After 5 years, many many aspects of domestic and foreign
policy in both the USA and UK are based on a false premise – that the 9/11
attacks were committed by Islamic fundamentalist hijackers in a plot to “attack
the freedom” enjoyed by people living in Western Democratic Societies. 9/11
Truth Campaigners, like me, now know that this story is false and that we must,
as quickly as possible, make as many people as possible aware of the depth of
this falsehood, and its implications.
We know that WTC Towers 1, 2 and 7 were not destroyed
by jet fuel and jet impacts. More and more people are beginning to realise the
official story is a gigantic lie. We are now battling to get the truth out to
people who need to understand that they are being spoon-fed a diet of fear and
misinformation. Mainstream media will not treat the issue seriously, and the
language they use to describe our efforts to expose the truth is usually
tainted with ridicule and/or disbelief, though recently, in the USA, things
have begun to take a slightly different direction.
For those of us engaged in this battle, it is sometimes easy
to think that we now know enough about the realities of what happened on 9/11
to campaign and we should focus on that and keep our momentum going. However,
perhaps we should remember, too, that the 9/11 perpetrators (“perps”) are still
at work – they didn’t just “disappear” or “go underground” when the 9/11 Truth
Campaign began to get some traction (more so in the USA than the UK). We should
realise that the perps’ tactics are to infiltrate, decoy, distract, trash and
ridicule and those tactics will be applied to 9/11 Truth Campaign groups in
exactly the same way as they are applied to other protest groups such as
Amnesty International and Stop The War. (These groups, for example have not, to
my knowledge, yet made any public statements about the proof that 9/11 was an
Inside Job.)
When we join a campaign such as the one for 9/11 Truth,
perhaps there is an expectation that all fellow campaigners – especially those
who become prominent – are involved for the same reasons we are. Also, because
of the particularly fundamental nature of 9/11 truth, we possibly assume fellow
campaigners will be open-minded enough to dispassionately evaluate pertinent
evidence regarding the events of 9/11 in an effort to determine what really
happened. This expectation is perhaps brought about by our change in attitude
from “believing what the media spoon-feeds us” to an attitude of looking more
critically at evidence, from different sources, and deciding why and how this
evidence is being brought to our attention, and what its meaning is. One of the
key phrases that we come across is “Cui Bono?” – “Who Benefits?”. Additionally,
we learn to “follow the money” - i.e. an unfolding agenda can often be seen to
be orchestrated by bodies with a large amount of cash.
A Personal Perspective
Recently, I seem to have found myself to be involved in what
I think are pivotal matters in the 9/11 Truth Arena. I am not entirely sure how
this happened - I did not actively seek to be involved, nor do I have any
desire to gain any recognition for this involvement, other than as someone who
is honest, tries to be balanced and who dislikes conflict. To be frank, I would
rather get on with my own life and I wish that there wasn’t a need to campaign
vigorously for these matters to be exposed. As Korey Rowe has been heard to say
“I had a nice life before this.”
A number of laughable
allegations have been made against me on the UK 9/11 Forum, which only
upset me to the extent that those making them could have spent their time more
productively (for example, in completing activities which they accuse me of
“distracting” others from doing – by writing articles like this!). In order
that the risibility of the allegations can be appreciated, let me describe my
background - I am now 42 and was born in Skipton, North Yorkshire, UK - in
(essentially) a working-class family and I am the youngest of 9 children. My
Dad had no formal education and was an orphan at 12 years old. My Mum also had
little formal education but has always had an interest in science, the arts,
and literature and has a very active and open mind. I was educated at Ermysted's Grammar School
(Skipton) and left in 1983 with ‘A’ Levels in Maths, Physics, Chemistry and
General Studies. I went on to Lancaster
University do a degree in Computer Science (with a minor module of Physics)
and graduated in 1986. I then worked in Software Engineering (real-time software
– process control and telecommunications) for about 6 years. I developed an
interest in teaching and education and ended up spending 2 years as a lecturer
on BTEC National and Higher National Diploma Courses at West Notts College. Dissatisfied with
working conditions, I then moved back into industry (1995-1997) working in the field of Mobile
Data. Following an attractive offer of work from a friend, I started to work at home, just
before my daughter was born. I now do a range of part time jobs, earning most
of my income from assessing
disabled students for access to assistive technology for higher education.
I got into this work through the Open
University - I tutor part time on a course called T224 (Computers and
Processors). I began actively campaigning about 9/11 (writing letters, speaking
to people in the street etc) in about September 2004.
In approximately December 2005, I received a surprise
invitation from Steven E Jones to join a loose association called “Scholars for
9/11 Truth”, which had several types of membership – “Full”, “Associate” and
“Student”. As I wasn’t a full-time academic, I requested to join as an
associate, but surprisingly Steve suggested I join as a full member (I thought
at the time this may have been because I had previously posted a “challenge” on a
popular Physics forum for people there to explain the freefall collapse
times of WTC 1 & 2.)
As I had been privately campaigning for about 1 year, I was
greatly encouraged, at the time, that the academic community might finally be
waking up to the serious flaws in the Official 9/11 Story – what with the likes
of Prof David Ray Griffin, Prof Jim Fetzer, Prof Kevin Barrett and others
beginning to speak out. The fact that Jim Fetzer and Steve Jones seemed to be
bringing these people together seemed to be a super development – giving real
hope. I was
prompted to write to my own University to ask for permission to give a
presentation at the Main Campus in Milton Keynes (the request was denied).
And so, at the time, it seemed that thermite played a role
in the destruction of the WTC towers – we seemed to have an answer to part
of the mystery – the use of thermite was enough to prove it was an Inside Job.
Even at that time, though, it seemed clear that the thermite could only have
been used to cut the steel beams and that something else must have been
used as an explosive (as seen in the squibs, for example). Indeed, Prof Jones
does mention the use of “other explosives” in the destruction of WTC 1 & 2.
He also mentions the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7 – again enough to show that
9/11 was an Inside Job.
However, more than a year after the publication of Steve
Jones paper, we are still (apparently) no further forward in engaging other
members of the academic community with the evidence.
During the discussion of Steve Jones’ paper, I learned of Prof Judy Wood’s
“Billiard Ball” example paper – much shorter and simpler than Steve Jones
paper, which focused on the freefall aspect of the collapse of the towers (the
same evidence I had focused on in my “physics forum challenge”, but using a
more basic and less complete analysis). Later I learned from Judy that Steve
Jones had disclosed her name in a lecture he gave when she had requested that
he did not do this. This seemed an unfortunate oversight – perhaps a simple
slip of the tongue?
Sometime later, I read the article by Morgan Reynolds and
Rick Rajter “We
Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories” which, in an evidence-based manner,
raises serious questions about what really hit the WTC buildings. I had already
read the heated debates on our UK forum about the so-called “No-planes” issue
and I hadn’t really studied the evidence before reading the Reynolds/Rajter
article, therefore hadn’t come to any conclusions other than “well, I find it
really hard to believe that big jets didn’t hit the WTC!!” I couldn’t
ignore Morgan Reynolds highly significant credentials, nor those of Rick Rajter
– a Materials Science graduate. Also, there were many posts on various forums
that were characteristically dismissive, rude and included remarks about the
poster’s intelligence when the ideas that there were indeed some serious
problems with the video evidence for the WTC plane impacts. (The “delayed
fireball” of the 2nd impact being, to me, the most obvious, which
has nothing to do with interpolated frames, frames rates or video compression
artefacts.) Once I had seen this evidence for myself, like understanding that
the WTC had undergone explosive demolition, it was so obvious that I was
surprised I could have missed it for 3 or more years. However,
some people think “the delayed fireball” is perfectly normal and does not break
any laws of physics.
The Reynolds/Rajter article later lead me to another – by
Profs Reynolds and Wood - originally entitled “The Trouble With Steve Jones”
(now re-titled “Why
Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate?”) Whilst I found some of the
language a little abrasive, and perhaps desultory in places, I could not ignore
the facts and evidence presented. Indeed, a realisation that the main thrust of
what is stated in the article must be correct made me understand why such
language had been used. (I would not have chosen to use such language myself,
but unlike the authors, I was not directly involved in the events that had
“played out”.) The article raised serious questions about the thermite evidence
that Jones had presented, and some of the other conclusions he had drawn. It
also made me question how far Steve Jones was prepared to go in studying
evidence of what really happened that day. He was, in my view, unduly dismissive
of evidence presented in the We
Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories article, and there were certain
other questions he seemed unduly unwilling to attempt to answer.
So, as I began to understand the evidence presented, I
gradually became less and less supportive of what Steve Jones was saying. I
added a link on my “thermite”
comparison page to Morgan Reynolds’ and Judy Wood’s critique of the Jones’
paper because I felt it was important that people be given the opportunity to
study all the evidence for themselves. (I notice that the
latest version of Steve Jones’ paper no longer includes a link to my page.)
Previously, Steve Jones, in his discussion of how he got
involved in 9/11 Truth research, mentioned Jim Hoffman several times. Though I
had referenced Jim Hoffman’s comprehensive website quite a few times prior to
my involvement with ST911 - for example, in preparing a leaflet
targeted at audiences of the Paul Greengrass fantasy film United 93
- I found it surprising when Hoffman seemed to be suggesting that cellphone
calls could have been made successfully from Flight 93, in the light of
my own knowledge about the “hand-off”
problem, and the study completed by Kee Dewdney (Project Achilles).
Also, I found Hoffman’s mention of a “hoax theory”
that Flight 93 landed at Cleveland Airport to be equally puzzling, when there
was some news coverage of this at the time. Also, Hoffman’s essay
about Scholars for
9/11 Truth’s website (st911.org) cannot be ignored and seems to be
designed to distract and decoy people looking for authoritative information. In
this essay, even though Jones was a co-chair of ST-911, Hoffman says: “Despite
the evidence, ScholarsFor911Truth.org has thus far failed to acknowledge that
the promotion of nonsensical claims is part of a deliberate strategy to
undermine the Truth Movement.” He also inaccurately describes Loose Change
2 as promoting“the idea that the Twin Towers were not hit by
jetliners” when it does no such thing! Additionally, he seems to imply that
Rick Siegel’s video 9/11 Eyewitness
has been produced only to make money (even when it is freely
available on Google Video).
As I was learning more about “little things” Jones had said,
I became involved in an ongoing e-mail exchange between Morgan Reynolds, Judy
Wood, Gerard Holmgren, Nico Haupt, Jim Fetzer, Thomas Mattingly and several
others. Quite a few unpleasant and heated remarks were exchanged between some
of these people, but I tried to filter out the important information and
viewpoints presented. This was all around the time that the schism in ST911 was
developing, and criticisms seemed to being targeted at both Fetzer and Jones.
