Know Your Memes: NPC

10/21/201865 Comments

So surely you’ve heard that 2001: A Space Odyssey‘s evil A.I. super-computer HAL is a thinly veiled reference to IBM, right? You know, change each letter in “HAL” to the next one in the alphabet?

Well, what do you get when you change each letter in the word “MOB” to the next one in the alphabet. That’s right: NPC.

And with that, I should be able to drop the metaphorical microphone and call it a day. But since few in the crowd will know what “NPC” means, and fewer still will see the deeper significance of this latest internet meme, I suppose I have to roll up my sleeves and get to work. So class, pull up a chair and tuck in your shirt, because we’re about to get philosophical. . . .

So what is this “NPC” meme that’s sweeping the web? Why is it enraging people and starting a new wave of social media censorship? And what does it tell us about dehumanization, description, and programmed political discourse? Join James for this week’s very philosophical edition of The Corbett Report Subscriber to find out more. For full access to the subscriber newsletter, and to support this website, please become a member.

For free access to this editorial, please CLICK HERE.

Only site members can access this content.

Already a Member?

Not a Member Yet?

Filed in: Newsletter

Comments (65)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. zyxzevn says:

    Black pigeon made a video with a similar content:

    Why the NPC Meme Crashed Twitter Black Pigeon Speaks
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/pEpUUU0e-Q0/

  2. HomeRemedySupply says:

    That last line was cute. I laughed.

    ‘NPC’…never heard of it until now.

    I don’t follow the mainstream news much, but I can tell that midterm elections are coming because the roadsides are full of election signs.
    The right vs left is so foreign to me…looking from the outside, the election-panic-game seems silly in a boring kind of way.

    It is funny about those road signs. Cities will fine anyone who sticks a business or message sign on the roadside, but politicians are immune to such laws.

  3. CRM114 says:

    “In life,” he said, “there are no essentially major or minor characters. To that extent, all fiction and biography, and most historiography, are a lie. Everyone is necessarily the hero of his own life story. Hamlet could be told from Polonius’s point of view and called The Tragedy of Polonius, Lord Chamberlain of Denmark. He didn’t think he was a minor character in anything, I daresay. Or suppose you’re an usher in a wedding. From the groom’s viewpoint he’s the major character; the others play supporting parts, even the bride. From your viewpoint, though, the wedding is a minor episode in the very interesting history of your life, and the bridge and groom both are minor figures. What you’ve done is choose to play the part of a minor character: it can be pleasant for you to pretend to be less important you know you are, as Odysseus does when he disguises as a swineherd. And every member of the congregation at the wedding sees himself as the major character, condescending to witness the spectacle. So in this sense fiction isn’t a lie at all, but a true representation of the distortion that everyone makes of life.
    “Now, not only are we the heroes of our own life stories–we’re the ones who conceive the story, and give other people the essences of minor characters. But since no man’s life story as a rule is ever one story with a coherent plot, we’re always reconceiving just the sort of hero we are, and consequently just the sort of minor roles that other people are supposed to play. This is generally true. If any man displays almost the same character day in and day out, all day long, it’s either because he has no imagination, like an actor who can play only one role, or because he has an imagination so comprehensive that he sees each particular situation of his life as an episode in some grand over-all plot, and can so distort the situations that the same type of hero can deal with them all. But this is most unusual.
    “This kind of role-assigning is myth-making, and when it’s done consciously or unconsciously for the purpose of aggrandizing or protecting your ego–and it’s probably done for this purpose all the time–it becomes Mythotherapy. Here’s the point: an immobility such as you experienced that time in Penn Station is possible only to a person who for some reason or other has ceased to participate in Mythotherapy. At that time on the bench you were neither a major nor a minor character: you were no character at all. It’s because this has happened once that it’s necessary for me to explain to you something that comes quite naturally to everyone else. It’s like teaching a paralytic how to walk again.”
    “Now many crises in people’s lives occur because the hero role that they’ve assumed for one situation or set of situations no longer applies to some new situation that comes up, or–the same thing in effect–because they haven’t the imagination to distort the new situation to fit their old role. This happens to parents, for instance, when their children grow older, and to lovers when one of them begins to dislike the other. If the new situation is too overpowering to ignore, and they can’t find a mask to meet it with, they may become schizophrenic–a last-resort mask–or simply shattered. All questions of integrity involve this consideration, because a man’s integrity consists in being faithful to the script he’s written for himself.
    “I’ve said you’re too unstable to play any one part all the time–you’re also too unimaginative–so for you these crises had better be met by changing scripts as often as necessary. This should come naturally to you; the important thing for you is to realize what you’re doing so you won’t get caught without a script, or with the wrong script in a given situation. You did quite well, for example, for a beginner, to walk in here so confidently and almost arrogantly a while ago, and assign me the role of a quack. But you must be able to change masks at once if by some means or other I’m able to make the one you walked in with untenable. Perhaps–I’m just suggesting an offhand possibility–you could change to thinking of me as The Sagacious Old Mentor, a kind of Machiavellian Nestor, say, and yourself as The Ingenuous But Promising Young Protégé, a young Alexander, who someday will put all these teachings into practice and far outshine the master. Do you get the idea? Or–this is repugnant, but it could be used as a last resort–The Silently Indignant Young Man, who tolerates the ravings of a Senile Crank but who will leave this house unsullied by them. I call this repugnant because if you ever used it you’d cut yourself off from much that you haven’t learned yet.
    “It’s extremely important that you learn to assume these masks wholeheartedly. Don’t think there’s anything behind them: ego means I, and I means ego, and the ego by definition is a mask. Where there’s no ego–this is you on the bench–there’s no I. If you sometimes have the feeling that your mask is insincere–impossible word!–it’s only because one of your masks is incompatible with another. You mustn’t put on two at a time. There’s a source of conflict, and conflict between masks, like absence of masks, is a source of immobility. The more sharply you can dramatize your situation, and define your own role and everybody else’s role, the safer you’ll be. It doesn’t matter in Mythotherapy for paralytics whether your role is major or minor, as long as it’s clearly conceived, but in the nature of things it’ll normally be major. Now say something.”
    John Barth The End of the Road

