7.08.2010

From Galactic Tides Blog: 911 Truth and Evidence

Read entire article HERE.

" As far as raising awareness, I am all for educating the public and asking questions of our public servants. The people, informed and united, can never be defeated. My problem with the groups mentioned is that they all have shown a tendency towards acting as active gatekeepers and drowning out others that disagree. Look, I understand you need to stay on target, on message, and not be derailed by the many, many questions and anomalies, but to belittle, ridicule and chastise those who disagree with them is more than a little suspicious to me."
----
Note: Please read this. If commenters would please give it a read and provide comments - we can all come closer to the truth. The more I research our current state of affairs - the more I discover how limited my own views are - reminding me how such a short time ago that which I thought I knew I did not. To quote Jim Marrs, from a speech he gave that I watched on "the tube" -
"Your mind is like a parachute - it works best when it is open."

So with open minds - let us all listen to each other and together plan our brighter future together.

4 comments:

  1. molecular disassociation is nonsense, as is directed energy weapon.
    the WTC were vaporized along with all of their contents including humans.

    wtcdemolition.blogspot.com

    wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. But isn't a microwave crowd control device a "directed energy weapon?"

    ...and isn't a sound cannon a "directed energy weapon?"

    What gives?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Please google Jonathan Barnett + Appendix C
    Prof. Barnett's work on the steel debris from WTC Building Seven proves that sulfur was placed in the building and contributed to the fire damage. Any chemistry professor can explain why drywall (calcium sulfate) was NOT the source of that sulfur. Briefly, sulfate is sulfur that has reacted completely with oxygen. A fuel or office fire cannot turn sulfate into sulfur. In fact, sulfur burns in air.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So the conclusion is that thermate was indeed used - is that what you are saying?

    I found the Jones et al dust study convincing. I thought it was thorough. I don't disagree with the conclusions.

    I think these other folks are asking about all the fried cars and parking meters that would not be explained by the thermate/thermite.

    ReplyDelete

Only by exercising YOUR freedom of speech shall you keep it. Comment now - I can handle it....