Andrew Johnson
08 May 2009
Some time ago, I had an e-mail exchange with someone and posted part of it on a web page here on this site.
For some reason, this person didn’t seem happy with what they had written and asked me to remove it. I complied – as I didn’t know enough about this person to decide what their motivation was.
Today, this same person contacted me again – and after a fairly normal exchange where this person followed the usual pattern of making disparaging remarks and ignoring evidence, they seemed to be making a bet for $5000! Wow! Was this another Ace Baker in the making?
The e-mail exchange is reproduced below. (Why did he respond again after I had said I would report him for spamming me?) H
Isn’t it strange this person thinks I should trust him when:
1) He went back on his word (contacted me soon after saying “bye”).
2) He ignores evidence.
3) Offers me a bet of $5000 (does he think I respond to those e-mails from Nigeria?!?)
Further Considerations/Analysis
This person starts off by saying:
you seem like a nice man (I listened to a few of your interviews online)
However, later he says:
I submit that your 9/11 pursuits are really about exploiting a tragedy for your own personal gain (fame? money?)
So, am I a nice person or not? The query makes me sound like a pretty amoral and nasty person. So why the switch in opinion? What changed me from seeming nice into seeming amoral? What evidence is there that I am after “fame” or money? People looking here:
see probably the cheapest DVDs on the internet. Do I have any links to any books I have published? Do I charge a lucrative fee for international talks? Are there any adverts on my website? People who know me understand if I give a talk, I request only a fee to cover expenses – and have actually spent thousands of pounds of my own money on attempting to deliver information to people, or I make it easily available. Am I famous? Well, not when I last checked…
The Similarity to the Ace Baker Challenge
At this point, it is worth mentioning the similarity of this “bet” to the Ace Baker challenge. This ploy can be effective at “sucking people in” if they don’t think clearly. Does the issue of evidence reduce to bets over money? Are court verdicts decided by a bet? How much betting is there in real scientific analysis?
Though some of us suggested John Hutchison not take up Ace Baker’s, he did actually do this and on Nov 1st 2008, he levitated a wrench.
This person said:
Ace Baker….a complete ninny. No further comment necessary.
So why is this person adopting a similar tactic? Why is he behaving in a similar manner? People may wish to research the “stunt” which Ace Baker pulled on a radio show in early 2008
The only thing I did was to ask him to talk about evidence. Instead, he chose to reduce the issue to one of personalities and money.
Does this person think I can predict the outcome of the legal case? I am sure of the evidence, and what it indicates, but the implications of it will shred all of our current institutions reasons for existence. And in the case of John Hutchison, he could control the outcome of his experiment – because he knows how to set the equipment up, how to operate it etc. This is a much, much different scenario to gaining a criminal conviction. Indeed, the initial signs are heavily weighed against a successful outcome – for a start, only 4 or 5 legal cases related to 9/11 have been brought. Also, anyone who looks at the progress of Dr Wood’s case so far is not given a cause to have high hopes – the Judges ruling, in line with what is discussed here, simply ignored most of the evidence, misquoted things and made disparaging remarks. The ruling even included reference to the Moon Landings and the JFK assassination – which have little or nothing to do with the evidence discussed here (though questions can, of course be legitimately raised about those topics as well, once separate evidence is gathered and analysed).
A Reminder – The Evidence To Be Explained
As a summary, it is worth reminding ourselves that in all of this – whether Andrew Johnson is a good person, a bad person, confident or not confident of winning a bet (some of the reasons have already been touched on above), whether the bet is increased to $10,000 or $1 million, there is still the evidence to be explained. A list of questions to be answered and a set of accompanying photos has been posted by Dr Judy Wood here:
Whether this person is part of an orchestrated campaign to remove the focus from this evidence, or whether they are just “doing their own thing” for their own reasons does not change the evidence which has to be explained.
The problem is that the general conclusions that Dr Wood and I have placed "on the table" really are profound indeed – they are so profound, I would contend, that not only is it impossible for organised institutions to deal with them, many individuals will also be unable to deal with the consequences. This again means that the only alternative is to consider the evidence for oneself – and if you cannot agree with the conclusions outlined here and elsewhere, then you are not required to do anything. If you do agree, then perhaps you will see a world of opportunity – as I tried to illustrate here, and can therefore decide on your own way forwards.
