Dark Actors and Disinformation

Nonsense as a weapon

As I wrote in a previous piece on the subject, the most prevalent and effective Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) is the propaganda which is applied to misdirecting our energy. My two part article examining the idea that a DEW of a more physical nature was used on 9/11 has provoked a response from an academic and author called David A. Hughes who sees in it evidence that I may have “been co-opted by dark actors and now cynically do their bidding.”

The nature of disinformation is to deny, disrupt, degrade, and deceive. To counter this we have only discernment. Active dissidents are finite in number and have limited time so the more they spend on nonsense, or on internecine squabbling, the less the state has to worry about them. So it is with some reluctance that I return to this topic. Apparently it is necessary and hopefully it will be instructive.

Although I have tried to make it as engaging as possible, I appreciate that a rebuttal of Hughes’ article may be beyond the patience of some readers, so before providing it I would like to address a few points. Firstly, as we have all found over the past four years, establishing the truth is important. This can be a matter of life and death. In ascertaining the truth we become able to recognise who not to trust by the lies they peddle. Needless to say I have not been convinced by David A. Hughes that DEWs were used on 9/11. Instead, I think that Judy Wood, who purveys this notion, is one of the most blatant exponents of disinformation we could find.

In the UK, Richard D Hall has recently been found guilty of harassment. The media is conflating this crime with his questioning of the government narrative of the Manchester Ariana Grande concert incident. Researcher Miri Finch sees in the high profile given by the media to Hall, reason to view him as a state asset. Coincidentally, Hall and his sidekick Andrew Johnson promote the DEW nonsense espoused by Judy Wood. Wood also propagates the no planes nonsense at the World Trade Center. In addition to his advocacy of Wood, Hughes writes without substantiation that, “a red flag was raised for me, too, by O'Neill's earlier piece on the Pentagon,” in which I relate the evidence for a plane impact. Uncovering one truth can be helpful in navigating a tangled web that might otherwise ensnare us.

Hughes affects equinamity, saying that he “likes and admires,” me. His article accuses me of “intellectual dishonesty,” “intellectual bad faith,” pushing arguments that are, “intellectually worthless,” being a “useful idiot,” using, “second-hand criticisms,” and, “penning tripe.” It intimates that I have “cognitive limitations,” and considers whether I am, “evil or stupid,” “co-opted by dark actors, and now cynically (do) their bidding,” “(do) not really know what (I am) doing” or have, “been reframed by powerful propaganda and perception management operations.”

The tone is set in his article’s sub-heading where Hughes writes that I am, “undermining (my) credibility as a dissident voice,” which he then sets about doing. By Hughes’ own logic, if his arguments flounder or show evidence of intellectual sleight of hand, then his questions of me become applicable to him.

Overview

In examining Wood’s claims, the evidence rejects the idea that the structural steel at the WTC was turned to dust. As stated in my articles, this is reflected in analysis of that dust. “The percentage of iron in dust samples shows that no significant amount of steel was dissociated into dust.”

The steel was witnessed, photographed, filmed, and accounted for. “According to FEMA, more than 350,000 tons of steel were extracted from Ground Zero and barged or trucked to salvage yards where it was cut up for recycling. Four salvage yards were contracted to process the steel.”

It is clear from video footage of the event that huge amounts of concrete and other matter were exploded into dust. Contrary to Hughes misrepresentation of my position, this is not disputed. What is disputed is the mechanism of destruction.

As stated in my article, iron microspheres were found “to amount to 5.87% of the dust in the RJ Lee study.” Put another way they constitute more than 1/20th of the dust. These match, “metallic microspheres produced by the thermite reaction.” Their presence in such volume suggests a huge amount of explosives. The analysis of the dust remains unchallenged in the scientific literature.

Chemist Niels Harrit posits that, “over 10 tonnes, possibly 100 tonnes,” of “extremely advanced,” material was used. Importantly, he describes this as being in, “a plastic matrix,” that, “has the properties in common with paint.”

