Hide Notes 

Slide 1: 9-11 - Finding the Truth Andrew Johnson Published: 2010 Categorie(s): Tag(s): 9/11 "World Trade Centre" "War On Terror" Physics Weaponry Energy Terrorism "Police State" Anomalies Hutchison Effect 1
Slide 2: Chapter Pretext 1 “A study of history shows that civilizations that abandon the quest for knowledge are doomed to disintegration.” -Bernard Lovell, British astronomer and writer. 9/11 Finding the Truth A Compilation of Articles by Andrew Johnson Focused around the research and evidence compiled by Dr. Judy Wood Cover graphic © Nick Buchanan, 2008-2009 Text Copyright, Andrew Johnson © 2009. 1st Edition – June 2009 Please analyse, discuss and share. What Reviewers Have Said “An excellent piece of research by an Open University Associate Lecturer! I hope it is read by the many scientists, who think it normal that steel frame buildings simply turn to dust and vanish. We live in dangerous times when anyone asking honest questions is called a ‘conspiracy nut,’ or an ‘Enemy of the State.’ Let the evidence quietly persuade us all to Its conclusion, rather than the media domineer us to its misrepresentation. As Robert Owen once said – ‘the truth, openly stated, is omnipotent.’” -Nick Buchanan, BA(Hons), Cert. Ed., NLP Master Practitioner(INLPTA) 2
Slide 3: “Andrew Johnson is rapidly becoming the man when it comes down to unravelling what really happened in New York City and Washington DC on that monolithic, traumatic date of September 11, 2001. Several researchers have already thankfully taken us to the brink of winning “round one” of the combat against the cover-up, amply showing that it was an inside job. It “only” remains for the mainstream media to take notice and carry the story. But now we are discovering that there is actually a “round two” to the combat, a second tier in the cover-up: the realization that a highly-sophisticated black-ops weaponization of free energy technology, intimately involving something very similar to the Hutchison effect, was responsible for the bizarre, low-temperature pulverization of the Twin Towers. Dr. Judy Wood has pieced together the physical evidence and Andrew Johnson has highlighted who is working to silence or smear whom, as the powers that be rush to impede or at least contain the dissemination of these startling findings. Hence I am very glad to see Andrew’s very meritorious web articles now compiled and edited in this handy book for your investigative pleasure. Pass the word and we will put an end to the global police techno-state, whose only power, as Adam Curtis aptly said in his BBC documentary, is the power of (manufactured) nightmares.” - Conrado Salas Cano, M.S. in Physics Historically, news media have covered up conspiracies (like self-inflicted mass murder) by their own governments. (Always to protect the power structure of the ruling elite. Also, the truth reveals too much about the destructive capacity of their agents.) However, 9/11 has another very important aspect. It is the secret advanced physics/technology used by their agents! Thanks to Andrew Johnson and Dr. Judy Wood, we now understand why they must prevent us from realizing the existence of this secret physics/technology. - Daniel Johnson, USA - Wisconsin Dedication This collection of articles is dedicated to all those people who have made these same articles possible – this includes my wife and children, my parents and my family, my friends – old and new, researchers and curious people around the world, as well as those who have invented and developed the technology that makes your reading of this possible. A special dedication must be made to Dr. Judy Wood, for much of the key 9/11 research, understanding and most of the pictures collected here – please see her website http://www.drjudywood.com/ 3
Slide 4: In considering this dedication, I hope there is a realisation of how we are all connected – in a “pool” of human consciousness. What we each do affects what the rest of us are able to do. Author Biography Andrew Johnson grew up in Yorkshire and graduated from Lancaster University in 1986 with a degree in Computer Science and Physics. He has mainly worked in Software Engineering and Software Development, for most of the last 20 years. He has also worked full and part time in lecturing and tutoring (at a College of Adult Education). Now he works for the Open University (part time) tutoring and assessing students, whilst occasionally working freelance on various small software development projects. He became interested in “alternative knowledge” in 2003, soon after discovering Dr. Steven Greer's Disclosure Project. Andrew has given presentations and written and posted a number of articles on various websites about 9/11, Mars, Chemtrails and Anti-gravity research, whilst also challenging some of the authorities to address some of the data he and others have collected. Andrew is married and has two children. His own website is www.checktheevidence.com. 4
Slide 5: Chapter 2 New Chapter For students progressing through academic studies and disciplines, one of the key skills that is developed is the one of critical thinking. In order to develop our understanding of a subject, we should question what we are being told and, sometimes, how the information is being presented. Only when we can answer questions we have about a subject to our satisfaction can we say that we understand that subject. However, perhaps we should pause and consider, can we usefully apply similar critical thinking skills more widely? For example, when considering daily news reports, how often do we stop and think "How accurate is this information? What is the source?" or "How has this or that conclusion been drawn?" “Is the information complete?” There are two expressions that are pertinent to the thrust of what I am saying: "Don't believe what you read in the papers!" and "Never believe anything until it's been officially denied." The latter saying is attributed to the writers of "Yes Minister", Jonathan Lynn & Antony Jay. In recent years I have found I have to apply critical thinking much more widely to news reports, following a realisation I had, some time in 2004, that the Official Story of the attacks on 9/11 could not be true. A video I watched clearly showed how the World Trade Centre Towers in New York could not have been destroyed solely as a result of jet impacts and burning jet fuel. It seems strange to some people that anyone should question any of the essential elements of the official story of 9/11, which is now widely recognized as the trigger for the global "War on Terror" - a basis for many significant elements of foreign policy, and even domestic laws. Discussing the topic of what really happened on 9/11 is not an easy task – not least because of the trauma it caused for the people who were killed, injured or affected by it. The profoundly troubling nature of the event alone is a powerful deterrent to people who wish to re-examine the 5
Slide 6: official accounts of what happened, and question the conclusions the official enquiries have drawn. To date, no criminal prosecutions have been successfully brought against anyone – in relation to the crimes committed on 9/11 or the crimes committed in its cover up. As an event, 9/11 is mentioned almost daily in news reports, though in reality we have not really had all that much analysis of what actually happened. The "run up" to 9/11 has been the subject of a significant BBC documentary series called The Power of Nightmares, which first aired in 2004. This BAFTA award winner, made by Adam Curtis, exposes the real history of Al Qaida and concludes that stories of this group's ability to commit acts of terrorism on a large scale have been grossly exaggerated, if not completely fabricated. In this book, readers who are unhappy with the official account and have questions about how and why certain things happened on 9/11 should find many threads to follow. These threads will lead them to a wider understanding of what happened then, and those same threads may ultimately lead them to an understanding of a much, much larger tapestry of reality. The articles herein are more concerned with the criminal cover up of 9/11, rather than trying to identify the real perpetrators of atrocities committed on the day itself. Readers, therefore, who are comfortable with the “Al Qaida did it” story need not read any further than this paragraph. Scope of 9/11 Evidence Concerned This work is mainly concerned with the evidence related to what happened at the World Trade Centre Complex – as exposed through the research (primarily) of Dr. Judy Wood. Therefore, matters related to what happened at the Pentagon, at Shanksville and the details of what happened to WTC 7 are not discussed here. It is therefore primarily aspects of physical evidence that are covered (inasmuch as the very presentation and most likely explanation of this physical evidence is what has been the target of attacks on this research). Who is Covering Up 9/11? It is difficult to accept how deep and wide the cover up of 9/11 actually is. The very magnitude of this cover up is enough to make many people scoff, roll their eyes or utter a sentence including a phrase such as 6
Slide 7: “conspiracy theorist”. Typically, they may then dismiss, deny or simply ignore any evidence presented which proves the official story of 9/11 cannot be true. Some people, whilst acknowledging that the official story cannot be true, then assume that not enough information is available to say anything else with a sufficient degree of certainty. However, we must remember that US Government bodies and private contractors took public money to fund research which was supposed to explain what happened on 9/11. As informed citizens, I think we should try to be sure that what they are telling us in their official (and very lengthy) reports is true. NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), was tasked with analysing the cause of the destruction of WTC towers 1,2 and 7. When studied objectively, their report for WTC 1 & 2 fails to answer how the “pancake” collapse theory explains the evidence observed on the day – such as the complete pulverisation of most of the towers - including hundreds of steel girders – in about 10 seconds each. Readily available photos also illustrate the glaring lack of any “pancakes” in the WTC rubble pile. Elements of the final NIST WTC reports have been the subject of a Legal Challenge by Professors Morgan Reynolds (Emeritus, Texas A & M University) and Professor of Mechanical Engineering Judy Wood (formerly of Clemson University, South Carolina). Their challenge was first made as a “Request for Correction” and then in two “Qui Tam” cases. These cases, unsealed in 2007, outlined how, as it is framed, the NIST study of the WTC collapse was fraudulent and deceptive. Indeed, the very title of the main report “The Collapse of the World Trade Centre Towers” is itself misleading, because the towers did not collapse, they turned to dust. How is it that the World’s media chose to completely ignore Press Releases, which described the initiation of legal cases against NIST’s contractors by two American Professors? A Layered Cover Up The bulk of these articles have been written in the period 2007-2009, in an attempt to document the history of what may become known as the “Second Layer” of the 9/11 Cover Up. The first layer of the 9/11 Cover Up is the official and physically impossible “Al-Qaida-centred” fantasy, accompanied by the significantly fraudulent NIST reports. The second 7
Slide 8: layer of the cover up includes supposedly more scientific analysis by some researchers/scientists which suggests that bombs and/or thermite (or some variant thereof) were placed in the WTC. A number of higher profile “9/11 Sceptic” figures claim there is good evidence for the use of thermite and/or bombs (but those same researchers have failed to compile any of this evidence into a legal case against NIST or anyone else). The same figures typically still go-along with the TV-reality of real Boeing planes hitting the WTC towers, even though this story is demonstrably impossible (largely because of Newton’s third Law). The difficulty for most people here is that it takes time to digest the evidence and undo the effects of years of media/TV programming. In my own case, even though by about August 2004, I knew the official story of 9/11 was false, it was not until about 2 years later that I realised the plane crashes at the WTC could not have been real (even though it seems that something hit the WTC towers). Articles in this work discuss and explain this conclusion more fully. On the internet, I have posted a report detailing the previous 2 years of campaigning efforts[i] – completed before I realised there was an ongoing effort to discourage and discredit certain threads of 9/11 research. Finding the Truth So, what is the truth? How do you find it? Can anything be proved? Well, before becoming too philosophical, let me offer you something – evidence. My own way of establishing what is true and what is not is to constantly examine evidence – and try to re-evaluate my own conclusions whenever new evidence appears (and at the same time, we must be wary of falsified evidence and even the timing of its revelation). I might point out that court cases, investigations etc. are sometimes re-opened and appeals are initiated when new evidence comes to light. The Importance of Establishing What Did Not Happen on 9/11 By studying the evidence carefully, we can have a better chance of saying with certainty what did not happen even if we cannot always say exactly what did happen. In some cases, laws of physics can be used to establish what can and cannot have happened – we can check the consistency of a set of evidence. This includes the use of things like the Law of Gravity – and also 8
Slide 9: the properties of materials (hardness/softness) and limits of their behaviour. People who are not familiar with physical laws and how they dictate what is and is not possible in our “3D Physical reality” can more easily be fooled by illusions. People who are familiar with physical laws can also be fooled (as I was for 3 years) when they can’t see a motive for an illusion being created, or they don’t take time to look at evidence or don't want to accept the implications. They may then resort to evidence denial or other forms of cognitive dissonance. The Importance of Studying History and People’s Behaviour As well as evidence of physical events, witness testimony and behaviour is also important. In relation to the development of 9/11 research, I have tried to watch carefully for instances of “attacking the messenger” rather than explaining the data, discouraging study of certain topics or evidence, mis-direction, inconsistent or false statements, reluctance to answer questions relating to evidence (when relevant). My goal in the majority of this work is not necessarily to “judge” those people who are helping the 9/11 cover up. I am trying to illustrate how the “psychology of the cover up” has unfolded and how subtle (and not so subtle) tactics are used to influence people’s views and conclusions. Truth, Authority, Power and Corruption Presentation, discussion and analysis of evidence is (or should be) the guiding principle behind real scientific progress and discovery. It should also be the guiding principle behind a fair legal/justice system. However, it can be strongly argued that both these systems are only as fair and honest as those who become figures of “authority” within them. When people are given authority, they have power over others (by definition). And therein is the rub – power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Perhaps it is true that only when some entities have absolute power do operations like 9/11 – and its successful cover up – become possible. 9
Slide 10: Education and “Academic Excellence” It is said, by some, that going through the educational system hampers one’s ability to think freely (though this seems to be in contradiction to the idea of being able to think critically) – perhaps this is due to the process of being “spoon fed” information. Most students, especially in their formative years, either implicitly assume the information is truthful and/or valid, or they are chastised if they persistently question or challenge the “prevailing view” about a topic. In higher (university level) education, however, one is expected to be able to think freely – to perform research, to analyse, compare and contrast information and to draw conclusions. The problem is, perhaps, not so much the educational system itself, but the interests it serves – and the institutionalisation of the system itself, as well as the system of awards – both in the form of grants and for “academic excellence” and the various prizes that are given. Relying on sources of funding creates a vested interest and it was this that President Eisenhower seemed to be referring to in his landmark 1961 final address to the American Nation, before he left office. He said Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Also, winning awards tends to build up egos and it can constrain the boundaries in which those award-winners feel comfortable operating – and perhaps makes them less willing to challenge established paradigms. I would argue this, therefore, makes them more dogmatic and unwilling to review new evidence. Again, I would contend that President Eisenhower wanted to highlight this issue in the same speech… Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. For this reason, I included audio segments of this speech at the beginning of a presentation I compiled which summarises some of the main research and evidence discussed in this collection of articles. This presentation can be found online using this link: http://tinyurl.com/ 911ftt. 10
Slide 11: Oh, What a Tangled Web has Been Woven! One of the things which I have found, since I started to “pull the thread” of what some people call “alternative knowledge”, is that the many topics it encompasses cannot really be understood in isolation. For example, the energy cover up which arguably, in the 20th Century, started with the marginalisation and manipulation of Nikola Tesla, is inextricably linked to the 9/11 cover up. Social pressures and norms, as well as media repetition of misrepresentative information or conclusions all tend to discourage the curious mind from researching for themselves. The furnishings and time constraints of most people’s everyday lives also inhibit or prevent a detailed investigation of important issues. Added to that, with certain experienced researchers, it seems to be the case that they reach a point and formulate their own views or conclusions - and at some point these views become dogmatic and intransigent – and they are unwilling or unable to review and digest new evidence when it comes to light. Finally, in writing these articles, I have concluded that most of the “alternative knowledge” community is infiltrated and controlled by the same group or groups that perpetrated 9/11. A Message In all of this, my prime message and statement would be “Don’t let anyone give you your opinion – check and validate as much as you can and continually question authority”. Questions should be asked of both recognized authorities (such as a scientific, governmental or non-governmental institutions) and of “unofficial authority” such as an experienced researcher or research group, speaker or author. I strongly contend that because no organised institution of any significant size (such as the Church, The Legal System, any Major Government etc), after over 7 years, has publicly spoken out to significantly disagree with the official story of 9/11, it is clear the institutions cannot “handle” the truth of what really happened on 9/11. Therefore, the future is in our hands – yours and mine - we have the power to create and transform our future – with every action we take and every word we say. [i] http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=84 11
Slide 12: Chapter 3 2. Brief Summary of Key 9/11 Evidence to Be Explained Best to see photos posted here - as they cannot be included in this text http://www.drjudywood.com/wtc Thanks to Dr. Judy Wood for highlighting the very basic and important evidence from the WTC disaster. Please see her Website for references for these pictures, and much more evidence. What caused the towers to turn to dust? Why was there almost no debris after the destruction? On the afternoon of 9/11/01 the "rubble pile" left from WTC1 is essentially non-existent. WTC7 can be seen in the distance, revealing the photo was taken before 5:20 PM that day. How did the inflated tire survive the WTC “plane crash” fireball? This is an official photograph of WTC plane wreckage! 12
Slide 13: How did this WTC beam get bent into a “Horseshoe” Shape with no obvious stress, heating or buckling marks? Why does the car, parked about ½ a mile away from the WTC (on FDR drive) look so burned that the door frame has wilted, yet the rear tyre is still inflated? What Turned these Cars Upside Down? What caused this girder in the Banker’s Trust/ Deutchse Bank Building to “crinkle up”, When FEMA reported there was no fire in that building? Why was Hurricane Erin closest to NYC at about 8am on 9/11? Why wasn’t this hurricane reported as a potential risk to people living on the East Coast of the US, and in New York? Why was hosing down of the site – including some equipment, still ongoing in Mid January 2008? NYC WTC Site, 17th Jan 2008. Still image from 13
Slide 14: Samsung MX10 Video Camera. (Andrew Johnson) 14
Slide 15: Chapter 4 New Chapter It is worth mentioning again here that these articles span a 2-year period, where my knowledge and understanding of how the 9/11 cover up has been engineered has changed and grown. Some may think that many of these articles are too focused on individuals. This may be a fair criticism, but weighed against that, I felt it important to use specific information about and statements made by these people to clearly illustrate their role, whether intentional or accidental, in the suppression of knowledge about 9/11 and weaponised free-energy technology. The articles are in roughly chronological order. All but the last three discuss how people have reacted to the evidence presented. (That is, the evidence presented in brief in Chapter 2.) Their reactions to the proposed explanations for this evidence (which are alluded to in the body of the articles, though summaries of these explanations for the evidence are discussed in Chapters 10 and 15) are also documented. Getting the Most from the Information Here In order to get the most from the information, you will need access to the internet with a device which has the facility to play back MP3 files (this sort of functionality is now available on portable devices, as well as larger computers). All the referenced 9/11 - related interviews are available for free download here: http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911. Also, reference is made to quite a number of e-mails, most of which can only be read in full on the website referenced above. It is important to realize that I have assiduously attempted not to quote anything or anyone out of context. The only way to ensure this is to make available the full text of the communications that are referenced here. In practical terms, this amounts to a lot of information, hence it is available on the website and not reproduced in this collection. 15
Slide 16: The Articles The “New 9/11 Hijackers”? This article examines the break-up of a research group called “Scholars for 9/11 Truth”, which I was invited to join in late 2005. There was no membership fee, and no pre-requisites for entry to the group, apart from being associated with a University (which I was, and still am, although only in a part time capacity). It asks questions about the way certain evidence was discussed and why people in the group behaved and reacted the way they did. Dr. Greg Jenkins’ “Directed Debunking Energy” and Prof. Judy Wood This article examines a “surprise midnight interview” at the NPCC in Washington DC, which was headed up by Dr. Greg Jenkins of the University of Maryland. What was his intent behind the interview? Why did he not ask permission before recording the interview and why did he not have permission to use the room? “Micronukes vs. Thermite/Thermate at WTC” Professor Steven E Jones and Bill Deagle, MD discuss the supposed use of thermite and/or micro-nuclear devices in the destruction of the WTC. Why do they repeatedly get basic statements about radioisotopes wrong? Why does Steven E Jones suggest people should irradiate themselves? A Touch of “The Hidden Hand”? In this article we cover how Ambrose Lane, a popular radio host, was fired from his show on the same day that he was due to host a discussion about recent events and the possibility that a re-use of the Directed Energy Weapon which destroyed the WTC could be disguised with the promotion of a fake “Al Qaida nuke attack” story. Going In Search of Planes: Re-visiting NYC 9-11 First-Responders’ Accounts In this summary article, the accounts of New York Emergency Services First Responders are examined primarily to try and find out what they saw at the time of the second “plane crash” at the WTC. A witness 16
Slide 17: sample is taken and a determination made as to who reported hearing and seeing a plane. The results make drawing firm conclusions about the WTC plane stories much more difficult. A “Lengthy” Discussion of The Steel in the Debris of the WTC This article seeks to estimate, purely as an illustrative exercise, the total length of steel pieces that should have been present in the debris pile of the destroyed WTC. It attempts, again, to highlight the question – what happened to the WTC debris? Where did the debris go? Press Release Scientists See WTC - Hutchison Effect Parallel This short article is a copy of the Press Release that accompanied the revelation of Dr. Judy Wood’s study entitled “Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect”. This study compared effects seen in the destruction WTC and its aftermath with effects seen in independent Canadian Research Scientist John Hutchison’s experiments. The revelation of this research triggered off an effort to both tarnish and discredit John Hutchison and Dr. Judy Wood. The Hutchison Effect and 9/11 - An Ace in the Hole? This article documents the first stage of the reaction to Dr. Wood’s “Hutchison Effect” study. It references specific “Podcasts” and e-mails and how certain people seemed to engage in an exercise of pernicious debunking, where, for example, researcher Ace Baker falsely claimed he had reproduced one or more of John Hutchison’s experiments, then admitted he had actually engaged in making a fake video. 9/11 and The Hutchison Effect - The Chips Have Fallen This documents the reaction, mainly of Prof. Jim Fetzer, to the Hutchison Effect study and his support of the debunking tactics employed by other researchers. It documents his change in attitude to this author, from a position of commendation to one of ridicule. His logic in discussing and explaining evidence related to the Hutchison Effect is probed and analysed. 17
Slide 18: 9/11 and The Hutchison Effect - Handling the Truth This article documents the circumstances related to Jim Fetzer’s thinly veiled threat to Dr. Judy Wood, over her association with John Hutchison and his research. 9/11 and The Hutchison Effect - An Ace in the Hole – Part II This article documents the circumstances surrounding 9/11 researcher Ace Baker’s $100,000 bet to John Hutchison to prove levitation of a wrench in an experiment to be conducted at John’s apartment. New Study by former Professor Examines Hurricane Erin on 9/11/01 This is a copy of the Press Release which gave an overview of Dr. Wood’s study of “Field Effects”, Hurricane Erin and the events of 9/11. Mike Rudin’s BBC Conspiracy File The producer of the BBC documentary series “Conspiracy Files” contacted Dr. Judy Wood asking her to participate in an interview and/or documentary about WTC 7. Read this thread of correspondence to see why I suggested Dr. Wood decline the invitation. 9/11 Truth Seekers and Campaigners… “It’s Your Lucky Day!” This article documents some of the Official 9/11 Truth movement’s wilful ignorance and negligence in discussing the initiation of legal action against NIST by Drs. Wood and Reynolds. The wider “truth movement’s” wilful ignorance of the evidence on which these cases are based is also observed. 9/11 and The Hutchison Effect - An Ace in the Hole – Part III This article documents attempted smears against this author and the subtle use of spin and misdirection to distract people away from thinking about evidence. Tactics of “playing the man, not the ball” are again illustrated. 18
Slide 19: Perception Management of 9/11 Evidence This article documents how Jim Fetzer appears to be carrying out his earlier threat against Dr. Judy Wood. Alex Jones and "September Clues" This short article documents the reaction, on air, of Alex Jones (Texas radio show host and alternative media anchorman) to the discussion of 9/11 video fakery research. It also includes related comments made by him and Historian and author Webster Tarpley. 9/11, Directed Energy Weapons and HAARP “…without Referring to Dr. Judy Wood” This article documents the efforts of Alfred Webre, Leuren Moret on a Show hosted by “9/11 Mysteries” producer Sofia Smallstorm (Shafquat) to deliberately confuse the discussion of what happened on 9/11 by stating they think HAARP is the only thing that could have destroyed the WTC. Even though they provide no (direct or indirect) evidence linking HAARP to 9/11, they conclude it must have been involved – and they do not mention the Hutchison Effect research, nor the presence of Hurricane Erin. The Baker Effect - A Rift and Disruption System This is a satirical piece, based on an article by Mark A Solis called “The Hutchison Effect - A Lift and Disruption System”. It attempts to highlight how the discussion of the correspondence of Hutchison Effect and 9/11 Evidence has been deliberately attacked and “muddled up” on internet forums. 9/11 Mystery – Sofia Smallstorm, Fluorine/Fluoride and The Destruction of the WTC This documents Sofia Smallstorm’s sudden introduction of her own theory suggesting fluoride or fluorine was used to “dissolve” the WTC steel. A discussion of the chemistry related to this is briefly made and the point is again made how Sofia omits any discussion of the Hutchison Effect and Hurricane Erin evidence at any point, even though she had been made aware of it some months prior to her sudden introduction of this theory. 19
Slide 20: Questioning "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in dust from the 9/11 World Trade Centre Catastrophe" This article asks a few questions about the supposed peer-reviewed academic paper by Danish Chemist Dr. Niels Harrit, Steven E Jones and others. It was published in the Bentham Open Journal. Questions are asked about why they have not chosen to put this supposedly conclusive evidence into a legal framework and challenge NIST or their contractors with that evidence, as Drs. Wood and Reynolds did in 2007. Questions are also raised about the Bentham Journal itself. Free Energy, 9-11 and Weather Control – Ongoing Cover Up, Muddle Up and Censorship of Evidence This article again highlights reaction to articles posted about the Hutchison Effect and Hurricane Erin evidence and its implication. Repeated instances of ridicule, misquoting and mis-representation of what has been said are illustrated. The Mysterious $5000 Bet Sent to Andrew Johnson This article shows how a $5000 bet was presented to this author if there was a successful legal prosecution in relation to the evidence that Dr. Wood has used to challenge NIST. Questions are asked about the motive of the person who is offering the bet and why he targeted someone like me with such a bet. This article includes the person’s responses - to illustrate the lengths they go to avoid discussing the actual evidence concerned. Press Release - 9/11 Qui Tam Case Will Have Its Day in Court This press release was issued to announce the Court Hearing for Dr Judy Wood’s Qui Tam Appeal – against NIST’s contractors. Manufacturing The Apocalypse This article covers more general conclusions about how things like the control of Hurricane Erin around the time of 9/11 would suggest that other advanced weather control and large-scale environmental control technology may be in regular use. 20
