Engaging People with the Issue

[Andrew Johnson]

Some people, despite the Everest-sized piles of evidence will still be skeptical. I include the discussion below as an example of this. This was with a friend of mine (name changed out of politeness). This person has a PhD in Microbiology.
=====================
Hi Andrew,

I'm having problems with my PC at home and can't access the internet at home at the moment. To be honest reading the statement below it fills me with utter disbelief that anyone could even contemplate there is 'insider involvement' to force through ID cards!, unbelievable nonsense!! Also, as much as I think there are deficiencies with press reporting in the UK, I still trust the integrity and intentions of the majority of the UK media over 'Original Associated Press' and Israeli radio! What credibility does Original Associated Press have! This is another example of conspiracy theories being peddled on the web, with absolutely minimal avidence to back them up. To try and suggest this is 'state sponsored terrorism' is absolutely fanciful and could only be sanctioned by anarchists. I'm shocked you even give this any credence.

John


John,

You've used language like this before. Focus on what has been reported.

By 10pm on Radio 2 (attached is 47 second clip), it is already decided that it is Al Queda. No eyewitness accounts were broadcast in this bulletin. Blair comes out and says its AQ. It's a script.

The Twin Towers in NYC were demolished as was WTC7. You need to consider the evidence carefully.

BBC BAFTA Award Winning documentary concludes Al Quaeda does not exist as an International Terrorist Organisation. Who did 9/11? Yet BBC news trot it out as patter.

The media spin machine is out of control. Look at the way events unfolded. Compare with previous IRA bombings. As I said to someone else, if it was "real terrorists", I have asked myself the following questions. If these supposed terrorists wanted to attack us, why didn't they attack Glasgow or Edinburgh or that area to frighten the leaders near there? They could have killed and injured the same or more people if they had chosen a busy shopping centre or underground station in Glasgow. Probably less security too.

There are some unpleasant truths to be faced and I am shocked and in disbelief that the man in the highest office of our country, whom I once respected, should rapidly jump to any conclusions and name any names.

Don't be in disbelief of me. Check as much of the evidence as you have time to check. This is what I have spent the last 2 years doing. As one of my great friends, I ask you that you consider that this counts for something. Please watch the disks I sent. It is exactly because of yesterday that more people need to know the evidence and decide the truth for themselves.

Unplug the TV and look for other news reports. Work out what the contradictions mean and follow the money.

Views like main will be unpopular and unbroadcastable. That's how the Spin works.

It is an information war. My mind is clear and focused on the evidence. I wouldn't report wild speculation in the way the BBC has.

You mentioned the word conspiracy - not me. That is also how the spin works.

Take care of yourself,

Andrew


Andrew

I hope you would agree I'm a fairly scientific and objective person? Although I think some of the news reporting has been a bit OTT in terms of the hours of analyses without real evidence, I think the statement that the attacks point towards Al-Quaeda is a fair assumption. Even if a BAFTA award winning teams states Al-Quaeda doesn't exist it doesn't make them right!, there are differences of opinion within the BBC like any other large organisation. I still trust our democratic processes and think some of the views you have expressed are extreme and almost anarchistic. I think it is inevitable that ID cards will be pushed through as a result of the bombings. However, if this provides us with an increased level of protection, then so be it. I don't see it as a loss of our civil liberties, if you are law abiding you haven't anything to fear from ID cards.
I think we will have to 'agree to disagree' on a lot of the issues you have raised recently. Although I find it hard to understand your view points on a large number of issues since 9/11, I don't see this as compromising our friendship. Equally I hope you can understand my views and not dismiss them out of hand. I have taken the time to review a lot of the material you have sent me, but am still not convinced about the integrity of the 'evidence' or alternative theories you propose. However, I am still open minded and remain to be convinced, but I just don't see it yet!

John,

Glad you have got your computer back up. Get a pop-up blocker and the latest versions of Ad-Aware and Spybot SD. Apology if this message is a bit disjointed am using segments pasted to other people.

