You dont even try to appear legit. It could be done much more effectively but that would require more effort. I get that the main targets are the people happen by a page that might hit a link, or get a keyword planted, while getting those links boosted in page rankings.
Can you have a conversational exchange w/o the pasted walls of text.. so I know im not talking to n actual bot?
Go do your due diligence - Read the articles, as anything you might bring up, I have address in most of my articles...
You write an article, that explains exactly what's been done to you by the so called 9/11 "tuther" movement. The issue is, you've been under their spell for so long, you might never break free from your cognitive dissonance and so far you have shown in our few interactions that you will play the premeditated ignorance game till your end of days.
Most people won't ever read Dr Wood's book, because they are too afraid of the consequences.... It's neatly laid out in the articles I shared with you.
But, alas - You can bring a horse to the water, you cannot make it drink....
Ok - Let's try and figure out how you look at the world....
Let's start with COVID....
- When did you realise it wasn't what we were told it is?
- When did you stop masking up?
- Did you take the jab?
- After all was said and done - What did you learn from COVID?
What position pertaining to vaccines, getting enough sunshine, exercise, the pharma industrial complex, MSM and more which you held in 2019, is now a complete 180 degree turn in thinking?.....
With all due respect - All you have done is rehash all the mute talking points of the truther-traitors like Steven E. Jones, Richard Gage, David Chandler, David Cole, Greg Jenkins, Ted Walter and the rest of the level 2 cover-up artists claiming bombs and thermite.
I'll refer you to the following articles and a presentation I did on 10 points of thermite, that touches on all your points, as breaking down your copy and paste article has been addressed countless times ever since Dr Wood's book was published in 2011....
9/11 Evidence presented by Dr Judy Wood – Prof David A, Hughes
Contrary to the "nanothermite" hypothesis of the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth," the Twin Towers were evidently destroyed at low temperatures, revealing the reality of "Cold Fusion".
Lying? I bet you cannot cite a single point I've made, or data shared on 9-11, and in your own words, explain why it is incorrect. Maybe I did make some mistake (in which it would be a mistake) but I bet you cannot even do that with even a single point. Have at it. I'll wait . . .
Stop lying disinfo agent, and stop covering up the towers turning to dust using cold-DEW technology. Share this image in an article and discuss it to your audience. https://snipboard.io/ulLJIT.jpg
In my Defence of Judy Wood, I do "engage in a point by point rebuttal of the primary data," and in my critique of O'Neill I engage in a point by point rebuttal of his argument, too. So I'm not sure why my "argument" has to be placed in inverted commas, or what makes it "absurd."
Perhaps you could offer a point by point rebuttal of my two pieces, so that the reader might find your claims defensible? Otherwise, as per the logic of your piece, you risk coming across as a disinformation agent who merely posts links to his preferred version of the truth while attempting to smear others.
Hughes : "O’Neill’s critique is intellectually outdated, with most of its key sources dating back to 2006-7, four to five years before Where Did The Towers Go? was published (e.g., Jones, 2006; Legge, 2006; Jenkins, 2007; Gourley, 2007), In that respect, it is 17-18 years behind the curve."
Right from the start we can see this about using Francis O’Neill’s article as a vehicle to attack 9-11 Truth.
Hughes: "First, O’Neill claims, without any reference or citation, that, according to Wood, the Twin Towers were “turned to dust by an energy weapon.” Yet, in her book, which supersedes her earlier work and should be the primary reference point of any serious critique, Wood (2011) does not make any hard claims regarding what exactly destroyed the Twin Towers. Instead, she presents evidence and asks the reader to look at it with their own eyes, rather than outsourcing their thinking to others, as O’Neill has done with his second-hand criticisms."
He does not require a citation because it is Wood’s central proposition. She invented the word dustification to describe the pulverization of steel. Something she cannot so much as articulate a hypothetical scenario for the mechanism by which such a process (i.e., dustification) would even occur. This makes anything else she might say on the topic less than worthless. She uses low resolution video of 'the spire' to show how it turned to dust.
Hughes: "According to O’Neill, Wood’s claim that the Twin Towers were “dustified” is “refuted by the presence of thousands of tons of structural steel in the debris field.” Yet, Wood never claimed that everything had been “dustified.”"