Slide 21: A World of Abundance or a World of Scarcity A Call to Awareness - A Time to Choose This article summarises other threads of research completed by this author. It tries to present an overall picture that includes a new view of the reality in which we live and suggests the general form of a new reality we could create. Letters Sent to UK Authorities in 2008 Concerning 9/11 and Other Evidence This chapter includes 2 separate letters – copies of which were sent to over 100 UK Police and Military addresses, suggesting that “other forces” are at work and those forces have weaponry that makes nuclear arsenals obsolete. Additional Theoretical Consideration There is, it seems, a co-ordinated and deliberate effort to obfuscate the truth about what happened at the WTC, with various people stepping up to the plate to present or even "push" theories which only explain a limited set of evidence. The best theories explain the most evidence - and this applies to both physical evidence and circumstantial evidence. I can confidently say that Dr. Wood's study and general conclusion explain the most evidence of any set of theories out there. Additionally, Dr. Wood's background is the most suitable of any of the people that have "stepped out of the box" to deal with 9/11 issues. It is worth mentioning yet another alternative WTC destruction theory which several internet posters seem to have invested quite a bit of time in promoting. This is the “nuclear” demolition theory – supposedly employing “micro-nuclear” devices – or some variant thereof. In most of the internet discussions about this theory, the actual devices themselves are neither specifically named nor described in much detail (e.g. number used, sizes, power levels, yield etc are not mentioned). The problems with both the Thermite theory and the "Nuke" theory are that they cannot explain any of the evidence listed below. 1) There were no really bright flashes as the towers turned to dust. 2) There were no loud explosions as the towers turned to dust. 3) There was little or no heat in the dust cloud. 21
Slide 22: 4) To my knowledge, there is no publicly viewable research on small, concealable nuclear explosives. 5) Nuclear explosives cannot account for the 24-foot circular holes seen in the buildings and in the street. 6) The nuke or "large explosive/incendiary" does not explain the flipped cars and vehicles. So, for those saying “nuke explosions did it”, they aren't like any other type of nuke seen - they are almost silent, give off no light and almost no heat. When I have pointed out this list above, supporters of this theory have typically become abusive towards me and seemed unable to provide any further clarification or specific details about the devices used. Further information about this can be found on www.checktheevidence.com . 22
Slide 23: Chapter 5 The “New 9/11 Hijackers”? 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.) 23
Slide 24: 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[i], 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[ii] (Skipton) and left in 1983 with ‘A’ Levels in Maths, Physics, Chemistry and General Studies. I went on to Lancaster University[iii] to do a degree in Computer Science (with a minor module of Physics) and graduated in 1986. I then worked in 24
Slide 25: 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[iv]. Dissatisfied with working conditions, I then moved back into industry (1995-1997) working in the field of Mobile Data[v]. Following an attractive offer of work from a friend, I started to work at home[vi], 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[vii]. I got into this work through the Open University[viii] - I tutor part time on a course called T224 (Computers and Processors)[ix]. I began actively campaigning about 9/11 (writing letters, speaking to people in the street[x] 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” (ST911), 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[xi] 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[xii] 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[xiii] 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[xiv]). I had the software to make this a relatively simple task, so I was happy to help out. I 25
Slide 26: was pleased to see that Steve Jones originally referenced this in his paper (“Why Indeed did the World Trade Center Towers Collapse?”)[xv] 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[xvi] – 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 Dr. Wood 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[xvii]” which, in an evidencebased 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 26
Slide 27: people think “the delayed fireball” is perfectly normal and does not break any laws of physics[xviii]. 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?”[xix]) 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 Stories18 article, and there were certain other questions he seemed unduly unwilling to attempt to answer[xx]. 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 page15 to Morgan Reynolds’ and Dr. 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[xxi].) 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[xxii] - I found it surprising when Hoffman seemed to be suggesting that cell phone calls could have been made successfully from Flight 93, in the light of my own knowledge about the “hand-off[xxiii]” problem, and the study completed by Kee Dewdney (Project Achilles)[xxiv]. Also, I found Hoffman’s mention of a “hoax theory[xxv]” 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[xxvi] (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 27
Slide 28: 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[xxvii] has been produced only to make money (even when it is freely available on Google Video[xxviii]). 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[xxix] of Steve Jones links to the energy cover up[xxx], 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 28
Slide 29: article summarising the Law Suits which had been started in relation to 9/11 evidence[xxxi]. 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.[xxxii] 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 29
Slide 30: 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 existing page (archived here[xxxiii]) 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 30
Slide 31: 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][xxxiv] and [2][xxxv]. 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. Dr. 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[xxxvi]. 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[xxxvii] and another of Dr. Wood’s students had a fire in their apartment. Since that time, some people have tried to suggest that Dr. 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[xxxviii]. It basically seems like a smear campaign against Wood and Fetzer. Sometime after this, Dr. Wood received personal threats around the time she published the highly controversial “Beam Weapon” paper[xxxix]. (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. The 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 Dr. Wood 31
Slide 32: 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[xl]. 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[xli]. This targeted David Shayler’s brief remarks about the “No Big Boeings” (NBB) evidence as a way of debunking the other “9/11 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).[xlii] 32
Slide 33: Jerry Leaphart and NIST/NCST Review Meeting On Dec 14th 2006, I received a message from Dr. 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. Dr. Wood asked me to record the Webcast[xliii], especially as she had been contacted by an attorney, Jerry Leaphart, who had seen Dr. Wood’s analysis of the WTC destruction and wanted 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?”[xliv]. Apparently Prof. 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[xlv] with the 33
Slide 34: 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[xlvi]. 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 does not mention directed energy weapons as a possible cause, although this concept was embryonic before the recent work of Dr. Wood). Black Projects and Alex Floum When I had read Dr. Judy Wood’s Beam Weapon (now often termed Direct Energy Weapon - DEW) paper40, 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. 34
Slide 35: 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.35 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 responses35. 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 Dr. Wood’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 Dr. 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 Dr. Wood had prepared21. 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 Dr. Wood’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. 35
Slide 36: 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[xlvii]. 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 (referenced 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 Dr. Wood 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[xlviii]. 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 Dr. Wood 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… .. 36
Slide 37: 54:00 – Steve Jones states that the "Spire shakes and falls"[xlix] 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 Dr. Wood'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[l] 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. [Edit: Dr. Wood did not actually give a presentation herself that day please see this article[li] for more details.] 37
Slide 38: 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[lii], 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: Dr. Judy Wood Dr. Steven E Jones …identified against her … lauded and applauded for his “Why will in by Steven E Indeed…” paper. Jones 38
Slide 39: … lost her Clemson job at … retired – and still salaried. … described in CBS News Piece as founder of …her student Michael ST911[liii] (see also response from 911ScholZebuhr murdered ars[liv]) … receives death … featured in “Improbable Collapse” threats … attacked for promot- …his thermite hypothesis evidence featured in ing “wild theories” 9/11 Mysteries[lv] Also Jim Fetzer’s www.st911.org stolen/ http://stj911.org/ gets a glossy make-over defaced Conclusion 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”[lvi]. 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 39
Slide 40: 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. 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. • 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. [i] http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=6735 [ii] http://www.ermysteds.n-yorks.sch.uk/ [iii] http://www.lancs.ac.uk/aboutLU/index.htm [iv] http://www.westnotts.ac.uk/ [v] http://www.tbsmobility.com/about_tbs.php [vi] http://www.double—click.co.uk/ [vii] http://www.open.ac.uk/cater/p2_1.shtml [viii] http://www.open.ac.uk/ [ix] http://www3.open.ac.uk/courses/bin/p12.dll?C02T224 40
Slide 41: [x] http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8355784822242137698 [xi] http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108 [xii] http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=1003 [xiii] http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863 [xiv] http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/911/Thermite2.htm [xv] http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse? [xvi] http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html [xvii] http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes [xviii] http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=35852 [xix] http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones [xx] http://drjudywood.com/articles/scientific/JonesScientificMethod.html [xxi] http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/ WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf [xxii] http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/911/flight93.pdf [xxiii] http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/flight93-ua/cell-phonesdont-work-above-10k-feet.txt [xxiv] http://physics911.net/projectachilles [xxv] http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/flight93/flight93.html [xxvi] http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/index.html [xxvii] http://www.911eyewitness.com/ [xxviii] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4563604978641682920 [xxix] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2229511748333360205 [xxx] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQz7JUJ4hOU [xxxi] http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_83.shtml [xxxii] http://www.wanttoknow.info/fredburksresigns [xxxiii] http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/911/misc/Scholars For 9-11 Truth-Split.htm [xxxiv] http://911scholars.org/SiteThreatened.html [xxxv] http://www.911scholars.org/SorrowAnger.html [xxxvi] http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/Aluminum_Glows.html 41
Slide 42: [xxxvii] http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/03/extremelysad-news.html [xxxviii] http://michaelzebuhr.blogspot.com/2006/09/case-ofmichael-zebuhrs-murder-intro.html [xxxix] http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/ StarWarsBeam1.html [xl] http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=reynolds_booted_spine [xli] http://www.newstatesman.com/nssubsfilter.php3?newTemplate=NSArticle_NS&newDisplayURN=200609110028 [xlii] http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/911/Derby Evening Telegraph 09-Dec-2005.pdf [xliii] http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/audio/911/NCST Advisory Committee Webcast Dec14 - 2006 0900-1100 EST.mp3 [xliv] http://911blogger.com/node/5437?page=5 [xlv] http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=hustler [xlvi] http://www.911researchers.com/node/114 [xlvii] http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/audio/911/Jim Fetzer Steve Jones - Dynamic Duo - 17 Jan 2007.mp3 [xlviii] http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/ lioy-full.html [xlix] http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/ StarWarsBeam3.html [l] http://www.911researchers.com/node/160 [li] http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=60 [lii] http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=50492 [liii] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/29/national/ main2411081.shtml [liv] http://911scholars.org/CBS_Pulls.html [lv] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003 [lvi] http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/audio/911/Jeff Strahl with Jim Fetzer on Dynamic Duo 04 Jan 07.mp3 42
Slide 43: Chapter 6 Scholarly Questions and Inquiry, or Badgering, Misrepresentation and Harassment? March 1st 2007 Dr. Greg Jenkins’ “Directed Debunking Energy” and Prof. Judy Wood Limited Hangouts Recently, I wrote how I thought, based on some personal experiences as well as other recent events, aspects of the 9/11 Truth Movement had been hijacked[i] by groups of people connected with the perpetrators of the 9/11 Crimes. The purpose of this hijacking seems to be to encourage a “limited hangout” position about what really happened on that date, which would keep certain groups or interests “off the radar screen” of criminal prosecution and possibly just single out current members of the “Neocon Clan” and the Bush Administration to bear the brunt of prosecution. For example, some people are unwilling to consider how elements on the Clinton Administration must also have been complicit in setting up aspects of the 9/11 Black Operation. Additionally, people who financially benefited such as “lucky” Larry Silverstein remain at the edges of perception as being one of a group of people who should be prosecuted for criminal activity prior to and following 9/11. I also wrote about pernicious debunking and personal attacks, which whilst people like Prof. Steve Jones claim to be a victim of, the evidence suggests that people like Prof. Judy Wood have ended up in a rather worse situation, with the mysterious death of one of her students and the loss of her job. As a result of an event in January 2007, it seems that, once again, she has been placed directly in the firing line of 9/11 research – Dr. Greg Jenkins set up an ambush interview, in a side room at the National Press Club, Washington DC[ii]. 43
Slide 44: The Interview Setup There are quite a few facts that need to be taken into account, and some questions that need to be considered, before the video can be fairly reviewed. Why did Greg Jenkins plan this interview without telling anyone who knows Dr. Wood? Why did he bring at least two professional video cameras, recording equipment, special lighting, and a camera crew to the National Press Club that evening and not attend Jim Fetzer's presentation? Jim Fetzer was giving a presentation to discuss the data presented by Profs Wood and Reynolds, but Greg Jenkins and crew did not attend Jim Fetzer's talk, nor did they ask any questions following the talk itself. Jenkins and/or his group tried to talk Dr. Wood out of going to the restroom, saying the "interview" would only take 2-3 minutes. But, Dr. Wood felt she couldn't wait. She saw the cameras for the first time after she came back from the restroom. Dr. Wood insisted on switching seats with Greg Jenkins because there were other people in the room who were watching the interview and Dr. Wood did not wish to be forced to sit with her back to them, as she thought they may ask questions too, which would then have involved her looking around and behind her. The people helping Jenkins felt they needed to change the lighting and camera positions. As you can see in the video, Jenkins is well lit and Dr. Wood is half in shadow for most (if not all) of the interview. They set up their "ambush" two rooms away, out of sight of the Fetzer presentation – it is not clear how they got access to these rooms as the doors seem to have been locked before they were there. How did Jenkins know Dr. Wood would be there - who told him? Dr. Wood did not make a presentation on that day – she had attended to support Jim Fetzer. She was a member of the audience on her way to the rest room when they asked her to answer the questions. And why did Jenkins keep his plans of this "surprise interview" a secret? Why did Greg Jenkins present his ambush interview as if Dr. Wood were the invited speaker at the National Press Club? Dr. Wood had no idea she was going to be interviewed, much less filmed. But, she did agree to sit down for one or two questions, on the condition that no permission would be granted until she had authorized the final product. Jenkins did not obtain a notarized signature and no preview was ever offered by him or anyone connected to him before he posted the video on Google, though he had agreed to do so, sharing an 44
Slide 45: email and phone number. But, both the number and the email address turned out to be fraudulent. (In any case, it was surely up to Jenkins to be polite and contact Dr. Wood, who was the subject of the interview. He did not do this.) The Video Itself Much of the discussion in the video centres round a picture which Dr. Wood is shown of debris falling from the tower. Indeed, most of the first 2 minutes of the video is taken up with developing an acute focus on this issue. Even if one concludes Dr. Wood is incorrect about the exact nature and movement of this debris (which cannot be accurately concluded from the video interview alone), it must be realised that this is not the only point of data that Dr. Wood is concerned with. (She also discusses lack of damage to the Bathtub, subway trains and sub-basement mall stores. She discusses the highly anomalous “toasted cars”, seismic data and small debris piles.) Jenkins homes in on the “falling debris” issue without really addressing the subtlety of what Dr. Wood is saying. He tries to get her to say “no debris is falling” – in essence, what she is really saying is that the debris that is falling is largely dust, not large steel girders and slabs of concrete. She points out the very fine nature of the dust, Jenkins reacts by adopting a number of blank and confused and sheepish looks, and the discussion essentially goes nowhere. The photos of a “carpet of dust”, with unburned paper mixed in, essentially highlight Dr. Wood’s point, but Jenkins skirts around the issue by continually focusing attention on a single photograph and not allowing or encouraging discussion of the other related evidence. Dr. Wood also questions the use of the word “collapse” and Jenkins does not really explore this proposition thoroughly. A simple building collapse, again, would not cause ankle-deep layers of fine dust and even finer dust which spread into the upper atmosphere. Readers who think Dr. Wood might be wrong about the nature of the debris should consider these pictures [1[iii]] [2[iv]] [3[v]]. Is ALL the debris falling? Is the airborne debris ALL smoke? Does it look to be the right colour for smoke (i.e. is it the same colour as that seen near the flames from the towers)? The Image Dr. Judy Wood was shown It must also be noted that Dr. Wood was not shown an identical image to the one that Greg Jenkins inserted into the video he posted. Dr. Wood 45
Slide 46: was shown a low-quality black and white "snowball" photo, while the photo flashed up in the video was in color and possibly of higher resolution. The labelling shown on the color image inserted in the video also does not seem to be present on the black and white printed version – a further difference. This is perhaps why Dr. Wood said, "I can't see that without a magnifying glass" and then commented that she could not see "pennies falling" because the resolution was not up to the job. (Also see comments above.) Additionally, Dr. Wood has described how she thought the black and white picture might have been photoshopped. You'll notice at the end that Jenkins insisted on taking back the sheet with the image on it. The tactics seem to be, here, to get people to react to “eye-rolling” and theatrics (with Jenkins playing the “interested scientist” who just needs things “explaining to him”). In reality, all that anyone, including Jenkins, has to do – and all that Dr. Judy Wood wants them to do - is look at the data. The End of the Interview At the end of the interview, on the one hand Jenkins is apparently polite - thanking Dr. Wood for her time in answering the questions59. Someone then asks him (off camera) a question along the lines of “what interests are you protecting?” Jenkins answers “I am not protecting any interests, I was just trying to find out what kind of Scientific basis this was in – and um, I think I found out.” So, rather than a detailed review of the data and the anomalous aspects of it, Jenkins resorts to a rather sarcastic remark, inferring that what Dr. Wood said is “silly” or has no validity. This "ambush interview" was suddenly stopped because security guards came to escort Greg Jenkins and crew out of the building - he probably didn't want that recorded. Jenkins and his helpers were not authorized to be there and were trespassing. They had not rented a room in accord with NPC rules. The security guard's voice can only just be heard in the version Jenkins used. Tactics and Techniques There are no links shown in Jenkins’ video to Dr. Wood’s actual paper. However, a statement that Dr. Wood made as a retort, tinged with sarcasm, is posted in a separate caption in the video (someone has clearly 46
Slide 47: taken the time to do this). This is psychology and debunking, not scholarly analysis of facts, evidence and data. If Prof. Wood had refused the interview, no doubt that fact would have been plastered on various message boards as evidence that she was avoiding questions (but it seems that people are more reluctant to say this sort of thing about other 9/11 researchers than Prof. Wood). Some people who have watched the video think that Dr. Judy Wood is dodging questions, or not answering them well. I would suggest that this is exactly the impression the video was set up to give. Additionally, techniques have been used to suggest that Prof. Wood’s view should not be taken seriously – an off the cuff remark she made about “pennies falling” is used as the theme for the closing “song”. This isn’t a scientific analysis or discussion – it’s a piece intended to ridicule Prof. Wood and divert attention from the data. If Jenkins had been so unhappy with Dr. Wood’s explanations and he had been genuinely interested in exploring the hypothesis, he could have requested another interview, under more suitable circumstances, rather than posting what he had. A “Scientific” Method? If anyone thinks that an ambush video, conducted close to midnight and posted on the internet, without final agreement of the person concerned, is a valid usage of the “Scientific Method”, then there may be wider range of data available for usage in Scientific Papers and peer review than has been in general usage up to now. (Also, the interview was conducted by people who trespassed within private property. The time stamp on a still picture of Dr. Wood's group with Dr. Wood's camera shows a date of January 11, so - it probably was after midnight.) This video is included in a link in Greg Jenkins’ paper entitled “The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers[vi]” on Steve Jones’ Journal of 9/11 Studies[vii]. The title of this paper is already loaded, and suggests a conclusion to the reader before it has even discussed any of the data. This is not a Scholarly or Scientific approach to the problem. Perhaps a title of “Could Directed Energy Weapons have been used to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers?” would have been less loaded. The video and paper seem to have been posted on the internet within 3 weeks of the Ambush interview. In any case, Prof. Wood has repeatedly stated the Beam Weapon paper is not yet finished. 47
Slide 48: In Part 1 of his paper, Dr. Jenkins states (about the debris) “This means that, within error, all of the debris in the WTC complex can be accounted for within the sublevel collapses.” If this statement is correct, then how did the goods in the Mall Stores survive[viii]? How is it that the subway station has only a relatively small amount of debris and the train is not badly crushed and damaged[ix]? If the sub levels were indeed filled with debris as Jenkins suggests, then how can rescue workers have been walking around in the sub-basement levels so easily[x]? Also, why does the reference for the data Jenkins has used come from The New York Times and not some more directly scholarly or scientific work from FEMA or NIST or the EPA? (Prof. Steve Jones also repeatedly referenced the New York Times when discussing damage to the Bathtub). The New York Times does not seem to be a publication which has an accurate track record in publishing facts about what happened on 9/11. Additionally (as of Mar 02 2007), though there is a link in this paper to Dr. Wood’s homepage[xi] and there is a link to a critique of Steve Jones, there is no direct link to the Beam Weapon pages themselves. Why? A look at the Letters Section on Journal of 9/11 Studies[xii] (as of 02 Mar 07) shows 3 articles specifically about the Beam Weapon hypothesis (in addition to the one above) and then another which describes Dr. Judy Wood’s discussion of molten aluminium as “disinformation”. If the hard evidence Dr. Wood is presenting is nonsense, why is so much time and energy being spent in attacking it? Conclusion It seems that Dr. Wood's only mistake was to agree to answer a few questions. It was a "failure" based on Dr. Wood's honesty and sincerity, trust in a fellow human being to do right by her, as well as from not having any sleep for almost 48 hours. Dr. Wood has no "campaign manager" like Karl Rove. If it wasn’t for the media blackout on 9/11 Truth, there is a likelihood she would have been attacked or smeared on the mainstream media – as it is, the alternative media have been used in a similar fashion and willing bloggers seem happy to add their own smearing into the mix. Perhaps as supporters of Dr. Judy Wood, we should organise a team to operate 2 cameras and lighting, and in secret, ambush interview Dr. Greg Jenkins at a conference where he was a member of the audience. Perhaps we might ask him as to the nature of the source of funding he has received from projects funded by the NSA. Now there’s an interview I 48
Slide 49: would like to see posted on google video. Do you think he’d consent to the interview under those terms, and then graciously give permission for it to be posted, without approving the “final cut”? Further comments about the interview can be found here[xiii]. From this selection, I found this comment to be one of the most pertinent. So, the DEW theory has a huge uphill climb in order to be perceived for what it is; namely: A clear, direct, frontal confrontation on whether or not the USA is a free republic or an entity being run by secret forces having the general label of Military-Industrial-Complex? That is the underlying question that DEW theory presents and very few people want to deal with it. Small wonder the reaction to it is so visceral. So, challenges to DEW are primed to be successful based on an "anything but that" predilection among people of all persuasions, even among what might be called plain-vanilla truthers. I hope 9/11 Truthers – and everyone else - will consider these thoughts, ideas and data in a fair and balanced manner. [i] http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/TheNew9-11Hijackers.htm [ii] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017 [iii] http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/ aha/COLLAPSE10_2D.jpg?t=1173082808 [iv] http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/ Image122.jpg?t=1173082676 [v] http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/ Image254.jpg?t=1173082142 [vi] http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/ Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf [vii] http://www.journalof911studies.com/ [viii] http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/ Image108a.jpg [ix] http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/ Image87.jpg [x] http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/ Image311.jpg [xi] http://www.drjudywood.com/ [xii] http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters.html [xiii] http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=106193&st=0 49
Slide 50: Chapter 7 “Micronukes vs Thermite/Thermate at WTC” Transcript of discussion which took place at the Vancouver 9/11 Truth With Prof. Steve Jones and Dr. William Deagle – 24th June 2007 Transcript by Andrew Johnson Footnotes mainly by Andrew Johnson, with additional comments by Prof. Judy Wood. See this video[i] or listen to this audio[ii]. This is quite an extraordinary discussion in many ways – and in my view, clearly demonstrates that neither Jones or Deagle are being completely honest in their discussion. You will hear them: • Claiming to be discussing the evidence, but in reality they don’t discuss much evidence at all. • Deagle claim Seattle has been pre-wired with mini-nukes. • Jones suggesting that if there is a nuke-attack, 9-11 truthers should get dust samples and send them to Deagle or Jones. • Deagle claiming he has evidence of mini-nukes from “contacts” but he hasn’t completed testing his samples – even though he is very concerned to find out what they will use for the next attack. • Deagle claims he is 100% sure thermate or superthermate was used to destroy the towers. • Deagle describes the effects on toasted cars as being potentially from an EMP pulse, but he dismisses the evidence for DEW. • Jones gets Deagle to agree that the evidence of no planes hitting the WTC towers is “ridiculous”. • Deagle claims micronukes were used in the Oklahoma bombing. • Deagle doesn’t know whether they are fusion or fission nukes. • Jones mentions WTC Iron quite a few times. • Both Jones and Deagle talk about an Isotope of Iodine 110 – but this is extremely obscure (the stable Isotope of Iodine is 127). 50
