"concrete above was pulverised and the steel beams were observably ejected laterally"
No controlled demolition has ever 'pulverized' concrete. Especially not 110-stories worth. This reaching is out of this world. Also, no controlled demolition has ever been silent
Terrible counterarguments overall
I don't know who you listen to, but these are the same arguments put forth by the AE911 people and their leaders, who have the number 33 in their emails (rgage33@...) and a masonic ruler in their logo. Would be silly to trust them when their main purpose is to deceive in this arena
Contrary to the "nanothermite" hypothesis of the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth," the Twin Towers were evidently destroyed at low temperatures, revealing the reality of "Cold Fusion".
What was done to the towers was clearly unprecedented. They are looking at energy sinks. The explosive destruction through their vertical axes, the levels pulverized concrete and building contents, dissembled superstructures, massive radial debris fields, etc. Facts (also, the wildly excessive temperatures, molten steel & iron, and fires that burned underground for 100 days) that cannot be explained without explosives. It's no more complicated than that. No one has claimed they looked anything like a conventional demolition.
Listen to this guy's account of what happened to him that morning: '9/11 victim Ken Summers describes what happened to him that morning in the North Tower lobby' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGcwnCd9hKk
I scanned his untenable nonsense in his posts. we dont waste our time on anything that is no primary data.. The problem with demonstrable facts is that it is self-evident. the astroturfing falls so spectacularly bc anyone who thinks even a little on these issues is soon easily able to separate nonsense from reality. "The videos we saw were fake" Which is why they all show the same thing.
I know ur prbly doing a [an indefensible] job with the idea that it is for some greater good. But it isn't. You should be ashamed. I can only imagine youre not bc youre getting paid and have low morals. Good luck with that./
"Truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." - Churchill
LOL writing an opinionated hit piece again, yet you don't substantively address the multitude of evidence she presented, just like your previous article....
You reference a bunch of ad hominem pieces from before 2010? Really?
You haven't got anything fresh or recent? Remember, it 2024 and NOT 2008....
Could that be that some people who are actually interested in the truth set out to honestly "debunk" her and found that they cannot and then realised how they were fooled by the neuro-linguistic techniques employed to sell bombs / thermite and nukes to them?
Dr Wood did the only independent forensic investigation of WHAT happened to the WHOLE WTC complex. You see, she CAN count past 3....
Remember the 9/11 orphans? Buildings 3, 4, 5, 6 and the Bankers Trust building.
Francis - You REALLY SHOULD read Dr Wood's book and the following article, instead of running off your Richard Gage / architects for an engineered truth, and the international center for 9/11 justice SUPPRESION's Crip sheets of ad hominems towards the work she has done...
WHAT exactly happened to ALL 7 buildings with a WTC prefix on Sept 11, 2001?
The following points need to be made regarding what exactly happened to the buildings and the observable evidence at ground zero, that the “9/11 truth movement” never touch on…
Francis - You might also want to read what this controlled demolition expert, with 29 years experience, had to say, yesterday.... (You see - RECENT discussions, not b/s hit pieces that are over 16 years old)
Controlled Demolition Expert Speaks Out!
What we saw on 9/11 was not due to jet fuel, bombs, or thermite
Dr Wood and Reynolds sued the 23 NIST subcontractors separately for SCIENCE FRAUD....
The "explosive evidence" of "molten metal" and "thermite" has NOT BEEN been mentioned / filed in a request for correction OR any court case....
Now, you mention the "weapon" was not specified - So, would you agree that if you find a body with a bullet hole piercing the heart, is not sufficient evidence to be able to assume it was due to someone who shot a gun?
Does it really matter what the operator had for breakfast, or after careful investigation, weighing up all the evidence to then come to a conclusion, based on the mountain of evidence? Yes, or no?
The two main defendants in her Qui-Tam whistleblower case - ARA and SAIC...
What do they specialise in, Francis?
Ok - Let me tell you - psychological operations, impact studies, weather modification, AND?
You guessed it - Directed Energy Weapon systems and components.
The US were so lucky to have thse two companies in charge of security and cleanup of ground zero, don't you agree?
