peer review.

[Revolutionary91]

This was your original quote. bolded by me for your reference.

So are you retracting your insinuation that the CIA OWNS Major Media?

TAM

No. You said "runs". That is not the same as owns.

 

[T.A.M.]

Steele is a very experienced CIA man. Do you have any reason to discredit him?

You mean besides the fact that takes his story to a small time talk show host in texas to reveal it...no, but....

Do you have any evidence besides a wiki article, and CT site articles to prove the validity of his claims or his resume?

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

No. You said "runs". That is not the same as owns.

Somantics....so you are contending that the CIA OWNS Major Media, but they do not RUN it, correct?

Well if they own it, you would think, given how evil you feel they are, that they should run it as well.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

And before you post it, yes, Alex Jones is small time, in terms of the greater AMERICAN Scheme of things.

TAM

 

[Revolutionary91]

Oh I see TAM, so what Gravy says about 911 is false because he took it to a local cable show called Hardfire. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[T.A.M.]

Gravy is a tour guide, whose hobby includes debunking 911. He was not producing some great revolution about Google being in bed with the USG, and using credentials as a CIA Agent to give himself credibility. He was DEBATING with truthers on 9/11 issues, using EXISTING information, not revealing anything new and groundbreaking.

DO you see the difference???????

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Look I have got to run...its been a slice. Feel free to post more if you like...I will look at it later.

Cheers

TAM

 

[beachnut]

I don't think most people would agree with your analogy. The fact that 80% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination pours cold water all over your argument. It is not anywhere near being in the same boat as a Nazi commander denying the Holocaust, and the handling of the Kennedy assassination and the Holocaust are actually the anti-thesis of each other. The Holocaust was exposed because the Allies won the war. Most people don't deny the Holocaust and most people believe there was a conspiracy involved in the murder of John Kennedy.

Had the Third Reich won the war I doubt we would have been enlightened about the Holocaust. The Nazis would have done what many Americans believe certain elements within our own government has done concerning the Kennedy assassination and the crimes of 911. Szamboti may be right on both counts. I wouldn't doubt that people like Szamboti would have tried to expose the Holocaust if the Nazis had won the war. He mentions the fact that the Nazis didn't tell the German people how Irwin Rommel really died at the end of his paper and that we only know how he died due to the Allies winning the war.

I would think that you do realize that Nazism and the Holocaust they wrought was a conspiracy.

The only people who act like NAZIs are the 9/11 truth movement. They suppress the truth and make up lies about 9/11. Only idiots believe in CD because only idiots are unable to see the facts. 9/11 truth movement followers are group think dolts who believe lies about 9/11.

The NAZIs did not do a good job hiding the Holocaust. Have you missed something. The NAZIs were seen coming in 1931, and when old dolt man Hitler took power people knew what was up. I know 9/11 truth is full of lies, they have you fooled and you are not listing to the truth about 9/11 truth. Your post show you are lost and you do not have a clue why you are wrong. Nice try, but you are confused and lost.

You do not read to comprehend, and you post here not to learn, but to post lies about 9/11. Go ahead stay with the "NAZIs" of 9/11 truth, you know you are right and you can be just like a good "NAZI" and ignore the fact you are in a group that makes up lies about 9/11. You are doing good and a member of 9/11 truth in good standing. The best part is you can do this lying with no repercussions from me. Go lie, you seem to do real well without facts, I like a good BS artist, but you need to work at it.

Your big problem is you believe in fact less CTs. JFK and 9/11, what else is in your bag of woo? With a name like realcddeal, you have lost before you started; not really looking for the truth, you think you are the truth. Uncle Fetzer would be proud.

 

[beachnut]

Steele is a very experienced CIA man. Do you have any reason to discredit him?

You believe everything you read? Wait; darn you believe in LC video, OMG, a truther with out any real facts and believes what he thinks is true because he said it is true so if is false it is still true. A truther who thinks the Matrix is real? You need to get a life and understand the books you quote are making it up too. The quotes you posted are opinions at best, and not as true as you think the person who said them thought. You are using main stream books to make up your world of woo. I have to say if you believe LC videos, you are not able to comment on books and what is true. You have zero ability to spot the truth. Why should we listen to kid who can not find the truth when it is there to be found easily?

What is the color of your sky? You have problems with reality.

 

[leftysergeant]

A lot of twoofers actually are Nazis.

Chris Bollyn, Greg Szymanski, Darryl Bradford Smith. I kind of suspect that A. Jones is sympathetic. They're rather chameleon-like. I might have been a little more inclined to weigh the twoofer evidence at greater length had I not read The Turner Diaries before the event.

I had become aware of some of the commentators on the attack as white nationalist sympathizers about a week after the Murrah bombing.
They are not going to be satisfied with any peer review or independent investigative board, no matter who does it, if it is not stack with Nazis.

 

[William Rea]

A lot of twoofers actually are Nazis.