O'Neill does not make that claim either. He paraphrases her central hypothesis. Something easily refuted by the fact that there was no missing steel. It went went into the construction by the ton and was sold as scrap by the ton. [100k metric tons in each tower and 40k metric tons in WTC7]
Hughes: "Remember, the debris pile was immediately close to ground level :"
What remained in the footprints of the towers were smoldering steel, concrete and debris-filled pits with underground fires. Fires that burned at wildly excessive temperatures that could not be put out for over three months [100 days to be exact]. It was so hot steel and concrete melted.
Hughes:" In seeking to provide answers, O’Neill turns to outdated sources such as Legge (2006) and Jenkins (2007)."
Fact based forensic evidence does not change. Neither does cogent analysis of it. Peer-reviewed literature remains valid until it is successfully challenged.
Hughes: "O’Neill appeals to the width of the debris field to account for its very low height, even though this implies that most material from the Twin Towers (“the vast majority” in fact) did not fall straight into the basements after all, thus undermining his previous point."
Because this is precisely what happened. https://ajl.smugmug.com/911/Ground-Zero/i-4fQMNCJ/A Skyscrapers are designed to have as much empty space in them as possible. The Towers accomplished this to a greater degree than any skyscraper before it, due to its revolutionary tube-n tube design. The design has been the standard in skyscraper construction since.
HUGHES: "O’Neill turns to an interview with Wood conducted by Greg Jenkins on January 10, 2007. He makes no mention of the highly unusual nature of the interview, which Andrew Johnson (2011, pp. 41-47) plausibly describes as an “ambush” intended to discredit Wood using nefarious tactics."
Nefarious ambush ...? What? where? You dont say. Meanwhile, that is literally the opposite of what happened. Wood sat down for a planned interview and took us through her hypothesis in as compelling a way as she possibly could. Just listen to her. Jenkins never interrupts or pressures her in any way. She could have said anything. And she did. Which is the problem. lol She went with "Did you ever put foil in a microwave?" & "We didnt think it was necessary to do that run any numbers. We just looked at the pictures.”
Hughes: "The dust generated by the destruction of the Twin Towers did not fall neatly within a 600 foot radius of the Twin Towers, as Jenkins and O’Neill want us to believe. Rather, it escaped everywhere:"
Given that (correct me if I am wrong) neither O'Neill nor Jenkins make such a claim this is a blatant straw man.
Hughes: "As Wood (2011, pp. 380-81) points out, the pile continued to fume for months, with bogus stories about “molten metal” being used to claim that the “fumes” (i.e., evidence of ongoing molecular dissociation) were in fact steam"
Obviously, [given the temperatures of the fires] there was also some steam. One of by-products of the thermitic reaction is aluminum oxide given off as white smoke. White smoke poured from these pits for months.https://ajl.smugmug.com/911/Ground-Zero/i-mbGMgV4/A
2: Hughes : ". . .the evidence supports Wood’s contention that the Twin Towers were mostly turned to dust, large amounts of which blew away in the wind before settling in different thicknesses over an immeasurably large area."
It does not support that by any stretch. Yes, most of the buildings contents were pulverized, including most of the concrete. What remained were primarily the most robust elements, like the structural steel. We know there was no missing steel because we know how much were used in the constructions and we know much was sold as scrap. None was missing.
Hughes: "Again, if the dust clouds “scorched” cars, why did they not do the same to people?"
It did! People who were close and in the wrong place were roasted alive by it. I saw pictures of one woman, her legs scorched black. I had never seen a burn that looked like that. Here's another one who didnt make it: “WTC BURN VICTIM LOSES WEEKS-LONG STRUGGLE” https://nypost.com/2001/10/24/wtc-burn-victim-loses-weeks-long-struggle/
That article claims she was "doused with jet fuel" on the street. She had escaped the building and was trying to catch a bus and was burned alive by (by falling burning jet fuel 45 mins later). She was far from the only one.
HUGHES: "What has caused the bus to degrade in this fashion over the course of a few hours? Evidently, there was something very strange going on in this particular location that cannot be explained through conventional vehicle fires."
