A few days ago, I sent an email to Patricia Casazza asking about her WTC dust sample, but still no reply from her.

Interestingly, 3 months ago after I made calling out Richard Gage for profiting off of 9/11 disinfo, and emailing the link to her, she sent me a BIZARRE email that was clearly AI-generated.

She also misspelled my name, BCC me alongside a bunch of 9/11 disinfo spooks (who were the only people to reply to her email, which they used as an opportunity to trash DJW et al), and pretended like I didn't know Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. Morgan Reynolds, and ....

I didn't reply to her email because it was a bit too nonsensical for me.... 🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐

But did she actually, personally, write it? Or was she under the influence of someone with artificially (low) intelligence??

The full text of the email is listed at the bottom of this email for reference.

The Culprit: Norman Swanepoel aka 9/11 Revisionist + AI almost certainly wrote the email

I had kept that email in my back-pocket for 3 months, because it was obvious to me that Norman Swanepoel aka 9/11 Revisionist + AI almost certainly sent that email on behalf of Patricia Casazza. I was just waiting for the right time to expose it.

Note that I am stating "almost certainly" as meaning 99.999999% chance that Norman + AI wrote it, and the last remaining decimal % chance is if / when he admits it himself.

I will now list and then expand upon many "clues", that Norman Swanepoel + AI wrote it.

Norman never publicly denied writing the email
The email is obviously AI written or heavily assisted
My name is misspelled
The email pretends that I don't know the 3 people listed
Norman offered to write the introduction of MES to Patricia
The email is a new email thread and not a reply
The email title includes 9/11 Accountability
The email ends with two links to Norman's articles
The email promotes disinfo spook Bob Greenyer
Seven days after email, Norman "welcomes Bob Greenyer"
Three months before the email Norman asks me for Bob Greenyer's email on behalf of Patricia
Norman tells me focus on the Patricia letter instead of 9/11 "planes"
Norman curses Dr. Judy Wood while promoting lying swindler Bob Greenyer
Nick M was the first subscriber to realize Norman was behind the email!

To be added to the list later when I have time:

goal of throwing 9/11 reality into a plasoid ditch alongside word salad extraordinaire Bob Greenyer
Shortly after I call out Adam Eisenberg, Norman sends another mass email promoting 3 people (just like the Patricia AI email), and these people are PC, Adam Eisenberg, and Bob Greenyer.... Interesting that Greenyer is 3rd place AGAIN.
February or March 19, 2026 which is a few weeks before the email, she had a hand surgery for skin cancer, hence likely affects writing.
Disinfo spook Adam Eisenberg mentions 25 Rules of Disinformation and first one he talks about is parodying victims to get people to follow your cause:
Norman heavily uses AI in his recent articles and thumbnails, while plagiarizing many people's work even Dr. Judy Wood, and literally echoes the AI email he sent: https://t.me/meslinkschat/56629
Norman + AI calls DJW's evidence a "hypothesis" (and later changes it after I call him out): https://t.me/meslinkschat/56630
Norman copies and pastes exact Grok AI table: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-bombshell-the-towers-were-resonated
Norman literally has a burner Telegram account called Cynanon 🇺🇸 aka Cyn-anon and profile photo is anti-woke spokesperson Syndney Sweeney and that account uses C-word aka literally Norman, and says Dr. Wood or Dr Wood, etc.: https://t.me/meslinkschat/56566
Norman minimizes link to DJW's article, while STILL promoting Bob even though she and I literally told him directly to stop it: https://911revision.substack.com/p/dr-judy-wood-to-richard-gage-your
Email was just BEFORE the Norman "welcomed Bob Greenyer" and his dust nonsense.
March 19 = skin cancer hand surgery
April 10 = MES email reply to Patricia.
April 10 = Norman article about Patricia's THIRD letter to 9/11 spooks: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-jersey-girl-drops-third-open
April 12 = Patricia / AI / Norman NEW email thread to MES + BCC spooks.
June 7 = MES privately telling Norman that Bob is a spook: https://t.me/meslinkschat/56719
Norman stoops to a new low and publishes his Coast-to-Coast hit piece article that Dr. Judy Wood specifically told him not to publish, as it would hurt her chances of getting on C2C again or any other show with a large audience: https://t.me/meslinks/35254 &
mestruth1s ago
Notice also Norman's familiarity with BCC'ing (mispelled BBCing) people haha (I think I have done that maybe once or twice in my life).
Richard Gage uses ChatGPT to counter Norman Swanepoel's Grok AI article LOL https://richardgage911.substack.com/p/its-just-paint-2
Norman uses misleading AI generated Bob Greenyer Dust nonsense thumbnails as per email.
Parading victims = disinfo.
normal email name tag at bottom is greyed.
AI email font is different from Patricia's normal emails.
Norman is all in on click-bait now.
Grok can connect Gmail, check font!
Grok AI timestamps, "DEW theory", "DJW is a bad presenter but one hell of an structural engineer" AI comment by Norman: https://substack.com/home/post/p-206551505
Corrects his DJW "hypothesis" AI article to "evidence" after MES points it out, yet he doesn't issue an apology or even acknowledge it.

