David, this was a delightful read. Though the nature of the topic is serious, I chuckled a couple of times at the dramatic irony of such hit pieces aimed at intellectually honest work. In my observation, the intended goal of such hit pieces not only fall short, they end up bolstering the work of the intended target. I thoroughly enjoyed your dissection and clear presentation. Thank you for your write up.
Thanks, Maggie. I agree. Once the hit pieces are exposed, their target appears even more credible. What bothers me is how commonplace the attacks on Wood are. If more critics had defended Wood down the years, I doubt we would see so many cheap shots.
I relate very much to Maggie F.’s comment! David’s commitment to intellectual integrity and rigorous scholarship is admirable. So is his ability to make his arguments fascinating to read. I am always amazed at — and delighted by — our good man’s skill in deploying subtle ironic humor, with exactly the right wording, to actually bolster his conclusions.
For example, in this piece, he writes: “This is tantamount to throwing up one’s hands and exclaiming ‘strange things happen!’”
Brilliant!
I also admire what I view as a remarkable moral and spiritual strength shining through in David’s work — here and elsewhere.
Just recently, in his article “No Pixie Dust,” David addressed “[t]he coordinated campaign of smears, distortions, and outright threats waged against” the two authors of “the most comprehensive longitudinal study of the ‘Covid-19 vaccine’ contents to date.” Especially considering that one of those authors is a collaborator of David’s (and a co-presenter in the recent Omniwar Symposium), this must have been a psychologically painful undertaking. But David did it — with an excellent result!
Now, in “How Not To Critique Judy Wood,” David has undertaken what must have felt like a very sad task: an author/activist who David likes and admires “in many ways” has published a badly-written piece that deploys “a range of propagandistic tropes and techniques.” Ever the gentleman, however, though David is bold enough to call Francis O’Neill down on the carpet as a “useful idiot,” David’s concern ultimately is for a “deeper lesson”: “the power of ‘Camp 2’ propaganda to co-opt dissent.”
From my own past writing and speaking projects (years ago, in the realm of gender issues), I know what a withering — and wearying — experience it can be to try to affirm truth in the face of propaganda that is financed by “[e]ye watering amounts of money” (if I may borrow a clever phrase from David’s “No Pixie Dust” article). At this point, it appears to me that David is made of sturdier stuff than I. Indeed, I doubt whether I’d be able to handle as much of the nonsense that David handles unless, perhaps, I had my entrails surgically removed and replaced with cast-iron piping!
You are right, I didn't particularly want to write this piece. When I read O'Neill's first article, I was instantly conflicted. My first reaction was "just let it go," but straight away I knew that I couldn't. As I mention, the identity of the author was irrelevant to the fact that this kind of material has to be called out, plus there are some interesting lessons to be learned in terms of Camp 2 propaganda and perception management.
By the way, I'm evidently not the only one with a sense of humour!
I learned about Judy Wood's analysis from RichPlanet TV, and eventually purchased her book on it. Her theories about it instantly resonated with me / made sense to me, because (1) before Judy Wood, I had watched Dimitri Khalezov's analysis about it via a friend who told me about him (and I know he also was a 'doubted' person that many were saying was a misdirect-agent, which I have no idea either way, but just like with Judy's take on it, what he presented didn't seem farfetched to me), (2) Both Judy's and Khalezov's take on things was sensical/plausible to me, because I clearly remember on 9/11, watching the live news broadcasting the towers in real time, and that moment when all of a sudden, it just DISINTEGRATED from the top down like it had instantly become like vaporized powder and cascading in particles down into its footprint, in one fell slo-mo swoop. And I remember thinking in my inner thought bubble how unexpected and curious / nonsensical / weird / bizarre that was, what I watched. I thought: "HUH??! How did it just all instantly become into disintegrated powder and crumble smoothly into it's footprint like that instantaneously into dustness ??" That's my personal experience, with why Judy and Khalezov's theories / observations / take on it, didn't turn me away, but instead made it make sense, what I had observed about that strange disintegration of that tower. And regarding the attacks on Judy: From life experiences / observation, when people or a person is desperately trying to keep some suppressed truth / a lie- a fraud, COVERED UP and not let out of the bag, that person has an energy vibe / countenance of "AGITATION / HIGHLY DESPERATELY AGITATED / DOING TOO MUCH, clumsily. And the "vibe" of their attacks on Judy, had that sense of being ridiculously, inordinately "desperate / agitated" to sling whatever mudsling / demonization campaign, to discredit someone who was just peacefully presenting evidence an analysis as she saw it. Their attack vibe was disproportionate and desperate feeling. That's what gave me that telltale indication, for myself, that they were just doing a demonization-operation to neutralize a voice that was bringing up a likely suppressed truth / the likely truth about a matter. Anyhoo, appreciate this post Mr. Hughes.
It just so happens that I loosely listened to Francis O'Neill's audio version of "Moon Walkers, Part 1" and quite liked it so gave it a 'like' afterwards - only to then listen to part of his audio on "9/11 Plain Speaking, Part 1" afterwards, which surprised me and raised red flags (and no 'like') but I shrugged it off at the time.
