Imperfect Allies - Telling The Truth About 9/11

Source: https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress/2026/09/14/imperfect-allies-telling-the-truth-about-9-11/

Andrew Johnson (ad.johnson@ntlworld….) – 13 Sep 2026

It’s a quarter of a century after the destruction of the WTC complex on 11 Sept 2001. It was in about 2004 that I got involved in 9/11 research, following other online research I’d been doing into related topics, around the same time. If you want to know more, please study my two books about my 9/11 research experiences, which can be found here.
We can all now know, thanks to Dr Judy Wood that “The World Trade Centre Towers did not burn up, nor did they slam/fall to the ground. They turned mostly to dust in mid-air.” Establishing this knowledge in one’s own mind is vitally important. When this has been achieved, one can form a “lens” through which to view most other world affairs. As I’ve written elsewhere, one’s views through this lens – on energy, the environment, politics, finance, war – and all related matters – look very different to the views without it.
The fact that on 9/11, one or more advanced, undisclosed technologies was/were openly used to destroy three buildings immediately – and severely damage several others – is one which should cause an immediate shift in one’s outlook on life, once the fact has been fully realised and integrated into one’s consciousness.
Nearly all of what has been happening in the world since the destruction of those buildings has been driven by false assumptions and controlled narratives. Powerful, global forces have been largely successful in preventing the fact(s) stated above from being realised and accepted by all but a minority of a minority of ordinary people.
Those same global forces have used a wide array of tools, techniques and technologies to maintain a tight control over “mass perception” and this control allowed these same forces to destroy the lives of millions through a global health/medical scam, commonly referred to as COVID-19.
When COVID-19 “happened,” the diminishing enthusiasm I had for advocating self-education about the true nature of the destruction that occurred on 9/11 diminished further. I was disappointed that so many people “fell” for the COVID-19 scam and proceeded to act out of fear and/or ignorance.
Even now, when the COVID scam has itself begun to fade into history and there are, seemingly, more people that are sceptical of the various global narratives, the understanding in the wider population of the key “WTC destruction facts” is still very limited.
When discussing the events of 9/11, “alt-media” (Tucker Carlson being a prominent example) still largely promotes government-approved alternative narratives, presented by proven liars like Richard Gage. (Gage has been lying for almost 20 years – as discussed in my afore-mentioned books.) For a long time, I have considered that Mr Gage must believe his own lies and is therefore incapable of telling the actual truth. I’ve speculated that he is some sort of “android” – programmed to repeat a plausible-sounding story, and never able to admit obvious errors and apologise for his mistakes. This sounds a bit crazy, I know, but let me point out that narrative-handler/controller Jim Fetzer (also discussed in my books) has questioned whether he has been implanted to control his behaviour. (Thanks to MES for this clip!)
Independent Thinkers, Truth and Movements
In this article/essay, I wanted to write about independent thinkers. I was, from an early age, averse to consuming current affairs bulletins – i.e. news reports presented on TV, radio and in print media. Stories presented were often just too upsetting. However, up until about 2003, I was mostly taken in by the same narratives as other people.
After I got access to “always on” internet, my thinking about many issues began to change and, more and more, I regarded myself as an independent thinker. By this time, I had long finished my education and felt I was reasonably competent at using mathematical and analytical skills (indeed, I used these to make a living!) So perhaps I was not a completely independent thinker – because I had learned things from other people and not learned everything by myself! I say this because it’s an important point. Independent thinking often requires the use of careful (and repeated) observation and meaningful analysis – so observation and analytical skills need to be strongly developed. Some of these can be learned from other people (and I paid attention at school to those who were older, wiser and more knowledgeable than I was).
So now let’s consider what happens when independent thinkers form a group… Who in the group will be a “lead thinker”? Should there be a lead thinker? Would it be the case that those with the strongest analytical and observation skills should lead a group? Or would such an arrangement mean that the other independent thinkers in the group felt inferior or felt that they were being misled by those with superior skills (because they couldn’t always keep up with the thinking of the more capable members)? Should the oldest members of a group of independent thinkers be considered more as the leaders? Among independent thinkers, what role does respect play?
I am presenting these questions here because of some recent “goings on” which I have witnessed among a group of independent thinkers that are all interested in the earlier fact(s) that I mentioned about the destruction of the WTC. Disharmony and disagreements and arguments seem to have happened which have been quite disconcerting to me, because I thought the thinking and feelings within this group were more closely aligned than, perhaps, they are.
