Advertisement
Home arrow 9-11 and Fake Terror arrow Articles arrow “Chilling Out” about 9/11 With Sterling D Allan and Steven E Jones
“Chilling Out” about 9/11 With Sterling D Allan and Steven E Jones PDF Print E-mail

Andrew Johnson -  This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
17 Sep 2013

NOTE: Some parts of this article may be out of date, as Sterling D Allan has been updating some of the referenced pages on his Website. However, other matters are discussed below.
More information and links to response from Sterling Allan at bottom.

May 2016 - Further Updates re Sterling Allan's Arrest

In early November 2012, I was honoured to be invited to the Global Breakthrough Energy Movement (BEM) Conference in Hilversum, Netherlands, to give a talk entitled “Infinite Energy, But Not For the Masses”. A slightly different version of this talk was posted on my website some time ago.

In the presentation, I discuss how free energy technologies have been and are being covered up, using various methods. One method involves the way in which certain groups or individuals function – in that they give the appearance they are interested in helping to bring out free energy technologies but when the evidence pertaining to their activities is studied carefully, it becomes clear there is “something missing.” It seems that they are not helping people to understand the fullest picture of what has been discovered about free energy technology. It seems that in many cases, free energy researchers will not talk about the evidence that free energy technology has already been turned into a weapons system – and this weapons system was used on 9/11. Granted, some of these researchers are still not aware of Dr Judy Wood’s research, which proves this is the case. The cover up of this research has been quite successful – which is why I have been writing about it since 2007 - and my experiences in trying to raise awareness of same.

Sterling Allan and pesn.com

One such experience involves one of the other speakers at the November 2012 BEM Conference – Sterling D Allan. Over the last few years, Sterling D Allan has built up a and large interesting Website / WIKI about Free Energy Systems, researchers and Projects – it holds a considerable amount of information – in a well-organised structure. It is updated daily, or almost daily see http://pesn.com/. There is no doubt that this is a valuable resource - but I am afraid that due to recent developments, I have to raise serious questions about the integrity of the 911-related information on the site, which as readers will know, has been an area of special interest of mine over the last few years. Again, as with Steven Greer’s “Free Energy” initiatives – Seaspower, Aero2012, The Orion Project and, lately,  Sirius Technologies, (which I have analysed and written about before), the intent seems good, but actual concrete results seem to be minimal or non-existent.

My concern about some pages on the site increased when I realised that initially, there was little reference to Dr Judy Wood’s research – even though the site held articles about the research of John Hutchison. However, there was, at the time more reference to the Steven E. “thermite” Jones – the site mentions him on quite a number of pages. The site also references Alien Scientist videos – describing one as “outstanding”. Alien Scientist (check out his page about Dr Judy Wood) was originally an anonymous YouTube Poster but he has now revealed that his name is Jeremy Rys – and again, I felt I had to write an article about his “activities”.

Sterling D Allan at Global BEM 2012


As mentioned earlier in this article, Sterling Allan was a speaker at the 2012 Conference. Curiously he did spend some time talking about 9/11 (which isn’t talked about all that much in proportion to the amount of information on www.pesn.com) No prizes for guessing what particular part of 9/11 research he chose to discuss… (Note: in the video linked below, there are some problems with flashing images due to some issues with the video editing which can be a little uncomfortable to watch)

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Even though this is only a “preview” of the presentation (full versions can be accessed  at http://www.globalbemvoices.com/videos/ ), there is a section which is approximately 4 minutes long where he says he will be “going on a tangent” about something he has “never talked about” (presumably, in public). He then says he is reading a book  (Dr. Judy Wood’s “Where Did the Towers Go”) and he proceeds to present and discuss some of the details. However, in a manner similar to what Richard Hoagland did in 2011, Allan makes significant errors in his presentation. As with Mr Hoagland, Dr. Wood was not consulted about the content of this part of Allan’s presentation, neither was she aware he was going to speak about this at the conference. Some errors in the presentation are discussed below.

Initially when he starts discussing Dr Wood’s research, at 8:37, Allan describes a “pillar of iron”, though he then corrects himself to say “steel”.

8:47: Sterling Allan says, “The is new technology based on a lot of energy, probably a free-energy technology.” 

9:22: The seismic signature was not that of an earthquake and therefore is not rated as a seismic signal, but can only be referred to as producing an equivalent magnitude with certain waves. 

9:30: Sterling Allan claims it made the same seismic signature as “a superdome” that was 1/70th the size of (the towers)?   Which “superdome”?   In Dr. Wood’s presentation, she shows that WTC1 had about 30 times the potential energy of the Seattle Kingdome.  In any case, it did not make “the same seismic signature.”  The Seattle Kingdome generated S waves, P waves, and surface waves. No S wave or P waves were generated during the destruction of WTC1,2,3,4,5,6,7.  Only a surface wave was generated during the destruction of these buildings. So they did not leave “the same seismic signature.”

9:55: Sterling Allan claims the signal lasted only six seconds.  (It should be eight seconds for WTC1.)

Sterling Allan claims “it would take 9 seconds for the things on the top to hit the bottom.”  Is Sterling Allan claiming the buildings would have collapsed in 9 seconds?  Apparently he has not developed any collapse models and done energy calculations for them. (It would take 9.22 seconds to drop a bowling ball from the roof to the ground in a vacuum.)