I became more suspicious when Jones refused Fetzer’s invitations
to discuss aspects of the thermite hypothesis in public forums. His actions
seemed to be characteristic of someone who had something to hide – and was
afraid his evidence and arguments may be deconstructed with close scrutiny.
However, I tried to remain “neutral” in case there was information I wasn’t
aware of.
We later then learned, from a year
2000 documentary of Steve
Jones links to the energy cover up, which involved him publishing a paper
around the time Pons and Fleischman published their pivotal Cold Fusion
research. We learned that Steve Jones had connections to Los Alamos National
Laboratories (where some of the development for the Atomic Bomb took place) and
the Department of Energy. This wasn’t looking good at all – we seemed to be
seeing some kind of infiltration of the campaign by a person or people who were
adopting a “limited hangout” position regarding what happened on 9/11. They
were happy to say 9/11 was an Inside Job, but stopped short of analysing all
the evidence available to them, to then try and determine the answers to the
“who” and “how” questions.
Alex Floum
Then, another person, Alex Floum, came into the picture –
seemingly in defence of Steve Jones. I had previously corresponded with Alex
when I was posting more regularly on the ST911 forum. He had written an article
summarising the Law Suits which had been started in relation to 9/11 evidence.
I found this to be a good summary and, I had presumed, a useful basis on which
to initiate further legal cases. I was later to realise there was a low
likelihood of Alex Floum being involved in any such initiations.
A long debate then ensued which was based around the
assumption that Jim Fetzer, by supporting the research of Prof Judy Wood,
Morgan Reynolds and others, was damaging the reputation of Scholars for 9/11
Truth. It was implied that it was clear to everyone else that Steve Jones’
paper “was the most widely accepted” and any discussions considering the
anomalous evidence of what happened to the planes at the WTC was divisive and
probably “disinformation”. I had already studied enough of the evidence
(mentioned above) to know that this was a sweeping generalisation and it seemed
like a tactic being used to discourage or prevent analysis of this evidence.
Fred Burks
Around this time (late December 2006), another character
entered the debate of whom I had never heard – Fred Burks. (He was not, at the
time I checked, listed as a member of ST911, however, he had joined the society
early on and had assisted Jim briefly with the web site. Now, however, he was
claiming to be some kind “trustee”). Jim has explained to me that he later
removed Fred from the Membership List. Burks had formerly worked as
an interpreter for the Bush Administration. He sent out a number of
messages to the Scholars’ e-mail list expressing the concerns described above.
In at least one message he closed with “Deeply committed to what's best for all
of us and to personal & global transformation through love &
empowerment.” He instigated a vote among the scholars as to whether the
ST911.org web site should be run by its members. The ST911.org domain name had
been acquired by Alex Floum at Jim’s direction and on behalf of the society.
This meant that, even though Jim had managed the site from its inception, Alex
was in the position to control it. When Jim insisted that Alex turn the domain
names over to him on behalf of the society, Alex instead gave them to Fred
Burks, who now suggested that the way in which the society had been run should
be changed or hits redirected to a new site (essentially to “save” Scholars for
9/11 Truth).
The list which Fred Burks used was originally compiled by
the ST911 membership secretary on behalf of Steve Jones and Jim Fetzer. While
the Society has members, it is not run by its members, and there are no
procedures for voting. Jim Fetzer had not given permission for the list to be
used and I had seen no messages from Steve Jones to support what Burks was
doing or asking Jim’s agreement for such a vote. Burks conveyed the impression
that Jim had entered into some kind of agreement with him about voting, which
Jim has told me was not the case (I saw many of the e-mails in which this story
unfolded). Some of the other Scholars such as Nick Newton seemed to express support
for what Burks was doing (which essentially amounted to changing the Website
content against the wishes of its rightful owner – or, to put it another way –
theft and/or defacement).
Jim Fetzer did not agree with what Fred Burks was doing, but
suggested that, if anything like that were to be done, the right person to
entrust with the domain names was Kevin Barrett. (Some of the messages which
were sent were very critical of Jim Fetzer for even discussing any of this. Jim
has advised me that he acted the way he did because he wanted to accommodate as
wide a range of views as possible. Not all of the members of ST911 supported
the research of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds – some of them were openly
critical of the supposed ad hominems against Steve Jones (but not those against
Wood and Reynolds) and were not apparently willing to dispassionately analyse
the other evidence which Wood and Reynolds were highlighting.
Alex Floum also supported Burks and Jones, and complained
that Fetzer had threatened to report Floum for abuse of Intellectual Property
laws (in seizing control of the www.st911.org).
Floum seemed to think this was unfair, but Jim had consulted an attorney and
learned that converting a property acquired for another party to personal use
violates legal ethics. Some also criticised Floum for stating he “helped to
found Scholars for 9/11 Truth” and pointed out that all he did was register the
domain name on Jim Fetzer’s behalf. But Jim Fetzer has advised me that he, Carl Weis, and Steve Jones were members of the original "steering committee" advising him in the conduct of the society from early on.
An agreement about what to do with the www.st911.org web page was never reached, in
spite of discussion that it might include an agreed statement explaining the
schism. Fred Burks, however, had now frozen the site for the second time and,
after conducting a second "vote", put up the the existing page (archived
here) which neatly embodies the (apparently engineered) schism in www.st911.org.
(Jim, who was forced by the freeze to move the scholars' web
site to 911scholars.org, has now submitted the issue for a formal resolution
and expects that the domain names will be turned over to him as the outcome.)
One sensed “mission accomplished”, as all the e-mail
exchanges dropped off and, soon after, http://stj911.org/
(“Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice” belonging to Steve Jones’ et al.)
received an expensive-looking website make over. Further background on these
issues can be found in the statements on the www.911scholars.org website [1] and [2].
Of Molten Metals
One of the key issues of evidence that Steve Jones was being
criticised for were statements he made about molten aluminium. He essentially
stated that, in the pictures and videos of the South Tower which showed a
flowing orange metal, that metal could only be molten iron, because aluminium
is silvery when molten. This statement is only partly true. Judy Wood and her
student Michael
Zebuhr had set up a demonstration showing that aluminium can glow orange if
heated to approximately the same temperature as molten iron. This therefore
negated one of the basic assertions Steve Jones had made and represented a
basic flaw in his thermite hypothesis. Shockingly, at around this time, Michael
Zebuhr was murdered and another of Judy Wood’s students had a fire in their
apartment. Since that time, some people have tried to suggest that Judy Wood
and even Jim Fetzer might be somehow linked to these terrible events. However,
there is no evidence that I am aware of which gives credence to these views.
It basically seems like a smear campaign against Wood and Fetzer. Sometime
after this, Judy received personal threats around the time she published the highly
controversial “Beam Weapon” paper. (This paper, however, is founded on
basic photographic evidence, seismic data and visual observations of the actual
event, as well as an analysis of the profound level destruction observed. This
scale of this destruction was not really portrayed well on TV. With the scale
of destruction, one would have expected to see some kind of conventional
“nuclear” or large volume of visible “hot” explosions. None of these things
were seen.)
In message board discussions, whenever the evidence that
something other than Big Boeings might have hit the WTC, or that some type of
unconventional technology may have also been used in the destruction of the
towers, “trolls” invariably appear – usually anonymous and often very promptly.
One can imagine that, if this evidence is important and does indeed indicate
advanced technologies were used in the perpetration of the “9/11 illusion”,
elements of the Military Industrial Complex would both have the means and the
motive for covering this up. This can be done both by “paid agents” and
unwittingly by those people who are unwilling to examine the evidence that
people like Steve Jones are not necessarily working to expose all aspects of
the cover up. If people have, after the shock of 9/11, “placed their faith” in
someone like Steve Jones, there is perhaps an understandable reluctance to
“step back again”, examine the evidence and see if the same old games are still
being played.
“Meet the No Planers”
In September 2006, as discussion of what hit the WTC was
raging, a media
Hit Piece was published in the UK – in The New Statesman. This targeted
David Shayler’s brief remarks about the “No Big Boeings” (NBB) evidence as a
way of debunking the other “9/11 was Inside Job” evidence he discussed with the
reporter. This article caused considerable consternation among UK campaigners -
some people blamed our lack of progress at exposing 9/11 as an Inside Job
squarely on David Shayler’s shoulders for speaking out about the NBB evidence.
Some even said this proved he must still be working for MI5, because he was
clearly working “against the wider interests of the movement”. This sort of thinking
seemed to ignore the very powerful commitment that Shayler had repeatedly shown
– travelling all around the UK, giving talks describing how 9/11 was an inside
job - for no fee - and staying with friends and other campaigners (myself
included).
.... CONTINUES BELOW....[/size]
Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:13 pm; edited 3 times in total
On Dec 14th 2006, I received a message from Judy
Wood advising me that NIST/NCST were holding a conference call meeting with
some people at NIST to review the plan for production of a report detailing how
WTC 7 was destroyed. This meeting had allowed public depositions to be made and
was going to be Webcast. Judy
asked me to record the Webcast, especially as she had been contacted by an
attorney, Jerry Leaphart, who had seen Judy’s analysis of the WTC destruction
and what to make a deposition to the Conference Group. As part of his
deposition, Jerry wanted to make comments to the NIST/NCST panel about the
destruction of the WTC. Public depositions were limited to 5 minutes duration.
This day was significant for the reason that no
representation was made to the NCST/NIST panel by either Steve Jones or anyone
directly associated with “his group”. Indeed, Alex Floum would seem to have
been a prime candidate for making such a representation, if not Steve Jones
himself (as he refers to the NIST studies repeatedly in his own paper). So, the
question remains, why did Steve Jones not bother to participate or in the
event, or even comment on it? This, to me, seemed like another strong indicator
that the parameters under which Steve Jones was working had either been “preset”,
or he had decided not to venture beyond a certain point in his quest to uncover
how 9/11 was perpetrated. Ironically, Steve’s group is called “9/11 Scholars
for Truth and Justice”, and yet there was no mention of this event, or a
representation made by any member of that group (as far as I am aware). Was
this just incompetence? (Maybe – but where have we heard this idea before?)