I wrote an article about them, that you'd like: D.E.P.S. - Directed Energy Professional Society
Jenkins steered the “truth movement” away from directed energy weapons by conducting an ambush interview of Dr Judy Wood. (However, a read of the transcript reveals Dr Wood won the debate hands down.) Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/dr-greg-jenkins-directed-debunking
Jones ridicules the directed energy weapon and no plane theories with statements such as ”These two are noted for their no-planes-hit-the-Towers theories and for promoting the notion of ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers.”
Remember Former Transportation Secretary, Norman Mineta, with his PentaCon / Cheney "stand down" order?
*** Former Transportation Secretary, Norman Mineta, has ties to the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).
Mineta was Vice President of Lockheed Martin, a sponsor of DEPS.
Mineta ensured minimal interference with the DEW by grounding as many commercial airliners as possible during the timeframe of the towers’ destruction.
Mineta steered the “truth movement” toward hijackings and plane crashes by spreading the “Cheney stand down order” hoax.
Read more on Greg Jenkins, Steven E. Jones and Norman Mineta in the article:
You go on in your article with the false, disingenuous statement that Dr Wood refers to "beams" - You are totally disingenuous.
Again I ask you - Have you ever bothered to read her book, even just to try and debunk what she presents? I guess not and you probably never will, will you?
Oooooooo - The explosions!!!!
Here are two articles, going over the sounds of boom, people heard - You should have done your homework Francis - tsk tsk tsk tsk.....
Francis - Really man - You need to up your game - stop being fed old information and do some of your own bloody research....
With regards to the iron microspheres - Quick - go listen to this thought experiment, even Richard Gage cannot answer - How did these iron microspheres burn cars, but not people, paper and flags on flag poles? I'll send you the video proving this statement, but only if you ask nicely...
Francis - The statement "he thermite-based hypothesis, to date, the only hypothesis to exhibit any hard evidence to back it up." - Is all b/s pulled from a 2008 debunk - I've given you enough recent discussions between 2020 and 2024 PROVING the thermite narrative is based on a lie and has no scientific merit...
All your references are weak - over 10 to 15 years old, and since then up to 2024, MANY people have now come to realise the concerted effort to keep DEW (in all forms) out of the public eye.
The jig is up - You need to get unstuck, pick up Dr Wood's book and seriously research the history of DEW that dates back to the last 1950's....
After all, Steven E. Jones, Greg Jenkings and Norman Mineta all have ties to DEW related research facilities and even worked at these facilities....
I'll leave you with a piece written in the UK, by Prof David A, Hughes:
Contrary to the "nanothermite" hypothesis of the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth," the Twin Towers were evidently destroyed at low temperatures, revealing the reality of "Cold Fusion".
Wow, what a great piece! Same with the pentagon article. Just a fantastic overview, and cogent In-depth critical analysis thoroughly debunking the most pernicious disinformation targeting 9/11 Truth. Thank you.
*see the pasted walls of text in the comment sections of these articles for more transparent examples of disinformation aimed at 911 truth.
LOL - I am 100% certain, just like Francis, that you've never read the book or actually investigated the claims put forth by the 9/11 "truth" movement...
Let's take you back to 2005 so that you can be reminded of how everything played out in the early days...
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
the combination of both parts directed energy an both parts plane speaking is a brilliant read. my thinking was well it was all planned for beyond evil reasons an no motivation to spend any more time on it. these articles have reinvigorate my motivation regarding the importance of keeping spotlight on an clarifying how. Thank you
For some strange reason someone chose the neither good looking nor likeable person Jewdy Woods as con script writer / reader for this stunt. As it is clear "she" has no idea how her own theory is supposed to work or has any proof of it :)))) As this interview with her you linked proves (thanks - I remember it clearly from back in the days, when we exposed the DEW crap). I say "strange reason" cuz mostly shills have at least some of these atributes (looks, humour, sympathic, good at drama or "scientific") which JW has none of. Take premier shills like AJ,. Del Bigtree, Peterson, Reiner Füllmeinetaschen or Russel Brand etc. yes all despicable people but it can be explained when someone falls for them or finds them entertaining or even beliveable. In case of Woods it is more her "cool and fashionable" space, aliens, science, laser, futuristic theme I guess which draws ppl in.
Perfect. You have done a marvellous job with these two posts, Francis. Thank you. Now I don't have to wade through all the crap to do it myself - especially with all your links you've created an invaluable resource/reference here.
