There you go again Francis - Truly intellectually disingenuous....
I'm not going delve into your full article and break it down bit by bit, because I see it as a waste of time, as I have danced with disingenuous people like you way too often and my articles cover people like you in depth, BUT I will suggest people look at the "truth suppressie timeline" article I wrote as it lays out exactly what happened right after the "9/11 scholars for truth" was formed in 2005 and how Dr Wood, Prof James Fetzer, Dr Steven E. Jones were "comparing notes" and what fallout there was....
Maybe you too need to go read it? It also covers Greg Jenkins...
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
Francis old beam, (bean) this is jaw droppingly shocking on so many levels (no pun intended).
Ms Woods credibility is utterly eviscerated.
How has this person a PhD?
The Interviewer was much smarter (in the American sense) than Ms Wood, and it was evident that he was struggling not to laugh at her risible answers.
I have one question for YOU:
When viewed there is no doubt that the footage shows a fully intact aeroplane, strike and penetrate the tower, nose cone is still in place and undamaged, how is this possible and the manoeuvre needed to perform this collision could not have been performed by novices, who were allegedly taught to fly single propeller planes, never mind highly trained pilots who state the impossibility of it.
I have seen CCTC footage of a missile hitting the Pentagon.
Both Miri and your good self appear to have, in the process, exposed R D Hall and A Johnson esq; both are either highly engineers and a physicist.
All I will say is David Shayler told me they didn't use real planes, Bin Lid was really a CIA asset and it was comprehensively an inside job, it was a MOSSAD production:
I have seen ZERO evidence of a "plane" crashing into a tower..(fake footage) BUT some kind of missile/drone for sure / eg. tomahawk etc possibly. To at least have the sound of engines and some kind of "impact" even.
Not ofc from a civil airliner... it was a movie. And the empty towers theory from LETS ROLL forums (where I was member but they found this already ofc before I joined!) explains also mostly that the rubble pile was no so big/high. But this is all only details, important is towers brought down by the cabal themselves, no planes or "dew"/"nuke" was required. JW & conop cohorts were send in, to disturb the truth and ridiculte real researchers w/ her CRAP. She can not even explain her own "theory", What a joke, also that there are still persons beLIEving her crap
"I have seen ZERO evidence of a "plane" crashing into a tower"
Then, not only are you not looking https://ajl.smugmug.com/911/Ground-Zero/i-ZcG62cr/A youre also not thinking. This happened in lower Manhattan during rush hour on a weekday morning, in one the most highly exposed & densely packed places on the planet, but you see no evidence of a plane crash. What do you reckon the ten of thousands of people who were there, watching live, saw??
People believe anything they see on TV. If, by some slim chance, people were looking when the first tower was attacked, they may have seen SOMETHING and not been sure what, only to turn on the TV and told what they saw and believed it.
Correct, this is why most prob they just send some planes overhead ( to have sound of jets and some "shades") and later ppl remember the sound and saw a plane (not one that crashed ofc) and TV/news tell this plane crashed into tower. When it did not, but ppl will later rationalize this bnut there was some researcher whop actually asked some ppl and iirc there were not many having seen a AIRLINER (maybe a tomahawk or mil plane ofc)
So someone put a crap / trash engine on a street corner somewhere and it is not known where it comes from or where the place is or who placed it there. Not sure what u wanna say w/ this link? I hope not as some kind of “proof” of airliners at 9/11….no that would be dumb :) EDIT; but on 2nd look this photo seems to be doctored anyways. So why are u giving us this bullcrap my friend? But SS is shill infected like the whole internet :=) So what do I expect :)
by 'C I 'you mean he was still working for the services...
right, did you see him incarcerated and ruined in gaol, for telling the truth, starving to death, covered in fleas living in a hole in the ground in Chiswick, paranoid and convinced he is the sun of god, the fabricated Jesus?
He also told me Tony Bliar is possessed!!
If Shayler is 'C I' I am Margaret Thatcher, he merely possessed a conscience and everything he said above can you disprove; and he and I are from the same town and born in the same room, placed in the same cot, went to the same school together...
Hmm. If you were that connected in childhood then a suspicious person in K7 might give you a +50 on the suspicion scale. Either that or speculate that you are him under an alias (or dissociated personality).
With regards to his incarceration I believe he got off with 4 months inside, compared to a maximum possible sentence of 14 years. That, however, doesn't include time served on remand and it doesn't say anything about the conditions in which he was kept.
If he got paranoid then perhaps the acid might've had something to do with it, is another consideration. Having said that, I can sympathise with your suggestion, having researched the likes of MK-Ultra and psychic driving and such like.
The clue to the limited hangout however is in Annie Machon's book, if you read between the lines and know your stuff. The tell is when she nonchalantly says David just walked out of Thames House with a load of files. No one 'just walks out of Thames House' with a load of highly classified documents without authorisation.
