Sept 11 is a crime that should be solved by a forensic study of the evidence. Before it can be determined who did it, it must first be determined what was done and how it was done.
The order of crime solving is to determine
1) WHAT happened, then
2) HOW it happened (e.g., what weapon), then
3) WHO did it. And only then can we address
4) WHY they did it (i.e. motive).
Let us remember what is required to (legally) convict someone of a crime.
You cannot convict someone of a crime based on belief.
You cannot convict someone of a crime if you don’t even know what crime to charge them with.
If you accuse someone of murder using a gun, you’d better be sure the body has a bullet hole in it. And yet before noon on 9/11/01, we were told who did it, how they did it, and why they did it (they hate us for our freedoms); before any investigation had been conducted to determine what had even been done.
Many people have speculated as to who committed the crimes of 9/11 and/or how they did so. But without addressing what happened, speculation of this kind is nothing more than conspiracy theory, a phrase that also describes the 19 bad guys with box cutters story we were given before noon on 9/11/01.
Dr Wood’s research is not speculation.
It is a forensics investigation of what happened to the WTC complex on 9/11/01.
She does not address who did it, nor am I concerned with that question right now.
Before issues of that kind can be addressed, we must first determine what happened.
By definition, research that is purely empirical cannot be about and has nothing to do with conspiracy theory of any kind.
The fact that others (in the mainstream media, the alternative media, and the so-called 9/11 truth movement) promote various theories about 9/11 is irrelevant to Dr Wood’s research. On the other hand, to determine what happened, we must address all of the available evidence.
Anyone declaring who did what or how they did it before they have determined what was done is merely promoting either speculation or propaganda.
The popular chant, “9/11 was an inside job,” is, scientifically speaking, no different from the chant that “19 bad guys with box cutters did it.” Neither one is the result of a scientific investigation supported by evidence that would be admissible in court.
Neither identifies what crime was committed or how it was committed.
There are a lot of coincidences, there are suspects as to might have had some sort of involvement in it, but for now it’s all they are... Potential suspects.
Dr Wood sued 23 NIST subcontractors who were tasked with security and clean up at ground zero. These companies also helped write reports that made up the 10 000 NIST report. Two of the main defendants in the case were ARA and SAIC.
If we weren’t railroaded by the Supreme Court in 2009, she would have been able to depose these 23 companies and in so doing, would have been closer to determining the WHAT and HOW and then we’d get a lot closer to WHO and WHY.
But we can have our suspects for now, but we need hard evidence to convict.
LOL - Again, here we have someone that has not yet read the book or followed my substack article series... I guess you should start with my other Building 7 articles referenced in this article, dear.
Now sweetie - I've watched WAY more videos of controlled demolitions than you...
Then before you go running away crying and telling tales to Richard Gage and the architects for an engineered truth, and the rest of the merry band of misfits, that I hurt your feelings, here are some more articles you should also read.
As a matter of fact, you should start at my first article and make your way through all of them, till you get to this one #54 of 55 (There are more coming)
Official narrative – Jet fuel. Option behind door no 1 – explosives, door no 2 – thermite, door no 3 – buried or mini nukes. Just don’t look at where the EVIDENCE points to.
SAIC and ARA - US Military Industrial Complex subcontractors that were tasked with security and cleanup of ground zero, as well as 21 other NIST subcontractors writing reports for the 10 000 page NIST report, were the main defendants in the 2007 and 2009 suits for SCIENCE FRAUD...
Please, before you comment again - go read my 55 substack articles.
These 23 companies are part of a society, you're not a part of...
P, off topic but pertains to the destruction of humanity by these deep fakes.
Human sacrifice! Blood rituals! Modern version- Humans as chattels like we are farm animals. Currently we are being experimented on, as if death is a non issue! Until this is our main focus humans remains locked in the current paradigm of circular logic that doesn’t get to the core issue of a loving species. Give that some deep think...
NIST used a technique that is not uncommon in science fraud and the technique that they used was basically to define their objectives in such a way as to make sure that they basically did not investigate what happened.
NIST set up its investigation so that the starting point was the moment after the alleged jetliners hit the towers which literally meant that they did not have to confirm that jetliners hit the towers and the fact of the matter is no jetliners did hit those towers. And then they concluded their investigation at the point where or when the towers were about to be destroyed.
Here you have a 10,000-page NIST investigation that investigated everything that happened after the towers suffered damaging explosions and then ended before the towers underwent their final demise.
Their language was “up to the initiation of collapse.” That is science fraud. - lawyer Jerry Leaphart.
Now if you're not going to do the due diligence and work through what i'm sharing with you and you are going to keep up with your brainless uninformed questions, I'll put you in the naughty corner for a week.
If you're just in my comment sections to argue, i have no time for you. You either want to learn, or scroll past.
Thanks for your answer. Indeed, I already downloaded the items you put at the end of your article. Another question I have is what do you think about James Corbett's reports regarding to the same topic. Is he just another misleading "truther" or he really goes into the "meat and potatoes" of the stuff?
I have been following Corbett's work for numerous years and he does great work, BUT when it comes to 9/11, he's rather disingenuous by not wanting to go into WHAT actually happened to 7 buildings with a WTC prefix. He's made the mistake of outsourcing his thinking to Richard Gage, formerly involved with the architects for an engineered truth and for some odd reason, he's completely and utterly dismissive and sidesteps Dr Wood's evidence presented., which is rather strange.
