The Perception Management of 9/11 Evidence
It seems that 9/11 was arguably the biggest crime against humanity in modern history. Those who planned and executed it also worked out a cover story which was good enough to fool most of the population. However, they also realised that people think in different ways, ranging from those who accept something at "face value" to those who are more analytical. Additionally, even though there are many people who are analytical, and whose job it is to review data and draw conclusions, they are sometimes prone to discarding a conclusion on the grounds that it would take them into "uncharted territory". This is perhaps because "the bigger the lie, the more the people will believe it" (a saying attributed to both Adolf Hitler and Joesef Goebbels). I would argue that this idea can be extended – few would believe that seemingly decent, honest people are actually engaged in an ongoing and often subtle effort to keep the cover up of 9/11 in place. The reason for this is that 9/11 is a "nexus point"- not just because of its political ramifications, but also because of its technological ones.
Having written a series of these articles, I am conscious that some people may think adding another one to the series may be “over-doing it”. Statements such as “you’re promoting ‘infighting’ instead of ‘harmony’” may be made. However, weighed against that, there appears to be a need to document the ongoing effort to discredit serious research, and the strategy of misdirecting the focus of attention from the core of this same research. Please forgive me for my attempts in trying to accurately document what I consider to be the harder-to-perceive aspects of the 9/11 and free energy cover up. As ever, in all of these matters, the reader is advised to “keep their wits about them” and watch out for misdirection, subtle false statements or points where true information and false information may be being mixed together – both in what is written here, and elsewhere.
Asking the Big Questions – Managing Perception
Once it is realised that advanced technology – almost unknown in the "white world" of military hardware – was used on 9/11, people will begin to ask questions such as "Who has access to this technology? Where did it come from? What is it capable of?"
One way to prevent or slow down the questioning process is to keep people in a state of confusion, doubt and/or fear. If a person is in one of these states, it reduces the likelihood of them taking some kind of positive or effective action to change the status quo. Deliberately creating these states of doubt, fear and uncertainty could therefore be seen as a specific strategy for maintaining the cover up of 9/11 (and other crimes against humanity).
The "game" is therefore one of managing the perception of 9/11 by ordinary people. When this idea is considered in more depth, one can see, on a daily basis, how much perception management is a part of so many aspects of our lives.
9/11 – Promoting The Key Evidence
On Nov 11th 2006, Jim Fetzer, on his RBN programme “Non-Random Thoughts”, interviewed Dr. Wood with regard to her research concerning the use of Directed Energy Weapons in the destruction of the WTC Complex. Fetzer was complimentary and very positive. However, previously, he had asked Dr. Morgan Reynolds and Dr. Judy Wood to “leave” the Scholars group largely because of the reaction their ongoing research generated. (Strangely, however, in July 2008, Fetzer posted an article about video fakery – related to the formerly controversial “no planes” research.)
After the original RBN Interview with Dr Judy Wood on Nov 11th, Fetzer was quick to pick up Dr Wood’s research – he even discussed it in his Tucson presentations (excerpt here) on 12 & 13 November 2006 and he also mentioned it in a related PBS broadcast. What made Fetzer change his mind and become so much warmer and enthusiastic to this research?
Fetzer continued to promote Dr. Wood’s research throughout 2007, and most people assumed he was doing this for the “right reasons”. His attitude began to shift, however, as Dr. Wood’s research broke further new ground – in early 2008.
Since about January 2008, Dr. Judy Wood has posted evidence linking 9/11 and the Hutchison Effect, and I have written about this in previous articles. Not long after she made this correlation, she came across something quite startling – the presence of a Hurricane in the Atlantic. I have been involved in writing summaries for the Hutchison Effect and Hurricane Erin studies that Dr. Wood has posted and, partly because of that, I have been keen to review reaction to them. One way of getting reaction was through Dr. Wood’s appearances on radio programmes.
On 28th Feb 2008, Dr. Judy Wood and John Hutchison finally appeared together on Jim Fetzer’s radio programme, to discuss this information. Analysis of this has been posted in the article . A few days later on Mar 3, 2008, Fetzer sent an e-mail to Dr. Wood, in which he said:
Just between us, if Judy were to back off her relations with Hutchinson, whom I consider to be a fraud, I think her standing can be salvaged."