The interesting bit of this is who gave him the authorisation (and, admittedly, whether they did it in complete innocence of what he intended to do). There would be a definite plausible deniability built in there, after all, which would have to apply to his supervisor in G-section at the time (who would be the obvious prime suspect for K7 - which is why those responsible would create the plausible deniability). My suspicions are with Eliza Minotaur though (as usual).
Then again, there is the possibility that he was set up, so to speak. I don't discount that. Maybe this is where your own thoughts lie?
I was thinking of doing an article about all this, from a counter-espionage point of view, although it would only be somewhat academic and interesting from a purely history perspective, seeing as it's somewhat ancient history now, and besides I stopped following his exploits not long after 7/7.
If you really did know him from childhood and adolescence then I'd be intrigued about your knowledge and I would certainly have a lot of respect for your opinions. Of course now I am wondering whether his recruitment officer interviewed you about all that.
As good as the content is, it wasn’t that, which pleased me. It’s the quiet determination and the steadfastness in how you go about your business. You calmly breakdown the slurs and allegations and show us where our attention should be focussed.
No name calling, no nastiness, just the easy formation of words and trust in the reader to draw their own conclusions 🫡
Thank you, Shouty. I never know how to respond you because you are always so complimentary and that is slightly unfamiliar. I guess when we speak on these topics we become the 'front of house,' for the cause we represent and it's important to me not to discredit all those whose work I cite and the sacrifices they have made.
Also, when people are reading they are paying attention and you cannot be interrupted, so in this kind of discussion if reason is on your side, all else is superfluous. It even provides humour.
I have come to the conclusion that technically inept people like yourself will never be able to understand what actually happened that day
Even though it has been mentioned to you before that that specific airplane flying at the speeds it was seen flying that day and so close to sea level, where the air is relatively dense, is impossible; that if you look at the footage of the crash, the crash physics caught on footage is impossible: aluminum and plastic planes don't 'melt' into thick structural steel beams, yet you still come and present the idea that there were actual airplanes that flew into the buildings that day.
(For anyone new, this doesn't mean that the planes were CGI. There are other answers. If you want to learn what might have actually happened with the planes, follow Mark Conlon on Substack, or see all of 911 Revisionist's work on substack.)
Remember, the perpetrators will always show you the main story first, then they will have stories (multiple) ready for the people that rightly distrust the main story, to lure them right into another separate fairytale:
Door number 1 is planes hit the building, fire caused floors to collapse and building pancaked into its footprint.
Door number 2 is planes hit the building, but minimally technically adept people will recognize a fire wouldn't cause the structure of the building to fall, therefore it must have been a controlled demolition. This was either done through conventional explosives and/or thermite.
Door number 3 is planes were CGI and the building underwent a controlled demolition with the means of the previous door
Door number 4 is everything you see on the screen is fake. All of it. The planes were CGI, the footage we have of the collapse is fake. All of the footage was controlled from the get go. Maybe the footage of the building collapsing is real, but most of the what you see is fake because, you see, everything the mainstream media puts in front of your eyes is there for a reason...
But Charles, how do you know what the truth is?
The only way to do it is through evidence. You have to look at the evidence and have the technical capability to judge whether a story (a door) makes sense with it. Essentially, you gather all of the evidnece you can, and then you try to match all of that evidence with each of the stories. Now it becomes a game of discarding. If a story doesn't match the evidence observed, you can safely discard it (especially if there are glaring impossibilities).
Door number 4 (everything is fake) is the most easy to toss out. It is intellectualy lazy at best. The way you would make the point that everything shown is fake is to actually show discrepancies in the footage of the day, discrepancies that can't be plausibly explained by any other possible factor, or to show mere contradictions. But alas, anyone that just says everything shown is fake never 1) shows any of these required discrepancies and 2) never change their minds when shown that all of the footage is coherent with one another. So we can easily toss that one away.
Let's go to door number 1: Door number 1 is planes hit the building, fir caused floors to collapse and building pancaked into its footprint. As I explained it's impossible for these specific Boeings to go at the speeds they were caught on camera going. This is an impossibility. Pair that up with the impossible crash physics and we know that door number 1 is a false story meant to by the story for normies because it is the one that's pushed by all the mainstream sources.
Let's go to door number 2, which is planes hit the building, but minimally technically adept people will recognize a fire wouldn't cause the structure of the building to fall, therefore it must have been a controlled demolition. This was either done through conventional explosives and/or thermite. This is what the author of this piece believes. As explained earlier, this door is already fake because of the addition of the planes to the story, but with regards to the controlled demolition we can clearly see many glaring discrepancies with that story as well: the debris on the ground does not match the material that should be on the ground had the towers gone through any type of demolition. Any technically adept person looking at the footage of people walking at ground level right after the event, will understand this. 110-story buildings don't fall into their footprint after their demolition. The debris pile should be around 10%-12% the height of the original structure, yet the height of the debris pile did not even get to the top of the 3-story lobby (we can tell because the lobby had these distinct 'trident'-type beams. This lack of material refutes the story behind door number 2: no controlled demolition will have no debris on it. There are more reasons to reject this story, and if you want to learn more, dear reader, please go to 9/11 Revisionist's substack or to Math Easy Solutions on rumble.