Hustler Article and The Thermite theory
In January 2007, US Hustler magazine
published an article “Was 9/11 An Inside Job?”. Apparently Judy Wood was
initially contacted by the author, who later contacted Steve Jones. The article
exaggerated the qualifications of Gordon Ross (who has an article posted on the
Journal of 9/11 Studies) whilst diminishing those of Prof Judy Wood. It also
quoted that Jim Hoffman was a physicist when he is not. Though I was glad that
more exposure was being given to 9/11 being an Inside Job, it was interesting
to see the thermite theory being presented in a mainstream publication, and
that some basic errors and omissions were evident. I decided to compile
a short rebuttal article with the comments supplied by Profs Wood and
Reynolds, Jeff Strahl and Veronica Chapman.
Rick Siegel and the 9/11 Mysteries film
Recently, it has been brought to my attention by Rick Siegel
how subtle changes have been made to his footage from 9/11 Eyewitness
when it was used in the film 9/11 Mysteries.
For example, Rick has discovered these problems with the
film:
33:50 - Shows the first of Rick
Siegel’s footage of the North tower
"This video was shot from New
Jersey. Smoke rises from the base of the building as an explosion is heard”
(Basically this is OK and with original sound from DVD)
34:08 - Second time around the
same footage but the sound is replaced! Just after the dark filter effect we
see the north tower collapse but the sound has been replaced with something
completely different. A siren can be heard to distinguish that this is not the
original sound. MAJOR DISINFO #1
This does not look like “artistic licence” – rather, it
looks like a deliberate attempt to distort or change the evidence. This film
also includes a presentation of the thermite theory, though it does also cover
the level of destruction at the WTC quite well (but not does mention directed
energy weapons as a possible cause, although this concept was embryonic before
the recent work of Judy Wood).
Black Projects and Alex Floum
When I had read Judy Wood’s Beam
Weapon (now often termed Direct Energy Weapon - DEW) paper, it seemed clear
to me that the evidence she compiled showed clearly that Black Technology had
been used in the destruction of the WTC – to me, there was no other possible
way the sheer scale of destruction – as indicated by the surprisingly small
pile of debris seen following the decimation of the towers – could have been
caused. The problem was that she/we couldn’t say exactly what had been used or
how. Nevertheless, in essence, this was little different to saying that WTC 7
underwent controlled demolition (and even Steve Jones agrees with this), even
if we couldn’t say how the explosives were planted or by whom – or what
explosives were used.
I was surprised that no one attempted to ridicule my
statements and I was also marginally surprised by Floum’s response. He asked me
if I was the same person who started the thread on PhysOrg regarding the
freefall times of the towers. This thread had closed months
ago, and had attracted many thousands of views and responses. Why he should
have asked me this question in relation to any of the points I made, I do not
know. He asked if I could send him links to information about the use of “high
tech” on 9/11 – I referred him to Judy’s paper (as if he wasn’t aware of it
already). I received no response to this.
Steve Jones Request to Me
In the same message that had prompted a response from Floum,
I mentioned Steve Jones apparent inability to address the basic points of
evidence that Judy Wood had raised. Soon after, I received a message from Steve
Jones asking me which questions he couldn’t answer, so I pointed him
at the list that Judy Wood had prepared. I expressed my unhappiness at what
had happened with ST911 and my dislike of personal attacks.
He suggested that I get together with other researchers and
write a paper about Directed Energy Weapons being used on 9/11 and submit it to
his Journal of 9/11 Studies for peer review. He mentioned that “personalized
attacks would not be allowed”. I then replied to him saying that I was not a
research scientist (and I had made this clear to him when I joined ST911) so
even if I did write a paper, it would not have any real credibility. I also
then pointed out that Judy’s paper, though unfinished, would qualify as a
Scientific paper and contained no personalised attacks on Steve Jones. I
received no response from Steve Jones to these points.
However, on listening to the broadcast (linked above), I
made the following notes, referenced by the elapsed times shown below.
43:38 – Steve Jones shouts there was "significant
damage" (twice) to the bathtub (but lower Manhattan still didn't flood).
He talks about quantifying data, but in this context what does
"significant" mean? He didn’t say what volume of water flowed – he
merely listed a number of news reports which described some damage to the
slurry wall (the bath tub). Such news reports didn’t seem to me to constitute a
sufficiently quantified rebuttal to what Judy had written – it seemed to me
more like a set of statements intended to debunk the basic evidence.Can he say w didn’t say what volume of water flowed –
me jjdfdfjfjjf
45:58 - Steve Jones mentions the
paper about WTC dust particle sizes by Paul Lioy et al. Though Steve talks about
a table of dust particle sizes, his use of this data is rather misleading, in
my opinion – he seems to be trying to say that the pulverisation and
dustification which Judy had discussed did not really happen – only large
particle sizes resulted. However, a look at the abstract (my emphasis) of the
paper above seems to indicate this paper, alone, would not be a good basis on
which to judge the level of pulverisation:
Abstract
The
explosion and collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) was a catastrophic event
that produced an aerosol plume impacting many workers, residents, and
commuters during the first few days after 11 September 2001. Three bulk samples
of the total settled dust and smoke were collected at
weather-protected locations east of the WTC on 16 and 17 September 2001 ; these
samples are representative of the generated material that settledimmediately after the explosion and fire and the concurrent collapse of the
two structures. We analyzed each sample, not differentiated by particle size,
for inorganic and organic composition. In the inorganic analyses, we identified
metals, radionuclides, ionic species, asbestos, and.....
54:00 – Steve Jones states that the "Spire
shakes and falls" but he doesn't explain how - we can't see any
additional explosions on the video, so what is the energy causing this shaking
and falling?
55:00 - Steve makes strong, repeated emphasis on sulifdation
of the steel and makes a vague reference to the use of RDX but does not offer
any other specific details of explosives. He then mentions “supercoarse dust” –
an odd term because it is clear that some of the dust was very fine – fine
enough to be visibly suspended in the air for many minutes or hours.
55:52 - Steve states that he wishes NIST would release more
videos of collapse. It seemed odd to me that he did not report that he had
asked them to release such videos – seeing as he is considered by many as the
foremost researcher from the academic community who has looked at this area.
59:00 - Steve asks if Judy's paper explains the destruction
of WTC 7. This is a curious question – it seems that most researchers agree on
conventional Controlled Demolition being used on WTC 7!
So, whilst I was uneasy about Fetzer’s conduct of the
interview (which was perhaps partly understandable after the “goings on” with
the assault on ST911), I was very uneasy about some of the points Steve Jones
made and the apparent tactic of debunking the evidence for the amount of
pulverisation or related destruction of the WTC complex.
“Ambushed!” (by Greg Jenkins)
Some time ago, Prof Wood advised us of an impromptu interview which had
been sprung on her after she had given a presentation at the NPCC. She had
driven 600 miles and had previously not slept for 48 hours.
People can watch this interview and form their own opinion
of it. I will take the liberty of suggesting, however, even though the questions
and information exchanged in the interview are revealing in themselves, Prof
Wood would likely have been even more congenial under different circumstances.
John Albanese Signs Up for UK 9/11 Forum!
Recently, John Albanese signed up for our UK forum to post
information about a new film he has produced about disinformation. He then seemed to
make allegations about Profs Wood and Reynolds, which I challenged him
about. I have yet to see any evidence to support these serious allegations.
9/11 WAS an Inside Job – so what?
It has to be said that despite the many great efforts and
significant sacrifices made my many individuals who are trying to campaign for
the truth behind 9/11 to be revealed, little has changed in the last 5 years.
The “police state agenda” has unfolded before us and enough measures are
already in use to see that it is real. It seems that the perpetrators are not
really bothered that we know 9/11 was an Inside Job. What can we do about it?
They can still unfold their agenda without any significant resistance.
“Ding, Ding – Round Two!”
It would be nice to think that the fight to uncover 9/11 as
an Inside Job only had “one round” and that we were well on our way to winning
it. However, it seems to me, that we have now come to the end of “round one”
and “round two” is now in progress. The perps are well-resourced and
well-trained and are now beginning to land many more punches on those who are
the closest to uncovering the links between the 9/11 Cover up and the other
areas (like black technology and the energy cover up) which would undermine
their power base.
Cui Un-Bono?
I have summarised in a table below who seems to have
benefited and who seems not to have benefited in the “goings on” described
above:
Judy Wood identified against her will
Steve Jones lauded and applauded for his “Why Indeed…”
paper.
Most of us agree that the hijackers that supposedly took
control of the supposed planes on 9/11 were not real. However, I would suggest
we now seem to have some real hijackers in our midst – some of them already
appear to have taken control of parts of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, for example –
and others
have suggested that other campaigning groups have been similarly “hijacked”.
Others seem to be at work trying to limit the parameters of 9/11 research, as
that research now takes those who look at the evidence into even more
contentious and controversial areas of study.
I felt that enough people would be shocked and reviled by
9/11 Truth to see through the tactics of pernicious debunking, discrediting and
ridicule - but we now seem to have formed something like “The Official 9/11
Truth Campaign’s version of 9/11 Truth” - anyone who begins to challenge this
“official version” is said to be “damaging the movement”.
It seems that even very loose associations/organisations
like ST911, once they begin to gain some traction, are targeted with the same
old “divide and conquer” tactics. Some members of these organisations seem more
attached to the idea that “unity and truth” are the same thing – when, all too
often, those claiming to speak the truth, as history should teach us, usually
have a particular agenda.
Maybe the truth is that we should all be able to follow our
own threads of research and paths of evidence, without the pernicious debunking
by others and we should be allowed to draw our own conclusions.
Perhaps as the links between the 9/11 scam and the many
others that have been played out on the general population over the last few
millennia will now become exposed, and this will lead to a new era in human
understanding, with access to surprising new technologies which can be used in
ways beneficial to many more people than just the ruling elite.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank:
·Prof Judy Wood for her incredible insights, research,
tenacity and dignity in the face of severe adversity.
·Prof Jim Fetzer for his continued efforts to maintain
ST911 as a credible entity under very difficult circumstances.
·Prof Reynolds and Rick Rajter for their superb analyses
of the plane crash evidence and also Prof Reynolds for graciously publishing,
on his Website, the Hustler rebuttal we compiled
·Rick Siegel for his amazing contributions to the fight
for the truth and his lyrical and deeply insightful analysis of the evidence
and the events as they have unfolded.
·Thomas Mattingly for his “mediation” and provision for
public exposure of Reynolds/Fetzer/Wood’s evidence and analysis via The McClendon
Group.
·Jeff Strahl for his concise and focused comments and
contributions.
·Veronica Chapman for her succinct and acutely observed
points.
·Jerry Leaphart for his diligent work from a legal
perspective and for being a lone dissenting voice at the NIST/NCST panel
conference.
·CB Brooklyn for his collation of evidence re Steve
Jones and his willingness to post to the various message boards in order to
expose this information.
