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.

 

99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

page: 43
274
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
You're right that's why I said it definitely makes me re-think the controlled demolition scenario in the last post.


Thats good



We're just going around in circles here. I keep saying that the video was to show the effects that nano-thermite has when ignited, and you keep saying I'm being misleading and twisting the facts. If you want to think that I was attempting to pull some crafty switcheroo where I would post a video of nano-thermite igniting in the hopes of convincing a few people that he was igniting a sample of dust which would be substantial enough to turn several people into truthers, forming some coalition of lunatics who go around twisting facts, then go ahead and think that.


The nasty thing about forums is that everything you type remains:

me: he found nothing that disproves his chips were just paint.
you: Exploding paint chips?
me: It didn't even completely reacted when he heated it. Some explosive...
you: childish facepalm and Are you kidding me? Watch from 0:15 - 0:20

And now you are twisting the facts claiming that you were talking about nano-thermite. But in any case, we can agree that Jones' chip was not nano-thermite, else it should have reacted the same as in that video.


I have other stuff going on, I can't spend all day reading several entire papers from scientific journals. I'll probably get around to finishing all of them sometime this week though. What can you say? How about you say where you are getting your information from?


I really don't get you. You are presenting this paper a definite proof, you are defending it fiercely, and then it turns out you don't even know what is in it. It seems to me that you are not really taking this whole 911 subject very seriously.


Not the amount, but the ratio. 100% of the molten steel videos and images that I've seen have shown it to be a uniform, bright orange color. Only one of the videos that I've seen of molten aluminum shows it to have an orange color. Plus you didn't answer my question, can you find me some airplane crash pictures where the burning jet fuel turned the aluminum frame completely molten?


That is because at the temperature that steel melts, it is always glowing bright. At the temperature that aluminum melts it is just silvery. Only when you heat it even more it starts glowing.

As for another airplane crash with molten aluminum, I don't know of any. But its not really relevant, in the WTC it was not the jet fuel that melted the aluminum, the jet fuel had already burned up.


The facts? No your false opinion points out that it was never peer reviewed, I just showed you that it indeed was peer reviewed. You're just bashing Steven Jones simply because you disagree with the claims made in his work. He said it himself in that paper directed towards people like you who doubt the validity of his work and the peer reviewing process:

IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals...then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?
You don't try to debunk the science behind his paper, you just attack his credibility by making fun of his religion and bashing the journal that he published in. "I am not going to post all the sources because they are very easy to find", do you post any evidence to back up what you say? If it's so easy to find, take 10 seconds to do a Google search and post the links in here!


Do with it what you like. You may either believe Jones, a man who think Jesus came to America and think he created an over unity device, or you may believe the scientific community. I will point you to this blog, as it is by someone with expertise in the field and with thuther aspirations.


Ah and where exactly is the website of this group of engineers, physicists, architects, and so on that support the official story? Surely such a massive group that strongly supports the science behind the official story would have some organization to affiliate themselves with, right? Or since there are only a couple thousand that have joined that 9/11 Patriots organization, do you assume that everyone else who didn't join it disagrees with them?


I can list some organizations that support the NIST report:

Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, National Fire Protection Association, American Institute of Steel Construction, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York.

Do you think they are all in on it?



So instead of providing me with the evidence to enlighten me with "the truth", you just attack where I get my information from. My "conspiracy sites" and "YouTube videos" that I use as evidence to back up what I say is much better than your opinion and complete lack of evidence to back up anything you say.


The web is literally filled with it. I pointed you to that blog. The interesting thing is that the person in that blog had direct discussions with Jones' team. Another rich source of information is the Randi forum I already pointed you to. Dozens of post with all the facts listed and all the debunks. It is just a matter of you opening you mind, don't wait for me to spell it all out.


"Standard ridicule"-- In the last paragraph of yours you said this: "Keep visiting conspiracy sights and keep watching YouTube videos". To me that sounds like ridicule. A few facepalm pictures and multiple requests for you to back up what you say with facts and evidence is not at all ridicule. See all that evidence I include in my posts? That's my "homework".