1. Norman never publicly denied writing the email

I accused Norman Swanepoel directly in my MES Links Chat Telegram group that he + AI almost certainly wrote the email using Patricia's email account.

He never denied it in the group, yet just sent a Bill Nye GIF.

Soon after I kicked him out of my Telegram group since he resorted to insults and spamming with GIFs containing expletives.

Norman then sent a mass email with the title "COWARD" and claiming that pointing out the bizarre Patricia-Norman-AI email was an "attack on Norman, Bob Greenyer, and Patricia".

I, of course, responded by stating "Calm down clown", which is a phrase I may have to trademark 😅.

Norman's disinfo clown accomplice Joshua Stewart responded to the email thread requesting an apology to Patricia (for what? pointing out that her email account is sending bizarre AI generated emails directed by Norman?), and I, once again, accused Norman of writing the email.

Yet still no reply. Pretty cowardly I might add...

Interestingly, in another email thread (that was initially started, as always, by Norman), this Joshua Stewart character was exposed by literal 9/11 disinfo spook Gene Laratonda for writing nonsensical AI generated emails, about "eigenvalues" of all things, while slipping the into the research of Dr. Judy Wood and John Hutchison, as if no one would notice...

I even called out Norman's accomplice Joshua in my Telegram chat for using AI, which he double-down on his bogus use of AI.

Interestingly, Gene claims that even Patricia Casazza's open letter to the 9/11 truth movement, which Norman heavily promotes (including having her read it out while literally crying), is also AI-generated....

2. The email is obviously AI written or heavily assisted

Anyone with any experience with artificial intelligence (AI) models such as Grok AI, ChatGPT, Claude, etc., can easily spot that much of the email is AI generated.

The obvious tell is the "em dash" or "—", which is a longer version of the normal dash or "-". I personally had no idea it existed until the advent of ChatGPT.

Passing the full text to Claude AI, it concludes that the email is either "fully AI-drafted or heavily AI-polished from bullet points a human provided".

My overall read: This has several classic AI-writing fingerprints (structure, em dashes, stock transitions, the placeholder artifacts), and it reads like it was either fully AI-drafted or heavily AI-polished from bullet points a human provided. I can't confirm this with certainty — no tool can reliably detect AI text — but if you're trying to gauge authenticity of the sender's own voice vs. a bot/copy-paste campaign, this leans toward the latter.

Passing the full text to Grok AI, the conclusion is similar to Claude's.

This is almost certainly either:

Fully AI-generated and then lightly personalized, or

Drafted by AI and then edited/approved by Patricia (or someone in the immediate circle who regularly uses AI for correspondence).

The content aligns with her public positions and the 911revision ecosystem, so the ideas are hers or the group’s. The writing itself, however, carries the clear fingerprints of heavy AI assistance.

Interestingly, in the same above output, Grok AI brought up (with no prompting of my own) that the Patricia Open Letters published on Norman's Substack show similar and "strong signs of AI assistance or heavy editing".

Comparison to her public letters: Her published open letters on the 911revision Substack (the “THIRD Bombshell”, the earlier “Seeking the whole truth”, etc.) share the same highly structured, polished, rhetorical style — numbered categories, analogies, precise technical vocabulary around dustification/DEW, and formal calls for accountability. This private email is consistent with that voice, which itself already shows strong signs of AI assistance or heavy editing.

3. My name is misspelled

My name is spelled Mathiew, not Matthiew, as the the emails lists.

Interestingly, this might be one of few instances of human-generated writing in the email, as whoever sent it likely just touched up the AI output to add a few personal touches – which even Grok AI notices!

It is not pure, unedited raw human writing. There are almost no personal tics, minor imperfections, emotional roughness, or conversational slips that would normally appear in a private email from someone who is not a professional writer or editor. The misspelling “Matthiew” is the only small human-like error.