·Gerard Holmgren, Nico Haupt and Rosalee Grable for
being at the forefront of analysis of some of the evidence mentioned here long
before many others were “on the case”.
·Many others for looking at the evidence and diligently
working to expose it in ways they see as appropriate.
Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Well this is a very long and well evidenced, I'm sure, article. No time to examine it in detail at the moment. One point I always hold in favour of the beam, or in my preferred terminology, interferometric, weapon for the destruction of the towers, is the point always raised by the informed and controlled opposition that there is insufficient evidence for enough shutdown time preceding the event to allow for the planting and wiring of devices sufficient to cause the degree of destruction that occurred.
And also that such arraignment of explosive devices was always threatened by potentially random factors involved in real plane hits
I'm pretty sure that thermite, cutters and superficial explosives were involved but that these weren't truly instrumental in the destructions
Merely false observable leaders when the story starts to emerge, as is happening now _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:30 pm Post subject: you should all read this
The New “9/11 Hijackers”?
Andrew Johnson, Feb 2007
9/11 – It Controls Our Lives
After 5 years, many many aspects of domestic and foreign policy in both the USA and UK are based on a false premise – that the 9/11 attacks were committed by Islamic fundamentalist hijackers in a plot to “attack the freedom” enjoyed by people living in Western Democratic Societies. 9/11 Truth Campaigners, like me, now know that this story is false and that we must, as quickly as possible, make as many people as possible aware of the depth of this falsehood, and its implications.
We know that WTC Towers 1, 2 and 7 were not destroyed by jet fuel and jet impacts. More and more people are beginning to realise the official story is a gigantic lie. We are now battling to get the truth out to people who need to understand that they are being spoon-fed a diet of fear and misinformation. Mainstream media will not treat the issue seriously, and the language they use to describe our efforts to expose the truth is usually tainted with ridicule and/or disbelief, though recently, in the USA, things have begun to take a slightly different direction.
For those of us engaged in this battle, it is sometimes easy to think that we now know enough about the realities of what happened on 9/11 to campaign and we should focus on that and keep our momentum going. However, perhaps we should remember, too, that the 9/11 perpetrators (“perps”) are still at work – they didn’t just “disappear” or “go underground” when the 9/11 Truth Campaign began to get some traction (more so in the USA than the UK). We should realise that the perps’ tactics are to infiltrate, decoy, distract, trash and ridicule and those tactics will be applied to 9/11 Truth Campaign groups in exactly the same way as they are applied to other protest groups such as Amnesty International and Stop The War. (These groups, for example have not, to my knowledge, yet made any public statements about the proof that 9/11 was an Inside Job.)
When we join a campaign such as the one for 9/11 Truth, perhaps there is an expectation that all fellow campaigners – especially those who become prominent – are involved for the same reasons we are. Also, because of the particularly fundamental nature of 9/11 truth, we possibly assume fellow campaigners will be open-minded enough to dispassionately evaluate pertinent evidence regarding the events of 9/11 in an effort to determine what really happened. This expectation is perhaps brought about by our change in attitude from “believing what the media spoon-feeds us” to an attitude of looking more critically at evidence, from different sources, and deciding why and how this evidence is being brought to our attention, and what its meaning is. One of the key phrases that we come across is “Cui Bono?” – “Who Benefits?”. Additionally, we learn to “follow the money” - i.e. an unfolding agenda can often be seen to be orchestrated by bodies with a large amount of cash.
A Personal Perspective
Recently, I seem to have found myself to be involved in what I think are pivotal matters in the 9/11 Truth Arena. I am not entirely sure how this happened - I did not actively seek to be involved, nor do I have any desire to gain any recognition for this involvement, other than as someone who is honest, tries to be balanced and who dislikes conflict. To be frank, I would rather get on with my own life and I wish that there wasn’t a need to campaign vigorously for these matters to be exposed. As Korey Rowe has been heard to say “I had a nice life before this.”
A number of laughable allegations have been made against me on the UK 9/11 Forum, which only upset me to the extent that those making them could have spent their time more productively (for example, in completing activities which they accuse me of “distracting” others from doing – by writing articles like this!). In order that the risibility of the allegations can be appreciated, let me describe my background - I am now 42 and was born in Skipton, North Yorkshire, UK - in (essentially) a working-class family and I am the youngest of 9 children. My Dad had no formal education and was an orphan at 12 years old. My Mum also had little formal education but has always had an interest in science, the arts, and literature and has a very active and open mind. I was educated at Ermysted's Grammar School (Skipton) and left in 1983 with ‘A’ Levels in Maths, Physics, Chemistry and General Studies. I went on to Lancaster University do a degree in Computer Science (with a minor module of Physics) and graduated in 1986. I then worked in Software Engineering (real-time software – process control and telecommunications) for about 6 years. I developed an interest in teaching and education and ended up spending 2 years as a lecturer on BTEC National and Higher National Diploma Courses at West Notts College. Dissatisfied with working conditions, I then moved back into industry (1995-1997) working in the field of Mobile Data. Following an attractive offer of work from a friend, I started to work at home, just before my daughter was born. I now do a range of part time jobs, earning most of my income from assessing disabled students for access to assistive technology for higher education. I got into this work through the Open University - I tutor part time on a course called T224 (Computers and Processors). I began actively campaigning about 9/11 (writing letters, speaking to people in the street etc) in about September 2004.
In approximately December 2005, I received a surprise invitation from Steven E Jones to join a loose association called “Scholars for 9/11 Truth”, which had several types of membership – “Full”, “Associate” and “Student”. As I wasn’t a full-time academic, I requested to join as an associate, but surprisingly Steve suggested I join as a full member (I thought at the time this may have been because I had previously posted a “challenge” on a popular Physics forum for people there to explain the freefall collapse times of WTC 1 & 2.)
As I had been privately campaigning for about 1 year, I was greatly encouraged, at the time, that the academic community might finally be waking up to the serious flaws in the Official 9/11 Story – what with the likes of Prof David Ray Griffin, Prof Jim Fetzer, Prof Kevin Barrett and others beginning to speak out. The fact that Jim Fetzer and Steve Jones seemed to be bringing these people together seemed to be a super development – giving real hope. I was prompted to write to my own University to ask for permission to give a presentation at the Main Campus in Milton Keynes (the request was denied).
At around the same time, Prof Jones had discovered (or been advised of) some unusual footage from the Camera Planet Archive (posted on Google Video) which apparently showed Molten Metal flowing from the South Tower prior to its collapse. He had asked for help in extracting this from Google Video format to one that could be used on a Web Page or PowerPoint presentation (so it could be shown side-by-side with a staged thermite experiment as a comparison). I had the software to make this a relatively simple task, so I was happy to help out. I was pleased to see that Steve Jones originally referenced this in his paper (“Why Indeed did the World Trade Center Towers Collapse?”)
And so, at the time, it seemed that thermite played a role in the destruction of the WTC towers – we seemed to have an answer to part of the mystery – the use of thermite was enough to prove it was an Inside Job. Even at that time, though, it seemed clear that the thermite could only have been used to cut the steel beams and that something else must have been used as an explosive (as seen in the squibs, for example). Indeed, Prof Jones does mention the use of “other explosives” in the destruction of WTC 1 & 2. He also mentions the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7 – again enough to show that 9/11 was an Inside Job.
However, more than a year after the publication of Steve Jones paper, we are still (apparently) no further forward in engaging other members of the academic community with the evidence.
During the discussion of Steve Jones’ paper, I learned of Prof Judy Wood’s “Billiard Ball” example paper – much shorter and simpler than Steve Jones paper, which focused on the freefall aspect of the collapse of the towers (the same evidence I had focused on in my “physics forum challenge”, but using a more basic and less complete analysis). Later I learned from Judy that Steve Jones had disclosed her name in a lecture he gave when she had requested that he did not do this. This seemed an unfortunate oversight – perhaps a simple slip of the tongue?
Sometime later, I read the article by Morgan Reynolds and Rick Rajter “We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories” which, in an evidence-based manner, raises serious questions about what really hit the WTC buildings. I had already read the heated debates on our UK forum about the so-called “No-planes” issue and I hadn’t really studied the evidence before reading the Reynolds/Rajter article, therefore hadn’t come to any conclusions other than “well, I find it really hard to believe that big jets didn’t hit the WTC!!” I couldn’t ignore Morgan Reynolds highly significant credentials, nor those of Rick Rajter – a Materials Science graduate. Also, there were many posts on various forums that were characteristically dismissive, rude and included remarks about the poster’s intelligence when the ideas that there were indeed some serious problems with the video evidence for the WTC plane impacts. (The “delayed fireball” of the 2nd impact being, to me, the most obvious, which has nothing to do with interpolated frames, frames rates or video compression artefacts.) Once I had seen this evidence for myself, like understanding that the WTC had undergone explosive demolition, it was so obvious that I was surprised I could have missed it for 3 or more years. However, some people think “the delayed fireball” is perfectly normal and does not break any laws of physics.
The Reynolds/Rajter article later lead me to another – by Profs Reynolds and Wood - originally entitled “The Trouble With Steve Jones” (now re-titled “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate?”) Whilst I found some of the language a little abrasive, and perhaps desultory in places, I could not ignore the facts and evidence presented. Indeed, a realisation that the main thrust of what is stated in the article must be correct made me understand why such language had been used. (I would not have chosen to use such language myself, but unlike the authors, I was not directly involved in the events that had “played out”.) The article raised serious questions about the thermite evidence that Jones had presented, and some of the other conclusions he had drawn. It also made me question how far Steve Jones was prepared to go in studying evidence of what really happened that day. He was, in my view, unduly dismissive of evidence presented in the We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories article, and there were certain other questions he seemed unduly unwilling to attempt to answer.
So, as I began to understand the evidence presented, I gradually became less and less supportive of what Steve Jones was saying. I added a link on my “thermite” comparison page to Morgan Reynolds’ and Judy Wood’s critique of the Jones’ paper because I felt it was important that people be given the opportunity to study all the evidence for themselves. (I notice that the latest version of Steve Jones’ paper no longer includes a link to my page.)
