Andrew Johnson (ADJ) – ad.johnson@ntlworld….
01 April 2026
In this article, I will try to clarify my reasoning behind remarks I made in an interview in Dec 2025 and further, related, comments I made in one of my own videos earlier in 2026. The details are all below! These remarks, of course, all relate to the topics listed in the title, above. Matters have perhaps become more complicated because other postings have been made (highlighting issues which I will raise here) by “Math Easy Solutions,” and “9/11 Revisionist.” Whilst I value their efforts and postings etc, I don’t always agree with their methods and actions in relation to these topics/issues. I do not have any control (nor would I wish any) over what they post or how they choose to present it.
For myself, I have become rather jaded and disenchanted about the lack of acceptance of (to me) obvious conclusions about what happened on 9/11/2001 which are based on voluminous evidence. I have also largely given up trying to explain these obvious conclusions to people that really shouldn’t need things explaining to them (i.e. mainly “truthers”). I got bored of writing articles about these matters in about 2015 and even lacked motivation to finish compiling my second 9/11-related book in the years prior to 2017. I also lacked motivation for posting this article, but decided to do so because the person I am disagreeing with declined an invitation from 9/11 Revisionist (Norman – 911R) to discuss our disagreement on a podcast with a chap called Chuck Fall. As Norman said, it’s far easier to discuss things on a recorded podcast than it is to play “ping-pong” with articles – as 911R and Dr Hughes already have been doing.
In the email thread in which Dr Hughes declined to discuss these matters, he requested I/we addressed his points in full. However, I don’t have the motivation to check whether I have done this or not (the reader can be the judge). I’ve said for years that we’ve made the significance of all the 9/11 evidence as clear as we can – and Dr Wood submitted said evidence to a court of law – years before she published her book (see below). This is still more than any other researcher (including Dr David Hughes) has done.
A bit of History
As some readers may know, my involvement with research into the events of 9/11 started over 20 years ago and resulted in me compiling two books – 9/11 Finding the Truth (First edition self-published in 2009) and 9/11 Holding the Truth (2017). These books document what happened as I became more and more involved in the research of Dr Judy Wood. Between late 2005 and 2007, I was a member of a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and this is how I came into contact with Dr Wood and Dr Morgan Reynolds. This is all described at length in my books. Two key figures in the story are Physicist Dr Steven E Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University and Dr of Philosophy of Science James Fetzer – joint founders of the “Scholars” group.
After about 1 year to 18 months of dealings with Fetzer and Jones, I came to the conclusion that they were both engaged in an operation to either ridicule, cover up, discredit or at least deliberately downplay the research of Dr Judy Wood. The intensity with which they did this varied, with Fetzer initially supporting Wood and Jones promoting alternative and untenable explanations for the 9/11 evidence that Wood was drawing attention to. Their reasons for doing this, I thought, were to do with the fact that Wood’s research essentially proved that an unknown directed energy technology was employed to destroy most of the WTC complex on 9/11. Wood and myself argued that particular pieces of evidence suggested this undisclosed technology was capable of liberating enormous quantities of energy from the environment – without using any obvious or conventional source of fuel. Further research led Wood to discover the presence of Hurricane Erin and she showed evidence that it was somehow involved in the events of 9/11. This evidence also related to other evidence produced by eccentric experimental physicist John Hutchison – whose work employed “field effects” to create anomalous changes in materials (mostly metals) and even levitation of samples of materials – in his home-made laboratory. All of this is documented in Dr Wood’s “Where Did the Towers Go?” book, which I have been distributing in Europe since its initial publication in late 2010.
Wood’s 2007 Qui Tam Case and John Hutchison
Two other key points to understand here are that Dr Judy Wood filed a court case against government contractors who were involved in the 9/11 investigation by NIST. The results of NIST’s “investigations” were published in 10,000 pages of reports in 2005. Dr Wood’s court-submitted documents included an affidavit from John Hutchison, which included the following statement:
Upon examination of the destructive effects done to the WTC on 9/11, as documented by Dr. Wood and as reviewed by me, I can and do assert that the WTC was destroyed by devices that are scaled up, refined and/or weaponized versions of the effects that I named the “Hutchison effect.” Some of the evidence which illustrates this is pictured in Table 1.
