Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!

reply to post by Soloist


Hey Soloist, what "agenda" makes the authors of the paper in the OP so suspicious that you automatically dismiss everything they say?

reply to post by bsbray11

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11

So where is the reason to find them suspicious again?

You got caught. Deal with it.

Now, back on topic. How's the search for credibility going? I still have yet to see any outside verification of this wacky little "theory".

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by Reaper2137
you signed a NDA (Non-disclosure agreement) With who? the united states government or one of your big three media outlets? I ask this because it throws your credibility into question also I'd think it was more with the U.S Government than the big three you work for.

Where did I say I worked for the US Government?

I know I didn't so where did you come up with this? I think that "throws your credibility into question" right away.

if what you say is true you may not in any way discuss what was seen or not seen that day by you or any information that was seen by you. by admitting that you witnessed video of the events violates the NDA which has stiff Penalty's all on its own.

Here is why I automatically doubt what you're saying and question your motives. You are saying something in reference to whatever NDA you are under, however (I'll even use your own link) :

It is a contract through which the parties agree not to disclose information covered by the agreement.

In my case, I have nothing to fear, and know exactly what I can and cannot say. Your NDA could be radically different.

well I'm glad just thought I would help and I am under no NDA since I wasn't privy to classified info. and since there are only two kinds Of NDA's since as you pointed out that you do not work for the government. than it would have to be a public NDA and since it is and is generally having to do with trade secrets and business practice I could go on and on.

which calls into question what you were privy to it also means as the way you present it is that you know the how and the why. and since you don't say you agree with the OS or the above paper. suggested you may know what really happened.

While I don't buy most of the crap on ATS on the how of the world trade center. I find that most of the architects points of view credible although I would like to know what you think happened since you seem to know a great deal. I really mean that not trying to be a dick here lol..

I think tho the who is more Important since if I remember damn near most of the supposed terrorists have turned up alive and well. while according to the government they died in the plane crashes.

And maybe some one can clear this up for me because when 9-11 went down I was on my way to school first period class.

I remember them saying that they brought down I.E controlled demolition WTC7 due to severe structural damage like you I am open to the possibility that some thing not contained in the OS could have happened

Thank you for your time. when I was over seas I saw many horrible things so I can relate to what you mean that you wish you didn't have to see all the death and destruction.

Originally posted by Reaper2137
which calls into question what you were privy to it also means as the way you present it is that you know the how and the why. and since you don't say you agree with the OS or the above paper. suggested you may know what really happened.

Ok, let's try and clear that up.

Originally posted by Soloist
I've seen things that weren't ever broadcast, and hopefully will never see the light of day, it was that horrifying. You cannot possibly know what's it like to see producers and editors in tears making tough decisions out of respect for the dead and dying. But then I see people on this forum saying the bodies weren't real, and so on.

Not sure how that comes across as I know the "how and why", as I was making a point about the accusation of feigning neutrality and the theories that come across on this forum that I know for a fact are bogus. Specifically anyone claiming CGI or TV fakery, and saying the media was involved, that the government was behind what was shown, etc. That is a total fabrication.

I find that most of the architects points of view credible although I would like to know what you think happened since you seem to know a great deal. I really mean that not trying to be a dick here lol..

Well that is getting off topic, but I think you're under the impression that I know more than others due to where I worked. I have SEEN more footage that 99.9999% of the world from that day, and I can only say with 100% confidence there was no TV fakery at our network that day.

I also talked to several FBI agents who arrived later in the day to provide perimeter security for the studio. That's not off limits for me to discuss either, but that's probably not of much interest.

I think tho the who is more Important since if I remember damn near most of the supposed terrorists have turned up alive and well. while according to the government they died in the plane crashes.

That's been dis-proven many times, I haven't seen one in awhile, but there are many threads that address that.

I remember them saying that they brought down I.E controlled demolition WTC7 due to severe structural damage like you I am open to the possibility that some thing not contained in the OS could have happened

Are you saying you think they brought down a severely damaged building that was on fire by CD? Maybe I'm reading that wrong.

Thank you for your time. when I was over seas I saw many horrible things so I can relate to what you mean that you wish you didn't have to see all the death and destruction.

No problem.

I wish I could have never seen the things I did, and I'm not alone many of my friends and co-workers do as well...that's why some of the more absurd theories get me riled up. People who have no idea what they are talking about, just making straight accusations of murder and cover-up. It's disgusting.

reply to post by Soloist


I got caught doing what? Exposing your lies?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Hey Soloist, what "agenda" makes the authors of the paper in the OP so suspicious that you automatically dismiss everything they say?

I love how difficult this question is for you to answer.