He did great work with his 9/11 documentaries, but again, that is great bluff around WHAT actually happened at the WTC complex...
One you critically look at all the distraction narratives of explosives / thermite / nukes and then the EVIDENCE Dr Wood presents in her book, as well as the court cases she filed in 2007 and 2009 - https://www.drjudywood.com/wp/court-case-qui-tam/ and just how an industry was built by the 9/11 "truth" movement to steer you away from what Dr Wood presents, you'll stat seeing the patterns of deceit.
I also highly suggest reading BOTH Andrew Johnsons free pdf downloadable books, as he has been chronicling these distraction methods employed by the various "truther" talking heads since 2005, as he too was sucked in by the 1st and 2nd layer of the cover up, until his eyes opened.
9/11 requires of you to put in the time and effort to look at everything as a whole, as a 15 minute video is NOT going to give you the answers you seek.
Most people it seems don't really want to know the truth for themselves. it's quite sad really - Good intentioned people got bamboozled and they just don't want to admit it.
There are main 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11:
1. POOR Problem solving skills
2. Group Think (Peer Pressure, running with the herd)
3. They just can't handle the implications (they wish it weren't true)
Over the last 22 years people got financially and emotionally invested to the 2nd and 3rd layer of the cover up and for them to admit that they have been fooled, is just too much of a bitter pill to swallow.
OK, thank you. Indeed, I read once in a site (I don't remember the name now) that Corbett was actually a gatekeeper regarding to 9/11.
That surprised me a lot, because his work has been for me and many others a great "eye opener"... Fortunately, I don"t use to "worship" any source of information, but just take what makes sense to me.
Regarding the Twin Towers, I always asked myself why the debris from the buildings appeared to be very sparse, and, when I saw the videos in YouTube, Dr. Woods explanation (dustification) is the obvious one.
It's a mirarle that her videos are still in YouTube. Do you know a site where I can download those videos, please?
I appreciate you writing an article about Edward Current's WTC7 hoax video. Only the very first part addresses it and then drifts the focus onto many other subjects. I also appreciate the constructive dialogue that we have going on. I felt it was more appropriate to address a few things here rather than approve the post in my FB group and I do so respectfully and with an attitude of finding common ground.
The three points you made about what you have learned from the first part need some clarification.
1.) The building did not fall silently. While it is difficult to find video of Building 7's collapse up close with sound, the most famous collapse video does have a tell that can only be heard if you put earbuds in and listen carefully. In this longer clip at about the 1 to 2 second mark you can indeed hear a very low boom a couple seconds before the NE corner of the penthouse starts to collapse:
In addition, eyewitnesses reported hearing explosions, including the testimony of Kevin McPadden who overheard a countdown from an alleged Red Cross member's radio.
2.) The seismic reading is not in line with a fire induced collapse, BUT IS in line with that of a conventional controlled demolition. Here is written testimony from André Rousseau dated April 14, 2020.*
"It is my professional opinion that NIST was incorrect in attributing the two seismic
signals generated during the destruction of WTC 7 to a cascade of floor failures inside
the building and to the initiation of the building’s global collapse. It is my
professional opinion that the two seismic signals must have been generated by two
subaerial explosions that corresponded in time and location to the initiation of the
collapse of WTC 7’s east penthouse and to the initiation of global collapse,
respectively."
*I have the following degrees relevant to the testimony I am providing: Licence
(equivalent to a bachelor’s degree) in Earth Sciences, a Diplôme d’Etudes
Approfondies (DEA) (equivalent to a Master’s degree) in Tectonophysics,
Oceanography, and a DEA in Applied Physics from the Faculté des Sciences de Paris;
a Thèse 3ème Cycle (equivalent to a Ph.D.) from Université Rennes 2; and a Thèse
d’Etat (roughly equivalent to a Ph.D.) from Université Bordeaux 1.
3.) When looking at the dust cloud was also not in line with a conventional controlled demolition.
I concur with this statement and hope that we can work together in finding common ground on how the collapse of WTC7 was initiated. I concur with you in that it could not have been a fire-induced collapse, as the 4 year study by Leroy Hulsey at the University of Alaska Fairbanks also agrees.
Please forgive any unintended tone in responding to you here. My efforts are to get to the truth and if that wholly or in-part can be attributed to DEWs then so be it. I'm currently entertaining the hypothesis that several different mechanisms were used in conjunction to bring the buildings down. I do not think that NanoThermite was the sole mechanism. I'm even considering that NanoThermite could have been activated by directed energy. Again, I do hope we can continue to have a dialogue because if both of our motives are sincere, we are doing this to bring light to the cover-up of 9/11 and get justice not just for those who died and continue to die, but also for everyone in the USA and the world that was affected by this most heinous crime.
1. "then drifts the focus onto many other subjects" - Discussing the lack of a corresponding seismic reading WITHOUT a P or S waves - Unheard of in a conventional controlled demolition, especially for a 230 000 ton building coming down and then other anomalies that tie into it? Really Gene?
2. Your point on it falling silently - The montage of various angles of Building 7 going down, proves the silent fall of the building... A conventional controlled demolition of a building has numerous charges going off for multiple seconds during the controlled demolition. Read my other Building 7 articles linked at the bottom of the article.
