Open Univ. (UK) Refuses my Request for a Presentation

[Andrew Johnson]

Have included my letter below (with which I sent a copy of Steven's paper and the Painful Deceptions video), VC's response and my response to her.
=====================================

Dear Vice Chancellor,

I am writing to you about something that not just concerns the Open University, it concerns all of us. I do this with some reluctance and ambivalence. Before I come to that, let me just explain that I am currently an AL on T224 (staff number 01252762). I have been enjoying tutoring with the Open University for about 5 years. A couple of years ago, I was also given the opportunity to get involved with DSA Assessments – and doing these gives me now my primary source of income. I got into doing this work due to my background in education and using technology – over the last 20 years.

However, I am writing to ask you for the opportunity to give a presentation at Walton Hall about something different. Over the last 3 years, I have been studying many things unrelated to my primary subjects and these studies lead me to investigate what really happened on September 11th 2001. Most people, whilst accepting the official story, have some questions about it – perhaps an obvious one is how could America’s considerably sophisticated (and very expensive) air defences be penetrated by 4 Civilian Planes, which “flew around the place” for about an hour before crashing? The standard explanation is, basically, that a “connected series of incompetences” coupled with bad luck allowed this to happen. However, further investigation reveals that this explanation is incorrect and there are a number of extremely worrying errors and inconsistencies in the Official Story.

I have watched a fair number of films and videos that explore and analyse the evidence more objectively, and ask hard questions. I have enclosed a DVD that contains one such video called Painful Deceptions, along with an additional recording of an event that took place in New York City in September 2004 (this event received no media coverage here at all).

I have chosen this time to write and appeal to you because of the formation of a new, loose association of people called Scholars for 9/11 Truth (www.st911.org). This association, which I have joined, was formed by Professor Steven E Jones and Professor James H Fetzer and now includes about 50 members, such as Emeritus Professors Morgan Reynolds and David Ray Griffin (author of New Pearl Harbour and 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions). I have enclosed the full list of members. The goal of the association is primarily one of education – we aim to present a new analysis of the available evidence which, ultimately, points to a substantially different conclusion about who was responsible for the attacks on 9/11 and why they were carried out. Many people reject these new conclusions in their own right, without truly analysing the evidence. This is, in principle, against the scientific method, which we have all tried to apply in our analyses.

Professor Jones has presented a paper which primarily focuses on the destruction of World Trade Centre Building 7. Few people are aware that this 47-storey, Steel-Framed building collapsed to ground at about 5:30pm on September 11th 2001 in only 6.6 seconds. No plane hit this building and it only had a few small fires, which burned all day. I have included a copy of Professor Jones’ paper for you to review.

Most of us are aware that official reports have been issued regarding the matters I have discussed above and one would expect these to fully address the reasons for the total collapse of these buildings. However, NIST (National Institute for Standards in Technology) have still not issued their final report on WTC Building 7. Indeed, this report is a long time overdue and, I understand, the task of completing it has been “put out to tender”. This situation is extremely curious.

Once this “can of worms” is opened, it leads to many unsavoury matters and this often makes objective study very difficult, or discourages people from the pursuit of truth. I think all of us are acutely aware of this. In pursuit of the truth, some of the questions we have asked are: Why did World Trade Centre (WTC) Buildings 1 & 2 collapse at near “free-fall” rate, with many witness reports of explosions? How were the towers pulverised to powdered debris? Why did the WTC’s owner, Larry Silverstein, state that WTC 7 had to be “pulled” by the fire department and yet the FEMA report said “[how the fires caused the collapse] remain[s] unknown at this time”? Why, when requested, was no clear film released of the supposed plane that hit the Pentagon? Why did none of the 19 hijackers appear on the passenger lists? Why didn't jets intercept the airliners since they had numerous warnings of terrorist attacks? Why were the flights Black Boxes never recovered, but many bodies were? How is it the case that at least 6 (probably more) of the supposed hijackers have now been reported as alive?

This subject is politically charged and very sensitive, but finding the truth is of profound importance – because many very significant legislative decisions have been taken based on the idea that international terrorism is a real threat – when no significant person has been convicted of committing any of the atrocities of 9/11 and 7th July.