It wasn't in fact ridicule. I really think that conspiracy sites and Youtube videos is what you base your opinion on. I was of course a bit sarcastic. I don't think it is very healthy to get too lost in conspiracies. I have been susceptible to them too when I was younger, I think most people have a phase in their lives that they start questioning the world around them (I still do of course, every time I see the news I try to imagine what is really going on). But there is a big difference between being skeptical, and just believing anything that goes against mainstream.


Back up what you say with evidence, that's all I'm asking. You say the truth is out there and it's easy to find, so find it, post it here, and provide us with the truth. You've spent the past couple of days discussing this, but you won't spend 15 seconds to do a Google search and find the information that you claim is so easy to find.


I can post you a couple of links of to relevant threads on the Randi forum if you like. They often are long threads, but are very detailed.
edit on 7-7-2011 by -PLB- because: typos




posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

It seems to me that you are not really taking this whole 911 subject very seriously.


LOL, that's hilarious...

Look at all the time and effort Tupac has put in to this thread and you say he doesn't take it seriously......


You may not agree with him but you cannot doubt his tenacity.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Wotcher
 


If that is the only thing you disagree on, then I am willing to take it back



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 
I have a hunch that he disagrees with a few other details of your response to tupac. If, or better yet when we get the opportunity to debate these issues in front of an independent panel of investigators, you have had over forty pages to refute tupac's presentation, this thread illustrates that there needs to be an investigation. You, my friend were smoked. Would you at least admit that tupac has raised some valid discrepancies in the OS?



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 


You will find discrepancies in any investigation this size, a new investigation is not going to change that, although a couple will of course be set right. I don't really see the need for a new investigation, as no new evidence have surfaced. I have asked this question before (and it will probably remain unanswered), what is the truth movement waiting for? For the government who they do not trust to start the investigation? If every truther donates 5 dollar you end up with several hundred million dollar.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 





You, my friend were smoked.


Smoked does not even begin to describe it.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

I really don't get you. You are presenting this paper a definite proof, you are defending it fiercely, and then it turns out you don't even know what is in it. It seems to me that you are not really taking this whole 911 subject very seriously.
Yeah I'm a very complicated person
. It's peer-reviewed and published in a legitimate scientific journal, so I trust the peer-reviewers to not publish some pseudoscientific garbage that's filled with lies and twisted facts.


That is because at the temperature that steel melts, it is always glowing bright. At the temperature that aluminum melts it is just silvery. Only when you heat it even more it starts glowing.

As for another airplane crash with molten aluminum, I don't know of any. But its not really relevant, in the WTC it was not the jet fuel that melted the aluminum, the jet fuel had already burned up.
Right, so not even can jet fuel which burns at 1800 degrees turn an aluminum airplane frame completely molten as there is no historical precedent for this, but the idea of regular old fire which burns at a much lower temperature doing that is unbelievable. So that brings up the question "What is that molten metal seen dripping?", since we've concluded that jet fuel could not have turned the aluminum frame molten let alone ordinary fires, then clearly there was something else going on up there.


Do with it what you like. You may either believe Jones, a man who think Jesus came to America and think he created an over unity device, or you may believe the scientific community. I will point you to this blog, as it is by someone with expertise in the field and with thuther aspirations.
There you go again attacking his religion instead of the evidence behind his paper. "You may either believe Jones or the scientific community", uh I don't know what scientific community you're referring to, probably the ones that disagree with him as you seem to see them as being the only rational scientific minds on the planet, but he is a part of the scientific community, as are the people that peer-reviewed his paper and the scientific journal that he published in it.

Wow, a blog post?! I'm convinced! His peer-reviewed paper published in a scientific journal pales in comparison to some dude posting something bashing it on a blog. Who cares if his criticism isn't also published in a scientific journal as it would need to be to be taken seriously, one dudes blog post is all the evidence I need.
[/sarcasm]

His "peer reviewed" paper that he wrote in response to Steven Jones Nano-Thermite paper is a joke. Let ATS decide: does this paper which claims to be peer-reviewed yet is posted in a blog by Denis Rancourt and is 2 pages long look legitimate, or does this 25 page paper with multiple authors published in peer-review Open Chemical Physics Journal look legitimate?

