Thank you Dr Hughes, for this latest piece in a fine series of articles and interviews. It's dismaying to see the depths a couple of other writers have stooped to recently. Their articles seem to hint that contemplation about a potential source of free energy should be frowned upon, and that investigative journalism (which is in the public interest, rather than the Marianna Spring/BBC kind) will be justifiably penalised.
There is a nasty edge to some aspects of what both writers say, and in the large 'mugshot' added by Francis O'Neill, what he thinks is okay to do. I wonder if he is aware that this is a Saul Alinsky tactic, or if he is just going along with whoever or whatever put him up to the hit piece on Dr Judy Wood.
Similarly, Miri's latest post includes this about Richard D. Hall's behaviour towards Eve Hibbert, when she must know (if she has read Ian Davis' painstaking research on Richard's court case) that it is not true: "shady middle-aged men hiding in her bushes and filming her"
If there is any way of escaping from camp 2, it can only be hoped that two otherwise fine writers will find their way back to the (much harder and often thankless) third camp of awareness. As you have said a few times, to paraphrase: "once it is known, the truth can't be unknown again"
I think the "nasty edge" comes from the programming that encourages people to see Wood as a legitimate target of their two minutes of hate. Some people seem to think that any amount of abuse towards Wood is acceptable. It reminds me a bit of the abuse dished out to those who refused to wear face masks.
I'm disappointed by Francis O'Neill's failure to see the light and recognise the points made in your previous post and honestly open-heartedly review his stance on Judy Wood. I still believe that he's been taken in by polished propaganda streams pertaining to Camp 2. It's an entrenched position he's taking that still refuses to look at Dr. Judy Wood's core work - her book, "Where Did The Towers Go?"
As you point out, the fact that he fails to provide an updated link to Wood's website, preferring instead to tailor links to its earlier out-dated pages, to me speaks volumes. A chunk of discernment went missing right there. (Would an honest Camp 3 'truther' do that?)
Or the fact that he hasn't read her main work, the 500 page book, preferring instead to dig up earlier themes in an attempt to 'expose' her. Major discernment lost there. (Would an honest Camp 3 'truther' do that?) As you say, "the very least one needs to do is to consult her one and only major work."
Would an honest 'truther' unfairly stop short of the elephant in the room?
As you also say, "his critique is highly selective and misrepresentative of Wood’s work."
I have a hard copy of Dr. Judy Wood's impressive book, "Where Did The Towers Go?" Even the weight of the book itself (it's heavy) seems to emphasise the critical point in a very practical way; how can GIANT buildings be turned to DUST in around 10 seconds? The near instant 'dustification' of a COLOSSAL volume of material into thin air.
The more people attempt to unfairly discredit Judy Wood, the more her authenticity and unique character shines. The 'ambush' interview with Wood and Jenkins was clearly a disingenuous attempt to wrong-foot her, to try to catch her out and off-guard, make her seem shambolic, scatter-brained and unprepared, unprofessional. A malevolent video-staged smear attempt. Yet still her openness and authenticity shines. Jenkins merely comes across as horribly smug, manipulative and insincere, in my opinion.
As you say, "it is troubling that O’Neill simply ignores the context in which the interview took place and continues to maintain his blind defence of Jenkins."
All Francis O'Neill has done for me during all this is further elevate my already high admiration and support for Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson and David Hughes. By contrast, he's gone down a few pegs in my estimation, sadly. Is he now lost to Camp 2 propaganda?
I'd also like to point to page 488 of Wood's book (in the acknowlegements section, after laying out all the key evidence in her book) where she includes her own poignant poem, which resonated with me, which was written whilst writing her book.
She states that "this poem helped me to focus past the various interpretations we have been given, and to see and communicate what was really there."
"Magic of the Heart
Look from your heart and you will see the truth.
Feel with your heart and you will know which way to go.
Speak from your heart and you will speak the truth.
My experience with nanothermite proponents is that, when pushed, they end up resorting to various forms of intellectual dishonesty, such as misrepresenting other people's positions, slandering and ridiculing opponents, ignoring or distorting key evidence, and failing to respond in good faith to criticisms of their "creed," which instead they keep on repeating.