Also, there is another aspect to this. What I have found is that it is quite common that many independent thinkers are that way because they have neurological characteristics which cause them to think differently than most of the rest of the population. Indeed, in recent years, a new term has entered common parlance, particularly in discussions about equality, diversity and inclusion. The term is “neurodiverse” and it is commonly associated with terms or characterisations such as “autistic” and “Aspergers.” Similarly, I’ve talked with quite a few people who have begun to think differently because they have ingested various substances – including those prescribed as part of treatments to deal with mental health conditions. Hence, there is definitely a pattern here – and one which is rarely discussed because of the stigma attached to it.
I think it’s fair to say that “group thinkers” are quite likely to consider independent thinkers as being mentally ill or “mad” or “disturbed” when they start challenging established narratives (e.g. COVID-19, 9/11 etc) which “group thinkers” consider to be “established fact.”
However, I’ve seen that, although socially, independent (neurodiverse) thinkers may (sometimes) have extreme problems when interacting with others, their assessment, observation and analysis skills are, nevertheless, more highly developed than the “group thinkers” who may ridicule or disrespect them. Similarly, these independent thinkers are often passionate about accuracy, honesty, truth and justice. Over the years working as a technology tutor, I’ve found this to be true in some interactions I’ve had with some of my students.
But what happens when these neurodiverse or independent thinkers start interacting with one another? In a word, “arguments!” They often will disagree about certain elements of interpretations of a body of facts or the relative importance of them and then “fall out.” Unfortunately, this then hampers collaboration and the establishment of some kind of rapport between them. I am reminded of the phrase “This is like herding cats!” Which brings me on to a related point – I’ve found that many of the independent thinkers I’ve interacted with are more commonly cat owners (like me) or cat lovers than dog owners. (This characteristic is hardly surprising when one considers the behavioural characteristics of these species!)
“No one Listens to Angry People.”
I mentioned how a lot of arguments happen within groups of interacting independent thinkers and these arguments often degenerate into the trading or exchange of insults. And yes, I’ve already named Richard Gage as a liar and at least one independent thinker I know of has described him using terms like “traitorous.” Thinkers in the group have expressed statements passionately – and consequently, I am sure, have alienated some people. It would be nice to think that we can all just “peacefully work together” towards “the common goal of truth.” However, this cannot realistically happen without arguments and the expression of strong emotion.
Whilst I normally don’t express anger publicly, this doesn’t mean that I “remain calm at all times.” I am more likely, in private one-to-one conversations to express some anger in relation to what I know and the way in which so-called “truth groups” (like AE911) publicly behave.
Whilst it’s true that expressing things in public with anger may mean one’s message or statement simply “bounces off” its target, anger is often needed to motivate an individual into action. Also, anger should never be mistaken for aggression – and this happens far too frequently in these days of political correctness and “cancel culture.” The open expression of anger is part and parcel of truly free speech, of course!
However, clear thinking and clear observation are proportionally compromised in the presence of anger, just as they are proportionally compromised in the presence of fear. So, for me, at least, minimising fear and anger is a priority.
Innocent Victims and “Powerless” Researchers
When independent thinkers/researchers write or say things about traumatic events, we may not know the resulting effect on victims of those same events. In the last 12 months, through a fellow called Norman – who posts as “9/11 Revisionist” (911R), I came into contact with a lady called Patricia Cassaza who tragically lost her husband in the destruction of the WTC. Following the tragedy, she campaigned with three other widows – Mindy Kleinberg, Kristen Breitweiser, and Lorie Van Auken – ultimately forcing the US Government’s formation of the so-called “Kean Commission.” This commission was tasked with the investigation of the events of 9/11. (Its investigation revealed very little really – and no one was prosecuted or sanctioned as a result of it. Justice was not served.)
Patricia Cassaza has told her deeply upsetting story many times – and it was essentially the recent contact with her that triggered many of the thoughts and reflections which I have been attempting to present here. From what she said, Patricia had, fairly recently, started to realise the implications of the original fact(s) stated above. She had, at some point, read Dr Judy Wood’s book “Where Did the Towers Go?” and realised that not only had she been deceived by a coterie of government officials, but even more troublingly, she had also been deceived by others who presented either as volunteers or concerned advocates of being truthful about 9/11. I don’t know exactly how much she got involved in these groups, but at some point, she knew they were being deliberately dishonest. (I experienced a similar realisation most strongly in about 2006/7). Around 24 Mar 2026, Patricia posted an “Open Letter” (via 911R’s substack) expressing her concerns. The part that I want to focus on is reproduced below.
It is also necessary to call out elements within the so-called 9/11 Truth movement itself. Groups such as Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc. (AE911Truth), Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, and Intl Center for 9/11 Justice and prominent promoters of the “thermite” or “controlled demolition” narrative have focused narrowly on limited hangouts while actively dismissing or ignoring deeper forensic evidence from researchers like Dr. Judy Wood, Bob Greenyer, Morgan Reynolds, and John Lear.
