Some “Psychotic-Type” Remarks About the Vancouver Hearings

23 June 2012
Andrew Johnson (ad.johnson@ntlworld….)
UPDATED: 02 Jul 2012 and again 06 Aug 2012

Download Link

From about 65 minutes into the above discussion with Rob, Ralph Winterrowd and Dr Judy Wood, we cover some aspects of the Vancouver Conference. Thanks to Charlie Pound for the Introductory Song!

Following the Vancouver Conference, which I wrote about previously, I received 2 e-mails "out of the blue" – one from Clare Kuehn and one from Nick Kollerstrom – both of whom made presentations at said conference. I have reproduced their emails below. I have spent some time reviewing these messages, to try and fit them in with others I have seen and received.

From: Clare Kuehn
Sent: 20 June 2012 17:15
To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….; ad.johnson@ntlworld….
Subject: Re: Vancouver Conference

Hi, Andrew.
I am aware of your position (as you know) about Dr Fetzer and have read the sections in your book. I know how you have interpreted his brash manner and what I take to be his confusion over some of what Dr Wood said.

As to my own presentation, it was given in the best intention and in fact, Dr. Fetzer was adamant that someone cover her work (a sign he is still very intrigued and open about Dr Wood’s work personally, and trying to be intellectually honest as best a person can, to include as many current lines of work as are developed right now). Because neither she nor several of her more well known associates would or could come. As such, he was actually very unhappy and I insisted that someone must do the presentation and he, flummoxed, was in full agreement. Ultimately, he agreed to have me come, since I am articulate and lean towards her conclusions in spite of the dust sample details (co-efficient atomic products beyond tritium and a few others she mentioned) and in spite of illness records indicating possible radiation illness (bizarre cancers, etc.) after the event. I tried to open some minds and to at least give more information to the unwilling, in spite of themselves.

Best wishes, and thanks for your shows. I loved the one on Paul is Dead. I covered the same issue in a different way, on The Real Deal on Jan. 4, if you wish to hear it. It is at radiofetzer.blogspot… and right-click on the link on its page, in order to save it (better than left-clicking and listening with the smaller on-line player’s slider).



From: nicholas kollerstrom

Sent: 20 June 2012 21:52

To: 911keeptalking@googl…; ad.johnson@ntlworld….

Subject: Re: 911 Vancouver Hearings

Here is an example of the high standard of presentation at the Vancouver conference, put up onto Youtube:…

I want to comment on some psychotic-type remarks from Andrew Johnson:

"I am sure that the Vancouver hearings are propaganda. For example, instead of Jim Fetzer being honest and saying "Dr Judy Wood has not responded to my invitation to the conference" he has simply invited someone else to speak about her research:… It must be realised that this person was not recommended by Dr Judy Wood, nor has she given this person permission to act as any kind of authority on her research, or a representative acting on her behalf."


Well in fact Clare Kuehn gave a brilliant account of Judy Wood’s hypothesis, actually a lot better than Judy Wood does (as I heard Dr Wood when she came over here) The idea that she should need Dr Wood’s permission to do so is simply breathtaking.

So Jim invited Dr Wood to speak  Andrew comments: "Due to the way Fetzer has covered up and muddled up important aspects of Dr Judy Wood’s research (see "911 Finding the Truth"), she chose not to even respond to the invitation." Nobody has put up more glowing reviews of Judy Wood’s book than Jim Fetzer, yet Andrew Johnson and Dr Wood just cannot stop moaning about him.

"Mr Fetzer has therefore deliberately set up a conference which will not establish any truth  quite the reverse it will encourage uncertainty and debate"  O, how terrible! Andrew, try to understand one simple thing: science can only develop through uncertainty and debate. Priests may like certainty, but that is something different.

