23 June 2012
Andrew Johnson (
UPDATED: 02 Jul 2012 and again 06 Aug 2012
From about 65 minutes into the above discussion with Rob, Ralph Winterrowd and Dr Judy Wood, we cover some aspects of the Vancouver Conference.
Thanks to Charlie Pound for the Introductory Song!
Following the Vancouver
Conference, which I wrote about previously, I received 2 e-mails "out of the
blue" - one from Clare Kuehn and one from Nick Kollerstrom - both of whom made
presentations at said conference. I have reproduced their emails below. I have
spent some time reviewing these messages, to try and fit them in with others I
have seen and received.
From: Clare Kuehn
Sent: 20 June 2012 17:15
Subject: Re: Vancouver Conference
I am aware of your position (as you know) about Dr Fetzer and have read the
sections in your book. I know how you have interpreted his brash manner and what
I take to be his confusion over some of what Dr Wood said.
As to my own presentation, it was given in the best intention and in fact, Dr.
Fetzer was adamant that someone cover her work (a sign he is still very
intrigued and open about Dr Wood's work personally, and trying to be
intellectually honest as best a person can, to include as many current lines of
work as are developed right now). Because neither she nor several of her more
well known associates would or could come. As such, he was actually very unhappy
and I insisted that someone must do the presentation and he, flummoxed, was in
full agreement. Ultimately, he agreed to have me come, since I am articulate and
lean towards her conclusions in spite of the dust sample details (co-efficient
atomic products beyond tritium and a few others she mentioned) and in spite of
illness records indicating possible radiation illness (bizarre cancers, etc.)
after the event. I tried to open some minds and to at least give more
information to the unwilling, in spite of themselves.
Best wishes, and thanks for your shows. I loved the one on Paul is Dead. I
covered the same issue in a different way, on The Real Deal on Jan. 4, if you
wish to hear it. It is at radiofetzer.blogspot.com and right-click on the link
on its page, in order to save it (better than left-clicking and listening with
the smaller on-line player's slider).
From: nicholas kollerstrom
Sent: 20 June 2012 21:52
Subject: Re: 911 Vancouver Hearings
Here is an example of the high standard of presentation at the Vancouver
conference, put up onto Youtube:
I want to comment on some psychotic-type remarks from Andrew Johnson:
"I am sure that the Vancouver hearings are propaganda. For example, instead of
Jim Fetzer being honest and saying "Dr Judy Wood has not responded to my
invitation to the conference" he has simply invited someone else to speak about
her research:… It must be realised that this person was not recommended by Dr
Judy Wood, nor has she given this person permission to act as any kind of
authority on her research, or a representative acting on her behalf."
Well in fact Clare Kuehn gave a brilliant account of Judy Wood’s hypothesis,
actually a lot better than Judy Wood does (as I heard Dr Wood when she came over
here) The idea that she should need Dr Wood’s permission to do so is simply
So Jim invited Dr Wood to speak – Andrew
comments: "Due to the way Fetzer has covered up and muddled up important aspects
of Dr Judy Wood’s research (see "911 Finding the Truth"), she chose not to even
respond to the invitation." Nobody has put up more glowing reviews of Judy
Wood’s book than Jim Fetzer, yet Andrew Johnson and Dr Wood just cannot stop
moaning about him.
"Mr Fetzer has therefore deliberately set up a conference which will not
establish any truth – quite
the reverse– it
will encourage uncertainty and debate" – O,
how terrible! Andrew, try to understand one simple thing: science can only
develop through uncertainty and debate. Priests may like certainty, but that is
Finally, Andrew moans: "It becomes clear that the title of this event is a
misnomer. It is not a hearing at all" on the grounds that there are no judges
hearing the proceedings. Well actually there were two, who swore each
contributor in and will be formulating a judgement:
each contributor has been asked who they would ‘accuse.’ So there was an attempt
to make it resemble a hearing. One of the Judges had just been a judge at the
Kuala Lumpur tribunal which indicted Blair and Bush for war crimes.
OK, Andrew likes ‘certainty’- i.e. he gets very annoyed if anyone disagrees with
him. That Vancouver conference will all be online. I suggest that he needs to
decide whether he wants to take part in open debate or whether he wishes to
continue his rather psychotic angle where anyone who had difficulty with his
case is some kind of psy-op agent. With respect Andrew you have recently given
talks about anti-gravity and how the Earth is hollow and many would view that as
the extreme loony fringe.
