Andrew Johnson ( This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it )

13^th April 2012

(See update at bottom: 03 May 2012)

The 911 Nuke Theory Explodes - Again!

Around about 21^st March 2012, links to a new, lengthy document first appeared on the internet – for example on the “Project Avalon” forum and in an article which was posted on the “Veterans Today” Website.  I have archived a copy of this document, entitled “911-America Nuked” here [1] [2]. It is a total of 247 double-spread pages. Its subtitle is “The Final Word On 911” – this statement is false, you should realise this when you have studied the evidence presented below.

The basic thrust of the document appears to be to promote the idea that some type of nuclear weapon was used to destroy the World Trade Centre. This idea is not new – having been promulgated initially some 4 years ago by Ed Ward, Bill Deagle and others. If the “author” of this lengthy document (Jeff Prager) had not written to me, I would not even have bothered to post a new article about this - any idea that some type of hot nuclear explosion was used to destroy the WTC is simply not supported by a study of the available evidence.

I now reproduce a list I originally wrote in 2008. Hot nukes (whatever their size) could not have been used because:

1) There were no really bright flashes as the towers turned to dust.

2) There were no loud explosions as the towers turned to dust.

3) There was little or no heat in the dust cloud.

4) To my knowledge, there is no publicly viewable and verifiable research on small, concealable nuclear explosives (despite the claims being made).

5) Nuclear explosives cannot account for the 24-foot cylindrical holes seen in the buildings and in the street.

6) The nuke or "large explosive/incendiary" does not explain the selectively flipped cars and vehicles.

7) The nuclear explosives created no seismic signature of any significant size (impossible).

Not only that, but consideration of nuclear explosive devices completely fails to address other evidence such as the presence and motion of Hurricane Erin in the days around the time of 9/11.

As I have said previously, this is NOT to say that some type of nuclear process was not involved. From our understanding of the Hutchison Effect (which is very relevant to how the towers were destroyed), it appears to affect matter at an atomic, molecular and even a nuclear level, therefore it is possible that it could generate amounts of radiation under certain conditions.  Dr. Wood has addressed this in her book.  She identified “magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions”  as a  more appropriate term for these processes. [Wood, J.D., “Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11” (2010), p. 365.]

On 9^th April 2012, Dr Judy Wood and I appeared on Deanna Spingola’s RBN show,  where we had asked to discuss this document. You can listen to the broadcast here:

Download Link

Shortly following this, Mr Prager contacted me through my website. In the email exchange that followed, he made several false statements, whilst failing to address some of the serious problems with his document (some of which I have listed below – as well as in the email exchange).

Prager’s Problems

On studying Mr Prager’s document for some minutes, the following items became apparent.

1) A lot of time went into producing it

2) It does not refer to John Hutchison, whose experimental results have produced evidence similar to that seen in the WTC evidence.

3) There are no references to Dr Judy Wood's website or book – and one particular instance where this is peculiar is the source for the image on page 136 of Prager's first file.  It looks identical to one of the images of Hutchison's aluminium bar.  How could that get into the FEMA pictures of the WTC? Why is this shown there in Prager’s document? Why is this in a section about “The Steel”? To muddle up the evidence?  I'd really like to see the source for this image – one source of this image is Dr Judy Wood’s site (Figure 15). Perhaps folks can write to Mr Prager to ask him. Apparently, he’s found the science involved here…

Link – Link to Full Broadcast

But what are Prager’s Science Qualifications? He does not furnish us with this information – only that he is a retired magazine founder/publisher (he states he retired a long time ago).

4) As mentioned above, his document does not include or address the Hurricane Erin Data.

5) The document makes repeated references to Jim Fetzer and Leuren Moret – please read the linked articles to understand why this does not bode well for the validity of his 911 document.

6) On page 105, whole sections of text are copied from Dr Morgan Reynolds’ article “Collapse of the Thermite Thesis”. This is plagiarism - as it is unreferenced and uncredited.

7) Many other sections copied without reference such as p. 100 (a,b),  p. 100-101, pp. 103-104, p.106 106 again, p.107 The reference to Gerard Holmgren’s site appears on this webpage, but is out of date. He died 2 years ago. p. 108, p.109 (b), (c), (d), (e), p. 110 (copied reference list), p. 111a, (b). (This list has also been posted here.)

Very few of the above links are to “science” sites and no one uses Wikipedia as a serious resource – even my children are advised not to use it for their school research! Even Jim Fetzer knows Wikipedia censors important data!

