Audio of Dr Mohammed Naseem's Interview on BBC 5 Live

[Andrew Johnson]

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Mohammed%20Naseem%20speaking %20about%20Al%20Qaida%20BBC%205Live%2028th%20July%202005.mp3

28th July, AM.

Send an e-mail to victoria@bbc.co.uk (the interviewer). This is what I sent her:

====

Dear Victoria,

I listened to the interview with Mohammed Nasseem. I have to say, he is right - Al Quaeda does not exist (as an International Terrorist organisation).

Whilst your other expert guests seemed think it does, they did not offer any definite evidence nor did they name names apart from Osama Bin laden (whose brother funded George Bush's Arbusto Oil company in years past). Nor did they seem to realise that the "Ricin" trial in London earlier this year collapsed with the release of the co-conspirators - there was no evidence against them (though the Algerian was convicted of murder). (The link I gave references a mirror, as the original Guardian article has been censored and removed from their web site).

When the spin is removed from the Al Qaeda stories, as was shown in the BBC's BAFTA award winning documentary "The Power of Nightmares", there is no evidence that Al Qaeda really exists. I would recommend that you view this documentary.

Immediately you say "If AQ doesn't exist, who was responsible for 9-11?" The answer to that can only be determined after a considerable amount of study and a willingness to turn most of your world-view upside down.

2.5 minutes of your time, if you please - Did Al Qaeda cause this to happen?

http://www.checktheevidence.com/WTC7.wmv

I don't think so. Neither was it fire that did this. Why? Because the laws of physics and chemistry do not permit it:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/TwinTowersandGravity.htm

Forward this to any physicist or person with a sufficient knowledge and ask them to check it.

There is so much evidence that someone else was involved in 9-11 that it's hard to accept, once you have looked at it, that you could ever have missed this evidence. Indeed, things are starting to change now, what with a former Bush Administration official stating clearly that he thinks the official story is wrong. He is a Professor Emeritus at Texas A & M University. Why not spend 15 minutes listening to what he has to say?

http://checktheevidence.com/audio/911/9-11%20Morgan%20Reynolds%20-%20C oast%20to%20Coast%20-%20Jun%2016%202005.mp3

Sadly I would be very surprised if the BBC, even though it is not supposed to be forbidden from reporting this story, was able to report on Morgan Reynolds comments or a synopsis of the article he has written, reported on your programme or any similar one. Equally, they will probably not report the similar remarks of a former Reagan Administration Official - Paul Craig Roberts.

I wonder if this e-mail will go unanswered, like so many others I have written about this subject. I know that in the future, the truth *will* come out, so that is what keeps me focused on the evidence.

Thanks for reading,

Andrew Johnson
Derbyshire
UK

[Akbal13]

Great letter, Andrew. Amazing if you get a reply. It'll be more than her job's worth to start asking awkward questions (thinking, even).

We're in a situation not unlike the east European states were in the days of the Soviet Union where everyone has to toe the line ... in public at least.

[truthseeker]

I say congratulations to ad.johnson. This is the correct way to go I feel. Clear specific information of a very high quality and accuracy straight to the person concerned. We need much, much more of this kind of activity by folks of the calibre of ad.johnson.

Incidentally, I do hope that those who are able to are keeping copies of these voice recordings etc. before they dissapear into the ethernet.

[Andrew Johnson]

Thanks for the support folks-I really appreciate it. The e-mail I sent had further links embedded in the text to support other comments, which it isn't easy to copy into these posting without faffing about.

I have written a few e-mails like this and never had any response.

[ian neal]

Yes well done Andrew.

Well structured and argued email. Whilst you may rightly not hold too much hope of a personal reply from Victoria, by also logging your comments/complaint with the BBC offocially then they are obliged to respond

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

As a point of information, Eric's video clip is inaccurate in its statement that WTC 7 was not damaged by falling debris. It was and there are photos to prove it. (I will need to search for them) This doesn't mean that the 'official explanation' (fire) is correct or that WTC 7 is not a very strong argument.

Well done

[Andrew Johnson]

Ian,

I already complained to the BBC complaints division Broadcasting Standards Council and the ITC because of sub-standard reporting. No response received to date.

I included the addresses in other information I already posted here:

http://www.cognoscence.net/Terrorism-and9-11.pdf

Part of my reason for this approach is that even though it may not elicit a response, one or more people may read the letters and possibly view the DVDs (which I usually send as a matter of course)

Cheers - letter used below - repeats much of what I already posted.

=====================

Complaint about Significant Failings in News Coverage
Dear Madam/Sir,

I am writing to complain about the lack of appropriate coverage of news topics, in the light of easy-to-check facts.

