You do have to have a "conversation" discussing various things pertaining to 9/11, kinda like an argument you'd have with a normie, that still believes a plane crashed into a building and took it out.
I asked Grok at one stage if it read Dr Wood's qui-tam case, asked for a one word answer and the answer was no. Same for her book...
Told Grok it's being disingenuous for having an opinion on evidence that it's not looked at and only based it's opinion on second hand opinions of others, that just wanted to discredit her as a person, not the evidence she presents, as you can see in the last video in the article, with the truth-traitor, Richard Gage.
Then later, I introduced myself as the 9/11 Revisionist profile on X, as well as the articles it skimmed from substack, was written by me.
That’s a really fascinating read, thanks! I’ve thought for a while if the powers that be will begin to become concerned about AI and it’s potential influence over historical events? Mark Conlon should do the same thing in regard to his research/articles on the planes…
the point is, that the towers, concrete, steel could have never 'melted' down with jet fuel...,, assuming the official narrative.
I thought you will grasp that part.. I'm just pointing out an ERROR of AI's citing melting/ignition temperatures of specific materials, which when presented with the RIGHT numbers, only strengthens the NON official version of 9/11, your version/arguments btw......
you are WELCOME! Only few know that much as you do, and to try to replace it with AI's knowledge (only that what programmers COPY from others, and that can be wrong or even purposefully wrong...) without double check can be risky....
I'm entirely for Prof. Judy Wood, and every piece of evidence she presented in her book, and you are adding here so much to it too.
Oh, just need to add, personally i'm not using the AI's software packages, just feel it is humiliating for a human brain to rely on well, machines..
We're not relying on machines to validate human thought processes, but showing the limitation, but with the correct challenges, backed up by evidence, it has no alterative, but to admit defeat, referencing the limited programming it was given to start with.
Absent of all the relevant evidence, I can persuade you that a bunny is a cat, just like the 9/11 truth movement sold people the controlled demolition, using bombs and thermite narrative.
Great method. I recently came across the 4/1/1967 CIA document "Countering Criticism of the Warren Report"- it is a short 2 1/2 page instruction dispatch with the aim "to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of conspiracy theorists" Not sure if this is the earliest document where they used that term - but anyway its methods line up. CIA DOC 1035 960
As much as I look at the DEW theories they just don’t make sense to me. It brings up many questions. DEW is directed, it has a source. What would be the source location? Ground based? How could it be assured nothing would pass through this directed energy beam like a helicopter? Would we not see a difference in the effect from the leading face to the downstream face? Maybe it’s space based? If this weapon exists why hasn’t it been used in the almost constant wars since 9/11? I can only imagine the energy required to cause so much destruction.
Ok, so you bring up a couple of points, which hints at the fact that maybe you haven't yet watched any of Dr Wood's presentations and you've yet to study her book?
Is my assumptions correct? If I am, here is the link to her 2012 presentation and get back to me after you've done some due diligence. Then I'll answer the rest of your points raised.
Dr Morgan Reynolds & John Herold's conversations with ChatGPT is mind blowing.
A Real Boeing Collision vs. 9/11: A Conversation with ChatGPT
Link: https://nomoregames.net/2024/12/29/a-real-boeing-collision-vs-9-11-a-conversation-with-chatgpt/
Also read the two Operation Headfake discussions with ChatGPT.
1. https://nomoregames.net/chatgpt-and-9-11-operation-headfake/
2. https://nomoregames.net/2025/03/03/headfake-2-0-drinks-with-a-chatgpt-9-11-operative/
The second one, I collated into a video, with audio narration and the text on the screen.
It's only an hour long...
Operative Exposes the 9/11 Illusion
Link: https://rumble.com/v6q7pk8-operative-exposes-the-911-illusion.html
This article has been published in the Canadian Newspaper Druthers, where they publish 200 000 copies a month.
Website: https://druthers.ca/newspapers/
Read my article on page 7 - https://druthers.ca/wp-content/uploads/druthers-MAY-2025-resized.pdf
On 21 May 2025 - This article also got translated into Turkish, wow!
https://blog.sunaytech.com/11-eylul-kanit-tartismasi-grok-ai-ile-bir-sohbet/
Yes, I did...
LOL, thanx for the compliment.
My research file on 9/11 is 674 GB, with 13 800 files, well sorted and easy for me to get to various pieces of evidence and links to sources.
Intense! The use of AI ethically shown here. Excellent synopsis. Concur completely with the bottom line!
You do have to have a "conversation" discussing various things pertaining to 9/11, kinda like an argument you'd have with a normie, that still believes a plane crashed into a building and took it out.
I asked Grok at one stage if it read Dr Wood's qui-tam case, asked for a one word answer and the answer was no. Same for her book...
Told Grok it's being disingenuous for having an opinion on evidence that it's not looked at and only based it's opinion on second hand opinions of others, that just wanted to discredit her as a person, not the evidence she presents, as you can see in the last video in the article, with the truth-traitor, Richard Gage.
Then later, I introduced myself as the 9/11 Revisionist profile on X, as well as the articles it skimmed from substack, was written by me.
