Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why are AE911Truth & Wikipedia Censoring Information about Dr. Judy Wood?

page: 6
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:56 AM
link   
"If you want something talked about, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman."

The reason for the vociferous discrediting of Dr. Judy Wood is sadly far more simple and apparent than her being some complex disinfo plant, or your own comforting nutcase. How easy it is to dismiss her so disrespectfully. However, it is very plain that yet another "good ol' boys club" has egg on their faces, and Dr. Wood has the goods. She is so un-slick and unglamorous that these popular guys ranting their very comforting positions are running scared by her very threatening non-threat, which is based on truth-reality. No explosives, guys. No thermite. No molten high heat. No demolition. Dr. Wood knocks 'em all down, and the boys club fails to really take the time for reality: They'd rather win the pageant! But Dr. Wood knows truth is no popularity contest.

"WHERE did the Towers go?" It's just that simple. Thanks to Dr. Judy Wood! YUP, there is true beauty in simplicity, and Dr. Wood's objectivity is staggering--in her authenticity, integrity, and attractive reason. No outerspace rays or beams here, dears. (Why must you think directed energy is a ray, or a beam? Are you stumbling over the word "directed"?) Dr. Wood has never made such claims when she describes the possibility of energy fields & interference, gentlemen. There is a difference.

When you allow the evidence to speak to you, when you take the time to contemplate and really look for yourself, you can rediscover what you subconsciously asked yourself on that dreadful day but couldn't clearly articulate, until Dr. Wood came along: "Where did the Towers go? Shouldn't that pile be much bigger?"

It took a woman.

Cheers!
joeymooreyogi
Ex Boston-based United Airlines flight attendant,
who worked out of Logan one hour prior to Flt 175 on 9/11.




posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by joeymooreyogi
 


Ill be looking at all of this evidence tomorrow. It all seems possible. However, some phrases and words caught my eye.


"fantasy" implying that it shouldn't even be looked at
"no physical basis "

"People call her wacky" Trying to imply that -everyone- says this , so it must be true

"away with the fairies. "

"disinfo agent"

"nobody is interested or cares" Again, saying that -everyone- agrees that she is wrong. So -you- should too.

"spamming." completely misguiding the thread

"fake "Dr." Again, implying she is fake and should be ignored. Even though there is proof she is not.

"is she suffering from a mental disease" Implying that she should NOT be trusted in anything she says.

"She is a quack" See above

"There's no physical mechanism to do it" HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?

"no way to test for such ludicrous technology" Calling it 'ludicrous' implying its completely impossible. No way to test? It can be tested underground, like everything else is.

"made-up fairytale BS" See above

"Game over." Trying to end the topic and discussion

"Lab samples" You know VERY WELL that she cant get any at this point.

"fake space beam weapons" Using the word 'fake' even though there are many theories on this website about them.
"All this DEW garbage"
"DEW fantasy "
"debunked disinformation"
"government plant."
"fake engineering degree"
"This woman is a disgrace"
"the fool that she is. "
"trying to push disinfo"
"has since moved on" Trying to get people to 'move on' and forget about her.

This is pretty much what the media is doing to ANY 9/11 truther. These guys are doing it right here in this very thread. Calling her a crack job, etc.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by splint
 


LOL

I love your registered date 9-19-10.

So who is your 2nd account?




posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



This did not happen. Steel was not turned into dust, concrete was turned into relatively large chunks and some finer dust as would be expected. Paper was burned, aluminium was oxidised. There's never been any evidence of this other than Judy Wood posting pictures and claiming that this occured.


SOME finer dust? There was a whole, whole bunch of that finer dust. I do not know, but if somebody does, please point me to what the beam sections of just the outside skeleton were (not even the core) and how many were used in one tower and I can easily tell you how big a pile there should be, if one were to stack them as neatly as possible, let alone the haphazard pile that would exist from a controlled demolition, which would be larger. I concur with Dr. Woods as there certainly seems to be an absence of steel from the wreakage.