Another interesting thing behind door number 2, the door our dear author wants you to open, is that this story is the main story put forth for the so-called 'truthers'. This is the story put forth by an organization called Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (911AET). This is a freemasonic organization founded and led by the masonic Richard Gage. We know the organization and Gage are part of the freemason nonsense due to the fact that he decides to included interesting numerology in his personal email: I believe his email is something along the lines of rgage33@.... And he deicdes to put in the same exact ruler found in the square that is part of the infamous freemason 'square and compass'. Of course, you have to verify all of this yourself, bu if you, my dear reader, believe this is just a coincidence, you are mistaken.
This fact has also been presented to the author of this piece and he has yet to comment on why he decides to push he narrative given to us by the freemason sect of 911AET. It's almost as if he wishes you to believe the story told by the freemasons.
Anyhow, if anyone actually wants to be enlightened as to what really happened in 911, please follow 9/11 Revisionist on substack and Math Easy Solutions on rumble.
She makes a lot of extreme claims not supported by the evidence. Extreme claims require extreme evidence. She uses fuzzy video and ignore what we know about the steel. Mainly: how much was carted away.
I wrote my own little debunking of Hughes' nonsense. She what you think about that then
Wood has no basis for her central DEW claim. Conflating one event with another without evidence of the latter being the same is fallacious. Just because many things are manufactured spectacles (ie., the scamdemic, climate emergency, etc) that does not mean everything is fake. The planes were real, the towers getting blown-up and WTC7 imploded were all real. They happened in front of thousands (myself included) of people as well as being documented in myriad ways. Focus just on Wood, and the harm it does 9/11 truth to have people make untenable claims about it.
You are misrepresenting her position. She is a scientist. She believes nothing. She presents green stuff that you and others ignore. She presents pink stuff AND CLEARLY SAYS THAT IT IS PINK STUFF.
She points out the obvious fact that the towers didn’t collapse.
Instead of dealing with the thousands of bits of green stuff she points to. And addressing the pink stuff she postulates, you are so entrenched in the stories that you treat them as green
And so you avoid looking in the room to see the elephant.
Many so called truthers have massive blind spots, prejudices, biases, brown stuff.
Two years ago it was the climate emergency. The majority on Telegram ‘truth’ channels convinced it was real.
Not any more.
A similar thing is happening with the fraudulent pseudoscience of virology.
A year ago the majority ridiculed the clear debunking of virology.
Now the numbers are growing. Eventually the majority will understand the reality.
Ignoring the lack of collapses on 9 / 11 and so remaining trapped in the Tier 2 controlled opposition narrative is at the stage we were with climate 2 years ago and virology a year ago.
Eventually even you will have to ditch the stories and face the data.
A: How? You have to be specific. She is claiming a weapon no one has ever seen, that she cannot name, destroyed the towers using a process that disintegrated "dustified" the steel. This is her central thesis. I have not misrepresented it.
TW: She is a scientist. She believes nothing. She presents green stuff that you and others ignore. She presents pink stuff AND CLEARLY SAYS THAT IT IS PINK STUFF.
A: Appeals to authority are fallacious for good reasons. An "expert" can always be found to make any argument. This is how Operation Mockingbird worked: using media & academic assets to frame stories in a particular way. We have to weigh claims based on their own merit.
TW: She points out the obvious fact that the towers didn’t collapse.
A: They were obviously blown-up. No one argues they were not. All of that pulverized concrete (is not steel btw) took incredible levels of energy to create, and to blast the superstructures into 1200' radial debris fields that remained.
TW: Instead of dealing with the thousands of bits of green stuff she points to. And addressing the pink stuff she postulates, you are so entrenched in the stories that you treat them as green. And so you avoid looking in the room to see the elephant. Many so called truthers have massive blind spots, prejudices, biases, brown stuff.
A: Instead of being this esoteric you could just be specific. List (specifically) what is being missed by these blind spots. And anything I get wrong, pls.. That way I can learn and we can move forward. You wrote all of that and did not cite a single example.
TW: Ignoring the lack of collapses on 9 / 11 and so remaining trapped in the Tier 2 controlled opposition narrative is at the stage we were with climate 2 years ago and virology a year ago. Eventually even you will have to ditch the stories and face the data.
A: What data? No one is arguing the "collapses" were organic. They were demolitions. That fact is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the idea that an imaginary weapon no one can even name, much less describe the mechanism by which this process would even occur, was the cause.
A brilliant obfuscatory answer Francis. I must say - with all the great stuff you do I’m amazed you are taking the path of treating green stuff as pink here. 😟
I have read all your articles and those of others trying to deny reality on this.
It is bizarre to see the hoops you jump through to avoid going by the hard evidence!
