The following is an article by Andrew Johnson, posted on his website on 03 Feb 2014 http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=389&Itemid=60
History
Since about 2007, I have been attempting to document and understand the 9/11 cover up – particularly in relation to the research of Dr Judy Wood. To this end, in 2009, I self-published a book/compilation of articles which I called “9/11 Finding the Truth.” This compilation (now in its 3rd edition) can be obtained as a free download in various formats, or in a cost-price paperback. I have continued to write articles on this subject, as attempts have continued to “keep the cover up / muddle up” going. The purpose has mainly been to document, with related evidence, how the cover up has continued to evolve - to include a number of related areas.
Recent correspondence I have received has lead me to wonder whether we might even be “ahead of the game” – at least to some extent – as I may have been witness to an attempt to re-write history. At this point, it is not quite clear if this is the case, but I wanted to document some things now and if it turns out I am wrong, then so be it.
Facts
Regardless of any conclusions I may make in this article, the facts about 9/11 and the facts about those involved in helping to cover up those facts will remain the same. Facts such as those stated by Dr Judy Wood following her comprehensive forensic investigation of what happened to the WTC will not change- “The WTC towers did not burn up nor did they slam to the ground - they mostly turned to dust in mid air” will never change. The fact that Steven E Jones worked in a field of research that he and a colleague called “Cold Fusion” in the 1980’s and he then worked in the field of 9/11 research from about 2005 onwards will not change.
Steven E Jones, 9/11 and Cold Fusion
I choose to mention these facts specifically because they are one of the keys to understanding the connection between the events of 9/11 and what some call “free energy” technology. I have been talking about these things, when any suitable opportunity has presented itself, since about mid-2007, when I first found out that Dr Steven E Jones had worked in the field of “Muon Catalysed Cold Fusion” – and that he had also worked for Los Alamos National Laboratories. I first joined Steven E Jones’ and Jim Fetzer’s “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” group in 2005/6 and I trusted Jones’ research about “thermite.” I knew nothing of his work in the field of LENR/Cold Fusion – even though I had followed some of the Cold Fusion saga back in the late 1980’s, when it was ongoing.
One may write these facts off as some kind of weird coincidence, of no importance. However, what is important is the truth – and we can show that Steven E Jones has not always been truthful in his presentation of the facts. In the clips below, you will hear Dr Steven E Jones claiming that molten aluminium is silvery in appearance at all temperatures in daylight conditions. This statement by Jones is incorrect. You will hear Steven E Jones referring to “space beams” and “lasers and masers” in relation to Dr Judy Wood’s research – which is an inappropriate and a disingenuous statement by Jones.
(To hear this recording click the following link: http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/audio/911/SEJones/01-Jones%20on%20911.mp3)
In the clip below, Jones states (as I mentioned earlier) that he and a colleague coined the name Cold Fusion. Confusingly, then, he also states that he told Martin Fleischmann (who developed the electrolytic process with Stan Pons) should not call his process “fusion”. The truth is that Pons and Fleischmann soon revised their conclusion that nuclear fusion was involved:
(Click the following link: http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/audio/911/SEJones/02-Jones%20Cold%20Fusion.mp3)
An earlier article I posted about a friend of Steven E Jones, Sterling D Allan, includes more information about Steven E Jones and Cold Fusion. This article relates, in part, to presentations that were given by Dr Judy Wood at several venues in November 2012, including at the Breakthrough Energy Movement (BEM) conference in Hilversum. If you watch this presentation, you will see that Dr Wood included a segment illustrating how Steven E Jones lead a “vote” on a scientific panel about Cold Fusion research (this is summarised in an article on the New Energy Times Website.) Could it be that these illustrations are causing a “problem” for those who would cover up knowledge of weaponised free energy? Is it this that has prompted a possible effort to “re-write history”?
Is Steven E Jones Worried?
A posting on 11 Jan 2014 on a site called “911 Blogger” (a site which I rarely see referenced these days) states:
Many are aware that Judy Wood continues to attack Richard Gage, me, and Niels Harrit by name -- see for example her talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1NbBxDGSkI (especially towards the end).