Previously, Steve Jones, in his discussion of how he got involved in 9/11 Truth research, mentioned Jim Hoffman several times. Though I had referenced Jim Hoffman’s comprehensive website quite a few times prior to my involvement with ST911 - for example, in preparing a leaflet targeted at audiences of the Paul Greengrass fantasy film United 93 - I found it surprising when Hoffman seemed to be suggesting that cellphone calls could have been made successfully from Flight 93, in the light of my own knowledge about the “hand-off” problem, and the study completed by Kee Dewdney (Project Achilles). Also, I found Hoffman’s mention of a “hoax theory” that Flight 93 landed at Cleveland Airport to be equally puzzling, when there was some news coverage of this at the time. Also, Hoffman’s essay about Scholars for 9/11 Truth’s website (st911.org) cannot be ignored and seems to be designed to distract and decoy people looking for authoritative information. In this essay, even though Jones was a co-chair of ST-911, Hoffman says: “Despite the evidence, ScholarsFor911Truth.org has thus far failed to acknowledge that the promotion of nonsensical claims is part of a deliberate strategy to undermine the Truth Movement.” He also inaccurately describes Loose Change 2 as promoting “the idea that the Twin Towers were not hit by jetliners” when it does no such thing! Additionally, he seems to imply that Rick Siegel’s video 9/11 Eyewitness has been produced only to make money (even when it is freely available on Google Video).
As I was learning more about “little things” Jones had said, I became involved in an ongoing e-mail exchange between Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood, Gerard Holmgren, Nico Haupt, Jim Fetzer, Thomas Mattingly and several others. Quite a few unpleasant and heated remarks were exchanged between some of these people, but I tried to filter out the important information and viewpoints presented. This was all around the time that the schism in ST911 was developing, and criticisms seemed to being targeted at both Fetzer and Jones.
I became more suspicious when Jones refused Fetzer’s invitations to discuss aspects of the thermite hypothesis in public forums. His actions seemed to be characteristic of someone who had something to hide – and was afraid his evidence and arguments may be deconstructed with close scrutiny. However, I tried to remain “neutral” in case there was information I wasn’t aware of.
We later then learned, from a year 2000 documentary of Steve Jones links to the energy cover up, which involved him publishing a paper around the time Pons and Fleischman published their pivotal Cold Fusion research. We learned that Steve Jones had connections to Los Alamos National Laboratories (where some of the development for the Atomic Bomb took place) and the Department of Energy. This wasn’t looking good at all – we seemed to be seeing some kind of infiltration of the campaign by a person or people who were adopting a “limited hangout” position regarding what happened on 9/11. They were happy to say 9/11 was an Inside Job, but stopped short of analysing all the evidence available to them, to then try and determine the answers to the “who” and “how” questions.
Alex Floum
Then, another person, Alex Floum, came into the picture – seemingly in defence of Steve Jones. I had previously corresponded with Alex when I was posting more regularly on the ST911 forum. He had written an article summarising the Law Suits which had been started in relation to 9/11 evidence. I found this to be a good summary and, I had presumed, a useful basis on which to initiate further legal cases. I was later to realise there was a low likelihood of Alex Floum being involved in any such initiations.
A long debate then ensued which was based around the assumption that Jim Fetzer, by supporting the research of Prof Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds and others, was damaging the reputation of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. It was inferred that it was clear to everyone else that Steve Jones’ paper “was the most widely accepted” and any discussions considering the anomalous evidence of what happened to the planes at the WTC was divisive and probably “disinformation”. I had already studied enough of the evidence (mentioned above) to know that this was a sweeping generalisation and it seemed like a tactic being used to discourage or prevent analysis of this evidence.
Fred Burks
Around this time (late December 2006), another character entered the debate of whom I had never heard – Fred Burks. (He was not, at the time I checked, listed as a member of ST911, however, he had joined the society early on and had assisted Jim briefly with the web site. Now, however, he was claiming to be some kind “trustee”). Jim has explained to me that he later removed Fred from the Membership List. Burks had formerly worked as an interpreter for the Bush Administration. He sent out a number of messages to the Scholars’ e-mail list expressing the concerns described above. In at least one message he closed with “Deeply committed to what's best for all of us and to personal & global transformation through love & empowerment.” He instigated a vote among the scholars as to whether the ST911.org web site should be run by its members. The ST911.org domain name had been acquired by Alex Floum at Jim’s direction and on behalf of the society. This meant that, even though Jim had managed the site from its inception, Alex was in the position to control it. When Jim insisted that Alex turn the domain names over to him on behalf of the society, Alex instead gave them to Fred Burks, who now suggested that the way in which the society had been run should be changed or hits redirected to a new site (essentially to “save” Scholars for 9/11 Truth).
The list which Fred Burks used was originally compiled by the ST911 membership secretary on behalf of Steve Jones and Jim Fetzer. While the Society has members, it is not run by its members, and there are no procedures for voting. Jim Fetzer had not given permission for the list to be used and I had seen no messages from Steve Jones to support what Burks was doing or asking Jim’s agreement for such a vote. Burks conveyed the impression that Jim had entered into some kind of agreement with him about voting, which Jim has told me was not the case (I saw many of the e-mails in which this story unfolded). Some of the other Scholars such as Nick Newton seemed to express support for what Burks was doing (which essentially amounted to changing the Website content against the wishes of its rightful owner – or, to put it another way – theft and/or defacement).
Jim Fetzer did not agree with what Fred Burks was doing, but suggested that, if anything like that were to be done, the right person to entrust with the domain names was Kevin Barrett. (Some of the messages which were sent were very critical of Jim Fetzer for even discussing any of this. Jim has advised me that he acted the way he did because he wanted to accommodate as wide a range of views as possible. Not all of the members of ST911 supported the research of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds – some of them were openly critical of the supposed ad hominems against Steve Jones (but not those against Wood and Reynolds) and were not apparently willing to dispassionately analyse the other evidence which Wood and Reynolds were highlighting.
Alex Floum also supported Burks and Jones, and complained that Fetzer had threatened to report Floum for abuse of Intellectual Property laws (in seizing control of the www.st911.org). Floum seemed to think this was unfair, but Jim had consulted an attorney and learned that converting a property acquired for another party to personal use violates legal ethics. Some also criticised Floum for stating he “helped to found Scholars for 9/11 Truth” and pointed out that all he did was register the domain name on Jim Fetzer’s behalf.
An agreement about what to do with the www.st911.org web page was never reached, in spite of discussion that it might include an agreed statement explaining the schism. Fred Burks, however, had now frozen the site for the second time and, after conducting a second "vote", put up the the existing page (archived here) which neatly embodies the (apparently engineered) schism in www.st911.org.
(Jim, who was forced by the freeze to move the scholars' web site to 911scholars.org, has now submitted the issue for a formal resolution and expects that the domain names will be turned over to him as the outcome.)
One sensed “mission accomplished”, as all the e-mail exchanges dropped off and, soon after, http://stj911.org/ (“Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice” belonging to Steve Jones’ et al.) received an expensive-looking website make over. Further background on these issues can be found in the statements on the www.911scolars.org website [1] and [2].
Of Molten Metals
One of the key issues of evidence that Steve Jones was being criticised for were statements he made about molten aluminium. He essentially stated that, in the pictures and videos of the South Tower which showed a flowing orange metal, that metal could only be molten iron, because aluminium is silvery when molten. This statement is only partly true. Judy Wood and her student Michael Zebuhr had set up a demonstration showing that aluminium can glow orange if heated to approximately the same temperature as molten iron. This therefore negated one of the basic assertions Steve Jones had made and represented a basic flaw in his thermite hypothesis. Shockingly, at around this time, Michael Zebuhr was murdered and another of Judy Wood’s students had a fire in their apartment. Since that time, some people have tried to suggest that Judy Wood and even Jim Fetzer might be somehow linked to these terrible events. However, there is no evidence that I am aware of which gives credence to these views. It basically seems like a smear campaign against Wood and Fetzer. Sometime after this, Judy received personal threats around the time she published the highly controversial “Beam Weapon” paper. (This paper, however, is founded on basic photographic evidence, seismic data and visual observations of the actual event, as well as an analysis of the profound level destruction observed. This scale of this destruction was not really portrayed well on TV. With the scale of destruction, one would have expected to see some kind of conventional “nuclear” or large volume of visible “hot” explosions. None of these things were seen.)
Ostracism
From an observer’s stand point, it seemed to me that people like Rosalee Grable, Nico Haupt, Gerard Holmgren, Morgan and Judy seemed to have unveiled an “additional layer” of the 9/11 Cover Up. Also, it seemed that tactics of ridicule and “trashing” were being used against this group of people in a disturbingly similar pattern to those used, for example, by people in the “mainstream” who won’t accept that 9/11 was an Inside Job. One example of this happened more recently, when Prof Reynolds was “booted” from SPINE because the rest of the group did not seem to like him discussing the evidence that something other than planes hit the WTC buildings.
In message board discussions, whenever the evidence that something other than Big Boeings might have hit the WTC, or that some type of unconventional technology may have also been used in the destruction of the towers, “trolls” invariably appear – usually anonymous and often very promptly. One can imagine that, if this evidence is important and does indeed indicate advanced technologies were used in the perpetration of the “9/11 illusion”, elements of the Military Industrial Complex would both have the means and the motive for covering this up. This can be done both by “paid agents” and unwittingly by those people who are unwilling to examine the evidence that people like Steve Jones are not necessarily working to expose all aspects of the cover up. If people have, after the shock of 9/11, “placed their faith” in someone like Steve Jones, there is perhaps an understandable reluctance to “step back again”, examine the evidence and see if the same old games are still being played.
“Meet the No Planers”
In September 2006, as discussion of what hit the WTC was raging, a media Hit Piece was published in the UK – in The New Statesman. This targeted David Shayler’s brief remarks about the “No Big Boeings” (NBB) evidence as a way of debunking the other “9/11 was Inside Job” evidence he discussed with the reporter. This article caused considerable consternation among UK campaigners - some people blamed our lack of progress at exposing 9/11 as an Inside Job squarely on David Shayler’s shoulders for speaking out about the NBB evidence. Some even said this proved he must still be working for MI5, because he was clearly working “against the wider interests of the movement”. This sort of thinking seemed to ignore the very powerful commitment that Shayler had repeatedly shown – travelling all around the UK, giving talks describing how 9/11 was an inside job - for no fee - and staying with friends and other campaigners (myself included).
.... CONTINUES BELOW....[/size]
Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:40 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
Andrew Johnson
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1549
Location: Derbyshire
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:36 am Post subject:
On Dec 14th 2006, I received a message from Judy Wood advising me that NIST/NCST were holding a conference call meeting with some people at NIST to review the plan for production of a report detailing how WTC 7 was destroyed. This meeting had allowed public depositions to be made and was going to be Webcast. Judy asked me to record the Webcast, especially as she had been contacted by an attorney, Jerry Leaphart, who had seen Judy’s analysis of the WTC destruction and what to make a deposition to the Conference Group. As part of his deposition, Jerry wanted to make comments to the NIST/NCST panel about the destruction of the WTC. Public depositions were limited to 5 minutes duration.