4. The email pretends that I don't know the 3 people listed

Patricia Casazza knows full well who I am and that I know Dr. Judy Wood. I even tweeted to her last year to join a MES livestream alongside Dr. Judy Wood.
She also follows me on X!

Interestingly, even her above tweet that I was replying to is considered by both Claude AI and Grok AI as being heavily AI assisted.

Claude AI:
Net take: the phrasing pattern (especially "however, a closer examination reveals") is a fairly strong tell for AI assistance, but I can't be fully certain without more context — it's also consistent with a heavily edited or ghostwritten human statement.

Grok AI:
Patricia Casazza (one of the original “Jersey Girls”) has had several long open letters published on the 9/11 Revisionist Substack in 2025–2026. Those letters use a very similar formal, structured, somewhat elevated register (detailed critiques, “empirically supported,” careful analogies, etc.). The promotional language around those letters also matches the style of the text you quoted.

Her own X account (@SpazPat20461) appears to post very little (or nothing recent that matches this), while the @911Revisionist account heavily amplifies statements attributed to her. This pattern is consistent with content that is either ghost-written, heavily edited, or AI-assisted and then attributed to her.

Interestingly, I have never got a direct message from her as they have always been through Norman, such as this April 2, 2026 where he confirms he she has been made aware of my request for her to join an MES Livestream. Note that this is 10 days before the Patricia-Norman-AI email, and Norman offers to do the introduction...

Fast-forward 10 days later on April 12, 2026, and the Patricia-Norman-AI email lists Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. Morgan Reynolds, and Bob Greenyer as if I have never of them before. I even have had !

And her structured list of is also clearly AI written, as illustrated earlier.

5. Norman offered to write the introduction of MES to Patricia

As just discussed above, and just 10 days before the Patricia-Norman-AI email, Norman offered to do the introduction of MES to Patricia next time he speaks or emails Patricia...

Quite the "coincidence" that 10 days after this message, Norman + AI almost certainly provided an introduction between Patricia and MES...

6. The email is a new email thread and not a reply

When I emailed Patricia about the Richard Gage profiting off of 9/11 video, it was as a reply to her reply to Norman's initial email thread.

Instead of replying directly, "Patricia" created a new email thread.

This is not a normal response, but it is the norm for Norman. Even his fellow disinfo spook Jim Fetzer calls out Norman for doing this!

In fact, most of my inbox is filled by Norman literally sending and creating new email threads rather than simply replying like a real human being.

And why does Norman email dozens of 9/11 spooks (while including MES, Dr. Judy Wood, and a few other genuine researchers), every. single. day?!

7. The email title includes 9/11 Accountability

A big giveaway that this email is Norman's + AI's doing is the fact that the title of the email is "Accountability with the 9/11 Truth Movement".

This is essentially the tagline that Norman uses in his website and all of his emails.

International Center for 9/11 Accountability: ic911a.org
Help us get accountability and expose the coverup of the coverup

In the search for 9/11 accountability

Note that even this tagline of "9/11 accountability" was originally thought up of by Dr. Judy Wood in one her early communications with Norman (before she found out he was a slithering snake), yet he has run with it as if it's own, without giving credit to The Doctor for it!

8. The email ends with two links to Norman's articles

Another obvious tell that this email is from Norman, is that the email ends literally with two links to two articles by Norman.

Interestingly, the first link is to Norman's article containing Patricia's third letter, which as previously stated, may actually be heavily AI-assisted as well.

https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-jersey-girl-drops-third-open
https://911revision.substack.com/p/richard-gage-calls-out-911-revisionist

9. The email promotes disinfo spook Bob Greenyer

For me personally, the most obvious clue that Norman Swanepoel had his AI-assisted hands all over this email is the subtle / not-so-subtle insinuation that people should stop promoting the usual dustification evidence by Dr. Judy Wood, but instead look "forward" to "actual advancements" in disinfo clown Bob Greenyer.

This is demonstrated in the portion of the email that says one should stop relying on "structural and civil engineers" (aka Dr. Judy Wood, and to a lesser degrees the disinfo group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 "Truth") for "conventional analysis", but rather look to other "materials scientists, physicists, and technology experts" (aka pointing to the swindler Bob Greenyer).

I know full well that Patricia (and Norman) are not capable of nor have a clue of the meaning of what was just written. This, instead, reeks of an operation to promote Bob Greenyer just before the propaganda push of the upcoming dust-baggie nonsense that would soon ensue.

Bob is a liar, a spook, and a clown that literally sees "fractal toroiodal moments" in MH370 cartoons. And he has still not publicly apologized, retracted, or even awknowledged his bogus "atomic clocks changed on 9/11" nonsensical lies.