It didnt. https://dhughes.substack.com/p/how-not-to-critique-judy-wood The bottom image was taken much later. Most of the dust has been removed along with lots of debris. It seems obvious heavy machinery was used to remove the smaller debris from the streets. & rip off the lighter parts of the bus so it could be safely loaded on a truck and carted away. The cars that were in front of it have already been removed. How Hughes could conclude this was a few hours later is no clearer than the rest of his analysis,
Hughes: "O’Neill claims “That some paper did not burn is true as it was blown out of the towers by the plane impacts and subsequent explosions.” He fails to explain, however, how “thermitic reactions” and “explosions” and “molten metal” managed to destroy two 110-storey buildings and “toast” nearby cars without burning large amounts of paper. "
He does explain it: "it was blown out of the towers by the plane impacts and subsequent explosions" Which is exactly what happened. That is how organic processes work: some cars burnt & not others, some paper was burned and others not. Some people were burned and others were not.
Hughes: "Nor does he seek to explain Wood’s observation that all but one of the 45,000 metal filing cabinets containing the large majority of that paper vanished without trace while huge amounts of paper survived."
Things in the real world dont vanish. The filing cabinets were obviously destroyed by incredible levels of explosive energy they were subjected to.
Hughes: "Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory records that the dust clouds were “without the high temperatures common in volcanic flows.”
Tell that to the people burned alive by it.
Hughes: "This is one of many testimonies regarding explosions in the towers before they were destroyed. But even if explosives were used to prepare the towers for destruction, this is not the same as claiming that “nanothermite” was then used to blow up the towers. Any burns injuries sustained from being present around those explosions are not evidence that the towers were destroyed at extremely high temperatures."
It is not known that thermite was used from the explosive component. Only that it was most likely used to pre-weaken the structures. It has been speculated on (because it can engineered as an explosive as well, that it may have been used for both. What is important is that we know it was used. It explains a number of the anomalies seen at Ground Zero, like the excessive temperatures, the white smoke, the 100 day fires (thermite continues to burn even underwater because it provides its own oxygen).
Hughes: "But Wood does not “deny” anything. Rather, she addresses the evidence head on and debunks claims of high temperatures."
There is no debunking facts that are easily demonstrably true. Here are a few of the numerous sources that prove insanely excessive temperatures at the all three sites:
Image above https://ajl.smugmug.com/911/North-Tower-Exploding/i-5tFd887 is from FEMA 403 [May 2002] Building Performance Study (BPAT) Appendix C: A Limited Metallurgical Examination which states: 'Evidence of a severe high-temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture* containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam.' ... 'The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment that liquefied the steel. The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.' -FEMA 403 May 2002
The source of the sulfur was the eutectic in the thermite. *A eutectic (in this case sulfur) is a mixture or alloy whose composition results in the lowest possible melting point in order to extend the period of time the steel remains in a molten state. The lead on this analysis later stated: “..fire and the structural damage . . . would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.” -Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Surface temperatures were recorded on a daily basis by Bechtel for the ASSE, who were in charge of safety at Ground Zero. This trade publication documented surface temperatures as high as 2800F many days after 9/11.https://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/asse_groundzero1.htm We have thermal images from NASA and USGS as well. We know these extreme level of heat persisted for months. This is just one more fact you deny in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
-- and that is abt as much nonsense as I can debunk for one day cheers. Youre quite the academic.
Another revealing bit is how you keep your comments locked. Normal Island News, that has like 40k readers and gets 100s of Likes and comments have their comment sections open... but you,, dont wanna get flooded by trolls. Your work is just too popular and contentious (not dealing with fringe issues at all) You have to have yours locked. Seems legit, 100% lol
Feel free to comment on anything I post. Open your comment sections, fgs. Like anyone is free to read what you write, allow them to comment as well. Or cop-out of public scrutiny. It is that simple. You wouldnt want to create an echo chamber would you?
Youre asking people to believe what youre writing without allowing them to comment. Seems counterproductive (till youre actually run over by trolls)
Step 1 - Dr Wood's FAQ page answer all questions to her critics that NEVER bothered reading her book - https://www.drjudywood.com/faq/
And this article shows the COINTELPRO agents like Steven E. Jones, Greg Jenkins, Richard Gage and architects for an engineered truth for what they are.
The first question was: In the conclusion of your paper, you mention “Erik” – “without who’s unrelenting nonsense the concepts underlying this paper would not have crystalized." – So, who is Erik?