Thanks for sending me your thoughts. Re civil liberties. I used to think along the same lines. I am a law-abiding person, with nothing to hide. I don't mind having an ID card at all - providing it costs less than £10. But Clarke said himself it wouldn't have stopped the attacks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4663155.stm

That isn't the real issue though. One issue is - I don't know about you, but if I am accusing someone of a crime, I like to have evidence before making accusations. Blair had no evidence. He made the accusation at 3pm.
I hope you would agree I'm a fairly scientific and objective person? Although I think some of the news reporting has been a bit OTT in terms of the hours of analyses without real evidence,
A key point, yes.
I think the statement that the attacks point towards Al-Quaeda is a fair assumption.
An assumption? You are happy to assume that some one/group is behind the deaths of 70 people without an investigation? What happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?. Again, this is how the media work - don't you see?
Even if a BAFTA award winning teams states Al-Quaeda doesn't exist it doesn't make them right!, there are differences of opinion within the BBC like any other large organisation.
Fair comment. However, have you watched all 3 episodes? If you have - great, if not then you can't form an opinion when you haven't seen all the data/facts. Also, I have only sent you about 20% of the other data that I have been listening to and looking at. I don't want to overwhelm people. The conlclusion is yes, there are terrorist groups, but they don't operate internationally in the way that was burned into our brains with the 9/11 coverage. Yes some Arabs attended flight schools but look at the testimony of Mike Springman, for example (20 mins or so)

http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/uploads/springman28ksnowshoefilms.rm
http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/uploads/springman28ksnowshoefilms.ram
 

I think we will have to 'agree to disagree' on a lot of the issues you have raised recently. Although I find it hard to understand your view points on a large number of issues since 9/11, I don't see this as compromising our friendship.
Good - neither do I - sometimes e-mail can give the wrong impression.
Equally I hope you can understand my views and not dismiss them out of hand. I have taken the time to review a lot of the material you have sent me, but am still not convinced about the integrity of the 'evidence' or alternative theories you propose. However, I am still open minded and remain to be convinced, but I just don't see it yet!
Here is a 2 minute clip about WTC 7.

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

Yes - I would agree that you are scientific. Lets look at a little evidence and data. This is science - physics, chemistry - not conspiracy. Decide on the validity of this analysis and then go on to motive if you find the analysis correct (please forget, for a moment that FEMA and the Kean commission ever existed. When you have looked at this analysis, checked it yourself, then FEMA and the Kean Commission can appear again).

Below, I have set out my use of physics to show - prove in fact - that the Twin Towers couldn't have collapsed solely as a result of Jet Impacts. The case is even stronger for building 7 - no plane hit it. So here is my own version of the Physics, which I developed myself. You are perfectly entitled to disagree with or get it checked or what have you, but I will stand by it myself. I would encourage you, if you have the time or interest, to check the facts and data presented herein. If you can find any mistake, or inaccuracy, and have the time, please do forward it to me so that I can revise or withdraw my proof. For myself, I am ashamed that it took me 3 years to sit down and spend 15 minutes to work out this proof. Please send it to anyone who might have a qualified opinion, if you have the time or interest to do so

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

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

or if u=0,

Rearranging for t gives:


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

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


= 9.03 seconds (assuming no air resistance)

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



This article has more details about the construction and destruction of the towers, and also has the news video footage of the collapse of building 7 (albeit in reduced size etc)

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69.html

I think it is also worth remembering that it isn't just me who thinks this way, there are many people who are asking the tough questions. We even had 3 meetings here in July (2 in London, 1 in Manchester) and these were attended by a total of over 1000 people (myself included). So lots of people are now beginning to look at the facts more critically. At one of the meetings I heard the testimony of WTC Janitor William Rodriguez, who saved many people from the disaster. He reported hearing explosions before and after the planes struck. He was the last man to be pulled alive from the rubble.

You can get a free DVD here:

http://www.reopen911.org/

I think I already sent you a copy of this DVD ("Confronting the Evidence"). I would recommend you watch the "Painful Deceptions" - it's on that "Confronting..." DVD, if you haven't already. If you want to, you can download it for free from here:

http://checktheevidence.com/video/Painful%20Deceptions-Detailed%20Anal ysis%20of%20911.wmv

But it's big - about 122 megs (it plays for about 1 hr 25 minutes).

Cheers


Andrew


Andrew,

You state that the twin towers were demolished and this issue is not open to debate. The sources you have cited present alternative theories for what happended, but it is not scientific fact. To say this issue is not open to debate is placing your argument on the 'moral high ground' and excluding democratic debate, exactly the kind of behaviour you accuse the press of adopting. For all we know the terrorists could have smuggled explosives on board. However, infowars.com claims such as: GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN TERRORIST ATTACKS
Attack on America: Controlled Chaos for Global Dehumanization!

are absolutely ludicrous and almost farcical.




John,

See my other message. I called it SPECULATION so no I don't HONESTLY BELIEVE it.

However, as I can scientifically prove the Twin Towers were demolished with explosives, I know that the EVIDENCE from 9-11 strongly suggests it WASN'T AL QUAEDA that blew up the towers.

CHECK THE SCIENCE then go from there. You personally may still end up with an Al Qaida based conclusion for all I know - but the towers were demolished - OK? This issue is not open to debate. Who demolished them and how IS open to debate.

