Advertisement
Home arrow 9-11 and Fake Terror arrow Articles arrow “Alien Scientist” and His “Alien Science”
“Alien Scientist” and His “Alien Science” PDF Print E-mail

Andrew Johnson ( This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it )

11 Oct 2011

UPDATE - 09 Feb 2013 - Jeremy Rys has revealed his full name - Red Ice Radio Interview 


Click Here for Ed Fouche Interviews (Which came about as a result of the Alien Scientist/Jeremy Rys "affair")


Alien Scientist is an anonymous [see update above] YouTube poster whose channel was created on 7th August 2008. He has posted a number of very interesting videos – largely to do with topics such as UFO’s and related secret technologies and so on. His channel does seem to be quite popular, having garnered (at the date of writing of this article) 43,526 subscribers.

 

In January 2011, he did an interview on the Progressive Technology Hour with William Alek. The blurb for the interview is copied below:

 

The Alien Scientist is a man named Jeremy (approx 30) He prefers to have his last name/identity withheld due to the sensitive nature of his work and how that might affect his career goals as a young aspiring scientist and student of Physics. About 3-4 years ago Jeremy read "Behold a Pale Horse" by William Cooper and became interested in the UFO/Alien phenomenon for scientific purposes. This lead him into researching other conspiracies, such as 9/11. After reviewing much of the available information found online and finding a lack of strong scientific arguments and evidence, he decided to start making and posting his own videos in an attempt to battle the disinformation and counter-intelligence out there using the only proven method for finding the real truth: The Scientific Method.

 

A question I then have at this point is “Why is he using this particular pseudonym, AlienScientist?”  The title on his channel says:

 

The Science of TRUTH

 

In the description it says:

 

Truth does not fear Investigation! DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!

 

So, here is some research and investigation I have done relating to what Jeremy the Alien Scientist has said.

 

A Video from 23rd December 2008

 

In late December 2008, I had cause to point out some errors in one of Jeremy the Alien Scientist’s videos entitled ‘Proof by Stereo-Type The "Conspiracy Theory" method’, because it mentioned the research of Dr. Judy Wood – a common “target” for misquoting and “muddling up”, according to what I have been able to document since 2007.

 

This video was originally posted on AlienScientist’s own channel:

 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?feature=email&v=QAxTBQqhzfg  

 

but soon after I posted the comments, listed below, the video above was deleted. (I made a video response to this and posted it on my own channel, but that channel got suspended in June 2011.)

 

Jeremy Alien Scientist’s ‘Proof by Stereo-Type The "Conspiracy Theory" method’ was reposted, on the same day by a YouTube user using the name “WarCrime911”, under the title of “How to Destroy the 9/11 Truth Movement

 

Jeremy AlienScientist says in the above video "John Hutchison is a quack". Funny, in another of his videos he mentions John Hutchison quite a bit, does but he not say he is a quack.

 

I posted some comments on AlienScientist’s (reproduced below).

 

 

They are not insulting and they are factually correct. Why did he then delete them, then block me from commenting on his channel? Did he feel my comments would “expose” him too much? The first 3½  minutes of his video are fine - but then he starts being rude about Dr. Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds - and making false or inaccurate statements. These are two people who have actually tried to prosecute those helping to cover up what happened on 9/11.

 

So where's AlienScientist's or Gage's or Jones' Thermite-based court case? (And I ask this of anyone who thinks "thermite dunnit"). Why did Steve Jones suggest "paint-on-thermite" was used?

 

 

Is this credible? Or is it meant to lead well-intentioned truth-seekers into a blind alley? (See other videos I have made regarding Steven E Jones.)

 

Also, some of Jeremy AlienScientist’s other videos talk about things like Cold Fusion, yet do not discuss the similar roles that Steven E Jones seems to have played in both areas of research.

 

Judging by the content of his videos, and the way they have been put together (it takes quite a long time to do some of these), Jeremy AlienScientist is not stupid – quite the reverse, it seems. As far as people like Jeremy AlienScientist go, I would say this:

 

"IF YOU CAN'T COVER IT UP - then just MUDDLE IT UP!!"

 

Though Jeremy AlienScientist talks about “The Science of Truth”, the comments and observations on the video above prove that Jeremy AlienScientist has lied, so why is it, then, that he has built up something of an apparent following on YouTube? (More on this later).

AlienScientist’s - Sept 2011 Video “9/11 Collapse Hypotheses”

 

More recently, Jeremy AlienScientist made another video called “9/11 Collapse Hypotheses” (now deleted) and he lied again – several times. I pointed out a couple of these lies / omissions (mainly about Hurricane Erin) in a comment

 

Well-seems AS has stopped saying "Judy Wood's Space Laser" theory!

 

watch?v=awy8cmcuBlk @ 4:28

 

And also,if thermite is "proved" why wasn't it in the RFC? 8:55 "violent opponent"? How so? Did you mean "vociferous"? I guess you're struggling with your diction! "Alienscientist?" It's amazing people even take you seriously when noone even knows who u are! Where's your 911 legal case?13 minutes & u didn't even mention Hurricane Erin. The questions you ask are answered in the book! Snapshot taken.

 

checktheevidence 1 day ago

 

and someone (I did not save their name, but it wasn’t AlienScientist in this case) responded:

 

@checktheevidence, Have you even taken the time to check AlienScientist's 911 website? Just look at all the REAL evidence he has compiled!!! and you want to talk about a fucking Hurricane? Who the fuck cares? What the hell does a hurricane have to do with anything related to 9/11?

 

When it comes time for 9/11 Federal Grand Juries, you and Judy Wood will have no case, no evidence, and no suspects. Meanwhile AlienScientist has done excellent work bringing all that and more out into the light.

 

That’s a fairly extreme reaction to me pointing out that Jeremy AlienScientist – who states that “truth does not fear investigation” – had not mentioned Hurricane Erin in his latest video about 9/11.

 

On our behalves, a friend of myself and Dr. Judy Wood decided to file a copyright violation notification with YouTube, because several images of Dr. Wood and an image which is on the cover of my book were misused, without permission. In the submission about the copyright violations made in “9/11 Collapse Hypotheses”, he included these notes:

 

8:54 The narrator makes an oral utterance that  Dr. Judy Wood, "who insists that the towers were vaporized to dust...". Dr. Judy Wood specifically says that the process was not vaporization as vaporization requires high heat. Vaporization is ruled out because it contradicts the evidence that there was no high heat.  It discredits Dr. Judy Wood to say she is promoting mutually contradictory descriptions. Therefore, to claim Dr. Judy Wood said the buildings were vaporized is slander.

