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.
- they pushed their own 'conspiracy theories' for the less gullible
- all state is deep state
- all politicians were/are in on it
Same with Covid, same with Climate Change and I can go on for a while. Sure, every country gets their individual flavour of the world order, but world order it is.
Yeah, but it's only just now I'm really comprehending the incredible extent of fakery even though on Clues Forum they worked it all out around 2010, years before I had a clue about 9/11. I know I went to the site quite a few times but I must have somehow missed it.
Someone once screamed at me when I said I did not believe the news with regards to the latest terror attack. I think it was the Nice truck hoax. I told him that I indeed believe most is fake and that was about ten years ago. In those ten years the technology to fake things has become even more advanced so, get ready for the next big hoax!
This particular video too blurry on my end, and there's no option on the screen to enhance resolution, so hard to judge the images.
Not like Boston Marathon or Las Vegas Harvest Concert newsreels which was no brainers - obvious fake injuries to the point of insulting the viewers' intelligence.
No shit Sherl.ock, the OZ is NOT EU, which has the worst censorship. Robert is probably is in the EU like myself (sadly). So your comment it works in Australia is "very helpful" . Yes, Nice was a hoax too there was also this Gutjahr involved... was some "meme" for a while .. as this guy was also at 2 or 3 other events iirc. But I will try the vid u link w/ a VPN (many channels at "freespeech lol" site Bitchute need VPN
This piece is true ofc (u do not really beLIEve this JewdyW crap, or do you? but ofc this is ur right, we have free speech, u can also believe in flying unicorn or killerviruses etc) .. seems u do not look into things deeply (just like u did not look into Petra, but the researcher and myself have done it see comments on my page)
You were not really looking for it. You had too many biases. It happens to everyone. Now you have a better chance to understand some of the other cons (which I won't mention for now).
PS read the book phonecian secrets (no secrets in it) and listen to the story about them circumnavigating Africa and how they tricked the rulers of Egypt (and most everyone else) into thinking it was very difficult and dangerous and took 2 years etc etc. Then think if space travel or as I like to call it, flight higher up in the sky than normal. It would be ridiculously stupid not to fake all of space exploration (and make it look harder than it is) and these people are anything but stupid.
Nonsense! All State is not Deep State. Deep State is the covert part controlled by covert financial forces. All were in on it? Absurd unless you mean some rationalize anomalies they should have seized upon. Also, no! Real world order coalesced after WWII. The first really World War. WWI was a Civil war in Western Civilization.
Yes; all state is deep state. Why? Because the term 'deep state' suggests that these individuals have their own agendas, often working independently of or even in opposition to elected officials and the democratic process.
Yes, there might be more than one agenda but, they only exist to play out their single script.
Never heard of compartmentalism? I agree that the Deep State is the part that controls the State bringing the whole state into alignment as best possible with the agenda of the ruling class / conspiracy.
They have them create a show so the peasants believe in a deep state, rogue agents, spies, whistle blowers, heroes, villains and saviours but, they are all on the same team.
No. You make an over-generalization, but yes, of course they own all the top levels or can quickly correct any errors or rebellions at the top. However, they have constant work on their hands to keep mostly unconscious minions toeing the line. The Deep State is the control org at the top. The Deep State concept does not imply the rest of the State is good, it is just the mostly unconscious, deluded part of Leviathan. Of course, the minions following orders are not good. Much of the unconscious part, of course, is guilty to some extent of evasion.
Trump is scripted either to be America's last gasp or ease believers into Global Tyranny with reassuring lies. He still supports the vaxxx and, most important, the assassination charade could not have been orchestrated without the power of the Deep State. He had no blood on him when he felt his ear and went down. Blood only when he rose up.
Financial forces control both despite the fact they are really one. The state is the state despite what words preceed it or come after it.
There is nothing good about government or the 'state'....it is a sysetm of enFORCEment.
No one likes to be forced to do anything.......
War is a Racket it has nothing to do with what the common people are told to know, they give up their young, their treasure and freedoms to fight a Racket that only a few know why it is conducted at all.
War is just a crime win or lose, it's planners, plotters, foementors, financiers and order followers are (war) criminals. It is where the victors write the history so as to make the losers crime of war look worse then the victors crime of war when it is the victor that MUST war more (Commit more crimes) to be the victor!
Adjectives like "deep" can be used to differentiate various parts of something. Thus, Deep State, the covert part, not the up front part that does routine work controlling you.
I guess war can be justified in pure response to a country or area being attacked in a war conspiracy.
Ideally, there would be no State. People would have to be super human though, I think.
Every American War has been created by "story telling." Some include even the Civil War started at Ft. Sumpter.
You've reminded me of one of the really cunning (in fact, pretty cool when it comes to espionage as it happens) methods of subversion/cognitive infiltration. Namely you get two (or, preferably, three, as I'll explain below) of your agents and place them on opposing sides and get them to have an argument (no Monty Python references permitted).
That's somewhat obvious, of course. But the cunning thing happens with agent #3, who sweeps in and 'exposes' agent #1 as an agent. Maybe this happens after agent #1 has accused agent #2 of being an agent and seems to be winning the argument and gathering something of a following. Thus, when agent #1's cover is blown, the onlookers have quite the experience, since sudden shifts, when emotional, can be very powerful and certainly construe an exciting turning point in a narrative. Furthermore, it makes everyone think agent #2 is completely innocent (people empathise with victims etc.), and maybe also pushing the 'correct' narrative which agent #1 was trying to get people to dismiss. It massively reinforces agent #2's cover/bona fides, in other words.
Agent #3 would probably have to slink away quietly though, before anyone rumbles him/her. Unless they don't get suspected at all of course, in which case they may as well hang around, enjoy the party, or even think up another party piece. If you fool them once, after all, why not fool them again, eh!
Thus, when we examine a lot of this cognitive infiltration (or let's say propaganda - different theories about this or that event/conspiracy, and the people promoting them), we should always try and bear in mind that template.
It perhaps also suggests, in the above example, that the real twist is that the narrative being pushed by agent #1 was, ironically, the truth. Which everyone now dismisses.
And all anyone is left with, in the end, is loose change.
Yes but even with all their layers of propaganda with different agents, etc they still tell us the truth underneath the propaganda with their obligatory Revelation of the Method ... and they tell us it was controlled demolition ... and that is really the only method that makes the slightest sense.
No it isn't. Prior to and since 9/11 we know of no high rise steel frame building coming down by any method other than controlled demolition, unless taken apart bit by bit. It would seem strange to use an alien method in one situation only. They don't even pretend to use DEWs for WTC-7, they make it look like a standard implosion. So you think it's silly to say that they wouldn't use a method NEVER used on any other building but they'd pull a method out - that they tested somehow but we don't know how - for two 110-storey buildings?
But you know that the footage of WTC-7's destruction is also faked? That's a good one, isn't it? Had me (and many others obviously) totally fooled. I'd imagine that for both the twin towers and WTC-7 they'd lay explosives at intervals and the explosive jets that would come out as shown in the destruction of the Mina Plaza in Abu Dhabi would simply be too much of a giveaway (https://youtube.com/shorts/4xsOL9_kVco?si=b3wUJHagU9KZ-yRD) - whatever the reason, they faked it - if for no other reason, they always like to dupe us as much as possible.
I finally got around to looking (sorry about that delay). The Mina Plaza footage is one I hadn't actually seen before it pretty much matches what you see for WTC-1 and 2. All those clouds of pulverised dust and suchlike. That's one of the best comparisons I've seen.
As for WTC-7, what you are seeing there is a different type of demolition. The twin towers were essentially top-down. 7 is actually a centre-first demolition. That's to say the centre/inside is fatally weakened first, then the outer bits kind of fall or collapse in/inwards on the centre (it's a much safer way of doing it, actually). You can tell this by watching the very beginning of the collapse of 7, where you can clearly see the middle bit starts to drop first. I believe that type of demolition used to be the standard way of doing them. This might, ironically, be one of the reasons why too many people didn't immediately see the WTC-1 and 2 collapses as controlled demolitions, because they hadn't really seen a top-down one performed before, and certainly not on ridiculously tall (and thin) skyscrapers like the twins.
And I very much doubt they show schoolkids videos of controlled demos in school anymore. I did get to see them, so what happened on 9-11 was blindingly obvious.
Right now I'm not going there - I may have a look later. I am being summoned away from the computer and warned not to get sucked into stuff on a Saturday alvo.
On a similar note, isn't it a bit late in Oz right now for you, Petra? Don't you have anything better to do on a Saturday night?
If you're looking for an amusing diversion, may I perchance recommend some Ciao Seti?
Yes. That is silly when there are many anomalies to account for. New tech happens. They test it in "fires" all the time. Microwaves don't disturb dry paper and wood, just metal. Don't test the theory in you microwave at home, though.
Quote "Microwaves don't disturb dry paper and wood, just metal." source/proof? Only metal is "disturbed" by this radiation?? LOL Edit, also define what "disturbed" means? To clarify ur saying EMF (microwaves) does no damage to humans or animals/plants? Only to metals? Where did u get that from the gov or fact checkers?
Put plastic or paper in your microwave. Put in a glass of water. It will boil. The plastic or paper will not react at all. DON'T try it, but if you put metal in your microwave it will burn-up explode etc. This stuff is well known. Evidence of such all around California fires, Muai, 9-11.
'Revelation of the method'? Alright let's use some logic here. Are there any staged events you didn't know about (or still don't)? Perhaps you have only seen through the simplest easiest ones so far.
Perhaps revelation of the method is just another useful tool to hide other events. Perhaps it's just a signal to their own, or even to the more intelligent peasants.
Remember morals are just a tool and these people know that. Don't mistake the people behind the scenes for those on the stage.
I definitely don't see all the conspiracies and certainly not all the psyops where they use Revelation of the Method because I just don't know about them ... but the fact that they use it at all and, in fact, frequently makes it a useful tool.
They used it back in the Great Fire of London 1666 and the Gunpowder Plot - I mean you do see it everywhere you turn but stuff like organ harvesting, the drug trade and child, adult and sex trafficking - you don't necessarily see it there (although it is there too) ... but we all know it goes on so I don't think RoM hides other conspiracies because we know there's a whole lot of stuff that goes on that they don't advertise exactly the same way.
Where they use RoM is in order to control our minds - in the other conspiracy stuff mentioned that's just what they want to do for themselves to make money or perform their ritual sacrifices, etc. Of course, RoM is used in events from which they want to make money, etc, too - it's always about making money - it's just for some things they want to keep it more hidden and others they don't.
Actually, I have to say that there's so much fakery and propaganda involved in 9/11 it's really hard to determine - according to their Revelation of the Method technique - if they really are telling us the truth underneath the propaganda. They have us chasing our tails wildly. My goodness would they be laughing their heads over it.
When I realise that the evidence purported for controlled demolition is just as fake as all the other evidence purported for the other touted methods I'm inclined to think the only reason we can go for CD is that it's the only method we know of to bring down high rise steel frame buildings. We can't really point to any clear evidence. Sure, we have reporters scripted to allude to controlled demolition ... but then there's witnesses scripted to say stuff that favours the other methods. Now I really am confused because I'm so used to RoM giving the clues but we're in such a quagmire of evidence fakery it's really hard to see the truth.
Have you ever bothered reading Dr Wood's book? Listened to any of her presentations?
I guess not.... Then another question - Can you count past 3?
WHAT exactly happened to ALL 7 buildings with a WTC prefix on Sept 11, 2001?
The following points need to be made regarding what exactly happened to the buildings and the observable evidence at ground zero, that the “9/11 truth movement” never touch on…
To fully understand the cover-up of the cover-up, which is the 9/11 "truth" movement, one needs to go back to the formation of the "9/11 Scholars for truth" in 2005....
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
How do you fit Loose Change 1st edition into this timeline, since that came before the timeline you are describing? Loose Change was a very simple, common sense explanation of what happened on 9-11 and also explained the big picture (PNAC, the new Pearl Harbour, Operation Cyclone, CIA proxy terrorists, war on terror and so on). It did not need to delve into complicated psyops and fakery and no-planes and DEWs.
So I am suggesting that in the face of that obvious simplicity, along with the potential for dissemination via Web 2.0 (LC was the first YouTube blockbuster, I believe someone said), they had to, as you say, 'lead the opposition' - and that does involve implanting as much fakery and mis- and disinformation and wild speculations and so on as they possibly can in order to muddy the waters and create confusion/cognitive dissonance, along with methods of making the truth movement look stupid with a whole load of straw men, to easily discredit them and deter any more 'normal people' from joining the dissident movement. Anything to prevent people from seeing what is, actually, a very simple event to explain and understand.
In view of this somewhat obvious consideration of the purposes of 'cognitive infiltration' and subversion, it would seem far more that the likes of Judy Wood are a part of that. There are, after all, direct links there with other controlled oppositions and psyops/coverups like the Disclosure Project, alien abductions & UFOs, the New Age Exopolitics stuff, and of course the suppression of free energy technology and advanced propulsion systems, the suppression of public knowledge of genuine SETI messages from other intelligences (as per the Brookings Report), and so on. The real truth all these things are covering up would be world-changing, after all, hence the absolute need to cover it all up and the sheer level of time, money and energy put into the cognitive infiltration programme.
It would be very strange indeed, from a psychological perspective, if Judy Wood et al. was the exception to this rule. If she was dangerous, by the way, they'd have neutralised her by now. It wouldn't be difficult.
By the way, to be fair to you, I fully understand the importance and urgency of all these coverups in the face of the cabal's extinction level event deterrent, which would be triggered in the event of the ultimate revolution if the general public could no longer avoid knowledge and understanding of the cabal and the horrific things they do (e.g. child abuse network, MK-Ultra - which is also linked with alien abductions etc.).
I may not psychologically approve of covering up these atrocities, but I approve from a purely espionage level, because I care about the human species and the welfare of this planet. So if you and others want to continue maintaining the confusion and cognitive dissonance in order to protect everyone from the ELE-deterrent then I'm not going to stop you.
