Warrior General Games

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?

Which is why one must do due diligence in their OWN research and come to their OWN conclusions based on all the available evidence and information. Not rely solely on so called "experts" to formulate your opinions on what happened that day.

Here is a site that you can't trust on aids information... After all, aids is right there in the website name. They have an agenda! Hell, everybody has an agenda!!! Trust no resources on anything, cuz they might be biased!!!

Seth... if that is in fact your name... The information is out there. I read debunking articles all of the time, also. Information can be good, even when it comes from a source you are cautious about. Take their info. Research the claims. If you lack education on a particular topic, get the education. The info is out there, if you are willing to read it.

http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/myths Can't trust them on the topic of aids... they have an agenda

Originally posted by Gnosis
Which is why one must do due diligence in their OWN research and come to their OWN conclusions based on all the available evidence and information. Not rely solely on so called "experts" to formulate your opinions on what happened that day.


oh, so you have an engineering degree? or is it architecture? A doctorate in physics, perhaps? I didn't know that you were able to crunch the data on your own and formulate your own opinions based upon that knowledge base of yours.

I actually do agree with you to a point on what you say here, but when topics are outside of your own knowledge, as is nearly every topic dealing with the science and engineering here for most of us, then who do you rely on for that information and conclusions? THAT question is the baseline of what I have been discussing in this thread

Originally posted by seths99
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.

how about these guys?

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer-reviewed, electronic-only journal covering research related to the events of September 11, 2001. Many fields of study are represented and all content is freely available online.

Originally posted by seths99
oh, so you have an engineering degree? or is it architecture? A doctorate in physics, perhaps? I didn't know that you were able to crunch the data on your own and formulate your own opinions based upon that knowledge base of yours.

I actually do agree with you to a point on what you say here, but when topics are outside of your own knowledge, as is nearly every topic dealing with the science and engineering here for most of us, then who do you rely on for that information and conclusions? THAT question is the baseline of what I have been discussing in this thread

I have those credentials. Physics and electrical engineering... minor in mechanical... additional B.S. in psychology. I did my own research, and changed my mind.

Originally posted by wormser1971
Here is a site that you can't trust on aids information... After all, aids is right there in the website name. They have an agenda! Hell, everybody has an agenda!!! Trust no resources on anything, cuz they might be biased!!!

Seth... if that is in fact your name... The information is out there. I read debunking articles all of the time, also. Information can be good, even when it comes from a source you are cautious about. Take their info. Research the claims. If you lack education on a particular topic, get the education. The info is out there, if you are willing to read it.

http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/myths Can't trust them on the topic of aids... they have an agenda

This is the part that I really take issue with. So many of the topics within this issue are simply beyond the ability to do what you say. Sorry, but I'm not going to go out and get a masters or above level of knowledge in engineering, architecture, physics, etc etc, so that I can research this issue to that level. So what am I going to do? I'm going to read from the 'experts' and look at their conclusions. I simply have yet to read anything from an 'expert' asserting the types of things that you and Gnosis claim that I feel I can reliably trust.

and yes, indeed, Seth is my real name, however, feel free to see that as part of this whole conspiracy, if you will.

Originally posted by wormser1971
Here is a site that you can't trust on aids information... After all, aids is right there in the website name. They have an agenda! Hell, everybody has an agenda!!! Trust no resources on anything, cuz they might be biased!!!

Seth... if that is in fact your name... The information is out there. I read debunking articles all of the time, also. Information can be good, even when it comes from a source you are cautious about. Take their info. Research the claims. If you lack education on a particular topic, get the education. The info is out there, if you are willing to read it.

http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/myths Can't trust them on the topic of aids... they have an agenda

Exactly...

When I first started researching 9/11 that is exactly what I did. I didn't believe a lot of what I was reading, watching on documentaries, etc etc.

So I'd take notes and start googling specific stuff etc etc etc. If I didn't know much about a particular subject I'd spend days, sometimes weeks, scouring the internet for relevant information from a vast array of sources.

These guys think that I just woke up one day, leapt out of bed and started screaming ISRAEL DID IT!!!!

Nothing could be further from the truth... the process took years and years and countless hours of research.

Originally posted by wormser1971
how about these guys?

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer-reviewed, electronic-only journal covering research related to the events of September 11, 2001. Many fields of study are represented and all content is freely available online.


this is the exact one I was debating with Gnosis about. The editors are a dude with a phd in buddhist studies, and one with a bachelors in chemistry. Their 'panel' is a joke, and I can see nothing on their site indicating what methods they are using in order to choose reviewers. As I told him, if you can find information about what they use for a peer review process, then I might begin to trust what I read on the site. until then, sorry, but they remain untrustworthy in my eyes.

Originally posted by wormser1971
I have those credentials. Physics and electrical engineering... minor in mechanical... additional B.S. in psychology. I did my own research, and changed my mind.
and? I have a masters in chemistry and a bachelors in pysch. It doesn't mean that I now think I have the expertise to look at information and data on the use of chemical weapons and come to all my own conclusions. it just means that my bullshit detector might be a bit more refined when looking at someone elses conclusions, but I still have to largely rely on experts in the field to make up for deficiencies in my knowledge in that area.

Originally posted by Gnosis
So I'd take notes and start googling specific stuff etc etc etc. If I didn't know much about a particular subject I'd spend days, sometimes weeks, scouring the internet for relevant information from a vast array of sources.

learnin' engineering in /weeks/!

also, without reading back very far (because, lol) do we actually have an AIDS denier in here? :|

Originally posted by seths99
this is the exact one I was debating with Gnosis about. The editors are a dude with a phd in buddhist studies, and one with a bachelors in chemistry. Their 'panel' is a joke, and I can see nothing on their site indicating what methods they are using in order to choose reviewers. As I told him, if you can find information about what they use for a peer review process, then I might begin to trust what I read on the site. until then, sorry, but they remain untrustworthy in my eyes.



I am glad you feel that way... because of this one fact.
The journal also spawned a counter-publication debunking it called the Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

Originally posted by Gart888
learnin' engineering in /weeks/!

I didn't learn "engineering", what I learned is that there were explosions in WTC 1 and WTC 2 BEFORE the planes hit. There were explosions in the WTC 7 BEFORE either tower collapsed.

I learned there was insider trading around 9/11.

I learned that certain people were warned not to go to work that day.

I learned that the so called arab pilots were incapable of operating even small single engine aircraft, yet were able to pull off some pretty fancy flying (especially at the Pentagon)...

I learned that for some reason our entire air defense system was shut down during crucial moments of the 9/11 attack.

The list goes on and on and on.

I learned lots of things that just led to more questions and more questions and more questions.

if you're wondering what sort of peer review sources I do trust, start here and you'll get an idea:
http://pubs.acs.org/

with that, I'm off to camp for the weekend to drink whisky in the evening and shoot at deer during the day.
enjoy yourselves.

Originally posted by wormser1971
I am glad you feel that way... because of this one fact.
The journal also spawned a counter-publication debunking it called the Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.



and I would trust that one as much as I would trust the original without knowing how they select reviewers.

Originally posted by Gart888
also, without reading back very far (because, lol) do we actually have an AIDS denier in here? :|

It was just a way to show that all sides of every argument have an agenda. If we take that into account, then there are no credible sources for information. Thus, we have to do our own research. Doing that often requires using sources you way have to be skeptical about.