10:20: Sterling Allan claims “right next door, 200 feet from this, 12 firemen in a part of a stairwell that wasn’t collapsed by the dust.” Contrary to what Sterling Allan says, there were 14 people in Stairway B who survived [and two more who survived higher up in Stairway B, even though the Stairway didn’t survive].

10:35: Sterling Allan implies a directed energy weapon would have to cut everything like a saw at one level and is surprised that this is not what happened, as if he is setting up to claim that therefore a directed energy weapon could not have been used.

10:45: Sterling Allan claims “This was new technology they deployed on that day.”  How does he know this?  Does he know who “they” are and has been given a tour through the facility where it was kept?

10:50: Sterling Allan claims that WTC7 was destroyed by classic controlled demolition.  He obviously hasn’t done his homework.  

11:40: Sterling Allan discusses the height of the rubble pile of WTC7.  Using the image Sterling Allan presents (albeit distorted), one can see that the “rubble pile” of WTC7 is not 6 or 7 stories tall.  WTC6 was an 8 story building and the “rubble pile” of WTC7 is much lower down than that.  And how does he know where “the energy weapon went in”?

12:50: Sterling Allan says “this was Black Ops top of the line stuff that they were pulling on us that day.” How does he know it was “Black Ops”? Isn’t this is a conspiracy theory? (i.e. though the evidence of what happened is now clear, it is still not clear who was responsible – or what the precise motive was. All we can deduce is who is likely to have more information about “who did it”.)

It is interesting to note that Sterling Allan does not say anything similar to “well, Dr Wood will be presenting her research at this conference, so if you attend her presentation, you will get the full picture.” Sterling Allan should have been well-aware that Dr Wood was scheduled to speak on the subject of 911 at the conference later that day.

Sterling Allan has made a gross misrepresentation of the evidence. Perhaps he will ask to be excused for his errors by claiming he is not a scientist?  Yet he claims Dr. Wood has “some holes in her logic and contradictions,” yet has failed to identify any errors or even take responsibility for making unfounded accusations such as this.  One must wonder why Sterling Allan, without a background in physics or structural engineering feels comfortable making claims that contradict physical evidence that has already been presented.

I’d like to suggest that the easiest way to convince the general and less-informed public that free-energy technology does not exist is to promote false information about what does exist so that it can simply be refuted by people with more knowledge and expertise in relevant fields.  So one can ask why Sterling Allan is presenting false information about someone else’s work.  Sterling Allan is not a scientist, so why is he pretending to present scientific work done by someone else where he makes many errors?   

BEM Conference review by Sterling D Allan

Following the BEM Nov 2012 conference, Allan posted a review, in which he writes:

Her premise is that some kind of exotic technology was used to turn the buildings to dust, so that hardly any rubble was left (via a combination of Tesla's Death Ray and Hutchison type effects). She presents a wide range of compelling evidence; and in her three hours of lecture, she also showed video footage. Her PowerPoint presentation is well formatted to highlight things in such a way that they cannot be overlooked any more. While there are some holes in her logic and contradictions, overall, I'm convinced there is something to the premise, which the controlled demolition model doesn't satisfy.

 

I'm working on a story about that, but it is not an easy subject. There are some strong points on both sides of the argument. But one thing they both agree on is that the government cover-up story is ridiculously erroneous and impossible -- that the buildings came down (in free-fall speed) because they were hit by jets.


This essentially repeats errors from his presentation, but goes further and states “there are some holes in her logic and contradictions”. These “holes and contradictions” are not identified and discussed and therefore, for the casual reader of Allan’s articles, doubt and uncertainty is introduced – possibly without the reader realising this. Additionally, in coming with others, Allan mis-characterises the evidence and research of Dr Wood as “a premise”. Was this an intention of Allan’s review? Mr. Allan introduces division by referring to “sides of the argument,” but truth doesn’t have sides. Either something is true or it is not true. 

Stephen E Jones and Cold Fusion and Tritium

I first became aware of the connection between Steven E Jones and what is mis-known as Cold Fusion in 2006 or 2007. (Cold Fusion is better described as “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” – LENR.)  In Feb 2007, I mentioned the Jones-Cold Fusion connection in the New 9/11 Hijackers? article that I had posted. Since then, more has become known about the connection between the evidence found in LENR research and evidence found at the World Trade Centre. This is to do with Tritium levels – a radioactive “sub-form” of Hydrogen. In LENR, anomalous levels of tritium were found in experiments carried out my many groups of researchers – one group being headed by Prof John Bockris at Texas A & M University. Dr Wood (and myself) discussed this connection in our respective presentations at the BEM 2012 Conference (November 9-11, 2012).

It was of great interest to me, then, when I found out that Sterling Allan had made a new posting on his website less than 1 week after the conference. The posting included a letter from Steven E Jones – about LENR / Cold Fusion – which Steven E Jones had given a presentation on in Oct 2012.

From: Steven Jones

Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:15 PM [GMT-7]

Subject: Slides (with minor edits) from Seminar given at Univ of Missouri, 25 Oct 2012

 

Gents,

 

Scientists at the University of Missouri invited me to give a seminar and also provided a tour of their lab, where they are doing related experiments. I'm excited about this, and even if my hypothesis turns out to be incorrect, the research is proceeding well!