In response to a point by point rebuttal (debunking) of numerous of her claims. How we know there was no missing steel. How we know there were very extreme temperatures, etc , is what he means. So it is not 'obfuscatory'.
There were no planes, and no controlled demolition either. The towers were turned to dust. I think it's more than just DEW. But if a DEW alone can vaporize such a massive building, that's impressive.
I am beginning to get the impression that you, Francis, are one of the most exceptional debunkers I've ever had the pleasure of encountering.
Although I am thoroughly enjoying watching this soap opera to and fro, especially the increasingly desperate (and therefore psychologically revealing - especially the blatant projection) tone taken by the cognitive infiltrators, I am glad you reminded everyone at the outset about not allowing oneself to get sucked in (the four D's etc.).
Expertly done. Expertly done. Thank you! I think I'll go and read Albert's one now.
Hi Francis, you may want to read my comment to Dr Hughes reply to this article. It is in support of your position. Thank you for reiterating so clearly the controlled demolition theory of the trade center demolitions. Hopefully Dr Hughes will read, understand, and change his mind in this. Clearly Dr Judy (??, last name escapes me) is trying to disrupt the 9/11 truth community.
I read this post three times very slowly whilst consuming five chocolate digestives in a diet -busting reward for my persistence. The following night I awoke with a nagging thought. Did it really matter whether the thief was left or right handed? The crime had been committed nonetheless and the valuables had still been taken. The motive for revenge-action had been established. So there is no need therefore to score points off others on the methods of safebreaking. Still it must provide the thief with years of fun reading the speculation whilst no doubt consuming whole packets of chocolate digestives. PS. It was fun to read anyway.
by 'C I 'you mean he was still working for the services...
right, did you see him incarcerated and ruined in gaol, for telling the truth, starving to death, covered in fleas living in a hole in the ground in Chiswick, paranoid and convinced he is the sun of god, the fabricated Jesus?
He also told me Tony Bliar is possessed!!
If Shayler is 'C I' I am Margaret Thatcher, he merely possessed a conscience and everything he said above can you disprove; and he and I are from the same town and born in the same room, placed in the same cot, went to the same school together...
So, ive now read Hughes' rebuttal of your rebuttal, and your rebuttal of Hughes' rebuttal of your rebuttal. I still think that it's possible that something other than just explosives were used, and I'm still not 100% convinced that planes were not holograms, though your arguments have given me great cause to reconsider where I stand on all this. I don't consider you to be compromised either 😁.
We have to be led by the evidence. If we have an attachment to a point of view, there is very little that can shake it. The nature and volume of the responses to my articles on this subject should be instructive.
Absolutely agree about being led by the evidence, which is what I felt I was doing, or was happening. Unfortunately, this requires the ability to contextualize and interpret the evidence we are presented with, but with the limited resource of time to work within, we are all at the mercy of our own desperation to get the truth, safe in the knowledge that what we are being told happened is about far from the actual truth as can be.
' -it is likely that the planes were remote controlled'. The military perpetrators had to bring both towers down or risk leaving irrefutable evidence of explosives-rigging in either surviving structure. Given that the split-second reaction-times needed to operate the planes' control surfaces, at near ground-level in this instance, are somewhat lacking in human pilots, even ex-military, this certainly rules out the supposed, fanatical terrorists as said hi-jacking pilots. Hacking Boeing's Honeywell Uninterruptible Auto-Pilot (BHUAP) gave the conspirators an iron-clad guarantee that both planes would reach their desired strike-points.
There you go again Francis - Truly intellectually disingenuous....
I'm not going delve into your full article and break it down bit by bit, because I see it as a waste of time, as I have danced with disingenuous people like you way too often and my articles cover people like you in depth, BUT I will suggest people look at the "truth suppressie timeline" article I wrote as it lays out exactly what happened right after the "9/11 scholars for truth" was formed in 2005 and how Dr Wood, Prof James Fetzer, Dr Steven E. Jones were "comparing notes" and what fallout there was....
Maybe you too need to go read it? It also covers Greg Jenkins...
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
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
Then pertaining to the "thermite hoax" - More suggested reading;
You can download the Refutation of Richard Gage’s Game in 2008 AND 2023: https://truthsummit.info/media-files/DrJudyWood-refutation-RichardGage-claims.pdf
The molecular dissociation of the thermite & nuke theories
People are so easily led by perceived "experts".
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-controlled-demolition-of-thermite
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
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)
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
Francis old beam, (bean) this is jaw droppingly shocking on so many levels (no pun intended).
Ms Woods credibility is utterly eviscerated.
How has this person a PhD?
The Interviewer was much smarter (in the American sense) than Ms Wood, and it was evident that he was struggling not to laugh at her risible answers.
I have one question for YOU:
When viewed there is no doubt that the footage shows a fully intact aeroplane, strike and penetrate the tower, nose cone is still in place and undamaged, how is this possible and the manoeuvre needed to perform this collision could not have been performed by novices, who were allegedly taught to fly single propeller planes, never mind highly trained pilots who state the impossibility of it.