There are many other important elements within this affidavit. Why would Hutchison risk perjuring himself if he wasn’t being sincere about the impact of his research?
9/11 and Hurricane Erin
It is now well-established that Hurricane Erin’s movements showed strong correlation with the events of 9/11. Details can be found either in Wood’s WDTTG book, or on her original web pages, starting here. They are summarised below.
Hurricane Erin…
Was named as a tropical storm around 01 Sep 2001.
Hit Bermuda on 07 Sep 2001 and caused some damage there (reported by CNN).
Travelled in the direction of NYC for approx. 4 days.
Reached its largest expanse at about the same time.
As a whole, was travelling at its slowest speed throughout the events of 9/11.
Turned sharply east on 12 Sep 2001, and then moved towards Newfoundland.
Further
The eye of the hurricane was situated approximately 500 miles from NYC by about 8am on 11 Sep 2001.
Also, other weather data showed that the wind speed, barometric pressure and temperature in NYC remained constant for about 16 hours, as the events on 9/11 unfolded. Dry thunder was reported at all 3 New York airports on 11 Sep 2001. So some lightning must have struck, but little or no rain fell. The importance of the thunder is that it is generated because of electric discharge – proving that the storm system’s influence reached as far as NYC (and the other sites of “9/11 events” – Washington DC and Shanksville, Pennsylvania).
The Erin name was not retired and several hurricanes – before and after 9/11 – have borne this name.
Pausing for a moment, can I ask the reader whether they would agree with my earlier statement that “Hurricane Erin’s movements showed strong correlation with the events of 9/11”? For me, it seems blatantly obvious and I might even say it’s “silly” to suggest that there was no correlation…
Energy
The importance of this evidence is all related to energy – and how it seems fairly clear, having studied the totality of Wood’s research, that energy was being used in a very unusual way on 9/11 – to produce various effects – including the destruction of at least 3 WTC buildings. Hutchison’s experiments use a combination of electrostatic fields, microwaves and a radioactive source to change materials and create levitation. For an electrostatic field, Hutchison has used either a Tesla Coil or a Van der Graaf generator.
I mentioned earlier that Dr Steven E Jones was one of the founders of the Scholar’s for 9/11 truth. Prior to this, he was contracted for doing energy research for both the US Dept. of Energy and Los Alamos National Laboratories (see my books for references). Jones also worked in the field of Cold Fusion – an anomalous energy phenomenon – more appropriately known as LENR. (I recommend some of the research of Bob Greenyer who is one of a very small number of people who has been willing to talk about the connections between LENR and 9/11.) I am also grateful that Greenyer took the time to interview scientist George Hathaway about the Hutchison metal samples. I previously argued, therefore, that Jones’ (successfully played) role was to help marginalise or downplay any discussion that energy phenomena played any significant part in the destruction of the WTC on 9/11. In 2007 or thereabouts he “passed the baton” to “Richard Gage and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Lies.” (All of this is discussed at length, as I stated before, in my two 9/11 books, so I won’t repeat references here.)
Dr David A Hughes
Dr Hughes worked as a Senior Lecturer in International Relations at Lincoln University until 2024. I first became aware of Dr David A Hughes’ interest in the truth about the events of 9/11 when he contacted me via my www.checktheevidence… website on 24 Sep 2017. Surprisingly (to me), he invited me to give a talk to a small group at his university (Lincoln), although there was not sufficient interest, then, in the topic and the proposed talk never took place. (You can see my name listed on a WordPress Website he created back then.) Dr David Hughes became interested in the research of Richard D Hall and he later wrote an extremely detailed and comprehensive series of 21 articles about Hall’s research into the 2017 Manchester Arena False Flag event which have been extremely helpful to Richard D Hall. Hughes agreed with most of Hall’s assessment of the evidence relating to the staged bombing there. Hughes discovered significant additional evidence about the Manchester staged bombing, further bolstering Hall’s conclusions. (I was very grateful that Hughes undertook this effort and was impressed by the thoroughness and volume of his research, though I would be lying if I said I read all of it.)