I should like to add that Wood's attack on me (in this talk) for a vote in 1989 regarding cold fusion claims is misleading and most unfair. The question I raised was -- did Pons and Fleischmann see deuteron-deuteron fusion as they claimed? My main argument then as now is that the observation of anomalous excess heat does not PROVE that d-d fusion is the cause, contrary to claims at the time. Even Fleischmann before his passing in 2012 finally admitted that he should not have called it "fusion".
This, accusation again is untrue, Dr Wood’s presentation, does not “attack” Steven E Jones or anyone in the manner Jones states (one might even say the reverse is actually true of Gage, and of Jones if you listen to the clip above). Indeed, what he says above in relation about Fleischmann and the vote being about d-d Fusion is also untrue!
Caroline Louise and Scholars for 9/11 Truth
I'm writing a piece about the confrontation that occurred 2006-7 between Judy Wood/Jim Fetzer/Morgan Reynolds and others on one hand and Steve Jones/Kevin Ryan et al on the other. I've talked to James Tracy of the Memory Hole blog about publishing it there.
I want it to be a factual piece, as objective as possible, and I'm keen to talk to all sides. I've already made contact with Steve Jones who has agreed to talk, and I'm hoping to get input from Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds .
Would you be interested in talking to me about your perspective? As a non-US observer I think that would be valuable (I'm from the UK
I had never heard of this person and immediately wondered about her 2nd name – as I don’t remember hearing anyone use a surname of “Louise”. I was also curious about her referring to “sides” in the matters of what is true and what is untrue. I was therefore a little cautious / suspicious in my response to her, so I wrote back with the following:
A quick response, with some questions and answers.
1) Can you explain what your objective is with this exercise?
2) Where will said piece be published?
3) What is more important, writing a piece about an alleged confrontation, or establishing what happened on 9/11?
Here are a couple of facts for you:
A) Dr Judy Wood submitted a Qui Tam case in 2007
B) Steven E Jones et al did not submit a Qui Tam case - indeed, they did not even submit the evidence that they claimed explained the destruction of the towers:
(some links out of date).
As “Caroline Louise” had talked about involving me in a “discussion” of some kind, I also wrote:
So really, there's not much point in involving me in discussion - the evidence is all posted really - so you can just reference that. If you want to quote me, you can say:
"There are a number of folks that I have come into contact with over the years, in relation to 9/11 research. I've written about the interactions I've had - and have published them in my free e-book '911 Finding the Truth'. I have collected considerable amounts of evidence that Steven E Jones, Jim Fetzer and others have taken actions or said things to help keep the truth of what happened to the World Trade Centre, as established in Dr Judy Wood's definitive research, covered up. I encourage people to study Dr Wood's research and then read my free eBook. I will send people free DVD's if they are of use, although all the evidence is posted on my website, http://www.checktheevidence.com/."
Caroline Louise responded a few days later, describing my email as “helpful” and she answered my questions as follows (please note her stated objective):
1. My objective is to try and tell the story of what actually happened to 9/11 Truth in the summer-winter of 2006-7. It was momentous for the movement and, concomitantly, for humanity, and yet it's never really been examined, in fact a lot of people in the movement are not really aware of what happened at all. But when you begin to piece everything together - as I've been doing lately - a quite amazing story unfolds. It's a human story as well as a massive debate on what science is, how investigation should be done, what telling the truth really means.
2. As regards where it will appear. I've talked to James Tracy of Memory Hole blog and he's expressed interest in hosting an article there.
3. I don't think you can separate the struggle to establish the truth of 9/11 from what happened in 2006. Everyone concerned in that event alleged that they were fighting for this truth, but in the end the "truth" was the first casualty. Examining how and why that happened is important.
I certainly did not agree with Caroline Louise’s statement in (3) – it is quite easy to separate what happened on 9/11 from the statements made by various people in 2006 about it. Simply ask yourself the question “did the towers turn mostly to dust?”. This is a starting point – the truth of which can be established by observation which has nothing to do with what anyone may have said since it actually happened. That’s what the truth is – and “other talk” has often proved to be a distraction from that truth. Caroline Louise’s statement about “truth being a casualty” in 2006 happened because Steven E Jones and Jim Fetzer did not want to talk about it, not because Dr Judy Wood presented the evidence she had been collecting!
