DYSFUNCTIONAL COUNTRY, DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY

;D

 

Quite.

 

ar you saying "Quite." like a librearian wouud say? "Shh bea quite poeple ar readun"?

or or yuw sayin "Quite." like my momma would say when i wuz in teb bathtub. "Now joe quite playin wit yore submarine an making it send up te parioscope"

or area you saying "Quite." like "my unacle Vern he an quite rite"

 

Joe, it is "Shhhh be quiet" for the librarian.

"Quit playin wit yo submarine"

and Yes, "Uncle Vern aint quite right"

And I think Dan made a very valid point. The people I have heard ranting about a consiracy are usually the dregs of society. The outcast. Those who say absurd things for attantion. And the pot heads who spend way too much time online looking at photoshopped images of 'pieces' of a missle, instead of realizing there were hundreds of people on those planes that actually still have loved ones who miss them.

 

i think that says more about the bars you frequent than anything else, frankly.

 

I dont go to bars, like you dont smoke pot.

 

i don't smoke marijuana because it made me lethargic and didn't do my chest much good.. i gave up being a pothead many years ago.. i do have the very occasional toke in social situations.. but only to be polite.. i don't like getting stoned all that much.. it ruins the enjoyment of my drink

you don't go to bars because you're barred from most of them, and -all- the titty ones.. you gave up drinking in social situations many years ago.. because you embarrassed the people who invited you.. you prefer to drink at home alone anyway.. nobody judges you there

 

RIGHT ROUND BABY RIGHT ROUND LIKE A SCRATCHED RECORD BABY RIGHT ROUND ROUND ROUND

 

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth…. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not..? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know.. it — now." Patrick Henry, 1775.

 

No, I dont drink in bars because I am a dad, who spends time with his family. I drink when I am fishing, or playing golf.

I havent been banned from any bars, and the one here arent titty bars, they actually get totally naked, so it's just strip clubs.

I do drink in some social situations, like when I am in Athens, GA on a fall afternoon with 92,000 of my closest friends.

I dont drink at home, unless of course I am doing some yardwork, and I might have a beer or two..........

of course I'm sure that doesnt compare to sitting around your 'flat' drinking while it is raining outside. While you and your 'mates' play who has the biggest 'whanka' in the 'lou'. . . . .

 

: Blah blah blah. So anyway...i hope you can sleep well at night in the knowledge that there are such glaring inconsistencies between the official version that you subscribe to and fundamental laws of physics now that it has been clearly outlined by such 'dregs of society' as Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones...

...goddamn pot-smoker dumbass tard!

 

Jones has been interviewed by mainstream news sources and has made a number of public appearances, including the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium, which was held in Los Angeles on June 24-June 25, 2006.[11] While Jones has urged caution in drawing conclusions,[12] his public comments have suggested a considerable degree of certainty about both the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center and the culpability of rogue agents working within the U.S. government.[13] In an article published on September 5, 2006, Jones told The Guardian that the attacks were an "inside job".[14] His name is often mentioned in reporting about 9/11 conspiracy theories.[15]

The paper has been the center of controversy both for its content and its claims to scientific rigor. [16][17] Jones' early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty[18] and shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work. They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners", and expressed doubts about whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[19]

Jones has always maintained that the paper was peer-reviewed prior to publication, though it has never been published in an independent peer-reviewed journal. On September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave.[20] The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones' work and the fact it had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review.[21] The review was supposed to be three-tiered, with the school's administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the Physics Department involved.[22] This action drew criticism from the American Association of University Professors and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Both organizations are long time critics of BYU's record on academic freedom.[23]

As someone who has done research for 4 years prior to medical school (related to the first hand transplant from cadaver to amputee in the US) I can tell you the fact that his findings weren't published in a peer review journal put it on the level of dung. There are all kinds of crackpot studies that never get published. Even the ones that do get published often wind up being bullshit. You can't believe a study unless it is performed and reviewed and accepted by peers and then it's findings backed up by other separte researchers from unaffiliated groups. I would suspect that he may have decided to retire early on a book deal. There is a tendency for researchers to twist findings and try to garner money through sensationalism and outright falsifications. It happens all the time.