It was essentially because of my association with Richard D Hall’s “Richplanet” show that I first met David Hughes. Richard organised an event at the Bonington Theatre in Arnold, Nottinghamshire on 02 May 2018, where he presented his latest research. Dr David Hughes attended and we chatted briefly either during an interval or after the event. Dr Hughes also attended Hall’s 2019 event in Castle Donington, where he asked a question about false flag events and Richard and I gave our response.
In 2020, Dr Hughes communicated with me about his publication of a paper called “9/11 Truth and the Silence of the IR Discipline”. In one such email, he reported that “the peer reviewers wanted Dr. Wood excluded entirely.” This paper has since disappeared from the “Academia.edu” site which he sent me a link to, back then. I was grateful of his efforts to bring awareness of Wood’s conclusions to the wider academic community in the face of ridicule and resistance. Dr Wood and myself were all too familiar with “how it went…” when one started to point out anomalous evidence…
My understanding is that Dr Hughes was made redundant from Lincoln University in 2024. We exchanged quite a few emails around this time, as he wanted to set up his own website and wasn’t sure of the best way to do this. He registered the domain name and bought a hosting package. I helped him set up a basic WordPress installation for him and offered to guide him through the steps needed to configure the site to his own liking. At that time, however, he began posting articles on “substack” and his Website remained mostly dormant until about mid-December, 2025. (Also, in 2024, I sent him a donation in support of his research activities.) Dr Hughes has also done some lengthy research into the COVID scam and several other topics – and he seems to be good at digging up various nuggets of information.
I respected Hughes’ research and willingness to “stand up” for the truth. He seemed to be supportive of what we were trying to show etc. In preparing this article, I reviewed some of the emails that Dr Hughes and I exchanged over the last 8 or 9 years. The content of those messages, and what I have written above, has made what I have written below seem all the more peculiar to me really!
Dr Hughes writes “In Defence of Judy Wood” – ADJ Responded
On 11 Sep 2023, Dr Hughes sent me a draft of a manuscript of an article, “In Defence of Judy Wood”, that he had written, which was due to be published in a magazine called “Covert Action” in October 2023. I read through this and sent Dr Hughes the following comments on the same day.
Thanks for doing this – much appreciated. I was especially interested in your critique of the molten metal stories (and the related evidence – or lack thereof).
I think the Erin section needs a little work, so I’ve suggested some important changes there.
I also suggested some changes to the conclusion.
Dr Hughes replied, thanking me for the comments and he sent me a revised version of the article. On 14 Sep 2023, I sent him the following comments.:
Thanks for your revised version – I’ve had a quick run through and it looks good. “Track changes” quickly gets messy though, ay??
Glad to see you’ve updated the Erin section and you’ve made some good points. However, I think it’s worth pointing out the obvious that the early reports (showing the Hurricane) were not watched by as many people and so what I said in my comment was true – early reports noted it and downplayed it.
I couldn’t see the links where you got the images for the early ABC weather reports – were they in the Internet Archive too? I hadn’t seen those images.
The comparisons you made were useful, though I couldn’t see any mention of Hurricane Sandy in 2012 – they made a big fuss about that one!
What is the deadline for your submission? (i.e. I can check more thoroughly later, but I have 77+ scripts to mark now!)
Also on 14 Sep 2023, Dr Hughes replied thus:
Two of the weather reports are 8:04 and 8:39 – I would have thought they would have quite a large breakfast audience?
The links for the four images are included in the table I produced. I put the video clips up on Odysee. Back in 2019, when I realised YouTube was about to start purging all critical content, I downloaded every single 9/11 video I could get my hands on. That came in useful for the first time this week, when I was able to go through and find these old weather clips.
I’ll have to look into Hurricane Sandy – sounds potentially useful.
A further reply from him included links to copies of the images/videos for the ABC weather reports he mentioned. In the final version of the article, he did mention Hurricane Sandy.
Hutchison Effect
In his article Dr Hughes included two or three images which are related to the Hutchison Effect.
