A Summary – 911 – What Happened and How it has Been Covered Up

From: Andrew Johnson

Date: 2016-01-15 23:53:59

Attachments : A chap called Evan Denton wrote to me a few days ago – I sent him a load of DVDs a few months ago – he came up with a piece he wanted to post on his “gaming” forum. I liked it so much I asked him if I could post it on my website. So here it is…   www.checktheevidence…   A Summary – 911 – What Happened and How it has Been Covered Up Evan Denton –  evandenton424@gmail…. 14 Jan 2016 I started an infamous thread on the forums last year which centred on the research of Dr Judy Wood in relation to the events of 9/11. I also highlighted the work of UK researcher Andrew Johnson who, working closely with Dr Wood, actively documented and analysed encounters with fellow “researchers” to reveal an obvious cover-up attempt. Some good audio files on the subject are listed below. They are available to download and/or listen to at your convenience.  01 – Dr Judy Wood with Regina Meredith on CMN – Where Did the Towers Go 02 – Ambrose Lane with Dr Wood _ Andrew Johnson – The Hutchison Effect – Jan 2008 (1 of 2) 03 – Ambrose Lane with Dr Wood _ Andrew Johnson – The Hutchison Effect – Jan 2008 (2 of 2) 04 – Presentation by attorney Jerry Leaphart – NIST, Data Quality Act – Aug 2007 05 – Dr Judy Wood _ Andrew Johnson – Cold Fusion and Information Management – Feb 2014 Brief Bios Dr Judy Wood earned a Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and is a former professor of mechanical engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry in forensic science. She taught graduate and undergraduate engineering classes and has authored or co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed papers and journal publications in her areas of expertise. Andrew Johnson earned a degree in Computer Science (with a minor module of Physics) from Lancaster University in 1986. He has worked as a software engineer and a lecturer and is currently a part time tutor for the [Contact Me Ref-1]. He began actively campaigning about 9/11 in 2004.   As tedious as it may be for some, I want to revisit this topic. But before I launch into this thread please note that I don’t intend for the subsequent discussions to be solely about 9/11. However I want to first establish some background / context for the following reasons:  a) Past contributors will hopefully approach the material with a fresh mind and eyes. b) People new to this information will hopefully find the following post comprehensive and insightful. Below is a list of some of the key evidence of 9/11. I’ve tried to be thorough and introduce some new information that perhaps got overlooked in the previous thread, but as you can appreciate the list and level of detail is by no means exhaustive. A 500 page book called Where Did the Towers Go has been written on the subject for those who want more detail. Nevertheless there is quite a bit to read here so please bear with me. I’ve added some pictures too so hopefully it helps to paint the scene.Key Evidence  1. There was a lack of any appreciable debris pile and seismic signal. Photographs such as the ambulance parked in front of WTC1 and even the well-known flag photo (from a different viewpoint) clearly show a lack of material. Regarding the seismic signal, one thing that perhaps got overlooked in the previous thread was the fact that the signal didn’t travel through the earth (rock) on which the buildings were founded. To be technical, no primary and secondary (“P” and “S”) waves were recorded; rather only a “surface wave” was present, which is like how a mattress responds when you remove a weight from its surface. Prominent people in the “truth movement” like architect Richard Gage of AE911Truth don’t want to talk about the seismic data. Richard Gage instead wants to promote the theory that thermite was somehow involved in the towers’ destruction.   2. Pieces of falling debris literally disintegrated into dust before our very eyes. The remaining core columns also turned to dust just a few seconds after the main part of the building had disappeared into dust. 3. It was not just two (or three) buildings destroyed that day, but several. In fact, virtually all buildings with a WTC prefix were totally or nearly-totally destroyed. Almost all of WTC3 and WTC4 disappeared completely, again without any appreciable debris pile. Curious vertical holes appeared in WTC5 and WTC6, where the latter appeared to be “cored out” in the middle with its edges remaining. Shockingly, firefighters present at ground level in WTC6, specifically those standing directly in that void, went missing – gone without a trace – while others standing just outside of this affected zone survived. 4. People disappeared virtually without a trace. The total number of bodies identified by DNA analysis was about equal to the number of people who left the building (“jumpers”) plus those in the building in the lower levels. All others just disappeared. This was even evident in a BBC documentary broadcast on the recent anniversary of 9/11 where the recovery efforts were eventually reduced to scavenging for mere bone fragments. 