Finally, Andrew moans: "It becomes clear that the title of this event is a misnomer. It is not a hearing at all" on the grounds that there are no judges hearing the proceedings. Well actually there were two, who swore each contributor in and will be formulating a judgement:

each contributor has been asked who they would ‘accuse.’ So there was an attempt to make it resemble a hearing. One of the Judges had just been a judge at the Kuala Lumpur tribunal which indicted Blair and Bush for war crimes.

OK, Andrew likes ‘certainty’- i.e. he gets very annoyed if anyone disagrees with him. That Vancouver conference will all be online. I suggest that he needs to decide whether he wants to take part in open debate or whether he wishes to continue his rather psychotic angle where anyone who had difficulty with his case is some kind of psy-op agent. With respect Andrew you have recently given talks about anti-gravity and how the Earth is hollow and many would view that as the extreme loony fringe.


A comment on Vancouver by Don Fox "I just wanted to let you all know what an honor it was to spend a truly amazing weekend with you folks.

Never before has this much 9/11 knowledge been disseminated in a public forum. The Toronto Hearings had some big names but our group left them in the dust. Josh and Jim organized an event that history will look back on as the event that not only shattered the OCT but provided the public with the most accurate account of what happened on that fateful day. I’ve researched 9/11 for 8 years and I learned a lot this weekend from the other speakers. It was literally like going back to school. . . .I can’t express how great it was to meet everyone in person. Everyone was MORE than what I expected. The caliber of people Jim and Josh brought in for this event was off the charts. It was truly a "Dream Team" of 9/11 research. Everyone involved should take pride in knowing that history is going to look back at this and say these guys in Vancouver did as much as humanly possible to get to the bottom of 9/11."

Comments on Clare Kuehn’s Message.

The comments from Clare Kuehn do not address the key questions – she is not a scientist and therefore not qualified to talk about the things (such as the radiation) she mentions. All these issues are thoroughly addressed in Dr Judy Wood’s book "Where Did The Towers Go" – including a discussion of radioactive materials which may have contributed to the resulting sickness in rescue workers. Again, The Hutchison Effect does seem to produce "nuclear effects" as I have repeatedly stated for over 4 years, in relation to the events at the WTC.

It is not clear to me, at this point, what was actually in Ms Kuehn’s presentation. In responding to the message she sent me, I suggested she send me her PowerPoint file. She did not reply to this suggestion – she just stated in a later e-mail that a "I think they’re working on getting all the talks up on Youtube but they’re not up yet.". This is all rather odd  to me because in her original message, above she said


"I insisted that someone must do the presentation and he, flummoxed, was in full agreement."


So it must have been important to her that the information was presented. Yet, she did not get Dr Wood’s approval, nor has she willingly  supplied a copy of the information she presented. If she "did her best", then why is she not happy to share it? [UPDATE – Clare Kuehn sent me a link to her presentation. I have saved the file in PPTX format (Office 2007/2010) and regular PPT format.She also sent me several e-mails, which I have included at the bottom, along with some brief comments] After all, my presentations can all be found here.

Discussions with Ms Kuehn also involved her bizarre defence of Jim Fetzer on another blog about PID. In one comment she says "Give him a break" (an expression Fetzer frequently uses himself). In her e-mail above, she seems keen to defend Mr Fetzer – who threatened Dr Wood’s reputation and also refused to apologise for promulgating  stories about me sending hate mail even when he knew it was untrue. Kuehn claims to have read my free book, yet she has no problem with Mr Fetzer lying and threatening people (and she did not respond to this comment in the email I sent her, when I reminded her about it). Weird.

A basic question with regard to someone wanting to fairly present Dr Wood’s research at the Vancouver Conference can be asked. For whatever reason Dr Wood chose not to attend (and the reason should be quite clear to those who study the available evidence), there was a good alternative. In the original post I made about the Vancouver Conference, a 2-hour video is linked – of a presentation done in October 2011. This could simply have been played as part of the event at Vancouver. This would, at a stroke, have avoided ANY risk of misinterpretation, cover up, muddle, misquote, misunderstanding, omission, exaggeration or ANY of those things. Instead, Ms Kuehn thought "it was better if she did it". Perhaps it becomes clear why I do not accept Kuehn’s reasons for doing what she did.