A Bible fused into steel with “molten metal” on the front (centre-left). What can bend steel without burning paper? Source: redice.tv
With the image above, there is no mention of the Hutchison Effect and, later in the article, when the second image is shown, there is no discussion of the selective effects seen on/in materials (as shown in the image above). Whilst Dr Hughes cannot possibly include everything, he could have done a better job of illustrating the Hutchison Effect parallels, by referring to the table included in/on Dr Wood’s website, or in some other suitable or appropriate way, rather than just showing this:
For example, it is possible to bend metal smoothly in the absence of high temperatures:
Further relevance of the Hutchison Effect could have been established by noting the selective effects on materials of the toasted cars (which Hughes mentions, merely asking the question about their anomalous nature, rather than pointing to available evidence). It’s easy to argue about adjectives used to describe the anomalous nature of number WTC metal/material samples (e.g. Dr Hughes wanted to argue about a beam that splintering rather than bending smoothly).
Also, Dr Hughes does not mention levitation, weird fires, selective effects on materials (as seen, for example in some of the engine blocks of cars and fire trucks), evidence for use of microwaves etc. All these effects and more are covered in Dr Wood’s WDTTG book. Hughes does not mention Hutchison’s affidavit. Also, though Hughes references my two 9/11 books, he does not draw on any of the related circumstantial evidence relating to the reaction (of researchers like Jim Fetzer and Ace Baker) to the Hutchison Effect being connected to the events of 9/11. As a totality, I would argue, this collection of diverse evidence proves that the Hutchison Effect is extremely relevant to 9/11 and for a researcher of Dr Hughes’ calibre to remain “agnostic” about it (see below) is most peculiar to me.
Hurricane Erin
My second main concern about what Dr David Hughes has written in his articles is that he has almost tried to “debunk” the relevance of Hurricane Erin and the related magnetometer data, though in my humble opinion the latter is somewhat harder to interpret than the former.
In his “In Defence” article Dr Hughes includes the following annotated image and caption.
Still, if Erin did have something to do with the WTC destruction and were “steered” through weather modification, it would be interesting to know why it made a beeline, not for Lower Manhattan, but, rather, Cape Cod:
My annotation of a cropped and frozen version of the gif above
Indeed, judging by the satellite imagery Wood presents, Cape Cod was more affected by Erin than Lower Manhattan.
The path that Erin took was not an exact straight line one. Neither was any part of its behaviour unique on its own. Once again, the reader can consider the totality of evidence in Wood’s book and on the website, including the timing of the behaviour of Erin and its coincidence with the events of 9/11 (see list earlier in the article). These facts are irrefutable.
Of course, the Hurricane caused more rain and wind around Cape Cod than Lower Manhattan! That’s plain to see. However, Wood was noting the electrical influence of the storm and the area over which that could be felt or detected (i.e. she was noting “field effects” and “field interference,” not obvious wind and rain effects). Perhaps Dr Hughes should revisit the relevant chapters of Wood’s book.
Regarding the annotated image, the actual path of Erin may not be quite what it seems. It depends on what map projection was used. See below for an example. Let’s draw a straight line going approximately from New York to London on Google Maps (using the measuring tool option) In a “normal” map view, this actually appears as a curved line:
In “Globe view” (go to the “map layers” control, then click “More” to find this option):
ê
ê
The same line appears straight.
As regards the additional news reports about Erin that Hughes included in his article, this changes little – Wood simply noted that it was under-reported compared to similar Hurricanes (e.g. Hurricane Sandy in 2012). There was, for example, no talk of evacuation of any of the coastal areas (like there was with Hurricane Rita in 2005), nor was there discussion of damage caused by Storm Swells – all of this we have covered at length before – either in the WDTTG book or other articles and interviews.
Another peculiar under-reporting of Hurricane occurred in 2010. In a 2010 retrospective of his 40-year career, Geraldo Rivera said “if only a Hurricane came on 9/11…” How is it that a journalist who was a “seasoned reporter” on hurricanes did not seem to know about or mention Hurricane Erin? Why didn’t he say something like “it almost came – and could have changed what happened on 9/11”?