”You see steel beams being cut and this is being done by thermate, and Jonathan Barnet’s work has proven unambiguously that thermite was used to cut the steel beams.

Harrit believes that, “nano thermite served for blowing the steel beams and the girders out of the Twin Towers…because every fragment that you’re seeing thrown out from the Twin Towers draws after it a completely homogenous white smoke trail.”

This whiteness is observed by Wood who describes the exploding South Tower as a “snowball,” and an, “alka seltzer.” Harrit sees this white smoke as consistent with aluminium oxide -a product of the thermitic reaction.

“There’s a chemical reaction going on – the smoke is white. My claim was that this is aluminum oxide – and I presented that at the Toronto hearings in 2011.”

Nanothermite can be tailored to be incendiary or explosive or to behave as rocket fuel. Video analysis by David Chandler shows steel beams trailing white smoke being propelled faster than freefall and even changing direction in mid-air. Chandler labels this footage as, “literal, visible proof of explosive materials painted onto perimeter wall units.”

The proponents of the nanothermite theory present their evidence, but they do not rule out other possibilities. The requirement is a hypothesis that better explains the evidence.

What Hughes does not want us to look at

Hughes begins his article by claiming that my, “critique is intellectually outdated,” and on this basis he disregards a number of prominent researchers for 9/11 Truth. This presupposes that the truth has an expiry date. Much of the strongest evidence about 9/11 is 23 years old, dating from the event itself.

All the sources Hughes dismisses are published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies to whom he can submit his challenges for review.

Elsewhere in his article Hughes disparages the peer-reviewed analysis of the WTC dust for being, “published with a suspect publisher.” Instead he points us to an article written and published by himself on substack.

Where I cited a report from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Hughes takes issue with the word ‘science,’ in its title but again fails to address its content.

Hughes dismisses another source, the Ken Doc blog site, as a “hate site.” It is not exactly clear what criteria have to be fulfilled to satisfy that description but Ken Doc’s now censored wordpress site was for many years a valuable resource of information on 9/11. The old site is now accessible only through online archives but a new version without images is here.

These researchers competently refute Wood’s nonsense.

What Hughes wants us to look at

Hughes writes that Wood’s book, “supersedes her earlier work and should be the primary reference point of any serious critique.”

Here Hughes seeks to set limits as to what can be discussed. I reject those limits. The notion that one cannot critically appraise someone’s public pronouncements without reading their book is odd. My articles introduced the story of the Directed Energy claim, starting where it began. Wood’s website featured a page entitled, “The Star Wars Beam Weapons and Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW).” Here Wood dismissed evidence of other causes of the events of 9/11. Each section of the site is labelled DEW and puts forward arguments for their usage. Hughes tells us that Wood, “does not make any hard claims regarding what exactly destroyed the Twin Towers.” Whatever is Wood’s current stance, these claims originated from her.

So what is happening here? My article is to some extent aimed at those who have recently come to 9/11 Truth. Wood and her claims have long since been exposed by researchers whose work is often hidden by algorithms and censorship. Hughes does not refute them but tells us to disregard them as ‘outdated,’ ‘suspect,’ and ‘hate.’

Does Hughes know what he is defending?

Hughes does not want the reader to engage with claims that Wood has made that precede the publication of her book, but that is precisely where to look because those claims expose her.

Hughes observes that I provided no citation for my general introduction to Wood’s claim that the towers had turned to dust, but her website where that claim is made is cited and linked numerous times throughout my article in reference to exact quotes.

In response Hughes says, “Wood never claimed that everything had been “dustified.”

As an Oxford educated academic applying the rigour he demands he might have followed the citations that were provided and seen in Wood’s own words:

“The Twin Towers…underwent mid-air pulverization and were turned to dust before they hit the ground.”

“How is it that most of the steel (not just the concrete) turned to dust? What caused this "dustification" process?”

“The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.”

“The upper 90 percent, approximately, of the inside of WTC7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.”