 

The narrator makes an oral utterance that  Dr. Judy Wood, "who insists that the towers were vaporized to dust by an unknown, undocumented, unproven effect, which has never been reproduced in a laboratory, and has no scientific credibility to substantiate it." It has been documented (see Where did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11  http://wheredidthetowersgo.com ).  The technology has been proven; it has been patented (see Chapter 17 of the book).  And it has been reproduced in a lab (see Chapter 17 of the book) as well as the provided references and documentation.  And it has credibility.  Dr. Judy Wood believes that Nikola Tesla has "credibility."

 

b.) 9:12 The narrator makes an oral utterance that  "One of Dr. Wood's hypotheses is a space-based weapon powered by..." Dr. Judy Wood has never said this was a "space-based weapon" so to claim that she has is slander.

 

c.) 9:23 The narrator goes on to show a satellite-tracking map and proposes to debunk the false story he claimed Dr. Judy Wood had put forth.  Again, this is slanderous.

 

d.) 9:34 The narrator shows a cartoon of a ray beam from space, implying that is what Dr. Judy Wood has been hypothesizing.  Again, this is another count of slander. Presenting this slander while showing the cover of Dr. Judy Wood's book makes this defamatory behavior more damaging.

 

e.) 9:55 The narrator states, "Even if the Hutchison Effect turns out to be a proven technology, which I don't deny..." which contradicts what he said at 8:54.  It appears the  narrator has contradicted himself to attempt to confuse those who know of this technology and convince them that it can't do what he is proposing...which is baseless.

 

This is why the video was removed by YouTube. Over the years, I have certainly grown weary of people like Jeremy AlienScientist either lying outright, or repeatedly getting things wrong – however many times they are corrected or statements clarified for them. This is completely different to “having an opinion” or “feeling a certain way” about something. Some people appear to have trouble distinguishing “an opinion” from “a lie” or “a feeling” and what real, physical evidence shows and proves, it seems.

 

Jeremy AlienScientist and Edgar Fouché

 

Separately to this, I came across a channel called efearfull – and this person claimed to be Edgar Fouché. Edgar Fouché appeared in 1998 as a whistle-blower regarding the TR3B Advanced/Antigravity Craft that he seemed to have detailed knowledge of (he was even featured in a 1999 UK documentary about UFOs). A couple of years later, Fouché became inactive and had seemingly “disappeared”.

However, in Jan 2010, the efearfull channel appeared. On efearfull’s channel, he stated (in September 2011):

Hey, finally I'm going to be a Special Guest on the Alienscientist.com Forum. We're great friends and you can join for free and talk about anything you want including ask us questions. I've been a Special Guest on Open Minds Forum and still am.

 

Oddly, in Sept 2010, Jeremy AlienScientist posted a 1998 video of Fouché at a UFO conference. So what exactly is the connection between these two people?

 

You will see in the correspondence I had with “efearfull” around the same time, that he is apparently not open to evidence regarding 9/11 – preferring instead to (essentially) defend Jeremy AlienScientist when I pointed out that he had deleted my comments from his channel – and lied  (i.e. efearfull did not say “Oh – I did not realise that – I will look into it”).

 

Jeremy AlienScientist and Eugene Podkletnov and American Antigravity

 

Another researcher into antigravity/gravity effects is Eugene Podkletnov. On 12 December 2010, Jeremy AlienScientist posted a full length interview with Eugene Podkletnov from 2004. How did AlienScientist get this video, and why was it posted approximately 6 years after it was recorded? These are questions I find interesting to ask, but for which I do not have an answer.

 

Information about Eugene Podkletnov seems scanty - he did a couple of podcasts – for example originally on the American Antigravity Website, then he seemed to “disappear”. I have archived 2 Podkletnov Interviews here.

 

 

 

Curiously, if you look in the audio archives on the American Antigravity Website or search for “podlkletnov” (as of the date of writing/posting this article), no results are returned. A trip to the Internet Archive also allows access to a Podkletnov interview from a snapshot of the American Antigravity Website. (Go to the very bottom of the linked page.)

 

However, as of 11 Oct 2011, the site prominently features John Searle’s research, which I do not have a very high regard for. (I think it is worth comparing the way John Searle talks with the way Podkletnov talks). The American Antigravity Website also features an interview with John Hutchison about his research, which I do have a very high regard for.

 

AlienScientist “Fan” Encourages “Debate”

 

In March 2010, I was contacted by someone (whose name I have withheld – even though I am doubtful the name he used was genuine) who seemed either to be a “fan” of Jeremy AlienScientist or was associated with him in some way. He seemed very keen for either myself or Dr. Wood to “debate” AlienScientist either in an interview or on his forum as regards “theories” about what happened on 911. I pointed out to him that AlienScientist had lied and I saw no point in debating with someone who was a proven liar. As you will see in Appendix 3, this person did not say “Oh yes, he has lied!” he decided to criticise me for pointing out that he had lied and then suggested that he himself had been attacked (he had not – I merely asked if he thought debating with proven liar AlienScientist would be fruitful).

 

I include this correspondence as evidence of something strange going on. This “fan” of AlienScientist thought such a lot of him that he could not see or take in the evidence laid out here and got “upset”. (Let’s face it, Jeremy AlienScientist is not a politician, recognised academic, popular artist or any of those things – he is an anonymous YouTube poster.) Why did it matter so much to this “fan” that we should “debate” with his “friend” – when I had pointed him at court submitted documents and so on – to which he responded:

 

Using your litmus test of "initiating a legal action" to judge if somebody is worth anything. I thought this was about evidence ... apparently not (or only when it suits you)

 

Well, when it comes to something as important as 911 crimes, and their cover up, I think my “litmus test” is a pretty good one – and has been useful in sorting the “AlienScientists” from “the wheat”, so to speak.

 

I have not sorted all the correspondence into the correct order – glancing through it gives you an idea of the sort of nonsense that Dr. Judy Wood and, to a lesser extent, myself, have to deal with – often on a daily basis.

Summary and Conclusion

 

From the evidence linked and discussed above, I conclude that anonymous Jeremy Alien Scientist is involved in managing the disclosure of information relating to antigravity technology – and he is willing to lie whilst doing this. Again it illustrates the fundamental importance of Dr. Judy Wood’s research – apparently, this is an “unsafe” type of disclosure. Whereas, the disclosures of Edgar Fouché and Eugene Podkletnov are “safe” – possibly because what they have said is harder to prove – in Fouché’s case, we mainly have his word to go on (although there are certain other pieces of evidence which, to me, suggest that what Fouché has been saying is probably true). In Podkletnov’s case, he also sounds legitimate, but we cannot personally verify his experiments and there do not seem to  be any easily viewable / accessible reproductions of them.

 

 

Appendix 1 - Comments on AlienScientists ‘Proof by Stereo-Type The "Conspiracy Theory" method’

 

3:48 - "Legitimate Scientific reseaearch and investigations into 9/11 done by Steven E Jones and Richard Gage". Oh? If they are legitimate then why was neither thermite nor molten metal included in their NIST RFC?