 

I wish to re-emphasize that I find data for anomalous excess heat (without evidence for commensurate fusion products) to be compelling at this time. Back in 1989, I tried repeatedly to get P&F to drop their claim that the "excess heat" was due to d-d fusion, to no avail at the time. In fact, my insistence on this point -- that it was NOT d-d fusion, earned me some enemies it seems.

 

In recent years, many if not most researchers in the field have come to share this view (it's not d-d cold fusion, but something else!). Even Fleischman admitted it was not d-d fusion, before his passing.

 

Here I raise an hypothesis to account for the "anomalous excess heat" -- an idea that (evidently) none of the Univ of Missouri researchers had heard of before...

 

Best wishes,

Steven Jones

Emeritus etc

 

PS -- Slides from the Naval Research Lab which I cited are publicly available from the ICCF-17, Aug 2012, conference in Korea, here:

 

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Papers.shtml

 

talk WEA1-2 (Dominguez et al.)

It is interesting to note that this was posted on Sterling Allan’s website in the days immediately following Dr Wood’s presentation at BEM – because Dr Wood’s presentation included a discussion of a  “vote” on Cold Fusion Research that Steven E Jones led in 1989:



It has become clear to me that Steven E Jones has lied about Martin Fleischmann’s work in the field of LENR – when he said:

Even Fleischman admitted it was not d-d fusion, before his passing.



He repeats this false statement in a 2012 interview with Charles Giuliani. The truth is that Pons and Fleischmann soon revised their conclusion that nuclear fusion was involved:

 (Source: New Energy Times) Within a year, Fleischmann and Pons backed off on their claim that their experiment showed evidence of fusion, but they did not retract their claim that their experiment revealed something new and inexplicable. They wrote the following in their 1990 paper:

 

"The preliminary note was to have been published under the title 'Electrochemically Induced Fusion of Deuterium?' but the all-important question mark was omitted. It is our view that there can be little doubt that one must invoke nuclear processes to account for the magnitudes of the enthalpy releases, although the nature of these processes is an open question at this stage. 



Also, Jones himself admits that he coined the term “cold fusion” to describe the process and research that he and a colleague, Paul Palmer, had been working on in the mid 1980’s. Jones implies that Pons / Fleischmann then decided to adopt this term to label their own research (which was in a completely different area than Jones’ research).  The truth seems to be that Pons and Fleischmann, in common with other researchers working in the same field, were not happy about ongoing use of the “Jones-coined” term “Cold Fusion”.

One might ask – are both Sterling D Allan and Steven E Jones being deliberately careless in their description of important details – to divert people away from making connections between disparate sets of evidence? 

Steven E Jones - Remembering WTC Molten Metal and “Paint on Thermite”

I would now like to remind readers that Steven E Jones was one of the first researchers to talk about molten metal in relation to the events and aftermath of the WTC destruction. Indeed, Jones referred repeatedly to a video clip I helped him edit together in 2006 which he claimed showed molten metal flowing from one of the WTC towers, before its destruction. Jones falsely claimed that molten aluminium is silvery in appearance at all temperatures in daylight conditions. As I have repeatedly noted, molten metal was spoken of frequently by Jones and later by Richard Gage of AE911, but Jones and his co-authors did not mention molten metal in their Request for Corrections (RFC) submission to NIST in 2007. I contend that the molten metal “stories” were promulgated because some people really did see molten metal (firefighters apparently saw it) and Jones knew this. However, the metal was made to melt and/or glow by a process other than heating (i.e. some kind of process similar to what happens in some of John Hutchison’s experiments). 

In order to keep the hot molten metal myth alive, it seems Steven E Jones had to come up with some highly dubious suggestions – such as beams in the towers being “painted with thermite or thermate”! 

 

Paint on Thermate

Molten Aluminium



Massaging Photos of the Dustification of the WTC

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video 

Keeping it in the Family?

Another curious thing which arose shortly before the BEM conference was  that Sterling Allan’s brother, Nathan Allan, posted a review of “Where Did the Towers Go?” on the Amazon page. Apparently, it was Nathan Allan who described Dr Judy Wood’s book to Sterling Allan and he became interested in it.

Though the review is favourable, in his review he wrote:

Her scholarship is so great in some areas, though unfortunately in parts she strays a bit far into tenuous tangents. For instance, even mentioning the "coral castle" and its surrounding hearsay unnecessarily discredits her efforts. The best nougats are tantalizingly hidden in subtle places throughout the book.


He also claims “her math surrounding pancaking is incorrect” – a reference to  Dr. Wood’s “Billiard Ball Example” (BBE) (this is not a model, it is a “thought experiment” to encourage people to re-evaluate, in a dispassionate way, the rapid demise of the towers). Nathan Allan has not fully understood this example, it seems – i.e. it is an “example” not “a model” or “a simulation.” Note that Dr. Wood’s “Billiard Ball Example” (BBE) was accepted through peer review and presented at an international engineering conference in June, 2006.

Nathan Allan also takes issue with the references to Coral Castle. In an article posted on his brother’s site,  he claims to have “busted” the idea that it is not well understood how it could have been built by one man. Nathan Allan makes a bold claim – Coral Castle has mystified engineers such as Chris Dunne as to how it was built.