You've been bashing the legitimacy of Steven Jones paper and the peer-review process of that scientific journal like it's your job, and to counter his paper you find some blog post critizing it that claims to be peer-reviewed to prove how it's false?



I can list some organizations that support the NIST report:

Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, National Fire Protection Association, American Institute of Steel Construction, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York.

Do you think they are all in on it?
That's an incredibly stupid assumption to make, of course I don't think they're in on it. Why would you even ask that?
And once again you provide no evidence to back up your claims, you just say things. I can just say things too: The American Institute of Engineers and Architects do not support NISTs report, along with the Organization of International Mechanical Engineers, the American Association of Architects, and the Engineering Committee of North America. See how legit that sounds? But with no evidence to back it up, it's just a meaningless statement.

The polls say a good portion of Americans think 9/11 was an inside job, some even say that the majority of them think that actually.

CNN:


This one says 1/3 of Americans think it's an inside job.

This one done by the New York Times and CBS says that only 16% think our government is telling the truth about 9/11.

1/3 of Americans suspect a government conspiracy.

Now before you bash the credibility of those polls and say they're inaccurate or spammed by lunatic truthers, find a couple polls that say only a small majority of Americans think 9/11 was an inside job. Surely such a massive majority of Americans who are rational enough to believe everything the government says would voice their patriotism and intelligence in the form of a poll, right? If I can find four polls that say a good chunk think it was an inside job, then obviously you should be able to find dozens that say the opposite.


The web is literally filled with it. I pointed you to that blog. The interesting thing is that the person in that blog had direct discussions with Jones' team. Another rich source of information is the Randi forum I already pointed you to. Dozens of post with all the facts listed and all the debunks. It is just a matter of you opening you mind, don't wait for me to spell it all out.
Dude I've told you probably a dozen times, I'm not going to take time out of my day to scope out some blog or forum posts of ignorant truth-debunkers who strawman Steven Jones paper by attacking the legitimacy of the peer-review process, his religion, and so on. If you are here to convince us that his paper is a sham, then you should do so by posting those links to back up what you say. Don't tell me again to Google some forum or find evidence for you, because I'm just going to ignore your idiotic requests. If you want me to look at some evidence from the other side of the story, then show it to me, it's that simple.


I can post you a couple of links of to relevant threads on the Randi forum if you like. They often are long threads, but are very detailed.
Yeah do that, that's why I've asked you fifteen times to post evidence to back up what you say, and you're only now considering doing that?




You will find discrepancies in any investigation this size, a new investigation is not going to change that, although a couple will of course be set right. I don't really see the need for a new investigation, as no new evidence have surfaced. I have asked this question before (and it will probably remain unanswered), what is the truth movement waiting for? For the government who they do not trust to start the investigation? If every truther donates 5 dollar you end up with several hundred million dollar.
In a way the independent investigations already have began, the physicists, architects, engineers, and so on who conduct experiments and publish peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals that contradict the official story using facts, evidence, experiments, mathemetical calculations, and physics are all a part of the independent investigation. The problem with that is since the government doesn't endorse their investigation, people like you automatically label their research as false and lacking credibility without any real reason other than it goes against the official story and many people support the official story. But I think what people want is the government to actually fund an independent investigation, because they spent such a small amount of money investigating arguably the most destructive act of terrorism and their report was filled with holes, flaws, skewed facts, assumptions, and so on. That's a slap in the face to not just the people that died in the attacks and their families, but America as a whole. They need to investigate every single detail, answer every question, and put this issue to rest in the form of a government funded, unbiased investigation.
edit on 7-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
To all! Enough talking about the twin towers. Its obvious either side can fabricate evidence to support there own belief. And we will never agree. BUT:


Can any de bunker please tell me how and why building 3 to 6 received catastrophic damage but didn't collapse to its core foundation completely and building 7 (had less structural damage from the twin towers collapsing debris ) had small fires and no catastrophic damage from the TT's collapse ,just effortlessly fell strait down.


