Posted 10 Sep 2013 – Originally Written in Summer 2011
Andrew Johnson – ad.johnson@ntlworld….
This was originally written in 2011 – when Dr Wood received an invite to appear for a 2nd time on "The Power Hour". The text has now been updated slightly – and posted – following Dr Judy Wood receiving a new invite to speak on the Power Hour on 9/11/13 – an invite which she declined.
This article will attempt to analyse a previous interview conducted by Joyce Riley of “The Power Hour” and indicate why Dr Wood declined a request for an interview by her in relation to Dr Wood’s fundamentally important 500-page tome “Where Did the Towers Go?”
The reason for the request being declined relates to Dr Judy Wood’s previous appearance on The Power Hour, and my own appearance on the same programme. On 23rd March 2010, on, Joyce Riley interviewed Dr Judy Wood in relation to her research into the destruction of the WTC complex, and resulting Qui Tam Case
At the end of this article, you can read an e-mail exchange between myself and Joyce Riley where we declined the interview. This is, of course, not the first time such an interview request has been declined. An interview with the BBC was declined by Dr Judy Wood in 2008. That was a good decision, it seems, (and was re-affirmed as such, with the airing of a new BBC 911 criminal propaganda piece by the same producer – Mike Rudin).
Sadly, it has become necessary to post this article to lay out the facts about what happened over 2 years ago, so that information and analysis is available for those that wish to read it. Time and again we find ourselves having to work to correct misconceptions, misrepresentations and clarify the context in which evidence has been discussed. Again, it has become necessary to point out where psychological tactics seem to have been used, rather than relevant and logical questions being asked and answered.
I have become ever more weary about having to post articles like this and at times, feel that I have turned into some kind of “watcher” or even “policeman” (which is not what I intended). Overall, the evidence I have gathered over the last 6-7 years, shows that the cover up relating to Dr Judy Wood’s research into the destruction of the WTC is so powerful and comprehensive – and it is often quite subtle.
In all of this, my overall objective and agenda is to make information available so that those that want to learn the truth can learn the truth. It is not an easy task – because of the mesh of forces which works to keep the truth from being known.
I was therefore saddened by Joyce Riley’s response when I wrote to her on Dr Judy Wood’s behalf to decline an interview that she had requested, around the time of the 10th anniversary (and the same has happened near the 12th anniversary). In short, it seems that Joyce Riley is not particularly interested in the truth of what happened on 9/11. It seems she would rather fill an hour or two of her radio show and then continue to suggest that the truth about what happened on 911 was not – and could not – be known.
We will now analyse parts of the interview.
Dr Wood Interviewed by Joyce Riley – 22 Mar 2010
Dr Judy Wood was invited, along with myself, to discuss her research on “The Power Hour” and the show took place on schedule.
The interview can be heard using this link, or the embedded player below.
Initially, there were no serious problems with the interview, although Joyce Riley started off reminding people about thermite being accepted by a number of people in the “truth movement”. At about 13:04, when discussing whether large pieces of the building fell to the ground, she does say, however, that all she saw was “dust in the air”. This theme is repeated several times over the next few minutes, and Joyce Riley seemed to understand.
At about 11:50 into the interview, Joyce Riley talks about the building being brought down by thermite charges.
At about 29:00 Hurricane Erin is brought up and Joyce Riley states that she had “never heard about this”. A few seconds later she says that “people are emailing her because the do not believe what they’re hearing”. She makes no other comment and expresses no surprise.
The first caller appears around 31:30 and brings up the subjects of UFOs and molten metal!
However, when Dr Wood started to discuss her court case, some problems began to occur. At about 37:00 Dr Wood was talking about the contractors she had sued but she does not get chance to name them. Joyce Riley then abruptly cuts in saying:
OK let me just say to Larry in Texas we’re gonna get to what she believes to be the err the reason…
Dr Wood then says:
No, this isn’t about belief.
Alright – what she says her belief is… Larry did you want to say anything else?
So, Joyce Riley is either not appreciating or deliberately putting the wrong emphasis on the word “belief”. Perhaps she is even deliberately mischaracterising what Dr Judy Wood did with her research?