A comment on Vancouver by Don Fox "I just wanted to let you all know what an
honor it was to spend a truly amazing weekend with you folks.
Never before has this much 9/11 knowledge been disseminated in a public forum.
The Toronto Hearings had some big names but our group left them in the dust.
Josh and Jim organized an event that history will look back on as the event that
not only shattered the OCT but provided the public with the most accurate
account of what happened on that fateful day. I've researched 9/11 for 8 years
and I learned a lot this weekend from the other speakers. It was literally like
going back to school. . . .I can't express how great it was to meet everyone in
person. Everyone was MORE than what I expected. The caliber of people Jim and
Josh brought in for this event was off the charts. It was truly a "Dream Team"
of 9/11 research. Everyone involved should take pride in knowing that history is
going to look back at this and say these guys in Vancouver did as much as
humanly possible to get to the bottom of 9/11."
Comments on Clare Kuehn's Message.
The comments from Clare Kuehn do not address the key questions - she is not a
scientist and therefore not qualified to talk about the things (such as the
radiation) she mentions. All these issues are thoroughly addressed in Dr Judy
Wood's book "Where Did The Towers Go" - including a discussion of radioactive
materials which may have contributed to the resulting sickness in rescue
workers. Again, The Hutchison Effect does seem to produce "nuclear effects" as I
have repeatedly stated for over 4 years, in relation to the events at the WTC.
It is not clear to me, at this point, what was actually in Ms Kuehn's
presentation. In responding to the message she sent me, I suggested she send me
her PowerPoint file. She did not reply to this suggestion - she just stated in a
later e-mail that a "I think they're working on getting all the talks up on
Youtube but they're not up yet.". This is all rather odd to me because in her
original message, above she said
"I insisted that someone must do the presentation and he, flummoxed, was in
So it must have been important to her that the information was presented. Yet,
she did not get Dr Wood's approval, nor has she willingly supplied a copy of
the information she presented. If she "did her best", then why is she not happy
to share it? [UPDATE
- Clare Kuehn sent me a link
to her presentation. I have saved the file in PPTX
format (Office 2007/2010) and regular
PPT format.She also sent me several e-mails, which I have included at the
bottom, along with some brief comments] After
all, my presentations can all be found here.
Discussions with Ms Kuehn also involved her bizarre defence of Jim Fetzer on
another blog about PID.
In one comment she says "Give him a break" (an expression Fetzer frequently uses
himself). In her e-mail above, she seems keen to defend Mr Fetzer - who
threatened Dr Wood's reputation and also refused to apologise for promulgating
stories about me sending hate mail even when he knew it was untrue. Kuehn claims
to have read my
free book, yet she has no problem with Mr Fetzer lying and threatening
people (and she did not respond to this comment in the email I sent her, when I
reminded her about it). Weird.
A basic question with regard to someone wanting to fairly present Dr Wood's
research at the Vancouver Conference can be asked. For whatever reason Dr Wood
chose not to attend (and the reason should be quite clear to those who study the
available evidence), there was a good alternative. In the original post I made
about the Vancouver Conference, a
2-hour video is linked - of a presentation done in October 2011. This could
simply have been played as part of the event at Vancouver. This would, at a
stroke, have avoided ANY risk of misinterpretation, cover up, muddle, misquote,
misunderstanding, omission, exaggeration or ANY of those things. Instead, Ms
Kuehn thought "it was better if she did it". Perhaps it becomes clear why I do
not accept Kuehn's reasons for doing what she did.
Comments on Nick Kollerstom's Message
I was particularly troubled to receive this message, not least because I have personally
spoken to Nick on a number of occasions, and made it quite clear what Mr Fetzer
has said and done. Not only that, but I did not even mention Nick
Kollerstrom in my original article. I knew he was going to the conference, but
he was apparently presenting his research on "9 Keys to 9/11", according to the
posting. However, this got changed and he presented something in relation to the
Flight 175 Crash (seehttp://terroronthetube.co.uk/2012/05/28/what-hit-the-2nd-tower/ ).
This was apparently triggered by Richard Hall's new analysis. In the days prior
to the conference, Nick sent me several e-mails with questions, all of which I
answered to the best of my ability - I tried to help him. So it was really weird
to read him describe that I had made some "some psychotic-type remarks" which
did not even relate to him or his research!! I pointed out that the link to the
video of the "high quality presentation" did not work. He was perhaps referring
presentation, which Clare Kuehn sent me the link for. Nick did not respond
when I pointed out his link did not work.