Besides, I'm just a mad & beautiful genius with only 77 subscribers, no more than about a tenth of whom probably read my counter-subversion articles, so I am hardly a threat.
I suggest you read the following articles and watch the documentary with an open mind and get back to me, that is if you're a genuine "truth" seeker, capable of challenging your own world view....
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
Loose Change movie and its producer (part of Controlled Opposition) ARE the problem. The massive positive public value of saying 911 was not according to the official faerie tale is emptied 100% or more by projecting grossly inaccurate alternative explanation.
Example: All 4 of the alleged planes (including the ones shown in Loose Change) were calculated to be traveling at 500+ mph at or near sea level, which is NOT POSSIBLE. Does Loose Change coe back and correct this fundamental error? No, because they are a major part of the Disinformation Controlled Opposition cadre.
All of what the Controlled Opposition/CO Traitors write as explanations of what happened are incorrect or inapplicable. Evidence of small particle aluminum and iron (thermetic materials) in small single digit concentrations is sensible, IF and ONLY IF the aluminum cladding and steel beams had been dustified by DEW. Thermite is an incendiary and not an explosive. It has to be contained at high concentration, purity and mix ratios in something like a ceramic vessel (enveloping the complete mixture), fused and lit at extreme temperatures in order for the reaction to start much less burn fully. All of these conditions did not happen at any of the WTC buildings. Casting superficially plausible explanations like Thermite (which is impossible) into pliable, traumatized minds is what Stephen Jones, Gage, Ted Walter and the rest intentionally do. These controlled opposition vermin ARE TRUTH-TRAITORS.
Conventional Controlled demolition was likewise impossible to accomplish and the debris field should have been, must have been 12-15% or more of the original building height. None of the building’s internal contents were removed which would have slowed to failure of a conventional controlled demolition. To say nothing of when or what ALL THE EXPLOSIVES AND FUSING would have been installed. WTC7 has some external visual similarities to a controlled demolition, but there were no explosions heard IMMEDIATELY BEFORE that building came down. The debris pile was 20’ or so high and not the requisite 100’ high.
There were NO BigBoeings on 911. Because above 300 mph, they self-destruct as was demonstrated by the crash of AA Flt 587 November 2001 in Jamaica Queens, NYC.
People need to Buy and Read the book, Where Did The Towers Go. It is a life and mind changing education. It is not hard to read or grasp. Commonly, about 5-6 chapters into the reading the political-cultural-scientific-moral weight of what Dr. Wood explains begins to sit on you like an elephant. Real men read on. People like Gage, Walter, Corbett et al (who strive to hold down the world changing knowledge contained in WDTTG) are TRAITOR-TERRORISTS. They must suffer the same extreme consequences as the 911 perpetrators, public execution. They actively cover up 911 Reality. The harsh consequences for their actions should be spoken, written about and directed to them at every chance. I want to see Corbett or Gage or Walter (all of them assert that planes impacted the Twin Towers, PentaCon and Shanksville) dump their pants when called out as a Treason-Terrorists. Why, because they knowingly project lies that purposefully cover up what really happened on 911.
"Mr. and Mrs. Gage you both are Treason-Terrorists for continually aiding and abetting the cover up of what really happened on 911. You will be held to account and hung publicly."
She will meltdown instantly and turn on her lying snake husband.
Loose Change is a Truth-Traitor and must be called out and dismantled publicly. The fact that Directed Energy Weapons is unconventional and not welcome by the weak minded DOES NOT invalidate the reality of DEW being used to dis-integrate all Seven WTC buildings on 911. The controlled opposition refuses to cover 3, 4, 5 and 6 BECAUSE doing so eviscerates the controlled opposition false narratives.
I have found all the attacks on LC - as 'agents' shall we say - very revealing. It's precisely what other agents would do in order to discredit it. I talked about this methodology in my first comment here to Petra's post.
My point is that it doesn't matter whether Dylan Avery et al. were 'agents' or not - to discredit them because they are 'agents' is to shoot the messenger, which is an obvious logical fallacy (ad hominem). It's the content only we should examine.
However, from the perpetrators' point of view it's an excellent strategy with regards to the 'truth movement' because members of the truth movement do indeed think in terms of agents vs. truthers, and mis- and disinformation etc.
To briefly recap the methodology: you have 3 agents. Agent#1 makes a name for themselves and their (conspiracy) theory/hypothesis. (If you want to call Agent#1 Dylan Avery that's fine). You then get Agent#2 to disagree. You then have people accusing Agent#2 of being an agent. This enhances Agent#1. But then Agent#3 swoops in and provides the twist, which is the exposure of Agent#1 and the rehabilitation of Agent#2 (plus empathy with the victim). By discrediting Agent#1 (with the ad hominem attack essentially) Agent#3 has also discredited whatever theory/hypothesis Agent#1 had.
Thus, from the perpetrators' point of view, the best option is to have Agent#1 tell the truth. Because it's the truth you wish to discredit of course. People do think emotionally, of course, so Agent#3 is simply playing that narrative card.
It's the Agent#3's of this world you have to identify. Once you have identified them, you can then analyse the theories and people they are attacking, and give those people and theories far more credibility.
Most people who are new to 9-11 research have probably never even watched the LC 1st edition (the final cut is really quite different to 1st ed and leaves out a lot of important stuff). Likewise, by now, what with memory holing and so forth, most of the 'evidence' (from the web only) that is being analysed is manufactured fakery. Therefore it's useless as evidence. One test of this, however, is to research whether the currently available 'evidence' (photos, videos etc.) either existed at the time or shortly after 9-11, and whether it was referenced by some of the early/first researchers. Because if they didn't use it, then that suggests it didn't exist at the time and is manufactured fakery. I've seen a lot of stuff that didn't exist 20 years ago.
Ground Zero, in other words, has been fully cleaned up.
Why are planes travelling at 500+ mph (if they were indeed travelling that fast) at that altitude not possible? Are you using the standard model of physics here, in which case that's wrong, because you are not taking the charge field into account, which is how planes stay in the air.
The idea that it's the density of the air at low altitudes that would cause a plane to break up also doesn't hold much water in my view. Planes only slow down to come into land and lose altitude in order to reduce the lift from the charge field.
Good luck reading well known controlled opposition Judy Wood. It's still worth a read, I think it will at least sit well with the charge field theory. And there is zero chance that loose change was promoted by accident, or that they accidentally missed so much of the most daming evidence. Anything intentionally promoted is not done by accident. That includes everything.
"all good things come in threes" (Lat.: omne trium perfectum), which is perhaps one of the reasons that the [problem-reaction-solution]-template works so well as a not-so-secretive spook's MO. HT both to Hegel and David Icke, of course. but "just logic" as well: a three-legged stool is one of the most stable constructions we know, ask any milkmaid: "...frequently employed for milking cows, sheep, and goats....(the).... stability of its three legs ensured steadiness on uneven surfaces...." - https://www.oldworldtimber.com/milking-stools-crafting-legacy-and-rustic-elegance/
I still think that Judy's question "where did the towers go?" is still important and has not been completely answered. She is wrong about the molten metal or victims, but it also may be that some new methods of demolition have been used that pulverized the towers. I do not trust psychics that appear before David Icke's shows, but I find many of David's comments interesting and relevant. I listen carefully to doctors who deny the existence of virus, but I am surprised that they do not consider that diseases can be transmitted in ways we are now aware of. Nobody is perfect and nobody knows everything.
As a follow-up, there's simply no way I could ever possibly get through Hughes' dissertation - it smacks of TL:DR - just by looking at the size of the scroll bar button on the right.
Francis' on the other paw is an easily manageable and extremely clearly written, logical, slice of much-needed common sense and basic reason.
That, to me, suggests that Hughes is the bad guy (cognitive infiltrator) and Francis is the good guy. You have to get really suspicious when someone comes up with some interminably long (and long-winded) dissertation all presented in a single part/post. That's designed to turn people off - by the time they get even a third of the way down their brains will have switched off. So their brains get, I don't know, subliminally dustified or something.
Reminds me of something called Ockham's razor. At least I think that's what it's called.
Oh my poor brain isn't what it once was you know, dearie.
I would like to say Petra that you should be commended for this post because it allowed healthy discussion and debate, little hostility, and lots of food for thought.
Even if DEW was used, I do think there were some explosives used, some fakery in the footage and narrative, and some CG is not ruled-out.
We all seem to agree there are no nukes (they don't exist to being with), and there were no planes.
Thanks, PM. I think the best approach is to focus on the solid facts in the first instance because there's sufficient of them to tell us the truth I think.
1. There is no recognised building destruction done by DEWs. In fact, there is nothing at all we can be sure of that says DEWs exist ... just like nukes.
2. We can see clear fakery in the pushing of the DEWs hypothesis in the "toasted" cars - similar to the "toasted" cars in Maui that Agent131711 exposed.
3. As far as we know, controlled demolition is the only way to bring down high rise steel frame buildings so even if the footage is faked it would still be the most obvious choice.
4. A significant amount of footage of the building destructions is clearly faked and it is difficult to identify where it might be real.
Compare the Mina Plaza towers coming down to the South Tower.
What we see with Mina is that explosive material spits out at regular intervals in the first couple of seconds of the destruction and as the buildings start to collapse they are completely covered in clouds of dust / gases / whatever. (Interestingly, Richard Gage claims "pyroclastic gases" emitted by volcanoes are produced but according to ChatGPT, controlled demolition doesn't produce those gases. Very, very interesting. The only conclusion, of course, that one can come to with RG is that he is controlled opposition - I don't know why I'm so hesitant on that conclusion because it is so very obvious. https://chatgpt.com/share/6719bb40-c39c-800a-ad77-e989e9a4b48d - I suppose ChatGPT could be wrong about the pyroclastic gases and I probably would need to do more research to be sure - might get around to it.)
What we see with the South Tower is it peel down. This is completely contrary to how controlled implosions work, they are always about weakening structures from below ... even if that weakening still occurs throughout the building. Also, we see bits of broken structure ... which I always thought looked fake even before I accepted the footage was fake.
5. In the case of WTC-7 which so much more resembles a typical controlled demolition it still shows signs of fakery, eg, the mechanical penthouse coming down first - why would it come down first if weakening is occurring at the bottom - also the western penthouse behaves strangely, the side of it seeming to pivot out and pivot back in again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFc3DfPlvXw
7. CDI achieved three of their four world records in large building project demolitions in the three years prior to 9/11. This fact is not pushed as propaganda for CD - I just happened to notice it on their website - even though a lot of other BS propaganda is, eg, the scripted journalists and emergency responders alluding to CD. Propaganda works so interestingly - on the one hand they're pushing CD with scripted actors but on the other they're not pushing it by the simple fact of CDI's very suggestive world records - of course, that would be revealing in ways they don't want - that CDI was actually involved in the destructions although they do tell us they submitted their cleanup plan eleven days after the fateful day and regardless of whether CDI had anything to do with the building destructions they would certainly know how they came down. It's all about CONTROL of the information so even if something is true - that the buildings came down by controlled demolition (I cannot see how it could be any other way) - they use propaganda which seems to push that truth ... but at the same time hides it.
No quote I think could apply more to 9/11 than George Orwell's:
"All propaganda is lies even when one is telling the truth."
Thanks Petra, I agree there are lots of complications to 911. The only point would be that for nukes, there is no proof of an explosive nuclear reaction, only radiation which is much different. For DEW, the mil already has energy weapons
So there is plenty of proof of concept. Was it used on 911?, we have suggestive evidence only. In 2001 it was much more of a wild theory than it is now, but that op is over so some info getting out is ok for TPTB.
OK, so let's say DEWs exist, their existence alone in no way supports them being used on 9/11.
In relation to "suggestive evidence" - for ALL methods - DEWS, CD, thermite/nanothermite, nukes - what we actually have is very clear evidence of fakery of every single one of them - plus extra propaganda ... so what we really have is evidence AGAINST ALL methods. Essentially, we are forced to make a judgement not on evidence but on what we know about the world, namely that the only way high rise steel frame buildings have come down is by controlled demolition and circumstantial evidence such as CDI's world records and their participation in the molten metal propaganda.
Only small parts of WTC 1 and 2 fell, so they could only partially be destroyed by explosives or incendiaries, the rest was destroyed by____a blank that we have to fill but not explosives, thermite, nukes, nor jet fuel. The job is to rule in or out what possibilities are left.
Because there is not enough on the ground, only the parts on the ground could be from explosives/thermite. The pile size on the ground can't really be faked, we would see and hear about clean up climbing a mountain. The rest we can clearly see was pulverized.
You bring up interesting info Petra. I imagine the DEW pushers will say:
Your statement
"No high rise steel frame building has ever been brought down by any method other than controlled demolition"
is not true for 9.11. The buildings were not "brought down, they pulverized/dustified [the wording isn't my point] in mid-air, and besides a few stories of debris for WTC 1/2 at ground zero, only the destruction line went from top to bottom and at near free-fall speed, there was no pancaking and very little debris falling."
I'm not pushing a side, just interested in what you would say.
What I say, PM, is the footage is faked (https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911-the-movie) so it cannot be used to determine the method of destruction. It's crazy that the fakery of the footage was exposed as early as 2010 on Clues Forum and yet it hasn't caught on (I only got onto it myself very recently) and the DEWs argument is still going (although I was never impressed by it).
Also, there is also the "inverse fake" possibility I suppose. For example, purposely placing photos of cars damaged from other venues into a 9.11 (or Maui) photo shoot so that we then say, "see it's fake" about the whole thing. It's like having David Icke say, "viruses don't exist"-since he says many fake things, the viruses don't exist must also be fake/false, even though the truth is that no virus has ever been found.
They do all sorts, PM, but I see no reason to suspect they used a technique we've never seen clear evidence of when a perfectly good tried and tested technique is at their fingertips.
Ultimately, it doesn't really matter how they brought the buildings down, they did it, that's what counts but I'd rather not be following one of their propaganda streams if I can help it.
Well, one guess is that the acute destruction of the WTC wasn't an amateur, spontaneous stage magic trick.