Then your article appeared in my mailbox today and on carefully reading it this evening it further explained why my gut feeling had been triggered (by O'Neill's audio a few weeks ago). Was I being lulled and lured into Camp 2? Has he already been lured into Camp 2? I remember thinking that the intense nature of this subject requires cautious careful reading, not casual audio - at least for me.
Impact crushing steel and exploding concrete, "giant shock absorber" and "molten iron droplets" made me laugh. Also, the "spire" turning to dust by "molten iron droplets" ... in seconds! And " ... it fell leaving a trail of dust momentarily suspended in the air." LOL!
Thanks for yet another excellent robust and rigorous article, as always, David. Like you, I was shocked by Francis O'Neill being the author of these 9/11 assertions because I believe he's a person of integrity, a genuine truther. I've watched several of his interviews and he always comes across as grounded and a decent bloke. His Covid truth activism is admirable. Yet his stance on Judy Wood is completely wrong-headed to me. Giant Red Flags are now raised.
This is a critical issue for ardent truthers, in my opinion. Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson and David Hughes stand out as courageous and staunch straight arrows for 9/11 truth - squarely in Camp 3 (the real truth). Their relentless robust and rigorous reasoning, sincerity and integrity resonates highly with me. Refined discernment in these times is everything as your article demonstrates with precision.
All I can think is that Francis O'Neill has been wrongly persuaded by the orchestrated fake 9/11 truthers. The test will be how he responds to your robust article, whether he can be persuaded to carefully rethink his position. I hope he does. If not, Camp 3 lost a good man to the fake pseudo-narratives of Camp 2.
Yes, a red flag was raised for me, too, by O'Neill's earlier piece on the Pentagon, in particular his apparent blind trust in David Chandler, whom I absolutely do not trust for various reasons. But, not having researched the Pentagon anywhere near as extensively as I have the Twin Towers, I let that one go and was just mildly disappointed.
There was no way I could let him off with his needless, ill-researched hit piece on Judy Wood, however.
I have not read Dr Wood’s book on 911 but I recall listening to her slide show lectures where I do not believe she made any claims about specific technologies which might have been used to dustily the towers, instead pointing out the physical and quite visible anomalies contained in the official accounts. I thought this was admirable and scientific since she could not honestly provide proof of specifics and therefore made no claims she could not prove.
David, this was a delightful read. Though the nature of the topic is serious, I chuckled a couple of times at the dramatic irony of such hit pieces aimed at intellectually honest work. In my observation, the intended goal of such hit pieces not only fall short, they end up bolstering the work of the intended target. I thoroughly enjoyed your dissection and clear presentation. Thank you for your write up.
Thanks, Maggie. I agree. Once the hit pieces are exposed, their target appears even more credible. What bothers me is how commonplace the attacks on Wood are. If more critics had defended Wood down the years, I doubt we would see so many cheap shots.
I relate very much to Maggie F.’s comment! David’s commitment to intellectual integrity and rigorous scholarship is admirable. So is his ability to make his arguments fascinating to read. I am always amazed at — and delighted by — our good man’s skill in deploying subtle ironic humor, with exactly the right wording, to actually bolster his conclusions.
For example, in this piece, he writes: “This is tantamount to throwing up one’s hands and exclaiming ‘strange things happen!’”
Brilliant!
I also admire what I view as a remarkable moral and spiritual strength shining through in David’s work — here and elsewhere.
Just recently, in his article “No Pixie Dust,” David addressed “[t]he coordinated campaign of smears, distortions, and outright threats waged against” the two authors of “the most comprehensive longitudinal study of the ‘Covid-19 vaccine’ contents to date.” Especially considering that one of those authors is a collaborator of David’s (and a co-presenter in the recent Omniwar Symposium), this must have been a psychologically painful undertaking. But David did it — with an excellent result!
Now, in “How Not To Critique Judy Wood,” David has undertaken what must have felt like a very sad task: an author/activist who David likes and admires “in many ways” has published a badly-written piece that deploys “a range of propagandistic tropes and techniques.” Ever the gentleman, however, though David is bold enough to call Francis O’Neill down on the carpet as a “useful idiot,” David’s concern ultimately is for a “deeper lesson”: “the power of ‘Camp 2’ propaganda to co-opt dissent.”
From my own past writing and speaking projects (years ago, in the realm of gender issues), I know what a withering — and wearying — experience it can be to try to affirm truth in the face of propaganda that is financed by “[e]ye watering amounts of money” (if I may borrow a clever phrase from David’s “No Pixie Dust” article). At this point, it appears to me that David is made of sturdier stuff than I. Indeed, I doubt whether I’d be able to handle as much of the nonsense that David handles unless, perhaps, I had my entrails surgically removed and replaced with cast-iron piping!
David: You are super-duper!
Thank you so much, Peter.