4. Your call to authority with regards to André Rousseau and if you read his statement correctly as set out in his paper he actually states the lack of seismic reading is in line with the weight being lifted off the ground and thus you can compare that to someone getting up from a conventional spring mattress - Richard Gage uses neuro-linguistic techniques to swing the statement into his narrative he wants to sell you when discussing André Rousseau. A 230 000 ton building hitting the ground will leave a P and S wave - The Twin Towers and B7 did NOT.
5. Leroy Hulsey did a 4 year study at a cost of $316 000 and wrote a paper to debunk NIST, but did not make ANY argument for conventional controlled demolition. The paper is peer reviewed by people directly tied to AE and the paper was NOT independently peer reviewed. It's ONLY published on the AE website - Thus has no credibility, it's only useful to sell it to unsuspecting, over trusting people who do not know better, making them think that it holds some weight. - Sorry, but that is a FACT!
You should really read my other three Building 7 articles as well.
With regards to having a continued dialogue - I look forward to your feedback on my refutation to the 10 points you raised against DEW, as you will see I fully explain why there was no heat involved in the demise of the buildings and that thermite, in whatever form, is a smoke screen (pardon the pun).
Some interesting points that I'll look further into, but your answer for #2 totally ignored the evidence that proves the building did not fall silently. I'm willing to make concessions if you provide something solid, but you need to be willing to as well.
How many conventional controlled demo videos have you watched in your life?
I have a couple of hundred under my belt. Not to mention the multitude of steel structures...
Here is one you can watch so long - What a steel dominant building structure 'looks like' when it falls over from CD. The sound signature of this steel structure when being demolished is different than concrete dominant building. Clanging and banging of the steel being rung in the process that is not heard otherwise.
Again it wasn't one single little boom. Please address it in conjunction with Ashleigh Banfield's video clip and Kevin McPadden's testimony.
How many conventional controlled demo videos you or I have watched is irrelevant. I don't need to watch your video to know that every boom on 9/11 wasn't a bomb.
No thank you. I want the 9/11 WarRoom to focus on strategy and activism that we can all agree on. In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, liberty; and in everything love. We all can agree that we were lied to. I want to concentrate on common ground. Side-discussions are great and what were are doing here. Is your position that there were no explosions in Manhattan on 9/11 relative to the collapses of the three buildings?
O, and Gene - please unblock me on FB so that I can comment directly on your comments you make on my comments.
After all, it is in the hope we can continue to have a dialogue because if both of our motives are sincere, we are doing this to bring light to the cover-up of 9/11 and get justice, not just for those who died and continue to die, but also for everyone in the USA and the world that was affected by this most heinous crime.
Whatever audio from alleged witnesses or alleged seismic information or lack of telltale sounds of explosions really needs to be taken with a grain of salt as all could be easily faked or removed as one of the many layers of propaganda used to distract away from the fundamental truth of 9/11, namely, that death and injury were staged which they TELL us Revelation of the Method style underneath the propaganda - one example being the complete nonsensicality in the 118 firefighter testimonies and and another being reporter Cynthia McFadden telling us loud and clear that no injured were being taken into the nearby hospital and trauma centre even though we are told that 3,000 people died and 6,000 were injured - but so very many more indications that DEATH AND INJURY WERE STAGED AND 9/11 WAS JUST A GLORIFIED DRILL.
The buildings in general are distraction away from the much more revealing faked plane crashes and ludicrous failure of defence. If we know the plane crashes were faked then we know that the buildings came down by a controlled means automatically - it doesn't work the other way. And does it really matter how exactly they came down? I don't get it - who cares? It was a controlled means whether explosives, thermite, nuclear or DEWs. What is the importance for goodness sake? All these different methods are part of the propaganda strategy to distract and fragment the argument. If we know that thermite and nuclear are PROPAGANDA what makes us so sure that DEWs aren't also part of that propaganda stream? Can't you see it's a case of, "Hey let's get everyone arguing over the COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT means of destruction."
As far as I can tell WTC-7's destruction looks EXACTLY like any other similar kind of controlled implosion and that's enough for me.
The military might be involved in all kinds of stuff but where is their experience and expertise in demolishing skyscrapers? Controlled Demolition, Inc, (CDI) on the other hand has a great deal of experience in bringing down large buildings, they hold world records in it, in fact ... and we're told that CDI presented a cleanup plan for the WTC ELEVEN days after 9/11. You're all familiar with the Masonic number 11, right? Does anyone seriously think that CDI didn't have an awful lot to do with bringing down the buildings on and after 9/11? Why wouldn't they just use their tried and trusted methods? So if we accept that CDI had an awful lot to do with bringing the buildings down are we going to believe that on 9/11 and on that day only they abandoned all their professional standards and ethics to only partly evacuate the buildings?
You and I have danced around this numerous times and you lack of understanding and your unwillingness to actually look at what I present to you, shows how disingenuous you really are and how you do your handle "Psy-Op detective" an injustice, as you seem to have fallen for the psy-op yourself.
2. Group Think (Peer Pressure, running with the herd)
3. They just can't handle the implications (they wish it weren't true)
When it comes to the people in the Towers - No trace was found for over 1000 people after the disintegration of the Twin Towers... 😨 They vanished into thin air!