The perpetrators, well in advance, would have practiced their methodology many times over on mock structures scaled to the same dimensions & materials. Just like any disciplined military operation, there would be innumerable practice, practice, practice maneuvers well in advance.
IMHO, it seems reasonable that the structures were originally deliberately designed & constructed to facilitate their eventual demolishment in a controlled manner.
So far, nobody seems to be considering the possibility of alternate materials, such as carbon composites which sublimate into carbon dioxide dust, incorporated during the construction to replace, at least in part, the heat-resistant steel.
btw - some folks from the community of insurance underwriters are convinced that demolition plans for urban skyscrapers be provided in advance prior to construction.
Method for electrically controlled demolition of concrete
Abstract
A method to demolish concrete that comprises electrically connecting rebar disposed within the concrete to a power supply, electrically connecting a counter electrode within electro-osmotic communication of the concrete to a power supply, and externally providing electrolyte as supplemental moisture for the concrete. An electric field is created within the concrete and causes water moisture to migrate toward the rebar thereby expediting the corrosion thereof. The corrosion of the rebar generates iron oxides, which because of their greater volume, cause areas of localized pressure within the concrete. As the corrosion process proceeds, an accumulation of oxides increases the localized pressure to cause cracking within the concrete.
"Method for electrically controlled demolition of concrete"
Very interesting.
Yeah, CDI had lots of practice and as I say three of their four world records in large building demolition projects were achieved in the three years prior to 9/11.
Ok thanks. I understand you. Do you include the breakup of beams etc in mid air and the small amount of rubble on the ground in the fake footage? If so, do you or Simon have an analysis to conclude fakery on those?
You don't need to prove fakery for every single piece of footage of the destructions, you only need to show fakery for some pieces to prove that the purported footage cannot be trusted ... unless, of course, you can make a good case for individual pieces' reality.
Come on - they stick the Chrysler building behind the twin towers when it's 3.5 miles up the road, strange vantage points, changes of shadow, etc. Fakery galore!
Yes you do! Provide proof of fakery for all of it, I mean. That's a logical fallacy isn't it?
Consider this: Say I've got a warehouse and it's got 5,000 pieces of fruit inside. I then hand you 1,000 apples one by one. I then suggest to you that the remaining 4,000 are all apples, and that apples are the only fruit. So, happy with that, you go and tell everyone that there's no such thing as an orange.
Meanwhile, I go back inside my warehouse, wait for you to unwittingly push up the stock price of oranges, given they must be the rarest, magicalest item in the world, and then I go hey presto I got some oranges if anyone wants 'em.
No it's not a logical fallacy. The fact that a certain amount of footage is faked doesn't mean it all is but it means, at least, that we can't assume the other footage is genuine, there's certainly risk of it being fake. Thus unless you can prove that the footage you deem to prove your case is genuine you don't have a case.
Proton - On the toasted cars - If Petra bothered reading Dr Wood's book, you'd find her take on the toasted cars is absolute rubbish thinking - In my article, you will find news reports of cars exploding / spontaneously combusting before any of the towers fell...
The 1400 "toasted" cars on 9/11.
"Toasted" means they're toast, done for, unfixable.
Not that I agree but I see Petra's point. If you convince yourself that absolutely all 9-11 evidence is fake then you can presume that any building that might've existed but is no longer (or never was) there, could only have been removed through conventional means.
There's a theme emerging here. Start with a belief and exclude any evidence that doesn't support it. 😊
Proton Magic - What Petra's problem is, she's clinging to a cointelpro agent's talking points that has thoroughly been called out and exposed numerous time....
Simon Hytten (Shack) did work for the European Space Agency. His father worked for the United Nations and his brother had connections to the Bin Laden family....
9/11 Planes, Layers of Deception
Mark Conlon & Andrew Johnson on RichPlanet TV (Sept 2017) - 9/11 planes research into the "alleged" video fakery of Flight 175 videos.
This might interest you, PM, on the towers being hollow thus much less rubble expected but, in any case, we simply cannot rely on what they show us. We know they have faked imagery and it is difficult to distinguish fake from real. Even without actually faking imagery you can make things look very different from what they are.
Thanks, I looked thru it. That is a very interesting piece of info since we know the Rockefellers & club built it to destroy it. I bet the Asbestos in it was planted as a eugenics poison, but I digress. Lack of concrete might make some destruction go easier but the steal girders themselves should have made a much bigger rubble pile than we saw.
If all the released footage is faked, how could they have prevented the skyline from being filmed by amateurs in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Staten Island and New Jersey?
Sorry I missed this comment earlier. That is a good point.
I'd say the skyline footage is real actually in a lot of cases if not most. When I say fakery I should limit it to the actual destructions which Clues Forum suggests were covered by military obscurants. Not to say that some of the skyline footage - for whatever reason - is faked too. Lots of fakery going on there but I'd say that it makes no sense not to have at least some real skyline footage because there would be amateurs out there and also no reason to fake it that I can particularly think of.
This is not the "real" forum - mostly populated by bots now... however seems indeed someone copied much stuff over and this is now (again) worth a read!
Ofc this mass of smoke is fake, but I question if one needs a machine for it, as they can use eg white phospor or other millitary smoke chemicals. One would not need a machine neither at WTC nor at Pentagon imo. But only a small detail
Absolute stupidity masquerading as 9/11 Truth. If you want the facts, see this gallery I (someone who was there and lost two friends that day) made and the primary sources & data I link to. No nonsense included: https://ajl.smugmug.com/911
It's interesting to me how negative comments - regardless of whether they make what I consider a valid point or not - often prompt me to improve my argument. I've now modified my post to make the very clear point that the evidence purported for controlled demolition is just as fake as the purported evidence for the other touted methods.
I have to admit that I cannot now claim that I believe the buildings came down by controlled demolition because of the evidence as the footage of the destructions is clearly fake - I can only resort to CD because that is the only recognised method of destruction of high rise steel frame buildings ... plus CDI achieved three of their four world records in large building demolition projects using standard methods in the three years before 9/11 - purely circumstantial evidence but it helps. So thanks for that prompt.
911 you do great research and have made a significant contribution to the effort of unpacking the true nature of the event. But you are wasting your time in this stack - The author is misguided - at best (I'm trying to be charitable), and PM is your classic false binary dissembler of the most annoying kind, the rest are just a bunch of scoundrels with a few sincere but gullible idiots caught in the mix.
You did not really understand what I was trying to say and quickly and rudely concluded something that is not accurate. Petra and I have a long history of discussions on many stacks, I like and respect her but we do not agree on a number of things. Not being like you, I am not about to call her silly names, both me and her will learn more by knowing we like each other and try to sift thru the differences. If you read the entire thread between me and her we have mutually come to see some things differently. Including the DEW discussion (I have the book), but Rome is not made over in a day. You my good man did not have the patience to do something like that and have just made a blanket derision on everyone on this section. You elegantly proved you are rude and moved nowhere on the DEW discussion which is clearly my direction.
it’s not actually about you, PM. News flash ; I don’t actually care if you have friends, or not, or if you are starting to realize the existence and extant of directed energy weapons- or not. As for Petra writing a stack “debunking” Judy Wood’s work, that is so very generous of you to respectfully entertain her kindergarden steps into the topic. Given that we are all in the middle of an extinction level assault by the very same gang of perpetrators that pulled off 911, who continue to use the same advanced weaponry with impunity because the public is STILL utterly fucking clueless and so thoroughly duped, You will have to excuse that I am out of patience for the ostensibly thoughful contrary thinkers who seemingly struggle to grasp the most rudimentary level of deception being played out as we all bleed out in realtime. And yes Judy Wood is likely controlled op- in ways that are still TBD. But her research is legit. And yes both are possibly true at the same time. Do your fucking homework on the game people, it’s much more layered than your tinkertoy binaries.
Yes I know a lot about them and I have written 130 SS posts on their BS programs with > 5k followers, you my good man have no posts. Since you are smart, just try to be polite.
Indeed, some people seem to be stuck on talking point in 2010, when the rest of us have moved along with the new evidence and research that has come out in the last 15 years....
Petra's god - Simon Hytten (Shack) did work for the European Space Agency. His father worked for the United Nations and his brother had connections to the Bin Laden family.... But she just doesn't want to believe she's been fooled...
9/11 Planes, Layers of Deception
Mark Conlon & Andrew Johnson on RichPlanet TV (Sept 2017) - 9/11 planes research into the "alleged" video fakery of Flight 175 videos.
"CDI was obviously very much involved in the destruction of the WTC buildings"
I need more informations, evidence, facts, data than what you provided to conclude such.
This could just be another act in a long running 9/11 play just like thermite, DEW, mini nukes, Jet fuel melts steel beams...etc...etc...
What I do know is money is the root of all evil, governments are basically the slave master/administrator and no one ever discusses about getting rid of these violent destructive entities that allows for these psyops to be conducted at all.
Yea we can talk until we are blue in the face about all these psyops since the early 1900's they all have a genesis, we may not know all the secrets about how they are conducted but we do know the overall method.
I think it is time to stop the chit chatting about the psyops and find ways to non violently topple government - the system of enFORCEment, that allows for all the unnnatural behavior that prevents 'man kind'
Clearly we all agree there is nothing kind about the world currently.
WTC was a crime scene.
It was cleaned up before any investigation which is a crime in itself, thus we will never know what happened.
and how are we going to stop these operations from being conducted in the future? This is what we should be discussing!...at least common sense and logic would seem to dictate such unless you just want the psyops to keep happening...who wants that? Where is the common sense and logic in that?
Topple government, and do not tell me it is extreme or it is anarchy because it is not!....it is common sense based on all the things we have talked and discussed the past few years on substack.
This is going to be my benchmark for the substackers from here on out to determing their legitmacy.
You want to keep government, you say it is needed, that we have to have it, or do not speak of getting rid of Government....then I am going to look at those substackers with a jaundiced eye.
Without government these psyops could never be pulled off.
I am tired going down this endless spiral of rabbit holes....been doing this before 9/11.
Common Sense and Logic says it is time to stop the ability at all for these operations to ever be conducted.
Nothing has killed, murdered, stolen and enslaved more than Government and there is no close second if there is a second at all, nothing has committed more evil acts than government and political ideology does not matter for all governments/slave plantations collectivize everyone...i.e. they ALL do the same, they are all systems of enFORCEment.
What do you say Petra....Yes Keep government and its system of enFORCEment, No Government has to go so the world can be (man) Kind?
The best way to get the truth about 9/11 would be to topple government and anyone who does not at least considerand or discuss this line of thought must be considered suspect or else still too indoctrinated to the system of enFORCEment to think outside of it as oppose to believing they cannot live without it.
You need more evidence for CDI? They TELL us they were involved in the cleanup, they're hardly going to tell us that they did it but they're a huge demolition company and they achieved three of their four world records in large building demolition projects in the three years before 9/11. If that's not enough for you what else do you require?
WHAT exactly happened to ALL 7 buildings with a WTC prefix on Sept 11, 2001?
The following points need to be made regarding what exactly happened to the buildings and the observable evidence at ground zero, that the “9/11 truth movement” never touch on…
I'll leave this comment but I'm going to delete all your repeats. I won't ban you as you've banned me, I don't believe in censorship and I see no reason to ban you but I won't have repeat comments clogging up my comments. Please do not repeat any more comments. I cannot believe your nerve in repeating your comment so many times. Don't you think it's pretty rich considering you've BANNED me? I mean seriously?
--- The initial vantage point seems odd. You feel almost up against the towers but not at ground level. Regardless, the vantage point seems much too close - no other demolitions are filmed from so close and we can only infer the implied vantage point would be within the area cordoned off.
Did you ever wonder if mainstream media put forth fake/altered video so that all amateur photography would be denied by researchers? You can't hide a demolition in downtown Manhattan. You just can't.
For your claim that my argument is weak you need to back it up rather than immediately refer me to your pages.
I didn't make it first, of course, Simon Shack on Clues Forum did but I make my own observations of the fakery. You will obviously need to look at my argument first in order to argue against it and if you don't want to do that I perfectly understand, however, that means our discussion will proceed no further.
Here is some reading for you to do on Simon Shack.....
Simon Hytten (Shack) did work for the European Space Agency. His father worked for the United Nations and his brother had connections to the Bin Laden family....
9/11 Planes, Layers of Deception
Mark Conlon & Andrew Johnson on RichPlanet TV (Sept 2017) - 9/11 planes research into the "alleged" video fakery of Flight 175 videos.
You are a shill "Revisionist" I noted ur spam at another channel already... SO you do NOT call Petra out for her moon/climate crap at all, while you say her correct stuff (like this DEW article) is wrong?? :)))) So sum tink wong w/ you seriously. And now go and suck up to Jewdy Woods.
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;
1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications
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".
Maybe if you critically look at how everything played out with the formation of the 2005 "Scholars for 9/11 truth" and see how the timeline developed, you might be able to break free from your programming....
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
Though humans essentially perceive the same from the natural world, each person then has unique "thinking" which creates concepts––which can be vastly diverse. Also has a lot to do with a person's level of divine consciousness (or not). The more a person applies "critical thinking" the closer it matches perception of what everybody experiences in the natural world.
If the claim is that the dozens of videos and hundreds of still photos from the destruction of WTC were ALL faked, I need at a *very strong* hypothesis as to how they prevented people from Manhattan, Brooklyn, Staten Island and New Jersey from taking and releasing conflicting imagery.
That's a good point. Simon Shack's hypothesis is that they covered the buildings with military obscurants - the thing is as soon as a demolition starts there's masses of clouds of stuff come out so perhaps they just made more. However, there are other important points:
--- Buildings simply don't come down from the top the way the twin towers are shown coming down.
--- The way the mechanical penthouse moves on top of WTC-7 makes no sense for a controlled demolition. If it's collapsing from the bottom why would the penthouse be affected. Also part of the western penthouse seems to pivot forward and back again. Looks strange. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFc3DfPlvXw
I came across the notion of fakery on Clues Forum about two years ago but didn't look properly however my thought was, "Oh yes, that would figure," and now that I've looked it's clearly faked.