At that point, Dr. Wood more or less concluded it was not worth speaking any more with Jim Fetzer on his radio programme, despite several invites he sent. (Again, here, I ask who is Fetzer to be making such statements? Does he consider himself to be some authority on unconventional experiments?)
However, in July 2008, when Jim Fetzer suggested that Dr. Wood and I do a broadcast on his radio slot, while he was unavailable or otherwise occupied, we decided to take up the invite to enable us to freely explore and comment on some of the issues raised in this article, and other aspects of her research. Readers, of course, will probably think that offering two consecutive slots on his programme was a very magnanimous gesture by Fetzer. I would argue, based on evidence gathered later, that the main reason he did this was to try and maintain a “perceived connection” to – or even a “perceived ownership” of – Dr. Wood’s research, even though he had already threatened her reputation. This connection allows him to publicly state he is “a supporter” of the research, whilst privately, he seems to act in certain ways which contradict this position.
Presenting the Evidence – Dynamic Duo 30th and 31st July 2008
In the first broadcast by Dr. Wood and myself, we did want to clarify why Dr. Wood had not chosen to go on air with Jim Fetzer since he had implied in e-mail that “Hutchison was most likely a fraud”, in part because of Ace Baker’s video fakery exercise. Then, as covered in a previous article, he did not question specific points of evidence in relation to the Hutchison effect – he merely agreed that Ace Baker appeared to have reproduced videos that look similar (but not the same) as some of the videos of John Hutchison’s experiments.
When I spoke with Dr. Wood on GCN’s "Dynamic Duo" show, she said of her own research:
"It’s so easily distorted and it seems that various folks try to take ownership of my research to distort it – the meaning of it – and where it’s going. You know, on various forums they refer to ‘Fetzer and Wood’s research’ and I don’t know how Fetzer has anything to do with my research.”
Further, Dr. Wood commented that there were instances where
“Fetzer has been invited to present my work but then it’s not presented quite right – he refers to lasers masers and plasmoids.”
Fetzer responded to this on the 31st, during the first segment in which he read out a statement including the following:
I completely reject the idea that I am taking credit for her work or "not getting it right".
(The statement Fetzer read out was sent to us earlier in an e-mail).
Dr. Wood did not suggest Fetzer was taking credit for her work – she said that it seemed like he was trying to “take ownership” of it. Also, to introduce lasers, masers or plasmoids is completely unnecessary – as there is no clear evidence that Dr. Wood has catalogued which directly implicates them. Further, her newer research makes an extremely robust case that Hutchison Effect-like technology was involved – and Fetzer already knew of this, but did not mention it in his statement.
Further, he said:
After having spent so much of my time and reputation in the defense of Judy’s work, it is more than disappointing to have her make these malicious attacks on me–especially after going out of my way to have Andrew interview her to make sure her latest work was reported.
No malicious attacks were made on Fetzer – Dr. Wood merely stated she was not happy with the way he had interpreted certain things, introduced redundant and/or confusing terminology and included these in presentations he had made. In other words, she felt that Fetzer had misrepresented her work.
Fetzer then pointed out how frequently Dr. Wood had been on the Dynamic Duo, and of course, it is true that she was the most regular guest of all. One of the reasons that she appeared so frequently was because she is the person who had done the largest amount of original research. Also, by letting Fetzer discuss it, one side effect is that he appears to support it – and, indeed, this seemed to be true, right up to the point where she posted her Hutchison Effect Study, which soon resulted in her "standing" being threatened by Fetzer. But, being the most frequent guest on his show does not make it acceptable for Fetzer to repeatedly misrepresent what Dr. Wood has stated, nor does it confer any rights on Fetzer to act as “the handler” of this information.
Was Fetzer’s Threat Later Carried Out?
Fetzer’s e-mail of 03 Mar 2008 referred to Dr. Wood’s reputation “being salvaged”. It was therefore interesting to listen to certain things that Fetzer said on a later broadcast on his GCN programme – on October 16th 2008, where his guests were Ace Baker and CB Brooklyn. (Please listen to this whole broadcast to hear the full context of points I discuss below.)
