Re: BYU professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Sat Nov 12, 2005 13:07
64.140.158.44
Re: BYU professor thinks bombs, not
planes, toppled WTC
Sat Nov 12, 2005 13:07
64.140.158.44
BYU professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
discussion.cgi.17.html
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 9/11 Action - Send Physics Article to Physicists Worldwide: Below are emails fo
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:21:02 EST
From: Wtcqd2000@aol.com
To: Wtcqd2000@aol.com
9/11 Action - Send Physics Article to Physicists Worldwide: Below are emails
for physics professors in major universities all over the world. It is time
to let them know about the BYU Physics professor's peer reviewed study, and
challenge physicists worldwide to look at the physical impossibility of the
official 9/11 story. PLEASE send the below message to the below physics
professors list, and then forward this entire action on to all your trusted contacts
urging them to do the same.
=========================================================
SUBJ: Physics Professor says US Govt.s 9/11/2001 WTC story "defies physics",
demands full inquiry.
BODY OF EMAIL:
Dear Physicists,
Below, you will find an article from the Deseret News of November, 10, 2005,
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html
of a respected physics professor at Brigham Young University in Utah who's
soon to be peer reviewed physics study proves that the World Trade Center's
could "NOT" have been brought down by jet fuel, and were most likely controlled
demolitions. He is demanding a full investigation. * Prior to this Kevin Ryan,
a department head from UL (Underwriter Laboratories), who'd viewed UL's
inspection reports of the WTC's said those reports concluded that burning jet fuel
could "NOT" have possibly brought down the World Trade Centers on September
11/2001.
Civil rights have been rolled back worldwide, and tens of thousands have been
killed in wars in the name of the 9/11/2001 attacks. It is time to look at
what really happened on that fateful day in the full light of day with eyes
wide open.
It is up to the world community of physicists to fully examine the facts of
the September 11th, 2001's attacks on the World Trade Center buildings of New
York and the unprecedented collapse of the first three steel enforced buildings
to be brought down by fire, all on the same day. If the official story
defies physics, then a host of other questions must then be answered.
PLEASE, don't look away from this challenge. The world needs your expertise.
THE ARTICLE:
BYU.
Physics Professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC By Elaine Jarvik - Deseret
Morning News
The physics of 9/11; including how fast and symmetrically one of the World
Trade Center buildings fell, prove that official explanations of the collapses
are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.
In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three
buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.
In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication
next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previousskeptics, including the
authors of the Web site http://www.wtc7.net,
whose researchJones quotes. Jones' article can be found at
HREF="http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html">
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News
"Itis quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC)
buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says.
Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling
for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by
politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations andcalculations.
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all
threebuildings and set off after the two plane crashes which were actually a diversion
tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blamefor bringing down the
WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.
As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said,
"I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that untilwe do the
scientific investigation."
Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and
NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics
and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the
47-story building known as WTC 7, he says. The official explanation that fires
caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse can't be backed
up by either testing or history, he says.
Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories
about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better
satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony andtherefore is not 'junk
science.' "
In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in the book "The
Hidden History of 9/11," by Elsevier, Jones offers these arguments:
The threebuildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their
footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" and even then
it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down
collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much
less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks.
"And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for
a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along
with otherdata, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."
Nosteel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed
due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.
WTC 7, which was not hit by hijackedplanes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6
of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit
the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of
momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as
upper-falling floors strike lower floors and intact steel support columns the fall
must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper
floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing
buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition
hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including
steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These
observations were notanalyzed byFEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.
With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of
shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to
flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we
understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing and
demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this
phenomenon."
Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the
side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used
to demolish buildings, he says.
Steelsupports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures
near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel and neither office materials nor
diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from
the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires
would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.
Molten metal found inthe debris of the World Trade Center may have been the
result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as
thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed
energy to result in melting of large quantitiesof metal," Jones says.
Multiple loud explosions in rapidsequence were reported by numerous observers
in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region
where the planesstruck, he says.
Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC collapse after
attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had had a near-death experience.
The woman mentioned in passing that "if you think the World Trade Center
buildings came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you,"
Jones remembers, atwhich point "everyone around me started applauding."
Following several months of study, he presented his findings at a talk at BYU
in September.
Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899 photographs and
6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny." He would also like to
analyze a small sample of the molten metal found atGround Zero.