Nope! I'm not sure what happened on 9-11, but those pictures of junkyard cars look NOTHING like the burned cars alleged to be around the towers after what happened.
I'd rather stick pins in my eyes. The point is that there's clearly lots of fakery going on so whatever images are shown, without clear evidence that they're real, they're meaningless. It's enough to show that the car in my article is clearly a junkyard car but was used as "evidence" of "toasting" and without clear evidence that other purported evidence is genuine there is no case.
Nothing is conclusive. All is hypothesis and theory, AS IS ALL SCIENCE. Woods shows a plethora of cars, none of which look like junkyard cars. Maybe somebody faked 100s of cars at 9-11, Maui, dozens of California fires? Yeah, can't rule it out.
Petra has just shown you how disingenuous she is, by stating: "I'd rather stick pins in my eyes" - It's part of her premeditated ignorance stance she has taken....
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;
1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications
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".
Here, learn a little more about the 1400 toasted cars in my article - Cars were spontaneously catching fire, blocks away from the towers, whilst they were still standing...
The 1400 "toasted" cars on 9/11.
"Toasted" means they're toast, done for, unfixable.
This David Hughes's article is great. It is very thorough with the evidence, addressing. O'Neil's fallacies and characterizes Wood properly. Thanks for linking it. Never heard of the guy.
They were not faked. That's as absurd a claim as dustification and CGI planes.
Possibly 200k people watched those building get destroyed. I was 8 or 9 blocks north on West street. I literally had a front row view. I assure you, it was destroyed as we see in the videos. If not, then all the people filming the events would have different footage. It such an absurd claim I cannot wrap my head around how any could legitimately come to the conclusion.
Seriously? Why would anyone with their camera trained on the South Tower stop filming as it was coming down. Please look at my analysis of the fakery of the towers as well as the analysis linked to at Clues Forum.
You must be able read if you're writing this nonsense. I dont need a video. Helloo, Petra?? I WATCHED IT LIVE,, FFS/
Explain how, if they were destroyed in some other fashion, all the videos and what the witnesses show the same thing?? This happened in from masses of people in Manhattan. You can't possibly bc this clueless, so right up there Wood and the morons spreading disinformation to undermine 9/11 Truith
Because all the witnesses and videos they show us are fake - it was a massive operation, involving masses of fakery.
You watched it live? If you saw it live you didn't see what they have shown us because what they show us is clearly fake. You saw something else. I know someone who was there and he said he saw a plane heading to the South Tower. I don't know what he saw but it wasn't one of the alleged passenger airliners and what they show us of planes penetrating buildings is clearly fake.
I wonder why it is that everyone's come onto this post and didn't argue about the fakery on my last post. If you want to argue reality please go onto that post. https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911-the-movie
WHAT exactly happened to ALL 7 buildings with a WTC prefix on Sept 11, 2001?
The following points need to be made regarding what exactly happened to the buildings and the observable evidence at ground zero, that the “9/11 truth movement” never touch on…
David Hughes wrote a another sublime article as well....
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".
Ditto. What I don't believe I can usually find humor in. Some of what I have learned has been life changing. And it is not at all the first time I have encountered such a source. There must be a principle there somewhere, like when living in a wrecked world, if you want to understand it you have to pick through the wreckage. Or something.
This "agent" is an agent probably - he also shills for "voting" for the mega fake Trump even haha.... but yes he has some good stuff too like his articles about Methylene blue, Ivermectin and (fake) vitamins D3 and B12
“A quick and simple debunk” full of conjecture and assumptions, have you actually read Judy’s book?? Her research is some of the most meticulous and thorough I have ever read on any topic. You’ve debunked precisely none of it here
The fact that the evidence is faked invalidates ALL hypotheses including controlled demolition if we base them on the purported evidence. While I used to claim WTC-7's destruction was controlled demolition based on the purported evidence, now that I've realised the footage is fake, I judge simply by the fact that the only known method of destruction of high rise steel frame buildings is controlled demolition. We have no reason to believe otherwise.
If you want to argue that the footage is real, go ahead.
I have no doubt much of 9/11 was staged and was a government and/or oligarchy inside job, but suggesting every single element was and that every witness was an actor is bordering on ridiculous and is the least likely explanation IMHO
I've met two people who said they were in the vicinity on the day and I have no reason to disbelieve them. One said he experienced an issue with breathing because of the smoke/dust although he wasn't that close as I recall and he was obliged to walk home. The other said he saw a plane heading to the South Tower. What the second person saw I do not know but it wasn't the alleged airliner which is the main point and what they show us of the three planes penetrating buildings is certainly fake.
If a witness says something that doesn't seem to promote propaganda then we can accept them as genuine but if they say something that seems to promote propaganda we can infer that they're an actor. It is very obvious in a number of cases that an alleged witness is an actor. Admittedly, prior to the person I know saying he said he saw a plane I'd tend to infer anyone saying they saw a plane was an actor but I believe this person saw something ... I just don't know what. The thing is people can be perfectly genuine witnesses there at the time but still be subject to fakery of some kind ... so whether genuine or an actor we can't treat witness statements as necessarily being good evidence.
I have no problem believing both that people saw either planes, or what they thought to be planes and that the planes penetrating the buildings is fake, that’s super obvious, the rest of your argument appears very weak…
“I've met two people who said they were in the vicinity on the day and I have no reason to disbelieve them” You are trying to debunk Judy’s meticulous evidence based summary with this?!?
Not at all, I'm just trying to say that witness testimony doesn't mean anything of itself and I believe that Judy bases her argument in part at least on witness testimony.
What DOES debunk Judy's argument is that she relies on imagery for it so if the footage of the destructions is fake then no hypothesis can be based on it including controlled demolition the one I support. I support it not on the basis of the visual evidence (although I did before I realised it was fake) but on the basis that it's the only known method and we have no reason to believe another method was used.
Beyond the destruction footage Judy bases her argument on clearly faked images such as the "toasted" cars.
Have u heard already the commies in 1920s Russia used to fake photos regulary(!) and they did not even have photoshop. Are u living under a rock ? Just curious, why would in 2000s photos not be faked when in 1920s it was "normal"
Firstly, images of the rubble look staged and we don't know how quickly they removed rubble nor do we know how deep the holes in the ground were created by the demolitions. We are told the towers were missing floors and were largely empty. We simply do not know what the rubble should have looked like nor how much images of the rubble are faked so it's not an area we should put much weight on.
This is a great gallery of photos of Ground Zero provided by alucientes but my feeling is that they look staged.
It is all explained w/ "the empty towers" theory from LR forums (now gone). But there are still sources out there if u care to look. Yes I posted there too "back in the days", so it must be good :)=))
If the dustification story is correct, then it seems that lack of concrete itself would not be enough to deny a large pile as there would still be a very tall pile of steel girders. I am not a 9.11 expert and have no data to do a calculation on.
Science - truth - is not "flexible"! Yes the inet and chitchat is "flexible". But Jewdy claims to be "scientific"...and already debunks herself w/ made up children words :) But see above my comment eg the "interview"
With all we now know, we can safely say;
- the event was planned years ahead of time
- all media were/are in on it
- they pushed their own 'conspiracy theories' for the less gullible
- all state is deep state
- all politicians were/are in on it
Same with Covid, same with Climate Change and I can go on for a while. Sure, every country gets their individual flavour of the world order, but world order it is.
And it has been for a very long time..
Yeah, but it's only just now I'm really comprehending the incredible extent of fakery even though on Clues Forum they worked it all out around 2010, years before I had a clue about 9/11. I know I went to the site quite a few times but I must have somehow missed it.
Ah, you think everything is fake!..
Someone once screamed at me when I said I did not believe the news with regards to the latest terror attack. I think it was the Nice truck hoax. I told him that I indeed believe most is fake and that was about ten years ago. In those ten years the technology to fake things has become even more advanced so, get ready for the next big hoax!
IT"S ALL FAAAAAKE!!!
I know, I get the "You think everything is fake" accusation too. Yeah, well ...
Oh yes, the Nice truck hoax, so many hoaxes ago now - https://www.bitchute.com/video/4nqRj6eh4PBu
Hmmm. Can see it fine in Australia.
This particular video too blurry on my end, and there's no option on the screen to enhance resolution, so hard to judge the images.
Not like Boston Marathon or Las Vegas Harvest Concert newsreels which was no brainers - obvious fake injuries to the point of insulting the viewers' intelligence.
No shit Sherl.ock, the OZ is NOT EU, which has the worst censorship. Robert is probably is in the EU like myself (sadly). So your comment it works in Australia is "very helpful" . Yes, Nice was a hoax too there was also this Gutjahr involved... was some "meme" for a while .. as this guy was also at 2 or 3 other events iirc. But I will try the vid u link w/ a VPN (many channels at "freespeech lol" site Bitchute need VPN
Lots of dog wagging...
Indeed, Petra can't face the music on 9/11, whatsoever....
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;
1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications
I will say that, humbly, as a spatial genius, there surely was not enough debris for a mere controlled demo.
You can't hide debris in super congested FiDi, Manhattan either.
Yes Petra is a shill for Nasa and climate, but ofc needs to post true articles too (like this one)
You think? It's not impossible, but except for this piece, I have yet to see any signs... [shrug] Well, I will see as things play out.
Moon landing?
This piece is true ofc (u do not really beLIEve this JewdyW crap, or do you? but ofc this is ur right, we have free speech, u can also believe in flying unicorn or killerviruses etc) .. seems u do not look into things deeply (just like u did not look into Petra, but the researcher and myself have done it see comments on my page)
You were not really looking for it. You had too many biases. It happens to everyone. Now you have a better chance to understand some of the other cons (which I won't mention for now).
PS read the book phonecian secrets (no secrets in it) and listen to the story about them circumnavigating Africa and how they tricked the rulers of Egypt (and most everyone else) into thinking it was very difficult and dangerous and took 2 years etc etc. Then think if space travel or as I like to call it, flight higher up in the sky than normal. It would be ridiculously stupid not to fake all of space exploration (and make it look harder than it is) and these people are anything but stupid.
Nonsense! All State is not Deep State. Deep State is the covert part controlled by covert financial forces. All were in on it? Absurd unless you mean some rationalize anomalies they should have seized upon. Also, no! Real world order coalesced after WWII. The first really World War. WWI was a Civil war in Western Civilization.
Yes; all state is deep state. Why? Because the term 'deep state' suggests that these individuals have their own agendas, often working independently of or even in opposition to elected officials and the democratic process.
Yes, there might be more than one agenda but, they only exist to play out their single script.
ALL WERE/ARE IN ON IT.
Never heard of compartmentalism? I agree that the Deep State is the part that controls the State bringing the whole state into alignment as best possible with the agenda of the ruling class / conspiracy.
The ruling class own all the top level;
- politicians
- scientists
- media outlets
- alternative media channels
- business men/women
- artists etc.
They have them create a show so the peasants believe in a deep state, rogue agents, spies, whistle blowers, heroes, villains and saviours but, they are all on the same team.
No. You make an over-generalization, but yes, of course they own all the top levels or can quickly correct any errors or rebellions at the top. However, they have constant work on their hands to keep mostly unconscious minions toeing the line. The Deep State is the control org at the top. The Deep State concept does not imply the rest of the State is good, it is just the mostly unconscious, deluded part of Leviathan. Of course, the minions following orders are not good. Much of the unconscious part, of course, is guilty to some extent of evasion.
Trump is scripted either to be America's last gasp or ease believers into Global Tyranny with reassuring lies. He still supports the vaxxx and, most important, the assassination charade could not have been orchestrated without the power of the Deep State. He had no blood on him when he felt his ear and went down. Blood only when he rose up.
Financial forces control both despite the fact they are really one. The state is the state despite what words preceed it or come after it.
There is nothing good about government or the 'state'....it is a sysetm of enFORCEment.
No one likes to be forced to do anything.......
War is a Racket it has nothing to do with what the common people are told to know, they give up their young, their treasure and freedoms to fight a Racket that only a few know why it is conducted at all.
War is just a crime win or lose, it's planners, plotters, foementors, financiers and order followers are (war) criminals. It is where the victors write the history so as to make the losers crime of war look worse then the victors crime of war when it is the victor that MUST war more (Commit more crimes) to be the victor!
Adjectives like "deep" can be used to differentiate various parts of something. Thus, Deep State, the covert part, not the up front part that does routine work controlling you.
I guess war can be justified in pure response to a country or area being attacked in a war conspiracy.
Ideally, there would be no State. People would have to be super human though, I think.
Every American War has been created by "story telling." Some include even the Civil War started at Ft. Sumpter.
A rule of war is: don't risk force when deception will work. That doesn't mean you can ALWAYS get away with deception and never use force.
Don't agree with the last part Lloyd but I do agree with most of the rest.
I'm not sure what you are referring to. Last part of something I wrote? Which part?
You've reminded me of one of the really cunning (in fact, pretty cool when it comes to espionage as it happens) methods of subversion/cognitive infiltration. Namely you get two (or, preferably, three, as I'll explain below) of your agents and place them on opposing sides and get them to have an argument (no Monty Python references permitted).
That's somewhat obvious, of course. But the cunning thing happens with agent #3, who sweeps in and 'exposes' agent #1 as an agent. Maybe this happens after agent #1 has accused agent #2 of being an agent and seems to be winning the argument and gathering something of a following. Thus, when agent #1's cover is blown, the onlookers have quite the experience, since sudden shifts, when emotional, can be very powerful and certainly construe an exciting turning point in a narrative. Furthermore, it makes everyone think agent #2 is completely innocent (people empathise with victims etc.), and maybe also pushing the 'correct' narrative which agent #1 was trying to get people to dismiss. It massively reinforces agent #2's cover/bona fides, in other words.
Agent #3 would probably have to slink away quietly though, before anyone rumbles him/her. Unless they don't get suspected at all of course, in which case they may as well hang around, enjoy the party, or even think up another party piece. If you fool them once, after all, why not fool them again, eh!