Certainly, from my own examination of Coral Castle, I have concluded that the man who built (and rebuilt) it – Ed Leedskalnin – seemed to have knowledge about how to move and carve rock that no one else in modern times seems to have.

Sterling D Allan “Reviews” Dr Wood’s Book

On December 9th 2012 - 1 month after the BEM conference, Sterling Allan posted an article entitled “Part I: The Ambulance that Survived WTC1 on 9/11 = Best Evidence for Dustification and Free Energy Demo” Though this article seems to be reasonably accurate in its description about some of what is covered in the book, it repeats an earlier claim by Steven E Jones et al that “Active Thermitic Material [was] Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”. (And again, the claims of thermite do not explain the evidence shown in the book Allan claimed to be reviewing. These thermite claims were not submitted to NIST in 2007 by Jones, et al.). Allan has included a number of images scanned directly from Dr Wood’s book – and these were used without consultation or permission, but at this point, no action was taken. At the end of this article – seemingly out of sequence with what else is covered, Allan writes:

Steven Jones is not a "disinformation agent". He sincerely believes that controlled demolition, using nanothermite along with conventional explosives, was used to bring down the towers, based on the evidence he has personally witnessed and studied. (See my November 19, 2012 report about his reasons for saying that what people are calling "cold fusion" isn't "fusion.")


This statement implies that something to the contrary is stated in “Where Did The Towers Go,” which is not the case.

Vote for the Evidence, Vote for the Truth!

The finalisation of this article/documentation was prompted by an anniversary posting about Dr Wood’s book on Sterling D Allan’s pesn Website. Allan entitles this as being “Part II” of an earlier review of Dr Wood’s book. Again, Allan has included a number of images scanned directly from Dr Wood’s book – and these were used without consultation or permission.

Whilst the thrust of what is written seems sincere and well-meant, there are again important errors which could have been avoided through prior consultation with Dr Wood (who is referred to as “Judy” in the article). Some of these errors will be discussed below.

First, however, I would like to discuss Sterling Allan’s inclusion of “polling” in the article – is this to encourage doubt and uncertainty about what may or may not be in the book? As the article is not a full reproduction of what is in the book, then really, because of the importance of the evidence, I ask how can people make a fair judgement? Similarly, voting on whether the towers turned to dust is a ridiculous notion – especially when no images or video of this process are shown in the article! Additionally voting on who committed this crime (i.e. “Inside job”) is a ridiculous notion, considering that no evidence or discussion whatsoever is presented as to who committed these crimes. This appears to be an attempt to associate Dr. Wood’s work with opinions that are void of evidence.

Cold Fusion and Space Beams

Due to the concerns expressed above – especially Allan’s connection to Steven E Jones, I finally decided to write to him and present these concerns to him. I also included the following audio clips of Steven E Jones.



 

 

As has been the case in the past, for me at least, responses to the emails I have sent have been quite illuminating (you can read the full exchange below).

The tone of his response is pleasant enough and, after all, he was not obliged to respond at all – but he did, and in some detail. I asked Sterling Allan why he had decided to use the pictures without permission. His response was:

I didn't finally decide to do this article until last night, and I wanted to have it as the 9/11 feature, hence I didn't have time to first get permission from Dr. Wood.


A lack of planning does not negate the need for permission. I asked Sterling Allan if he had used polls on any other articles and he kindly responded:

You can see a list of the polls I've done at http://www.99polls.com/profile_90262 You will see there that in the past few months I've done polls with other technology postings, including the Yildiz magnet motor demo and a feature on Geoffrey Miller,

See http://pesn.com//2013/08/13/9602355_Interview_with_Geoffrey-Miller_Energybat-Labs/ 


and why he had gone to some trouble to use them in this article. He responded:

Just curiosity. I've actually been very pleased with the response so far. I had thought there was more hesitation in my audience regarding 9/11. However, a lot of this traffic is coming from Rense.com, which isn't my usual audience.


I also asked him about a comment he made at the end of Dr Wood's BEM presentation where he stated he would discuss what he had seen in the presentation with his friend Steven E Jones (Sterling Allan actually stated that what he had seen was “obvious”). I enquired if such a discussion had taken place and what the "outcome", if any, had been. Allan replied:

Yes, I met with him. He remains a good friend. I've gotten two emails and a phone call from him in the past week. I reported on my conversation with him following the Holland Global BEM conference at: http://pesn.com/2012/11/19/9602225_Steven_Jones_replica--Pons_and_Fleischmann_XS_Heat_not_from_fusion/

and ever since that meeting, I've been driving home the point with my audience that "cold fusion" is probably not a proper terminology for what is happening. It's most likely not fusion but transmutation, if that. It is a high energy reaction, and most likely nuclear, but almost definitely not "fusion". That is the point that Steve was trying to make all those years ago, and it has taken this long for it to start catching on. Now, I bet if I were to take a poll of my audience (I should do this soon), I bet that around 70% would say it is "transmutation}, 10% would say "fusion", and 10% would say "anomylous heat", and 10% would say "nothing, bogus".


It can be seen that this reply included nothing about Dr Wood’s presentation – nor Allan’s statement that following Dr Wood’s presentation, certain things that happened on 9/11 became “obvious”. Instead, he re-iterates Jones’ position on Cold Fusion (which, as discussed above, is not accurate). This was not really what I had asked him.