I decided to respond thus, as I felt she had ignored the evidence I sent:
Dear Caroline,
Thanks for your response. However, you didn't refer to the evidence I posted. If people are interested in the truth, they have to study the evidence - and talk about their conclusions. Although you gave me some general answers and comments, you didn't comment specifically on the other evidence I presented you with. This is one way in which the truth gets covered up - by not talking about it.
You wrote:
>Examining how and why that happened is important.
This is exactly what myself and Dr Judy Wood have in our respective research. It resulted in Court Action in 2007. How important do you think that is?
You said:
> But when you begin to piece everything together - as I've been doing
> lately - a quite amazing story unfolds.
Yes, and I started to do this in 2006 as well - and I have been writing about it ever since. It is very clear from the evidence that Steven E Jones and Jim Fetzer are part of the cover up of what happened on 9/11. What else would you expect me to say? "Oh it's all just an intellectual disagreement?"
I am not sure you have fully grasped what Jones and Fetzer are part of - and why they would say the things they have said or implied, at different times, about the sorts of things we have shown to the public.
So, everything else is already on my website - but if you have *specific* questions, or you find any errors or omissions in what I have posted, please do write and tell me.
Best Wishes
Andrew Johnson
Caroline Louise then responded:
I do appreciate your POV, and I'm entirely open to your being correct. It's not that I don't believe this or that person is a disinfo agent, it's that I am trying to map out how the accusations came to be made and how communication broke down as completely as it did. If you like it's more of a meta approach. Looking at the drama engendered by the conflicting beliefs rather than the beliefs themselves. The thing is, at the moment *your* POV appears on your website, Fetzer's appears on his, Jones' appears wherever his considerable fan base gather, and that is fine. I'm not proposing to take one side or to even examine in detail the claims themselves. What I want to do is examine the history of how they came to be made. Thanks for being open to answer any questions I might have. I do appreciate that.
Do you have an email address for Judy Wood?
The thing I must emphasise strongly is that I was not expressing a “point of view” – I was showing evidence (as I am here – just I have been doing, in similar ways, for over 7 years). “Evidence” is not a “point of view”. Another oddity was that she had asked for Dr Wood’s email address (dropping the title). I therefore responded thus:
Dear Caroline,
That Fetzer and Jones have lied in relation to 9/11 research is not a "POV", it is a fact - which can be established from studying the evidence. It is fact in the same way that the towers turned mostly to dust (which they have tried to cover up or cover up the method by which this was achieved).
I am concerned that you do not have Dr Judy Wood's email address, as this would indicate you have not visited her website: http://www.drjudywood.com/ - the email address is given in the top right hand corner. Does this mean you have not studied the available evidence of what happened the WTC on 9/11? (To emphasize, this is not a "Point of View". It isn't a theory, nor is it a hypothesis.
Regards
Andrew Johnson
Caroline Louise then responded:
Actually I have read pretty much everything on Judy Wood's website, and did email her
at the address provided, but haven't yet received a reply, so I was wondering if it
might be a discontinued address. If it's still operational I'll email her again.
Dr. Wood advsed me that a search of her email archive showed that up to this point, she had never received an email from a “Caroline Louise” although she had received a similar email from a “Hilary Swinton” a few days earlier. (See end of file on this link)
Note that Caroline Louise said she has read everything on [Dr] Judy Wood’s website.
Oddly, Caroline Louise then asked.
Can you tell me more about the alleged threats made to Judy by Fetzer and Jones at different times? I understand Jones sent her an email after Michael Zebuhr's tragic murder, implying the same thing might happen again? I've seen a one-sentence quote from that email. A longer quote, putting the threat in context would be helpful, if poss.
So I replied:
I did not refer to the threat from Mr Fetzer, but it is discussed in an article I
wrote.
I did not refer to threats by Steven E Jones, so I am not sure what you are referring
to.
