Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11
Welcome, andrewjohnson.
You last visited: 26-10-2012 at 05:32 AM
User CP FAQ Chat Community Calendar New Posts Search Quick Links Log Out

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 8 votes, 3.50 average.
Old 25-10-2012, 04:38 PM   #1581
yankee451
Junior Member
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon View Post
What kind of dumbfuck uses their real name on the internet? Seriously!
The kind of person who knows that if you're on the Internet, you have no anonymity. I mean, seriously.
yankee451 is online now Report Post   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 26-10-2012, 04:51 AM   #1582
andrewjohnson
Senior Member
 
andrewjohnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
But besides all that, I didn't like the way she mocked me when I asked for her endorsement - for a forensic scientist to write that I would be better off to raise awareness by wearing a sandwich-board than to conduct the Crash Test, makes me doubt her sincerity even more.
Oh I see! Well, that makes things pretty clear then, thanks! I guess there are only a few people with the gumption to set up a federal case against military industrial contractors - for science fraud.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/N...Tam_Wood.shtml

I didn't realise that the suggestion of someone you don't seem to like and who asked serious questions of you would have such a big effect on you. I was recently accused by another person in the "UK 911 Scene" of being "personally the biggest single cause of the collapse of the 911 truth campaign in the UK." (direct quote). I wonder why I keep getting asked to do talks... hmmm....

So after a few weeks/months you've decided to "pass". Well it seems that people I speak to do want to hear about the truth of what happened to the WTC complex. They also want to hear about the truth about the people who lie and mischaracterise and attempt to smear and character assassinate those bringing out the truth.

Anyway, we're used to all this nonsense - it goes with the territory. Looks like some people can't stick it though. Fair enough - each to their own...
andrewjohnson is online now Report Post   Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 26-10-2012, 08:05 AM   #1583
yankee451
Junior Member
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewjohnson View Post
Oh I see! Well, that makes things pretty clear then, thanks! I guess there are only a few people with the gumption to set up a federal case against military industrial contractors - for science fraud.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/N...Tam_Wood.shtml
It doesn't take a forensic scientist to know that petitioning the most likely suspects for an investigation is much like demanding the NAZIs investigate the Reichstag fire. Because 9/11 couldn't have occurred without the federal government's involvement, I guess there are only a few people with the foolishness to follow through with the charade of a federal case - how'd that work for you anyway? Did the same court system that put Bush in office give your case the proper attention? No? What a surprise - so much for justice, eh?

Quote:

I didn't realise that the suggestion of someone you don't seem to like and who asked serious questions of you would have such a big effect on you. I was recently accused by another person in the "UK 911 Scene" of being "personally the biggest single cause of the collapse of the 911 truth campaign in the UK." (direct quote). I wonder why I keep getting asked to do talks... hmmm....
I don't mind posting our conversation now - we'll let the readers decide if my change of heart is unfounded.

Why do you keep getting asked to do talks? Because propaganda works, that's why.

************************************************** ********

From: Stephen De'ak
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2012 10:12 PM
To: 'Dr. Judy Wood'
Subject: RE: 9/11 Crash Test

Dear Dr. Wood,

Please call me Steve. I’m surprised that someone with your credentials would recommend a sandwich board as a way to raise awareness.

Good luck,

Steve

From: Dr. Judy Wood
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2012 8:06 PM
To: Stephen De'ak
Subject: RE: 9/11 Crash Test

Dear Mr. De'ak,

(I do not believe we are on a first-name basis.)

You say you want to "help raise awareness with the public." Do you think the public is unaware that something happened on 9/11/01?

I will ask again,

So, I must ask, what is your objective?
What problem are you trying to solve?


If it is to "raise awareness," why not wear a sandwich board and walk around the streets where people are.

If you want to prove that the official story is not what we were told, well...that's already been done, submitted to a government agency, and taken to court. Why cover that up? Why reinvent the wheel? To distract away from what has been done and start all over again to run out the clock?

But your "test" will not prove the official story is incorrect. At best, you will only demonstrate that you were unable to replicate it. That will not prove anything, but just confuse and muddle things up. That's what keeps a cover up in place. Perhaps that is your objective.

Seriously, what problem are you trying to solve?
You need not tell me your answer, but it might help if you asked yourself this question, first, before proceeding.