I have to comment, too, on Nick's apparent preference for "debate" rather than
certainty. Nick mentions "priests" - does a priest dictate whether 1 + 1 = 2?
Can they do this? Nick ignored the thrust of my article and the psychology it
attempted to dissect. Nick also stated:
I suggest that [Andrew] needs to decide whether he wants to take part in
Again, Nick completely fails to take into account the thrust of my article. Not
only that, but he fails to acknowledge I was not invited to the conference
anyway! (If I'd asked to present the evidence that Fetzer was lying and he was
covering up what happened on 911, as well as threatening and being abusive to
other researchers, do you think he would have agreed?
It seems that now, Nick too has no problems with someone lying about and
threatening fellow researchers. Nick states:
"Nobody has put up more glowing reviews of Judy Wood’s book than Jim Fetzer"
It seems that Nick has not actually read the review Mr Fetzer has posted -
he mischaracterises the content of the book stating:
What we have here is a monumental exhibition of the full range of evidence
that an adequate theory of the destruction of the Twin Towers must explain.
While theories may come and go--and the correct theory may not yet have
crossed our minds.
Fetzer completely omits to state that the evidence proves what happened and no
"theories need to cross our mind". It has been shown "what did it" - at least in
terms of the "class of technology". Again Nick Kollerstrom has apparently not
studied Fetzer's own comments in
I have been reading her book, but I am having trouble figuring out her
theory of the case.
Fetzer has had his book for almost 1 year (it was even shown on his desk in last
year's BBC conspiracy files programme). He has organised a conference about 911
- yet he has still not read the
book. He has not yet figured out, from the book, what happened. He has not
yet "figured out" that he helped to smear John Hutchison's character, and make
insinuations about his association with Dr Judy Wood (read my book, or the
article "Meet the New Boss"). Fetzer's role is as clear to me as the
dustification of the WTC. But seemingly it is not clear to Nick Kollerstrom or
Clare Kuehn - nor is it clear to many show hosts who have had Mr Fetzer on as a
guest. From Nick's comments, however, it becomes pretty clear that his judgement
is impaired. For example, he writes:
With respect Andrew you have recently given talks about anti-gravity and how
the Earth is hollow and many would view that as the extreme loony fringe.
This is pretty strange because Nick has never previously commented on my
recent talk and I would guess he has not even studied it (I make the conclusion
that it is very unlikely the earth is hollow - because this is what
the evidence shows!) More
strangely and disturbingly, Nick
Kollerstrom attended my "loony fringe" talk on Antigravity in 2010, in Leeds and
he even asked me a question! At
no time since then has he characterised this presentation he attended, or any
others I have done, as "on the loony fringe". What makes this remarks even more
unusual, coming from Nick, is that he
himself has been quite candid in his discussion of "loony fringe crop circles" Very
weird stuff. (Also, how can you honestly refer to someone "with respect" when
you are stating they made "psychotic type remarks".)
In his message, Nick also states:
One of the Judges had just been a judge at the Kuala Lumpur tribunal which
indicted Blair and Bush for war crimes.
So in a follow up message, I asked Nick to clarify this. I said that I assumed
one of these, from the description, was Mr Alfred Webre. Was Nick not aware that
Mr Webre had threatened to sue
me for libel some time ago? (He didn't - and couldn't, apparently). I asked
Nick if he was aware of
fringe" topics that Mr Webre covers - such as "jump gate" travel to Mars, time
travel and so on? Nick
chose not to respond to this point. Instead he included words in his message,
relating to Mr Fetzer, saying "I just wish you would stop griping about him." It
seems Nick also wants to "give a break" to someone who lies about and threatens
other researchers. More importantly, what has been the effect of this
international tribunal in which Mr Webre took part? Has it resulted in the
arrest and imprisonment of messieurs Bush and Blair? (I am guessing "no, it has
In summary, Clare Kuehn wants to "give Jim Fetzer a break". Nick Kollerstrom,
whom I know quite well, wishes I would "stop griping about him". I did not even
mention Nick Kollerstrom in my original posting about the Vancouver Conference.
What made him decide to attack my posting? Apparently he does not like certainty
when it comes to 911 research - so what is the point of doing any research? What
is the point of "debating" if certainty cannot be established? How would
prosecutions be made in any kind of hearing or court proceedings without
With weirdness like this, is it any wonder that I am not the only one to
question what was really going on in the hearts and minds of those involved in
the Vancouver conference.
