Tuesday, September 11, 2012

911 Finding the Truth - Review

911 Finding the Truth
by Andrew Johnson
Genre: nonfiction, political
June pick

     I downloaded this book expecting to read a history and documentation of how the United States government has harrassed middle eastern countries since the 1970's. How would we as Americans feel if Iraq had military bases on American soil? If Iran had drones flying over our cities? If Afghanistan troops invaded our towns and killed our loved ones because they assumed that we were terrorists? The wars in the middle east are not about protecting our freedoms. It is about protecting our government's interests in the oil fields. I'm not claiming that the attack on the World Trade Center was justifiable. But in light of these facts, it would be a little more understandable.

     This book does not deal with that truth though as I had thought. This book touches upon the research and experiments of several scientists who believe that the attack on the Twin Towers was actually an "inside job" to advance the story of terrorism. Andrew Johnson has basically compiled a bunch of articles from his blog which are ripe with links to videos and articles to those who allegedly have evidence to what really brought down the towers. I decided to not take the time to read the accompanying documentation that he alludes to in order to see if the book stands on it's own. Sadly, it does not.

     Maybe the book should have been titled "Infighting amongst 9/11 truthers" as that is what the majority of this book documents. I find it odd that the author only links to supposed important research but copies entire e-mails that he exchanged with other "truthers" debating whether the Hutchinson Effect is a true scientific anomaly or just the work of a fraudulent magician. If Andrew Johnson had put forth as much effort explaining Dr. Judy Wood's findings as he did defending her when her research was misquoted or misused, I might have a real idea of what her version of the truth is.

     Andrew Johnson goes to great lengths to define the Baker Effect, which is basically Ace Baker's attempt to debunk Judy Wood's support of Hutchinson's experiments that seem to help explain some of the odd effects that have come into question about how the towers fell. He does not bother to explain just what the Hutchinson Effect really is. Personally I think that would have been a better use of his time.

     The author states that he has concluded that one of the main objectives of those individuals involved in the infighting is "To try to tarnish or discredit the reputation of Dr. Judy Wood, as a means of drawing attention away from the evidence she has discussed in her comprehensive pictorial studies." Andrew Johnson is just as guilty of this as he spends most of this book pointing out who said what against Dr. Wood or who turned on whom and how so-and-so has ignored such-and-such. This took just as much of my attention away from the actual matters at hand as this was what the majority of this book contained.

     Steve Jones had suggested that Andrew Johnson write a paper on his views about Directed Energy Weapons being used on 9/11. He was cautioned that "personalized attacks would not be allowed." Andrew replied to this request stating "even if I did write a paper, it would not have any real creditbility". This was stated fairly early in the book. I suppose I should have seen the writing on the wall that if Andrew Johnson was not qualified to write a paper where mudslinging was not allowed, that he was not qualified to write a book and that this would mainly contain mudslinging and petty arguments. Andrew Johnson seems to take it as a personal attack if someone does not agree with Hutchinson's experiments and findings. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I was much reminded of religious zealots, determined to argue with someone until they managed to convert that person to their own beliefs. The idea of beating a dead horse sprang to mind often, maybe that should have been this book's title.

     Andrew Johnson's area of expertise is in computer science. He has no actual theories of his own. He is merely attempting to spread the word about the other conspiracy theories he holds to be truth. If he plans to continue writing, he may want to think about getting an English degree and save readers from toiling through incomplete sentences, and incoherant statements. Maybe even try editing his book instead of beginning it with a disclaimer: "Due to the nature of the way this book has been compiled, some sections/paragraphs and points are repeated a number of times - so I apologise for this in advance (please skip over sections you have read before!)"

     Conspiracy theories have a bad reputation because so many of them are just way out there. I think it is important to think for yourself and not just blindly believe whatever clap trap story the government feeds to the public. However, I also think that conspiracy theories are pointless. Getting the truth into the eye of John Q. Public is not going to change anything. The assassinatin of JFK is the best example of this. Does anyone believe the magic bullet theory? I mean seriously. The majority of the American population thinks something is not quite right with the official story behind this much publicized shooting. Yet even now, almost 50 years later, no one has been brought to trial. There has been no justice dealt for JFK's murder. Publicizing the assorted conspiracy theories have not changed that fact.

     If you are truly interested in this line of thinking, you might be better off reading Dr. Judy Wood's book Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11, but I can't speak from personal experience.


  1. Hi there,

    Thanks for providing a link to my book.

    At the end of your review you wrote:

    "If you are truly interested in this line of thinking, you might be better off reading Dr. Judy Wood's book Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11, but I can't speak from personal experience."

    This is true. However, elsewhere in your review you wrote:"I decided to not take the time to read the accompanying documentation that he alludes to"

    So why did you, instead, take time to write this lengthy review?

    A summary of the main evidence IS included near the start of this free book.

    I fear you are guilty of jumping to conclusions - as you have not checked the evidence - by your own admission, and therefore you have not understood the real purpose of my book - which was written over a period of 4 years.

    You also forgot to mention the chapters "Manufacturing the Apocalypse" and "A World of Abundance or a World of Scarcity" which are not specifically about 911 or the 911 truth movement.

    Also "The Baker Effect" is one of the shortest chapters. And, if you went to look, you would find the original text on which it is based - and that text WOULD describe the Hutchison Effect fairly clearly.

    So is your review fair?

  2. I review books, it is what I do. When I give a lengthy review it generally means that the book has caused me to put some serious thought into the review. I do not review internet articles which is why I did not include information gathered from the articles which were referred to in this book. I did however state that that there is further information available which this book provides URLs for, if a person is interested in this topic.

    When I review a book, I read it and give my opinion. Opinions are what they are ... opinions. They may not always seem fair as they are based on a person's own point of view and what they retain from what they have read. This is why opinions can vary so widely. I do not expect everyone to agree with my opinion. I am sure many people do not.

    I have already admitted that I jumped to a conclusion as to what I thought the subject matter of this book would be about. I am not aware that I have made any decision yet regarding the theories expressed in this book as this was my first exposure to this topic and I simply do not have enough information to draw any conclusions.

    I have given your book free advertising and I have helped to spread your message, whether or not I personally give credence to it, simply because I realize that others may be interested in this topic. I do not see this as unfair.