Andrew Johnson From: Caroline Louise [xxx@gmail.com] Sent: 13 January 2014 23:36 To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com Subject: Judy Wood/ Steven Jones and all the rest of it Dear Andrew Johnson, I'm writing a piece about the confrontation that occurred 2006-7 between JudyWood/Jim Fetzer/Morgan Reynolds and others on one hand and Steve Jones/Kevin Ryan etal on the other. I've talked to James Tracy of the Memory Hole blog about publishingit there. I want it to be a factual piece, as objective as possible, and I'm keen to talk to allsides. I've already made contact with Steve Jones who has agreed to talk, and I'mhoping 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 observerI think that would be valuable (I'm from the UK myself). I'm sure you're busy andI'll be happy to fit in to your schedule. We can talk on the phone or email as youprefer. Best wishes Caroline L= 1 11 Andrew Johnson From: Sent: To: Andrew Johnson [ad.johnson@ntlworld.com] 14 January 2014 00:03 'Caroline Louise' Subject: RE: Judy W ood/ Stev en Jones and all the rest of it Dear Caroline, 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 http://tinyurl.com/911qtam 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the destruction of the towers: http://911thermitefree.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/thermite-free-rfc.html (some links out of date). Also, can I have your thoughts on how Steven E Jones has helped to cover up what happened on 9/11 by saying or showing things which aren't true? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYuipGJHYQk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H3Bz7lseSI As regards Mr Fetzer, why would he ignore advice from someone he invited onto his steering committee? http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=164 &Itemid=60 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, inrelation to 9/11 research. I've written about the interactions I've had - and havepublished them in my free e-book '911 Finding the Truth'. I have collectedconsiderable amounts of evidence that Steven E Jones, Jim Fetzer and others have takenactions or said things to help keep the truth of what happened to the World TradeCentre, as established in Dr Judy Wood's definitive research, covered up. I encouragepeople to study Dr Wood's research and then read my free eBook. I will send peoplefree DVD's if they are of use, although all the evidence is posted on my website, http://www.checktheevidence.com/." You can download my free eBook in various formats from this page: http://tinyurl.com/911ftb, or as said above, I can send you DVD's etc. By the way, I am in the UK too. Best Wishes Andrew Johnson UK 2 > -----Original Message----> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] > Sent: 13 January 2014 23:36> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com> Subject: Judy Wood/ Steven Jones and all the rest of it> > Dear Andrew Johnson, > > 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> myself). I'm sure you're busy and I'll be happy to fit in to your> schedule. We can talk on the phone or email as you prefer. > > Best wishes > > > Caroline L= 3 33 Andrew Johnson From: Caroline Louise [xxx@gmail.com] Sent: 16 January 2014 15:58 To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com Subject: Re: Judy W ood/ Stev en Jones and all the rest of it Hi Andrew, sorry for the delay in getting back. And thanks for your careful andhelpful email. To answer your questions 1. My objective is to try and tell the story of what actually happened to 9/11 Truthin 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 themovement are not really aware of what happened at all. But when you begin to pieceeverything together - as I've been doing lately - a quite amazing story unfolds. It'sa human story as well as a massive debate on what science is, how investigation shouldbe done, what telling the truth really means. 2. As regards where it will appear. I've talked to James Tracy of Memory Hole blog andhe'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 fromwhat happened in 2006. Everyone concerned in that event alleged that they werefighting for this truth, but in the end the "truth" was the first casualty. Examininghow and why that happened is important. I'm not aiming to write a hit piece on anyone. I want to try and preserve a strictlyneutral tone, which is why I want to try and use people's own words and recollections as much as possible. It's a social history as much as anything I think. I really hope you feel able to talk some more. As I said, Steve Jones has agreed totalk to me. I'm also approaching Jim Fetzer. As a staunch ally of Judy Wood's yourperspective would be important. BTW - do you happen to have a contact for Judy Wood? best wishes Caroline On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:03, Andrew Johnson wrote: > Dear Caroline, > > 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> > http://tinyurl.com/911qtam> > 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 4 > towers: > > http://911thermitefree.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/thermite-free-rfc.html> > (some links out of date). > > Also, can I have your thoughts on how Steven E Jones has helped to> cover up what happened on 9/11 by saying or showing things which aren't true? > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYuipGJHYQk> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H3Bz7lseSI> > As regards Mr Fetzer, why would he ignore advice from someone he> invited onto his steering committee? > > http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&tas> k=view > &id=164&Itemid=60 > > 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/." > > > You can download my free eBook in various formats from this page: > http://tinyurl.com/911ftb, or as said above, I can send you DVD's etc. > > By the way, I am in the UK too. > > Best Wishes > > Andrew Johnson > UK > >> -----Original Message---->> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] >> Sent: 13 January 2014 23:36>> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com>> Subject: Judy Wood/ Steven Jones and all the rest of it>> >> Dear Andrew Johnson, >> >> 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>> myself). I'm sure you're busy and I'll be happy to fit in to your>> schedule. We can talk on the phone or email as you prefer. >> 5 >> Best wishes >> >> >> Caroline L= > Andrew Johnson From: Andrew Johnson [ad.johnson@ntlworld.com] Sent: 16 January 2014 16:15 To: 'Caroline Louise' Subject: RE: Judy W ood/ Stev en Jones and all the rest of it 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 > -----Original Message----> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] > Sent: 16 January 2014 15:58 > To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com > Subject: Re: Judy Wood/ Steven Jones and all the rest of it > > Hi Andrew, sorry for the delay in getting back. And thanks for your > careful and helpful email. > > To answer your questions > > 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. 7 > > 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'm not aiming to write a hit piece on anyone. I want to try and> preserve a strictly neutral tone, which is why I want to try and use> people's own words and recollections as much as possible. It's a> social history as much as anything I think. > > I really hope you feel able to talk some more. As I said, Steve Jones> has agreed to talk to me. I'm also approaching Jim Fetzer. As a> staunch ally of Judy Wood's your perspective would be important. > > > BTW - do you happen to have a contact for Judy Wood? > > > best wishes > > Caroline > > > On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:03, Andrew Johnson wrote: > > > Dear Caroline, > > > > 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> > > > http://tinyurl.com/911qtam> > > > 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: > > > > http://911thermitefree.