Andrew Johnson, ad.johnson@ntlworld.com

15 Oct 2010

Some time ago, I was contacted by Robert Singer, who has become something of a prolific writer on the internet over the last 2 or 3 years and has posted a number of articles about 9/11, the Gulf Oil Disaster and the US financial crash, as well as other writings. In his articles, he ties aspects of these things into a larger picture - involving an overall agenda which, for example, involves the creation of a consumer society – as a means of “attacking” planet Earth.

He later coined the phrase “metaphysical catechism” – my understanding of which is that 9/11 was an event that was planned as a test - at a “metaphysical level” – i.e. in a realm which we cannot directly experience or measure, but appears, nevertheless, to be real. Some would say (I would be among them) that it is this realm where symbolism becomes more meaningful – and powerful (e.g. the significance of the date, the location, the symbolism of the twin towers themselves, and so on).

Singer’s Perspective

Robert and I have spoken at length on Skype and discussed our ideas and conclusions. Robert has done quite a bit of historical research and I found some of the evidence he presents to be quite compelling – for example, he writes about the French Revolution being a type of “mechanism” for creating a consumer society – the goal of which was/is to create environmental damage (rather than that damage being an unforeseen consequence).

Robert originally contacted me because I disagreed with the idea that Controlled Demolition was the method by which the WTC was destroyed (due to the fact that the towers turned to dust, as Dr Judy Wood originally pointed out). Robert contended that “9/11 was a test to see if the earth was weakened enough to take over on 9/12 in a new world order. The buildings’ ‘collapse’ was a result of the earth still being strong enough to resist their take over and therefore on 9/12. What did Bush tell us to do? Go shopping!”

Additionally, he stated that he had been told by a military source that an invasion of Iraq had been planned for Sept 11^th 2001 and that invasion order was cancelled 5 hours after the destruction of WTC 1. (See footnote 3 of “September 11, 2009, Project Camelot: Robert Singer”).

So Robert’s position seemed to be that it was the earth’s energy which caused the towers to “collapse” (the word he used – they did not really collapse - they turned to dust). This was where I disagreed with him – because there was no verifiable evidence to indicate he was correct. Rather, as I saw things, Dr. Judy Wood’s study has presented conclusive evidence that The Hutchison Effect was very relevant to how the WTC was destroyed. Furthermore, some of this evidence was submitted to a Court in her Qui Tam case. Additionally, it is often overlooked that Hurricane Erin also seems to have played some kind of role in the events of 9/11 – particularly at the WTC. I was grateful when Robert picked up on this and made a posting about it on the popular “Rumour Mill News” Website.

The “Collapse” of the WTC Towers

Over a period of a few days or weeks, I explained to Robert several times that the towers did not collapse – they turned to dust – it seemed to take some time for him to fully understand this. In one article, he quotes me directly

Q) What happened to the towers? Answer: They turned largely to dust.

However, he still referred to the “collapse” of the towers in later writings. This is a very important detail.

On a number of occasions, Robert invited me to comment and correct any statements in his articles relating to Dr Judy Wood’s research. In general, this was quite a rare occurrence – as Dr Wood’s research is frequently mis-represented and misquoted – a phenomenon which I have written about extensively. Over a period of a few weeks and months, Robert sent me advance copies of several of his articles to make sure these references were correct. I tried to ensure accuracy, to the best of my ability. On one or two occasions, Robert even offered me money to cover the time spent doing this, when he was particularly keen to “get things right”. I turned down his offer of money to me on all but one occasion, when I had printed (at my own expense) a number of copies of 2 of his articles “The Question of Questions” and “The Most Important Issue in the History of the Universe” and gave them out at a conference I attended. Additionally, he expressed gratitude for the research of Dr Judy Wood, as he felt it had helped him to understand the “energy issue” in relation to the destruction of the WTC – which seemed to tie in with his own “Metaphysical Catechism” theory.