More and more people are learning to spot such propaganda techniques in mainstream media, but it is important also to be able to spot the same propaganda techniques in mainstream alternative media. They are a clear identifier of Camp 2.
I am dismayed to see that you are being distracted to take part in a very old argument which will never be resolved and which only serves to waste your time and energy.
Do not permit these agents to interfere with your original intentions.
You are right, Frances. It's dismal to see this argument stoked up again through Mr. O'Neill's vicious attack on Dr. Judy Wood's integrity and her research, seemingly out of nowhere. She was over here about 13 years or so ago, and her engaging personality shone through during a talk she gave. Richard Gage was here too on a different date, with his own much less plausible take on 9/11. What Dr. Wood said about 'a great weight being lifted off the ground, rather than a great weight slamming down onto the ground' (in describing what the seismic signals indicated) was a revelation at that time. The hidden technology used to cause such carnage could be used instead to help humanity, as surely it was intended to be, before being stolen by those who hate humanity. As pointed out by Nigel here, Judy Wood's work has been to bring healing and love out of tragedy. She so greatly deserves recognition and support from those of Dr. Hughes' intellectual and moral stature. It takes a big man to stand by her, and take some of the flack. We can only hope that the malign agents will now back off again, and stop draining his time and energy - or he might just ignore their witterings!
Dr Hughes, you seem late to this party. O’Neill’s information accords with many other researchers, especially those who published the Toronto 9/11 Report, which if you have not read you should read asap.
Further, the DEW hypothesis tests on a plausible DEW platform. Congressional reports on the Airborne Laser date from 2008, describing a jet airline equipped with a chemical (excimer) microwave laser, tanks to store the chemicals, and a ball turret like steerable lens in the nose of the plane. The online congressional report states that this platform will evolve into a practical weapon within 15 years (2023). If we take the evidence from researchers such as Robert Brame of the California “wildfire” destruction of communities such as Paradise and Santa Rosa were clearly that the destruction is consistent with the use of such a platform. Cars are incinerated (but their steel frames remain untouched), alloy wheels and glass windscreens are melted. Bungalows are reduced to their foundations. Trees are not incinerated. They may be killed in what appears to be a boiling (as in kitchen microwave heating of water content in food), but they show no signs of burning. Wooden fence posts and planks burn only where they contained nails, indicating the nails were heated but not the wood.
We see the same damage signature in the Lāhainā 8/8/23 attack. We also can find video of what appears to be an arial surveying carried out with green lasers several months before the attack. While all these attacks have devastated communities they share a characteristic. No large structures were damaged. It looks as if individual vehicles were targeted one after another. This goes with a production form of the ABL. In short, while the ABL has significant power, it lacks instantaneous power and must direct its beam for some time (seconds?) to destroy a car or a bungalow. In no way does it appear powerful enough to demolish a tall steel framed skyscraper, and if it were to target such a structures the damage pattern would in no way resemble the 9/11 destruction, which *is* consistent with thermite severing if the steel frame and explosive destruction of the concrete, ie controlled demolition. There is also considerable audio evidence from FDNY personnel in the twin towers after the airplane impacts which report explosions, an absence of fire, etc, and nothing pointing to a DEW.
So in this I side with @Frances O’Neill in this, as I think would any researcher (who am not a researcher) who is familiar with the data. I would council you to read the University of Alaska report on the destruction of buildings 1, 2 & 7 and the Toronto Report, all of which state controlled demolition as the mechanism, and which predate Dr Judy (?? last name escapes me)’s pronouncements on 9/11. I hope also that you have watched one of Barbara Honnegger’s excellent presentations on the Pentagon 9/11 attack.
It does look to me as if Dr Judy is a musinformationist, attempting to mire the 9/11 community n conflict and she appears to have taken you in. Your recent interviews on elite criminality, on category 1, 2, & 3 commentators, etc, have been stimulating, and informative. You became one of my heroes in presenting your information. But in coming out in support of the frankly absurd DEW account of 9/11 you have fallen from grace in my eyes ( :-) why should you care? you shouldn’t; I’m just done Joe blow who’s read a few books and watched a few videos on 9/11). Fir the sake of the 9/11 truth movement, which doesn’t need any n fighting, and could use a fine open mind like your’s, I do hope you’re open minded enough to look more broadly as architects, structural engineers, and physicists, who have looked at the evidence, and also carefully track the available information on the evolution of DEWs to be able to arrive at a more rational theory for the 9/11 demolitions.
