Andrew Johnson – ad.johnson@ntlworld….
See Bottom for a response from Red Ice Radio – and my response to that.
(I am very sorry that this has all come about…)
Red Ice Radio provides a very interesting and varied set of audio content – and the interviews are normally of good quality, as Henrik Palmgren is an informed researcher who is not afraid to explore the various “rabbit holes” that present themselves to us.
I was interviewed on Red Ice Radio in 2010, to talk about the subjects of Chemtrails and 9/11. I met Henrik Palmgren at the 2010 Arc Convention in Bath which was organised by Karen Sawyer. In the interview with Henrik, we talked about the 911 “Truth” Movement’s cover up of 9/11 Truth – especially the cover up of the “energy connection,” which is indicated by the involvement of people such as Steven E Jones in both “Cold Fusion” (LENR) research and the bogus “thermite” theory that he initiated in 2005.
Dr Judy Wood, has, of course also been on with Henrik at least twice to explain what really happened to the WTC. She went to some trouble to provide Henrik with an electronic copy of her book “Where Did The Towers Go?,” to enable Henrik to study this before the first interview, which took place before the first batch of printed copies became available. (Henrik was also sent a hard copy before the 10-year anniversary – which was when the 2nd interview was done). Almost everyone who reads this book will understand what happened to the WTC on 911. It is not a theory nor a hypothesis. It is not an “idea” and it is not speculation – it is a collection of diverse evidence, along with a scientific analysis of that evidence. Some of the evidence in the book was included in Court Submissions in 2007 – 2009.
A Danish chemist named Niels Harrit has just been featured on Red Ice Radio. [Edit:the Harrit interview page does link to my own interview and Dr Wood’s]. Harrit is one of many who is keen to ignore and ridicule evidence. I corresponded with him just before writing this article in 2008 about the cover up of Dr Judy Wood’s court case, but I did not name him in the article. Harrit makes ridiculous suggestions about “tons” of thermite being used to destroy the WTC. Mr Harrit seemed to “come on to the scene” soon after Dr Judy Wood’s court submissions were made. He has continued to talk about thermite and nanothermite ever since, even though it can be proved from basic observation that thermite had nothing to do with the destruction of the WTC (Dr Wood has addressed this evidence – or lack thereof – in her presentations). Harrit did contribute an affidavit to April Gallop’s court case, but again all his statements were based on the use of thermite or some variant of it – which cannot explain the available evidence – or the observed phenomena.
Red Ice also recently featured Kevin Barrett who has admitted a "professional interest" in 911 research.
Henrik Palmgren has also in recent months featured Mark Gaffney and Jeremy “Alien Scientist” Rys who again do not seem to understand what thermite and hot explosives and incendiaries do to materials. They both refuse to acknowledge the effects documented in Where Did The Towers Go? and instead resort to either ridicule or mischaracterisation or blatant lies about what has been stated in Dr Judy Wood’s research. Rys seemed more concerned about the loss of his YouTube channel than what happened on 911. The loss of his channel was in part the result of copyright claims filed by Thomas Potter against Rys’s channel for defacing images of Dr Judy Wood’s book and my book and using these defaced images in one or more of his videos. This is discussed in an article I wrote in October 2011.
Back to the Red Ice interview with Mr Harrit. Near the end, Henrik Palmgren does bring up Dr Wood’s research.
However, like so many other people, Henrik mis-characterises the content of Dr Wood’s book as "ideas" or "theories" – this is not what I would expect of an honest alternative knowledge host/researcher who has had time to study the evidence. It is yet again worth re-iterating that some of this evidence was submitted to court, unlike the thermite “evidence”. Harrit also starts lying by saying he was not aware of the evidence in Dr Wood’s research – I made him aware of it approximately 5 years ago. So, are Henrik and Harrit both suffering from amnesia?
What is the point of things like Red Ice Radio? For many of the topics covered, there are large swathes of speculation, where things are not proved – and opinions are essentially the main points of discussion (which is fine). However, Dr Judy Wood’s research does not revolve around opinion – as I have repeated many, many times it is a presentation of 2 sets of evidence which, in parallel, prove what happened to the WTC. This is quite clear to most people who study this evidence for long enough. Dr Wood and myself told Henrik the essentials of this over 3 years ago. I am therefore pointing this out to suggest that to let Harrit, Barrett, Mark Gaffney and Jeremy "Alien Scientist" Rys spread disinformation without properly calling them out strongly indicates to me that Henrik is no longer interested in the truth of what happened on 911 – he is more interested in the Red Ice “vehicle” than stating clearly where lies are being broadcast. I know I might sound too harsh or judgemental, but we do know what happened to the WTC now – so to characterise knowledge as “theory” is dishonest. Henrik should know better.
Perhaps, as far as Red Ice goes, this shows that being immersed in "conspiracy culture" affects your memory or your ability to reason and you can end up not knowing up from down…? When I posted this on my Facebook Page, people thought I was being unfair to Red Ice/Henrik. They seemed to think that Niels Harrit (and essentially Henrik) were “expressing an opinion”. Of course, this is true – to an extent – but let us make sure we distinguish between opinion, evidence and fact – and note where a cover up or censorship is occurring. After all, if Henrik is letting these folks on for 2 hours to express opinions, why doesn’t he invite someone like George Monbiot on to talk about how Al Qaida did 9/11 and how CO2 is a global threat? After all, it’s folks just expressing an opinion – so what’s wrong with that?
Some people may wonder why I go to the trouble of posting articles such as this. The reasons are:
1) We know what happened to the WTC on 911 and that knowledge is crucial in looking at the future and understanding the current state of our world – weaponised free energy technology, held by a hidden group, was used to destroy the WTC – and this should be disclosed to everyone. There is no issue that is not affected by this knowledge.
2) To effectively disclose this information, I feel compelled to make sure everyone realises how the cover up of the information proving point (1) is done. I hope to show how people are easily persuaded that evidence is “opinion” and that conclusive analysis is “speculation”. People like Harrit and Henrik Palmgren have – wittingly or unwittingly – helped to confuse speculation with proof and they have also allowed the presentation of speculation as if it is proof.
For those interested in further details of how the 911 disinformation works, please see my free eBook, videos and audio versions of “911 Finding the Truth”.
Red Ice Radio has responded with a post not referencing any evidence in the article itself. The posting does not link to this article. I have included the text of the posting below.
In a recent article by Andrew Johnson, he claims that Red Ice Radio is part of a "9/11 Disinformation Promotion Brigade." In this commentary Henrik Palmgren explains why Andrew is wrong in his accusations. A common misconception and trap that many people fall into when contradicting material is presented, is to assume that it’s designed to intentionally or unwittingly mislead or otherwise attempt to confuse the audience. It is neither to confuse nor intentionally spread "disinformation" as Andrew suggests. The process of letting the audience actively participate in the research process on their own is done for very intentional purposes. We believe that this is the most effective way of letting everyone utilize their critical abilities; as opposed to being spoon fed a biased, slanted view. Presenting opposing viewpoints is essential for people who want to both exercise their ability to deduct and choose what material they themselves want to further research and verify. Red Ice Radio, has from the start, held a position that nothing presented on the program should be perceived as the ultimate truth. We have frequently mentioned in our programs and commentaries that the purpose and function of this approach is not to offer a preconceived idea, but instead it forces people to think for themselves about every issue they hear. We think that the ability to make a judgment about the material should fall in the hands of the audience, not the program directors, editors or hosts.