The caller then asks about WTC 7 and then a break happens and Joyce Riley then says:
We’re having a bit of a contentious discussion about between some people who believe and don’t believe what Dr Judy Wood says – now I’m open. I don’t have dog in this fight – other than I want the truth – I’m just like her. I want to know what the evidence shows – what the documentation shows…
Joyce Riley seems to be muddling things around here – she claims to want to know the truth, but she put things in terms of “belief” and kept interrupting – when Dr Judy Wood was discussing some of the details of the court case. She then suddenly switches to talking to a caller, just when the discussion was beginning to cover who might know who “did” 9/11 (i.e. the military contractors who helped cover up what happened).
Joyce Riley then talks about “buildings coming down” and Dr Wood then goes on to say the buildings “went away”. She then states that “Building 7 didn’t come down” and points out the lack of a seismic signal for its demise. Joyce Riley says
“I think this is where people are gonna lose you right now…”
Dr Wood goes on to explain what actually happened with the ongoing and voluminous “fuming” which lasted for about 7 hours. …
Well I don’t know about that. Here again you’re asking us to deal with a fact I am not aware of.”
So Joyce Riley does not let Dr Wood elaborate on the evidence and present the truth about what happened to WTC 7. Rather, she then takes a phone call which turns out to be “Steve from Florida”. He asks if he is “loud and clear” and then launches into a tirade
“Judy you have misrepresented the facts concerning Hurricane Erin. I live here in Hurricane Country – Florida, I track all the Hurricanes. Erin hit Corpus Christy Texas, 15 August 2007. Your opinion[s] concerning 911 are not consistent with the facts provided. 911 Ripple Effect, Last Man Out, Richard Gage’s Blue Print for 9/11 Truth , Loose Change Final Cut, Zero and Investigation into 911 and many other documentaries.
I don’t know what planet you’ve come from…”
Joyce Riley then interrupts and then says
“We don’t need to go quite that far. The point is we are listening to information here and trying to come to a conclusion. Give her 1 statement at a time that you’d like her to address.”
The question then is, according to Joyce Riley, “how far do we need to go”? How should we characterise the guest (Dr Judy Wood)? “Strange”, “weird”, or just plain “wacky”?
We then hear some background noises and Steve is “gone”. Dr Judy Wood’s voice is then heard saying
“as for Hurricane Erin, they did not retire that name.”
As it turned out, Dr Wood’s audio had been muted while the caller was “ranting” and she was pointing out (but it did not go on air), that the facts can easily be checked at the Hurricane Data Centre. Dr Wood did give some facts about the Hurricane but seemed to have been surprised and put off balance by the caller’s rant and Joyce Riley’s lack of response to it.
Once again, we can think of what the caller said – he asked if “he was loud and clear”. Note, he did not say “can you hear me”? Which is what most people would have said.
But Joyce Riley carries on reading e-mails and does not bother to correct the caller’s false statement and then there is a break. After the break, Joyce Riley, says that “a lot of people have asked to have Dr Judy Wood on”, but she then feels in necessary to defend herself for having Dr Wood on – Joyce Riley asks she not be “berated” if listeners do not agree with Dr Wood. She then says Steve is a “wonderful person and she loves him very much”, but says “let’s just try to get down to what the fact is”.
The problem with this statement and its sentiment is that Joyce Riley, prior to the interview, had an approx 90-minute telephone conversation with Dr Wood and the Hurricane was discussed. So why would she not say “no, sorry Steve, you’re wrong – I checked the hurricane and it really was there.”
After a discussion of the conclusion about the buildings being destroyed with the use of an energy weapon, Joyce Riley then goes to a call from “George in Canada” – actually George Freund.
At about 47:10 He then discusses “burning metals” – metals that can burn underwater (which is true) and he gives the example of divers welding under water and phosphorus bombs.
Dr Wood points out she talked about “molten metals” not burning metals and she said that you don’t store molten metal at the bottom of a swimming pool. After the break Joyce Riley then says “she doesn’t know the answers” and goes back to George Freund who again talks about metals burning under water and how they have to be extinguished differently to “ordinary” fires. (He seems to know quite a bit about it). George Freund then goes on to talk about Nanothermite and an MIT publication called Technology Review article. He also mentions mini-nuke technology and goes on about various other “nanothermite-related” items.