I have seen CCTC footage of a missile hitting the Pentagon.
Both Miri and your good self appear to have, in the process, exposed R D Hall and A Johnson esq; both are either highly engineers and a physicist.
I address your question here, but in short
-it is likely that the planes were remote controlled
-the nose of the plane did not pass through the building
-the Pentagon missile footage is fake
See: https://francisoneill.substack.com/p/911-plane-speaking-763
and:
https://francisoneill.substack.com/p/911-plane-speaking
you are too kind... or a controlled thingy
this is way over my IQ...
All I will say is David Shayler told me they didn't use real planes, Bin Lid was really a CIA asset and it was comprehensively an inside job, it was a MOSSAD production:
THE UNITED STATES OF ISRAEL
I have seen ZERO evidence of a "plane" crashing into a tower..(fake footage) BUT some kind of missile/drone for sure / eg. tomahawk etc possibly. To at least have the sound of engines and some kind of "impact" even.
Not ofc from a civil airliner... it was a movie. And the empty towers theory from LETS ROLL forums (where I was member but they found this already ofc before I joined!) explains also mostly that the rubble pile was no so big/high. But this is all only details, important is towers brought down by the cabal themselves, no planes or "dew"/"nuke" was required. JW & conop cohorts were send in, to disturb the truth and ridiculte real researchers w/ her CRAP. She can not even explain her own "theory", What a joke, also that there are still persons beLIEving her crap
"I have seen ZERO evidence of a "plane" crashing into a tower"
Then, not only are you not looking https://ajl.smugmug.com/911/Ground-Zero/i-ZcG62cr/A youre also not thinking. This happened in lower Manhattan during rush hour on a weekday morning, in one the most highly exposed & densely packed places on the planet, but you see no evidence of a plane crash. What do you reckon the ten of thousands of people who were there, watching live, saw??
People believe anything they see on TV. If, by some slim chance, people were looking when the first tower was attacked, they may have seen SOMETHING and not been sure what, only to turn on the TV and told what they saw and believed it.
Correct, this is why most prob they just send some planes overhead ( to have sound of jets and some "shades") and later ppl remember the sound and saw a plane (not one that crashed ofc) and TV/news tell this plane crashed into tower. When it did not, but ppl will later rationalize this bnut there was some researcher whop actually asked some ppl and iirc there were not many having seen a AIRLINER (maybe a tomahawk or mil plane ofc)
So someone put a crap / trash engine on a street corner somewhere and it is not known where it comes from or where the place is or who placed it there. Not sure what u wanna say w/ this link? I hope not as some kind of “proof” of airliners at 9/11….no that would be dumb :) EDIT; but on 2nd look this photo seems to be doctored anyways. So why are u giving us this bullcrap my friend? But SS is shill infected like the whole internet :=) So what do I expect :)
Shayler is an obvious cognitive infiltrator. Most people don't go back that far, though (we're talking 1996 here).
by 'C I 'you mean he was still working for the services...
right, did you see him incarcerated and ruined in gaol, for telling the truth, starving to death, covered in fleas living in a hole in the ground in Chiswick, paranoid and convinced he is the sun of god, the fabricated Jesus?
He also told me Tony Bliar is possessed!!
If Shayler is 'C I' I am Margaret Thatcher, he merely possessed a conscience and everything he said above can you disprove; and he and I are from the same town and born in the same room, placed in the same cot, went to the same school together...
Hmm. If you were that connected in childhood then a suspicious person in K7 might give you a +50 on the suspicion scale. Either that or speculate that you are him under an alias (or dissociated personality).
With regards to his incarceration I believe he got off with 4 months inside, compared to a maximum possible sentence of 14 years. That, however, doesn't include time served on remand and it doesn't say anything about the conditions in which he was kept.
If he got paranoid then perhaps the acid might've had something to do with it, is another consideration. Having said that, I can sympathise with your suggestion, having researched the likes of MK-Ultra and psychic driving and such like.
The clue to the limited hangout however is in Annie Machon's book, if you read between the lines and know your stuff. The tell is when she nonchalantly says David just walked out of Thames House with a load of files. No one 'just walks out of Thames House' with a load of highly classified documents without authorisation.
The interesting bit of this is who gave him the authorisation (and, admittedly, whether they did it in complete innocence of what he intended to do). There would be a definite plausible deniability built in there, after all, which would have to apply to his supervisor in G-section at the time (who would be the obvious prime suspect for K7 - which is why those responsible would create the plausible deniability). My suspicions are with Eliza Minotaur though (as usual).
Then again, there is the possibility that he was set up, so to speak. I don't discount that. Maybe this is where your own thoughts lie?
I was thinking of doing an article about all this, from a counter-espionage point of view, although it would only be somewhat academic and interesting from a purely history perspective, seeing as it's somewhat ancient history now, and besides I stopped following his exploits not long after 7/7.
