Free Energy, 9-11 and Weather Control – Ongoing Cover Up, Muddle Up and Censorship of Evidence

 

 

Andrew Johnson
18 Apr 2009

With the publication of new articles and papers about a “new” study of the “evidence” of  Thermite being used in the destruction of the WTC, the cover up and muddle up of the truth has again been enhanced.

For example, a new article by Dr John Moffet on OpEdnews criticises the new Thermite study in some detail here:

www.opednews.com/art…

In this article, Moffet mentions Dr Wood’s research, but in common with many, many other internet posters makes a significantly mis-representative statement – thus:

Still others, like Dr. Judy Wood, believe that the US used directed energy weapons to destabilize the molecular structure of the buildings, thus causing them to collapse into atomic dust.

This is false. Dr Judy Wood states that NIST’s contractors committed fraud in producing the WTC reports. They exhibited wilful blindness in not examining all the evidence. For example, they had a predetermined conclusion and fitted their computer models to that. Dr Wood does not accuse the US (government or military) – or anyone else – of using Directed  Energy Weapons (although someone definitely did, but it is certainly not at all clear who it was). Also, Dr Wood mentions “molecular dissociation” not “atomic dust”. So again, we have a muddle-up by Moffet.

It can be noted here that Dr John Moffet, who is an OpEdNews editor,  in July 2008 censored a press release I wanted to post on OpEdNews (as an article rather than a diary entry) about the presence and relevance of Hurricane Erin on 9/11. Here is the press release that John Moffet would not allow to be posted as an article on OpEdNews.

www.prlog.org/100733…

Any guesses as to why? (See below for the correspondence.)

On the thread of John Moffet’s article we have the "usual crowd" of posters (some of whom have made 1000’s of comments) who are unable to mention 9/11, Hurricane Erin, the Hutchison Effect and the word "evidence" without getting some basic statement wrong, muddling something up or just being rude and disparaging.

Some of them say things like “we’ll never know what happened on 9/11” However, you can find evidence, thanks to Dr Wood, and you can begin to get a pretty good idea of WHAT happened at the WTC, if you cannot get such a good idea of WHO did it.

In Moffet’s “thermite review” article above,  another poster, Patrick Lafferty seems to have come a long way in 3 months:

www.opednews.com/pop…

He has gone from mentioning controlled demolition to mentioning Directed Energy Weapons (DEW), but again makes no meaningful reference to Hurricane Erin and the Hutchison Effect – in common with Alfred Webre, Sofia Smallstorm, Jim Fetzer and almost everyone else. Perhaps commentary in one or two articles could be relevant to what is going on here.

I therefore posted a response in which I ask people to consider issues raised in “A World of Abundance or a World of Scarcity – A Call to Awareness – A Time to Choose”

Peer Review and Smear Review

Articles like Moffet’s and his previous actions seem to emphasise there is an ongoing effort to cover up the weaponisation of Free Energy technology – as I alluded to above.

Reading between the lines of posts and responses to Moffet’s article above, I see this message coming out loud and clear….

"WE HAVE TO KEEP THE REALITY OF FREE ENERGY COVERED UP AT ALL COSTS!!! IT’S VITAL TO MAINTAIN AND STRENGTHEN THE GLOBAL CONTROL GRID!"

This “hidden” message seems to be echoed on internet forums around the world, with armies (literally) of anonymous posters making false, disparaging or inaccurate statements about the research pertaining to Free Energy, 9/11 and Weather Control – both individually, but more acutely and specifically in relation to Dr Wood’s collection of evidence and research.

But how else can the fear agenda ever be made to work? Knowledge of the reality of Free Energy Technology could neutralise much of the fear/scarcity-based agenda.

The cover up muddle works very well, because, crucially, what we see here for example is that Moffet criticises the thermite study, but does not acknowledge other scientific analysis based on other evidence not discussed in the study. Many posters then respond supporting the supposedly “Peer Reviewed” thermite study in some way, shape or form. However, the posters themselves also ignore the evidence of the use of one or more free-energy based Directed Energy Weapons and they fail to point out the lack of huge explosions or the lack of heat generally, as well as the steel being turned to dust (not melted).

The ongoing and repeated pattern is that no posters are able to mention Hutchison Effect, Hurricane Erin, 9/11 and Free Energy in the same post without making rude or disparaging remarks. As can be seen in response to a post I made on the article above, William Whitten used the word "mud" in the title and body of his post. He proved my point yet again!

So I can only offer this advice – keep looking at the evidence – not the rhetoric and rudeness, or solely at the “Peer Review” process – which rapidly becomes a “Smear Review” process when certain evidence and websites are mentioned.

Trying to Run Things “into a Ditch”

This implies that if true information is heading toward exposure, like a freight train, those who want the information suppressed must get control of this freight train so they can run it into the ditch.  Thermite was carefully used to divert people, unknowingly, into the ditch, who were beginning to ask questions about the unexplained anomalies on 9/11.  Once on the thermite bandwagon, headed down a dead-end street, they are no longer a problem.  It is those who won’t be herded onto that bandwagon that become the next problem.  They, too, must be rounded up and somehow diverted from where they were headed before the truth comes out.  One common diversion is to distort the message (example: "space beams" and "ray beams from outer space") to deter people from considering energy weapons.  When that no longer works, there is a struggle for control of that freight train.  Is this where we are? 