And especially timely after my recent little spat/encounter with 9-11 revisionist. They can be extremely aggressive, insulting and unpleasant, these people. Maybe it's a thing about being threatened, but it is psychologically revealing.
There are times when I get really angry with these cognitive infiltrators. Then I remind myself to think psychologically, and I end up pitying them and their wasted malevolent lives. I also remind myself that I spent a lot of time getting myself out of a dark abyss from when I was young, and that I should absolutely stay well away from returning.
The other important thing we need to remember about these DEW and no-planer types is that it's not all about discrediting the 9-11 truth movement. It's actually about trying to convince people they can no longer believe their eyes or any of their senses, or common sense, or science, or anything really. That creates learned helplessness, which results in a freeze response and people give up resisting because resistance has become futile. It's a classic MK-Ultra trick, of course. And it leads to slavery and subjugation.
In fact, personally I think this issue is far more sinister and far more important than the simple 'discredit by association' aspect. It also spreads into other areas of so-called conspiracy theories, and I've especially noticed how much it's picked up since Covid. The resurgence of terrain theory, for example. And the fake events narrative. It's extremely subversive.
In other words it's a wide-ranging and very pre-planned and very well orchestrated and coordinated program.
So we should be wary. And articles like your two-parter here are invaluable, as I say, because they go a long way to neutralising this program and restoring sanity and common sense.
Thank you, Evelyn. I agree with you about the wider psychological effects. They seize on people when they are destabilised and have lost their moorings, but there are moorings and we can establish foundations and we can ascertain what is true.
Agreed - I think it's best in that case to totally and overtly ignore the rubbish and really emphasise and repeat, reinforce, and repeat loudly those established foundations/moorings, thus drowning out the BS.
braavooooo...Francis; l was entirely and utterly taken in --- that regretfully puts a huge question mark against Andrew Johnson's emphatic backing and promotion of Ms Wood's synopsis -- ho hum!
Ok, all done reading part one and part 2. I fully respect your arguments, and I'm not even going to attempt to refute any of them. I am now at the stage that I have accepted I will never accept 100% what happened on 911. Its true that controlled demolition is the most likely explanation. But I still have question about the strangeness of the weather. Also, im not expert on the Hutchison effect, but indo not believe that works by way of a laser beam. I have my own questions around that too; such as, how do you aim the Hutchinson effect whatever it is at just 2 (or 3...or more if you inside all the building that fell) buildings. Also, the strange holes in the other WTC buildings. So, while you have made me question what I had allowed myself to be convinced of, and great respect to you for that, I am still no closer to having this day figured out in my head. But that's fine. BTW, im pretty sure we are in agreement on just about 100% of everything else considered conspiracy, well, as far as I can tell anyway. Thanks Francis
First we have to replicate the Hutchison effect to demonstrate that it isn't nonsense.
The damage to the WTC buildings was caused by explosions, falling debris and collapses in the sublevels as explained in numerous of the citations provided.
Well, that's a fair comment about the Hutchison Effect. I just wonder if its one of those many technologies that have been stolen and hidden from the masses. I always like to admit when I was wrong or have changed my mind. And while I have not completely changed my mind, im certainly no longer certain.
"concrete above was pulverised and the steel beams were observably ejected laterally"
No controlled demolition has ever 'pulverized' concrete. Especially not 110-stories worth. This reaching is out of this world. Also, no controlled demolition has ever been silent
Terrible counterarguments overall
I don't know who you listen to, but these are the same arguments put forth by the AE911 people and their leaders, who have the number 33 in their emails (rgage33@...) and a masonic ruler in their logo. Would be silly to trust them when their main purpose is to deceive in this arena
Prof David A, Hughes
Contrary to the "nanothermite" hypothesis of the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth," the Twin Towers were evidently destroyed at low temperatures, revealing the reality of "Cold Fusion".
Article: https://dhughes.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-judy-wood-0ce
Is the 9/11 "truth" movement a distraction movement?
What happens if you ask TRUTH questions?
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/questions-for-the-911-truther-talking
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline
What was done to the towers was clearly unprecedented. They are looking at energy sinks. The explosive destruction through their vertical axes, the levels pulverized concrete and building contents, dissembled superstructures, massive radial debris fields, etc. Facts (also, the wildly excessive temperatures, molten steel & iron, and fires that burned underground for 100 days) that cannot be explained without explosives. It's no more complicated than that. No one has claimed they looked anything like a conventional demolition.