If you really did know him from childhood and adolescence then I'd be intrigued about your knowledge and I would certainly have a lot of respect for your opinions. Of course now I am wondering whether his recruitment officer interviewed you about all that.
I squealed a little bit when I read this.
As good as the content is, it wasn’t that, which pleased me. It’s the quiet determination and the steadfastness in how you go about your business. You calmly breakdown the slurs and allegations and show us where our attention should be focussed.
No name calling, no nastiness, just the easy formation of words and trust in the reader to draw their own conclusions 🫡
Thank you, Shouty. I never know how to respond you because you are always so complimentary and that is slightly unfamiliar. I guess when we speak on these topics we become the 'front of house,' for the cause we represent and it's important to me not to discredit all those whose work I cite and the sacrifices they have made.
Also, when people are reading they are paying attention and you cannot be interrupted, so in this kind of discussion if reason is on your side, all else is superfluous. It even provides humour.
Ofc I agree that Jewdy+cohorts and Andrew J (and therefore possibly Hall also) are shills/con ops...
but what is meant with "no plane nonsense" curious?
I have come to the conclusion that technically inept people like yourself will never be able to understand what actually happened that day
Even though it has been mentioned to you before that that specific airplane flying at the speeds it was seen flying that day and so close to sea level, where the air is relatively dense, is impossible; that if you look at the footage of the crash, the crash physics caught on footage is impossible: aluminum and plastic planes don't 'melt' into thick structural steel beams, yet you still come and present the idea that there were actual airplanes that flew into the buildings that day.
(For anyone new, this doesn't mean that the planes were CGI. There are other answers. If you want to learn what might have actually happened with the planes, follow Mark Conlon on Substack, or see all of 911 Revisionist's work on substack.)
Remember, the perpetrators will always show you the main story first, then they will have stories (multiple) ready for the people that rightly distrust the main story, to lure them right into another separate fairytale:
Door number 1 is planes hit the building, fire caused floors to collapse and building pancaked into its footprint.
Door number 2 is planes hit the building, but minimally technically adept people will recognize a fire wouldn't cause the structure of the building to fall, therefore it must have been a controlled demolition. This was either done through conventional explosives and/or thermite.
Door number 3 is planes were CGI and the building underwent a controlled demolition with the means of the previous door
Door number 4 is everything you see on the screen is fake. All of it. The planes were CGI, the footage we have of the collapse is fake. All of the footage was controlled from the get go. Maybe the footage of the building collapsing is real, but most of the what you see is fake because, you see, everything the mainstream media puts in front of your eyes is there for a reason...
But Charles, how do you know what the truth is?
The only way to do it is through evidence. You have to look at the evidence and have the technical capability to judge whether a story (a door) makes sense with it. Essentially, you gather all of the evidnece you can, and then you try to match all of that evidence with each of the stories. Now it becomes a game of discarding. If a story doesn't match the evidence observed, you can safely discard it (especially if there are glaring impossibilities).
Door number 4 (everything is fake) is the most easy to toss out. It is intellectualy lazy at best. The way you would make the point that everything shown is fake is to actually show discrepancies in the footage of the day, discrepancies that can't be plausibly explained by any other possible factor, or to show mere contradictions. But alas, anyone that just says everything shown is fake never 1) shows any of these required discrepancies and 2) never change their minds when shown that all of the footage is coherent with one another. So we can easily toss that one away.
Let's go to door number 1: Door number 1 is planes hit the building, fir caused floors to collapse and building pancaked into its footprint. As I explained it's impossible for these specific Boeings to go at the speeds they were caught on camera going. This is an impossibility. Pair that up with the impossible crash physics and we know that door number 1 is a false story meant to by the story for normies because it is the one that's pushed by all the mainstream sources.
Let's go to door number 2, which is planes hit the building, but minimally technically adept people will recognize a fire wouldn't cause the structure of the building to fall, therefore it must have been a controlled demolition. This was either done through conventional explosives and/or thermite. This is what the author of this piece believes. As explained earlier, this door is already fake because of the addition of the planes to the story, but with regards to the controlled demolition we can clearly see many glaring discrepancies with that story as well: the debris on the ground does not match the material that should be on the ground had the towers gone through any type of demolition. Any technically adept person looking at the footage of people walking at ground level right after the event, will understand this. 110-story buildings don't fall into their footprint after their demolition. The debris pile should be around 10%-12% the height of the original structure, yet the height of the debris pile did not even get to the top of the 3-story lobby (we can tell because the lobby had these distinct 'trident'-type beams. This lack of material refutes the story behind door number 2: no controlled demolition will have no debris on it. There are more reasons to reject this story, and if you want to learn more, dear reader, please go to 9/11 Revisionist's substack or to Math Easy Solutions on rumble.