 

4:28 "We also have Judy Wood" with her theory that a 'space laser' destroyed the world trade center"... ooops this is not correct. *DR.* Wood never said this - find the quote please.

 

5:05 "Obvious problems" such as.. you don't say?

 

5:14 "by trying to say that this space laser weapon caused all of the phenomenon that one would usually associate with thermite" - would that be the Upside down cars and the thermite that burns metal and leaves paper unburned? Would that be the thermite that levitates people?

 

5:22 "It's a completely laughable idea..." just like the "laughable idea of 9/11 being a conspiracy theory" that you describe the mainstream media using?

 

6:30 Odd - how can aluminium wing struts cut through steel girders? How come only 20% of 117 people with in 1/2 mile of the WTC reported seeing or hearing the 2nd "plane". How come only 8% of that 117 reported seing *and* hearing the plane?

 

For those reading this, please see my YouTube videos for an analysis some very important evidence this video misses out. e.g. Google 9/11 and Hurricane Erin

 

Appendix 2 - Correspondence With Efearfull / Edgar Fouché

 

efearfull

Edgar Fouché - Flying Triangle

I'm on OMF (Open Minds Forum) almost daily. Edgar Fouché - Special Guest. You will find a lot of answers to your questions there. Also Alienscientist.com >Area 51 > Edgar Fouché /// And Alienscientist.com videos on antigravity and UFOs.

Sent to: adjuk 


Re: Edgar Fouché - Flying Triangle

Thanks - I had to make a video about AlienScientist a year ago.

 

I personally think he's leading people away from the truth on certain issues. He started deleting my comments when I asked tough questions about his YouTube video. Then he deleted the video I was criticising.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0yZrY3AKNI

 

I have found forums are too polluted now for useful discussion - too much anonymity which prevents open, honest clear discussion.

 

I had to write a book about my experience with researching into what happened on 9/11 - which intimately involves black technology - and we know (roughly) how it works too. AlienScientist didn't want to talk about this, it seems.

 

http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/9-11---finding-the-truth/5450220 (also available free on my website, when the fault has cleared)

 

You can find the research of my friend Dr. Judy Wood here: http://www.drjudywood.com/

 

My website is currently experiencing technical difficulties

9:59 Added to queue 

911 - The Key Evidence - 1/2 

 


efearfull

AlienScientist - Edgar Fouché

My name is Edgar Fouché, Author (Alien Rapture) and Guest on OMF (Open Minds Forum). You can find my book free on Scribd.com

 

http://lucianarchy.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=ef

 

I'm not going to get into a long debate, but AlienScientist is a long time friend. He's smart, articulate, and a scientist. He has theories about many different things, just as you do. He makes videos about his opinions and posts them just as you do.

 

It's his YouTube Channel and he has the right to pull or delete anyone's comments. The same right you have. Some of his stuff is far out, just as some of your videos are.

 

A real scientist would NOT use their real name while they have a career without bringing harsh peer judgment down upon themselves. Live and let live. You, AlienScientist, and I will never know the real truth about many things.

 

God Bless, Ed Fouché

Sent to: adjuk


efearfull

Re: Re: Re: Edgar Fouché - Flying Triangle

Edgar,

 

Many thanks for taking the trouble to reply! I will try to read your book at some point. Thanks for telling us who you are.

 

There is no need to debate. As we know, night follows day. Here are some facts:

 

1) The WTC towers turned to dust in 10 seconds each - thermite does not turn steel to dust - nano, super, thermate, spray on - whatever.

2) Hurricane Erin was closest to NYC on 9/11 at about 8am

3) Dr. Judy Wood, former professor of mechanical engineering has posted a forensic study of 9/11 evidence which shows characteristics of the Hutchison Effect in the evidence - here is part of it:

 

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ

 

This is essentially proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, an undisclosed technology was used to destroy the WTC - perhaps it is related to the technology which powers the TR-3B.

 

We also know that John Hutchison was visited in 1983 by a team from Los Alamos National Labs - headed up by Colonel John Alexander (I have audio and documents which prove this).

 

AlienScientist (whatever his real name is), will not discuss this evidence - instead, he promotes thermite - which does not explain the evidence. AlienScientist does not seem keen, as I am, to expose the link between Steven E Jones, Energy and 9/11. Steven E Jones coined the term "cold fusion" and Dr. Eugene Mallove (now dead) mentioned him on 100 pages of his book about Cold Fusion "Fire From Ice"

 

It strikes me as odd that someone like AlienScientist (and at least one of his supporters who declared himself an "enemy of mine" - whatever that means - when I said I didn't see any point in debating with someone who was covering up evidence - as was proved by the video I sent you) does not want to talk about the weapon system that was used on 9/11 - as it is important to global security and understanding who is truly "running the planet".

 

We certainly will NOT find out much we:

 

1) Ignore evidence

2) Do not take others to task, who should know better, when they are helping to ignore or cover up evidence.

 

So, yes, we can live and let live - absolutely - as long as we are aware of each other's behaviour and who is ignoring and mis-representing evidence and who isn't.

 

I suppose I am in a much different position than you and AS - as I have never worked for the military and have no connections to them or the intelligence services. So this means I can do different things maybe.

 

With best wishes and regards

 

Andrew Johnson

UK

 

Appendix 3 - Correspondence With an AlienScientist Fan (Name Withheld)

 

Notice the lack of discussion of actual points of evidence here.

 

Andrew Johnson

 

From:                                  This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Sent:                                   13 February 2010 03:35

To:                                       This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Subject:                              Contact from CheckEv

 

 

Below is the result of your feedback form.  It was submitted by

( This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ) on Saturday, February 13, 2010 at 03:24:40

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

message_text: Hi Andrew,

 

I contacted Judy Wood because I challenged AlienScientist to a debate and he accepted. I would very much like Judy Wood to accept to debate him too as it could clear up a

lot of things. But I get mixed impressions of her responses. She seems irritated and responds with somehow dismissive statements. I would copy our exchange but character limit wouldn't allow me to.

 

Ah, my whole message does not fit here, please contact me if you can for more details. Thanks

char_count: 24

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2678 - Release Date: 02/12/10 19:35:00

 

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

 

 

Andrew Johnson

 

From:     xxx [ This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ]

Sent:      13 February 2010 14:27

 

To:         This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

Subject: RE: Contact from CheckEv

Gosh, simple question: WHY AM I UNDER ATTACK?

 

What have I done to you, where have I insulted you or suggested I believe Dr. Judy Wood is wrong? What's this about these angry attacks every time I contact Dr. Wood or you.

Why do you assume everybody who contacts you is your enemy and putting your research into question? Can you read? Because I have written that I CHALLENGED AlienScientist to debate her. I was presenting her case to him and he dismissed much of it as disinformation so I challenged him to debate her as disinformation agents steer away from direct confrontation so if he was one I would expect him to decline and make some excuse. And hold and behold he readily accepted and you're

the ones making excuses and attacking me for trying to arrange a civil and professional debate, why?

