Re-read what cooky wrote. What he or she was inferring and explicitly stating. You'll understand my position then, especially after re-reading what I've said.
Here is what Cooky wrote: Nowhere does he state you need a Ph.D. or have to be a qualified person. So now you've lied about my position AND Cooky's position. He said if you want to be taken seriously, use sources that have been peer reviewed for accuracy. Can ANY truther site make the claim they are peer reviewed without lying their ass off? Not that I've ever seen. To them, peer review means other truthers looked at it and agreed. If Jones et. al. or any other truther wanted to publish to a valid, peer reviewed periodical like this one then they could have their methods and findings validated by other specialists in their field. Did they do that? No. Why? Well, in the case of Jones, his scientific method was fatally flawed as were his conclusions. He is a professional. He knows how to submit material for peer review. He's done it before.... and gotten rejected. The subject? Cold fusion. Anyone who wishes to have people take them seriously and believes they've found scientific proof that backs up their claim can submit their work for peer review. All one has to do is look at the quality of work done by the truther community here and elsewhere and it is easy to see why they don't. They talk a good game, but they're full of (*)(*)(*)(*). We know it. They know it. They know we know it. As I've said before, the last thing truthers are concerned about is the truth. They trample it in nearly every post. They are concerned with pushing whatever political, social or racial agenda they have. Some are anti-government. Some are anti-semitic. Some are just nuts. Whatever their beef, they specifically ignore the evidence and have no evidence of their own. Have YOU seen any of them actually respond and show real evidence and not opinions and lies? I sure haven't. If you have, point it out.
So my assumption was right. You don't know what peer review means. Like I said: "was inferring and explicitly stating."
And regarding the last portion of your post, I don't know what to tell you man. You're going to believe what you want. Having a U.S. Government stamp on it makes it reliable to you, I guess. And though I am well aware of the benevolence of my government, I am also keen of the malevolence. I recently found some declassified CIA documents that pertain to 9/11 related issues - 800 pages worth. It showed that the CIA was aware of bin Laden's desire to hijack planes in Dec '98. They had several of these advanced warnings. And you're meaning to tell me not a single CIA analyst put the WTC as a possible target in the largest city we have to offer? The government employs men and probably now women too who think about problems and come up with ideas and solutions. None of them had the prescient mind to scribble that down on a piece of paper? If they did, how could I gain access to it?
Your ASSumption is wrong, as usual. I know exactly what peer review means. It means experts in that field review the article and either agree with it or show the flaws. Why wouldn't you want experts in the field looking at it? They don't have to have PH.d.s, and, contrary to your claim, it isn't one person doing the review but multiple people doing the review. Thus "'only' the words of a 'qualified' person hold credibility" is meaningless because you're looking at a consensus in the community, not the words of a single individual. Your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim of eliteism is meaningless, not to mention your claims that this was what Cooky and I were claiming. All that aside, we've given you a way that truthers can gain credibility, and you turned your nose up at it. So how would you have truthers gain credibility? They sure as hell haven't produced any actual evidence to back up their claims. That would most certainly boost their credibility. I wonder why they don't produce any evidence.....
I am going to believe what the evidence proves. DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. I keep asking for that and all anyone does is whine that I only believe what I want. How hard of a concept is it to believe the evid And once again you would be wrong. I don't need a government stamp, and if I get one, I put it through the same tests I use on truther claims. The evidence backs up the government story. It completely refutes the numerous truther theories. DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. Are you starting to s You need more than the target. Of course we knew the WTC was a possible target. Why do you think John O'neil, arguable the worlds leading expert on Al Qaeda and terrorist attacks, took the job as head of security there? Did we know the exact form of attack? No. You want to pretend that your 20/20 hindsight means the CIA should have known almost two years earlier the exact form of attack even though all they knew was of "bin Laden's desire to hijack planes." How does that equal hijack planes, FLY THEM INTO THE WTC AND PENTAGON, and do it ON 9/11 with FOUR PLANES. You're missing a hell of a lot of VERY important information that you are pretending the CIA knew but we all know they didn't. So you think the ONLY threat we received about Al Qadea prior to 9/11 was the threat of hijacking some planes? WOW! Now THAT is naive on a whole new scale! The US receives HUNDREDS of threats a day. A scant few are real. The rest are bogus or so vague (like Al Qaeda wants to hijack planes) that they are meaningless without more information. COULD Al Qaeda hijack planes? Sure. They can also use car bombs as they usually do and attack all kinds of other targets, or use a dirty bomb, or poison gas like in Japan, or suicide bombers or any NUMBER of different forms of attack. They also have to worry about new and different forms of attack, but those forms of attack didn't get the same attention prior to 9/11 because they were considered very remote threats. So what could they have done? Implemented the same flight rules we have now prior to 9/11? The US and probably the rest of the world would freak out about the police state the US had become due to their paranoid delusions over unsubstantiated rumors. Conspiracy theorists would be having conniption fits over the reasons why and NONE of them would be because the CIA thought Al Qaeda had the desire to hijack planes. Get a job at the CIA.
You make a lot of accusations about lying, but this thread shows that you've been doing some yourself. What is an expert, Patriot? A 'qualified' person, that's what. Like a Ph.D. Which is what peer review is all about. Let's see the denial.
Peer review is about and has always been about the scientific method. It is a test of procedure results and conclusion. It has nothing to do with credentials.