5. “Toasted cars”. About 1400 vehicles spontaneously combusted. The “fires” seemed to target the metal on the cars (not typically combustible) while organic materials like paper and trees were spared. But not everything made of metal was affected, such as street signs and traffic lights, and this gives us a hint as to the phenomenon at play here. Things like street signs and traffic lights are connected to the ground, while cars on rubber tyres are insulated from the ground. Also consider that ambulances may have a grounding feature as a safeguard against electrostatic hazards, which might explain why the ambulance pictured above was spared a “toasting”. Furthermore, vehicles that weren’t toasted were typically flipped upside-down.  6. Hurricane Erin. The category 3 hurricane was closest to NYC on the day and then moved away as if being controlled. The fact that it received virtually no media attention is suspicious (it wasn’t mentioned or even inserted on the weather map on the evening news). Hurricanes produce a static field, like a Tesla coil, and this directly links to the Hutchison Effect phenomenon which utilises the same sort of technology on a small scale.  The Hutchison Effect is a range of anomalous effects to materials (typically metal) including bending, twisting, peeling, instant rusting, levitation, fusion of dissimilar materials and spontaneous fires. All of these effects were seen on 9/11, so the destructive mechanism appears to share similarities with the Hutchison Effect. John Hutchison, the Canadian experimenter after which the phenomenon is named, has been producing these effects since the 1980s and although initially had difficulty replicating the effects can now guarantee an effect on demand (listen to audio file no. 3 about this). His work attracted attention from military personnel and a report about it was subsequently classified by the Canadian government. It is interesting to note that Hutchison’s samples tend to experience an ongoing effect (continued degradation) which was also evident at the 9/11 site that took an unreasonably long time to “clean up” involving dirt brought in, dumped on site and then hauled away. The nearby Bankers Trust building is another example of ongoing effects (it appears to have been “infected”) as it was initially repaired but then had to be completely dismantled and rebuilt. A fire broke out during the repairs in 2007. Compare this and other “fires” seen on 9/11 to Hutchison’s boat experiment.    Once Judy Wood cottoned on to the presence of the hurricane and its connection with the Hutchison Effect, she had reached a pivotal point in her research, effectively opening Pandora’s Box which in turn sent debunking efforts into overdrive. Grand Poobah of the “truth movement” Jim Fetzer, an apparent supporter of Wood initially, suddenly became hostile at this point in time and was at the helm of this new debunking campaign. Fetzer interviewed video specialist Ace Baker about fake videos Baker had made which appeared to mimic some of the effects seen in Hutchison’s videos. This appeared to be an attempt to discredit Hutchison’s work.   It is important to understand that the totality and nature of the destruction seen on 9/11 is not consistent with conventional destructive mechanisms. A weapon was deployed on the day that literally tore the towers apart and left behind an abundance of evidence reminiscent of the Hutchison Effect. The hurricane could be considered to be one component of the weapon, and although we don’t know the specifics of the other components we at least know the effects that they caused. The weapon can be classed as directed energy. We should all be familiar with directed energy – a microwave oven is an everyday domestic example. A laser is another example – however lasers produce heat, and the building didn’t burn up or melt (i.e. the destructive mechanism wasn’t thermal energy), so we can rule this out as the weapon. Terminology such as “space lasers” or “space beams” has been used to describe Dr Wood’s research (partly due to earlier research which considered that advanced weapons technology may have been developed in the Strategic Defence Initiative programme). One of the first people to use the term “space beams” to describe Dr Wood’s research was Steven E Jones, another prominent figure in the so-called “truth movement.” Jones has connections to Los Alamos National Laboratory and statements and actions by him between 1989 and 1991 had a seriously detrimental effect on the field of “cold fusion” research (listen to audio file no. 5).  Legal Aspects With the help from attorney Jerry Leaphart, Dr Wood presented the evidence in court in attempt to prosecute contractors of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) who were tasked with producing the technical report to explain what happened on 9/11. Two legal avenues were pursued; a Request for Corrections (RFC) under the Data Quality Act, and a subsequent Qui Tam or “whistle-blower” case under the False Claims Act. The basis for this legal action was the fact that NIST did not accurately describe what happened to the towers. The report only dealt with the plane impacts and resulting fires up to the point where it looked like the towers would start to collapse, followed by vague wording along the lines of “everything after that was inevitable” to conclude the report. Again, it is important to understand that the totality and nature of the destruction seen on 9/11 is not consistent with conventional destructive mechanisms, so it is hardly surprising that NIST avoided this aspect completely. Considering that directed energy was actually at play on 9/11, how fascinating it is that the two biggest contractors of NIST actually specialise in the research / development of directed energy weapons and the execution of psychological operations (listen to audio file no. 4 about this).   