Listen to this guy's account of what happened to him that morning: '9/11 victim Ken Summers describes what happened to him that morning in the North Tower lobby' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGcwnCd9hKk
Controlled Demolition Expert Speaks Out!
What we saw on 9/11 was not due to jet fuel, bombs, or thermite
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/controlled-demolition-expert-speaks
Refutation of the 9/11 "truther" narratives
A special presentation refuting 10 thermite points of contention against DEW on 9/11
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/refutation-of-the-911-truther-narratives
Essential reading by Prof David Hughes...
How Not To Critique Judy Wood
Francis O'Neill's intellectually flimsy attack on Judy Wood bears all the hallmarks of propaganda, undermining his credibility as a dissident voice.
Article: https://dhughes.substack.com/p/how-not-to-critique-judy-wood
I scanned his untenable nonsense in his posts. we dont waste our time on anything that is no primary data.. The problem with demonstrable facts is that it is self-evident. the astroturfing falls so spectacularly bc anyone who thinks even a little on these issues is soon easily able to separate nonsense from reality. "The videos we saw were fake" Which is why they all show the same thing.
I know ur prbly doing a [an indefensible] job with the idea that it is for some greater good. But it isn't. You should be ashamed. I can only imagine youre not bc youre getting paid and have low morals. Good luck with that./
"Truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." - Churchill
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;
1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline
How Not to Critique Judy Wood
Francis O'Neill's intellectually flimsy attack on Judy Wood bears all the hallmarks of propaganda, undermining his credibility as a dissident voice.
Article: https://dhughes.substack.com/p/how-not-to-critique-judy-wood
LOL writing an opinionated hit piece again, yet you don't substantively address the multitude of evidence she presented, just like your previous article....
You reference a bunch of ad hominem pieces from before 2010? Really?
You haven't got anything fresh or recent? Remember, it 2024 and NOT 2008....
Could that be that some people who are actually interested in the truth set out to honestly "debunk" her and found that they cannot and then realised how they were fooled by the neuro-linguistic techniques employed to sell bombs / thermite and nukes to them?
Here - My 7 part series kicked off today - 9/11 Reality - You should read the first article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-reality-series-pt-1
Again you link to the straw man "space beams" - which I already corrected you on yesterday...
Here is the link to the extensive comment: https://francisoneill.substack.com/p/911-directed-energy-audio/comment/72860793
Dr Wood did the only independent forensic investigation of WHAT happened to the WHOLE WTC complex. You see, she CAN count past 3....
Remember the 9/11 orphans? Buildings 3, 4, 5, 6 and the Bankers Trust building.
Francis - You REALLY SHOULD read Dr Wood's book and the following article, instead of running off your Richard Gage / architects for an engineered truth, and the international center for 9/11 justice SUPPRESION's Crip sheets of ad hominems towards the work she has done...
WHAT exactly happened to ALL 7 buildings with a WTC prefix on Sept 11, 2001?
The following points need to be made regarding what exactly happened to the buildings and the observable evidence at ground zero, that the “9/11 truth movement” never touch on…
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/what-exactly-happened-to-all-7-buildings
Francis - You might also want to read what this controlled demolition expert, with 29 years experience, had to say, yesterday.... (You see - RECENT discussions, not b/s hit pieces that are over 16 years old)
Controlled Demolition Expert Speaks Out!
What we saw on 9/11 was not due to jet fuel, bombs, or thermite
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/controlled-demolition-expert-speaks
Now getting back to the court cases - Dr Wood's US SUPREME COURT case of 2007, was not dismissed due to merit.
That claim is total and utter disinformation - shame on you! You want to call yourself a journalist?
The judge in his final summation, wrote - He is NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW by dismissing the case - Huge difference, Francis.....
Here - go read the court documents for Dr Wood: https://www.drjudywood.com/wp/court-case-qui-tam/
Then Dr Morgan Reynolds: https://nomoregames.net/2011/06/12/request-for-correction-by-nist-for-its-invalid-wtc-jetliner-animations-and-analyses/
Dr Wood and Reynolds sued the 23 NIST subcontractors separately for SCIENCE FRAUD....
The "explosive evidence" of "molten metal" and "thermite" has NOT BEEN been mentioned / filed in a request for correction OR any court case....