In a subsequent e-mail I put it to Sterling Allan that Steven E Jones had lied – both about Pons and Fleischmann and the true nature of molten metal discovered at the WTC site. I suggested that Jones may, indeed, have some kind of knowledge about what really happened to the WTC and he was helping to keep this covered up – just as he had been helping to keep certain evidence, research and knowledge about LENR covered up. Allan responded:

Regarding Steve Jones, I don't find any problems in the audio files you attached. He's stating his position from how he sees things. Yes, he coined the term "cold fusion"; and yes, he admonished that the term "fusion" not be used where "fusion" was not indicated by the evidence. If he has a misunderstanding of Judy's presentation and mislabels it "space-based directed energy weaponry", chalk it up to misunderstanding and seek to set the record straight through cordial, not accusatory and inflammatory dialogue. Judy's portrayal of Steve is one of a crass conspirator, and I find it very offensive. She is very wrong on that, and will have to answer by karma; and perhaps part of that is the misportrayals of her work by others who are supposed to be on the same team.

 

I have yet to find a case where Steve "lies" making a statement on something he knows not to be the case. He might portray something contrary to your believe on the matter, but that is not a lie, it is a difference of opinion or paradigm.

 
We note that Mr. Allan refers to his good friend as “Steve Jones” but refers to Dr. Wood as “Judy.”

Allan is very keen to defend Jones – making excuses that he does not “understand” the evidence in Dr Wood’s book and on her website.  This is extremely odd – because Jones is a professor of Physics and Allan has no advanced degrees and openly states “he is not a scientist”. Allan stated that Dr Wood’s evidence made it “obvious” what happened – but here we have Allan making excuses for Jones. Also, Jones used the term “Space Beams” not "space-based directed energy weaponry" – why did Allan “translate” this term? Dr. Wood does not even discuss “space-based directed energy weaponry.” Dr. Wood does not discuss what the weapon was, much less where it was located. She only discusses the category of the type of energy involved. She has ruled out thermal energy weaponry, kinetic energy weaponry, but has not ruled out directed-energy weaponry. Dr. Wood has never stated where the weapon or weapons were located. This is even stated on the conclusions page of her original article in 2006.

Also Allan, criticises “Judy” – claiming she “castigated” Steven E Jones. Why does he make this claim, when it was Andrew Johnson that wrote to him about Jones lying – it was not “Judy” that made these statements? He diverts onto other issues, which I was not even aware of and had not questioned him about.

Allan characterises lies as “a difference of a opinion”. This is the sort of language manipulation which is used to help a cover up stay in place.

Perhaps I should just “Chill Out”?

Again, there will be some who will chastise me for being over critical of Sterling Allan – perhaps suggesting he is giving “free publicity” to Dr Judy Wood’s book. However, the publicity is best when accuracy is checked - and maintained – indeed, it is vital because of the importance of what we are dealing with here. I have found and documented that, on many occasions, the goal of quite a number of people has not been to fairly and accurately document, review or characterise what is in Dr Wood’s book and on her website. This has been true even though it seems, on the surface, like those people are trying to be “helpful”.

In his email Sterling Allan says to me

Sorry this appears to be a hot-button issue for you. You're hyper sensitive to it. Chill out.


and then

Judy really needs to chill in her castigation of the whole 9/11 Truth movement. She has a victim mentality that really sours the potential reach of her material. She, unfortunately, is her own worst enemy. She commits treason against her own mission in life.


Amazing stuff. An ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Instead of addressing the questions posed to him, he insults someone else. Lest, 12 years after the event, we are starting to forget something, let us remember what we are talking about:

1) The crime of 9/11 which killed 3000 people and set the stage for all the terrible things that have happened in “the war on terror”.

2) The use and cover up of an advanced weapons system which operates by using some form of Directed Free Energy.

Sterling Allan wants us to “chill out”…?

“Under the Influence”?

I have written before about the evidence which indicates that (a) certain figure(s) in the alternative knowledge “truth” movement seem  to have the ability to influence others in subtle ways. Jim Fetzer is a prime example.

In reading through Sterling Allan’s messages and postings, I got the sense that Sterling is “trying to do the right thing” and some of what he says in relation to 9/11 and Dr Wood’s research is reasonably accurate. However…

  • Why did he post these articles, using images without permission?
  • Why did he talk about Wood’s research at the BEM conference in the way he did?
  • Why did he describe it as a “Tesla Death Ray”?
  • Why does he not ask himself serious questions about the role of Steven E Jones in this whole matter (instead he chastises us and tells us to “chill out”?

The description “Tesla Death Ray” sounds, to me, similarly dismissive to the term “Space Beams”. Sterling Allan tells us he is in “regular contact” with Steven E Jones. Could it be the case that Steven E Jones is exerting some kind of influence over Sterling Allan – which blinds Allan to certain facts? I have only included this as I felt, especially at the end of the BEM presentation, he was “struggling internally” with conflicting emotions. This feeling of mine was only made stronger when I read some of his emails.

Here We Are Again…

I have documented another example of which “fits into my list”. When Dr Wood’s research is brought to someone’s attention:

  • Characterise it as “just a theory”
  • Say “Well, it’s plausible”
  • Say “Well, I think it was a mixture of things that was used to destroy the towers.”
  • Don’t talk about the relationship to cold fusion.
  •  “Let’s just be one big Happy Family, OK?”