Slide 51: Even though Deagle suggests there is going to be a multiple nuke attack in the USA, Homeland Security don’t seem to have expressed an interest in this. Listen to the audio or read the transcript. Well, welcome. I really appreciate all the work you’re doing Dr. Jones. You're a scientist and a gentleman because the pursuit of science is devoid of ego and the real issue we have here both with the Vancouver 9/11 [conference] is the issue 0:05 we need to find out not only the plans but also the devices Deagle that they’re using — the devices they used in Oklahoma City (D) to bring [down] and demolished that building and the World Trade Centre and the grave danger that they'll use similar types of things on a higher scale in cities across America and Canada otherwise. Let me interject a thought there Bill — as I have been working Jones: (J) on this understanding of what you're talking about… D: …for a long time yeah. …quite a while. The central goal I have now is justice. I think J: we actually have sufficient data to motivate a trial. Oh we do. In fact, see, I'm a medical and legal doctor as well and I belong to these — yeah [inaudible]. I agree. I think we have enough evidence for an international tribunal and treason trials and I think - that's - you're right but … see if we had even additional evidence… it's not just activating an international trial that I'm concerned about, I am concerned also about activating the public on a larger scale to understand the magnitude of the criminal activity because of the danger of the next events - from my contacts with inside NSA, CIA and other higher contacts — that the next event — I was told — D: the two next biggies — and this was proven by the documents I showed today from Philadelphia where they're testing giving 50,000 homes a package with a US Postal Service worker, a city policeman armed, providing a box of "medicines" which may include vaccines that will be given at gunpoint to citizens and they cannot refuse it[1] and the danger I see is that I was told that they had - at least by mid-90s they had 22 cities pre-wired with nukes — not little ones that would go off and just cause a building to dissolve, but big ones that could take out, say 16 city blocks of 51
Slide 52: [inaudible] cities like Los Angeles Denver and other ones so they could declare a total state of martial law not just a partial one de facto with the Doctor Krackosian in the middle of the airport - Constantly being kind of - you know - you have to take off your shoes and you're constantly surveilled and next May 11 we’re going to have to have a tracker ID — they're literally going to make a total police state and I think they want to do it by final transforming events I see is a pandemic and nukes going off in multiple cities because I think they'll transcend just using conventional explosives like thermate to using really big ones.[inaudible] I think we agree on that. Person Why do you think that? J: Well, I mean you're looking to [inaudible]. D: …the next thing. …even Brazinsky before a Senate committee in the Congress just this year in February said he could see some action, some J: event in the United States or elsewhere that would be blamed on Iran and that would then justify a defensive attack on… [inaudible] Well of course that's what Cheney said too - he said that beD: fore, he's ordered STRATCOM to prepare attack orders against 440 targets inside Iran both…. J: and they're looking at using tactical nukes… D: Right… … I understand it's a possibility, so this is a very serious situJ: ation. I think there is some evidence that we agree on[2]. D: Oh absolutely. … I thought that was a good place to start. We agree first of J: 3:33 all that the discussion should be evidence-based.[3] Oh absolutely it can’t be based on opinion[4]… because the thing is ultimately if there is not evidence that could ultiD: mately get into a court [inaudible] the court - public opinion then it shouldn't be dismissed but it should be based on scientific evidence. It needs to be based on solid evidence, okay. We agree on 3:50 that - and as we look at the evidence — I don't think this is J: the place to go through all the evidence[5] — D: Yeah - no, no, no. 52
Slide 53: …but we have both looked at quite a bit of the evidence then. And we agree [inaudible] understand… It’s like the scientific method, you have to have a hypothesis and a theory, and a number of anomalies that could be explained by that theory then you propose a test of the hypothesis - null hypothesis and the test I see beside the evidence we have so far from the US geological about tritium and there D: is some discussion of whether it could be from something like [exasymes?] which I think is a bit of a stretch but the thing that will help us to close that door to determine if there were indeed some kind of devices in one or more places in the building could be if there's heavy isotopes. Now if they're not present then it means that obviously… J: I wanted to establish what we agreed on… D: yeah. We're agreed on the thermate of course… it had to be J: there is considerable evidence… D: Oh… there is no disagreement there at all… yeah… OK and I think we both looked at the directed energy J: weapons… that's… no evidence, in fact I was a doctor taking care of D: people working with people for 6 years working with directed energy weapons for US Star Wars. [6] J: OK you have a lot more background… [7] yeah so I know about Tom Bearden's type of coherence interference weapons systems and scalar weaponry and plasma D: cannons at Lockheed Martin and skunk Works and Lucent[8] Technologies and the company I was working [at] was General Dynamics. Let me try one more while we’re on a roll here and agreeing. J: How about the "no planes hit the towers."? D: That's ridiculous.[9] J: OK, I agree with you. In fact, what I was told from my contacts inside the U.S. Air Force, Air Force Academy and so on, is those were probably not United Airlines jets but they were probably E-10s that D: were flown in there. That's what they told me. That err In fact, I knew this from being a civil aviation examiner[10] that all jet aircraft, commercial jet aircraft, worldwide, have been J: 53
Slide 54: capable of being remotely taken over control for over thirty years. J: Well, so we agree that jets did hit the towers.[11] D: Oh yeah, jets hit the towers. J: OK now lets get to the… and of course the other thing is the architectural thing that jets couldn't take them down because I have friends that are architectural[12]. In fact across the street from where I live in Halifax, this thoracic surgeon's son is an architect in New York and he said he knew immediately — literally within seconds after both jets hit the towers that there was no evidD: ence whatsoever… because they teach this course… in architecture around the world that these buildings were built to withstand up to a 9.5 earthquake[13] and there's absolutely no evidence a jet aircraft could bring down these buildings at all, or even the burning of furniture or anything else so the normal combustible materials couldn’t have done to the buildings - it had to have been controlled demolition. J: So we agree with that… D: 6:27 Yeah. Okay so now lets talk about the possibility of mini nukes. J: [Jones moves round] So let's see - the evidence that you have then for this hypothesis? Well, I went over those 13 points — I don't want to go point by point[14] but the key thing that I see is evidence such as the Tesla type effects — Para-magnetic effects on objects at a distance that are not due to a thermal pulse from a regular D: conventional weapon and I'd like to see those vehicles that’s another piece that should be looked at — like the engine blocks to see if there's Para-magnetic effects on air-conditioners, the engine blocks and the mirrors because the physical evidence supports that hypothesis. The second thing… Well. Let's talk about the vehicles for a minute. So - you're saying that the damage on the vehicles would be… we agree J: that it will be great to have a vehicle, but I'm not sure we’re going to get one. Yeah - I think they're still stored down there - I think that the D: evidence… 54
Slide 55: 7:29 Could I just ask a question? Have you actually seen those Person vehicles? J: We have photos… D: We have photos from them … and apparently Person [inaudible] and all documented with the location… ? D: I heard they're still stored down there[15] actually. This is a good point though, that the vehicles that were on FDR Avenue there… that was… they were quite a ways away from the World Trade Center [right… ]. There's a paper in the journal by James Gourley in the Journal of 9/11 Studies that J: argues, I think, quite persuasively they were probably[16] near the towers during the collapses and were towed subsequently to the… to FDR… so that they were not that far away when they were damaged.[17] You see the difference. Well, I think one of the things we see is actually that there were per parked vehicles and we can be pretty well sure that they weren't - but that wasn't the situation. The other thing was that part of the vehicle in front - the front of the vehicle D: was affected in areas even just a matter of… like the back part of the vehicle wasn’t affected [inaudible] in the immediate thermal pulse area let’s say, of a conventional big explosion let’s say the conventional bit explosive let’s say a lot of TNT.[18] Let me address that. If there was thermate - which we agree on – so you have these hot particles — Iron principally — in 8:34 the dust being blown at the vehicles - that could also give this J: pattern of damage, near the buildings because of the hot particles blasting and carried with the dust and blown against the vehicles. So what I'm saying… You're thinking [inaudible] just looking at the pattern, and then again this is only hypothesis I don't think it gets to the theory level but if you look at the effects - if it was indeed these vehicles were at a distance away there they’re at a disD: tance that is so great that the thermal pulse is unlikely and also the kind of damage indicates that it is more Para-magnetic than thermal… in other words the damage would have affected, say, mirrors but yet would not have melted the vehicle.[19] 55
Slide 56: Let’s see - I have looked at those corroded vehicles quite carefully - I have discussed them with a number of people – scientists - and what you see is pock-marks in some cases which J: affects the metal and it appears to be quite corrosive this would be consistent worth… a … sulphur - like a sulfidation attack. Yeah, I mean we could have a combination of both. You could have a combination of pyroclastic jets of super hot iron and sulphur compounds like we’re talking about - and a Para-magnetic… because you can have both… or you could have had a combination because one of the things I was told that happened in Oklahoma City is that they had layers. Whenever you do a controlled demolition whether its… and I talked to munitions people since 911 on this who have D: worked inside of military - the Army Corps of engineers and other people in special Ops and Delta … say if you’re ever gonna do a controlled demolition you have to use things like high explosive cord[ite] – thermate, RDX and other things and of course the thermate in the super thermate are great for cutting… but you have to have charges to blow out the sections… plus you have to have enough kinetic energy to blow - you know, giant sections… so it had to require pretty massive bombs. 10:38 So we agree that there is corrosion and it could be a combinaJ: tion perhaps… or it could be thermate… It’s probably layered. I think[20] it's multiple types of detonaD: tion device. Person What would satisfy both of you? That's what I'm going to get at – it’s what's called a crucial test. What we want is a test that doesn't allow for both hypotheses or a combination - but rather one will say this, the othJ: er will say that. [yeah] And I think that we agree that radio isotopes due to neutron activation would be would-be a conventional test. Plus if we got what I would have got what for example I call that Girder Fry which is like – that giant girder which was D: curved like a big… could that girder - that giant girder be - be fried literally fired by hot gases or whatever from conventional thermate or super thermate or other high explosives other 56
Slide 57: than that and melted this giant girder. And if indeed we did have neutron activation we have iron and [iron] 58 isotopes. Okay. Here we go now – Iron - you agree that… 59… iron J: 59? Well you’re going to get iron 59 and 58. 58 is stable… a stable D: isotope. J: So what we want is to look for short-lived isotopes. … and and longer ones too. You will see some long stable D: isotopes. Okay but what we want is the ones that would represent J: neutron activation - cobalt 60 might be… iodine 110… [21] Yeah exactly yeah. So if you show these heavier isotopes then 11:59 that's going to help, yeah. Something I'm not sure about halfD: lifes, but cobalt 60 has a half life, I think, of 5 years. yeah but that's enough… because were only at five-and a half J: years now. So we could pick out… if we could find cobalt 60 which is one of our tests – isotopes we’re testing. And the other thing I don't know if it was done, or if you did more work on this D: was - did we test for other chemical residues because super thermate by itself is enough to cut them but you have to have another high explosive to blow the pieces apart once they’re cut. Isn't it true, though that the super thermate if it is a fine dust Person near the outside of the building exploded? J: That's correct. It’d be explosive but what I think - there's always this degree of redundancy when you are going to explode like the [inaudible] in Las Vegas - so they have redundant systems – so it’s almost certain that they have layers of … of explosive type of things - this is just a hypothesis they probably used 13:10 backups to make sure that whenever this is going down they D: couldn't afford like for example – who knows - I think it was WTC 6 - of the 26 floors from the top you saw – in the video… a portion of the building literally turn and then tilt and then, all of a sudden, that building just went poof[22] so whatever turned that building into you know a destructive ye know ash cloud had to be powerful enough to literally take that 57
Slide 58: tilted piece - that could have fallen over and fallen a great distance and literals turn it into fine particles whether they’re nano-particles or just the dust. Person Could that be just conventional weapons? Sure it could be. The only way is to first test the hypothesis is to measure things like neutron activation. But I wonder if D: there's other chemical tests that I said - that measure chemical residues for other [inaudible]… did anybody test those? 13:44 How close are we to finding out this kind of a measurement? Person D: Did anybody test those? Let's get back to the … let's get back to the crucial test - neutron activation. So we’re looking for radio isotopes that will J: tell us whether or not there were neutron… nuclear explosives. D: Right. So let's look for example at… and I know you're doing some J: testing… Yeah we’re going to do some testing… and we expect that as little as 10% of the of the ash material of the buildings for the whatever particle size to be acceptable to actually do the test on because we expect that and - I’m certain – that you’re right D: and there was thermate or super thermate[23] in the building which would have generated a type of ash which would not show neutron activation but there may be additional material in parts of the building where they may have used these devices [inaudible] within 50 or 100 yards… [inaudible] J: What size of mini-nukes are you talking… ? The ones I was told they removed unexploded from the Oklahoma City Murrah building and the guy who told me got court marshalled - and I got fired into [inaudible] so I can beD: lieve him - were 1/10 of a kiloton Micro nukes U.S. Army Corps of engineers and that they measured tritium which means that they’re… J: These are initiated with a fission reaction ? He didn't give me the details on that. They were U.S. Army 14:52 Corps engineers fourth-generation Micro nukes and what I D: was told from other contacts is that they have Micro nukes 58
Slide 59: now that can be activated by very high-powered magnetic pulses and lasers and that they have those fourth-generation type of Micro nukes available now. [inaudible] – no, this is classified stuff that I was told. Let me see if we can actually get to 1/10 kiloton fusion bombs we have a solution to our energy problems I don't… you J: know… without using fission as the initiation… I really doubt that those exist … are you sure they exist? D: That's what he told me. J: Who told… ?[24] D: 15:33 It was a special op agent that told me this… J: … without fission. But… okay. But still you get…. D: But they might have[25] a fission / fusion bomb. J: But either way… Yeah - you can have a fission/fusion bomb but I was also told by other contacts that they have had – they have fourth-generation nukes that actually use they have are very highD: powered or giga-tesla-type pulsed magnetic effects[26] in order to create a fusion reaction and also these super highpowered lasers[27]. So I'm not sure… I mean .. I was told this… J: In the data - that I find it quite hard to believe in the fusion… One of the things that happened… I found this out from my… you know many years working on different things working on some projects externally and internally[28] is that even up to the university level - that at any of the universities you only receive the top 4% of what is called the doorstep of knowledge and whenever you get into these highly classified programs that it’s on a need to know basis and it’s extremely 16:07 it’s extremely narrow in scope and on a need to know basis so D: that they normally have budgets that are unending and when they tried to recruit me to work on the super soldier program at UCLA by Professor Dr. Wallace [Chartle?] had spent 22 and half million just on personal acquisitions of equipment from his own office. And he told that there’s no end to the budget so, but what I'm saying is that the level of this in the public universities is nowhere near what the actual state-of- 59
Slide 60: the-art in facilities which are totally classified in these government… J: Well, let's get back to the test for radio isotopes… Yeah, we’re going to be testing in 1 or more labs and if it’s negative because I agree that it will give even more support – but I am also wondering if there were additional things be17:10 sides thermate and – the reason is we want to check those beD: cause here’s the key issue to me… if it shows it wasn’t and they used thermate, will they go directly to nukes next time? Or will they use a combination of the same kind of things and the next type of explosive to destroy the [inaudible] cities? The next one is a little beyond the question. It's an important issue… [right because…] but I would like to focus on… so you will look for radio isotopes? It's support looking… doing J: those types of tests - I think that's the way to do it. The crucial test if you see an abundance and not just, ye know fluctuations statistically… D: it's got to be a large enough margin that it goes beyond… A hundred times or something the iron 58 or 59 or the iodine J: 110 then you can say “Well this is truly anomalous - we really have something that we can home in… and so on…” D: It will help… J: On the other hand if you don't see those large excesses… Then it adds additional support to your thesis which is D: thermate. Well perhaps, but on the other hand - in any case we’d say J: this hypothesis - we tried it we did the tests, the evidence was not there because evidence is what we require. D: Oh, absolutely. Yeah – so we agree on that - that's good. I’ll look forward to your results[29]. And I do have one more thing to say about J: this… because iodine 110 was tested for a month after… the – just about a month after the event… after September 11th and what was done there… D: Was this test by US geological? J: It was Leoy et al as I recall. Now… D: Where did they test it from? Was it water samples? Or… ? 60
Slide 61: J: It was sediment in the water. D: Right. And what did they find? What they found was that they found sediment layers that 19:08 clearly identified the World Trade Centre dust on top and it’s J: identifiable[30], as I mentioned you have the silicon rich spheres and the iron rich spheres. I mean there's no… D: Yeah, right because it was turned into a vapour right? J: No I don't agree with that but… [inaudible] Your kind of vapour [inaudible] [okay] it melted D: into these little tiny spheres and then kind of… … melted. Melted[31] it is not necessarily - evaporated but it certainly melted. OK - there we go. Let's get back to the 110. So the sediment – now the see an upper layer which is from the World Trade Centre and then the layer below. The iodine J: 110 was actually less in the upper layer - the World Trade Centre layer – than the layer below. To me - and this is in my paper which is a letter in the journal of 911 studies.com. This is one of the key areas we were just discussing — 110 — iodine… D: but you know the half life of 110… J: It’s short… but.. very short - in fact you can count it in days which is why D: after Chernobyl… But there's enough time for it to still be there… and that J: doesn't… D: Just a month later there may not be detectable levels… I have to… there would be detectable levels after a month… J: we agree that will 110… Plus you’d also have to have the areas of building… because I D: think there were layers of explosives. My thesis was not based on the idea… J: 20:30 Iodine 131, sorry. 131 yeah. 131 Disappears – we use it for medical tests and it’s D: gone very, very quickly. [inaudible] So if you have any radio trace 61
Slide 62: The point is the sediment below was even higher than the J: sediment above. So obviously it lasts long enough for you to have a measurement. D: It could just be background… …it was made by these scientists that - there is then …and J: they had other Where is the dust that they gathered – was it on a roof D: somewhere? It was in the Hudson river, as I recall – the sediment – and the J: report is… it’s in the sediment [yeah]… it’s in my letter… it’s quoted [it’s some distance] I just had some notes from it Well, I have several scientific questions. The first is that if it’s D: a month after…it would be back down in the range of background. J: No…It’s already lower than the sediment… D: It doesn’t matter… J: Why does the sediment below not…? No, no what happens is that – let’s say the materials in the building had to be turned into particles, OK - and let’s say that dust was blown out by thermate – right – that the wallD: board and furniture and the people and everything ended up in the bottom of the Hudson river – that sediment debris if it did have activated iodine 131 would have degraded to whatever the background for that material is… J: … what’s the half life? The half life is something like 72 hours – it’s very very short. D: [32] J: I don’t know… It’s very very short – I am pretty sure of that – we give iodine D: tablets and we tell people that within 72 hours they’re back to background. If anybody has internet we can look it up. But the point is J: these serious scientists[33] analysed… D: They never went…. and looked for the other ones And the reason… no, they did look for others - and it’s in my J: paper – have you read actually my letter that addresses the many new hypotheses? 62
Slide 63: D: I have looked at some of those things. J: Did you read my paper in the Journal? D: I think I remember having a look at that yeah… J: Because this was one of the main points – D: Did they test for beryllium 9? J: They tested for Iodine 131 specifically… And they did they do that by induction and coupled [plasma D: microscopy?] J: I didn’t go back to … It’s actually a calculation based on ionization, so you have D: to… J: They measured the sediment layer… D: But what technologies did they use? It’s in their paper I’m sure…but I don’t have that recollection J: – I quoted the result. What they do is they use a thing called induction coupled D: iron spectroscopy – they back-calculated the difference between the base isotopes and the other ones. In addition they looked for … the paper also cited in my paJ per where the scientists looked for alpha beta and gamma emissions. They said the alpha emissions were… D: This is the sediment in the Hudson… J: No, this is now in the dust as I recall D: The dust at the bottom of the Hudson – yeah… No not from the bottom of the Hudson… the dust from the J: world trade centre – [oh yeah] dry dust. So they looked for a new [degree] alpha beta gamma [inaudible] emissions. Yeah – it was closer – if there was neutron activation produce D: those things – it would disappear pretty quickly though… J: It varies a lot. I mean cobalt 60 – lasts a long time… D: Oh yes – Cobalt 60 – but…. J: Iron 58 I think lasts quite a while too. D: Yeah – but then indeed but depending on the basis - cobalt 59 J: Of course, but I mean Iron – you’ve got tons of iron[34] 24:14 Yeah Iron, Iron – you’ve got some steel – one of the things… D: one of the things that was very suspicious was the fact that 63
Slide 64: they hauled away the steel so quickly… but has anyone ever done any analysis for the heavy neutron activated isotopes and iron OK. I have a piece of the iron from the World Trade Centre – this was a leftover from a monument that was put together J: [good] … and I have that and it’s [banded?] – it’s quite heavily bent Was it bent from a physical wrenching or was it bent from a D: thermal pulse? I showed it to a machinist – it’s hard to tell – it’s clearly an J: angle iron - it’s clearly opened [?] What you want to do is have a piece of metal that looks like it D: was literally cooked like that Girder Fry like you see in the pictures… J: It does have some residue [yeah] on it … In other words it looks as if it was cooked by a high pressure – very hot temperature thermate, you know like you talked about or the idea of a thermal pulse – from a mini-nuke or a conventional weapon you want to see if the neutron activaD: tion – I only think a percentage of the actual debris of the building would be acceptable to the task which is why my guess is less than 10% of the material that you would see would probably be samples where that might have occurred. …interesting. In any case this is [worth testing] and I did look at just… I’m not saying this is the most sophisticated test, cerJ: tainly, but I looked with a Geiger Counter and this is about gosh … last year… Yeah - most of the isotopes though will be stable not D: radioactive… I guess you know the answer… it’s in my paper. There was no radioactivity [yeah] in this iron[35] – this steel from the World Trade Centre [yeah] that had been heavily damaged J: and indeed there was a flow of material on it so…there’s nothing above background and that the results are the… numerical results are given in my paper. I encourage you to read it…. Yeah, yeah - one of the things about Iron and neutron activaD: tion is only a very tiny amount of the isotopes have a 64
Slide 65: relatively short half-life are going to be the radioactively stable ones like Iron 58 are not radioactive long…[36] So the point is, I summarized in my paper [yeah] various studies that had already looked for radio isotopes including Iodine 131, alpha gamma and beta emitters and of course for J: myself I looked at the steel and the dust [right] [inaudible] McKinlay so it will be interesting if you see something that I missed… What we’re going to be doing is that we’re using a technology [inaudible] because we also have to use the right technology because we’re going to be looking for stable isotopes above D: background by a marginally wide enough to see if it shows the isotope ratios that would indeed indicate there was enough mixing in the pyroclastic clouds that would be spreading and mixing and also…. J: Why are you looking at the stable isotopes? No - we’re looking for these – these ones like the higher and D: heavier isotopes like you know ones like – like Beryllium 9 and ten [37] you know Niobium 94 [38] and Cobalt 59 and 60. J: Well Cobalt 60… The [principle was there?] if we find the heavier isotopes of Beryllium – that’s going to be a real [cruncher] because BerylD: lium is rare to see in places like – in and around a nuclear device. 27:30 OK - So we need to analyse [?] that you’re working – that’s J: good – that’s the results are not yet in - OK Oh no - we’ll see and again we’re planning on running probably these 3 samples[39] and if we get repeated samples negative there – if we get positive we’re trying doing it in a different lab – we’re also asking people like yourself – you’re a physicist[40] – and samples of what you have and use similar D: types of technology if we get positive – we have to have somebody independent like yourself go and test not only test the samples you have but other ones to see if – even say one sample in 20 is positive for some of the isotopes by a wide enough margin… J: That’s important. You need the plus or minus too… 65
Slide 66: Right plus or minus[41] – and a range of coincidence – you need enough samples positive – and it should be done not D: just by a range of individuals – so you can’t say he has an agenda so he’s trying to prove his theory so you can end up with independent corroboration… You need some independent [inaudible] as we’ve done with J: the iron-rich spheres. D: Yeah – you’ve proven this thermate dust…? I think we’re in fairly good agreement on what needs to be J: done and I hope you will look at some of those other studies which I did… Oh yeah – I’ll look at those and again I’m a scientist - I want to find the facts – I’m not just looking to the idea of finding the mechanism which brought down the towers – which I think you’ve shown is thermate and superthermate are there. I’m very concerned with what I have been told from my contacts inside the Special Ops Delta and other agencies the next major 2 events that we are worried [inaudible] pandemics like I mentioned this about talk about the Sunday test in Phil29:10 adelphia - but also the danger of nukes going off and they D: will not just use conventional thermate, superthermate – the next event they’re gonna do in US cities will be nukes going off in US cities – just like the Virginia[?] harbour the test at the end of April 27 when they finished the test was a 100 kiloton nuke going off in Virginia[?] harbour and they did similar tests last year in Charleston, South Carolina. Their idea was to do a wargame simulation with not only North American, Canadian and US but also British Security Services but also bring in Foreign troops to control the population… Yeah – let me mention one thing to finish because I think 29:40 we’re pretty well in agreement of goals and concerns. On the J: idea of some operations[42] – some event - in the United States blamed on Iran… They want to attack Iran between now and the fall is a particD: ular danger period because I think they want to attack before Ramadan next year. OK. One other exercise is that we have learned that with evid30:05 ence we can learn a great deal so if there is an event and - we J: won’t even name a city[43] lets just say an American city - 66
Slide 67: 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[44]. 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… is what I’m trying to say… Well we’ve already probably stopped them – a lot of the work D: that you’ve done – many other 9/11 truthers… J: And Alex Jones… And Alex Jones and all the great leaders. I think what we’ve D: done we probably don’t know how many 9/11 type events we’ve already stopped. J: It could well be – good point. How shall people retain continuity of evidence and get that to Person you? D: Chain of custody… J: Chain of custody it’s very important…right I could tell because I’m a medical legal expert on this. What you want to do is you want to bring it to an attorney or another [public?] and you actually have to sign an affidavit you collected the specimen on a specific date legal [inaudible] it needs to have a chain of custody[45] signed and sealed and a 31:50 seal that can’t be broken – if that seal is broken it means the D: chain is broken but the bag has to go in a steel container to a laboratory by signed courier with a chain of custody number on it but a riser[?] has to give an internal chain of custody number intake so that there’s no breaking of the chain [inaudible] I think it’s an important point – we’re talking about amateur J: people – helpers – and so if you get multiple people – 3 or 67