Thus, when we examine a lot of this cognitive infiltration (or let's say propaganda - different theories about this or that event/conspiracy, and the people promoting them), we should always try and bear in mind that template.
It perhaps also suggests, in the above example, that the real twist is that the narrative being pushed by agent #1 was, ironically, the truth. Which everyone now dismisses.
And all anyone is left with, in the end, is loose change.
Yes but even with all their layers of propaganda with different agents, etc they still tell us the truth underneath the propaganda with their obligatory Revelation of the Method ... and they tell us it was controlled demolition ... and that is really the only method that makes the slightest sense.
"only method that makes the slightest sense"??? Silly, unjustified conclusion.
No it isn't. Prior to and since 9/11 we know of no high rise steel frame building coming down by any method other than controlled demolition, unless taken apart bit by bit. It would seem strange to use an alien method in one situation only. They don't even pretend to use DEWs for WTC-7, they make it look like a standard implosion. So you think it's silly to say that they wouldn't use a method NEVER used on any other building but they'd pull a method out - that they tested somehow but we don't know how - for two 110-storey buildings?
That's a great point about WTC-7 - the so-called smoking gun (that's your revelation of the method thing right there).
And yeah - we would expect to see other examples of their use of some secret Dr. Evil laserrrr weapon, eh.
I need a drink.
But you know that the footage of WTC-7's destruction is also faked? That's a good one, isn't it? Had me (and many others obviously) totally fooled. I'd imagine that for both the twin towers and WTC-7 they'd lay explosives at intervals and the explosive jets that would come out as shown in the destruction of the Mina Plaza in Abu Dhabi would simply be too much of a giveaway (https://youtube.com/shorts/4xsOL9_kVco?si=b3wUJHagU9KZ-yRD) - whatever the reason, they faked it - if for no other reason, they always like to dupe us as much as possible.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/i/150080226/clues-forum-wtc-s-collapse-started-at-the-bottom-but-another-fakery
I finally got around to looking (sorry about that delay). The Mina Plaza footage is one I hadn't actually seen before it pretty much matches what you see for WTC-1 and 2. All those clouds of pulverised dust and suchlike. That's one of the best comparisons I've seen.
As for WTC-7, what you are seeing there is a different type of demolition. The twin towers were essentially top-down. 7 is actually a centre-first demolition. That's to say the centre/inside is fatally weakened first, then the outer bits kind of fall or collapse in/inwards on the centre (it's a much safer way of doing it, actually). You can tell this by watching the very beginning of the collapse of 7, where you can clearly see the middle bit starts to drop first. I believe that type of demolition used to be the standard way of doing them. This might, ironically, be one of the reasons why too many people didn't immediately see the WTC-1 and 2 collapses as controlled demolitions, because they hadn't really seen a top-down one performed before, and certainly not on ridiculously tall (and thin) skyscrapers like the twins.
And I very much doubt they show schoolkids videos of controlled demos in school anymore. I did get to see them, so what happened on 9-11 was blindingly obvious.
Right now I'm not going there - I may have a look later. I am being summoned away from the computer and warned not to get sucked into stuff on a Saturday alvo.
On a similar note, isn't it a bit late in Oz right now for you, Petra? Don't you have anything better to do on a Saturday night?
If you're looking for an amusing diversion, may I perchance recommend some Ciao Seti?
Yes. That is silly when there are many anomalies to account for. New tech happens. They test it in "fires" all the time. Microwaves don't disturb dry paper and wood, just metal. Don't test the theory in you microwave at home, though.
Quote "Microwaves don't disturb dry paper and wood, just metal." source/proof? Only metal is "disturbed" by this radiation?? LOL Edit, also define what "disturbed" means? To clarify ur saying EMF (microwaves) does no damage to humans or animals/plants? Only to metals? Where did u get that from the gov or fact checkers?
Microwaves create microcurrents in metal and water. Said currents do not occur in paper, wood, plastic, etc.
Put plastic or paper in your microwave. Put in a glass of water. It will boil. The plastic or paper will not react at all. DON'T try it, but if you put metal in your microwave it will burn-up explode etc. This stuff is well known. Evidence of such all around California fires, Muai, 9-11.
'Revelation of the method'? Alright let's use some logic here. Are there any staged events you didn't know about (or still don't)? Perhaps you have only seen through the simplest easiest ones so far.
Perhaps revelation of the method is just another useful tool to hide other events. Perhaps it's just a signal to their own, or even to the more intelligent peasants.
Remember morals are just a tool and these people know that. Don't mistake the people behind the scenes for those on the stage.
I definitely don't see all the conspiracies and certainly not all the psyops where they use Revelation of the Method because I just don't know about them ... but the fact that they use it at all and, in fact, frequently makes it a useful tool.
They used it back in the Great Fire of London 1666 and the Gunpowder Plot - I mean you do see it everywhere you turn but stuff like organ harvesting, the drug trade and child, adult and sex trafficking - you don't necessarily see it there (although it is there too) ... but we all know it goes on so I don't think RoM hides other conspiracies because we know there's a whole lot of stuff that goes on that they don't advertise exactly the same way.
Where they use RoM is in order to control our minds - in the other conspiracy stuff mentioned that's just what they want to do for themselves to make money or perform their ritual sacrifices, etc. Of course, RoM is used in events from which they want to make money, etc, too - it's always about making money - it's just for some things they want to keep it more hidden and others they don't.
Actually, I have to say that there's so much fakery and propaganda involved in 9/11 it's really hard to determine - according to their Revelation of the Method technique - if they really are telling us the truth underneath the propaganda. They have us chasing our tails wildly. My goodness would they be laughing their heads over it.
When I realise that the evidence purported for controlled demolition is just as fake as all the other evidence purported for the other touted methods I'm inclined to think the only reason we can go for CD is that it's the only method we know of to bring down high rise steel frame buildings. We can't really point to any clear evidence. Sure, we have reporters scripted to allude to controlled demolition ... but then there's witnesses scripted to say stuff that favours the other methods. Now I really am confused because I'm so used to RoM giving the clues but we're in such a quagmire of evidence fakery it's really hard to see the truth.
Have you ever bothered reading Dr Wood's book? Listened to any of her presentations?
I guess not.... Then another question - Can you count past 3?
WHAT exactly happened to ALL 7 buildings with a WTC prefix on Sept 11, 2001?
The following points need to be made regarding what exactly happened to the buildings and the observable evidence at ground zero, that the “9/11 truth movement” never touch on…
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/what-exactly-happened-to-all-7-buildings
Controlled Demolition Expert Speaks Out!
What we saw on 9/11 was not due to jet fuel, bombs, or thermite
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/controlled-demolition-expert-speaks
when there's 3 'agents' involved, the pattern of cloack-and-daggers and double-speak almost resembles our dear problem - reaction - solution template.
To fully understand the cover-up of the cover-up, which is the 9/11 "truth" movement, one needs to go back to the formation of the "9/11 Scholars for truth" in 2005....
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
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;
1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications
How do you fit Loose Change 1st edition into this timeline, since that came before the timeline you are describing? Loose Change was a very simple, common sense explanation of what happened on 9-11 and also explained the big picture (PNAC, the new Pearl Harbour, Operation Cyclone, CIA proxy terrorists, war on terror and so on). It did not need to delve into complicated psyops and fakery and no-planes and DEWs.
So I am suggesting that in the face of that obvious simplicity, along with the potential for dissemination via Web 2.0 (LC was the first YouTube blockbuster, I believe someone said), they had to, as you say, 'lead the opposition' - and that does involve implanting as much fakery and mis- and disinformation and wild speculations and so on as they possibly can in order to muddy the waters and create confusion/cognitive dissonance, along with methods of making the truth movement look stupid with a whole load of straw men, to easily discredit them and deter any more 'normal people' from joining the dissident movement. Anything to prevent people from seeing what is, actually, a very simple event to explain and understand.
In view of this somewhat obvious consideration of the purposes of 'cognitive infiltration' and subversion, it would seem far more that the likes of Judy Wood are a part of that. There are, after all, direct links there with other controlled oppositions and psyops/coverups like the Disclosure Project, alien abductions & UFOs, the New Age Exopolitics stuff, and of course the suppression of free energy technology and advanced propulsion systems, the suppression of public knowledge of genuine SETI messages from other intelligences (as per the Brookings Report), and so on. The real truth all these things are covering up would be world-changing, after all, hence the absolute need to cover it all up and the sheer level of time, money and energy put into the cognitive infiltration programme.
It would be very strange indeed, from a psychological perspective, if Judy Wood et al. was the exception to this rule. If she was dangerous, by the way, they'd have neutralised her by now. It wouldn't be difficult.
By the way, to be fair to you, I fully understand the importance and urgency of all these coverups in the face of the cabal's extinction level event deterrent, which would be triggered in the event of the ultimate revolution if the general public could no longer avoid knowledge and understanding of the cabal and the horrific things they do (e.g. child abuse network, MK-Ultra - which is also linked with alien abductions etc.).
I may not psychologically approve of covering up these atrocities, but I approve from a purely espionage level, because I care about the human species and the welfare of this planet. So if you and others want to continue maintaining the confusion and cognitive dissonance in order to protect everyone from the ELE-deterrent then I'm not going to stop you.
Besides, I'm just a mad & beautiful genius with only 77 subscribers, no more than about a tenth of whom probably read my counter-subversion articles, so I am hardly a threat.
I suggest you read the following articles and watch the documentary with an open mind and get back to me, that is if you're a genuine "truth" seeker, capable of challenging your own world view....
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
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
Secret Super Weapons, UFO's & 9/11
Scalar, Electromagnetics, RF Weapons and Magnetic Electro Gravitic Nuclear Reactions
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/secret-super-weapons-ufos-and-911
Watch: 9/11 Alchemy - Facing Reality
Rumble Link: https://rumble.com/v42pr22-911-alchemy-facing-reality.html
YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/CrzNeZUp0tU
Loose Change movie and its producer (part of Controlled Opposition) ARE the problem. The massive positive public value of saying 911 was not according to the official faerie tale is emptied 100% or more by projecting grossly inaccurate alternative explanation.
Example: All 4 of the alleged planes (including the ones shown in Loose Change) were calculated to be traveling at 500+ mph at or near sea level, which is NOT POSSIBLE. Does Loose Change coe back and correct this fundamental error? No, because they are a major part of the Disinformation Controlled Opposition cadre.
All of what the Controlled Opposition/CO Traitors write as explanations of what happened are incorrect or inapplicable. Evidence of small particle aluminum and iron (thermetic materials) in small single digit concentrations is sensible, IF and ONLY IF the aluminum cladding and steel beams had been dustified by DEW. Thermite is an incendiary and not an explosive. It has to be contained at high concentration, purity and mix ratios in something like a ceramic vessel (enveloping the complete mixture), fused and lit at extreme temperatures in order for the reaction to start much less burn fully. All of these conditions did not happen at any of the WTC buildings. Casting superficially plausible explanations like Thermite (which is impossible) into pliable, traumatized minds is what Stephen Jones, Gage, Ted Walter and the rest intentionally do. These controlled opposition vermin ARE TRUTH-TRAITORS.
Conventional Controlled demolition was likewise impossible to accomplish and the debris field should have been, must have been 12-15% or more of the original building height. None of the building’s internal contents were removed which would have slowed to failure of a conventional controlled demolition. To say nothing of when or what ALL THE EXPLOSIVES AND FUSING would have been installed. WTC7 has some external visual similarities to a controlled demolition, but there were no explosions heard IMMEDIATELY BEFORE that building came down. The debris pile was 20’ or so high and not the requisite 100’ high.
There were NO BigBoeings on 911. Because above 300 mph, they self-destruct as was demonstrated by the crash of AA Flt 587 November 2001 in Jamaica Queens, NYC.
People need to Buy and Read the book, Where Did The Towers Go. It is a life and mind changing education. It is not hard to read or grasp. Commonly, about 5-6 chapters into the reading the political-cultural-scientific-moral weight of what Dr. Wood explains begins to sit on you like an elephant. Real men read on. People like Gage, Walter, Corbett et al (who strive to hold down the world changing knowledge contained in WDTTG) are TRAITOR-TERRORISTS. They must suffer the same extreme consequences as the 911 perpetrators, public execution. They actively cover up 911 Reality. The harsh consequences for their actions should be spoken, written about and directed to them at every chance. I want to see Corbett or Gage or Walter (all of them assert that planes impacted the Twin Towers, PentaCon and Shanksville) dump their pants when called out as a Treason-Terrorists. Why, because they knowingly project lies that purposefully cover up what really happened on 911.
"Mr. and Mrs. Gage you both are Treason-Terrorists for continually aiding and abetting the cover up of what really happened on 911. You will be held to account and hung publicly."
She will meltdown instantly and turn on her lying snake husband.
Loose Change is a Truth-Traitor and must be called out and dismantled publicly. The fact that Directed Energy Weapons is unconventional and not welcome by the weak minded DOES NOT invalidate the reality of DEW being used to dis-integrate all Seven WTC buildings on 911. The controlled opposition refuses to cover 3, 4, 5 and 6 BECAUSE doing so eviscerates the controlled opposition false narratives.
Amen to that! Follow up to your discussion....
9/11 Reality Series (Pt 1)
Given 9/11 Reality … How shall we then live?
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-reality-series-pt-1
Ephesians 5:11 - Have nothing to do with the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but expose them.
Galatians 4:16 - So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?
I have found all the attacks on LC - as 'agents' shall we say - very revealing. It's precisely what other agents would do in order to discredit it. I talked about this methodology in my first comment here to Petra's post.
My point is that it doesn't matter whether Dylan Avery et al. were 'agents' or not - to discredit them because they are 'agents' is to shoot the messenger, which is an obvious logical fallacy (ad hominem). It's the content only we should examine.
However, from the perpetrators' point of view it's an excellent strategy with regards to the 'truth movement' because members of the truth movement do indeed think in terms of agents vs. truthers, and mis- and disinformation etc.