Most of the photos are unreferenced, so you can’t check the source. In the radio broadcast, someone phoned in and wanted to talk about the photo on page 84 (“The Pit”) – they suggested it was proof that a nuclear device had been used. The photo is unreferenced (this is just one example). It is odd to think this caller was “primed” with this information – very few people would be so bothered about this as to refer to a particular page. The same caller referred to Dimitri Khalezov – who openly lied in his discussion of his Nuclear Demolition idea.

It is interesting that Prager’s document links to the Journal Of Nine-Eleven Studies (JONES) (Page 105 and Page 131) but nowhere does it link to any of Dr Wood’s research – neither does it reference Dr Morgan Reynolds’ site. This really is quite telling.

Arguing Specific Points of Evidence, Whilst Ignoring Others

Jeff Prager mentions anomalous radiation readings in his e-mail exchange (below)

This is similar to what Ed Ward said in 2008 (Prager references Ward in his document):

Sadly, both these characters ignore the basic characteristics of thermonuclear devices (listed above) – and then in a similar cavalier fashion ignore most of the other evidence too.

It is interesting they both reference Steven E Jones as being wrong – it is as if they don’t understand that we (myself and Dr Wood) know Jones’ history and we know he is wrong – for at least 2 of the same reasons Prager and Ward are wrong (the heat issue and the lack of a seismic signature and so on). Why do we have to keep  repeating these basic, obvious pieces of data and observations? What spell is being cast on people?

It should be asked of Mr. Prager why he has ignored and misrepresented the tritium analysis in Dr. Wood’s book as well as on her website?

Additional Small Points

In the e-mails that Mr Prager sent to me, he claims I mischaracterised him in the broadcast. However, if you listen to the audio, you will find that I made no references to his character at all – I didn’t really know who he was! All that I pointed out were a few of the errors and omissions in his document. This sort of accusation was rather reminiscent of that made against me by Ace Baker, regarding me sending “hate mail” to him.

Mr Prager also stated in email exchanges that I “claimed a degree in Physics” this is also incorrect – I have a degree in Computer Science and Physics (Physics being a minor part). Why would a founder and publisher of a magazine make these basic errors? What on earth is going on here?

Possible Motivation Behind Producing This Document

Again, the motivation can only be guessed at, and if you listened to the broadcast above, you will already have heard my thoughts about this. Suggested motivation includes:

1) Bringing in the idea of nuclear fusion to confuse what has already been established about the relationship between cold fusion effects and the Hutchison Effect – and 911.

2) Though Prager clearly stated he has original copies of the WTC images used in his document, not only is he telling people that he has pictures no one else has, he is also associating many of the same images (that are on Dr Judy Wood’s site and in her research, including high-resolution original images) with a different - and provably false conclusion. This again is therefore apparently to create confusion.  In his email, he implies that Dr. Wood’s site does not contain high resolution images, which is false.  But in making this statement, he implies he has indeed been to Dr. Wood’s site – or is simply denigrating Dr. Wood’s site.

3) Giving this work away as a free download could make Dr Wood’s research in the form of a book seem less attractive to get hold of – people could think “Prager’s document has all the answers – in an easy-to-understand, clear format – and it’s free!” What they will not realise is that it is heavily plagiarised in at least some places, incorrect, omits evidence and therefore is grossly misleading as shown above.

4) He refers to Dr. Wood as “Judy” in his emails, yet has never met her or exchanged emails with her.  Also, in a recent radio interview, Mr. Prager referred to Dr. Neils Harrit, Dr. Jones, and “Judy Wood.”  Does he wish to present the false impression about her qualifications?  Dr. Wood  has degrees in Structural Engineering, Applied Physics, and Materials Engineering Science, including a Ph.D, and has over 35 years of experience in the field of forensic engineering and science. 

In his e-mail to me Mr Prager stated:

This is very odd. If he knows what happened, doesn’t he want to help prosecute the perpetrators? Why does he have no interest in trying to expose the criminals? This is what Dr Judy Wood tried to do!

Conclusion

So, here we have yet another attempt, by someone claiming to be interested in the truth of what happened on 911, to subvert the truth – the truth that is already known. It indicates yet again how important this truth is. How many more attempts will we see to suppress, confuse, marginalise, cover up and ridicule the only publicly available, truly scientific and forensic investigation into the terrible destruction of the WTC? If you want to stop this suppression and confusion, here are 3 links you can use [1] [2] [3]. Powerful forces are weighed against the truth coming out. By reading this far, I hope you will have helped to make sure they don’t succeed.

From: Andrew Johnson [mailto: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ]

Sent: 11 April 2012 19:40

To: 'jeff prager'

Subject: RE: Contact from CheckEv

Mr Prager,

Please do not keep making false statements. I never claimed that the images came from Dr Judy Wood's website - I said her site was not referenced.

Also, my degree is in computer science and physics - so your statement is false. This is on my website. I suggest, again, you read it.

