GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
You call this proof? It doesn't discredit the science that was used. Nor does it discredits their credentials. You can't seem to read ...Here is a little backgroun on one of the authors of your "proof."
He was disturbed that it appeared to have a political viewpoint, though he said he would continue to work with the group.
I highly doubt he would continue to work with the group if he didn't believe the science involved.
Being put on paid leave doesn't sound like much of a punishment, I which I could get paid leave from work. Man ... get paid and free to do what ever I liked ... now that's a punishment I could use! This doesn't discredited Jones ... it's probably an indication of government pressure ... BYU may receive government funding.And then there is Steven M Jones also of BYU. Jones was a founder of 911 scholars for truth. Here is what BYU thinks of Jones' theories.
On September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave. [19] The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones' work and the concern that perhaps it had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review.
Only to the disinformationalist/deniers ... nothing new there ... and not a problem.You see GR, it looks like your sources are a house of cards and the house is falling down.
That's your proof? Because it's an "open access journal" how lame is that?Now let us look at your article "Missing Jolt: A simple refutation of the NIST..."
Here is the other so called journal where this is published. It is another "open access" journal.
That's just your imagination going wild again ... being put on paid leave doesn't sound like getting booting for being a nut ... in your delusional mind I can see it ... but for most of us ... notLook who is the Editor - why it's our old friend Steven Jones! Looks like all your sources come from a guy who was booted from BYU for being a nut.
Yes it is ... and I don't see you disputing the evidence in the paper ... your only hope seem to be to discredit the author some how ... to bad it doesn't work. Come back when you can dispute the evidence presented in the papers and videos I post ... you won't though ... know why? ... cause you can't!Is this what you are calling "proof"?
Says the denier who has been unable to dispute the facts and evidence present in this thread.Here is a little FYI. Legitimate academic, science or trade journals are not likely to be open source journals because the Editors of legitimate journals have standards that they maintain.
Oh you mean like Richard Gage?Being published in a real journal is not something anyone can do.
I posted this way back on page 147 post #1470
[FONT="]Richard Gage article on 9/11 WTC contolled demolitions appears in WorldArchitectureNews.com[/FONT]
So this blows your pet theory of trying to discredit the messenger.
Oh how wonderfulI have been formally trained in writing journal acceptable material
![Clap :clap: :clap:](/styles/smilies/gc.gif)
![Laughing :lol: :lol:](/styles/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Oh yeah ... I can tell by your post you are an authority ...and I have been trained to know which sources are legit and which are not. Your sources are not legitimate sources.
![Rolling Eyes :roll: :roll:](/styles/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Another failed attempt to discredit ... if only you could discredit the material ... too bad ... so sad.Journal of 9/11 Studies
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Publisher: Journal of 9/11 Studies
Current Issue: Volume 1 June 2006
Date: 27 June 2006
![Sad :-( :-(](/styles/smilies/icon_sad.gif)
Hey rick guess what? People STILL want a real investigation into 911.
![Wink ;-) ;-)](/styles/smilies/icon_wink.gif)