    • manbearpig says:

      Extremely valuable comment.
      Thank you very much.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      CRM114,
      500 word comment or less

      I just want to mention, for you and perhaps anyone else, that Corbett prefers to limit a comment to 500 words.

      A good way to post something like the above, is to break it up by “Reply”ing to the first part. Thus, one might have one or two or three replies to the first part.

      Corbett’s Comments on Comments
      – 500 words length comment –
      Subscriber Exclusive #079 VIDEO
      https://www.corbettreport.com/square-one-us-negotiating-peace-with-taliban/

    • mik says:

      CRM114,

      I agree with “In life, there are no essentially major or minor characters”.

      Overall I can’t see anything else but shrink-ology.
      Like acting is “the most important” attribute of humans. Really?

      I’m sure it is hard for many people to find their way in the wilderness of life. Some take shrinks or self-help books to shrink Reality for them.

      It is also manufacturing of well adjusted individuals for preservation of current socioeconomic order.

    • herrqlys says:

      The concept of major and minor characters was nicely drawn.

      This I could relate to:
      “…a man’s integrity consists in being faithful to the script he’s written for himself.”

      I was also nodding my head at:
      “…ego means I, and I means ego, and the ego by definition is a mask.”

      And on myth-making:
      “…it’s done consciously or unconsciously for the purpose of aggrandizing or protecting your ego…”

      But there’s another one of his lines (not in your post) that l also like:
      “…path’s should be laid where people walk, instead of walking where paths are laid…” ― John Barth, The End of the Road

      • CRM114 says:

        I will keep the long post comment selfreply thing in mind next time, apologies. Forgot about that line it’s another beaut.

    • manbearpig says:

      This morning as I was running out the door the line that jumped out at me (certainly a prime candidate for “Mythotherapy”, ahem…) was:

      “… If you sometimes have the feeling that your mask is insincere–impossible word!–it’s only because one of your masks is incompatible with another. You mustn’t put on two at a time. There’s a source of conflict, and conflict between masks, like absence of masks, is a source of immobility…”

      My eyes fell intuitively on that sentence, and tonight, having taken another slightly less quick glance

      it still rings as being the most pertinent…for me…

    • johan.b says:

      Beautiful!

  4. manbearpig says:

    Best laugh I’ve had in a while! Reminds of a tidbit I wanted to post in reponse to ddude on some comments page around here:

    most predictable meme arguments/outcomes:

    if://
    input: Climate change debate = danger

    enter:// climate change skeptic

    outcome:// 99.9% = Trump = skeptic = idiot

    output:// silence achieved.

    P.S.: As I enjoy belabouring the obvious, I’ll agree that yes, we are all the NPCs in someone’s virtual game and

    we’re definately the NPCs in the game of the various PTSB…

    P.P.S.: and I’d warn against the irresistable tendency to compare ourselves and others to digital creations. Extrapolation and assimilation can be exponential and the conséquences… devastatating…

    Now I’m late for vacation!!!

    • scpat says:

      MBP,

      Are we really NPCs in this world, the world where the PTSB are using their money, influence, and control to create their own reality? Or are we player characters like they are, trying to create our own better reality? The latter is the way I see things. If we know what games they are up to and what their intentions are, we are player characters, and not NPCs who mindlessly go along with the agenda they have in mind.

      • manbearpig says:

        Indeed. I mispoke myself. I do not see myself as an NPC (forbidden by my ego as the provocative post by CRM114 points out).

        On the contrary.

        What I meant to say is that some view you and me as NPCs in their NWO game.

        It’s obviously all a question of perspective…

        It’s dangerous to see ourselves and each other as NPCs in anyone’s game as I mentioned as it opens the door to cooperating with and normalizing the virtual matrix we’re also all being herded into.

  5. Octium says:

    I have never really liked the label “Normie”

    It kind of implies to me that being ignorant is normal. Perhaps in the statistical sense it is accurate, but humans are supposed to be intelligent creatures.

    It is not normal to be ignorant, even for people with just average intelligence. That is an abnormal state for humans.

    Perhaps it is OK if your are a termite.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Personally, I like the descriptive “normie”, because it doesn’t carry a denigrative tone in the current social arena. Also, it’s meaning by context is easy to grasp.

      Words often have many definitions.
      “By” – https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/by

    • mik says:

      I find Normie as an excellent label. A person that goes along present normality without “unnecessary questions”. And normality varied throughout the history considerably.

      Labeling is also ok. It is pattern recognition, regular brain function. You just has to be aware that with labeling there is always an error present.

      I don’t think normies are ignorant or unintelligent. Some just genuinely are not interested in certain things in life. The most important characteristic of normies is conformity.

      Certainly I don’t see normies as a problem. Nowadays normality is a problem.