 

As someone who has done research for 4 years prior to medical school (related to the first hand transplant from cadaver to amputee in the US) I can tell you the fact that his findings weren't published in a peer review journal put it on the level of dung. There are all kinds of crackpot studies that never get published. Even the ones that do get published often wind up being bullshit. You can't believe a study unless it is performed and reviewed and accepted by peers and then it's findings backed up by other separte researchers from unaffiliated groups. I would suspect that he may have decided to retire early on a book deal. There is a tendency for researchers to twist findings and try to garner money through sensationalism and outright falsifications. It happens all the time.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

 

anway go ahead and have your fun. Some people like to believe in ghosts you like to believe in government conspiracy theories. The judge likes to believe in dwarves.

 

he did lose his position over his "research"/statements.

 

Steven E. Jones is a professor at Brigham Young University. He has created the paper which has created the ground swell around the 911 conspiracy theories. His paper was peer reviewed but not by a civil engineering journal. One would think a serious professor would get his paper peer reviewed by a scientific journal which specializes in the field they are writing the paper on.

But is Professor Jones qualified to create a paper which says the towers must have fallen due to explosives? He is a physics professor but what experience does Jones have in building collapse forensics? He has none. His other peer reviewed papers consist of cold fusion technology. He conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.
Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper.

A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' 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 College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Jones says his paper will pass peer review again. But will it pass peer review in a respected civil engineering journal? Nothing less would be taken seriously.

One of Jones BYU colleagues had this to say after reading his paper...

Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006
Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

 

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

 

People just dont like admiting they are wrong, its a pride thing above others, but sadly a lot of people just 'dont care' they are too wrapped up in themselves and their daily lives to begin to contemplate something like this, because living for tomorrow or to get that next paycheck has been the distraction the whole time. This is why its so important us 'truthers' so badly want you to hear us out, because, we're not doing it for us, we're doing it for you too.
Its a shame that we get ignored by the very people we are trying to help, why do we bother?

I put logical reasoning behind every questionable circumstance such as this, the tower job was an inside job, because:

1) America is now in the Middle East, its now after its 3rd consecutive region in a row: Iran
WHY? Mixed reasons, mainly oil and religion and it goes back into history, nobody is bothered to look, but it cannot be argued that they are now there.. purpose?

2) They needed an alibi (reason) to go that would seem honest in the eyes of the people, so they made the enemy visible for you to be scared of, it worked.
They have done this MANY times in history, again, nobody is bothered to look.

If there was really a terrorist threat, we would get constant attacks.. security is too good to get attacked, it was good BEFORE 9/11 which is why we didnt get attacked before 9/11 by so called 'terrorists'

4) The gov have lied in the past and will always lie, they want to kill you and claim they want to save you at the same time. Say one thing and do another. History again.

5) The official story was changed/ spun etc to what they wanted you to hear, "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
The 'simplest solution' has always remained constant; that the towers 'were pulled' all we wanted to know was 'why?' and we have been beginning to understand that too.

6) 9/11 truthers use more evidence to support their arguments than any non-believers, they are also the most honestly direct and thorough in responses. This is evident in all the posts ive read on this forum related to politics and this event AND people I have tried discussing this with in RL, with mixed results. Non-believers are most likely to shrug off or evade the most hurtful truths as 'crazy' or that posters need 'tinfoil hats' or that we are 'drug addicts' without providing any substantial evidence to the contrary Are these people totally ignorant or just so stupid and without awareness of anything other than what they ate this morning, its astounding, really.

I mean bloody hell people, we are doing all the work for you, all you have to do is go and read up on history of politics and the world and its many religious wars, instead all you do is sit around, wait for us to bring the evidence to you and then dismiss it as 'baloney' with little more than 'i said so', 'i think so' or 'i was told so' you have to pull your fingers out of your arses and connect the dots, this picture isn't going to be completed without a single line drawn. Stop working against us.

That is all.

 

I stand corrected on some issues, however, what I saw(on the actual date) was a tower collapsing down on itself, like a demolition. Having 2 fall the same is improbable, having another (building 7) do the same again is statistically impossible.