Math Easy Solutions downloaded and combined all 500 PDFs of 9/11 firefighters, paramedics, and EMT witness testimony from the NY Times archive and combined them into a searchable 7,058 page PDF! - https://1drv.ms/b/s!As32ynv0LoaIirAetue35QI7OqdiLw
The September 11, 2001 attacks left everyone dazed and confused, trying to make sense of a multitude of things happening around them at once and news reporters had a very difficult time putting into words what they were seeing and what they were hearing, and if you are a hardened 9/11 "conspiracy theorist", you’ll be well aware the TV coverage and witness testimonies are a rabbit hole all by itself.
So, again – All these testimonies are from people that witnessed and lived through MASSIVELY stressful event, and they tried to make sense of what they experienced. I do not want to take away from their experiences, but I ask the question again.
With regards to Building 7 - Just because it LOOKS like a conventional controlled demolition, does not mean it is, maybe you should read the article again and the other Building 7 articles referenced. And your claim that the seismic readings were fakes, is a laughable comment in itself, because it was recorded at 13 separate seismic stations in five states - It was calculated that most of the energy did not reach the ground; it was mainly used up converting steel, concrete — and human beings — to dust
Then if you want to get into black op technology, which points to the use of DEW to turn buildings into dust, since the 1950's, you better not listen to Dean Warwick's testimony from 2006 - https://911revision.substack.com/p/david-icke-on-911
He died suddenly a few months after his revelation, whilst doing a seminar...
Or the work of Lt Col Tom E. Bearden also discussing the DEW tech in this 1985 CNN investigative report, discussing what they picked up on satellite imagery in the late 1970's.
LOL - Please refute the evidence in this book: https://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com/
Sept 11 is a crime that should be solved by a forensic study of the evidence. Before it can be determined who did it, it must first be determined what was done and how it was done.
The order of crime solving is to determine
1) WHAT happened, then
2) HOW it happened (e.g., what weapon), then
3) WHO did it. And only then can we address
4) WHY they did it (i.e. motive).
Let us remember what is required to (legally) convict someone of a crime.
You cannot convict someone of a crime based on belief.
You cannot convict someone of a crime if you don’t even know what crime to charge them with.
If you accuse someone of murder using a gun, you’d better be sure the body has a bullet hole in it. And yet before noon on 9/11/01, we were told who did it, how they did it, and why they did it (they hate us for our freedoms); before any investigation had been conducted to determine what had even been done.
Many people have speculated as to who committed the crimes of 9/11 and/or how they did so. But without addressing what happened, speculation of this kind is nothing more than conspiracy theory, a phrase that also describes the 19 bad guys with box cutters story we were given before noon on 9/11/01.
Dr Wood’s research is not speculation.
It is a forensics investigation of what happened to the WTC complex on 9/11/01.
She does not address who did it, nor am I concerned with that question right now.
Before issues of that kind can be addressed, we must first determine what happened.
By definition, research that is purely empirical cannot be about and has nothing to do with conspiracy theory of any kind.
The fact that others (in the mainstream media, the alternative media, and the so-called 9/11 truth movement) promote various theories about 9/11 is irrelevant to Dr Wood’s research. On the other hand, to determine what happened, we must address all of the available evidence.
Anyone declaring who did what or how they did it before they have determined what was done is merely promoting either speculation or propaganda.
The popular chant, “9/11 was an inside job,” is, scientifically speaking, no different from the chant that “19 bad guys with box cutters did it.” Neither one is the result of a scientific investigation supported by evidence that would be admissible in court.
Neither identifies what crime was committed or how it was committed.
There are a lot of coincidences, there are suspects as to might have had some sort of involvement in it, but for now it’s all they are... Potential suspects.
Dr Wood sued 23 NIST subcontractors who were tasked with security and clean up at ground zero. These companies also helped write reports that made up the 10 000 NIST report. Two of the main defendants in the case were ARA and SAIC.
If we weren’t railroaded by the Supreme Court in 2009, she would have been able to depose these 23 companies and in so doing, would have been closer to determining the WHAT and HOW and then we’d get a lot closer to WHO and WHY.
But we can have our suspects for now, but we need hard evidence to convict.
Read Dr Wood’s book: Where did the towers go?
Feel free to read the court transcripts: https://www.drjudywood.com/wp/court-case-qui-tam/
LOL - Again, here we have someone that has not yet read the book or followed my substack article series... I guess you should start with my other Building 7 articles referenced in this article, dear.
Now sweetie - I've watched WAY more videos of controlled demolitions than you...
Here this one article that should tickle your fancy: https://911revision.substack.com/p/a-last-thought-for-2023
Then before you go running away crying and telling tales to Richard Gage and the architects for an engineered truth, and the rest of the merry band of misfits, that I hurt your feelings, here are some more articles you should also read.
As a matter of fact, you should start at my first article and make your way through all of them, till you get to this one #54 of 55 (There are more coming)
Was every BOOM a bomb on 9/11?
Not everything that goes boom is a bomb.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/was-every-boom-a-bomb-on-911
The controlled demolition of the thermite & nuke theory
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-controlled-demolition-of-thermite
Expanded: The controlled demolition of the 9/11 thermite theory
People are so easily led by perceived "experts".