This day was significant for the reason that no representation was made to the NCST/NIST panel by either Steve Jones or anyone directly associated with “his group”. Indeed, Alex Floum would seem to have been a prime candidate for making such a representation, if not Steve Jones himself (as he refers to the NIST studies repeatedly in his own paper). So, the question remains, why did Steve Jones not bother to participate or in the event, or even comment on it? This, to me, seemed like another strong indicator that the parameters under which Steve Jones was working had either been “preset”, or he had decided not to venture beyond a certain point in his quest to uncover how 9/11 was perpetrated. Ironically, Steve’s group is called “9/11 Scholars for Truth and Justice”, and yet there was no mention of this event, or a representation made by any member of that group (as far as I am aware). Was this just incompetence? (Maybe – but where have we heard this idea before?)
Hustler Article and The Thermite theory
In January 2007, US Hustler magazine published an article “Was 9/11 An Inside Job?”. Apparently Judy Wood was initially contacted by the author, who later contacted Steve Jones. The article exaggerated the qualifications of Gordon Ross (who has an article posted on the Journal of 9/11 Studies) whilst diminishing those of Prof Judy Wood. It also quoted that Jim Hoffman was a physicist when he is not. Though I was glad that more exposure was being given to 9/11 being an Inside Job, it was interesting to see the thermite theory being presented in a mainstream publication, and that some basic errors and omissions were evident. I decided to compile a short rebuttal article with the comments supplied by Profs Wood and Reynolds, Jeff Strahl and Veronica Chapman.
Rick Siegel and the 9/11 Mysteries film
Recently, it has been brought to my attention by Rick Siegel how subtle changes have been made to his footage from 9/11 Eyewitness when it was used in the film 9/11 Mysteries.
For example, Rick has discovered these problems with the film:
33:50 - Shows the first of Rick Siegel’s footage of the North tower
"This video was shot from New Jersey. Smoke rises from the base of the building as an explosion is heard” (Basically this is OK and with original sound from DVD)
34:08 - Second time around the same footage but the sound is replaced! Just after the dark filter effect we see the north tower collapse but the sound has been replaced with something completely different. A siren can be heard to distinguish that this is not the original sound. MAJOR DISINFO #1
Rick makes several other important observations about this film, which should be studied carefully.
This does not look like “artistic licence” – rather, it looks like a deliberate attempt to distort or change the evidence. This film also includes a presentation of the thermite theory, though it does also cover the level of destruction at the WTC quite well (but not does mention directed energy weapons as a possible cause, although this concept was embryonic before the recent work of Judy Wood).
Black Projects and Alex Floum
When I had read Judy Wood’s Beam Weapon (now often termed Direct Energy Weapon - DEW) paper, it seemed clear to me that the evidence she compiled showed clearly that Black Technology had been used in the destruction of the WTC – to me, there was no other possible way the sheer scale of destruction – as indicated by the surprisingly small pile of debris seen following the decimation of the towers – could have been caused. The problem was that she/we couldn’t say exactly what had been used or how. Nevertheless, in essence, this was little different to saying that WTC 7 underwent controlled demolition (and even Steve Jones agrees with this), even if we couldn’t say how the explosives were planted or by whom – or what explosives were used.
Following an e-mail from Alex Floum complaining about the conduct of Jim Fetzer and asking the list/group members whether the ST911 domain should be transferred to a “new society”, I replied that I thought that Steve Jones should proceed with his Journal of 911 Studies domain/site whilst Jim’s site should remain in his control. I also stated my thoughts that Black Technology was used on 9/11 and we were seeing an orchestrated “damage limitation” operation to prevent people from considering or delving deeper into this controversial area.
I was surprised that no one attempted to ridicule my statements and I was also marginally surprised by Floum’s response. He asked me if I was the same person who started the thread on PhysOrg regarding the freefall times of the towers. This thread had closed months ago, and had attracted many thousands of views and responses. Why he should have asked me this question in relation to any of the points I made, I do not know. He asked if I could send him links to information about the use of “high tech” on 9/11 – I referred him to Judy’s paper (as if he wasn’t aware of it already). I received no response to this.
Steve Jones Request to Me
In the same message that had prompted a response from Floum, I mentioned Steve Jones apparent inability to address the basic points of evidence that Judy Wood had raised. Soon after, I received a message from Steve Jones asking me which questions he couldn’t answer, so I pointed him at the list that Judy Wood had prepared. I expressed my unhappiness at what had happened with ST911 and my dislike of personal attacks.
He suggested that I get together with other researchers and write a paper about Directed Energy Weapons being used on 9/11 and submit it to his Journal of 9/11 Studies for peer review. He mentioned that “personalized attacks would not be allowed”. I then replied to him saying that I was not a research scientist (and I had made this clear to him when I joined ST911) so even if I did write a paper, it would not have any real credibility. I also then pointed out that Judy’s paper, though unfinished, would qualify as a Scientific paper and contained no personalised attacks on Steve Jones. I received no response from Steve Jones to these points.
Fetzer Jones Debate - Jan 17 2006
Following repeated requests, Steve Jones finally agreed to talk with Jim Fetzer on Jim’s “Dynamic Duo” show on GCN Live. Feelings were obviously strong and this seemed to have a significant impact on the quality of the discussion. Jim Fetzer talked unnecessarily over Steve Jones and voices were raised on many occasions.
However, on listening to the broadcast (linked above), I made the following notes, referenced by the elapsed times shown below.
43:38 – Steve Jones shouts there was "significant damage" (twice) to the bathtub (but lower Manhattan still didn't flood). He talks about quantifying data, but in this context what does "significant" mean? He didn’t say what volume of water flowed – he merely listed a number of news reports which described some damage to the slurry wall (the bath tub). Such news reports didn’t seem to me to constitute a sufficiently quantified rebuttal to what Judy had written – it seemed to me more like a set of statements intended to debunk the basic evidence.Can he say w didn’t say what volume of water flowed – me jjdfdfjfjjf
45:58 - Steve Jones mentions the paper about WTC dust particle sizes by Paul Lioy et al. Though Steve talks about a table of dust particle sizes, his use of this data is rather misleading, in my opinion – he seems to be trying to say that the pulverisation and dustification which Judy had discussed did not really happen – only large particle sizes resulted. However, a look at the abstract (my emphasis) of the paper above seems to indicate this paper, alone, would not be a good basis on which to judge the level of pulverisation:
Abstract
The explosion and collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) was a catastrophic event that produced an aerosol plume impacting many workers, residents, and commuters during the first few days after 11 September 2001. Three bulk samples of the total settled dust and smoke were collected at weather-protected locations east of the WTC on 16 and 17 September 2001 ; these samples are representative of the generated material that settled immediately after the explosion and fire and the concurrent collapse of the two structures. We analyzed each sample, not differentiated by particle size, for inorganic and organic composition. In the inorganic analyses, we identified metals, radionuclides, ionic species, asbestos, and.....
54:00 – Steve Jones states that the "Spire shakes and falls" but he doesn't explain how - we can't see any additional explosions on the video, so what is the energy causing this shaking and falling?
55:00 - Steve makes strong, repeated emphasis on sulifdation of the steel and makes a vague reference to the use of RDX but does not offer any other specific details of explosives. He then mentions “supercoarse dust” – an odd term because it is clear that some of the dust was very fine – fine enough to be visibly suspended in the air for many minutes or hours.
55:52 - Steve states that he wishes NIST would release more videos of collapse. It seemed odd to me that he did not report that he had asked them to release such videos – seeing as he is considered by many as the foremost researcher from the academic community who has looked at this area.
59:00 - Steve asks if Judy's paper explains the destruction of WTC 7. This is a curious question – it seems that most researchers agree on conventional Controlled Demolition being used on WTC 7!
So, whilst I was uneasy about Fetzer’s conduct of the interview (which was perhaps partly understandable after the “goings on” with the assault on ST911), I was very uneasy about some of the points Steve Jones made and the apparent tactic of debunking the evidence for the amount of pulverisation or related destruction of the WTC complex.
“Ambushed!” (by Greg Jenkins)
Some time ago, Prof Wood advised us of an impromptu interview which had been sprung on her after she had given a presentation at the NPCC. She had driven 600 miles and had previously not slept for 48 hours.
People can watch this interview and form their own opinion of it. I will take the liberty of suggesting, however, even though the questions and information exchanged in the interview are revealing in themselves, Prof Wood would likely have been even more congenial under different circumstances.
John Albanese Signs Up for UK 9/11 Forum!
Recently, John Albanese signed up for our UK forum to post information about a new film he has produced about disinformation. He then seemed to make allegations about Profs Wood and Reynolds, which I challenged him about. I have yet to see any evidence to support these serious allegations.
9/11 WAS an Inside Job – so what?
It has to be said that despite the many great efforts and significant sacrifices made my many individuals who are trying to campaign for the truth behind 9/11 to be revealed, little has changed in the last 5 years. The “police state agenda” has unfolded before us and enough measures are already in use to see that it is real. It seems that the perpetrators are not really bothered that we know 9/11 was an Inside Job. What can we do about it? They can still unfold their agenda without any significant resistance.
“Ding, Ding – Round Two!”
It would be nice to think that the fight to uncover 9/11 as an Inside Job only had “one round” and that we were well on our way to winning it. However, it seems to me, that we have now come to the end of “round one” and “round two” is now in progress. The perps are well-resourced and well-trained and are now beginning to land many more punches on those who are the closest to uncovering the links between the 9/11 Cover up and the other areas (like black technology and the energy cover up) which would undermine their power base.
Cui Un-Bono?
I have summarised in a table below who seems to have benefited and who seems not to have benefited in the “goings on” described above:
Judy Wood identified against her will
Steve Jones lauded and applauded for his “Why Indeed…” paper.
Judy Wood lost her job at Clemson
Steve Jones retired – and still salaried.
Judy Wood’s student Michael Zebuhr murdered
Steve Jones described in CBS News Piece as founder of ST911
Judy Wood receives death threats
Steve Jones featured in “Improbable Collapse”
Judy Wood attacked for promoting “wild theories”
Steve Jones thermite hypothesis evidence featured in 9/11 Mysteries
Most of us agree that the hijackers that supposedly took control of the supposed planes on 9/11 were not real. However, I would suggest we now seem to have some real hijackers in our midst – some of them already appear to have taken control of parts of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, for example – and others have suggested that other campaigning groups have been similarly “hijacked”. Others seem to be at work trying to limit the parameters of 9/11 research, as that research now takes those who look at the evidence into even more contentious and controversial areas of study.