For people unaware of the details pertaining to the 911 Thermite/Nanothermite fraud, please see 911thermitefree.blog…
Freund then goes on to question the issue of the Hurricane saying:
“I do recall almost every picture – in fact in every picture I’ve seen of New York on that day – the sky was blue – pure blue – not a cloud in the sky.”
Joyce Riley interrupts and says
“this is hurting the situation because we can’t verify some of your so-called evidence here. I mean, I’m trying to – I want to”
Dr Judy Wood advises her to go to drjudywood.com/wtc and points out that the hurricane is documented at the National Hurricane Centre. I must therefore question, at this point, Joyce Riley’s motives. We are 54 minutes in – now 17 minutes after the first caller has essentially accused Dr Judy Wood of lying about Hurricane Erin – and there have been 2 breaks! No one has checked.
She then goes back to George Freund – who continues to talk about demolition and he does not ask Dr Wood a further question. The discussion goes on to what William Rodriguez said about a sealed off area in the WTC and Joyce Riley says “she happens to believe him” – (but she oddly questions, on air, the presence of Hurricane Erin – already discussed with her prior to the interview).
We then have another caller talking about molten metal and melting boots (but not burned feet). He (inevitably) mentions the Steven E Jones and the so-called “peer-reviewed” papers. He openly accuses Dr Wood of being a “disinfo agent” but she replies discussing how the thermite evidence has never been submitted in a legal framework, whereas her own research has.
Joyce Riley then agrees that these other people haven’t filed a Qui Tam case based on their evidence, but then returns to the caller and enthusiastically seems to agree with him when he suggests “a combination of things” were used. She says
“Good point! Excellent point!”.
Finally, 1 hour into this broadcast (considerably longer in real time, due to the breaks), Joyce Riley finally announces that her computer is “fixed” and she has “confirmed” that Hurricane Erin was indeed the longest [lasting] hurricane in the 2001 time frame was Sept 1st to the 15th (though she doesn’t name the Hurricane at this point) and Dr Judy Wood continues to explain its relevance, but is again cut short as another caller is taken. However, this caller seems to understand the basis of the evidence and what it shows, and is complimentary.
Joyce Riley talks about people’s reaction to the evidence and how the Power Hour is about “empowering people with facts and evidence”. She then says:
Now I think there have been some statements made today that are probably inaccurate on both sides, but I think the idea though is that we are looking for the truth… if we are all looking for the truth, there shouldn’t be this infighting…
Following this, I also spoke for a time on the programme and after the programme, Joyce Riley did, indeed, ring me and compliment me on my presentation. (Only Jim Fetzer has done this same thing with me before now).
Joyce Riley seems quite open to what I said and even went on to ask Dr Wood to list the contractors that were named in her Qui Tam Case. However, this is not discussed for all that long.
Following a short summing up I offered, another couple of e-mails are read out, one of which says:
Judy is not the easiest person to follow, but when she said “Tesla” she got my attention. It may have been a sound weapon, as Tesla proved, as well as Thermite!
Joyce Riley responds:
Bingo! What a good statement!
A complimentary e-mail is read out asking for Dr Wood to be back on. She then closes with:
Listeners, it’s all about being open-minded. We don’t know the answers – we don’t have the truth.
On 22nd March, the interview with Dr Wood is broken up, disjointed and the issue of doubt about the Hurricane is injected following a caller’s (Steve’s) false accusation.
A follow up call by George Freund then brings up thermite (but does not explain how it is supposed to have turned the towers to dust – a fact which is never challenged). Nor does the caller point out this evidence was not included in a legal challenge.
Whilst Joyce Riley appears to be supportive and complimentary at some points, she also injects doubt regularly, for example at one point stating: “we can’t verify some of your so-called evidence here” – despite this having been discussed before the interview.
Joyce Riley, twice, gets enthusiastic when listeners suggest that a mixture of thermite and something else were used.
Joyce Riley states at the end
“We don’t know the answers – we don’t have the truth.”
And makes similar comments elsewhere in the broadcast.
Again, some people will consider I am being over critical here – because, after all, Joyce Riley offered a platform to Dr Judy Wood. And, because “The Power Hour” goes out on Short Wave, it has a large audience. However, details of the broadcast need to be studied to see that, at best, it was a muddle up and at worst it was an attempt to cast Dr Judy Wood in a bad light – primarily because her audio was muted when she needed to respond promptly to a point made and when she was not really given sufficient time to respond carefully to points raised.