The material about ABL, Californian wild fires and Lāhainā is interesting, but not relevant to Wood's work, as she does not claim that ABL or "space beams" were used to destroy the Twin Towers.
Needless to say, the evidence Wood presents contradicts the findings of the Toronto Report. The Hulsey report does not address the destruction of the Twin Towers. I have argued elsewhere why I do not trust AE911T.
Wood does claim that directed energy weapons destroyed the twin towers. Because of the vertical collapse we can infer that if a DEW was used then it must have been directed from vertically above the buildings. Therefore it must have been an airborne or satellite system. Physics and our current launch limitations imply that it cannot be satellite based. That leaves an airborne platform, and we need look no further than the ABL. But here we have the problem; the timeline for the ABL is inconsistent with a 9/11/2001 deployment. Hence Francis O’Neill’s criticism of Dr Judy Wood is justified.
II *watched* the vertical collapse of all three buildings many times. What an absurdly insulting claim to make. You’ve completely blown your credibility. Good bye.
It’s *you* who are a category 2 commentator. Hypocrite.
But it is. It was a self supporting structure, and that structure was destroyed, and so it collapsed. What sophistry are you peddling? How would you describe it?
If Hughes is joining cause with Dr Judy Wood in trying to fracture the 9/11 truth movement then yes it very much is. Dr Hughes did excellent work in recent interviews by categorizing commentators into three, the first being false orators in the employ of the bad actors, the third being the truth tellers, identified by being de platforms etc, and category two who operate limited hangouts, describing crimes but deflecting blame away from the true perpetrators to others, patsies. Dr Hughes naturally placed himself in category 3.
Dr Judy Wood is such a category 2 commentator introducing, as I’ve explained above, an absurd DEW narrative to challenge the long established, and very well documented, controlled demolition theory (a theory being an account that accords either the known facts that is grounded sufficiently in reality that it is open to falsification; not “a piece of nonsense”). So Dr Hughes, in siding with Wood is very much a hypocrite, yes.
David, do u think there might be a way to estimate the volume of steel carted away by truck/ship to China and make extrapolations from there about how much steel was at ground zero after the destruction? I imagine there's data somewhere to make an estimate of the volume of steel that should have been there from the construction doc or reporting.
I remember seeing video of a long line of dump trucks. I will have to try to find this, but there were people saying that the metal was being sorted at some area off manhattan and being shipped as scrap to china. I also remember seeing pix of metal from the wtc1/2 embedded in nearby buildings.
If the majority of steel were already gone, then the number dump trucks transporting the metal off will be relatively low, right? So compare that low volume estimate to the volume of steel used to build the building. I am not challenging your statements. I'm wondering if there is a way to develop supporting info to your position.
Btw, do I have evidence? Nah. As a general rule, I don't have any evidence of anything happening. Ever. I see videos and pix, but as time goes on I believe less and less of what I see. Both can be and are faked all the time.
Does any reliable evidence exist regarding the number of trucks taking away the debris, and the total number of trips made? Perhaps readers could provide a link if there is. As you say, a crude calculation could be made of the amount of debris removed on this basis.
This Feb 2002 article from the Washington Post - an untrustworthy source - claims that WTC steel ended up in India, although the purchaser claimed "I believe it may contain some scrap from the WTC site, but there is no label, no sticker on the scrap that says it is WTC scrap."
The article claims that "The city of New York has decided to sell 175,000 tons of steel scrap from the World Trade Center," and that "about 60,000 tons has been sold overseas, to companies in India, China and South Korea."
This article claims that "More than 200,000 tons were sold to wholesalers, primarily in India, China, and Turkey, some of whom were not made fully aware of the origins of their purchase." But are there any receipts?
I should have stated in my first comment that the ABL DEW timeline is entirely inconsistent with effective deployment on 9/11 and entirely inconsistent with a space satellite platform. The liquid chemical excimers required to produce the microwave radiation would be far too heavy to raise into orbit. So the ABL looks like the (only) plausible platform for an attack-from-above DEW, and hence is extremely unlikely to have been used on 9/11.