      • scpat says:

        I agree, “normie” is a good label when used descriptively and not as a pejorative during a debate with someone. When I see people bashing others as normies, I think back to when I could accurately be described as a normie. Very good and intelligent people are normies as a result of constant psychological programming starting from an early age. I have empathy for those people because I was one. And they can still be “awakened” in time. I just know that slandering them for being a normie won’t help them understand their normie realty.

  6. calibrator says:

    This article is the expected “better than average article by James” about this artificial “NPC scandal” – something created by censoring to keep the online crowd happily occupied again.

    However, as a longtime gamer I have the opinion that a slight but crucial correction has to be made:

    NPCs are “computer-***controlled*** characters”.
    It just doesn’t suffice to call them “computer-generated characters”.

    Is there really a difference? Yes – let me explain:

    In a computer game all characters are computer-generated – when they are displayed on screen. This includes both the player character(s) and the NPCs.

    But of course this is only the visualization. The data that gets visualized has to come from somewhere – and here we have to differentiate between two major methods that are *both* being used for NPCs:

    a) The computer generates the characteristics(!) like sex, skin color, performance values (like “strength”, “intelligence” etc.) on the fly while the game is running. Depending on the game the accessories (like armour, weapons etc.) are also assigned on the fly. We have a fully computer-generated (=made) NPC in this case.

    b) The program designer includes a database of pre-defined characters into the game. These include the aforementioned characteristics, what they can say, where they are positioned etc. and the NPC is then displayed as the designer “invented” it. The computer then only changes its status (health, for example) according to events in the game – but the NPC is pre-defined.

    Now, when we compare these two methods with real life we will see that the situation isn’t as hopeless as it is made out to be as it’s (still…) method 2 that applies to human beings.
    In other words: People are not being “made” by the entity that controls them.

    Yes, some people are more indoctrinated than others – and most of them will never recognize the fact that they are.

    But these people are like planes on auto-pilot: There still is a human pilot who is sleeping behind the controls, who only needs to be woken up to look out of the cockpit and grab the controls again (to stay in the picture).

    In my opinion most people on this board – including myself – were NPCs until exactly just that happened. In my case 9/11 was the final ringtone, even though I always had doubts about certain things.

    Even worse: We can all become NPCs again – if we fall for easy explanations that may seduce us because they either sound so compelling or agree to our prejudices.

    Therefore: Stay alert!

  7. candlelight says:

    James, thank you for sharing this social media meme playing out between people whom most, presumably, are 30 to 40 or more years younger than me. I’ll go about this cool Sunday trimming hedges, drinking coffee, playing with my dogs, etc., albeit, with a slight, but perceptible further loss of faith in the future of humanity…. Thanks, much.

    I don’t believe, though, this meme represents a hall of mirrors, i.e., one social mob reflecting the other. Even though I understand your general point, I believe in this instance, there needs to be a differentiation between these reflections, which aren’t really reflections at all. There is the original instigation referencing the NPC meme, along with those who have piled on to this rubbish as it’s caught on fire – I would call this side the active side. And then there is the other side, the re-active side, composed of recipients of this trash. I don’t see it as a reflection of a reflection, even though the reaction looks like a reflection of the very meme they’re reacting to. However this is, there is a difference.

    What galls me is the psychopathy of the original poster whose ability to refer to human beings as “flesh piles” seems completely second nature and is accomplished as easily as someone describing a blue sky, blue. It thoroughly and utterly disgusts me. It’s nauseating.

    One thing seems evident from the nature of the banter from the likes of the Anonymous poster, and some of the other engaged posters: Those born in the digital age, and have enveloped and immersed themselves full in it, have not developed any further, emotionally, than the programs to which they have been wired to.

    Brain chip developers have their work cut out for them, as they are competing with digital programmers who induce their digital reality into the receptive mind wirelessly, without any micro gadget implants.

    Good grief.

  8. mkey says:

    Adam Kokesh: Anarcho-Stalinist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op0kcVQpwT8

    I had no idea this was going on for weeks now. Apparently, Adam Kokesh who planned a bid for POTUS and apparently changed the targeting solution for senator and who already had some juicy altercations with Larken Rose on Anarchapulco if I remember correctly, has made plans to “attack” Graham Smith and possibly Larken Rose. Suffice to say, there’s a rabbit hole.

  9. mkey says:

    HAL also stands for “hardware abstraction layer” which is basically software which makes all hardware look the same to higher software layers. That’s what HAL reminded me of, anyway, because HAL was an interface hiding the underlying hardware and software.

  10. FlyingAxblade says:

    1) they, both sides, will use this meme to hide the Boss Monster in Crowds.
    2) perhaps instead of “normies”, get their Ire Up and call them “dupies”. I wouldn’t antagonize a person that way, but I might antagonize a congregation. I might nudge a Pastor in the ribs & call him, to his face, a “dupie” & then ask for counseling on how I too can return to being a duped person.
    3) I am a “Dungeon Master” for D&D and in tabletop, NPC’s are controlled by the DM, yes, often just saying the same thing like a computer game to keep the story rolling, but otherwise, most DM’s in the past have tried to make each one a person. In our current case, I’d say that Soros’ Team is the left’s DM. God forbid that an A.I. becomes a leader of people pushing cyborgs!

  11. marvinsannes says:

    Woah! Too deep for me. However, I did find myself not identifying with the “automatons” on the train: I don’t ride trains, consequently so much “better” than those urban ants, out here in the countryside we “think”. hahahaha

  12. mtflaxman says:

    This idea has a parallel found in Greek plays. There were the actors, and the “chorus” (up to 50 of them). The latter played no part in the action, but commented on it.

