something as simple as they really believe in this stuff" is a reason to find someone suspicious?



And here is where it is you that is trying to deceive. Once again, for the last time, you have been caught attempting to take only part of my sentence to use as your argument. But that simply won't work. You cannot deny this.


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".



You can keep saying I didn't say it, but all anyone has to do is refer back to my post. It's never been edited, it stands just as it was written.

posted on 2-1-2011 @ 12:18 AMwww.abovetopsecret.com...

As anyone can see, this was well before you accused my of lying that I did not elaborate on it. And you did this over and over again, only to be proven wrong.

Deal with it. For the last time, get back on topic.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
You think "It could be something as simple as they really believe in this stuff" is a reason to find someone suspicious?


And here is where it is you that is trying to deceive. Once again, for the last time, you have been caught attempting to take only part of my sentence to use as your argument. But that simply won't work. You cannot deny this.


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".


If they are making stuff up but simultaneously believe it's true, how does that equate to being "suspicious" so that you dismiss the paper out of hand?? Why can't you just learn how to debunk their paper instead of hiding behind calling them names and making baseless accusations if this is true?

Again, I asked you for a reason to find them suspicious. Actually believing their work has nothing to do with making stuff up "to help their cause." If they believe their work, they wouldn't have to make anything up to believe they are helping their cause, as it would come automatically with their legitimate work. Do you not understand that either?

So once again, any real reason to find them suspicious? Any reason that makes any damned bit of sense at all, even just a smidgen?

No, just an extreme bias in favor of the official story and a bigotry towards anyone who disagrees with it, that you've always had and seem to have no desire to reconsider, ever.



Deal with it. For the last time, get back on topic.


For the last time, the reasons you don't think the paper is credible, has everything to do with the topic.

Deal with it.
edit on 9-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
So, can no one provide any neutral, 3rd party, independent verification?

We're still waiting for something credible to look at.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
So, can no one provide any neutral, 3rd party, independent verification?


These people are neutral, and there can be no such thing as a "neutral 3rd party" according to you, because as soon as they would agree with the paper you'd call them "truthers" too.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
No one yet?

Shucks, I guess the world will be waiting for a long, long time!



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
No one yet?

Shucks, I guess the world will be waiting for a long, long time!


Yep, "we'll" be waiting forever by your standards, because it's impossible to be "neutral" and agree with the paper in the OP at the same time according to you. But really only you and other bigoted people will be waiting for what the rest of us already realize.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I wonder what the rest of the world's excuse is then?

You know those people not in the "truth movement". Ahh, of course they're all bigots and liars too! LOL



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
You know those people not in the "truth movement". Ahh, of course they're all bigots and liars too! LOL


A few of them are, but I'd say most of them are just ignorant and apathetic of the issues. 99% of people haven't read the NIST report, the paper in the OP, don't regularly give any thought or opinions on 9/11 in general, etc.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
If people want this crime finally taken seriously they have to realize that covering up a crime is as much a part of a criminal conspiracy as planning the crime. I have posted here several times that I was PM-ed on another board by a representative of a marketing firm that (at that time) was contracted to derail the building 9/11 Truth Movement within Internet forums like this one. Since 2004, it has been a coordinated, professional effort to cause the discussion of any and all 9/11 conspiracy claims to devolve into tiresome fighting, insults, and pointless digression, so as to push general forum traffic away from such discussions.

Since the complete suite of State and Federal murder and conspiracy charges have not been filed against all potential perpetrators in this case, this ongoing professional marketing effort is a deliberate, focused, and professionally contracted criminal activity directly associated with the 9/11 attacks themselves, . That means that the ongoing and aggressive work to shut down any and all meaningful investigation (including debate, discussion and/or activity in support of that investigation) amounts to legally chargeable counts of accessory after the fact conspiracy to commit 1st degree mass murder.