How many is a lot? Evidence to back it up?

 

[T.A.M.]

"lot" is a nebulous number, really, as we have no idea how many truthers there are...so since the larger cannot be quantified, neither can the smaller or subset.

TAM

 

[Tony Szamboti]

F=M*a

That is a relative term there chief. What are you trying to say?

 

[William Rea]

That is a relative term there chief. What are you trying to say?

He's telling us he learnt Junior High School Physics.

He didn't do English so he can only communicate by algebra and numbers in a way reminiscent of autism.

 

[nicepants]

No it wouldn't, that's why I specifically said "independent verification" rather than "peer review".

Please explain the difference between your definitions of

"Independent verification" and "peer-review".

Can an independent verification be part of a peer-review?
Can a peer-review be part of an independent verification?

 

[Gravy]

Concerning the events of 911 my goal is honest objective evaluation and analysis of the entire mass of evidence.

Says the guy who repeatedly refuses to read the reports he's directed to, who won't even read the captions on photos, who accuses the witnesses and investigators who refute his claims of being liars and frauds, and whose screen name tells us about the objective nature of his search.

What an absurdly bad liar you are, realcddeal. Do you even understand what you write?

 

[Civilized Worm]

In the history of science some great papers were initially rejected and novel ideas supressed....

I suppose that includes papers that show that AIDS was created by the US government?

Would you say the same about the initial claims of Galileo, the Wright brothers, etc. take a look at the link here

http://amasci.com/supress1.html

No, because they backed themselves up with FACTS.

I am saying human nature is the same today as it was four centuries ago. Only the issues have changed.

You may not have noticed but science has changed quite a bit in 400 years.

 

[Gravy]

A mechanical engineer by the name of Tony Szamboti wrote a paper which says that even with the 500,000 ton mass the remaining factor of safety was sufficient to prevent collapse given the NIST damage analysis and physical evidence of steel temperatures. His paper is on, I can hear the sigh now, the Journal of 911 Studies.

I'll start a thread about that paper if you're prepared to support Tony Szamboti's work. What say you?

 

[Civilized Worm]

By the way, no one is saying that peer review is the be all and end all, it's just that avoidance of the system is a sure sign of a pseudoscientist.

1. The pseudo-scientist has a profound intellectual superiority complex.
3. The pseudo-scientist regards other researchers as idiotic, and always operates outside the peer review system (hence the title of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").
5. The pseudo-scientist believes there is a campaign against their ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.
   
6. Instead of side-stepping the mainstream the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked. He writes: "A perpetual motion machine cannot be built. He builds one".
   
7. He coins neologisms.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Belief does not replace facts.

Here's a dog:

[qimg]http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/3131/fwdanielledoglicenseru6.jpg[/qimg]

Get 9 of your buddies and vote on the gender of the dog. Let's just hypothetically say that 7 out of 10 said the dog is a girl, with 3 saying he's a guy. However, after examining the dog's genitals, you guys find out that he has a pair of balls. Physical evidence points that this pooch is indeed a guy.

Since 7 out of the 10 people said the dog was a girl, does that mean the dog is a girl despite the physical evidence saying otherwise? No, because beliefs does not substitute scientific evidence and facts.

Or if you want a less extreme example, you can always look at religion. The majority of people believe there is a supernatural being that created the universe but no scientific evidence points to such a scenario. Does that mean religion is 100% true because the majority believe in it?

I hate to tell you but most investigators would look at the genitals first if you asked them the dog's gender. Here are the balls from the Kennedy assassination. The Zapruder film showing the front to back head movement and the Parkland hospital doctors and nurses description of the massive rear head wound

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozx4_4DZp38

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache...ight+rear+head+wound&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

How do you get a large head wound in the rear of the head and the front to back movement if JFK was shot from the rear? Answer is you don't so if you want to say he was only shot from the rear and you control the investigation you have to suppress the Zapruder film and ignore the Parkland hospital doctors and nurses description of the location of the large head wound being in the right rear of the head. That is precisely what was done. The surprise was the 1969 trial of Clay Shaw in New Orleans for which D.A. Jim Garrison subpeonaed the Zapruder film. Life magazine fought the subpeona to the Supreme Court but there were no grounds to deny it and he got access to the film. Garrison allowed copies to be made, but it wasn't until 1975 that one of those copies of the Zapruder film was shown on ABC on late night TV. All of a sudden there needed to be an answer for the back and to the left head movement, previously unseen by most of the American people and who had been told JFK was only shot from the rear, and out popped the jet effect. Sure that's the ticket. That is what Tony Szamboti debunked in that JFK article of his and it needed to be debunked.

The scientific facts were swept under the rug by the Warren Commission. You do realize that the House Select Committee on Assassinations final report said that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy and they sent their information over to the Justice Department for further investigation. Unfortunately, the Justice department chose to try to refute the HSCA acoustic evidence and hasn't done anything with the case.