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)
Is the 9/11 "truth" movement a distraction movement?
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 what 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.
You might also want to read the 2007 qui-tam whistle-blower case files presenting the evidence collected. It was also nicely put together in this 500-page textbook, that should be mandatory reading for everyone on earth. A 500-page textbook, that the 9/11 “truther” movement DOES NOT want you to know about or read, because once you’ve read it and understand the evidence, their grift is up. The scariest 9/11 book out there: “Where did the towers go?” by Dr Judy Wood.
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)
Thank you Dr Hughes, for this latest piece in a fine series of articles and interviews. It's dismaying to see the depths a couple of other writers have stooped to recently. Their articles seem to hint that contemplation about a potential source of free energy should be frowned upon, and that investigative journalism (which is in the public interest, rather than the Marianna Spring/BBC kind) will be justifiably penalised.
There is a nasty edge to some aspects of what both writers say, and in the large 'mugshot' added by Francis O'Neill, what he thinks is okay to do. I wonder if he is aware that this is a Saul Alinsky tactic, or if he is just going along with whoever or whatever put him up to the hit piece on Dr Judy Wood.
Similarly, Miri's latest post includes this about Richard D. Hall's behaviour towards Eve Hibbert, when she must know (if she has read Ian Davis' painstaking research on Richard's court case) that it is not true: "shady middle-aged men hiding in her bushes and filming her"
If there is any way of escaping from camp 2, it can only be hoped that two otherwise fine writers will find their way back to the (much harder and often thankless) third camp of awareness. As you have said a few times, to paraphrase: "once it is known, the truth can't be unknown again"
Thanks, Teresa.
I think the "nasty edge" comes from the programming that encourages people to see Wood as a legitimate target of their two minutes of hate. Some people seem to think that any amount of abuse towards Wood is acceptable. It reminds me a bit of the abuse dished out to those who refused to wear face masks.
The attacks on Dr Wood can be traced back to the 2005 formation of the "Scholars for 9/11 truth".
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
I'm disappointed by Francis O'Neill's failure to see the light and recognise the points made in your previous post and honestly open-heartedly review his stance on Judy Wood. I still believe that he's been taken in by polished propaganda streams pertaining to Camp 2. It's an entrenched position he's taking that still refuses to look at Dr. Judy Wood's core work - her book, "Where Did The Towers Go?"
As you point out, the fact that he fails to provide an updated link to Wood's website, preferring instead to tailor links to its earlier out-dated pages, to me speaks volumes. A chunk of discernment went missing right there. (Would an honest Camp 3 'truther' do that?)
Or the fact that he hasn't read her main work, the 500 page book, preferring instead to dig up earlier themes in an attempt to 'expose' her. Major discernment lost there. (Would an honest Camp 3 'truther' do that?) As you say, "the very least one needs to do is to consult her one and only major work."
Would an honest 'truther' unfairly stop short of the elephant in the room?
As you also say, "his critique is highly selective and misrepresentative of Wood’s work."
I have a hard copy of Dr. Judy Wood's impressive book, "Where Did The Towers Go?" Even the weight of the book itself (it's heavy) seems to emphasise the critical point in a very practical way; how can GIANT buildings be turned to DUST in around 10 seconds? The near instant 'dustification' of a COLOSSAL volume of material into thin air.
The more people attempt to unfairly discredit Judy Wood, the more her authenticity and unique character shines. The 'ambush' interview with Wood and Jenkins was clearly a disingenuous attempt to wrong-foot her, to try to catch her out and off-guard, make her seem shambolic, scatter-brained and unprepared, unprofessional. A malevolent video-staged smear attempt. Yet still her openness and authenticity shines. Jenkins merely comes across as horribly smug, manipulative and insincere, in my opinion.
As you say, "it is troubling that O’Neill simply ignores the context in which the interview took place and continues to maintain his blind defence of Jenkins."
All Francis O'Neill has done for me during all this is further elevate my already high admiration and support for Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson and David Hughes. By contrast, he's gone down a few pegs in my estimation, sadly. Is he now lost to Camp 2 propaganda?