You are right, I didn't particularly want to write this piece. When I read O'Neill's first article, I was instantly conflicted. My first reaction was "just let it go," but straight away I knew that I couldn't. As I mention, the identity of the author was irrelevant to the fact that this kind of material has to be called out, plus there are some interesting lessons to be learned in terms of Camp 2 propaganda and perception management.
By the way, I'm evidently not the only one with a sense of humour!
I learned about Judy Wood's analysis from RichPlanet TV, and eventually purchased her book on it. Her theories about it instantly resonated with me / made sense to me, because (1) before Judy Wood, I had watched Dimitri Khalezov's analysis about it via a friend who told me about him (and I know he also was a 'doubted' person that many were saying was a misdirect-agent, which I have no idea either way, but just like with Judy's take on it, what he presented didn't seem farfetched to me), (2) Both Judy's and Khalezov's take on things was sensical/plausible to me, because I clearly remember on 9/11, watching the live news broadcasting the towers in real time, and that moment when all of a sudden, it just DISINTEGRATED from the top down like it had instantly become like vaporized powder and cascading in particles down into its footprint, in one fell slo-mo swoop. And I remember thinking in my inner thought bubble how unexpected and curious / nonsensical / weird / bizarre that was, what I watched. I thought: "HUH??! How did it just all instantly become into disintegrated powder and crumble smoothly into it's footprint like that instantaneously into dustness ??" That's my personal experience, with why Judy and Khalezov's theories / observations / take on it, didn't turn me away, but instead made it make sense, what I had observed about that strange disintegration of that tower. And regarding the attacks on Judy: From life experiences / observation, when people or a person is desperately trying to keep some suppressed truth / a lie- a fraud, COVERED UP and not let out of the bag, that person has an energy vibe / countenance of "AGITATION / HIGHLY DESPERATELY AGITATED / DOING TOO MUCH, clumsily. And the "vibe" of their attacks on Judy, had that sense of being ridiculously, inordinately "desperate / agitated" to sling whatever mudsling / demonization campaign, to discredit someone who was just peacefully presenting evidence an analysis as she saw it. Their attack vibe was disproportionate and desperate feeling. That's what gave me that telltale indication, for myself, that they were just doing a demonization-operation to neutralize a voice that was bringing up a likely suppressed truth / the likely truth about a matter. Anyhoo, appreciate this post Mr. Hughes.
It just so happens that I loosely listened to Francis O'Neill's audio version of "Moon Walkers, Part 1" and quite liked it so gave it a 'like' afterwards - only to then listen to part of his audio on "9/11 Plain Speaking, Part 1" afterwards, which surprised me and raised red flags (and no 'like') but I shrugged it off at the time.
Then your article appeared in my mailbox today and on carefully reading it this evening it further explained why my gut feeling had been triggered (by O'Neill's audio a few weeks ago). Was I being lulled and lured into Camp 2? Has he already been lured into Camp 2? I remember thinking that the intense nature of this subject requires cautious careful reading, not casual audio - at least for me.
Impact crushing steel and exploding concrete, "giant shock absorber" and "molten iron droplets" made me laugh. Also, the "spire" turning to dust by "molten iron droplets" ... in seconds! And " ... it fell leaving a trail of dust momentarily suspended in the air." LOL!
Thanks for yet another excellent robust and rigorous article, as always, David. Like you, I was shocked by Francis O'Neill being the author of these 9/11 assertions because I believe he's a person of integrity, a genuine truther. I've watched several of his interviews and he always comes across as grounded and a decent bloke. His Covid truth activism is admirable. Yet his stance on Judy Wood is completely wrong-headed to me. Giant Red Flags are now raised.
This is a critical issue for ardent truthers, in my opinion. Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson and David Hughes stand out as courageous and staunch straight arrows for 9/11 truth - squarely in Camp 3 (the real truth). Their relentless robust and rigorous reasoning, sincerity and integrity resonates highly with me. Refined discernment in these times is everything as your article demonstrates with precision.
All I can think is that Francis O'Neill has been wrongly persuaded by the orchestrated fake 9/11 truthers. The test will be how he responds to your robust article, whether he can be persuaded to carefully rethink his position. I hope he does. If not, Camp 3 lost a good man to the fake pseudo-narratives of Camp 2.
Thanks, Nigel.
Yes, a red flag was raised for me, too, by O'Neill's earlier piece on the Pentagon, in particular his apparent blind trust in David Chandler, whom I absolutely do not trust for various reasons. But, not having researched the Pentagon anywhere near as extensively as I have the Twin Towers, I let that one go and was just mildly disappointed.
There was no way I could let him off with his needless, ill-researched hit piece on Judy Wood, however.
Yes, that was the one. It was the audio of the Pentagon piece that triggered me.
I have not read Dr Wood’s book on 911 but I recall listening to her slide show lectures where I do not believe she made any claims about specific technologies which might have been used to dustily the towers, instead pointing out the physical and quite visible anomalies contained in the official accounts. I thought this was admirable and scientific since she could not honestly provide proof of specifics and therefore made no claims she could not prove.