Without a long and detailed message, I believe that the 10 steps are, considering we are only 6 days after the events, a good explanation of the evidence. Not all the steps may be correct, nor in every detail. However, I interpret the evidence differently from you and the mainstream media - and your own description said that the media weren't basing the discussions yesterday.

Please send me evidence or data or solid interpretation of the evidence which refutes my twin towers proof, then we can consider what comes next. A reasoned argument can not be just to say "No it isn't"

Hard truths need to be faced.

Please think about this - I and thousands of others are not doing this for fun. We care about the truth and that we are not being told it. Issues of ID cards and state controls come after that pursuance of the truth.

Take care

Andrew

As Jonn McEnroe would say you 'can't be serious!'
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Johnson
To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 10:49 PM
Subject: How the Government Staged the London Bombings in Ten Easy Steps

John,

Please, please understand what you are saying. I know and accept what you say about "moral high ground". But is it "morally high" to say "The Earth goes round the Sun"?
As Jonn McEnroe would say you 'can't be serious!'
I don't expect you to agree with me at all - nor see it the way I do, but I am deadly serious. You don't seem to have registered at all the other things I said about the whole 9-11 Truth movement. It is therefore difficult for me to fully and honestly debate the issue with you.

If you are concerned with this issue, please try to engage with the data and arguments in a more detailed way. If you are not concerned, ignore me and I will no longer send alternative views - if you are truly satisfied with the information given to you through "ordinary channels".

I will still send the other jokes and humour and messages of interest, but I can see that your view is not really very open (I don't agree with your statement that it is - reasons below.) You have not attempted to refute the proof I sent to you - either as a result of personal research or through web or other references. I assume therefore that you just think it is completely wrong and not worth checking out. You make a simple statement:

"For all we know the terrorists could have smuggled explosives on board. "

But there is no evidence for this. Such a theory wasn't mentioned in the official report. The official report says "pancake collapse", but this doesn't explain the facts. The evidence shows controlled demolition. Please show me the web page which shows how the towers were destroyed using on-board explosives. You also ignore building 7 - no plane hit it. It was pulverised. Where is the web page explaining this? If you wish to be open-minded and really debate this hugely important issue, I don't think I am being unreasonable in asking you to present your own data or web pages which support your arguments, opinion or proof. As a scientist, you are aware of the difference between fact, proof and theory. I have really tried hard to distinguish between them and you have not responded to the points I have made. Is this democratic debate? Sorry to go on, but again, it is so important that people think clearly about these issues.

Remember, I used science in my assertion - you are using, well, sorry to use word, really I am - but emotion.

I do respect your right to hold the view you do, but am trying to show you the truth about the twin towers - based on science.

The true London picture won't emerge for some time, so the "wild story" is indeed just that at the moment, presented as an alternative view. However, the Probability Argument, though it seems laughable to you, is an attempt to look at the issue analytically. The media have selectively not reported that exercises were in progress, despite the recording I (and others) made from Five Live which says they were running. Without this vital knowledge, using the probability argument would indeed seem ludicrous.

Take care

Andrew


Hi Andrew,

As we've discussed before, we have to acknowledge we have divergent opinion on these subjects. Yes there are deficiencies with our democratic process, but I still trust our Parliamentary process more than Info Wars.com and Prison Planet.

John

Hi Andrew,

Although I may not have scientific evidence to support my arguments, I still maintain that the majority of the so called evidence you present is conjecture. It is what I would call 'pseudo scientific' argument which superficially seems plausible, but there is no real evidence. I'm not a structural engineer, so I can't explain what happened to building 7. Equally you are unable to establish what happened to this building without the ability to do a full on-site survey to assess the damage and test scenarios. Science is based on the meticulous gathering of data and scenario testing, I'm not convinced of the scientific robustness of the majority of the 'evidence' you present. I think you give too much credence to these conspiracy type theories. I trust our democratic process and the integrity of the UK press more than the dubious sources you cite. Perhaps it would therefore be better just to send me the humour in future, because we obviously fundamentally disagree.

Cheers

John


John,

OK - thanks for your honesty. I respect your view, but I stand by everything I said and will be continuing with my campaign. In the final analysis, 1 of us will be proved correct.

The actual bricks and mortar from the towers were buried and I understand the steel was sold to China.

There are many other sources apart from Infowars. You clearly haven't looked the evidence for WTC 7 - you can check this on regular news sites - nothing to do with sources I site. There legal movements in the USA too.

Thanks for listening for now.

Take care of yourself,

Andrew