I'd also like to point to page 488 of Wood's book (in the acknowlegements section, after laying out all the key evidence in her book) where she includes her own poignant poem, which resonated with me, which was written whilst writing her book.
She states that "this poem helped me to focus past the various interpretations we have been given, and to see and communicate what was really there."
"Magic of the Heart
Look from your heart and you will see the truth.
Feel with your heart and you will know which way to go.
Speak from your heart and you will speak the truth.
Listen with your heart and you will understand.
Live from your heart and you will live in peace.
Love with your heart and you will love forever."
Thank you, Nigel.
My experience with nanothermite proponents is that, when pushed, they end up resorting to various forms of intellectual dishonesty, such as misrepresenting other people's positions, slandering and ridiculing opponents, ignoring or distorting key evidence, and failing to respond in good faith to criticisms of their "creed," which instead they keep on repeating.
More and more people are learning to spot such propaganda techniques in mainstream media, but it is important also to be able to spot the same propaganda techniques in mainstream alternative media. They are a clear identifier of Camp 2.
I am dismayed to see that you are being distracted to take part in a very old argument which will never be resolved and which only serves to waste your time and energy.
Do not permit these agents to interfere with your original intentions.
You are right, Frances. It's dismal to see this argument stoked up again through Mr. O'Neill's vicious attack on Dr. Judy Wood's integrity and her research, seemingly out of nowhere. She was over here about 13 years or so ago, and her engaging personality shone through during a talk she gave. Richard Gage was here too on a different date, with his own much less plausible take on 9/11. What Dr. Wood said about 'a great weight being lifted off the ground, rather than a great weight slamming down onto the ground' (in describing what the seismic signals indicated) was a revelation at that time. The hidden technology used to cause such carnage could be used instead to help humanity, as surely it was intended to be, before being stolen by those who hate humanity. As pointed out by Nigel here, Judy Wood's work has been to bring healing and love out of tragedy. She so greatly deserves recognition and support from those of Dr. Hughes' intellectual and moral stature. It takes a big man to stand by her, and take some of the flack. We can only hope that the malign agents will now back off again, and stop draining his time and energy - or he might just ignore their witterings!
(interview): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UttyrXJ21Y
Dr Hughes, you seem late to this party. O’Neill’s information accords with many other researchers, especially those who published the Toronto 9/11 Report, which if you have not read you should read asap.
Further, the DEW hypothesis tests on a plausible DEW platform. Congressional reports on the Airborne Laser date from 2008, describing a jet airline equipped with a chemical (excimer) microwave laser, tanks to store the chemicals, and a ball turret like steerable lens in the nose of the plane. The online congressional report states that this platform will evolve into a practical weapon within 15 years (2023). If we take the evidence from researchers such as Robert Brame of the California “wildfire” destruction of communities such as Paradise and Santa Rosa were clearly that the destruction is consistent with the use of such a platform. Cars are incinerated (but their steel frames remain untouched), alloy wheels and glass windscreens are melted. Bungalows are reduced to their foundations. Trees are not incinerated. They may be killed in what appears to be a boiling (as in kitchen microwave heating of water content in food), but they show no signs of burning. Wooden fence posts and planks burn only where they contained nails, indicating the nails were heated but not the wood.
We see the same damage signature in the Lāhainā 8/8/23 attack. We also can find video of what appears to be an arial surveying carried out with green lasers several months before the attack. While all these attacks have devastated communities they share a characteristic. No large structures were damaged. It looks as if individual vehicles were targeted one after another. This goes with a production form of the ABL. In short, while the ABL has significant power, it lacks instantaneous power and must direct its beam for some time (seconds?) to destroy a car or a bungalow. In no way does it appear powerful enough to demolish a tall steel framed skyscraper, and if it were to target such a structures the damage pattern would in no way resemble the 9/11 destruction, which *is* consistent with thermite severing if the steel frame and explosive destruction of the concrete, ie controlled demolition. There is also considerable audio evidence from FDNY personnel in the twin towers after the airplane impacts which report explosions, an absence of fire, etc, and nothing pointing to a DEW.