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/thermite-free-rfc.html> > > > (some links out of date). > > > > Also, can I have your thoughts on how Steven E Jones has helped to> > cover up what happened on 9/11 by saying or showing things> which aren't true? > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYuipGJHYQk> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H3Bz7lseSI> > > > As regards Mr Fetzer, why would he ignore advice from someone he> > invited onto his steering committee? > > > > > http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&tas> > k=view > > &id=164&Itemid=60 8 > > > > 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/." > > > > > > You can download my free eBook in various formats from this page: > > http://tinyurl.com/911ftb, or as said above, I can send you> DVD's etc. > > > > By the way, I am in the UK too. > > > > Best Wishes > > > > Andrew Johnson > > UK > > > >> -----Original Message----> >> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] > >> Sent: 13 January 2014 23:36> >> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com> >> Subject: Judy Wood/ Steven Jones and all the rest of it> >> > >> Dear Andrew Johnson, > >> > >> 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> >> myself). I'm sure you're busy and I'll be happy to fit in to your> >> schedule. We can talk on the phone or email as you prefer. > >> > >> Best wishes > >> > >> > >> Caroline L= > > 9 > Andrew Johnson From: Caroline Louise [xxx@gmail.com] Sent: 16 January 2014 16:33 To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com Subject: Re: Judy W ood/ Stev en Jones and all the rest of it I do appreciate your POV, and I'm entirely open to your being correct. It's not that Idon't believe this or that person is a disinfo agent, it's that I am trying to mapout how the accusations came to be made and how communication broke down as completelyas it did. If you like it's more of a meta approach. Looking at the drama engenderedby the conflicting beliefs rather than the beliefs themselves. The thing is, at the moment *your* POV appears on your website, Fetzer's appears onhis, Jones' appears wherever his considerable fan base gather, and that is fine. I'mnot 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? best Caroline On 16 Jan 2014, at 16:15, Andrew Johnson wrote: > 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 anintellectual 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 > 11 > Andrew Johnson > > >> -----Original Message---->> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] >> Sent: 16 January 2014 15:58 >> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com >> Subject: Re: Judy Wood/ Steven Jones and all the rest of it >> >> Hi Andrew, sorry for the delay in getting back. And thanks for your >> careful and helpful email. >> >> To answer your questions >> >> 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'm not aiming to write a hit piece on anyone. I want to try and >> preserve a strictly neutral tone, which is why I want to try and use >> people's own words and recollections as much as possible. It's a >> social history as much as anything I think. >> >> I really hope you feel able to talk some more. As I said, Steve Jones >> has agreed to talk to me. I'm also approaching Jim Fetzer. As a >> staunch ally of Judy Wood's your perspective would be important. >> >> >> BTW - do you happen to have a contact for Judy Wood? >> >> >> best wishes >> >> Caroline >> >> >> On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:03, Andrew Johnson wrote: >> >>> Dear Caroline, >>> >>> 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 >>> 12 >>> http://tinyurl.com/911qtam>>> >>> 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: >>> >>> http://911thermitefree.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/thermite-free-rfc.html>>> >>> (some links out of date). >>> >>> Also, can I have your thoughts on how Steven E Jones has helped to>>> cover up what happened on 9/11 by saying or showing things>> which aren't true? >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYuipGJHYQk>>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H3Bz7lseSI>>> >>> As regards Mr Fetzer, why would he ignore advice from someone he>>> invited onto his steering committee? >>> >>> >> http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&ta>> s >>> k=view >>> &id=164&Itemid=60 >>> >>> 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/." >>> >>> >>> You can download my free eBook in various formats from this page: >>> http://tinyurl.com/911ftb, or as said above, I can send you>> DVD's etc. >>> >>> By the way, I am in the UK too. >>> >>> Best Wishes >>> >>> Andrew Johnson >>> UK >>> >>>> -----Original Message---->>>> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: 13 January 2014 23:36>>>> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com 13 >>>> Subject: Judy Wood/ Steven Jones and all the rest of it >>>> >>>> Dear Andrew Johnson, >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> myself). I'm sure you're busy and I'll be happy to fit in to your >>>> schedule. We can talk on the phone or email as you prefer. >>>> >>>> Best wishes >>>> >>>> >>>> Caroline L= >>> >> > 14 1414 Andrew Johnson From: Andrew Johnson [ad.johnson@ntlworld.com] Sent: 16 January 2014 17:12 To: 'Caroline Louise' Subject: RE: Judy W ood/ Stev en Jones and all the rest of it Dear Caroline, That Fetzer and Jones have lied in relation to 9/11 research is not a "POV", it is afact - which can be established from studying the evidence. It is fact in the same waythat the towers turned mostly to dust (which they have tried to cover up or cover upthe method by which this was achieved). I am concerned that you do not have Dr Judy Wood's email address, as this wouldindicate you have not visited her website: http://www.drjudywood.com/ - the emailaddress is given in the top right hand corner. Does this mean you have not studied theavailable 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 > -----Original Message----> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] > Sent: 16 January 2014 16:33> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com> Subject: Re: Judy Wood/ Steven Jones and all the rest of it> > 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? > > best > > Caroline > > > > On 16 Jan 2014, at 16:15, Andrew Johnson wrote: > > > 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 15 > > 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 > > > > > >> -----Original Message----> >> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] > >> Sent: 16 January 2014 15:58> >> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com> >> Subject: Re: Judy Wood/ Steven Jones and all the rest of it> >> > >> Hi Andrew, sorry for the delay in getting back. And thanks> for your> >> careful and helpful email. > >> > >> To answer your questions> >> > >> 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 16 > 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'm not aiming to write a hit piece on anyone. I want to try and > >> preserve a strictly neutral tone, which is why I want to > try and use > >> people's own words and recollections as much as possible. It's a > >> social history as much as anything I think. > >> > >> I really hope you feel able to talk some more. As I said, > Steve Jones > >> has agreed to talk to me. I'm also approaching Jim Fetzer. As a > >> staunch ally of Judy Wood's your perspective would be important. > >> > >> > >> BTW - do you happen to have a contact for Judy Wood? > >> > >> > >> best wishes > >> > >> Caroline > >> > >> > >> On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:03, Andrew Johnson wrote: > >> > >>> Dear Caroline, > >>> > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> http://tinyurl.com/911qtam > >>> > >>> 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: > >>> > >>> > http://911thermitefree.