 

I apologize for the irritated tone but your response kind of pissed me off. You ask why people contact Dr. Wood if her research is wrong ... while I contacted her exactly because I believe her research has value. I was arguing for you on some forums but people do not have scientific understanding to comprehend what I'm saying most of the time and resolve to knee-jerk reactions. The only person I was able to reasonably discuss this with was AlienScientist but at the end we have hit a dead end as he does not want to waste more time on it (understandably as he believes it's disinfo) so I challenged him if he would agree to direct debate with Dr. Wood then. And he

responded that as she is the source of these claims he would accept which I was very glad to hear and proceeded to contact Dr. Wood who I was surprised to read attacked me for it. Without any reason whatsoever.

 

Why in you response you seem to assume that I oppose your research? Where did you get that impression? This is exactly what Dr. Wood assumed and i can't understand why. Does a request for a debate always imply opposition for you? Then as i challanged also AlienScientist I have to oppose both sides ... which makes no sense. What about actually asking me for my reasons instead of jumping into conclusions and lambasting me right away? I'm trying to make sense of all the information available as many others surely are and a debate would clear up a lot of things. You

could call out AlienScientist on the claims you consider false. I can't understand why would you decline if you believe he is making false claims, what better opportunity than this to correct it?

 

I'm going to respond to your points even I regard them as largely irrelevant as they're based on wrong assumption that I'm somehow claiming your research is wrong.

 

"1) AlienScientist is anonymous"

 

So? Does that have any impact on his arguments, evidence or scientific fact? If so, please list what the impact is.

 

"2) He lied on his YouTube channel"

 

Do you always assume that if someone is wrong in their information he is automatically lying? If that's the case then 99.999% of people lie in regards to you research. Do you insist to "debating" just people who agree with you? (as anybody who would disagree is lying, right?)

 

Isn't it possible that he is simply mistaken and a discussion could clear that up? How do you plan to

convince people to accept your research without talking to them?

 

"3) When I pointed out his mistakes, he did not correct them - he deleted my comments."

 

Yeah, that may be not so positive personal trait and egoistic response. But then ... I contacted you with honest request for a debate and you attacked me and refused ... that's not very positive either. Am I to automatically label you disinfo and refuse to talk to you ever again based on that? We are people, we make mistakes, overreact

and sometimes put ego before reason.

 

Here you have the opportunity to make your comments directly to him and insist on answers, why would you not take it?

 

"4) You are not him."

 

Oh well, that's pretty sharp observation :D He said he will contact Dr. Wood himself. I just thought I would contact both sides as both have huge egos and would probably be never able to communicate as adults directly ... seems I was right ;) Some have problem even communicating with me as a mediator, right?

 

"1) Yours or AS's explanation of what destroyed the towers please?"

 

Why should I provide my explanation when I'm interested in yours? I do not want to oppose you I

want to understand your case more and in the face of educated opposition.

 

"2) A proper analysis (e.g. something akin to the RFC) posted."

 

Again, why would I do that? Are you suggesting that everybody who is interested in your research has to publish "proper analysis" before talking to you about the research? You are not going to get a whole bunch of people do that, do you realize that? How do you hope to get your research into the mainstream if you refuse every attempt by other people to understand it?

 

"and if Dr. Wood is wrong, why isn't she just ignored? Why does she continue to get messages like yours?"

 

This is truly indicative of your unjustified mindset. Are you suggesting I should ignore her if I find her research interesting? What's this about? She is getting messages like mine because I want her to present her case to 17,000 people and I would be extremely interested in a debate with somebody who believes in thermite theory with scientific background. She should nail him with the evidence if she is right. And I believe she presented some very convincing pieces of evidence ... I would be VERY interested what AS would say to them in direct debate where he can not dodge questions.

 

Why wouldn't she/you grab this opportunity to directly confront AS? Why wouldn't you expose his lies in direct debate? Why wouldn't you expose him with facts, evidence and reason? The only one who has a reason to decline and be afraid of this debate is the one who can not make sound factual case.

 

Take care and I hope next messages could be in more friendly tone. I'm not your enemy, I'm not attacking you. Please do not treat me with contempt, thank you.

 

--- On Sat, 2/13/10, Andrew Johnson < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it > wrote:

 

 

 

From: Andrew Johnson < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Subject: RE: Contact from CheckEv

To: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Date: Saturday, February 13, 2010, 8:35 AM

 

HI there,

 

Thanks for your message regarding this matter.

 

I am not really all that interested in your feelings about how Dr. Wood responded to your debating request for the following reasons:

 

1) AlienScientist is anonymous

2) He lied on his YouTube channel

3) When I pointed out his mistakes, he did not correct them - he deleted my comments.

4) You are not him.

 

2 and 3 are the most trouble some - and also explain why I never agreed to go on Jim Fetzer's programme after July 2008.

 

If you want to debate the colour of the sky on a clear day, that's up to

you. Dr. Wood's record and my record is clear for anyone to see - and it has

been made official. Comparing that to a YouTube channel of an anonymous poster is essentially a pointless exercise.

 

So, to debate for 5 seconds. Let's say Dr. Wood's conclusions are incorrect, can we see:

 

1) Yours or AS's explanation of what destroyed the towers please?

2) A proper analysis (e.g. something akin to the RFC) posted.

 

Just post that somewhere and send us the links. Then we and other people can review at leisure. Thanks

 

Yes, there are a lot of people trying to muddy things up - it's pretty

constant - and if Dr. Wood is wrong, why isn't she just ignored? Why does she continue to get messages like yours? Why do I, a nobody, receive a bet of

$5000?

 

I'll leave you to answer that question for yourself, while I try and research other matters.

 

Here, you and AlienScientist can go online and debate this:

 

http://tinyurl.com/911ftb

 

I'll look forward to seeing your reason analysis of it - without using abusive terms, ridicule and such.

 

Regards

 

Andrew Johnson

UK

(Not anonymous).

===

> -----Original Message-----

> From: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it [mailto: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ]

> Sent: 13 February 2010 03:34

> To: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

> Subject: Contact from CheckEv

> Below is the result of your feedback form.  It was submitted by

>  ( This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ) on Saturday, February 13, 2010 at 03:27:08

> --------------------------------------------------------------

> -------------

> message_text: Hi Andrew,

> I contacted Judy Wood because I challenged AlienScientist to

> a debate and he accepted. I would very much like Judy Wood to

> accept to debate him too as it could clear up a lot of

> things. But I get mixed impressions of her responses. She

> seems irritated and responds with somehow dismissive

> statements. I would copy our exchange but character limit

> wouldn't allow me to.