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by Reaper2137
which calls into question what you were privy to it also means as the way you present it is that you know the how and the why. and since you don't say you agree with the OS or the above paper. suggested you may know what really happened.

Ok, let's try and clear that up.

Originally posted by Soloist
I've seen things that weren't ever broadcast, and hopefully will never see the light of day, it was that horrifying. You cannot possibly know what's it like to see producers and editors in tears making tough decisions out of respect for the dead and dying. But then I see people on this forum saying the bodies weren't real, and so on.

Not sure how that comes across as I know the "how and why", as I was making a point about the accusation of feigning neutrality and the theories that come across on this forum that I know for a fact are bogus. Specifically anyone claiming CGI or TV fakery, and saying the media was involved, that the government was behind what was shown, etc. That is a total fabrication.

I find that most of the architects points of view credible although I would like to know what you think happened since you seem to know a great deal. I really mean that not trying to be a dick here lol..

Well that is getting off topic, but I think you're under the impression that I know more than others due to where I worked. I have SEEN more footage that 99.9999% of the world from that day, and I can only say with 100% confidence there was no TV fakery at our network that day.

I also talked to several FBI agents who arrived later in the day to provide perimeter security for the studio. That's not off limits for me to discuss either, but that's probably not of much interest.

I think tho the who is more Important since if I remember damn near most of the supposed terrorists have turned up alive and well. while according to the government they died in the plane crashes.

That's been dis-proven many times, I haven't seen one in awhile, but there are many threads that address that.

I remember them saying that they brought down I.E controlled demolition WTC7 due to severe structural damage like you I am open to the possibility that some thing not contained in the OS could have happened

Are you saying you think they brought down a severely damaged building that was on fire by CD? Maybe I'm reading that wrong.

Thank you for your time. when I was over seas I saw many horrible things so I can relate to what you mean that you wish you didn't have to see all the death and destruction.

No problem.

I wish I could have never seen the things I did, and I'm not alone many of my friends and co-workers do as well...that's why some of the more absurd theories get me riled up. People who have no idea what they are talking about, just making straight accusations of murder and cover-up. It's disgusting.

I am probability one of the few here who don't think what I saw on that day was faked. while I buy the os on towers one and two. WTC7 is were I find fault maybe and I'll try and clear this up. like I said I was hurt over seas and had to relearn how to do things.

I'm still learning more to the point. building 7 I remember and I could be wrong. which is why I am asking. I remember hearing on the news. that it was demoed due to not fire I don't remember them saying fire but by debris so they did a controlled demo on that one.

now I could be wrong. which is why I'm asking. while I'm not too new here on ats I'm new to the 9-11 part. and am still reading up on it. so that is why I ask. I think you for you time and not being an asshat.. I am sorry if I sounded that way I didn't mean to be if I cam across that way. I still have problems with things like that..

Originally posted by Reaper2137
I am probability one of the few here who don't think what I saw on that day was faked. while I buy the os on towers one and two. WTC7 is were I find fault maybe and I'll try and clear this up. like I said I was hurt over seas and had to relearn how to do things.

Sorry to hear that you were hurt, I do genuinely hope you get better.

I'm still learning more to the point. building 7 I remember and I could be wrong. which is why I am asking. I remember hearing on the news. that it was demoed due to not fire I don't remember them saying fire but by debris so they did a controlled demo on that one.

Not sure where you heard that, but I don't think that's the case. All I can offer you is a bit of logic, let's say they did somehow manage to wire a demolition up of 7 while it was on fire and severely damaged, not only would it have been the fastest most dangerous demolition job ever known to man, but given your thought above that it was because it was damaged by debris, why in the world would they try to cover it up?

now I could be wrong. which is why I'm asking.

And this statement is why I enjoy actually talking to someone about this. So many people here are rabid in their belief that they know the truth, they never would think they even COULD be wrong and won't listen to anything else.

while I'm not too new here on ats I'm new to the 9-11 part. and am still reading up on it. so that is why I ask. I think you for you time and not being an asshat.. I am sorry if I sounded that way I didn't mean to be if I cam across that way. I still have problems with things like that..

No need to apologize, but thank you for being the biggest person on this thread so far.

As far as this forum goes, well, lol... my advice is to always, always, ALWAYS use logic and reason. Some of the crazy theories people come up with are so complex and pointless they just don't make sense.

reply to post by bsbray11

Originally posted by bsbray11

So where is the reason to find them suspicious again?

You got caught. Deal with it.

Now, back on topic. How's the search for credibility going? I still have yet to see any outside verification of this wacky little "theory".