Another interesting thing behind door number 2, the door our dear author wants you to open, is that this story is the main story put forth for the so-called 'truthers'. This is the story put forth by an organization called Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (911AET). This is a freemasonic organization founded and led by the masonic Richard Gage. We know the organization and Gage are part of the freemason nonsense due to the fact that he decides to included interesting numerology in his personal email: I believe his email is something along the lines of rgage33@.... And he deicdes to put in the same exact ruler found in the square that is part of the infamous freemason 'square and compass'. Of course, you have to verify all of this yourself, bu if you, my dear reader, believe this is just a coincidence, you are mistaken.
This fact has also been presented to the author of this piece and he has yet to comment on why he decides to push he narrative given to us by the freemason sect of 911AET. It's almost as if he wishes you to believe the story told by the freemasons.
Anyhow, if anyone actually wants to be enlightened as to what really happened in 911, please follow 9/11 Revisionist on substack and Math Easy Solutions on rumble.
Cheers
I’m astounded that you are not aware Judy Wood presents only clear factual evidence.
Anyone maintaining the towers ‘collapsed’ is singly in denial of hard reality.
You are treating green stuff as pink stuff.
Very disappointing to see you taking this anti-reality stance.
https://open.substack.com/pub/beyondcertainty/p/science-the-avoidance-of-delusion
'Judy Wood presents only clear factual evidence'
She makes a lot of extreme claims not supported by the evidence. Extreme claims require extreme evidence. She uses fuzzy video and ignore what we know about the steel. Mainly: how much was carted away.
I wrote my own little debunking of Hughes' nonsense. She what you think about that then
https://albertlucientes.substack.com/p/how-not-to-critique-francis-oneill
Name ONE claim she makes.
Is that a trick question? Just read this https://albertlucientes.substack.com/p/how-not-to-critique-francis-oneill
Wood has no basis for her central DEW claim. Conflating one event with another without evidence of the latter being the same is fallacious. Just because many things are manufactured spectacles (ie., the scamdemic, climate emergency, etc) that does not mean everything is fake. The planes were real, the towers getting blown-up and WTC7 imploded were all real. They happened in front of thousands (myself included) of people as well as being documented in myriad ways. Focus just on Wood, and the harm it does 9/11 truth to have people make untenable claims about it.
You are misrepresenting her position. She is a scientist. She believes nothing. She presents green stuff that you and others ignore. She presents pink stuff AND CLEARLY SAYS THAT IT IS PINK STUFF.
She points out the obvious fact that the towers didn’t collapse.
Instead of dealing with the thousands of bits of green stuff she points to. And addressing the pink stuff she postulates, you are so entrenched in the stories that you treat them as green
And so you avoid looking in the room to see the elephant.
Many so called truthers have massive blind spots, prejudices, biases, brown stuff.
Two years ago it was the climate emergency. The majority on Telegram ‘truth’ channels convinced it was real.
Not any more.
A similar thing is happening with the fraudulent pseudoscience of virology.
A year ago the majority ridiculed the clear debunking of virology.
Now the numbers are growing. Eventually the majority will understand the reality.
Ignoring the lack of collapses on 9 / 11 and so remaining trapped in the Tier 2 controlled opposition narrative is at the stage we were with climate 2 years ago and virology a year ago.
Eventually even you will have to ditch the stories and face the data.
TW: You are misrepresenting her position.
A: How? You have to be specific. She is claiming a weapon no one has ever seen, that she cannot name, destroyed the towers using a process that disintegrated "dustified" the steel. This is her central thesis. I have not misrepresented it.
TW: She is a scientist. She believes nothing. She presents green stuff that you and others ignore. She presents pink stuff AND CLEARLY SAYS THAT IT IS PINK STUFF.
A: Appeals to authority are fallacious for good reasons. An "expert" can always be found to make any argument. This is how Operation Mockingbird worked: using media & academic assets to frame stories in a particular way. We have to weigh claims based on their own merit.
TW: She points out the obvious fact that the towers didn’t collapse.
A: They were obviously blown-up. No one argues they were not. All of that pulverized concrete (is not steel btw) took incredible levels of energy to create, and to blast the superstructures into 1200' radial debris fields that remained.
TW: Instead of dealing with the thousands of bits of green stuff she points to. And addressing the pink stuff she postulates, you are so entrenched in the stories that you treat them as green. And so you avoid looking in the room to see the elephant. Many so called truthers have massive blind spots, prejudices, biases, brown stuff.
A: Instead of being this esoteric you could just be specific. List (specifically) what is being missed by these blind spots. And anything I get wrong, pls.. That way I can learn and we can move forward. You wrote all of that and did not cite a single example.
TW: Ignoring the lack of collapses on 9 / 11 and so remaining trapped in the Tier 2 controlled opposition narrative is at the stage we were with climate 2 years ago and virology a year ago. Eventually even you will have to ditch the stories and face the data.
A: What data? No one is arguing the "collapses" were organic. They were demolitions. That fact is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the idea that an imaginary weapon no one can even name, much less describe the mechanism by which this process would even occur, was the cause.