At the centre of it all appears to be one Jim Fetzer. Other evidence pertaining
to his interaction with people - such as that documented some years ago in my
Strange Case of CB Brooklyn" - and comments posted on Fetzer's Amazon review
Carter: "James Fetzer is a great teacher"), and the PID
blog,(Anonymous: "Fetzer may not always be perfect, but he's no agent and
Johnson rushed to an emotional conclusion on that." I never described Fetzer as
an agent, I said he was a "handler".) All this evidence (I encourage you to look
for more examples) seems to show that Mr Fetzer has some kind of ability to influence people
and get them to expend energy trying to defend him, make excuses for his lying
and generate support and sympathy for him. This is yet another bizarre
conclusion to have to come to terms with - so please study the evidence for
yourself, but please
also note that this conclusion "fits in" with his documented "modus operandi".
So, that is the end of my new set of "psychotic type comments" about the
Vancouver conference, and how 2 people involved with the event have responded to
my posting. I hope you have found these comments, in some way, enlightening. At
the very least, I hope it illustrates the problems we face in revealing the
truth about how the WTC was destroyed almost 11 years ago.
UPDATE: 02 JUL 2012
I received the messages from Clare Kuehn below, following her sending a copy of
her presentation to me. I will leave those who are interested to download,
review and compare this presentation to Dr Wood's . However, I have quickly
reviewed the presentation and made some brief (and by no means exhaustive) comments
Page 19 - The seismographic is extremely blurred. Clare Kuehn states: "Apologies – only thumbnail available on line
". Unfortunately, the page she was referring to was moved and she did not
look elsewhere or ask for this information. Additional information can be found
Also, in the rest of her presentation, she has scanned a number of pages of the
WDTTG book, so why didn't she do this with the seismic chart? Additionally, it
can be found in Dr Wood's RFC.
"Nukes" are mentioned several times in the presentation - in a way which is not
relevant to what is in the WDTTG book (slide 20, 26, 27, 29, 32 and quite a few others). On the last
slide it says "MORE WORK TO BE DONE on: whether such weaponry would be used in conjunction with nukes".
If someone had read the book, they would realise there is no possibility "nukes"
were involved, as already discussed many, many times on this website.
It states Renae O'Connell was on the Washington Bridge - this is not correct -
she was on the Manhattan Bridge (P276 of WDTTG) Underneath this it states
"Was it regular heat or wave “toasting” (like a microwave)? (As with jumpers possibly.) Could nukes be going off constantly and would they leave this effect so far away?"
Again this is not in the book and represent more muddle up and fits in with
the idea that someone is trying to present that "1+1 might not quite equal
Overall, the presentation leaves a very confused picture of what is being shown
and it is not an appropriate presentation of evidence, showing clearly what
happened to the WTC. For example, consider the 43 point
summary (below) from WDTTG book and consider how well these points were
covered in this presentation. As I wrote before, we were not consulted about the
presentation and so they decided to go ahead and present this with these (and
other) errors - for whatever reason.
Please read e-mails (below) from Clare Kuehn to get a more complete picture.
E-mails from Clare Kuehn
This is not my actual talk; it's the Powerpoint.
But just so you know.
Don't worry; I know it's not perfect!! There's
more I would have liked to make it exact and I
think there's one or two errors, but overall I
feel it did a good job and added some of my own
thoughts in, which is important to make it
interesting for me and the audience besides a
The audio & maybe video of the talk should be up
on Youtube soon, they tell me. The video of it
is not great, so the DVD to come out, will have
the slides interspersed with the talk.
Have a good day.
Forwarded Message -----
Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:30:40 PM
Subject: Clare's PP has been
Big day on the blog
yesterday: 239 hits - an all
time record for my humble
blog! Jim your PP got 130
hits alone. Chuck's PP got
38 hits, Jeff's 14 and mine
had 10 hits. Veterans Today
referred 79 people and the
13. We're already at 50 hits
today so it should be
another big day. The word is
getting out folks! I get a
lot of searches for Clare
Kuehn on the blog so the
more material the better
Clare! Of course the big
dogs are Fetzer and Boldwyn
but every little bit helps.