With sincerity,

Dr. Wood




At 08:46 PM -0600 9/2/12, Stephen De'ak wrote:
Dear Judy Wood,

Perhaps "publicity stunt" was a poor choice of words, but I was being sincere. The point is to raise awareness. I will be surprised if a scientific test that could prove the government lied will be allowed, but every step of the project will help raise awareness with the public, so if we're being honest, and I am, then it is a publicity stunt/scientific experiment.

The truth may be known to you as a forensic scientist, but I am trying to reach everyone else.

My "group" is me, and me alone; I am trying to do what I can and I'm sorry you don't want to be a part of it.

Sincerely,

Steve De'ak



From: Dr. Judy Wood
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2012 7:04 PM
To: Stephen De'ak
Subject: Re: 9/11 Crash Test
Importance: High

Dear Steve De'ak,

I am not part of a "Truth Movement" so I must decline being a part of whatever it is you are seeking to advance.

The truth is known. Why seek to cover it up and distract away from it?

As a forensic scientist and engineer, I have no interest in participating in a "publicity stunt" nor do I wish to be a part of it.

You say your group wishes to "join forces with more mainstream organizations," but it is not clear if you are referring to organizations related to the entertainment industry or if you are referring to organizations related to professional engineering disciplines.

If you are seeking to join forces with the entertainment industry, you may be on the right path. But that is not my area of expertise.

If you are seeking to join forces with the engineering profession, you are not on the right path. But this is my area of expertise. As an engineer, I have conducted a comprehensive forensic investigation and have published the report in a way that anyone can understand if they truly want to know what happened.

The truth is known, so why spend yet more energy and expense to divert attention away from it and create yet another "opinion movement" or a "distraction movement" ...unless it is your intention to cover up the truth?


So, I must ask, what is your objective?
What problem are you trying to solve?


With sincerity,

Dr. Wood

http://wheredidthetowersgo.com

B.S. Civil Engineering (Structural Engineering)
M.S. Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics)
Ph.D. Materials Engineering Science



At 12:58 PM -0600 9/2/12, Stephen De'ak wrote:
Greetings Dr. Wood,

As I'm sure you already know, Dr. Reynolds and I are embarking on a publicity-stunt/laboratory-experiment designed to help raise awareness in the slumbering masses. We disagree on much but we have put aside our differences for this project, and in the same spirit of peace, solidarity and fellowship I invite you to join us with a public endorsement. The goal is to have the truth movement put aside their differences and join forces with more mainstream organizations who share our common goal of peace.


Please let me know your thoughts, and thank you.

Sincerely,

Steve De'ak
http://911crashtest.org

************************************************** *********

Quote:
So after a few weeks/months you've decided to "pass". Well it seems that people I speak to do want to hear about the truth of what happened to the WTC complex. They also want to hear about the truth about the people who lie and mischaracterise and attempt to smear and character assassinate those bringing out the truth.
"Decided to pass" - hardly, I've just given-up on begging for endorsements. Fetzer and Morgan have thrown their hats in the ring but if they hadn't I would complete the project alone. I'm no longer interested in hoping for allies by holding my tongue - the 9/11 Crash Test project is designed to expose the fuax-truthers as well as the O.S. true-believers. So far it's worked like a charm. If Judy Wood was interested in bringing out the truth, she wouldn't be inflating the prowess of the military, covering up for the media and making a mockery out of genuine truth-seekers with antics such as petitioning the perpetrators for justice.

Quote:
Anyway, we're used to all this nonsense - it goes with the territory. Looks like some people can't stick it though. Fair enough - each to their own...
I don't understand what you mean. The 9/11 Crash Test project continues.

Last edited by yankee451; 26-10-2012 at 08:11 AM.
yankee451 is online now Report Post   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 26-10-2012, 08:46 AM   #1584
andrewjohnson
Senior Member
 
andrewjohnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 116
Default

OK - I will add what you wrote to me then!
====



-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:ad.johnson@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 20 September 2012 15:41
To: 'Steve De'ak'
Subject: RE: Crash Test

Steve,

Thanks for your response. It is most illuminating.

Yes, I read the suggestion about the sandwich board too - it was sort of a joke - but serious too - it is an easy way to raise awareness. But was this sort of joke a vehement opposition? I think if you posted the actual email, most people would disagree with you.