Fetzer discussed a previous booking with Ace Baker and Dr. Wood and that he had invited Ace Baker on before Dr. Wood – despite Dr. Wood having done the research on the Hutchison Effect’s relationship to 9/11. Fetzer said:
I had wound up booking Ace on Wednesday and Judy on Thursday but I’d also offered Judy on Wednesday and Judy discovered that Ace was going to say something about Hutchison’s work – she wanted to come on with Hutchison – which I thought was great – so when I discovered that there was this concern about Ace coming on first, I invited her to come on Wednesday… and I could move Ace to Thursday. She declined to do that. She told me she couldn’t make that change. Frankly, I don’t believe that’s true – I think she could’ve made the change.
So, Jim Fetzer is essentially accusing Dr. Wood of lying over this issue? Why? What evidence did he present that made him believe Dr. Wood’s statement was “not true”?
At the time, Dr. Wood was working on documents to be submitted in her legal case, with a deadline on February 29, 2008. Fetzer had invited John Hutchison and Dr. Wood to appear on his show on the evening of February 28, the night before the deadline. Dr. Wood was invited to be on the show a couple of weeks in advance and cautiously agreed on the February 28th show, assuming that her documents would be in final form by then. In any case, she assumed Fetzer would be interested in talking about the Hutchison Effect, requiring little input by her. At this point, Fetzer should have been familiar with Dr. Wood’s evidence, as it had been posted for several weeks. The February 29th deadline was public knowledge, so the timing of this turmoil could have been interpreted as being suspicious. Additionally, Dr. Wood had a scheduled conference call with her attorney – which clashed with the time Fetzer was suggesting.
Fetzer Blames Dr. Wood
He suggests that Dr. Wood and John Hutchison go on his programme and discuss the evidence. This already took place, however, on 28th Feb 2008 – and has been discussed elsewhere. So why does Fetzer want to repeat this exercise? Does Fetzer think that blaming Dr. Wood for not contacting him, when he has threatened her reputation, and then suggested she is lying is conducive to having an open discussion with her on air?
Fetzer then says, of Hurricane Erin that it “fascinates him” but…
I’ve been very reluctant to say anything about it – particularly since she has attacked me for stealing her research – when all I was doing was saying “Judy has made this observation” and offering my interpretation of what it is supposed to mean. If I’m wrong about that, then it’s the best I’ve been able to do, given the limited resources I have to work with because I’m no expert in these areas.
This is very peculiar, as Fetzer has previously been quite comfortable in repeatedly quoting PhD Physicist John P Costella in relation to his opinion of the Hutchison Effect. In any case, Fetzer has heard explanations of the suggested role of Hurricane Erin in 9/11 – explanations were given on 2 the broadcasts we did on his programme (July 30-31, 2008) – and he called in to comment about the broadcast – so he must have heard some of it! If he didn’t hear all of it (a free podcast is available as well as “on demand” playback), then why wasn’t he apparently interested in this important new study?
Fetzer then repeats how Dr. Wood has attacked him – and Ace Baker, which is not, true. Rather, Dr. Wood has pointed out, as I have, how Ace Baker put out false information – stating he had reproduced the Hutchison Effect, when in actuality he hadn’t – instead, he had made a fake video. This is not an attack – it is pointing out what Ace actually himself admitted doing! Similarly, Dr. Wood had pointed out that Jim Fetzer had repeatedly used inappropriate terms to describe what she had said – i.e. the use of "Lasers, Masers and Plasmoids" – and that Fetzer seemed to be “steering” or handling the discussion of Dr. Wood’s research – rather than “stealing it”. Note she did not say Fetzer had “stolen” it – this seems to be another instance of Fetzer using subtle changes in language to misrepresent what was said and what actually happened. That is, the word “stolen” is a very emotive term, whereas “trying to take ownership” is rather different – and more appropriate to what seems to have taken place.
Fetzer then says:
These are problems with Judy and her failure – her unwillingness to communicate with me places the onus of responsibility on her shoulders, not on ours.
So, again we see Fetzer deliberately painting Dr. Wood in a bad light – is he carrying out his threat? Is he making her reputation “unsalvageable”? To me, this is exactly what he is doing, but he uses some careful spin and subtle misrepresentation of what has actually been said and done. The result is that the main focus is shifted away from the study of 9/11 evidence and onto a character analysis of Dr. Wood.