When the death threats start
then you know that we're
getting to them. Let's keep
Sent from a stationary
Andrew, please don't conflate Nick's angrier comments with mine and in
several places you've contorted what I said, i.e., the emotional intent,
by dismissing every point you could pick on.
I just saw your newer post about me.
I didn't have a typo-free version of the slides. It was finished at the
very last minute for the conference and I was wiped out after. I thought
everyone was going to get the talks up together, and so I wasn't sending
around typo slides for you or anyone when I got back. Come on. Please be
a little less suspicious or accusatory. The slides are up today and I
let you know right away.
Please stop being so suspicious of what I mean. I mean something very
simple: it IS important to have brought Dr. Wood's position to the
conference (and Dr. Fetzer thought so). That is why I did it.
As to the PID comments page: I was addressing that I have a different
impression of compared to your impression of Dr. Fetzer. I know he has
not always understood all of Dr. Wood's main points but tried to and
showcased her work in his own work, and still mentions her work highly
in many places. You look at it (from your comments) as if he muddied
things deliberately; I disagree and am allowed, as a human being, to
argue that point, of course, as you are allowed to argue your side. My
side of that argument suggests you give Fetzer a break emotionally, to
see that he (in my opinion) did his best and was confused at times as
well. There is nothing wrong in what I said.
Unlike Nick, by the way, I know why Dr. Wood declined. And as I said
above, I also feel I know why Dr. Fetzer invited her: even when he
disagrees with someone or has some unclear idea of what they mean, he
tries, I've noticed, to keep their work discussed in his show or at his
conference. As to how this relates to Dr. Wood's material specifically:
in fact, having Dr. Wood's material included led to some boycotting by
more closed minded persons, and even two death threats in the end, yet
he always hoped to have the work included and I stepped up to the plate.
Finally, as to my competence: it was more as a good and smart reader
that I succeeded, than as a completely correct scientist on every point,
though I did cover much of the science accurately. In fact, I did some
very good things with points she made; if there were errors that were
mine, it was as a human being who did a detailed overview but with some
error. Life is like that: people discuss others and I did cover many
things quite accurately, especially given the time period. So anyway,
you seem to suggest that because I'm not a scientist I can't give an
assessment of the work in some correct detail, and in a correct
overview, and yet be allowed to make mistakes. Of course I can.
I raised some things which were also in my own knowledge and experience
and which helped the audience discuss her work's context in "weird
science" (Tesla, Leedskalnin, etc.) in more detail than they would have,
as well as giving some of her own observations about the contextual
The audience loved it, and many who also loved Dr. Wood's book and
presentation said the same. I hope you move toward more relaxed
happiness that the work was covered, well, and simply civilly correct
any errors you find as well. I am of course open to correction, but
don't slam me. I don't deserve that.
Oh, and when I say below "there is nothing wrong in what I said" I mean,
even if we disagree and you think I'm wrong about Dr. Fetzer, there's
nothing wrong in the FACT I said I think differently about him at
present than you do.
I don't want you to misconstrue that sentence. For you mention that I
said you think he's an agent and you said "handler", so I'm sorry I used
the wrong word and, you imply, got a different meaning as well; but to
me a "handler" is a technical term for an agency's spook controller, and
thus an agent in name or in gist as well. If that's not what you meant,
then okay, but it's how it's often used as a term, so I thought you
Have a good day. Please don't nit-pick me anymore. I did a good thing
(overall, i.e., if there are errors please be more kind in pointing them
out). And hope in general you like what I did after all, which is the
main point here: to get more people understanding Dr. Wood's work enough
to consider it; if they find some more material than I covered (and they
would) or if they ultimately find errors (if there are not many), then
that's fine. At least there are mostly good presentation logic points
and a lot of her material for them to get a taste of her work in this
conference's context, and look her up when they might not have.
Good night. (Or morning, in Britain, if you're there right now.)
From: Andrew Johnson
To: 'Clare Kuehn'
Sent: Monday, July
2, 2012 3:37:46 AM
I will post
all of your comments at the bottom of my article.
else I said remains unchanged.
Sure, for posterity leave up the history of your comments, but honestly
Andrew, please start understanding my sense not isolating things or
awkward phrases as if they're major mistakes.
I am very much on your side and Wood's as well. If there are errors, let
me know and I'll discuss what I think or simply say thanks or whatever.
But please stop being so worried about what I do or say as if it were
all fine-toothed-comb with no overarching message which is GOOD. I mean
to do something good.