> Ah, my whole message does not fit here, please contact me if

> you can for more details.

> Thanks

> char_count: 24

> --------------------------------------------------------------

> -------------

> No virus found in this incoming message.

> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2678 - Release

> Date: 02/12/10 19:35:00

 

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2678 - Release Date: 02/12/10 19:35:00

 

 

Andrew Johnson

 

From:     xxx [ This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ]

Sent:      24 February 2010 08:31

 

To:         This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

Subject: RE: Contact from CheckEv

Hi, thank you for your reply and much more calm approach. Sorry for the long delay but I was studying the work you referenced. Particularly, I was reading your "book" (compilation of articles) to know better your views and perspective.

 

I'm very glad to see that you have some very reasonable views on disinformation. I'm confident that based on your experience with Steven Jones and his behavior you'll understand why I find refusal to debate the evidence troubling no matter the reason.

 

Often times the behavior can be more telling than the actual scientific analysis. This is true because science and evidence is sometimes very complicated, out of expertise or extensive ... it can be also selectively presented, manipulated/twisted. I believe you have experience with that as you write that you initially  subscribed to Jones's theory so you may better understand the mindset of most people when first encountering this information.

 

Now, I do not claim I believe you're disinfo. But that's just because of the fact that I reviewed the evidence and find it compelling. Were I first exposed to the fact that people behind this theory refuse to debate the evidence there is a very high probability I would consider you disinfo and possibly did not bother to invest so much time into examining the evidence which would be very unfortunate, but justified nonetheless.

 

When I put this all in context I indeed consider the DEW theory a real deal and most probable explanation. But you have to understand that it took me A LOT of time (and expertise most people don't have) to come to this conclusion. It took me observing the "controlled demolition" crowd in "discussion" with CIT (Citizen Investigation Team - they deal with Pentagon attack) and it appears this is a group of people employing textbook disinformation tactics. Simply, I had to combine a lot of information which took a lot of time to compile to get to this conclusion, you absolutely can not expect vast majority of people to do that. And the only thing that really matters is public opinion ... so I believe there is a fatal flaw in your (DEW crowd) approach. You can not put your research somewhere into obscurity and dismiss opportunities to give it some publicity by debating the evidence. You can not expect people to be that open minded and invest so much energy into researching it as I did. That's just not going to work.

 

Most people have problems accepting 9/11 was an inside job, let alone that it was destroyed by exotic energy weaponry. That's just how it is and you can either accept the reality and revise your methods accordingly or lament on what people SHOULD do instead of what they are actually DOING as you appear to do now.

 

My another point is ... you keep calling AS "a lier". It seems you missed the point I made about that in my previous message. When you believed in Steven Jones's theory were you a liar? I mean, you can not label every disagreement "a lie", you can not label everybody who is misinformed "a lier" - that would be 99.9% of the Earth population.

 

Anyway, even if he was a proven lier, disinfo agent and you had his contract with DoD in hand ... why would it be a reason to reject fair debate? There would be absolutely no reason to do so (logical that is), quite to the contrary ... it would be excellent opportunity to highlight the deceptive tactics employed and introduce your research to a wide audience. So even if you believed the worst, the reason you give makes no sense. On the one hand you complained that he did not respond to your counter-points and deleted your comments ... and on the other you refuse to debate him, call him out

on that and ask your questions? Do you understand why that makes no sense to me whatsoever?

 

But based on my communication with him and general impression he is an honest person who just haven't got a good look at the evidence you present. He does not fit the characteristics of disinfo at all. He has his own focus, website dedicated to that, publications that have NOTHING to do with

9/11 and mentions DEW/Wood very briefly just as a side issue. Were he disinfo he would focus most of his attention to 9/11 and much more to "debunking" you - he did not do that.

 

His last reply to me:

 

"I'll be doing an interview with John Hutchison first... Hopefully I can get an interview with Judy Wood as well.. I'd like to get to the bottom of this mess"

Does that sound like he would dismiss your evidence and was avoiding it? No, this sounds like honest albeit confused person.

 

I hope we can continue friendly discussions. I would like to discuss more issues with you and please understand that we are on the same team. I've got very frustrated when I always ended up in confrontation with Judy Wood. I hope we can choose a different approach ;)

 

I want to help, I want to understand, I want to spread the word and get people communicating instead of blaming each other for every disagreement ... we can not fall for the divide and conquer strategy

or we all fall. We can not stop communicating on the first signs of complications. It takes effort ... that's why I'm not giving up talking to you, Judy Wood or AS.

 

Thank you, take care.

 

--- On Sat, 2/13/10, Andrew Johnson < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it > wrote:

 

 

 

From: Andrew Johnson < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it > Subject: RE: Contact from CheckEv

To: "'xxx'" < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it > Date: Saturday, February 13, 2010, 3:21 PM

 

Hello,

You are not under attack. I asked you some questions and made my position clear. That is all. Thank you very much for any work you may have done to raise awareness of Dr. Judy Wood's

research. Please note, I did not ask you to do this, and as far as I am aware, neither did Dr. Wood.

If you read the articles or book I have already posted http://tinyurl.com/911ftb

 

you will find out the history behind my involvement in this research and why I reacted to your message the way I did.

 

Why do you want to support a debate with a known liar? What would be the point of such a debate when one party may just lie to make a point - as he did in his video?

 

Sorry if you think this is a bit harsh - and I am sorry if you need myself or Dr. Wood to "debate" the evidence as some way of validating it. Either the evidence shows she is correct, or it doesn't - people

don't need a debate to enable them to use their own brain to evaluate the evidence. They also don't need someone to lie about what has been said (as AS did).

 

I will respond to one thing you asked:

 

"1) AlienScientist is anonymous"

 

So? Does that have any impact on his arguments, evidence or scientific fact? If so, please list what the impact is.

 

I'd rather know who I am talking, to thanks - in any proposed publicly posted "debate". So in a sense, this does impact on his arguments - he may have an agenda - as others in his position clearly have had (read my book to find out about that). For example, read the communication I had with Mike Rudin of the BBC - where I told him I didn't trust him (but he wasn't anonymous, so at least he got the time of day for a while).

 

So, anonymity in a matter like this is very important - as to what is being hidden. This is all about revealing the truth. AlienScientist is a known liar and I myself won't debate with known liars - just like I won't debate with Fetzer as I said. I suspect Dr. Wood won't "debate" with known liars either.

 

I am therefore surprised that having read this as point (2) in my original list you went back to point (1)

to pick me up on that one. I thought there was enough evidence available already for you to "get it".

 

As I said, I am interested in seeing his explanation for the destruction - why is it so important for you to set up a debate with an anonymous proven liar? It somewhat baffles me. Will debating with a liar change your view of the evidence - and what it shows? Weird...