Slide 68: more, for example – filming someone, filming someone collecting and then seal that in a bag and the dust as we have learned has a great deal of information carried with it [right] and that can then be taken to [inaudible] that’s fine and it seems to me that if it’s video-taped the procedure – I mean, these people that are collecting are not going to know to gather iodine 131 and plus an equal amount of cobalt 60, no, they’re just gonna collect the dust and send it… I think we’ll get a very credible case in a very short time if – if we can have co-operation of – truthers - if there is another 9/11-like event we can now do something to stop this - so that’s a great goal. Yeah – I think that … I really believe that meetings like this are - have stopped the death of millions. What I was told back in 94 by a special agent - she was in a cold-sweat telling me D: this - that at that time they already had 22 cities pre-wired with nukes and they told me the names of the cities that are targets[46]. I heard of some of these names – one’s not far from here actuJ: ally [yes – Seattle][47] I would just like to make a comparison Dr. D: - on a scale of 1 Person to 100 what percentage do you say that you agree with Dr. Jones’ thesis that thermate was used in… Oh I am… 100% that thermate was used – 100% [He was just D: saying] The difference between your 2 theories - if I’m getting it right - is Dr. Jones is not pursuing a thermonuclear bring-down of Person the World Trade Centres – and you’re continuing to do research… We’re just researching it to make sure – we need to know what demolished it and if it was superthermate then it means it’s powerful enough to bring down these 2 towers[48] and create debris piles and all the anomalies that we saw. If it wasn’t, I think – it’s my own opinion now – if we do find D: evidence of nukes in the World Trade Centre and we’re gonna also get the concrete cap off the Murrah building because there was – and I was told this by the special agent – that told me this – there was 2 unexploded micronukes a C4 pineapple, RDX and there was thermate in the building that was not exploded in the Oklahoma city Murrah building, 68
Slide 69: OK?[49] I was told that face to face by this agent – Special Ops agent – so I know there was thermate in the building. What I am concerned about is if I think if there is any evidence at all that there was the use in some portions of the building of micronukes – it greatly increases the danger I think of nukes going off in US cities in the next few months. [inaudible] You said thermate is used to help bring the buildPerson ing down – but also… J: 35:13 Oh absolutely – C4 or RDX Yeah – there could have been others ones– they had a whole bunch of layers[50] – like this guy literally told 5 or 6 things and he spent hours with me explaining because of my background as a chemist before I went into medicine I was a biochemist[51] – and so I understood and I said – you gotta explain this to me because he’s a frantic munitions guy and he’s told me there were layers in these buildings – like a work of art. My thesis as I mentioned before is that I think that they literally blew out the building, with the thermate in the floors[52] and so on but that they took out the core of the D: building with these micro-nuclear devices. Now that could be wrong if they used thermate there too – but if they did use it to bring out the core of building using – thermate - and there may have been with micronukes they may have started from upper floors and done it so many floors apart – that changes the thesis of what they might do when they do their next operation[53] – because it’s a kind of controlled demolition if they take out 16 or 20 blocks of say Los Angeles – and like the top 3 cities – LA is one of the top 3 cities that’s likely to be hit, OK? And so… Person [inaudible] radiation… if you’re using nuclear bombs… D: It depends if it’s a fourth generation or they have… … would have a lot of contamination that would spread Person evenly. Well, remember - they’re not dirty bombs – remember these bombs now, the new fourth generation nukes and I was told this by people in the NSA – the bombs that they have now D: since the 1950’s they - have types of nuclear bombs that generate mostly gamma rays – mostly neutrons like a neutron bomb from battlefield weapons mostly electromagnetic pulse 69
Slide 70: – so they can have weapons that give very little blast but give a massive electromagnetic pulse so they can be very selective in the energy distribution patterns of the type of weapons they have now - and I was told and this again is stuff that’s not conventional - and that they can detonate these without having to use a nuclear fission/fusion type ye know triggering thing[54] – but use these ultra-powerful magnetic pulses that have lasers in order to actually generate nuclear explosions. If they really have that, we have an energy solution so… these J: guys are… D: Well they’re sitting on…they don’t want to have… J: They’re sitting on it…? D: Course they are… I don’t think [inaudible] had a chance to ask your question J: did you?[55] Well I guess my biggest point here – questions to both of you 37:17 – looks like you’re looking for a motive for something that Person: brought the building down other than what you both agree isn’t fire… The reason I am looking for the extra additional things is because of what I know independently about the danger of the next event – because I know that we’re gonna operate now with the thermate to start the international court of justice[56] – that needs to happen now – but if we get additional evidence that there were nukes. Thermate can be acquired ye know, through e-bay and through you know munitions – forensic[?] companies that can actually detonate buildings. You can’t acquire 4th generation micronukes accept from the D: US military. Because the ones that they took from the World Trade Centre – from the Oklahoma city Murrah Building – which were, I was told, this was very specific - US Corps of Engineers – 1 tenth of a kiloton detonation excavating[57] micronukes – OK? So with those specific requirements we’re talking about only one source where they could acquire that type of detonation equipment. So if - that even makes it more damning in terms of who did the detonation. We know it was a controlled demolition and we know there was thermate in it – but if we find the evidence that there were nuclear devices 70
Slide 71: even for parts – even for a part of the building, like the top or somewhere in the core then it makes it much, much more devastating for the side trying to protect against the idea that the US government and elements within the FBI and the ATF were involved because we know the first attack on the World Trade Centre in 93 and this is in the Wall Street Journal – December 24 was actually done by the FBI hiring the Egyptian munitions forensics so the grave danger here is if – if my test is negative then it actually buttresses Dr. Jones’ theory more, but if it’s positive it puts us in much more danger of them[58] actually blowing up nukes in multiple cities and it also changes the level of… J: [inaudible] a little more [inaudible] 39:07 I guess the question then is the evidence leading you to this or Person are you following an idea to the evidence that… We’re trying to let the science lead – when you’re a scientist you don’t try to get operating ideas – you try to look at the anomalies, develop a hypothesis that could explain it and there’s some difference in terms of our interpretation of what we have so far – but you set up a test that can determine whether the hypothesis is supported or not and if it is positD: ive – if the test is negative from the heavy isotopes that we’re testing it gives absolute support[59] to the thermate theory of Doctor Jones – if it’s negative. If it’s positive it means in addition to thermate which is already proven - that they used layers of other explosives – including nukes – they could only be sourced from the US Government or the military…[60] Just to clarify you did have a paper and several studies that Person said that they already tested for these? That’s right. My paper[61] – my letter in the Journal of 9/11 Studies cites other studies that have already been done lookJ: ing for iodine 131 and then alpha, beta, gamma emitters and finding things in the World Trade Centre… Most of those alpha beta gamma emitters are just due to the 40:10 neutron activation are – in things like calcium and phosphate D: – in other words those disappear pretty quickly – so what I’m looking for… J But some are long lifes… 71
Slide 72: …harder to find out – again - what we’re going to find out here shortly is if the tests show positive and again is there less than say 10% of the material could even be acceptable and may even carry it because if there isn’t sufficient mixing with the areas where these “hypothetical” micronukes might have gone off[62]. But here’s the good thing about it - if the test is done from the neutron activation isotopes and let’s say all 3 samples are negative it means absolute support that the therD mate – which I agree is there – is even more supported and then it buttresses what Dr. Jones has said even more - OK? And it means that super thermate was sufficient to do ALL of the damage[63] rather than some of it and we don’t have to hypothesize… so it’s not – it’s actually – because it’s science – science moves forwards rather than ye know, sideways it means that it adds additional support rather than taking away from it.[64] Person One less theory to consider…. Well it’s also very serious - it means that super thermate had D to be put in there and it actually supports what Dr. Jones said. Can I mention one thing just for the record here… [sure thing] which I - There is a form of thermate TH3 that’s used by the military in grenades – that’s correct. But what I wanted to mention – this I didn’t say publicly but I would at least like to get it on the record – in case something happens- but in the J dust we recently – this student[65] and I – looking at the dust – optically we see these red specks – lots of them in the dust. That’s curious – these are not spheres – they’re chunks, and pieces – they look like shells – like an egg shell – kind of. Thicker than that – but that’s what they look like a broken up egg shell. D You mean under a scanning electron microscope? No – this is optically and looking at the material under a miJ croscope – oh about 100x (power) yes D So they’re pretty big chunks? They’re a fairly good size[66] – that’s right, now we go to the scanning electron microscope and do the EVS testing and we J see Iron, Aluminum and Sulfur in these chunks – and what [inaudible] it could be the thermate before it’s exploded and 72
Slide 73: then it just broke into pieces so that’s something we’re pursuing…I’m not saying that’s… You mean the thermate – before the thermate might have D been exploded or broken? That’s right – before the reaction – this material in this shell J form – so we’re pursuing that. That would be a great discovery to find it after and before. So in other words there may have been some thermate areas D that weren’t exploded… …that did not explode – that were blown up and you have J these little pieces now… D Oh really? J Yes – and so we’re very excited… So by [inaudible] testing that if for example the test is positive for the radio isotopes and you look at this and it does show 43:05 fragments of unexploded thermate – then it could further D support not only the thermate theory – but the thermate + micronukes. Sure. So we’re pursuing… you know the data leads you along and I think that was one of the curdisis [?] points and it’s quite exciting [yeah] as a scientist – it’s a bit of an adventure – J wow well - that there’s some red stuff – I am not sure why it’s red[67] – but it has aluminum sulfur and Iron and then that just matches what you expect from Thermite, but of course as a citizen you say well this is really getting very obvious. Yeah well, I gotta thank you. I really think that the endD statement… J Thank you – good talking I really think that if this is positive it just adds another layer it does not disprove the thermate/thermite 100% agree that and D there’s no directed energy weapons or any other exotic type of thing that could’ve done it[68]. Alright. Good. We’re in quite good agreement – yes thank J you. D Yeah – you’re welcome – take care J You too. 73
Slide 74: [1] How will the citizens react to this? Will people simply accept it? [2] … so let’s not talk about the evidence we don’t agree on? Is this cherry-picking evidence, perhaps? [3] Wouldn’t it be better to have the evidence displayed on a screen for easier or more focused discussion? There is no powerpoint here – no coordinated discussion – just a “friendly chat” – even for supposedly “volunteers” - they are or were both professional scientists – can’t they do better? [4] And yet, significant portions of the following discussion are based on opinion only. [5] So they won’t be talking about the evidence in this discussion then…? [6] That settles it then – no discussion of lack of debris, dustification effects – Deagle was a Doctor in the SDI programme – he knows - that’s all we need to know… [7] Is Jones about to say that he has little experience with energy weapons? Six months ago, he said they don't exist. [8] From my understanding, Lucent Technologies was formerly part of AT&T - a telecommunications company which had/has little to do with weapons technologies. [9] Isn’t this an opinion – no evidence, after all is discussed here… [10] Check Deagle’s resume… more later. [11] But what about the physical evidence which shows planes did not hit the towers? [12] Shouldn’t this be “friends that are architects”? Surely he means Structural Engineers? [13] New York is not in an Earthquake zone. [14] Are they or aren’t they going to discuss the evidence? [15] Where are they stored? If Deagle knows where, why does Jones say “we’re unlikely to get a car”. Don’t they want to check this out for the science? It could disprove DEW, for example! [16] But what about the evidence to back up this statement? [17] It has been established that there were at least 1,400 toasted cars taken to the junk yard. How many cars can fit on Vesey Street? Certainly 1,400 cars can't fit there –therefore they all couldn't have been parked adjacent to the WTC. If they claim they are all from the underground parking garage, how did they get toasted there? If that were the case, that's pretty good evidence the lower levels weren't crushed. But, still, how could thermite splash on them in the basement? 74
Slide 75: [18] Again, directed energy effects are being discussed here (even if from some EMP or Micronuke weapon to which Deagle alludes) so this contradicts the earlier statement about “no evidence of directed energy” – see footnote vi. [19] Is “para-magnetic” energy the same as “directed energy”? [20] …and the evidence for this thought would be? As his results of isotopic testing are “not in yet” – see footnote xxix. [21] The repeated reference to Iodine 110 – before it changes to 131 – is puzzling. The stable Isotope of Iodine is 127 and 110 seems more obscure – so why are they both talking about it – this is unclear? [22] This is a term Dr. Wood has used… [23] No evidence has been provided that Super Thermate was or has been used or is in use anywhere. [24] Why does Jones stop in mid-sentence? Isn’t he supposed to ask Deagle who told him this? Surely, Deagle could just say “I can’t tell you” – Jones has no need to worry, does he? [25] So do micronukes exist, or not? The “common or garden” Hydrogen bomb is a fission/fusion bomb – nothing new there… [26] What exactly is a “giga-tesla-type pulsed magnetic effect”? If it’s a magnetic effect, it sounds like it could be a directed energy effect… [27] Why would high powered lasers be used to set off a detonation in a building? Wouldn’t ordinary remote detonation be used? It sounds like Deagle is getting confused with the experimental lasers used to initiate a fusion reaction in “hot fusion” programs (called Inertial confinement fusion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_confinement_fusion ) [28] What projects? Externally and internally to/from what or where? [29] Deagle is discussing results he hasn’t had yet – so he has no evidence? Is this what he is saying? If he is so concerned about the next attacks, why has he taken so long to do the tests? Didn’t he think of completing them before making a presentation at this conference? [30] How can they know it is "clearly" identified as WTC dust? — especially if it contains little to no iron? And, is it assumed this dust promptly sank to the bottom, right by the shore? What about the stuff that floated downstream? [31] Melted – but what about the dust? Was “melted stuff” in the river? [32] Iodine 131 has a half-life of about 8 days - 192 hours - http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/i/io/iodine-131.html [33] “serious scientists analysed…” – as opposed to? “Comedy Scientists”? 75
Slide 76: [34] Was there a lot of Iron in the WTC? Or was it steel? There is only a comparable tonnage of iron to that of whatever thermate (if any) that there was, [35] Repeated references to IRON – was it iron or steel they tested? [36] Iron 58 is a STABLE isotope – not radioactive. http://www.americanelements.com/fe58.html [37] Beryllium 10 has a half life of 1.51×106 years - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium why is Deagle looking for this? [38] Niobium 94 has a half-life of 20,300 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niobium why is Deagle looking for this? [39] Where did Deagle get his samples? Is he testing Jones’ sample from which some of the Thermite evidence was supposedly determined? The McKinley dust? Where did the 2 other samples come from? [40] Good that he remembered this… [41] Plus or minus what? 10% - 20%? Units? Quantities? What margins of error are acceptable? How about a nice graph with error bars, perhaps? [42] Who will be carrying out these “operations”? Al Qaida, “Son of Al Qaida” – isn’t this important too? [43] Why won’t Jones name a city? Deagle names a City – see footnote xlvii. [44] This whole section is quite extraordinary – and a whole separate commentary could perhaps be written on this. Some main points though – a) If there was such a terrible disaster, wouldn’t the authorities deal with it? They should do the tests, take samples – not “volunteers”. (b) So, a city is nuked – then 9/11 truthers casually go out with their “WalMart” Geiger counters – altruistically not being worried about getting themselves irradiated. They collect the samples and send them to “the man with the scientific method”? and Deagle agrees!! Crazy stuff… [45] Apparently Jones’ McKinley dust sample does not have a chain of custody like the one Deagle describes, so how can an International trial be initiated with any evidentiary foundation? Does Deagle have a chain of Custody for the 3 samples he is “testing”? [46] So why has Deagle kept this information to himself? If he knows acts of terrorism are going to be committed, is he not committing a crime by not taking this information to the Dept of Homeland Security or whoever? [47] So, presumably, this information has been passed to the authorities in Seattle so that they can find out where the nukes are – they’ve been 76
Slide 77: there for a few years – so, isn’t it now time to find them and disable them? [48] Can’t Superthermate be tested in controlled conditions to establish its destructive potency? Wouldn’t this be a better way to make such a determination? [49] Readers might also compare the damage in the Murrah building with that in WTC 6 (http://www.drjudywood.co.uk/#History) [50] What evidence is there that they use “layers” of explosives to destroy buildings? How was this done in Okalahoma – can Deagle supply more details? [51] Deagle has a very impressive cv – Medical and Legal Doctor – chemist and Biochemist. Good for him! [52] In how many floors? All of them – half? ¾ etc? [53] Again, who is doing the operation? Can’t they be traced and stopped or is the attack inevitable? [54] Will the trigger be fusion or fission? How is fission achieved without critical mass? [55] Why does Jones suddenly change the subject here, when it was getting so interesting… [56] Chain of custody of evidence being…? [57] Are they for excavation – or for controlled demolition – like in the towers? For CD, the directional control of the explosion is surely far more important than for excavation, to ensure orderly collapse of the building? Why isn’t Jones picking Deagle up on points like this? [58] Again, who? [59] Absolute? Or there may be another hypothesis that a negative result supports – such as the large-scale use of DEW? [60] So that’s who – perhaps the military needs to be questioned, then? [61] Is it a paper or a letter? Being a letter, it is less likely to have been peer-reviewed. Why write a letter to his own journal? [62] So, still no evidence, in this evidence-based discussion, of micronukes? [63] But Jones suggests use of C4 or RDX and Deagle says (see 35 “a whole bunch of layers”) which therefore contradicts the notion of Superthermate doing ALL the damage. [64] It very much sounds like Deagle wants to support the thermite hypothesis – which he already regards as proven – and this really says nothing – “science moves forwards?” “sideways”? This says nothing! [65] So is Dr. Jones working with Students in his retirement? On what foundation? Who is now funding his research in retirement? 77
Slide 78: [66] Why have these only been discussed now? Where are they from anyway, the Mckinlay dust? Has Jones only just noticed them after a year? [67] Can’t it be analysed with a mass-spectrometer? [68] One thing they can really agree on is that directed energy weapons were not involved! [i] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1184826770885695772 [ii] http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Prof. Steve Jones & Dr. Bill Deagle on WTC Destruction - Vancouver - 24 Jun 2007.mp3 78
Slide 79: Chapter 8 A Touch of “The Hidden Hand”? July 28th 2007 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 26th, 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” [i]. Ambrose has other unrelated shows on WPFW a Pacifica station covering the Washington D. C. metro area as far north as Baltimore and as far south as Richmond VA. Ambrose's shows are archived at http://www.weourselves.org/show/index.html. However, the call for me to go on the show on July 26th, 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 complex40 . 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). 79
Slide 80: • 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 saying[ii]: "I believe we are entering a period this summer of increased risk…Summertime seems to be appealing to them," he said of al-Qaida. "We do worry that they are rebuilding their activities." Also, Air Force Gen. Victor "Gene" Renuart has said [iii]: …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 19th July Paul Craig Roberts — a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan was quoted as saying[iv]: "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 Qaida 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” [v] In this article it mentions: 80
Slide 81: “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 – see Chapter 6): “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… 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. 81
Slide 82: 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)[vi] 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[vii]. 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[viii] – 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” [ix] 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 82
Slide 83: 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. [i] http://www.xmradio.com/onxm/channelpage.xmc?ch=169 [ii] http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/nation/ chi-070710chertoff,0,6464324,print.story [iii] http://infowars.com/articles/terror/ dhs_general_attack_could_happen_any_day.htm [iv] http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Oldline_Republican_warns_somethings_in_works_0719.html [v] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/ 05/09/AR2007050902719.html [vi] http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/sponsors.html [vii] http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/alibis/cheney.html [viii] http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/mineta-bio.html [ix] http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2000/ news_release_000408a.html 83
Slide 84: Chapter 9 Based on a report which contains contributions by Morgan Reynolds s Russ Gerst s Jeff Strahl CB Brooklyn s Cathy Palmer October 2007 Going In Search of Planes: Re-visiting NYC 9-11 FirstResponders’ Accounts Listening to Those Who Were There As we continue to delve into what happened on Sept 11 2001, we seem to be uncovering more evidence that some very strange things were happening near and at the World Trade Center in New York City when the towers were destroyed. A re-examination of videos of the plane crashes and both the actual destruction of the towers and the aftermath seems to strongly suggest or even prove that (a) unconventional weaponry destroyed the towers and (b) the stories of large planes hitting the towers are bogus. For (a) one can simply ask “Where did the building go?” (and no, it wasn’t “into the basements”). For (b) one can simply ask “How can a hollow tube made of light materials cut through multiple steel girders, with little or no deceleration?” A repeated pondering of the answers to questions (a) and (b) can lead on to a re-examination of other data about 9/11. Such a re-examination of existing data was proposed by Attorney Jerry Leaphart, in September 2007. Jerry brought to our attention the accounts / “oral histories” as given by over 500 Emergency Service “First Responders” to the 9/11 Tragedy, as posted on the New York Times Website[i]. These accounts were published on 12th August 2005. Mr. Leaphart originally tasked us with analysing the accounts of the responders to see what was contained in their accounts of 9/11 about seeing the plane 84
Slide 85: crashes – particularly the 2nd one. We therefore shared our findings and they are discussed in the report referenced at the end of this article. Tribute However, I must pause for a moment and say that, whatever the conclusions of this study and however it is interpreted, we must have a large tribute and debt of thanks to those people who responded on the day of 9/11 and think of the lives they undoubtedly saved and the injuries they helped to prevent. Many of them have suffered severely due to the adverse long term health effects of the dust they worked in while working to save people. I hope for their sake, too, that we can learn the truth about 9/11. Delving Deeper I decided to go “one step further” and, once I had downloaded all 500 accounts, I used text searching software to scan all the accounts and determine, primarily where each person was when the 2nd plane is supposed to have hit the tower. I also tried to determine where witnesses were when the 1st crash occurred. I then entered all this information into a database, which allowed me to more easily count who saw or heard the 2nd plane. (All the details of how this was done are contained in the report.) In going through the accounts, I also decided to look for any use of the words “Missile” or “Rocket”, “Plane Parts”, “Luggage/Suitcases”, “Landing Gear” and witnesses hearing the F-15/F-16 planes. The witness accounts of the latter are particularly interesting to compare to their accounts of the sound of the 2nd Boeing, before impact. A number of reports of FBI Agents talking about a possible “3rd Plane” heading for New York were also discovered, along with a number of other accounts of witnesses describing anomalous occurrences. “I Saw The Plane… I Heard The Plane…” The words “plane jet airplane aircraft” were found in 426 accounts, 1770 times. The final account Sample Size was used for the “Witnesses to a plane” study was 291. A few of those who simply described seeing the impacts on TV were left out, but some were included – the main focus of 85
Slide 86: the study was on those who were close to where the 2nd impact happened. 16 witnesses reported seeing the 1st plane before impact and 16 witnesses reported hearing the 1st plane before impact but only 1 Witness reported clearly seeing and hearing plane 1 before impact. I managed to establish that at least 96 witnesses were near the WTC (with ½ a mile) at the time of 2nd impact and a further 21 witnesses were inside one of the WTC buildings at the time of the 2nd impact. This gave a total of 117 witnesses who were near or the Inside WTC buildings at the time of 2nd impact. • Only 19 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing plane 2 before impact and, as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 20%. • Only 20 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually hearing plane 2 before impact and as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 21%. • Only 8 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing and hearing plane 2 before impact and as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 8.3%. • Of those witnesses inside one of the WTC buildings at the time of the 2nd impact, only 2 reported hearing the plane (none saw it). As a percentage of the total of those inside WTC, this was 9.5%. • There were 117 witnesses inside or near the WTC and 291 witnesses in the total sample I used. The percentages given below, then, are therefore based on the number 291 – 117 giving a total of 174. • There were 33 witnesses who were further than ½ mile from the WTC Complex and reported seeing plane 2 before impact. As a percentage of the total of those who were further than ½ mile from WTC Complex, this was 19%. • There were 2 witnesses who were further than ½ mile from the WTC Complex and reported hearing plane 2 before impact. As a percentage of the total of those who were further than ½ mile from WTC Complex, this was 1.1%. “I Wasn’t Initially Sure it Was A Plane” Quite a few witnesses were not at all sure that large planes had been responsible for the damage at the WTC. Accounts where they said “I didn’t realize it was a plane at the time” or “I only realized later it was a 86
Slide 87: plane” were studied. Due to the different ways witnesses described being unsure about the true nature of the crash, it was difficult to pick out keywords to find these accounts. (Most of these accounts were discovered in reading them for other parts of this study.) Time limitations may have prevented finding them all. 1. For example, from the account of Patricia Ondrovic (File No: 9110048): I saw a police captain that I knew, and he came out to me. He looked absolutely terrified, he was shaking, he was pale, he was sweating. I looked at him, I said what's wrong? He said there's another plane headed our way, and they just blew up the Pentagon. I said, another plane? What are you talking about? I hadn't realized that planes had hit this, I thought they just set bombs off. I didn't realize when I got there that planes hit it. I said, what do you mean another plane? He said two planes hit the World Trade Center. So I'm thinking a little Cessena. How can a little Cessena do all that damage? He said no, 757s. I said big things? See I was there for about 25 minutes before I knew that planes had crashed into this. Similarly, the account of EMT David Timothy (File No. 9110156) expressed some doubt that he saw a plane. The next thing I heard was a loud like an engine roar. I looked up, and the next thing I knew I just saw — I don't know if it was the tail end of the plane or what, but I saw something. When I looked up, I heard ‘boom’. I'm sorry, the north tower was the first one. The south tower then got hit when we were right there. Perhaps even more significant was where 2 witnesses who were standing next to each other, initially, did not agree upon the idea of a plane crash. From the account of Scott Holowach (File No: 9110114) At that time Chief Ganci was behind me and he thought there was another explosion in the north tower and that's when I turned around and said Chief, listen, there is a second plane that hit the other tower. He was like no no no no, we have another explosion. I said no, Chief, I witnessed it. I watched the plane hit the other tower. He is like are you sure. I said Chief, I'm 100 hundred percent positive I watched the second plane hit the other tower. There was some additional confusion and rumours circulating about the nature of any planes involved. From the account of Anthony Bartolomey (File No: 9110013) Q. When you arrived there, did any civilians report anything to you? 87