E-mails
The anonymised e-mail exchange is posted below. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 08 May 2009 19:40
Subject: Re: Active Thermitic materials
Hi Andrew,
Just visited your website today to look at your response to Steven Jones anti-thermitic paper. You haven’t yet added that the chief editor of the OCP Journal resigned recently. You may also be interested to know that a special thread has been started at JREF looking at the paper. There is some excellent analysis there. (title: New Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper )
‘Professor Marie-Paule Pileni has resigned as editor-in-chief of the Open Chemical Physics Journal over the publication of the Niels Harrit et al paper, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, which she says she was unaware of’
btw, I noticed that your current efforts are getting so little traction that there isn’t even a current thread at JREF regarding the silly Hutchison pseudo-science and Judy Wood.
Andrew, you seem like a nice man (I listened to a few of your interviews online) but you’re utterly wasting your time with this 9/11 conspiracy crap IMHO. Looks like you guys may have a chance to latch onto John Hutchison’s Hollywood career and make some money though – his ‘back to the future’ science experiments are perfect for TV, I think. John is a very smooth talker, very engaging – I’m sure he has you quite convinced.
Have you ever visited his lab? I live quite close to him, since i live in downtown Vancouver and he’s in New Westminster. Strange huh?
BTW I spent a fair amount of time looking at the substance of Dr. Wood’s 9/11 claims, in case it would be worthwhile to rebut some of them. My conclusion is that it isn’t even worth rebutting, most of it is so amateurish and idiotic. Forgive me for the scorn, but you guys bring it on yourselves.
Y’know, if you guys were just exploring the possibilities of ‘free energy’ without the baggage of 9/11 conspiracy, it would actually be kind of cool. I suspect 9/11 is a convenient and seductive subject to latch onto, to get attention from, in a kind of vampirical way, but I predict that you and Judy will fail in the quest to prove anything, since what you are currently proposing is exceedingly unlikely to be true.
I also predict you guys will steadily refocus on general pseudo-science, especially free energy stuff, since there’s a decent market to exploit. That actually makes sense to me. But solve the mysteries of 9/11? Nope. You guys are barking up the wrong tree, big time.
—–Original Message—–
From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:ad.johnson@ntlworld….]
Sent: 08 May 2009 20:04
To: Truthers
Subject: RE: Active Thermitic materials
I know about the JREF thread and the resignation.
Andrew, you seem like a nice man (I listened to a few of your interviews online) but you’re utterly wasting your time with this 9/11 conspiracy crap IMHO.
OK – so who did 9/11? Do you care? Al Qaida? Bush? It doesn’t bother you?
What’s your explanation for the evidence?
Looks like you guys may have a chance to latch onto John Hutchison’s Hollywood career and make some money though – his ‘back to the future’ science experiments are perfect for TV, I think. John is a very smooth talker, very engaging – I’m sure he has you quite convinced.
Have you ever visited his lab? I live quite close to him, since i live in downtown Vancouver and he’s in New Westminster. Strange huh?
BTW I spent a fair amount of time looking at the substance of Dr. Wood’s 9/11 claims, in case it would be worthwhile to rebut some of them. My conclusion is that it isn’t even worth rebutting, most of it is so amateurish and idiotic. Forgive me for the scorn, but you guys bring it on yourselves.
Thanks for proving me right again!!
No discussion evidence, just disparaging remarks! I can add your e-mail to my archive of "rude anonymous (or semi-anonymous evidence ignorers".
Why are you wasting your time writing to me? What do you want from life? You want to maintain the corrupt system we live in – or do you want something different? In either case, there’s little point in writing to me with sorts of remarks you are making
Goodbye and good luck – I’ll feel sorry for you tonight.
ADJ
—–Original Message—–
From: yaletownstringquarte… [mailto:yaletownstringquarte…]On Behalf Of Truthers
Sent: 08 May 2009 20:11
To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….
Subject: Re: Active Thermitic materials
I should add that I’m sure we agree on a few basic things:
Jim Fetzer has to be one of the most scholarly idiots on the airwaves today – truly breathtaking in his rapidfire delivery of nonsense.
Steven Jones is clearly desperate to prove something which never happened, and probably never could happen.