 

Tell you what, give Dr. Wood's list to AS:

 

http://www.drjudywood.com/wtc/

 

Get him to post a page answering specifically the 40+ points of evidence to be explained. When he's done that, send the link along. If he mentions thermite, it won't be regarded as credible for the following reasons:

 

http://911thermitefree.blogspot.com/

 

Debating will add nothing to this, unless he is introducing some NEW evidence (which can also be posted - so let's see it).

 

Please feel free to post this or the previous e-mail, in it's entirety on any forums or blogs. Goodbye and good luck

Andrew Johnson

 

 

 

 

Andrew Johnson

 

From:     Andrew Johnson [ This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ]

Sent:      22 March 2010 08:24

 

To:         'xxx'

 

Subject: RE: Interesting interview

Thanks for comments re Edge Media presentation.

 

Re YouTube clip, of course the evidence mentioned by Avery supports the conclusion Dr. Wood and I have reached - because evidence leads one to the truth. Sadly, Alex Jones himself does not seem to understand this and instead seems to not want to take legal or other official action, preferring instead to ridicule and insult people who continue to talk about evidence, even when it is very challenging:

 

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?

option=com_content&task=view&id=202&Itemid=60

 

Perhaps we should start selling T-shirts instead, maybe...

 

If AE911 truth are happy their evidence has lead them to the truth then why haven't they taken some kind of legal or official action including it (as Dr. J Wood and myself have done?)

 

Yes, AS is a liar - and I don't debate with known liars - Anonymous Posters are irrelevant when it comes to

9/11 related legal action - you cannot take legal action anonymously, as your actions and background must be open to scrutiny. Any debate you want would be very short anyway

 

ADJ: "AS, have you taken legal action over the evidence you think is relevant to 9/11"? AS: "No - I haven't"

ADJ: "So what are you doing about it then?"

AS: "Making some youtube videos."

ADJ: "Ah, right - that's what I have been doing too - as well as helping with legal action. Bye."

 

Sorry you're frustrated - perhaps you should try to dissociate yourself from proven liars. I am not all that frustrated, because I am looking at evidence to find the truth - then people can just take or leave what I say - but I have the comfort of knowing that what I am telling them, to the absolute best of my knowledge and understanding, is true.

 

 

From: xxx [mailto: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ]

Sent: 22 March 2010  00:04

To: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Subject: Interesting interview

 

Hi,

 

I thought this may interest you, there was an interview recently on Alex Jones show with architect Ron Avery and it seems to me there are a couple of points he makes that support you position. First he makes the point that a large block of WTC upper floors were rotating but nothing hit the ground so it must have disintegrated in mid-air. I think you could argue that "thermite" couldn't do that and show with photographic evidence that there were no large chunks of this block on the ground.

 

Also, he makes the point (refuting pancake theory) that there was not a significant pile of rubble after the collapse. While he suggests much of it may have ended up in basement (which there is no proof for) I believe that even if it was exploded with explosives the pile of rubble would have to be almost equally so high, the material has to be there, it can not just disappear - there's not going around that (except if it was "dustified")

 

Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6tByY78VFk

 

 

It's a good presentation, even when he assumes the planes and fires could not caused the "collapse" so explosives must have done it. They had a conference yesterday concerning this topic but I could not find recording of it so far, it may be interesting too.

 

I did not respond to your last e-mail as I found your reply quite frustrating :) Mainstream people refuse to debate 9/11 because they call us crazy, you refuse to debate AS because you call him a lier ... frankly I do not see much difference there, from the outside perspective it looks equally just as an excuse not to face someone with different viewpoint and expose yours to proper scrutiny. There is much bigger picture than to be "offended" by a few name-callings and comments on

youtube video and use that to not face that person ever again or something. There are folks running

around with directed energy weapons vaporising skyscrapers and you get stuck on some youtube comments ... it just looks so juvenile to me, sorry.

 

Thanks and i hope you'll find the information helpful. Oh and by the way, good job on the Edge

TV Media - very well presented.

 

 

 

 

 

Andrew Johnson

 

From:     xxx [ This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ]

Sent:      23 March 2010 11:00

 

To:         This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

Subject: RE: Interesting interview

--- On Mon, 3/22/10, Andrew Johnson < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it > wrote:

 

 

 

From: Andrew Johnson < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it > Subject: RE: Interesting interview

To: "'xxx'" < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it > Date: Monday, March 22, 2010, 8:23 AM

 

Re YouTube clip, of course the evidence mentioned by Avery supports the conclusion Dr. Wood and I

have reached - because evidence leads one to the truth.

 

Yeah well, I did not really sent it to you to boost your ego :) I was hoping it could be useful to use the clip to demonstrate to public the impossibility of the thermite theory if you would consider making a video/article about it somewhere in the future. I thought you may find it helpful.

 

 

 

Sadly, Alex Jones himself does not seem to understand this and instead seems to not want to take legal or other official action, preferring instead to ridicule and insult people who continue to talk about evidence, even when it is very challenging:

 

You see, Alex Jones has a very complicated personality. I admire him for the research he has done and is doing but otherwise he is still pretty close-minded and a "redneck" at the heart :D I think it's exactly because he knows how sinister the government is and that disinformation agents and infiltrations are very real and he gets paranoid. Then he considers everybody who disagrees with him a "weak-minded drone" or disinfo agent - that blinds him even more. I do not believe he is a bad

man, I believe he is honest however flawed - he gets too controlling and when he is losing that control even aggressive. That's apparent every time he makes an interview with someone who disagrees with him. He wastes all the energy on trying to suppress the information he considers disinfo instead of trying to understand it better and maybe change his mind about it. Kind of like you're wasting energy on calling people lairs instead of taking the opportunity to reach more people and discuss the differences with them ;)

 

If AE911 truth are happy their evidence has lead them to the truth then why haven't they taken some kind of legal or official action including it (as Dr. J Wood and myself have done?)

 

I'm not the one you should be convincing here. Maybe it's because their evidence is unsound? That's what you're trying to suggest, I see and I agree with you. If I did not see value in the research Dr. Wood and yourself have made I wouldn't be writing to you right now. Forgive me but you seem to switch into defensive quite often in our conversations, why is that? Why comments like the one above ... Dr. Woods reacts very similarly, I find it quite curious :) I always get some references to quiz questions, dismissive suggestions to ask some other people why they didn't to that or why they

said this - totally irrelevant to the issues I bring up in the e-mails, it's quite annoying :) but well, I can

live with it if I can get somewhere.

 

 

 

Yes, AS is a liar - and I don't debate with known liars - Anonymous Posters are irrelevant when it comes to 9/11 related legal action - you cannot take legal action anonymously, as your actions and background must be open to scrutiny. Any debate you want would be very short anyway

 

ADJ: "AS, have you taken legal action over the evidence you think is relevant to 9/11"? AS: "No - I haven't"

ADJ: "So what are you doing about it then?" AS: "Making some youtube videos."