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/expanded-the-controlled-demolition
Nukes - The distraction behind door no 3
Official narrative – Jet fuel. Option behind door no 1 – explosives, door no 2 – thermite, door no 3 – buried or mini nukes. Just don’t look at where the EVIDENCE points to.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/nuking-the-steel-of-the-twin-towers
Is the 9/11 "truth" movement a distraction movement?
What happens if you ask TRUTH questions?
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/questions-for-the-911-truther-talking
Hugs and kisses - Enjoy the homework and remember kids, DON'T outsource your thinking.
Do your own research (reading).
You are deluded.
SAIC and ARA - US Military Industrial Complex subcontractors that were tasked with security and cleanup of ground zero, as well as 21 other NIST subcontractors writing reports for the 10 000 page NIST report, were the main defendants in the 2007 and 2009 suits for SCIENCE FRAUD...
Please, before you comment again - go read my 55 substack articles.
These 23 companies are part of a society, you're not a part of...
DEPS - The Directed Energy Professional Society
You'll be surprised to hear who the members are.
Read the article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/deps-the-directed-energy-professional
Stop proving how little you know about the events of 9/11.
Great work. I've been into the DEW theory for years. Cheers
Please see the following articles related to DEW....
1. DEW in Antarctica (Links to a video playlist on DEW) https://911revision.substack.com/p/steven-greers-disclosure-and-energy
2. DEPS - The Directed Energy Professional Society - https://911revision.substack.com/p/deps-the-directed-energy-professional
Thanks my friend,I'll take a look at those tonight.
P, off topic but pertains to the destruction of humanity by these deep fakes.
Human sacrifice! Blood rituals! Modern version- Humans as chattels like we are farm animals. Currently we are being experimented on, as if death is a non issue! Until this is our main focus humans remains locked in the current paradigm of circular logic that doesn’t get to the core issue of a loving species. Give that some deep think...
The opiate of humanity is religious cults!
Blood sacrifice is accepted...
If you can't to get into that line of thinking, then you'd most probably enjoy this documentary...
Link: https://rumble.com/v4irvwr-911-alchemy-a-big-idea.html
Thanks!
Thanks- great to see someone on top of this
Sorry, is the first time that I know about other explanations regarding 9/11. Then there wasn't any controlled demolition involved in the event?
Thanks in advance for your answer.
LOL - You're so funny.... The 16 survivors in stairwell B of the North tower tell a whole different story.
You should ask gage why he never mentions them... Here is a whole playlist with their testimonies. https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/9-11-Survivors:e
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11:
1. POOR Problem solving skills
2. Group Think (Peer Pressure, running with the herd)
3. They just can't handle the implications (they wish it weren't true)
Read Dr Wood’s book: Where did the towers go? https://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com
NIST used a technique that is not uncommon in science fraud and the technique that they used was basically to define their objectives in such a way as to make sure that they basically did not investigate what happened.
NIST set up its investigation so that the starting point was the moment after the alleged jetliners hit the towers which literally meant that they did not have to confirm that jetliners hit the towers and the fact of the matter is no jetliners did hit those towers. And then they concluded their investigation at the point where or when the towers were about to be destroyed.
Here you have a 10,000-page NIST investigation that investigated everything that happened after the towers suffered damaging explosions and then ended before the towers underwent their final demise.
Their language was “up to the initiation of collapse.” That is science fraud. - lawyer Jerry Leaphart.
Listen to this: https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/Who-NIST-paid-NOT-to-investigate2:a
Now if you're not going to do the due diligence and work through what i'm sharing with you and you are going to keep up with your brainless uninformed questions, I'll put you in the naughty corner for a week.
If you're just in my comment sections to argue, i have no time for you. You either want to learn, or scroll past.
Hi Carmen
My substack is related to the work of Dr Wood - see her website: https://www.drjudywood.com/wp/
This is the book she wrote: https://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com
A 1h 30 min docci: https://rumble.com/v4a8ixu-911-the-best-explainer-documentary-youll-ever-see.html
Dr Wood's presentation with regards to what is contained in her book: https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/911---Dr.-Judy-Wood-Evidence-of-Breakthrough-Energy-on-911-B---full-2h-seminar:4
A playlist off all interviews with Dr Wood: https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/Dr-Wood-Interviews:e
I then highly recommend working through my substack...
Here is my my Odysee channel with 500 videos relating to 9/11 nicely categorised under various playlists: https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7
Thanks for your answer. Indeed, I already downloaded the items you put at the end of your article. Another question I have is what do you think about James Corbett's reports regarding to the same topic. Is he just another misleading "truther" or he really goes into the "meat and potatoes" of the stuff?
Thanks again.
Hi Carmen
I have been following Corbett's work for numerous years and he does great work, BUT when it comes to 9/11, he's rather disingenuous by not wanting to go into WHAT actually happened to 7 buildings with a WTC prefix. He's made the mistake of outsourcing his thinking to Richard Gage, formerly involved with the architects for an engineered truth and for some odd reason, he's completely and utterly dismissive and sidesteps Dr Wood's evidence presented., which is rather strange.
Give this a watch with regards to Corbett on 9/11 and you be the judge: https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/911-James-Corbet:e
He did great work with his 9/11 documentaries, but again, that is great bluff around WHAT actually happened at the WTC complex...
