Where are the close ips of the aircraft from the ground as the American pilot's ass provides in their video where they blow it up right infront of you to expose the drone control modules on the exterior of the 2 aircraft as they crashed into the buildings the videos where from directly at the base of both buildings.
This guy denies the overwhelming evidence of extreme heat at the WTC. And he further claims that molten aluminium and/or lead glows yellow (pouring out the side of the tower). I'm sorry but these demonstrably false assertions disqualify him from any serious discussion. I don't think he's a disinfo agent, I just think he's clutching at straws to support his preconceived conclusions involving DEWs.
But it was not a high heat event? How did people's clothes not burn, but their skin did? Have you watched the Pentagon interview I did also? I show photos of this. Plus, paper was unburnt, and fused into alleged hot metal, without getting burnt. This is observable evidence? John Hutchison shows experiments showing jellification of metal, but the metal is cold to touch. Firemen's steel toe capped boots melted, but their feet was not burnt? That is non-conventional form to melt steel in their boots, without high heat enough to burn their feet.
If you want to reject this observable evidence and plenty more of it than I mention here, then that is your right. It is all in the 9/11 Alchemy films, and Dr Judy Wood's book. Have read Wood's book? Have you watched the 9/11 Alchemy films?
Secondary Evidence: Reports of Extremely High Temperatures and “Molten Metal”
Now that readers have seen with their own eyes the primary photographic evidence against extremely high temperatures at “Ground Zero,” let us turn to the secondary level of evidence, i.e. hearsay/second-hand reports. These initially came from the mainstream media, government agencies, and government contractors, and spread of their own accord once the seed had been sown.
Origins of Reports of Extremely High Temperatures and “Molten Metal”
The first mention of extremely high temperatures in the pile is an ABC News report from September 18, 2001, claiming temperatures of “near 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit,” adding that “the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to.” If the fires were too deep to get to, in an oxygen-starved environment, on what basis was the 2,000-degree Fahrenheit claim made? The report notes concern for the Freon tanks, which, as we have seen, emerged relatively unscathed.
On October 1, 2001, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health put out a report featuring Alison Geyh’s claim that “in some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.” This is the earliest reference to “molten steel” at Ground Zero. In June 2001 (i.e. three months before 9/11), Johns Hopkins had run Operation Dark Winter (O’Toole et al. 2002), a disaster planning exercise which pins blame for a major terrorist attack on the United States on Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in an attempt to win popular support for U.S. war in the Middle East. How remarkably prescient. Johns Hopkins also hosted the Event 201 simulation in October 2019, which uncannily modelled a global coronavirus pandemic a few weeks before the outbreak of “Covid-19.” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (2021, 382) describes Tara O’Toole, director of Johns Hopkins’ Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies in 2001, as a “CIA spook.” All of which begs the question: was “molten metal” a CIA invention?
Other alphabet agencies quickly followed suit. On October 10, 2001, FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh was interviewed by Bryant Gumbel of CBS news. Led by Gumbel’s evidence-free claim that “there are places where temperatures are still approaching and sometimes exceeding a thousand degrees,” Allbaugh referred to “very hot, molten material.”
On October 11, 2001, James M. Williams, President of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, wrote: “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” Fascinatingly, he adds: “All photographs shown on television, shot-on-site were preapproved by the FBI. We were shown photographs that were not released for public view.” Did the FBI privately show photographs of molten steel to trusted people in influential positions, falsely claiming they were from “Ground Zero,” so that those trusted individuals would disseminate the “molten steel” idea?
Keith Eaton, the Chief Executive of the UK’s Institution of Structural Engineers, wrote in its flagship publication: “They showed us many fascinating slides [..] ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event […]” (cited in Jones, 2006). It is not specified who “they” are, but the parallels are obvious. Once the heads of structural engineering societies were convinced of “molten metal,” they themselves propagated the concept, from a position of trust.