To briefly recap the methodology: you have 3 agents. Agent#1 makes a name for themselves and their (conspiracy) theory/hypothesis. (If you want to call Agent#1 Dylan Avery that's fine). You then get Agent#2 to disagree. You then have people accusing Agent#2 of being an agent. This enhances Agent#1. But then Agent#3 swoops in and provides the twist, which is the exposure of Agent#1 and the rehabilitation of Agent#2 (plus empathy with the victim). By discrediting Agent#1 (with the ad hominem attack essentially) Agent#3 has also discredited whatever theory/hypothesis Agent#1 had.
Thus, from the perpetrators' point of view, the best option is to have Agent#1 tell the truth. Because it's the truth you wish to discredit of course. People do think emotionally, of course, so Agent#3 is simply playing that narrative card.
It's the Agent#3's of this world you have to identify. Once you have identified them, you can then analyse the theories and people they are attacking, and give those people and theories far more credibility.
Most people who are new to 9-11 research have probably never even watched the LC 1st edition (the final cut is really quite different to 1st ed and leaves out a lot of important stuff). Likewise, by now, what with memory holing and so forth, most of the 'evidence' (from the web only) that is being analysed is manufactured fakery. Therefore it's useless as evidence. One test of this, however, is to research whether the currently available 'evidence' (photos, videos etc.) either existed at the time or shortly after 9-11, and whether it was referenced by some of the early/first researchers. Because if they didn't use it, then that suggests it didn't exist at the time and is manufactured fakery. I've seen a lot of stuff that didn't exist 20 years ago.
Ground Zero, in other words, has been fully cleaned up.
Why are planes travelling at 500+ mph (if they were indeed travelling that fast) at that altitude not possible? Are you using the standard model of physics here, in which case that's wrong, because you are not taking the charge field into account, which is how planes stay in the air.
The idea that it's the density of the air at low altitudes that would cause a plane to break up also doesn't hold much water in my view. Planes only slow down to come into land and lose altitude in order to reduce the lift from the charge field.
Mathis has a good explanation about this.
Good luck reading well known controlled opposition Judy Wood. It's still worth a read, I think it will at least sit well with the charge field theory. And there is zero chance that loose change was promoted by accident, or that they accidentally missed so much of the most daming evidence. Anything intentionally promoted is not done by accident. That includes everything.
Hi Evelyn - Here, I wrote an article, especially for you....
Please work through the whole article.
You're welcome...
The Loose Change 9/11 PSYOP
The most important thought experiment to date
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-loose-change-911-psyop
That's an equally astute point, Mary-Lou. I approve...
"all good things come in threes" (Lat.: omne trium perfectum), which is perhaps one of the reasons that the [problem-reaction-solution]-template works so well as a not-so-secretive spook's MO. HT both to Hegel and David Icke, of course. but "just logic" as well: a three-legged stool is one of the most stable constructions we know, ask any milkmaid: "...frequently employed for milking cows, sheep, and goats....(the).... stability of its three legs ensured steadiness on uneven surfaces...." - https://www.oldworldtimber.com/milking-stools-crafting-legacy-and-rustic-elegance/
I still think that Judy's question "where did the towers go?" is still important and has not been completely answered. She is wrong about the molten metal or victims, but it also may be that some new methods of demolition have been used that pulverized the towers. I do not trust psychics that appear before David Icke's shows, but I find many of David's comments interesting and relevant. I listen carefully to doctors who deny the existence of virus, but I am surprised that they do not consider that diseases can be transmitted in ways we are now aware of. Nobody is perfect and nobody knows everything.
Would you appreciate the observations of a 29 year veteran of controlled demolitions?
Controlled Demolition Expert Speaks Out!
What we saw on 9/11 was not due to jet fuel, bombs, or thermite
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/controlled-demolition-expert-speaks
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
You can download the Refutation of Richard Gage’s Game in 2008 AND 2023: https://truthsummit.info/media-files/DrJudyWood-refutation-RichardGage-claims.pdf
As a follow-up, there's simply no way I could ever possibly get through Hughes' dissertation - it smacks of TL:DR - just by looking at the size of the scroll bar button on the right.
Francis' on the other paw is an easily manageable and extremely clearly written, logical, slice of much-needed common sense and basic reason.
That, to me, suggests that Hughes is the bad guy (cognitive infiltrator) and Francis is the good guy. You have to get really suspicious when someone comes up with some interminably long (and long-winded) dissertation all presented in a single part/post. That's designed to turn people off - by the time they get even a third of the way down their brains will have switched off. So their brains get, I don't know, subliminally dustified or something.
Reminds me of something called Ockham's razor. At least I think that's what it's called.
Oh my poor brain isn't what it once was you know, dearie.
I tend to think David is genuine ... just misguided, however, could be wrong.
Here, let's rewind to 2005, with the formation of the "9/11 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
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;
1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications
I would like to say Petra that you should be commended for this post because it allowed healthy discussion and debate, little hostility, and lots of food for thought.
Even if DEW was used, I do think there were some explosives used, some fakery in the footage and narrative, and some CG is not ruled-out.
We all seem to agree there are no nukes (they don't exist to being with), and there were no planes.
Thanks, PM. I think the best approach is to focus on the solid facts in the first instance because there's sufficient of them to tell us the truth I think.
1. There is no recognised building destruction done by DEWs. In fact, there is nothing at all we can be sure of that says DEWs exist ... just like nukes.
2. We can see clear fakery in the pushing of the DEWs hypothesis in the "toasted" cars - similar to the "toasted" cars in Maui that Agent131711 exposed.
3. As far as we know, controlled demolition is the only way to bring down high rise steel frame buildings so even if the footage is faked it would still be the most obvious choice.
4. A significant amount of footage of the building destructions is clearly faked and it is difficult to identify where it might be real.
Compare the Mina Plaza towers coming down to the South Tower.
What we see with Mina is that explosive material spits out at regular intervals in the first couple of seconds of the destruction and as the buildings start to collapse they are completely covered in clouds of dust / gases / whatever. (Interestingly, Richard Gage claims "pyroclastic gases" emitted by volcanoes are produced but according to ChatGPT, controlled demolition doesn't produce those gases. Very, very interesting. The only conclusion, of course, that one can come to with RG is that he is controlled opposition - I don't know why I'm so hesitant on that conclusion because it is so very obvious. https://chatgpt.com/share/6719bb40-c39c-800a-ad77-e989e9a4b48d - I suppose ChatGPT could be wrong about the pyroclastic gases and I probably would need to do more research to be sure - might get around to it.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se74OjuXvU8
What we see with the South Tower is it peel down. This is completely contrary to how controlled implosions work, they are always about weakening structures from below ... even if that weakening still occurs throughout the building. Also, we see bits of broken structure ... which I always thought looked fake even before I accepted the footage was fake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWCDA09XFT0
5. In the case of WTC-7 which so much more resembles a typical controlled demolition it still shows signs of fakery, eg, the mechanical penthouse coming down first - why would it come down first if weakening is occurring at the bottom - also the western penthouse behaves strangely, the side of it seeming to pivot out and pivot back in again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFc3DfPlvXw
6. The images we see of Ground Zero are clearly fake - will be doing a post on that. This is my favourite peek-a-boo - a little wooden footbridge with handrails and all and a figure that looks very much planted on it. Love it! https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FEMA_-_5684_-_Photograph_by_Bri_Rodriguez_taken_on_09-27-2001_in_New_York.jpg
7. CDI achieved three of their four world records in large building project demolitions in the three years prior to 9/11. This fact is not pushed as propaganda for CD - I just happened to notice it on their website - even though a lot of other BS propaganda is, eg, the scripted journalists and emergency responders alluding to CD. Propaganda works so interestingly - on the one hand they're pushing CD with scripted actors but on the other they're not pushing it by the simple fact of CDI's very suggestive world records - of course, that would be revealing in ways they don't want - that CDI was actually involved in the destructions although they do tell us they submitted their cleanup plan eleven days after the fateful day and regardless of whether CDI had anything to do with the building destructions they would certainly know how they came down. It's all about CONTROL of the information so even if something is true - that the buildings came down by controlled demolition (I cannot see how it could be any other way) - they use propaganda which seems to push that truth ... but at the same time hides it.
No quote I think could apply more to 9/11 than George Orwell's:
"All propaganda is lies even when one is telling the truth."
Thanks Petra, I agree there are lots of complications to 911. The only point would be that for nukes, there is no proof of an explosive nuclear reaction, only radiation which is much different. For DEW, the mil already has energy weapons
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=high+power+microwave+directed+energy&atb=v272-1&ia=web
it is also even possible to get destructive energy from EM waves from your microwave oven that can destroy metal, not only a potato
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2UfglFeOH8
So there is plenty of proof of concept. Was it used on 911?, we have suggestive evidence only. In 2001 it was much more of a wild theory than it is now, but that op is over so some info getting out is ok for TPTB.
OK, so let's say DEWs exist, their existence alone in no way supports them being used on 9/11.
In relation to "suggestive evidence" - for ALL methods - DEWS, CD, thermite/nanothermite, nukes - what we actually have is very clear evidence of fakery of every single one of them - plus extra propaganda ... so what we really have is evidence AGAINST ALL methods. Essentially, we are forced to make a judgement not on evidence but on what we know about the world, namely that the only way high rise steel frame buildings have come down is by controlled demolition and circumstantial evidence such as CDI's world records and their participation in the molten metal propaganda.
Agree It is CD!
Only small parts of WTC 1 and 2 fell, so they could only partially be destroyed by explosives or incendiaries, the rest was destroyed by____a blank that we have to fill but not explosives, thermite, nukes, nor jet fuel. The job is to rule in or out what possibilities are left.
Hang on a minute. What do you mean they could only partially be destroyed by explosives? Now that's a thought but why do you claim that?
Because there is not enough on the ground, only the parts on the ground could be from explosives/thermite. The pile size on the ground can't really be faked, we would see and hear about clean up climbing a mountain. The rest we can clearly see was pulverized.
Thanks for this discussion, it's helping clarify things in my mind.
You bring up interesting info Petra. I imagine the DEW pushers will say:
Your statement
"No high rise steel frame building has ever been brought down by any method other than controlled demolition"
is not true for 9.11. The buildings were not "brought down, they pulverized/dustified [the wording isn't my point] in mid-air, and besides a few stories of debris for WTC 1/2 at ground zero, only the destruction line went from top to bottom and at near free-fall speed, there was no pancaking and very little debris falling."
I'm not pushing a side, just interested in what you would say.
What I say, PM, is the footage is faked (https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911-the-movie) so it cannot be used to determine the method of destruction. It's crazy that the fakery of the footage was exposed as early as 2010 on Clues Forum and yet it hasn't caught on (I only got onto it myself very recently) and the DEWs argument is still going (although I was never impressed by it).
I'm officially over DEWs. This is me done now.
Also, there is also the "inverse fake" possibility I suppose. For example, purposely placing photos of cars damaged from other venues into a 9.11 (or Maui) photo shoot so that we then say, "see it's fake" about the whole thing. It's like having David Icke say, "viruses don't exist"-since he says many fake things, the viruses don't exist must also be fake/false, even though the truth is that no virus has ever been found.
They do all sorts, PM, but I see no reason to suspect they used a technique we've never seen clear evidence of when a perfectly good tried and tested technique is at their fingertips.
Ultimately, it doesn't really matter how they brought the buildings down, they did it, that's what counts but I'd rather not be following one of their propaganda streams if I can help it.
Well, one guess is that the acute destruction of the WTC wasn't an amateur, spontaneous stage magic trick.
The perpetrators, well in advance, would have practiced their methodology many times over on mock structures scaled to the same dimensions & materials. Just like any disciplined military operation, there would be innumerable practice, practice, practice maneuvers well in advance.
IMHO, it seems reasonable that the structures were originally deliberately designed & constructed to facilitate their eventual demolishment in a controlled manner.
So far, nobody seems to be considering the possibility of alternate materials, such as carbon composites which sublimate into carbon dioxide dust, incorporated during the construction to replace, at least in part, the heat-resistant steel.
btw - some folks from the community of insurance underwriters are convinced that demolition plans for urban skyscrapers be provided in advance prior to construction.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/1cdkzt3/what_is_the_endoflife_plan_for_mega_skyscrapers/
Method for electrically controlled demolition of concrete
Abstract
A method to demolish concrete that comprises electrically connecting rebar disposed within the concrete to a power supply, electrically connecting a counter electrode within electro-osmotic communication of the concrete to a power supply, and externally providing electrolyte as supplemental moisture for the concrete. An electric field is created within the concrete and causes water moisture to migrate toward the rebar thereby expediting the corrosion thereof. The corrosion of the rebar generates iron oxides, which because of their greater volume, cause areas of localized pressure within the concrete. As the corrosion process proceeds, an accumulation of oxides increases the localized pressure to cause cracking within the concrete.
US6916411B2
"Method for electrically controlled demolition of concrete"
Very interesting.
Yeah, CDI had lots of practice and as I say three of their four world records in large building demolition projects were achieved in the three years prior to 9/11.
"Alfred P. Murrah Building, Oklahoma City
On May 23, 1995, the firm was responsible for the demolition of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building after its bombing on April 19, 1995."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Demolition,_Inc.
---
They even do straight-up Hollywood stuff:
'Structural Explosion Effects Performed by: Controlled Demolition International"
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls088580613/
Ok thanks. I understand you. Do you include the breakup of beams etc in mid air and the small amount of rubble on the ground in the fake footage? If so, do you or Simon have an analysis to conclude fakery on those?
You don't need to prove fakery for every single piece of footage of the destructions, you only need to show fakery for some pieces to prove that the purported footage cannot be trusted ... unless, of course, you can make a good case for individual pieces' reality.
Come on - they stick the Chrysler building behind the twin towers when it's 3.5 miles up the road, strange vantage points, changes of shadow, etc. Fakery galore!
Yes you do! Provide proof of fakery for all of it, I mean. That's a logical fallacy isn't it?