And have a good day. (I'm up so late it's early here. :) )
When your position is supported by the facts, you talk about the facts. When your position is supported by the analysis of empirical evidence, you talk about the analysis of empirical evidence. When your position is not supported by either the facts nor the analysis of empirical evidence, you talk about........."something else."
It has been noted that Ms. Kuehn's presentations did not address the facts or the analysis of empirical evidence provided in Dr. Wood's book. Instead, she talked about "something else."
Excerpts from Dr. Wood's Conclusions listed in her book have been included below. Dr. Wood's conclusions are given as a list of 43 FACTS. Note, these are FACTS, not "theories." That is, Dr. Wood's conclusions are a list of 43 FACTS she has established. Any honest representation of Dr. Wood's work would be expected to contain as many of these FACTS as time allowed. But a review of Ms. Kuehn's slide show indicates that she did not cover even one of these FACTS. (Referring to FACTS as "theories" while distorting/misrepresenting the information cannot be viewed as addressing the FACTS.)
When someone's position is supported by the facts, they talk about the facts. When someone's position is supported by the analysis of empirical evidence, they talk about the analysis of empirical evidence. When someone's position is not supported by either the facts or the analysis of empirical evidence, they talk about........."something else."
Perhaps this explains why Ms. Kuehn talked about........."something else" instead of the FACTS presented in Dr. Wood's book, which are listed below.
addition to explaining why ejecta is being propelled upward in what is
officially said to
be a downward “collapse,” any model of the WTC’s destruction, if that model is
to be taken seriously, must seek to explain not some but all of the following
facts, although these “facts” may also be thought of as occurrences, questions,
things, and anomalies. The alert reader may notice that not even this highly
detailed book itself has been able to cover all of them:1. FACT:
Although Hurricane Erin was located just off Long Island throughout the day of
9/11/01, both the approach in days before and the presence of the storm on that
day went almost totally unreported. Hurricane Erin was omitted on the morning
weather map, even though that portion of the Atlantic Ocean where she stood was
covered by the map. Astronauts gazing down said they could see the drifting
plume from the destruction of WTC2 and WTC1 but made no mention of the highly
visible Erin. WHY?
Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were toasted in strange ways during the
destruction of the Twin Towers. WHY AND HOW?
During destruction, there appeared alongside the buildings curious corkscrew
trails, called in this book Sillystrings. WHY?
During the demise of each tower, large enough volumes of dust made of nano-sized
particles went up, enough to block out 100% of sunlight in some areas. This nano-sized
particulate dust in volume enough to achieve sun-light-blocking density
constituted the remains of the greatest part of the destroyed buildings’
material substance. WHAT CAUSED THIS DUST TO FORM?
During the destruction, there was an absence of high heat. Witnesses reported
that the initial dust cloud felt cooler than ambient temperatures. Additionally,
there was scant evidence of burned bodies, although in one case a man was
described as “crisped” even while his jacket remained uncrisped, indicating an
“inside-out” combustion not possible with conventional fire. WHAT CAUSED THESE
Evidence that the WTC dust continued to break down and become finer and finer
long after 9/11 itself came through the observable presence of Fuzzballs.
WHAT CAUSES THIS PHENOMENON?
First responders on 9/11 testified as to toasted cars, spontaneous “fires”
(including the flaming heavy coat of a running medic, who survived), the instant
disappearance of people, a plane turning into a fireball in mid-air, electrical
power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, and the sound of explosions.
WHAT CAUSED THESE PHENOMENA?
For more than seven years, regions in the ground under where the main body of
WTC4 stood have continued to fume. WHY?
Hazy clouds, called Fuzzyblobs in this book, appeared in the vicinity of
material undergoing destruction. WHY?
FACT: Magnetometer readings from six stations in Alaska recorded abrupt shifts
in the Earth’s magnetic field as each of the major destructive events unfolded
at the WTC on 9/11. WHY?
FACT: Many cars in the neighborhood of the WTC complex were flipped upside down.
They couldn’t have been flipped by hurricane-force winds, since they stood
adjacent to trees with full foliage, not stripped by high wind. WHY?
FACT: More damage was done to the bathtub by earth-moving equipment during the
clean-up process than from the destruction of more than a million tons of
buildings above it. WHY?
FACT: Most of the destroyed towers underwent mid-air pulverization and were
turned to dust before they hit the ground. WHAT FORCE CAUSED THIS “DUSTIFICATION”?