If there is enough muddle up and rude remarks, readers who have an open mind, but lack discernment skills or sufficient time to sort through all of the distractions will soon become disinterested and give up in trying to establish the truth in matters such as this. Without a truly unbiased, independent and open “peer review” system which doesn’t feel threatened by vested commercial, academic and “credentialist” or ego-based interests, there is no obvious way to turn over the sorting of “the wheat from the chaff” to any organized group.  Without this, the cover up and muddle up tends to work as planned – engineered ignorance is almost guaranteed.  The only way around this, for the moment, is for each and every one of us to do the sorting ourselves.  Clearly, there is a lot riding on this issue – perhaps as much as the very survival of this planet – and all life on it.

Appendix – Correspondence with Dr John Moffet

This took place through the OpEdNews messaging system (hence the limited header information). I take full responsibility for spelling Dr John Moffet’s last name incorrectly!

—–Original Message—–

From: Administrator [mailto:nobody@www.opednews….]

Sent: 20 May 2008 15:19

To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….

Subject: OpEdNews Status of article by Andrew Johnson: New Study by

former Professor Examines Hurricane Erin on 9/11/01

Sorry, but we’re going to pass on this article.

You submitted an article titled:

New Study by former Professor Examines Hurricane Erin on 9/11/01

This article was submitted with category Life_Arts_Science and tags Energy, Energy, Engineering, Fraud, Hurricane-Toronado, Trade

 

Op Ed News Administrator

P.S.  Dear Andrew,

Thank you for submitting your article "New Study by former Professor Examines Hurricane Erin on 9/11/01" to OEN.

Dr. Judy Wood provides no edidence for her theories, and as such, they can’t be taken seriously by scientist, like myself. Spreading her nonsense does not help the 9/11 truth movement, it hurts it, as I have written before.

Her poorly reasoned articles are found on her own website, and do not need to be re-posted elsewhere.

Best regards,

John Moffett, Ph.D.

OEN managing editor

Your Original Submission is attached to this email

Please do NOT reply to this email; no one will see it.

   

If you’d like to reply to the editor, you may click the following link

to enter a message for the editor:

www.opednews.com/Mes…

===================================

Dear Mr Moffat,

I don’t think you have examined the evidence posted. I’m sorry, I can’t take you seriously as a scientist if you refuse to examine evidence. As  you should be aware some of this evidence has been taken to court.

I suggest you read my OpEdNews diary entry about ignoring evidence. I think it is very widely applicable.

www.opednews.com/max…

Your statement that "Dr. Judy Wood provides no edidence for her theories" is false backs up the conclusions of my article (now posted far and wide). Firstly, she has provided more evidence than most if not all other researchers in her STUDIES. She has not quoted a particular "theory" – she discusses evidence. The press release also discusses evidence, and a clear distinction is made within it.

You do truth no favours in ignoring evidence. Good luck in your continued ignoring of evidence. As you are probably aware, NIST’s contractors are now being sued for ignoring evidence – and lots of it.

Finally, our press release has also gone far and wide – no thanks to you.

Yours Sincerely

Andrew Johnson

BSc in Computer Science and Physics

www.checktheevidence…


—– Original Message —–

From: Andrew Johnson

To: John R Moffett

Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 10:07:36 AM

Dear Andrew,

I am a well published scientist, with over 45 peer-reviewed journals articles that I have authored. Dr. Wood has none. Sorry to inform you of that. What are her credentials? Ex teacher?

Dr. Wood does not follow any of the basic tenets of science, such as performing experiments, and collecting and analyzing data. Where are her graphs and tables of data?

She is not a scientist, she is a crackpot.

I have read Dr. Woods web pages, and they are disorganized, rambling and lack any semblance of scientific data.

Please let me know what this evidence is you speak of.

Dr. Wood only posts photographs taken by others in lieu of actual data. What studies has she done? Looking at photos is not doing experiments. Why hasn’t she analyzed the “dust” she speaks of by mass spectroscopy or other analytical techniques? Because it would just turn out to be regular dust, that’s why.

Fuzzy blobs? Alka Seltzer? You’ve got to be kidding. Do you know of a single scientific study that merely posts someone else’s photographs, and calls that data?

Please don’t insult me by suggesting that I don’t know what I am talking about. I do. There are no such things as DEW which can disintegrate buildings, and you know it. That is from science fiction movies. You know, those things are called “fiction” for a good reason.

Dr. Wood’s so-called “evidence” has not gone anywhere in court, and you know that as well. It is not evidence. Are you a scientist? What is the definition of “scientific evidence” that you are operating under?

Sincerely,

John Moffett

OEN managing editor.

————————————————————–

Dear Dr Moffat,

I don’t know if the 1st version of this message got sent as the browser didn’t respond properly after clicking "Send", so here is another version.