One you critically look at all the distraction narratives of explosives / thermite / nukes and then the EVIDENCE Dr Wood presents in her book, as well as the court cases she filed in 2007 and 2009 - https://www.drjudywood.com/wp/court-case-qui-tam/ and just how an industry was built by the 9/11 "truth" movement to steer you away from what Dr Wood presents, you'll stat seeing the patterns of deceit.
I also highly suggest reading BOTH Andrew Johnsons free pdf downloadable books, as he has been chronicling these distraction methods employed by the various "truther" talking heads since 2005, as he too was sucked in by the 1st and 2nd layer of the cover up, until his eyes opened.
9/11 requires of you to put in the time and effort to look at everything as a whole, as a 15 minute video is NOT going to give you the answers you seek.
Most people it seems don't really want to know the truth for themselves. it's quite sad really - Good intentioned people got bamboozled and they just don't want to admit it.
There are main 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11:
1. POOR Problem solving skills
2. Group Think (Peer Pressure, running with the herd)
3. They just can't handle the implications (they wish it weren't true)
Over the last 22 years people got financially and emotionally invested to the 2nd and 3rd layer of the cover up and for them to admit that they have been fooled, is just too much of a bitter pill to swallow.
OK, thank you. Indeed, I read once in a site (I don't remember the name now) that Corbett was actually a gatekeeper regarding to 9/11.
That surprised me a lot, because his work has been for me and many others a great "eye opener"... Fortunately, I don"t use to "worship" any source of information, but just take what makes sense to me.
Regarding the Twin Towers, I always asked myself why the debris from the buildings appeared to be very sparse, and, when I saw the videos in YouTube, Dr. Woods explanation (dustification) is the obvious one.
It's a mirarle that her videos are still in YouTube. Do you know a site where I can download those videos, please?
Go to my Odysee channel - Check out the various playlists...
Over 500, easy to download video's - https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7
I appreciate you writing an article about Edward Current's WTC7 hoax video. Only the very first part addresses it and then drifts the focus onto many other subjects. I also appreciate the constructive dialogue that we have going on. I felt it was more appropriate to address a few things here rather than approve the post in my FB group and I do so respectfully and with an attitude of finding common ground.
The three points you made about what you have learned from the first part need some clarification.
1.) The building did not fall silently. While it is difficult to find video of Building 7's collapse up close with sound, the most famous collapse video does have a tell that can only be heard if you put earbuds in and listen carefully. In this longer clip at about the 1 to 2 second mark you can indeed hear a very low boom a couple seconds before the NE corner of the penthouse starts to collapse:
https://911warroom.com/wtc7/wtc7long.mp4
I queued up a sound analysis David Chandler did from a news report from Ashleigh Banfield where markers can be distinguished for explosions:
https://youtu.be/ERhoNYj9_fg?si=Mu-cht6PMvbbZV8G&t=118
In addition, eyewitnesses reported hearing explosions, including the testimony of Kevin McPadden who overheard a countdown from an alleged Red Cross member's radio.
2.) The seismic reading is not in line with a fire induced collapse, BUT IS in line with that of a conventional controlled demolition. Here is written testimony from André Rousseau dated April 14, 2020.*
"It is my professional opinion that NIST was incorrect in attributing the two seismic
signals generated during the destruction of WTC 7 to a cascade of floor failures inside
the building and to the initiation of the building’s global collapse. It is my
professional opinion that the two seismic signals must have been generated by two
subaerial explosions that corresponded in time and location to the initiation of the
collapse of WTC 7’s east penthouse and to the initiation of global collapse,
respectively."
*I have the following degrees relevant to the testimony I am providing: Licence
(equivalent to a bachelor’s degree) in Earth Sciences, a Diplôme d’Etudes
Approfondies (DEA) (equivalent to a Master’s degree) in Tectonophysics,
Oceanography, and a DEA in Applied Physics from the Faculté des Sciences de Paris;
a Thèse 3ème Cycle (equivalent to a Ph.D.) from Université Rennes 2; and a Thèse
d’Etat (roughly equivalent to a Ph.D.) from Université Bordeaux 1.
https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/EXHIBIT-B-Declaration-of-Andre-Rousseau.pdf
3.) When looking at the dust cloud was also not in line with a conventional controlled demolition.
I concur with this statement and hope that we can work together in finding common ground on how the collapse of WTC7 was initiated. I concur with you in that it could not have been a fire-induced collapse, as the 4 year study by Leroy Hulsey at the University of Alaska Fairbanks also agrees.
Please forgive any unintended tone in responding to you here. My efforts are to get to the truth and if that wholly or in-part can be attributed to DEWs then so be it. I'm currently entertaining the hypothesis that several different mechanisms were used in conjunction to bring the buildings down. I do not think that NanoThermite was the sole mechanism. I'm even considering that NanoThermite could have been activated by directed energy. Again, I do hope we can continue to have a dialogue because if both of our motives are sincere, we are doing this to bring light to the cover-up of 9/11 and get justice not just for those who died and continue to die, but also for everyone in the USA and the world that was affected by this most heinous crime.
Kind regards,
Gene
Gene
Let me break down your comment....
1. "then drifts the focus onto many other subjects" - Discussing the lack of a corresponding seismic reading WITHOUT a P or S waves - Unheard of in a conventional controlled demolition, especially for a 230 000 ton building coming down and then other anomalies that tie into it? Really Gene?