Ace Baker….a complete ninny. No further comment necessary.
etc etc.. the ‘leadership’ of 9/11 ‘truth’.
It’s a pretty sad spectacle, Andrew, overall. I hope you disengage from it asap. At the very least you could credit yourself with ceasing to exploit the deaths of 3000 innocent people for personal gain. That’s worth a lot in itself.
It occurs to me that if you and Judy really WERE onto something big (regarding 9/11 vast conspiracies with the military/industrial complex), you’d both be dead by now.
Perhaps you would disagree, but then you guys have a special talent for coming to wrong conclusions. I don’t share that gift apparently.
best
—–Original Message—–
From: yaletownstringquarte… [mailto:yaletownstringquarte…]On Behalf Of Truthers
Sent: 08 May 2009 20:31
To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….
Subject: Re: Active Thermitic materials
Hi Andrew,
It’s 12pm or so in Vancouver. You needn’t feel sorry for me. I have a good career as a musician and composer, and just last night performed Salome to a sold-out house.
There’s no need to interpret my comments at all. I speak as plainly as I can, as unambiguously as possible.
Honestly, the poor quality and general incompetence of Dr Wood’s analysis precludes me wanting to dissect it point for point. I’m not interested in wasting the time, when 1) I doubt you’d be able to perceive it correctly 2) very few people seem to care what Judy thinks, so it’s not very important.
The main reason I wrote was because
a) I happened to notice there were no recent threads on JREF regarding Judy Wood
b) I think it’s hilarious that you and Judy have splintered off from the other raving lunatics of 9/11 truth to pursue your own separate insane quest.
c) I think you guys are true idiots. You constantly seek to bring attention to yourselves by spouting pseudo-scientific nonsense, then wonder why people like me respond……hmmm.
It was a mere accident that we first corresponded a while back. I didn’t even know what your site was really about when I requested that you link to some of my videos. I recall that, instead of simply saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’, you replied with some convoluted set of conditions before you’d do it. I think you wanted me to answer a whole bunch of questions (and hinted that there would be more following) before you’d do it.
So you actually invited me to engage in discussion. You seem to have completely forgotten that you brought this upon yourself. Incidentally, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if you have a habit of doing things like this – you likely have some cognitive dysfunction in order to be involved in the things you are.
Remember, if you can, that my initial protest was that I never agreed to discuss Dr. Judy Wood’s research. That was something you tried to impose on me. I merely stated that I thought she was a nutcase or a nutbar, something like that. That’s my honest opinion. Nothing I’ve read or heard from her or you subsequently has significantly altered my opinion, and in fact your current obsession with the Hutchison effect only adds to my healthy skepticism.
So, for the record, I think that Dr. Wood is basically incompetent. I’m not going to write a paper about it. I’m not even going to bother making a video about it. I have better things to do.
bye
—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 08 May 2009 21:15
To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….
Subject: Challenge
OK Andrew,
I just had an idea, thought I’d run it by you. You seem convinced that some shadowy government conspiracy used DEW to destroy the WTC buildings. Yes?
You seem to believe that you’re actually going to accomplish something (god knows what) thru your activities. Yes?
You know I think you guys are acting like a couple of twits going nowhere fast. Yes?
Ok, here’s the challenge. You have your ‘evidence’ and I have my skepticism. I’d be willing to put $5000.00 in trust if you’ll do the same, on a simple wager: If you and Judy can come up with a criminal conviction in a US court of law (probably supreme court) of a government agent or agency for using some kind of ‘molecular dissociation’ beam weapon to bring down or damage ALL the WTC buildings, turn cars and other vehicles upside down and whatever other bizarre and novel effects you claim, within, say 3 to 5 years from the start of the challenge – then you can have my 5K. If you can’t do it, I get your 5K.
We could modify the wording as mutually agreed. Let’s see who the real idiots are, Andrew. You or me? I’m not worried about losing a fair wager since I know you guys don’t have, and never will have, the kind of evidence that could produce a convictiion in a US criminal court.
In other words, you’ve got nothing but some cheap talk and pseudo-science, and you never will. Put your money where your mouth is if you dare. I don’t think you have the balls to do it, frankly.