Again, the beam section (width, height) and how many were in the outer skeleton and we can begin to figure out if there is less debris than would be expected.


Erin's position was a coincidence, and it was not reported as there were more important things to report on.


Pure speculation on your part. Weather modification is a reality. Vail ski resort has been doing it in Colorado to increase snowfall for years. Do you think major governments of the world know less than a ski resort about weather modification? And, again, unprovable speculation on your part. Maybe you are right. But, you do not know with certainty if you are ...


I am not aware of the evidence for this, or even what it is supposed to be implying. Could you elaborate?


I speak only for myself, but I suspect his inference is HARRP.


There were giant planes flown into the towers? I think that may cause some minor electrical issues


Sure, in the WTC towers. Suppose your neighbor severs wiring and blows circuits in his/her house. Will you loose power too? No. All of that is protected at each building. Pretty hard for an electrical issue to backfeed into the system these days. Power distribution is pretty well protected and understood so that an end user cannot blow up other end users stuff.

What do you propose happened? How did an issue in the WTC create this? Doesn't matter if it was a plane or a knucklehead jamming a paperclip into an outlet - no doubt whatever utility runs power in NYC isolates stuff at each building to prevent such occurences. So the planes and fires and explosions severed electrical circuits caused shorts, overloads, etc. in WTC 1&2. How I ask you ...


This didn't happen, the finer dust was from lighter and less solid materials such as gypsum and various fire products.


I guess pooktzA, Dr. Woods, Jesse Ventura and I watched something else than. Lotta damn gypsum and fire products in those buildings, eh?


The vehicles were on fire, or close to a source of high heat. Many were towed away from the WTC as part of the recovery and rescue efforts. Many people were injured by debris, both on fire and not.


Can you point me to a video showing this flaming debris during the collapse? 'Cause every video I see shows only your gypsum and other fire produsts dust falling. No flames and nothing on fire to be seen in the collapses. What is the source of high heat you speak of? I ain't no fire expert, but I fail to see how curtains, carpet, office furniture and paper would continue to burn and NOT be extinguished by the fine dust and winds during collapse. How do you explain pictures of half burned cars? Do you have a link to the injury reports of people injured by flamming debris? Do you have an pictoral or video evidence to share?

According to you, it was chuncks of steel and large slabs of concrete. Those would kill you, not set you on fire. I think this would be the first case in history where somebody was set on fire by a falling piece of flamming paper. Watch out for a piece of paper - it ain't just paper cuts anymore, apparently one can recieve 3rd degree burns? Maybe a 10'X20' section of flamming carpet fell over them?


I am not aware of this happening, could you provide a citation?


How 'bout a pic?

www.drjudywood.com...

How do you discredit the fireman with Diane Swayer at the top of the page? Admittedly not upside down, but ... wierd. Upside down is a minor issue in my book. Is figure toast2a a depiction of what you call some fine dust? Why is there unburnt paper all around the burnt cars? The paper got there before the fires went out, yet I fail to see your flaming debris or heat source anywhere? Could you point them out to me?
edit on 18-9-2011 by CatJockey because: fixed [/quotey] stuff



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



They were involved in the largest building collapse in history and then exposed to significant fires.


It ain't the fact that they were bent, it is how there are bent. Not natural. No buckiling, stress cracks, etc.


What is so suspicious about this? If the front of a car is on fire, then it's not going to look the same as the back


Why only half? And so discretely? And why the sudden oxidation. Nothing but suspicion aroused in my book. Can you show us examples of the same thing happening in other car fires? Please share ...


Fires do not last for 7 years, and debris from fires does not need to be hosed down. However, hoses are used for cleaning and for settling dust caused by things such as pile driving which was very evident in the video I saw


What about reports of buried molten steel, workers boots melting, etc. Remember, only a small, small fraction of the steel in those buildings was exposed to fire. What dust? I thought there was only a small amount of dust amidst large chuncks of unflammable concrete? You told us some dust. And big chuncks of concrete and steel. Yet they needed to hose it down? YET WORKERS ON SCENE ARE NOW DYING FROM INHALING THAT DUST.


