9/11 Gatekeeping

[mason-free party]

Recognized Rules For Gatekeepers


Rule 1 - Avoid mentioning the piece of evidence, or possibility, which you are trying to keep from ever entering people's minds. Few people will notice what's missing from a presentation, especially if they are unaware of its existence. It also helps if the gatekeeping presentation is oversized and thus engenders info-overload.

Examples:

The entire 9-11 Commission Report! With one notable exception -- a mention of the rapidity of the fall of one tower -- every smoking-gun piece of evidence which disproves or even contradicts the government's conspiracy theory of 9/11 was omitted from the Commission's final report. (1 2) The Commissioners' 571-page report is the mind-numbingly tiresome official account of the disproven, impossible, discredited government conspiracy theory of 9/11, descibing many dots (real and otherwise), but omitting the information necessary to recognize the actual shape of the true big picture.
Further, then came a 149-page "omission report" put out by 911citizenswatch.org (2003-2007; founded by gatekeepers Kyle Hence and John Judge) which claims to tell people what was omitted from the 571-page report, yet it merely adds another layer of bloated (time-sucking) distractive diversionary gatekeeping by going on for so many (more) pages while never getting around to the most serious, glaring, smoking-gun omissions from the government's bogus report.


Jim Hoffman runs some truthy 9/11 web sites, including 911review.com, which oppose certain aspects of the Official Government Conspiracy Theory of 9/11. Note how Hoffman parrots the government regarding what hit the twin towers, and why, on 9/11. And then, at the bottom of the page, he presents a sequence of several frames from the only known video of the 1st WTC impact but omits the most remarkable one -- the one which makes it practically impossible to believe that the aircraft in the video is really AA Flight 11. screen shot
connect the dots...


Rule 2 - If the possibility or evidence you are trying to suppress has already been mentioned, come up with a false predicate upon which you can base sound logic to discount the possibility, to try to get people to disregard it. If people like and respect you enough, largely based upon your credentials or reputation or what "side" you're perceived to be on, they'll probably be taken in by it.

Examples:


First, Webster Tarpley and Dr. Steven Jones (who must surely know better) agree on the lie (1 2 3) that a fission device (eg, a uranium-based atomic A-bomb) is required to trigger a fusion device (eg, a hydrogen-based nuclear H-bomb). Then, based upon that false predicate, Tarpley tells his audience that since there was no evidence of a fission device having been employed at Ground Zero, everyone can 'therefore' rule out the possibility of any kind of fusion devices having been employed at Ground Zero: gatekeeping by Webster Tarpley and Steven Jones (audio)

In this example, 911truth.org's Barrie Zwicker repeats his underlying lie 5 times (repetition is a key to successful propaganda). He is trying to get people to disregard the well-documented-but-uninvestigated incriminating 9/11 witness statements made by President Bush, and here is how he does it: First he falsely claims that Bush referred to a "regular" or "ordinary" TV, and then he says that "since he [Bush] cannot have seen it on regular TV as he claims..." gatekeeping by Barrie Zwicker (audio) (note: this disinfo is so blatant that it probably only works because so many people have a strong visceral reaction to Bush -- which Barrie Zwicker also helps rouse -- and strong feelings get in the way of logical thinking)
So feelings, as well as people, can act as gatekeepers. These include respect, trust, grief, anger, hate, and fear.


Rule 3 - Take advantage of people's emotions to provide cover for acts of classic, simple "Nothing to see here, Citizen. Move along." -type gatekeeping.

Examples:


In the first of these 2 audio examples, Bush-despising radio talk show host Mike Malloy has Bush-family-sin-uncoverer and guy-who-tells-us-how-false-flag-operations-work Webster Tarpley on his show. These opinion leaders would rather have others trust their stated beliefs than help save the Constitution by keeping an open mind and honestly considering the evidence and calling for a real investigation into Bush's statements. Note how they call Bush names and ridicule him and blithely rule out a likely possibility (again) instead of logically addressing the circumstances. But what gatekeepers do is not about honesty or logic; it is the job of gatekeepers to rule things out, without examination or analysis: gatekeeping by Mike Malloy and Webster Tarpley (audio) (Malloy again )

Here is a crude web page example, in which Mike Rivero of whatreallyhappened.com simply slathers LIE LIE LIE (in the title bar, location field pagename, and article headline) at the top of the screen. To be fair, there is a "well maybe Bush wasn't lying" disclaimer paragraph buried near the bottom of the article, but what percentage of people will read that? And since Rivero says it is possible that Bush was not lying, then why the LIE LIE LIE treatment "above the fold"? Such slanted, disingenuous treatment of Bush's statements will have 2 forseeable effects: People who like Bush will devalue and disregard the article because they will conclude that its author "just hates Bush", while people who dislike Bush will place less importance on Bush's statements because they will disbelieve and disregard them as "Nothing to see here, Citizen. Just Bush lying again." It is illogical, if the point of the article is to get people to take Bush's statements seriously, to so blithely mislabel them as lies like that.

Rule 4 - Distract people's thinking with diversions. War is the ultimate diversion; the 2003 invasion of Iraq was and is a distraction from 9/11. But not all diversions change the topic; the more that people can be made to feel comfortable in thinking that a relatively conventional chemical compound can account for what became of the World Trade Center, the less they will feel the need to look for a suitable, more rational (ie, possible) explanation for the highly unconventional Ground Zero evidence. When the diversion (ie, thermite) is less-extreme and a less-but-still-incriminating explanation than what actually occurred, that fits the definition of a "limited hangout". Getting people to engage in false arguments related to the limited-hangout (IOW, barking up the wrong tree) will keep them from ever asking the right questions, much less obtaining the right answers.