E-mail: jarvik@desnews.com
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html discussion.cgi.17.html
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 9/11 Action - Send Physics Article to Physicists Worldwide: Below are emails fo
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:21:02 EST
From: Wtcqd2000@aol.com
To: Wtcqd2000@aol.com
9/11 Action - Send Physics Article to Physicists Worldwide: Below are emails
for physics professors in major universities all over the world. It is time
to let them know about the BYU Physics professor's peer reviewed study, and
challenge physicists worldwide to look at the physical impossibility of the
official 9/11 story. PLEASE send the below message to the below physics
professors list, and then forward this entire action on to all your trusted contacts
urging them to do the same.
=========================================================
SUBJ: Physics Professor says US Govt.s 9/11/2001 WTC story "defies physics",
demands full inquiry.
BODY OF EMAIL:
Dear Physicists,
Below, you will find an article from the Deseret News of November, 10, 2005,
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html
of a respected physics professor at Brigham Young University in Utah who's
soon to be peer reviewed physics study proves that the World Trade Center's
could "NOT" have been brought down by jet fuel, and were most likely controlled
demolitions. He is demanding a full investigation. * Prior to this Kevin Ryan,
a department head from UL (Underwriter Laboratories), who'd viewed UL's
inspection reports of the WTC's said those reports concluded that burning jet fuel
could "NOT" have possibly brought down the World Trade Centers on September
11/2001.
Civil rights have been rolled back worldwide, and tens of thousands have been
killed in wars in the name of the 9/11/2001 attacks. It is time to look at
what really happened on that fateful day in the full light of day with eyes
wide open.
It is up to the world community of physicists to fully examine the facts of
the September 11th, 2001's attacks on the World Trade Center buildings of New
York and the unprecedented collapse of the first three steel enforced buildings
to be brought down by fire, all on the same day. If the official story
defies physics, then a host of other questions must then be answered.
PLEASE, don't look away from this challenge. The world needs your expertise.
THE ARTICLE:
BYU.
Physics Professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC By Elaine Jarvik - Deseret
Morning News
The physics of 9/11; including how fast and symmetrically one of the World
Trade Center buildings fell, prove that official explanations of the collapses
are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.
In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three
buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.
In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication
next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previousskeptics, including the
authors of the Web site http://www.wtc7.net,
whose researchJones quotes. Jones' article can be found at
HREF="http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html">
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News
"Itis quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC)
buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says.
Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling
for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by
politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations andcalculations.
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all
threebuildings and set off after the two plane crashes which were actually a diversion
tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blamefor bringing down the
WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.
As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said,
"I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that untilwe do the
scientific investigation."
Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and
NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics
and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the
47-story building known as WTC 7, he says. The official explanation that fires
caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse can't be backed
up by either testing or history, he says.
Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories
about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better
satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony andtherefore is not 'junk
science.' "
In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in the book "The
Hidden History of 9/11," by Elsevier, Jones offers these arguments:
The threebuildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their
footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" and even then
it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down
collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much
less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks.
"And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for
a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along
with otherdata, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."
Nosteel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed
due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.
WTC 7, which was not hit by hijackedplanes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6
of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit
the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of
momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as
upper-falling floors strike lower floors and intact steel support columns the fall
must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper
floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing
buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition
hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including
steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These
observations were notanalyzed byFEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.
With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of
shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to
flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we
understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing and
demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this
phenomenon."
Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the
side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used
to demolish buildings, he says.
Steelsupports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures
near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel and neither office materials nor
diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from
the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires
would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.
Molten metal found inthe debris of the World Trade Center may have been the
result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as
thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed
energy to result in melting of large quantitiesof metal," Jones says.
Multiple loud explosions in rapidsequence were reported by numerous observers
in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region
where the planesstruck, he says.
Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC collapse after
attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had had a near-death experience.
The woman mentioned in passing that "if you think the World Trade Center
buildings came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you,"
Jones remembers, atwhich point "everyone around me started applauding."
Following several months of study, he presented his findings at a talk at BYU
in September.
Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899 photographs and
6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny." He would also like to
analyze a small sample of the molten metal found atGround Zero.