Again, I can only present the evidence to you – because of what I have found and what I know. I cannot do things any other way. I hope it was worth it…




Sterling Allan's Response

Other Links/Info

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Additional Articles About Sterling Allan's Activities


He only held 2 domains before 9/11/2001 and they were not about free energy. 


greaterthings.com
Creation Date: 06-mar-1998
 
patriotsaints.com
Creation Date: 08-aug-2000
 
pureenergysystems.com
Creation date: 18 Jun 2003 17:43:00
 
pesn.com
Creation date: 24 Feb 2004 04:47:00
peswiki.com
Creation date: 08 Aug 2004 06:01:00
 
freeenergynews.com
Creation Date: 04-sep-2004
 
newenergycongress.org
Created On:03-Oct-2005 07:16:57 UTC
 
 
freeenergynow.net
Creation Date: 22-aug-2006
 
energystork.com
Creation Date: 29-jan-2009
 
pureenergyblog.com
Creation Date: 02-jul-2011
 
top5energy.com
Creation Date: 20-jan-2012
 
freeenergyquest.com
Creation Date: 30-aug-2012
 
newenergyfunding.com
Creation Date: 30-oct-2012
 
altern8r.com
Creation Date: 04-dec-2012
 
watchsirius.com
Creation Date: 26-apr-2013


Sterling Allan passes PES baton to Aaron Willis
http://pesn.com/2015/01/12/9602591_Sterling-Allan_passes_PES-baton_to_Aaron-Willis/
Fountain Green man pleads guilty to sexually abusing two toddler girls
http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/fountain-green-man-pleads-guilty-to-sexually-abusing-two-toddler/article_bdcadffb-2127-5d13-9f7f-26dcc2a45620.html
Utah County Sheriff's Office Corrections Bureau
http://www.co.utah.ut.us/Dept/Sheriff/Corrections/InmateDetail.asp?ID=333913



Emails

 

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

Sent: 11 September 2013 23:30

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

Subject: Re: PESN Posting on Dr Judy Wood's research

Hi Andrew,

My responses below in Red.

Sterling

----- Original Message -----

From: Andrew Johnson

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

Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:40 PM

Subject: PESN Posting on Dr Judy Wood's research

Dear Sterling Allen,

As you may know, I have been working with Dr Judy Wood in documenting how her research has been "approached" by various people over the last 7 years or so.

I also spoke at the BEM Conference in the Netherlands in November last year, but I don't believe we ever spoke  to one another . A shame in some ways, because I have often looked at your PESN website with interest.

Dr Wood and I were discussing your recent message to her about your posting here:

http://pesn.com/2013/09/11/9602370_Magnetometer-and-Hurricane-Correlations_with_9-11-2001/

This raised some questions, which if I may  be so bold,  I present to you below. I/we would be very interested in your answers.

1) Do you have any other technical articles like this on your site that have a "poll" on them. If you have, could you please send me a link?

You can see a list of the polls I've done at http://www.99polls.com/profile_90262 You will see there that in the past few months I've done polls with other technology postings, including the Yildiz magnet motor demo and a feature on Geoffrey Miller,

See http://pesn.com//2013/08/13/9602355_Interview_with_Geoffrey-Miller_Energybat-Labs/ 

2) Looking at the "results", it appears a number of people have "voted". However, in your message to Dr Wood, you are asking permission to use images - which she had not granted, nor had she yet refused. So, if she had refused, and you had to modify the page, would that not invalidate your "poll" results, because people would not be "voting" on the "agreed" page ?

I didn't finally decide to do this article until last night, and I wanted to have it as the 9/11 feature, hence I didn't have time to first get permission from Dr. Wood.

3) What do you hope to achieve by doing this poll and are there similar sets of evidence you would like to take polls on?

Just curiosity. I've actually been very pleased with the response so far. I had thought there was more hesitation in my audience regarding 9/11. However, a lot of this traffic is coming from Rense.com, which isn't my usual audience.

4) Did you consider that Dr Wood may have supplied you with better quality images, if she had agreed, which would have given people a clearer picture of what they actually showed, rather than using scanned/re-photographed images, which are sometimes difficult to maintain the clarity/quality of.

 

The would be great if she could provide higher res images. I scanned these in from my book, and they do the job.

Also, I have an additional question at this point. I was present when you made a comment at the end of Dr Wood's BEM presentation in the "upstairs room" and you stated you would discuss what you had seen in the presentation with Steven E Jones, your friend. May I enquire if such a discussion has taken place and what the "outcome", if any, might have been?

Yes, I met with him. He remains a good friend. I've gotten two emails and a phone call from him in the past week. I reported on my conversation with him following the Holland Global BEM conference at: http://pesn.com/2012/11/19/9602225_Steven_Jones_replica--Pons_and_Fleischmann_XS_Heat_not_from_fusion/ 

and ever since that meeting, I've been driving home the point with my audience that "cold fusion" is probably not a proper terminology for what is happening. It's most likely not fusion but transmutation, if that. It is a high energy reaction, and most likely nuclear, but almost definitely not "fusion". That is the point that Steve was trying to make all those years ago, and it has taken this long for it to start catching on. Now, I bet if I were to take a poll of my audience (I should do this soon), I bet that around 70% would say it is "transmutation}, 10% would say "fusion", and 10% would say "anomylous heat", and 10% would say "nothing, bogus".