We have previously covered extensively the difference between fusion and fission and why the later was NOT responsible for the destruction of the WTC. So, essentially this is false too.

I can now see why you have no desire to submit this to any type of court.

Please do not write to me again.

Goodbye and good luck

Andrew Johnson

UK

From: jeff prager [mailto:Jeff Prager]

Sent: 11 April 2012 19:23

To: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Subject: RE: Contact from CheckEv

I have no desire to submit anything to a court. I know what happened. If you ever care to discuss the physics and chemistry of the dust using the Product Momentum Correlation Coefficient and the 't' test statistic to verify the data I'd be happy to discuss it. I use real science and real physics. I also actually read books as I'm reading yours now.

Having gone back to the audio and listened again yes, it is you that claims "most" of the images come from Judy's web site.

If that were true one would not be able to continually zoom or enlarge the images 5-10 times and more. They would pixelate. I own the images in their original large format high resolution sizes.

You claim a degree in physics. You should understand the data clearly. Tahil was right and his data is accurate. Fission occurred in NYC on 911 and we don't need Hutchison or anyone else to explain half-baked theories. The dust tells us what happened.

Sodium, potassium, thorium, uranium, lanthanum, etc., don't lie. People do.

Cordially,

Jeff

Where the sidewalk ends...

Prager

--- On Wed, 4/11/12, Andrew Johnson < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote:

From: Andrew Johnson < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Subject: RE: Contact from CheckEv

To: "'jeff prager'" <Jeff Prager

Date: Wednesday, April 11, 2012, 1:57 PM

Dear Mr Prager

I am sorry you were unable to address the points I raised. You clearly have not read either book that I referred you to.

What you write below is therefore of little or no value - because you do not know what is in the books I referred you to.

I suggest you read them first. (Be aware that some people do see quite clearly the evidence you are not addressing - and it goes way, way beyond what you talk about below - so much so that what your document includes is basically all but irrelevant.)

Submit this to court or some other formal process - then I'll perhaps take you more seriously.

Goodbye and good luck.

Regards

Andrew Johnson

From: jeff prager [mailto:Jeff Prager]

Sent: 11 April 2012 18:46

To: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Subject: RE: Contact from CheckEv

Please explain 93 Bq/Kg uranium, over 3,000ppms of strontium and barium and the other dozens of elemental anomalies in the dust. Potassium, sodium, thorium, yttrium, lanthanum, zinc, molybdenum, antimony, copper, lead and others prove fission. The tritium at 55x background proves a fusion component.

The devices, the size of an apple and perhaps smaller, were based on either a lithium deuteride or deuterium-tritium fusion triggered fission device. The dust makes this absolutely clear and inarguable.

The image being discussed, the Pit as it's called in my book, shows that fission continued to occur in that area which is the cause of the inextinguishable fires for 100+ days as Dr. Cahill states, which "boiled soil and glass" and created aerosols, not very fine particles but aerosols, one step smaller than very fine particles, in the micron and/or nano range as regards size.

There is no such thing as a 'bathtub' at Ground Zero. It's a slurry wall and another book I published discusses the slurry wall intimately as well as the damage it received, the leaking water as a result and the re-build of the slurry wall. Calling it a bathtub is misleading. It had no bottom. It was a wall surrounding Ground Zero built using a unique method to construct a wall at a water comprised construction site.

Nano technology is a child of the nuclear industry.

You folks aren't using science, can't discuss these issues intimately and avoid the facts. The facts, based on real "evidence," another word you both use loosely, is in the dust that remained and the aerosols found between Oct 2, 2001 and Oct 30, 2001.

911 was a nuclear event using advanced micronuclear weapons. One person could have loaded the building alone, unknowingly, by being tasked with changing out a computer on every 5th or 10th floor and that person would never have known that the computers they were replacing had weapons inside them. These deuterium-tritium or lithium deuteride devices can be detonated by laser from a plane.

Everything about the event, every anomaly we see, invokes the word nuclear. Judy mentions unburned paper. Doesn't she know neutrons pass through paper without exchanging heat because the paper hasn't enough density and that neutrons are attracted to metal and water which easily explains the cars with melted components and the numerous testimonies that people running turned back to see people 'vaporized,' another issue most people fail to address.

The reason I produce my books for free and rarely appear on the radio or anywhere else for that matter is because people claiming to use science just aren't.

Use the USGS ground dust samples, like Tahil did, and use the UC Davis atmospheric dust samples as others have and the final analysis is nuclear energy using both fission and fusion, a method developed over 50 years ago. Lithium deuteride, deuterium tritium and some sort of fissionable element and in this case it's uranium. The dust proves my analysis and I have no desire to debate these issues, honestly.