This half-truth approach has served as a form of gatekeeping or COINTEL-style containment — employing infiltration, manufactured factional splits, and sowing internal distrust to divide the movement and divert attention from the most unsettling anomalies.
This interested me strongly – because it was exactly the sort of thing I had been writing about for years. (She posted another similar letter on 10 Apr 2026, again via 911R.)
Over the time these letters were being drafted and posted, Patricia Cassaza began to interact with a loose association of people that I was also part of, primarily as a result of ongoing postings and efforts by the afore-mentioned Norman “9/11 Revisionist.” Norman seemed to be trying to advise Patricia to go on various podcasts/group chats – for example one called “9/11 War Room” hosted by Gene Laratonda on 02 Apr 2026.
I really didn’t want to get involved in these discussions (because it was pretty clear the groups/individuals had a long track record of promoting false information about the WTC destruction – just as Patricia had stated in her letter). Part of the YouTube video description of the video linked above reads:
9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT PARTNERS===========
Richard Gage, AIA RichardGage911.org
International Center for 9/11 Justice IC911.org
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth 911Firefighters.org
The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry LCfor911.org or 911Lawyers.org
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth AE911Truth.org
Every single one of these groups has a track record in refusing to fully acknowledge the facts mentioned earlier and regards Dr Judy Wood’s research as something like “just another competing theory.” They refuse to discuss certain aspects of what happened on 9/11 – and further, they refuse to fully acknowledge the evidence that was put into an RFC and Court Case in 2007 – more than 15 years ago!
Patricia Cassaza was, however, willing to engage with them. Whilst they were sympathetic to her, when she brought up elements of Dr Wood’s research in these environments, she was openly criticised for doing so! Of course, I was not surprised and I’d thought, all along, that it was a waste of time trying to have a productive discussion with these people – whose agenda, as far as I could see, is not to find the truth about 9/11 – quite the opposite.
So, if I had been advising Patricia, I would have suggested she not even engage with these groups/people. Such engagement can, from some angles, be seen as some kind of endorsement that these groups have some sort of credibility, integrity – or real authority – which they don’t.
Is it any wonder that 25 years after the enormous destruction and enormous loss of life, there is still a great amount of anger among both those who know the truth and those who want to know it? They are blocked or hampered at every turn by people or groups supposedly advocating truthful, honest investigation (which, as far as the most significant aspects of the WTC destruction are concerned, was completed years ago) and justice is never done and no one – not even those in these “truth groups” are held accountable for their statements or actions. Podcast hosts/interviewers rarely if ever point out to folks like Gage that, in claiming to present the truth, they have openly lied. Hence, for folks like Gage, there are no obvious negative consequences. If this is where we are after 25 years, what hope is there for any sort of enquiry that “has teeth?”
However, in relation to recent developments described in this section, what surprised me was one or two deeply critical messages that were directed at Patricia within the (email-based) “independent thinkers” group I was involved with. I did not reply to these messages, nor will I reproduce any here. I thought the criticism or comments were inappropriate and, to put it mildly, unhelpful. I found them upsetting and it made me question what I’ve been trying to do with 9/11 research and advocacy over the last few years etc. I think a big part of this latest “fracas” has been motivated by what I will discuss in the next section.
Evidential Exhibits – Large and Small
As discussed elsewhere, by 2011, Dr Wood had presented – both in court/RFC submissions and her 500-page hardback book – more than enough evidence to indict, prosecute or convict hundreds of people for numerous different crimes – such as conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, tampering with evidence, aiding and abetting (mass) murder and damage to or destruction of property – let alone illegal invasions of foreign countries – and all the consequences of such actions.
Such is the massive importance and the irrefutability of this evidence that, really, it’s hardly surprising that those presenting it can appear stubborn, determined, angry or even paranoid at times – especially when others – presenting themselves as being concerned about 9/11 truths – misquote it, misunderstand it, omit parts of it, or openly lie about it.
Returning to the discussion of Patricia Cassaza’s recent contact with various individuals (including myself), another upsetting (to me) set of exchanges began to occur. These were related to the testing of a World Trade Centre dust sample that had come into Patricia’s possession at some point. I don’t know much about this dust sample (and may later add corrections about it to this article if necessary). My understanding is that it appeared fairly recently and its provenance is not clear. It was given to Patricia Cassaza – and wasn’t one she collected from the WTC site herself.
This dust sample was presented to a researcher called Bob Greenyer who, on his YouTube channel, website and substack, has been following research threads related to LENR (incorrectly known as “Cold Fusion”) for about 10 years (or more). Here, I should mention that Dr Wood and others established a clear link between LENR/Cold fusion phenomena and LENR research/researchers as far back as 2007.
I first met Greenyer in London on 06 Aug 2017 and we have met up several times since then. (Our first meeting in London was at a bar/restaurant which included an unusual menu item – see below).