There are other questions I have too, related to the ones above, which I may ask at a later point, if that would be acceptable to you.

 

fine.

Thanks for your time in reading and/or responding to this message.

Regards

Andrew Johnson

UK


From: Andrew Johnson

To: 'Sterling Allan'

Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 6:07 AM

Subject: RE: PESN Posting on Dr Judy Wood's research

Dear Sterling,

Apologies for this message being quite long, but there are some important things I wanted to write out here and present to you.

I appreciate the time you took in responding to my previous message but I have some additional / follow up questions. Before I raise those, I will say I am quite concerned about the nature of your pages mentioning Dr Wood's book and the way you have portrayed some of its content. Basically, I do not think it appropriate. Additionally, I do not think it appropriate to go ahead and publish the page without permission - because of the very serious nature of the evidence  within the book.

Re the polls/votes - The page you linked (http://pesn.com/2013/08/13/9602355_Interview_with_Geoffrey-Miller_Energybat-Labs/)  also only has 1 poll on awareness of Geoffrey Miller's work - you seem to have gone to much more "trouble" with the page about Dr Wood's book. It was quite interesting to me that you did this, especially in view of what Dr Wood discussed about "voting on science" in her BEM presentation. However, I will leave that for the moment and would like to ask you further about Steven E Jones (quoting your link/text):

http://pesn.com/2012/11/19/9602225_Steven_Jones_replica--Pons_and_Fleischmann_XS_Heat_not_from_fusion/ 

and ever since that meeting, I've been driving home the point with my audience that "cold fusion" is probably not a proper terminology for what is happening. It's most likely not fusion but transmutation, if that. It is a high energy reaction, and most likely nuclear, but almost definitely not "fusion". That is the point that Steve was trying to make all those years ago, and it has taken this long for it to start catching on. Now, I bet if I were to take a poll of my audience (I should do this soon), I bet that around 70% would say it is "transmutation}, 10% would say "fusion", and 10% would say "anomylous heat", and 10% would say "nothing, bogus".

I don't know if you are aware, but Steven E Jones invited me, along with Jim Fetzer to join "Scholars for 911 Truth" - in December 2005 and I corresponded with him several times in the following year or so - even helping him out with some video with a presentation he did in Feb 2006, or then-abouts. It was only later I learned of his role in Cold Fusion research. I here present to you some clips of him talking about this - and about 9/11 research and would interested in your thoughts, if you were able to send them to me.

As you wrote above, Jones claims he told Fleishmann he shouldn't call their process Fusion and he has implied, in the audio clips I have attached, that Fleishmann "clung" to this idea until near the time of his death last year. As you can read below, this  is untrue. So, why would Steven E Jones lie about this? Why would he also lie about Molten Aluminium being silvery in appearance at all temperatures in daylight conditions? (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYuipGJHYQk)

Also, Steven E Jones coined the term "space beams" as a dismissive and inaccurate mis-characterisation of Dr Judy Wood's research - and you have taken time to make the pages on your website about this, so I am assuming you are interested in the truth and accuracy of what you have written about. So, do you have any concerns about the truth and accuracy of your friend Steven E Jones' characterisations of Dr Wood's research in this manner? (If you do, you can express these concerns to him - and feel free to mention my name or send anything in this message to him to get his view on this, whether you choose to reply to me or not.)

Finally one interesting omission from your "poll" is that of the tritium evidence discussed in Dr Wood's book and in her presentation. I put it to you that this is vital piece of evidence - as it represents some kind of fingerprint of the technology which really was used to destroy the World Trade Centre (and this conclusion won't be affected by polls of any kind - because it's the truth of what the evidence shows). I put it to you that Steven E Jones knows this. For example, he makes no secret of his work at Los Alamos National Labs, where, it seems, projects such as the Manhattan Project were centred.

I make no apologies for keeping a collection of audio clips of Steven E Jones - so that people can hear what he has actually said and judge for themselves what he knows or does not know. You can listen to them too - using the link below. I haven't yet organised a poll yet though.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/index.php?dir=SEJones/

Thank you for reading this message.

Andrew Johnson


http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/LENR-FAQ.shtml#retract

Did Fleischmann and Pons retract their claim of fusion?

(Source: New Energy Times) Within a year, Fleischmann and Pons backed off on their claim that their experiment showed evidence of fusion, but they did not retract their claim that their experiment revealed something new and inexplicable. They wrote the following in their 1990 paper:

 

"The preliminary note was to have been published under the title 'Electrochemically Induced Fusion of Deuterium?' but the all-important question mark was omitted. It is our view that there can be little doubt that one must invoke nuclear processes to account for the magnitudes of the enthalpy releases, although the nature of these processes is an open question at this stage. 

 

"It is hardly tenable that the substantial number of confirmations of the calorimetric data using a variety of techniques can be explained by a collection of different systematic errors nor that tritium generation can be accounted for by any but nuclear processes." 