I would say to Jim Fetzer: “What about the presence of the Hurricane on 9/11, Jim? What about its path? What about the magnetometer data, Jim? What about the upside down cars, Jim? What about all the other correspondence of Hutchison Effect evidence and WTC Evidence? If Dr. Wood did come on your programme, would you be as silent as you were on 28th Feb 2008 about this evidence?”
Ace Baker Hates Dr. Judy Wood
…you literally used the word hate [laughs], so I guess there’s one definition by which that would fall under that heading…
Also in this extraordinary broadcast, Ace Baker states of Dr. Wood that of :
She’s working real hard to destroy the case for molten metal… and err… hand in hand with Steven Jones – I think that was really their assignment – the two of ‘em together – I would point out that Judy and Morgan were extremely viscous in their attacks on Steven Jones – and rightly so.
This is very peculiar – Ace presents no evidence to back up these very serious allegations – neither does he state whether he thinks there was indeed Molten Metal or whether there wasn’t. He thinks attacks are justified and he has now gone on record to state that he hates both Steven Jones and Dr. Judy Wood. So, is he going to take any time to talk about his ideas on what actually caused the destruction of the WTC?
Ace then says:
Yeah – you know what? I do hate her. If you can’t hate conspirators to mass-murder, who can you hate?
Baker presents no evidence for this extremely provocative statement – couched in a most unpleasant manner and being aired on a Web radio station. So how does Jim Fetzer react? Does he say “Well Ace, are you sure that’s not going a bit too far? Are you sure about this?” (When considering these questions, take into account that Fetzer counts himself as a supporter of Ace and a self-declared dedicated supporter of Dr. Wood.) Fetzer simply laughs out loud, then says he does not agree with Ace’s views, but Ace has a right to hold them.
Some people don’t see that there might be “some problems” with this sort of discussion on this programme. However, please consider the following – how would people react if Dr. Wood went on to Jim Fetzer’s programme and said “I hate Steven Jones” or “I hate Ace Baker”?
By considering these sorts of ideas and looking carefully at the language and mannerisms employed in this broadcast, I hope the reader can begin to see how “Perception Management” of this issue works. I would suggest that whole perceptions of issues can be changed with a tone of voice, a child-like giggle, a laugh, a chuckle etc – and the listener’s or readers psyche is distracted from the double-standards and “covert smearing” which are in operation.
Fetzer on Hutchison and Baker
In the same broadcast Fetzer stated of John Hutchison’s experiments:
It’s very difficult for me to imagine how anyone could just happen on these phenomena – that they would tend to require a high-level background and training – maybe no necessarily a PhD in Electromagnetism, but maybe something that was roughly equivalent…
John Hutchison did not just “happen on the phenomena” – it took him several years to generate effects that were repeatable – and he assembled more than 2 tons of equipment! What exactly is a “PhD in Electromagnetism”? What would be an acceptable equivalent? Does scientific discovery necessarily follow on from obtaining a science certificate?
…and he was very evasive – he didn’t really want to answer my questions
This is not true – John answered the questions as best he was able, but Fetzer wanted to ask John about his entire background – dating back before the 1970’s! This was not the same sort of level to which he interrogated Ace Baker. (Did Ace Baker graduate from 8th grade? From high school? From college? Does Ace Baker have advanced degrees in civil engineering, engineering mechanics, materials engineering science, applied physics, or even some area of physics?) Fetzer stated that the reason he did ask Ace Baker these sorts of questions was because he had met him and had a very high opinion of his work (but this was even after it had been proved that Ace Baker had (a) stated he had reproduced the Hutchison Effect when actually he hadn’t and (b) stated that Andrew Johnson had sent him hate correspondence when he hadn’t. Additionally, Ace Baker had sent Dr. Wood hate mail and Fetzer had no real problem with this.
Muddling the Evidence
As if confirming the concerns raised earlier in this article – about Fetzer’s use of redundant or confusing terminology, Fetzer himself, in a later broadcast on the Dynamic Duo on 05 Aug 2008, said
“Now there’s another group, championed by Judy Wood, who has been promoting the research that suggests it was some kind of directed energy weapon. Now Judy is so tentative about how it was actually done – that’s about as far as she goes in describing it. I for specificity add that it could have been lasers, masers maybe plasmoids – something very sophisticated was going on here.”
