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

In article ,
on Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:04:54 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote in
:


"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...
In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

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". The Feb 1st seminar
can be viewed on Google Video, or downloaded to your computer.


The following is a excerpt from Jones' PEER REVIEWED paper:

...and the rest of the faculty at his university and in his
department say:

"Professor Jones¹s department and college administrators are not
convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to
relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer
review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of
Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor
Jones."


Next he will be taking on stem cells with renowned South Korean
microbiologist.....

------------------------------------------
DW






With your comment above, you are obiviously associating 9/11 Truth with
silly conspiracy theories. Doing this is a predetermination of where
you're beliefs will be. You cannot argue with science. And if you dispute
it, you obviously didn't look into it

Get back to us when you start to present some science...

No, wait. Don't get back to us at all.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:45:38 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....


With the stuff I'm volunteering in, I would never give my real name. I rely
on credentials of people like Dr Jones who know what *all* the evidence is.
And I try to get people to understand it.

If you insist on relying on someone who holds rather odd beliefs do not be
surprised if many discount his (and your) views...



If the evidence is false, it should be explained why it is false.

People have been, you just keep whistling to you can't hear them..

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:36:23 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....


You might not understand what he means by squibs. Squibs are the puffs of
smoke caused by the controlled charges.

No they aren't.

It becomes obvious Jones doesn't know what he is talking about either.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.