Slide 88: A. Yes. Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Leer jet type, a small jet plane. Some said it was a large passenger plane. One person actually said that it was like a military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building. There are other instances of this type of confusion. The account of Peter Fallucca (File No: 9110388) mentions a “fireball or something” and a missile attack as witnessed by a police officer: It was a big fireball or something from the plane I guess, came from across the street in front of our rig, and as we get out of the rig, there's a cop, city police officer, in the street. He's telling us, "I'm getting out of here. I just saw a rocket." He said he saw it come off the Woolworth Building and hit the tower. Firefighter David Sandvik (File No. 9110375) did not hear the motor of the plane, when he was underneath the “impact” fireball… We start heading down the block and we get down to I guess about Church Street and the second plane hit, and I remember just being underneath. I never heard the motor of the plane, the sound of the engines. We just heard the explosion, you felt the explosion, and looking straight up and seeing that fireball that you see on the news, but we're underneath looking up now at it. Landing Gear and Tires There were over 10 different reports of Landing Gear being found. Some of these put the Landing Gear on Vesey Street, West Street, in a Parking Lot (which may be on West or Vesey Street), in a Jacuzzi, on top of a woman or in Rector Street. From the account of Dean Coutsouros (File No: 9110049) …we got in front of 90 West Street, we held up there for a few minutes underneath the scaffolding to reassess the situation, how we were going to get into the building. There was all kinds of human debris. The landing gear of the aircraft was in that parking lot there. There was all kinds of stuff all over the floor. From the account of John Breen (File No: 9110321) We did see part of — I didn't see it, but Jeff Johnson told me later on he did see part of the landing gear actually fell right through the roof and it was in one of the Jacuzzis in another room. 1. With 4 apparently separate reports of aircraft landing gear or tires being found in different locations, it is difficult to believe that 88
Slide 89: these tires genuinely could have survived the crash. For example, from the account of Steve Grabher (File No: 9110241): We came right down West Street, down here. We couldn't get too close, because by the time we got near 2 World Trade Center people were jumping off the roof like crazy. Landing near the hotel and the street was littered with body parts. I don't know if it was from the plane or what. But there was just body parts all over the place. Chunks of meat. I saw an airplane tire. I walked past an airplane tire. What looked like an airplane tire. Again we were looking up the whole time. Reading accounts like this, and seeing the picture of the tire under the scaffolding[ii], one is immediately reminded of the story of the survival of Mohammad Atta’s passport. Similarly, the sightings of luggage and suitcases do not seem to be explainable other than by the idea that this evidence was planted – how could such items survive the enormous impact and fireball, which is said to have been sufficient to destroy the WTC’s structural integrity? Federal Bureau of … Information…? It seems like there were a good number of FBI agents on the scene – at least one of them seemed to be promulgating reports of a 3rd plane being en route to NYC. How were they so sure, considering the confusion in the “fog of war”? Terence Rivera’s account (File No: 9110343) has some interesting details. There was a — he wasn't a regular security guard. He had a weapon on him. I don't know if he was FBI or Secret Service and he was trying to put the pants out on one individual that was conscious. His pants were still smoldering. I took the can, fire extinguisher off the truck and then sprayed down the pants on the person that was still conscious. At that time, I had asked him where did this individual [had] come from. He told me when the plane had hit, a fire ball had shot down the elevator shaft and had blown people out of the lobby Sometime while we were doing that, that same individual that was — when we first got there, that was trying to put the pants out, he came over and he is saying to us that it's a terrorist attack. You guys are too close. It's a terrorist attack. Then I went — that same individual, the security or — he told me to go over to the command post and let them know it's a terrorist attack. There are more planes in the air. 89
Slide 90: With repeated accounts of the FBI agents mentioning a 3rd plane attack was imminent, one is given the impression that they were unwittingly or deliberately promoting the plane stories at a time when the picture of what was happening was very likely still not at all clear. Hearing the F15’s/F16’s There seemed to be more consistency in the witnesses who reported hearing the F15’s/F16’s than the sounds of a Boeing (other witnesses may have reported these as different planes). From the account of Robert Larocco (File No: 9110081): At that point we hear a plane — it turned out to be two planes, and they were closing in on us and the motors were getting louder and louder. All eyes went up to the sky and were looking. I kind of thought to myself as I looked at guys running for their lives and for cover that now we're going to get kamikazed. The rescue workers, they are trying to take us out. I stood there and looked at the sky all around in all directions and couldn't really tell where the sound was coming from. It was getting louder and louder. Then I spotted them, they were coming out of the west, like out of Jersey City, that way. They were two F15 fighters. Strange Events On page 13 of his account, Paramedic Robert Ruiz (File No. 9110333) describes an apparently spontaneous car fire: Like things weren't bad enough already, the car that's parked right on that corner catches on fire. I don't mean a little fire, the entire thing. Don't ask me how. The entire car caught on fire. You would think maybe just a motor part or just the engine part. But this entire car just goes up in fire. In his account (File no: 9110179), Frank Cruthers, Fire Chief mentions WTC 7 was expected to collapse: Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area – Q. A collapse zone? A. Yeah — be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was 90
Slide 91: considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed. They shut down the power, and when it did collapse, the things that they were concerned with would have been. That's about it. Controlled Demolition of the WTC? For quite some time, I was convinced that the mechanism of the destruction of WTC 1 & 2 had to be similar to controlled demolition – it was the only thing that could account for the near free-fall time of “collapse”. However, I have since been enlightened through the results of Dr. Wood’s study – the overall evidence does not support the idea that controlled demolition was the primary method of destruction of the towers. In examining the witness accounts, I found quite a few where the collapse was described as possibly like the sound of an approaching plane or rocket. For example, from the account of Faisel Abed (File No: 9110071): You just heard this thrushing, thrushing noise like a rocket. I thought the building was under attack again. You just start seeing this smoke coming down. We just took off. We went north. We actually — sorry, we went west. We went towards the river. All right. Then we just went towards the river and went up north a little bit behind the building. That was after the first one went down. He describes a continuous noise rather than lots of explosions going off. Let us not confuse this part of the account with those accounts of earlier explosions before the towers came down, rather than as they were coming down. The repeated sequence of timed explosions heard during a controlled demolition is very distinctive and none of the witness accounts I studied described hearing this sort of sound as the towers collapsed. What Aren’t We Allowed to Know? Patricia Ondrovic’s testimony, mentioned earlier, contains redacted portions and there were a number of other portions discovered in this research, and there are almost certainly others. Having used the file searching software, it would suggest there are redactions in at least 46 accounts. One can understand why certain parts of certain accounts may be obscured – perhaps so as not to cause upset to relatives of victims or 91
Slide 92: where they might reveal certain small points of sensitive information. However, suspicions should be raised in the cases where significant portions of accounts were redacted, such as those of Rene Davila (over 10 pages in File No: 9110075) and Ronald Coyne (over 4 pages in File No: 9110395). Conclusions On studying the accounts of the plane impacts, a confused picture appears. For the first plane, only one witness - William Walsh (File no: 9110442) specifically describes an American Airlines Plane. Other witnesses describe a whole variety of planes – some seen “out of the corner of their eye”. Some describe a military plane, some initially thought it was a small Cessna type plane. Of those witnesses who describe specifically seeing or hearing the planes, there are a number of instances where a curious turn of phrase is used at one or more points in the account. For example, the account of Thomas Fitzpatrick (File No: 9110001). The noise from the plane was enough to make you not want to look up. I thought the plane was actually going to land in the street to be honest with you. The noise was outrageous. When it hit the building it was even worse. Overall, I conclude the descriptions of planes given by the witnesses do not give one any more confidence than the video material, such as that presented in the September Clues[iii] series, that large planes hit the towers. With something as unique as 9/11, it was easy to “sell” people the plane stories in the midst of such a terrible tragedy. There is a need for some witnesses to be questioned again about their experiences to determine the true nature of the crashes - and other anomalous events at the time of the WTC towers’ destruction. I hope that someday this is possible and that the true 9/11 perpetrators are brought to account for their heinous actions. The data and full report on which this summary article is based on can be accessed at www.checktheevidence.com [i] http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/ 20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html [ii] http://www.nomoregames.net/911/exploding_the_airliner_crash_myth/tire1.jpg [iii] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8045542387672451515 92
Slide 93: Chapter 10 Inspired by the Research of Dr. Judy Wood November 2007 A “Lengthy” Discussion of The Steel in the Debris of the WTC Introduction The research published by Dr. Judy Wood on her website www.drjudywood.com graphically documents the paucity of debris following the 10-seconds-per-tower destruction of two quarter-mile buildings on 9/11/01. As an attempt to numerically illustrate the level of destruction, an overall figure of the total length of steel, which should have been present in the debris pile, is here calculated. Basic Data about the World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 A figure of 415 metres was used for the height of the towers. These values Parameter Value (m) building width 63.14 building depth 63.14 core width 41.8 core depth 26.52 Table 9‑1 WTC Dimensions The figures above[i] were used in the calculations below. 93
Slide 94: But this pointless! The Steel Was Quickly Shipped Away! It seems that various unsubstantiated statements have been made over time to explain the extreme level of absence of debris. One such statement is “The steel was all sold to China and shipped away promptly, before it could be examined.” However, we have no evidence that such a large-scale operation was undertaken or completed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Did anyone report many fleets of trucks, filled with steel girders, driving down the streets of Manhattan to the Docks. and their loads being transferred onto large container vessels? There are no pictures or video of this supposed operation that are readily available, nor have the details of such a major clean-up exercise ever been discussed. Can We “Count” The Debris? In Part 1 of “The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers” 63, published online in the Journal of 9/11 Studies64, Dr. Jenkins states: Some proponents of the ‘missing debris’ hypothesis prefer to “count” the debris from photographs. This is an inherently reckless approach to the problem. Photographs offer no way to directly view all the individual steel beams in debris piles or debris occupying sublevel collapses. For instance, any attempt to “count” the beams or “wall sections” in the debris pile of WTC 7 will fall short of accounting for the total mass of the building for the simple reason that the debris is located in a pile and all photographs only show the surface. That does not mean that the rubble pile does not contain the mass of the building. Even if the debris were spread out somewhat, the same problem applies when attempting to “count” the debris. In this article, I hope to show that, because of the sheer scale of the WTC buildings, there is considerable value in attempting to calculate other figures which illustrate the very large volume of material which should have been visible in the immediate aftermath of the WTC Towers destruction. 94
Slide 95: Calculating Approximate Total Length of Steel Vertical Columns The towers were 415 metres above ground, though some steel pieces would have been below ground level. There were 236 exterior (perimeter) columns and 47 interior (core) steel columns in each building. Total Length of Vertical Steel = 566 x 415 = 234890m Spandrels and “Wheatchex” The spandrel steel belts on the exterior walls were approximately 1.32m wide, and when joined, they spanned the width of one side of the building. Therefore 1. Approximate total length of Spandrel Steel per floor = 63.14 x 4 = 252.56 Total Length of Spandrel Steel = 252.56 x 2 x 110 = 55563.2m Figure 9‑1 Spandrels – “Wheatchex” - Page 27 of NCSTAR1-3B Looking at this another way, there would have been: Number of Exterior Columns x No of Buildings x Height / Group of 3 9.1 metre lengths = 236*2*415/ (3*9.1) = 7175 “Wheatchex” (approx) How many of these can we see in the debris piles? Trusses The trusses spanned the interior of each floor of the building, as shown below Figure 9‑2 Diagram Illustrating Total Lengths of Truss Steel (Page 16 of NCSTAR1-3B) Looking at the diagram, 95
Slide 96: • We have 20 pieces of Length A, top and bottom = 40 pieces of Length A • We have 14 pieces of Length B, left and right = 28 pieces of length B • We have 10 pieces of Length C running Top to Bottom • We have 18 pieces of Length C running Left to Right The actual pieces may have been arranged in a more complicated grid than that assumed using lengths A, B and C – but these would have been good approximations to the total length 1. Length A is given by (63.14 – 26.52)/2 = 18.31 2. Length B is given by (63.14 – 41.8)/2 = 10.67 Length C is 63.14 metres 1. Total Length of “A” pieces would be: 18.31 x 20 = 366.2 2. Total Length of “B” pieces would be: 10.67 x 28 = 298.76 3. Total Length of “C” pieces would be: 63.14 x 18 = 1136.52 Total Length of Steel Pieces in 1 floor = 1801.48 Total Length of Steel Pieces in the 2 towers = 1801.48 x 2 x 110 = 396326m Floorpans Outside of the core, steel floor pans were used and these were filled with concrete. The floor area in sq metres would be: Total Floor area= 63.14 x 63.14 – (26.52 x 41.8) = 2878.12 sq m It is understood that the floor pans were approximately 3 x 20 metres, but I have not been able to find an exact figure for this. This would mean there would likely be 48 of them per floor (if they were all the same size, which is just an approximation) So, if we were to consider these as lengths of steel, we would have 48 lengths of 20 metres of steel per floor Total Length of Steel in Floor Pans = 48 x 20 = 960m Total Length of Steel in Floor Pans = 960 x 2 x 110 = 211200m 96
Slide 97: Totals Exclusions The total given in the next section is probably rather conservative, as there are at least 2 elements omitted from the calculation – the cross-bracing in the core and, for example, the panelling around the elevator shafts – some of which should have survived. Totalling Totalling the figures calculated above: Table 9‑2 Length Totals Metres Kilometres Miles Vertical Columns 234890 235 147 Spandrels 55563 56 35 Trusses 396326 396 248 Floorpans 211200 211 132 Total 897979 898 561 So, as a rough approximation: There should have been a total length, laid end to end of over 550 miles of steel pieces. Allowing a 10% margin of error in these calculations would bring the figure down to over 500 miles length of steel in the debris. Needless to say, the considerations made in this article do not consider lengths of concrete, or for example, the hundreds of miles of cabling and ducting which the towers would also have contained – little, if any, of which were seen in the debris piles. Where Did 500 miles length of Steel Go? The photos in this section are from www.drjudywood.com . Did the WTC Steel End up in the basements? There have been attempts to reduce the significance of the findings of Dr. Wood. One such attempt, authored by Dr. Greg Jenkins is called “The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers”,63 and published online in the Journal of 9/11 Studies64 97
Slide 98: Part 1 of this paper is entitled “What Missing Debris?” and Dr. Jenkins writes: If all the building debris were compacted into the damaged sublevels, then this would yield a volumetric compression ratio of 10.2%. This is within the error of the compression ratio for WTC 7, 11.5 ± 1.6% . This means that, within error, all of the debris in the WTC complex can be accounted for within the sublevel collapses. It can be suggested that there are at least 2 problems with this supposition. As the WTC towers came down, we see that there is little or no compaction going on – rather, the towers are turning to dust, so there is no physical process which would compress the debris to fit in the basements. We can categorically state that, whilst there was some debris in the basements, that debris was not especially compacted, nor did it fill the basements. The Debris Was Not in The Basements Photographs (and other evidence) that Dr. Wood has presented illustrate that only a small or even tiny proportion of the total debris was in the WTC Basement Levels. Figure 9‑3 - GZ workers descend into the subbasements below WTC2. While there is extensive damage, there is little building debris at the bottom of the hole. There is no sign of molten metal. A worker in the distance walks along a massive core column. (photo filed 9/18/01) Source[ii] Figure 9‑4 This photo was taken inside the mall. The store sign "innovation" is visible on the left. (photo filed 9/19/01) Source[iii] Was the Debris Laid out Above the Basements? This picture would seem indicate there were very few long lengths of steel in the vicinity of WTC during the afternoon of 9/11. Figure 9‑5 - On the afternoon of 9/11/01 the "rubble pile" left from WTC1 is essentially non-existent. WTC7 can be seen in the distance, revealing the photo was taken before 5:20 PM that day. 98
Slide 99: There only seem to be a few “Wheatchex” or long lengths of steel in all of the picture below. A conservative guess would perhaps be 100 “Wheatchex”, in total, in all the pictures below: Figure 9‑6 here again we see the "rubble pile" from WTC1 is essentially non-existent. The ambulance is parked at ground level in front of WTC1. WTC6, which had been an eight-story building, towers over the remains of WTC1. Figure 9‑7 - The north wing of WTC4, as viewed from Church Street, looking west, appears surgically removed from the main body of WTC4, which has essentially disappeared. If WTC2 fell on it and squashed the main building, where is the part of WTC2 that did this? [i] http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/structural-data-wtc-1-2 [ii] http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/3946.jpg [iii] http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5345.jpg 99
Slide 100: Chapter 11 Press Release - Scientists See WTC - Hutchison Effect Parallel 14th and 18th January 2008, Washington DC, USA - In two appearances on a Washington DC Pacifica Radio Station, WPFW, on a show hosted by Author and Political Commentator Ambrose I. Lane, Sr., Dr. Judy Wood, a former Professor of Mechanical Engineering, and John Hutchison, experimental scientist, discussed how photographic and video evidence suggest that the World Trade Centre (WTC) towers were destroyed using Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). Many of the observed effects resemble those seen in John Hutchison’s experiments. In early January 2008, Wood posted a new study on her website (http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ), which relates effects seen in photographs taken before, during and after the destruction of the WTC complex, to effects seen in Hutchison’s ongoing experiments. Wood and Hutchison co-authored the study. John Hutchison is a Canadian inventor and experimental scientist who has been working with “field effects” for almost 30 years. The Hutchison Effect is a collection of phenomena discovered accidentally by John Hutchison in 1979 during attempts to reproduce the work of Nikola Tesla. Hutchison uses radio frequency and electrostatic sources. The Hutchison Effect occurs in a volume of space where the beams intersect and interfere. The results are levitation of heavy objects, fusion of dissimilar materials such as metal and wood, anomalous melting (without heating) of metals without burning adjacent material, spontaneous fracturing of metals (which separate by sliding in a sideways fashion), and both temporary and permanent changes in the crystalline structure and physical properties of metal samples. Hutchison has reproduced his experiments many times and the results are recorded on video and have been included in a number of TV documentaries that focus on unusual scientific experiments. Hutchison’s 100
Slide 101: metal samples have been repeatedly tested by scientists, including a group at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, confirming Hutchison Effects. The article by Wood and Hutchison (http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ) documents effects and events seen in the vicinity of the World Trade Centre and compares these with observed characteristics of the Hutchison Effect. The observed effects include: “Weird Fires” - The fires seen near the badly damaged cars do not seem to ignite nearby office paper. Some photos show firefighters walking very close to or even through the fires. A video by John Hutchison shows similar looking “fires” on a model metal boat. Bent Beams and “Jellification” - Samples that Hutchison produced show very unusual effects on metal. Sometimes the metal “jellifies,” turning soft and losing form, leading to severe bending or fracturing of the sample. Sometimes samples erupt from the centre and sometimes they turn to dust, similar to what happened to the WTC on 9/11. Ongoing reactions - Hutchison’s samples often show an ongoing reaction, even after the energy field is removed. This “non-self-quenching” reaction seems to occur at the nuclear level. This also appears to be happening at Ground Zero (GZ). Dr. Wood’s study suggests that the WTC site is still being “decontaminated,” with trucks moving dirt into and out of the site, while “hosing down operations” continue, which Dr. Wood and Andrew Johnson photographed and recorded on video in January 2008. Transmutation - Sometimes materials subjected to the Hutchison Effect seem to change at a molecular or even atomic level. This could be the explanation for the apparent rapid rusting at GZ, where steel rusts like iron. Also, some photographs show unusual effects on the aluminium cladding used on the twin towers that look similar to effects produced on Hutchison’s aluminum samples. 1. “In some cases, the flipped cars are sitting next to trees that are fully covered with leaves.” “If the flipping of the cars was caused by big explosions or ‘wind’ from the towers coming down,” asked Johnson, “how did the leaves stay on the trees?” Material scientist George Hathaway observes that the Hutchison Effect causes either lift or disruption of the material itself. Lift explains the flipped cars. In some of his experiments, Hutchison observed “spontaneous combustion” where “fires appeared out of nowhere.” He also confirmed that 101
Slide 102: Col. John Alexander and others from the U.S. military visited him in 1983 and filmed his experiments with a team from Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) [i]. Canadian MP Chuck Cook and Dr. Lorn A Kuehne of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) contacted him in 1986 and told him his work was “a matter of National Security.” [ii] Hutchison says he’s been told that defense contractor, S.A.I.C., has his technology and has been developing it. [iii] Asked about ongoing dirt removal and hosing down at the WTC complex, Hutchison commented, “I think there is an ongoing reaction or ‘infection.’” Wood noted that the damage done to the Bankers Trust (Deutsche Bank) building was repaired, but then they decided to take the building down. This evidence indicates there is a continuing reaction there. Rusting beams in the Bankers Trust building and in the temporary PATH train station also suggest ongoing reactions too. At the end of the first show, a caller said, “This is a revelation beyond revelations…this trumps everything…If this story ever gets out, it will change the course of the United States’ and the whole world’s history.” Another caller said during the second show, “I am thinking that these revelations we are hearing this morning should have the people so excited and so outraged that they should be flooding the lines to their congressmen and news people to get this message out as the number one story of the year.” For more information please see: http://www.hutchisoneffect.ca/ WPFW Related: tp://www.wpfw.org/ hthttp://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/ http://www.weourselves.org/ Phenomenon Weird Fires The fires seen near the toasted cars don’t seem to ignite the paper. Some photos show firemen walking very or even through them. Are they “cold” fires? Bent Beams “The Anomalies Hutchison at the Effect” WTC 102
Slide 103: Samples that John Hutchison has produced show very unusual effects on the metal – sometimes severe bending occurs Jellification Sometimes the metal “jellifies” - other effects are also seen. Cars/Lift and Disintegration Some WTC pictures show cars that are upside down. (How?) One of the key effects John Hutchison has reproduced many times is a “levitation” or “anti-gravity” effect. Toasted Metal & Effects A number metal effects have been observed in samples from the WTC and these show similar features to some of the samples made by John Hutchison Transmutation Sometimes, materials subjected to the Hutchison Effect seem to change at an elemental level – could this be the explanation for the rapid rusting – steel is turned into Iron? Holes Samples seem to end up with “voids” in them, following their experiments. Could this effect have created holes in WTC6 and other buildings? Fuming Could this be related to the fuming at ground zero? Could it also be the result of ongoing reactions? [i] http://www.weourselves.org/mp3/wpfw_011808_judy-andrew2.mp3 [ii] http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/ [iii] http://drjudywood.com/media/071212_JohnHutchisonTruthH.mp3 103
Slide 104: Chapter 12 The Hutchison Effect and 9/11 – “An Ace in the Hole?” In 2006, Dr. Wood had posted her first study of the destruction of the WTC complex and in an appendix linked some information regarding what has become known as the “Hutchison Effect” - as a possible energy phenomenon that might have some relevance to what happened on 9/11. In approximately mid November 2007, Dr. Wood had cause to revisit the idea of the Hutchison effect and she sent John some of the WTC photo evidence she had been studying, for him to comment on. It was a pleasant surprise to find that John was willing to discuss areas of correspondence between WTC photo evidence and the effects seen in his own experiments. Most other people with a science background that we had contacted had not expressed any interest in, for example, discussing the links between the Cold Fusion cover up and 9/11. (See CB Brooklyn’s article about Prof. Steve Jones and 9/11[i]). John was very helpful to us and sent us ideas, pictures, information and photos of documents he has kept. He has a number of “Blogs” that he has created[ii], where he has posted hundreds of images related to his work and interests. Some of the things he has posted are very candid and open. John sent us scans or photos of various documents and photos showing how his work has been investigated by Scientists, the Military and in various TV documentaries, almost since the time he started his experiments, back in 1979. On 25th December 2007, having discussed a number of points of evidence with me and with John Hutchison and got agreement that he could be listed as a co-author, Dr. Wood began posting a new series of web pages entitled Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect[iii]. A few days later around 12th Jan 2008, Dr. Wood added a kind of “overview list” to the front page, to show a summary of the main evidence, which we found to be quite compelling, and the preliminary feedback that we got generally indicated the same feeling. 104
Slide 105: Also on 12th Jan 2008, I travelled to Washington DC having been invited to go onto Ambrose Lane’s show “We Ourselves”[iv] on Mon 14th Jan and Fri 18th Jan. At that point, I was not sure whether I would be appearing with Dr. Wood on the same programmes, but thankfully, she was able to make the trip. As anticipated, Dr. Wood and I appeared on Ambrose Lane’s “We Ourselves” programme on 14th and 18th of January and we were honoured to be joined on the 18th of January by John Hutchison himself, who confirmed details of his work and some of the witnesses to it, and he also expressed an interest in some of the effects seen at the World Trade Centre. He also agreed that the ongoing effects at the Deutsche Bank (Banker’s Trust) building were indicative of some type of infection. (Links to audios of these interviews are here [1[v]] [2[vi]]– please download and share. Links to videos of these interviews are on this website[vii] and Dr. Wood’s website89.) About six hours after the radio show, also on Fri 18th Jan, Alexander (“Ace”) Baker sent an e-mail regarding the Hutchison effect to Dr. Wood, myself and several others. Baker is a fellow 9/11 researcher, whom I admired for his notable “Chopper 5 Study”[viii]. This study was a detailed video analysis showing that the live WNYW (Fox 5) helicopter video of UA Flight 175 striking the World Trade Centre is a fake. I had also been impressed with way that Ace had dealt with rebuttals to his analysis from Eric Salter, another researcher, who had been quite rude to Ace. Ace had also appeared[ix] several[x] times[xi] on Jim Fetzer’s “Dynamic Duo” radio programme, and Prof. Fetzer often introduced him as an “expert in digital processing”. In Ace Baker’s e-mail, he said he was about to attempt to produce or reproduce the Hutchison Effect experiment. He said “As it turns out I have experience with Tesla Coils. As a young teenager, I helped build a Tesla coil device. It was a Boy Scout project.” His e-mail included further details about how he had made the Tesla Coil[xii] – a device for generating a high voltage discharge, and that he was going to attempt to make two smaller coil assemblies that same weekend. This timing seemed quite interesting, though I have to confess that, at the time, I was a little puzzled at why, he had chosen to do this, but I did not think too much more about it. About two hours later on 18th Jan, Ace sent another e-mail, saying he had actually managed to obtain Tesla Coils on e-bay and that they would be delivered on Sunday by Special Delivery. (Which mail delivery services work on Sunday? Why did Ace want them so quickly?). 105