In this bizarre period in American history, the true nature of what constitutes a criminal act has been intentionally scrambled by the corporate media, and for obvious reasons when one considers the impact of recent financial scandals. This may cause many to not be aware of their legal culpability in some activities. This period of American history won't last indefinitely, and there is no statute of limitations for capital murder. What is also true is that if one is even indirectly involved in capital murder, they are subject to full prosecution as an equal partner in that crime. This includes the crimes of covering-up and/or providing cover for those directly involved.

I have posted the reason why our government and the corporate media have stayed clear of the 9/11 conspiracy controversy to date, and won't include it here, but the fact is that this ongoing threat is close to being resolved, and when it is, the scope of charges may end up being surprisingly inclusive. Especially considering the broad scope of the impact of these crimes.

I am, once again, warning anyone who is being paid to advance the Official Conspiracy Theory and derail all discussion aimed at uncovering reasons to promote (in this case specifically) a full investigation into the 9/11 mass murder case to end your association with one of the marketing firms involved, and to walk away from this effort immediately. This is extremely serious and you can search through my prior posts to determine if anything related to this subject is at all indicative of someone who hasn't done their homework. I am a writer and researcher, and this subject has roped many like myself in as the economy - and employment - has forced many of us outside our comfort zones. This pay per post job is not worth it. I don't know how else to make this point.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


First of all -- LOL!

Second, why don't you tell us the names of these "marketing firms" you are talking about. After all shouldn't all the followers or truth and justice have the right to know?

Me though, I would personally like to apply for one of those jobs, nothing wrong with supplementing my government dis-info paycheck with some extra cash for doing the same thing!



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Since 2004, it has been a coordinated, professional effort to cause the discussion of any and all 9/11 conspiracy claims to devolve into tiresome fighting, insults, and pointless digression, so as to push general forum traffic away from such discussions.


You know thats interesting. There's this other forum, and I don't know the rules here on this forum whether is OK to mention another forum or not, but anyway - long time ago this other forum decided that banning what they called "skeptics", that is those folks who don't buy all the controlled demolition, missile at the Pentagon stuff, and just keep it amongst the true believers. Well that other forum now goes days without any traffic.

If it weren't for the "OS" believers on some of these forums and think this subject would really just kind of roll up and kind of go into limbo.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
Second, why don't you tell us the names of these "marketing firms" you are talking about. After all shouldn't all the followers or truth and justice have the right to know?


Wow, look who actually is posting off-topic.



You don't find the paper in the OP credible, despite real scientists, with real careers and resumes finding it credible. What was the reason you found them all suspicious again, and dismiss them without ever having a second thought?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Soloist
Second, why don't you tell us the names of these "marketing firms" you are talking about. After all shouldn't all the followers or truth and justice have the right to know?


Wow, look who actually is posting off-topic.




Yeah, the poster who I replied to.




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


You have a horrible sense of what's off-topic and what's not apparently.


OP:


Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!


My post:


You don't find the paper in the OP credible, despite real scientists, with real careers and resumes finding it credible.



Try again, a little harder this time.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Soloist
 


You have a horrible sense of what's off-topic and what's not apparently.


And you have a hard time comprehending things.

Maybe re-read my post then you'll figure out I wasn't even talking about you.

It's not all about you, just in case you haven't figured that out yet.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
And you have a hard time comprehending things.

Maybe re-read my post then you'll figure out I wasn't even talking about you.


That's even funnier, because until now you have been accusing me off being off-topic when confronting you on your rejection of the OP, which yes, is directly related to the OP.

So,


What was the reason you found them all suspicious again [the authors of the paper], and dismiss them without ever having a second thought?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Feel free to let me know when you have something important to say.

As opposed to you posting the same question that I already proved over and over has been answered.

Still waiting on that 3rd party, neutral, independent verification, when is that coming again?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Actually its several parties, thats what the peer review is for. It would be nice if somebody else would conduct the same tests, or if the investigators tasked with investigating 911 would have tested for accelerants and explosives to begin with.



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join