Put this up on your website if you want, let your readers see that I’ve made the challenge. I submit that your 9/11 pursuits are really about exploiting a tragedy for your own personal gain (fame? money?) and are not about getting justice for anybody.
I’ll make some quick predictions now:
1) you will either not respond to the challenge, or you will not accept a challenge along the lines I have proposed
2) you will find excuse after excuse for avoiding the challenge, perhaps imposing some impossible condition which I can’t accept.
3) you wil instead choose to return to your current modus, feeding on the fringe of science, making vague pseudo-scientific claims but taking little responsibility for them, and appearing on conspiracy talk radio shows. In other words, little more than bulding some kind of career in fringe science.
4) your 9/11 work will never result in the criminal conviction of any alleged government agents or agencies for destroying the WTC towers and other buildings
Think it over. I could use an extra 5K so I hope you will take the challenge.
—–Original Message—–
From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:ad.johnson@ntlworld….]
Sent: 08 May 2009 22:08
To: Truthers
Subject: RE: Challenge
Summary of your last three messages:
1) Going back on what you said (i.e. "bye")
2) Offering money in a bet (just like Ace Baker did to John Hutchison).
3) Being rude and disparaging whilst discussing no points of evidence.
Please stop e-mailing me now – persistent further messages to me will be reported to Google mail as spam abuse.
Thanks.
Andrew
—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 08 May 2009 23:09
To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….
Subject: Re: Challenge
Andrew,
Like I said, you’re putting yourself out there as some kind of legitimate inquiry – ‘check the evidence’.
I offer a simple challenge to let you show your confidence, and you’re threatening to complain to google? Yikes! You’re much weaker than I expected. I have to admit, I hadn’t predicted that response. I figured you’d be too chicken to take up a financial challenge, so in that regard at least one of my predictions has already been proved correct. Thanks for confirming this so quickly.
I’ll be sure to report your response to others online, so they can see how totally gutless you people are, and how you are parasitically feeding off a real tragedy to make careers for yourselves.
As the saying goes, if you can’t take the heat…….
best regards
—–Original Message—–
From: On Behalf Of Truthers
Sent: 08 May 2009 23:42
To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….
Subject: Man to man talk? Or too strong for you?
I just read thru the page you have on ‘Why can’t people mention 9/11, Hurricane Erim, The Hutchison Effect and Free Energy and/or Dr Judy Wood in the same post or paragraph without making rude or disparaging remarks’ etc.. which you linked me to.
I read your correspondence with Dr. John Moffet. I think you are validating the age-old observations of the difference between a wise man and a fool; I believe your cognitive dissonance stems from the conflict of trying to adhere to good science while believing in 9/11 conspiracy theories. The two things are not compatible – good scientists, wise people, long ago abandoned the very same lines of thinking that you and Dr. Wood now employ.
If you can’t stand the harsh language, just try to imagine how we feel about people like you. Just try, if you can, to imagine how offensive your constant propaganda efforts are to knowledgeable people. I doubt you can, otherwise you’d stop your activities in shame – but apparently you feel no shame. That is a grave error on your part, sir.
If my opinion is too strong for you, i’m sorry. If you must complain to google, because you’ve published reams of materials, yet cannot accept the judgements of those who disagree, then so be it. It is your failure, then, not mine. I will start a thread at JREF on this subject shortly where you will be free to discuss your ingenious theories with anyone you care to, but where you do not have veto power. A more even playing field, so to speak.
Meanwhile,
I am still here, still willing to stand by what I say, and put my money where my mouth is. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for your character. Apparently.
Therein lies the difference between us.
I won’t send anything else to you for now unless in reply to another email from you. I wish you godspeed in your quest to bring your fantasy perpetrators to justice; may you have the results you deserve.
—–Original Message—–
From: On Behalf Of Truthers
Sent: 09 May 2009 00:30
To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….
Subject: Re your link to this correspondence
Hi Andrew,
I wasn’t going to write anything else to you, but then saw you have now put a link up with a few of the emails we’ve exchanged today. That’s great. Seeing as you have done so, I am now responding, in the hopes you will include this email as well – you have made some public statements which are incorrect or false, that need addressing.
Hopefully your readers will encourage you to take up my offer. Try not to confuse this with Ace Baker’s activities if you’re able.
