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: 55
274
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01

You can go make thermite RIGHT NOW and see if it behaves this way, and it will.


Or it might act like all other thermite and actually burn properly.




posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Dear PLB.

Who was supposed to do an investigation and did not?
Who was supposed support their crazy ideas about what they think thermite is, how it behaves and how it reacts?

YOU GUYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jones did his tests, he published his results. You can go make thermite RIGHT NOW and see if it behaves this way, and it will.

There is nothing stopping you.

You are simply saying completely random things that would falsify Jones IF THEY WERE TRUE.

But PLB, please, they are not true, or you have absolutely failed to establish that they are even remotely close to true in anything like an experiment.

YOUR CLAIM. YOUR EXPERIMENT.

If you think that Jones is wrong and that thermite chips will react completely then please go ahead and do the experiment that proves this. Jones is not stopping you.


You seem to fail to understand that I think Jones his work is junk science, and unless he does the experiments that many critics have been suggesting, I don't care about his work. The only reason I talk about it on this forum is because I try to figure out why truthers put so much faith in his work while they react so allergic when someone suggests he should do further experimentation. You seems to be afraid as hell to say "well maybe his work is not conclusive to everyone, more experimentation might be a good idea".


What nonsense, why does he have to anything that you want him to do when you can't even demonstrate understanding of simple logical concepts like type token relationships and can't even read simple research data that completely invalidates your ideas.

Will you next demand that he does experiments to eliminate the the possibility that ancient Egyptians had reincarnated as beings from planet Zarchon and displacement ray'd some heavy barbells into top floors to facilitate the destruction?

Because that is about how reasonable you are being now.

There is no reason whatsoever to think that your objection have any validity unless you can do some experiments or SOMETHING to show that they have SOME CONNECTION to THIS physical reality that we live in right now, not the imaginary one you seem to inhabit.


I am not demanding anything. I am just not accepting his work as a valid scientific one. And with me most people in the world, including all the scientists who don't even bother to react to it. If Jones want to convince me, he has to do those experiments. He has to convince the critics. If he doesn't want to do that for some lame reason, then he lost all credibility for me.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Inside job is a missleading term. It implies its something the US did. It was more a job of the powerfull against the unimportant and replacable, to mobilize a coalition to secure a pipline from the Caspian sea through Afghanistan. You can point your finger at the power elite of every other nation as well, either for being directly involved, among which are probably England and Israel, or for their silence.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 




Or it might act like all other thermite and actually burn properly.


No it won't, you are just making things up.

Show me the experiment where you demonstrate this to be the case. The literature on it is pretty clear, so I already have my data in hand.




I am just not accepting his work as a valid scientific one.


You don't have to accept reality dude. Nobody is forcing you to not be delusional.

I can also reject Darwin or Newton based on some theory I have that (if true) would prove both wrong.
edit on 21-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
You don't have to accept reality dude. Nobody is forcing you to not be delusional.

I can also reject Darwin or Newton based on some theory I have that (if true) would prove both wrong.


Yeah, I guess me and most people in the world are delusional. It must give you a special feeling that you figured out the true reality. It is a bit hilarious that you compare Jones work with Darwin's or Newtons work by the way.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
No I am not, I am saying that "the academic method", as in waiting for a response, is not relevant for the question if Jones should do more experiments or not. If Jones want to convince the world, he has to do a hell of a better job. Instead he just convinces truthers, which were already convinced.


No it's not relevant, I don't want this to sound harsh, but Dr Jones published his article as part of academia, it is quite clear you do not know how academia works.



If I were a truther and I believed Jones really proved thermite, it would be my priority number one to silence all the critics and come with the most compelling scientific evidence possible.


He already has, you just don't accept it.



So you are saying that currently an independent investigation is going on? When can we expect a result that is anywhere near the NIST report?


Again you need to look up that dictionary, any investigation undertaken by a government body cannot be independent if said investigation is to determine if the government was complicit in the event.



So to you Jones work isn't conclusive either. I am not really sure why you defend it as if it is. But its good to see you are not dogmatic about the subject.


No I never said that, if Dr Jones article has survived the peer review process (and the article was not just written by him, there were other academics involved) then I am confident in the conclusions until other academics prove otherwise.

What is inconclusive is the whole inside job theory, not this single piece of evidence.