Just after that, they ask my second question out of 6 which I had and they only asked 3 of them - You should go watch the full question and answer section on the Colorado 9/11 presentation of 13 March 2023…
They FAIL miserably and end up debunking themselves CONFIRMING no molten metal and the spire coulombs “disappearing” and they might never know what happened to them.
Richard Gage even jumps in to try and save Wayne Coste’s feeble attempt to sell “propelled demolition”.
Reply to Francis O'Neill
Susceptible to Camp 2 (mainstream alternative) propaganda regarding "9/11," O'Neill has made himself the unwitting instrument of its propagation
Look at the primary evidence. It certainly isn't "nonsense" as you state. It's actually pretty straightforward. See slideshows here:
http://www.drjudywood.com/
Are you an honest person or not?
In May 2023, Wayne Coste presented his "propelled demolition" paper, which was not peer reviewed, and I asked him some simple questions.
Could he answer them? Tell me what you think in the comment section.
Interaction: https://rumble.com/v592xwq-stumping-911-truther-experts.html
Some suggested reading for you to do, to get past your premeditated ignorance on 9/11...
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
9/11 and the Debunking Olympics.
It's been ongoing since 2005 and the truth seems to be lurking in the shadows.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-and-the-debunking-olympics
Psychology of resistance to truth about 9/11
An email discussion with Fran Shur & Marti Hopper, psychologists
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/psychology-of-resistance-to-truth
The tell-tale signs of a 9/11 cult.
Countering a 9/11 cult that cannot count past 3.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-telltale-signs-of-a-911-cult
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
You can download the Refutation of Richard Gage’s Game in 2008 AND 2023: https://truthsummit.info/media-files/DrJudyWood-refutation-RichardGage-claims.pdf
You dont even try to appear legit. It could be done much more effectively but that would require more effort. I get that the main targets are the people happen by a page that might hit a link, or get a keyword planted, while getting those links boosted in page rankings.
Can you have a conversational exchange w/o the pasted walls of text.. so I know im not talking to n actual bot?
Go do your due diligence - Read the articles, as anything you might bring up, I have address in most of my articles...
You write an article, that explains exactly what's been done to you by the so called 9/11 "tuther" movement. The issue is, you've been under their spell for so long, you might never break free from your cognitive dissonance and so far you have shown in our few interactions that you will play the premeditated ignorance game till your end of days.
Most people won't ever read Dr Wood's book, because they are too afraid of the consequences.... It's neatly laid out in the articles I shared with you.
But, alas - You can bring a horse to the water, you cannot make it drink....
My newest article: The Loose Change 9/11 PSYOP
The most important thought experiment to date
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-loose-change-911-psyop
"Can you have a conversational exchange w/o the pasted walls of text?"
That's a big, No. Youre not bot like at all lol
Ok - Let's try and figure out how you look at the world....
Let's start with COVID....
- When did you realise it wasn't what we were told it is?
- When did you stop masking up?
- Did you take the jab?
- After all was said and done - What did you learn from COVID?
What position pertaining to vaccines, getting enough sunshine, exercise, the pharma industrial complex, MSM and more which you held in 2019, is now a complete 180 degree turn in thinking?.....
"Go do your due diligence - Read the articles, as anything you might bring up, I have address in most of my articles..."
This: https://ajl.smugmug.com/911/North-Tower-Exploding is the main gallery of everything Ive shared and written on the subject. Point out anything that is wrong ,, I will thank you
With all due respect - All you have done is rehash all the mute talking points of the truther-traitors like Steven E. Jones, Richard Gage, David Chandler, David Cole, Greg Jenkins, Ted Walter and the rest of the level 2 cover-up artists claiming bombs and thermite.
I'll refer you to the following articles and a presentation I did on 10 points of thermite, that touches on all your points, as breaking down your copy and paste article has been addressed countless times ever since Dr Wood's book was published in 2011....
9/11 Evidence presented by Dr Judy Wood – Prof David A, Hughes
Contrary to the "nanothermite" hypothesis of the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth," the Twin Towers were evidently destroyed at low temperatures, revealing the reality of "Cold Fusion".
Article: https://dhughes.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-judy-wood-0ce
How Not to Critique Judy Wood – Prof David A, Hughes
Francis O'Neill's intellectually flimsy attack on Judy Wood bears all the hallmarks of propaganda, undermining his credibility as a dissident voice.