In 1995, the Murrah Building was demolished within weeks of the OKC bombing, and, as with 9/11, all the debris was hastily removed to secure locations, with the same company, Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI), being subcontracted by Tully Construction on both occasions. Its president, Mark Loizeaux, was one of the key witnesses claiming to have seen molten metal up to five weeks after the 9/11 attacks. Tully’s president also claimed to have seen pools of “literally molten steel” at Ground Zero. Yet, as 9/11 Research notes, “The involvement of Steve Tully and Mark Loizeaux in the destruction of the evidence of the unprecedented collapses would seem to disqualify them as objective reporters of evidence.”
Atlantic correspondent William Langewiesche (2002, p. 32) writes of “the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” However, The Atlantic admits that “Langewiesche became the only journalist to be ‘embedded’—to use the Pentagon term for reporters who live and travel with the units they cover – in the World Trade Center operation.” The whole point of embedded journalists is that they write what the military tells them to write (Lukin, 2014).
In sum, government agencies, contractors, and the military were all over the promotion of the “molten metal” narrative.
LOL - So Prof David A. Hughes also does not know what he's talking about?
May I ask, how much money have you given architects for an engineered truth and Richard Gage? You should ask for a refund.
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".
I have no interest in A&E. Also Richard is a staunch believer in the use of planes, which I am not.
Unlike some, I'm not ruling out any possibilities, I'm just looking at the evidence. And on the balance of probabilities, you'd have to admit that an extreme-temperature event involving the use of nanothermite is, by far, the strongest hypothesis supported by the evidence. The main issue with the DEW theory is that, as far as I can see, nobody has explained what it is, how it works, how it was deployed, from where, etc. - only allusions to the possible existence of various exotic technologies. I've seen everything mentioned from anti-gravity, to cold fusion, to microwaves, to photons, even a mention of hurricanes! What does it all mean?! As far as I can see there is no actual DEW theory - just a bunch of random allusions and speculation and the denying of a plethora of facts and strong evidence. It's a very curious approach to research. If you can point to 4 independent credentialed scientists who can explain in detail exactly what a DEW is, how it works, and how it was used on 911 (as there is for nanothermite), you might just have a starting chance.
Nanothermite is, by far, the weakest hypothesis un-supported by flawed evidence.
The original paper by Steven E. Jones claiming thermite in the dust, was based on a flawed method and TWO editors resigned due to the paper being published, in a Pay TO PUBLISH paper....
Only morons believe that thermite took down the towers.
I highly recommend studying the blog: The Thermite Free Zone
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
Were the towers destroyed by a gravity collapse? The evidence says no.
Were the towers destroyed by explosives? The evidence says no.
Were the towers destroyed by thermite? The evidence says no.
Were the towers destroyed by nukes? The evidence says no.
The answers to these questions can easily be found by studying the evidence.
The problem is NOT a shortage of evidence.
The problem is nobody wants to LOOK at the evidence and think for themselves.
Instead, everyone wants to be TOLD WHAT TO THINK by "experts" in the MSM, alternative media, the scientific community, the government, and the "truth" movement, but these "experts" spend the whole time covering up and muddling up the evidence.
I've watched most of the material you've linked to - still no explanation of what a DEW actually consists of, how it works, what equipment is used, from where it was deployed, the source of the energy, proof of it being used before, etc. As far as I can see, it's a theory so lacking in detail and evidence as to be nothing more than a myth. Sure there are some curious things that haven't as yet been explained, but I have to wonder why;-
1. You deny readily observable visual evidence of extreme heat.
2. You deny readily observable visual evidence of kinetic energy.
3. You deny witness accounts, including first responders, of the above.
4. You consistently conflate thermite with nanothermite, the latter of which has been extensively researched and proven to exist at ground zero beyond any doubt.
5. You try to explain away the best evidence by making bizarre assertions that defy logic and basic science.
Not wanting to get personal, but it would seem you are either suffering some kind of delusional state, or something more nefarious is going on.