    And, solipsism, a philosophical idea, maintains that it’s not possible to determine whether anyone, apart from the observer, exists.

    Also, Plato spoke of “the one and the many”.

  13. geof.h says:

    I would say people don’t so much “follow” the path of least resistance as they actively seek it. Students, for instance, are typically not so much interested in learning as they are in getting good grades, so go to Ratemyprofessor.com and find the prof who gives the best grades.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      When I got my degree in the Environmental Sciences (2005-2008), I really noticed this.
      Actually, it was alarming…here I am sitting next to Pre-Med folks, and the Professor starts asking “Think for yourself with understanding” type questions. He gets blank stares. Folks could only regurgitate text.
      I look around the room thinking “Oh gosh1 Future Doctors and Dentists…who here would I want in 10 years?”

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      – Climate Change at the Universities –
      geof,
      A trend I notice when you go to a University’s website and start looking at recent papers and programs, there is a big emphasis on Climate Change. The push wasn’t this strong a decade ago.

      • geof.h says:

        Yeah, I’m calling it The Suckering of the Liberal Establishment. Get them buy into bad science and then hoist them by their own petards. Also, drive wedges like “Black Lives Matter” and sit back and watch their self-satisfied smirks get shunned by the people they should be forging coalitions with. With whom coalitions could have been forged?

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          At Texas A&M circa 2006-2008, the Ag Professors would ask me what I thought about manmade Global Warming. (Back then, that is what it was called)

          (I always carried DVDs about 9/11 and had 9/11 Truth signs on my backpack & “Ask for Free DVDs”).
          So, they knew that I was already out of the mainstream hype.

          Anyway, I would tell ’em about the Global Warming Hoax. And tell them loud enough so other classmates could hear.

          They wanted to hear it.
          These are old Agriculture guys…you know cows, chickens and growing crops and sweatin’ in the hot sun. They had seen many seasons.
          They couldn’t buy into it either, but you could tell that the Administration was pushing the Climate Change agenda.

          • geof.h says:

            It occurs to me that, to the extent that the global warming is a psyop (some anthro warming, especially regional, is legit), it’s a learned helplessness thing. Suppose all these NPR listeners are totally convinced about it (and they are!) Suppose that it’s all true and the world really *is going to boil over really soon!*, what is this poor NPR car prisoner supposed to do about it? Stop driving their car? But that’s just suicide: you’d lose your job, couldn’t go shopping, etc. So it’s suicide either way!

  14. laugh says:

    I just can’t believe any human beings are NPC’s. We all have free will, we might be indoctrinated, but there’s always someone behind the mask.

  15. Leslie says:

    Once again Corbett tries to disparage the work of Dr Judy Wood by mentioning “space beams”, even though Dr Wood has never mentioned where the weapon was used from as she has no evidence for that, she only points out the evidence of the effects of the weapon, and the lack of evidence for the official story and the controlled demolition conspiracy theory, which is very clear if you read her book which Corbett obviously has not done, if he has then that is even more concerning as surely he would challenge the evidence she provides rather than just trying to make fun of it, ignoring the evidence she provides rather than addressing it and refering to “space beams” is very similar to what the corporate media do when they promote the White Helmet terrorists, ignore all the evidence provided by people like Vanessa Beeley and try to make fun of her and her evidence instead, by calling her an Assadist or Russian bot etc. why ignore evidence? and yes folks, it is evidence, no assumptions, no speculation, no theories, only evidence, which is very clearly seen if you read her book, most of the work Corbett does is excellent but when it comes to 9/11 he is very misinformed and is therefore misinforming others.

    This is my own article, i’m not asking or expecting anyone to share it or anything, i mainly put it together for my family and friends, but please do take a look, it contains a small example of the evidence provided by Dr Wood but also shows Dr Steven E Jones and Richard Gage, two of the main promoters of the controlled demolition/thermite disinformation to be completely untrustworthy – https://steemit.com/life/@lbourhill/controlled-disinformation-and-thermite-sniffers

      • Leslie says:

        Please point out where in Dr Wood’s book she is wrong, be specific please, also if you wouldn’t mind answering these questions, that would be great.

        what type of bombs turn things to dust in front of our eyes without any explosions taking place, anything hitting the steel columns or even any significant seismic activity taking place? – http://www.drjudywood.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Slide51.jpg

        Why does Richard Gage, who is an architecht in San Francico, ignore the seismic data? (not very clever considering – https://www.earthquakesafety.com/earthquake-history.html

        Why is there no P wave or S wave recorded in the seismic data? please explain.

        Why did Dr Steven E Jones sabotage the work done by Pons and Fleischman into cold fusion in 1989, and why does Jones who knows about cold fusion ignore the fact that the tritium levels found at the 9/11 site is very similar to those found in cold fusion experiments(Low Energy Nuclear Reactions)?

        Why is Dr Wood the only person who has tried to hold the government to account for their lies regarding 9/11? – Court Case (Qui Tam) – http://www.drjudywood.com/wp/court-case-qui-tam/

        Here are some very important questions from Dr Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez in this article,more important questions are contained within – http://pookzta.blogspot.com/2010/12/911-challenge-explain-evidence.html

        Why were there statistically significant magnetosphere readings in Alaska at the very same time of the 9/11 attacks? Why were the 6 University of Alaska magnetometer stations detecting normal readings for days before 9/11, when there was suddenly a huge electromagnetic disturbance in the Earth’s magnetosphere precisely as the attacks occurred? What could have caused this?