Article: https://dhughes.substack.com/p/how-not-to-critique-judy-wood
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
Stop lying disinfo agent. 9/11 Revisionist and David Hughes are correct.
Lying? I bet you cannot cite a single point I've made, or data shared on 9-11, and in your own words, explain why it is incorrect. Maybe I did make some mistake (in which it would be a mistake) but I bet you cannot even do that with even a single point. Have at it. I'll wait . . .
Stop lying disinfo agent, and stop covering up the towers turning to dust using cold-DEW technology. Share this image in an article and discuss it to your audience. https://snipboard.io/ulLJIT.jpg
In my Defence of Judy Wood, I do "engage in a point by point rebuttal of the primary data," and in my critique of O'Neill I engage in a point by point rebuttal of his argument, too. So I'm not sure why my "argument" has to be placed in inverted commas, or what makes it "absurd."
Perhaps you could offer a point by point rebuttal of my two pieces, so that the reader might find your claims defensible? Otherwise, as per the logic of your piece, you risk coming across as a disinformation agent who merely posts links to his preferred version of the truth while attempting to smear others.
Hughes : "O’Neill’s critique is intellectually outdated, with most of its key sources dating back to 2006-7, four to five years before Where Did The Towers Go? was published (e.g., Jones, 2006; Legge, 2006; Jenkins, 2007; Gourley, 2007), In that respect, it is 17-18 years behind the curve."
Right from the start we can see this about using Francis O’Neill’s article as a vehicle to attack 9-11 Truth.
Hughes: "First, O’Neill claims, without any reference or citation, that, according to Wood, the Twin Towers were “turned to dust by an energy weapon.” Yet, in her book, which supersedes her earlier work and should be the primary reference point of any serious critique, Wood (2011) does not make any hard claims regarding what exactly destroyed the Twin Towers. Instead, she presents evidence and asks the reader to look at it with their own eyes, rather than outsourcing their thinking to others, as O’Neill has done with his second-hand criticisms."
He does not require a citation because it is Wood’s central proposition. She invented the word dustification to describe the pulverization of steel. Something she cannot so much as articulate a hypothetical scenario for the mechanism by which such a process (i.e., dustification) would even occur. This makes anything else she might say on the topic less than worthless. She uses low resolution video of 'the spire' to show how it turned to dust.
Hughes: "According to O’Neill, Wood’s claim that the Twin Towers were “dustified” is “refuted by the presence of thousands of tons of structural steel in the debris field.” Yet, Wood never claimed that everything had been “dustified.”"
O'Neill does not make that claim either. He paraphrases her central hypothesis. Something easily refuted by the fact that there was no missing steel. It went went into the construction by the ton and was sold as scrap by the ton. [100k metric tons in each tower and 40k metric tons in WTC7]
Hughes: "Remember, the debris pile was immediately close to ground level :"
What remained in the footprints of the towers were smoldering steel, concrete and debris-filled pits with underground fires. Fires that burned at wildly excessive temperatures that could not be put out for over three months [100 days to be exact]. It was so hot steel and concrete melted.
Hughes:" In seeking to provide answers, O’Neill turns to outdated sources such as Legge (2006) and Jenkins (2007)."
Fact based forensic evidence does not change. Neither does cogent analysis of it. Peer-reviewed literature remains valid until it is successfully challenged.
Hughes: "O’Neill appeals to the width of the debris field to account for its very low height, even though this implies that most material from the Twin Towers (“the vast majority” in fact) did not fall straight into the basements after all, thus undermining his previous point."
Because this is precisely what happened. https://ajl.smugmug.com/911/Ground-Zero/i-4fQMNCJ/A Skyscrapers are designed to have as much empty space in them as possible. The Towers accomplished this to a greater degree than any skyscraper before it, due to its revolutionary tube-n tube design. The design has been the standard in skyscraper construction since.
HUGHES: "O’Neill turns to an interview with Wood conducted by Greg Jenkins on January 10, 2007. He makes no mention of the highly unusual nature of the interview, which Andrew Johnson (2011, pp. 41-47) plausibly describes as an “ambush” intended to discredit Wood using nefarious tactics."