I have not written about any threats by Steven E Jones on my website. I did wonder why she had immediately “zoned in” on matters relating to threats by Jones and Fetzer. In any case, the threat by Fetzer “appeared” in 2008, not 2006-7, which was the period Caroline Louise stated she was going to write about. She responded:
As I've said several times now, I HAVE read pretty much everything to do with this question on your website and on Judy Wood's, Morgan Reynold's and Jim Fetzer's. I've read every paper I can find, watched countless hours of video, read endless debates on various websites. I am very VERY familiar with the claims to fact made by all sides, but what I am trying to do is record the history and development of the schism, which means I have to document rather than editorialise, do you see?
With the emboldened quote above, Caroline Louise is again talking about “sides” and she completely fails to acknowledge that I had already recorded history – over a 2-3 year period, as it happened, and it is already published – as referenced documentation (including audio recordings) not in editorial. Therefore, there is no debate. It is a true and accurate record. So why doesn’t she “get it”? Why can’t she see that what I have said above is true it is not an opinion nor is it a theory, etc. After I had read this, I began to wonder if Caroline Louise was attempting to re-write history. At this point, therefore, I chose not to respond.
Steven E Jones - “Read My Lips” on Cold Fusion
However, a few days later, I received a rather specific message from Caroline Louise, thus:
Hi Andrew - trying to trace a quote you attribute to Jones/Koonin on this page:
Namely that cold fusion was "crazy, impossible" - you source it to pp. 140-45 of Mallove's book "Fire From Ice", but I have searched the book and can't find that quote anywhere.
Can you remember where you found it?
This immediately raised 2 questions in my mind. Firstly, Caroline Louise had stated her objective was “to try and tell the story of what actually happened to 9/11 Truth in the summer-winter of 2006-7” – and yet, this question pertained to something which happened back in 1989 and involved, you’ve guessed it – Steven E Jones. Secondly, I wondered why she had incorrectly stated that I had attributed a quote to Jones/Koonin (a fellow physicist) when the author of this posting is clearly given as Russ Gerst (who has helped Dr Wood and myself on many occasions and specifically with the publication and distribution of the “Where Did The Towers Go?” book). I quickly wrote back to Caroline Louise, saying
What problem are you trying to solve? Are you trying to say there is no connection between Steven E Jones, Cold Fusion, and what happened to the towers...?
I said I would check the posting/timeline when I had time (as I had not written the posting, I wasn’t sure exactly what the issue was). Having checked Dr Mallove’s “Fire From Ice” book, I wrote back to her thus:
The date of 05 March 2007 on the above page was incorrect and should have been 05 March 2008
I have checked the references, and the summary that Russ did is perhaps slightly inaccurate in the entry you highlighted. I have now updated the text thus:
5/1-3/1989
Koonin implies Pons and Fleishmann are "delusional" at APES Meetings May 1-3, 1989.
Jones says "Is it a shortcut to Fusion Energy? Read my lips... 'No'
Eugene Mallove, “Fire from Ice”, 1991, p. 143, p145
FYI, this page is also included in "the main site" here:
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=162&Itemid=6 (this had the correct date of 05 March 2008 at the top).
I again asked her what problem she was trying to solve? I asked her if she wanted to debate the difference between the adjectives “crazy” and delusional. I then asked her who she was (I had no idea who she really was) and sent her additional links, holding evidence about Steven E Jones, similar to what I have referenced above. Her next response was the most illuminating:
What problem am I trying to solve? Fair question. I'm trying to document the rift in Scholars for 9/11 Truth 2006-7 which (whatever "side" one takes) was bad news for the movement and for the momentum gathering around the call for a new enquiry.
Am I trying to say there's no connection between Steve Jones, cold fusion and what happened to the towers? No, I'm trying to ascertain to my own satisfaction whether there was a connection or not.
Andrew - Do you think Mallove's book documents Jones trying to discredit or cover up cold fusion? Do you think he intended this to be the message of his book?
I got your latest reply just as I was writing this - I'll look into that a bit later and check out all the links.
BTW - this is me
.
Caroline Louise was again repeating the “side”/division meme.
So I now knew that:
a) Caroline Louise was not her real name
b) She seemed to be focussing more specifically on Steven E Jones and Cold Fusion rather than matters related to 9/11 or what happened in the period 2006-7 within the Scholars Group. (Her stated objective was to write about the break up of the Scholars group).