What is your specific problem with the article and its findings?
edit on 22/7/1111 by Krusty the Klown because: Kan't do grammar....



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




Yeah, I guess me and most people in the world are delusional.


We all are in one way or another (if we weren't there would be no need for science), but when you just start making things up and then convince yourself that it is true and THEN expect reality to conform to the thing that you know you just made up despite the fact that there no reason for you to believe it AND physical reality contradicts your belief then you are more delusional than most.



It must give you a special feeling that you figured out the true reality.


I haven't. But I have seen a way to figure bull-dung pretty accurately:

It's called the scientific method, and in terms of it you don't just get to make up random things and keep claiming it is true in the face of physical reality without coming with at least some attempt of a plausible, falsifiable way to test it.



It is a bit hilarious that you compare Jones work with Darwin's or Newtons work by the way.


Again, your logic fails.

I am not comparing the two, what I am saying is that your method can be used IN EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER to discredit Newton and Darwin, so there is ZERO MERIT in your method, so you have failed to discredit Jones.

Please tell me you understand the difference...



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
but Dr Jones published his article as part of academia, it is quite clear you do not know how academia works.


Actually you are the one who does not know academia works, his "paper" was NOT published as a part of academia, which is why he was asked to leave the university.


if Dr Jones article has survived the peer review process


it was NOT peer reviewed, a major problem with it.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor
Actually you are the one who does not know academia works


LOL, yes I suppose holding a Masters means I don't know how academia works.



it was NOT peer reviewed, a major problem with it.


I'm quite happy to be corrected if I'm wrong if you have the evidence.

If a professor conducts an investigation in conjunction with other academics and publishes it then ANY academic can refute the conclusions as part of the academic process.

Has this been done ? And I'm asking quite sincerely.

You don't get to hold the position of Professor at an institution by being a bozo.

When you think about it, lets assume the article was not peer reviewed. Can the science be refuted? That's what really matters.

And bear in mind academics disagree with each other every day. So just because one or two other academics disagree with the conclusion in the article that does not necessarily mean that the conclusions are wrong.
edit on 22/7/1111 by Krusty the Klown because: (no reason given)

edit on 22/7/1111 by Krusty the Klown because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


You problem is that you think that Jones work is accepted in the scientific community. That is a delusional position. It is not. It is either ignored or heavily criticized. Nobody writes a rebuttal paper because his work is not taken seriously.

Had Jones have his work published in a respected journal, had Jones not made all those errors the critics point out, had Jones done the right experiments in the right way, then it would have been taken serious. As of now it was published in a pay per publish journal where the chief editor resigned because of this publication.

And that is why it is so hilarious that you compare his work to that of Darwin or Newton. Their theories have undergone a massive process of scientific scrutiny. Jones work didn't. You just can't compare them, your analogy is silly.

Anyway, this has come down to a difference in how we see reality. I am not going to change your mind, you are not going to change mine. One thing I still don't understand is that if you are so sure of Jones conclusion why you are not demanding independent testing in order to convince critics. Instead you hide behind weak excuses such as "the critics should do that". To you procedure seems to be more important than result. Who cares about formal procedure? Isn't the goal to convince the world it was an inside Job?



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
He already has, you just don't accept it.


The issue is not what I accept or not, it is what chemists and material scientists accept. And they do not accept his work. The either criticize it or ignore it. For the rest my post to Darkwing also applies to your response.


Again you need to look up that dictionary, any investigation undertaken by a government body cannot be independent if said investigation is to determine if the government was complicit in the event.


Who ever said that an government body should do the investigation? I though you were saying that Architects and Engineers 9/11 were doing an investigation. I asked you when it would be finished and if it was anything nearly as detailed as the NIST report. I am not aware of any investigation going on concerning 911. That is why I am asking.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
You problem is that you think that Jones work is accepted in the scientific community.


Ok, show the evidence that it is not. Like I said earlier academics in ALL disciplines disagree with each other every day.



That is a delusional position.
Its not. Are you a psychiatrist? I am.



It is not.


And your evidence is????



It is either ignored or heavily criticized. Nobody writes a rebuttal paper because his work is not taken seriously.


Great, let see the evidence. You have evidence that something is being ignored? Pretty hard to prove.



As of now it was published in a pay per publish journal publication.