Bob Greenyer had, over an extended period, gained access to some sophisticated equipment – such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and he had previously conducted interviews and analysis related to the work of (and metal samples provided by) John Hutchison. Greenyer was one of the few who seemed willing to discuss the connection between “Hutchison Effects” and what happened to the WTC – but he didn’t seem fully aware of the extent of Dr Judy Wood’s research into these things (included in her WDTTG book) when he was speaking about all this. Further, he seemed to be a bit reluctant, at times, to mention Dr Wood’s book and work. Though I’ve found Bob Greenyer’s research interesting and relevant, his presentations seem to be overly lengthy and often rather unfocused. Perhaps this is because he does not have formal training or experience as a scientist, even though he has worked with quite a few independent scientists in his “MFMP efforts.” His website states he has a BEng in Manufacturing Engineering, which might explain his knowledge of physics and chemistry. Though I’ve had many interesting conversations with Bob, and he’s a friendly chap etc, I’ve found that he often makes statements and assumptions some way beyond what the evidence supports.
This pre-amble, I hope, goes some way to explaining why I couldn’t get too “excited” about his WTC dust sample analysis. The analysis he presents interests me and I am glad he’s done it, but it’s not conclusive and doesn’t, ultimately, add much to our existing knowledge about what destroyed the WTC. I just want to state that I don’t think it gets us any closer to revealing anything about the most important questions about the “crime of the millennium.” This is because:

The dust sample is of uncertain provenance

We don’t have a similar “control” dust sample to test to see if (or how many of) the apparent anomalies Greenyer notes are present in that control sample too (e.g. testing dust from a building destroyed in a conventional way).

We only have partial information about what was happening to the dust and towers during the WTC destruction, so there is considerable speculation and guess work involved in matching anomalies seen in the dust sample to other characteristics in the evidence identified by Dr Wood (molecular dissociation in the dust, particle size, presence of tritium, dust cloud behaviour etc).

(Let’s not forget that one of Dr Wood’s areas of expertise is materials engineering science…)
What would perhaps be slightly more useful would be for tests to be conducted on samples of WTC steel and other items held in the 9/11 Memorial Museum and those held by NIST. Once again, as a group of disparate researchers, we have no real chance of making such testing or analysis happen. Or, if such analysis was possible, and it proved something significant, who could we show it to and how would we use it to further hold someone accountable for the WTC destruction?
Arguments and Recriminations
Here I need to point out that one member of the “independent thinkers” group, Mathiew Estepho (MES) has compiled an enormous and significant archive documenting the Hutchison Effect evidence and 9/11 videos and evidence and has recorded numerous livestreams on these topics. He has been to visit and he has befriended John Hutchison and his wife, Nancy. MES also did an interview/livestream with Bob Greenyer on 22 Jun 2024.
Acknowledging all this, however, I don’t agree with everything MES says or the way he says it and, like Norman/911R, have found he can be too abrasive and direct on some occasions – but he is, of course, highly intelligent and quick-thinking and as noted above, has produced a huge number of useful videos and found and collated numerous relevant and useful documents, video clips, images and so on.
Dr Wood, like myself had reservations about the importance of Patricia’s dust sample and so when 911R seemed to be promoting it beyond what we perceived to be appropriate, arguments broke out. Additionally, comments by Mathiew Estepho (MES – Math Easy Solutions) about both Bob Greenyer’s approach and the dust sample and Patricia Cassaza all seemed to collide, and further comments by another angry poster in the group of independent thinkers caused further division, upset and accusations about “who was really focused on the truth” and who was creating distraction.
In the mix of all this, MES has rightly criticised 911R for too often making postings or comments which seemed to cast doubt on or marginalise the importance of some or all of Dr Wood’s book and research. For example, he highlighted this post by Norman, which is about a book called “Framing 9/11, 3rd Edition (2018) by Dr. Anab Whitehouse.” Norman wrote:
The core thesis revolves around the sociological, psychological, political, and ideological concept of “framing“ — how the official U.S. government / media narrative of 9/11 selectively highlights certain elements (19 Arab Muslim hijackers directed by Osama bin Laden, planes causing fires that led to collapses), while excluding or downplaying contradictory evidence, turning the story into a manufactured “photo montage” held together by a powerful frame.
The author argues that this frame has nothing inherently to do with facts or evidence; it is a tool of perception control that induces emotional investment and resistance to questioning.
Nothing wrong with that, but MES noted that this “Framing 9/11” book contains lots of references to known liars or those who ignore evidence – such as Rebekah Roth (whoever she is), David Ray Griffin and Neils Harrit – all of whom I’ve written about before in my books and articles. Dr Anab Whitehouse seems to place some importance on Dr Wood’s research in parts of his lengthy book (and he even mentions the Qui Tam court case), but doesn’t seem to “get” the true significance of it. Neither has he noted where these other sources (mentioned above) have lied or been economical with the truth. And hence, I would agree with any criticism of 911R/Norman in that he has not been diligent enough in deciding what to post on his substack feed.
911R’s posts include links to my books about 9/11 researchers regularly covering up and muddling up the truth, so it’s rather odd that he would also post links to books which openly do just that.
The above example isn’t the only one where 911R has posted material which merely deepens the muddle and adds to the general confusion, thereby making it harder to see (as I’ve said so many times in the past), the dominant importance of what Dr Wood has shown us over the last 20 years and more. Whether this was Norman’s objective, or it’s just that he needs to post content to keep his subscribers engaged/happy, is hard for me to say…
Senator Ron Johnson and New 9/11 Hearings
Another element in the mix of the exchanges was mention of sending information to Senator Ron Johnson, who has expressed a wish to have new hearings about 9/11. Not surprisingly, I (and other members of the “independent thinkers” group) were, to say the least, cynical about this – due to the amount of information made available already and the ease with which it can be obtained – and the period of time it’s been available for. (Why hasn’t Ron Johnson already found and read Dr Wood’s book?) Once again, we see Mr Gage’s name connected to this situation – this time in the shamestream media.
Would someone want to send Bob Greenyer’s dust sample analysis to Ron Johnson? Would this dilute or compromise the body of evidence already submitted to court in 2007 by Dr Judy Wood, Dr Morgan Reynolds and (late) attorney Jerry Leaphart…? I was certainly concerned about the potential for confusing the strongest evidence with the weaker evidence.
Imperfect Allies and Alliances
Trying to be more philosophical about all this, I can note that some people have suggested that “fake truthers” like Richard Gage are at least “opening the door” of 9/11 scepticism – thereby making it more likely that anyone going through this door has a better chance of finding out the real truth of what happened to the WTC. However, I am really not sure that this is true, because I’ve found that those who’ve never encountered AE911 (and related) nonsense find it easier to accept and understand the truth and importance of the contents of the WDTTG book, compared to those that have been “reprogrammed” with another false narrative involving bombs, thermite or some type of “nukes.” This situation reminds me of a quote made in 1894 by Leo Tolstoy (in chapter 3 of his book “The Kingdom of God is Within You”).
The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.
That said, I feel that in presenting and describing the truth to a wider audience, I have many allies. To use a phrase attributed to Dave Chappelle, some of them are “imperfect allies.” We share a common goal of revealing truths and a desire for justice, but we disagree about the best way to do this, or where certain boundaries should be. Under different circumstances, we may not associate with each other that much, or be all that friendly with one another, because so many other elements of our background – age, experience, personal interests, habits, hopes and dreams – are quite different. We remain independent thinkers and sovereign individuals and value our personal freedom and freedom of expression.
Freedom and Justice
In composing this article, I was thinking about the relationship between “justice” and “freedom” and was reminded of an episode of the remarkable Sci-Fi Comedy series “Red Dwarf.” It was called “The Justice Field” (Season 4, Episode 3). In this episode, the crew end up on “Justice World” – and one of the crew (Rimmer) ends up on trial and another of the crew has to formulate a defence. They eventually escape, but right at the end of the story, one of the main characters, Dave Lister explains:
Mankind’s history has been one long search for justice. That’s what all religions are about: they accept life as being basically unfair but promise everyone will get their just deserts later: heaven, hell, karma, reincarnation, whatever. Those guys who built the penal colony tried to give some order to the universe by creating the Justice Field. But when you’re living in an environment where justice does exist, there’s no free will. That’s why in our universe there can never be true, eternal justice — good things will happen to bad people, and bad things will happen to good people. It’s the way it’s got to be. Life, by its very nature, has to be cruel, unkind and unfair.
I actually remembered this quote differently – thinking it was along the lines of “where there is complete freedom, there is no justice and where there is complete justice, there is no freedom.”
There is obviously good reason for us to be enormously angry about the events of 9/11 and the ongoing cover up. It is also obvious that expression of this anger often leads to misunderstandings, false assumptions and resulting divisions and conflict. Perhaps this is inevitable, not just because we are independent thinkers, but also because much of the communication that takes place is mediated through the online interactions rather than face-to-face meetings.
The corrupt interests of global powers and the military industrial complex – who control all large media companies – are to blame for most of the situation we are in. They are still running operations to keep the truth about 9/11 covered up and some people (knowingly and unknowingly) are definitely employed in those operations. With all that said, I still wonder if the world is just not ready to deal with the truth of what happened on 9/11 (and with advancing years, I wonder if the world ever will be).