Consider this: Say I've got a warehouse and it's got 5,000 pieces of fruit inside. I then hand you 1,000 apples one by one. I then suggest to you that the remaining 4,000 are all apples, and that apples are the only fruit. So, happy with that, you go and tell everyone that there's no such thing as an orange.
Meanwhile, I go back inside my warehouse, wait for you to unwittingly push up the stock price of oranges, given they must be the rarest, magicalest item in the world, and then I go hey presto I got some oranges if anyone wants 'em.
Jus' sayin', you know.
No it's not a logical fallacy. The fact that a certain amount of footage is faked doesn't mean it all is but it means, at least, that we can't assume the other footage is genuine, there's certainly risk of it being fake. Thus unless you can prove that the footage you deem to prove your case is genuine you don't have a case.
That's an equally fair point.
Proton - On the toasted cars - If Petra bothered reading Dr Wood's book, you'd find her take on the toasted cars is absolute rubbish thinking - In my article, you will find news reports of cars exploding / spontaneously combusting before any of the towers fell...
The 1400 "toasted" cars on 9/11.
"Toasted" means they're toast, done for, unfixable.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-1-400-toasted-cars-on-911
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;
1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications
Not that I agree but I see Petra's point. If you convince yourself that absolutely all 9-11 evidence is fake then you can presume that any building that might've existed but is no longer (or never was) there, could only have been removed through conventional means.
There's a theme emerging here. Start with a belief and exclude any evidence that doesn't support it. 😊
Thank you for the info.
Proton Magic - What Petra's problem is, she's clinging to a cointelpro agent's talking points that has thoroughly been called out and exposed numerous time....
Simon Hytten (Shack) did work for the European Space Agency. His father worked for the United Nations and his brother had connections to the Bin Laden family....
9/11 Planes, Layers of Deception
Mark Conlon & Andrew Johnson on RichPlanet TV (Sept 2017) - 9/11 planes research into the "alleged" video fakery of Flight 175 videos.
Link: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/911-planes-layers-of-deception
September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part One)
Exposing The Disinformation
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-layers-of-deception
September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part Two)
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-layers-of-deception-086
September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part Three)
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-layers-of-deception-3ff
September Clues - Addendum - Deceptions - Part One
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-addendum-deceptions
September Clues - Addendum Deceptions - Part Two
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-addendum-deceptions-bcd
Simon Shack’s Amateur Effort of Video Fakery
Cutting Through the Disinformation
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/simon-shacks-amateur-effort-of-video
Simon Shack "Misrepresents" Plane Flight Path in 9/11 Video
Independent Analysis: Exposing Falsehoods of Simon Shack
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/simon-shack-misrepresents-plane-flight
Thank you for the interesting info.
This might interest you, PM, on the towers being hollow thus much less rubble expected but, in any case, we simply cannot rely on what they show us. We know they have faked imagery and it is difficult to distinguish fake from real. Even without actually faking imagery you can make things look very different from what they are.
https://letsrollforums.com/index.php?threads/wtc-9-11-construction-questions-on-mysterious-observations-hollow-towers-perspective.812/
Thanks, I looked thru it. That is a very interesting piece of info since we know the Rockefellers & club built it to destroy it. I bet the Asbestos in it was planted as a eugenics poison, but I digress. Lack of concrete might make some destruction go easier but the steal girders themselves should have made a much bigger rubble pile than we saw.
You can't hide massive things in public spaces of downtown Manhattan.
Simon Shack is a shill.
I wouldn't rule it out however what does he say that's false?
If all the released footage is faked, how could they have prevented the skyline from being filmed by amateurs in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Staten Island and New Jersey?
Sorry I missed this comment earlier. That is a good point.
I'd say the skyline footage is real actually in a lot of cases if not most. When I say fakery I should limit it to the actual destructions which Clues Forum suggests were covered by military obscurants. Not to say that some of the skyline footage - for whatever reason - is faked too. Lots of fakery going on there but I'd say that it makes no sense not to have at least some real skyline footage because there would be amateurs out there and also no reason to fake it that I can particularly think of.
Lets roll forums (now gone) "empty towers" explains most issues (Phil Jahan still has a blog)
Back again.
https://letsrollforums.com/index.php?threads/wtc-9-11-construction-questions-on-mysterious-observations-hollow-towers-perspective.812/
This is not the "real" forum - mostly populated by bots now... however seems indeed someone copied much stuff over and this is now (again) worth a read!
Here the smoke machine thread: https://letsrollforums.com/index.php?threads/fake-smoke-machines-at-the-pentagon-on-9-11.776/
Ofc this mass of smoke is fake, but I question if one needs a machine for it, as they can use eg white phospor or other millitary smoke chemicals. One would not need a machine neither at WTC nor at Pentagon imo. But only a small detail
Yes the first one was taken down by the host I believe but I think Phil Jayhan is running this one again. Could be wrong.
Absolute stupidity masquerading as 9/11 Truth. If you want the facts, see this gallery I (someone who was there and lost two friends that day) made and the primary sources & data I link to. No nonsense included: https://ajl.smugmug.com/911
That's a great selection of Ground Zero shots you've got there - very good for analysis of fakery. Thank you for that.
Quote "..and lost two friends that day" Any proof of this?
These are just images from different places presumably created by different people.
Thanks for confirming Judy Wood's DEW theory with your 'quick and simple debunk'. I can safely unsubscribe from this stack :)
It's interesting to me how negative comments - regardless of whether they make what I consider a valid point or not - often prompt me to improve my argument. I've now modified my post to make the very clear point that the evidence purported for controlled demolition is just as fake as the purported evidence for the other touted methods.
I have to admit that I cannot now claim that I believe the buildings came down by controlled demolition because of the evidence as the footage of the destructions is clearly fake - I can only resort to CD because that is the only recognised method of destruction of high rise steel frame buildings ... plus CDI achieved three of their four world records in large building demolition projects using standard methods in the three years before 9/11 - purely circumstantial evidence but it helps. So thanks for that prompt.
So many people struggle, Petra included....
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;
1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications
A Collapse / Demolition Thought Experiment
Put on your thinking caps students
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/a-911-thought-experiment
Controlled Demolition Expert Speaks Out!
What we saw on 9/11 was not due to jet fuel, bombs, or thermite
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/controlled-demolition-expert-speaks
911 you do great research and have made a significant contribution to the effort of unpacking the true nature of the event. But you are wasting your time in this stack - The author is misguided - at best (I'm trying to be charitable), and PM is your classic false binary dissembler of the most annoying kind, the rest are just a bunch of scoundrels with a few sincere but gullible idiots caught in the mix.
Oh dear, oh dear.
You did not really understand what I was trying to say and quickly and rudely concluded something that is not accurate. Petra and I have a long history of discussions on many stacks, I like and respect her but we do not agree on a number of things. Not being like you, I am not about to call her silly names, both me and her will learn more by knowing we like each other and try to sift thru the differences. If you read the entire thread between me and her we have mutually come to see some things differently. Including the DEW discussion (I have the book), but Rome is not made over in a day. You my good man did not have the patience to do something like that and have just made a blanket derision on everyone on this section. You elegantly proved you are rude and moved nowhere on the DEW discussion which is clearly my direction.
it’s not actually about you, PM. News flash ; I don’t actually care if you have friends, or not, or if you are starting to realize the existence and extant of directed energy weapons- or not. As for Petra writing a stack “debunking” Judy Wood’s work, that is so very generous of you to respectfully entertain her kindergarden steps into the topic. Given that we are all in the middle of an extinction level assault by the very same gang of perpetrators that pulled off 911, who continue to use the same advanced weaponry with impunity because the public is STILL utterly fucking clueless and so thoroughly duped, You will have to excuse that I am out of patience for the ostensibly thoughful contrary thinkers who seemingly struggle to grasp the most rudimentary level of deception being played out as we all bleed out in realtime. And yes Judy Wood is likely controlled op- in ways that are still TBD. But her research is legit. And yes both are possibly true at the same time. Do your fucking homework on the game people, it’s much more layered than your tinkertoy binaries.
Yes I know a lot about them and I have written 130 SS posts on their BS programs with > 5k followers, you my good man have no posts. Since you are smart, just try to be polite.
Indeed, some people seem to be stuck on talking point in 2010, when the rest of us have moved along with the new evidence and research that has come out in the last 15 years....
Petra's god - Simon Hytten (Shack) did work for the European Space Agency. His father worked for the United Nations and his brother had connections to the Bin Laden family.... But she just doesn't want to believe she's been fooled...
9/11 Planes, Layers of Deception
Mark Conlon & Andrew Johnson on RichPlanet TV (Sept 2017) - 9/11 planes research into the "alleged" video fakery of Flight 175 videos.
Link: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/911-planes-layers-of-deception
Premeditated ignorance and cognitive dissonance is very strong with some....
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11
1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications
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
"CDI was obviously very much involved in the destruction of the WTC buildings"
I need more informations, evidence, facts, data than what you provided to conclude such.
This could just be another act in a long running 9/11 play just like thermite, DEW, mini nukes, Jet fuel melts steel beams...etc...etc...
What I do know is money is the root of all evil, governments are basically the slave master/administrator and no one ever discusses about getting rid of these violent destructive entities that allows for these psyops to be conducted at all.
Yea we can talk until we are blue in the face about all these psyops since the early 1900's they all have a genesis, we may not know all the secrets about how they are conducted but we do know the overall method.
I think it is time to stop the chit chatting about the psyops and find ways to non violently topple government - the system of enFORCEment, that allows for all the unnnatural behavior that prevents 'man kind'
Clearly we all agree there is nothing kind about the world currently.
WTC was a crime scene.
It was cleaned up before any investigation which is a crime in itself, thus we will never know what happened.
and how are we going to stop these operations from being conducted in the future? This is what we should be discussing!...at least common sense and logic would seem to dictate such unless you just want the psyops to keep happening...who wants that? Where is the common sense and logic in that?
Topple government, and do not tell me it is extreme or it is anarchy because it is not!....it is common sense based on all the things we have talked and discussed the past few years on substack.
This is going to be my benchmark for the substackers from here on out to determing their legitmacy.
You want to keep government, you say it is needed, that we have to have it, or do not speak of getting rid of Government....then I am going to look at those substackers with a jaundiced eye.
Without government these psyops could never be pulled off.
I am tired going down this endless spiral of rabbit holes....been doing this before 9/11.
Common Sense and Logic says it is time to stop the ability at all for these operations to ever be conducted.
Nothing has killed, murdered, stolen and enslaved more than Government and there is no close second if there is a second at all, nothing has committed more evil acts than government and political ideology does not matter for all governments/slave plantations collectivize everyone...i.e. they ALL do the same, they are all systems of enFORCEment.
What do you say Petra....Yes Keep government and its system of enFORCEment, No Government has to go so the world can be (man) Kind?
The best way to get the truth about 9/11 would be to topple government and anyone who does not at least considerand or discuss this line of thought must be considered suspect or else still too indoctrinated to the system of enFORCEment to think outside of it as oppose to believing they cannot live without it.
You need more evidence for CDI? They TELL us they were involved in the cleanup, they're hardly going to tell us that they did it but they're a huge demolition company and they achieved three of their four world records in large building demolition projects in the three years before 9/11. If that's not enough for you what else do you require?
Actually not CD.... Rad the article, let a 29 year CD veteran it explain it to you....
Controlled Demolition Expert Speaks Out!
What we saw on 9/11 was not due to jet fuel, bombs, or thermite
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/controlled-demolition-expert-speaks
A Collapse / Demolition Thought Experiment
Put on your thinking caps students
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/a-911-thought-experiment
Petra, Petra, Petra - Such a weak argument you put forth...
So, I'll just reference a few of my articles showing you're full of it...
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
WHAT exactly happened to ALL 7 buildings with a WTC prefix on Sept 11, 2001?
The following points need to be made regarding what exactly happened to the buildings and the observable evidence at ground zero, that the “9/11 truth movement” never touch on…
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/what-exactly-happened-to-all-7-buildings
A Collapse / Demolition Thought Experiment
Put on your thinking caps students
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/a-911-thought-experiment
Controlled Demolition Expert Speaks Out!
What we saw on 9/11 was not due to jet fuel, bombs, or thermite
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/controlled-demolition-expert-speaks
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'll leave this comment but I'm going to delete all your repeats. I won't ban you as you've banned me, I don't believe in censorship and I see no reason to ban you but I won't have repeat comments clogging up my comments. Please do not repeat any more comments. I cannot believe your nerve in repeating your comment so many times. Don't you think it's pretty rich considering you've BANNED me? I mean seriously?
As I've told you more than once - Your whole reasoning around 9/11 is totally and utterly flawed...
Here, just my one article on the toasted cars, shows how shortsighted and wacked your thinking is...
The 1400 "toasted" cars on 9/11.
"Toasted" means they're toast, done for, unfixable.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-1-400-toasted-cars-on-911
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;
1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications
You don't seem to take on my point - the imagery is faked and/or they use junkyard cars missing door-handles and number plates.
If the imagery is faked ... end of.
What you're doing is simply accepting purported evidence as genuine when clearly a whole lot of fakery was going on.
Look at this six seconds of the South Tower coming down
https://youtu.be/ieIFtjnBfJU?si=xUmsteuzq25Hvv6p&t=41
--- The Chrysler building is not visible as shown from the vantage point - being four miles north in midtown on East 42nd Street. (compare shot of Chrysler from World Trade Observatory barely visible just north and east of the Empire State Bldg - https://www.exp1.com/blog/see-new-york-city-from-top-to-bottom-at-one-world-observatory/)
--- The initial vantage point seems odd. You feel almost up against the towers but not at ground level. Regardless, the vantage point seems much too close - no other demolitions are filmed from so close and we can only infer the implied vantage point would be within the area cordoned off.
--- If the closeness is accepted as possible, there is still the problem of lack of clarity. From such a close distance we’d expect the definition of the steel columns to be visible as it is in a photo seemingly taken at a similar distance less than an hour earlier (https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F5a29fe35-d68a-4ea3-9439-f5e0365c31c2_474x668.png). Moreover, considering the time between the alleged airliner crash into the South tower and its collapse is less than an hour (9:03am crash / 9:58am collapse) it seems odd that the collapse snapshot has the towers in seeming shadow while they are brightly lit less than an hour prior.