Citation again please, I have never seen any evidence of a perfectly circular hole in any glass near the WTC


We cannot do all of your research for you, only point you in the right direction. Forget the windows, how about the large circular holes in buildings? www.drjudywood.com... There are also thermal images on that page showing the heat left days later. Heat from an apparently isolated fire covering a very, very, very small portion of the building.


As far as I am aware, the bathtub suffered extensive damage, which is why it took so long to prepare the site for building the new tower


You and I have different views of the meaning of the word extensive. Those walls hold back the river. Extensive, to me, would accompany some flooding.


What sort of question is this? How could the survival of a specific store in the basement favour any sort of conspiracy theory?


Well, according to you, it was only some dust accompanied by 500,000 tons of flamming debris. Them looney tunes folks should have been crushed and burned according to your theory of events ...


Same answer as above


Me too...


Same as above once again, why are you surprised that not everything was entirely destroyed?


Because it was at the bottom. It should have suffered the most as it had, according to you, the most weight fall upon it at the greatest velocity.


Because Judy Wood is likely mentally ill.


Nice personal attack that does nothing to support your arguments ...


The call for a new investigation has been going on since before Judy Wood existed on the scene, as far back as before the NIST reports were even published


Ummm ... okay. Never acept new evidence and ideas huh? No thank you.

I don't know why people write her off. I find her ideas the most credible and her questions very valid. What is so difficult to conceive about a DEW? Technology is exponential, not linear. Check out the Red Baron's sweet plane. Than look at the SR71 Blacbird that came around 50 years later. Considering it is all 'classified', none of us have clue as to the advances of the military industrial complex are and a DEW is anything but inconcievable, and, like Dr. Woods and PooktzA, I think it the most logical explanation of events on 9/11 ...
edit on 18-9-2011 by CatJockey because: fixed [/b,/i] stuff



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   
To answer the OP's query, well my opinion is because she is heating the nail on the head. She's the only one who has seen through it all and is figuring a good portion of it out ...



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Jody Wood tries to account for the events of 911 with something known as the Hutchinson effect. An collection of effects that nobody has been able to recreate in a controlled enviroment and requiers outlandish devices to create, IF it exists.

Multiple Whitnesses heard explosions. There have been explosions recorded on video as well. The evidence does not support something that is maybe a real thing, but most likely not.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I watched that interview with Judy Wood from the link on the first page (34 min).

Here's my thoughts.

I understand that very intelligent people can have some unusual qurks in their personallities.
But she's far beyond that. I can't understand how she is able to instruct students. Some one from the staff needs to audit her class.

I strongly suggest that everyone watch that interview before they jump on her bandwagon.
The directed energy theory is a very small part of the interview. She just doesn't see what the rest of the world sees.

Her view point is that the entire building turned to dust and rose straight up into the sky.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Cassius666:

Jody Wood tries to account for the events of 911 with something known as the Hutchinson effect.


My impression is that is not entirely accurate. She uses Hutchison's claims plus the pics, the physical evidence of some of the weird stuff he claims to have done to metal. Which, I find weird too. Speaking of weird, Hutchison falls in this catagory, has apparently beenunable to reproduce his results on demand. Fraud some claim. Could be the case, but could also be the case that the effects he shows concerning metal deformation is real, but he doesn;t really know what he is doing to create it or fully understand it. An accidental scientist vs. a fraud. I would vote the former at this point as I don't know anyone who can produce the results of jellified, delaminated and bent metal. I don't know of a process he could use to produce these results in order to forward a scam. Do you?

The way to debunk Hutchison is not to demand he produce on the spot, as he may not know what exactly he is doing to cause it, but to produce the same effect, by known methods, on the metal that he has shown.