So in this I side with @Frances O’Neill in this, as I think would any researcher (who am not a researcher) who is familiar with the data. I would council you to read the University of Alaska report on the destruction of buildings 1, 2 & 7 and the Toronto Report, all of which state controlled demolition as the mechanism, and which predate Dr Judy (?? last name escapes me)’s pronouncements on 9/11. I hope also that you have watched one of Barbara Honnegger’s excellent presentations on the Pentagon 9/11 attack.
It does look to me as if Dr Judy is a musinformationist, attempting to mire the 9/11 community n conflict and she appears to have taken you in. Your recent interviews on elite criminality, on category 1, 2, & 3 commentators, etc, have been stimulating, and informative. You became one of my heroes in presenting your information. But in coming out in support of the frankly absurd DEW account of 9/11 you have fallen from grace in my eyes ( :-) why should you care? you shouldn’t; I’m just done Joe blow who’s read a few books and watched a few videos on 9/11). Fir the sake of the 9/11 truth movement, which doesn’t need any n fighting, and could use a fine open mind like your’s, I do hope you’re open minded enough to look more broadly as architects, structural engineers, and physicists, who have looked at the evidence, and also carefully track the available information on the evolution of DEWs to be able to arrive at a more rational theory for the 9/11 demolitions.
Sincerely
Eliot Miranda
San Francisco
October 30, ‘24
Thanks, Eliot.
The material about ABL, Californian wild fires and Lāhainā is interesting, but not relevant to Wood's work, as she does not claim that ABL or "space beams" were used to destroy the Twin Towers.
Needless to say, the evidence Wood presents contradicts the findings of the Toronto Report. The Hulsey report does not address the destruction of the Twin Towers. I have argued elsewhere why I do not trust AE911T.
Wood does claim that directed energy weapons destroyed the twin towers. Because of the vertical collapse we can infer that if a DEW was used then it must have been directed from vertically above the buildings. Therefore it must have been an airborne or satellite system. Physics and our current launch limitations imply that it cannot be satellite based. That leaves an airborne platform, and we need look no further than the ABL. But here we have the problem; the timeline for the ABL is inconsistent with a 9/11/2001 deployment. Hence Francis O’Neill’s criticism of Dr Judy Wood is justified.
There was no vertical collapse.
There is no speculation in Where Did The Towers Go? on the location of any weapon.
I would advise you to read my article on classified military technology: https://dhughes.substack.com/p/no-pixie-dust-has-classified-military
II *watched* the vertical collapse of all three buildings many times. What an absurdly insulting claim to make. You’ve completely blown your credibility. Good bye.
It’s *you* who are a category 2 commentator. Hypocrite.
This building is not "collapsing":
https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/911wtc1blowupconcretefull.jpg
But it is. It was a self supporting structure, and that structure was destroyed, and so it collapsed. What sophistry are you peddling? How would you describe it?
Really, Eliot? Is that necessary?
If Hughes is joining cause with Dr Judy Wood in trying to fracture the 9/11 truth movement then yes it very much is. Dr Hughes did excellent work in recent interviews by categorizing commentators into three, the first being false orators in the employ of the bad actors, the third being the truth tellers, identified by being de platforms etc, and category two who operate limited hangouts, describing crimes but deflecting blame away from the true perpetrators to others, patsies. Dr Hughes naturally placed himself in category 3.
Dr Judy Wood is such a category 2 commentator introducing, as I’ve explained above, an absurd DEW narrative to challenge the long established, and very well documented, controlled demolition theory (a theory being an account that accords either the known facts that is grounded sufficiently in reality that it is open to falsification; not “a piece of nonsense”). So Dr Hughes, in siding with Wood is very much a hypocrite, yes.
David, do u think there might be a way to estimate the volume of steel carted away by truck/ship to China and make extrapolations from there about how much steel was at ground zero after the destruction? I imagine there's data somewhere to make an estimate of the volume of steel that should have been there from the construction doc or reporting.
Where is the evidence that large amounts of steel were shipped off to China? What is the source of that claim, and is it trustworthy?
The photographic evidence clearly shows that the majority of the steel was already gone just hours after the towers disappeared.