See my playlist to get up to speed on this word salad extraordinaire.

While Norman's use of AI is horrible, an actual good use of Grok AI is shown below of Buzzword Bobby's Bowl of Babble.

10. Seven days after email, Norman "welcomes Bob Greenyer"

The Patricia-Norman-AI email was on April 12, 2026 made both cryptic insinuations and public declarations that word salad connoisseur Bob Greenyer deserves to be on-par and even above Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds.

Fast forward to just 7 days later on April 19, 2026, and Norman Swanepoel publishes an article declaring "welcome Bob Greenyer" as he spins up the random word generator in his brain to "challenge everything we thought we knew".

The article includes the video interview between Bob Greenyer and Chuck Fall (also a spook) on the Truth Action Project (TAP) Rumble channel. In it, Bob discusses Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) images of the Patricia dust-baggie sample, and says how it has all kinds of weird-and-wonderful things.

But as Dr. Judy Wood had elegantly stated a decade ago, this whole dust-baggie business is just the magician's trick from getting people to look away from the towers turning almost completely to dust in mid-air.

11. Three months before the email Norman asks me for Bob Greenyer's email on behalf of Patricia

As I was writing this article, and sifting through my messages with Norman for communications involving "Patricia", I came across this absolute gem from January 14, 2026 (just 1 day before my birthday) that I had completely forgot about! Actual photos of THE dust-baggie that "challenges everything we thought knew"!

Here are cropped and rotated photos of the dust-baggie.

Exactly 21 minutes later, Norman sends me another message, this time from Patricia herself discussing how she obtained the dust-baggie. Patricia acknowledges the (obvious) chain-of-custody issue, as she said the sample was given to her by neighbor who worked near Ground Zero on 9/11 and wanted more clarity from him about it.

I have pasted the full text below for easier reading.

Thank you for contacting Dr. Wood. The sample came from atop a Verizon truck parked at Ground Zero—I believe Verizon was in the Barclay building at 140 West St. The building sustained significant damage that day. The sample came from a neighbor of mine who worked there and thought the five families in my town of Colts Neck, NJ, who lost a loved one that day should have something real from that day. He was near tears when he handed it to me—so much trauma.

There could be a chain-of-custody issue, perhaps because it wasn't retrieved directly by me. I tried to speak with him afterward to get more clarity and possibly more samples he might have in his possession, but he didn't answer the phone (I spoke with his son) or return my call. My guess is he was reprimanded for giving us those samples, or was still too traumatized to say or do anything more, and wanted to distance himself.

Again, I appreciate your advice on this and will wait to see if you can obtain a direct e-mail address for Bib Greenyer.

With all puns intended—may the chips fall where they may. 😊

Note that Patricia asks Norman for a Bob Greenyer's direct email, which I provided to Norman upon request. This further demonstrates that Patricia knows that I know Bob Greenyer (and Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds), unlike what the AI email would readers believe.

12. Norman tells me to focus on the Patricia letter instead of 9/11 "planes"

Just 5 days after the dust baggie email, Norman sends me a messages on January 19, 2026 being up in arms that I was considering the possibility that something physical was involved in the 3D plane-shaped images in the sky on 9/11. And in his usual angry, and illogical, rants, he literally said the 9/11 "planes" is a "waste of time", to leave those to Morgan Reynolds and Mark Conlon (it's fine if they "waste their time"?) and that I should "give more attention to Patricia Casazza's open letter"...

Note that I told Norman that Patricia is welcome on my show whenever she wants, so why has he got her to join an MES Livestream? That would've certainly gave attention to her open letter.

Note also the usual bully tactics that Norman employs to try to "handle" MES, so one must wonder how much of a handle he has on Patricia...

13. Norman curses Dr. Judy Wood while promoting lying swindler Bob Greenyer

When I first posted the earlier version of this article, Norman considered it "attacking Patricia", when it was clearly documenting that her account sent an AI generated email with all the hallmarks of Norman's fingerprints all over it.

So how does Norman respond when he is confronted about the AI email and my pointing out that many of his articles are AI generated too?.... He responds by bringing up Dr. Judy Wood for no reason and by calling her paranoid, when she wasn't even part of this conversation!

And after telling Norman he has to retract a lot of the Bob Greenyer nonsense, he literally and publicly curses Dr. Judy Wood and her chickens....

This was one of the most pathetic moments in the career of Slithering Snake Swanepoel, especially since he brands himself as Dr. Judy Wood's "biggest supporter"... Very Jim Fetzer-esc, I have to say...