Nefarious ambush ...? What? where? You dont say. Meanwhile, that is literally the opposite of what happened. Wood sat down for a planned interview and took us through her hypothesis in as compelling a way as she possibly could. Just listen to her. Jenkins never interrupts or pressures her in any way. She could have said anything. And she did. Which is the problem. lol She went with "Did you ever put foil in a microwave?" & "We didnt think it was necessary to do that run any numbers. We just looked at the pictures.”
Hughes: "The dust generated by the destruction of the Twin Towers did not fall neatly within a 600 foot radius of the Twin Towers, as Jenkins and O’Neill want us to believe. Rather, it escaped everywhere:"
Given that (correct me if I am wrong) neither O'Neill nor Jenkins make such a claim this is a blatant straw man.
Hughes: "As Wood (2011, pp. 380-81) points out, the pile continued to fume for months, with bogus stories about “molten metal” being used to claim that the “fumes” (i.e., evidence of ongoing molecular dissociation) were in fact steam"
Obviously, [given the temperatures of the fires] there was also some steam. One of by-products of the thermitic reaction is aluminum oxide given off as white smoke. White smoke poured from these pits for months.https://ajl.smugmug.com/911/Ground-Zero/i-mbGMgV4/A
We are fortunate to not have to guess about (at least some) of what was in the air: Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4
...
2: Hughes : ". . .the evidence supports Wood’s contention that the Twin Towers were mostly turned to dust, large amounts of which blew away in the wind before settling in different thicknesses over an immeasurably large area."
It does not support that by any stretch. Yes, most of the buildings contents were pulverized, including most of the concrete. What remained were primarily the most robust elements, like the structural steel. We know there was no missing steel because we know how much were used in the constructions and we know much was sold as scrap. None was missing.
Hughes: "Again, if the dust clouds “scorched” cars, why did they not do the same to people?"
It did! People who were close and in the wrong place were roasted alive by it. I saw pictures of one woman, her legs scorched black. I had never seen a burn that looked like that. Here's another one who didnt make it: “WTC BURN VICTIM LOSES WEEKS-LONG STRUGGLE” https://nypost.com/2001/10/24/wtc-burn-victim-loses-weeks-long-struggle/
That article claims she was "doused with jet fuel" on the street. She had escaped the building and was trying to catch a bus and was burned alive by (by falling burning jet fuel 45 mins later). She was far from the only one.
HUGHES: "What has caused the bus to degrade in this fashion over the course of a few hours? Evidently, there was something very strange going on in this particular location that cannot be explained through conventional vehicle fires."
It didnt. https://dhughes.substack.com/p/how-not-to-critique-judy-wood The bottom image was taken much later. Most of the dust has been removed along with lots of debris. It seems obvious heavy machinery was used to remove the smaller debris from the streets. & rip off the lighter parts of the bus so it could be safely loaded on a truck and carted away. The cars that were in front of it have already been removed. How Hughes could conclude this was a few hours later is no clearer than the rest of his analysis,
Hughes: "O’Neill claims “That some paper did not burn is true as it was blown out of the towers by the plane impacts and subsequent explosions.” He fails to explain, however, how “thermitic reactions” and “explosions” and “molten metal” managed to destroy two 110-storey buildings and “toast” nearby cars without burning large amounts of paper. "
He does explain it: "it was blown out of the towers by the plane impacts and subsequent explosions" Which is exactly what happened. That is how organic processes work: some cars burnt & not others, some paper was burned and others not. Some people were burned and others were not.
Hughes: "Nor does he seek to explain Wood’s observation that all but one of the 45,000 metal filing cabinets containing the large majority of that paper vanished without trace while huge amounts of paper survived."
Things in the real world dont vanish. The filing cabinets were obviously destroyed by incredible levels of explosive energy they were subjected to.
Hughes: "Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory records that the dust clouds were “without the high temperatures common in volcanic flows.”
Tell that to the people burned alive by it.
Hughes: "This is one of many testimonies regarding explosions in the towers before they were destroyed. But even if explosives were used to prepare the towers for destruction, this is not the same as claiming that “nanothermite” was then used to blow up the towers. Any burns injuries sustained from being present around those explosions are not evidence that the towers were destroyed at extremely high temperatures."