Comments on Nick Kollerstom’s Message

I was particularly troubled to receive this message, not least because I have personally spoken to Nick on a number of occasions, and made it quite clear what Mr Fetzer has said and done. Not only that, but I did not even mention Nick Kollerstrom in my original article. I knew he was going to the conference, but he was apparently presenting his research on "9 Keys to 9/11", according to the posting. However, this got changed and he presented something in relation to the Flight 175 Crash (… ). This was apparently triggered by Richard Hall’s new analysis. In the days prior to the conference, Nick sent me several e-mails with questions, all of which I answered to the best of my ability – I tried to help him. So it was really weird to read him describe that I had made some "some psychotic-type remarks" which did not even relate to him or his research!! I pointed out that the link to the video of the "high quality presentation" did not work. He was perhaps referring to this presentation, which Clare Kuehn sent me the link for. Nick did not respond when I pointed out his link did not work.

I have to comment, too, on Nick’s apparent preference for "debate" rather than certainty. Nick mentions "priests" – does a priest dictate whether 1 + 1 = 2? Can they do this? Nick ignored the thrust of my article and the psychology it attempted to dissect. Nick also stated:


I suggest that [Andrew] needs to decide whether he wants to take part in open debate.


Again, Nick completely fails to take into account the thrust of my article. Not only that, but he fails to acknowledge I was not invited to the conference anyway! (If I’d asked to present the evidence that Fetzer was lying and he was covering up what happened on 911, as well as threatening and being abusive to other researchers, do you think he would have agreed?

It seems that now, Nick too has no problems with someone lying about and threatening fellow researchers. Nick states:


"Nobody has put up more glowing reviews of Judy Wood’s book than Jim Fetzer"


It seems that Nick has not actually read the review Mr Fetzer has posted – he mischaracterises the content of the book stating:

What we have here is a monumental exhibition of the full range of evidence that an adequate theory of the destruction of the Twin Towers must explain. While theories may come and go–and the correct theory may not yet have crossed our minds.

Fetzer completely omits to state that the evidence proves what happened and no "theories need to cross our mind". It has been shown "what did it" – at least in terms of the "class of technology". Again Nick Kollerstrom has apparently not studied Fetzer’s own comments  in this review:


I have been reading her book, but I am having trouble figuring out her theory of the case.


Fetzer has had his book for almost 1 year (it was even shown on his desk in last year’s BBC conspiracy files programme). He has organised a conference about 911 – yet he has still not read the book. He has not yet figured out, from the book, what happened. He has not yet "figured out" that he helped to smear John Hutchison’s character, and make insinuations about his association with Dr Judy Wood (read my book, or the article "Meet the New Boss"). Fetzer’s role is as clear to me as the dustification of the WTC. But seemingly it is not clear to Nick Kollerstrom or Clare Kuehn – nor is it clear to many show hosts who have had Mr Fetzer on as a guest. From Nick’s comments, however, it becomes pretty clear that his judgement is impaired. For example, he writes:


With respect Andrew you have recently given talks about anti-gravity and how the Earth is hollow and many would view that as the extreme loony fringe.


This is pretty strange because Nick has never previously commented on my recent talk and I would guess he has not even studied it (I make the conclusion that it is very unlikely the earth is hollow – because this is what the evidence shows!) More strangely and disturbingly, Nick Kollerstrom attended my "loony fringe" talk on Antigravity in 2010, in Leeds and he even asked me a question!  At no time since then has he characterised this presentation he attended, or any others I have done, as "on the loony fringe". What makes this remarks even more unusual, coming from Nick, is that he himself has been quite candid in his discussion of "loony fringe crop circles" Very weird stuff. (Also, how can you honestly refer to someone "with respect" when you are stating they made "psychotic type remarks".)