Following the interview, Dr Wood contacted Joyce Riley and described how she was unhappy about how the caller who accused her of lying about Hurricane Erin was not handled. Joyce Riley was sent this e-mail from a listener who contacted Dr Wood and said stated,
"This hurricane existed well before 9-11-01. It was over 540 miles away from WTC location. … I think she has been grossly mislead and is misleading others. I am surprised she was allowed to make such baseless claims on The Power Hour without opposition….I think she is out of her mind and I am quite literally disappointed that she was given the airwaves of The Power Hour to spout her nonsense."
Andrew Johnson on the Power Hour for the 2nd Time – 31st Mar 2010
In a follow up interview with me on 31st March 2010, Joyce Riley brought up the issue of Dr Wood’s presentation and I addressed it by pointing out that Dr Wood was encouraging people to look at the evidence and think for themselves rather than be spoon feed with a conclusion – and how important that was. Regardless of what one might have thought of Dr Wood’s presentation, the evidence is more important than the packaging – and it is symptomatic of how the show progressed that this has to be pointed out to people. Similarly a skilful host will, to some extent, adapt themselves to the guest’s style of delivery and adapt their questioning to “get the best” out of their guest.
There were no real problems in the first hour of the show on 31st of March and I was able to present and make the points I wished. Joyce did not make any comments as I began to discuss the connection between the Cold Fusion phenomenon and the 911 evidence and cover up – except when I started to talk about Steven E Jones being involved with Cold Fusion.
In the recording of the interview of 31st March, at around 26:45, Joyce Riley states
“That’s quite a strong allegation to be making against err… Dr Jones.”
It is slightly interesting that she referred to Dr. Jones, though maybe not significant – and this was the only time she commented in that part of the presentation.
After The Event – The Power Hour Shows Its Weaknesses
On her 24th March programme, Joyce Riley stated:
JR: I am gonna be real honest with you all – that I don’t think she presents herself well. I think there is a lot of… work that could be done on making her points understandable to people, um, interesting, easily… put them together so that you come from point A to point B to point C to point D and then you come to the conclusion. But I don’t think that happened – and we talked about that because I don’t want to think that that is going to limit her in her ability to do her production and her spreading of information.
Co Host: “Yeah it shouldn’t discredit the message…”
But if you don’t present well, you do discredit your message. I mean some people said she used terms like dustification – now that’s not a PhD term.
Co Host: Sure
OK maybe so – but I think she’s trying to bring it down to the level of a lot of people and the power hour people are not at a low level – they’re really understanding what is going on – they don’t need that kind of err limitation on the information. Aerosolisation I think would be more – I don’t know – that to me – she didn’t like that term but I thought would be the term that would be appropriate.
Now what we did yesterday was talk about the idea… that she says it is not just the thermite/thermate that brought the buildings down – possibly a combination of the two
Co Host: I don’t see why that’s a problem – a lot of people are having a hard time about accepting new information
Joyce Riley makes further Follow Up Comments in 25th March
Again, Joyce seemed moved to make further remarks, casting Dr Judy Wood in a bad light.
I don’t have a problem with changing my mind. You know this issue with Dr Judy Wood – which I am gonna give you all the credit in the world – those of you who said she didn’t present herself well – that is true – and she’s very defensive on that issue also. She needs to have a better presentation of her material. I tend to think she’s got some things there… that are actually on target. I tend to think that – I don’t know how much though…
Couldn’t Joyce look at the evidence and submitted court documents?
“These People Are Frauds”…
Shortly after my follow up interview (which was cut short, apparently due to technical problems), on 01 Apr 2010, Joyce Riley sent me the only e-mail I’d ever received from her (up to then). In this message was a “debunking” compilation of images by George Freund containing the statements:
DUST AT THE WTC A poor hoax
You can see this message in its entirety below. Why was this the only e-mail I received from her? What did the photos Freund had compiled really show? (I would argue they just provided more evidence that Dr Wood was correct in her analysis.) George Freund phoned in to promote thermite – yet did not seem bothered that this evidence was not included in the RFC sent to NIST.
