Physics Professor's Peer Reviewed Paper on WTC CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS on 9/11

"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to hundreds of
people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the government's version of
events "defies physics".

If you're gonna promote conspiracy theories why not promote credible ones?
A much more believeable theory would be that the 911 attacks took place as
anyone with sense believes, with hijacked airliners flying into the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon, but that Osama bin Laden is actually a CIA
operative, and the creation of al Qaeda and its terrorist activities were
all at the behest of the Company. Of course you'd still have to come up
with some halfways believeable theory about why the CIA wanted bin Laden to
do all this stuff, but at least the method would be credible. Instead we
get ludicrous fantasies about robot planes and demolition charges somehow
planted in the WTC with no one noticing them.

tim gueguen 101867

"tim gueguen" wrote in
news:spbLf.62814$sa3.17705@pd7tw1no:


"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to
hundreds of people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the
government's version of events "defies physics".

If you're gonna promote conspiracy theories why not promote credible
ones? A much more believeable theory would be that the 911 attacks
took place as anyone with sense believes, with hijacked airliners
flying into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but that Osama
bin Laden is actually a CIA operative, and the creation of al Qaeda
and its terrorist activities were all at the behest of the Company.
Of course you'd still have to come up with some halfways believeable
theory about why the CIA wanted bin Laden to do all this stuff, but at
least the method would be credible. Instead we get ludicrous
fantasies about robot planes and demolition charges somehow planted in
the WTC with no one noticing them.

tim gueguen 101867





You arrived in this thread late. Read my other posts and learn that
there is credible evidence.

"tim gueguen" wrote in message
news:spbLf.62814$sa3.17705@pd7tw1no...

"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to hundreds
of
people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the government's version of
events "defies physics".

If you're gonna promote conspiracy theories why not promote credible ones?
A much more believeable theory would be that the 911 attacks took place as
anyone with sense believes, with hijacked airliners flying into the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon, but that Osama bin Laden is actually a CIA
operative, and the creation of al Qaeda and its terrorist activities were
all at the behest of the Company. Of course you'd still have to come up
with some halfways believeable theory about why the CIA wanted bin Laden
to
do all this stuff, but at least the method would be credible. Instead we
get ludicrous fantasies about robot planes and demolition charges somehow
planted in the WTC with no one noticing them.

The why is simple: to give the US an excuse to grab Iraq's oil so we can
have cheap gas, at least according to those who believe that theory.

I'm leaning towards the idea that a more plausible why was to give the US an
excuse to start a war in the Middle East which would invariably increase the
price of oil and thus gas which would directly benefit all those who stood
to gain by such an action. The fact that Bush gets on the television and
says "don't worry, be happy" is further proof he is in a different orbit
than most of the rest of us.

I have no idea why the peace mongers would think it was to get cheap oil -
that's just crazy talk.

Paul Nixon

"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
"tim gueguen" wrote in
news:spbLf.62814$sa3.17705@pd7tw1no:


"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to
hundreds of people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the
government's version of events "defies physics".

If you're gonna promote conspiracy theories why not promote credible
ones? A much more believeable theory would be that the 911 attacks
took place as anyone with sense believes, with hijacked airliners
flying into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but that Osama
bin Laden is actually a CIA operative, and the creation of al Qaeda
and its terrorist activities were all at the behest of the Company.
Of course you'd still have to come up with some halfways believeable
theory about why the CIA wanted bin Laden to do all this stuff, but at
least the method would be credible. Instead we get ludicrous
fantasies about robot planes and demolition charges somehow planted in
the WTC with no one noticing them.

tim gueguen 101867





You arrived in this thread late. Read my other posts and learn that
there is credible evidence.

You've not presented any. Why is that?

Paul Nixon

khobar wrote:


The why is simple: to give the US an excuse to grab Iraq's oil so we can
have cheap gas, at least according to those who believe that theory.

Man, that plan failed, didn't it?

"mrtravel" wrote in message
. com...
khobar wrote:


The why is simple: to give the US an excuse to grab Iraq's oil so we can
have cheap gas, at least according to those who believe that theory.

Man, that plan failed, didn't it?

Well, yeah, of course, but that wasn't the real plan now, was it. ;-)

Paul Nixon

mrtravel wrote:
khobar wrote:


The why is simple: to give the US an excuse to grab Iraq's oil so we can
have cheap gas, at least according to those who believe that theory.


Man, that plan failed, didn't it?

I am reading Tommy Franks autobiography right now. The very first thing
we did in Iraq was secure the oil fields to prevent them from being
destroyed. Had we been there for the oil the war would have been over
in 15 minutes.

"khobar" wrote in news:krnLf.4448$Sp2.1438
@fed1read02:

"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
"tim gueguen" wrote in
news:spbLf.62814$sa3.17705@pd7tw1no:


"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to
hundreds of people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the
government's version of events "defies physics".

If you're gonna promote conspiracy theories why not promote credible
ones? A much more believeable theory would be that the 911 attacks
took place as anyone with sense believes, with hijacked airliners
flying into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but that Osama
bin Laden is actually a CIA operative, and the creation of al Qaeda
and its terrorist activities were all at the behest of the Company.
Of course you'd still have to come up with some halfways believeable
theory about why the CIA wanted bin Laden to do all this stuff, but
at
least the method would be credible. Instead we get ludicrous
fantasies about robot planes and demolition charges somehow planted
in
the WTC with no one noticing them.

tim gueguen 101867





You arrived in this thread late. Read my other posts and learn that
there is credible evidence.

You've not presented any. Why is that?

Paul Nixon




You must be blind

In article lpnLf.4447$Sp2.3003@fed1read02,
"khobar" wrote:

"tim gueguen" wrote in message
news:spbLf.62814$sa3.17705@pd7tw1no...

"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to hundreds
of
people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the government's version of
events "defies physics".

If you're gonna promote conspiracy theories why not promote credible ones?
A much more believeable theory would be that the 911 attacks took place as
anyone with sense believes, with hijacked airliners flying into the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon, but that Osama bin Laden is actually a CIA
operative, and the creation of al Qaeda and its terrorist activities were
all at the behest of the Company. Of course you'd still have to come up
with some halfways believeable theory about why the CIA wanted bin Laden
to
do all this stuff, but at least the method would be credible. Instead we
get ludicrous fantasies about robot planes and demolition charges somehow
planted in the WTC with no one noticing them.

The why is simple: to give the US an excuse to grab Iraq's oil so we can
have cheap gas, at least according to those who believe that theory.

Not really? Despite Bush linking Iraq with 9/11, he really only needed
to link Saddam with a credible threat to the United States. He turned
out to be wrong, but for a long while, Bush had a lot of people suckered
into his accusations.

In article ,
Newps wrote:

mrtravel wrote:
khobar wrote:


The why is simple: to give the US an excuse to grab Iraq's oil so we can
have cheap gas, at least according to those who believe that theory.


Man, that plan failed, didn't it?

I am reading Tommy Franks autobiography right now. The very first thing
we did in Iraq was secure the oil fields to prevent them from being
destroyed. Had we been there for the oil the war would have been over
in 15 minutes.

Not so. We were there for the oil, but Bush and his buddies
underestimated the amount of resistence AND the oil fields are still
being attacked as are the pipelines.