In his message, Nick also states:


One of the Judges had just been a judge at the Kuala Lumpur tribunal which indicted Blair and Bush for war crimes.


So in a follow up message, I asked Nick to clarify this. I said that I assumed one of these, from the description, was Mr Alfred Webre. Was Nick not aware that Mr Webre had threatened to sue me for libel some time ago? (He didn’t – and couldn’t, apparently). I asked Nick if he was aware of the "sensible fringe" topics that Mr Webre covers – such as "jump gate" travel to Mars, time travel and so on? Nick chose not to respond to this point. Instead he included words in his message, relating to Mr Fetzer, saying "I just wish you would stop griping about him." It seems Nick also wants to "give a break" to someone who lies about and threatens other researchers. More importantly, what has been the effect of this international tribunal in which Mr Webre took part? Has it resulted in the arrest and imprisonment of messieurs Bush and Blair? (I am guessing "no, it has not.")


In summary, Clare Kuehn wants to "give Jim Fetzer a break". Nick Kollerstrom, whom I know quite well, wishes I would "stop griping about him". I did not even mention Nick Kollerstrom in my original posting about the Vancouver Conference. What made him decide to attack my posting? Apparently he does not like certainty when it comes to 911 research – so what is the point of doing any research? What is the point of "debating" if certainty cannot be established? How would prosecutions be made in any kind of hearing or court proceedings without certainty?

With weirdness like this, is it any wonder that I am not the only one to question what was really going on in the hearts and minds of those involved in the Vancouver conference.

At the centre of it all appears to be one Jim Fetzer. Other evidence pertaining to his interaction with people – such as that documented some years ago in my article "The Strange Case of CB Brooklyn" – and comments posted on Fetzer’s Amazon review (Peg Carter: "James Fetzer is a great teacher"), and the PID blog,(Anonymous: "Fetzer may not always be perfect, but he’s no agent and Johnson rushed to an emotional conclusion on that." I never described Fetzer as an agent, I said he was a "handler".) All this evidence (I encourage you to look for more examples) seems to show that Mr Fetzer has some kind of ability to influence people and get them to expend energy trying to defend him, make excuses for his lying and generate support and sympathy for him.  This is yet another bizarre conclusion to have to come to terms with – so please study the evidence for yourself, but please also note that this conclusion "fits in" with his documented "modus operandi".

So, that is the end of my new set of "psychotic type comments" about the Vancouver conference, and how 2 people involved with the event have responded to my posting. I hope you have found these comments, in some way, enlightening. At the very least, I hope it illustrates the problems we face in revealing the truth about how the WTC was destroyed almost 11 years ago.


UPDATE: 02 JUL 2012

I received the messages from Clare Kuehn below, following her sending a copy of her presentation to me. I will leave those who are interested to download, review and compare this presentation to Dr Wood’s . However, I have quickly reviewed the presentation and made some brief (and by no means exhaustive) comments below.  

  • Page 19 – The seismographic is extremely blurred. Clare Kuehn states: "Apologies – only thumbnail available on line ". Unfortunately, the page she was referring to was moved and she did not look elsewhere or ask for this information. Additional information can be found here. Also, in the rest of her presentation, she has scanned a number of pages of the WDTTG book, so why didn’t she do this with the seismic chart? Additionally, it can be found in Dr Wood’s RFC.

  • "Nukes" are mentioned several times in the presentation – in a way which is not relevant to what is in the WDTTG book (slide 20, 26, 27, 29, 32 and quite a few  others). On the last slide it says "MORE WORK TO BE DONE on: whether such weaponry would be used in conjunction with nukes". If someone had read the book, they would realise there is no possibility "nukes" were involved, as already discussed many, many times on this website.

  • Slide 49: It states Renae O’Connell was on the Washington Bridge – this is not correct – she was on the Manhattan Bridge (P276 of WDTTG)  Underneath this it states "Was it regular heat or wave “toasting” (like a microwave)? (As with jumpers possibly.) Could nukes be going off constantly and would they leave this effect so far away?" Again this is not in the book and represent more muddle up and fits in with the idea that someone is trying to present that "1+1 might not quite equal 2".

