No but, Dr David A. Hughes

Source: https://911revision.substack.com/p/no-but-dr-david-a-hughes

Recently Dr David A. Hughes penned an article, A Guide to Identifying Camp 2, wherein he outlined his "three camps of awareness" framework, and suggested that it might be helpful to have a guide to spotting those in Camp 2. He summarized his "three camps" framework in the following clip of a recent interview.I really like Dr Hughes’ three camp model, as I referenced and included it in at least eight articles between June 2025 and January 2026, but the three camp model isn’t really that new, as it’s basically just a rewording of what truth seekers have always seen with regards to official narratives being presented to us, and I can relay it back to an article penned in 2007, by CB Brooklyn, when looking at the events of September 11, 2001 and that was published on Andrew Johnson’s website and reproduced in my article, 9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline, with a couple of relevant updates. From the article;There are three basic versions of the 9/11 events.Although differences and / or overlapping may occur, the following three versions generally describe what most people believe:1. OGCT: This is known as the “Official Government Conspiracy Theory”. This version states that a guy from a cave in Afghanistan conspired with 19 box cutter-wielding Muslims to hijack airplanes, outwit the USA’s entire multi-trillion dollar defense system, and cause the Twin Towers to collapse. This is the version pushed by the government and media as being the truth of 9/11.2. APCT. I call this the “Alternate Propaganda Conspiracy Theory”. This version states that, more or less, there were hijackings on 9/11, but the planes might have been taken under remote control to ensure they crashed as planned. Airplanes most likely crashed at the Pentagon and Shanksville, but planes definitely did crash into the Twin Towers. The Twin Towers and WTC 7 collapsed from conventional explosives and thermite, and molten metal was found in the rubble. This is the version pushed by the government and media as being the “wacko conspiracy theory” that the “truth movement” believes.3. REAL. This, simply, is the REAL version, backed by actual evidence, Laws of Physics, and common sense: There were no hijackings, no plane crashes, and the WTC complex (not just the Towers and WTC 7) was destroyed with Directed Energy Technology, the “ACME D System”. The government and media steer clear of these. As per CB Brooklyn’s three versions, Dr Hughes makes a similar distinction between his three camps model, by stating; “The distinction between the three camps is not intended to be hard and fast. Individuals can move backwards and forwards between camps, depending on circumstance.”Under the heading of his article: Identifying Those in Camp 2 – Propaganda Techniques - He states; For those who have left Camp 1, and are aware of Camp 3, the challenge is how to spot those in Camp 2.The rest of this article proposes guidelines for how to do so. Although certain names are named, the aim is not to produce a list of whom to trust and whom not to trust. I may have got it wrong in some cases. You should not rely on my judgment.Rather, the aim is to provide a list of criteria that readers can apply when making their own assessments of which commentators are authentic and reliable and which are not. The aim is to get readers to think in a more structured and critical way about the “alternative media” they are consuming.”When Dr Hughes’ and I were discussing the events of September 11, 2001, in September 2025, we were discussing Narrative vs. evidence; Dr Morgan Reynolds; Mark Conlon aka 9/11 Planes Research; Shanksville; the Pentagon; Curt Weldon; survivors on Stairwell B; Richard Gage; Camp 2 propaganda techniques; the 9/11 Memorial Museum.Here is a short clip from that discussion, pertaining to Camp 2 propaganda techniques; Dr Hughes, mentions the power that is derived from forming organizations, to give the people the impression that they are supporting an organization that will truly be searching for the truth and I have recently penned, Are You Really Exposing 9/11? - wherein I point out that the “new kid on the block”, is just another gaslighting exercise that will be leading people AWAY from 9/11 FACTS, all whilst happily taking