"It doesn't matter if you disagree or not."

Neither does it matter if you do. I listed several points that remain unaddressed regardless of our feelings on the matter.

"The DEW was set to a lower and more gradual setting:"

That couldn't make the exterior of the building, or the cloud of dust and debris, transparent to the DEW. However, there is a technique used in radiation treatment of tumors in which multiple weak beams are focused on a site where they intersect, causing only that internal site to be highly radiated, while where the beams do not intersect remains below the threshold of existential harm. Such ability to pass through structures to focus on sites of intersection is theoretically possible, but requires cloaked aircraft which seem not to be asserted.

The stairwell survivors are evidence of chaos. Nothing explains it, including DEWs. All the ad homs in the world directed at Dr. Jones don't explain their survival. No ad homs directed at me explain it. People miraculously survived, while thousands more did not. Miraculous survival happens. All of them seem to have survived in one place, suggesting a failure in the demolitions above their location, fortuitous inflows of unheated air (which had to flow in to displace the rising cloud above the structures, visible in the video of the event), and remarkable luck.

1. The opacity of the structure concealed the light from the interior demolitions. Saying the lack of visibility of the interior of the structure is evidence of anything but it's opacity is disingenuous.

2. Hundreds of eyewitness reports of explosions exist.

3. Photographs of boxes of explosives taken by the 'art students' during the weeks they were working inside the towers prior to the events exist.

4. There is voluminous evidence of heat far in excess of what was produced by the fuel in the planes not consumed in the fireballs, or potential to office fires, including the scorched cars. No known form of radiation competent of causing the destruction of concrete and cutting of steel doesn't create high heat.

DEWs are claimed to exist today. There are publicly available (or there were recently) claims by test sites in Maui that have pictured several aircraft with such devices mounted on them, including an MQ9 Reaper drone, and claim there are 10 such aircraft operant today. However, none of the evidence in the Lahaina fire suggests they reduce concrete to particles. It certainly doesn't suggest lack of heat.

I won't go point by point to counter the myriad ad homs employed in the 911revision link. Those aren't arguments against Dr. Jones' theories, but are concessions they have no arguments so are resorting to insulting his person. One point was applied that I will address. Dr. Jones stated that an energy source of DEW devices was not given for them, and this was repeatedly misconstrued as a general claim of 'lack of data' regarding other matters. This duplicity is evidentiary of a lack of integrity and answers to Dr. Jones' specific question, which is that no devices capable of such precision or such power at any range from which they could have been sited in the face of the inverse square law are known, which is not attempted to be answered by 911revisionist. Dr. Woods herself resorts to such mischaracterizations of her questioners, by which mechanism she discounts her own integrity.

Aircraft with cloaking devices of some kind may certainly exist, but are not asserted. Multiple low power beams intersecting to produce destructive effects may be possible, but are not asserted. Also, DEWs mounted on aircraft was purely hypothetical until very recently, and cloaking devices remain theoretical at best, so Dr. Jones referring to space based weapons was a reasonable guess at that time regarding how DEWs could have been used.

The lack of seismic evidence, NIST's report, the scandalous false claims by Scientific American and Popular Science, various turncoats, and more, are explained by corruption, which Dr. Woods has neglected as explanatory of the many failures of oversight. As far as I know, all seismic monitoring is supported by government funding, which means the people monitoring that equipment are dependent on the demonstrably corrupt government for their jobs, which suggests a route for corruption of seismic data. Regarding particularization of immense amounts of concrete, that is a question that has not been satisfactorily answered. Withering ad homs are not satisfactory answers, and neither are DEWs.

Either specifically address the above points and refrain from ad homs and other logical fallacies or concede.

"Stop pushing thermite and "molten steel" disinfo."

I saw streams of red hot molten metal pouring out of the towers, and most of the molten metal would have poured down inside the structure, where it would have remained unseen from without. I saw reports of salvage being delayed by the heat from the pools of molten steel/iron, and saw the steam rising from the rubble field. Those things aren't disinfo, but observation. Calling my observations disinfo discredits you, not my observations.

The more ad hominems are applied, the less credibility inures to the appliers. The majority of the content at the 911revision substack is disparaging others, all of which discounts the credibility of the disparager. Resorting to such techniques is conceding you're wrong. Stick to evidence and address the points I've raised to remain credible. Resort to insults and destroy your credibility, which I will consider your concession.