I have listened to several interviews with her and she is adament that she doesn't have theories, rather is showing evidence and compares to Hutchison's claimed result. Her only 'theory' is some type of directed energy weapon as she does not know of any conventional means to describe the evidence she relates. Nothing from kinetic energy, hence the DEW.


Multiple Whitnesses heard explosions. There have been explosions recorded on video as well. The evidence does not support something that is maybe a real thing, but most likely not.


There is that thread with the reformed truther video. For me, it was the opposite. I was an official story dude until very recently due to the conspiracy accept involved, namely too many people had to be in on it and conventional demolition requires a bit of prep.

WTC7 brought me around to the conspiracy side. Firstly, I think most here can agree that one needs not be a structural engineer to watch that collapse and understand it was NOT a fire that caused it. No way. That begs the next question for me: Why WTC7? It was completely unneccesary to achieve the results we see from 9/11, the obvious ones being a further dismantling of the Constitution and more War.

Completely unneccesary and the one building that I think would cause most people to cry foul and BS on the official story. Meaning if it was just WTC 1&2, the conspirators have a better chance of getting away with it. A much better chance. Yet, they did it to WTC7. Completely unneccesary to reshape society and achieve their goals and obviously not from fire. Are we to assume them that stupid?

WTC7 most resembles a conventional demolition with explosives. And they let us see it. Why? Perhaps they knew, even if it was only WTC1&2, questions would be raised. Opposition would arise. Control the thought process of the opposition from the get go. make them think conventional demolition, plant a few firecrackers to make some noise and enhance that thought process, etc.

The people that did this are neither stupid nor new to the game of mob psychology. Alot of people are looking for the boogeyman. They knew this would happen, so throw people off from the beginning, give them WTC7 and a few firecrackers here and there ...

I think that Dr. Wood points out way too many anomalies to be explained by conventional demolitions using explosives/thermite. There sure seems to be a whole bunch of dust and a whole bunch of weird stuff going on with steel cars and very, very localized fires in the buildings. To localized to do what was done to so many vehicles in my book. Vehicles on fire, surrounded by unburned paper, etc.

We all know what opinions are like, and that is mine.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   

I understand that very intelligent people can have some unusual qurks in their personallities.
But she's far beyond that. I can't understand how she is able to instruct students.


I'm picking up what she is laying down with no problems. I find her thought process lucid and coherent. Not much of an orator to be sure, but I don't know how you extrapolate such about her personality from viewing 34 minutes of her. Sounds more like a personal attack to me ...


Some one from the staff needs to audit her class.


I think she was denied tenure and fired because of what she is saying. Which, to me, doesn't mean all that much on the surface as I have been less than impressed with some profs I have been around who have received tenure...


She just doesn't see what the rest of the world sees.


Correction. The rest of the world minus Cat Jockey, PatzookA, Jesse Ventura and others.


Her view point is that the entire building turned to dust and rose straight up into the sky.


Kind of like this?:









posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


If she is a dis information agent, how do we explain the burned cars and lack of burned surroundings, and where did the buildings go? the siesmic activity from the impact and fall of the building is available.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Maybe because it was not possible to reproduce the hutchinson effect, which makes the existence of such a space based weapon, well, kinda speculative? Try and reproduce the weapon that Woods claims has been used on the WTC on earth, or at least some of its effect, then we can talk.




How do you explain pictures of half burned cars? Do you have a link to the injury reports of people injured by flamming debris? Do you have an pictoral or video evidence to share?


Thats a good question. Why did the cars burn and why just the cars? Why werent all the surrounding buildings and shops on fire. Or even the paper lying around. Look at the pictures of Dr. Woods. Look for the sequence where there is a parking lot a good distance away from the WTC. After the collapse a dust cloud passes over the parking lot. After its done, some of the cars are on fire. Whatever was in the WTC dust must have reacted with the metal of the cars. It seems that the classier makes which have some degree of protection were more resilent than the cheap metal coffins. I dont say it was so, but its the best shot I have on that one.
edit on 28-6-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by PookztA
Please discuss the evidence instead of attacking Dr. Wood.