I guess by your speed of response you read my article, and Dr Wood’s study and checked all the evidence (NOAA Weather Data, Alaska magnetometer Data)? Any comments on this data?

Now I will briefly address some of your questions/comments:

> I am a well published scientist, with over 45 peer-reviewed journals articles that I have authored. Dr. Wood has none. Sorry to inform you of that. What are her credentials? Ex teacher?

See below.

> Dr. Wood does not follow any of the basic tenets of science, such as performing experiments, and collecting and analyzing data. Where are her graphs and tables of data?

False and False. She does collect data and has posted tables and graphs (see the latest Erin study for examples). If you can get SE Jones to release his dust sample, then perhaps we can perform an experiment on physical 9/11 evidence. She did perform an experiment with aluminium to refute the claims of SE Jones. Result? Well, you know the answer.

> She is not a scientist, she is a crackpot.

False. This not a comment based on EVIDENCE therefore it is unscientific and just plain rude. Provide a psychiatric or similar report before making such false and libellous statements.

> I have read Dr. Woods web pages, and they are disorganized, rambling and lack any semblance of scientific data.

More disparaging remarks – without actually highlighting ANY data which is incorrect.

> Please let me know what this evidence is you speak of.

How about steel turning to dust? How about empty basements? How about upside down cars? How about spontaneous car fires before the destruction of the buildings? Have you (a) an honest critique of this evidence (b) an explanation for it?

> Dr. Wood only posts photographs taken by others in lieu of actual data. What studies has she done? Looking at photos is not doing experiments. Why hasn’t she analyzed the "dust" she speaks of by mass spectroscopy or other analytical techniques? Because it would just turn out to be regular dust, that’s why.

See above – and also this statement is essentially false anyway – we both visited NYC on 17th Jan 2008 and Dr Wood also visited in October last year. We have both posted photos of our own in this regard.

> Fuzzy blobs? Alka Seltzer? You’ve got to be kidding. Do you know of a single scientific study that merely posts someone else’s photographs, and calls that data?

More disparaging remarks. The names are distinct from the data and she explained her reasons for using them. You ignore that too. How about studies of Astronomy – many of those use only photos taken by others. Are they "unscientific too"? So, another false statement here.

> Please don’t insult me by suggesting that I don’t know what I am talking about. I do. There are no such things as DEW which can disintegrate buildings, and you know it. That is from science fiction movies. You know, those things are called "fiction" for a good reason.

Yet another totally false statement. I did not suggest you don’t know what you are talking about. I stated you ignored evidence (I actually think you do know what you are talking about, but are wilfully ignoring evidence, as indicated by your rudeness towards Dr Wood). One activity is passive the other is active. But, your specialism is not in Directed Energy technology so how can you make accurate pronouncements based on no evidence? That’s not science that’s "truth by pronouncement" (just like they use to do in the church).

> Dr. Wood’s so-called "evidence" has not gone anywhere in court, and you know that as well. It is not evidence. Are you a scientist? What is the definition of "scientific evidence" that you are operating under?

This statement is also essentially false. The Qui Tam case is in the SDNY and you know that – so why do you state otherwise? I am not a scientist, and I make no claims to be one. My background however is in a scientific discpline – software engineering, which involves collecting data, analysing it, drawing conclusions and solving difficult problems.

Very sincerely,

Andrew Johnson


Date Sent: 05/20/2008

Subject: Andrew

Message:

As I mentioned, I have been to Dr. Wood’s website many times over the last several months, and have written an article about it. We have received many Dr. Wood stories, and as the science editor at OEN, it is my job to check out articles that claim to present scientific evidence.

I did not need to go back and look at her lack of evidence again.

Please send me one of Dr. Wood’s peer-reviewed science papers (email to: john@factinista.org). I have searched high and low for them in places like PubMed, and have found nothing. I can only find articles on the internet that are not in science journals.

What is your definition of scientific evidence? That it leads to truth? That is not what science is about. It is about generating and testing hypotheses about nature or events. But if you just make the hypothesis, and never test it, you are not doing science. You’re just talking.

Science doesn’t claim to provide the truth, it claims to make ever better assessments of reality, ourselves and the universe around us. Truth is for courts of law.

Best regards,

John M.


Sent 14 Jul 2008

Dr Moffat,

 

I have only just got around to seeing this. Dr Wood’s papers are, to my knowledge, only accessible through journals with membership and as some of them are quite a few years old, they may not all be online. Dr Wood compiled a list here:

 

www.drjudywood.com/a…

 

She did not include other authors because she knows that they will be contacted by naysayers, such as Dr Greg Jenkins and they will try to discredit her.

[Edit: That is the naysayers will harass her colleagues and try to discredit her to them.]

 

None of this detracts from the presence of Erin on 9/11, nor the Scientific Magnetometer data which you were happy to ignore, as I already mentioned. This is the main problem and issue that you have responsibility for so let’s not digress onto other much less relevant issues.

 

Good luck

 

Andrew Johnson

UK

 

Related articles...

Comments are closed.