Overall, the presentation leaves a very confused picture of what is being shown and it is not an appropriate presentation of evidence, showing clearly what happened to the WTC. For example, consider the 43 point summary (below) from WDTTG book and consider how well these points were covered in this presentation. As I wrote before, we were not consulted about the presentation and so they decided to go ahead and present this with these (and other) errors – for whatever reason.

Please read e-mails (below) from Clare Kuehn to get a more complete picture.

E-mails from Clare Kuehn

From: Clare Kuehn
Sent: 01 July 2012 17:50
To: undisclosed recipients:
Subject: Fw: Clare’s PP has been posted

This is not my actual talk; it’s the Powerpoint. But just so you know.
Don’t worry; I know it’s not perfect!! There’s more I would have liked to make it exact and I think there’s one or two errors, but overall I feel it did a good job and added some of my own thoughts in, which is important to make it interesting for me and the audience besides a regurgitation.
The audio & maybe video of the talk should be up on Youtube soon, they tell me. The video of it is not great, so the DVD to come out, will have the slides interspersed with the talk.
Have a good day.
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Donald Fox
Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:30:40 PM
Subject: Clare’s PP has been posted


Here is the link to Clare’s PP: donaldfox.wordpress….
Big day on the blog yesterday: 239 hits – an all time record for my humble blog! Jim your PP got 130 hits alone. Chuck’s PP got 38 hits, Jeff’s 14 and mine had 10 hits. Veterans Today referred 79 people and the 911vancouverhearings site 13. We’re already at 50 hits today so it should be another big day. The word is getting out folks! I get a lot of searches for Clare Kuehn on the blog so the more material the better Clare! Of course the big dogs are Fetzer and Boldwyn but every little bit helps. When the death threats start then you know that we’re getting to them. Let’s keep after them!
Sent from a stationary device

From: Clare Kuehn
Sent: 02 July 2012 06:53
To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….
Subject: Andrew …

Andrew, please don’t conflate Nick’s angrier comments with mine and in several places you’ve contorted what I said, i.e., the emotional intent, by dismissing every point you could pick on.
I just saw your newer post about me.
I didn’t have a typo-free version of the slides. It was finished at the very last minute for the conference and I was wiped out after. I thought everyone was going to get the talks up together, and so I wasn’t sending around typo slides for you or anyone when I got back. Come on. Please be a little less suspicious or accusatory. The slides are up today and I let you know right away.
Please stop being so suspicious of what I mean. I mean something very simple: it IS important to have brought Dr. Wood’s position to the conference (and Dr. Fetzer thought so). That is why I did it.
As to the PID comments page: I was addressing that I have a different impression of compared to your impression of Dr. Fetzer. I know he has not always understood all of Dr. Wood’s main points but tried to and showcased her work in his own work, and still mentions her work highly in many places. You look at it (from your comments) as if he muddied things deliberately; I disagree and am allowed, as a human being, to argue that point, of course, as you are allowed to argue your side. My side of that argument suggests you give Fetzer a break emotionally, to see that he (in my opinion) did his best and was confused at times as well. There is nothing wrong in what I said.
Unlike Nick, by the way, I know why Dr. Wood declined. And as I said above, I also feel I know why Dr. Fetzer invited her: even when he disagrees with someone or has some unclear idea of what they mean, he tries, I’ve noticed, to keep their work discussed in his show or at his conference. As to how this relates to Dr. Wood’s material specifically: in fact, having Dr. Wood’s material included led to some boycotting by more closed minded persons, and even two death threats in the end, yet he always hoped to have the work included and I stepped up to the plate.
Finally, as to my competence: it was more as a good and smart reader that I succeeded, than as a completely correct scientist on every point, though I did cover much of the science accurately. In fact, I did some very good things with points she made; if there were errors that were mine, it was as a human being who did a detailed overview but with some error. Life is like that: people discuss others and I did cover many things quite accurately, especially given the time period. So anyway, you seem to suggest that because I’m not a scientist I can’t give an assessment of the work in some correct detail, and in a correct overview, and yet be allowed to make mistakes. Of course I can.
I raised some things which were also in my own knowledge and experience and which helped the audience discuss her work’s context in "weird science" (Tesla, Leedskalnin, etc.) in more detail than they would have, as well as giving some of her own observations about the contextual science.
The audience loved it, and many who also loved Dr. Wood’s book and presentation said the same. I hope you move toward more relaxed happiness that the work was covered, well, and simply civilly correct any errors you find as well. I am of course open to correction, but don’t slam me. I don’t deserve that.

