There are 6 course comments:

At 02:20 on 10/09/07, DR115 Professor from 911 University added:
    Beware those 911TRUTHers who'll prove to you why you can't blame the incredibly energetic demise of the WTC skyscrapers on airplanes, but who also tell you that you can take the same lying government's word for what hit the buildings, and why.

    We know where who they are.

At 09:17 on 12/18/07, Raven Morris from BC, Canada added:
    Very interesting.

    It is unfortunate how hearing things in the media over and over tends to make most humans believe it.

    I haven't owned a television for more than a decade now, it's a far too insidious device.

At 21:44 on 09/02/10, Jim C. from SF, CA added:
    Not long after I'd studied this, all the recent self-induced media hub-bub regarding the proposed building of a mosque near GZ suddenly made perfect sense: to discuss or even consider that synthetic concern is to subliminally reinforce the core mass hateful enemy-creating lie of 9/11! What great disinformative propaganda it is to continually raise that fallacious issue...

At 18:44 on 12/03/10, Mossberg500 from Cedar Rapids, Iowa added:
    Thank you for this wonderful site. This was the first of only three "Nuclear Hypothesis" sites/blogs I ever have found.

At 00:31 on 09/26/11, Robin from Golden Valley, MN added:
    Thank You! I never could understand why the 10:03 vs 10:06 discrepancy for the time of the demise of "flight 93" was never cleared up. Finally, after all these years, I think I get it: the uncertain demise time was intended to lure honest skeptics of the legend of 9/11 into refering to the part about "flight 93" as if it was true, which, at a certain level, causes them to think that "flight 93" was what actually hit the ground in PA, even though the patent profound lack of evidence tells them otherwise.

At 01:54 on 09/26/11, DR115 Professor from 911 University added:
    You're quite welcome, Robin.

    That is a very astute observation, very well put, with one minor, but not trivial, exception:

    We can observe behaviors but not motives. So it is generally not easy to determine any possible intention underlying a discrepancy. We recommend being relatively slow to attribute to malice that which can be adequately attribted to ineptitude or dumb luck.

    It could very well have been intentional, but it's far easier to see how such discrepancies serve to bolster the enemy-creating upper layer "planes" and "hijackers" lies (IOW, the predicates) than why the discrepancy came into being in the first place.

6 comments displayed

Add a worthy comment of your own:

email address:
webpage name:
webpage URL:
(600 chrs)