I’ll restate the offer for clarity:
‘You have your ‘evidence’ and I have my skepticism. I’d be willing to put $5000.00 in trust if you’ll do the same, on a simple wager: If you and Judy can come up with a criminal conviction in a US court of law (probably supreme court) of a government agent or agency for using some kind of ‘molecular dissociation’ beam weapon to bring down or damage ALL the WTC buildings, turn cars and other vehicles upside down and whatever other bizarre and novel effects you claim, within, say 3 to 5 years from the start of the challenge – then you can have my 5K. If you can’t do it, I get your 5K.’
We can discuss the details. If you guys think you’re up for it we can set it up through an attorney anytime.
Again, I’m not here to argue your ‘evidence’ or whatever it is you think you’ve found. I’m here to challenge you to do something concrete with your ‘evidence’ – take it to court and prove something with it, if you dare. It’s not me you need to convince, it’s ‘the authorities’ that you’ll need on your side to win a case. I’m just demonstrating that you don’t have a real case – a few round holes in glass and some ‘toasted cars’ aren’t going to convict anybody of anything, and thus are virtually meaningless in terms of justice and truth, IMHO.
To your surprise that I wrote again after you threatened to complain to google, I say ‘so what?’ So I don’t show much respect for you? Big deal. You’re not much different from what I can see. Now that you’ve published some of our correspondence, I think you’ve demonstrated that you have accepted it, and are now using it for your own purposes. What’s to complain about? You’ve now got some more material, some recognition, perhaps even a bit more notoriety.
Finally, as far as your incorrect (false) claim, now made in public, that ‘He went back on his word (contacted me soon after saying “bye”), perhaps you do not understand how letters or emails work. Let me explain it to you: one writes an email, then signs off ‘ciao’ ‘regards’ ‘bye’ etc…. There is no explicit or implicit declaration that one is not going to write another email following the last one. And none was made in my email.
You have apparently read into the word ‘bye’ something that wasn’t there in the first place. Your mistake. Don’t make the further mistake of defending the first mistake.
best regards and bye (again!)
—–Original Message—–
From: On Behalf Of Truthers
Sent: 09 May 2009 17:18
To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….
Subject: Re: Challenge
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for posting the follow-up emails. I would like to respond to some of your comments.
1) you have not corrected the false claim that I somehow went back on my word. Nor have you posted the email where I challenge that false statement.
2) You claim I ignore evidence, but you have no evidence yourself to demonstrate this. I choose not to comment on Dr. Wood’s findings in detail. That does not mean that I have ignored the findings, does it? You seem to leap to conclusions very rapidly (at near freefall speed….that’s a joke btw)
3) I have offered to put some of my own money on the line, under MUTUALLY AGREED UPON conditions, to test your outlandish claims. You of course are going to find any excuse not to do this.
4) Are you a nice person? I wrote ‘you SEEM like a nice person’ that is you appear to be, in your manner. But does that mean you are above a moral or intellectual weakness? No, it doesn’t. You are demonstrating, even in our limited correspondence, an ability to misinterpret simple statements, to play word games and to exploit the exchange for your own purposes.
You tell me what kind of character that suggests. Perhaps I was in error by making my initial observation. I am learning more about you as time goes on.
5) I suggested you seem to be motivated by personal gain (because I’m speculating) fame?/money? as possibilities. You have focused on money and ignored fame (notoriety?). But you are clearly an attention-seeking individual. Perhaps this is your main motivation for exploiting the tragedy of 9/11.
6) I would prefer not to get dragged into the thicket of nonsense you inhabit, but referring as you did to Ace Baker and his proposal ( I was only vaguely familiar with this info, btw), you wrote ‘Though some of us suggested John Hutchison not take up Ace Baker’s, he did actually do this and on Nov 1st 2008, he levitated a wrench.’
OK. Let me just correct you on this: Unless you were personally there on Nov 01, 2008 to witness the levitation, you are not factually correct to claim he actually DID levitate it. If you are using yet another crappy, amateurish video as evidence, then god help you, Andrew. The video you link to is inexcusably poor evidence – there is no pretense of a neutral third party observing and documenting the event, and the camera quality is pathetic (the camera appears to be dangling and moving).