From: Clare Kuehn
Sent: 02 July 2012 07:10
To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….
Subject: Re: Andrew …

Oh, and when I say below "there is nothing wrong in what I said" I mean, even if we disagree and you think I’m wrong about Dr. Fetzer, there’s nothing wrong in the FACT I said I think differently about him at present than you do.
I don’t want you to misconstrue that sentence. For you mention that I said you think he’s an agent and you said "handler", so I’m sorry I used the wrong word and, you imply, got a different meaning as well; but to me a "handler" is a technical term for an agency’s spook controller, and thus an agent in name or in gist as well. If that’s not what you meant, then okay, but it’s how it’s often used as a term, so I thought you meant that.
Have a good day. Please don’t nit-pick me anymore. I did a good thing (overall, i.e., if there are errors please be more kind in pointing them out). And hope in general you like what I did after all, which is the main point here: to get more people understanding Dr. Wood’s work enough to consider it; if they find some more material than I covered (and they would) or if they ultimately find errors (if there are not many), then that’s fine. At least there are mostly good presentation logic points and a lot of her material for them to get a taste of her work in this conference’s context, and look her up when they might not have.
Good night. (Or morning, in Britain, if you’re there right now.)


From: Andrew Johnson <ad.johnson@ntlworld….>
To: ‘Clare Kuehn’
Sent: Monday, July 2, 2012 3:37:46 AM
Subject: RE: Andrew …


I will post all of your comments at the bottom of my article.
Everything else I said remains unchanged.

From: Clare Kuehn
Sent: 02 July 2012 08:42
To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….
Subject: Re: Andrew …

Sure, for posterity leave up the history of your comments, but honestly Andrew, please start understanding my sense not isolating things or awkward phrases as if they’re major mistakes.
I am very much on your side and Wood’s as well. If there are errors, let me know and I’ll discuss what I think or simply say thanks or whatever. But please stop being so worried about what I do or say as if it were all fine-toothed-comb with no overarching message which is GOOD. I mean to do something good.
And have a good day. (I’m up so late it’s early here. 🙂 )

Additional Comments
When your position is supported by the facts, you talk about the facts.  When your position is supported by the analysis of empirical evidence, you talk about the analysis of empirical evidence.  When your position is not supported by either the facts nor the analysis of empirical evidence, you talk about………"something else."
It has been noted that Ms. Kuehn’s presentations did not address the facts or the analysis of empirical evidence provided in Dr. Wood’s book.  Instead, she talked about "something else."  
Excerpts from Dr. Wood’s Conclusions listed in her book have been included below.  Dr. Wood’s conclusions are given as a list of 43 FACTS.    Note, these are FACTS, not "theories."  That is, Dr. Wood’s conclusions are a list of 43 FACTS she has established.  Any honest representation of Dr. Wood’s work would be expected to contain as many of these FACTS as time allowed.  But a review of Ms. Kuehn’s slide show indicates that she did not cover even one of these FACTS. (Referring to FACTS as "theories" while distorting/misrepresenting the information cannot be viewed as addressing the FACTS.) 
When someone’s position is supported by the facts, they talk about the facts.  When someone’s position is supported by the analysis of empirical evidence, they talk about the analysis of empirical evidence.  When someone’s position is not supported by either the facts or the analysis of empirical evidence, they talk about………"something else."  
Perhaps this explains why Ms. Kuehn talked about………"something else" instead of the FACTS presented in Dr. Wood’s book, which are listed below. 