Abraham, instead of referring people to thousands of pictures etc by Judy Wood, perhaps you could pick something specifically?

None of Judy Wood's theories hold any truth as far as I am concerned, so perhaps you could pick what you consider to be the very cream of the crop, the strongest evidence possible, and we can discuss that?


What a shock.


That's right Abraham. Thousands of pics are too overwhelming for these Nazi-defenders on autopilot. They can only concoct one tall tale for each picture at a time... any and every possible theory to explain that it is impossible for our wonderful government to have been guilty of any crime whatsoever.

We already know y9our position exponent..... nothing that contradicts the OS holds any truth, and that would be any and all evidence that is presented past present and future.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I find it very strange that the known ATS 'debunkers' here, that regularly spread their own disinfo, and who are not remotely interested in finding the real truth, will call here disinfo?!

Why would a so called 'debunker' care about her if she was disinfo? Surely disinfo is created to obscure the real truth, and if these 'debunkers' have been defending the OS for years, then surely disinfo is not something they would care about?

I personally think that Dr. Judy Wood has done extensive work to try and find the real truth! I've never seen such extensive work done by any of these so called 'debunkers'.

She goes to such great lengths with her research because she is dedicated to finding the real truth, she recognised that the OS is total BS, and so therefore cannot be disinfo! Debunkers call her disinfo because they are defending the OS, and want people to think she is not crdible, so that no one looks at her work, well I would recommend everyone look at her work, and ignore the 'opinions' of some so called amatuer 'debunkers' and make their own minds up without forced influence.

www.drjudywood.com...



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by PookztA


Hey everyone, here is an amazing article which discusses the '9/11 "Truth" Movement', and the reality of what happened on 9/11. This article relates to the topic of this thread, which is the censorship of Dr. Wood by AE911Truth and other 9/11 "Truth" organizations.This article helps shed light on the 'big picture', and why there is so much effort being put forth to prevent people from checking out the evidence Dr. Wood has gathered.

Warning: Thermite does not explain all the evidence, not even close, and this is addressed in the article.

Here it is: axisoflogic.com...

Here is a small piece of it, very well written:


These 9-11 Truth conversations were nothing if not predictable. Without exception, no organizer would ever (as in never) venture to share other, alternative, thermite-free theories. One time, a group leader became more than a bit distressed when I kept trying to chat about other plausible (i.e., non-thermite) ideas. I can still recall the pained expression on his face when he tried his best to be patient and diplomatically agree with one of my points: "Yes, all that talk about missiles at the World Trade Center is a really interesting theory, sure, and I tend to personally believe it might be true. But..." (and then he moved towards me, and whispered, as if about to share some top secret insider knowledge) "if we talk about these things, we will lose credibility and hurt The Movement. So let's just try at first to stick to safe things - things people will understand."

I wish I had a dollar for every Truth agent who admonished us not to “hurt the Movement”. This slippery agent out of Miami brought condescension to a whole new level of low by implying that preserving “the Movement” is more important than discovering exactly what went down.


Enjoy,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology


edit on 14-9-2010 by PookztA because: added snippet from the article



edit on 15-9-2010 by alien because: ...removed personal reference again...



Thanks for this link: axisoflogic.com...

Very interesting and bang on the money.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by theregonnakillme
911 truth is gaining strength,

Yes, it very much is. But this DEW fantasy is not part of nor supported by the 9/11 truth movement. These are not truthers that are peddling these theories. You can read more about that here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...




How do you know it is not supported? Are you the voice of the 'truth movement' or something?!

Judy Wood seems to be supported by many people seeking the REAL truth on many 9/11 forums, maybe you need to get away from ATS a bit more often and you will see how narrow-minded that reply was!