If you wish to have your ass handed to you yet again, I can oblige. Here is what you posted to me: in response to what Cooky originally wrote which is this You go on to whine that either I, Cooky or both are claiming ONLY the experts are credible or that it is irrelevant if not written by a guy with a Ph.D. Neither of us made that claim or anything LIKE that claim. There is your lie. PRETENDING that talking about peer review is justification for lying doesn't cut it. Neither of us were talking about what constitutes credibility when it comes to 9/11 or anything else. What Cooky posted and what I agree with, is that if truthers wish to be taken seriously, they need to get people (the experts) to agree with them through peer reviewed articles. This was all about increasing the credibility of the truthers and nothing to do with what is credible in discussions about 9/11 unless you wish to discuss how little credibility truthers have by constantly lying, presenting opinion as though it were fact and evidence when it is neither, and making claims they can't back up. So tell me again where I was lying and how you weren't. Go ahead. Credibility gets lost when one also refuses to man up when they make a mistake or refuse to own up to a lie.
So yours and my words are not credible unless backed by experts? THATS my problem in a nutshell...since you need it spelled out.
AGAIN, since you still fail to comprehend, we're not talking about who is or is not credible. How hard is that to understand? This is a very simple concept. Truthers lack credibility. Cooky has put forward that to gain credibility back, truthers should submit their claims to peer reviewed journals. Neither Cooky nor I have made the claim that ANYONE'S words are not credible unless backed by experts. Are our words MORE credible if backed by experts? Absolutely. That is just common sense. You taking it to the absolute extreme of pretending Cooky and I are trying to claim nobody is credible without experts backing them up is, to put it bluntly, a baldfaced lie. Looks like you have more problems than you thought. Here are some examples since you have such a hard time with this whole concept. Someone who actually saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon with their own eyes is going to be far more credible than some truther trying to pretend they are a video expert and can say conclusively that it wasn't a plane in the security video footage. The eyewitness doesn't need an expert backing them up, but the truther is making claims as fact when they are, in reality, opinion. Now, if said truther were to wrap up all his findings and how he came to the conclusions he did into an article that could be submitted to a group of people who are experts at still video footage, he would have a chance to have his findings validated through peer review. His opinions would still be opinions, but those opinions would have MORE credibility due to peer review. Peer review doesn't mean there is no possibility for mistake. It simply means experts in the field of question agree with the findings of the submitter. Another good example is WTC 7. Truthers just LOVE to pretend they know all about structural engineering and make claims like "WTC 7 couldn't have fallen on its own due to fires". Are they qualified to make that kind of claim all on their own? No. They're not. They may TELL you they are. You may even believe them. That doesn't change the truth, does it. Now, if they made their case for WTC 7 requiring a controlled demolition to come down, and it was peer reviewed and the experts agreed that WTC 7 couldn't have come down due to fire, one would not only have a MUCH more credible position on this board, but they would actually be able to approach the NIST and demand some answers. Do truthers do this? No. Why? Because they know as well as you and I know that their claims are nothing but baseless rantings of some seriously deranged people. They turn up their collective noses at all the studies done so far. They ignore the fact that, aside from a very small minority, engineers the world over understand that WTC 7 could and in all likelihood DID collapse due to its unique construction and the circumstances surrounding the collapse on 9/11. Do you get it now? Do you need more examples? Do you still not get how you lied when you claimed Cooky and I were making claims we never made nor would we make?
I knew this would turn into can't quite account for = missing 2. You need to re-read your first paragraph. Some contradictions.
There are no contradictions. If there were, you would have pointed them out. I see you still can't man up to your blatant dishonesty. Here is what I wrote: Where in there do I say ANYTHING even remotely close to whatever is said is not credible unless said by an expert? I talk about truthers being lazy and using videos they don't even know the contents of. I talk about truthers being unable to back up their claims. I talk about truthers pretending spamming videos somehow makes up for their lack of evidence and intelligence. So go ahead and point out where my contradictions are. First rule when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging.
I post on a Kindle Fire. I can't copy and paste as flawlessly as I could on a PC, but re-read your 1st paragraph in post #61. Look specifically for 'contradictions', please. I want you to see it for yourself.
You apparently need to learn the difference between credible and credibility. Maybe you should look up the difference. It is your claim that I and Cooky are claiming only experts are credible. That is false. We are both talking about how a truther can increase their, and by proxy the truther movements, credibility. For one to be credible, they need credibility. If you lie or try to use dishonest tactics, you lose credibility and fewer people are going to consider you credible. It has nothing to do with what degrees you have. Degrees can give someone a basis of credibility, but that same person can completely lose credibility if they lie or prove they don't know what they are talking about. Judy Wood is an excellent example. She has a Ph.D. She is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idiot of the first order and she proved that with her billiard ball theory. Ever see a collapse completely stop on every floor before resuming? That is what she claimed SHOULD happen in a collapse. Even other truthers think she has lost all credibility and that is quite an accomplishment! On the other hand, if someone without a degree makes a claim and that claim proves out to be true, that person can gain credibility and eventually people consider that person credible. There are numerous people on this board who I don't know what degrees, if any, they hold, yet I find them very credible because what they say pans out when you check it out for yourself. There are other people on this board who I wouldn't find credible if they told me up was up and down was down because of their level of dishonesty and general idiocy. Think of it this way. People can do things to earn your trust. That is the equivalence of credibility. Eventually you trust that person. That is the equivalence of credible. Using that analogy, Cooky and I are trying to tell truthers how they can earn people's trust by proving their theories. If truthers could get experts to back them up in a trusted manner (peer review), then that gives everyone, myself included, a certain level of trust that what the truthers are trying to claim is true. You are taking our efforts to increase the credibility of truthers as a statement that we only trust experts and distrust everyone else, which is patently false. Does THAT make any sense to you?
I see the boys are at work again, deleting information that is too close to home. Good work once again fellas.
So cenydd is a mod who is censoring your input according to you? Which one of those flamebaits, attacks, and responses was "information that is too close to home"?
Good job kicking me out of LetsRoll....your powers reach further than I thought. Another paycheck...well earned.