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/thermite-free-rfc.html > >>> > >>> (some links out of date). > >>> > >>> Also, can I have your thoughts on how Steven E Jones has > helped to > >>> cover up what happened on 9/11 by saying or showing things > >> which aren't true? > >>> > >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYuipGJHYQk > >>> > >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H3Bz7lseSI > >>> > >>> As regards Mr Fetzer, why would he ignore advice from someone he > >>> invited onto his steering committee? > >>> > >>> 17 > >> > http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&ta> >> s > >>> k=view > >>> &id=164&Itemid=60 > >>> > >>> 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/." > >>> > >>> > >>> You can download my free eBook in various formats from this page: > >>> http://tinyurl.com/911ftb, or as said above, I can send you> >> DVD's etc. > >>> > >>> By the way, I am in the UK too. > >>> > >>> Best Wishes > >>> > >>> Andrew Johnson > >>> UK > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----> >>>> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] > >>>> Sent: 13 January 2014 23:36> >>>> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com> >>>> Subject: Judy Wood/ Steven Jones and all the rest of it> >>>> > >>>> Dear Andrew Johnson, > >>>> > >>>> 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 18 > >>>> myself). I'm sure you're busy and I'll be happy to fit > in to your > >>>> schedule. We can talk on the phone or email as you prefer. > >>>> > >>>> Best wishes > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Caroline L= > >>> > >> > > > 19 1919 Andrew Johnson From: Caroline Louise [xxx@gmail.com] Sent: 17 January 2014 16:38 To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com Subject: Re: Judy W ood/ Stev en Jones and all the rest of it Actually I have read pretty much everything on Judy Wood's website, and did email herat the address provided, but haven't yet received a reply, so I was wondering if itmight be a discontinued address. If it's still operational I'll email her again. Can you tell me more about the alleged threats made to Judy by Fetzer and Jones atdifferent times? I understand Jones sent her an email after Michael Zebuhr's tragicmurder, implying the same thing might happen again?I've seen a one-sentence quote fromthat email. A longer quote, putting the threat in context would be helpful, if poss. best Caroline On 16 Jan 2014, at 17:12, Andrew Johnson wrote: > 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 wasachieved). > > 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 > >> -----Original Message---->> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] >> Sent: 16 January 2014 16:33>> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com>> Subject: Re: Judy Wood/ Steven Jones and all the rest of it>> >> 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. >> 20 >> Do you have an email address for Judy Wood? >> >> best >> >> Caroline >> >> >> >> On 16 Jan 2014, at 16:15, Andrew Johnson wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message---->>>> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: 16 January 2014 15:58>>>> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com>>>> Subject: Re: Judy Wood/ Steven Jones and all the rest of it>>>> >>>> Hi Andrew, sorry for the delay in getting back. And thanks>> for your>>>> careful and helpful email. >>>> >>>> To answer your questions 21 >>>> >>>> 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'm not aiming to write a hit piece on anyone. I want to try and >>>> preserve a strictly neutral tone, which is why I want to >> try and use >>>> people's own words and recollections as much as possible. It's a >>>> social history as much as anything I think. >>>> >>>> I really hope you feel able to talk some more. As I said, >> Steve Jones >>>> has agreed to talk to me. I'm also approaching Jim Fetzer. As a >>>> staunch ally of Judy Wood's your perspective would be important. >>>> >>>> >>>> BTW - do you happen to have a contact for Judy Wood? >>>> >>>> >>>> best wishes >>>> >>>> Caroline >>>> >>>> >>>> On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:03, Andrew Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Caroline, >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/911qtam >>>>> >>>>> 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 22 >>>>> destruction of the >>>>> towers: >>>>> >>>>> >> http://911thermitefree.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/thermite-free-rfc.html>>>>> >>>>> (some links out of date). >>>>> >>>>> Also, can I have your thoughts on how Steven E Jones has>> helped to>>>>> cover up what happened on 9/11 by saying or showing things>>>> which aren't true? >>>>> >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYuipGJHYQk>>>>> >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H3Bz7lseSI>>>>> >>>>> As regards Mr Fetzer, why would he ignore advice from someone he>>>>> invited onto his steering committee? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&ta>>>> s >>>>> k=view >>>>> &id=164&Itemid=60 >>>>> >>>>> 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/." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You can download my free eBook in various formats from this page: >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/911ftb, or as said above, I can send you>>>> DVD's etc. >>>>> >>>>> By the way, I am in the UK too. >>>>> >>>>> Best Wishes >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Johnson >>>>> UK >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message---->>>>>> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] >>>>>> Sent: 13 January 2014 23:36>>>>>> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com>>>>>> Subject: Judy Wood/ Steven Jones and all the rest of it 23 >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Andrew Johnson, >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> myself). I'm sure you're busy and I'll be happy to fit >> in to your >>>>>> schedule. We can talk on the phone or email as you prefer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Caroline L= >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > 24 2424 Andrew Johnson From: Andrew Johnson [ad.johnson@ntlworld.com] Sent: 17 January 2014 16:52 To: 'Caroline Louise' Subject: RE: Judy W ood/ Stev en Jones and all the rest of it Hello Caroline, Normally, if email addresses are no longer in use, you'd get an error message. I knowthat she uses that address. Perhaps she's not really interested in responding tomessages which do not discuss the evidence in her research. I am beginning to thinkthat my own responses are a waste of time really, as you don't seem to be able tostudy the evidence I have presented to you. Instead you apparently want to be neutralover obvious lies and omissions - but, of course, that's your choice... I did not refer to the threat from Mr Fetzer, but it is discussed in an article Iwrote. http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=170 I did not refer to threats by Steven E Jones, so I am not sure what you are referringto. Regards Andrew Johnson > -----Original Message----> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] > Sent: 17 January 2014 16:38> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com> Subject: Re: Judy Wood/ Steven Jones and all the rest of it> > 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. > > 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. > > best > > Caroline > > > > On 16 Jan 2014, at 17:12, Andrew Johnson wrote: > > > 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/ 25 > > - 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 > > > >> -----Original Message----> >> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] > >> Sent: 16 January 2014 16:33> >> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com> >> Subject: Re: Judy Wood/ Steven Jones and all the rest of it> >> > >> 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? > >> > >> best > >> > >> Caroline > >> > >> > >> > >> On 16 Jan 2014, at 16:15, Andrew Johnson wrote: > >> > >>> 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 26 > 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 > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----> >>>> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] > >>>> Sent: 16 January 2014 15:58> >>>> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com> >>>> Subject: Re: Judy Wood/ Steven Jones and all the rest of it> >>>> > >>>> Hi Andrew, sorry for the delay in getting back. And thanks> >> for your> >>>> careful and helpful email. > >>>> > >>>> To answer your questions> >>>> > >>>> 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 27 > >> 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'm not aiming to write a hit piece on anyone. I want > to try and > >>>> preserve a strictly neutral tone, which is why I want to > >> try and use > >>>> people's own words and recollections as much as > possible. It's a > >>>> social history as much as anything I think. > >>>> > >>>> I really hope you feel able to talk some more. As I said, > >> Steve Jones > >>>> has agreed to talk to me. I'm also approaching Jim Fetzer. As a > >>>> staunch ally of Judy Wood's your perspective would be important. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> BTW - do you happen to have a contact for Judy Wood? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> best wishes > >>>> > >>>> Caroline > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:03, Andrew Johnson wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Dear Caroline, > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/911qtam > >>>>> > >>>>> 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: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > http://911thermitefree.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/thermite-free-rfc.html > >>>>> > >>>>> (some links out of date). > >>>>> > >>>>> Also, can I have your thoughts on how Steven E Jones has > >> helped to > >>>>> cover up what happened on 9/11 by saying or showing things > >>>> which aren't true? > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYuipGJHYQk > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H3Bz7lseSI 28 > >>>>> > >>>>> As regards Mr Fetzer, why would he ignore advice from> someone he > >>>>> invited onto his steering committee? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&ta> >>>> s > >>>>> k=view > >>>>> &id=164&Itemid=60 > >>>>> > >>>>> 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/." > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> You can download my free eBook in various formats from> this page: > >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/911ftb, or as said above, I can send you> >>>> DVD's etc. > >>>>> > >>>>> By the way, I am in the UK too. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best Wishes > >>>>> > >>>>> Andrew Johnson > >>>>> UK > >>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----> >>>>>> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] > >>>>>> Sent: 13 January 2014 23:36> >>>>>> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com> >>>>>> Subject: Judy Wood/ Steven Jones and all the rest of it> >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dear Andrew Johnson, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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 29 > >>>>>> 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 > >>>>>> myself). I'm sure you're busy and I'll be happy to fit > >> in to your > >>>>>> schedule. We can talk on the phone or email as you prefer. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best wishes > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Caroline L= > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > 30 3030 Andrew Johnson From: Caroline Louise [xxx@gmail.com] Sent: 20 January 2014 17:33 To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com Subject: Re: Judy W ood/ Stev en Jones and all the rest of it Hi Andrew - I've just re-emailed Dr Wood today, and Morgan Reynolds also. 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 onvarious 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, whichmeans I have to document rather than editorialise, do you see? I'm not in ANY way saying you are wrong. I'm not failing to grasp the differencebetween fact and opinion, I'm just trying to get everyone's voice - because that seemsthe best way of getting the truth told, don't you think? Facts do tend to speak forthemselves. I want to record them a fairly as possible so this can be achieved. I do appreciate why you would be cautious about me. I'm sure you have had a lot ofexperience of people misrepresenting or even lying about your views. I can absolutelygive you my word that I have no intention of doing that to you or to anyone elseinvolved. So do please bear with me if you can. Thanks very much for the link to the alleged threats made by Dr Fetzer. Regarding thealleged threats made by Dr Jones - I think it's claimed on 911Blogger that Judy Woodhad claimed he said something to the effect "we did it before and we can do itagain." in relation to the Zebuhr murder. I can't vouch for any of that of course. best Caroline On 17 Jan 2014, at 16:52, Andrew Johnson wrote: > Hello Caroline, > > Normally, if email addresses are no longer in use, you'd get an error> message. I know that she uses that address. Perhaps she's not really> interested in responding to messages which do not discuss the evidence> in her research. I am beginning to think that my own responses are a> waste of time really, as you don't seem to be able to study the> evidence I have presented to you. Instead you apparently want to be> neutral over obvious lies and omissions - but, of course, that's your choice... > > I did not refer to the threat from Mr Fetzer, but it is discussed in> an article I wrote. > > http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=content&task=view> &id=17 > 0 > > I did not refer to threats by Steven E Jones, so I am not sure what> you are referring to. > > Regards> > Andrew Johnson > >> -----Original Message---->> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] >> Sent: 17 January 2014 16:38 31 >> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com>> Subject: Re: Judy Wood/ Steven Jones and all the rest of it>> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> best >> >> Caroline >> >> >> >> On 16 Jan 2014, at 17:12, Andrew Johnson wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >>>> -----Original Message---->>>> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: 16 January 2014 16:33>>>> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com>>>> Subject: Re: Judy Wood/ Steven Jones and all the rest of it>>>> >>>> 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 32 >> 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? >>>> >>>> best >>>> >>>> Caroline >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 16 Jan 2014, at 16:15, Andrew Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> 33 >>>>>> -----Original Message---->>>>>> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] >>>>>> Sent: 16 January 2014 15:58>>>>>> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com>>>>>> Subject: Re: Judy Wood/ Steven Jones and all the rest of it>>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Andrew, sorry for the delay in getting back. And thanks>>>> for your>>>>>> careful and helpful email. >>>>>> >>>>>> To answer your questions>>>>>> >>>>>> 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'm not aiming to write a hit piece on anyone. I want >> to try and>>>>>> preserve a strictly neutral tone, which is why I want to>>>> try and use>>>>>> people's own words and recollections as much as >> possible. It's a>>>>>> social history as much as anything I think. >>>>>> >>>>>> I really hope you feel able to talk some more. As I said, >>>> Steve Jones >>>>>> has agreed to talk to me. I'm also approaching Jim Fetzer. As a>>>>>> staunch ally of Judy Wood's your perspective would be important. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW - do you happen to have a contact for Judy Wood? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> best wishes >>>>>> >>>>>> Caroline >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:03, Andrew Johnson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Caroline, >>>>>>> 34 >>>>>>> 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>>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/911qtam>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >> http://911thermitefree.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/thermite-free-rfc.html>>>>>>> >>>>>>> (some links out of date). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, can I have your thoughts on how Steven E Jones has>>>> helped to>>>>>>> cover up what happened on 9/11 by saying or showing things>>>>>> which aren't true? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYuipGJHYQk>>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H3Bz7lseSI>>>>>>> >>>>>>> As regards Mr Fetzer, why would he ignore advice from>> someone he >>>>>>> invited onto his steering committee? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&ta>>>>>> s >>>>>>> k=view >>>>>>> &id=164&Itemid=60 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 35 >>>> 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/." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can download my free eBook in various formats from >> this page: >>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/911ftb, or as said above, I can send you >>>>>> DVD's etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By the way, I am in the UK too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best Wishes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andrew Johnson >>>>>>> UK >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message---->>>>>>>> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: 13 January 2014 23:36 >>>>>>>> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com >>>>>>>> Subject: Judy Wood/ Steven Jones and all the rest of it >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Andrew Johnson, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> myself). I'm sure you're busy and I'll be happy to fit >>>> in to your >>>>>>>> schedule. We can talk on the phone or email as you prefer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best wishes >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Caroline L= >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > 36 3636 Andrew Johnson From: Caroline Louise [xxx@gmail.com] Sent: 27 January 2014 21:03 To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com Subject: Fire From Ice Hi Andrew - trying to trace a quote you attribute to Jones/Koonin on this page: http://www.checktheevidence.com/articles/Jones%20Grabbe%20Koonin%20Timeline2.htm Namely that cold fusion was "crazy, impossible" - you source it to pp. 140-45 ofMallove's book "Fire From Ice", but I have searched the book and can't find that quoteanywhere. Can you remember where you found it? Caroline= 37 3737 Andrew Johnson From: Andrew Johnson [ad.johnson@ntlworld.com] Sent: 27 January 2014 23:30 To: 'Caroline Louise' Subject: RE: Fire From Ice Hello, Careful.... Did you notice that the author of that article is not me? If I get chance, I will look at my copy in the next few days. But, as I implied, I didnot write the article - I only posted it. What problem are you trying to solve? Are you trying to say there is no connectionbetween Steven E Jones, Cold Fusion, and what happened to the towers...? Regards Andrew Johnson > -----Original Message----> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] > Sent: 27 January 2014 21:03> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com> Subject: Fire From Ice> > Hi Andrew - trying to trace a quote you attribute to Jones/Koonin on > this page: > > http://www.checktheevidence.com/articles/Jones%20Grabbe%20Koon> in%20Timeline2.htm > > > 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? > > Caroline= 38 3838 Andrew Johnson From: Andrew Johnson [ad.johnson@ntlworld.com] Sent: 30 January 2014 14:07 To: 'Caroline Louise' Subject: RE: Fire From Ice Hello, Following your email below, I finally got some time to check this page http://www.checktheevidence.com/articles/Jones%20Grabbe%20Koonin%20Timeline2.htm which you wrongly implied was written by me, when the author's name is clearlydisplayed at the top. The date of 05 March 2007 on the above page was incorrect andshould have been 05 March 2008 I have checked the references, and the summary that Russ did is perhaps slightlyinaccurate 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, 1989Jones 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). Thank you for your interest in the connection between 9/11, "Cold Fusion" and Steven EJones. Feel free to write to Russ Gerst - I didn't want to waste his time with this one, I am afraid. Feel free to answer my previous question about whether you think there is noconnection between these things. You may also consider what it means in the largerpicture of things (i.e. is it moral, just or right to cover up the knowledge ofadvanced energy production technology and then turn it into some kind of weapon?) Regards Andrew Johnson UK > -----Original Message----> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] > Sent: 27 January 2014 21:03> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com> Subject: Fire From Ice> > Hi Andrew - trying to trace a quote you attribute to Jones/Koonin on > this page: > > http://www.checktheevidence.com/articles/Jones%20Grabbe%20Koon> in%20Timeline2.htm > > > 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? > > Caroline= 39 3939 Andrew Johnson From: Caroline Louise [xxx@gmail.com] Sent: 31 January 2014 15:58 To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com Subject: Re: Fire From Ice Sorry to take so long to reply. I've been flu-ridden. I apologise for not checking the authorship of the timeline. But it is on your site, so you are vouching for it. I do appreciate the speed of correction! But does this mean the original quotation"crazy, impossible" is actually unsourced? Do understand - I'm not defending Jones here, I'm just looking for accuracy. I'mpretty sure you are too, and neither of us want to be in the position of our sourcesbeing shown up as faulty or non-existent! You wrote: > [...] 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?) No, it isn't. But have we actually established this is what Jones was doing? Don't weneed to do that first before rushing to condemnation? I'll reply to your other email separately Caroline= 40 4040 Andrew Johnson From: Andrew Johnson [ad.johnson@ntlworld.com] Sent: 31 January 2014 16:15 To: 'Caroline Louise' Subject: RE: Fire From Ice Hello, Did you not read all of my original message? You need to write to Russ Gerst to ask questions about the quotation. The essence ofwhat he wrote was correct - so I am not really concerned about that. Shall we argueover the difference between the adjectives "delusional" and "crazy" for example? Whydon't you listen to Jones 1989 speech in full rather than bother me about it? Youremind me of Jim Fetzer trying put his own definition on the term "hatecorrespondence/mail". I wrote about that nonsense too. If the above is only issue you're taking with my website content, then I am fairlycomfortable with what's on it - and the implied conclusions. Never even received anycomments on Fetzer's threat to trash Wood's reputation (which he proceeded to carryout). You wrote: > 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 would take what I have into a court of law, given a suitable opportunity - andknowledge that the system wasn't "rigged" - which seems to be proven after whathappened with Wood's Qui Tam case - where the actual evidence in the case was neverchallenged. I have already posted on my website that I blame Jones, in part, for the results ofFukushima (i.e. all nuclear power stations could have been closed years ago if wasn'tfor people like Jones). How else would you like me to put it? Here's some morereferences to similar matter for you to check out: http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=314&Itemid=55 But of course, we shouldn't "rush to judgement" - after 10 years of research, shouldwe...? You still haven't told me what problem you're trying to solve here. And I know next tonothing about you anyway. Frankly I have almost no idea why I waste the time. Regards Andrew > -----Original Message----> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] > Sent: 31 January 2014 15:58> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com> Subject: Re: Fire From Ice> > Sorry to take so long to reply. I've been flu-ridden. > > I apologise for not checking the authorship of the timeline. > But it is on your site, so you are vouching for it. > > I do appreciate the speed of correction! But does this mean the> original quotation "crazy, impossible" is actually unsourced? > > Do understand - I'm not defending Jones here, I'm just looking for 41 > 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! > > You wrote: > > > [...] 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?) > > > 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'll reply to your other email separately> > Caroline= 42 4242 Andrew Johnson From: Andrew Johnson [ad.johnson@ntlworld.com] Sent: 31 January 2014 16:36 To: 'Caroline Louise' Subject: RE: Who Do You Think Steven E Jones is laughing about? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWAnAf-tRVE Oh - but we shouldn't "rush to judgement" should we? And who would he be referring to here? http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/SEJones/070131-Space%20Beams%20Joneses.mp3 But please, well, maybe it's not what is seems to be - we can't say, can we...? Oh yes! Let's have "balance" in discussion of what happened to the towers! It was Paint On Thermite!! http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/SEJones/Paint%20on%20Thermate%20-%209-11% 20Debate-Air%20America%20-%20R%20Greene%20-%20S%20Jones%2008%20May%202008.mp3 Let's not talk about the connection between Los Alamos National Labs, Steven E Jones and Col John Alexander... http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/SEJones/Steve%20Jones%20resume%20-%20on% 20Alex%20Jones%207%20Jun%202006.mp3 http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Hutch%20Letters.pdf http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Hutchison%20Effect%20FOIA%20from%20Brian% 20Allan.pdf Again, what problem are you trying to solve? It should be clear what problem I am trying to solve. Are you part of the problem or part of the solution? Your choice... Andrew 43 4343 Andrew Johnson From: Caroline Louise [xxx@gmail.com] Sent: 31 January 2014 18:18 To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com Subject: Re: Fire From Ice 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 aroundthe call for a new enquiry. Am I trying to say there's no connection between Steve Jones, cold fusion and whathappened to the towers? No, I'm trying to ascertain to my own satisfaction whetherthere was a connection or not. Andrew -Do you think Mallove's book documents Jones trying to discredit or cover upcold 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 laterand check out all the links. BTW - this is me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoline_Leach (K)Caroline On 27 Jan 2014, at 23:29, Andrew Johnson wrote: > Hello, > > Careful.... Did you notice that the author of that article is not me? > > If I get chance, I will look at my copy in the next few days. But, as> I implied, I did not write the article - I only posted it. > > 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...? > > Regards> > Andrew Johnson > >> -----Original Message---->> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] >> Sent: 27 January 2014 21:03>> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com>> Subject: Fire From Ice>> >> Hi Andrew - trying to trace a quote you attribute to Jones/Koonin on >> this page: >> >> http://www.checktheevidence.com/articles/Jones%20Grabbe%20Koon>> in%20Timeline2.htm >> >> >> 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? >> >> Caroline= 44 > Andrew Johnson From: Andrew Johnson [ad.johnson@ntlworld.com] Sent: 31 January 2014 18:52 To: 'Caroline Louise' Subject: RE: Fire From Ice Hello, All I can say about Mallove's book is that Steven E Jones is mentioned on 100 pages. You can't ask Mallove because he was murdered in 2004. Michael Zebuhr was murdered in 2006 - Zebuhr's uncle worked with Mallove for a period of time. Anyone told you thatbefore? Much documentation of the so-called "rift" in ST911 is documented in my free e-bookwhich I already sent links to. Many hours of reference audios can be found here: http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911 Thank you for letting me know who you are. You should hopefully have known areasonable amount about me before you even contacted me. I deliberately makeinformation public. Regards Andrew Johnson > -----Original Message----> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] > Sent: 31 January 2014 18:18> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com> Subject: Re: Fire From Ice> > 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. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoline_Leach> > (K)Caroline> > > On 27 Jan 2014, at 23:29, Andrew Johnson wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > Careful.... Did you notice that the author of that article> is not me? > > > > If I get chance, I will look at my copy in the next few> days. But, as> > I implied, I did not write the article - I only posted it. 46 > > > > 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...? > > > > Regards> > > > Andrew Johnson > > > >> -----Original Message----> >> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] > >> Sent: 27 January 2014 21:03> >> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com> >> Subject: Fire From Ice> >> > >> Hi Andrew - trying to trace a quote you attribute to> Jones/Koonin on > >> this page: > >> > >> http://www.checktheevidence.com/articles/Jones%20Grabbe%20Koon> >> in%20Timeline2.htm > >> > >> > >> 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? > >> > >> Caroline= > > > 47 4747 Andrew Johnson From: Caroline Louise [xxx@gmail.com] Sent: 31 January 2014 20:06 To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com Subject: Re: Fire From Ice Steve Jones is indeed mentioned a great deal in Mallove's book. Have you read it? I've just finished doing so. Mallove presents Jones as being a fellow cold fusion researcher with P-F. He evensays at one point that Jones and P-F might well be cold fusion "heroes" one day. Hedescribes their differences, it is true, but his story is not - at all - that Jonessabotaged cold fusion. Quite the reverse. He credits Jones with being an importantpioneer in the field, both in muon catalysed fusion and metal catalysed fusion. Ithink he says Jones' team even built the spectrometer used to measure fusion productsat BYU. In fact I can't find any suggestion anywhere in any literature that Jones sabotagedcold fusion until 2006, when the allegation formed part of the denunciations of him asa government shill. Did Mallove say things elsewhere I don't know about? Caroline On 31 Jan 2014, at 18:51, Andrew Johnson wrote: > Hello, > > All I can say about Mallove's book is that Steven E Jones is mentioned> on 100 pages. You can't ask Mallove because he was murdered in 2004. > Michael Zebuhr was murdered in 2006 - Zebuhr's uncle worked with > Mallove for a period of time. Anyone told you that before? > > Much documentation of the so-called "rift" in ST911 is documented in > my free e-book which I already sent links to. Many hours of reference> audios can be found here: > > http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911> > Thank you for letting me know who you are. You should hopefully have> known a reasonable amount about me before you even contacted me. I> deliberately make information public. > > Regards> > Andrew Johnson > >> -----Original Message---->> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] >> Sent: 31 January 2014 18:18>> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com>> Subject: Re: Fire From Ice>> >> 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 48 >> 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. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoline_Leach >> >> (K)Caroline >> >> >> On 27 Jan 2014, at 23:29, Andrew Johnson wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Careful.... Did you notice that the author of that article >> is not me? >>> >>> If I get chance, I will look at my copy in the next few >> days. But, as >>> I implied, I did not write the article - I only posted it. >>> >>> 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...? >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Andrew Johnson >>> >>>> -----Original Message---->>>> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: 27 January 2014 21:03 >>>> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com >>>> Subject: Fire From Ice >>>> >>>> Hi Andrew - trying to trace a quote you attribute to >> Jones/Koonin on >>>> this page: >>>> >>>> http://www.checktheevidence.com/articles/Jones%20Grabbe%20Koon >>>> in%20Timeline2.htm >>>> >>>> >>>> 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? >>>> >>>> Caroline= >>> >> > 49 4949 Andrew Johnson From: Caroline Louise [xxx@gmail.com] Sent: 31 January 2014 23:46 To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com Subject: Re: Fire From Ice BTW - would LOVE to hear Jones' speech in full!! Maybe that's the evidence I'm lookingfor, but I can't find it. Do you know where I can access it? Have you heard it? On 31 Jan 2014, at 16:15, Andrew Johnson wrote: > Hello, > > Did you not read all of my original message? > > You need to write to Russ Gerst to ask questions about the quotation. > The essence of what he wrote was correct - so I am not really> concerned about that. Shall we argue over the difference between the> adjectives "delusional" and "crazy" for example? Why don't you listen> to Jones 1989 speech in full rather than bother me about it? You> remind me of Jim Fetzer trying put his own definition on the term> "hate correspondence/mail". I wrote about that nonsense too. > > If the above is only issue you're taking with my website content, then> I am fairly comfortable with what's on it - and the implied> conclusions. Never even received any comments on Fetzer's threat to> trash Wood's reputation (which he proceeded to carry out). > > You wrote: > >> 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 would take what I have into a court of law, given a suitable> opportunity - and knowledge that the system wasn't "rigged" - which> seems to be proven after what happened with Wood's Qui Tam case - > where the actual evidence in the case was never challenged. > > I have already posted on my website that I blame Jones, in part, for> the results of Fukushima (i.e. all nuclear power stations could have> been closed years ago if wasn't for people like Jones). How else would> you like me to put it? Here's some more references to similar matter for you tocheck out: > > http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&tas> k=view > &id=314&Itemid=55 > > But of course, we shouldn't "rush to judgement" - after 10 years of> research, should we...? > > You still haven't told me what problem you're trying to solve here. > And I know next to nothing about you anyway. Frankly I have almost no> idea why I waste the time. > > Regards> > Andrew > > >> -----Original Message---->> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] >> Sent: 31 January 2014 15:58>> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com>> Subject: Re: Fire From Ice 50 >> >> Sorry to take so long to reply. I've been flu-ridden. >> >> I apologise for not checking the authorship of the timeline. >> But it is on your site, so you are vouching for it. >> >> I do appreciate the speed of correction! But does this mean the >> original quotation "crazy, impossible" is actually unsourced? >> >> 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! >> >> You wrote: >> >>> [...] 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?) >> >> >> 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'll reply to your other email separately >> >> Caroline= > 51 Page 1 of 2 1 of 2 Andrew Johnson From: Caroline Louise [xxx@gmail.com] Sent: 31 January 2014 20:02 To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com Subject: Re: Who Do You Think Steven E Jones is laughing about? On 31 Jan 2014, at 16:35, Andrew Johnson wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWAnAf-tRVE I'm not sure what I am supposed to be getting from this clip, but if it's the little snicker about "researchers" - Hmmm, well, by my reckoning Jones had been called a shill and a liar and a fraud by this time. Had the murder allegation been made yet? Not sure, but whether it had or not, I can't see a small dig about " nice, polite term" as significantly lowering the tone of this particular debate, can you? Oh - but we shouldn't "rush to judgement" should we? And who would he be referring to here? http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/SEJones/070131-Space%20Beams% 20Jon eses.mp3 Ok, you interpret Jones' rejection of the DEW hypothesis as being the actions of a disinfo agent. But they could equally well be interpreted as the actions of a man who believes the movement will be discredited by too much attention being paid to what he sees as poorly defined speculation. His actions don't prove your POV they are just consistent with it, as they are consistent with other different POVs. The fact you don't see things the way he claims to see them doesn't make him a priori wrong or a liar. But please, well, maybe it's not what is seems to be - we can't say, can we...? Oh yes! Let's have "balance" in discussion of what happened to the towers! It was Paint On Thermite!! http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/SEJones/Paint%20on%20Thermate%20 % 209-11%20Debate-Air%20America%20-%20R%20Greene%20-%20S%20Jones% 2008%20May%202008.mp3 03/02/2014 Page 2 of 2 2 of 2 Is there not evidence for this form of nanothermite? Is it just speculative? Let's not talk about the connection between Los Alamos National Labs, Steven E Jones and Col John Alexander... http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/SEJones/Steve%20Jones%20resume%20 %20on%20Alex%20Jones%207%20Jun%202006.mp3 http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Hutch%20Letters.pdf http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Hutchison%20Effect%20FOIA%20from% 20Brian %20Allan.pdf I'm not clear what the PDFs mean to you. They are quite interesting re. the Hutchison question, but there's nothing in them about Steve Jones, or that establishes a connection between Jones and this colonel Alexander so far as I can see. But I don't know as yet who Alexander even is, beyond what is said in those documents. If you know more about such a connection could you let me know? It would help me understand the situation better. The mere fact a man once worked at Los Alamos can't be taken as proof positive he is a government agent, can it? Is everyone who worked there a government agent? Again, what problem are you trying to solve? It should be clear what problem I am trying to solve. Are you part of the problem or part of the solution? Your choice... 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. 03/02/2014 Page 1 of 4 1 of 4 Andrew Johnson From: Caroline Louise [xxx@gmail.com] Sent: 31 January 2014 23:37 To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com Subject: Re: Fire From Ice Ah but Andrew, 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? See, Andrew, I've searched your website -I can't see anywhere that you post any evidence that Jones covered up cold fusion. I find this article here.... http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=60 But it and others like it offer no evidence at all. Just an assertion. The links chase round in a circle. The only "data" offered are a couple of quotes which assert NOT that he tried to stop the search for cold fusion but that he disagreed with P-F's hasty conclusions that they had found it. If you read that story in Mallove's book it's perfectly clear Jones wasn't arguing against the reality of cold fusion. On the contrary he was actually claiming to have demonstrated it and published a paper in Nature to that effect. He was arguing that P-F's heat results weren't due to fusion but to something else. So, where on your site or anywhere else is the evidence that Jones tried to stifle the search for cold fusion? It's important to get this clear, because a large part of the case you and others have made for Jones intentionally misleading the Truth movement is the allegation that he had "done it before" with cold fusion. We need to have real evidence this is so. Caroline On 31 Jan 2014, at 22:49, wrote: 03/02/2014 Page 2 of 4 2 of 4 I know that Mallove ’s book doesn ’t say “Jones covered up cold fusion ” or anything like that. I don’t think Mallove said anything like that. I think Mallove did not see quite as much of the picture in 1990/91 when he wrote that book. Why are you asking me about Mallove? Can’t you use the search feature on my website? Good luck FromG Caroline Louise SentG Friday, 31 January 2014 20:06 ToG ad.johnson@ntlworld.com Steve Jones is indeed mentioned a great deal in Mallove's book. Have you read it? I've just finished doing so. Mallove presents Jones as being a fellow cold fusion researcher with P-F. He even says at one point that Jones and P-F might well be cold fusion "heroes" one day. He describes their differences, it is true, but his story is not -at all -that