LOL, Johnny - You’re projecting your lack of critical thinking and you have not worked through the multitude of links etc I have given you to work through - So that goes to prove, you’re not really trying to understand anything, your just being disingenuous.
Are the towers still there or not?
Once you take ALL the observable evidence into account, one comes to an irrefutable conclusion, that what happened at the WTC, was NOT due to ANY structural failure (collapse), or controlled demolition, using any thermal or kinetic mechanism.
One does not need to know what the operator had for breakfast, as we ca see what the result of the technology was.
Thermite is an INCENDIARY and does not have the split second precision needed to drop a building into it’s footprint like a conventional controlled demolition.
But even if it did, the towers did NOT drop into their footprints anyway.
Thermite CANOT blast 500 000 ton towers (ten Titanic’s) sideways off their footprints either
But even if it could, the WTC 1 survivors could not have survived such a huge blast anyway
A couple of supplementary articles that tie into the discussion...
Why the remote takeover of planes on 9/11 is IMPOSSIBLE
Avionics technician exposes the impossibilities of remotely taking-over a commercial aircraft way back in 2007
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/why-the-remote-takeover-of-planes
The Fantasy Flights on 9/11
One of the biggest hurdles for 9/11 truth seekers and normies
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-fantasy-flights-on-911
Adam Eisenberg - 9/11 Pentagon whistleblower
All his interviews: https://rumble.com/v5jloul-adam-eisenberg-pentagon-whistleblower.html
This was great thanks guys
Where are the close ips of the aircraft from the ground as the American pilot's ass provides in their video where they blow it up right infront of you to expose the drone control modules on the exterior of the 2 aircraft as they crashed into the buildings the videos where from directly at the base of both buildings.
This guy denies the overwhelming evidence of extreme heat at the WTC. And he further claims that molten aluminium and/or lead glows yellow (pouring out the side of the tower). I'm sorry but these demonstrably false assertions disqualify him from any serious discussion. I don't think he's a disinfo agent, I just think he's clutching at straws to support his preconceived conclusions involving DEWs.
Hi Johnny,
But it was not a high heat event? How did people's clothes not burn, but their skin did? Have you watched the Pentagon interview I did also? I show photos of this. Plus, paper was unburnt, and fused into alleged hot metal, without getting burnt. This is observable evidence? John Hutchison shows experiments showing jellification of metal, but the metal is cold to touch. Firemen's steel toe capped boots melted, but their feet was not burnt? That is non-conventional form to melt steel in their boots, without high heat enough to burn their feet.
If you want to reject this observable evidence and plenty more of it than I mention here, then that is your right. It is all in the 9/11 Alchemy films, and Dr Judy Wood's book. Have read Wood's book? Have you watched the 9/11 Alchemy films?
Regards!
Bingo. "Molten metal" was observed under Ground Zero by people literally standing at Ground Zero. Make it make sense!
Ricky, from Prof David A. Hughes' article;
Secondary Evidence: Reports of Extremely High Temperatures and “Molten Metal”
Now that readers have seen with their own eyes the primary photographic evidence against extremely high temperatures at “Ground Zero,” let us turn to the secondary level of evidence, i.e. hearsay/second-hand reports. These initially came from the mainstream media, government agencies, and government contractors, and spread of their own accord once the seed had been sown.
Origins of Reports of Extremely High Temperatures and “Molten Metal”
The first mention of extremely high temperatures in the pile is an ABC News report from September 18, 2001, claiming temperatures of “near 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit,” adding that “the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to.” If the fires were too deep to get to, in an oxygen-starved environment, on what basis was the 2,000-degree Fahrenheit claim made? The report notes concern for the Freon tanks, which, as we have seen, emerged relatively unscathed.