2. Your point on it falling silently - The montage of various angles of Building 7 going down, proves the silent fall of the building... A conventional controlled demolition of a building has numerous charges going off for multiple seconds during the controlled demolition. Read my other Building 7 articles linked at the bottom of the article.
3. Seismic reading is discussed in depth, read the article again and follow the links and listen to the video discussing the seismic readings - Also have a look at David Chandler and Richard Gage nearly falling off their chairs trying to sidestep the subject in this video: https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/Seismologist-4:d and read this article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truthers-vs-the-seismic-evidence
4. Your call to authority with regards to André Rousseau and if you read his statement correctly as set out in his paper he actually states the lack of seismic reading is in line with the weight being lifted off the ground and thus you can compare that to someone getting up from a conventional spring mattress - Richard Gage uses neuro-linguistic techniques to swing the statement into his narrative he wants to sell you when discussing André Rousseau. A 230 000 ton building hitting the ground will leave a P and S wave - The Twin Towers and B7 did NOT.
5. Leroy Hulsey did a 4 year study at a cost of $316 000 and wrote a paper to debunk NIST, but did not make ANY argument for conventional controlled demolition. The paper is peer reviewed by people directly tied to AE and the paper was NOT independently peer reviewed. It's ONLY published on the AE website - Thus has no credibility, it's only useful to sell it to unsuspecting, over trusting people who do not know better, making them think that it holds some weight. - Sorry, but that is a FACT!
You should really read my other three Building 7 articles as well.
With regards to having a continued dialogue - I look forward to your feedback on my refutation to the 10 points you raised against DEW, as you will see I fully explain why there was no heat involved in the demise of the buildings and that thermite, in whatever form, is a smoke screen (pardon the pun).
Here is the link for you again - https://911revision.substack.com/p/refutation-of-the-911-truther-narratives
See you Sunday in the War Room.
The 9/11 War Room is a public roundtable Zoom meeting every Sunday at 5pm ET...
Join Zoom Meeting: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84302602119?pwd=bkYrUHlmUmhERDhrb0VKcmdMMGpSQT09
Some interesting points that I'll look further into, but your answer for #2 totally ignored the evidence that proves the building did not fall silently. I'm willing to make concessions if you provide something solid, but you need to be willing to as well.
Gene - Remember the "so called booms" that seemed to go off with the demise of the towers?
One single little boom does not qualify as a reason to ASSUME a conventional controlled demolition for Building 7.
Go watch the 37 story Ocean Tower implosion and a thought experiment on controlled demolition in this article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/a-911-thought-experiment
How many conventional controlled demo videos have you watched in your life?
I have a couple of hundred under my belt. Not to mention the multitude of steel structures...
Here is one you can watch so long - What a steel dominant building structure 'looks like' when it falls over from CD. The sound signature of this steel structure when being demolished is different than concrete dominant building. Clanging and banging of the steel being rung in the process that is not heard otherwise.
Link: https://youtu.be/GNg4rFOBZRk?si=Wahlly1gzXrdRG8p
Let me leave you with a last thought...
Was every BOOM on 9/11 a bomb?
Not everything that goes boom is a bomb.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/was-every-boom-a-bomb-on-911
Again it wasn't one single little boom. Please address it in conjunction with Ashleigh Banfield's video clip and Kevin McPadden's testimony.
How many conventional controlled demo videos you or I have watched is irrelevant. I don't need to watch your video to know that every boom on 9/11 wasn't a bomb.
Let's discuss it live on Sunday - You bring your footage and I'll bring mine.
how's that for a deal?
No thank you. I want the 9/11 WarRoom to focus on strategy and activism that we can all agree on. In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, liberty; and in everything love. We all can agree that we were lied to. I want to concentrate on common ground. Side-discussions are great and what were are doing here. Is your position that there were no explosions in Manhattan on 9/11 relative to the collapses of the three buildings?
O, and Gene - please unblock me on FB so that I can comment directly on your comments you make on my comments.
After all, it is in the hope we can continue to have a dialogue because if both of our motives are sincere, we are doing this to bring light to the cover-up of 9/11 and get justice, not just for those who died and continue to die, but also for everyone in the USA and the world that was affected by this most heinous crime.
I had already done that hours ago.
Whatever audio from alleged witnesses or alleged seismic information or lack of telltale sounds of explosions really needs to be taken with a grain of salt as all could be easily faked or removed as one of the many layers of propaganda used to distract away from the fundamental truth of 9/11, namely, that death and injury were staged which they TELL us Revelation of the Method style underneath the propaganda - one example being the complete nonsensicality in the 118 firefighter testimonies and and another being reporter Cynthia McFadden telling us loud and clear that no injured were being taken into the nearby hospital and trauma centre even though we are told that 3,000 people died and 6,000 were injured - but so very many more indications that DEATH AND INJURY WERE STAGED AND 9/11 WAS JUST A GLORIFIED DRILL.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911
The buildings in general are distraction away from the much more revealing faked plane crashes and ludicrous failure of defence. If we know the plane crashes were faked then we know that the buildings came down by a controlled means automatically - it doesn't work the other way. And does it really matter how exactly they came down? I don't get it - who cares? It was a controlled means whether explosives, thermite, nuclear or DEWs. What is the importance for goodness sake? All these different methods are part of the propaganda strategy to distract and fragment the argument. If we know that thermite and nuclear are PROPAGANDA what makes us so sure that DEWs aren't also part of that propaganda stream? Can't you see it's a case of, "Hey let's get everyone arguing over the COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT means of destruction."
