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.

 

Face to Face with Dr. Niels Harrit: "There is no doubt that this building was taken down in a contr

page: 10
20
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



I only pointed out the errors in Jones' logic to give readers some things to consider. I know you don't understand the errors in his paper so I expect that you will continue to lead the cheering section without question.


You have not pointed out anything but rant and rave that Jones and his journal are flawed because he wants to be famous and that Jones wished for his out come. You can talk down to me all you like, it doesn’t bother me, it only shows how desperate you are in pushing your opinions and fallacies. The fact is as far as any errors in Jones paper, there are no errors.

Your opinions do not prove anything. The Truth movements are not interested in your un-proven opinions. We are looking for scientific facts and you have “never” given any and if you say you have then you will be lying.




posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine
 



I only pointed out the errors in Jones' logic to give readers some things to consider. I know you don't understand the errors in his paper so I expect that you will continue to lead the cheering section without question.


The fact is as far as any errors in Jones paper, there are no errors.

Your opinions do not prove anything. The Truth movements are not interested in your un-proven opinions. We are looking for scientific facts and you have “never” given any and if you say you have then you will be lying.



Jones paper does not prove anything either. You speak for the "Truth movements" of course and all of you are looking for "scientfic facts." I doubt that you would recognize a 'scientific fact' so to help you out, don't look for them in Jones' paper.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Jones paper does not prove anything either. You speak for the "Truth movements" of course and all of you are looking for "scientfic facts." I doubt that you would recognize a 'scientific fact' so to help you out, don't look for them in Jones' paper.


Your desperations are noted.
Who do you speak for?

Your opinions were debunked by me in several threads and the fact is you continue to make false claims against Jones and Jones science.

I doubt you would recognize a 'scientific fact' since you have demonstrated that your opinions are above science, and lack any scientific evidence in support of your nonsense.
edit on 29-3-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


You have a selective memory. Please explain why the red chips do not react in the DSC furnace.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



You have a selective memory. Please explain why the red chips do not react in the DSC furnace.


No, I don’t have a selective memory perhaps you do, since you and I have covered this question repeatedly and I had no problems proving your opinions were ridiculous.
Jones has already explained in his journal to why some of the chips did not react or are you going to deny that to?



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Please refer me to Jones' explanation and we will see if it makes sense.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

Please refer me to your credentials, and we will see it it makes sense.
Come on Pterry, let's see if it makes sense.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


In case you were wondering, here is what a REAL skeptical scientist looks like. You could start the video around 5:15 and it appears that he is speaking directly to you. There are many other actual scientists who have gone on record that I could post here. Watching him just made me think of you.You are such a joke.


edit on 3/29/2011 by budaruskie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Please refer me to Jones' explanation and we will see if it makes sense.


You and I have already covered this several times and you always assume your “opinions” are above science. You don’t need me to show you what Jones “said” it’s in his Journal. Been there, covered that with you and you were not able to disprove a thing, if you say you have, you will be lying.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
The guy above does a good job of explaining what is shown in the following video:





posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


Mark Basile did what? As I remember, he is a buddy of Jones and managed to light a few chips that Jones gave him. As to Jones paper, here is another critque.

forums.randi.org...



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Mark Basile did what? As I remember, he is a buddy of Jones and managed to light a few chips that Jones gave him. As to Jones paper, here is another critque.

forums.randi.org...


Your source comes from a debunking site that supports the OS, yeah real credible I figured you were getting most of your debunking info from. randi.org. and you proved me right again. No one takes that website seriously anymore, only debunkers who cling to the OS of 911.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Once again, you are wrong. I just searched for it at that is what the engine came up with. My critique is my own and some on the JREF site have used my analyses, not the other way around.
As to the validity of what was said, the same point can be made about any of the truther sites.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I feel who done it is at this point more important than how it was done. Dont get sidetracked by discussing controlled demolition. Leave that to the experts who have an relevant education in the field.
edit on 30-3-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Once again, you are wrong.


Once again you have been proven wrong.


I just searched for it at that is what the engine came up with.


Yes, it was the only website on your search engine to pop up and it so happened to be a well known disinfo website that supports the OS of 911. The fact is your evidence and your source has zero credibility.


My critique is my own and some on the JREF site have used my analyses, not the other way around.