Now, you mention the "weapon" was not specified - So, would you agree that if you find a body with a bullet hole piercing the heart, is not sufficient evidence to be able to assume it was due to someone who shot a gun?
Does it really matter what the operator had for breakfast, or after careful investigation, weighing up all the evidence to then come to a conclusion, based on the mountain of evidence? Yes, or no?
The two main defendants in her Qui-Tam whistleblower case - ARA and SAIC...
What do they specialise in, Francis?
Ok - Let me tell you - psychological operations, impact studies, weather modification, AND?
You guessed it - Directed Energy Weapon systems and components.
The US were so lucky to have thse two companies in charge of security and cleanup of ground zero, don't you agree?
I wrote an article about them, that you'd like: D.E.P.S. - Directed Energy Professional Society
You'll be surprised to hear who the members are.
Read the article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/deps-the-directed-energy-professional
There you go referencing Jenkins again - WHO the hell is Greg Jenkins?
*** Physicist Greg Jenkins’ has connections to the NSA and DEW:
"This work was supported in part by NSF grant DMR-9705129 and by funding from the NSA.”
Jenkins’ papers were listed in an annual report which also listed at least one manufacturer of directed energy weapons (Rockwell). https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/asat-overview.htm
Jenkins steered the “truth movement” away from directed energy weapons by conducting an ambush interview of Dr Judy Wood. (However, a read of the transcript reveals Dr Wood won the debate hands down.) Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/dr-greg-jenkins-directed-debunking
The duper's delight of Greg Jenkins - A case study: https://rumble.com/v5b3f9x-exposed-greg-jenkins-dupers-delight.html
Also - who is "Captain Thermite" - Dr Steven E. Jones?
*** Former BYU physics professor, Steven E. Jones, has done research at Los Alamos Labs where directed energy weapons are researched.
Jones steered the “truth movement” toward thermite / conventional explosives / molten metal theories. Jones’ molten metal evidence has been shown to be fabricated. https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress/2007/08/05/wtc-molten-metal-fact-or-fiction/
Jones ridicules the directed energy weapon and no plane theories with statements such as ”These two are noted for their no-planes-hit-the-Towers theories and for promoting the notion of ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers.”
Discussed in depth on Dr Wood's FAQ page - https://www.drjudywood.com/faq/
Remember Former Transportation Secretary, Norman Mineta, with his PentaCon / Cheney "stand down" order?
*** Former Transportation Secretary, Norman Mineta, has ties to the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).
Mineta was Vice President of Lockheed Martin, a sponsor of DEPS.
Mineta ensured minimal interference with the DEW by grounding as many commercial airliners as possible during the timeframe of the towers’ destruction.
Mineta steered the “truth movement” toward hijackings and plane crashes by spreading the “Cheney stand down order” hoax.
Read more on Greg Jenkins, Steven E. Jones and Norman Mineta in the article:
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline - https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline
You go on in your article with the false, disingenuous statement that Dr Wood refers to "beams" - You are totally disingenuous.
Again I ask you - Have you ever bothered to read her book, even just to try and debunk what she presents? I guess not and you probably never will, will you?
Oooooooo - The explosions!!!!
Here are two articles, going over the sounds of boom, people heard - You should have done your homework Francis - tsk tsk tsk tsk.....
Was every BOOM on 9/11 a bomb?
Not everything that goes boom is a bomb.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/was-every-boom-a-bomb-on-911
The Sounds of Explosions on 9/11
Was every BOOM a BOMB?
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-explosions-on-911
You mention - "Jones also contributed to an unchallenged paper detailing evidence for thermitic material in the WTC dust." - UNCHALLENGED? REALLY?
- Here is Denis Rancourt calling the paper junk science in 2020, during a 9/11 science debate - https://rumble.com/v3ujhqh-911-and-thermite-busted.html
- Here is a 2010 challenge to his paper as well - https://rumble.com/v3zqfm4-911-and-the-thermite-conspiracy-2010.html
- The last video is from a presentation from an August 2024, "Boston 9/11 truth" member, PROVING that thermite in any form COULD NOT be the destruction mechanism on Sept 11, 2001 - the unanswered thermite challenge from 2011 - https://rumble.com/v55osf7-the-unanswered-2011-nanothermite-challenge-for-911.html
Francis - Really man - You need to up your game - stop being fed old information and do some of your own bloody research....