The judges of the Qui Tam lawsuit dismissed the case but not legitimately – they effectively “ignored the law” and even stated so in their written decision. If the case had gone ahead, representatives from the two above-mentioned companies, ARA and SAIC may have been put under oath to disclose more information about the technology that was used on 9/11 – possibly revealing who actually owned it. Dr Morgan Reynolds, another researcher represented by Jerry Leaphart and former chief economist of the Bush Administration, also filed a case against NIST contractors which focused on the 9/11 planes. Dr Wood does not comment on the planes issue, other than stating that the totality and nature of destruction of the buildings could not have been caused by planes – whether they are real or fake, have passengers on them or not. The Debunking Crowd There were earlier efforts by certain forum members to dismiss and deny the evidence, but to date no one here or in the wider world has actually refuted the evidence. Detractors have only succeeded in misrepresenting the evidence and debunking their own propaganda. One such individual is Myles Power, a science blogger from the UK who was snapped up by Google and trained to become something called an “EDU guru”. He makes YouTube videos aiming to debunk “bad-science” which includes a video attempting to debunk Dr Judy Wood’s book. Power does not actually refute the evidence contained in the book; instead he largely ignores it, misrepresents information, and resorts to petty ridicule with the impression of sounding intelligent. He also focuses on the chapter in Dr Wood’s book which explores the peculiar evidence surrounding the “jumpers”. This is a subject that immediately triggers an emotional response, and where it should be approached in a serious and respectful way, Power instead treats it as a joke. Another character who made his debut early in the debunking scene was Dr Greg Jenkins who conducted a hit-piece in the form of an ambush interview of Dr Wood at a conference she attended. Dr Wood was just an audience member in support of Jim Fetzer and had no idea she would be interviewed, much less filmed. In the video, Jenkins largely ignores or downplays the evidence and insists on focussing on a poor-quality black and white photograph of debris falling from the tower. He tries to dismiss the idea that the debris is predominantly dust, not large steel girders and slabs of concrete. Dr Wood points out the very fine nature of the dust, and Jenkins reacts by adopting a number of blank and confused and sheepish looks, and the discussion essentially goes nowhere. People may be familiar with alternative media personality Alex Jones. He is well known for sensationalising conspiracy theories with his special blend of hysteria and salesman like rapid-fire speech. He will cover most conspiracy stuff, but will avoid Dr Wood’s work like the plague! He won’t acknowledge her work and becomes irritated when anyone tries to bring it up on his radio show. This audio clip is most revealing (here).  Free Energy The full title of Dr Judy Wood’s book is “Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free Energy on 9/11.” And this is the silver lining – 9/11 was a disclosure of free energy. For John Hutchison’s experiments, he draws a relatively small amount of power to produce substantial effects that would ordinarily require more energy. The Hutchison Effect is therefore, like 9/11, a display of free energy technology. Free energy tends to gets a bad rap in the mainstream however it is a real phenomenon and has been demonstrated on multiple occasions by independent researchers. It is not considered seriously by mainstream science for various reasons – lobbyist propaganda in part – with the excuse that the phenomenon conflicts with established theory often argued. A class of free energy experiments relate to low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). Early LENR experiments were carried out by electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in which they reported anomalous heat (excess heat) produced from their apparatus of a magnitude they attributed to a nuclear process. Their results have been replicated by others including Dr John Bockris, a pioneer of electrochemistry who was initially accused of fraud but later exonerated following three formal investigations. A short video about this (here). Also, an excellent survey article by Dr Edmund Storms gives references to at least 34 studies with positive results using the method of Pons and Fleishman (here). Another figure that should be mentioned is Dr Eugene Mallove, who was an activist and leader for promoting awareness and encouraging research into alternative energy. This is a great interview with Mallove (here) and the last one he gave before being murdered in 2004. The Hutchison Effect and the technology used on 9/11 appear to share similarities with LENR experiments in regards to the following: High energy output to input ratio (over unity) Absence of hazardous ionising radiation Presence of tritium, an isotope of hydrogen It should be noted that LENR is not synonymous with “cold fusion” as a nuclear reaction does not necessarily mean fusion has taken place. Note that the human race has not yet mastered the technology to contain hot fusion – something that happens in the sun. The misleading term “cold fusion” was introduced by physicist Steven E Jones who was also involved in early experiments into the phenomenon. This is the same guy that introduced “space beams” to derail Judy Wood’s work. Just a coincidence?  Occam’s Razor  The simplest explanation is often the best. Another way of saying this is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is. Andrew Johnson expresses this in another way: “Any conclusion can be reached about anything – but the value of that conclusion will be inversely proportional to the amount of evidence ignored”. (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

Related articles...

Comments are closed.