From: Andrew Johnson
Date: 2012-04-14 09:20:21
Here we go again folks – but it’s my way of keeping up pressure on the cover up crew… www.checktheevidence… Yes, after 5-6 years, it starts to get boring Jeff Prager Nukes 911 Research Andrew Johnson (ad.johnson@ntlworld….) 13th April 2012 The 911 Nuke Theory Explodes – Again! Around about 21st March 2012, links to a new, lengthy document first appeared on the internet – for example on the “Project Avalon” forum and in an article which was posted on the “Veterans Today” Website. I have archived a copy of this document, entitled “911-America Nuked” here [1] [2]. It is a total of 247 double-spread pages. It’s subtitle is “The Final Word On 911” – this statement is false, you should realise this when you have studied the evidence presented below. The basic thrust of the document appears to be to promote the idea that some type of nuclear weapon was used to destroy the World Trade Centre. This idea is not new – having been promulgated initially some 4 years ago by Ed Ward, Bill Deagle and others. If the “author” of this lengthy document (Jeff Prager) had not written to me, I would not even have bothered to post a new article about this – any idea that some type of hot nuclear explosion was used to destroy the WTC is simply not supported by a study of the available evidence. I now reproduce a list I originally wrote in 2008. Hot nukes (whatever their size) could not have been used because: 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. 4) To my knowledge, there is no publicly viewable and verifiable research on small, concealable nuclear explosives (despite the claims being made). 5) Nuclear explosives cannot account for the 24-foot cylindrical holes seen in the buildings and in the street. 6) The nuke or “large explosive/incendiary” does not explain the selectively flipped cars and vehicles. 7) The nuclear explosives created no seismic signature of any significant size (impossible). Not only that, but consideration of nuclear explosive devices completely fails to address other evidence such as the presence and motion of Hurricane Erin in the days around the time of 9/11. As I have said previously, this is NOT to say that some type of nuclear process was not involved. From our understanding of the Hutchison Effect (which is very relevant to how the towers were destroyed), it appears to affect matter at an atomic, molecular and even a nuclear level, therefore it is possible that it could generate amounts of radiation under certain conditions. Dr. Wood has addressed this in her book. She identified “magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions” as a more appropriate term for these processes. [Wood, J.D., “Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11” (2010), p. 365.] On 9th April 2012, Dr Judy Wood and I appeared on Deanna Spingola’s RBN show, where we had asked to discuss this document. You can listen to the broadcast here: www.checktheevidence… Download Link Shortly following this, Mr Prager contacted me through my website. In the email exchange that followed, he made several false statements, whilst failing to address some of the serious problems with his document (some of which I have listed below – as well as in the email exchange). Prager’s Problems On studying Mr Prager’s document for some minutes, the following items became apparent. 1) A lot of time went into producing it 2) It does not refer to John Hutchison, whose experimental results have produced evidence similar to that seen in the WTC evidence. 3) There are no references to Dr Judy Wood’s website or book – and one particular instance where this is peculiar is the source for the image on page 136 of Prager’s first file. It looks identical to one of the images of Hutchison’s aluminium bar. How could that get into the FEMA pictures of the WTC? Why is this shown there in Prager’s document? Why is this in a section about “The Steel”? To muddle up the evidence? I’d really like to see the source for this image – one source of this image is Dr Judy Wood’s site (Figure 15). Perhaps folks can write to Mr Prager to ask him. Apparently, he’s found the science involved here… www.checktheevidence… Link – Link to Full Broadcast But what are Prager’s Science Qualifications? He does not furnish us with this information – only that he is a retired magazine founder/publisher (he states he retired a long time ago). 4) As mentioned above, his document does not include or address the Hurricane Erin Data. 5) The document makes repeated references to Jim Fetzer and Leuren Moret – please read the linked articles to understand why this does not bode well for the validity of his 911 document. 6) On page 105, whole sections of text are copied from Dr Morgan Reynolds’ article “Collapse of the Thermite Thesis”. This is plagiarism – as it is unreferenced and uncredited. 7) Many other sections copied without reference such as p. 100 (a,b), p. 100-101, pp. 103-104, p.106 106 again, p.107 The reference to Gerard Holmgren’s site appears on this webpage, but is out of date. He died 2 years ago. p. 108, p.109 (b), (c), (d), (e), p. 110 (copied reference list), p. 111a, (b). (This list has also been posted here.) Very few of the above links are to “science” sites and no one uses Wikipedia as a serious resource – even my children are advised not to use it for their school research! Even Jim Fetzer knows Wikipedia censors important data! Most of the photos are unreferenced, so you can’t check the source. In the radio broadcast, someone phoned in and wanted to talk about the photo on page 84 (“The Pit”) – they suggested it was proof that a nuclear device had been used. The photo is unreferenced (this is just one example). It is odd to think this caller was “primed” with this information – very few people would be so bothered about this as to refer to a particular page. The same caller referred to Dimitri Khalezov – who openly lied in his discussion of his Nuclear Demolition idea. It is interesting that Prager’s document links to the Journal Of Nine-Eleven Studies (JONES) (Page 105 and Page 131) but nowhere does it link to any of Dr Wood’s research – neither does it reference Dr Morgan Reynolds’ site. This really is quite telling. Arguing Specific Points of Evidence, Whilst Ignoring Others Jeff Prager mentions anomalous radiation readings in his e-mail exchange (below) Please explain the 93 Bq/kg in the girder coating dust sample. Muon catalyzed fusion has nothing to do with 911 but was used to prove Jones is a LIAR and that thermite is IMPOSSIBLE. This is similar to what Ed Ward said in 2008 (Prager references Ward in his