people’s donations, and receiving nothing noteworthy in the pursuit of accountability for the events of September 11, 2001. Read my article, DONATE TODAY for 9/11 Disinformation - Where is the money going? Make sure to listen to the clip with Sarah & Thomas Corriher, who both volunteered at AE911, and saw a lot of weird things going on, as well as the people working for AE911, which was recorded over 11 years ago. The 48 minutes will blow your mind!Dr Hughes also discusses funding for nonprofits and he seems to have delved a bit deeper into the funding, after my article, DONATE TODAY for 9/11 Disinformation and he uncovered the following; “For example, only 40% of the income for the International Center for 9/11 Studies (operating as the International Center for 9/11 Justice) comes from “public support” (see Part II, Section C, 14). Where does the other 60% (i.e., $120,000 of tax-exempt funding) come from?$10,000 of IC911J funding in June 2024 came from DAFgiving360, formerly known as the Schwab Charitable Fund, which has service agreements with subsidiaries of the Charles Schwab Corporation. For any critical thinker, this should raise alarm bells.”Then Dr Hughes writes the following, under the heading: Evidence of Cult Thinking;“Camp 1 works through techniques of cult indoctrination, and so too, in certain instances, does Camp 2.This typically manifests in a closed-mindedness whereby demands are made that you agree completely with a particular position / theory / commentator.Doctrinal purity is involved: it is not enough to agree with only part, or even most, of the doctrine being advanced. Rather, the doctrine is to be accepted in its entirety, and is to become central to one’s worldview.If any of these conditions are not met, the Camp 3 critical thinker typically gets attacked.We see this, for instance, in the aggressive behaviour of certain “no virus” proponents (I am agnostic on the issue, but I object to being bullied into conformity).It surfaced again recently in Andrew Johnson and 9/11 Revisionist’s attack on me for not accepting absolutely every element of Where Did The Towers Go? I was outrageously likened to Jim Fetzer and described as “silly” and perhaps “not a good guy.” Johnson wrongly claimed that I refuse to challenge all three of climate change, global energy, and terrorism narratives. I was bizarrely blamed for being “prolific” and for having a Powerpoint presentation ready for an interview that was agreed nine months in advance.Because I dare to challenge the Hurricane Erin hypothesis and the significance of Wood’s magnetometer data, while remaining agnostic on the Hutchison effect, I appear to be persona non grata in the Wood camp — despite having published multiple overt defences of her work.I first presented my counter-evidence in an article that was proof-read by Johnson himself (see the acknowledgement at the end). I did the intellectually honest thing by running my doubts past him first before publishing. But instead of rebutting my specific, evidence-based concerns point by point, Johnson and 9/11 Revisionist resorted to smears, innuendo, and ad hominem. Such behaviour is not conducive to the pursuit of the truth.”I have a question Dr Hughes, Am I now part of a cult? Like Fetzer always talks about? What about the cult that cannot count past three? No mention of them? Maybe you haven’t read my article on the Camp 2 cult in the 9/11 truth movement? Read it here. Did you not state the following in your article, “No but”;I do have to voice my dismay of Dr Hughes making the statement that Andrew Johnson and I “attacked him”. Really, attacked? Andrew Johnson pointed out some differing opinions, of the opinions Dr Hughes has, where I basically tried to DEFEND Dr Hughes. For a response to what Dr Hughes had to say about the interview that Andrew Johnson and I had, in December 2025, Andrew Johnson has the following response to Dr Hughes, in his latest upload to YouTube. Here is a one minute summary of what Andrew Johnson has to say to Dr Hughes. It’s IMPERATIVE that you listen to Andrew’s FULL breakdown of what Dr Hughes had to say in his article. (15 minutes)What jumped out at me is how Dr Hughes is inadvertently disseminating disinformation about Dr. Wood's book, claiming Hurricane Erin is a "theory" or "hypothesis". It is not just a difference of opinion.. It is