In The Most Important Issue in the History of the Universe Robert had written about the bogosity of the theory of thermite – which was initially primarily promoted by Dr Steven E Jones and later formed much of the basis for what Architects and Engineers for 9/11Truth (AE911 Truth) began to promote. (Unlike Dr Wood, neither Steven E Jones nor any member(s) of AE911 have used their “conclusive” evidence as the basis for legal action.)

In his writings, Robert seemed to have a knack for describing issues very concisely and succinctly and I thought he had done a good job of pointing out some of the lengths to which the 9/11 “Truth” groups seemed to be going to promote controlled demolition as the only explanation for the destruction of the WTC and also the promotion of the story that real planes hit the WTC.

Nikola Tesla “Testifies”

In September 2010, Robert came up with an idea for a hypothetical Grand Jury hearing in which TPTB (“The Powers That Be”) - as Robert and others call them - heard evidence from, among others, Nikola Tesla and Dr Judy Wood. This article was called “Breaking News: Nikola Tesla Testifies at NY Grand Jury on 9/11”. I helped Robert suggest some wording that might have been used by Dr Judy Wood. I was not entirely happy with this idea, but the article was nevertheless original and interesting. I feared that, like other articles that had been written, aspects of Dr. Wood’s research and conclusions would be “muddled up” or not represented accurately enough or clearly enough.

A Muddling of Evidence, an Ignorance of Details

It seems my concerns about “muddle up” were not entirely unfounded. Around 20^th Sep 2010, Robert Singer contacted me about a new article he had written entitled “Pictures of Mini Nukes at PakAlert Prove 9-11 was a Metaphysical Catechism”. This article was a response to a posting entitled first “Pictures Prove Mini Nukes Caused 9-11 Devastation” appeared on Henry Makow’s website. The Makow article posting was attributed to someone simply called "Dennis" – with no other author details given. (It appears to be a re-hash of Ed Ward’s earlier material, which I wrote about in 2007) This article was later re-posted on several websites – including PakAlert (hence the title of Singer’s article).

All of the photographs used in Makow/PakAlert article had been posted (some for several years) on Dr Judy Wood’s website. Additionally, some of the statements in the article such as “80% of each of the towers 50 million ton mass NEVER hit the ground.” were very similar to what Dr Judy Wood has been saying – since at least 2007 (and possibly long before). Though her website is linked at the top of the Pak Alert article, her name is not mentioned elsewhere. More importantly, neither is it mentioned that Dr Judy Wood does not state that Nukes were used to destroy the WTC! She actually concludes there was very little heat involved in the destruction of the WTC – and this rules out any type of conventional “hot nuke”. This article, therefore, seems to represent a classic “muddle up” of data and conclusions. Seemingly, as an effort to further confuse, it takes the further step of mentioning The Hutchison Effect – without explanation or links – which is rather odd.

Again, Robert Singer asked me to comment on the parts of Pictures of Mini Nukes at PakAlert Prove 9-11 was a Metaphysical Catechism article, which were related to Dr. Judy Wood’s research. Singer had posted an early draft of his article on his blog “Unfiltered History”. Singer had written the article in response to the Makow article, which he regarded as quite significant.

It took me a while to get around to reading Singer’s article, as I had quite a bit of “regular work” (I write reports about disabled students, which have to be done within a deadline period) so I could not immediately read his article. I sent Singer comments on his “Mininukes” article on Sept. 25^th 2010, but by that time he had already posted the article. He included a false statement that I was “Dr Judy Wood’s representative” –I have never stated this and never claimed to be her representative – I am simply “an associate”, because I have tried to help provide a platform for the exposure of the evidence she has compiled. Thankfully, Singer later removed this statement from the article.

However, the key point in the article which remained was his repeated use of the term “mini-nukes/DEW” or “Mini Nukes and Judy Wood” - such as the statement:

…Option 1. Mini Nukes and Judy Wood are the truth

And

Option 2. The mini-nukes/DEW is the new story behind the story, behind the story of how the World Trade Center I and II collapsed (highly probable).