In my article I also quoted Wood describing the South Tower “going up” into “the upper atmosphere” as “ultra-fine dust.”

These claims are divorced from reality and cannot be taken seriously. Perhaps that is why we are being asked to look away.

When you have an imaginary weapon you can attribute anything to it. It can account for all the building or some of the building and any other anomalies without reason as to why. In his own article Hughes goes on to write,

“Wood contends that the Twin Towers were mostly turned to dust in mid air,”

“Huge quantities of steel… disappeared without trace,” but as we have seen, this is not true.

He also mentions as ‘missing,’ the, “gypsum, 45,000 metal filing cabinets, and 1,106 people,” that were subjected to a huge quantity of incendiaries and explosives.

Control of language

Hughes accuses me of using “cliche,” “propaganda terms,” and “smears,” for referring to ‘Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons,’ and ‘Star Wars Beam Weapons,’ but these are terms Wood herself uses to describe her theory on her website. The citation was provided. Wood said the beams were probably launched from "orbit." I observed that the associations of ‘Star Wars,’ and, ‘orbit,’ with space make it understandable that others might use the term Space beams. It does.

The theme of stifling discussion by setting limits on language is observed when Hughes disputes, “that the concrete was “pulverised,”… as Wood has argued, “pulverisation” is not the correct term, for how can anything be “pulverised” when meeting only air resistance?”

For Hughes’ benefit, here are some definitions of pulverise

• To become reduced to powder; to fall to dust

• destroy completely

As we have seen, Wood herself uses the term pulverisation on her own site when she reports that the twin towers,

“underwent mid-air pulverization and were turned to dust before they hit the ground.”

She also uses the term pulverise more than once in the Jenkins interview.

Hughes complains that I report that Wood denies the existence of evidence of molten steel at the WTC saying,
”the language of “denial” is always suspect, viz. “climate change denial” and “Covid denial” — rhetorical devices used to close down scientific debate by tacitly invoking Holocaust denial.” This is ironic because quite obviously if you want an open scientific debate you only have to explain the molten steel, and then my diction becomes irrelevant. Hughes doesn’t do this. We have the verb ‘deny,’ because people deny things and when they do it is permissible to say so.

It is ironic that elsewhere in his article he championed the free use of language. In response to my observation that Wood’s unscientific terminology has the effect of making 9/11 Truth look silly, he argued that such concern only exposed, ‘cognitive limitations.’

Hughes asks, “In any case, if Wood’s research really were so ridiculous, there would be no need for so many critics to expend so much time and energy over so many years trying in vain to debunk it.”

Is this a serious argument? After the past four years it should be clear that successful debunkings do not rid us of pervasive lies. It’s like playing whack-a-mole.

The Pile

The rubble fell into the combined space of seven basement levels beneath the Twin Towers’ two 42,849 sq feet footprints and into a 1200 foot diameter or 1,000,000 sq ft debris pile. Hughes sets about trying to convince us that this was a small pile and inconsistent with the size of the upright Towers. To Jenkins’ efforts to provide an informed idea of how much steel we might expect to see Hughes responds by saying “So what?” In responding to Jenkins’ calculation that, “all of the debris in the WTC complex can be accounted for within the sublevel collapses,” Hughes again fails to understand or to follow the citation. If he had done so he would have found that this was a calculation to show what was possible, "If all the building debris were compacted into the damaged sublevels.”

Hughes tries to impose a false binary that either the rubble was in the basements or in the debris field, when it was clearly and observably present in both.

Ambush?

Hughes describes an interview between Jenkins and Wood as an ambush. This may conjure up the image of a motley crew of camouflaged snipers hiding in foliage and firing questions at poor defenceless Ms. Wood. What actually happened was that Jenkins asked Wood for a sit down interview and had the temerity to ask straightforward questions about her public pronouncements on subjects connected to her area of professional expertise.

In the interview Wood seems unable to distinguish between the primary debris field and the blanket of dust that covered lower Manhattan.