I felt that enough people would be shocked and reviled by 9/11 Truth to see through the tactics of pernicious debunking, discrediting and ridicule - but we now seem to have formed something like “The Official 9/11 Truth Campaign’s version of 9/11 Truth” - anyone who begins to challenge this “official version” is said to be “damaging the movement”.
It seems that even very loose associations/organisations like ST911, once they begin to gain some traction, are targeted with the same old “divide and conquer” tactics. Some members of these organisations seem more attached to the idea that “unity and truth” are the same thing – when, all too often, those claiming to speak the truth, as history should teach us, usually have a particular agenda.
Maybe the truth is that we should all be able to follow our own threads of research and paths of evidence, without the pernicious debunking by others and we should be allowed to draw our own conclusions.
Perhaps as the links between the 9/11 scam and the many others that have been played out on the general population over the last few millennia will now become exposed, and this will lead to a new era in human understanding, with access to surprising new technologies which can be used in ways beneficial to many more people than just the ruling elite.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank:
· Prof Judy Wood for her incredible insights, research, tenacity and dignity in the face of severe adversity.
· Prof Jim Fetzer for his continued efforts to maintain ST911 as a credible entity under very difficult circumstances.
· Prof Reynolds and Rick Rajter for their superb analyses of the plane crash evidence and also Prof Reynolds for graciously publishing, on his Website, the Hustler rebuttal we compiled
· Rick Siegel for his amazing contributions to the fight for the truth and his lyrical and deeply insightful analysis of the evidence and the events as they have unfolded.
· Thomas Mattingly for his “mediation” and provision for public exposure of Reynolds/Fetzer/Wood’s evidence and analysis via The McClendon Group.
· Jeff Strahl for his concise and focused comments and contributions.
· Veronica Chapman for her succinct and acutely observed points.
· Jerry Leaphart for his diligent work from a legal perspective and for being a lone dissenting voice at the NIST/NCST panel conference.
· CB Brooklyn for his collation of evidence re Steve Jones and his willingness to post to the various message boards in order to expose this information.
· Gerard Holmgren, Nico Haupt and Rosalee Grable for being at the forefront of analysis of some of the evidence mentioned here long before many others were “on the case”.
· Many others for looking at the evidence and diligently working to expose it in ways they see as appropriate.
Back to top
dh
Super Poster
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 941
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:40 am Post subject:
Well this is a very long and well evidenced, I'm sure, article. No time to examine it in detail at the moment. One point I always hold in favour of the beam, or in my preferred terminology, interferometric, weapon for the destruction of the towers, is the point always raised by the informed and controlled opposition that there is insufficient evidence for enough shutdown time preceding the event to allow for the planting and wiring of devices sufficient to cause the degree of destruction that occurred.
And also that such arraignment of explosive devices was always threatened by potentially random factors involved in real plane hits
I'm pretty sure that thermite, cutters and superficial explosives were involved but that these weren't truly instrumental in the destructions
Merely false observable leaders when the story starts to emerge, as is happening now
_________________
http://www.wytruth.org.uk/
This statement is only partly true. Judy Wood and her student Michael Zebuhr had set up a demonstration showing that aluminium can glow orange if heated to approximately the same temperature as molten iron.
Come on Andrew we both know that temperatures didn't get anywhere near hot enough to melt steel. We also know that Jones does state in his “Questions and Answers” paper that aluminum can be seen to glow slightly a low light levels but always appears silvery grey in daylight and bright light conditions.
Can you please explain why you are pushing these lies Andrew? _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
[qoute]Maybe the truth is that we should all be able to follow our own threads of research and paths of evidence, without the pernicious debunking by others and we should be allowed to draw our own conclusions.[qoute]
i agree that everyone should beable to follow their own research and paths. but what if people have not made up their minds totally? and they want to understand the other theorys to better judge what fits the evidence the best? can they ask questions? can they point out faults?
or are people not aloud to have an opinon unless they 100% support the theory? is this saying we should all go of into differant groups and leave each others evidence alone? is that promoting division?
if somebody posts something that is disinfo or wrong or has a fault or not thought through other aspects properly should we all just ignore it?
can truth be debunked or would it still stand up regardless? are critics aloud to debunk? or are we just not aloud to question or point out faults with npt/beams?
ive asked a ton of questions regarding these theorys and been ignored at every turn. cb brooklyn himself posted disinfo in the controversies section, thread called "oh my godness oh my goodness oh my goodness"
unpon asking what it was meant to show he said it proved they were working from scripts. so i listened again with that in mind and i heard nothing of the sort. everybody in the clip say differant things totally, anything that is said that is the same is the same voice repeated over and over or looped. only 2 people say oh my goodness, one man and one women the rest is reapeated from those two people. blatent disinfo implying it proves reading from a script when in fact all it attempts to do is fool people into thinking so.
what was i suppose to do with that information? ignore it? let him get on posting rubbish that didnt prove what he was claiming?
so we must all just abandon critical views because we dont like it? IMO critics should make your case stronger and it should'nt be a problem at all.
they help you see where your arguement is weak help you turf out disinfo or facts that cannot be proven ect ect making your case more presentable and stronger. when ever i have questions about 9/11 well at least for a while now i ask critics for that very reason. i dont ask somebody who already believes what i believe because they are less critical, the better the critic the more likely potenial problems are pointed out to the researcher. by the sounds of it you need to understand debunking isnt a bad thing it helps you see where there arguement is weak and yours strong enabling you to put forth a stronger case.
no doubt this will be ignored but just cannot believe what is being said here is let people post what they wont and dont ask questions or challenge it if you see a problem. it will only result in wrong facts staying in at the final draft to give out as fact.
The comment below was attributed to Andrew Johnson by 4U2P:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
This statement is only partly true. Judy Wood and her student Michael Zebuhr had set up a demonstration showing that aluminium can glow orange if heated to approximately the same temperature as molten iron.
Come on Andrew we both know that temperatures didn't get anywhere near hot enough to melt steel. We also know that Jones does state in his “Questions and Answers” paper that aluminum can be seen to glow slightly at low light levels but always appears silvery grey in daylight and bright light conditions.
The comment below was attributed to Andrew Johnson by 4U2P:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
This statement is only partly true. Judy Wood and her student Michael Zebuhr had set up a demonstration showing that aluminium can glow orange if heated to approximately the same temperature as molten iron.
Come on Andrew we both know that temperatures didn't get anywhere near hot enough to melt steel. We also know that Jones does state in his “Questions and Answers” paper that aluminum can be seen to glow slightly at low light levels but always appears silvery grey in daylight and bright light conditions.
The more No Planers and Beamers use the tactics of Jehovah's Witnesses the less anybody will take any notice of them.
In fact, they are doing the 9/11 Truth Movement a service by flagging themselves up as avoidable.
Do you have any points of evidence to correct what I have written above?
Do you have any personal correspondence from Steve Jones, Jim Fetzer or others mentioned above to share with us, or the gist of same?
The only thing to discuss is evidence. Let's try and stick to that, as I have done above. I have documented clear contradictions with facts above and documented behaviour by certain individuals which are inconsistent with the goals of revealing the truth behind 9/11.
To be fair, you posted this originally to a thread where TSWU3 had thoughtfully reposted my article, but thoughtlessly deleted all the links to the evidence, so perhaps, Patrick Brown style, you would like to check the evidence now and come to some conclusions about - rahter than making sweeping generalised statements comparing one "group" of people to another who are not even mentioned in the article above (i.e. Jehovah's Witness"). This the classic decoy tactic to which I referred, above.
I have documented clear contradictions with facts above and documented behaviour by certain individuals which are inconsistent with the goals of revealing the truth behind 9/11.
Yes I know - I have just advised TSWU3 of his over-enthusiasm to repost my article - with all the evidence links deleted. Hence the merging of these threads. Additionally, Prof Fetzer advised me of a couple of small changes. _________________ Andrew
I have documented clear contradictions with facts above and documented behaviour by certain individuals which are inconsistent with the goals of revealing the truth behind 9/11.
Nope - I have no idea what you're on about. I will debate the Chemtrail evidence with anyone - it is evidence just like that above. Again, you are just re-affirming the use of decoy/trash/debunking tactics - as I said above. So every post you make like this weakens your case even more. Sorry. _________________ Andrew
Nope - I have no idea what you're on about. I will debate the Chemtrail evidence with anyone - it is evidence just like that above
This is a 911 Truth Movement forum right?
I think there's evidence and then there's you're suggestions and speculations devised by some very suspicious people.
Quote:
Again, you are just re-affirming the use of decoy/trash/debunking tactics - as I said above. So every post you make like this weakens your case even more. Sorry.
Bit like you with your Beam Weapons and NPT opps sorry that's NBBT. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Additionally, he seems to imply that Rick Siegel’s video 9/11 Eyewitness has been produced only to make money (even when it is freely available on Google Video).
If you were on Concen when this first came out and was torrented you might have a different perspective. Rick venomously attacked all and sundry because the torrent would reduce their takings on the film and laboured the point that the compressed 700MB version was insufficient and obscured what the film showed. It doesnt imo.
Admittedly he was 'new' to torrents and hadnt realised their power...but he refused to see that getting the video to millions via the torrent network was worthwhile.
It wasnt on google video for ages.
So it is very easy to see why someone might think the above. Many do, especially as the footage was sat on for 4 years.
Additionally, he seems to imply that Rick Siegel’s video 9/11 Eyewitness has been produced only to make money (even when it is freely available on Google Video).
If you were on Concen when this first came out and was torrented you might have a different perspective. Rick venomously attacked all and sundry because the torrent would reduce their takings on the film and laboured the point that the compressed 700MB version was insufficient and obscured what the film showed. It doesnt imo.
Admittedly he was 'new' to torrents and hadnt realised their power...but he refused to see that getting the video to millions via the torrent network was worthwhile.
It wasnt on google video for ages.
So it is very easy to see why someone might think the above. Many do, especially as the footage was sat on for 4 years.
I'll read it more fully later, its dinner time.
Peace.
Thanks for the info - fair comment. I've seen quite a few e-mails from Rick and he has the tendency to "lash out" at people. I have heard 1 or 2 similar comments before actually. And yes, it is has puzzled me why the film came out when it did. Maybe I'll pluck up the courage to ask him.....! _________________ Andrew
Thought I'd save you the trouble of copying my post as you suggested above:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Patrick Brown wrote:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
You didn't answer my question about becoming a whistleblower - and I address it to any pernicious debunkers out there too.
