Radio interview pulled - The Next False Flag?

[Andrew Johnson]

Please Read and Re-post As Appropriate

  A Touch of  ?The Hidden Hand??

Is the Next False Flag Attack on US Soil Near?

Andrew Johnson (ad.johnson@ntlworld.com), July 28^th 2007

Please Forward/Re-post far and Wide and ASAP

I write this piece having some feelings of guilt, which may seem silly or strange, but that is how I feel.

I was, on July 26^th, scheduled to chat with a man called Ambrose Lane on a show called "We Ourselves", which goes out on a channel called ?XM Channel 169 - The Power? (http://www.xmradio.com/onxm/channelpage.xmc?ch=169). Ambrose has other unrelated shows on WPFW a Pacifica station  covering the Washington D. C. metro area as far north as Bailtimore and as far south as Richmond VA.  Ambrrose's shows are archieved at http://www.weourselves.org/show/index.html. However, the call for me to go on the show on July 26^th, at 8pm (BST), never came - and I wondered why. The following day, I found out. The Network "XM Channel 169" which hosted the "We Ourselves" show had cancelled it and fired the host (Ambrose Lane). This came as a shock to everyone and, as far as I know at the time of writing, XM have given Ambrose Lane no credible reason for their sudden decision.

In this article, I have tried to put together the main points that I was hoping to have discussed in the interview.

On the show, I was due to be speaking with Dr Judy Wood as well - about the latest evidence she has found which shows that an advanced but unknown type of Directed Energy Weapon was used to destroy most of the WTC complex (http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html). Over the last few months and weeks I have been in regular communication with Dr Judy Wood regarding her ongoing study and presentation of this evidence. There are a number of reasons for counting this as the strongest hypothesis -  it explains the most evidence, such as:

• Lack of large debris (most of the material the towers were made of was almost instantly ?dustified?, with only a few steel girders left ? the ?steel was shipped to china? statements seem to have been a cover story - as we have seen no evidence this ?shipping? actually happened).
• Lack of molten metal (this is commonly spoken of and is mentioned in some 9/11 truth videos and testimonies, but there is no photographic evidence of its existence. Indeed, the photographs that Dr Wood has shown us contradict the idea of its existence. For example, there is no ?steam explosion? when rain fell on the area where molten metal was supposed to have been in the immediate period following the destruction of the WTC).
• The Bath tub was not sufficiently damaged by the enormous amount of debris which should?ve fallen into it ? we know that Lower Manhattan was never flooded.
• ?Toasted Cars? ? over ½ a mile from the WTC.

You can see all the evidence laid out at http://www.drjudywood.com. 

Following a number of stories that have recently appeared in the Press and on the Web, and following discussions with a mutual friend of Dr Wood and myself, Frank Ferguson, we had developed a concern that this weapon (because we accept it exists) could be used again in the next False Flag operation -  perhaps to "fake" the "threatened" Al Qaida Nuclear attack - on US soil in, shall we say, a very significant place ? such as Washington DC.

Our concerns were amplified in recent days, as we have heard more and more ?terror talk? from the likes of Michael Chertoff e.g.

http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/nation/chi-070710chertof f,0,6464324,print.story

in which he is quoted as saying:

"I believe we are entering a period this summer of increased risk?Summertime seems to be appealing to them," he said of al-Qaeda. "We do worry that they are rebuilding their activities."

Also, Air Force Gen. Victor "Gene" Renuart has said:

(http://infowars.com/articles/terror/dhs_general_attack_could_ha ppen_any_day.htm)

?that while the terrorism threat within the nation's boundaries has increased in the past year. He added, "Am I concerned that this will happen this summer, I have to be concerned that it could happen any day."

Additionally, on 19^th July Paul Craig Roberts -- a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan was quoted as saying:

(http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Oldline_Republican_warns_someth ings_in_works_0719.html)  

"The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists ... are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events," he said. "You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda is not going to do it, it is going to be orchestrated."

Added to these ominous statements, one of the main items we wished to discuss was an article that appeared in the Washington Post on 10 May 2007, entitled ?Bush Changes Continuity Plan? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/09/AR200 7050902719.html)

In this article it mentions:

?The prospect of a nuclear bomb being detonated in Washington without warning, whether smuggled in by terrorists or a foreign government, has been cited by many security analysts as a rising concern since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.?

towards the end of the article it says:

?White House's Homeland Security Council staff. [Frances Fargos] Townsend is to produce an implementation plan within 90 days. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff will continue to coordinate operations and activities, the directive said.?