 

By 1994, Fleischmann and Pons wrote in Il Nuovo Cimento that D-D fusion was unlikely to be the explanation:

 

"’We conclude that all theoretical attempts that concentrate only on few-body interactions, both electromagnetic and nuclear, are probably insufficient to explain such phenomena." 

  In 2009, Fleischmann said in a recorded interview with Steven B. Krivit that LENRs must be caused by neutron-catalyzed reactions rather than by fusion.

Where did the term "cold fusion" come from? 

(Source: New Energy Times) Physicist Steven E. Jones, and his team at Brigham Young University in Utah, first used the term in the scientific literature. The process discovered by Jones' team is markedly different from the process discovered by Pons and Fleischmann. The Jones process does not produce excess heat and therefore does not provide any hope of being a source of energy. The Jones process, through measurement of particles, demonstrates excellent validation that fundamentally new nuclear processes can occur in a relatively simple, room-temperature experiment.

Andrei Lipson, a physicist from the Russian Academy of Sciences, was experimenting with a similar process in the 1980s. Because of confusion between the Jones process and the Pons-Fleischmann process, as well as the assumption that cold fusion was a "colder" version of thermonuclear fusion, the term "cold fusion" was immediately and mistakenly associated with the Pons-Fleischmann work. 


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

Sent: 13 September 2013 14:12

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

Subject: Re: PESN Posting on Dr Judy Wood's research

Hi Andrew,

Regarding publishing without first getting permission, my assumption is that the propagation of good information is the most important thing. I always welcome people to use my stuff, and find it humorous when they ask for my permission: "Of course!" I find it sad when people are possessive and not having a sharing attitude. It is not a godly attribute. Hording and greed are not positive traits.

As for polls, it took me all of 15-30 minutes to compose and post those 6 polls. Tiny investment there. I was curious, and I'm glad I asked, being pleasantly surprised by the level of agreement by my audience. I don't see polls as a vindication of facts, but merely an indication of people's alignment with facts. Sorry this appears to be a hot-button issue for you. You're hyper sensitive to it. Chill out.

Regarding Steve Jones, I don't find any problems in the audio files you attached. He's stating his position from how he sees things. Yes, he coined the term "cold fusion"; and yes, he admonished that the term "fusion" not be used where "fusion" was not indicated by the evidence. If he has a misunderstanding of Judy's presentation and mislabels it "space-based directed energy weaponry", chalk it up to misunderstanding and seek to set the record straight through cordial, not accusatory and inflammatory dialogue. Judy's portrayal of Steve is one of a crass conspirator, and I find it very offensive. She is very wrong on that, and will have to answer by karma; and perhaps part of that is the misportrayals of her work by others who are supposed to be on the same team.

I have yet to find a case where Steve "lies" making a statement on something he knows not to be the case. He might portray something contrary to your believe on the matter, but that is not a lie, it is a difference of opinion or paradigm.

Judy really needs to chill in her castigation of the whole 9/11 Truth movement. She has a victim mentality that really sours the potential reach of her material. She, unfortunately, is her own worst enemy. She commits treason against her own mission in life.

Sterling



From: Andrew Johnson

To: 'Sterling Allan'

Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 7:16 AM

Subject: RE: PESN Posting on Dr Judy Wood's research

Hi Sterling,

Thanks for making your position clear. Do I need your permission to post this exchange in an article, or as I will be quoting you directly, and therefore "propagating good information", shall I just post it in an article anyway?

I am quite chilled, thank you - as is Dr Wood. Dr Wood and myself have simply shown and stated what Steven E Jones has done. I myself have shown and stated how he has lied. Thanks for indicating you're "chilled" about this.

Regards

Andrew Johnson

UK


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

Sent: 13 September 2013 14:24

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

Subject: Re: PESN Posting on Dr Judy Wood's research

Just follow your conscience and try to be a good person. That's the advice I'd give you or anyone else.


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

Sent: 13 September 2013 14:41

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

Subject: Re: PESN Posting on Dr Judy Wood's research

I personally know Steven E. Jones, and I have very high regard for him. He and my dad are very close friends, and my Dad http://AllansTIME.com is one of the most sincere, good, intelligent people I know. (He worked at NIST in the atomic clock division.) Speaking of NIST, see http://www.allanstime.com/NIST_Whistleblower_on_911_Cover-Up/ 

and one of my pages: http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/911/Conspiracy/NIST_911_Cover-Up/ 

I am certain that Judy's castigation of Steve is very unfair and tainted, without taking all factors into consideration.

In the parable of the blind men and the elephant, she is holding very firmly to one appendage of that elephant and is not taking other factors into consideration. It is sad.

Sterling


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

Sent: 13 September 2013 14:48

To: 'Sterling Allan'

Subject: RE: PESN Posting on Dr Judy Wood's research

Dear Sterling,

Your friendship with Steven E Jones is already recorded in the BEM presentation, but thanks for written confirmation.

Your statement "I am certain that Judy's castigation of Steve is very unfair and tainted, without taking all factors into consideration. " Is incorrect as she has never castigated him.

I hold Steven E Jones personally responsible for the cover up / muddle up of what has unfortunately (largely thanks to the same man) become (mis)known as cold fusion - and some of the results of that (such as the Fukushima disaster - I already posted this on my website).

Again, thanks for making your position abundantly clear. I don't think there is anything more to add, at this point, to this exchange which would be of any use.

Regards

Andrew





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