document): Ten months ago – I published Update: Micro Nukes in the WTC – Main Evidence – See: www.thepriceoflibert… Seven months ago – Prof. Jones Denied, Ignored and Misrepresented Proven Tritium Levels 55 Times Normal Background Levels. Why did he do so? Sadly, both these characters ignore the basic characteristics of thermonuclear devices (listed above) – and then in a similar cavalier fashion ignore most of the other evidence too. It is interesting they both reference Steven E Jones as being wrong – it is as if they don’t understand that we (myself and Dr Wood) know Jones’ history and we know he is wrong – for at least 2 of the same reasons Prager and Ward are wrong (the heat issue and the lack of a seismic signature and so on). Why do we have to keep repeating these basic, obvious pieces of data and observations? What spell is being cast on people? It should be asked of Mr. Prager why he has ignored and misrepresented the tritium analysis in Dr. Wood’s book as well as on her website? Additional Small Points In the e-mails that Mr Prager sent to me, he claims I mischaracterised him in the broadcast. However, if you listen to the audio, you will find that I made no references to his character at all – I didn’t really know who he was! All that I pointed out were a few of the errors and omissions in his document. This sort of accusation was rather reminiscent of that made against me by Ace Baker, regarding me sending “hate mail” to him. Mr Prager also stated in email exchanges that I “claimed a degree in Physics” this is also incorrect – I have a degree in Computer Science and Physics (Physics being a minor part). Why would a founder and publisher of a magazine make these basic errors? What on earth is going on here? Possible Motivation Behind Producing This Document Again, the motivation can only be guessed at, and if you listened to the broadcast above, you will already have heard my thoughts about this. Suggested motivation includes: 1) Bringing in the idea of nuclear fusion to confuse what has already been established about the relationship between cold fusion effects and the Hutchison Effect – and 911. 2) Though Prager clearly stated he has original copies of the WTC images used in his document, not only is he telling people that he has pictures no one else has, he is also associating many of the same images (that are on Dr Judy Wood’s site and in her research, including high-resolution original images) with a different – and provably false conclusion. This again is therefore apparently to create confusion. In his email, he implies that Dr. Wood’s site does not contain high resolution images, which is false. But in making this statement, he implies he has indeed been to Dr. Wood’s site – or is simply denigrating Dr. Wood’s site. 3) Giving this work away as a free download could make Dr Wood’s research in the form of a book seem less attractive to get hold of – people could think “Prager’s document has all the answers – in an easy-to-understand, clear format – and it’s free!” What they will not realise is that it is heavily plagiarised in at least some places, incorrect, omits evidence and therefore is grossly misleading as shown above. 4) He refers to Dr. Wood as “Judy” in his emails, yet has never met her or exchanged emails with her. Also, in a recent radio interview, Mr. Prager referred to Dr. Neils Harrit, Dr. Jones, and “Judy Wood.” Does he wish to present the false impression about her qualifications? Dr. Wood has degrees in Structural Engineering, Applied Physics, and Materials Engineering Science, including a Ph.D, and has over 35 years of experience in the field of forensic engineering and science. In his e-mail to me Mr Prager stated: I have no desire to submit anything to a court. I know what happened. This is very odd. If he knows what happened, doesn’t he want to help prosecute the perpetrators? Why does he have no interest in trying to expose the criminals? This is what Dr Judy Wood tried to do! Conclusion So, here we have yet another attempt, by someone claiming to be interested in the truth of what happened on 911, to subvert the truth – the truth that is already known. It indicates yet again how important this truth is. How many more attempts will we see to suppress, confuse, marginalise, cover up and ridicule the only publicly available, truly scientific and forensic investigation into the terrible destruction of the WTC? If you want to stop this suppression and confusion, here are 3 links you can use [1] [2] [3]. Powerful forces are weighed against the truth coming out. By reading this far, I hope you will have helped to make sure they don’t succeed. From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:ad.johnson@ntlworld….] Sent: 11 April 2012 19:40 To: ‘jeff prager’ Subject: RE: Contact from CheckEv Mr Prager, Please do not keep making false statements. I never claimed that the images came from Dr Judy Wood’s website – I said her site was not referenced. Also, my degree is in computer science and physics – so your statement is false. This is on my website. I suggest, again, you read it. We have previously covered extensively the difference between fusion and fission and why the later was NOT responsible for the destruction of the WTC. So, essentially this is false too. I can now see why you have no desire to submit this to any type of court. Please do not write to me again. Goodbye and good luck Andrew Johnson UK From: jeff prager [mailto:Jeff Prager] Sent: 11 April 2012 19:23 To: ad.johnson@ntlworld…. Subject: RE: Contact from CheckEv I have no desire to submit anything to a court. I know what happened. If you ever care to discuss the physics and chemistry of the dust using the Product Momentum Correlation Coefficient and the ‘t’ test statistic to verify the data I’d be happy to discuss it. I use real science and real physics. I also actually read books as I’m reading yours now. Having gone back to the audio and listened again yes, it is you that claims “most” of the images come from Judy’s web site. If that were true one would not be able to continually zoom or enlarge the images 5-10 times and more. They would pixelate. I own the images in their original large format high resolution sizes. You claim a degree in physics. You should understand the data clearly. Tahil was right and his data is accurate. Fission occurred in NYC on 911 and we don’t need Hutchison or anyone else to explain half-baked theories. The dust tells us what happened. Sodium, potassium, thorium, uranium, lanthanum, etc., don’t lie. People do. Cordially, Jeff Where the sidewalk ends… Prager — On Wed, 4/11/12, Andrew Johnson