9/11 Mystery – Sofia Smallstorm, Fluorine/Fluoride and The Destruction of the WTC
Andrew Johnson Apr 2009
On 16th March 2009, Sofia Smallstorm, maker of the film “9/11 Mysteries – Part 1 – Demolitions” and owner of the website www.911weknow.com appeared on the Mike Herzog show, “American Awakening” on the WTPRN network to discuss a new theory she had just proposed to explain some of the destructive effects seen at the World Trade Centre Complex on 9/11.
In this article, I will look at why this is significant, and ask the reader to consider the history behind this latest “episode” - in the ongoing muddle-up of 9/11 truth.
My motivation for writing this article is to document the activities of those people who seem, at first glance, to be helping to “spread the truth” about what happened on 9/11, but then when it comes to discussing or analysing certain key evidence, their attitude and behaviour seems to mysteriously change, or their direction of discussion or study seems to alter.
As I was reading this book, I just was connecting dots with 9/11 and I know it sounds bizarre…
She then talks about the element fluorine and gives an accurate description of its reactivity and how it forms fluorides. She also mentions how the state of California is to re-fluoridate water - at the order of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Though this is a separate matter of some concern, it seems strange to link this to the events on 9/11 at the WTC. In the broadcast linked above, Sofia continues and at 5:57 states:
I read in this book that fluorine cuts through steel like butter, burns asbestos and reacts violently with most organic materials.
Sofia does not make it clear if this is a verbatim quote (although the way she reads it suggests that it is). She then talks about more of the chemistry of fluorine and fluorides and what she says is accurate. However, she omits 2 things –
a)Elemental fluoride (F2)is a green gas.
b)In liquid (aqueous) form, it is an acid – Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) – or hydrofluoric acid http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MHMI/mmg11.html - which is not the same as fluoride (she correctly describes fluorides as salts of fluorine). HF is highly corrosive (because it is a strong acid) and it is likely she meant that it is this that will cut through steel “like butter”. However, it should be noted again that HF is an aqueous solution - i.e. it’s a colourless liquid. Some readers may be familiar with Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) as this is commonly used in high school/secondary school experiments. HF is basically a much more reactive compound that HCl.
Sofia then discusses fluorine’s role as a reducing agent (something which grabs oxygen atoms from other compounds) in the smelting of metals (but she does not make it clear what this has got to do with 9/11). She basically says “fluorine and fluorides are toxic substances” (which is true) and “there were highly toxic substances at ground zero on 9/11 – therefore there must be relationship between these things”. She mentions that fluorine “dissolves steel” – which is not technically true – hydrofluoric acid (HF) will dissolve steel, not elemental green fluorine gas.
In common with Alfred Webre and Leuren Moret’s discussion of HAARP and the WTC destruction, Sofia does not even begin to suggest how fluorine (a green gas) was delivered to the WTC nor does she estimate any of quantities involved. Neither does she suggest how Hydrofluoric Acid (the liquid form) may have been delivered. She provides no other evidence that it was used – she merely makes a weak comparison with 1 or 2 characteristics of some of the WTC evidence but goes no further.
If it were the case that Sofia were just a “newbie” to the 9/11 scene and therefore was someone who had not really spoken to other researchers or looked into related issues, it would seem more likely that bringing up fluoride’s role in the destruction of the WTC might seem to be more understandable. However, her presentation of this fluoride theory happened over 2 years after her well-produced 9/11 mysteries film first appeared (it therefore seems a reasonable guess to suggest that Sofia has been researching 9/11 for at least 3 years). Below, we will see and hear some of the evidence which shows Sofia has been speaking to other researchers about 9/11 and other topics. She has also spoken about topics such as those closely related to Weather Control.
Dr Wood and Sofia Discuss…
In Mar 2007, Sofia recorded an 85-minute long conversation with Dr Judy Wood. Though this interview was recorded some months before Dr Wood posted her Hutchison Effect study and about 1 year before she posted the Hurricane Erin study, it should have served Sofia well in familiarising herself with an overview of the evidence that Dr Wood had already posted by then.
One of the interesting notes, about this interview, is that Sofia does not comment all that much when Dr Wood points out the lack of building debris - following the 20-second destruction of the two 1350-foot tall steel glass and concrete edifices known as the WTC Twin Towers.