Of course, one can disagree about how to interpret a joke, but a more serious question was asked of you by myself and Dr Wood. You have made no attempt to answer any of the other questions or points I raised. Of course, you are not obliged to - but for someone that is holding themselves up to public scrutiny, within a context of the proposed "Crash Test", I don't think it is a good indicator myself.

I only mentioned Dr Reynolds in passing. We correspond occasionally, and I was not really bothered either way whether he supported your initiative or not - that's entirely between you and him.

I am not interested in hypotheses in the context of what happened to the buildings - as there is no need to hypothesise any longer about that issue.

There is also no need to hypothesise about the plane crashes being real or not - it can be established real planes did not crash.

Good luck

Andrew Johnson

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve De'ak [mailto:s.deak@comcast.net]
> Sent: 20 September 2012 15:26
> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com
> Subject: RE: Crash Test
>
> Andrew,
>
> I had no idea you work with Dr. Wood, or that she shared our
> correspondence but it doesn't change my interpretation of her attitude
> towards the project.
> If you think a sandwich-board as a good way to raise awareness and
> that it was offered as a serious suggestion, then we'll have to agree
> to disagree about that point too.
>
> I have already made it clear the crash test is about the test and
> nothing else and I will not be drawn into a discussion about who's
> hypothesis is correct. I disagree with Dr.
> Reynolds too, but he is enthusiastically supportive of the project. I
> will work with anyone who is capable of making this test happen; Dr.
> Wood, you and anyone else who cannot put down their convictions long
> enough to work together need not apply. As I said, the test is more
> than just a test of metals.
>
> I hope to not lose the support of Dr. Reynolds over this, but if so, I
> will finish the project as I began it; alone.
>
> Good luck to you,
>
> Steve
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:ad.johnson@ntlworld.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 4:47 AM
> To: 'Steve De'ak'
> Subject: RE: Crash Test
>
> Steve,
>
> Dr Wood and I already privately discussed your correspondence
> - as you probably realise or know, we often work closely together.
> This means that I have seen what was exchanged between you - and from
> what I have read it does not fit the description you gave - not at
> all. However, as we both have copies of this correspondence, I would
> invite you, for the purposes of clarification, to point out which
> parts you interpret as "vehement opposition" to you what you are
> doing.
> One thing I noticed in one of Dr Wood's messages to you was:
>
> "Seriously, what problem are you trying to solve? You need not tell me
> your answer, but it might help if you asked yourself this question,
> first, before proceeding."
>
> This sounds to me like she is sort of offering you advice as in "it
> might help if you asked yourself this question, first, before
> proceeding." The words "help" and "proceeding" seem to indicate she is
> suggesting you refine your approach, not "give up" altogether?
>
> In your message to me, you didn't answer the other points I made - and
> you have no need to do so - I was merely wondering if I could augment
> my original posting. I am assuming you responded to my posting
> because you had some concern about it. I am still sort of puzzled as
> to why you have no apparent interest in what happened to the buildings
> and am wondering if you disagree that most of the steel turned to
> dust. (The point being that it is easy to observe most of the steel
> did indeed turn to dust and this needs to be explained.)
>
> To be clear, my main point is this:
>
> If you can see that the physics of the plane crashes does not add up,
> why do you have no apparent wish to describe, mention or even
> reference in passing, that the physics of the buildings' disappearance
> also does not add up?
>
> Also, and you can quote me on this:
>
> I support the *principle* of what your project is trying to do, but to
> be honest, I think that your project is too tightly focused on a small
> set of evidence - which skeptics will try to dismiss in the ways I
> mentioned in the article.
> This would apply whatever scientific principles were followed in
> completing your project/test.
>
> An additional question (which is rhetorical, but feel free to reply if
> you wish to) might be this: If you consider the way authorities - and
> the public
> - treated Dr Morgan Reynolds Qui Tam case (and Dr Wood's for that
> matter), can you consider how and why they consider the results of a
> crash test any differently?
>
> If your project is meant to simply show things to the public, I am not
> sure how many people would watch - based on what I have tried to show
> people over the last 7 years, the number of people that actually want
> to *look* at the evidence is relatively small. True, if your test is a
> "spectacle to behold"
> and you get a documentary made about it, it may attract some attention
> - but what happens after that has "died off"?
> Similarly, some people don't want to look at other types of evidence I
> post on my website (similar to how you don't apparently want to
> comment on the towers turning to dust).
> Are you expecting the public to be any different about commenting on
> evidence than yourself?
>
> I am also puzzled by your statement "The Crash Test project is
> designed to raise awareness with the mainstream folk in hopes to
> dispel their perception that 9/11 research is on par with Aliens,
> Sasquatch and Science-Fiction".
> Nothing of this nature was included in my original posting - and my
> posting was not an attempt to denigrate what you have stated you are
> trying to achieve. My website is called "checktheevidence" and for me,
> it is dishonest for people to mischaracterise certain types of study
> and certain types of evidence as "ridiculous" - just because they have
> not taken the time and the trouble to look at it properly. So what are
> you trying to say, exactly, can you clarify? For myself, I study all
> types of evidence - and there is some which does stand up to scrutiny
> - though it is as uncomfortable for some people to accept this (I am