George Freund then went as far as to say:
"These people are frauds."
Wow. So, George Freund accuses us of being frauds and completely ignores all of the evidence – and that it had been submitted to court. Further, Joyce Riley forwards this, nonsense to myself and Dr Wood!
So, because of this and the terrible handling of the issues in Dr Wood’s original interview, when Joyce Riley recently contacted Dr Wood to ask for an interview, I sent her back a list of questions about these things.
I was not happy with her answers, so we declined the interview. Her responses were interesting. I won’t even take the time to study and break down these messages in detail, as it is relatively clear that Joyce Riley does not address the issues I raised and seemingly tries to imply things “do not look good” for “our side”. She also uses the word “ambush” – which is interesting.
John Hutchison’s Appearance on The Power Hour – 05 April 2010
John Hutchison was supposed to appear with me on the Power Hour on 31 March 2010, but it appeared there was some kind of power failure (so it became the “no power hour”) and there was no broadcast. Joyce Riley therefore hosted an interview with him on 05 April 2010.
There were no real problems with this interview, I will just make one observation. Joyce Riley asked John Hutchison what he thought about 911.
I want to address 9-11. Now Dr Judy Wood has been on the programme, Andrew Johnson has been on the programme and of course, they refer to you heavily. Why is that when they talk about 9/11, they refer to the Hutchison Effect and to your work?
John Hutchison then states at 29:35:
Well, in Hangar 17 there’s so many different strange metal samples that seem to remember my samples as well as the buildings themselves, the central core [?] sort of just vaporises – when it falls down.
He then mentions a couple of times that he thinks Dr Wood is the expert and he expresses respect for her qualifications in engineering and her analysis of 9/11. At 30:59, John also brings up the thermite theory, saying:
I call them the “Welding Materials People”. I mean there’s no way that people put hundreds of tons of thermite in all those buildings.
John then discusses thermite is a welding material and that it was used for this purpose in World War One and 2.
Joyce Riley says:
Could the thermite have been a combination – a Rabbit Hole”?
Is Joyce Riley keen to suggest that thermite was used in some way? Why doesn’t she ask John to go into more detail about the connection between the 9/11 evidence and the Hutchison Effect?
Again, on the surface, it looks as if Joyce Riley is helping to raise awareness of Dr Judy Wood’s research – particularly as she also had John Hutchison on her programme – but she did not discuss the evidence enough and did not allow a sufficient discussion of the evidence. This is really quite straightforward, if a host takes time to listen or research for themselves – and, importantly, the host does not have an agenda to distract, muddle up, confuse or lead the discussion into a “dead end”.
Examples of interviews where evidence is discussed more appropriately are linked below.
Kim Greenhouse: Revisiting 9/11: Embracing the Facts
Theo Chalmers – One Step Beyond
On Aug 27, 2011, at 7:18 AM, Andrew Johnson wrote:
I have been in communication with Dr Judy Wood and we discussed your recent invitation of her onto the Power Hour.
Following my own appearance on your programme last year, you copied me in on an e-mail 01 Apr 2010 which included text and photographs from your friend George Freund. He stated "These people are frauds."
I also responded (twice) in detail to the comments that Mr Freund made. Oddly, neither you not Mr Freund responded. To my knowledge, Mr Freund has not filed a Qui Tam or similar case based on evidence that he thinks would prove what happened on 9/11.
My question is therefore this:
Do you agree with Mr Freund that we are "frauds"?
If you did not agree, why did you forward that message originally?
If your view has changed, then what evidence has made you change your view?
Do you have any thoughts or regrets about letting a caller go unchallenged when he accused Dr Wood of lying about Hurricane Erin on 911, when the caller had not even checked the records which show he was mistaken – even libellous – in his comments? Do you have any thoughts or regrets about stating that this hurts Dr. Wood’s credibility, suggesting that the sources on her website are not to be trusted?
What steps might you take to ensure that if such a situation arose on air in a future broadcast, it would be dealt with more appropriately?