        Why was Hurricane Erin travelling straight for NYC from September 7th-11th 2001, yet it was not reported on by local media broadcasts in that area in the days leading up to 9/11? When local news channels displayed schematic maps of the northeast coastline, why was Hurricane Erin not shown? Hurricane Erin was slightly larger than Hurricane Katrina, and hurricanes rarely head straight for NYC, so why wasn’t it reported on and/or shown by local media outlets? Hurricane Erin reached its closest point to NYC on the morning of September 11th. After the 9/11 attacks, Erin made a sudden ~150° turn away from its straight-line path and headed back out to sea.

        Why were numerous first responders’ Scott packs (oxygen tanks) spontaneously exploding around ground zero?

        How come 1,400+ vehicles located several blocks away (some up to ¼ a mile away) from ground zero experienced metal warping and electricity-like burns and holes during the attacks? If you think the building debris caused these things, then how come that same debris did not burn the clothing or skin of the nearby pedestrians it covered?

        How come countless vehicles located several blocks away from ground zero were flipped upside down or on their side, next to trees which still had all of their leaves on them?

        Why were no toilets recovered from the small WTC rubble pile? Thousands of toilets, yet not a single one was found in the rubble?

        Why was only one file cabinet found in the small WTC rubble pile? Thousands of metal file cabinets, yet only one was found? The metal from the cabinet showed severe warping and distortion, similar to that seen in The Hutchison Effect, so how did this happen? Furthermore, how were their non-burnt pieces of paper found fused to the metal remnants of the single file cabinet?

        How did countless plastic photo IDs survive the WTC attacks? Toilets and metal file cabinets do not survive, but countless plastic ID cards survived?

        How come spontaneous rusting of materials occurred all around ground zero? In some instances, entire front-halves of cars were rusted, while the back-halves appeared to be virtually untouched?

        How come various debris at ground zero was still observed to be fuming and being hosed down well into 2008, as video evidence clearly shows? Do fires last for 7+ years? Do debris from fires need to be hosed down 7 years later?

        How was the ‘bathtub’, the area directly beneath the Twin Towers, left virtually unharmed? How could thousands of tons of falling building debris not damage the ‘bathtub’ beneath the WTC buildings?

        How come Dr. Wood has already filed evidence-based legal cases against suspected 9/11-involved defense and weapons companies based on their conflict-of-interest relationship with N.I.S.T., yet other 9/11 “truth” researchers have not? How come Dr. Steven Jones has not officially filed his scientific ‘peer-reviewed’ nano-thermite evidence with Congress or the U.S. Courts?

        Why are groups like AE911Truth and PilotsFor911Truth just now (at the time) claiming to be “pursuing a new 9/11 investigation” when Dr. Judy Wood has already filed many legal cases to pursue such an investigation, one which was successfully appealed to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2009?

        Why did Dr. Jones ban Dr. Wood from his ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’ group long ago, just because they had different conclusions about what destroyed the towers? Shouldn’t Dr. Jones and his ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’ group be supporting the 9/11 investigation that Dr. Judy Wood has already demanded with her legal cases, even if he does not agree with her conclusions?

        Instead of just leaving links to disinformation could you please address the evidence and point out where Dr Wood is wrong, and please do so without making childish remarks like “space beams” just like the corporate media do with the term “conspiracy theorist”, thanks.

        • manbearpig says:

          Mr Corbett is otherwise occupied with highly pertinent subjects that he can master and clarify.

          If by chance you’re a nuclear physicist specializing in the science of exotic weapons

          you might start you own website answering your own questions and preoccupations.

          • Leslie says:

            Just ignoring the questions posed so you can have a little attack at me eh? Shows what kind of person you are.

            I am aware that Corbett is a busy man but ignoring the forensic evidence provided by Dr Wood is alarming. Discouraging people from even looking at the evidence provided by Dr Wood by making childish comments about “space beams” rather than telling people to look into it and judge for themselves is also very strange.

            Any other little snide remarks you would like to make?

            • manbearpig says:

              If you were peremptorily ordering Mr Corbett to answer questions on his own website about his own work

              That would be one thing

              But peremptorily ordering Mr Corbett to answer questions on his own website about someone else’s work

              Is misplaced at best…

              • Leslie says:

                Still ignoring the important questions, will you be getting around to answering or attempting to answer them at all? or just keep tyring to distract from them?

              • manbearpig says:

                If you have questions about basic English grammar or about life in France I might be able to answer.

                However anything pertaining to the alleged use of exotic weapons, space-beamed or otherwise, guess you’ll have to address your questions to those who’ve written books on the subject.

                I’m more interested in other angles on 9/11 as well as other topics explored on this website, which is why I come here.

                When and if I become interested in exotic weapons I’ll visit Ms Wood’s site.

            • mkey says:

              mbp certainly didn’t attack you by any objective measure, Leslie, you should tone it down a notch and reply to others in kind. It’s obvious one would need to invest a copious amount of time to investigate these issues. Probably a whole separate website worthy.

              Corbett seldom comments on “what really brought the towers down” issue, in fact he has explained why he does that on numerous occasions. It’s basically something along the lines of “there’s enough people doing that” which in fact there is.

              Now, as far as these possibly denigrating comments on the “space beams” go, there may be something to that, I’d have to invest a considerable amount of time to investigate all of his references to Wood’s work as “space beams” to be able to judge this issue with any relevance. Time I don’t have which will therefore probably not be invested in said issue.

              • Leslie says:

                Attack may be too strong, snide remarks meant to rile up and distract is more accurate.

                “It’s obvious one would need to invest a copious amount of time to investigate these issues. Probably a whole separate website worthy.”