teethering on disinformation. Dr Hughes refers to "the Judy Wood Camp", for being angry for his criticism of Dr Wood's book. But at the same time, are we not allowed to disagree with what Hughes is saying? So, we are not allowed to disagree with "the David Hughes Camp"?It seems that for Dr Hughes, it’s about camps, not evidence -- and that is how he seems to “debunk” evidence.... which could be seen as part of a cover up. Listening to this part multiple times makes it clear that Hughes is like an orchestra director -- over everyone. By insulting you for “defending Judy Wood” (not standing up for evidence), he tries to bully people away from certain pieces of evidence.... lest they be insulted, for blindly by supporting Dr Judy Wood. It really gives you a feeling that this could a psyop that he’s running. It’s manipulative to put people in camps. Either you are interested in the truth or you are not. So where does that put Dr Hughes? Referring to the evidence of a hurricane as a “theory” disqualifies him as someone seeking the truth, for most people. Next he might refer to the missing debris as “Wood’s missing debris theory”. And on and on it goes, and soon Dr Wood will have no credibility in the eyes of Dr Hughes’ audience.It is important not to speculate. So what is Hughes doing with his mini-micro-nano-mini-nukes or thermite or... whatever he’s now pedaling?Either you are seeking the truth to expose it, or you re trying to cover it up.Dr Hughes’ speculating in several directions, which makes it seem that he is trying to muddle up and cover up the FACTS, albeit inadvertently. Also, in Dr Hughes’ article, Reflections on 2025 - Life in the Alternative Media Is Not What It Seems, he stated the following; “I had accidentally arranged an interview with Elze van Hamelen of Solari Report on a bank holiday in early May. The theme of the interview was the implications of Dr. Judy Wood’s research on the destruction of the Twin Towers.We should have rearranged, but I insisted on pressing ahead despite feeling exhausted, having published my reply to Wallace less than 48 hours earlier. Although I made relevant points regarding the AE911T psy-op, I stumbled towards the end when referring to a “cold fusion mini-nuke.” Andrew Johnson rightly picked me up on the conceptual imprecision.”So, what is it Dr Hughes, do you agree you made a mistake in that interview with Elze van Hamelen and that Andrew Johnson was correct in picking up on conceptual imprecision regarding to referring to a “cold fusion mini-nuke”, but one cannot point out other conceptual imprecisions, when taking your stance on hurricane Erin, the anomalies with the earth’s magnetic field, the Hutchison Effect and the damage to the 9/11 orphans, Buildings 3, 4, 5, 6 and the Bankers Trust building on 9/11? Let’s have a listen to what James Fetzer had to say in relation to Dr Wood’s work initially, in the to clips below, before he ended up stabbing her in the back, and even threatening her, when she started talking about energy effects and the Hutchison Effect. Now, for more context… Let’s listen to James Fetzer’s reaction when I challenged him in May of 2025, in the Q&A of a Boston 911 presentation he did. (5 minutes) What we take from this is a talking head that was positioning himself as an ally of Dr Wood, that ended up turning into a foe of Dr Wood. Now I AM NOT implying that Dr Hughes is a foe, but his position of wanting to dismiss the evidence presented by Dr Wood is concerning, to say the least. Dr Wood states: “To determine what happened on 9/11, all available evidence must be considered. We cannot pick and choose which observable facts we may want to explain and then ignore the others. Any explanation must consider all the available evidence...”These points of contention that Dr Hughes has, I did want to take up with him, when we had our discussion in September 2025, but thought it wouldn’t be productive to argue with someone that I deem an ally to the work of Dr Wood. Now, unfortunately Dr Hughes has made a false claim that I attacked him, which I do not appreciate, and thus I need to make some of the following observations and NO this is NOT an attack, but positive criticism.1. You can’t unsee what you see2. You can’t unknow what you know3. Facts have trajectory4. Truth has conclusions5. There must be consequences.Applying