Note: I am a civil engineer and a general contractor by trade, so please be careful how you decide to answer my question.

Thank you



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Basically you do not want to accept that Jones his work is not taken seriously outside the truth movement. I gave you a link to a discussion with the authors of the paper, I gave you letters from editors of that journal, yet you still rather believe it is a good paper. You asked for sources and once they are given you refuse to even look at it. You know the saying, you can drag a horse to the water but you can't make it drink. I can't think of anything that will convince you, your mind is 100% shut.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




Basically you do not want to accept that Jones his work is not taken seriously outside the truth movement. I gave you a link to a discussion with the authors of the paper, I gave you letters from editors of that journal, yet you still rather believe it is a good paper. You asked for sources and once they are given you refuse to even look at it. You know the saying, you can drag a horse to the water but you can't make it drink. I can't think of anything that will convince you, your mind is 100% shut.
I asked for sources, you gave me a source, I looked at it, and determined that a two page blog post written by one guy does not trump a 25 page paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and worked on by nine people.

If that's what you think it takes to convince me that his paper is phony, then you are sadly mistaken. How about some peer-reviewed criticisms instead of some blog post? You know those papers discussing the flaws in Bazants analysis of the towers collapse? They're published in a peer-reviewed journal, not posted on some dudes blog.




posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
I asked for sources, you gave me a source, I looked at it, and determined that a two page blog post written by one guy does not trump a 25 page paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and worked on by nine people.

If that's what you think it takes to convince me that his paper is phony, then you are sadly mistaken. How about some peer-reviewed criticisms instead of some blog post? You know those papers discussing the flaws in Bazants analysis of the towers collapse? They're published in a peer-reviewed journal, not posted on some dudes blog.



Did you miss the letter from the editor?

1) I was not editor of the journal at the time the manuscript you refer to was received and processed. I was not involved in its handling, and in no way do i agree with its conclusions. In fact i do not even know how the paper's peer reviewing was handled - or if it was reviewed at all. The journal never wanted to disclosed this matter to me.

2) What may be even worse - noone seems to be at the helm of this Journal. Months ago -simply after becoming acquainted with the article you mention, its possible misshandling, etc- i submitted my immediate resignation as editor to the open chemical physics journal. As you can see from the email below, my letter of resignation was received and acknowledged. However, i still appear as the journal's editor - in fact i'm still receiving manuscripts to handle (which i naturally ignore).

That is from an editor of that "respected" jouranal. How more obvious can it get.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

Did you miss the letter from the editor?

1) I was not editor of the journal at the time the manuscript you refer to was received and processed. I was not involved in its handling, and in no way do i agree with its conclusions. In fact i do not even know how the paper's peer reviewing was handled - or if it was reviewed at all. The journal never wanted to disclosed this matter to me.

2) What may be even worse - noone seems to be at the helm of this Journal. Months ago -simply after becoming acquainted with the article you mention, its possible misshandling, etc- i submitted my immediate resignation as editor to the open chemical physics journal. As you can see from the email below, my letter of resignation was received and acknowledged. However, i still appear as the journal's editor - in fact i'm still receiving manuscripts to handle (which i naturally ignore).

That is from an editor of that "respected" jouranal. How more obvious can it get.


Oh, so you posted a snippet from the blog post that I just told you is not nearly conclusive enough to reject the validity of that paper, and you think now I'll be convinced that the paper is a sham?