Again, Fetzer failed to mention the Hutchison Effect related evidence and research that Dr. Wood had posted (which she does not and never has described as “tentative”). Has Fezter "taken ownership" of Dr. Wood’s work, and changed the presentation of it? In the same broadcast, he then went on to say:
"Judy is now suggesting the source of energy – this is my interpretation of her – what she is talking about – there was a hurricane off the coast of New York that was never reported to the American People on 9/11. This is bizarre. A hurricane could theoretically be used as a source of energy that might have been expended in the demolition of the twin towers if you could figure out how to transform it in a constructive, directed fashion".
On the surface, this might sound correct, but sadly it isn’t – Dr. Wood did not say the Hurricane was a "source of energy" nor that "the energy was transformed". Dr. Wood’s study is about field effects, which is a different idea – and it ties in exactly with John Hutchison field effect experiments. Indeed, Dr. Wood entitled the new study “9/11 Weather Anomalies and Field Effects”. Fetzer omits these ideas and clearly stated connections. So, I would therefore point out that Fetzer who, on the one hand claims he is "clever" because he has a 35-year academic career to prove this, on the other hand claims he is not clever enough to correctly pick out the title of an article he is discussing and focus on details like those I just highlighted here. In other words, he is muddling the evidence. I conclude, therefore, he is helping to generate engineered ignorance.
In his Aug 05 2008 broadcast, he had plenty of opportunity to comment on any of the data or topics we covered in our broadcast – but instead he chose to talk about infighting in the 9/11 truth community, then he talked about Barrack Obama – the discussion seemed to be “all over the map”. (Also, he didn’t even mention the name of the Hurricane.) Just after the segment referenced above, he gives Dr. Wood some more "positive strokes", then says "go and buy the Madison DVD" (which, if you haven’t seen it, is quite a confusing mixture of 14 hours of material).
Fetzer Discusses 9/11 on the 7th Anniversary
On the 7th Anniversary, Jim Fetzer appeared on Richard Syrett CFRB (Toronto) talk show to discuss 9/11 research developments. Richard Syrett’s (RS) first question to Fetzer (JF) was:
www.checktheevidence… Fetzer – 911 Research – Richard Syrett CFRB – 11 Sep 2008.mp3
RS: Here we are 7 years on – any new information that has … say… come down the pipe in the last …um… 6 months, a year… ?
JF: Well, I think there’s quite a bit including that David Ray Griffin continues to publish new books – he has one called 9/11 contradictions…
Fetzer pointed out that the WTC molten metal stories are implausible and later did indeed mention Dr. Wood’s research in the broadcast, when he said:
I follow the work of Judy Wood here [website and qualifications listed] and who has offered the hypothesis that it was some kind of directed energy weapon. It turns out there are whole families of these and they’re now beginning to admit that they have these weapons and they’re using them in Iraq…
Fetzer then points out that the military industrial complex is therefore implicated in 9/11 (and this would seem to be true) and the conversation continues:
RS: What are we talking about? Like an electromagnetic pulse? Are we talking about Scalar Technology…?
JF: Well, there are a variety of possibilities, will I wish – ye know – if I were enough of a physicist, I’ll tell you, when we gave the conference on the science and politics of 9/11, when it was all done, I invited members of the audience to come up and say a few words and an elderly lady came up and explained she had a PhD in Physics, and she didn’t know why she hadn’t seen it before, but after watching Judy Wood’s presentation, she realised that they had to have used masers. So something like lasers, masers, plasmoids – something going on here – very, very sophisticated…
Has Fezter "taken ownership" of Dr. Wood’s work, and changed the presentation of it? So, Fetzer, even though he follows Dr. Wood’s research (and he repeatedly refers to her on this and other broadcasts as “Judy Wood” not “Dr. Judy Wood”), prefers to quote someone anonymous (to us) person’s opinion – and chooses not to mention:
a) The Hutchison Effect (and it is worth mentioning here John Hutchison has been on Syrett’s show on more than one occasion).
b) Chooses not to mention Hurricane Erin, and the most recent research, featured on his own programme some days earlier (and in one segment he called in to the programme himself so he knew what was discussed).
c) Instead, he reports the opinion of an anonymous PhD physicist – given over 12 months ago, who stated she thought it that “masers were involved” and Fetzer discusses nothing else at this point.