On October 1, 2001, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health put out a report featuring Alison Geyh’s claim that “in some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.” This is the earliest reference to “molten steel” at Ground Zero. In June 2001 (i.e. three months before 9/11), Johns Hopkins had run Operation Dark Winter (O’Toole et al. 2002), a disaster planning exercise which pins blame for a major terrorist attack on the United States on Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in an attempt to win popular support for U.S. war in the Middle East. How remarkably prescient. Johns Hopkins also hosted the Event 201 simulation in October 2019, which uncannily modelled a global coronavirus pandemic a few weeks before the outbreak of “Covid-19.” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (2021, 382) describes Tara O’Toole, director of Johns Hopkins’ Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies in 2001, as a “CIA spook.” All of which begs the question: was “molten metal” a CIA invention?
Other alphabet agencies quickly followed suit. On October 10, 2001, FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh was interviewed by Bryant Gumbel of CBS news. Led by Gumbel’s evidence-free claim that “there are places where temperatures are still approaching and sometimes exceeding a thousand degrees,” Allbaugh referred to “very hot, molten material.”
On October 11, 2001, James M. Williams, President of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, wrote: “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” Fascinatingly, he adds: “All photographs shown on television, shot-on-site were preapproved by the FBI. We were shown photographs that were not released for public view.” Did the FBI privately show photographs of molten steel to trusted people in influential positions, falsely claiming they were from “Ground Zero,” so that those trusted individuals would disseminate the “molten steel” idea?
Keith Eaton, the Chief Executive of the UK’s Institution of Structural Engineers, wrote in its flagship publication: “They showed us many fascinating slides [..] ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event […]” (cited in Jones, 2006). It is not specified who “they” are, but the parallels are obvious. Once the heads of structural engineering societies were convinced of “molten metal,” they themselves propagated the concept, from a position of trust.
In 1995, the Murrah Building was demolished within weeks of the OKC bombing, and, as with 9/11, all the debris was hastily removed to secure locations, with the same company, Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI), being subcontracted by Tully Construction on both occasions. Its president, Mark Loizeaux, was one of the key witnesses claiming to have seen molten metal up to five weeks after the 9/11 attacks. Tully’s president also claimed to have seen pools of “literally molten steel” at Ground Zero. Yet, as 9/11 Research notes, “The involvement of Steve Tully and Mark Loizeaux in the destruction of the evidence of the unprecedented collapses would seem to disqualify them as objective reporters of evidence.”
Atlantic correspondent William Langewiesche (2002, p. 32) writes of “the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” However, The Atlantic admits that “Langewiesche became the only journalist to be ‘embedded’—to use the Pentagon term for reporters who live and travel with the units they cover – in the World Trade Center operation.” The whole point of embedded journalists is that they write what the military tells them to write (Lukin, 2014).
In sum, government agencies, contractors, and the military were all over the promotion of the “molten metal” narrative.
Link: https://dhughes.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-judy-wood-0ce
LOL - So Prof David A. Hughes also does not know what he's talking about?
May I ask, how much money have you given architects for an engineered truth and Richard Gage? You should ask for a refund.
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
Anatomy of a 9/11 Thermite Brainwashing Operation
I recently discovered the existence of an e-book from 2010
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-a-911-thermite-brainwashing
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline
9/11 Truth's Protective Layers Unmasked
The cover-up and the vast network continuing to suppress the real 9/11 truth
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truths-protective-layers
The 9/11 TRUTH vs Stand-Down PSY-OPS
Make people believe that someone or some group external to themselves is going to "save" or "rescue" them
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-truth-vs-stand-down-psy-ops
I have no interest in A&E. Also Richard is a staunch believer in the use of planes, which I am not.
Unlike some, I'm not ruling out any possibilities, I'm just looking at the evidence. And on the balance of probabilities, you'd have to admit that an extreme-temperature event involving the use of nanothermite is, by far, the strongest hypothesis supported by the evidence. The main issue with the DEW theory is that, as far as I can see, nobody has explained what it is, how it works, how it was deployed, from where, etc. - only allusions to the possible existence of various exotic technologies. I've seen everything mentioned from anti-gravity, to cold fusion, to microwaves, to photons, even a mention of hurricanes! What does it all mean?! As far as I can see there is no actual DEW theory - just a bunch of random allusions and speculation and the denying of a plethora of facts and strong evidence. It's a very curious approach to research. If you can point to 4 independent credentialed scientists who can explain in detail exactly what a DEW is, how it works, and how it was used on 911 (as there is for nanothermite), you might just have a starting chance.