Then I instructed it to do the deep dive...
Excellent approach!
Dr Morgan Reynolds & John Herold's conversations with ChatGPT is mind blowing.
A Real Boeing Collision vs. 9/11: A Conversation with ChatGPT
Link: https://nomoregames.net/2024/12/29/a-real-boeing-collision-vs-9-11-a-conversation-with-chatgpt/
Also read the two Operation Headfake discussions with ChatGPT.
1. https://nomoregames.net/chatgpt-and-9-11-operation-headfake/
2. https://nomoregames.net/2025/03/03/headfake-2-0-drinks-with-a-chatgpt-9-11-operative/
The second one, I collated into a video, with audio narration and the text on the screen. It's only an hour long...
Operative Exposes the 9/11 Illusion
Link: https://rumble.com/v6q7pk8-operative-exposes-the-911-illusion.html
That’s a really fascinating read, thanks! I’ve thought for a while if the powers that be will begin to become concerned about AI and it’s potential influence over historical events? Mark Conlon should do the same thing in regard to his research/articles on the planes…
Dr Morgan Reynolds' A Real Boeing Collision vs. 9/11: A Conversation with ChatGPT
Link: https://nomoregames.net/2024/12/29/a-real-boeing-collision-vs-9-11-a-conversation-with-chatgpt/
Also read the two Operation Headfake discussions with ChatGPT.
1. https://nomoregames.net/chatgpt-and-9-11-operation-headfake/
2. https://nomoregames.net/2025/03/03/headfake-2-0-drinks-with-a-chatgpt-9-11-operative/
Some Friday evening reading to tuck in to later! Thanks for the shares mate 🤜🏻🤛🏻
The second one, I collated into a video, with audio narration and the text on the screen. It's only an hour long...
Operative Exposes the 9/11 Illusion
Link: https://rumble.com/v6q7pk8-operative-exposes-the-911-illusion.html
Quote from the AI's answer: 'jet fuel caps at 1,000°C, steel needs 1,500°C' ??????
Here few resources for the RIGHT numbers:
1. solids/metals https://www.onlinemetals.com/en/melting-points
2. liquids/fuels https://tnb.ca.abb.com/en/pdf-catalogues/hazlux/ignition-temperatures-and-group-classification.pdf
Not sure what the 'caps' means, but OLD data with similar fuels, except when you add nano's the temperatures can sink even further:
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA021320.pdf
show ignition temperatures of most fuels is ~1000F=~(500-600)degC, whereby the melting temp. of steel can go as much as 3x that amount..
And you're trying to make the case for what exactly?
There were no planes that hit the towers.
It was 3D Volumetric Projection Technology, aka Project Blue Beam.
the point is, that the towers, concrete, steel could have never 'melted' down with jet fuel...,, assuming the official narrative.
I thought you will grasp that part.. I'm just pointing out an ERROR of AI's citing melting/ignition temperatures of specific materials, which when presented with the RIGHT numbers, only strengthens the NON official version of 9/11, your version/arguments btw......
Great! Thank you. ;-)
you are WELCOME! Only few know that much as you do, and to try to replace it with AI's knowledge (only that what programmers COPY from others, and that can be wrong or even purposefully wrong...) without double check can be risky....
I'm entirely for Prof. Judy Wood, and every piece of evidence she presented in her book, and you are adding here so much to it too.
Oh, just need to add, personally i'm not using the AI's software packages, just feel it is humiliating for a human brain to rely on well, machines..
We're not relying on machines to validate human thought processes, but showing the limitation, but with the correct challenges, backed up by evidence, it has no alterative, but to admit defeat, referencing the limited programming it was given to start with.
Absent of all the relevant evidence, I can persuade you that a bunny is a cat, just like the 9/11 truth movement sold people the controlled demolition, using bombs and thermite narrative.
9/11 is and still is, a 23+ year PSYOP.
Great method. I recently came across the 4/1/1967 CIA document "Countering Criticism of the Warren Report"- it is a short 2 1/2 page instruction dispatch with the aim "to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of conspiracy theorists" Not sure if this is the earliest document where they used that term - but anyway its methods line up. CIA DOC 1035 960
https://archive.org/details/CIADOC1035960
As much as I look at the DEW theories they just don’t make sense to me. It brings up many questions. DEW is directed, it has a source. What would be the source location? Ground based? How could it be assured nothing would pass through this directed energy beam like a helicopter? Would we not see a difference in the effect from the leading face to the downstream face? Maybe it’s space based? If this weapon exists why hasn’t it been used in the almost constant wars since 9/11? I can only imagine the energy required to cause so much destruction.
Ok, so you bring up a couple of points, which hints at the fact that maybe you haven't yet watched any of Dr Wood's presentations and you've yet to study her book?
Is my assumptions correct? If I am, here is the link to her 2012 presentation and get back to me after you've done some due diligence. Then I'll answer the rest of your points raised.
Dr Wood 2012 presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWNzq9OWGmY
Condemnation, without investigation, is the height of ignorance - Albert Einstein.