Also, Judy Wood is supported in this thread too, so your statement is completely wrong! There is no one voice of the 'truth movement' it is actually a ficticious movement created to create confusion amoungst those seeking the real truth, and people like you keep saying that Judy wood, or no planes theories etc are damaging the 'truth movement' but as I say, the genuine people researching 9/11 seeking the real truth are mainly independent, and there are no leaders of this ficticious movement making such false statements that certain theories are ruining their research!

You make out like you're seeking the truth, but your comments suggest otherwise BoneZ.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by thegoodearth
I'm sorry, but this picture clearly was taken after much cleanup effort had been underway.
Rubble pile being discussed means the pile immediately after the fall of the Towers.

So you're saying that the pile got bigger as they were taking debris away?


Most people don't even realize that there were 7 stories of basement levels under the towers where 7 stories of debris would be, on top of the stories of debris above ground.





7 stories in the basement would hold the basement's 7 stories of rubble!

You're trying to make out that the basement is holding 7 stories of rubble from above ground.

The basement was holding it's own rubble, and was NOT filled with rubble from above ground.

The rubble above ground was way too small, this is quite a simple thing to understand.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by PookztA
BoneZ,

Your repeated implications that Dr. Wood does not actually have a Ph.D by claiming she is a "fake Dr.", as you put it, are very telling as to what type of behavior you deem 'acceptable' in your 9/11 "Truth" Movement. Claiming someone is a "fake Dr." means that you are implying that her title of "Dr." is fake / non-existent / not real. Lying to ATS members when you could just explain the evidence...? Not very honest if you ask me!
Attempting to convince ATS members of rumors and falsehoods...? Doesn't sound like truth-seeking to me!
That type of behavior is acceptable in your 9/11 "Truth" Movement...? I want no part of such an unscientific movement!
You think that you can spread lies like that and people won't notice? Like you said, people are too smart to swallow disinformation, and I agree, which is why I have full faith that anyone reading the entirety of this thread will figure out your role in the 9/11 "Truth" Movement on their own.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
So if someone doesn't agree with you (or the fake Dr.), then they didn't look closely enough or they are corrupt?


Again, here is the proof of Dr. Wood's Ph.D (and title of Dr.), which you could have easily found for yourself if you were actually looking at evidence instead of spreading lies: www.registrar.clemson.edu...

I love how once again, rather than discussing the evidence on Dr. Wood's website and telling us all how explosives can miraculously account for all the photos, graphs, videos, and documents Dr. Wood has gathered, you are now trying to attack me by making it seem as if I am the one who is lying. Mind-blowing...


Thankfully, anyone who reviews the entirety of this thread will clearly see what kind of 'truth-seeking' you consider to be "acceptable" of anyone who who belongs to your 9/11 "Truth" Movement.

Instead of wasting any more of my study time defending myself and Dr. Wood against your lies and unscientific claims tonight, I will simply share this extremely well-written article which accurately discusses the reality of the 9/11 "Truth" Movement, and how it is most likely orchestrated from the top. This is why discussion of major pieces of evidence are deemed "unacceptable" by "truth"-seekers like yourself and AE911Truth, this is why discussion of major pieces of evidence are deemed "disinformation" by "truth"-seekers like yourself, and this is why discussion of major pieces of evidence are avoided, and replaced with lies and rumors, by "truth" seekers like yourself.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Why do you have to keep spamming the disinfo from this fake "Dr."?


Once again, I would like to remind you and anyone just joining this thread that you were caught deliberately lying to ATS members in this thread, pushing your lies as truth, when you shouldn't be lying at all, let alone pushing the 'controlled-demolition (explosives)' theory which does not explain all the evidence, while simultaneously failing to address the overwhelming amount of evidence found at Dr. Wood's website. This is not only unscientific and illogical, but it is deceptive, dishonest, and downright disgusting. In addition to your lying and avoiding the evidence, you have also been making inaccurate and false claims about myself and Dr. Wood, by accusing her and I of being "disinformation", by claiming that the evidence she has gathered is "disinformation", and by cherry-picking only the information you want people to see rather than encouraging them to view ALL the evidence and decide for themselves.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
And as you continually post the fake "Dr"'s disinformation, I'll continue to post the debunks


This article explains exactly why people like you behave in this way, ignoring some evidence, only to promote cherry-picked evidence (such as unscientific, out-dated, unexpected ambush interviews which focus on one black and white photo, instead of the thousands of data points that Dr. Wood has gathered), just so you can keep the 9/11 "Truth" Movement heading in the direction you want it to head.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Spamming this fake "Dr."'s disinformation over and over again isn't going to get people to believe her.