She is unable to provide a coherent idea as to what kind of weapon or mechanism she claims is at work.

She says that the South Tower does not fall down but goes up.

Wood was shown a photograph that Hughes thinks Jenkins “regarded… as being of special significance,” when in fact it was taken from Wood’s website and described by her as her, “favorite.” Wood claims that smoke from the North Tower is the South Tower, “going up.” The fallacy of this is explained at the start of the Jenkins interview. In defence of Wood’s position Hughes shows footage from a different angle which shows that the South Tower definitively goes down. This video demonstrates that the material in the air above the top of the tower was smoke.

Hughes goes on to misrepresent my view as being that the towers fell, “neatly within a 600 foot radius of the Twin Towers,” and that, “the only thing to escape into the atmosphere on “9/11” was smoke.”

That is not what is being said. Hopefully that is clear. The distinctions that are being made are between fine dust and more substantial debris, between the widespread blanket of dust and the 1200 ft diameter primary debris field, and between pulverised concrete and intact structural steel.

Despite this apparent misunderstanding Hughes then goes on to acknowledge that I pointed out that the concrete exploded in mid-air, to which he adds, “although concrete is not an explosive.” For the benefit of all concerned let me make clear that I do not think that the explosive that brought down the WTC on 9/11 was concrete.

Seismographic readings

Hughes sets great store by the seismographic readings, the integrity of which were questioned by Wood who then illogically and unscientifically used what she suspected to be corrupted data to draw conclusions. Hughes ignores the disparities in readings between the Twin Towers with each other, and between the Towers and WTC7, which call into question such comparisons.

He rejects without explanation the cited explanations about shock absorption or wave cancellation potentially caused by debris hitting the ground for 8 seconds.

Stairwell B

Hughes opines that comparing the survival of people in Stairwell B to that of Edna Cintron in the plane’s impact zone in the North Tower, “is tantamount to throwing up one’s hands and exclaiming “strange things happen!””

Hughes position here is tantamount to throwing his hands up in the air and saying ‘strange things don't happen.’ This in itself is a strange thing to happen when he is arguing that people survived the demolition of a skyscraper due to the use of a Directed Energy Weapon, for the existence and mechanism of which we have no evidence.
How and why would this unexplained beam weapon work around or not work on the stairwell? Would that not be a strange thing to happen? If we do not know how the weapon works how can we attribute effects to it?

The Spire

As has been established the steel was accounted for and did not turn to dust. How likely is it then that this single so-called ‘spire,’ was turned to dust? Hughes and Wood pose questions as to how and why the spire fell and why it was covered in dust.

In all likelihood the spire fell because of the explosives that demolished the rest of the building and that created the dust on it. As we saw with the no planes nonsense, low resolution footage can be used to mislead.

Burned cars

Hughes asks, “if the dust clouds “scorched” cars, why did they not do the same to people?”

This and the repeated claim that the falling dust clouds were cold ignores the evidence. Eye witnesses reported the heat, of which this is one of numerous examples, “When I was running, some hot stuff went down my back, because I didn’t have time to put my coat back on, and I had some — well, I guess between first and second degree burns on my back.” -Marcel Claes, FDNY Firefighter.

Wood made the claim that partially burned cars on 9/11 show unusual effects and so I provided a comparison, using a stock photo of a partially burned car and Wood’s example of a partially burned car from 9/11.

Hughes then compared the stock photo of the partially burned car with wholly burned out cars from 9/11 to suggest unusual differences, but that is not comparing like with like. Fully burned out cars from 9/11 resemble fully burned out cars from elsewhere.

Wood’s claims have been long been answered and rebutted by a number of the researchers Hughes disregards. Yet, if we do not engage with their work, we risk repeating what Frank Legge called in 2007, “largely a collection of untrue, illogical, absurd and vexatious assertions and questions.”

Giving the last word to Hughes, he is correct when he says, “It shows intellectual bad faith to make allegations against someone without engaging properly with their work.”

For another opinion on Hughes’ article please see here.