FACT: Near-instant rusting of affected steel provided evidence of molecular
dissociation and transmutation. WHY?
FACT: Of the estimated 3,000 toilets in WTC1 and WTC2, not one survived, nor was
any recognizable portion of one whatsoever found. WHY?
FACT: Only one piece of office equipment in the entire WTC complex, a filing
cabinet with folder dividers, survived. WHY?
FACT: Only the north wing of WTC4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main
body, which virtually disappeared. FACT
FACT: Rail lines, tunnels and most of the rail cars at levels under the WTC
complex had only light damage, if any. WHY?
FACT: Cylindrical holes were cut into the vertical faces of buildings 4, 5 and
6. They were cut also into Liberty Street in front of Bankers Trust and into
in front of WTC6. In addition, a cylindrical arc was cut into the façade of
Bankers Trust. WHY AND HOW?
FACT: Scott-Paks—portable air-tanks for firemen—frequently exploded for no
visible reason. Entire fire trucks themselves that were parked near the WTC
exploded. WHY? HOW?
FACT: Sheets of plain office paper were omnipresent throughout lower Manhattan
after each tower’s destruction. This paper, however, remained unburned, even
though it was often immediately adjacent to flaming cars or to steel beams
glowing red, yellow, and even white. WHY?
FACT: Some steel beams and pieces of glass at and near GZ had what this book
calls a Swiss-Cheese appearance. WHY?
FACT: Steel columns from the towers were curled around vertical axes like
rolledup carpets. Steel columns of this kind, however, when they buckle from
being overloaded, would be bent around the horizontal, not the vertical, axis.
FACT: The “collapse” of the towers took place with remarkably little damage to
neighboring buildings. The only seriously damaged or entirely destroyed
buildings, in fact, were those with the WTC prefix, only those, that is, that
were a part of the WTC complex. WHY?
FACT: The destruction of WTC7 in late afternoon on 9/11 was whisper quiet. The
seismic signal during its disappearance was not significantly greater than
background noise. WHY?
FACT: The facades of WFC1 and WFC2 showed no apparent structural damage from the
destruction of WTC1 and WTC2. However, the decorative marble façade around the
entry to the buildings was completely missing, entirely gone. WHY? FROM WHAT
FACT: In the dirt pile, the Fuming was unusual for its quality of
immediately decreasing when watered, contrary to fumes caused by fire or heat,
where an initial steam-up is the response to watering. WHY?
FACT: The majority of the towers (WTC1, WTC2, WTC3, WTC7) did not remain as
rigid bodies as they “fell.” WHY NOT?
FACT: The method of destruction in the case of each tower minimized
damage to the bathtub and adjacent buildings, whereas terrorists would have been
expected to maximize damage, including that of infrastructure.
FACT: The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of
the Twin Towers.
FACT: The seismic impact was minimal during the destructions of WTC1, WTC2 and
WTC7 and far too small to correspond with a conventional “collapse” as based on
a comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition.
FACT: The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not from the bottom up.
FACT: The Twin Towers were destroyed in a shorter time than can be explained by
physics as a “collapse” even at free-fall speed.
FACT: The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine
dust and did not crash to the earth.
FACT: The upper 90 percent, approximately, of the inside of WTC7 was turned into
fine dust and did not crash to the earth.
FACT: The WTC underground mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Brothers’ Road
Runner and friends.
FACT: The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the total
mass of the buildings.
FACT: The WTC7 rubble pile was too small to account for the total mass of the
building, and much of it consisted of mud.
FACT: Truckloads of dirt were hauled both into and out of the WTC site, a
pattern that continues to this day (as of original writing).
FACT: What this book calls lather, thick clouds of dust and fumes,
emanated from some faces of buildings before destruction, as if large volumes of
the buildings’ mass was dissolving into the air. Lather poured from WTC7 for
several hours before its destruction. WHY?
FACT: What this book calls weird fire appeared frequently on 9/11. This
“fire” flamed but gave no evidence of providing heat, not even enough to burn
nearby sheets of paper. WHY?
FACT: Glass windows on nearby buildings received circular and other odd-shaped
holes without the entire panes breaking. WHY?
FACT: Changes and alterations in materials on 9/11 were similar or even
identical in a great many ways to the changes and alterations in materials
caused by The Hutchison Effect. The Hutchison Effect is known to result in
material-altering phenomena of the kinds we have listed here.