It is not known that thermite was used from the explosive component. Only that it was most likely used to pre-weaken the structures. It has been speculated on (because it can engineered as an explosive as well, that it may have been used for both. What is important is that we know it was used. It explains a number of the anomalies seen at Ground Zero, like the excessive temperatures, the white smoke, the 100 day fires (thermite continues to burn even underwater because it provides its own oxygen).
Hughes: "But Wood does not “deny” anything. Rather, she addresses the evidence head on and debunks claims of high temperatures."
There is no debunking facts that are easily demonstrably true. Here are a few of the numerous sources that prove insanely excessive temperatures at the all three sites:
Image above https://ajl.smugmug.com/911/North-Tower-Exploding/i-5tFd887 is from FEMA 403 [May 2002] Building Performance Study (BPAT) Appendix C: A Limited Metallurgical Examination which states: 'Evidence of a severe high-temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture* containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam.' ... 'The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment that liquefied the steel. The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.' -FEMA 403 May 2002
The source of the sulfur was the eutectic in the thermite. *A eutectic (in this case sulfur) is a mixture or alloy whose composition results in the lowest possible melting point in order to extend the period of time the steel remains in a molten state. The lead on this analysis later stated: “..fire and the structural damage . . . would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.” -Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Surface temperatures were recorded on a daily basis by Bechtel for the ASSE, who were in charge of safety at Ground Zero. This trade publication documented surface temperatures as high as 2800F many days after 9/11.https://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/asse_groundzero1.htm We have thermal images from NASA and USGS as well. We know these extreme level of heat persisted for months. This is just one more fact you deny in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
-- and that is abt as much nonsense as I can debunk for one day cheers. Youre quite the academic.
Another revealing bit is how you keep your comments locked. Normal Island News, that has like 40k readers and gets 100s of Likes and comments have their comment sections open... but you,, dont wanna get flooded by trolls. Your work is just too popular and contentious (not dealing with fringe issues at all) You have to have yours locked. Seems legit, 100% lol
I can't imagine for one moment why I wouldn't want to get flooded by trolls. Can you?
Thank you for responding to some of the points I make in my critique of O'Neill below. This is helpful for readers to compare and contrast the claims being made and to make their own minds up, although they should also be sure to view the extensive visual imagery I present in https://dhughes.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-judy-wood-0ce and https://dhughes.substack.com/p/how-not-to-critique-judy-wood
Feel free to comment on anything I post. Open your comment sections, fgs. Like anyone is free to read what you write, allow them to comment as well. Or cop-out of public scrutiny. It is that simple. You wouldnt want to create an echo chamber would you?
Youre asking people to believe what youre writing without allowing them to comment. Seems counterproductive (till youre actually run over by trolls)
Step 1 - Dr Wood's FAQ page answer all questions to her critics that NEVER bothered reading her book - https://www.drjudywood.com/faq/
And this article shows the COINTELPRO agents like Steven E. Jones, Greg Jenkins, Richard Gage and architects for an engineered truth for what they are.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline
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
I like how you answered for Dr Hughes. That is entertaining. Can you do it again. only this time make sense>>?
O, Albert… You’re so funny and totally hoodwinked…
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
In May 2023, Wayne Coste presented his "propelled demolition" paper, which was not peer reviewed, and I asked him some simple questions.
Could he answer them? Tell me what you think in the comment section.
Interaction: https://rumble.com/v592xwq-stumping-911-truther-experts.html
YOU ask no questions in this mashup, witaf? What questions did you asK?
https://rumble.com/v592xwq-stumping-911-truther-experts.html
Um, are you deaf?
The first question was: In the conclusion of your paper, you mention “Erik” – “without who’s unrelenting nonsense the concepts underlying this paper would not have crystalized." – So, who is Erik?
Just after that, they ask my second question out of 6 which I had and they only asked 3 of them - You should go watch the full question and answer section on the Colorado 9/11 presentation of 13 March 2023…
They FAIL miserably and end up debunking themselves CONFIRMING no molten metal and the spire coulombs “disappearing” and they might never know what happened to them.
Richard Gage even jumps in to try and save Wayne Coste’s feeble attempt to sell “propelled demolition”.
Reply to Francis O'Neill
Susceptible to Camp 2 (mainstream alternative) propaganda regarding "9/11," O'Neill has made himself the unwitting instrument of its propagation
Article: https://dhughes.substack.com/p/reply-to-francis-oneill