For some time now, I have been engaged in research covering various topics which receive little or no coverage in our news bulletins. The topic of greatest concern to me is “What Really Happened on September 11th 2001”. Now, I can almost sense eyes rolling and “tuts” of scorn being uttered. However, I do not get side-tracked by such reactions, I try to check the facts and ask hard questions. To give you one example, below I present very strong evidence that the Twin Towers in New York city could not have collapsed solely as a result of 2 jets colliding with them (in my opinion, it is actually proof that they were demolished with explosives). This sounds unbelievable – however, again, the important thing is to check the facts. As Mike Ruppert said (track 6 on the Audio CD), we are dealing with “Some of the most serious issues to present themselves before a free people.”

So, my complaint is this: these facts have not been presented properly on main news bulletins on any TV or Radio network. Something is seriously wrong, when it is easy to establish that these facts are true and correct. The interpretation of them has been clouded by media and government spin and disinformation, along with a general incredulity that such facts could be correct and true. This was illustrated again on Thursday 14th April when news bulletins announced the conviction of a supposed Algerian terrorist in a plot to make Ricin (see attached Guardian article where the emphasis is much more appropriate). In the bulletin I heard (8 am Radio 2) emphasis was placed on the conviction of the Algerian, not on the release of another 4 people. Though representation was given to the defence council, it was not made clear enough that the plot was mostly a fabrication of evidence and the case was almost farcical – this is hugely significant.

But let us look at the attack on New York. We can continue the pretence that 19 hijackers carried out a coordinated, pre-meditated and surprising attack on the USA in September 2001, or we can start to come to terms with the terrible truth - that the facts show that there is actually very little truth to this story. The attack was, in fact, in whole or in part, orchestrated by the CIA, with the complicity of other US governmental and para-governmental agencies and almost certainly other international assistance. Let me illustrate clearly just a couple of the extremely worrying fallacies in the official story, which are to do with Science – Physics and Chemistry - to be exact, and not “wild conspiracy theories”.

There is a simple observation and calculation that can be made. The Twin Towers collapsed in about 8 & 10 seconds respectively, top to bottom (ground level). They were 1350 feet high (source: Groliers Multimedia Encyclopedia, 2000 edition) – let’s approximate to 1300 feet high.

Now, as we know: from the Law of Falling Bodies and the Laws of Motion, described by Galileo and Isaac Newton over 300 years ago.
or if u=0,

Rearranging for t gives:

So, for a ball bearing dropped from the top of the towers, it would drop 400m (=1300ft). In the expression above, therefore, s = 400m. In the equation above, a is actually the acceleration due to gravity = 9.81 m/s2. These are all checkable facts – consult a physics textbook or encyclopedia.

So, the time taken for ball bearing free-fall =

= 9.03 seconds (assuming no air resistance)

Therefore, the towers came down with almost NO RESISTANCE. That means that, when the planes hit, IT MUST HAVE STARTED A CHEMICAL/CHAIN REACTION which caused *ALL* THE STEEL GIRDERS THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING to VAPORISE after a few minutes! This is clearly a fallacy! The heat of a kerosene-fuelled fire simply could not have caused this type of reaction. All other skyscrapers that have had fires – sometimes burning for hours – have not even come close to collapsing. Another checkable fact – Kerosene burns at a maximum temperature of about 1500°F (816°C). Steel melts at approximately 2700°F (1482°C). Other evidence at the site of the disaster also leads one to the conclusion that the Steel columns in the towers were destroyed with something like C4 explosives, which would generate enough heat to melt the steel, so that the towers underwent a freefall collapse. Think about it - even the columns in the lower sections of the building were completely destroyed, where there was no fire!

This must be correct because one of the towers collapsed in about 8 seconds - i.e. the vacuum created by the demolition explosives "sucked the building down" slightly, reducing the collapse time. This analysis, should, of course be on every news bulletin - but as ever, few people are thinking and listening.

This is just one of a considerable number of anomalies relating to the official story. (Such as the overlooked fact that WTC building 7 collapsed when nothing hit it!)

Of course, because of the conclusion that is inferred from the facts about the collapse of the Twin Towers, those facts are generally rejected out of hand and assumed to be a “laughable conspiracy theory”. Whilst such theories are put forward and bandied about by various groups in various guises, the analysis I presented is actually a mathematical proof, and is therefore neither laughable, conspiracy-based, nor is it a theory. (So it is true that people believe what they want to believe, even when a proof shows the belief to be fallacious).

Whether the 9-11 Commission was politically biased, or whatever conclusions it may have drawn, does not change the acceleration due to gravity. Neither does it change the chemical composition of the materials which made up the towers. I say again - the facts have to be checked. This is easy to do. Someone with AS Level Physics can determine that the collapse of the Twin Towers was not caused solely by collisions of 2 jets. I am not interested in statements such as “Well, the FEMA report said it was a pancake collapse”. The FEMA report is, simply put, wrong. The questions of “how” and “why” it is wrong are secondary, and they can be tackled once it is accepted that FEMA is and was wrong. Neither do I think that BBC Horizon programmes examined all the evidence fairly when they were aired some time ago (Thursday 7 March 2002), although much evidence and testimony has come to light since then.

