37 FACTS that contradict the "official" BS story

There is no need for you to either be insulting or hostile.

I am asking you to help clear the air and clarify your position as to avoid anyone misunderstanding what you believe.

I think this to be polite and reasonable.

AboveAlpha

 

read my posts.

Not insulting simply stating a fact.

 

I have read them....so unless I am missing something....and if I am I would appreciate you pointing out to me what it is I am missing....unless you do this I can only surmise you are being defensive and obscure on purpose.

AboveAlpha

 

no problem, all you need to do is go back to the part before you started posting this trash and direct your comments to one of my posts.

 

Look....for both our sake and time....what is it you SPECIFICALLY ARE STATING that you believe you have PROOF that either could not have happened or something else caused it to happen.

AboveAlpha

 

feel free to address one of my previous posts.

 

You know...despite what you have posted to me I held out hope that perhaps we could forgo the stupidity and try to debate in a civilized and constructive manner.

I have read your posts and your entire argument is based upon video's of different aircraft at different speeds and compositions as well as your completely ignoring the Physics.

I had hoped that we could have gotten to a specific point of debate and then perhaps you might have stated..."Well...that is what I think."

And perhaps I could have said the same.

Instead....you went the other way and that is to refuse my Olive Branch and then at every reasonable question I proposed to you....you deflected, insulted and slapped away my peace offering.

I think some day you will find that when enough time has passed you by....such a outreaching of a hand will be something you will in that future time...find very valuable indeed.

AboveAlpha

 

Again, I laid out my arguments befor your 6 pages of bull(*)(*)(*)(*), GO BACK AND ADDRESS THEM IF YOU WANT A DEBATE.

they have not changed.

 

This is your post.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

John P. A. Ioannidis

Author information ► Copyright and License information ►

See "Minimizing Mistakes and Embracing Uncertainty" , e272.
See "Truth, Probability, and Frameworks" , e361.
See "Power, Reliability, and Heterogeneous Results" , e386.
See "The Clinical Interpretation of Research" , e395.
See "Author's Reply" , e398.
See "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: Problems in the Analysis" in volume 4, e168.
See "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: Author's Reply to Goodman and Greenland" in volume 4, e215.
See "Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science" in volume 5, e201.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.


Go to:
Abstract

Summary

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.



Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical trials and traditional epidemiological studies [1–3] to the most modern molecular research [4,5]. There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims [6–8]. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false. Here I will examine the key factors that influence this problem and some corollaries thereof.

Go to:
Modeling the Framework for False Positive Findings

Several methodologists have pointed out [9–11] that the high rate of nonreplication (lack of confirmation) of research discoveries is a consequence of the convenient, yet ill-founded strategy of claiming conclusive research findings solely on the basis of a single study assessed by formal statistical significance, typically for a p-value less than 0.05. Research is not most appropriately represented and summarized by p-values, but, unfortunately, there is a widespread notion that medical research articles should be interpreted based only on p-values. Research findings are defined here as any relationship reaching formal statistical significance, e.g., effective interventions, informative predictors, risk factors, or associations. “Negative” research is also very useful. “Negative” is actually a misnomer, and the misinterpretation is widespread. However, here we will target relationships that investigators claim exist, rather than null findings.
It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false


NOTHING IN THAT POST PRESENTS A SPECIFIC CLAIM OR POINT OF CONTENTION.....that I or anyone else could see as YOU presenting evidence or viable proof that the Aircraft Crashes and Impacts into the WTC or Pentagon show any discrepancies.

I asked you to post JUST ONE SINGLE ANOMALY....you have not.

All you posted was a bunch of statements arguing in that these people believe that most analysis and methods of 9/11 reconstruction is presenting faulty data.

YET NO SPECIFIC PROOF IS LISTED.

AboveAlpha

 

it helps to read the references, particle physics experts generally know these things right.

See "Minimizing Mistakes and Embracing Uncertainty" , e272.
See "Truth, Probability, and Frameworks" , e361.
See "Power, Reliability, and Heterogeneous Results" , e386.
See "The Clinical Interpretation of Research" , e395.
See "Author's Reply" , e398.
See "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: Problems in the Analysis" in volume 4, e168.
See "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: Author's Reply to Goodman and Greenland" in volume 4, e215.
See "Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science" in volume 5, e201.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

 

Oh...PLEASE....there are a THOUSAND or more such articles, books or other papers that could be identified to be specific to individual possibilities of mistaken data.

AboveAlpha

 

mostly academic fraud

 

So...what is it exactly you believe you have evidence that supports exactly what impacting the Pentagon?

AboveAlpha

 

not my claim, making (*)(*)(*)(*) up again, is that all you can do? (*)(*)(*)(*) all over a thread?

 

They what exactly are you trying to prove?

The only thing you have actually and specifically stated is your ridiculous assertion that you have provided ZERO viable evidence to support is that an aircraft's wing could not have cut down a Steel Pole...which of course the physics disproves your claim.

AboveAlpha

 

geezus (*)(*)(*)(*) already what the hell does it take to get you to accept ANY damn thing in it presented context?

 

Oh...I don't know....how about if you were to adhere to the rules of Physics...yeah....that would go a long way for me.

AboveAlpha

 

What rules of physics LMAO

 

Then by all means, please prove any one of the articles wrong. Your handwaive and generalizations are pathetic.

 

The only thing koko is trying to prove is how big a troll he is, something he's laid out with a clear evidence trail.

 

LoL it's mind blowing, he's gotten people to reply to his bull(*)(*)(*)(*) in 2 threads. He's just eating it up. Keep feeding, and feeding and feeding him

 

did you notice what sore LOSERS trougher are? Anyone capable of pounding their crazy into the ground is a troll huh?

 

I would propose that anyone who believes the official fantasy already has a blown mind and a few other issues in addition.

 

why would I prove my citation wrong:

"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"

Glad to see you agree that most published findings are false.

 

Most does not mean all, therefore your"citation" is useless. So again please feel free to prove any one of the publications wrong.