I have been quietly campaigning regarding this issue for over 1 year now, and have written a number of letters to Erewash MP Liz Blackman, who has forwarded 2 of my letters to the Home Office. I have received responses from her, and 2 letters from the Counter Terrorism Policy Office, following a letter I wrote to the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke (see enclosed copies of responses – I never mentioned Belmarsh Prison in my original letter, by the way – I was writing with alarm at the proposed introduction of Juryless Courts for “terror suspects” and outlining some of the problems with the Official 9-11 Story).

Another loose association of people that I am involved have set up the UK 9-11 Truth online forum (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/). This now has over 200 members (and a number of off-line ones) and presentations and talks have been given in several places other than Derby such as London, Cork, Manchester, Oxford, Bristol, Brighton and the West Country. Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan’s “Book 9-11 Revealed” has also been published. The only coverage this seems to have had in the mainstream media was in an article in the Daily Mail (http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/911_mainstream_media.htm) There has also been a wonderful new development – www.mujca.com - Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth.

So, having given you this background, I am asking for the opportunity to give a presentation at Walton Hall – open to all – either of Painful Deceptions (on the DVD) - or a shortened version of this - or a presentation based on Professor Steve Jones’ paper (I am currently discussing this with him). I would hope for the presentation to be free of charge for people to enter, although if expenses need to be met, I am prepared to meet them if they are not excessive. I have requested of David Shayler that he be present at the event as he is a former MI5 Officer and has insider experience of Intelligence Issues which are relevant to the analysis of the evidence.

I am acutely aware of various problems and criticisms that this issue causes for people – particularly those in authority and the most common knee-jerk reaction is the utterance of “conspiracy theory” and then no one takes the evidence seriously. However, in the interests of objectivity and intellectual freedom and fair representation, I hope that you will be able to see your way clear to giving permission for an event like this to take place.

I can be flexible as to the time and date and would even suggest we could do a lunchtime presentation and an evening presentation.

Thank you for taking the time to read this in your busy schedule, and any further time you have spent in examining the accompanying information. Please contact me if further information or clarification is required.

Yours Sincerely


Andrew Johnson
AL on T224 (Computers & Processors)

===========================
Dear Mr Johnson

Thank you for your letter of the 5th February 2006. You raise many issues in your letter and the accompanying material but your principal request is to be able to give a presentation of the video Painful Deceptions and/or for you to present the paper written by Professor Steven E Jones of Brigham Young University

University policy on these matters is that we do not host public events on behalf of other organisations. Other organisations may hire our facilities as a venue for a private event where they invite the participants, but not a public one open to all. So we could not agree to a public showing of the video.

Where we do hold public events is when we are presenting the work of Open University staff, either collectively, or individually as, in the case of Professorial Inaugural Lectures, or have invited distinguished academics from other universities to give a research paper. So we could also not agree to yourself presenting a paper on a subject that you clearly admit is not your area of expertise. If Professor Jones were to be in the UK then we could support him giving an academic paper at the OU where he would be able to take and answer questions from fellow academics and other experts on the substance of his paper that questions the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

The Open University, like all Universities, cherishes its role in protecting academic freedom and the pursuit of knowledge and understanding based on research and inquiry of many types. However we do not take a political stance or support politically related campaigning activity unless that is on matters that relate directly to the work of The Open University.

! hope that you now understand why I cannot support your direct request.

Yours sincerely

Professor B M Gourley Vice-Chancellor
==============================
Dear Vice Chancellor,

Thank you very much for your kind and considered response to my letter regarding the above topic. I am very grateful for the time that you took to consider and respond to my request and I accept what you have explained, or course. (All too often, I have simply been stone-walled so this reduces the opportunity to learn from the experience).

Just as some background, our group ( "Scholars for 9-11 Truth") seems to be growing quite quickly and more and more people are beginning to look into this matter. I feel the time is approaching when more and more institutions will need to address the issue in more significant way. I certainly am applying pressure in a number of directions - and will be continuing to do so.

I have now uploaded a video and (associated files) of Professor Steve Jones' (very significant) Feb 1st presentation "9/11 Revisited: Scientific and Ethical Questions"

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/BYUStevenJones/

and am now working locally to organise something along the same lines.

Thanks again very much for reviewing the information I sent, and for your time spent in reading this message.

Yours Sincerely,

Andrew Johnson

[Garrett Cooke]

Andrew,

Congratulations on this. At least you got a considered reply.

[Andrew Johnson]

I think Steve may be able to get to the UK, but he might have trouble getting back in....

[Dog]

Dogged work Andrew.

And I guess you have run this proposition by Steve?

What's the consensus?