Can anyone see anything wrong with this picture? Fetzer is giving his opinion, someone else’s and omitting to discuss any of the important evidence already put on the table by Dr. Wood. I don’t know about the reader, but I have a problem with this – which is why I put this article together.
More Perception Management
One of the key things that can be confusing in the discussion of what was said is the idea of "taking the credit" – whether Fetzer said this or not, I am not sure, but it’s all about perception. (The same is true of the official story of 9/11). Fetzer is trying to create the perception that Dr. Wood is complaining about Fetzer taking credit for her work. If you listen to Dr. Wood carefully, she has not said this – she said that Fetzer is confusing and misquoting her research – which is quite true – Fetzer has previously and repeatedly mentioned "lasers, masers and plasmoids" when discussing Dr. Wood’s evidence on his show – these are not terms that Dr. Wood has used herself. It is therefore easier for listeners to be confused and think that "lasers, masers and plasmoids" is what Dr. Wood said – and it isn’t what she said. If a PhD physicist said "Thermite brought down the towers", should we assume he is correct?
Fetzer has created the perception that he is acting as a "host" and main supporter for Dr. Wood’s research and therefore he can justifiably claim to be some kind of "spokesperson" for her or that he is an authority on her work – (even though he would likely never claim he is such a spokesperson). This is all very subtle psychology and difficult to see if you don’t look carefully.
Also, as proved above, when Fetzer is presented with a golden opportunity to discuss, with a large audience on the Syrett show, the latest important evidence and research regarding the Hutchison Effect and Hurricane Erin, he completely passes this opportunity by – even though he is “a big supporter” of Dr. Wood’s research.
A Magnanimous Act
By the "generous act" of letting me host with Dr. Wood on GCN, Fetzer can be perceived as perhaps being magnanimous and therefore Dr. Wood and I “look bad” or ungrateful for criticising him or not thanking him. (The GCN audience is small, so it doesn’t matter a great deal if “information gets out”. After all, he can easily “muddle it up” in the next broadcast. With someone like Ambrose Lane on the Power XM Channel, he had a much, much larger audience – which was, I would say, why Ambrose Lane’s show was cancelled just moments before Dr. Wood and myself were due to go on the air.)
As another example, Fetzer complemented me on my hosting (which I think was arguably better on the second show than on the first) – why did he complement me then, when he had:
(a) previously called me a child and
(b) said in an e-mail:
I am sorry, Andrew, but your standards of credibility and mine simply do not coincide. I suppose that having a Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science and having devoted my professional life to logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning have given me a different perspective than your own.
To me, this "flip flop" behaviour doesn’t make any sense. I have never been rude to Jim Fetzer, nor have I insulted him. I have, of course, been very critical of him and I think I have shown strong evidence that he is following some kind of agenda (there are those who disagree) – I certainly don’t have proof that he is, indeed, following an agenda.
Look into my Eyes! Look into my Eyes!
I recently described Fetzer’s M.O. (“mode of operation” or “modus operandi”) thus. (It may sound a bit harsh, but I think this is accurate.)
1) He gets puffed up with academic credentials (but ignores these when it suits him – for example, we do not know if Ace Baker has a science degree, but values Ace’s judgement of science and materials in relation to the Hutchison Effect over Dr. Wood’s, for example).
2) He is very articulate, a good orator (listen to the Syrett broadcast to see how rapidly, fluently and succinctly he can deliver information). He is clearly a competent writer.
3) He takes an issue like 9/11 – pretends to analyse it or "consult" about it, then basically can’t draw any firm conclusions about anything (this is quite similar to what Kevin Barrett, and David Ray Griffin also seem to do) except when it comes to the work of John Hutchison.
4) He mixes things around and muddles things up.
5) He stokes the fighting from time to time (e.g. calling me a child, saying “shame on you” to Dr. Wood).
These actions can prevent people from seeing the real truth – the real evidence – because they are so distracted by his false authority. i.e. "I am clever, but I can’t make a decision about what happened on 9/11 – so neither can you."