I don’t know about that, but most people who have done a considerable amount of research on 911 have seen JREF disinfo website and the fact is JREF website supports the proven lies of the OS. If you have to use JREF website to support your opinions then we all can assume the truth is the last thing on your agenda.


As to the validity of what was said, the same point can be made about any of the truther sites.


Wrong, the big different between most Truthers websites and all your JREF disinfo debunking websites is that Truthers “do not have to make up outlandish lies” to support the Truth. Most 911 debunking websites that support nothing but the OS are full of lies and the reason is because the OS is nothing but a proven lie. So in order to support the OS, one “must” lie. So I completely disagree with you.

edit on 30-3-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ElBraapo
 


Where Have You Been?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Three Buildings Collapsed In Their Own Footprint. Have You Ever Seen Controlled Demolition Of Huge Buildings ?
It Takes Months Of Planning To Bring Down One Building In It's Own Footprint Without Damaging The Surrounding Buildings.You Must Know The Stress Points.The Exact Placement Of The Explosives.There Are Many Factors Involved In Demelotion And That Doesnt Always Go As Planned Even After Months Of Planning.
So We Have Three Buildings Come Down In Their Footprint.
WOW Those Guys With The TWO Planes Did An Amazing Feat And An Awful One Also.
Just Using Jet Fuel.
Also It Is Unbelieveable That They Could Bring Down Building 7 Without Even Touching It.
Talk About Weirdness.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluesman1955
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Three Buildings Collapsed In Their Own Footprint. Have You Ever Seen Controlled Demolition Of Huge Buildings ?
It Takes Months Of Planning To Bring Down One Building In It's Own Footprint Without Damaging The Surrounding Buildings.You Must Know The Stress Points.The Exact Placement Of The Explosives.There Are Many Factors Involved In Demelotion And That Doesnt Always Go As Planned Even After Months Of Planning.
So We Have Three Buildings Come Down In Their Footprint.
WOW Those Guys With The TWO Planes Did An Amazing Feat And An Awful One Also.
Just Using Jet Fuel.
Also It Is Unbelieveable That They Could Bring Down Building 7 Without Even Touching It.
Talk About Weirdness.


*cough* *cough* Towers hit unlike any other skyscraper *cough* *cough* damage was never seen before, caused unexpected results.

*cough* WTC 7 was hit was debris and burned for 7 hours *cough* le *cough!*

Honestly, I've been trying to ignore 9/11 threads, but come on! You're just spouting the same rhetoric that has no sense behind it! Think before you type, and I'll be off again before the Truthers come to attempt to burn me at the stake for being a blasphemer and heretic to the cause. I will not be silenced! *runs*



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


No one's going to burn you at the stake, but I would ask you to apply the same critical reasoning you have to the poster above, to the "official story" (ie NIST, FEMA, and Kean Commission federal government reports). I will acknowledge, your point, that the poster you were responding to was not making rigorous arguments, is correct. But at the same time, I'm sure we also both realize that your post also does not justify any of the reports I just mentioned. You weren't trying to, of course. But it would be more interesting and relevant to see you apply your critical thinking there, instead of constantly at "truthers."

Being completely down-to-Earth here. "Truther" is a made-up word since 9/11 conspiracy theories have become popular. I know there is some entertainment in coming on here and arguing with people. But really it was never a legal or forensic responsibility of "truthers" or conspiracy theorists to investigate what happened that day anyway. Obviously everyone concerned with what happened, would want a full and truthful explanation of what exactly did happen. I would assume that is a common sentiment to both of us. So when you want that information, you don't turn to conspiracy theorists. I didn't turn to conspiracy theorists for that information. It just so happened that when the full context of the three reports I mentioned above was taken into consideration, the conclusion I arrived at is more similar to a conspiracy theorist's perspective than what any of those reports actually claim.

So besides all the petty bickering, which is really like riding by yelling things at people in a car when you know there's no way they can physically find you, there is still the question of what really happened on 9/11. I said above that I assume you actually have some interest there. Maybe really you don't. But if you do, where do you look for that information? Not conspiracy theorists. You look at the government reports that were a legal responsibility of federal agencies as assigned by Congress. And that is what I looked at, and many of us here have looked at. And that is where the most legitimate problems are, in the fine details of those reports.

I'm just curious, what you really know about those reports, and what they actually proved (or didn't prove) about what happened that day.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


WOW From a building made of steel and clad with aluminium they found traces of aluminium and steel
would you have thought that possible.






edit on 20-5-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join