Again, regardless of exactly how straight Erin’s path was between 7 and 11 Sept, the overall positioning and timings are obvious for all to see. I have to say that so few people are aware of this information that anyone downplaying its significance probably won’t be heard either!
I invite readers to view a video compiled by Adam Dwyer, posted on 9 Sep 2017 and I invite readers to view a video summary discussion by Dr Wood, filmed by Richard D Hall at my house, way back in 2011 or 2012. Finally, 911R has collected together some useful links and images in a posting he made called “Hurricanes and September 11, 2001?“
Magnetometer Data
In his “In Defence” article, Dr Hughes spends some time discussing the Magnetometer data. I am not going to go through all of that. I just invite readers to review what he has written and compare it to what Dr Wood wrote in her WDTTG book – or on her page discussing the Magnetometer Data – here. Wood argues that there were certain key changes in the magnetometer readings which were coincident with the timings of stages of destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7. The key graph of magnetometer data that Hughes omits from his article is the one I have been highlighting in presentations I have been giving since about 2010. It is reproduced below.
This trace shows that the field reached some kind of minimum at 8:46am. This was the time that a plane-shaped hole appeared WTC 1. There was also a news video being filmed at this time and a visual disturbance occurred on the video at precisely this time. Why did David Hughes omit this?
Hughes and Cold Fusion/LENR
In his “In Defence” article, Dr Hughes spends a decent amount of time talking about Cold Fusion/LENR and seems to do quite a good job of explaining the likely role of Steven E Jones in both LENR and 9/11 research. However, in a “Solari Report” interview that Hughes had with Elze van Hamelen about “Invisible Weaponry,” discussing Wood’s research on 5 May 2025 starting around 1hr 32mins into the interview, he said:
..This would seem to be consistent with the idea of some kind of cold fusion mini nuke potentially. That’s an idea which I don’t think anyone has ever proposed.
Um, but it’s kind of where I sit with this. And one of the problems with the 911 truth community is it’s divided very rigidly into camps. And so you have people in the mini nukes camp and you know they viciously attack everyone else. And then you have people in the nanothermite camp and they make up lies about everybody else. Uh and then you have people in the in the Dr. Wood camp who won’t hear a single bad word said against her and are completely shut off to all of the other camps. And so it becomes very hardened and not actually very productive.
But the way I look at it, and this is why I quite like the work of Heinz Pomner, even though I disagree with him on temperatures, is that some of the evidence that Palmer provides does actually appear to be consistent with some kind of mini nuclear weapon in terms of the dust clouds and the rocket trails and uh and other visible evidence, but at the same time, we know it was cold. And so that would point in the direction in my opinion of some kind of cold fusion uh mini- nuke. Now again, that probably puts me in a minority of one, but I don’t care. That’s the way it appears to me.
Pomner’s claims about nuclear devices seem to be just a re-packaged version of the claims of folks like Jeff Prager. (The linked article, from 2012, contains links to even earlier claims about 9/11 and nuclear devices by other researchers who have since faded into obscurity). Hughes has repeatedly referenced my two books about 9/11 research and researchers and these books contain several chapters about the “9/11 nuclear nonsense.” When Pomner appeared on the scene, I had lost all interest in studying claims of nuclear devices being used to destroy the WTC – because we’d already established the type of technology that must have been used.
After making this “cold fusion mini nuke” statement, Dr Hughes did make a comment (although I can’t find the source) that I had “rightfully pointed out” the weakness of this statement – i.e. he seemed to have some sort of regret that he said the above. That said, this still seemed significant to me (see below for the reason).
“A Guide to Identifying Camp 2”
In an undated article called “A Guide to Identifying Camp 2,” (seemingly posted in early Feb 2026, judging by the dates on comments), under a heading of “Evidence of Cult Thinking” Dr Hughes writes:
It surfaced again recently in Andrew Johnson and 9/11 Revisionist’s attack on me for not accepting absolutely every element of Where Did The Towers Go? I was outrageously likened to Jim Fetzer and described as “silly” and perhaps “not a good guy.” Johnson wrongly claimed that I refuse to challenge all three of climate change, global energy, and terrorism narratives. I was bizarrely blamed for being “prolific” and for having a PowerPoint presentation ready for an interview that was agreed nine months in advance.