My books are the legacy I leave. I wrote them for my grandkids and post them free on the internet. My books explain who did this, why they did it and how they did it. I try as hard as I can to remain unconnected and unaffiliated with anyone in the 911 'non-truth' movement and radio shows like the one you and Judy participated in, disparaging someones assertions that are proven true by real evidence and real facts are an example of why that is.

Cordially,

Jeff

Where the sidewalk ends...

Prager

--- On Wed, 4/11/12, Andrew Johnson < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote:

From: Andrew Johnson < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Subject: RE: Contact from CheckEv

To: Jeff Prager

Date: Wednesday, April 11, 2012, 1:11 PM

Dear Mr Prager,

I am not sure why you are writing to me. The following is clear from your document:

1) A lot of time went into producing it

2) It does not refer to John Hutchison, whose experimental results have produced evidence similar to that seen in the WTC evidence. (This is on Dr Wood's website and in the videos we've done. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ)

3) There are no references to Dr Judy Wood's website in your document.

4) Your remarks in the email about the dust data are incorrect - this is all covered in Dr Wood's book - I suggest you read it (get it from your library if you haven't got the funds to purchase a copy yourself).

It also mentioned in part of the "Erin" Series:

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin6.html

I understand it also referenced elsewhere on the website.

5) Your document does not address the Hurricane Erin Data - nor the nature of the nuclear event that Dr Wood describes.

6) Your document makes repeated references to Jim Fetzer and Leuren Moret - whom I've written about - including what they have specifically said about these issues and how it "does not add up".

7) In your document on turn to page 105 - compare and contrast with this:

http://nomoregames.net/2012/01/14/collapse-of-the-thermite-thesis/

This is plagiarism - as it is unreferenced and uncredited.

So, why do you deny these things and make false statements? And why, if you're convinced the particular type of nuke event you're describing, why not start a court case, as we suggested in the broadcast?

I did not mention you having any connection to the CIA as I had no idea who you were before about 2 weeks ago when your document appeared. Therefore, I suggest you address those remarks to whomever made them. (If my memory is correct, Deanna Spingola made some remarks about Gordon Duff - but I myself have no information about Gordon Duff, nor have I looked into this matter.)

Whether or not you are old, a hippie CIA or not does not, to my knowledge affect the above list. However, if anything in the above list is wrong, show me and I will post a suitable correction.

Nothing in the audio that I said mischaracterised you personally. I suggest that you address any remarks to the person that mischaracterised you.

You make the same sort of accusations as Jim Fetzer, whom I had to correct and ultimately publish the evidence of the false accusations he made against me (and others).

I agree with you SE Jones has lied but what is in your document is incomplete. You don't give the "full story" of cold fusion and relate the evidence to Eugene Mallove and William and Michael Zebuhr. That is why I referred people to my (fully referenced) work http://tinyurl.com/911ftb

You can read this for free and tell me where the mistakes are.

Regards

Andrew Johnson

UK

-----Original Message-----

From: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

[mailto: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ]

Sent: 11 April 2012 16:41

To: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ; Jeff Prager

Subject: Contact from CheckEv

Below is your request/order. It was submitted by

Jeff Prager at 16:40:35 11-Apr-2012

--------------------------------------------------------------

-------------

Recipient: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Message text: Please explain the 93 Bq/kg in the girder

coating dust sample. Muon catalyzed fusion has nothing to do

with 911 but was used to prove Jones is a LIAR and that

thermite is IMPOSSIBLE. Also, ALL of the images were free

FEMA downloads I downloaded years ago and NONE are from Dr.

Woods web site. Proof is in that they can be repeatedly

zoomed in the PDF because they are the original images. Your

audio mis-characterized me.

Char count: 79

--------------------------------------------------------------

-------------

-----Original Message-----

From: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

[mailto: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ]

Sent: 11 April 2012 16:38

To: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ; Jeff Prager

Subject: Contact from CheckEv

Below is your request/order.  It was submitted by

Jeff Prager at 16:37:30  11-Apr-2012

--------------------------------------------------------------

-------------

Recipient: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Message text: Dear Andrew,

Let's discuss evidence since you've used the word repeatedly

in the audio I'm listening to now.

The USGS and UC Davis Delta Group data is evidence. I suggest

you use it.

You've discussed my most recent book. I'm 56 years old, the

retired founder and publisher of Senior Magazine. That's why

my books, all 36 of them, are free. I have the software,

Adobe Custom Suite, and as a former publisher it's rather

easy to produce these books. I'm an old hippie, not CIA.

Char count: 20

--------------------------------------------------------------

------------

---

*** PLEASE *** SHARE ON FACEBOOK ETC