An item of particular interest to me which has received no mainstream and little if any alternative media coverage (such as on Infowars.com), is contained in portions of a discussion that took place at the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference on June 24, 2007. This bizarre discussion was between Brigham Young University (BYU) Physics Professor, Steven E Jones and Dr William Deagle. In it, Dr Deagle stated that ?22 US cities have been pre-wired with nukes.? They were also discussing the possibility of ?another 9/11 type attack? and, Prof Jones was heard to say (about 30 minutes into the discussion): 

(http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/transcript/Jones_Dea gle_transcript.html )

?One other exercise is that we have learned that with evidence we can learn a great deal so if there is an event and - we won?t even name a city - lets just say an American city - blamed on Iran, certainly there will be 9/11 truthers nearby and I hope they realize the importance of collecting a sample [right] whether that?s dust ? [also radiation] right - having a radiation detector handy if you?ve got one ? whether it?s Geiger - if you send me a sample I?d be glad to look at it and I?m sure you would too, Bill . So, if there is such an event the point ? the reason I?m emphasizing this is because it?s a bit of a warning if there are perpetrators thinking about ? such another 9/11 they?d better think twice because 9/11 truthers are out there ? we?re watching. We will get samples ? we know what to do ? evidence-based studies ? we can do very quickly and we can put an end to lies - on the next 9/11 if it [inaudible] ? which I hope we?ll avoid?

(the page above links to the Google-video of the discussion. An audio-only copy can be heard here http://tinyurl.com/29xtwz ). These really are extraordinary statements to come from two supposedly well-qualified scientists.

There seems to have been a concerted and probably co-ordinated effort on the Internet to either attack Dr Wood herself, or divert attention from the data she presents. For example, the new association called Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/) has not discussed or mentioned in any detail Prof Wood?s extensive study ? even though Prof Wood herself has degrees in engineering subjects.

Ancillary to the study of the WTC photographic evidence that Dr Wood has studied, it has been found that a number of companies that NIST contracted to contribute to the NCSTAR 1 report have links to Directed Energy research or products. One example is ARA (Applied Research Associates ? www.ara.com) who produced the plane crash animations. They also are a defence contractor and Silver Level Founding Sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS) - see http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/sponsors.html)

As a note to this area of study, former transport secretary, Norman Mineta, is frequently quoted as someone who tried to highlight anomalies in the story of VP Cheney?s account of what happened with the supposed plane which hit the Pentagon. (Mineta stated to Lee Hamilton, of the 9/11 Commission, that Mineta was in a bunker when Cheney apparently declined to give a shoot down order for a plane that was about to crash into the Pentagon ? see http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/alibis/cheney.html) Note that if the events went as Mineta described, the fellow coming and going from the room wouldn't have had time to leave the room and return.  If the "plane" were actually travelling at 550 mph, 10 miles is covered in about 1 minute.  Part of that time would be spent in the dialog, "do the orders still stand?"   So, it would seem unlikely that this fellow would have time to even leave the room and return for the next dialog.  It turns out that Mineta himself was former Vice President of Lockheed Martin (see http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/mineta-bio.html)  ? one of the world?s biggest defence contractors and also one the primary contractors in the Airborne Laser Project which is described as ?America's first directed energy weapon system?

 (see http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2000/news_release_00 0408a.html )

Conclusion

We therefore seem to have a range of evidence that a directed energy weapon was used as the primary method of destruction a number of the WTC buildings. We have also seen the links between certain people who would seem to support ?9/11 truth? and directed energy contracts or projects.

We have seen a number of statements suggesting that a large-scale or nuclear attack on the USA by Al Qaida is imminent. Within certain quarters of the 9/11 truth movement, we have seen the suggestion that ?mini-nukes? were used in the destruction on the WTC and that US cities already have them ?pre-wired?.

If we posit that the mini-nuke idea is another ?cover story? for what happened on 9/11, and we consider that the Directed Energy Weapon might be orbital, it would potentially allow the 9/11 perpetrators to fake a nuke attack on a target of their choice. The main point here is that any real nukes being moved by land, air or sea would probably be, at some point, detected if any of the current security systems actually function in any useful way. However, the Directed Energy Weapon cannot be detected by any of the usual land-based systems (and who would be looking for it anyway).

If the 9/11 perps have a plan similar to what I have suggested above, then it makes sense that they would try to shut down any discussion of ideas which may uncover it, and they would try to attack or discredit those involved in such discussion. I am therefore given to wonder, was this the motive behind Ambrose Lane?s show being cancelled on the very day on which these issues were due to be discussed?

There is, of course, the possibility that part or parts of this conjecture could be entirely wrong ? I hope all of it is wrong actually. Weighed against the possibility that a false flag attack on US soil equalling or exceeding the scale of 9/11 will happen soon, am I, as the author of this article, prepared to be criticised for being unrealistically rash, extremist or plain silly in my conclusions? You bet your top, middle and bottom dollar I am.

Please forward this article to everyone who may take it seriously ? as soon as possible.

