Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Gnosis
Their agenda? Finding the truth.

<GASP> THE HORROR!


lol.
find me some info about their 'peer review' process and then maybe we can talk. but there is absolutely nothing on their website which instills confidence in their process, except in people (LIKE YOU) who know that the site will cater to their needs

Originally posted by Gnosis
Their agenda? Finding the truth.

<GASP> THE HORROR!


Their agenda, to make a name for themselves and sell books/documentaries and website ads to CT followers. There is money being made, I am surprised you haven't made any on it after dedicating 10 years of your life to it.

Originally posted by wormser1971
.

sorry, but anything involving Steven Jones is already biased from the start

Originally posted by Gnosis
Oh the endless circle jerk with you.



I am asking solid questions. You are coming up with nonsensical answers and I will call you out on them.

Originally posted by seths99
lol.
find me some info about their 'peer review' process and then maybe we can talk. but there is absolutely nothing on their website which instills confidence in their process, except in people (LIKE YOU) who know that the site will cater to their needs

Again.... If you come out as a professor at a major university and question the official story, your fucking career is over.

Thankfully there are some people willing to make that sacrifice in search of the truth but most will bite their lips and keep their careers.

Originally posted by baumusc
Their agenda, to make a name for themselves and sell books/documentaries and website ads to CT followers. There is money being made, I am surprised you haven't made any on it after dedicating 10 years of your life to it.

what is incredible to me is that Gnosis claims to be able to see that the whole idea of our economy, in fact, the whole idea behind every conspiracy he espouses, is to separate the sheep from their money. Yet, he wholly and fully trusts these people, seemingly without giving thought to the fact that they are running websites like that with one purpose: to make money.

Originally posted by baumusc
Delusional in your mind because your mind is closed to logical argument.

Yours is closed to peer reviewed papers that you guys are clamoring for.

http://www.ae911truth.net/downloads/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

Originally posted by article

Journal of 9/11 Studies 55 May 2007
Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Meth
od
Dr. Steven E. Jones
Introduction
In this paper I focus on the application of the sci
entific method to the study of what really
happened on 9/11/2001, particularly in the destruct
ion of the World Trade Center buildings.
1
There is something here to look at in depth: this
is serious business. It is not just “nutty fringe
science” or “conspiracy theory” that can be rejecte
d without even considering the data. There is need
for scientific scrutiny as I hope to demonstrate in
this paper. In fact my colleagues and I now feel
that
we have sufficient data to conclude that the collis
ions of jets with the two Towers are NOT sufficient
to explain the complete and rapid collapses of both
Towers and WTC 7. We conclude that the
evidence is compelling that the destruction of the
WTC buildings involved planted cutter charges (such
as explosives and incendiaries). We will consider
this evidence

It's better if you just download the pdf

Originally posted by seths99
what is incredible to me is that Gnosis claims to be able to see that the whole idea of our economy, in fact, the whole idea behind every conspiracy he espouses, is to separate the sheep from their money. Yet, he wholly and fully trusts these people, seemingly without giving thought to the fact that they are running websites like that with one purpose: to make money.

EXACTLY!

Originally posted by Gnosis
Again.... If you come out as a professor at a major university and question the official story, your fucking career is over.

Thankfully there are some people willing to make that sacrifice in search of the truth but most will bite their lips and keep their careers.


you can anonymously peer review articles. they are reviewed for their scientific accuracy.
so try again.
find me evidence that the editors of that site follow a trustworthy process of peer review. if not, stfu about them being 'peer reviewed'

Originally posted by seths99
sorry, but anything involving Steven Jones is already biased from the start

And the "official story" isn't biased? Holy shit.

Again, the truth has no agenda but that is what Steven Jone's agenda is.

Originally posted by baumusc
I am asking solid questions. You are coming up with nonsensical answers and I will call you out on them.

You don't ask solid questions, you ask nonsensical questions.

Originally posted by seths99
what is incredible to me is that Gnosis claims to be able to see that the whole idea of our economy, in fact, the whole idea behind every conspiracy he espouses, is to separate the sheep from their money. Yet, he wholly and fully trusts these people, seemingly without giving thought to the fact that they are running websites like that with one purpose: to make money.

whole idea of our economy? WTF are you talking about.

what is incredible is that you make shit up about me, slander me, yet clearly know nothing about me.

Originally posted by Gnosis
And the "official story" isn't biased? Holy shit.


did I say that? no, no I didn't.
what I have been saying is that I have seen none, ZERO, reliable evidence that any of the alternate stories that your ilk espouses have ANY validity to them whatsoever.
and if you think that Steven Jones' only agenda is the truth, then I'd love to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. It will be a bargain, trust me.

Originally posted by seths99
sorry, but anything involving Steven Jones is already biased from the start

So, you have made up your mind on who you will trust. Tell me who that is? NIST? FEMA? Obama? Popular mechanics was proven to be fraudulent in their arguments. Should I quote them? How about a special on PBS? would you trust PBS?

I get the feeling that you only trust sources that you have already selected in your mind. Maybe if an MIT professor told you he was a debunker and he had a paper about the collapse that proved it all (Bazant), you would believe that. Until you found out that 2 years later he stepped away from that paper and was shamed among physicists for the horrible false assumptions he made in his paper. He became a shill for the official stroy, and will have to live with that lie forever.

So who will you believe?

Originally posted by Gnosis
whole idea of our economy? WTF are you talking about.

what is incredible is that you make shit up about me, slander me, yet clearly know nothing about me.



I misspoke that. I meant the whole purpose of corporations, our national power structure, etc, and the way they play our economy.

Originally posted by wormser1971
So, you have made up your mind on who you will trust. Tell me who that is? NIST? FEMA? Obama? Popular mechanics was proven to be fraudulent in their arguments. Should I quote them? How about a special on PBS? would you trust PBS?

I get the feeling that you only trust sources that you have already selected in your mind. Maybe if an MIT professor told you he was a debunker and he had a paper about the collapse that proved it all (Bazant), you would believe that. Until you found out that 2 years later he stepped away from that paper and was shamed among physicists for the horrible false assumptions he made in his paper. He became a shill for the official stroy, and will have to live with that lie forever.

So who will you believe?

is popular mechanics peer reviewed? I'm asking because I honestly don't know.
generally speaking, I trust peer-reviewed literature with a proven track record of having a valid peer review process.
a random professor, I could give a shit from where, isn't that trustworthy. If, however, their assertions hold up to a peer process from a reputable journal, then I'll start to give their words some weight. if the only place they are able to publish their ideas is on a blog, or on an 'open source' site with no validity to their peer review process, then, sorry, but no, I am not apt to give them much credence.