ADJ: "Ah, right - that's what I have been doing too - as well as helping with legal action. Bye."

 

Now I can probably see where the major friction in our communication lies. We have different ideas about effective approach and priorities.

 

Based on your hypothetical exchange above it seems you see no value (or very little) or purpose in somebody's work unless legal action is taken. Is that correct?

 

This where I have very different opinion and I put emphasis and priority into public opinion rather han legal action. I'll tell you why:

 

Legal system is to a large extent controlled by the very people who perpetrated 9/11. As such it has very little effect to go whining effectively to the perpetrators themselves. Do you honestly expect to accomplish anything trough the corrupt court system without significant backing from the public? As far as I know the initiated action (Qui Tam case) is over, has it accomplished anything? Nothing I can see ... it was simply dismissed, is that your idea of effective approach? That's not to say legal action

 

is worthless but in my opinion its only value is in influencing public opinion in that it can be used to demonstrate intent and serious approach of the people initiating it.

 

Do you see any different value in it? Did you seriously expect to get a case going with convictions and such? I mean, these people have blown up 3 skyscrapers in plain sight I do not think they would be brought down by some obscure lawsuit. Is the lawsuit over? If so, is there any pending one? If

not ... what is the gameplan now? ( BTW There is an lawsuit brought up by AE9/11 Truth against

Santer et. al. - the head of NIST so your bragging rights about taking a legal action are soon over)

 

My belief is that the only thing capable of bringing down these people is a pressure from the public. That's why I find spreading the word, discussions, debates, videos etc. far more valuable than legal action which goes nowhere and nobody will even learn of it. Legal action becomes relevant only

after a significant mass of people is backing it up. Don't you think public opinion is important? That's why AE for 9/11 Truth have such an effect, they make presenations, they write papers, articles, press conferences etc. even with inaccurate information.

 

From the start when I contacted Dr. Wood I was met with very dismissive attitude in a sense "here are quiz questions, now leave me alone" I felt under attack for no apparent reason. You reacted somehow similarly at first and there are still indications you seem to be in some confrontation with me rather than cooperation. Anybody else would be instantly put off by such an approach and reacted emotionally which you would see as an justification to regard the person "provocateur" or irrational (possibly lair or something as you do with AS) This is not a way to spread the information around,

his is a way to antagonize everybody who contacts you and loose potential cooperative people. Of course people are going to label you disinfo when you're going to deflect every inquest about the DEW theory and refuse discussion on the slight signs of disagreement calling people lairs (while refusing to ask them the questions you claim they lied about in a fair debate - you can not get more contradictory than that).

 

 

 

Sorry you're frustrated - perhaps you should try to dissociate yourself from proven liars. I am not all that frustrated, because I am looking at evidence to find the truth - then people can just take or leave what I say - but I have the comfort of knowing that what I am telling them, to the absolute best of my knowledge and understanding, is true.

 

You truly seem to have hurt feelings :) You focus on your "proven lie" on every opportunity you get.

 

It's the mother of all excuses for you ... I'm sorry but I find that very childish. It reminds me of the kindergarten "He started first" fights. I hoped we could be more mature than that and put the future of humanity over youtube comments.

 

Anyway, I do not wish to make the same mistake and focus on our differences. I see the research as valuable and plan on cooperating on things we can agree on even when I find it hard to effectively communicate with the people behind it ;)

 

 

So in the meantime, good luck.

 

Andrew Johnson

 

From:     Andrew Johnson [ This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ]

Sent:      23 March 2010 11:23

 

To:         'xxx'

 

Subject: RE: Interesting interview

You wrote:

 

"You truly seem to have hurt feelings :) You focus on your "proven lie" on every opportunity you get. It's the mother of all excuses for you ... I'm sorry but I find that very childish. It reminds me of the kindergarten "He started first" fights. I hoped we could be more mature than that and put the future of humanity over youtube comments."

 

Great - yeah - that's what's so important here - hurt feelings. No need to worry about evidence. I've received numerous e-mails like yours - this paragraph is quite reminiscent of the $5000 bet person's e-mail. It's in my book. Thanks for writing part of the sequel for me! Very gracious of you!

 

Anyway, just send me links to verifiable docs or videos when you and AS have filed official documents of some kind - Qui Tam, RFC or some sort of equivalent.

 

I'll take you seriously then. Have fun.

A

 

===========

 

From: xxx [mailto: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ]

Sent: 23 March 2010  11:00

To: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Subject: RE: Interesting interview

 

--- On Mon, 3/22/10, Andrew Johnson < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it > wrote:

 

 

 

From: Andrew Johnson < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it > Subject: RE: Interesting interview

To: "'xxx'" < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it > Date: Monday, March 22, 2010, 8:23 AM

 

Re YouTube clip, of course the evidence mentioned by Avery supports the conclusion Dr. Wood and I have reached - because evidence leads one to the truth.

 

Yeah well, I did not really sent it to you to boost your ego :) I was hoping it could be useful to use the clip to demonstrate to public the impossibility of the thermite theory if you would consider making a video/article about it somewhere in the future. I thought you may find it helpful.

 

 

 

Sadly, Alex Jones himself does not seem to understand this and instead seems to not want to take legal or other official action, preferring instead to ridicule and insult people who continue to talk about evidence, even when it is very challenging:

 

You see, Alex Jones has a very complicated personality. I admire him for the research he has done and is doing but otherwise he is still pretty close-minded and a "redneck" at the heart :D I think it's exactly because he knows how sinister the government is and that disinformation agents and infiltrations are very real and he gets paranoid. Then he considers everybody who disagrees with

 

 

him a "weak-minded drone" or disinfo agent - that blinds him even more. I do not believe he is a bad man, I believe he is honest however flawed - he gets too controlling and when he is losing that control even aggressive. That's apparent every time he makes an interview with someone who disagrees with him. He wastes all the energy on trying to suppress the information he considers disinfo instead of trying to understand it better and maybe change his mind about it. Kind of like you're wasting energy on calling people lairs instead of taking the opportunity to reach more

people and discuss the differences with them ;)

 

If AE911 truth are happy their evidence has lead them to the truth then why haven't they taken some kind of legal or official action including it (as Dr. J Wood and myself have done?)

 

I'm not the one you should be convincing here. Maybe it's because their evidence is unsound? That's what you're trying to suggest, I see and I agree with you. If I did not see value in the

research Dr. Wood and yourself have made I wouldn't be writing to you right now. Forgive me but you seem to switch into defensive quite often in our conversations, why is that? Why comments like the one above ... Dr. Woods reacts very similarly, I find it quite curious :) I always get some

references to quiz questions, dismissive suggestions to ask some other people why they didn't to that or why they said this - totally irrelevant to the issues I bring up in the e-mails, it's quite annoying :) but well, I can live with it if I can get somewhere.