The signs were not good. Reading Karoline Leach’s Wikipedia page (referenced above) I noted that she is
a British playwright and author and she wrote a book she wrote in 1999 called “In the Shadow of the Dreamchild”
Her book was about the life of Lewis Carroll (author of “Alice
An article in the Times Literary Supplement labeled Leach and her supporters as 'revisionists' attempting to rewrite history
How odd that someone would use the phrase which had “popped into my mind” early on in the correspondence with Caroline Louise – sorry – Karoline Leach
In a later email, I asked her
Is it moral, just or right to cover up the knowledge of advanced energy production technology and then turn it into some kind of weapon?)
She replied:
No, it isn't. But have we actually established this is what Jones was doing? Don't we need to do that first before rushing to condemnation?
I had been researching these topics for several years – arguably as many as 10, so I certainly wasn’t “rushing to judgement.” Here, she had either not bothered to check the dates on the evidence I sent her, or she was getting ready to mischaracterise what I had written.
In another email where I was asking the reasons for her writing to me she said:
Atm I'm just trying to get a clear picture of the events. My personal POV is that the less we resort to polarised thinking in any situation, the better. I find it hard to think of any time in history when "you're either with us or against us" has produced anything positive.
Again, she refers to a “point of view”. However, it is not a “point of view” that the truth and lies will always be polarised. I would then also like to observe how her Wikipedia page says:
This book and her subsequent work on what she terms the "Carroll Myth" have been major sources of upheaval and controversy in recent years and she has produced very polarized responses from Carroll scholars and lay enthusiasts.
She sent me a few more emails and in them, it became clearer that she was specifically focused on trying to re-characterise or re-package the evidence of Jones’ role in Cold Fusion. For example, she queries what I wrote in earlier email:
Mallove didn't just NOT say "Jones covered up cold fusion", he praised him for his work on cold fusion and predicted he would be a "hero" to the cause. Was he deluded in your view? Was Jones not really a cold fusion pioneer? Not really a potential "hero"? How so?
What I have been telling people are the facts. Jones “appeared” in 9/11 research in Aug/Sep 2005. Mallove was murdered in May 2004. Of course you would say “there is no connection between these things”. You and anyone else are entitled not to think so. Unfortunately, due to weight of evidence I have compiled, I no longer have that luxury.
And this weight of evidence would all be on your website? Is there anything you know that isn't on there?
The last statement I found very interesting. I leave the reader to work out why. Again, what becomes clear is that she has not actually read what is on Dr Judy Wood’s website – especially the postings about Steven E. Jones email to Greg Jenkins, Recruiting a Hit Piece nor the posting where even more evidence about “Cold Fusion” (LENR) and Steven E Jones is collected. This latter page references a quote by Mallove in his “New Energy Times”, from February 2001” :
Dr. Steven Jones in his skeletal three-page commentary confirms that he still trusts his sparse cold fusion neutron measurements—fair enough. But Jones, the egocentric denier of excess heat claims from day one, apparently has learned nothing and still knows nothing about the process of science. He is an example of the kind of scientist identified in the Bockris quote above. Jones writes disingenuously, "It is high time to strongly question claims of cold fusion based on crude techniques and to demand tests at a rigorous scientific-proof level. . .I have not seen any compelling evidence of any 'cold fusion' effects to date."
So it seems that Karoline Leach has not “pretty much read everything on [Dr] Judy Wood’s Website”. Caroline Louise’s focus on Steven E Jones seems to be additionally confirmed in comments on a 2-year old Willy Loman Blog. Additionally, a comment made by a YouTube user with the name Caroline Louise on 08 Jan 2014 (five days before a Caroline Louise initially contacted me) on a YouTube video entitled Steven E. Jones Cold Fusion Cover-Up incorrectly states:
As I understand it Jones et al had been working on "cold fusion" at BYU since 1986, long before P-F began their work.
Her understanding about Pons and Fleischmann is wrong - as is documented in Issue 5 of Infinite Energy Magazine. On page 105 states:
Fleischmann and Pons spent over five years and $100,000 of their own money on cold fusion research prior to 1989. They conducted experiments in Pons’ laboratory in the Henry Eyring Chemistry Building at the University of Utah
Do understand - I'm not defending Jones here, I'm just looking for accuracy. I'm pretty sure you are too, and neither of us want to be in the position of our sources being shown up as faulty or non-existent!