With regards to the iron microspheres - Quick - go listen to this thought experiment, even Richard Gage cannot answer - How did these iron microspheres burn cars, but not people, paper and flags on flag poles? I'll send you the video proving this statement, but only if you ask nicely...
Francis - The statement "he thermite-based hypothesis, to date, the only hypothesis to exhibit any hard evidence to back it up." - Is all b/s pulled from a 2008 debunk - I've given you enough recent discussions between 2020 and 2024 PROVING the thermite narrative is based on a lie and has no scientific merit...
All your references are weak - over 10 to 15 years old, and since then up to 2024, MANY people have now come to realise the concerted effort to keep DEW (in all forms) out of the public eye.
The jig is up - You need to get unstuck, pick up Dr Wood's book and seriously research the history of DEW that dates back to the last 1950's....
After all, Steven E. Jones, Greg Jenkings and Norman Mineta all have ties to DEW related research facilities and even worked at these facilities....
I'll leave you with a piece written in the UK, by Prof David A, Hughes:
Contrary to the "nanothermite" hypothesis of the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth," the Twin Towers were evidently destroyed at low temperatures, revealing the reality of "Cold Fusion".
Article: https://dhughes.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-judy-wood-0ce
Wow, what a great piece! Same with the pentagon article. Just a fantastic overview, and cogent In-depth critical analysis thoroughly debunking the most pernicious disinformation targeting 9/11 Truth. Thank you.
*see the pasted walls of text in the comment sections of these articles for more transparent examples of disinformation aimed at 911 truth.
seconded
I am 100% certain, just like Francis, that you've never read the book or actually investigated the claims put forth by the 9/11 "truth" movement...
Let's take you back to 2005 so that you can be reminded of how everything played out in the early days...
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline
Thirded
LOL - I am 100% certain, just like Francis, that you've never read the book or actually investigated the claims put forth by the 9/11 "truth" movement...
Let's take you back to 2005 so that you can be reminded of how everything played out in the early days...
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline
A single question for you and any of the other TREASONOUS LIARS (Gag-me, Walter, Corbett, Alex Jones, Stephen Jones, etcetera) for 911 Confusion.
Explain how WTC 6 was scooped out empty from the roof to the basement AND there was virtually no fallen debris from WTC 1 on the remaining roof area.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/September_17_2001.jpg
https://imgs.search.brave.com/UA2nK1a71dRM1Y5159QsGfoxjHljZ0lY1vbzO2Pw5UU/rs:fit:500:0:0:0/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly91cGxv/YWQud2lraW1lZGlh/Lm9yZy93aWtpcGVk/aWEvY29tbW9ucy8z/LzNiL1NlcHRlbWJl/cl8xN18yMDAxLmpw/Zw
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/6-wtc-photo.jpg
https://imgs.search.brave.com/rENlhHMbDtEbTJIx4fRVOhEhSpiCgkZyRNWGB4iSYm8/rs:fit:500:0:0:0/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly91cGxv/YWQud2lraW1lZGlh/Lm9yZy93aWtpcGVk/aWEvY29tbW9ucy8x/LzE2LzYtd3RjLXBo/b3RvLmpwZw
the combination of both parts directed energy an both parts plane speaking is a brilliant read. my thinking was well it was all planned for beyond evil reasons an no motivation to spend any more time on it. these articles have reinvigorate my motivation regarding the importance of keeping spotlight on an clarifying how. Thank you
I am 100% certain, just like Francis, that you've never read the book or actually investigated the claims put forth by the 9/11 "truth" movement...
Let's take you back to 2005 so that you can be reminded of how everything played out in the early days...
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline
Thank you, Des. In that vein, you may like this one:
https://francisoneill.substack.com/p/how-do-we-wake-people-up
Thank you Francis, on my list for morning read
Essential reading by Prof David Hughes...
How Not To Critique Judy Wood
Francis O'Neill's intellectually flimsy attack on Judy Wood bears all the hallmarks of propaganda, undermining his credibility as a dissident voice.
Article: https://dhughes.substack.com/p/how-not-to-critique-judy-wood
https://dhughes.substack.com/p/how-not-to-critique-judy-wood
Essential reading by Prof David Hughes...
How Not To Critique Judy Wood
Francis O'Neill's intellectually flimsy attack on Judy Wood bears all the hallmarks of propaganda, undermining his credibility as a dissident voice.
