Judy Wood and DEWs: a quick and simple debunk

David A. Hughes

’ criticism of

Francis O'Neill

’s debunking of DEWs being the method used to destroy the twin towers on 9/11 has prompted my own foray on the subject.

For no other reason than expedience, I’m not going to defend Francis’s post or address David’s criticism, I merely make seven quick points that I think clearly debunk the hypothesis.

---

IMPORTANT NOTES:

1. An essential element of the debunk is the evidence that significant amounts of purported evidence is fake - footage of the destructions, images of the rubble, witness testimony, etc thus any claims based on purported evidence need to show that the evidence is authentic and not part of the phoney fake 9/11 “show”. Not a bad idea to look at the post below first.

2. The debunk is also based on the premise that death and injury were staged. See page on 9/11 for relevant posts.

---

1. It is a given for a massive psyop such as 9/11 that there will be multiple streams of propaganda intended to bamboozle, fragment and undermine. In the case of the building destructions we have mini-nukes, thermite/nanothermite and DEWs as well as - of course - controlled demolition (CD) using explosives.

2. A priori, as controlled demolition is the only recognised method of bringing down high rise steel frame buildings it is - in the absence of very clear evidence to the contrary - the method we plump for. This isn’t to say that the purported evidence for controlled demolition is any more authentic than any of the purported evidence for the other proposed destruction methods: we are presented with footage of the WTC-7’s destruction that seems to resemble a classic implosion, however, we can see that the footage is faked, just as the more ambiguous footage of the twin towers’ destruction is. Similarly, the claims by firefighters, reporters and others of hearing incriminating explosions and similar is clearly scripted: the nonsensicality in the firefighter testimonies undermines any authenticity and the question to David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant, from Brian Williams, “Can you confirm it was No. 7 that just went in?” is clearly indicative of scripting as “to go in” is an industry term due to buildings in implosions falling in on themselves and not a term expected from a reporter who we have no reason to believe would be familiar with it or - in the very unlikely case he was - use it - so very incriminatingly - in the situation. Rather, it is a clear example of Revelation of the Method.

3. Three of the four world records achieved by Controlled Demolition, Inc (CDI) for large building project demolitions occurred in the three years before 9/11 - 1998 (2) and 2000 (1). CDI is owned by the Loizeaux family and we are told it presented the cleanup plan for the WTC eleven days after the fateful event.

4. Purported evidence of “molten metal” at the WTC (which tends to support thermite/nanothermite) has been pushed by various witnesses and images but we know that one of the images - at least - is fake and we have no reason to believe this method was used. Mark Loizeaux, however, pushed this propaganda by saying a contractor reported to him that he’d seen molten metal. CDI was obviously very much involved in the destruction of the WTC buildings and also played a role in the multiple-stream propaganda campaign.

5. The event “9/11” was essentially a movie where they faked just about everything including:

• the images of the injured for which they used people participating in drills

• footage of the destructions of the twin towers and WTC-7 (although, of course, those buildings were destroyed - we just didn’t see their destructions)

• images of the toasted cars supporting the DEWs hypothesis

The image of a car allegedly from the 9/11 event below shows a missing door-handle suggesting - as stated by Simon Shack - it is a junkyard car and if you put the image below into Google image search you will find numerous examples of similar looking cars all over the place, some of them involving fakery no doubt just like 9/11 (see below).

Images of “toasted” cars brought up by google image search when the image above was entered. Click here for responses to google image search.

Simply put: we cannot rely on any purported imagery unless we know for certain it is authentic to support an hypothesis for the destruction of the twin towers. There is certainly evidence of trickery even in the rubble photos.

6. In addition to the imagery, there is much that we are told we cannot rely on, eg, survivor stories, seismographic data, reported temperatures, timeline of events, etc. Anything told to us without clear evidence can easily be propaganda … and we know for a fact so much told to us is propaganda. Any reporting by alleged witnesses should be treated as unreliable. There were (and still are) many, many actors on the 9/11 film sets: from the big stars down to the hundreds of extras.

7. In summary:

• Anything presented that supports the DEWs hypothesis can easily be assigned the category of “propaganda” - fake imagery, fake seismographic data (if indeed it supports it), fake witness claims, etc. There is nothing that can be relied on that favours the DEWs hypothesis. Note: supposed evidence of DEWs in Hawaii has also been debunked by Agent131711.

• CDI was clearly involved in 9/11 and achieved world records in large demolition projects using standard methods in the three years prior.

• No high rise steel frame building has ever been brought down by any method other than controlled demolition using explosives as far as we know so even though the purported evidence for controlled demolition shows the same degree of fakery as that for the other touted methods, we are obliged to plump for controlled demolition as the method of destruction from its being the only method we are aware of that has ever been used.

I rest my case.

Great thanks to Simon Shack of Clues Forum and

Fakeologist

for setting me on the right path for staged death and injury and fakery of the destruction footage - took me way too long to get there but I got there in the end.