 

 

 

Yes, AS is a liar - and I don't debate with known liars - Anonymous Posters are irrelevant when it comes to 9/11 related legal action - you cannot take legal action anonymously, as your actions and background must be open to scrutiny. Any debate you want would be very short anyway

 

ADJ: "AS, have you taken legal action over the evidence you think is relevant to 9/11"? AS: "No - I haven't"

ADJ: "So what are you doing about it then?" AS: "Making some youtube videos."

ADJ: "Ah, right - that's what I have been doing too - as well as helping with legal action. Bye."

 

Now I can probably see where the major friction in our communication lies. We have different ideas about effective approach and priorities.

 

Based on your hypothetical exchange above it seems you see no value (or very little) or purpose in somebody's work unless legal action is taken. Is that correct?

 

This where I have very different opinion and I put emphasis and priority into public opinion rather than legal action. I'll tell you why:

 

Legal system is to a large extent controlled by the very people who perpetrated 9/11. As such it has very little effect to go whining effectively to the perpetrators themselves. Do you honestly expect

to accomplish anything trough the corrupt court system without significant backing from the public? As far as I know the initiated action (Qui Tam case) is over, has it accomplished anything? Nothing I can see ... it was simply dismissed, is that your idea of effective approach? That's not to say legal action is worthless but in my opinion its only value is in influencing public opinion in

that it can be used to demonstrate intent and serious approach of the people initiating it.

 

Do you see any different value in it? Did you seriously expect to get a case going with convictions and such? I mean, these people have blown up 3 skyscrapers in plain sight I do not think they would be brought down by some obscure lawsuit. Is the lawsuit over? If so, is there any pending one? If not ... what is the gameplan now? ( BTW There is an lawsuit brought up by AE9/11 Truth

against Santer et. al. - the head of NIST so your bragging rights about taking a legal action are soon over)

 

My belief is that the only thing capable of bringing down these people is a pressure from the

public. That's why I find spreading the word, discussions, debates, videos etc. far more valuable than legal action which goes nowhere and nobody will even learn of it. Legal action becomes relevant only after a significant mass of people is backing it up. Don't you think public opinion is important? That's why AE for 9/11 Truth have such an effect, they make presenations, they write papers, articles, press conferences etc. even with inaccurate information.

 

From the start when I contacted Dr. Wood I was met with very dismissive attitude in a sense "here are quiz questions, now leave me alone" I felt under attack for no apparent reason. You reacted somehow similarly at first and there are still indications you seem to be in some confrontation with me rather than cooperation. Anybody else would be instantly put off by such an approach and reacted emotionally which you would see as an justification to regard the person "provocateur" or irrational (possibly lair or something as you do with AS) This is not a way to spread the information around, this is a way to antagonize everybody who contacts you and loose potential cooperative people. Of course people are going to label you disinfo when you're going to deflect every inquest about the DEW theory and refuse discussion on the slight signs of disagreement calling people lairs (while refusing to ask them the questions you claim they lied about in a fair debate - you can not get more contradictory than that).

 

 

 

Sorry you're frustrated - perhaps you should try to dissociate yourself from proven liars. I am not all that frustrated, because I am looking at evidence to find the truth - then people can just take or leave what I say - but I have the comfort of knowing that what I am telling them, to the absolute

best of my knowledge and understanding, is true.

 

You truly seem to have hurt feelings :) You focus on your "proven lie" on every opportunity you get. It's the mother of all excuses for you ... I'm sorry but I find that very childish. It reminds me of the kindergarten "He started first" fights. I hoped we could be more mature than that and put the future of humanity over youtube comments.

 

Anyway, I do not wish to make the same mistake and focus on our differences. I see the research as valuable and plan on cooperating on things we can agree on even when I find it hard to effectively communicate with the people behind it ;)

 

 

 

So in the meantime, good luck.

 

 

 

Andrew Johnson

 

From:     xxx [ This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ]

Sent:      23 March 2010 12:25

 

To:         This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

Subject: RE: Interesting interview

 

 

 

--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Andrew Johnson < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it > wrote:

 

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

 

From: Andrew Johnson < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it > Subject: RE: Interesting interview

To: "'xxx'" < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 11:22 AM

 

You wrote:

 

"You truly seem to have hurt feelings :) You focus on your "proven lie" on every opportunity you get. It's the mother of all excuses for you ... I'm sorry but I find that very childish. It reminds me of the kindergarten "He started first" fights. I hoped we could be more mature than that and put the future of humanity over youtube comments."

 

Great - yeah - that's what's so important here - hurt feelings. No need to worry about evidence. I've received numerous e-mails like yours - this paragraph is quite reminiscent of the $5000 bet person's e-mail. It's in my book. Thanks for writing part of the sequel for me! Very gracious of you!

 

Anyway, just send me links to verifiable docs or videos when you and AS have filed official documents of some kind - Qui Tam, RFC or some sort of equivalent.

 

I'll take you seriously then. Have fun.

A

 

You did EXACTLY what I have said you probably would here:

 

"Anybody else would be instantly put off by such an approach and reacted emotionally which you would see as an justification to regard the person "provocateur" or irrational (possibly lair or something as you do with AS)"

 

You ignore EVERYTHING I say of substance and find anything to have a justification to do just that. All of a sudden I'm thrown in a category of $5000 bet crazy people.

 

If you accuse AS of being a liar YOU should be the one challenging him for a debate. Instead you're fighting tooth and nail to not face him. Why would you do that if he is the one lying?

 

You are the one focusing on hurt feelings not me. You refuse to debate the evidence using some youtube videos, comments or whatever as an excuse to do so.

You also apparently refuse to address any questions regarding the thermite research. Maybe you are disinfo after all. You manifest all the indications of being one:

 

 

1) Refusal to debate anybody who is capable of challenging your "evidence" (allowing only interviews where you're the only side - unopposed)

 

2) Using lame, self-contradictory and childish excuses to justify that refusal

 

3) Ignoring most of the substance sent to you in e-mails and responding only to parts you can attack

 

4) Requiring ridiculous preconditions to even talk to people to block off all inquests (like AGW

camp requiring publishing in "peer-reviewed" journals they control)

 

5) Using your litmus test of "initiating a legal action" to judge if somebody is worth anything. I

thought this was about evidence ... apparently not (or only when it suits you)

 

This is becoming too much to be just personal flaws or your ego. Maybe it is deliberate obfuscation and disinformation tactics after all.

 

I can not cooperate with such close-minded, disinfo tactics throwing people like yourself, I tried. You just keep pushing buttons until you get the emotional reaction you seek.

 

Congratulations, you earned yourself another opponent, well done!

 




*** PLEASE *** SHARE ON FACEBOOK ETC
Del.icio.us!Facebook!StumbleUpon!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites! title=
 
< Prev   Next >