This is quite common in academia, it is not a reflection of the content of the article.



Who cares about formal procedure?


LOL. obviously not you.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
The issue is not what I accept or not


It absolutely is the issue.

If you only accept the conclusions of people who support your belief and denigrate those who don't then you are displaying the psychological phenomenon of "confirmation bias".



I though you were saying that Architects and Engineers 9/11 were doing an investigation.


They are. What do you think they are doing?



I asked you when it would be finished and if it was anything nearly as detailed as the NIST report.


You mean the NIST report where they completely ignored Building 7????? Yes, that is very detailed.



I am not aware of any investigation going on concerning 911. That is why I am asking.


So you have forgotten the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth that you mentioned earlier in the same post????



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
Great, let see the evidence. You have evidence that something is being ignored? Pretty hard to prove.


Nobody is able to produce evidence that justifies the position that it is accepted. The idea that a paper with such huge implications is accepted without any commotion at all is completely unrealistic.

If you only reject a paper when there is a formal scientific rebuttal, you must accept any paper that has not received such rebuttal. For example this paper about reincarnation. Such a position is just not rational.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Krusty the Klown
 


I am only accepting conclusions that have support from the majority of the scientific community. The reason I do this is because I am no expert on this subject. This is not confirmation bias, this is just a rational way to create an opinion.


As for the rest of your post, I don't really understand what you are getting at. I ask you 2 simple questions and you just totally ignore them.
edit on 22-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Nobody is able to produce evidence that justifies the position that it is accepted.


Or rejected, that is exactly my point, so you can't say definitively that it has been accepted or rejected by the scientific community.



The idea that a paper with such huge implications is accepted without any commotion at all is completely unrealistic.


That is pure speculation and opinion, with no basis on evidence.



If you only reject a paper when there is a formal scientific rebuttal, you must accept any paper that has not received such rebuttal.


No, this is just you writing your own rules. Unless you share the same academic credentials as an academic it is less than credible to refute their conclusions.

Although I don't necessarily believe in the conclusions of the writer of the paper you cited (which was quite amusing by the way) I am in no way qualified to dispute their findings because I am not qualified the same way they are in their field and have not specialised in their field the way they have.

Would you be willing to share your academic credentials compared to Dr Jones?????



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
As for the rest of your post, I don't really understand what you are getting at. I ask you 2 simple questions and you just totally ignore them.


LOL, I asked you many questions and you ignored them too.

What question did I not answer? I would be happy to.
edit on 22/7/1111 by Krusty the Klown because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I am only accepting conclusions that have support from the majority of the scientific community. The reason I do this is because I am no expert on this subject. This is not confirmation bias, this is just a rational way to create an opinion.



Fantastic, point me to this evidence.
edit on 22/7/1111 by Krusty the Klown because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
Or rejected, that is exactly my point, so you can't say definitively that it has been accepted or rejected by the scientific community.


I can show evidence it is not accepted, but so far thruthers only accept it when it is published in a peer reviewed journal. The notion that his paper never reached a status where anyone thought it was worth writing an official rebuttal is rejected.



That is pure speculation and opinion, with no basis on evidence.


What exactly are you saying here? That scientific proof of an inside job would not cause commotion? Or that there was commotion but it was just hidden from everyone else? I find both highly unlikely.


No, this is just you writing your own rules. Unless you share the same academic credentials as an academic it is less than credible to refute their conclusions.

Although I don't necessarily believe in the conclusions of the writer of the paper you cited (which was quite amusing by the way) I am in no way qualified to dispute their findings because I am not qualified the same way they are in their field and have not specialised in their field the way they have.

Would you be willing to share your academic credentials compared to Dr Jones?????


Of course I write my own rules concerning how I form my oppinion. I do not need similar academic credentials in order to reject a conclusion. Just like how I reject the conclusion that reincarnation exists, I reject the conclusion that there was thermite in the dust. I am no expert in either fields. According to your rules you should also accept the existence of reincarnation, and a whole pile of other claims made in papers that never received a rebuttal. I do not find that a rational way to create an opinion.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown Fantastic, point me to this evidence.


I think you already know about this evidence. For example discussion between the authors and Dr.Greening and Denis Rancourt. I also know that this is typically rejected by truthers as the critique is not published in a peer reviewed journal.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
274
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join