Because I dare to challenge the Hurricane Erin hypothesis and the significance of Wood’s magnetometer data, while remaining agnostic on the Hutchison effect, I appear to be persona non grata in the Wood camp — despite having published multiple overt defences of her work.
I first presented my counter-evidence in an article that was proof-read by Johnson himself (see the acknowledgement at the end). I did the intellectually honest thing by running my doubts past him first before publishing. But instead of rebutting my specific, evidence-based concerns point by point, Johnson and 9/11 Revisionist resorted to smears, innuendo, and ad hominem. Such behaviour is not conducive to the pursuit of the truth.
I commented about this part of Hughes’ “Camp 2” article on my YouTube channel in a video I posted on 14 Feb 2026, noting some of the things I have also written about, above. I was rather upset at what Hughes had written (shown above) – and perhaps you can now understand why I was upset – now that I’ve explained some more of the “back story.”
Fetzer
Hughes
Invited me to join the 9/11 Scholars Group.
Invited me to give an extracurricular talk at his university.
Referred to my articles in his discussions
Referred to my books
Promoted Dr Wood’s research into DEW evidence/explanation for the destruction of the WTC.
Promoted Dr Wood’s research into DEW evidence/explanation for the destruction of the WTC.
Disagreed about the use of Hutchison Effect-like technology in the WTC destruction and threatened Dr Wood.
Remained “agnostic” about use of Hutchison Effect-like technology in the WTC destruction.
Was reluctant to discuss Hurricane Erin, claimed not to understand it etc (see ch 19 of “9/11 Finding the Truth”)
Stated he thought Hurricane Erin had “nothing to do” with the events of 9/11.
Talked about Dr Wood supporters being part of a cult
Responded to my comments about Hurricane Erin and Hutchison Effect under a heading “Evidence of Cult Thinking”
Suggested micro or mini nuclear devices destroyed the towers.
Suggested one or more cold fusion mini nuke(s) destroyed the towers.
Written output and number of interviews very high (relative to myself)
Written output and number of interviews very high (relative to myself)
Played the victim following criticism for “not understanding” or mischaracterising the Hurricane Erin and Hutchison Effect Evidence.
Played the victim following criticism relating to Hurricane Erin and Hutchison Effect Evidence (stated we had “resorted to smears, innuendo, and ad hominem.”)
As I said in my books, agreeing that some sort of energy weapon destroyed the WTC but then not really “following through” with the Hutchison Effect and Hurricane Erin evidence seems very much like a “limited hangout” to me – which then prevents or discourages people from realising the free energy and weather control technologies are real and have been perfected.
Further relevant points (and some ironies) are covered in 911R’s “No But, Dr David A Hughes” article, posted on 16 Feb 2026.
�� CONTENT HASHES:
SHA-256: 29eddb71b7236f6969baaa8002ad39d0f922426bbf874c1110efdab2d957e8e7
BLAKE2b: 523aabf7a89616fb034aa1bc59a7bf2941941eaf3526a153eebb04d16f7433c3
MD5: 76542c853d8b463ecb1c765a0f0a718e
�� TITLE HASHES:
SHA-256: 693aebcf51fc581bb82941f4b1c05c2c6985c1b623d7d6d7c33101fa9726267a
BLAKE2b: 9056b1b9dd0fe098c9af5be59d4c8c27368116c0d7e9bb765296526776244966
MD5: 4ce2df157f42003700176bd27fee3940
�� INTEGRITY HASHES:
SHA-256: 43460e2ddb1257068ed017b25b51134bf7596017c759f8d3af4cd6ea54769781
BLAKE2b: 470c2c11b435539f0571ae4c0d8963e714991a82b0521429d349c042a07edb2e
MD5: 0ac54a50f381f45107129acdde1c8a22
Archived with ArcHive - Client-side cryptographic archival system