Article: https://dhughes.substack.com/p/how-not-to-critique-judy-wood
For some strange reason someone chose the neither good looking nor likeable person Jewdy Woods as con script writer / reader for this stunt. As it is clear "she" has no idea how her own theory is supposed to work or has any proof of it :)))) As this interview with her you linked proves (thanks - I remember it clearly from back in the days, when we exposed the DEW crap). I say "strange reason" cuz mostly shills have at least some of these atributes (looks, humour, sympathic, good at drama or "scientific") which JW has none of. Take premier shills like AJ,. Del Bigtree, Peterson, Reiner Füllmeinetaschen or Russel Brand etc. yes all despicable people but it can be explained when someone falls for them or finds them entertaining or even beliveable. In case of Woods it is more her "cool and fashionable" space, aliens, science, laser, futuristic theme I guess which draws ppl in.
Perfect. You have done a marvellous job with these two posts, Francis. Thank you. Now I don't have to wade through all the crap to do it myself - especially with all your links you've created an invaluable resource/reference here.
And especially timely after my recent little spat/encounter with 9-11 revisionist. They can be extremely aggressive, insulting and unpleasant, these people. Maybe it's a thing about being threatened, but it is psychologically revealing.
There are times when I get really angry with these cognitive infiltrators. Then I remind myself to think psychologically, and I end up pitying them and their wasted malevolent lives. I also remind myself that I spent a lot of time getting myself out of a dark abyss from when I was young, and that I should absolutely stay well away from returning.
The other important thing we need to remember about these DEW and no-planer types is that it's not all about discrediting the 9-11 truth movement. It's actually about trying to convince people they can no longer believe their eyes or any of their senses, or common sense, or science, or anything really. That creates learned helplessness, which results in a freeze response and people give up resisting because resistance has become futile. It's a classic MK-Ultra trick, of course. And it leads to slavery and subjugation.
In fact, personally I think this issue is far more sinister and far more important than the simple 'discredit by association' aspect. It also spreads into other areas of so-called conspiracy theories, and I've especially noticed how much it's picked up since Covid. The resurgence of terrain theory, for example. And the fake events narrative. It's extremely subversive.
In other words it's a wide-ranging and very pre-planned and very well orchestrated and coordinated program.
So we should be wary. And articles like your two-parter here are invaluable, as I say, because they go a long way to neutralising this program and restoring sanity and common sense.
Thank you, Evelyn. I agree with you about the wider psychological effects. They seize on people when they are destabilised and have lost their moorings, but there are moorings and we can establish foundations and we can ascertain what is true.
Agreed - I think it's best in that case to totally and overtly ignore the rubbish and really emphasise and repeat, reinforce, and repeat loudly those established foundations/moorings, thus drowning out the BS.
braavooooo...Francis; l was entirely and utterly taken in --- that regretfully puts a huge question mark against Andrew Johnson's emphatic backing and promotion of Ms Wood's synopsis -- ho hum!
Ok, all done reading part one and part 2. I fully respect your arguments, and I'm not even going to attempt to refute any of them. I am now at the stage that I have accepted I will never accept 100% what happened on 911. Its true that controlled demolition is the most likely explanation. But I still have question about the strangeness of the weather. Also, im not expert on the Hutchison effect, but indo not believe that works by way of a laser beam. I have my own questions around that too; such as, how do you aim the Hutchinson effect whatever it is at just 2 (or 3...or more if you inside all the building that fell) buildings. Also, the strange holes in the other WTC buildings. So, while you have made me question what I had allowed myself to be convinced of, and great respect to you for that, I am still no closer to having this day figured out in my head. But that's fine. BTW, im pretty sure we are in agreement on just about 100% of everything else considered conspiracy, well, as far as I can tell anyway. Thanks Francis
Thanks Rob, in reponse to your questions:
First we have to replicate the Hutchison effect to demonstrate that it isn't nonsense.
The damage to the WTC buildings was caused by explosions, falling debris and collapses in the sublevels as explained in numerous of the citations provided.
Well, that's a fair comment about the Hutchison Effect. I just wonder if its one of those many technologies that have been stolen and hidden from the masses. I always like to admit when I was wrong or have changed my mind. And while I have not completely changed my mind, im certainly no longer certain.