Here again, Singer states that the towers collapsed (which is not the case – they turned to dust – and the building material did not hit the ground in solid form).

It seems in this article, Singer had a “bee in his bonnet” that he was absolutely right about the metaphysical catechism conclusion – and all the “noise” being generated was therefore to “cover up” this idea. In previous discussions with Singer I did not disagree that 9/11 was indeed part of a larger agenda – and that things like the symbolism did have a deeper meaning. He seemed to be saying in his article that “promotion” of Dr Judy Wood’s research and the discussion of “mini nukes” was the “new cover up” to replace the thermite cover up story.

There are a number of problems with Singer’s statements here – firstly, as mentioned above, the “nuke” story first appeared to gain a little traction in 2007 and I wrote about this at the time. In 2010, the “nuke” idea was then given a “facelift” and re-vamped into the form of Dimitri Khalezov. I wrote two articlescovering Khalezov’s correspondence with me – and an analysis of some parts of his 26-part YouTube video sequence (over 4 hours long). Khalezov could not explain some significant points of the evidence – such as the undamaged “bath tub”, the inversion of some cars near the WTC and the contra-indications of high heat.

Another problem with Singer’s argument was embodied in the original Henry Makow Posting and Singer’s own article. He implicitly assumes there is no distinction between “mini nukes” and DEW in relation to the destruction of the WTC. This is why I have taken Singer to task here - he has seemingly, in writing this article, joined the “muddle up” of 9/11 research and evidence. His reason for doing this seems to be because he is convinced he is correct about his “metaphysical catechism” explanation for why 9/11 was done. (Dr. Wood does not really talk about the motive for the destruction of the WTC – she does, however, comment that it was a demonstration of the weapon. A demonstration is not the same as a motive.) Singer stated several times that he “must be correct” because he had an explanation for the motive whereas “we” did not. I did not agree with this – I only pointed out that he could be correct, but there is simply not enough evidence or understanding of it to state with any confidence that he was correct.

Singer Thinks Dr Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson are the “New Cover Up”

In a Skype chat to me Singer stated:

[19/09/2010 16:35:39] Robert Singer: if i am right you are about to be in the spotlight and be invited to speak at 911 truth events instead of steven jones. The consensus is that the same perps used dews for the same neocon conspiracty. You will be used to cover now.

I therefore responded:

[19/09/2010 16:47:38] Andrew Johnson: Ah - in terms of NOT speaking about the Metaphysical Catechism? i.e. the assumption is that Judy (or me) will speak about DEW but not the MC?

[19/09/2010 16:47:52] Andrew Johnson: so DEW is the "cover" for MC?

Singer then re-iterates his “lumping together” of mini nukes and DEW as if they are the same conclusion.

[19/09/2010 16:49:26] Robert Singer: no, that statement was only the observation that mini nukes and dew replaced controlled demo, want me to rephrase it?

[22/09/2010 17:44:20] Robert Singer: you can't have it both ways, either it was a demonstration of free energy or a demo of a dew

[22/09/2010 17:44:33] Robert Singer: which is it

Singer did not seem to understand that the evidence suggests that there was little heat energy released in the destruction of the towers. What has been concluded is that the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) operates on a principle of Field Effects – therefore it exploits “free energy release” – a release of energy much greater than the energy input. This is what has been seen in John Hutchison’s experiments – and in experiments done to study Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (aka “Cold Fusion”).

Later singer re-iterates that he thinks we would be used:

[22/09/2010 17:45:47] Robert Singer: I will wait till it is even more obvious you are being used

[22/09/2010 17:46:03] Robert Singer: at some point it will be obvious

[22/09/2010 17:48:25] Robert Singer: who cares she is going to be the new poster child

He then made a peculiar statement which I did not understand:

[22/09/2010 17:50:22] Robert Singer: I have no interest in being the one to prove Judy wood is wrong.

I did not understand whether he was thinking Dr Judy Wood was wrong or he was waiting for someone else to prove she was wrong? This did not make sense to me because Singer seemed to originally contact me because he thought she was right!