Appeal to authority? 🤡 Purely for saying someone follows the scientific method and keeps DATA and MODEL separate
You clearly don’t understand the scientific method and have not read my foundational text.
If you continue to claim the towers were blown up then you are a moron or something a lot worse.
I think you are probably a lazy gullible moron and not a mischief maker like Gage.
But it is hard to tell.
“A: They were obviously blown-up. No one argues they were not.”
They were obviously not blown up. Only the lazy and mischievous push this obvious lie.
Your comments demonstrate that you have not read the pieces you are critcising.
A brilliant obfuscatory answer Francis. I must say - with all the great stuff you do I’m amazed you are taking the path of treating green stuff as pink here. 😟
I have read all your articles and those of others trying to deny reality on this.
It is bizarre to see the hoops you jump through to avoid going by the hard evidence!
So I ask again. Name ONE thing.
You wrote "Name ONE claim she makes"
In response to a point by point rebuttal (debunking) of numerous of her claims. How we know there was no missing steel. How we know there were very extreme temperatures, etc , is what he means. So it is not 'obfuscatory'.
In time all this muddying of the waters with fake collapses, fake pandemics, fictional viruses, fake bombs, fake climate emergency….
Will have to stop Albert. Time is too short for pseudoscience
Boom! lol
There were no planes, and no controlled demolition either. The towers were turned to dust. I think it's more than just DEW. But if a DEW alone can vaporize such a massive building, that's impressive.
I am beginning to get the impression that you, Francis, are one of the most exceptional debunkers I've ever had the pleasure of encountering.
Although I am thoroughly enjoying watching this soap opera to and fro, especially the increasingly desperate (and therefore psychologically revealing - especially the blatant projection) tone taken by the cognitive infiltrators, I am glad you reminded everyone at the outset about not allowing oneself to get sucked in (the four D's etc.).
Expertly done. Expertly done. Thank you! I think I'll go and read Albert's one now.
Thank you, Evelyn. I've had a lot of practice.
Hi Francis, you may want to read my comment to Dr Hughes reply to this article. It is in support of your position. Thank you for reiterating so clearly the controlled demolition theory of the trade center demolitions. Hopefully Dr Hughes will read, understand, and change his mind in this. Clearly Dr Judy (??, last name escapes me) is trying to disrupt the 9/11 truth community.
Cheers!
Thank you for your comments, Eliot. Her name is Judy Wood.
I read this post three times very slowly whilst consuming five chocolate digestives in a diet -busting reward for my persistence. The following night I awoke with a nagging thought. Did it really matter whether the thief was left or right handed? The crime had been committed nonetheless and the valuables had still been taken. The motive for revenge-action had been established. So there is no need therefore to score points off others on the methods of safebreaking. Still it must provide the thief with years of fun reading the speculation whilst no doubt consuming whole packets of chocolate digestives. PS. It was fun to read anyway.
It is not about scoring points. It is about nonsense being used as a weapon to undermine the cause of truth, justice and peace.
The two positions are not on the same side.
by 'C I 'you mean he was still working for the services...
right, did you see him incarcerated and ruined in gaol, for telling the truth, starving to death, covered in fleas living in a hole in the ground in Chiswick, paranoid and convinced he is the sun of god, the fabricated Jesus?
He also told me Tony Bliar is possessed!!
If Shayler is 'C I' I am Margaret Thatcher, he merely possessed a conscience and everything he said above can you disprove; and he and I are from the same town and born in the same room, placed in the same cot, went to the same school together...
Kinell may be I am 'C I' too!
yeah I'm David Shayler -- how could l possibly have fallen into that trap, you're just too good for me!
Explosive paint. Interesting.
How was it detonated?
So, ive now read Hughes' rebuttal of your rebuttal, and your rebuttal of Hughes' rebuttal of your rebuttal. I still think that it's possible that something other than just explosives were used, and I'm still not 100% convinced that planes were not holograms, though your arguments have given me great cause to reconsider where I stand on all this. I don't consider you to be compromised either 😁.
We have to be led by the evidence. If we have an attachment to a point of view, there is very little that can shake it. The nature and volume of the responses to my articles on this subject should be instructive.
Absolutely agree about being led by the evidence, which is what I felt I was doing, or was happening. Unfortunately, this requires the ability to contextualize and interpret the evidence we are presented with, but with the limited resource of time to work within, we are all at the mercy of our own desperation to get the truth, safe in the knowledge that what we are being told happened is about far from the actual truth as can be.
' -it is likely that the planes were remote controlled'. The military perpetrators had to bring both towers down or risk leaving irrefutable evidence of explosives-rigging in either surviving structure. Given that the split-second reaction-times needed to operate the planes' control surfaces, at near ground-level in this instance, are somewhat lacking in human pilots, even ex-military, this certainly rules out the supposed, fanatical terrorists as said hi-jacking pilots. Hacking Boeing's Honeywell Uninterruptible Auto-Pilot (BHUAP) gave the conspirators an iron-clad guarantee that both planes would reach their desired strike-points.