It isn’t only a concerned person in Borrowash that thinks this, there is a group of brave people in the USA that have filed a complaint with the Attorney General of New York City, Elliot Spitzer forming the basis of an Active Legal Challenge to the official story about the supposed terrorist attacks on 9-11:

http://www.justicefor911.org

To see the substantial basis of their complaint, and the evidence and arguments they present, you could do worse than to read at least some of this 35-page document:

http://www.justicefor911.org/Justicefor911NYC_Main11-19-04.pdf

(This document can be found on the CD-ROM I have included - which has been checked for Viruses, by the way). This is a serious letter easy to ignore as “conspiracy theory-based”, and no one I have sent it to has refuted the Physics and Chemistry that I have laid out above. The important thing to do is check the facts. A process which is now, it seems, going out of fashion in mainstream media reporting and broadcasting.

By all means refute the Physics and Chemistry I have laid out above – and if it is a serious refutation, then I will be happy to reconsider the conclusions that I have presented, based on this and other evidence. I would also advise you send it to the above organization as well (“Justice for 9-11”) – as I am sure they would like to hear about it as well.

If you did not choose to check these facts, I would assume that you thought I was “making them up” - to pass the time of day - or that I was attaching “false significance” to them. For the record, I was not doing the former, and the latter is a matter of opinion, usually the result of not checking facts.

Even a BBC documentary “The Power of Nightmares”, shown last year, and repeated more recently, came to the conclusion that the notion of Al Qaida as an international terrorist organisation is a largely a fantasy. This then begs the question, “if Al Qaida does not really exist, then who did perpetrate 9-11”. A viewing of “9-11: The Great Illusion” should give you a good idea of the truth.

If you are thinking something along the lines of “Well, I just can not believe all this – if this really was true, then I would already know about it”, then what you need to do is check the facts. Listen to the Audio CD and watch the Video “9-11: The Great Illusion”. You then have to ask yourself “are all these people who have done the research, spoken about it etc liars, cheats and fools? Can they all have such a distorted perception of events?” You ultimately have to make your own decision about this. I made such a decision some time ago and am therefore sat here typing this.

Regarding other events on 9-11. There are a number of important questions which one needs to ask such as:

(1) Regarding the Pentagon attack, how were bodies from the Boeing 757 identified, while at the same time 60 tons of metal supposedly vaporized?
(2) Also regarding the Pentagon, how could a student pilot make a Boeing 757 jet nosedive toward the ground and then, pull up at the last moment and zoom along without radar guidance toward his target, literally inches above the ground?
(3) How did that 757 – essentially a hollow tube – pierce six reinforced walls of the Pentagon fortress? No source I have read has convincingly explained how this could have happened. Incidentally, the final hole, of which there is fortunately a photograph, is remarkably well-defined, and about 7 feet in diameter.
(4) Why were at least two independent video cameras of the Pentagon attack confiscated, and why are they still unavailable to the public?
(5) Why did NORAD’s standard defence procedures -- procedures which had worked efficiently for years and years, and which were activated 70 times in the 12 months before 9/11 -- fail on that single morning?
(6) Why would numerous witnesses on the ground in lower Manhattan, including several NYC fire fighters, speak of a series of explosions emanating from the South Tower during its collapse?
(7) Why for an entire year did the President try to prevent a commission from forming to investigate the event?

So, why wasn’t the people’s hearing on 9th September in New York given prominent media coverage? This hearing was chaired by former Congress Woman Cynthia McKinney. This lack of coverage is a mystery to me (from a certain point of view).

To add to all this, I have presented these facts to both my local MP and the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, as well as all major TV and radio networks. In response to the letter to Charles Clarke, I received a letter from the Counter Terrorism Policy Office. I then wrote to them directly, outlining the facts and questions I have presented in this letter. On the surface of it, this response seems innocuous enough. On further consideration, however, I think it perhaps shows the dire situation we are in. The second response from the Counter Terrorism Policy Office merely re-states their opinion – without any references to checkable facts. As with my previous letter to my MP, none of the facts I presented have been directly or indirectly refuted. The letter, is to me, interesting enough in of itself solely for that reason. As a Policy Office for Counter-terrorism, they should be well-informed enough to refute any or all of the statements I made in a coherent way. This has not happened.

To begin to correct this terrible situation, a special news programme is required to report the significant facts which are contained in the material I have sent you. These can be checked by professional researchers in a manner which a humble software developer, like me is unable to do. The time to start this action is now. Please contact me if I can supply further information. Thank you for the time you have spent in reading this, in your busy schedule.

Yours Sincerely,


Andrew Johnson