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.
Originally posted by CameronFox
Please stay on topic. The video that Sofia used was doctored. There is no denying it. This is one of the reasons why she is getting sued.
Thank you.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
Can you link to a video where we can hear these in the towers?
"9/11 Eyewitness". The very video we're talking about in this thread.
Originally posted by neil_86
Do you have an ALTERNATIVE explanation for official pentagon video with TIME ROLLING BACKWARDS & a person walking with INFINITE SPEED?
If you can prove that OFFICIALLY RELEASED video as NOT DOCTORED, then please share that with us.
Originally posted by ipsedixit
People who want to hear the original audio with detailed analysis of the sequence of detonations just have to go directly to Siegal's original video, which, by the way, is intended to show that the buildings were taken down as a result of a controlled demolition using explosives.
Originally posted by ipsedixit
People who want to hear the original audio with detailed analysis of the sequence of detonations just have to go directly to Siegal's original video, which, by the way, is intended to show that the buildings were taken down as a result of a controlled demolition using explosives.
Originally posted by exponent
Could you be more specific about which official pentagon video? I have analysed both MPEG videos from the security checkpoint in an attempt to debunk SPreston's wild claims. I found nothing suspicious in either situation.
Originally posted by alienanderson
I think neil_86 is referring to the doubletrees video
Originally posted by Foxy Nutz
It's just like the recent Professor Jones paper on thermite. All the GL's are crying for "peer-review" and "transparency". But tell them that the NIST, ASCE, FEMA reports were not "peer-reviewed" and/or "transparent" and they don't care.
Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
You're not mentioning the obvious. Steven Jones is one person. Those groups that you mentioned consist of many people, so the reports were pretty much peer-reviewed while they were working on them.
Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
You're not mentioning the obvious. Steven Jones is one person. Those groups that you mentioned consist of many people, so the reports were pretty much peer-reviewed while they were working on them.
Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field.
Originally posted by Foxy Nutz
There sure were alot of mistakes in the recent WTC 7 report for it to be "peer-reviewed" thouroughly.
Also. The very definition of "peer-review" excludes anyone working on said report being able to in-house "peer-review".
"I wish there would be a peer-review of this (re the NIST report)" - Dr. Quintiere - Former NIST head scientist
Originally posted by exponent
Really? The errata seems to be pretty sparse. Perhaps you could tell me how many mistakes there were and how many you expect?
You are quoting the peer review process used for a typical journal submitted paper. Not for the results of years of study and tens of millions of investigation. Peer review is applied to this sort of publication by counter-publications. So far the best I am aware of from the truth movement is titled "14 points of agreement". Not a strong start.
"I wish there would be a peer-review of this (re the NIST report)" - Dr. Quintiere - Former NIST head scientist
Indeed, a man who thinks the WTC may have fallen from fire alone. Not the best person to quote in favour of the assumption NIST lied in saying damage and fire could bring down the WTC.
Originally posted by Foxy Nutz
I would expect zero had it been "peer-reviewed" before release to the public.
You are completely wrong. Go ahead and think that a report as critical as the NIST report can go un-checked and in-house reviewed.
Also, can you agree that someone outside of NIST can't really "peer-review" NIST's work?
Has NIST released all their data? Has NIST released all structural documentation?
It goes to show that even one of their own questions them.