I don't care if Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein were whining on their blog about the peer-review process, it's just a blog post!. Show me some peer-reviewed criticisms over the paper which give valid reasons to doubt the assertions and conclusions drawn from that paper's mathematics, calculations, and experimentation, and I will be more than happy to consider the idea that the paper may be flawed. Until then, it's just some dude complaining on his blog.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Then i would like to see a repeatable experiment of this 'instant thermite' phenomenon, where 2 dissimilar metals with vastly differing melting points suddenly fuse together (given that the S.G. of aluminium is much less than steel) and then go 'bang'-it just does not happen.
Only in thermite, where the metals are finely powdered & mixed, also this is the OXIDE of iron, not steel.
OH, wait, it was the paint OMG why didn't i think of that?
Must have been a hell of a thick coat



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 

Fires on 10+ floors = small fires to you? I'd hate to see your definition of a large fire



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 


Well most of what you're saying is not what I'm saying so of course it's not provable.

Go to any thermite factory and you'll see it though.

Also it wouldn't be bang.

Basically, the elements used in Galvanization, the elements used in dry wall, and the heat from a jet fuel fire, all can cause the conditions that make thermite. That, coupled with the fact it was spread throughout an entire massive amount of locations, much more than 10 floors, means that once one floor goes, many will. And while maybe the floors bellow can support some of this, they will not support the mass of a 6th or so of the building falling down onto the grounds bellow it.

Go look at some of the live footage. Some so the entire outer structure going up nearly a 3rd of the way still standing after the main collapse. Once those floors started going, everything just split apart and came down. Those least affected staid up momentarily but soon collapsed because they couldn't maintain support at that level of distress. If there were demos, you would not see a part of the outer structure a 3rd of the way up still standing after the rest of the building came down.




posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 



Can any de bunker please tell me how and why building 3 to 6 received catastrophic damage but didn't collapse to its core foundation completely and building 7 (had less structural damage from the twin towers collapsing debris ) had small fires and no catastrophic damage from the TT's collapse ,just effortlessly fell strait down.


Short answer - different buildings, different structures, different damage pattern

Longer answer

WTC 3 (Marriott Hotel) was basically squashed, first by collapse of WTC 2 (South Tower), then by WTC 1
(North Tower) - only thing left was part of steel "cage" surrounding the lobby which was put in place to shore
up building after truck bomb exploded underneath in 1993

It collapsed all the way from damage

911research.wtc7.net...

WTC 4/5/6 were low raise (8-9 story) with conventional steel frames, all were heavily damaged by debris from
towers collapse. Resulting fires caused internal collapses in WTC 5/6


Because of their close proximity to WTC 1 and WTC 2, all three buildings were subjected to severe debris impact damage when the towers collapsed, as well as the fires that developed from the debris. Most of WTC 4 collapsed when impacted by the exterior column debris from WTC 2; the remaining section had a complete burnout. WTC 5 and WTC 6 were impacted by exterior column debris from WTC 1 that caused large sections of localized collapse and subsequent fires spread throughout most of the buildings. All three buildings also were able to resist progressive collapse, in spite of the extensive local collapses that occurred.



All three buildings suffered extensive fire and impact damage and significant partial collapse. The condition of the stairways in WTC 5 indicates that, for the duration of this fire, the fire doors and the fire protective covering on the walls performed well. There was, however, damage to the fire side of the painted fire doors, and the damage-free condition on the inside or stairwell side of those same doors indicates the doors performed as specified for the fire condition that WTC 5 experienced. These stairway enclosures were unusual for buildings that have experienced fire because they were not impacted by water from firefighting operations. In addition, the stairway doors were not opened during the fire and remained latched and closed throughout the burnout of the floors. Therefore, general conclusions regarding the effectiveness of this type of stairway construction may not be warranted.


911research.wtc7.net...

WTC 7 had an unconventional structure using long span cantilever trusses as was built over existing Con ED
substation

The south face of WTC was slashed open by debris from WTC 1 collapse doing significant damage to that side
Fires were started by the debris, sprinklers were disabled and fires burned unchecked for 7 hours until
internal collapse started sequence which resulted in WTC 7 collapse

sites.google.com...