E-mail: jarvik@desnews.com
arkani@physics.harvard.edu, hberg@biosun.harvard.edu,
nbloembergen@optics.arizona.edu, brandenburg@physics.harvard.edu, coleman@physics.harvard.edu,
demler@physics.harvard.edu, doyle@physics.harvard.edu, ehrenreich@deas.harvard.edu,
feldman@physics.harvard.edu, fisher@physics.harvard.edu,
franklin@physics.harvard.edu, gabrielse@physics.harvard.edu, galison@physics.harvard.edu,
georgi@physics.harvard.edu, glashow@physics.harvard.edu, glauber@physics.harvard.edu,
golovchenko@physics.harvard.edu, greiner@physics.harvard.edu,
halperin@physics.harvard.edu, hau@physics.harvard.edu, hayes@physics.harvard.edu,
heller@physics.harvard.edu, hoffman@physics.harvard.edu, holton@physics.harvard.edu,
horowitz@physics.harvard.edu, huth@physics.harvard.edu, jaffe@physics.harvard.edu,
kaxiras@physics.harvard.edu, kiruluta@physics.harvard.edu,
lukin@physics.harvard.edu, manoharan@physics.harvard.edu, marcus@physics.harvard.edu,
mazur@physics.harvard.edu, minahan@physics.harvard.edu, minwalla@physics.harvard.edu,
morii@physics.harvard.edu, morin@physics.harvard.edu, motl@physics.harvard.edu,
venky@physics.harvard.edu, nelson@physics.harvard.edu,
norcross@physics.harvard.edu, hpark@chemistry.harvard.edu, paul@deas.harvard.edu,
westervelt@physics.harvard.edu, wilson5@fas.harvard.edu, mzaldarriaga@cfa.harvard.edu,
zhuang@chemistry.harvard.edu, charles.ahn@yale.edu, yoram.alhassid@yale.edu,
thomas.appelquist@yale.edu, grigor.atoian@yale.edu, charles.bailyn@yale.edu,
baltay@hepmail.physics.yale.edu, Sean.Barrett@yale.edu, cornelius.beausang@yale.edu,
helen.caines@yale.edu, rick@riviera.physics.yale.edu, richard.chang@qm.yale,
alexei.chikanian@yale, paolo.coppi@yale.edu, david.demille@yale.edu,
michel.devoret@yale.edu, satish.dhawan@yale.edu, eric.dufresne@yale.edu,
richard.easther@yale.edu, bonnie.fleming@yale.edu, george.fleming@yale.edu, paul.fleury@yale.edu,
moshe.gai@yale.edu, colin.gay@yale.edu, steven.girvin@yale.edu,
walter.goldberger@yale.edu, grober@pantheon.yale.edu, jack.harris@yale.edu,
john.harris@yale.edu, andreas.heinz@yale.edu, vic.henrich@yale.edu, jay@mirage.physics.yale.edu,
francesco.iachello@yale.edu, stephen.irons@yale.edu, henry.kasha@yale.edu,
dimitri.kusnezov@yale.edu, richard.majka@yale.edu, daniel.mckinsey@yale.edu,
simon.mochrie@yale.edu, vincent.moncrief@yale.edu, priyamvada.natarajan@yale.edu,
homer.neal@yale.edu, corey.ohern@yale.edu, peter.parker@yale.edu,
daniel.prober@.yale.edu, nicholas.read@yale.edu, jack.sandweiss@yale.edu,
michael.schmidt@yale.edu, rob.schoelkopf@yale.edu, ramamurti.shankar@yale.edu,
witold.skiba@yale.edu, Stonedouglas.stone@yale.edu, andrew.szymkowiak@yale.edu,
tully@onsager.chem.yale.edu, thomas.ullrich@yale.edu, meg.urry@yale.edu,
volker.werner@yale.edu, john.wettlaufer@yale.edu, ugchair@physics.utoronto.ca,
bailey@physics.utoronto.ca, vbarzda@utm.utoronto.ca, chun@physics.utoronto.ca,
jim@atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca, dunlop@physics.utoronto.ca, edwards@core.physics.utoronto.ca,
bob.holdom@utoronto.ca, hori@physics.utoronto.ca, dfvj@physics.utoronto.ca,
john@physics.utoronto.ca, ybkim@physics.utoronto.ca, lee@physics.utoronto.ca,
smorris@physics.utoronto.ca, smorris@physics.utoronto.ca,
peltier@atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca, teuscher@physics.utoronto.ca, william@physics.utoronto.ca,
vandriel@physics.utoronto.ca, wei@physics.utoronto.ca, p.mcdonald@surrey.ac.uk,
e.williams@surrey.ac.uk, l.whyte@surrey.ac.uk, r.sear@surrey.ac.uk,
sue.jenner@surrey.ac.uk, j.speed@surrey.ac.uk, s.sweeney@surrey.ac.uk,
s.doran@surrey.ac.uk, Bob.Evans@bristol.ac.uk, James.Annett@bristol.ac.uk,
S.Popescu@bristol.ac.uk, S.Mart@bristol.ac.uk, andrew.archer@bristol.ac.uk,
Tony.Short@bristol.ac.uk, G.M.Batt@bristol.ac.uk, a.i.duff@bristol.ac.uk, Paul.Hopkins@bristol.ac.uk,
phgoig@bristol.ac.uk, Mike.Murrill@bristol.ac.uk, Emma.Podnieks@bristol.ac.uk,
alan.bray @manchester.ac.uk, brandes@theory.phy.umist.ac.uk,
m.godfrey@umist.ac.uk, Judith.McGovern@manchester.ac.uk, alan.mckane@manchester.ac.uk,