In addition to explaining why ejecta is being propelled upward in what is officially said to be a downward “collapse,” any model of the WTC’s destruction, if that model is to be taken seriously, must seek to explain not some but all of the following facts, although these “facts” may also be thought of as occurrences, questions, things, and anomalies. The alert reader may notice that not even this highly detailed book itself has been able to cover all of them:1. FACT: Although Hurricane Erin was located just off Long Island throughout the day of 9/11/01, both the approach in days before and the presence of the storm on that day went almost totally unreported. Hurricane Erin was omitted on the morning weather map, even though that portion of the Atlantic Ocean where she stood was covered by the map. Astronauts gazing down said they could see the drifting plume from the destruction of WTC2 and WTC1 but made no mention of the highly visible Erin. WHY?

2. FACT: Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were toasted in strange ways during the destruction of the Twin Towers. WHY AND HOW?

3. FACT: During destruction, there appeared alongside the buildings curious corkscrew trails, called in this book Sillystrings. WHY?

4. FACT: During the demise of each tower, large enough volumes of dust made of nano-sized particles went up, enough to block out 100% of sunlight in some areas. This nano-sized particulate dust in volume enough to achieve sun-light-blocking density constituted the remains of the greatest part of the destroyed buildings’ material substance. WHAT CAUSED THIS DUST TO FORM?

5. FACT: During the destruction, there was an absence of high heat. Witnesses reported that the initial dust cloud felt cooler than ambient temperatures. Additionally, there was scant evidence of burned bodies, although in one case a man was described as “crisped” even while his jacket remained uncrisped, indicating an “inside-out” combustion not possible with conventional fire. WHAT CAUSED THESE PHENOMENA?

6. FACT: Evidence that the WTC dust continued to break down and become finer and finer long after 9/11 itself came through the observable presence of Fuzzballs. WHAT CAUSES THIS PHENOMENON?

7. FACT: First responders on 9/11 testified as to toasted cars, spontaneous “fires” (including the flaming heavy coat of a running medic, who survived), the instant disappearance of people, a plane turning into a fireball in mid-air, electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, and the sound of explosions. WHAT CAUSED THESE PHENOMENA?

8. FACT: For more than seven years, regions in the ground under where the main body of WTC4 stood have continued to fume. WHY?

9. FACT: Hazy clouds, called Fuzzyblobs in this book, appeared in the vicinity of material undergoing destruction. WHY?

10. FACT: Magnetometer readings from six stations in Alaska recorded abrupt shifts in the Earth’s magnetic field as each of the major destructive events unfolded at the WTC on 9/11. WHY?

11. FACT: Many cars in the neighborhood of the WTC complex were flipped upside down. They couldn’t have been flipped by hurricane-force winds, since they stood adjacent to trees with full foliage, not stripped by high wind. WHY?

12. FACT: More damage was done to the bathtub by earth-moving equipment during the clean-up process than from the destruction of more than a million tons of buildings above it. WHY?

13. FACT: Most of the destroyed towers underwent mid-air pulverization and were turned to dust before they hit the ground. WHAT FORCE CAUSED THIS “DUSTIFICATION”?

14. FACT: Near-instant rusting of affected steel provided evidence of molecular dissociation and transmutation. WHY?

15. FACT: Of the estimated 3,000 toilets in WTC1 and WTC2, not one survived, nor was any recognizable portion of one whatsoever found. WHY?

16. FACT: Only one piece of office equipment in the entire WTC complex, a filing cabinet with folder dividers, survived. WHY?