Nanothermite is, by far, the weakest hypothesis un-supported by flawed evidence.
The original paper by Steven E. Jones claiming thermite in the dust, was based on a flawed method and TWO editors resigned due to the paper being published, in a Pay TO PUBLISH paper....
Only morons believe that thermite took down the towers.
I highly recommend studying the blog: The Thermite Free Zone
Link: http://911thermitefree.blogspot.com/
You can download the Refutation of Richard Gage’s Game in 2008 AND 2023: https://truthsummit.info/media-files/DrJudyWood-refutation-RichardGage-claims.pdf
Controlled Demolition Expert Speaks Out!
What we saw on 9/11 was not due to jet fuel, bombs, thermite or nukes
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
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
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
Were the towers destroyed by a gravity collapse? The evidence says no.
Were the towers destroyed by explosives? The evidence says no.
Were the towers destroyed by thermite? The evidence says no.
Were the towers destroyed by nukes? The evidence says no.
The answers to these questions can easily be found by studying the evidence.
The problem is NOT a shortage of evidence.
The problem is nobody wants to LOOK at the evidence and think for themselves.
Instead, everyone wants to be TOLD WHAT TO THINK by "experts" in the MSM, alternative media, the scientific community, the government, and the "truth" movement, but these "experts" spend the whole time covering up and muddling up the evidence.
Here is a 20-minute video that most can follow: https://rumble.com/v5jnndx-understanding-the-911-evidence.html
I've watched most of the material you've linked to - still no explanation of what a DEW actually consists of, how it works, what equipment is used, from where it was deployed, the source of the energy, proof of it being used before, etc. As far as I can see, it's a theory so lacking in detail and evidence as to be nothing more than a myth. Sure there are some curious things that haven't as yet been explained, but I have to wonder why;-
1. You deny readily observable visual evidence of extreme heat.
2. You deny readily observable visual evidence of kinetic energy.
3. You deny witness accounts, including first responders, of the above.
4. You consistently conflate thermite with nanothermite, the latter of which has been extensively researched and proven to exist at ground zero beyond any doubt.
5. You try to explain away the best evidence by making bizarre assertions that defy logic and basic science.
Not wanting to get personal, but it would seem you are either suffering some kind of delusional state, or something more nefarious is going on.
LOL, Johnny - You’re projecting your lack of critical thinking and you have not worked through the multitude of links etc I have given you to work through - So that goes to prove, you’re not really trying to understand anything, your just being disingenuous.
Are the towers still there or not?
Once you take ALL the observable evidence into account, one comes to an irrefutable conclusion, that what happened at the WTC, was NOT due to ANY structural failure (collapse), or controlled demolition, using any thermal or kinetic mechanism.
One does not need to know what the operator had for breakfast, as we ca see what the result of the technology was.
Thermite is an INCENDIARY and does not have the split second precision needed to drop a building into it’s footprint like a conventional controlled demolition.
But even if it did, the towers did NOT drop into their footprints anyway.
Thermite CANOT blast 500 000 ton towers (ten Titanic’s) sideways off their footprints either
But even if it could, the WTC 1 survivors could not have survived such a huge blast anyway
An hour explanation to help you pull your head out yer arse: https://911revision.substack.com/p/expanded-the-controlled-demolition
Or, even better - My presentation:
Refutation of the 9/11 "truther" narratives
A special presentation refuting 10 thermite points of contention against DEW on 9/11
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/refutation-of-the-911-truther-narratives
Do you stand by your claim that molten aluminium and lead glow yellow?
Do you have a link for that? Or did you just pull it out yer arse?