As far as I can tell WTC-7's destruction looks EXACTLY like any other similar kind of controlled implosion and that's enough for me.
The military might be involved in all kinds of stuff but where is their experience and expertise in demolishing skyscrapers? Controlled Demolition, Inc, (CDI) on the other hand has a great deal of experience in bringing down large buildings, they hold world records in it, in fact ... and we're told that CDI presented a cleanup plan for the WTC ELEVEN days after 9/11. You're all familiar with the Masonic number 11, right? Does anyone seriously think that CDI didn't have an awful lot to do with bringing down the buildings on and after 9/11? Why wouldn't they just use their tried and trusted methods? So if we accept that CDI had an awful lot to do with bringing the buildings down are we going to believe that on 9/11 and on that day only they abandoned all their professional standards and ethics to only partly evacuate the buildings?
CDI - World records in large buildings - https://www.controlled-demolition.com/world-records/
CDI - Safety record - https://www.controlled-demolition.com/about-us-explosives-controlled-demolition-implosion/safety/
You and I have danced around this numerous times and you lack of understanding and your unwillingness to actually look at what I present to you, shows how disingenuous you really are and how you do your handle "Psy-Op detective" an injustice, as you seem to have fallen for the psy-op yourself.
You succumb to the same cognitive dissonance as so many that deem themselves truth seekers" - First two videos in this article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/1-year-on-substack
1. POOR Problem solving skills
2. Group Think (Peer Pressure, running with the herd)
3. They just can't handle the implications (they wish it weren't true)
When it comes to the people in the Towers - No trace was found for over 1000 people after the disintegration of the Twin Towers... 😨 They vanished into thin air!
The most eerie aspect was the locator alarms of the firefighters - The locator alarms were found, NOT the firemen they were attached to. - https://911revision.substack.com/p/firemen-locator-alarms-going-off
Then you want to go into the testimonies of the firefighters, hmmm.
You won't read this either - https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-explosions-on-911
But here are some highlights;
Math Easy Solutions downloaded and combined all 500 PDFs of 9/11 firefighters, paramedics, and EMT witness testimony from the NY Times archive and combined them into a searchable 7,058 page PDF! - https://1drv.ms/b/s!As32ynv0LoaIirAetue35QI7OqdiLw
The September 11, 2001 attacks left everyone dazed and confused, trying to make sense of a multitude of things happening around them at once and news reporters had a very difficult time putting into words what they were seeing and what they were hearing, and if you are a hardened 9/11 "conspiracy theorist", you’ll be well aware the TV coverage and witness testimonies are a rabbit hole all by itself.
So, again – All these testimonies are from people that witnessed and lived through MASSIVELY stressful event, and they tried to make sense of what they experienced. I do not want to take away from their experiences, but I ask the question again.
Does an explosion equal a bomb? - https://911revision.substack.com/p/was-every-boom-a-bomb-on-911
With regards to Building 7 - Just because it LOOKS like a conventional controlled demolition, does not mean it is, maybe you should read the article again and the other Building 7 articles referenced. And your claim that the seismic readings were fakes, is a laughable comment in itself, because it was recorded at 13 separate seismic stations in five states - It was calculated that most of the energy did not reach the ground; it was mainly used up converting steel, concrete — and human beings — to dust
Link to article, you won't read either - https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truthers-vs-the-seismic-evidence
But alas, you don't do your due diligence. So much for being a "detective".
You want to get into a thought experiment on controlled demo with regards to the towers, well, here it is - But again, you won't read it: https://911revision.substack.com/p/a-911-thought-experiment
Then if you want to get into black op technology, which points to the use of DEW to turn buildings into dust, since the 1950's, you better not listen to Dean Warwick's testimony from 2006 - https://911revision.substack.com/p/david-icke-on-911
He died suddenly a few months after his revelation, whilst doing a seminar...
Or the work of Lt Col Tom E. Bearden also discussing the DEW tech in this 1985 CNN investigative report, discussing what they picked up on satellite imagery in the late 1970's.
You won't watch the report either - https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/3A.-911-Free-energy:7
Then also, you will not listen to the DEW work done at Los Alamos by Col John Alexander and John Hutchison in 1986? - https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/11-a.-Hutchison-and-Directed-energy:1
Recently January, 2024 Col John Alexander did a 5 hour interview, discussing all the black ops programs he worked on for over 30 years, but you won't look into that either - https://rumble.com/v4dkj53-col.-john-alexander-black-ops-hidden-tec-military-applications-and-911.html
As an added bonus - Here is my presentation taking on 10 points against the use of DEW on 9/11, that I look forward to you trying to debunk.
- https://911revision.substack.com/p/refutation-of-the-911-truther-narratives
And after months of our interactions, you STILL are to pick up a very scary book, to work through your cognitive dissonance...
Read Dr Wood’s book: Where did the towers go? https://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com
For more information check out Andrew Johnson’s research go to http://CheckTheEvidence.com
Follow the work of Mark Conlon - 9/11 Planes Research https://911planesresearch.blogspot.com
It's time you start being the "detective" you claim to be...