enquiries@damtp.cam.ac.uk, d.b.adolf@leeds.ac.uk, a.beige@imperial.ac.uk,
s.m.bradbury@leeds.ac.uk, phy6hkc@phys-irc.novell.leeds.ac.uk, r.cywinski@leeds.ac.uk,
g.r.davies@leeds.ac.uk, r.a.duckett@leeds.ac.uk, j.a.dunningham@leeds.ac.uk,
j.e.dyson@leeds.ac.uk, phyre@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk, s.d.evans@leeds.ac.uk,
d.greig@leeds.ac.uk, t.w.hartquist@leeds.ac.uk, j.r.henderson@leeds.ac.uk,
b.j.hickey@leeds.ac.uk, m.g.hoare@leeds.ac.uk, V.Kendon@leeds.ac.uk,
s.h.kilcoyne@leeds.ac.uk, j.knapp@leeds.ac.uk, i.d.lawrie@leeds.ac.uk, j.lloyd-evans@leeds.ac.uk,
t.c.b.mcleish@leeds.ac.uk, c.marrows@leeds.ac.uk, g.j.morgan@leeds.ac.uk,
p.d.olmsted@leeds.ac.uk, roud@ast.leeds.ac.uk, E.Paci@leeds.ac.uk,
MikeRies@email.com, h.j.rose@leeds.ac.uk, m.d.savage@leeds.ac.uk, d.a.m.smith@leeds.ac.uk,
v.vedral@leeds.ac.uk, a.m.voice@leeds.ac.uk, phy6tw@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk,
a.a.watson@leeds.ac.uk, i.m.ward@leeds.ac.uk, phypab@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk,
phyjcb@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk, phy5eb@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk, hb@ast.leeds.ac.uk,
alb@ast.leeds.ac.uk, phy1snb@leeds.ac.uk, phyec@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk,
phypd@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk, bd@ast.leeds.ac.uk, phyphild@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk,
phyamd@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk, physfe@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk, phyrjf@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk PCF,
phyrjh@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk, L.Heaney05@leeds.ac.uk QI, J.E.Hide05@leeds.ac.uk
QI, phyac@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk, phybsk@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk,
mm@ast.leeds.ac.uk, physm@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk, ana@ast.leeds.ac.uk,
phyhmo@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk, phyrm@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk, dn@ast.leeds.ac.uk, rp@ast.leeds.ac.uk,
phyap@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk, ip@ast.leeds.ac.uk, phypp@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk,
phyarf@phys-irc.leeds.ac.u, phymsp@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk, as@ast.leeds.ac.uk,
phy7ejw@bmb.leeds.ac.uk, phy8dkw@bmb.leeds.ac.uk, rw@ast.leeds.ac.uk,
phygmhw@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk, mark.williamson@quantuminfo.org, phyma@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk,
i.bond@leeds.ac.uk, m.j.bonner@leeds.ac.uk, phy6sb@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk,
d.m.a.buzza@leeds.ac.uk, h.e.clancy@leeds.ac.uk, physdc@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk,
phykc@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk, phyje@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk, phyae@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk,
phycg@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk, r.s.graham@leeds.ac.uk, phyxh@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk,
phyath@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk, phyjh@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk,
h.v.s.a.hubbard@leeds.ac.uk, p.j.hine@leeds.ac.uk, l.j.c.jeuken@leeds.ac.uk,
phybj@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk, e.l.v.lewis@leeds.ac.uk, phyedl@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk,
s.l.lumsden@leeds.ac.uk, physm@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk, phylm@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk,
phyin@phys-irc.leeds.ac.uk, d.peat@leeds.ac.uk, j.m.pittard@leeds.ac.uk,
physks@phy-irc.leeds.ac.uk, n.h.thomson@leeds.ac.uk, j.s.urquhart@leeds.ac.uk,
m.j.walker@leeds.ac.uk, s.d.w
- Alex Jones puts a Fed disinformer in his place —Alex Jones, Sat Nov 12 13:37
Main Page -
Saturday, 11/12/05
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