Soloist, you are doing a very good job of following the 25 rules of disinformation. Namely rule 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. www.whale.to... Now back to the topic. You still have yet to produce any experts debunking Jones's paper. Guess you are too busy looking for ways to dis-inform.

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
Soloist, you are doing a very good job of following the 25 rules of disinformation. Namely rule 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

And to think, I still haven't gotten my super sekrit gubmint disinfo paycheck yet!

All this work and so little pay!

Now back to the topic. You still have yet to produce any experts debunking Jones's paper. Guess you are too busy looking for ways to dis-inform.

Yep, I'm way too busy calling people names such as "kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth."

reply to post by Soloist


You got caught, deal with it. Now back on topic, you still have yet to produce any experts debunking Jones's paper.

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
reply to post by Soloist

 

You got caught, deal with it. Now back on topic, you still have yet to produce any experts debunking Jones's paper.

Actually, that's not the topic. Tell you what, why don't you get some real experts to properly do a paper with proper samples, and have it all verified, then we can look at it. Until then, we'll just giggle like little school girls at this "journal".

Now, back to my super-sekrit gubmint disinfo...

I just got word from one of my government handlers that my check will be here next week, so I'm allowed to continue my campaign against this silly little club...

The agent told me to say - "You can't debunk stupid"

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
You got caught, deal with it. Now back on topic, you still have yet to produce any experts debunking Jones's paper.

Actually, that's not the topic.

Right, the topic is:

"Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible! "


And your whole argument is "they're truthers, so I'm not listening!!!"

And I ask what you are trying to say about truthers, that you dismiss them automatically.

And first you say you don't dismiss them automatically, you dismiss them on the basis of their claims. But then I asked what issues you had with the claims, and you decided you didn't want to take that route of argument after all and changed your tune to... "they're suspicious because they might actually believe what they're saying."


And after spending pages trying to draw your attention to how that argument makes absolutely no sense and is based on nothing but bias and bigotry, all you do is dodge every single response by appealing to troll behavior.

Originally posted by Soloist
The agent told me to say - "You can't debunk stupid"

Well that explains your recent spree of posting like a broken record.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Right, the topic is:

"Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible! "

That's right, so get back on topic.

Your repetitious nonsense has been addressed.

You got caught, and you're still cutting off my posts to attempt to make your misguided point.

I guess your hoping my posts that had the full quotes in them that answered the question you have been badgering on and on for pages now will magically disappear. Sorry you can't handle the answer, get over it and move on.

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
Right, the topic is:

"Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible! "

That's right, so get back on topic.

Your repetitious nonsense has been addressed.

You got caught, and you're still cutting off my posts to attempt to make your misguided point.

No, you got caught blatantly lying, and now you're reducing your posts to the equivalent of meaningless sound-bytes just to avoid having to embarrass yourself again.


All I keep asking is why you find the authors of this paper so "suspicious," since you dismiss them out of hand.

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.

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. They might believe in it, so they publish a bogus paper with no verification since they are already in deep. Agenda. Jones was already in the truth club for 3 years prior and lost his job over it and wanted some sort of vindication, anything, even if it's bogus. Agenda.

You call me a liar, a bigot, who didn't elaborate what their agenda was. You are wrong. I gave you the chance to do your own work, but you kept saying I was lying, that you and I both knew it, etc.

I kept giving you rope, but all the while allowing you the ability to pull it back in, but no. You act to me the same way you claim I act to truthers.

Whether you like it or not, I elaborated on it, however I prefaced my statements with the fact that I don't know, and I would be making assumptions, but there are reasons why this might be the case.

Originally posted by Soloist
It could just be attention, one only needs to look at what happened with John Lear to see there are people that quite enjoy that sort of thing.


Agenda. Elaboration. It's all there. Like I said you just don't like the answer, and would rather call me a liar.

Now, back on topic.

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

You seem to be the only person here who cannot understand. That should tell you all you need to know.

reply to post by Soloist


Same old reasoning who is a troofie can not be trusted. He has a paper that proves thermite and it was peer reviewed and not by his best friend and his mom, over 1000 qualified people signed the paper.

But that makes them troofers too, so they cant be trusted I guess

But just out of curiosity, what is the motivation of the people who signed the paper? They all want attention too? A bunch of john Lears the whole lot of them? There are quite some holes with your theory.

Seriously though. Some people insist Troofers have a predetermined conclusion and are looking for facts to support their conclusion. So they are basically saying they have a suspicion and therefore they work is not valid.

Can somebody show in the work of Niels and Herrit that results have been fudged to support a predetermined conclusion? Does their work reflect bias, yes or no? Because it does not count what they believe or not believe. What counts is how they reached their conclusion. Is the paper based on sound science yes or no?