Ladies and gentlemen, it seems that we have a disinformant in this thread, which is someone who spreads disinformation and lies as if they are truth, while simultaneously failing to address the evidence. In this thread, BoneZ has shown me that he is not only uninterested in discussing the evidence which will help us figure out exactly what happened on 9/11, but he has also shown me that he is more interested in spreading lies and rumors, in an attempt to persuade people to follow his example and ignore the overwhelming amount of evidence that Dr. Wood has gathered. I can't say it surprises me, because the true terrorists who organized 9/11 were obviously not stupid, at least not stupid enough to forget that they would need to organize a well-orchestrated 9/11 "Truth" movement to catch, steer, and manipulate the outraged people who realized they had been lied to. BoneZ is not only avoiding evidence and spreading lies, but he is attempting to convince you to believe his lies, while simultaneously attempting to convince you to not look at the evidence Dr. Wood has gathered.


"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin

It is all too obvious, and the following article does a great job shedding light on the reality of the well-orchestrated 9/11 "Truth" Movement: axisoflogic.com...


My work here is done, so thanks for showing your true colors Mr. BoneZ


Peace,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

P.S. - In case anyone is is interested, you can read all the details and see actual screen shots of my Wikipedia censorship incident here: www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

and here is an additional comment from one of the moderators that I tried to discuss the censorship with on a more individual basis:


“I would give Judy Woods a rest, seriously. Your own credibility over the topic has put her and you on the radar of a number of people and even if you came up with really good references from the NYTimes or Bloomberg you wouldn't be able to create the article anyways - the name is has been blocked for a while. If you really want to pursue it then I'd suggest creating a private page of your own to develop it. Nobody would fiddle with it and you can craft it until its acceptable. I could help you there. But the comments of the others are still very valid.--Hooperbloob (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)”



edit on 15-9-2010 by PookztA because: typo




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by alien
Not-so-Polite Mod Request

Hi again People,

I posted a very clear request HERE in this thread to refrain from targetting eachother.


I also wish to also draw your attention to the big yellow flashing warning at the bottom of each page of this particular forum:




Personal attacks, debating eachother, referencing eachother for other Members etc and all that - stops now.

Cheers



Dear Alien, you posted this after Abe commented about Bonez' blatant disinfo, so I am assuming it was inrelation to what Abe wrote?

Does this website not have a motto that says 'Deny Ignorance'?! Do you think it is ok for members like Bonez to make up lies and spread disinfo without other members highlighting it? It is clear for anyone to see based on the evidence Abe put forward that Bonez is lying and clearly spreading disinfo, and this should not be tolerated by anyone, especially moderators.

Can we please have some more moderator interaction when blatant disinfo and lies are being spread. BoneZ stated Dr.Judy Wood was a fake Dr, and a link to her official education record was put up by Abe, so it was proven that Bonez was spreading lies, and this should be a banning offence imo.

What is the point of having a website like this, that has a motto of 'deny ignorance' if members are allowed to continually spread lies about people? Isn't ATS supposed to support finding out the real truth in subjects like this?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Wikipedia is a den of scientistic, pseudo-rationalistic, pro-Establishment trolls, who are completely devoid of integrity. That they might censor or downplay the opinion of someone they don't like, is not surprising at all. They whitewash articles about virtually anything non-mainstream, that is of any more importance than TV shows, on a routine basis.





new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join