Dr. Erik Karlstrom and Sofia Discuss the Madison 9/11 Conference
On this show, they discussed a range of topics, including Dr Wood’s Madison presentation about the destruction of the WTC. (Eric Karlstrom had written a synopsis of the conference.) For example, at time code 36:40, they discuss the trucking in and out of dirt from the WTC site. They talk about decontamination of the site, then about white fumes (which look like steam) and the plume of material which rose from the remains of to the buildings. Karlstrom brings in (and essentially misquotes) the idea that lasers and masers were involved – (this is Jim Fetzer’s vocabulary, not Dr Wood’s). Karlstrom quotes Dr Wood’s “New Hiroshima” analogy but incorrectly he seems to imply that Dr Wood had talked of a Nuclear explosion at the WTC (rather than just a “nuclear process” – or just “molecular dissociation” – which is the key phrase used by Dr Wood when describing what happened to much of the WTC material).
After this part of the discussion, Karlstrom says to Sofia “Can you fill that out any more?” Sofia responds:
“No – I’m not Judy Wood. I can only tell you that the pulverisation of the buildings was extreme and Steven Jones believes that thermite is powerful enough if it... if the… um… thermite is basically iron oxide and sulphur – [thermate] and aluminium and then with heat added the chemical composition changes and it becomes aluminium oxide and iron – molten iron. So, he believes that if you add enough sulphur and if you granulate the compound… the thermite compound enough you can give it explosive characteristics. So whether it was thermite or whether it was something plus thermite, the pulverisation of the towers was extreme. And you see this is accounted for in the biological fate – the biophysical reaction of the rescue workers…
So here, we see that Sofia is quite happy to discuss Steven Jones theories in some detail (and quite accurately, it seems), but she is unwilling to discuss the Directed Energy Weapon evidence or technology (because she is “not Judy Wood”. So, by this logic, is Sofia Steven E Jones? This is not a serious question!)
After this, Karlstrom makes remarks that he thinks (paraphrasing) that Dr Wood is on the “right track” to finding the truth and Steven E Jones is not on the right track. Sofia responds:
I think there’s room for both of them. There’s every possibility that thermite plus some other process was used and there are experts in all different disciplines. Judy Wood is someone who has been able to language more creatively when she says the buildings disappeared. This is something we would all laugh off and say “no they didn’t” – nothing disappeared. But she’s pointing out a very extreme… extremely quick pulverisation so it’s an accurate word in some ways – not every one can talk like that. She shouldn’t be criticised for speaking in this way because she’s pointing out some very salient things.
Karlstrom then discusses Dr Wood’s description of how the towers “went away” and he points out that Dr Wood is a scientist with an understanding of the behaviour of materials etc, but at 47:45 Sofia says:
Right, but Steven Jones is a physicist – he’s capable of understanding the same things as well. He knows the melting point of steel – we have to give him credit – he’s not “uncredentialed” – he’s just operating – as I said on another part of the spectrum. The two are not mutually exclusive. That’s my belief.
Of course the melting point of steel is not relevant when one realises that no large quantities of steel melted (at least, not by normal heating). Most of the WTC steel turned to dust.
At around 53:00, Karlstrom then starts to discuss Chemtrails and Clifford Carnicom’s “Aerosol Crimes” film – which Sofia distributes through her online store “Avatar Products”. I mention this because it indicates Sofia’s interest in the Chemtrail phenomenon – and its related apparent affect on the weather, which she specifically mentions in a later broadcast with Jim Fetzer (see below). One of the proposed ideas as to the purpose of Chemtrails is to assist with Weather Modification or control. Therefore, one would expect Sofia to be very interested when, later, the Hurricane Erin study posted by Dr Wood pertained directly to weather control.
Sofia and Jim Fetzer on Dynamic Duo – 9/11 and Chemtrails
After some introductory pleasantries, at time code 02:20, Sofia begins to talk about Chemtrails and (she discusses them again at time code 30:25). However, at 14:58 Sofia states:
Arnold Schwarzenegger has just told the state of California the fire season was normally 3 months, but now, guess what now, it’s all year. Now our fire seasons are year long, which allows them to engineer disasters which is state sponsored weather terrorism – for control of our lives. And this is all possible because of the electromagnetic preparation they have done in the ionosphere and the atmosphere – now all they have to do is throw the switch.
The fact that Sofia used the phrase “state sponsored weather terrorism” implies that she would accept that someone has the ability to control the weather. I therefore ask why is Sofia seemingly so reluctant to talk about Hurricane Erin? Even though it had been mentioned in the two previous Dynamic Duo broadcasts, and Fetzer had commented on the matter, it was not brought up until the last segment of this broadcast – when it formed part of his monologue:
"Judy is now suggesting the source of energy - this is my interpretation of her - what she is talking about - there was a hurricane off the coast of New York that was never reported to the American People on 9/11. This is bizarre. A hurricane could theoretically be used as a source of energy that might have been expended in the demolition of the twin towers if you could figure out how to transform it in a constructive, directed fashion".