> guessing you're one of them) - as it is uncomfortable for people to
> accept the laws of physics of plane crashes were broken on 911.
>
> Basically, all I am saying is that once you "open the door"
> to realising that the plane crashes were not real, and that the
> buildings turn to dust, if you are totally honest, you are opening
> other doors too - and you have to adopt the same policy of openness
> and honesty (and discernment) in dealing with what appears behind
> those doors.
>
> Regards
>
> Andrew Johnson
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve De'ak [mailto:s.deak@comcast.net]
> > Sent: 20 September 2012 04:36
> > To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com
> > Subject: RE: Contact from CheckEv
> >
> > Andrew,
> >
> > I trust you'll understand that I don't wish to share Dr.
> > Wood's and my correspondence. Perhaps you can persuade her
> to share
> > our private conversation, but until such a time you'll just need to
> > take my word that "vehemently opposed" is an accurate description.
> >
> > The Crash Test project is designed to raise awareness with the
> > mainstream folk in hopes to dispel their perception that
> > 9/11 research is on par with Aliens, Sasquatch and
> Science-Fiction.
> > It was also designed to put on the spot the ironically-named
> > Truth-Movement so I chose a subject most camps don't spend too much
> > time on, namely the impact of the alleged jets; and I
> intend to keep a
> > myopic focus on that goal. The project is all about the
> test, and the
> > test is all about the impact, and nothing else. Regarding
> the test,
> > my beliefs about the rest of 9/11 don't matter anymore than anyone
> > else's.
> >
> > I am asking a question; what would happen to a jet wing if
> it impacted
> > steel
> > boxes at 550 miles per hour. By simply asking the question,
> > I have been
> > able to reach some of the most steadfast true-believers I know,
> > therefore the project has already been a success, even if a
> test never
> > occurs. Any amount of increased awareness is a benefit for
> the truth,
> > so aside from being a test of metals, it is also a test of
> the mettle
> > of the alleged truth movement. Alas, aside from a few
> endorsements,
> > so-far only Morgan Reynolds has agreed to assist, and guess
> who's camp
> > he's signed-on to? Dr. Judy Wood's, which puts me in an awkward
> > position of having my only ally being an
> > ally of a fierce opponent. Morgan and I discussed our
> > differences and
> > decided that they were meaningless in the face of the importance of
> > the Crash Test project so we agreed to set them aside and
> move forward
> > with the test; after all, it is a peace project.
> >
> > I'm happy for you that you are satisfied with Dr. Wood's work. I
> > welcome all support especially from skeptics, but I hope
> you can see
> > why I cannot
> > allow the project to become a battle between hypotheses.
> >
> > I would appreciate it if you didn't post this email.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Steve De'ak
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:ad.johnson@ntlworld.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:51 PM
> > To: s.deak@comcast.net
> > Subject: RE: Contact from CheckEv
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > Thank you for contacting me. I searched "my" (most of the
> observations
> > were sent to me by someone else and I added a few of my
> own) article
> > for the word "motive" and it does not appear.
> >
> > I think you've made your motive abundantly clear in your "Tired of
> > War"
> > video and your website and there is nothing wrong with your
> motive. I
> > posted the article because I was puzzled as to why you would be
> > interested in a scientific test related to the plane crash, but
> > apparently, based on your own comments, did not seem
> interested either
> > in what happened to the buildings, nor what had already been done
> > (through the court of the
> > SDNY) to address that issue.
> >
> > As you may be aware, Dr Judy Wood is the single most
> qualified person
> > to examine the destruction of the WTC - and she alone has shown the
> > very peculiar situation with Hurricane Erin, among other
> things. Since
> > about 2008, it has always raised a "red flag" for me when a clearly
> > thoughtful and well-produced 9/11 video comes along which does not
> > even mention (in
> > passing) this evidence. For example, at the end of such a video I
> > might expect to see a 1 or 2 line comment of "The anomalies
> > highlighted here are a few of many - such as those to do with the
> > destruction of the buildings themselves - catalogued by Dr
> Judy Wood
> > and others elsewhere - but these are not discussed here."
> >
> > You also appeared to make statements that she was
> "vehemently opposed
> > to the project" - to my knowledge, this is untrue.
> > Perhaps my knowledge is incomplete? In which case, please
> augment my
> > knowledge. Please note, she may have not written to you to say "I
> > think this project is an excellent idea!"
> > However, NOT writing to you in this way is not "vehement
> opposition".
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Andrew Johnson
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: info@checktheevidence.co.uk
> > > [mailto:info@checktheevidence.co.uk]
> > > Sent: 20 September 2012 00:28
> > > To: info@checktheevidence.co.uk; s.deak@comcast.net
> > > Subject: Contact from CheckEv
> > >
> > > Below is your request/order. It was submitted by
> > s.deak@comcast.net
> > > at 00:27:43 20-Sep-2012
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -------------
> > >
> > > Recipient: info@checktheevidence.com
> > >
> > > Message text: Greetings,
> > >
> > > Rather than speculate as to what might be my motives
> behind the 911
> > > Crash Test project, and why I might avoid certain topics,
> > why not just
> > > ask me? I have nothing to hide and can be reached at both
> > my blog and
> > > the crash test site.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Steve De'ak
> > > www.yankee451.com
> > > www.911crashtest.org
> > >
> > > Char count: 194
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -------------
> > >
> > >
> >
>
andrewjohnson is online now Report Post   Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 26-10-2012, 08:50 AM   #1585
andrewjohnson
Senior Member
 
andrewjohnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 116
Default "Sandwich Board"

Matt Naus did this:

Not exactly a sandwich board - but he just went ahead and did it himself - spent maybe $100 etc


How difficult was that?

Last edited by andrewjohnson; 26-10-2012 at 08:51 AM. Reason: added title
andrewjohnson is online now Report Post   Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 26-10-2012, 08:55 AM   #1586
andrewjohnson
Senior Member
 
andrewjohnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 116
Default

Finally, a link to the article I edited about "crash test"

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cm...=359&Itemid=60

I didn't really write this - it was someone else's observations and asked them if they wanted to be credited, but they said "not just now". I added a few of my own observations.

Happy reading... or not...
andrewjohnson is online now Report Post   Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 26-10-2012, 08:56 AM   #1587
yankee451
Junior Member
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewjohnson View Post
OK - I will add what you wrote to me then!
====
Saved me the trouble, much obliged.

One wonders why you and Judy don't scrap your speaking engagements and walk around with sandwich boards.
yankee451 is online now Report Post   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 26-10-2012, 08:58 AM   #1588
yankee451
Junior Member
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewjohnson View Post
Finally, a link to the article I edited about "crash test"

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cm...=359&Itemid=60

I didn't really write this - it was someone else's observations and asked them if they wanted to be credited, but they said "not just now". I added a few of my own observations.

Happy reading... or not...
I'm sure the readers know all about how the best way to control the opposition is to lead it.
yankee451 is online now Report Post   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 26-10-2012, 09:18 AM   #1589
andrewjohnson
Senior Member
 
andrewjohnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Saved me the trouble, much obliged.

One wonders why you and Judy don't scrap your speaking engagements and walk around with sandwich boards.
Errmmm..... Well, we have been INVITED to give talks. By ORDINARY PEOPLE.

If you want, write to the people who have VOLUNTEERED and ask them what they're intent is:

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cm...=360&Itemid=60

I've done "sandwich board" type things in the past and may do so again in the future - if I feel like it.

What exactly, is your intent?

"best way to control the opposition is to lead it."

So who's controlling us Steve? Can you give people some evidence to expose us as the scoundrels we really are? Will everyone unite behind you and shout in unison denouncing us and what we're doing?

Well, I see you can't answer the points I've raised - so I have nothing further to add to what has now been posted as those that have eyes will see this thing (again) for what it is.

Good luck....
andrewjohnson is online now Report Post   Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Options


Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:20 AM.