There are 13 course comments:
|At 01:10 on 10/03/06, DR Professor from 911 University added:|
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:|
|At 03:35 on 07/15/07, steve collier from 81.76.71.** added:|
|At 14:39 on 07/17/07, DR Professor from 911 University added:|
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:|
|At 14:48 on 09/07/07, DR Professor from 911 University added:|
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.
|At 16:45 on 12/19/11, homosaps from homosaps.net added:|
|At 11:55 on 06/03/12, DR Professor from 911 University added:|
What Ron Paul (and the other 534) share with gatekeepers is that they tell selected truths (always remember: the best disinfo is rife with truth[s]), and thus lie by omission -- the kind Orwell warned Us about. (What the 535 share with fascists is that they all seem to want Our government to be subordinate to big corporations!)
WRH (gatekeeper Mike Rivero -- see rule 3 example 2, above, in main course article) has also published lies of commission regarding GW Bush's repeated public voluntary loose-lips-sink-ships 9/11 treason confession statements. The 535 cowardly/corrupt treason slave bitches in Congress primarily just ignore Bush's well-documented treason confession statements -- they lie by omission, and leave the rest to others...
So it matters not if a gatekeeping (truth-concealing) presentation is one-sided or multi-faceted -- consider the many, sometimes competing, lies half-truths and limited hangouts of the bogus, so-called, self-proclaimed "911 'truth'" apparatus! What really matters are the truths that are kept from We The People (by 'both'/all sides/sources)...
|At 01:40 on 09/16/12, Brooke from Aurora, CO added:|
Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States says that "Congress shall have the Power To ... coin Money, regulate the Value thereof". Yet self-proclaimed Constitution-hugger Ron Paul acts like he is being radical when he repeatedly calls for the AUDITING of the privately-owned and -managed Federal Reserve, while he -- especially when in the national spotlight on the stage of nationally televised candidates debates -- should have been relentlessly vigorously denouncing the Fed as unconstitutional, and instisting that We The People take back what is rightfully ours.
|At 21:48 on 09/26/12, DR Professor from 911 University added:|
We see where Ron Paul has publicly denounced the Federal Reserve as being "dishonest, immoral, and unconstitutional", and called for its abolition -- no wonder he has such passionate devoted supporters. Yet, in his role as a public official, he has a long history of publicly calling for the Fed to be audited, and for there to be greater transparency -- as if the privately-owned Fed has the Constitutional right to exist, and it ought to just be better supervised -- which gives the exact opposite impression to most people.
Similarly, the false champions of "911truth", when they call for yet another investigation of 9/11 by yet another institution within the corrupt establishment, act as if 9/11 remains something of an enigma, and that the monstrous lies of 9/11 are not a sacred cow to all of the corrupt powers that be. (Note that many false champions of "911truth" also confuse and mislead folks by falsely proclaiming that they do know what 9/11 was -- thus suggesting that none of the lies of 9/11 are bigger than 9/11 itself -- by declaring that there is a kind of consensus -- theirs, or course! -- regarding what are and what are not acceptable evidence and conslusions among all disbelievers of the renegade government's official hijacker-blaming conspiracy theory of 9/11.)
It's easy for a flock of gatekeepers to divert people's attention in a number of distractive ways, but sometimes an intellectually dishonest individual opinion leader will keep on saying something that is perceived vastly differently by different audiences, too. (Do they actually believe that they can fool all of the sheeple, and get them to just "take sides", all of the time, forever?)
|At 06:33 on 12/26/13, Nigel from Manchester added:|
|At 19:16 on 04/02/14, DR Professor from 911 University added:|
If it was only the mainstream media that was throttling the public disclosures, couldn't and wouldn't Snowden publish bigger revelations sooner all by himself? (For that matter, shouldn't the same question be wondered regarding WikiLeaks?)
|At 05:31 on 08/15/15, Cliff W. from Savannah, GA added:|
Hey, at 2:45 of the youtube video at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/episode/pbs-newshour-full-episode-august-14-2015/ (regarding that 21-ton TNT-equivalent chemical explosion in China), the reporter points out how some almost-unscathed cars were only yards away from melted ones.
Such distributions are not uncommon when intense energy is involved; tornadoes leave people remarking how regions of utter devastation are right alongside things left almost unscathed.
I wonder - LOL - if far-out gatekeeper Judy Wood believes that the remarkable damages in Tianjin are the result of some kind of mysterious directed energy weapon.
13 comments displayed
Add a worthy comment of your own: