77 Comments
Oct 15Liked by Francis O'Neill

I've always found the directed energy beam and 'dustification' nonsense, that people share, embarrassingly cringe and annoying!

Expand full comment
author
Oct 15·edited Oct 15Author

It's designed to discredit those who question.

Expand full comment

Stop projecting, Francis. The 9/11 DEW and dustification is correct and irrefutable. Here's a thread of the Towers turning to dust in mid-air: https://x.com/MathEasySolns/status/1770320084650864746

Expand full comment

Possibly the most important observation/point of all.

Second most important is designed to be a honeypot to entrap people who don't know any better (or have the knowledge/tools/education to see through BS and pseudoscience), especially people who are relatively new to the truth movement.

Cognitive infiltration/subversion, essentially.

Fantastic article, btw.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

Ah - and notice how it's also associated with the 'no planes' psyop (aka 'fake events' narrative). It's all suspiciously well coordinated...

Expand full comment

Actually not - Do you still believe vaccines are safe and effective?

Now try and challenge yourself on what you think you know about 9/11.

Revisiting the various 9/11 Plane Narratives

The most important thought experiment to date

Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/revisiting-the-911-cgi-plane-narrative

Expand full comment

Why are you bringing 'vaccines' into it? Don't you think that's a bit of a non sequitur? Not to mention presumptuous.

FYI I knew well in advance those jabs were bioweapons simply from the mechanism of action. I know a hell of a lot about medical science and biochemistry and suchlike, so from basic scientific knowledge there was never any way I'd go anywhere near getting jabbed with that shit.

I *may* amuse myself with your no-planes link at some point.

Expand full comment

Maybe familiarise yourself on the 9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline

Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

Was debunked and the person Jewdy Woods "her"self also many years ago... no idea why this DEW crap is still going strong... but one can read my opinion(s) on this at Petra Ls article - I am NOT promoting her btw. She is also somekind of (nasa) shill - but writes more truths. Like the 9/11 one. Cheers!...And can not someone delete this spam bot "9/11 revisionist" I reported him at Petras page already

Expand full comment

LOL - You're really funny...

Were the towers destroyed by a gravity collapse? The evidence says no.

Were the towers destroyed by thermite? The evidence says no.

Were the towers destroyed by explosives? The evidence says no.

Were the towers destroyed by nukes? The evidence says no.

The answers to these questions can easily be found by studying the evidence.

The problem is NOT a shortage of evidence.

The problem is nobody wants to LOOK at the evidence and think for themselves.

Instead, everyone wants to be TOLD WHAT TO THINK by "experts" in the MSM, alternative media, the scientific community, the government, and the "truth" movement, but these "experts" spend the whole time covering up and muddling up the evidence.

Here is a 20-minute video that most can follow: https://rumble.com/v5jnndx-understanding-the-911-evidence.html

Expand full comment

Is there one patent existing that devises a DEW that can 'atomise' solid materials?

What examples of 'atomising' concrete is there, other than your claim 911 underwent such energies?

It MAY BE possible one-day, somehow, yet there is no proof at all that DEWs can do such things on a large scale (ie they may work on microscopic systems such as ultrasonics in the medical profession) , & certainly not from a moving source ... or from alleged 'outer space'!

Expand full comment

911 is a spam addict, yet not a bot seemingly.

He is intellectually decrepit & mentally constipated... however his delusions & overt psychosis maintain & motivate his uncanny endurance to perpetrate certain lies.

Petra is also a shill thing, as you note. Her NASA apologist stance is hilarious & undermines all her other comments & observations.

Like ALL plants she tells some resonant 'truths' then confabulates it with outright madness & overt lies.

Sadly it is fairer if 911 ReVisionTwist is allowed to promote his opinions. Hopefully insightful commentators will counter them in some way & intuitive folk can simply ignore him. To silence him should be depriving thinking people of the opportunity to see the spectrum of views that may be possible, however fanciful they may be.

The directed energy weapons defiantly used are tools like 911 RevisionTwister , the MSM & pundits obsessively promoting the same old worn out theories/fantasies, like Andrew Johnson & similar goons.

More esoteric weapons that can 'dustify' (what a crap term!) /'atomise' solid objects may have been used, yet they are unregistered & unheard of in all the decades of research I've done on DEWs ! there is no overt proof they were used on the Towers...or needed to be to achive the results seen- as you also note.

DEWs do exist , yet none do what Jewdy has claimed as all the ones claimed to exist work on biological systems. They may have been more likely used on the nearby weather system for example, or something akin was used to manipulate the weather..effectively it is still a Directed Energy 'Device' or methodology, such as HAARP, or what we are lead to believe about such constructions?

The closest claim for such 'atomising' DEWs is the Hutchinson effect which may be possible in some instances, tho it is claimed by HIM & informed observers that with his work it relies on the 'operator' , not simply on his combination of Tesla Coils & other 'resonators' capable of molecular transformative powers he uses.

Expand full comment

"This overlooks the fact that the towers did not fall in a single block from a great height, that the concrete was observably exploding in mid-air and so not hitting the ground intact"

If you know anything about physics, you'd understand that this is not a counterargument at all. Dividing a mass into smaller masses will not decrease the amount of energy propagated through the ground by its total impact (unless the masses become so minute that air resistance stops being negligible, which is Judy Wood's whole thing)

Expand full comment
author

The end of the sentence provides more context...and as it says in the reference link written and reviewed by scientists, no one is disputing that "The mass of concrete could have contributed virtually nothing to the signal as it was largely converted to dust and dispersed before it reached the ground."

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment
Oct 15·edited Oct 15

"it was largely converted to dust"

Yes. Judy Wood's argument.

I don't think demolitions or thermite would do that at all, when you compare the 911 event with other demolitions and what thermite looks like if you put enough thermite in there to dustify the concrete and steel and glass –it would look like the biggest fireworks in history–

Expand full comment
author
Oct 15·edited Oct 17Author

As is clearly stated in the article, the concrete was converted to small fragments but the steel was not which is a key failure of Wood's argument.

The WTC demolitions looked like other demolitions.

https://youtu.be/WYh6OO61zdk?si=qypl8OG5a5VusSM6

Expand full comment
Oct 15·edited Oct 15

As Roy Walker frequently said to his contestants and the TV viewing audience, “"Say what you see"! Also, "It's good, but it's not right".

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

You can download the Refutation of Richard Gage’s Game in 2008 AND 2023: https://truthsummit.info/media-files/DrJudyWood-refutation-RichardGage-claims.pdf

Thermite Revisited & Demolished in 2024

Aerospace Engineer discusses the truth about thermite and September 11, 2001

Presentation: https://911revision.substack.com/p/thermite-revisited-and-demolished

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

It seems you have some new super fans Francis 😁 it must be your boyish charm.

Will you cover the phone calls from the planes in this series? I’m not sure what the range was in 2001 but the 2g signal does travel far these days (20-30+km) which is way in excess of a flight altitude of 30000 ft. I would sometimes forget to turn my phone off and I’d still get messages during a flight. The pilots always had theirs on too.

Expand full comment

9/11 Planes Research: You can also subscribe and follow over at Substack:

https://911planesresearch.substack.com/

Expand full comment
author

Yes, you get inundated when you're over the target. It's been this way for years.

There is bullet point info on the phonecalls here https://www.consensus911.org/point-pc-1/

Expand full comment
Oct 16Liked by Francis O'Neill

Thank you 🙏

For what it’s worth I trust your judgement and integrity. You’re always open to different points of view. I appreciate your efforts.

Expand full comment
author

Thank you Shouty 🙏

Expand full comment
author

A recent presentation here from Ted Walter is very informative on the phonecalls. I have timestamped it to where the relevant section begins.

https://youtu.be/QRJnAu0tq8w?si=10iuYi4r9MqHG4fW&t=3966

Expand full comment

I’m annoyed I can’t view this. I can’t watch most YouTube videos without signing in to confirm I’m not a bot 🙄

This 9/11 series of yours is creating a lot of unease. I read an interesting thread from David Hughes where people stated how they enjoy your interviews and perspectives but your 9/11 views are creating ‘red flags’.

I could be wrong but I think you’re the type to have read all the links and reviewed the evidence and will happily have a reasoned debate about anything. I wonder what it is about this subject that gets people so triggered? Are you saying stuff you’re not supposed to?

Expand full comment
author

Francis, they’re not my concerns. My concern is that you are being targeted. And thank you for the 4d’s link. The swarming in the comments is one of the reasons I logged off of Twitter (and then was locked out). I love what you do and also your quiet determination to keep at it despite the detractors. I’m still cheerleading for you.

Expand full comment

You over target? What a laugh you are...

Here is a real citizen investigator, all thing 9/11 planes related.

9/11 Plane Research - https://911planesresearch.substack.com/

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

So much disinfo so little time. Let's start with your weird gaslighting claim that the Bathtub "has survived Earthquakes". Stop purposely gaslighting. Dr. Judy Wood correctly points out that the Bathtub was barely damaged since 1 million tons of material didn't fall on them, aka they turned to dust above them (and even above the Stairwell B survivors): https://youtu.be/_V3f1mB70Ys

Expand full comment

O, jeez - So much misrepresentation of her statements that Dr Wood has made over the years, so many straw man talking points raised, which has been discussed over the years, if only you did more research.... tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk....

Where to begin, or shall I write a whole article discussing your misrepresentations?

Or, wait - Let me start here....

You are promoting the explosives and thermite THEORIES right? So, let's address that real quick...

1. When Steven E. Jones / AE911 submitted their request for correction to NIST, why did it not mention their "explosive evidence" of "molten metal" and "thermite", which Richard gage also latched on to and is extorting money from people selling them this narrative?

2. Why has this "explosive evidence" of "molten metal" or thermite, never seen the inside of a court room?

3. Why did all of these talking points and the AE website only pop up AFTER Dr Wood filed her 2007 Qui-Tam whistleblower case against NIST's 23 subcontractors for science fraud?

Maybe you need to revisit the 9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline, pulled back to 2005, when James Fetzer, Steven E. Jones and Dr Wood were part of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" and then read up on what the various points of contention was in the early days of the 9/11 "truth" movement....

Read the article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline

I have another question, dear writer - Can you count past 3?

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

With regards to Dr Wood's statement: The building mostly turned to dust, before hitting the ground...

Here is a challenge a 5 year old would be able to answer you with:

When you look at the debris field...

If we were to play pick up sticks, would you be able to rebuild the towers?

The 5 year old answer is NOT A CHANCE...

A “Lengthy” Discussion of WTC Steel - As an attempt to numerically illustrate the level of destruction, an overall figure of the total length of steel, which should have been present in the debris pile, is here calculated. Article: https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress/2007/11/03/a-lengthy-discussion-of-wtc-steel/

Relating to the straw man term Dr Steven E. Jones coined - "Laser beams from space", which you latched on to.... Maybe you should read Dr Wood's FAQ page - It seems you have not

Link: https://www.drjudywood.com/wp/faq/

Initially in 2012, most people weren’t familiar with the concept of DEW (Directed Energy Weapons), so you had to find a way to get people’s attention…

So, Dr Wood wrote a paper, called “Star Wars Beam Weapons”.

Why was “Star Wars Beam Weapons” used as the title for that paper? https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/DEW---Directed-Energy-Weapons:5

This term was used because it is a familiar term that has been used over the last 20+ years to describe weaponry under development as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).

Since little is known about the technology specifically, though numerous articles and Defense websites describe its existence, plus the fact that hundreds of billions of dollars have been channeled to research in this area, it is reasonable to expect that tremendous advances have been made in technology over the past 50 years since microwaves and lasers were first developed. The title was later changed to “Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW), (brought to you by the Star Wars Program)”.

The other popular straw man distraction term used is “Space Beams” so again, let us go to the FAQ explanation… https://www.drjudywood.com/wp/faq/

Is your “space beam” hypothesis testable?

First of all, I have never used the term “space beams.” It is a derogatory term used to distract folks away from looking at the real evidence. The term was first coined by physicist Steven E. Jones within days of my first posting an article suggesting a high-tech energy weapon was used to destroy the WTC. It has been speculated that the purpose of using this name was to mock the hypothesis that unconventional methods were used to destroy the WTC. At this point, it has not been determined exactly what weapon was used, but the general category of what was used is fairly clear. The visual data as well as the issues related to the bathtub fragility and ground shaking eliminate the conventional demolition methods that have been proposed to date. The buildings “floated” to the ground as dust. So, is this hypothesis testable? Yes! And each of the phenomena identified at the WTC complex on 9/11 has been reproduced in a lab. We present this evidence here. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/ This may or may not be the exact same way of creating the effects, but it is the same mechanism.

I suggest everyone reading this article goes through the FAQ page as you will then see how easy it was to refute Gage’s and architects for an engineered truth’s game in 2008 already and again in 2023.

Link: https://truthsummit.info/media-files/DrJudyWood-refutation-RichardGage-claims.pdf

I highly recommend you read this article:

Secret Super Weapons, UFO's & 9/11

Scalar, Electromagnetics, RF Weapons and Magnetic Electro Gravitic Nuclear Reactions

Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/secret-super-weapons-ufos-and-911

Next - You claim of the rubble being in the basement - Oops - You're full of it again... Tsk, tsk, tsk

The mostly EMPTY basements of the Twin Towers.

Most people have been led to believe the lie that the basements were full of rubble.

Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-mostly-empty-basements-of-the

Revisiting the basements of the WTC.

Most people have been led to believe the lie that the basements were full of rubble.

Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/revisiting-the-basements-of-the-wtc

O, dear - There you go referencing "Greg Jenkins" - You do know he has connections to the NSA and DEW? His work was supported in part by NSF grant DMR-9705129 and by funding from the NSA - read more here: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline

Dr Greg Jenkins’ “Directed Debunking Energy” and Dr Judy Wood

Scholarly Questions and Inquiry, or Badgering, Misrepresentation and Harassment?

Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/dr-greg-jenkins-directed-debunking

On the "smoke issue" - Have a read....

The 100 days of "smoke" at ground zero.

The COLD rubble pile at the World Trade Center...

Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-100-day-fuming-and-molecular

On the seismic data - 9/11 "Truthers" vs. The Seismic Evidence

No Primary or Secondary Waves Recorded

Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truthers-vs-the-seismic-evidence

On the toasted cars - AGAIN, you follow the lead of Richard Gage, giving half truths and misrepresenting what she presented - Have you even bothered to read her book or listen to any presentations she's given over the years, or do you just go off a cheat sheet, by Richard Gage or the architects for an engineered truth?

Let me give an accurate account of the "toasted cars"

The 1400 "toasted" cars on 9/11.

"Toasted" means they're toast, done for, unfixable.

Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-1-400-toasted-cars-on-911

The onset of the rust on the vehicles, were due to "molecular dissociation" of metal - same for the steel beams of the towers - Maybe this article will make it easier for you to understand:

The molecular dissociation of the thermite & nuke theories

Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-controlled-demolition-of-thermite

For now, I've already given you enough "homework" but I'll leave you with my presentation:

Refutation of the 9/11 "truther" narratives

A special presentation refuting 10 points of contention against DEW on 9/11

Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/refutation-of-the-911-truther-narratives

I look forward to your part 2 - Maybe we can have a face to face discussion of the evidence someday - Then you'll prove you've got bigger balls than Richard Gage and the rest of his fan boys out there...

Warring AGAINST free speech, open discourse, and the truth of what really happened on 9/11

A War Room... Or a padded playroom, a safe space?

Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/cowards-for-911-truth

Expand full comment

💯

Expand full comment

Francis - I really hope you're not going to be deleting my comments, as you did in prior articles, where I pointed out how wrong you are...

9/11 and the Debunking Olympics.

It's been ongoing since 2005 and the truth seems to be lurking in the shadows.

Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-and-the-debunking-olympics

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

Expand full comment
author

I've never deleted any comments on here. I wonder why you would say that.

Expand full comment

I check articles where I comment to see what happens to my comments, as people who tend to push the 2nd level of the cover-up, usually do...

I suggest, after doing the homework I gave you - To go read this article, if you are a true "journalist" wanting to find the truth, as so far, you seem to ignored everything I've raised with you...

I will again, invite you to a face to face discussion, to help you break through your premeditated ignorance...

September 11, 2001 - An Essential Guide (2024)

Sept 11, 2001 has been and still is a 23 year long PSYOP.

Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/september-11-2001-an-essential-guide

Official narrative – Jet fuel.

Option behind door no 1 – explosives,

door no 2 – thermite,

door no 3 – buried or mini nukes. Just don’t look at where the EVIDENCE points to, a black-ops cold DEW technology, that can direct energy to disrupt the molecular bonds of matter. (Direct or control – where it goes and what it does)

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

Read Dr Wood’s book: Where did the towers go? https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress/product/where-did-the-towers-go-by-dr-judy-wood/

Andrew Johnson's two FREE E-Books on 9/11:

1. 9/11 Finding the Truth - http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/pdf/9-11%20-%20Finding%20the%20Truth.pdf

2. 9/11 Holding the Truth - http://checktheevidencecom.ipage.com/checktheevidence.com/pdf/911%20Holding%20The%20Truth%20-Andrew%20Johnson%20-%202017.pdf

Expand full comment

911 ReVisionTwister,

If you didn't get all psychotic & go 'spam crazy' people wouldn't need to delete you repetitive tedious propaganda. You must know what a social parasite you appear with your arrogant , attention seeking actions.

You act like a sad FANATIC,

please learn to refrain from shitting everywhere you go, or a least use a form of 'literary nappy' to mitigate the mess you leave everywhere you go.

Obviously you are quite mad, and this distracts from any content you may have. Thankfully your content is an adolescent fantasy as far as any comparison with reality currently provides.. so the fact you sabotage your own work saves most folk a lot of time !

Expand full comment

Were the towers destroyed by a gravity collapse? The evidence says no.

Were the towers destroyed by thermite? The evidence says no.

Were the towers destroyed by explosives? The evidence says no.

Were the towers destroyed by nukes? The evidence says no.

The answers to these questions can easily be found by studying the evidence.

The problem is NOT a shortage of evidence.

The problem is nobody wants to LOOK at the evidence and think for themselves.

Instead, everyone wants to be TOLD WHAT TO THINK by "experts" in the MSM, alternative media, the scientific community, the government, and the "truth" movement, but these "experts" spend the whole time covering up and muddling up the evidence.

Here is a 20-minute video that most can follow: https://rumble.com/v5jnndx-understanding-the-911-evidence.html

Expand full comment

I look & see constructed imagery, edited to appear like a film maker would devise it.

You still can not supply any proof such types of DEW exist , so resort to the same old TIME VAMPIRE HYSTERIA you always do, invalidating your claims with a ' WHAT IF' state of adolescent speculation.

DEWs do not 'atomise' concrete' quickly or on a large scale as far as ANYONE is aware. You may as well say ALIEN MIND BEAMS did it!

Supply proof that it is possible in some way .... or shut the fuck up & piss off.

Expand full comment

Stop having a soy boy snowflake meltdown, cupcake…

Secret Super Weapons, UFO's & 9/11

Scalar, Electromagnetics, RF Weapons and Magnetic Electro Gravitic Nuclear Reactions

Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/secret-super-weapons-ufos-and-911

I’ll repeat myself again…

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

Were the towers destroyed by a gravity collapse? The evidence says no.

Were the towers destroyed by thermite? The evidence says no.

Were the towers destroyed by explosives? The evidence says no.

Were the towers destroyed by nukes? The evidence says no.

The answers to these questions can easily be found by studying the evidence.

The problem is NOT a shortage of evidence.

The problem is nobody wants to LOOK at the evidence and think for themselves.

Instead, everyone wants to be TOLD WHAT TO THINK by "experts" in the MSM, alternative media, the scientific community, the government, and the "truth" movement, but these "experts" spend the whole time covering up and muddling up the evidence.

Here is a 20-minute video that most can follow: https://rumble.com/v5jnndx-understanding-the-911-evidence.html

Expand full comment

🙄😂🤣😂

More cut & paste time vampire BS from you .

You are obviously projecting too much.

Here it is obvious I am laughing at your lack of aptitude & substance.

tROT ON Re-VisionTwister,

it is all you can really do.

Expand full comment

Don't forget to vote for Harris - Your people are waiting for you.

Expand full comment

Francis, I was directed to your post by David Hughes' criticism of it (https://dhughes.substack.com/p/how-not-to-critique-judy-wood). I'm bewildered by how many people have fallen for the DEWs hypothesis.

I've discovered - only very recently to my shame because it should have been much sooner considering my familiarity with the website, cluesforum.info - that the footage of all three towers is faked - pretty funny, no? - yep, it's all faked and they tell us so clearly Revelation-of-the-Method style, eg, they show the Chrysler building in a close-up view of the towers coming down when that building is miles away in midtown. https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911-the-movie

I believe it is against physical reality for the mechanical penthouse (HVAC, etc machinery ) atop WTC-7 to collapse before any signs of weakening of the main structure. Moreover, after the east penthouse collapses what seems to happen with the west penthouse is that the eastern side of it seems to extend and then retract which is further against expectations - https://youtu.be/Vgx8Uwo-Vxc?si=GGh0ybVTqjKxde2c&t=52

So any argument from the point of view of the footage of the destructions has no value.

The toasted cars: these are clearly fake as pointed out in cluesforum - the missing number plates and door-handles indicate they are junkyard cars. https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2353131&sid=23f2f036155a7f47367a6a0e1adc1b6c#p2353131

We cannot really take anything at face value in what is shown to us - we first need to determine if is real rather than fake.

These are clear facts though:

--- There are ZERO buildings recognised as coming down by DEWs and the DEW claims in Hawaii have been debunked - we also have the "toasted" cars there too - https://chemtrails.substack.com/p/were-maui-dews-a-psyop-did-we-fall

--- The massive controlled demolition company, Controlled Demolition Inc (CDI), achieved three of their four world records in large building demolition projects in the three years prior to 9/11 - 1998 (2), 2000 (10), using standard methods

--- We are told that CDI presented their cleanup plan for the WTC eleven days after the fateful event so it is a perfectly reasonable inference that CDI was massively involved in the destruction of all the buildings at the WTC.

--- As a large psyop we expect multiple streams of propaganda to bamboozle, fragment and undermine

"Molten metal" indicating thermite/nanothermite is another propaganda stream so alleged witnesses saying they saw molten metal is not to be trusted either. What channel rails are they talking about? (ChatGPT telling us about channel rails - https://chatgpt.com/c/6713231a-3020-800a-a13f-bb1852881f80)

Lots and lots of actors in the 9/11 story and we need to be very, very careful.

The most important element that has gone undetected by a great percentage of truthers is the fakery of the dead and injured. 9/11 was, essentially, apart from being the most massive demolition job of all time - a compilation of a huge number of drills running from before to after 9/11 forming a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terror Exercise.

9/11 was a demolition job and what happens in demolition jobs? They fully evacuate the buildings and surrounding areas prior to demolition, they don't partly evacuate them, especially not for a terror story which is all about mind control not doing things for real ... unless they're WANTED for real. They didn't want to kill people for real and killing people for real would have been so impracticable considering the number of people they needed to involve as to be impossible. Sure, they're killing people by the millions seemingly now but that's on the back of centuries of scientific fraud - leaving people to die in buildings though is a completely different proposition.

https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911

Expand full comment

😁....I don't have to like or trust you to appreciate that reasoned & useful overview.

Now please do something overtly shilly to compensate for your good work on this topic ! 😂

Expand full comment

Francis, I've written in response to David Hughes' criticism of your article although I haven't defended you or criticised him directly, just made a few quick points to effectively debunk his case without directly addressing it. I'm now OFFICIALLY OVER Judy Wood and I do not care what 9/11 Revisionist or any other JW supporter says on my article, I probably won't respond.

https://dhughes.substack.com/p/how-not-to-critique-judy-wood

https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/judy-wood-and-dews-a-quick-and-simple

Expand full comment

Great article - it's way beyond time to call out and expose all these cognitive infiltrators.

I say we all just go back to the original Loose Change video and remember the big picture, and everything that was just blindingly obvious at the time. It's really not a complex event, 9-11.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

EverLyin'- all you do is an act of cognitive infiltration.. as a self confessed 'Multiple personality Disordered, mind controlled SPY from another dimension' !

🙄😂🤣😂

You must live on substack judging by your constant presence here.

If you weren't an overt shill you would have supported the real researchers you tried to belittle after a very petty & fragile tiff you had on Iain Davis pages.. instead you went & did what ALL troll/shills do- & in the process ended your pathetic career before it really started.

Keep going tho, your support is typically a great warning for decent folk to evade whatever it is you are promoting.... here it seems to be 'real planes ' were used in the tower impacts 🙄😂.

Expand full comment

Proving Woods over-estimated the dustification does not disproved DEWs. Microwaves are more likely to weaken structure, not dustify it. Further, a microwave attack (masers?) would more likely come from ground or ship facilities than outer space creating an interference amplification at the target site. I'm not sure how the destruction is being done.

Expand full comment

Please supply proof of microwaves compromising the integrity of solid materials such as concrete & steel.

Even the Hutchinson effect does not rely on microwaves as far as I'm aware.

Expand full comment

The Hutchinson effect is created when you have an electrostatic field and one then have intersecting sound and microwaves in that static field...

Here, let Bob Greenyer from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project explain his ground-breaking work on exotic vacuum objects (EVOs), Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR or "Cold Fusion), and the Hutchison Effect.

Link: https://rumble.com/v53eodh-bob-greenyer-911-no-thermite-no-little-neutron-bomb-or-jet-fuel-required..html

Expand full comment

Well that is all dreams of funding parasites , no such thing as cold fusion has ever been achieved or replicated.

No one has reproduced Hutchinson's work either.

All your claims come from overt Hyksos conspirators who control the Smoke & Mirrors Industry & lie for a living.

You really are a desperate Time Vampire with nothing better to do than lurk about on substack all day...🙄🥱

You still haven't provided any proof that FREE ENERGY WEAPONS exist & neither has Jewdy. If she had avoided the free energy aspect her work might have been more credible, however things like that give her away as a fantasist more than a 'researcher'. It's incredible how she twists it all into 'these free energy weapons could be used for good as well', while laughing like a clown in a state of rictus !

tROT ON little maggot being.

Expand full comment

We are talking about anomalies that can't be explained by publically known phenomenon. The theory is top secret DEWs involving microwaves. Your demand for certainty is silly. Free Energy is silly. Waves that undo molecular bonds would not be free energy anymore than lighting paper with a match is. Who said Woods made no mistakes?

Expand full comment

Are you an expert in stating the obvious Lloyd ?

What is the point of your silly comment ?

The anomalies are based on a series of fictions, a light show with smoke & mirrors, consolidated parties & paid actors.