From: Joyce Riley
Sent: 27 August 2011 17:37
Subject: Re: Dr. Judy Wood – Interview w/ThePowerHour.com
So you will understand, I attempt to forward ALL responses of interviews to the guests, as a COURTESY, so that if they choose to respond, they can. There are usually positive and negative comments. Please understand I get plenty of negative comments and do not respond to all or most of them. People are entitled to have their opinions. I think that is a good thing to do and allow our guests to clear the air, if they choose to do so. Many make converts as a result of communication. I would ask you if you responded to Mr. Freund? He is a very discerning person and if he is wrong will be the first to admit.
What does a Qui Tam have to do with it? I have filed a Qui tam and am not necessarily an expert.
You need to understand the interview is not a about me…………………it is about you two conveying your position. When I go on Coast to Coast I am criticized by many but that does not deter me from going back on again and I attempt to respond to those who disagree first.
I allow our listeners to have their opinion, if you want me to agree to come to your aid on the interview, then that will not happen. Our listeners have seriously attacked (in argument) Dennis Kuchinich but that doesn’t deter him from coming on.
I have sent numerous emails offering the opportunity to come on TPH. They went unanswered. I feel this is rude and when I am paying almost $1,000 an hour to put a guest on,
and not you. I have requested a copy of the book when you are on, no response.
The ball is in your court, You have been given the opportunity, you can agree or decline. I am not know as a talk show host who will ambush a person. If you had concerns, why didn’t you ask me earlier "WHY" I sent the email to you.
I await your response. The choice is yours. At least now I can give a reason to our listeners as to why you have not been on.
From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:ad.johnson@ntlworld….]
Sent: 28 August 2011 11:43
To: ‘Joyce Riley’
Subject: RE: Dr. Judy Wood – Interview w/ThePowerHour.com
Thank you for your response to my/our previous message regarding the interview, but I could not find the answers to my/our questions.
To answer your question, I have included the response I sent to George Freund – and a further response to you a few hours later. Since then, I have, on 1 or 2 occasions, been on the same e-mail cc list as Mr Freund and have responded with points regarding Dr Wood’s research and related Qui Tam case. Mr Freund has never responded to any of my messages.
Regarding callers "attacking" the guest etc, I do not consider what may or may not have happened to Dennis Kucinich an appropriate comparison. (Dr Wood is a scientist, not a politician and whether or not Hurricane Erin was approaching New York City in the days before 9/11/01 is a matter of fact – not a matter of opinion.)
If you wish to advise your listeners as to why Dr Wood has declined to appear on your programme, it is requested you read out this short statement:
"Dr Wood has declined an interview with the ‘Power Hour’ regarding her book ‘Where Did the Towers Go’ and the evidence contained within this work because of circumstances which arose during and following her last interview on the Power Hour on 23rd March 2010. For more details, please www.drjudywood.com/ and/ or www.checktheevidence…;
From: Joyce Riley
Sent: 29 August 2011 02:11
Subject: Re: Dr. Judy Wood – Interview w/ThePowerHour.com
Thank you Andrew for your response. I have to add that it looks like you both are afraid to come on the program. Don’t ever say you were not invited. You have declined. No problem, we have plenty of people who want to tell their story.
Yes I will pass this on an tell the audience why you both chose to come on. This does not bode well for your position, your choice.
Emails from 2010
From: Joyce Riley [mailto:nightingale7@hughes….]
Sent: 01 April 2010 02:17
Subject: Fwd: DUST AT THE WTC A poor hoax
Dear George, Thanks so much for the most thought provoking pictures. I appreciate the work you did to present it,
I certainly am considering. I will forward this to Andrew Johnson for his response. Thanks so much, Joyce.
Begin forwarded message:
From: George Freund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: March 31, 2010 9:01:03 AM CDT
To: Joyce Riley <nightingale7@hughes….>
Cc: "The Power Hour!" <email@example.com…>
Subject: DUST AT THE WTC A poor hoax
We see the ‘dust’ in the collapse. It’s cement particles, building materials like drywall, etc. At the bottom we see tons and tons of solid material. The WTC did not turn to dust. Trucks do turn upside down after explosions. The tires can remain intact. There was a shock wave like an earthquake. The ground vibrates. The wave motion turns the car upside down. Do view the molten metal before being turned to dust. Do look at the fire picture on the LOWER FLOORS. You have to look at ALL the evidence not just the evidence you cherry pick. The refuse was not ‘dust’. It was steel girders. Lots and lots of steel girders.