Rule 5 - Muddle people's thinking with bogus terminology. The use of the word "pulverization" to describe the cause of so much ultra-fine 'dust', containing so many nanoparticles, at Ground Zero is misleading. For one thing, it falsely makes people think that a conventional grinding or crushing mechanism can account for the tremendous, highly unconventional WTC 'dust' production, when in fact there is no known "pulverization" mechanism which can adequately explain that evidence. By assigning a label with which people are already familiar and comfortable, people will tend to think of an occurrence in terms of that label, and will be far less likely to ever wonder about what unknown and less conventional processes might better account for what occurred, because they think they already understand something which they really do not. Another such word is "collapse", as this word infers that the WTC buildings passively failed under strain, when, clearly, they did not passively fail but were actively failed. Getting people to think of things in false terms will keep them from ever asking the right questions, much less obtaining the right answers.

Note:


Ironically, another example of bogus terminology is "left gatekeeper", which was designed to keep people who learn about gatekeeping trapped in the fake, false, phony left-right paradigm. Logical thinkers are encouraged to not use -- or even think -- that phrase, and should probably be wary of those who try to encourage others to use/think it. Logically, once a term or phrase (or paradigm) has been recognized as false, it probably should rejected and discarded -- it's too hard to not think false thoughts when one is thinking in false terms.
Note 2:


Possibly even more ironically, another example of the use of terminology in advanced gatekeeping is the unexpected and thus unappreciated use of correct terminology! This is higher-risk, but, if successful, very powerful psychologically. It also pre-empts its effective use by those who oppose the lie being kept. The best example of this is Ground Zero in New York City. The phrase "Ground Zero" is properly used to refer to sites of nuclear detonations, but if it can be successfully applied (kind of like hiding something in plain view) to an occurrence for which a false, conventional explanation has been repeatedly and successfully propagandized, then the term will have had its logical meaning and emotional impact already depleted in this context, thus making it harder, not easier, for truth-tellers to get people to consider and recognize the non-conventional reality of what happened there -- because the meaning of the correct term for it has already been blunted and twisted to vaguely mean something else.

Rule 6 - Time factor. Most lies fall apart eventually. Take, for example, the "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor. Even today, many Americans remain unaware that the U.S. knew in advance that such an attack was coming. Further, even if everyone were aware of it now, it's too late for the knowledge to make any difference or do much good. So knowledge is power, but only for a limited time. Releasing the truth too slowly for the resulting knowledge to make any difference is also a form of gatekeeping. Time can be used (wasted) on both macro and micro scales.

Examples:


Upon the release of its report in 1964, all files of the Warren Commission were sealed from public view for 75 years (until 2039).

Set up roadblocks and detours: anything which slows down the widespread uncovering of the lies being kept is good. Create and disseminate large phony intelligence operations intended to keep people thinking bad thoughts about the fall guy or fake enemy who's been falsely incriminated by the lies and trial-by-media which followed. "Able Danger" is a perfect example of this; even its name (like that of the patsy upon which it focused, Attack) was carefully chosen for mass consumption and maximum fear-mongering effect. Put out labels and limited hangouts and red herrings about thermite, and video fakery or "no planes", and ray beams for people to stop and take sides and agrue over; remember: every theory which is advanced not only reinforces the disparaged "conspiracy theorist" label on everyone who's merely seen through the government's impossible conspiracy theory, but it also serves to divert precious skepticism away from the government's impossible conspiracy theory.

Make sure gatekeeping presentations are long but simple (preferably scholarly-sounding without demanding any heavy thinking, a kind of Mr. Rogers, PhD thing), and take up as much of the audience's time as possible; every minute they're being subjected to a fake-opposition limited-hangout shadow-boxing of the lie, referring to its fictitious elements (ie planes, hijackers) as if they were real, is another minute that there is no chance they'll be receiving information elsewhere which could help them to thik their way out of those paper bags and see through the lies being kept hidden/alive.

Rule 7 - Advanced Gatekeeping: use humor to defuse the truth. If people can be made to laugh about horrible truths -- Jay Leno's nightly monologue is notorious for this -- the entertainment value of the humor can overwhelm the natural, normal, desirable human outrage at such horrors. Here is an example of the National Broadcasting Corporation (part of General Electric corporation, part of the military-industrial[-media] complex) referring to prior knowledge of 9/11 in a national, but not prime-time, TV broadcast in such a manner that people either do not notice the reference (ie, it is slipped into their subconscious) or do not take it seriously enough for them to become angry about it. Such gradual seepage into the collective consciousness prevents the occurrence of enough people ever becoming outraged at the same time, and thus defuses the potential for any mass uprising of discontent. If knowledge of a horrible crime is slipped into the public consciousness too gently and gradually to lead to any popular demand for significant changes to the corrupt establishment, the corrupt establishment is not threatened by even widespread knowledge of its egregious criminality.

[marky 54]

impresive, do you have a link to that or was that just of the top of your head?

i think you forgot rule 8.

RULE 8
asking questions or providing an opinon that dos'nt argee with NPT/beams and anything certain groups claim. these people are easy to find they usually disagree and point out what they think and why they think it.
the usual way to deal with these people is by not replying and starting a new thread.

[gruts]