I'm just a man Andrew and all I try to discuss is information that is put in front of me here or that I dig up on the web. Unfortunately I don't see any evidence for chem-trails and I can't even work out a motive for releasing chemicals into the atmosphere. Perhaps you can help me with the motive Andrew.
Right Patrick - you're just a man then. Fair enough. Now, a casual observer would observe your apparent campaign against me - which seems to have been largely unsuccessful, as far I can tell. Nevertheless I always try to be helpful to people.
Do I know what the true motive is? No. Does that make the phenomenon unreal? Of course it doesn't, as I am sure we would both agree about the CD of the WTC.
Once again, there are 2 possible logical conclusions about you:
1) You deny evidence which doesn't suit your world view.
2) You are a man on a mission on this message board - seemingly less interested in your own - where I do not "pollute the waters".
We're running out of options - and the sooner you realise this, the better.
Wake up.
Andrew I'm not alone in being concerned about the direction you're taking this forum. The only reason I comment on your threads more than others is because you are a/the administrator of this forum. My main concern is your siding with Woods/Reynolds/Fetzer against Jones this to me is very suspicious and makes your motives as an administrator here questionable.
I can concede that some of Jones “evidence based” conclusions may be slightly off the mark but they are at least scientifically testable. Woods Beam Weapon Theory goes outside of normal science and is therefore more difficult to test. Woods theory also lacks any credible evidence and seems to rely heavily on speculative outcomes i.e. not testable science. If woods theory was taken on board by the truth movement the movements theory would be unacceptable to most as it would be unprovable. I think the unprovable aspect of Woods theory is why the theory was born in an attempt to discredit slow and eventually destroy the 911 Truth Movement.
So Woods is trying to say that her Beam Weapon Theory is more provable than thermite!!
Also where did Woods get this Idea of Nano-particles from? I think it may have something to do with residual particles from un-ignited nano-thermite and therefore the need to give a reason for, or to explain, the existence of very fine (nano) particles that where found in dust samples from ground zero.
Here's a few extracts from Woods recent interview:
I've also been threatened by Ian Neal with a ban for trolling!! He also mentioned that it was a final warning. I don't recall even receiving the first one! Oh so I'm a troll because I find Andrews take on 911 rather bizarre! _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Patrick ......you have not the slightest interest in 9/11+ the truth.....
Why are you here......
I challenge you to arrange an 9/11 truth meeting + I will debate the issues with you.
Are you interested.....if not * off.....
Hmm seems that all the people full of hate are coming out of the Woodwork tonight! Why don't you explain to me again how the Jews did it? _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
There should be no restrictions on 911 research. However, if we are going to move towards mounting a challenge to the authorities it has to be on evidence they can no way refute. I have tried to get this idea going - we set up an evidence testing cross-forum panel, and only allow evidence that cannot be refuted in any way to be included in our case against world governments. This is a global conspiracy and we need an agreed global set of accusations backed by irrefutible evidence to win our case.
I would argue that CD of towers 1&2 should perhaps not be part of the initial case, since no doubt 'experts' will prove in court that planes somehow did it. We cannot even agree among us as to the method used. However, there is other evidence that cannot (far as I am aware) be denied.
WTC7 collapse was premeditated. Larry Silverstein's comments, plus there seem to be witnesses to the forthcoming CD, plus the BBC reported it was going to be demolished, plus the nature of the collapse. Probably enough to convince a jury there.
The 5 dancing Israelis, 3 of whom later openly admit their purpose was to document the event on TV. Any jury will see you cannot document an event that you do not know is going to happen.
Bush saying not once but twice that he saw the plane fly into the first building/terrible pilot/horrible accident. No TV network showed that footage live.
The fact that the BBC reported half the hijackers turned up alive.
Related - the fact that our gov supplied witness testimony incriminating the 7/7 bombers, from fellow passengers in a ghost train. One that did not exist.
Any good lawyer would get a public inquiry into who really did 911 on these points alone.
Then the issue of Israeli Security at Logan & the Tube and zero CCTV footage could be brought into play. Once the 'impossible' fact of 911 being an inside job is proven, the floodgates will open.
Its strange how we are recently getting more reasons for 9/11 cover up and it is essential we stick to the main points of the cover up.
This is the defining event in history alrite, but its not an accurate history. History is changed by the powers that be as and when they see fit. But with 9/11 we must not let their version of events blind citizens and stop them from not only looking into 9/11 but to learnn more about politics and how governments both US and UK do not represent the citizens values nor ideas.
This movement is gaining ground, loose change has helped this push, but ultimately all of its views will not be accepted.
We must write to newspapers who have printed articles about the 9/11 cover up and offer the reader the other programs widely and freely available.
Ultimately we must not lose our faith in what we believe, we must inform people of 9/11 but also we must inform them of how the media misinforms them, misrepresents their own role regarding reporting and broadcasting and ultimately failing us all.
2007 is the year to stand up and be counted and to inform the masses of what is really going on within our government and the bush administration.
2007 is the year that americans in every state must say no to Hilary Clinton as President and stop this dynastic power now or forever be in its grip for many years to come.
2007 is the year we in the UK must say no to labour and no to conservatives, they will not help us.
2007 is the year that the truth about 9/11 can come out, wether its the bush knew side or the bush administration did it.
2007 is the year that the world must say NO to air strikes on Iran.
I havent lost my faith in what I believe to be the truth, its tested me but I cannot argue with what I have seen and continue to see around the world.
"I would argue that CD of towers 1&2 should perhaps not be part of the initial case, since no doubt 'experts' will prove in court that planes somehow did it. We cannot even agree among us as to the method used. However, there is other evidence that cannot (far as I am aware) be denied. "
We have indisputable evidence that the official explanation for the WTC collapses is literally impossible. Science shows this.
We have no obligation to specify how these collapses were brought about but can provide a mass of evidence that points to controlled demolition. That being the case the collapses should be central to our case for an inquiry.
Freefall = no resistance.
Pulverisation = massive resistance.
This cannot be resolved in the official explanation - it is irresolvable in the gravity collapse scenario.
Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 595 Location: Australia
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:42 pm Post subject:
scar wrote:
Rick venomously attacked all and sundry
Rick's not the only one who can get abusive. You should see Holmgren when he's on a roll.
Andrew you've named several people in your post who I consider highly suspicious. I thank you for bringing them all together like that and hope you are able to admit to mistakes when one or several of them take a fall.
Rick's not the only one who can get abusive. You should see Holmgren when he's on a roll.
Heheh i have.
It was a 2-way street to be sure. People were very suspicious of him from the off, it was on conspiracy central after all... Some started investigating him after the initial angry posts etc etc you of all people should know the drill
I was initially elated to get the film and started passing it round, its some of the best visual evidence for cd, then quite gutted at the thread. As he was new to torrents it is understandable though i suppose. Having said that, i know other filmmakers have had problems getting permission and those who have used it have subsequently been attacked - 9/11 Mysteries...in which the eyewitness footage is supplimentary and admittedly not used as well as it should have been but to attack it like that was a poor show imo. Interesting to note those who promoted the film then jumped on the 'its disinfo' bandwagon when prompted. Just as happened with Loose Change and others.
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Thanks for the info - fair comment. I've seen quite a few e-mails from Rick and he has the tendency to "lash out" at people. I have heard 1 or 2 similar comments before actually. And yes, it is has puzzled me why the film came out when it did. Maybe I'll pluck up the courage to ask him.....!
From memory i think he said that he had no idea quite what was on it or that there was any problem with the official version until a Danish researcher got in touch with him in 2005, having seen a clip somewhere, asking for the full footage. I think Rick said that after the event he didnt watch it again/think of it, completely understandable. Lucky that someone sought him out or it may have been lost especially with Ricks servers being seized etc. _________________ Positive...energy...activates...constant...elevation. (Gravediggaz)
"I would argue that CD of towers 1&2 should perhaps not be part of the initial case, since no doubt 'experts' will prove in court that planes somehow did it. We cannot even agree among us as to the method used. However, there is other evidence that cannot (far as I am aware) be denied. "
We have indisputable evidence that the official explanation for the WTC collapses is literally impossible. Science shows this.
We have no obligation to specify how these collapses were brought about but can provide a mass of evidence that points to controlled demolition. That being the case the collapses should be central to our case for an inquiry.
Freefall = no resistance.
Pulverisation = massive resistance.
This cannot be resolved in the official explanation - it is irresolvable in the gravity collapse scenario.
The evidence would be qestioned in court by 'experts' and the jury would become cofused IMO. Wheras there are gems of evidence that the person in the street could easily understand.
Things like Bush saying he saw the first plane hit - which was not shown on TV therefore impossible unless he had a private video feed.
Things like celebrating Israelis being there 'to document the event' admitted on TV. The icing on the cake is that they had Arab costumes in their van...
Things like witnesses being cited on a train that ran too late to have had the hijackers on board.
I think one of the things holding the movement back is the insistence that the demolition is the proof positive. It probably is for WTC7. But messier to prove for WTC1 & 2. I think once you have shown that the official story is bogus, CD becomes a much easier sell.
Then you bring up the photoshopped Luton CCTV image, Silverstien's Pull It, the put options, the 'coincidences' regarding Israeli security, non-working CCTVs, and simulated exercises taking place on the days in question.
By the way, I posted on this thread an interesting observation about the Visor/Verint simulation being run on 7/7...
I have a background that includes science. I would make this observation. I see objects falling through the air during the collapses that appear to be overtaking the side of the building. I may be mistaken of course. But a case based on 'free fall' better be watertight.
There are claims that the concrete was pulversed to - I forget - sub 30 mircon size? I took this as gospel at first. But if you read the report of how they did the dust analysis it says they sieved it first.
Why try to explain free-fall collapses when all you have to say is:
Quote:
Bush and 5 Israelis admitted foreknowledge of 911, the Bliar gov has faked evidence in 7/7, and I can PROVE it.
G911 is an idea for a pan-forum case against the elite who did 911 (and 7/7) which is understood in a non-scientific way.
By lay people. _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Andrew you've named several people in your post who I consider highly suspicious. I thank you for bringing them all together like that and hope you are able to admit to mistakes when one or several of them take a fall.
Agree... and waiting _________________ Make love, not money.
Andrew you've named several people in your post who I consider highly suspicious. I thank you for bringing them all together like that and hope you are able to admit to mistakes when one or several of them take a fall.
I wonder if Andrew banned him for that comment?!?
I'm still waiting for Andrew to explain what heating aluminum to the melting point of steel has to do with anything? _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