On the surface, this might sound correct, but sadly it isn't - Dr Wood did not say the Hurricane was a "source of energy" nor that "the energy was transformed". Dr Wood's study is about field effects which is a different idea - and it ties in exactly with John Hutchison field effect experiments. Indeed, Dr Wood entitled the new study “9/11 Weather Anomalies and Field Effects”. Fetzer omits these ideas and clearly stated connections. Neither does Sofia make any comments about the Hurricane Erin study or any other parts of Dr Wood’s latest research.
In the video I made of the Ambrose Lane interviews, I tried to include visuals to explain the evidence. If you are able to watch them, it may clarify some things. I know that some of the concepts are not "every day ones" (in the way things "blowing up" is an everyday concept), but the phenomena we discussed HAVE been investigated by a small number of well-qualified scientists - such as Hal Puthoff, Robert Koontz (PhD Nuclear Physics) and several others. Much of this information was included in John Hutchison's Affidavit (which a lot [of] people seem keen to ignore) which was submitted (as was my own) to the Court Southern District of New York in Dr Wood's case where she sued SAIC, ARA and others for their participation in the NCSTAR fraud.
As regards the "Field Effects", what we are talking about is interferometry and resonance effects of some kind. Dr Wood pointed out how resonance can be destructive - using the example of wind and the Tacoma narrows bridge destruction. But these can, indeed, be difficult concepts for people to understand, but the evidence itself not difficult to understand. For example, some of the key evidence regarding field effects is the Alaskan Magnetometer data (Erin5). You can see significant variations in the earth's magnetic field *coinciding* with key events on 9/11. The data is clear and unequivocal (people I have presented to have had no difficulty in seeing the correspondence). Also, many people know that a storm has an associated field effect - as they can literally feel it approaching.
If you study some of the free energy technology experiments it seems that when you make high speed oscillations or use high frequency waves of [from] certain equipment in certain ways, various effects seem to "come out" - as if you are "tapping into" the zero point field. Nick Cook, UK Jayne's Defence Weekly correspondent explains this here:
No, we cannot name the exact "gizmo" or gizmos that did this - and that is a sticking point for many people. What we can say with certainty is that US Military Personnel (i.e. at least Col John Alexander) have known for 25 years of John Hutchison's experiments and technology and we have documents which prove this.
I am therefore given to wonder if Sofia’s “Fluoride Theory” – being as it is based on little or no firm evidence - is part of the ongoing orchestrated “muddle up” of 9/11 truth?
For a moment, let’s make a comparison - if I was to say “tobacco was involved in the destruction of the WTC” would people think it was a credible theory? My logic could be that “the towers turned to grey dust – this looked very much like the ash from burning tobacco. I therefore think that somehow, the steel turned to tobacco then the fires burned it to ash”. Smoking tobacco also causes lung and other cancers – and many rescue workers have some form of cancer.
This theory has a similar style of logic to Sofia’s “fluoride” theory, but like Sofia’s theory, there is no additional supporting evidence – apart from a simple visual and circumstantial resemblance. More importantly, there is a great deal of other evidence the “tobacco theory” does not explain (only some of which is listed above). I might discuss such a theory privately, but if I was genuinely interested in the truth (and had already made a film about it), I would not go and discuss it on a radio show, without having some confidence that I had strong evidence to back up most or all of the things I was saying.
Why did Sofia make 9/11 Mysteries? She has said she spent a lot of her own money making it. Is she interested in 9/11 truth? Was she interested in examining all the evidence? One would assume she was, because she wasn’t forced to make the film. She has been made aware of the very strong evidence for Directed Energy Weapons – she knows that a qualified scientist, Dr Judy Wood has taken this evidence to court. Sofia has discussed some of the evidence personally with Dr Wood and Sofia’s Website sells a DVD with Dr Wood’s 2-hour presentation on it.
Sofia is interested in Chemtrails and one might safely she assume she was therefore interested in their possible relationship to Weather Control. So why does she neither express any apparent interest in the Hurricane Erin study, nor has she discussed it any detail on any of her broadcasts?
We can see from the evidence above that Sofia is quite capable of researching and quoting facts accurately about Fluoride/Fluorine and Steven E Jones’ “thermite/thermate theory”. However, when Alfred Webre and Leuren Moret appeared twice on her “expansions” programme, she did not seek to emphasise the evidence discussed was that of Dr Judy Wood, even though Sofia was fully aware of this. Neither did she question Moret and Webre on some basic points of evidence, as already discussed in a previous article.
I therefore, as ever, leave readers to draw their own conclusions – I hope it is clear what my general conclusions are.