🔐 Cryptographic Verification

Archived URL: https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress/2026/09/14/imperfect-allies-telling-the-truth-about-9-11/

�� CONTENT HASHES:
  SHA-256:  baa7faf32e95a79fa0e63ad72ce2b9ca789c94e7f4fe6db7004f7f58e376cc78
  BLAKE2b:  06046b1437bec41bfefa02e2b10a7b1d4d1458d2bddb07d20b7e407d03ab6e3b
  MD5:      cef2a53e7e9253c758ec25f65e1f7d54

�� TITLE HASHES:
  SHA-256:  09e043cfe6ccfc23b077b39009f186f8a13258d83a1501c069977a40a89b73af
  BLAKE2b:  645c13b9b987743ebfe04a3d94d18b65c150112ea97208a9d2aa3cc36c200b5b
  MD5:      090e2e491e69577323dbf7ddb524dc5f

�� INTEGRITY HASHES:
  SHA-256:  0dd4078c4849e5dffe192a7dee50d54b2d229a9dceabb126a829d879a0ee86b6
  BLAKE2b:  7a9dc2d89691a8c1112a4d17205590d8a25ac7f01e3de3382ab9403da0682d7e
  MD5:      f9ad0a21c6335db628174c71cfb77f67

Archived with ArcHive - Client-side cryptographic archival system