Andrew Johnson “know[s] little about the laws of physics…”

What hope is there…

Yes Andrew, I know that you are obviously not Richard D. Hall. What a silly thing for you to suggest! I don’t ‘keep emailing you’ either, I’ve sent 5 including this one..At least get very basic facts straight, otherwise you’ll continue to look foolish. You can’t even count?
Richard’s confusion, and yours, about the types of aircraft involved are wholly relevant. The weight and size of an aircraft on hitting a building will obviously determine the amount of damage done to that building. You clearly know little about the laws of physics if you don’t even understand that very basic fact.
Thanks again for your contribution. Our email exchanges will be published in full, unless you object of course. If so then you’ll need to sue.
Enjoy your weekend. 

From: Andrew Johnson <ad.johnson@ntlworld….>
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2018 8:44:13 AM
To: ‘N W’
Subject: RE: CheckEv Website Message


Not sure why you keep emailing me. Confusion over types of aircraft doesn’t affect the laws of physics. You might want to check that before you publish your book.


What we have been saying has been “out there” now for 10 years. The videos, witness testimony etc show the plane crashes on 911 weren’t real. If you want to try and debunk reality, it’s your choice.


Nit-picking over details doesn’t change what happened on 9/11 – despite what some researchers seem to want.


I won’t waste my time responding any more – as you seem to be someone who doesn’t want learn anything new about this issue.


Also, a major detail you have missed is that I am not Richard D Hall.


Good luck with your book – but make sure it’s accurate in every single detail (including what happened to the passengers) else you might be debunked…


Signing off…


Andrew Johnson


From: N W [mailto:startracing@hotmail….
Sent: 27 January 2018 07:01
To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….
Subject: Re: CheckEv Website Message


P.s. Sorry to have annoyed you by showing you up so easily, in simply asking you to check your facts properly before publishing unproven theories and accusations.
Give my regards to Richard D. Hall and I commend him on his excellent, thorough work on the Mc Canns which was superb. He unfortunately screwed up when he attempted to say that no aircraft hit the WTC and that a B767 is the same as a B757. I guess some people think all jet airliners are ‘the same’ simply because they all have a fuselage, wings and a rear fin/stabiliser. Hope you learn from this, and thankyou for providing interesting material for my new book.

From: N W <startracing@hotmail….>
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 7:44:44 AM
To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….
Subject: Re: CheckEv Website Message


Why would I need to provide evidence that you and your cronies often make completely erroneous statements such as claiming that a Boeing 767 is ‘the same as’ a Boeing 757 (that gem came from Richard D. Hall). Facts such as aircraft size and weight are already very well known to anyone who knows anything about aircraft, and very easily checked by anyone else.
You need to be squeaky clean with simple facts my friend, otherwise it simply makes you look rather foolish.

From: Andrew Johnson <ad.johnson@ntlworld….>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 10:57:31 PM
To: ‘N W’
Subject: RE: CheckEv Website Message


You’re welcome!


Put your evidence in a court case (we did) and send me the documents when you’ve filed them.


Are you accidentally or deliberately lying? (That’s a rhetorical question).








From: N W [startracing@hotmail….
Sent: 25 January 2018 10:16
To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….
Subject: Re: CheckEv Website Message


Thankyou for predictably ignoring the points I mentioned. When you come up with theories and/or views which you then publicise you really do need to be squeaky clean and get all your facts 100% correct, otherwise you do a disservice to others by allowing officials such as UK and US Governments to dismiss anyone querying the official version as conspiracy theorists or nutters, when in fact many who disbelieve official Government versions of events are neither.
Good luck with your profit making enterprises.

From: Andrew Johnson <ad.johnson2211@gmail…>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 9:03:01 AM
To: startracing@hotmail….
Subject: RE: CheckEv Website Message


Hello there

You might want to read: 

1) Where did the Towers Go by Dr Judy Wood 
2) My 2 free ebooks.

You can find links on my website.

I won’t be starting to race anytime soon!

Have fun when you’ve started racing!

Best Wishes

Andrew Johnson

> —–Original Message—–
> From: info@checktheevidenc… [info@checktheevidenc…]
> Sent: 19 January 2018 07:12
> To: ad.johnson2211@gmail…startracing@hotmail….
> Subject: CheckEv Website Message

> Below is your request/order. Please keep a note of it for reference!  It
> submitted by startracing@hotmail…. at 07:11:30  19-Jan-2018


> Recipient: info@checktheevidenc…

> Message text: I have watched many hours of vids by Richard D Hall,
> and others. You all claim to be very well qualified and educated, yet you
> seem to overlook and/or gloss over many actual facts. For example, you all
> claim that the WTC towers ‘turned to dust’ whereas it’s well documented
> recorded that many tons of steel were very quickly removed from the site
> and shipped away. You don’t even mention how deep the foundations of the
> WTC towers were..amply deep to swallow up tons and tons of debris. As for
> you not realise that most of the office spaces and even the
lining of
> the elevator shafts were constructed with plasterboard, which creates huge
> dust even when cut with a simple saw.
> Richard D Hall claimed that a ‘ball’ hit the WTC and he was later forced
> retract that claim. He also claimed that a Boeing 757 and a 767 are the
> when in fact they are worlds apart in terms of weight, size and load.
> Please stop giving the U.S. Government grounds for accusing anyone disag

> Char count: 3856

Related articles...

Comments are closed.