There are 6 course comments:

At 01:10 on 10/03/06, DR Professor from 911 University added: One other characteristic of gatekeepers is the way they operate most effectively in mutually-supportive flocks, even though they may appear to be opposing or competing with one another. Lies are powerful, but, over time, they are no match for information and logic. Fake opposition fools most of the people most of the time, but it can't fool all of the people all of the time.

At 09:55 on 03/24/07, notepad from 72.181.161.** added: The Google video link in Rule #7 above is dead.

At 03:35 on 07/15/07, steve collier from 81.76.71.** added: Hi,please can you comment on the supposedly molten metal at the base of the towers.Having read some of Dr.Judy Wood's material i believe the molten metal we saw was TV fakery and hence the pulverisation of the buildings could well have been done by some Directed energy weapon which produce far less heat. www.drjudywood.com Regards,Steve Collier

At 14:39 on 07/17/07, DR Professor from 911 University added: Sure, just head on over to the Physics Department Home Page and scroll down to the hypotheses comparison chart, then mouse-over "Metal Molten Weeks Later", and then mouse-over "Lingering Molten Metal", and check out the various links of multiple witnesses/testimony/videos of ("like a foundry") molten metal. Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. Greg Jenkins, Dr. Ken Jenkins, Dr. Steven Jones are all distractive divisive diversive disinformative gatekeepers who shroud the WTC issue (the incredibly huge, unimaginably intense energy releases, resulting in [good evidence of] much molecular dissociation -- not just "pulverisation" -- at ""Ground Zero"") in misleading arguments (including whether some metal for weeks remained molten or merely red- or yellow-hot, as if that difference really matters).

At 17:41 on 09/06/07, Jason from CA added: Your comparison chart is to the Stephen Jones thermite/thermate argument. Judy's page seems to disagree with that, and has much material related to other technologies which could produce these particles. Can you comment on that? I really like this site, by the way, and appreciate the time and effort you've put in to expose the truth and use of hypotheses which take all evidence into account rather than only some.

At 14:48 on 09/07/07, DR Professor from 911 University added: Steven Jones is knowingly perpetrating a limited-hangout fraud, grossly downplaying what occurred, as well as gatekeeping (falsely ruling out) the possibility of nuclear fusion without fission to trigger it. We are therefore happy to help expand the discussion beyond his woefully inadequate hypothesis, and expose his faulty reasoning, both of which are distinct. But Judy Wood is extreme in an opposite direction, and we are loath to try to limit the boundaries of what gets discussed. So we prefer to leave it to others to decide if she's really helping people hone in on some truth, or a credentialed unusual scientist of limited discipline, or a real live disinformer who serves as a Hegelian counterpart to Jones by acting wacky and spouting far-out possibilities, perhaps including a good one, expecting most people to throw the baby out with the bathwater knowing that A)they can't all be right, B)she seems weird, and C)Jones doesn't. 911U physics professors cringe to hear her so confusingly and misleadingly misuse the term "molecular dissociation" in inconsistent fuzzy ways, so it looks like she is trying to shroud a fairly simple concept in unnecessary complexity and confusion to impede understanding. But some things are too far-out to disprove, so we can't say with certainty that there's nothing good among her guesses at possible types of exotic weaponry. We do note, however, that for such a strong believer in the (mis)use of directed energy weapons at Ground Zero based upon rather sketchy evidence (what some of us consider to be unsupported leaps of logic), she never tries to attribute to any such device the incredibly brief and bright burst of light which immediately preceded the 1st WTC aerial impact. Is she both seeing things that are hidden and not seeing things that aren't? Honest scientists tend to behave logically and consistently, but those who employ obfuscation and misdirection to keep people off-balance, and truths hidden, do not. She also publishes and even adds to Sweeney's 25 Rules Of Disinformation as if she knows all about such things, but then links to easily-recognizable 911 disinfo sites as if she doesn't.

6 comments displayed

Add a worthy comment of your own:

Name:
email address:
city/state/etc:
webpage name:
webpage URL:
Comment: (600 chrs)