When this mask starts to slip, he does one of the following:
1) Plays the victim
2) Calls people stupid or picks a fight
3) Ignores the issue and distracts/diverts onto something else.
He can create confusion in the evidence where there had been none and create indecision where there are definitive answers. It’s very effective when done well – and is entirely compatible with “freedom of speech and expression” – but people then don’t know who’s telling the truth…
So in summary, I would suggest that what Fetzer is doing is very subtle. You can’t see it unless you look carefully. He also "turns nice" after being nasty.
Drs. Wood and Reynolds have attempted to prosecute NIST’s contractors for wilful blindness. It now seems to me that, having looked at the evidence, that Fetzer is also being “wilfully blind” – over Hutchison Effect evidence and Hurricane Erin-related Evidence.
Why this is all important
Some might suggest that the information and commentary I have posted here is trivial or irrelevant – or “damaging” in some way. However, I would try to remind the reader of what is at stake. Thanks to Dr. Wood’s diligent study, I put it to the reader that we have conclusive evidence that advanced “free energy” and weather modification technology was being used in the horrendous black operation that was 9/11. I put it to you that we have conclusive evidence that seemingly the cover up of this truth is being carefully managed, by people that you may seem reluctant to scrutinise, because they appear to be wearing “white hats” and tell you, "just trust me". The 9/11 truth movement is being controlled and directed right before our eyes. Perhaps we should remember the words of “Won’t Get Fooled Again” – .
I would use the following phrase to summarise the tactics that seem to be prevalent at this time, with these issues:
“If you can’t cover it up, then just muddle it up.”
—– Forwarded message from email@example.com —–
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:54:47 -0500
Subject: Fwd: THE 9/11 CONTROVERSIES
Judy, Morgan, Jerry,
Listening to Judy and Andrew tonight was rather painful. Judy made several misleading statements. Obviously, if her research is being described as "Fetzer/Wood" it is because I have been her champion since November 2006, when we had (what I believe to have been) the first of our interviews. It was during this discussion that she suggested the source of energy could have been in space. S he was already using the phrase "beam weapon" on her web site, which I knew was going to generate problems of the "space beam" and "death ray" kind, but she told me she thought it was appropriate and kept the phrase.
In addition, I have never been invited to present her research, so I have no idea where she got that. I do of course discuss her work, since I could not make a competent presentation on the World Trade Center with- out doing so. But my presentations are of my views on these matters, including differentiating between con- ventional methods (dynamite, thermite/thermate, etc.) and unconventional (mini-nukes, lasers, masers, plas- moids, etc.). I even have a slide that shows all of the possibilities. There is no intimation that Judy has endorsed one or another of these possibilities but only that her work tends to disprove that conventional methods were enough to bring about the devastation. I mention them to lend some specificity to the discussion.
At the very end of our conference, a participant with a Ph.D. in theoretical physics reported that, after hear- ing Judy’s presentation, she was convinced that masers were involved. I am unable to discriminate between the alternatives but only indicate that the mechanism seems to lie in this direction, which Judy and others continue to investigate. I completely reject the idea that I am taking credit for her work or "not getting it right". I will create an opportunity to set the record straight on these points. After having spent so much of my time and reputation in the defense of Judy’s work, it is more than disappointing to have her make these malicious attacks on me–especially after going out of my way to have Andrew interview her to make sure her latest work was reported.
We have a practical problem regarding the book. I spent a lot of time and money setting up the conference and all that. It was with the understanding that we were doing a conference together, that a DVD would be produced from it, and that we would jointly produce a book. I need to know that each of you intends to contribute your chapter, as we have all understood would be the case. I do not expect to be stiffed by Judy for reasons that have scant or no basis in reality. If she has some other grudge of which I am unaware, she should share it. She has been uncommunicative with me for some time now, which I view as highly unprofessional. I need to know from all three of you that you are going to fulfill your commitments to this project and enable me to complete this new book.
P.S. You can easily confirm my depiction of my talks by reviewing one or more of them on YouTube. I would be glad to send copies of my PowerPoint slides, too, including the one that outlines the full range of alternative possible explanations. I discuss Judy’s work but I do not misrepresent it and I certainly do not take any credit for it. If anyone else has done more to make her work a household word, I would like to know. I am not happy about this, but I can manage to deal with it as long as it does not interfere with the book.