I then pointed out to Singer that the evidence was so compelling – and conclusive – a proportion of it had been submitted to the court (as mentioned above). He then replied:

[23/09/2010 21:13:20] Robert Singer: don't care about the court case only care if this is a correct statement: my observation that Judy can prove conclusively that a dew was used to make the impact holes and destroyed building 7, but she cannot prove conclusively that a dew brought down 1 and 2 (you have already admitted the collapses are different)

I encouraged Singer to re-examine the court documents – and other evidence on Dr Judy Wood’s website regarding the destruction of the WTC towers. I had already spent considerable time in reviewing his articles and sending him comments to make corrections. I had also spent time reading and commenting on earlier articles he had written.

To explain why Singer said “WTC 1 & 2 are different” above, he had again got “enthused” by the idea that the fact that destruction of Tower 7 was “bottom up” (or appeared so) and the fact that Towers 1 & 2 were destroyed “top down” meant that the weapon used must have been different – he therefore stated that the use of DEW to destroy 1 & 2 was not proved, but (oddly, to me) for 7 it was proven. I could not easily follow his line of thinking – in any case I had previously pointed out to him Dr Wood’s description of the “lathering” process that was observed for all 3 towers - which suggested the same process was at work (i.e. that “things were happening” inside the building which were simply not visible – such as the structure being “dissolved” over a period of time by the use of the field effect technology). I also pointed out that the DEW did not necessarily act purely in a “line of sight”. This brings me on to a more general point that we cannot describe the exact way in which the weapon worked – we can merely conclude from the evidence the principle on which it operates and other features of it (such as, for example, its effect is not instantaneous – it seems to work over a period of minutes/hours. Also, it has the ability to affect different materials in different ways.)

In the Skype conversation, Singer then stated:

[23/09/2010 21:28:33] Robert Singer: this is not working, why can't you give me the link to prove what I asked

In previous e-mails, I had essentially tried to describe to Singer what I have written about above – and perhaps if he reads this article, he will now understand that we cannot “prove everything” about the weapon - just that it was an energy weapon and it works on the principle of interfering fields of energy – similar to how John Hutchison’s technology works. Over and above this, I am a “lay person” and I do not have access to any classified information, nor have any whistleblowers that I am aware of come forward to deny or augment any aspects of what has been put on the table so far.

Summary

I have found Robert Singer’s articles to be very interesting and he may well be correct about some aspects of the larger picture he “paints”. I was initially grateful that he chose to write about Dr Judy Wood’s research – initially with more accuracy than other authors. However, I am still puzzled as to why he seems to think certain details will prove or disprove his “Metaphysical Catechism” theory. I was also very disappointed and rather troubled that he lumped together “mini nukes” and Dr Judy Wood’s research as if it did not matter – especially as he had taken an interest in “the story behind the story” of 9/11 “truth” – in the form of the Thermite/Steven E Jones scam, which we discussed at length. Perhaps Singer’s “muddling” was unintentional, as he had not progressed as far as reading about the attempts by Alfred Webre and Leuren Moret to muddle up the evidence with a discussion of HAARP being used to destroy the World Trade Centre Towers (I tried to draw Singer’s attention to this documentation).

Some may think this article is “inconsequential” – however, I wanted to make sure certain things were “put on the record”, so that a picture of what has transpired is available. People who wish to read through the e-mail and Skype Chat exchanges between myself and Robert Singer can do so using this link.

“So, Was 9/11 a Metaphysical Catechism???”

I can only answer the question posed in the title of this article thus – “I do not know – perhaps you’d like to discuss it further with Robert Singer – he thinks he has some answers for you!” However, Singer and I agree on at least one thing that we should “live sustainably and give out positive energy.”

[A draft of this article was sent to Robert Singer and I made changes based on his feedback. I sent him a revised version, which resulted in a further flurry of e-mails from him. These can be found here, if of interest.]