These people are frauds.
P.S. Tesla technology exists, but it didn’t happen here.
Dust crushes police car:
Dust removed from WTC:
A spoonful of thermite makes the building go down?
From: Andrew Johnson [info@checktheevidenc…]
Sent: 01 April 2010 09:04
To: ‘Joyce Riley’
Cc: ‘George freund’
Subject: RE: DUST AT THE WTC A poor hoax
I have cc’d George
Thank you for hosting the programme. Did you find out what caused the problems at all? I also wondered if you got chance to read out my Bio in the 1st hour, as I didn’t catch all of it. (Not that important in my case, but at least if gives people some info about me…)
I am afraid George’s observations are not correct – I will address them below. Yes, sometimes it’s difficult for people to come to terms with what the evidence shows – because it’s alien to them. This is why one reason why "progress is slow".
"We see the ‘dust’ in the collapse. It’s cement particles, building materials like drywall, "
The STEEL turned to dust, as can clearly be seen:
Cement and dry wall material cannot free-stand to 70 stories. Understanding this is vital to understanding what happened.
You can also see an additional set of clips in films like "9/11 Explosive Reality" or in our TV presentation from a month or so ago:
"At the bottom we see tons and tons of solid material"
Yes, but relative to the size of the building, there was very little debris
WTC6, an 8-story building, towers over the "rubble pile" remaining from WTC1 and 2. We know this photo was take before noon on 9/11/01. WTC7 can be seen in the distance. The Verizon Building is at a distance on the left.
Approximately the top 80% of the building was turned to dust – of course there was some left at the bottom, as shown in the pictures George sent – and in the one above… I wrote this article quite a while ago to try and illustrate the paucity of debris:
( This is included in my free e-book and free audio book, available here: tinyurl.com/911ftb )
The WTC did not turn to dust.
Yes, the WTC tower did turn to dust. If they didn’t, there would be a pile of debris at the bottom at least 100 feet high. Analysing photos on this page:
and elsewhere on Dr Wood’s site shows the paucity of debris – as does the statement of witnesses. This has all been covered over the last 3 years – and no one I have spoken to, once they have studied the available evidence, disagrees with this.
Trucks do turn upside down after explosions.
Yes, but did this happen at the WTC? And where were the explosions from? If the trucks were turned upside down by explosions, they would show damage caused by explosions. Do you think the car in figure 8.1 below shows damage from an explosion? And what about the fire truck in the same photo?
Figure 5. I
Figure 6. I
Figure 7. I
Figure 8. I
Figure 9. I
Figure 10. I
Also, here is some witness testimony from here. I think you will find this witness (and others) do no report explosions causing the cars to upturn:
File no 9110506 – Michael Macko (P4 – P5) I realized I couldn’t get out from under the collapse. I dove under an ESU truck that was facing north on the west side of West Street. I dove under that and waited for the building to come down. When the building did come down, I actually thought I was trapped, and the truck was blown off me, pushed off me, I guess. It was not there. At that point I was just really shocked and didn’t know what was going on at that point. I didn’t know — I was really, really shocked.)
There are a number of other witness testimonies. And David Handschuh’s account is also revealing, as is the account of the guy in blue top – see this video for these:
All these and more points of evidence have been covered. "Field Effects" were involved in the destruction of the WTC – a "black world" physics – which others have stumbled across in various forms. Weather control was used on 9/11 – and weather exhibits its own field effects, as meteorologists will tell you. But that’s another topic.
From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:info@checktheevidenc…]
Sent: 01 April 2010 13:28
To: ‘Joyce Riley’
Subject: RE: DUST AT THE WTC A poor hoax – additional thought
In "911 Finding the Truth" I document the objection to evidence – and how it is commonly described using emotive phrases like "A Poor Hoax".
People work quite hard to say what DIDN’T do it, whilst not putting much effort into building a fully explanatory case of what DID do it (which comes down to people like SE Jones and AE911 truth NOT including their primary evidence in their official challenges.
9/11 and Energy Weapons is difficult for people to get to grips with at first. However, once they have seen that it is the only explanation which fits all the available evidence, they are then confronted with how massive and comprehensive (and downright strange) the cover up is.