these to Dr Hughes establishes him to be leaning more to camp 2 thinking when discussing what happened on 9/11. Like all the other limited hangout traitors, Tucker Carlson, James Corbett, Ted Walter, Alex Jones, Stephen Jones, Richard Gage etcetera. The scooped out damage signature of WTC6 was seen The damage to the 9/11 Orphans is NOT from known technology like explosives, fire 🔥, or falling debris or mini nukes The damage at WTC6 is from a publicly unknown technology / weapon and undeniable and NOT falling debris, as Dr Hughes implies in his article, Reflections on my Visit to the World Trade Centre Site, May 2025 That unknown weapon was deployed by an entity, and shielded from investigation. All levels of government are responsible and wholly ILLEGITIMATE. All government members are full spectrum traitors, must be held accountable to THE MOST EXTREME punishment. As Soon As Possible, at a minimum as they are part of the cover-up, same as the so called 9/11 ‘truth” movement. The Secret in Plain Sight: The Twin Tower’s Sphere - The Austin J. Tobin Plaza 27 foot high Sphere reveals truth most just cannot handle - The steel turned to DUST, before it even hit the ground. One thing to remember is that the 9/11 Truther movement was not infiltrated. It was set up for the very purpose it is serving. To move truth seekers AWAY from looking at the EVIDENCE of what happened on September 11, 2001. What have the Truthers accomplished? Not much, but they sure raked in millions!It’s a question that 9/11 Jersey Girl, Patricia Casazza has raised herself… (5 minutes)Something that is very troubling to me is the fact that I sent Dr Hughes an email on 14 January 2026, asking him to help getting more eyes on the open letter Patricia Casazza penned, yet no response back and no promotion of the letter, that is a death blow and expose of the limited hangouts in the 9/11 truth movement. After all, wouldn’t Dr Hughes’ guide to spotting those in Camp 2, be able to use this open letter a great example to spotting those in Camp 2? 9/11 IS THE LITMUS TEST.Taking all of my critiques into account, it seems that Dr Hughes has not carefully read Dr Wood’s book. Dr Wood does not have a conclusion about a "Hurricane Hypothesis." That is something Dr Hughes dreamed up out of whole cloth and he’s misrepresenting what Dr Wood presents in her book. Dr Wood discussed how people misrepresent her hurricane Erin evidence, during her September 2025 interview on the PBD podcast; (50 seconds)See my breakdown of the interview, as it’s a scathing attack on the disingenuous host of the PBD podcast. Read more here. There are MANY things Dr Hughes gets wrong and I think it would be a very interesting conversation to be had between Dr Hughes, Dr Wood, Andrew Johnson and I will gladly moderate such a discussion, but what would Dr Wood do? Read her book to him? If he isn't able to read for himself, there is nothing she can do to help him.Another sign that he hasn't read her book fully, is that he seems to be promoting "squibs". He does not appear to have seen the "squirt" discussion in her book. The “squirts” are the dustified building squirting out. To squash the whole building down in 8 seconds or even 9.22 seconds, midway down the squirts would need to be greater than Mach 1, if all the windows were removed, as one would expect in a conventional controlled demolition. Please see page 111 to 114 of Dr Wood’s book, Where did the towers go?People also make the statement; “Arguments about the use of weaponry for the existence of which we have no definitive evidence, continue to distract from the overwhelming evidence that we do have for controlled demolition on 9/11." So, do people also think Trump is lying about having advanced weaponry because he hasn't seen it on display somewhere? (How dumb!) I’ll remind you to read my article - America’s Electromagnetic and DEW Program, The program has been running for decades, they’ve just been lying about it - as I point to the 1985 CNN investigative report on RF weaponry, the use of exotic black-ops technologies in Panama 1989, the use of DEW in Iraq in 2003, how uncomfortable the Pentagon was in answering questions about it in 2003, the alleged use against the people of Lebanon in 2006, just to name a few. I suggest you work through that article.What did Dr Hughes have to say in his presentation: In Defence of Judy Wood - Judy Wood is one of the most maligned researchers in the world, because her research points towards scientific truths with global revolutionary implications. (4 minutes) I think Dr Hughes’ suggestion in his article that nanothermite destroyed the towers should be pointed out. To me it’s very clear that he says Camp 3 (aka DJW et al) is claiming that. See Grok AI also stating the same about the meaning of his wording. Read more here.The section heading describes himself, as well: “Ignoring / Downplaying / Twisting of Counter-Evidence”. After all, what has he been doing with the anti-hurricane nonsense?Near the beginning of his article, Dr Hughes says this: "Contrary to claims that Wood presents a “theory” that directed energy weapons were what destroyed the Twin Towers, she does nothing of the kind. Instead, in the vein of genuine forensic investigation, she looks carefully at evidence and considers its implications." Then later down, he claims Dr Wood has a hurricane hypothesis? Does Dr Hughes have a multiple-personality disorder? Did multiple people write this article? Also, Dr Hughes misquotes Dr Wood. Actually, it’s an implied quote; “Wood suggests that Hurricane Erin, sitting just off the coast of New York at the time of the attacks, could, like..." I don't think Dr Wood has ever referred to the events of 9/11 as an "attack".Dr Hughes actually made the case for Dr Wood! Why did he use a hurricane image from 20 years AFTER the event? The media had to start putting Hurricane Erin info out there, so that Dr Wood’s work wouldn’t shock people so much.Why does Dr Hughes use an image POSTED 20 years later? Because he couldn’t find such an image posted in 2001.He also implies that Dr Wood says the buildings were “struck.” NOPE. She most often referred to when the buildings got their (airplane-shaped) holes. (4 minute clip)Then during the Q&A of her 2012 Breakthrough Energy Conference presentation, in the Netherlands, Dr Wood was asked about the alleged planes. (1 minute)She was also asked about the Hutchison Effect and “cold fusion” and how both are relevant to what happened on September 11, 2001. I’ll repeat Dr Wood’s statement: “To determine what happened on 9/11, all available evidence must be considered. We cannot pick and choose which observable facts we may want to explain and then ignore the others. Any explanation must consider all the available evidence...”AGAIN: This is NOT an attack on Dr Hughes, but an open dialogue, in the search for 9/11 truth and accountability. I am NOT Dr Hughes enemy, and I hope he sees this article as positive criticism. I look forward to discussing these points, if he’s open to a discussion. 9/11 FACTS that hurt people’s feelings - 43 FACTS that cannot be explained due to jet fuel, bombs, thermite or nukes - Read more hereIf you like reading my articles and would like to buy me a coffee, please follow the link to my PayPal, as substack does not allow for payments to my country yet.If this is the first article of mine you’re reading, please rewind to my first article and work your way through all of them, as you’ve missed out on a lot of valuable 9/11 and “9/11 truther movement” information.Remember DO NOT get your hands on this absolutely scary book by Dr Judy Wood.And whatever you do, don’t watch the 1h “9/11 Essential Guide”.Free PDF book downloads by Andrew Johnson:9/11 – Finding the Truth and also 9/11 – Holding the TruthCome join the discussion on Telegram, find me on X and check out my Rumble channel. Share

🔐 Cryptographic Verification

Archived URL: https://911revision.substack.com/p/no-but-dr-david-a-hughes

�� CONTENT HASHES:
  SHA-256:  9edc6419ce83dc9e81f57ee801caea9ca3b03431dc93383d88f66c0087e85edb
  BLAKE2b:  790c5c6f192177ddbb7bba25915785876909252ec1ba1f84e80fe4904c270a2b
  MD5:      cff2a6ce58dc171555ee13bbb9667149

�� TITLE HASHES:
  SHA-256:  7770c244db19213ac1bb17688c44843d5f49a906df276e0b82c4187a629467b0
  BLAKE2b:  66d912f326da950196e3c4f6f4d5abc2e53f7b6250971b38f48e5cb6d617add3
  MD5:      670f91c2cb3c89c1ba0398ecb68c30a5

�� INTEGRITY HASHES:
  SHA-256:  0fd61eb487935d53f6c8157427bb4391713357bcc4918ebe2306bd198eb428ef
  BLAKE2b:  5a256ebd16201e73cad77d42bfd96839b3c47aa3d2ce3e8de7955fb308cf4ce6
  MD5:      41e55f95666173fb23011067bc462407

Archived with ArcHive - Client-side cryptographic archival system