This does not rise to the level of serious scientific proof at all. You should be aware of this, but apparently don’t give a damn. Shame on you.
7) My conclusion thus far is that you’re diverting further and further away from addressing my challenge, by introducing irrelevant footage of John Hutchison, and trying to imply that this is some kind of ploy. You are avoiding the challenge by use of word games, Andrew.
My challenge is simple and clear. It is based on mutually agreed conditions. That means you would have to agree to the conditions. If you feel mentally incapable of understanding such conditions, perhaps you should decline for reasons of incompetence. Don’t blame me for something I haven’t done, though, please. That is pure intellectual dishonesty. This is not a trick – it is a man-to-man challenge. Your word, your claims against a legitimate court system to evaluate them, and a wager on the outcome.
Your persecution complex is showing, dude. Maybe you’re not the man you thought you were.
best
ps I noticed that you have now removed the google-spam comment. How convenient that you can edit your remarks – they just went poof! molecular dissociation? Absolutely!
From:
Sent: 09 May 2009 19:52
To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….
Subject: A road leading nowhere?
Dear Andrew,
Sometimes to my e-mail address, sometimes through the website…
—–Original Message—–
Sent: 17 May 2009 07:06
Subject: Contact from CheckEv
message_text: Some thoughts about John Hutchison. After so many decades with his miraculous instruments, Mr. Hutchison has been unable to set up legitimate scientific verification of his work.
My sense is that he believes in the idea of what he’s claiming, but is unable to produce the genuine result, so is manufacturing the effects by other means.
A dreamer who admires the genius of Tesla, but is unable to produce anything genuine himself.
Mostly he’s a fine raconteur, an entertainer.
—–Original Message—–
Sent: 17 May 2009 07:12
Subject: Contact from CheckEv
—————————————————————————
message_text: Pardon me, just to add to that Hutchison message – it would be quite easy indeed to verify his results scientifically if he really wanted that to happen.
Of that I have absolutely no doubt.
And he would be extremely wealthy if his claims were factual. He would have made some of the most important scientific discoveries of all time. I’m sure he has many excuses as to why this hasn’t happened – but that’s one of his talents, to spin tall tales.
Perhaps he should write science fiction instead!
char_count: 3
So, how many would agree that the JREF forum is a good place for Scientific Debate? How many named, credentialed scientists openly take part on the threads? Go and look at the thread and decide if there are valid legitimate alternative explanations for the WTC evidence. This guy thinks plane impacts can invert cars (selectively) on the ground. etc etc etc You’ll just have to decide whether you agree with him. I don’t.
Why is he still at this? If he "cares about the truth", then what the heck is it? The official 9/11 story? Wow. Why is he telling me it’s the truth? Doesn’t he think I can read the official story myself? All rather odd if you ask me.
But let’s start a "betting section" in Scientific American or New Scientist – will be a much more reliable way of establishing scientific truths won’t it? What have peope got to lose? If their published work is true, they can win money!!
—–Original Message—–
From::Truthers
Sent: 21 May 2009 22:27
To: ad.johnson
Subject: JREF thread on Judy Wood and Hutchison effect
Hi Andrew,
Hope you are well. As I indicated I would do, I have started a thread on Judy Wood and Hutchison effect. I first tested the waters a bit by bringing up the subject on some other threads, but got very little response.
I threw out a few possible items for discussion, and there have been a number of posts, although NOBODY is arguing your case for you. I thought you might want to pick one or two particular issues which you think are very strongly in your favour, and post them as questions in the thread.
What is the harm with some honest discussion? It doesn’t change the facts, only opinions. I do have some ideas about the particular mistakes you and Judy are making but I’m going to withhold that criticism for the time being. I’d like to see what other people come up with.
But my basic issues have to do with the way you are weighing ‘evidence’ and evaluating speculation. There’s nothing wrong with being imaginative and open minded, but you guys seem to be emphasizing speculation to the point where you’re dissociating from reality. That can’t be good, IMHO.
My goal would be to encourage you to accept that certain things you are now dismissing could in fact be true. Even just acknowledging that, for example, planes may indeed have crashed into the towers, and that the fires may possibly have done enough damage to bring the towers down, would show some sanity and wisdom.
Anyway, while I’m tempted to get into the meat of it, I won’t.
best