Fee energy exists as AIR, and the movements of water for a fact, so the idea isn't as silly as you claim. The idea that 'free energy DEWs' were fundamental to the 911 event isn't proven, yet stated as fact by Jewdy... thats a rather unavoidable obstacle to taking anything she says seriously.

As for her structural engineering status- try & find ANY paper she has written on Mechanical engineering & give us a link... none seem to exist....she is a constructed person by the looks of it, positioned for shallow minds & fanatics in nature?

I suggest you see her name as a type of symbolic joke, it may help clarify your views a bit ?

Expand full comment

Air is not free energy.

Your attempt to disprove DEWs make no sense.

Expand full comment

Let's rewind to 1751 - A quick history lesson...

EXPERIMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS ON ELECTRICITY, MADE AT Philadelphia in America, BY Mr. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, AND Communicated in several Letters to Mr. P. Collinson, of London, F. R. S. In the year 1751

Link: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/45515/45515-h/45515-h.htm

53. Metals are often melted by lightning, tho' perhaps not from heat in the lightning, nor altogether from agitated fire in the metals.—For as whatever body can insinuate itself between the particles of metal, and overcome the attraction by which they cohere (as sundry menstrua can) will make the solid become a fluid, as well as fire, yet without heating it: so the electrical fire, or lightning, creating a violent repulsion between the particles of the metal it passes thro', the metal is fused.

54. If you would, by a violent fire, melt off the end of a nail, which is half driven into a door, the heat given the {49}whole nail before a part would melt, must burn the board it sticks in. And the melted part would burn the floor it dropp'd on. But if a sword can be melted in the scabbard, and money in a man's pocket, by lightning, without burning either, it must be a cold fusion.

Hutchison effect replicated in private sector: York University, June 2008

Link: http://hutchisoneffectreproduced.blogspot.com/2008/06/hutchison-effect-replicated-in-private.html

Ken Shoulders has replicated Hutchison experiments, and Takaaki Matsumoto has done similar experiments. https://youtu.be/b4PiuU9H3o4 and https://youtu.be/VrzBFmgDkyI

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

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

How to critique Jewdy Wood...

She is another vulture faced, rancid kunt compulsive liar, whoring for Hyksos interests & laughing at public gullibility... & their masochistic need for fantasy fiction fear.

Weapons from space! Energy Weapons that no one has ever devised or patented used secretly, from secret space platforms, by secret space teams = Bogeymen tactics as old as the first lies.

How to critique you 911 ReVisionTwister ...

a sad , lonely goon who has never archived anything in his miserable existence & is desperate for attention. Here you act like a FANATIC, annoying everyone with cut & paste repetition & spam- linking the same things hundreds of times. Even if you had something valid to say you would repulse most folk with your behaviour & blatant arrogance on the topic.... This is all you do ALL day seemingly! Like some internet spider pouncing on any comment about 911- then you try & indoctrinate everyone with an idea with no proof what-so-ever!

Expand full comment

The fact of the matter is, there is no speculation on “how it went down.”

Just an independent empirical investigation of the observable evidence that has you come to an irrefutable conclusion, and it points to black-ops technology that most people just can’t fathom, because it’s too sci-fi for them to wrap their heads around it.

That’s that the perps were counting on and the 9/11 “truther” movement was installed in 2005 to have people NOT wake up to the fact. It’s nicely chronicled in these two books – 9/11 Finding the truth and 9/11 Holding the truth, by Andrew Johnson.

You might also want to read the 2007 qui-tam whistle-blower case files presenting the evidence collected.

It was also nicely put together her 500-page textbook, that should be mandatory reading for everyone on earth.

Lastly, with regards to the technology used on 9/11, MOST are missing the bigger picture!

Just as the hazardous and wasteful technology behind a nuclear bomb can also be used to provide hazardous and wasteful nuclear power, the technology which caused the clean and effortless molecular dissociation of the twin towers could also be used to give the whole world effortless clean energy.

Exposing this clean free energy technology means and end to the ruling elite's ability to control and exploit the general population through scarce, expensive, dirty and inefficient resources such as oil, coal, nuclear and "renewables".

Any group with an interest in maintaining the current paradigm of artificial scarcity and crappy energy technologies, which keeps the general population enslaved, would have an interest in helping to maintain the 9/11 cover up, because exposing the crime also exposes the TECHNOLOGY to commit it.

Maybe the people who did 9/11 operate under a code of conduct where they have to show this technology to the people, so they have the opportunity to claim it.

And if the people are too stupid or apathetic to show any interest, they will then feel justified in keeping it for themselves and continuing to control and exploit the human herd, like the CATTLE they have shown themselves to be.

You might think it's insane, and it is, but remember we're talking about a group of people who are willing to turn skyscrapers to DUST, live on TV.

In the final analysis there is no "grand" deception" or cover up. There is only BLUFF!

Because everyone can see what happened to the buildings was clearly and PROVABLY NOT a structural failure (collapse) or a conventional controlled demolition by ANY thermal or kinetic mechanism!

Official narrative – Jet fuel.

Option behind door no 1 – explosives,

door no 2 – thermite,

door no 3 – buried or mini nukes.

Just don’t look at where the EVIDENCE points to.

A black-ops cold DEW technology that can direct energy to disrupt the molecular bonds of matter. (Direct or control – where it goes and what it does)

Expand full comment

My conclusion is it is ALL SPECTACLE

Maya for the masses

& morons like you to prosper & feed off.

& your long response was again CUT & PASTE as you had no time to construct it!

You again prove all you really are is a TIME VAMPIRE & social poison.

Expand full comment

Insults are the last resort of an insecure people with a crumbling position trying to appear confident...

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

Sept 11 is a crime that should be solved by a forensic study of the evidence. Before it can be determined who did it, it must first be determined what was done and how it was done.

The order of crime solving is to determine

1) WHAT happened, then

2) HOW it happened (e.g., what weapon), then

3) WHO did it. And only then can we address

4) WHY they did it (i.e. motive).

Let us remember what is required to (legally) convict someone of a crime.

You cannot convict someone of a crime based on belief.

You cannot convict someone of a crime if you don’t even know what crime to charge them with.

If you accuse someone of murder using a gun, you’d better be sure the body has a bullet hole in it. And yet before noon on 9/11/01, we were told who did it, how they did it, and why they did it (they hate us for our freedoms); before any investigation had been conducted to determine what had even been done.

Many people have speculated as to who committed the crimes of 9/11 and/or how they did so. But without addressing what happened, speculation of this kind is nothing more than conspiracy theory, a phrase that also describes the 19 bad guys with box cutters story we were given before noon on 9/11/01.

Dr Wood’s research is not speculation and she’s been the closest to getting to the bottom of the who dunnit.

Dr Wood did a forensics investigation of what happened to the WTC complex on 9/11/01.

She does not address who did it, nor am I concerned with that question right now.

Before issues of that kind can be addressed, we must first determine what happened.

By definition, research that is purely empirical cannot be about and has nothing to do with conspiracy theory of any kind.

The fact that others (in the mainstream media, the alternative media, and the so-called 9/11 truth movement) promote various theories about 9/11 is irrelevant to Dr Wood’s research. On the other hand, to determine what happened, we must address all of the available evidence.

Anyone declaring who did what or how they did it before they have determined what was done is merely promoting either speculation or propaganda.

The popular chant, “9/11 was an inside job,” is, scientifically speaking, no different from the chant that “19 bad guys with box cutters did it.” Neither one is the result of a scientific investigation supported by evidence that would be admissible in court.

Neither identifies what crime was committed or how it was committed.

There are a lot of coincidences with regards to the build-up, on the day and the days after 9/11. There are suspects as to who might have had some sort of involvement in the events of 9/11, but for now it’s all they are. Suspects.

Dr Wood sued 23 NIST subcontractors who were tasked with security and clean up at ground zero. These companies also helped write reports that made up the scientifically flawed, 10 000 NIST report.

Two of the main defendants in the case were ARA and SAIC, who specialise in psychological warfare, weather manipulation and directed energy weapons, DEW.

If Dr Wood’s 2009 US Supreme Court Case wasn’t railroaded by the judge, she would have been able to depose these 23 companies and in so doing, would have been closer to determining exactly HOW and then we’d get a lot closer to WHO and WHY.

But we can have our suspects for now, but we need hard evidence to convict.

Read Dr Wood’s book: Where did the towers go? https://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com/

Expand full comment

More cut & psate Time Vampire tactics from you again.

Re INSULTS - No they aren't. You are obviously a very sheltered & fragile goon to image so.

Here's some insults to chew on for you-

you are a pet feltching clown, paid to suck arse for a controlled ops division of balding child molesters.

Your mother did dogs for the local Masons, while your dad got dog dicked for the W.I.

You dress up like Andrew Johnson in drag & go shop lifting for a buzz at weekends.

You fantasise Jewdy Wood is circumcising you with a rusty bread knife whenever you have a bath & clean your knob with a girolle/ cheese curler.

Expand full comment

LOL - You seem to have serious mental issues, cupcake.

You’re acting like a Harris voter.

All I can do is pity you…

Expand full comment