--- There is a white cloud of smoke to the right of the smoke that seems to be emanating from the towers which has no explanation.
--- At 0:46 while it seems as though the footage of the building is simply continuing to collapse, there is a cut and the vantage point changes from what would seem to be West St to around the corner on Liberty St (see image below) and also higher and the height also seems an odd position from so close. (https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F5b1306a8-ed7e-4b38-8e01-039faec55776_613x494.png)
What you need to argue is that the imagery isn't fake. Go ahead.
Did you ever wonder if mainstream media put forth fake/altered video so that all amateur photography would be denied by researchers? You can't hide a demolition in downtown Manhattan. You just can't.
For your claim that my argument is weak you need to back it up rather than immediately refer me to your pages.
I didn't make it first, of course, Simon Shack on Clues Forum did but I make my own observations of the fakery. You will obviously need to look at my argument first in order to argue against it and if you don't want to do that I perfectly understand, however, that means our discussion will proceed no further.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911-the-movie
Here is some reading for you to do on Simon Shack.....
Simon Hytten (Shack) did work for the European Space Agency. His father worked for the United Nations and his brother had connections to the Bin Laden family....
9/11 Planes, Layers of Deception
Mark Conlon & Andrew Johnson on RichPlanet TV (Sept 2017) - 9/11 planes research into the "alleged" video fakery of Flight 175 videos.
Link: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/911-planes-layers-of-deception
September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part One)
Exposing The Disinformation
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-layers-of-deception
September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part Two)
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-layers-of-deception-086
September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part Three)
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-layers-of-deception-3ff
September Clues - Addendum - Deceptions - Part One
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-addendum-deceptions
September Clues - Addendum Deceptions - Part Two
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-addendum-deceptions-bcd
Simon Shack’s Amateur Effort of Video Fakery
Cutting Through the Disinformation
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/simon-shacks-amateur-effort-of-video
Simon Shack "Misrepresents" Plane Flight Path in 9/11 Video
Independent Analysis: Exposing Falsehoods of Simon Shack
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/simon-shack-misrepresents-plane-flight
You are a shill "Revisionist" I noted ur spam at another channel already... SO you do NOT call Petra out for her moon/climate crap at all, while you say her correct stuff (like this DEW article) is wrong?? :)))) So sum tink wong w/ you seriously. And now go and suck up to Jewdy Woods.
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;
1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications
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
Ok so ur a spambot or human troll (sitting in Langley or Tel Aviv?) Good to know... you
Maybe if you critically look at how everything played out with the formation of the 2005 "Scholars for 9/11 truth" and see how the timeline developed, you might be able to break free from your programming....
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
Greetings from sunny South Africa...
Wanna see what I look like: https://rumble.com/v55uzab-the-pirate-truth-podcast-with-911-revisionist.html
Ur ignored from now on, and if u wanna learn something (if bots can learn?) u can read my post(s) above
Here you go - You're welcome....
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
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
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
Though humans essentially perceive the same from the natural world, each person then has unique "thinking" which creates concepts––which can be vastly diverse. Also has a lot to do with a person's level of divine consciousness (or not). The more a person applies "critical thinking" the closer it matches perception of what everybody experiences in the natural world.
bollox --- the buildings literally turned to dust.
bollox --- the buildings fell at gravity speeds.
NOT controlled demolition
NOT planes
Indeed, you are correct....
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;
1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications
Controlled Demolition Expert Speaks Out!
What we saw on 9/11 was not due to jet fuel, bombs, or thermite
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/controlled-demolition-expert-speaks
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
Revisiting the various 9/11 Plane Narratives
The most important thought experiment to date
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/revisiting-the-911-cgi-plane-narrative
If the claim is that the dozens of videos and hundreds of still photos from the destruction of WTC were ALL faked, I need at a *very strong* hypothesis as to how they prevented people from Manhattan, Brooklyn, Staten Island and New Jersey from taking and releasing conflicting imagery.
That's a good point. Simon Shack's hypothesis is that they covered the buildings with military obscurants - the thing is as soon as a demolition starts there's masses of clouds of stuff come out so perhaps they just made more. However, there are other important points:
--- Buildings simply don't come down from the top the way the twin towers are shown coming down.
--- The way the mechanical penthouse moves on top of WTC-7 makes no sense for a controlled demolition. If it's collapsing from the bottom why would the penthouse be affected. Also part of the western penthouse seems to pivot forward and back again. Looks strange. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFc3DfPlvXw
Still seems farfetched.
I came across the notion of fakery on Clues Forum about two years ago but didn't look properly however my thought was, "Oh yes, that would figure," and now that I've looked it's clearly faked.
Nope! I'm not sure what happened on 9-11, but those pictures of junkyard cars look NOTHING like the burned cars alleged to be around the towers after what happened.
Can you give me an example?
Review Woods' video.
I'd rather stick pins in my eyes. The point is that there's clearly lots of fakery going on so whatever images are shown, without clear evidence that they're real, they're meaningless. It's enough to show that the car in my article is clearly a junkyard car but was used as "evidence" of "toasting" and without clear evidence that other purported evidence is genuine there is no case.
Nothing is conclusive. All is hypothesis and theory, AS IS ALL SCIENCE. Woods shows a plethora of cars, none of which look like junkyard cars. Maybe somebody faked 100s of cars at 9-11, Maui, dozens of California fires? Yeah, can't rule it out.
Petra has just shown you how disingenuous she is, by stating: "I'd rather stick pins in my eyes" - It's part of her premeditated ignorance stance she has taken....
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;
1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications
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
Here, learn a little more about the 1400 toasted cars in my article - Cars were spontaneously catching fire, blocks away from the towers, whilst they were still standing...
The 1400 "toasted" cars on 9/11.
"Toasted" means they're toast, done for, unfixable.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-1-400-toasted-cars-on-911
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
This David Hughes's article is great. It is very thorough with the evidence, addressing. O'Neil's fallacies and characterizes Wood properly. Thanks for linking it. Never heard of the guy.
But what he does is accept purported evidence as genuine artefact when it isn't - it's faked and used with propagandistic intentions.
--- The destruction footage was faked so it cannot be used to determine how the buildings came down - see https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911-the-movie
--- Toasted cars are a dime a dozen - we seem them all over the place, they mean nothing.
They were not faked. That's as absurd a claim as dustification and CGI planes.
Possibly 200k people watched those building get destroyed. I was 8 or 9 blocks north on West street. I literally had a front row view. I assure you, it was destroyed as we see in the videos. If not, then all the people filming the events would have different footage. It such an absurd claim I cannot wrap my head around how any could legitimately come to the conclusion.
https://ajl.smugmug.com/911/Videos/i-gbrb389/A
Seriously? Why would anyone with their camera trained on the South Tower stop filming as it was coming down. Please look at my analysis of the fakery of the towers as well as the analysis linked to at Clues Forum.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911-the-movie
You must be able read if you're writing this nonsense. I dont need a video. Helloo, Petra?? I WATCHED IT LIVE,, FFS/
Explain how, if they were destroyed in some other fashion, all the videos and what the witnesses show the same thing?? This happened in from masses of people in Manhattan. You can't possibly bc this clueless, so right up there Wood and the morons spreading disinformation to undermine 9/11 Truith
Because all the witnesses and videos they show us are fake - it was a massive operation, involving masses of fakery.
You watched it live? If you saw it live you didn't see what they have shown us because what they show us is clearly fake. You saw something else. I know someone who was there and he said he saw a plane heading to the South Tower. I don't know what he saw but it wasn't one of the alleged passenger airliners and what they show us of planes penetrating buildings is clearly fake.
I wonder why it is that everyone's come onto this post and didn't argue about the fakery on my last post. If you want to argue reality please go onto that post. https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911-the-movie
Petra struggles with "new physics" most people do....
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;
1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications
A Collapse / Demolition Thought Experiment
Put on your thinking caps students
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/a-911-thought-experiment
Controlled Demolition Expert Speaks Out!
What we saw on 9/11 was not due to jet fuel, bombs, or thermite
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/controlled-demolition-expert-speaks
WHAT exactly happened to ALL 7 buildings with a WTC prefix on Sept 11, 2001?
The following points need to be made regarding what exactly happened to the buildings and the observable evidence at ground zero, that the “9/11 truth movement” never touch on…
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/what-exactly-happened-to-all-7-buildings
Nah, he's right, as I've already explained
David Hughes wrote a another sublime article as well....
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
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;
1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications
I do not trust Agent 12345etc to be impartial.
Both him and Tim Truth came out firmly against Methylene blue, Ivermectin and vitamin D3.
I don't agree with Agent on some things but on others I do and on others not sure.
Ditto. What I don't believe I can usually find humor in. Some of what I have learned has been life changing. And it is not at all the first time I have encountered such a source. There must be a principle there somewhere, like when living in a wrecked world, if you want to understand it you have to pick through the wreckage. Or something.
This "agent" is an agent probably - he also shills for "voting" for the mega fake Trump even haha.... but yes he has some good stuff too like his articles about Methylene blue, Ivermectin and (fake) vitamins D3 and B12
“A quick and simple debunk” full of conjecture and assumptions, have you actually read Judy’s book?? Her research is some of the most meticulous and thorough I have ever read on any topic. You’ve debunked precisely none of it here
Vast amounts of seeming research don't necessarily mean a whole lot.
The debunk comes purely from the fact that the evidence of the destructions is fake.
There are no assumptions or conjecture made re that claim. The purported evidence of the destructions is clearly faked - see https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911-the-movie
The fact that the evidence is faked invalidates ALL hypotheses including controlled demolition if we base them on the purported evidence. While I used to claim WTC-7's destruction was controlled demolition based on the purported evidence, now that I've realised the footage is fake, I judge simply by the fact that the only known method of destruction of high rise steel frame buildings is controlled demolition. We have no reason to believe otherwise.
If you want to argue that the footage is real, go ahead.
I have no doubt much of 9/11 was staged and was a government and/or oligarchy inside job, but suggesting every single element was and that every witness was an actor is bordering on ridiculous and is the least likely explanation IMHO
I've met two people who said they were in the vicinity on the day and I have no reason to disbelieve them. One said he experienced an issue with breathing because of the smoke/dust although he wasn't that close as I recall and he was obliged to walk home. The other said he saw a plane heading to the South Tower. What the second person saw I do not know but it wasn't the alleged airliner which is the main point and what they show us of the three planes penetrating buildings is certainly fake.
If a witness says something that doesn't seem to promote propaganda then we can accept them as genuine but if they say something that seems to promote propaganda we can infer that they're an actor. It is very obvious in a number of cases that an alleged witness is an actor. Admittedly, prior to the person I know saying he said he saw a plane I'd tend to infer anyone saying they saw a plane was an actor but I believe this person saw something ... I just don't know what. The thing is people can be perfectly genuine witnesses there at the time but still be subject to fakery of some kind ... so whether genuine or an actor we can't treat witness statements as necessarily being good evidence.
I have no problem believing both that people saw either planes, or what they thought to be planes and that the planes penetrating the buildings is fake, that’s super obvious, the rest of your argument appears very weak…
“I've met two people who said they were in the vicinity on the day and I have no reason to disbelieve them” You are trying to debunk Judy’s meticulous evidence based summary with this?!?
Not at all, I'm just trying to say that witness testimony doesn't mean anything of itself and I believe that Judy bases her argument in part at least on witness testimony.
What DOES debunk Judy's argument is that she relies on imagery for it so if the footage of the destructions is fake then no hypothesis can be based on it including controlled demolition the one I support. I support it not on the basis of the visual evidence (although I did before I realised it was fake) but on the basis that it's the only known method and we have no reason to believe another method was used.
Beyond the destruction footage Judy bases her argument on clearly faked images such as the "toasted" cars.
How can still images of the dust, but very little structural steel/rubble post “collapse” be faked??
And why are the toasted cars “clearly faked”, what hard evidence do you have for this assertion?
Have u heard already the commies in 1920s Russia used to fake photos regulary(!) and they did not even have photoshop. Are u living under a rock ? Just curious, why would in 2000s photos not be faked when in 1920s it was "normal"
Where did the rubble/buildings go if it wasn’t ‘dustified’ as Judy proposes?
Firstly, images of the rubble look staged and we don't know how quickly they removed rubble nor do we know how deep the holes in the ground were created by the demolitions. We are told the towers were missing floors and were largely empty. We simply do not know what the rubble should have looked like nor how much images of the rubble are faked so it's not an area we should put much weight on.
This is a great gallery of photos of Ground Zero provided by alucientes but my feeling is that they look staged.
https://ajl.smugmug.com/911/Ground-Zero
Petra has a mental block of accepting the truth of the events of 9/111 like so many others...
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;
1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications
Controlled Demolition Expert Speaks Out!
What we saw on 9/11 was not due to jet fuel, bombs, or thermite
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/controlled-demolition-expert-speaks
The cover-up of the cover-up of 9/11, started in 2005, with the formation of the "9/11 Scholars for 9/11 truth", as discussed in my article....
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
It is all explained w/ "the empty towers" theory from LR forums (now gone). But there are still sources out there if u care to look. Yes I posted there too "back in the days", so it must be good :)=))
If the dustification story is correct, then it seems that lack of concrete itself would not be enough to deny a large pile as there would still be a very tall pile of steel girders. I am not a 9.11 expert and have no data to do a calculation on.
"Dustification" does not exist, a made up word form the Jewdy Woods shill crowd or even herself just like "toasted cars" LOL
Just means small particulate pulverization. On the internet, there is some flexibility in terms, I'm not a Woods shill. Take it easy Frank.
Science - truth - is not "flexible"! Yes the inet and chitchat is "flexible". But Jewdy claims to be "scientific"...and already debunks herself w/ made up children words :) But see above my comment eg the "interview"