                Yes, and Dr Wood has done just that, and also produced an incredible book full of evidence and facts, no theories, speculation, assumptions, guesses etc, facts and evidence.

                “Corbett seldom comments on “what really brought the towers down” issue, in fact he has explained why he does that on numerous occasions. It’s basically something along the lines of “there’s enough people doing that” which in fact there is.”

                No there is not, most people are focused on the controlled demolition/thermite disinformation which does not equate to “enough people doing that”

                “I’d have to invest a considerable amount of time”

                Which is why i provided a link to my article, which is not very long but holds enough information in it that should have people questioning the controlled demo/thermite nonsense, but to get a full understanding of what happened that day you would need to read Dr Wood’s book.

                Here is a link to my article again – https://steemit.com/life/@lbourhill/controlled-disinformation-and-thermite-sniffers

              • mkey says:

                You’re completely off the target once again. There was nothing snide, disparaging or even remotely (by the millennial standard even) offensive in mbp’s comment.

                To quote mbp

                “Mr Corbett is otherwise occupied with highly pertinent subjects that he can master and clarify.”

                The literal truth. Corbett invests HIS time into those events which HE considers explainable and worthwhile. He himself stated this on several occasions, I’d gladly link you to such statements if I knew where to point you by heart.

                “If by chance you’re a nuclear physicist specializing in the science of exotic weapons

                you might start you own website answering your own questions and preoccupations.”

                Nothing disparaging, snide or worth of riling up or aiming to distract in this sentence in the least. As I stated the obvious already, this is a VERY complicated subject and one would need to follow the rabbit hole very deeply. Your willingness to impose on other people’s time is staggering, to say the least. All you can do is put the information out there, which you did. And now you’re going way, way off the mark.

                To quote Leslie

                “no theories, speculation, assumptions, guesses etc, facts and evidence.”

                I’m almost tempted to read the book just to see the factual evidence about these energy weapons. Alas, my interests lay elsewhere, but I’m certain many others won’t be of such disposition.

                “No there is not,”

                According to you, many would not agree. Including me.

                “most people are focused on the controlled demolition”

                Yes, I’m sure these people and their promoters are 100% certain their theories are the real truth as well.

                “Which is why i provided a link to my article”

                So, the information provided in your article is 100% truth and reflects what happened on that day to a tee? I see.

                Once again, I’ll have to restate the obvious fact about how I don’t have the time to pursue this matter into more depth than I already have. Knowing exactly HOW the buildings were destroyed does not align well with my interests. I have made a conscious decision to accept that the official storyline is a lye (based on evidence to the contrary) but that knowing how exactly it happened is not in the best interest of my time and not the way I wish to go forward in my life.

                However, I assure you that no theories about the building demolition won’t be promoted by myself since I personally don’t consider them to be important for the bottom line. It’s a great big puzzle to which my life will not be dedicated. I will not take part in any disinformation campaigns.

              • mkey says:

                In closing, I also wish to refer back to your initial accusation levied at Corbett.

                The statement from the article reads

                There are those who are apt to label anyone who doesn’t agree with them about precisely how many shape-shifting lizards dance on the head of a pin or what brand of space beam was used to melt the Twin Towers a “sheep” or “human cattle” or, at the very least, a “shill.”

                No mention of Judy Wood in this sentence. Everyone is free to assume whatever they want. A quick search of the website for “space beam” leaves one mention of therm (not attributed to Judy Wood directly) and that’s exactly this article.

                Later I’ll try to find time to watch the first QFC and see if any denigrating remarks on Wood’s work have been levied from there.

              • manbearpig says:

                Just got home and looked at the QFC 001 at the 33-minute mark (as obligingly specified by HRS) and no. Mr Corbett states with neither sarcasm nor sneering, at all, whatsoever, that Judy Wood’s work is simply not scientifically compelling nor credible and he is thus not a proponent.

                Ironically however, he expresses in the next sentence doubt concerning Niels Harrit’s thermite work.

                Which just goes to show that Mr Corbett is respectful and wary, humble and open-minded but honest and clear in his assessments and judges the material and not the person as subsequent (and recent) work citing Niels Harrit’s evidence concerning 9/11 can attest to.

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          Say Leslie,
          Attention
          I have no problem with you voicing your take on things.

          However, You need to read the “500 word Comment” entry which is towards the top.
          https://www.corbettreport.com/know-your-memes-npc/comment-page-1/#comment-56192

          • Leslie says:

            It is not “my take”, it is verifiable forensic evidence, any chance you could stop ignoring the important questions regarding such evidence?

            • HomeRemedySupply says:

              Whatever…
              Just try to keep the “500 word count”, and please try to be friendly and civil.

              For me personally, I am ‘done’ on investigation into Judy Wood. It’s a dead horse for me…you can kick it all you want.

    • zyxzevn says:

      I am following the UFO and advanced technology quite closely.
      But the “evidence” that Judy shows is not even close to what I have seen in the UFO field. Yes, we do find evidence in the UFO world, but it is much weirder than we are used to. That is because the UFO phenomenon is most likely multidimensional. But we see nothing of that in the demolition of the towers.

      I personally think that there is enough evidence for a controlled demolition. And there have been many opportunities for different agencies to plant demolition materials. There is also a lot of other evidence that shows that crimes were planned and taking place. The military is clearly involved too, as they were “simulating” these exact events.

      Even if you think Judy Wood is completely correct, the theory is too far fetched for anyone else to take seriously. The same is for mini-nukes. The weirdest one is that a UFO crashed into the towers. For most people it would be like claiming that the “hand of god” did all this. And promoting these kinds of theories will certainly strengthen the support for the official story.