17. FACT: Only the north wing of WTC4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body, which virtually disappeared. FACT

18. FACT: Rail lines, tunnels and most of the rail cars at levels under the WTC complex had only light damage, if any. WHY?

19. FACT: Cylindrical holes were cut into the vertical faces of buildings 4, 5 and 6. They were cut also into Liberty Street in front of Bankers Trust and into Vesey

Street in front of WTC6. In addition, a cylindrical arc was cut into the façade of Bankers Trust. WHY AND HOW?

20. FACT: Scott-Paks—portable air-tanks for firemen—frequently exploded for no visible reason. Entire fire trucks themselves that were parked near the WTC exploded. WHY? HOW?

21. FACT: Sheets of plain office paper were omnipresent throughout lower Manhattan after each tower’s destruction. This paper, however, remained unburned, even though it was often immediately adjacent to flaming cars or to steel beams glowing red, yellow, and even white. WHY?

22. FACT: Some steel beams and pieces of glass at and near GZ had what this book calls a Swiss-Cheese appearance. WHY?

23. FACT: Steel columns from the towers were curled around vertical axes like rolledup carpets. Steel columns of this kind, however, when they buckle from being overloaded, would be bent around the horizontal, not the vertical, axis. WHY?

24. FACT: The “collapse” of the towers took place with remarkably little damage to neighboring buildings. The only seriously damaged or entirely destroyed buildings, in fact, were those with the WTC prefix, only those, that is, that were a part of the WTC complex. WHY?

25. FACT: The destruction of WTC7 in late afternoon on 9/11 was whisper quiet. The seismic signal during its disappearance was not significantly greater than background noise. WHY?

26. FACT: The facades of WFC1 and WFC2 showed no apparent structural damage from the destruction of WTC1 and WTC2. However, the decorative marble façade around the entry to the buildings was completely missing, entirely gone. WHY? FROM WHAT FORCE?

27. FACT: In the dirt pile, the Fuming was unusual for its quality of immediately decreasing when watered, contrary to fumes caused by fire or heat, where an initial steam-up is the response to watering. WHY?

28. FACT: The majority of the towers (WTC1, WTC2, WTC3, WTC7) did not remain as rigid bodies as they “fell.” WHY NOT?

29. FACT: The method of destruction in the case of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub and adjacent buildings, whereas terrorists would have been expected to maximize damage, including that of infrastructure.

30. FACT: The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers.

31. FACT: The seismic impact was minimal during the destructions of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 and far too small to correspond with a conventional “collapse” as based on a comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition.

32. FACT: The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not from the bottom up.

33. FACT: The Twin Towers were destroyed in a shorter time than can be explained by physics as a “collapse” even at free-fall speed.

34. FACT: The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.

35. FACT: The upper 90 percent, approximately, of the inside of WTC7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.

36. FACT: The WTC underground mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Brothers’ Road Runner and friends.

37. FACT: The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the total mass of the buildings.

38. FACT: The WTC7 rubble pile was too small to account for the total mass of the building, and much of it consisted of mud.

39. FACT: Truckloads of dirt were hauled both into and out of the WTC site, a pattern that continues to this day (as of original writing).

40. FACT: What this book calls lather, thick clouds of dust and fumes, emanated from some faces of buildings before destruction, as if large volumes of the buildings’ mass was dissolving into the air. Lather poured from WTC7 for several hours before its destruction. WHY?

41. FACT: What this book calls weird fire appeared frequently on 9/11. This “fire” flamed but gave no evidence of providing heat, not even enough to burn nearby sheets of paper. WHY?

42. FACT: Glass windows on nearby buildings received circular and other odd-shaped holes without the entire panes breaking. WHY?

43. FACT: Changes and alterations in materials on 9/11 were similar or even identical in a great many ways to the changes and alterations in materials caused by The Hutchison Effect. The Hutchison Effect is known to result in material-altering phenomena of the kinds we have listed here.


Related articles...

Comments are closed.