 

[TonyGosling]

Sorry Andrew but IMHO you've been fed a whole load of duff evidence and testimony. Whether or not this is true there is far more evidence that the buildings were brought down by explosives so your conclusion below is not really accurate.
I admire your wish to delve into pastures mysterious and new but after your evangelical advocacy of the 'no planes' theory I have very little confidence.
I don't see any point or need to use directed energy veapons to knock the WTC buildings down, nor building 7, when you have a willing crooked company, Controlled Demolition Incorporated, and 26 hours over the weekend previous to 9/11 for them to crawl all over the building placing charges.
A distraction from the mission IMHO.

I don't doubt the existence of these types of weapons BTW.

[gericom]

I have cut and pasted this article onto my eTribes personal blogsite, Andrew. (I've taken the liberty of slightly "editing" it to replace the question marks with comma's as I'm sure that this is what you intended.)

A frightening article, but it would go a long way to explain why the WTC buildings almost vapourised into dust.

[Thermate911]

Interesting approach, Andy, but I'm totally with Tony on this one.

There are far too many variables already in the 9/11 events - adding more 'supposition' is not, I feel, productive at this particular stage. (Just look what has happened at st911!)

A stage where it is becoming very obvious that those who would wish the truth of 9/11 to be buried forever are blatantly ramping up their attacks on the evidence and those who would promulgate it.

Now is NOT the time for division, unless one is literally Hell-bent on obfuscation and sowing confusion in the lay mind.

A question for you re: these 'hypothetical' Space Weapons. If they were truly already available and still active, why have they not been used to quell the ever-increasing upsurge of resistance to NWO schemes in the Middle East? Why have they not been used to destroy Iran's supposed nuclear bomb making facilities?

Perhaps it's all to do with that sabotaged NASA 'strain gauge' computer destined for the ISS I mentioned to you?

I see no honest reason whatsoever to stray one step away from what is already conclusively known about 9/11. Occam's Razor alone precludes Reagan's Star Wars toys. Look at the true 'capability' of the so-called Missile Defense Shield, for example!

3 facts alone can already bring down the 'perpetraitors', given sufficient global public outcry:-

Norman Mineta's testimony under oath to the Omission Commission
FAA & NORAD failure to agree on their official story
NTSB FDR data on AA77 coupled with Rumsfeld's slip 'the missile that hit this building'

Recent quotes from the Chairmen themselves caps the mountain of VERIFIABLE evidence:-

"Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the..investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue."

Thomas H. Kean, Chairman, 9/11 Commission 8/4/06

"We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. ... So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail."

Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission

Both are now members at:-

www.patriotsquestion911.com

.

[Andrew Johnson]

Sorry Tony,

You can check the links to verify the information. Do you have any scientific data or analyses to refute Dr Wood's findings?

If not, then your rebuttal has no substance. All links and evidence are referenced above and a reasoned argument is given.

I haven't "been fed" anything - the information has come from various sources and observations. Each can draw their own conlcusions and I have already explained the rationale for writing it.

Directed or specific criticism is more useful rather than saying "it's duff"

[Fallious]

You made me spill tea all over my keyboard.

[Andrew Johnson]

[quote="Thermate911"]Interesting approach, Andy, but I'm totally with Tony on this one.

There are far too many variables already in the 9/11 events - adding more 'supposition' is not, I feel, productive at this particular stage. (Just look what has happened at st911!)
[quote]

There are many variables, yes. But my analysis is based on evidence. Take it or leave it.

If supposition saves lives, then I am all for it.

[Stephen]

Somthing very strange has just happened to me today! I've come to realise these BEAM WEAPONS could of been used to bring down
WTC Complex it's like I've Woken Up!! AGAIN!!


Thanks to Andrew for this

[marky 54]

two problems i have with energy weapons evidence.

1. proving energy weapons exsist and were used in iraq does not prove anything other than that, im pretty sure there are lots of technologys that exsist and have been used without the public being aware, but if all that is needed is a theory and then evidence the technology exists and has or may of been used before then every technology should be a suspect regarding 9/11.

2. the evidence for CD does not simply disapear, out of intrest, what caused all the seprate explosions and flashes within the towers? was that energy weapons to?

also:
does anyone have the dates for the photos that show toasted cars being very far away from ground zero? for all anyone knows they could of been taken days or weeks after 9/11 and cars were dumped at numerous locations, giving owners time to reclaim any surviving belongings inside or just to get them out the way untill they are picked up and crushed or scrapped.

it confuses me how one minute it was CD, then all of a sudden all the evidence pointing to CD is ignored in favour of the 2% evidence that could not be accounted for previously, in favour of something else that dos'nt quite add up or explain all the evidence either.

mind you it seems like the best way to stop the truth coming out, if differant theorys are started and you somehow caused infighting/discrediting against each theory but each theory held part truth it would ensure the truth never comes out, because everyone thinks only one or the other is true and start to turn against anyone believing otherwise, therefore each person would only have a part of the truth.

if enegry weapons were used then this is the case because there is clear evidence of CD also.

[Thermate911]

[Thermate911]