      On the other hand, Judy sparked my curiosity in the 911 case. That is because I thought that the scientists would be tricked by the unknown technology. So it did start the rabbithole for me. And so I found out about the real demolition evidence behind it. Which is huge.

      Now I know that even good scientists do not understand basic physics of the Sun, because they are trained not to look into it. The same is for 911 and such.

      In short: the micro-thermite is a solid case, which can stand in a fair court.

      For example, 911truth on reddit has been quarantined, probably because many people stated that Israel’s intelligence is involved.
      So even while this is likely true, this causes other people
      to think that 911truth is about racism.

      Do you want to know my weird theory behind 911?

      It is that the people behind it know how to use mind control.
      Probably learned from the “former” nazis from Germany.
      Due to the traumatic experiences, people just could think straight
      anymore. So they accepted all media nonsense.
      That is why it takes years to see through the lies of 911,
      even when the free fall of the towers is so clearly visible.

      You see the same in some modern propaganda.
      Russia is now promoted as the bad guy in everything, while I still
      have to see real evidence of any hacking or poisoning.
      The case does not stand in court, yet they are promoted in every
      newspaper. Probably to incite a new cold war.

      This is what mass insanity looks like.

      • Leslie says:

        If you could answer the questions i posted above that would be great, thanks. Once comment is approved.

        • zyxzevn says:

          Why is there no P wave or S wave recorded in the seismic data?
          There is recording of bombs going off. Just before the collapse.
          The collapse gives just a small bump in the seismic data. I think that this was actually recorded. This depends on the building.

          There are explosions taking place, as you can see material being expelled from the towers with high speed. Because the explosives are SUB-sonic, the explosions are not so loud as fireworks. It is like sub-sonic ammunition that is used in sniper-rifles.

          The CIA certainly used too much micro thermite, because they destroyed far too much of the structure. The thermite was also burning under water for a while.
          Only a chemical with an oxidizer can do this. Any energy-beams or radio-beams would have stopped burning under water.

          Why did Dr Steven E Jones sabotage the work done by Pons and Fleischman into cold fusion…
          This has nothing to do with 911.
          And if you look at the best results of cold fusion, it shows some extra heat in the experiments. No-where near the energy and power that is needed for destruction.
          Let me make it clear:
          Cold-fusion= extra heat in a bottle
          911 = complete destruction of 3 towers.
          But somehow Judy thinks those 2 are the same thing?

          tatistically significant magnetosphere reading
          Irrelevant.
          They happen all the time during solar activity.
          See Suspicious observer’s website.
          Solar activity also drives hurricanes.
          Alaska / HAARP may be used to modify weather, but making it able
          to perform cold fusion on a very long distance far over the horizon is not really possible.

          The tritium, which is also used by the mini-nuke people, is a
          common commercial product used in emergency signs.
          You can make a glowing ring with it.
          See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ublt-4GkVoA
          So this video shows that the stuff is commonly available,
          and that it can indeed be used for things like signs.
          You don’t need a lead cover to protect yourself from its radiation too.

          Why was Hurricane Erin traveling ..
          This is totally unrelated with the destruction of the towers, even
          if the CIA has been manipulating the weather.

          The fact that Judy even mentions this, shows that she is not focused on the physics of the towers. But rather she adds all kinds of unrelated data.
          This is often the tale-sign of someone who is not mentally stable,
          and it puts other investigators in a bad light.
          Maybe there were UFO sightings in Mexico. Does that matter? No!
          Would you think I was crazy when I said that a UFO did 911, because there was a UFO in Mexico? YES!

          You can see the same mentally unstable things in many news
          reports on CNN and other mainstream.
          Just see how crazy some news reports are on Trump and Russia.

          Back to 911: the statement that Binladen was involved is also nonsense. It was wild speculation then, and it was clearly a planted message. That people even believe this shit how unstable most people are.

          With all the distractions, it is hard to be focused on the actual subject, without trying to add all kinds of unrelated things. Judy gives all kinds of distractions, but does not make a case. She never says: “The towers were brought down with energy-beams from HAARP, that incited cold-fusion in the towers.” She implies something like this, with all her data. But she never tells anything. So she does not make sense, because she does not even make a clear statement.

          Toilets and file-cabinet: The explosives and thermite were mostly around the elevators. That is usually where the toilets are too.
          The paper-stuff is probably positioned spread around the floors.
          Some where targets as the CIA wanted destroy all evidence of
          the trillions. And of illegal trading.

          Do fires last for 7+ years?
          https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1634-ground-zeros-fires-still-burning/
          It says 12 weeks.
          This is possible with oxidizers, which are common in micro-thermite. The measured “temperature” is unrelated to the actual
          temperature, because the cameras only look at a small part of the
          spectrum. It can not see the actual temperature. An active chemical reaction can be interpreted as any temperature.
          It appears that so many oxidizers have been used that much of the very corrosive material affected the surroundings for a long time.

          Nuclear reactions can be detected easily. Those related to cold-fusion needed electric energy to stay active! So we can already conclude that this is not the case here.

          How come spontaneous rusting of materials occurred..?
          That is clear evidence of corrosion. Not of nuclear decay.

          How was the ‘bathtub’.. unharmed?
          This depends clearly on how the explosives and thermite were spread. This is not evidence for low-energy-nuclear-reactions (LENR), but against it.