Slide 106: Subsequently, on Monday 21st Jan, Ace sent another e-mail saying “Success! I have reproduced the Hutchison Effect!” In that message (which was also sent to John Hutchison) was a link to a YouTube video which Ace had made of his experiment. (The original video that Ace posted[xiii] was moved to a different place on YouTube[xiv]) I responded to Ace, asking if he could post a YouTube video (not realising he had already done so, due to only rapidly scanning the subject line of his message and not reading the body). The video showed a doll’s house with a toy table moving jerkily around and then “flying up” into the air. A reflection of the toy table was shown in a small mirror. The video seemed to be of good quality. On watching the video, I was rather uneasy – my feeling was that what he had made was a fake video, though I didn’t have enough information to be certain, so I made no further comments at the time. I could see he had gone to some trouble to make the video – which, to me, meant one of two things. (a) The video was genuine and Ace really had managed to reproduce the effect. (b) Ace had made a fake video for some other unknown reason. I could not really convince myself that (a) was the correct reason, because I was certain that John Hutchison had spent quite some time in getting his experiments to work successfully (in the early days, he was unable to produce effects reliably, but latterly he is able to produce effects very reliably). I was therefore suspicious that Ace’s presentation was not . John responded to Ace’s posting of the video saying that he thought it was “cute”. However, I left this all “on one side” as I was about to return to the UK. On returning to the UK, I wrote a press release, which was reviewed and edited by Dr. Wood and Dr. Reynolds. The press release discussed the main points of correspondence between the WTC photo evidence and the various aspects of the Hutchison Effect. It also mentioned the discussion of 9/11 and the Hutchison Effect on Ambrose Lane’s show. When we did the shows, we were pleased with the audience reaction – especially the initial reaction we got from one caller who said: “This is a revelation beyond revelations…this trumps everything…If this story ever gets out, it will change the course of the United States’ and the whole world’s history.” On 30th Jan 2008, the press release was posted on several Websites, including PR Log [xv] and OpEdNews[xvi]. The reaction was generally quite small, but mostly positive. 106
Slide 107: On 7th Feb 2008, Dr. Judy Wood appeared on the Dynamic Duo[xvii], with guest host Dr. Morgan Reynolds, to discuss the Hutchison Effect and 9/11. It was intended that John Hutchison would also appear, but John had to take an important call, so he was unable to join the discussion. As had been posted elsewhere, Dr. Wood had filed a Qui Tam[xviii] case against a number of contractors who contributed to the fraudulent NIST NCSTAR reports. (Dr. Wood’s filing of a “Request for Correction”[xix] earlier in the year laid the foundations for the Qui Tam). As things turned out, more documents towards this case had to be filed by Friday 29th February 2008. A lot of work had to be done to meet this deadline, as Dr. Wood wanted to incorporate newer information into the submission. On Weds 27th February, Ace Baker sent another e-mail to a group of people (including John Hutchison). In this message he said that he would be appearing, again, on Jim Fetzer’s Dynamic Duo radio show to discuss further aspects of 9/11 video fakery and also … his work on the Hutchison Effect. Though Ace had advised us on the 26th Feb that he would be appearing on the 27th, in his latest message, Ace included links to 3 new video clips he had made which seemed to reproduce some of the effects that John Hutchison had seen in his experiments. It felt odd that Ace would be discussing the Hutchison Effect with Jim Fetzer before Dr. Wood – but it seemed to be clear where Ace was heading with his discussion. The 3 new video clips were of good quality, and in one of them, Ace appeared on the left, juggling balls, whilst the Hutchison effect demonstration occurred over in a framed area to the right. In another clip, the background showed a small Tesla coil, discharging, whilst the effect took place in a framed area in the foreground. Before the Show with Ace When Ace had said that he was going to be discussing the Hutchison Effect on the Dynamic Duo with Prof. Jim Fetzer, Dr. Wood expressed surprise that Ace would be going on before her, discussing things that related to an area in which he had no special expertise. Fetzer initially responded saying he did not know what Dr. Wood meant, because he hadn’t asked Ace to talk about the Hutchison Effect, only video fakery. Dr. Wood pointed out that Ace Baker had said he would be talking about the Hutchison Effect in the same e-mail that 107
Slide 108: Fetzer then responded to! Fetzer then said he’d missed this in Ace’s email, but had not imposed any restrictions on Ace as to what he should talk about, but he did offer to switch the appearances over. Dr. Wood was not able to appear on the Wednesday night, so Ace Baker was still scheduled to appear. Ace Baker on Dynamic Duo Ace Baker appeared with Jim Fetzer on the Dynamic Duo, as planned, on 27th Feb101. In the first hour, Ace discussed other video fakery research he had been doing, but in the 2nd hour, he discussed the Hutchison Effect. His opening statement more or less set the tone of what was to follow: “There are a lot of disciplines that are relevant to 9/11 [research] and, while nuclear physics and quantum mechanics are not my areas of expertise, video fakery is.” Ace had posted some videos on his relatively new Blog (started in Feb 2008)[xx]. Ace Baker does have his own website[xxi], where he has some 9/11 research posted, but the Hutchison-related information, as well as a critique of other 9/11 video fakery research, has been posted on his Blog (perhaps for the purpose of obtaining more comments etc). He started by describing a video he had edited together showing some of the aspects of the Hutchison effect. The 1 minute 10 second compilation of clips showed only the levitation effects and even though he showed a clip with the cannonball, he did not show the cannonball levitating. (Neither did his clip show any metal effects such as snapping bending or “jellification”, which can be seen in the videos I edited of Ambrose Lane interviews.) Ace Baker then went on to discuss the video clips he had made and how he had faked the levitation effects by using a magnet to make objects stick to the wooden surface, whilst they were filmed upside down. Then he would move the magnet around for a few moments, before finally removing the magnet so that the object fell down (thus appearing to levitate). Ace went on to explain that he had seen videos of John Hutchison’s demonstrations about 10 years ago (on a low quality tape) and assumed that he was seeing things being filmed upside down. I had also seen similar videos 10 years ago and, at that time, without much additional information or exploration probably would have then agreed that it was trickery of some kind. Later, I did gather more information 108
Slide 109: and realised there was a lot more to this – such as the interest of people like Boyd Bushman at Lockheed Martin. Clearly Ace had spent some time setting up these demonstrations – putting magnetic or metal pins or pieces in the toys/samples in the correct place so that they would work well in the demonstrations. He also later explained how he had split the screen and done a video overlay, which allowed him to appear and a cat to appear at the same time as the “effects” were happening. Hutchison and Tesla Ace mentioned that John Hutchison was trying to mimic the experiments of Tesla and then Ace went on to describe Tesla’s brilliance – for example for inventing a system of alternating current for use in electrical power transmission over cables, but Ace incorrectly attributed the invention of the Vacuum Tube to Tesla. (This is credited to John Ambrose Fleming, who invented the first practical electron tube called the 'Fleming Valve'. In 1904[xxii]). Ace then went on to acknowledge the possibility that something very powerful and mysterious that had been kept secret, but he said he thought the John Hutchison videos were fake. (Indeed, his 28th Feb 2008 blog entry unambiguously declares “John Hutchison is a Fraud”[xxiii]. Curiously, the filename that this entry was saved under is entitled “Dr. Wood-wood-falls-on-her-sword.html”). In the programme, he said “It’s tough for me. There is no bigger supporter of Judy Wood’s work than I, but [I feel have to] offer whatever input I can in my strongest area of expertise which is – while I don’t really know that much about quantum mechanics – I do know a thing or two about video.” Does Ace believe that using deception is a way of showing support? Ace and the Red Bull Ace had also set up a demonstration of a red bull can bobbing around and then crushing, comparing it to one of John’s own experiments with a Red Bull can. He explained he had to put steel screws in it because the can was aluminium, and therefore not magnetic. He explained how he had reached in and crushed the can every so often, as he filmed it, then he edited out the portions of video where his hand appeared. He explained how he carefully arranged the lighting, and then did a video composite – showing the clocks on the right hand side, so that the viewer 109
Slide 110: would think there were no edits in the video. It would therefore appear Ace had clearly gone to quite a bit of trouble to make this video[xxiv]. The motion of the can in John Hutchison’s video is not the same as in Ace Baker’s video – it is more fluid. Also, the can flexes and bends in the middle slightly as well as at the end. Also, at the end, it appears to go out of view, then come back into view a couple of times. Ace and Jim Fetzer then discussed briefly how the Wikipedia article on John Hutchison is “skeptical” of his experiments, claiming he cannot reproduce them. This is untrue. Wikipedia seemed to be an unusual source for Jim and Ace to quote, considering the pedigree of Wikipedia when it comes to the discussion of 9/11 research. They did not quote any of the other significant articles about the Hutchison Effect, such as those listed on a site called RexResearch[xxv], though they did note Wikipedia Page had been edited around the time the show went on air. Ace then went on to discuss John Hutchison’s “toy UFO” video, which used a wire attached the toy UFO. Ace describes how the UFO is levitating, but there is a “problem” because of the string. The truth behind this experiment is that it was not a levitation experiment in the same way as the others were. This was for a high voltage experiment – with the voltage being delivered through a wire (not a string). Ace and the Boat Experiment Jim Fetzer and Ace then discuss the Boat Experiment video, where John has placed a boat in a shallow tank of water. The water “shimmers” and the boat wobbles slightly. Additionally, fires periodically light and extinguish around the sides of the boat114. Ace suggests that, because we can’t see the right hand end of the boat, someone is likely to be holding it and moving the boat. Ace then discusses the strange fires which skip around the boat and then says they disappear within one frame and the water goes calm. This description is inaccurate, as the water is moving and flames are seen approximately 10 seconds into the video. Later in the video, however, flames are seen when the water is calm – this is repeated at 1 minute 10 seconds. At 1 minute 25 seconds, flames are seen when the water is calm again. Ace suggests the fire is real and that John may have “‘flash powder’ or something like that, but this does not seem plausible as the same points on the boat ignite more than once in the sequence (and I can see no evidence of editing). Also, is it possible to get such fire effects without smoke? Is it possible to get such fire effects of that colour, lasting for 110
Slide 111: several seconds, rather than just a single flash? I really don’t think this is flash powder. The fire/flashes in the YouTube[xxvi] videos[xxvii] don’t resemble those shown in the boat video - there is much more smoke, the flashes are short-lived and they are more explosive. Ace suggests the tub is vibrated by a sander. Why would the tank need to be vibrated? How does it help the supposed fakery? Surely the vibration is not really very interesting in itself – but the fire is – so why bother faking the vibration? Ace then offers to make a reproduction of the boat video (which again, would take quite some trouble and perhaps at least $100 for the materials?). Why do this? At the end of the show, Fetzer thanked Ace for coming on and said he would “have to have [him] back”. Dr. Judy Wood and John Hutchison on Dynamic Duo (Commentary) On 28th February, Dr. Wood and John Hutchison appeared on the show with Jim Fetzer[xxviii]. Fetzer had had stomach flu for some time and seemed fairly quiet. Nevertheless, he did ask John Hutchison about his educational and career background, and his source of income for more than the last 30 years – this is far more than he has done with his other guests. John replied candidly, with no trace of reticence or concern. Later, John described how Scientists such as Rene Louis Vallee and Andrei Sakharov had studied the Hutchison Effect and had suggested many of the effects were caused by an interaction between the electrostatic and RF fields, but that this interaction was not immediate – the effects only happened some time after the fields had interacted. As Dr. Wood and John discussed some of the effects on the steel and the glass at the World Trade Centre, Jim Fetzer seemed noticeably quiet and there were a number of longer silences as Dr. Wood waited for Fetzer’s reaction. After an interesting discussion about the residual effects at Ground Zero, Fetzer switched to asking where John Hutchison was on 9/11 and then he asked John thought about Ace Baker’s attempts at copying Hutchison’s effects. John said he thought Ace was “having fun” with his video project, and Fetzer then said that because John’s effects were “so peculiar and so odd” that the possibility of video fakery should not be ruled out. Before John had a chance to answer this point, Fetzer started talking to Dr. Wood again, and moved on to the next section of the 111
Slide 112: webpage. Dr. Wood then said “what happened on 9/11 was pretty unbelievable – does that mean it didn’t happen?” In the remaining minutes of the programme, there were a number of rather long silences as Dr. Wood pointed out the unusual aspects of the data. Dr. Wood asked if the perpetrators of 9/11 would want people to look at the data. Jim Fetzer, without responding, then asked John if his phenomena had anything to do with 9/11. John responded saying he thought there was a “high probability” when considering how much research had been going on into other directed energy weapons and how powerful they were. Fetzer then thanked Dr. Wood and John for coming on, but asked no further questions and made no further comments. He did not seem to express the same enthusiasm for his guests as he usually does, although perhaps this was due to his illness. Ace Baker Sends More e-mails around Weds 27th A sequence of e-mails were sent by Ace Baker, around the time of the Weds 27th Dynamic Duo. In the first of these, Ace stated: Hutchison is a video faker, pure and simple. There is no Hutchison Effect. I'm sorry. Hutchison makes silly upside-down videos. He then went onto explain how he thought some of the videos had been made and he said: He's been caught red-handed using strings on the toy UFO thing. Ace repeated some of the points he had made in the program, but he seemed far more certain of what he was saying and also he seemed quite angry: As long as he was just pushing UFO's, I didn't care. But when he stepped into 9/11, and video fakery, he stepped onto MY TURF. Under NO circumstances will I allow John Hutchison to pollute 9/11 research with his trickery. This seemed to be a very odd statement. The only context in which UFO’s had been mentioned was in relation to the video of the high voltage experiment, which Ace took to be something else (levitation using a string). Why did Ace react so vigorously to John? In any case, all that John had done was comment on some of the evidence that Dr. Wood had collected regarding the World Trade Centre. It was Dr. Wood who contacted John and John had sent information and comments – John was not “polluting 9/11 research”. Ace had stated that he is Dr. Wood's 112
Slide 113: greatest supporter, but it was apparent that Ace was not supporting Dr. Wood's research expertise. Ace had accused John of trickery because he could make videos which mimicked some aspects of John’s experiments. Ace had not reproduced: a) the levitation of the cannonball b) the metal effects c) the fire effects d) the bending and flexing motions in the can In fact, Ace had not properly reproduced any of John's videos. For Ace to call John a fraud seemed a very bold and reckless, because we had substantial evidence that John’s experiments had been validated many times. We had documents from Scientists, we had TV documentaries and letters from Canadian and Government groups showing how they had been actively researching the phenomena John had discovered. In addition, it was Ace himself who admitted he had been dishonest and deceptive about the videos he presented. Is this a good way to find the truth about something? Ace claimed to have explained some of the other effects that John had generated: The bent rod is … a bent rod. He heated it up, bent it, and let it cool. Notice how it's charred in the middle, like where the bend is? This, again, seemed like a rush-to-judgement. I had observed a number of metal samples from John, such as these: Ace had not bothered to check the diameter of the rods which John had bent – up to 3 inches in diameter. I had seen no evidence of “burn marks”. Was John a blacksmith as well as a video faker? (That is, he would need a hot kiln and metal shaping tools to do this.) Though not video fakery per se, the metal sample with the knife in it is equally silly. The knife is stainless steel. The metal looks like a very soft aluminum. He poured some liquid aluminum around a knife. When it cooled off, he took a grinder to it. Voila! Fused knife! Please. 1. In the picture on the right, why would molten aluminium have left the wood unburned? 113
Slide 114: A Lack of Scientific Curiosity? On 29th February, a deadline for filing documents in Dr. Wood’s Qui Tam case, Ace Baker sent another e-mail, noting how he had advised Dr. Wood, Morgan Reynolds and myself of his claim to have bought Tesla coils on e-bay in mid-January. He then said: Dr. Wood said nothing. Dr. Reynolds said nothing… . Mr. Leaphart said nothing. I had produced evidence of anti-gravity levitation, one of the most important and amazing aspects of the Hutchison Effect, and the silence was deafening. This, to me, seemed to make Ace’s motive clear. He seemed to be saying “I made a fake video. You didn’t detect it was fake, therefore how can your judgement be trusted?” Unlike Ace, I did not want to accuse him outright of fakery, because I did not feel I had enough evidence to be certain that he had made a fake video. I did not want to get into a debate about this peculiar behaviour. He asked why we had not asked him questions about his experiment and how peculiar he found it. John had sent Ace (and others) a follow-up email, noting that Ace's video was a joke. John pointed out that Ace would need a lot more equipment to produce the Hutchison Effect. (Note, John does not use Tesla coils for levitation.) My response at this time was to send Ace an e-mail message with some of the most interesting questions regarding the Hutchison Effect. 1) How would you explain the up-turned cars at the WTC? 2) How would you explain the beams bent into a loop at the WTC? 3) How would you explain the ongoing effects on the Banker's trust building? Regarding John Hutchison, I asked Ace these questions: 1) How do you explain the samples of metal that he has shown us? 2) How do you explain the multiple witnesses to his experiments? 3) Why did the Canadian Govt. class his experiments as a matter of National Security? 4) Why did people like Hal Puthoff and Col John Alexander want to contact him? 5) What do you think of Col John Alexander's statements that John Hutchison is seeing the effects of "PK" (Psychokinesis)? 6) Why would LANL express an interest in basic video fakery and spend 4 months working with John? Ace responded a short time later saying: > 1) How would you explain the up-turned cars at the WTC? 114
Slide 115: Good question. Certainly very powerful weapons of some type were used to disintegrate the towers. > 2) How would you explain the beams bent into a loop at the WTC? Good question. Ordinarily bending steel like that requires foundry conditions. So Ace did not have an alternative explanation for what happened at the WTC, but he still thought it was a powerful weapon. Ace rejected the idea that a letter from the Canadian Government to John said that his work was a matter of National Security: > 3) Why did the Canadian Govt. class his experiments as a matter of National Security? I read the letter. It does not classify "his experiments as a matter of National Security". It is rejecting Hutchison's request for information on the grounds of National Security. Please. Ace’s response was, to me, a very unusual response – the letter clearly linked John’s experiments with National Security issues, even if the exact meaning is somewhat ambiguous. Ace’s next response was also very surprising to me: > 4) Why did people like Hal Puthoff and Col John Alexander want to contact him? Have Mr. Puthoff and/or Col. Alexander contact me, and I'll explain to them how Huthison's videos are made. This demonstrated an unusual lack of humility. Hal Puthoff and Col John Alexander are well known in “alternative knowledge” circles. Alexander is best known for his involvement in the Non Lethal Weapons programme[xxix]. Puthoff is an experimental Physicist[xxx] and he has published many papers and a textbook on “Quantum Electronics”. He has ties to the NSA, so like Alexander, seems to be connected to the Military Industrial Complex. So, Ace was suggesting that he’d be able to convince two well known figures, both who have ties to the Military Industrial Complex and have expressed interest, over several years, in John Hutchison’s work, that John was a fraud? This claim of Ace’s was quite extraordinary to me. Ace went on to suggest that the researchers from Los Alamos never actually visited John – he seemed to be suggesting John had made the whole thing up. Ace further stated: I'm 100% certain that Hutchison's videos were made exactly as I describe. 115
Slide 116: So Ace was saying the Hutchison videos were fake, but still didn’t explicitly disagree the Hutchison Effect evidence was similar to effects seen at the WTC. Ace didn’t really fully address the fact that many videos of John’s experiments were taken by other production companies, such as www.gryphonproductions.com and www.bluebookfilms.com. I wanted to confirm some of the answers Ace had given so I sent him another message, asking him to confirm that his views on these points: 1) Everything JH says regarding his experiments is fake. 2) Los Alamos have helped him promote fakery of one kind or another. 3) All the metal samples he has are fake or not what he says they are. 4) You have no idea what caused the documented effects at the World Trade Centre. Ace responded, saying he thought all of John’s videos were fake (but I asked about the actual experiments, not just the videos). Regarding the Los Alamos National Labs (LANL) connection, Ace said: Or, it could be that the government is seizing an opportunity to promote false beliefs. They do that ALL THE TIME. If there is any documentation about LANL and Hutchison, I'll review it. Currently, I don’t have copies of substantial documentation, but I have seen at least 2 documents showing the connection, and Col John Alexander certainly doesn’t deny his connection to John Hutchison. Ace also confirmed he does not know how the WTC was destroyed. Questions The key questions in all of this seem to be: 1) Why has Ace Baker taken it upon himself to try to disprove the Hutchison Effect? Why is this so important? 2) Why has he gone to such trouble to make several different videos? (A new one appeared whilst this article was being written.) 3) Was the timing of his attack on the Hutchison Effect coincidental? 4) Why did he accuse Drs. Wood, Reynolds and Jerry Leaphart of a lack of Scientific Curiosity? 5) Why does he regard 9/11 Research as “his turf”? 6) Why does he seem reluctant to talk about the links between the Hutchison Effect evidence and WTC Evidence? 116
Slide 117: 7) Why is his reaction so vehemently against the Hutchison Effect (e.g. “John Hutchison is a fraud”) with no leeway for his own error. I.e. why doesn’t he say “I am pretty sure it isn’t related to the Hutchison Effect, but there could be something here.” 8) Why is his research into the Hutchison Effect so different in character to his other research such as the Chopper 5 video? Conclusion I would suggest the reason is that Ace Baker knows that the Hutchison Effect is very relevant to what happened on 9/11 and he wants to discourage people from thinking this. I would suggest he did what he did to try to break up a small group of researchers, and to try to set them against one another. (I suggested this idea to Ace in a follow up e-mail and he did not respond to this point). I would suggest Ace Baker knows more than he is letting on. Who else knows? [i] http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=60 [ii] http://www.blogger.com/profile/04641021361644318889 [iii] http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ [iv] http://www.weourselves.org/ [v] http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/We Ourselves Dr. Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson 14 Jan 2007.mp3 [vi] http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/We Ourselves Dr. J Wood J Hutchison and A Johnson 18 Jan 2007.mp3 [vii] http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=158&Itemid=60 [viii] http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/Chopper5Velocity2.html [ix] http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Ace Baker - 9-11 Video Fakery - Dynamic Duo - 27 Sep 2007.mp3 [x] http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Ace Bake-9-11 Video Fakery(Harzakani)-Dynamic Duo- 07 Nov 2007.mp3 [xi] http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Ace Baker - 911 Video Fakery and Fakery of Hutchison Effect - Dynamic Duo - 27 Feb 2008.mp3 [xii] http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/tesla.shtml [xiii] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKgHGOb4ClU 117
Slide 118: [xiv] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKZo4SoPjjw [xv] http://www.prlog.org/10048184-scientists-see-wtc-hutchisoneffect-parallel.html [xvi] http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_andrew_j_080129_scientists_see_wtc__.htm [xvii] http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Dr. Judy Wood - 9-11 and The Hutchison Effect - Morgan Reynolds - Dynamic Duo - 07 Feb 2008.mp3 [xviii] http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/ Qui_Tam_Wood.html [xix] http://www.prleap.com/pr/92756/ [xx] http://acebaker.blogspot.com/ [xxi] http://www.acebaker.com/ [xxii] http://inventors.about.com/od/uvstartinventions/a/Vacuum_tube.htm [xxiii] http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/03/judy-wood-falls-onher-sword.html [xxiv] http://drjudywood.com/videos/video_comments.html [xxv] http://www.rexresearch.com/hutchisn/hutchisn.htm [xxvi] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qnEuk-n-0Q [xxvii] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o18fjUMRoWU [xxviii] http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Dr. Judy Wood and John Hutchison 9-11 and Hutchison Effect - Jim Fetzer Dynamic Duo 28 Feb 2008.mp3 [xxix] http://archives.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/03/alexander.cnna/ [xxx] http://www.parapsych.org/members/h_puthoff.html 118
Slide 119: Chapter 13 Car Near WTC in the Aftermath of 9/11 9/11 and The Hutchison Effect - The Chips Have Fallen John Hutchison’s Levitation Experiment It was approximately 1 year ago that I felt there was a need to document the circumstances surrounding the break up of the original Scholars for 9/11 Truth group, which became 9/11 Scholars and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (see Chapter 4). After the split, the 9/11 Scholars group was headed up by Prof. Jim Fetzer and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice was headed up by Prof. Steve Jones, who had already been connected to the Cold Fusion cover up and Los Alamos National Laboratories and who had been caught using faked or massaged data in his presentations[i]. At the time of the split, I was still puzzled by certain aspects of what happened, and others in the group that were corresponding with one another at that time still had misgivings about being involved in either camp. However, I felt that the evidence was clear about Prof. Steve Jones - and that Jim Fetzer had been able to see problems with the way Steve Jones was acting and the way he was presenting data[ii], therefore I had only minor reservations about being associated with Fetzer’s 9/11 Scholars group. Jim Fetzer Commends Andrew Johnson On Mar 24 2007, following the split in the Scholars Group, Jim Fetzer sent an e-mail to several people, including me, inviting them to join the Scholars Group’s “steering committee”. In this e-mail he said: I have been impressed with your integrity and dedication and efforts to promote truth and exposed falsehoods about the events of 9/11. I 119
Slide 120: need people like you to advise me in relation to the future of Scholars and to offer comments, criticism, and critique as appropriate. This seemed like a good development, and when someone makes a statement such as this, one is more likely to consider the request seriously. I agreed to be on this committee. However, there was very little activity and the only question Jim Fetzer asked us during the time that I “served” on this committee was whether he should take action against Alex Floum over intellectual property issues. At that time, I suggested Jim not do this, because it was not really specifically related to the study, research or exposure of 9/11 issues and so did not seem worth expending any effort on. The next discussion of any significance that I had with Jim Fetzer came in late September 2007, I had compiled a study of NYC “First Responder” witness accounts in an effort to find out how they described the impact of the second “plane” on WTC 2. Jim Fetzer invited me onto his radio show “The Dynamic Duo” to discuss this. On 02 Oct 2007, he sent me an e-mail saying: Your summary is excellent. We can go thorough it—you can lay it out—and we can go from there. Examples of witness reports are very effective. On 3rd October 2007, I spoke with Jim on his radio show[iii]. We had a good discussion about this study and some interesting questions were discussed and analysed. At the end of the broadcast, Jim Fetzer said: Andrew Johnson, I can’t thank you enough for your excellent work – I’m really proud to have you as a member of Scholars, and I’m very grateful for all you’re doing. Keep up the good work. So, from these messages and statements, it would seem that Jim Fetzer valued my opinion, my methods, study and conclusions. The Hutchison Effect on Jim Fetzer In late December and early January Dr. Judy Wood posted her study comparing the damage at the scene of the destruction of the WTC Complex with the effects observed in Hutchison’s experiments. Dr. Wood and I had also appeared Ambrose Lane’s show “We Ourselves”94 on Mon 14th Jan and Fri 18th Jan. ( See 95, 96 and 97 also Dr. Wood’s website89.) 120
Slide 121: Dr. Judy Wood explained to me that Jim Fetzer was advised directly about this new study on approximately 20 Jan 2008. On 30 Jan 2008, I posted a press release about this study on PR Log 105 and OpEdNews106. During this time, I received no communication at all from Jim Fetzer. Surprisingly, the first comment I heard from him came via Dr. Wood, in an e-mail, where he offered to “smooth” the Press Release I had written. Why did Fetzer not contact me directly, as author of the Press Release? Why had it taken him almost 2 weeks to contact Dr. Wood regarding the Hutchison Effect study? This situation was strange to me. Fetzer had previously complimented me and I was on the “steering committee”. Why had Fetzer not contacted me first? One might have thought that if he was unhappy that I had written the press release (as a matter of urgency, as I saw things), he might have even “chastised” me for not involving him in the process. However, I did not attach the press release to the “Scholars” group – but it obviously mentioned Dr. Wood. Jim Fetzer and Ace Baker and Video Fakery On 27th Feb 2008, Ace Baker appeared with Jim Fetzer on the Dynamic Duo101. They discussed how Ace was sure that John Hutchison had faked his videos and how Ace was therefore greatly concerned that Dr. Judy Wood had associated herself with “a fraud”. The problem with Ace’s analysis then became the subject of an article I wrote, describing why his conclusions were ill-founded as they were based only on a limited set of evidence[iv]. Dr. Judy Wood and John Hutchison on Dynamic Duo On 28th February, Dr. Wood and John Hutchison appeared on the show with Jim Fetzer118. Fetzer introduced John as follows: JF: John I want to welcome you to the Dynamic Duo. JH: Hello-o… JF: John – could you tell us a little bit about yourself – ye know - your background and your education – especially your training in science and technical subjects? Rather than, say, asking John how he started to perform his experiments, or perhaps what he thought of the intriguing data that Fetzer and Wood had just been discussing, Fetzer chooses to ask a question about John’s training and/or education. Why did Fetzer seem more interested in this than in the bizarre data and effects that had also been touched on, 121