Jones sabotaged cold fusion. Quite the reverse. He credits Jones with being an important pioneer in the field, both in muon catalysed fusion and metal catalysed fusion. I think he says Jones' team even built the spectrometer used to measure fusion products at BYU. In fact I can't find any suggestion anywhere in any literature that Jones sabotaged cold fusion until 2006, when the allegation formed part of the denunciations of him as a government shill. Did Mallove say things elsewhere I don't know about? Caroline On 31 Jan 2014, at 18:51, Andrew Johnson wrote: > Hello, > > All I can say about Mallove's book is that Steven E Jones is mentioned on > 100 pages. You can't ask Mallove because he was murdered in 2004. Michael > Zebuhr was murdered in 2006 - Zebuhr's uncle worked with Mallove for a > period of time. Anyone told you that before? > > Much documentation of the so-called "rift" in ST911 is documented in my free > e-book which I already sent links to. Many hours of reference audios can be > found here: > > http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911 03/02/2014 Page 3 of 4 3 of 4 > > Thank you for letting me know who you are. You should hopefully have known a > reasonable amount about me before you even contacted me. I deliberately make > information public. > > Regards > > Andrew Johnson > >> -----Original Message---->> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] >> Sent: 31 January 2014 18:18 >> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com >> Subject: Re: Fire From Ice >> >> 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. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoline_Leach >> >> (K)Caroline >> >> >> On 27 Jan 2014, at 23:29, Andrew Johnson wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Careful.... Did you notice that the author of that article >> is not me? >>> >>> If I get chance, I will look at my copy in the next few >> days. But, as 03/02/2014 Page 4 of 4 4 of 4 >>> I implied, I did not write the article - I only posted it. >>> >>> 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...? >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Andrew Johnson >>> >>>> -----Original Message---->>>> From: Caroline Louise [mailto:xxx@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: 27 January 2014 21:03 >>>> To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com >>>> Subject: Fire From Ice >>>> >>>> Hi Andrew -trying to trace a quote you attribute to >> Jones/Koonin on >>>> this page: >>>> >>>> http://www.checktheevidence.com/articles/Jones%20Grabbe%20Koon >>>> in%20Timeline2.htm >>>> >>>> >>>> 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? >>>> >>>> Caroline= >>> >> > 03/02/2014 Page 1 of 3 1 of 3 Andrew Johnson From: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com Sent: 31 January 2014 22:48 To: Caroline Louise Subject: Re: Who Do You Think Steven E Jones is laughing about? Sorry Caroline -or however you choose to spell your name. It seems we are polarised. If you can’t make any connections between the things I’ve sent you and think that there is nothing wrong with Jones’ or Fetzer’s conduct then we must remain polarised. It has become clear to me that, due to your reactions to certain things I have written and your lack of reaction to other things that I have shown you that I must remain polarised from you. Please find any reference to where I said anyone was a “shill” (whatever that really means) or a “government agent”. Actually, don't bother. It is quite clear that some people like to misquote and imply that certain things have been said when they have not. They will write or say what the want to -despite what the evidence shows. Goodbye and good luck in your chosen quest. Andrew FromG Caroline Louise SentG Friday, 31 January 2014 20:01 ToG ad.johnson@ntlworld.com On 31 Jan 2014, at 16:35, Andrew Johnson wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWAnAf-tRVE I'm not sure what I am supposed to be getting from this clip, but if it's the little snicker about "researchers" -Hmmm, well, by my reckoning Jones had been called a shill and a liar and a fraud by this time. Had the murder allegation been made yet? Not sure, but whether it had or not, I can't see a small dig about " nice, polite term" as significantly lowering the tone of this particular debate, can you? Oh - but we shouldn't "rush to judgement" should we? And who would he be referring to here? http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/SEJones/070131-Space%20Beams% 03/02/2014 Page 2 of 3 2 of 3 20Jon eses.mp3 Ok, you interpret Jones' rejection of the DEW hypothesis as being the actions of a disinfo agent. But they could equally well be interpreted as the actions of a man who believes the movement will be discredited by too much attention being paid to what he sees as poorly defined speculation. His actions don't prove your POV they are just consistent with it, as they are consistent with other different POVs. The fact you don't see things the way he claims to see them doesn't make him a priori wrong or a liar. But please, well, maybe it's not what is seems to be - we can't say, can we...? Oh yes! Let's have "balance" in discussion of what happened to the towers! It was Paint On Thermite!! http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/SEJones/Paint%20on%20Thermate% 20-% 209-11%20Debate-Air%20America%20-%20R%20Greene%20-%20S%20Jones%2008% 20May%20 2008.mp3 Is there not evidence for this form of nanothermite? Is it just speculative? Let's not talk about the connection between Los Alamos National Labs, Steven E Jones and Col John Alexander... http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/SEJones/Steve%20Jones%20resume% 20 %20on%20Alex%20Jones%207%20Jun%202006.mp3 http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Hutch%20Letters.pdf http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Hutchison%20Effect%20FOIA%20from% 20Brian %20Allan.pdf I'm not clear what the PDFs mean to you. They are quite interesting re. the Hutchison question, but there's nothing in them about Steve Jones, or that establishes a connection between Jones and this 03/02/2014 Page 3 of 3 3 of 3 colonel Alexander so far as I can see. But I don't know as yet who Alexander even is, beyond what is said in those documents. If you know more about such a connection could you let me know? It would help me understand the situation better. The mere fact a man once worked at Los Alamos can't be taken as proof positive he is a government agent, can it? Is who worked there a government agent? Again, what problem are you trying to solve? It should be clear what problem I am trying to solve. Are you part of the problem or part of the solution? Your choice... 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. 03/02/2014 ========= From: Caroline Louise Subject: your "schisms" with Jones and Fetzer Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:16:47 +0000 To: lisajudy@nctv.com Dear Judy Wood, 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 feel as if this period was so crucial and has so much to tell us about how movements evolve and how they might be subverted or controlled that I think the story needs to be told and I'd like to try and do so in as chronological and factual way as possible. Would you feel able to talk about your recollection and thoughts on this? I appreciate you must be very busy, so I will be happy to fit around your schedule. We can talk on the phone or email as you prefer. I'm in the UK, so time difference is a factor. best wishes, and hoping to hear from you Caroline ============ From: Hilary Swinton Subject: looking for a copy of your paper Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 01:16:26 +0000 To: lisajudy@nctv.com Dear Judy, I have been fascinatedly reading your research and the "debate" with prof Jones. I've found versions of his rebuttal of your paper "The Trouble with Steven E. Jones' 9/11 Research", but for some reason can't actually find a copy of your actual paper! Can you possibly tell me where one is to be found. I'm slightly amazed the "rebuttals" don't link to it. I'm trying to put together a little article about the "Wood/Jones" stand-off for the Memory Hole blog. Just at early stages atm, but getting there slowly! best Hilary Swinton