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 




WTC 7 had an unconventional structure using long span cantilever trusses as was built over existing Con ED substation The south face of WTC was slashed open by debris from WTC 1 collapse doing significant damage to that side Fires were started by the debris, sprinklers were disabled and fires burned unchecked for 7 hours until internal collapse started sequence which resulted in WTC 7 collapse


Aliens have super fast space-ships, too fast for a conventional camera to capture. They use there Lasron beams to detect when someone is going to take a photo so that's why all the images of them are blurry.

After they abduct you they replace your memories with false ones, which is why most people don't know they have been abducted.




WTC 7 had an unconventional structure using long span cantilever trusses as was built over existing Con ED substation The south face of WTC was slashed open by debris from WTC 1 collapse doing significant damage to that side Fires were started by the debris, sprinklers were disabled and fires burned unchecked for 7 hours until internal collapse started sequence which resulted in WTC 7 collapse


Psychoanalysis is a very technical discipline, you need to understand it before you can see how the behavior of patients prove it is correct.

People fail to verify Freud in experiment because they have not studied Freud and are trying to find fault with his position.



WTC 7 had an unconventional structure using long span cantilever trusses as was built over existing Con ED substation The south face of WTC was slashed open by debris from WTC 1 collapse doing significant damage to that side Fires were started by the debris, sprinklers were disabled and fires burned unchecked for 7 hours until internal collapse started sequence which resulted in WTC 7 collapse


It is obvious that the structure of the brain will affect the structure of skull, phrenology simply maps that and finds consistent linkages between them. Surely it is obvious to you that people with heads shaped in certain ways have certain character traits.

We just have to spend some time to figure out the finer details but there is no doubting that the general principle is sound.

....

I could go on...

Unfortunately for you physical experiment and experience cannot be bargained with.
edit on 7-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: bargain



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


I demonstrated that the journal has a very questionable reputation, I demonstrated that the review process was flawed or non-existent, I demonstrated that an actual expert completely pulls the paper to shreds, I demonstrated the authors ignore critique and are not willing to do the required experiments, yet you still require a peer reviewed paper in order to accept that its junk science. I guess this perfectly illustrated the difference between truthers and the real world. The rest of the world does not require a peer reviewed paper to understand that Jones work is junk. If you throw your bias away and exercise some critical thinking I am sure you can also come to that conclusion.



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

I dont agree with your view about this conspiracy, but I did look at your evidence for the journal being bunk, and I do slightly lean towards the paper might be slightly biased.

All i ask is that you don't broadly sweep all of us as "truthers" who wont look at evidence, as many have painted us
thnks



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




I demonstrated that the journal has a very questionable reputation



No, you engaged in an unfounded ad hominem attack.



I demonstrated that the review process was flawed or non-existent


Peer review is a flawed process to begin with, you have not demonstrated that it was non-existent.



I demonstrated that an actual expert completely pulls the paper to shreds


And other experts don't.

Maybe you shouldn't be so gullible to swallow whatever some "expert" says and look at the actual facts as they stand.

It has to be true because I read it in a book eh?




I demonstrated the authors ignore critique


Patently false, they have answered any and all critiques, you just don't accept anything but a full retraction even when the facts in the case have not been shown BY experiment to be in error.




are not willing to do the required experiments


How much experimental evidence does the OS have backing up. Can you say none?

Jones et al. did the experiments, you just won't accept them. Don't confuse the two.

Why do you think he should jump to your every whim when people on your side actively obstruct?




yet you still require a peer reviewed paper in order to accept that its junk science.


What's good for the goose is good for the gander.



I guess this perfectly illustrated the difference between truthers and the real world. The rest of the world does not require a peer reviewed paper to understand that Jones work is junk.


This is a classic, you are claiming (without evidence) that Jones' research is worthless because of your claims lack of peer review, whereas there is no need whatsoever do peer review on your opinions despite the fact that there is not a single shred of physical evidence or any experimental data to support your ideas?



If you throw your bias away and exercise some critical thinking I am sure you can also come to that conclusion.


I have and I did...

...come to the same conclusion as Harrit et al.
edit on 8-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: even



new topics




 
274
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join