          How come Dr. Wood has already filed evidence-based legal cases
          against [certain companies]…
          How did she choose these companies?
          Are they really involved?
          If she is not targeting the company that produces micro-thermite, she targets the wrong company.
          If she is not targeting the building “security” or the the elevator
          “maintenance” or the israeli-art group, than she is on the wrong path.

          Architects and Engineers are fighting against the mentally challenged scientists that claim that no demolition took place. This keeps them busy. And they want to win a case, not a diversion.
          The pilots are hindered by the secrecy around 911, especially with the wargames that too place.

          > .. even if he does not agree with her conclusions?

          If something is completely wrong, would it makes sense to support it?

          Like: If I claimed it were UFOs that brought down the towers and no planes. Would you support it? Of course not!

          The “evidence” that Judy supplies is very lacking.
          She jumps from one spot to another, with just the common theme:
          “something weird happened at 9/11”
          None of it can be used in any court.
          Nor is it scientifically solid.

          To make it science, one needs to REPRODUCE that
          what happened. And show UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE that the
          same thing was used at the WTC.

          So all you need to do is to build your own energy-beam,
          create a scale model and beam it down.
          Then you need to show that this same machine has been
          used at 9/11.
          It is not simple, but this has already been done for
          thermite / micro-thermite.
          https://www.youtube.com/user/physicsandreason
          Deals with all aspects of this.

          Since Judy is far from this, it is clear that she
          has no scientifically valid basis for a case.
          She does not even present a case, as she makes no clear statement.

    • Leslie says:

      As some people don’t care to look at evidence i’ll stop wasting their time and mine, just some parting thoughts:

      Many people were murdered on 9/11 and many more have been murdered since, because of the war of terror that was launched using 9/11 as the excuse, when solving a murder the first thing one needs to know is what happened, Dr Wood provides us with irrefutable evidence of what actually happened that day by showing us the effects of the weapon that was used to commit those murders. To convict someone of murder the most valuable evidence used, apart from maybe a confession, is the murder weapon, to ignore clear evidence that has been provided of that weapon is very strange.

      As Dr Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez says – http://pookzta.blogspot.com/2010/12/911-challenge-explain-evidence.html
      “The extraordinary claim that explosives and or jet fuel are what destroyed the towers on 9/11 is scientifically inaccurate. It is comparable to charging a murder suspect for ‘stabbing the victim with a knife’, despite the fact that numerous bullet casings had been found at the crime scene and the murder victim actually had multiple gunshot wounds.”

      Worth noting that – http://www.drjudywood.com/wp/court-case-qui-tam/
      “Dr Wood is the only person who has tried to hold a U.S. Government Agency to account regarding the false explanation it promulgated for the destruction of the WTC. Dr Wood didn’t “call for a new investigation.” She did the investigation herself, then used the evidence in a court case against fraudulent government contractors.”

      Have a good day folks.

      • mkey says:

        The vast majority of the people who died due to 9/11 died because a staggering number of bombs were dropped over their heads. Everything is known about that crime, there’s no need for however wild theories on how this was perpetrated. Less than 4 thousand people who perished in those towers is just a drop in the ocean. There is no US exceptionalism, brother. Keeping things simple works.

        Have a nice day.

  16. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Duck Duck Go & Google & Climate Change & ISIS
    Search engine manipulation, censorship
    https://youtu.be/SrsCEbi5N7Y?t=6m57s

  17. Ben says:

    Thanks James. It seems absurd but yet it’s constantly necessary to remind ourselves to think of others as real, complex human beings, not one-dimensional characters in our own mental narratives.

  18. danmanultra says:

    I suppose an intellectually honest person could use this meme to reflect on their own beliefs and ideas and assess their veracity. I know that’s harder than just reacting with anger though. Also further reinforces the notion that people need to stop using the mainstream social platforms. Its clearer than ever that they are not interested in freedom of expression.

  19. zyxzevn says:

    NPCs and Education
    The American School: Why Johnny Can’t think
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4BJ-21EhY8
    Modern education gives fragments [of information]:
    Without context, logic, or the demands of a conceptual progression.

    The same is for modern science.
    Current scientists are conceptually stupid and only learn to reproduce statements made by others.

    • geof.h says:

      This is engendered in the infamous “laboratory activity” wherein students are typically encouraged to fabricated their results to meet the desired “outcomes.”

    • geof.h says:

      Ayn Randian? The “Nation at Risk” is a psyop to undermine public education. I support public education (it’s basically who I am) — but I don’t support government education. It’s too bad the government funds public education and has used arguments like Ayn Rand’s buddy here to further their reach. I’m really hurting from that now…sore point.

  20. Collin says:

    Not consistent James – in your first sentence you change the coined word HAL to next letter along the line to get the commonly used IBM, but in your second sentence the coined NPC is changed to the letters preceding in the alphabet to get Mob – How do we know when to apply which rule?
    and i tried SJW both ways without success.

  21. HomeRemedySupply says:

    I like that one minute video…
    What you don’t know about 9/11 could fill a DVD
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y45qZWfjEcw

  22. _____ says:

    As Leslie mentioned, neither he nor Dr. Woods are making any wild theories. Dr. Woods presents evidence that puts into question the theories that have been put out into the public domain prior, of which some are promoted by people commenting on this board.

    I would encourage anyone who believes that it is important to get to an understanding of the mechanism(s) that destroyed almost the entirety of the World Trade Centre complex to look into the work of Dr. Judy Woods and compare it to the work of others and draw your own conclusions.

    I would also point to a 3D video analysis as additional evidence to supplement Dr. Woods work.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=62&v=UW62q8XiVp4

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top