Slide 122: both on Fetzer’s previous show with Ace Baker and with Dr. Judy Wood only moments earlier? Regardless, John replied candidly, and cheerfully. Fetzer then asked about him going to High School and pointed out that John did not “matriculate to a university” or have a university degree. John agreed, without any reservation or hesitation. Fetzer, still not asking about the anomalous data or effects, then said “How have you made your living, John?” What was unclear to me was how this was relevant to the study of the WTC evidence - which was the subject of discussion at the time John came on. How exactly was Jim Fetzer’s line of questioning relevant to the Hutchison Effect evidence itself? As I mentioned in the previous article124, during the broadcast, Jim Fetzer seemed noticeably quiet and there were a number of longer silences as Dr. Wood waited for Jim Fetzer’s reaction. He made no points of science and did not specifically query or re-interpret any of the points of evidence in relation to the WTC that Dr. Wood presented. When Jim Fetzer asked John Hutchison for an explanation of the Hutchison Effect, John Hutchison gave a summary describing how it may be caused by a poorly understood interaction between Radio Frequency (RF) fields and Electrostatic Fields. Did Fetzer not consider it significant that the Hutchison Effect was actually named after John? If Prof. Stephen Hawking had been on the program, because someone in the 9/11 Truth Movement had referenced Hawking Radiation[v] for example, would Fetzer have asked about Hawking’s background in the same detail as he did of John Hutchison? Dr. Wood first learned of Hutchison's work in October 2006 and she has said that she felt she could not endorse it or deny it without additional information and/or studying. It took well over a year for her to feel confident enough about the science of John Hutchison's work, and to fully appreciate the striking parallels with what happened on 9/11. She reached that point, very carefully and methodically, by conducting research in that area of science. Jim Fetzer, though has written a number of books and has studied and taught courses in the Philosophy of Science, is not an engineer, and not a scientist per se, and hasn't studied the science. However, he seems to have few reservations about the methods employed by Ace Baker to mimic and by inference discredit John Hutchison’s work. Is this a credible position for Jim Fetzer to adopt? 122
Slide 123: After the Dynamic Duo Show It seemed to be that Jim Fetzer had drawn the same conclusion as Ace Baker – that John Hutchison was a fraud, and he seemed to think that Ace had essentially demonstrated this beyond reasonable doubt. To make sure I had read the situation correctly, I sent an e-mail to Jim Fetzer asking him 6 specific questions about what had been discussed in the broadcast with Ace Baker. His initial response did not answer my questions. In it, Fetzer said: You have taken for granted that Hutchison's research is well-founded or at least sincere. This was incorrect. I had known of John Hutchison’s work since around 1998 or 1999, having come across it in a book by UK author Albert Budden and also having heard it discussed by Lockheed Martin Scientist Boyd Bushman and UK Defence Journalist Nick Cook on a programme called Billion Dollar Secret. I had audio recordings of John Hutchison on my own Website – from 2004 and 2005. So I had certainly not taken Hutchison’s research for granted! Fetzer stated this, even though I had previously advised him that I had researched into areas related to black projects, as well as free energy technology. If Jim Fetzer had looked at my Website in a little more detail, he would have found the research and presentations I had already posted there. I had included a segment about John Hutchison’s experiments and experience in a presentation I had originally put together in March 2004[vi]. Fetzer’s message was overall, rather negative, leaving only a little leeway for his own error. For example he said: I don't know enough to resolve it, but I'm very troubled. Hutchison's work does not look right to me. It appears to me to be fake, phony, and staged, something we might expert from some high school student who is contemptuous of authority—especially academic!—and is out to make fools of them. Fetzer didn’t discuss any specific points of evidence, he merely offered feelings and opinions and seemed to suggest that because John had no academic background, his experiments and work were bogus. Fetzer completely ignored the evidence that the Hutchison Effect was real. This evidence included documents[vii], metal samples and witness testimony. Neither Ace Baker or Jim Fetzer directly addressed any of this evidence. Why? Fetzer’s focus was primarily on the idea that videos of the Hutchison Effect could be faked easily (but even that point is debateable, as Ace had clearly gone to some trouble). 123
Slide 124: I sent an e-mail back to Jim Fetzer pointing out that he had not answered any of my 6 questions and I said: For you to support fakery and subterfuge over diligent research and analysis now forces me to resign from the 911scholars group, regardless of what anyone else on this list chooses to do. So I decided that because his emphasis was on the idea that it was likely a fake, because the fake video produced by Ace Baker looked too similar to the videos made of John’s experiments (which, in most cases, were not filmed by John anyway), I could no longer see how Fetzer was interested in looking at the evidence that this view was inadequate and incomplete. Fetzer responded with a message saying: I hope you understand that, in rejecting Hutchison (in the tentative and provisional fashion characteristic of science, where new evidence and new hypotheses might revive an old theory or impugn a new one), I am not rejecting Dr. Wood. This was not what I had stated to him. I had stated to him that I could not support his conclusion, as he had not criticised Ace for putting out a fake story about buying coils on e-bay and then making a fake video to explain away the Hutchison Effect. Fetzer had ignored evidence. Fetzer continued: If there is something to Hutchison's "effects", it would mean that he has discovered laws of nature (anti-gravity, unusual forces, etc.) the existence of which has heretofore been unrecognized (unsuspected, unconfirmed). This is correct – but the conclusion that Hutchison has, indeed, discovered anti-gravity can only be drawn once the evidence is evaluated. Fetzer ignored this evidence – as already mentioned above. Fetzer continued: I most certainly do not "support fakery and subterfuge over diligent research and analysis" and I cannot imagine what has given you that impression. I was given the impression in Fetzer’s earlier e-mail, in which he said: I think Ace's point was that it is easy to simulate "Hutchison-like effects" and claim they are valid when they are not. That seems to me to be perfectly appropriate and I do not fault him for that. Ace had produced a fake video and sent round a fake story about it. Fetzer “did not fault him” – if Fetzer didn’t support Ace’s approach to 9/11 research, then why did he say the opposite of this? 124
Slide 125: This same e-mail also contained a message Fetzer had sent to another person in our small group who had questioned Fetzer in a similar manner. To this other person, Fetzer wrote: Andrew Johnson posed questions to me, which implied that, unless I disavowed Ace, he might have to consider withdrawing from Scholars. Technically, this interpretation was not accurate. I had not suggested Fetzer “disavow Ace” for me to continue my association with the Scholars group – rather, I had said I could not support the group’s founder if he supported the methods that Ace had used. This was a subtle, but important difference – I said that I could not continue to be a member of the 911 Scholars group if its founder wasn’t significantly more critical of Ace’s approach – based as it was on a lack of evidence. Jim Fetzer Answers Key Questions! I further clarified my feelings and position that I wished to resign from the Scholars group in follow-up e-mails to Fetzer. Fetzer’s support of Ace’s approach was confirmed in the next e-mail I received from him, in which he had chosen to answer the questions I posed, thus: 1) Do you think it is a good way to assess the validity of a study by making a fake video, after initially giving out a false story about that video? i.e. Ace Baker said he had obtained Tesla Coils from e-bay to attempt experiments related to the Hutchison Effect, then he posted a video saying he'd reproduced it. In reality, he put out a false story and sent a later e-mail suggesting we should have detected this and commented. What are your views on this, coming as it did from a respected researcher? Come on! He's pointing out how easy it is to fake this stuff. There was nothing wrong in his doing what he did. You should be more openminded. Fetzer says there was nothing wrong with what Ace had done – he had made a fake video, but initially lied saying he had used Tesla coils to produce the effect. Fetzer saw nothing wrong with this. 2) Ace, on his blog, has declared John as a fraud and that his videos are 100% fake. How much do you agree with his conclusions? What do you think of the considerable amounts of other documentary evidence that John has been visited by Los Alamos National Labs (which Steve Jones has been connected with)? 125
Slide 126: For reasons I have explained already, I also think Hutchison is a fraud. But I stand behind Dr. Wood's research, which I extoll as extremely important. Again, Fetzer was agreeing with Ace – and ignoring the documentary127 and physical evidence that Hutchison was not a fraud. Fetzer seemed to be saying “everything else apart from this Hutchison stuff that Dr. Wood had posted was good.” So Fetzer was disregarding my view – someone he invited onto the committee. More importantly, he was disregarding the significantly more qualified view of Dr. Wood. Instead, he decided that Ace was “on the money” – simply because Ace was an “expert in Digital Processing” (but with unknown qualifications) and Ace had produced a video which mimicked some (not all) of the characteristics of Hutchison’s experiments. Why was Fetzer saying this? 3) I have been checking Ace's blog and one of the file names he used was "Dr. Wood-wood-falls-on-her-sword.html" [viii] Do you have any thoughts on the fact that he has used this particular filename? Why do you think he has done this? You are making a mountain out of a molehill. He thinks Dr. Wood has made a blunder. You think she and Hutchison are "right on". I agree with Ace. Fetzer doesn’t specifically answer my question here – but he still agrees with Ace – who says Dr. Wood has made “a blunder”. In any case, I thought this debate was primarily about the Hutchison Effect, not Judy Wood – why didn’t Fetzer make this distinction himself? 4) One would think that Ace might have made a single video to point out the possibility of video fakery, but I think he has now made 4 or 5 different ones, and seemingly he's gone to quite a bit of trouble to do this. Do you have any thoughts on the reasons behind this? This stuff is very easy to fake. Why don't you at least admit as much. What in the world justifies you in thinking Hutchison is on the up and up? This answer from Fetzer is very surprising and again he completely ignores the other documentary127 and physical evidence, as well as witness testimony and many videos shot by different film companies. I had already pointed this all out to Fetzer. Dr. Wood and I had already discussed this 6 weeks previously on Ambrose Lane’s radio program89. Why did Fetzer ignore all of this, and what I’d previously said? Also, making a fake video proves nothing in of itself – this is precisely why other evidence must be evaluated before drawing conclusions! 126
Slide 127: 5) Do you think that Ace has managed to reproduce any or all of the effects that John Hutchison has? (I noted on your show that Ace discussed the Red Bull Can experiment and described the can flexing and bending throughout the length of it, yet his faked video did not duplicate this phenomenon - therefore Ace had noted these anomalies, but had not reproduced them.) They are close enough to raise serious doubts in most minds—indeed, in every serious scientific mind, in my opinion. I know we disagree. OK? Again, Fetzer just thinks “close enough” is “good enough”. He suggests “every serious scientific mind would have serious doubts, in his opinion”. I myself have been described as having a “scientific mind”, but because I have evaluated the evidence I have little or no doubt that the Hutchison Effect is real. 6) Ace says he is sure the Hutchison Effect is not real, but he can't explain the evidence that Dr. Wood has collected. Why would he attack Dr. Wood for giving an explanation that involves a well-documented, almost 30-year old phenomenon? Appealing to the Hutchison effect to explain Dr. Wood's work is to appeal to a mystery to explain an enigma. There is no explanatory benefit here. This statement by Fetzer is almost meaningless and is based on no evidence – only his own opinion. The comparison of the WTC evidence and Hutchison Effect evidence is obvious to those who see the photographs side by side. Fetzer, at this point, ignores this evidence too. Jim, some chips seem to have fallen here and I, as a fellow member of 911 Scholars am keen to get your views on "where they now lay". I need to work out if I can continue to be aligned with the 911 Scholars group, or whether it's founder would support the idea that guests on his show can, without criticism, use "debunking tactics" to attempt to discredit perhaps the most diligent research that the group might be associated with. The answer to this question is especially important to me now that that researcher has definitely used deception as part of his approach. There was nothing wrong with what Ace has done. I applaud him for showing how easy it is to fake this stuff. You haven't shown it is genuine, but, for reasons I do not understand, are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker! Again, Fetzer re-asserts his support for Ace promulgating a bogus story and making fake videos. He says he “does not understand why” I am “swallowing” the Hutchison Effect “hook line and sinker”. Again, Fetzer completely overlooks or disregards all the evidence presented 127
Slide 128: here. Is Fetzer trying to make me feel stupid? This seemed to be the approach he would now adopt, but in the next e-mail, Fetzer expressed concern that I would “offer a very unflattering portrait” of him, as I had mentioned I was going to compose this article. The reader must decide whether Fetzer’s view on this is fair or accurate – all I can do is present all of the evidence for review. My intent is simple: to analyse the evidence, draw conclusions and find the truth. I am not at all comfortable with how this matter has unfolded. A “War of Credentials” and The Logic Quiz Following this exchange, Fetzer then decided he would start to debate my methods of reasoning, based on his own “35 years teaching students how to think responsibly”. He also stated that this appeared “to be a lesson that you [Andrew] need to learn”. I had sent several messages to Fetzer where I stated I claimed no credibility for myself, only that I collected evidence, analysed it and posted conclusions. Fetzer suggested I “seem to believe that all opinions are equally good!” I never said this. Those reading this article and my website will quickly gain an impression of how credible the information and analysis is, so you might like to consider this as you read on below – and you might also like to consider carefully Fetzer’s earlier messages to me, documented near the beginning of this article. Here, he seemed to be comfortable that my analyses were credible. In Fetzer’s next e-mail, he decided to test me on aspects of methods of reasoning and logic, based on his knowledge of the Philosophy of Science. I decided I would accept his challenge even though I questioned (for myself) his motives - for 2 reasons. Firstly, why didn’t he set me such a “quiz” in order to gain entry to the Scholars group? Surely it would’ve been better to ensure that members thought “logically” and “responsibly” before disputes over evidence arose? Secondly, what did these questions – such as “What is the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning?” have to do with WTC or Hutchison Effect evidence specifically? I have to confess, that at this point, I no longer took the debate seriously. In such instances, I defer to my sense of humour to carry the matter forward – as I have found this method is far more useful and it can occasionally precipitate useful information, which is harder to obtain using the anger/accusation/ridicule approach. Fetzer, however, had 128
Slide 129: started to use the “ridicule” approach. In the message referenced above, he wrote: Creating a fabricated video to demonstrate that a video can be fabricated is not deceitful but appropriate. It is actually a form of replication. Ace did that to show how easily it can be done. You are holding that against him? Really, Andrew, you can't be that dumb! Again, Fetzer ignores the aspect of Ace putting out a fake story and then he suggests I am “dumb” for not agreeing with him. Is this evidence, or an attempt at debunking and ridicule? Other elements of this message contained a similar comment. In my response to Fetzer, I pointed out his earlier praise for my NYC Witness Study[ix]. Why was he now suggesting I was “dumb” for disagreeing with him? “Total Evidence” and “Special Pleading” I found some of the questions in the “Logic Quiz” that Fetzer had set for me were quite tricky – I had never studied the theory of logic. In researching answers to the questions Fetzer had set for me, I came up with some interesting terms, and I sent him my “answers” in another e-mail. For fun, I set Fetzer some questions related to software and programming (but he declined to answer them). Fetzer asked: What is the requirement of total evidence? It seems that this consideration applies to this very case of the Hutchison Effect (HE), Ace Baker’s “evidence” and the WTC Evidence. In researching the definition of “total evidence”, I found this: “One crucial respect in which inductive arguments differ from deductive arguments is in their vulnerability to new evidence”. I would suggest this applies precisely in this case. I also found this link[x], where it is suggested that “the confirmation function must use all the available evidence and not an arbitrary subset” So, I responded to Fetzer’s question about “total evidence” thus: It is that ALL the evidence is evaluated! Perfect! Yes! HE and WTC do have a total evidence requirement and Dr. Wood in her study is MUCH closer to it than Ace Baker, so even by your own knowledge and teachings, you are not adhering to the standards of logic you teach. What Ace Baker has done (and you have supported him) is use an *arbitrary subset of evidence*! A perfect expression! Thanks! Another question Fetzer posed was: What is special pleading? 129
Slide 130: I found a definition at this link[xi]: “The informal fallacy of special pleading is committed whenever an argument includes some double standard. For example, if someone criticizes science for not producing all of the answers to life but excuses their religion for not having all of the answers about life, they are engaged in form of special pleading.” I therefore responded to Fetzer thus: Ah - this is also a good one. It's when an argument includes double standards. This applies very well here. Ace Baker produced a fake video, in his search for the truth. He is engaging in "special pleading" - by claiming he has mimicked a real process, therefore the real process must be fake - he has ignored "total evidence" and adopted a double standard. In the same e-mail, I made several other points which, based on the research I did to try and answer the questions he posed, were significant in debating the way Fetzer and Baker had treated this whole business. Fetzer Responds In trying to answer the Logic Quiz, I felt I had least got some things right, even though it was, for me, a 2-hour “crash course” in Philosophy and Logic Theory (subjects I have never formally studied at any level). I eagerly awaited his response… I am sorry, Andrew, but your standards of credibility and mine simply do not coincide. I suppose that having a Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science and having devoted my professional life to logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning have given me a different perspective than your own. Again Fetzer does not debate specific points of evidence and he also ignores my answers to the “quiz”, which, I contend, expose how weakly he has applied his own standards of thinking to this case. Fetzer then went on to make another bold statement: I find it fascinating that you infer that, because Ace Baker and John P. Costella and I disagree with you, we must be suppressing, distorting, or otherwise fabricating evidence! Whilst I had suggested Fetzer was trying to cover up the Hutchison Effect’s relation to the destruction of the WTC, I never accused him of fabricating evidence. Neither had I accused Ace Baker of fabricating evidence. Ace himself admitted faking a video – so I wasn’t accusing him of anything other than what he had already admitted doing! Fetzer also said: 130
Slide 131: Make sure that you observe in this article of yours that I stand behind Dr. Wood's research but not Hutchison's. And be sure to explain our reasons for thinking as we do. That called playing fair by laying our cards on the table as well as your own. So, here is all the evidence – all the cards, and all the chips for the reader to consider. Fetzer sent a short follow up e-mail, where he responded to my note that I thought the quiz he’d set had been “fun, fun, fun”. Since I mentioned there were three differences between inductive and deductive reasoning and you (wrongly) mention a common misconception, I presume you already know you are wrong on that one. I'd love to offer you a tutorial, but you are not a very promising student. In any case, thanks for your good work of the past. All my best! So again, Fetzer makes disparaging remarks, rather than replying to the specific points I’d made about the evidence and the way he had analysed and criticised it – or rather, the way that he and Ace Baker seemed to have agreed that ignoring evidence completely was the best policy in this case. By this point, of course, I knew what Fetzer was doing – and so again, I deferred to my sense of humour and responded thus (in reference to my earlier “fun, fun, fun” comment): Can't you at least "mark" my attempts at "special pleadings" and "total evidence" [answers] - go on, please!!?! Or "has the Daddy Taken the T-bird away, then?" Fetzer didn’t seem to see the humorous side here, and responded thus: I had no idea I was dealing with a child! Thanks for clarifying that! I had perhaps “taunted” Fetzer somewhat, during the exchange of emails, but I had not insulted his intelligence nor had I made disparaging remarks – I tried hard to stick to points of evidence, both regarding the Hutchison Effect and the WTC and his own analysis of these things. He responded without addressing the evidence and he suggested I was either “dumb” or “childish”. Is this an effective way to debate the truth of an issue? Summary and Conclusions Here are some observations. Prof. Jim Fetzer, is an author or editor of multiple books, and he repeats this fact at regular intervals. • Fetzer said he was impressed with my “sticking to the truth” but completely ignored my analysis of the Hutchison Effect evidence 131
Slide 132: and he never sent any comments up until Ace Baker had been on his show. • Fetzer claims he is more credible, due to his PhD and experience, yet he gives more credibility to Ace Baker’s analysis regarding the Hutchison effect rather than that of Dr. Wood. He never disclosed Ace’s qualifications – yet he takes Ace’s view as more credible than Dr. Wood’s and my own – even though he asked Dr. Wood and myself, but not Ace Baker, to be on the Steering Committee. • Fetzer does not take exception to the fact that Ace Baker put out a false story about his video. • Fetzer takes no account of the other evidence regarding John Hutchison – and has not commented on the other documents127, metal samples etc. • Fetzer takes no account of the fact that John Hutchison has submitted a sworn affidavit for the court[xii], which in effect means that if he is lying, he could potentially go to prison. • In the broadcast with Dr. Judy Wood and John Hutchison, there were a number of long silences where Fetzer had an opportunity to question points of evidence, analysis or science. At no time did he do this in any meaningful way. • Fetzer does not consider it significant that the Hutchison Effect was actually named after John. Some people will, even though all this evidence has been presented, think Fetzer either just has a “big ego” or that he is just being stubborn or stupid. The key question is, why has he been so consistent in this behaviour with regard to the Hutchison Effect and the WTC destruction? I think that the answer is because he knows that the Hutchison Effect is extremely important in this area of research and he has been “given the job” of distracting people from the evidence and turning attention away from it. He cannot, however, simply do this by “trashing Dr. Judy Wood” overtly, as this would be too obvious. He can, however, attempt to “trash” others who are involved in this affair when they are unimportant in the overall scheme. I think this all goes to show, again, that we now stand at a juncture in human history and it seems to be revolving around revealing secrets and exposing falsehoods. Some people, however, are helping to keep the truth covered up – and by continually challenging them, questioning them and reviewing the evidence, we can work out who those people are. 132
Slide 133: I hope that this work has served to document the truth about Jim Fetzer and the Hutchison Effect and that the reader will draw their own conclusions as to what has really been happening here. [i] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92sw2S7pn4U [ii] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9Iv_4ZfNI [iii] http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Andrew Johnson - 9-11 NYC 1st Responder Accounts - Dynamic Duo 03 Oct 2007.mp3 [iv] http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=161&Itemid=60 [v] http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html [vi] http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-286184459501486399 [vii] http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Hutch Letters.pdf [viii] http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/03/Dr. Wood-wood-fallson-her-sword.html [ix] http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=134&Itemid=60 [x] http://books.google.co.uk/ books?id=mYe6je7N0aQC&pg=PA8&dq=%22total+evidence%22+%22arbitrary+subset%22&sig=DrlGXCcT4Uj579G2TqOpBtDIQFs [xi] http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/ bldef_specialpleading.htm [xii] http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ8.html 133
Slide 134: Chapter 14 9/11 and The Hutchison Effect - Handling the Truth 6th Apr 2008 Some people have now observed that the 9/11 Truth Movement is being directed and controlled, in order that only a certain amount information is revealed – at a certain time, and in a certain way. I first began to understand how this seemed to be happening during the break up of the original Scholars for 9/11 Truth Group in about Feb 2007 (see chapter 4). More recently, I feel I have, with the help of others, been able to document another significant instance of the attempted control of 9-11 related information. In completing this documentation, I have been somewhat concerned that I may be accused of some type of “ad hominem attack” against those whose statements and actions I am documenting. I feel somewhat similar about writing this article, for the same reasons. Weighed against this, I feel that certain truths need to be told in order that people have a chance to understand how the mechanics of the control of information related to 9/11 - and the energy cover up – are operating. In short, I have now come the conclusion that, when trying to get to the truth, we have to scrutinize the history, behaviour and psychology of those presenting or discussing evidence has to be carefully considered. In this article, I will present evidence concerning the latest attempts to cover up one of the “central secrets” of the 9/11 Black Operation. That secret, I strongly contend, is this: free energy technology, related to Hutchison Effect technology was used to destroy the majority of the WTC complex. “Free Energy” technology is a “catch all” term to describe a kind of technology that can be used to "get out more energy than you put in" (i.e. you apparently get the energy for free). Mainstream science rejects this idea on its face, because it is said it breaks the laws of thermodynamics. (When looked at from a different perspective, however[i], this seems to be incorrect – it is known the energy is real, but assumed it is too difficult to construct technology to use or extract it to do “useful work”.) Cold fusion is one example where many, many experiments 134
Slide 135: show a small input energy can result, in certain circumstances, in a large energy output. (See www.lenr-canr.org) Some of the effects observed in John Hutchison’s experiments are apparently the result of an output of very high energy levels, and yet his input energy is small – only a few kilowatts at maximum. (This is the energy required to operate a kettle to boil water). In December 2007, Dr. Judy Wood posted her study of the very striking similarity of experimental characteristics of the “Hutchison Effect” to a number of pieces of evidence at the WTC. Dr. Wood and I were given an opportunity to discuss this issue on Ambrose Lane’s “We Ourselves” show in January 2008 [ii] and on our second appearance, John Hutchison joined the discussion. Following this radio show appearance, two of the people associated with the 911 Scholars group –Prof. Jim Fetzer[iii] (the founder) and Ace Baker[iv] (not a listed member of the Scholars group, but a regular guest on Fetzer’s radio show) - when challenged, began to behave differently towards Dr. Wood and I– at least in relation to the “Hutchison Effect” study. I attempted to document this “change in behaviour” in the articles referenced above. Following the actions of Baker and Fetzer, I asked that my name be deleted from the 911 Scholars list. In the articles referenced above, I documented the very strong reaction of Fetzer and Baker – they both (essentially) agreed that John Hutchison was a fraud – and in saying this, ignored and considerable amount of evidence which suggested, beyond reasonable doubt, that John Hutchison’s work was valid. It is interesting to note that there was an apparent “change in strategy” by Fetzer - sometime in February 2008 – from apparent support of Dr. Wood’s study to his support of Baker’s pernicious debunking tactics. “Good Cop?” On Feb 5th 2008, Jim Fetzer sent Dr. Wood an e-mail which had come from one of his contacts which included these paragraphs. This contact was enthusing about Dr. Wood’s research: I've been meaning to write to you on a number of issues, not least your collaboration with my dear friend, Dr. _________, which I was instrumental in bringing about and for which he is very grateful. In particular for "having opened their minds to the work of Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds as well as your own". …and 135