Well, it now seems like she does not mind about inaccurate remarks being made by her about Pons and Fleischmann (in her YouTube comment), but she does mind about possible inaccuracy in the “timeline” article I had on my website. This was the only page on my website which she specifically referenced and asked about.
Karoline Leach also stated that her article was to be for the “Memory Hole Blog,” run by James Tracy. Curiously, there are additional posts on this blog where Dr Wood’s research is brought up, and mischaracterised in one way or another. One posting was actually about Hurricane Erin and another was originally started about Sandy Hook, but then someone using the name of “Hilary” posts many comments incorrectly describing Wood’ s research – for example as a “high energy beam theory”. Just for the record, James Tracy has been a guest on Jim Fetzer’s “Real Deal” Pod Cast on January 14, 2013 and October 11, 2013.
In the email to Dr Wood, Caroline Louise wrote:
Jim Fetzer and Andrew Johnson have both suggested I contact you in relation to work I'm doing on the history of the split in the Scholars truth movement that happened 2006-7.
I find three interesting things about this – firstly, it is inaccurate to say I suggested she write to Dr Wood – I merely asked Caroline Louise if she was not able to see the email address on the website when Caroline Louise had asked me for it. Secondly, it appears she was in communication with Jim Fetzer before writing to Dr Wood. Is this why she was reluctant to discuss the threat that Fetzer made in 2008? Is this why she was reluctant to discuss any of the content in “9/11 Finding the Truth”, but instead focused on a small detail in an article about Steven E Jones, which I had not written (but I had posted)? Thirdly, Dr. Wood and Dr Reynolds resigned from the original “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” group on August 17, 2006, before Jones and Fetzer began fighting and split up. Wood and Reynolds proceeded to conduct independent research and investigation – which is what many were calling for.
“Want to hold NIST accountable?”
At this point, I would like to note a recent campaign posted on the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 “Truth” Website.
As can be seen, they have a “membership” drive – and ask participants to donate $2.50/month. Their page states:
“AE911Truth will begin pursuing legal avenues to require correction of the NIST report and holding NIST investigators personally accountable.”
I only need reference here that Steven E Jones and Richard Gage already submitted an RFC (Request for Correction) to NIST in 2007 – almost 7 years ago – and they did not reference the “thermite” evidence they claimed was a “smoking gun” in the destruction of the WTC. Neither did they take further action. Dr Judy Wood also submitted an RFC – 3 weeks earlier, which resulted in a Qui Tam case. Knowing these facts, can we imagine a connection between the “launch” of this new AE911 “membership drive” and attempts to publish new articles with a “different point of view” about what actually happened in 2006 and 2007 in relation to research into 9/11?
Summary / Conclusions
Here is a summary of the information I have collected here
1) Caroline Louise contacted me claiming to be interested in writing a piece about the “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” group.
2) For some reason, she did not use her real/full name
3) She seemed much more interested in articles and evidence to do with Steven E Jones and Cold Fusion
4) She was already researching the Steven E Jones/Cold Fusion issue before she first contacted me.
5) She was in communication with Jim Fetzer around the same time as she first wrote to me and Dr Judy Wood
6) Her intent was to post on the “Memory Hole” blog
7) As a playwright and author, she has previously written a book which was said to “rewrite” some of the history of Lewis Carroll.
8) A new AE911 membership and “NIST accountability” campaign has been launched.
So, can I conclude that Jim Fetzer had somehow contacted Karoline Leach and asked her to write a piece to help “defend” Steve E Jones? After all, it was Steven E Jones and Jim Fetzer who originally formed “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” in 2006”. Perhaps because of the efforts of a number of people, including Dr Judy Wood and myself, there is something of a growing awareness of the parallels between 9/11 evidence and “Cold Fusion” (LENR) evidence - for example, the tritium data. They are also beginning to see the obvious role of Steven E Jones in these two supposedly disconnected fields of research. It is a very, very “dangerous” (revealing) connection for people to be making. The importance of covering up this connection must be enormous. So to keep it covered up, and with a new campaign to get money out of “truthers”, history would urgently need to be re-written.