Note also, that he has said things MUCH worse about Dr. Judy Wood privately to me, and which I will keep private as it is too despicable to share publicly.

Now compare Norman's unhinged attacks against Dr. Judy Wood to how he defends Bob Greenyer for "analyzing" and finding "fractal toroidal moments" in LITERAL MH370 CARTOONS! Absolute clown show!

Interestingly, at the same time Norman came out publicly as a Slithering Snake, Dr. Judy Wood actually saw a snake trying to attack her chickens – the first time in 15 years that she had seen one! Quite the coincidence!

Fortunately, the snake ate a fake egg, which prevented him from squeezing into any opening to get to the chickens, and soon after he met his demise.

Here is one Dr. Judy Wood's chickens, Chief Jester the rooster holding the Slithering Snake Swanepoel in his beak!

14. Nick M was the first subscriber to realize Norman was behind the email!

I would like to give a shoutout to Nick M on Telegram for being the first MES subscriber to pin the tail on the donkey, before I let the cat out of the bag, (or stomped out the slithering snake)!

MES has good intuition

Peeps think they so sneaky

Norman has been suspicious since day 1

Full text of her email

For reference, and easy readability, here is the full text of the Patricia-Norman-AI email.

Accountability with the 9/11 Truth Movement

Dear Matthiew,

Thank you for taking the time to make the clip highlighting how Richard Gage and others have turned the suffering of 9/11 victims into a business and a livelihood. It cuts through the noise and forces a much-needed conversation about accountability within the 9/11 truth community.

These voices do not act in good faith when they rely heavily — almost exclusively — on structural and civil engineers (which is valuable for conventional analysis) but fail to include the full range of materials scientists, physicists, and technology experts needed for a complete picture of dustification or directed-energy possibilities.

Instead, they suppress genuine facts and obstruct real, forward-moving investigations into 9/11; they cross a line. At that point, they are compounding the harm inflicted on 9/11 victims and taking advantage of the generosity of unsuspecting supporters. Rehashing the same material year after year, decade after decade, while loudly claiming “progress” is simply wrong. After more than twenty years of recycled presentations and talking points, any honest observer has to ask: Where is the actual advancement? Where are the breakthroughs that should have come from all this time, energy, and funding?

That said, I do believe there are genuine exceptions — individuals who possess the education and professional qualifications that entitle them to speak with authority on the destruction of the buildings on 9/11, or who have specialized technological and scientific abilities, contacts, and access to information that only they can effectively leverage to produce the highest-quality investigative work on 9/11. This includes:

Dr. Judy Wood, who holds a PhD in Materials Engineering Science, has a background in applied physics, and has expertise in photomechanics and materials behavior under extreme conditions, and who filed a landmark Qui Tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act against NIST contractors, alleging fraud in the official 9/11 World Trade Center reports;

Dr. Morgan Reynolds, former Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor under President George W. Bush and professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, who also filed a Qui Tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act against NIST contractors, alleging fraud in the official World Trade Center reports;

Bob Greenyer (with his research into exotic energy systems and advanced technology analysis), along with other dedicated independent researchers and whistleblowers who bring rigorous, interdisciplinary expertise in physics, materials science, and black-budget-level technologies.
When people in this category use those advantages to advance real discoveries, their contributions and sacrifices are invaluable and deserve our support, monetary and otherwise. That includes all the good people on this email. I sincerely apologize to anyone else doing the unacknowledged yeoman’s work without that kind of support — please share this note with anyone you believe could use the acknowledgment they deserve from me.

Again, your clip sheds much-needed light on this uncomfortable reality, and I thank you for it. It’s time more people in the movement had the integrity to call this out rather than look the other way.

With appreciation and respect,

Patricia Casazza

P.S. Please review the content below in the context of the email above:

9/11 Jersey Girl’s THIRD Bombshell Open Letter: Half-Truths Are Still Whole Lies
Patricia Casazza to Richard Gage & 9/11 Truth Leaders: End the Half-Truths Now!
Open Letter: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-jersey-girl-drops-third-open

Richard Gage Calls Out 9/11 Revisionist – But He Just Debunked Himself. Gage cites Dr. Judy Wood’s pages to attack her — those exact pages destroy Gage's claims.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/richard-gage-calls-out-911-revisionist

Telegram: https://t.me/meslinks/35209
MES Links: https://mes.fm/links

Posted Using INLEO

9/11 Jersey Girl Patricia Casazza's Bizarre AI Generated Email to MES