Slide 136: Hi ______, You've been right about Judy Wood, I have been studying the website and I had to update mine, this is of such importance that I have c.e.r.n. people and international physicists on the edge of their seats and today I will have a meeting with one of them. We we might just nail the evidence soon. Thanks!!! (It should be noted that Jim Fetzer has not posted any of his own original 9/11 research in the way Dr. Wood has, though he has other research posted on the possible involvement of directed energy weapons in the death of Senator Paul Wellstone[v]). From reading these forwarded messages, it seemed that people at CERN were interested in Dr. Wood’s research. This seemed, on its face, like a very positive development – much of the research at CERN concerns Energy Phenomena of one type or another. However, these messages were never followed up with anything more substantive and were therefore quickly forgotten about – especially once the Ace Baker “campaign” was underway. The next few e-mail exchanges centred around Ace Baker’s fake video debunking attempt, but on 26th Feb 2008, Ace Baker announced he would be appearing on Jim Fetzer’s show. Dr. Wood thought this was rather an odd way to do things – that Fetzer was going to get someone else to talk about Dr. Wood’s research with Fetzer before Dr. Wood did. Dr. Wood therefore e-mailed Fetzer and several others in a small group to say this much. It was an especially odd way of doing things because Ace Baker, as it was known by this time, had already circulated a false story that he had bought equipment on e-bay to reproduce the effect, but he then he made and posted a fake video to apparently reproduce a very limited number of the effects seen in John Hutchison’s own work. Additionally, unlike Dr. Wood, Baker had no real relevant qualifications. Fetzer soon replied. “This Doesn’t Look Right to Me…” On Feb 27th 2008, Jim Fetzer sent Dr. Wood an e-mail expressing concern that she had notified several others of the group that she was being critical that Ace Baker would be going on Jim Fetzer’s show to discuss the Hutchison Effect: Just between us, why didn't you send me a personal note when you noticed what you perceived to be a problem? What's going on there? I find that a bit odd. And you and John already appeared with Morgan to discuss the H-effect, so what's the deal if Ace is doing something with 136
Slide 137: it? I admit I have been sicker than a dog with stomach flu and simply tried to solve what you took to be a problem, but if you couldn't come on Wednesday anyway and have already discussed it with Morgan, why is it such a big deal? No one holds your work is greater esteem than do I. Give me a break, OK? One point here is that John Hutchison had not yet appeared with Dr. Morgan Reynolds on the Dynamic Duo show – though he had planned to, it never happened. Why did Fetzer ask Dr. Wood to “give him a break”? Once the Ace Baker broadcast and associated blog entries were complete, it seemed quite clear that a full-scale debunking exercise was underway, and this therefore seemed to justify Dr. Wood’s earlier concern. “Bad Cop” On Mar 3rd 2008, shortly after Judy Wood and John Hutchison’s broadcast on the Dynamic Duo, Jim Fetzer sent another e-mail to Dr. Wood. The tone of this message was rather different to previous messages he had sent. Just between us, if Dr. Wood were to back off her relations with Hutchinson, whom I consider to be a fraud, I think her standing can be salvaged. Whether she is willing to do that, I have no idea. But this is certainly an option that is available to her. We all make mistakes and have misplaced enthusiasm. But my opinion is that—absence physical explanations of the kind I asked of him at the time on the air—he is most unlikely to contribute to our/her success. Here, Fetzer suggests Dr. Wood should not continue her association with John Hutchison. The reason given here is not based on any evidence - it is that Fetzer “considers John to be a fraud”. Fetzer specifies no particular evidence, merely that John could “not explain” his phenomenon. However, this statement by Fetzer is not 100% accurate – John did provide a basic explanation of his phenomenon during the broadcast, and it was thus: OK. I don’t normally go into theories too much – I have my own personal theory that it’s affected on a subatomic level, but Rene Louis Vallee and Andrei Sakharov brought up some interesting reports, along with many others, on what happens here and we found that the RF fields are not the cause – or the electrostatics – it’s something that happens after that. They seem to join or [be] combined in space and time to cause a[n] other effect – which happens to be like a shielding of the gravity pull – 137
Slide 138: basically the reverse of gravity – and you see things lift off. Things go in a translational motion as well as … if not, metals seem to start bending and twisting and pulling into different patterns and shapes. We also found it affects the background radiation, to quite an extent – where you get a couple of counts per minute. John then names several scientists who have evaluated the phenomenon – and several of them have posted reports[vi]. If John Hutchison was a fraud, why did he agree to come on Fetzer’s radio show (no fee is paid), where he could, in theory, be exposed as a fraud? Recently, part of the interview with Fetzer and Hutchison was transcribed for us by someone. One section makes particularly interesting reading: Hutchison: Well, my education is — I flunked my coloring book and blocks. I’m self-taught, and I’ve been involved in many applications in engineering and research and one of them happened to be in to Nicola Tesla, which I was able to replicate a lot of his experiments. And pushing it beyond the envelope there, we managed to cause levitation of objects and also the destruction of objects, as it’s called. And it gained interest in to the U.S. military back in 1983, which they did a lot of experiments and tests with it. Fetzer: So you grew up in Canada? Why does Fetzer ask about John’s upbringing rather than the interest of the US military in his experiments? At this point, Fetzer knew that US Defence Contractors such as SAIC and ARA were defendants in the Qui Tam Cases of Drs. Wood and Reynolds, so why doesn’t Fetzer have an interest in what John has to say about the Military’s work with John? (Fetzer does not discuss this at all in the rest of the programme.) Fetzer Ignores Evidence Again, as documented previously, Fetzer wilfully ignores the strong correspondence between the WTC evidence and fully documented effects seen in John Hutchison’s experiments – bent “horseshoe” beams, spontaneous cold fires, levitation, transmutation of materials and ongoing effects. How can Fetzer threaten Dr. Judy Wood’s reputation? What gives him the right to do so? What gives him grounds for using this sort of language when Dr. Wood’s association with Fetzer is completely informal – she is not an employee, nor does Fetzer have any agreed method of working with her. Therefore, what on earth compels him to talk about 138
Slide 139: “salvaging her reputation”? Can this e-mail therefore be perceived as some kind of thinly-veiled threat? Another peculiar aspect of the message is that, rather than starting a new message, or replying to one from Dr. Wood, Fetzer had forwarded an article from the Washington Post entitled The New Art of War. He also changed the subject line of the message. Why did he include this article in the message to Dr. Wood – which was also copied to Jerry Leaphart and Dr. Morgan Reynolds? Why did it include a very long list of recipients, to which the original forwarded message was sent (this list included Steven E Jones and others)? The New Art of War article begins as follows: If there were any doubts that the United States is preparing for war in space and cyberspace, testimony before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee last week would have wiped them away. According to Gen. Kevin P. Chilton, head of U.S. Strategic Command, "our adversaries understand our dependence upon space-based capabilities, and we must be ready to detect, track, characterize, attribute, predict and respond to any threat to our space infrastructure." Although space threats have received much attention in the past, it was the possibility of cyberspace warfare that was given new emphasis at the hearing. Was Fetzer giving some “coded indication” that Dr. Wood exposing the truth about what destroyed the WTC is a "threat” to the US’s space infrastructure? Was he somehow indicating Dr. Wood’s exposure of this evidence could be treated as an act of “Cyber Terrorism”? Is it a possibility that Fetzer is actually “going along” with the unfolding agenda - for tighter global control of ordinary people, whilst at the same time pretending he is working to prevent its implementation? Questions and Speculations I find the above developments of some concern, both for what they are, and the additional questions they raise. It was puzzling to receive initial communications from CERN via Fetzer – apparently supportive of Dr. Wood’s new research – research that had been publicly discussed several weeks earlier. How does Fetzer know people at CERN? Why didn’t any of these people contact Dr. Wood directly? Why was the communication routed through Fetzer? 139
Slide 140: What then caused the switch to a tone which was more sinister, mentioning the idea that “Dr. Wood’s reputation can be salvaged” – even though no evidence had been presented to show that her study was somehow invalid? Is it possible that “psychological tactics” were in use by Fetzer? Perhaps he hoped that Dr. Wood would be very enthusiastic about CERN’s apparent interest – and pursue this angle in preference to some other one (such as work on the Qui Tam cases). One possibility is that CERN would not want any information relating to free energy technology to become widely known. They are large benefactors from energy related research[vii]: CERN, with an annual budget of more than EURO 600 million and more than 6000 regular users working in 500 institutes in 50 different countries… . The Hutchison Effect and Cold Fusion hold the potential to produce limitless, cheap, free energy – with relatively simple equipment, compared to what is used at places like CERN. At CERN, however, things like “hot fusion” are (unsurprisingly) promoted within the organisation[viii]. So they, too, like the Military Industrial Complex have a very strong vested interest in keeping all this information out of public view or “in the realm of the incredible”. As Dr. Wood did not express any specific interest in the CERN contact, did Fetzer then change his strategy from “Good Cop” to “Bad Cop” hoping that she would react to a more threatening posture? Please consider the evidence and draw your own conclusions. [i] http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/ [ii] http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ [iii] http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=164&Itemid=60 [iv] http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=161&Itemid=60 [v] http://www.assassinationscience.com/FuturisticWeaponry.pdf [vi] http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJAppendix1.html [vii] http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28497 [viii] http://sis-forum.web.cern.ch/SIS-Forum/Public-v1/3Programme/Projects/Flyers/Leaflet36.pdf 140
Slide 141: Chapter 15 9/11 and The Hutchison Effect - An Ace in the Hole – Part II Aug 19, 2008 Some time ago, I posted a series of 3 articles[i] which attempted to document the peculiar machinations of Alexander “Ace” Baker and Prof. Jim Fetzer in relation to a study posted by Dr. Judy Wood regarding 9/11 evidence and Hutchison Effect Evidence89. Dr. Wood also posted an article[ii] highlighting the unusual attitude that Jim Fetzer took to John Hutchison when John appeared as a guest on his “Dynamic Duo” show on 28 February 2008. In the articles I wrote, I contended that the evidence collected by Dr. Wood - and the reaction to this same evidence - strongly implied that the basic thrust of the argument is correct – that some type of technology related to that used to create the Hutchison Effect was indeed employed in 9/11. Since Dr. Wood posted her original “Hutchison Effect” study in early 2008, she has posted an additional series, which includes a good deal of data regarding Hurricane Erin, which was closest to NYC during the events of 9/11[iii]. As part of this study, Dr. Wood has obtained magnetometer data, logged by instruments in Alaska during the events of 9/11[iv]. These data show very interesting variations in the earth’s magnetic field during the events of 9/11. Reaction to this study seems to have been more muted, though the data is now getting some exposure. Dr. Wood and I were invited by Jim Fetzer to make two appearances in his “Dynamic Duo” show slot on GCN Live. These two appearances took place on 30th July 2008[v] and 31st July 2008[vi], and will be the subject of a separate article. 141
Slide 142: Decoy and Distract? On 18th August 2008, Dr. Wood and I received and e-mail from Ace Baker with the subject: Ace Baker - $100,000 Huchison Effect Challenge Ace Baker was apparently offering “$100,000 if John and/or Dr. Wood can reproduce the H-Effect.” The message contained a link to an entry on his blog, in which he set out the general terms of his challenge. Strangely, however, Ace neglected to include John in the “CC” or “To” fields. When Dr. Wood noticed this, she forwarded her copy of Ace's email to John. John Hutchison is, at times, quite a prolific “blogger” himself92 and he contacted Dr. Wood to state that he had posted a response to Ace Baker’s challenge on Ace Baker’s own blog, but it seems as though it was not approved or posted there. John advised us of the general contents of his post, from memory, soon after he had tried to post it. Some time previously, Ace had offered a sum of $5000 if he could film “Hutchison Effects” in John’s lab, but Ace never followed through, so this seemed to represent a substantially larger offer. However, I was very curious about this new offer, because Ace had previously stated “John Hutchison is a 100% fraud”. If Ace believed this, then what was the point of offering a large sum of money? I was therefore given to ask Ace Baker the following questions: 1) Who would he be approaching to validate the effects, and how will their qualifications compare to those of George Hathaway, Col John Alexander, Hal Puthoff and others? (They have already been involved with evaluating and documenting John Hutchison’s experiments.) 2) Why was Ace willing to put up this amount of money for this demonstration, as opposed to, say, putting it into a Legal Case to sue the media regarding TV fakery? (I asked Ace Baker this question because he has stated he is an expert in video fakery and has published a detailed study on the 9/11 “Chopper 5” video[vii], in which he concludes that the video has been heavily doctored, using video compositing, to present fake images as real.) 3) If Hutchison-Effect-like technology was NOT employed on 9/11, then would Ace be willing to pay for research to answer questions regarding (a) Inverted cars (b) horseshoe beams (c) explosion of Scott packs (d) witness accounts of levitation effects etc. In other words, I was trying to ask if Ace wanted to see the truth of 9/11 uncovered. (He did not dispute the validity of the points of evidence (a) - (d) above.) Finally, I asked him: 142
Slide 143: 4) What were his thoughts on (a) The Hurricane's path (b) The Alaskan Magnetometer Data? In the same message, I said I was very interested in alternative explanations, based on good evidence, for the effects seen on 9/11, as I thought that this is what the search for 9/11 truth was for. I stated that I was open to a different, consistent interpretation of the evidence, if it answered all the questions regarding that same evidence. In Ace’s response, he answered question 1 thus: 1. Hutchison/Wood are free to discuss any details/clarifications should they decide to accept the challenge. This was not relevant to the question I asked – I asked who would help him to validate that the effects were real. Was Ace trying to divert his answers away from dealing with the evidence? 2. I am willing to offer $100,000 to FOX5 to license broadcast-quality Chopper 5 footage. That challenge coming soon. This also did not really answer the question I asked. I actually queried him about possibly making a legal challenge, based on his TV fakery research. Instead, he seemed to answer this by describing a proposed “bet” with FOX5. Again, it seemed as if Ace was diverting away from the evidence I was asking him about – he didn’t respond at all regarding the issue of legal action being taken. In answering the third question, Ace said: 3. There is no Hutchison Effect to have been employed on 9/11. No, I am not willing to offer $100,000 to "some people". The purpose of this challenge is to demonstrate to the public that Hutchison and Wood are liars. Here, he did not seem to interpret the spirit of my question as I had intended. I intended it to mean would he be prepared to fund research, rather than fund debunking. Would he be prepared, in principle, to fund research to advance an alternative explanation? In his answer, he seemed to be stating that he was wanting to prove that John Hutchison was a liar (and Dr. Wood was a liar, independent of the facts put before him, both in this e-mail exchange and in earlier ones. Also, it is not called "The Hutchison and Wood Effect."). This, to me, shows a disturbing lack of desire to discover what actually happened on 9/11. If Dr. Wood’s study is incomplete or inaccurate or even inappropriate, then why can’t Ace come up with a better method to find the correct explanation? How will proving John Hutchison a fraud (even though Ace was already convinced of this) help determine what did happen on 9/11? I was given to 143
Slide 144: ask myself, therefore, what is Ace’s true intent and focus? Who was he doing this “stunt” for - himself? In his answer to question 4, again he seems to blatantly ignore data: 4. The challenge has nothing whatsoever to do with hurricane Erin or the Alaskan Magnetometer data. It has to do with the scientific claims made by John Hutchison. Hutchison's claims pre-date 9/11, and continue to this day. Could it be that there is a strategy to distract people away from looking at the basic data - which starts to clearly show that field effects (for example, effects on the earth’s magnetic field) did indeed play a significant role on 9/11? Is all this an exercise to create more and more forum verbiage to drown out any serious discussion of evidence? Is he trying to set up a fake exercise to test the existence of something which has already generated over 500 lbs of anomalous metal samples? I must admit to being somewhat surprised at Ace Baker’s answers to these four questions – especially his apparent “blanking” of the Hurricane Erin data, so to clarify this, I sent one further e-mail with some follow-up questions. I asked him if his "Hutchison Effect challenge" really had nothing to do with 9/11 research. He replied: 1. Wrong. The Hutchison Effect Challenge is related to 9/11 research, in that it will require honest researchers to eliminate "Hutchison Effect" from consideration. I then asked him if he thought Hurricane Erin was not relevant to what happened on 9/11. He responded: 2. Right. Hurricane Erin is unrelated to 9/11. Finally, I asked him if he really had no interest in finding out how the towers were dustified on 9/11. He said: 3. Wrong. I am very interested to learn how the towers were blown up. But I'm also interested in documenting the strategy of the govern-media psy-op team. So what strategy has Ace documented? On his blog, he has repeated several times that “John Hutchison is a fraud” and has simply just made some fake videos. Ace has made his own fake videos, simulating 2 or 3 of the effects (incompletely). Ace has also completed a study of TV fakery. In both cases, he has not “moved” his evidence into a legal framework, as Dr. Wood has done. He has not submitted an affidavit in a court case, as John Hutchison has done. (I also submitted an affidavit for Dr. Wood’s Qui Tam case[viii].) 144
Slide 145: Ace Baker’s Double-Standard? It is worth mentioning that Dr. Wood is not the only person to have suggested how the WTC complex was destroyed. People such as Dr. Steven E Jones have suggested thermite or thermate (or some variant thereof) was used to destroy the WTC. Ed Ward and others have previously stated that “micro-nukes” must have been used. Ace Baker has not, however, offered $100,000 to Prof. Steve E Jones for a demonstration of thermite, nor has he offered Ed Ward, or anyone else to my knowledge, any sum of money for a demonstration of micro-nuke technology. If Ace was being even handed in his assessment of 9/11 research, surely he would have made such an offer when these theories were first “put on the table”. Can we conclude there is some special reason why linking 9/11 and the Hutchison Effect is so “dangerous”? Observations/Conclusions • Ace said he was convinced that John Hutchison was a 100% fraud but Ace was still willing to offer $100,000 and travel to Vancouver at his own expense as part of this challenge. Why? • Ace seemed less interested in using his own TV fakery research in some kind of legal action than he did in attempting to debunk John Hutchison (and essentially Dr. Judy Wood too). • At appearances in Seattle and Portland, John Hutchison brought some of his samples as an exhibit. He allowed the audience to examine and photograph these samples[ix]. (If John were a fraud, why would he do such a thing?) So, it is clear to those people who handled the samples that the things they were holding in their hands were not the result of “video fakery”. Also, many samples have been given to other people around the world – so we have lots of physical evidence which shows the Hutchison Effect is real. • Ace Baker had previously offered to come and meet Dr. Wood in, Seattle in 2006, at a presentation she was giving then. The presentations that Dr. Wood and John Hutchison gave in Seattle and Portland in May/June 2008 were advertised weeks or even months in advance. Ace could have attended one or both of these presentations if he wanted to. He could have seen the samples for himself. So why wasn't Ace there to ask questions and to examine the samples? 145
Slide 146: • Below are a few of many photos the Dr. Wood herself took on one of her trips to see John Hutchison. • Ace was not interested in the relevance of the Hurricane Erin study – despite the clear evidence of field effects in relation to the Hurricane itself, 9/11 and the Hutchison Effect. Why? • Ace seemed to say he did not want to fund research into an alternative explanation for the destruction of the towers, yet he said he was interested in how they were destroyed – does this make sense? If he is genuinely interested in finding out what happened on 9/11, then why didn’t he offer or consider finding some “better” alternatives? I leave the reader to draw their own conclusions about the overall meaning of this “episode”. Does it illustrate how the cover up of 9/11 truth is working? Addendum – Ace Baker on Dynamic Duo - 26 Aug 2008 On 26th August 2008, Ace Baker appeared on the Dynamic Duo[x]. Part of a segment in the first hour discussed Ace Baker’s “Challenge” and mentioned the posting of this article (before this addendum was posted). At time code 2:36 in this clip[xi], he stated, in regard to this “challenge”: I’ve been getting the hate correspondence from – from Andrew Johnson and so forth…. This was a curious statement, as all the e-mails I have recently exchanged with Baker are included in this article in their entirety. Why couldn’t Ace’s description have been more accurate, saying “I have been getting correspondence from Andrew Johnson” or “I have been getting critical correspondence from Andrew Johnson” or even “Andrew Johnson asked me some questions about this, to which I responded.”? Anyone reading this article, and the e-mails can clearly see there is no “hate correspondence” here. Additionally, it is not my style to indulge in such correspondence, as a study of my web postings, articles etc. will reveal. He then discussed my website and how I posted the earlier articles in this series. He then referred to the e-mail that John Hutchison sent to Dr. 146
Slide 147: Judy Wood (which she forwarded to me) regarding John’s attempted blog entry posting. Ace incorrectly states that John Hutchison contacted me directly – he did not, as the e-mail header shows. Fetzer then read out the title of this article (“Ace in the Hole Part 2”), and the “subtitle” I posted on the front page (which read: “What is the real motive behind Ace Baker's new "Hutchison Effect Challenge?”) Fetzer then stated: “Oh, that’s great, I love it when people start speculating on motives”. Ace then adds: My motive is to get people to believe that Hutchison is a fake – that’s my motive. So, are Baker and Fetzer unconcerned with the large volume of evidence that John has amassed? (It seems pointless to ask this sort of question too many times.) Ace Baker then reads out John’s e-mail, but fails to mention that this text is what John Hutchison attempted to post on Ace Baker’s blog, and that it was John’s best recall of it. (An entry posted on a blog is normally “lost” if the user does not make a copy, and it is subsequently not approved.) Fetzer then re-asserts that his treatment of John Hutchison, when he appeared on Fetzer’s show, was justified , because of John’s background. He then says: This is something that Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson and others don’t seem to have processed. I think evidence presented here shows that I, and others, have very much “processed” what Jim Fetzer has been doing – and I have documented evidence to suggest what his motive could be. In the second hour, a caller (John) from Canada rightly pointed out that just because Ace has produced a video which reproduces some of the aspects of the Hutchison Effect, it does not prove that John Hutchison is a fraud (Fetzer agreed with this logic). The caller then does a quite a good job of mentioning the additional evidence such as the metal samples and Dr. Wood’s comparison to the effects seen on 9/11 (but even though he appears to have read this article, he failed to mention Ace’s opportunity to meet John Hutchison in Seattle). However, Ace then responds and says: I don’t think that Dr. Wood believes in it [The Hutchison Effect], unfortunately, I’ve come to the opinion that Judy Wood is… um… fits right in to the model of disinformation. 147
Slide 148: Curiously, Ace then re-asserts his general support for the rest of Dr. Wood’s 9/11 research and study of what happened at the WTC and states that she is “absolutely right” about the effects seen - such as dustification of the towers, the bent beams etc. Perhaps ironically, most of the remainder of the show is taken up with Ace’s discussion of his model of the ways disinformation can be promoted. What was the purpose, if any, of this broadcast with Ace Baker and Jim Fetzer? [i] http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=1&id=1&Itemid=60 [ii] http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/short/Fetzer_Hutchison.html [iii] http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/ [iv] http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin5.html [v] http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Dr. Judy Wood 911 and Hurricane Erin - Dynamic Duo - Andrew Johnson 30 Jul 2008.mp3 [vi] http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Dr. Judy Wood 911 and Hurricane Erin - Dynamic Duo - Andrew Johnson 31 Jul 2008.mp3 [vii] http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/PinocchioStudy/Chopper5Velocity.html [viii] http://www.drjudywood.com/pdf/080229_AffdAJ_60.pdf [ix] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqvNrIWwoUc [x] http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Ace Baker - Video Fakery and the $100000 Hutchison Effect Challenge - 26 Aug 2008 - Dynamic Duo.mp3 [xi] http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Ace Baker - John Hutchison Challenge - 26 Aug 2008 - Dunamic Duo.mp3 148
Slide 149: Chapter 16 Press Release - New Study by former Professor Examines Hurricane Erin on 9/11/01 20th May 2008 – Clemson SC. - Dr. Judy Wood, a former Professor of Mechanical Engineering, has posted a new study which highlights the possible links between events on 9/11 and the occurrence in the Atlantic ocean of Hurricane Erin. The new study, (posted at http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/ erin) considers the “Field Effects” associated with Hurricanes and energy effects involved in the destruction of the World Trade Centre complex in New York City on 9/11. Dr. Wood’s extensive research has already catalogued a substantial range of evidence of very unusual effects at the WTC site on and since 9/11. The preponderance of this evidence points to the use of one or more Directed Energy Weapons in the destruction of the WTC buildings. This general conclusion has been the focal point of her Qui Tam Case against NIST’s contractors. The defendants are accused of committing fraud, including "wilful indifference" which resulted in them presenting a deceptive analysis and false data constructs, which were then used to compile the NCSTAR1 reports http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html) . Earlier, in January 2008, Dr. Wood posted a study on her website (http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ), which relates effects seen in photographs taken before, during and after the destruction of the WTC complex, to effects seen in Hutchison’s ongoing experiments. Wood and Hutchison co-authored the study. The Hutchison Effect is primarily a “Field Effect”, seemingly created by a poorly understood interaction between electrostatic, magnetic and radio frequency fields. The new pictorial study (which also relates to Field Effects) notes that Hurricane Erin was "born" on about 1 September 2001, and travelled up towards NYC. Hurricane Erin was the closest to NYC on 9/11/01 and was the largest on this date (although wind speeds were greater the day 149
Slide 150: before). Close-ups from photos of Erin on 9/11 clearly show the plume of material from the destroyed WTC. The development of Erin is considered, and a comparison made to Hurricane Katrina, for the reason that Katrina and Erin were of comparable size (Erin was bigger, by most measures). It is noted that the media reported very little about the potential risk Erin posed around the time of 9/11, compared to what was reported regarding Katrina – even before Katrina made landfall. The relationship between 9/11, the Hutchison Effect, Field Effects and data regarding Hurricane and Weather Modification is introduced. No firm conclusions are drawn, data is merely presented to illustrate where highly significant common themes and patterns seem to be present. For example, a short comparison is drawn between some of the effects seen with the materials in collision (caused by the effects of Tornados and hurricanes) with the anomalous changes in materials seen with Hutchison Effect. Apparent levitation effects seen in some instances are also highlighted. The development of “super cell” storms is examined and a comparison of their structure to that of a Tesla Coil (used to create high voltage electrical discharges) is considered. The possibility is suggested that the electrical properties of large storm systems may have some similarities to those of Tesla coils and that there is a possibility that technology exists to utilise or manipulate the energy in these storm systems for “secondary” purposes. One of the most striking pieces of the data presented is that from a set of magnetometers monitored by the University of Alaska. Several instruments show significant deviations from “background” or “normal” readings as the events of 9/11 were unfolding. A further selection of this data is presented in relation to variations during the hurricane seasons of 2001, 2004 and 2005. A later part of the study examines some of the data relating to patterns of earthquakes in 2008 and possibly associated unusual weather patterns, which may be related to secret or partially disclosed environmental modification technology (such as HAARP). However, the study does not establish any clear links between HAARP and the events in New York on 9/11. 150