I remember seeing video of a long line of dump trucks. I will have to try to find this, but there were people saying that the metal was being sorted at some area off manhattan and being shipped as scrap to china. I also remember seeing pix of metal from the wtc1/2 embedded in nearby buildings.
If the majority of steel were already gone, then the number dump trucks transporting the metal off will be relatively low, right? So compare that low volume estimate to the volume of steel used to build the building. I am not challenging your statements. I'm wondering if there is a way to develop supporting info to your position.
Btw, do I have evidence? Nah. As a general rule, I don't have any evidence of anything happening. Ever. I see videos and pix, but as time goes on I believe less and less of what I see. Both can be and are faked all the time.
Does any reliable evidence exist regarding the number of trucks taking away the debris, and the total number of trips made? Perhaps readers could provide a link if there is. As you say, a crude calculation could be made of the amount of debris removed on this basis.
This Feb 2002 article from the Washington Post - an untrustworthy source - claims that WTC steel ended up in India, although the purchaser claimed "I believe it may contain some scrap from the WTC site, but there is no label, no sticker on the scrap that says it is WTC scrap."
The article claims that "The city of New York has decided to sell 175,000 tons of steel scrap from the World Trade Center," and that "about 60,000 tons has been sold overseas, to companies in India, China and South Korea."
https://web.archive.org/web/20220814140435/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2002/02/18/shipments-of-scrap-and-stress/b2398e72-1474-422f-bb5c-fe468cfcc926/
This article claims that "More than 200,000 tons were sold to wholesalers, primarily in India, China, and Turkey, some of whom were not made fully aware of the origins of their purchase." But are there any receipts?
https://placesjournal.org/article/relic-steel-making-9-11-memorials/
Of the steel that was retained for archiving purposes, there was "roughly 7,000 tons."
I wonder about the relic steel idea. There may have been some. But it made me think of moon rocks. Ja, ja, ja.
Give this article a read....
A Collapse / Demolition Thought Experiment
Put on your thinking caps students
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/a-911-thought-experiment
I should have stated in my first comment that the ABL DEW timeline is entirely inconsistent with effective deployment on 9/11 and entirely inconsistent with a space satellite platform. The liquid chemical excimers required to produce the microwave radiation would be far too heavy to raise into orbit. So the ABL looks like the (only) plausible platform for an attack-from-above DEW, and hence is extremely unlikely to have been used on 9/11.
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)
Is the 9/11 "truth" movement a distraction movement?
What happens if you ask TRUTH questions?
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/questions-for-the-911-truther-talking
Here are links to the ABL DEW and related info
WORLDS FIRST AIRBORNE DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPON (DEW). ALSO KNOWN AS THE AIRBORNE LASER (ABL)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/rQlhbuPc43sf/
RL31213
Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress
Airborne Laser (ABL): Issues for Congress
Updated July 9, 2007
Christopher Bolkcom, Steven A. Hildreth
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL32123.pdf
High Energy Laser Directed Energy Weapons
Technical Report APA-TR-2008-0501
by Dr Carlo Kopp, SMAIAA, MIEEE, PEng
May, 2008
https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-DEW-HEL-Analysis.html
https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/air/directed-energy
LOOKING FOR CLUES IN THE CANADIAN FIRES - FORENSIC ARBORIST, ROBERT BRAME
https://www.bitchute.com/video/qzafviMfOq4R/
DTIC AD0509724: Forest Fire as a Military Weapon
by Defense Technical Information Center
Publication date 1970-06-01
Topics DTIC Archive, , FOREST SERVICE WASHINGTON DC, *FOREST FIRES, *TACTICAL WEAPONS, TACTICAL WARFARE, TREES,
https://archive.org/details/DTIC_AD0509724/page/n9/mode/1up
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 what 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.
You might also want to read the 2007 qui-tam whistle-blower case files presenting the evidence collected. It was also nicely put together in this 500-page textbook, that should be mandatory reading for everyone on earth. A 500-page textbook, that the 9/11 “truther” movement DOES NOT want you to know about or read, because once you’ve read it and understand the evidence, their grift is up. The scariest 9/11 book out there: “Where did the towers go?” by Dr Judy Wood.
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)
Read Dr Wood’s book: Where did the towers go? https://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com
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