03 Feb 2014
Since about 2007, I have been attempting to document and
understand the 9/11 cover up – particularly in relation to the research of Dr Judy Wood. To this end, in 2009, I
self-published a book/compilation of articles which I called “9/11 Finding the Truth.” This compilation (now in its 3rd edition) can be
obtained as a free download in various formats, or in a
cost-price paperback. I have continued to write articles on this subject,
as attempts have continued to “keep the cover up / muddle up” going. The
purpose has mainly been to document, with related evidence, how the cover up
has continued to evolve - to include a number of related areas.
Recent correspondence I have received has lead me to wonder
whether we might even be “ahead of the game” – at least to some extent – as I
may have been witness to an attempt to re-write history. At this point, it is
not quite clear if this is the case, but I wanted to document some things now
and if it turns out I am wrong, then so be it.
Regardless of any conclusions I may make in this article,
the facts about 9/11 and the facts about those involved in helping to cover up
those facts will remain the same. Facts such as those stated by Dr Judy Wood
following her comprehensive forensic investigation of what happened to the WTC
will not change- “The WTC towers did not burn up nor did they slam to the
ground - they mostly turned to dust in mid air” will never change. The fact
that Steven E Jones worked in a field of research that he and a colleague
called “Cold Fusion” in the 1980’s and he then worked in the field of 9/11
research from about 2005 onwards will not change.
Steven E Jones, 9/11 and Cold Fusion
I choose to mention these facts specifically because they
are one of the keys to understanding the connection between the events of 9/11
and what some call “free energy” technology. I have been talking about these
things, when any suitable opportunity has presented itself, since about
mid-2007, when I first found out that Dr Steven E Jones had worked in the field
of “Muon Catalysed Cold Fusion” – and that he had
also worked for Los Alamos National Laboratories. I first joined Steven E
Jones’ and Jim Fetzer’s “Scholars for 9/11 Truth”
group in 2005/6 and I trusted Jones’ research about “thermite.” I knew
nothing of his work in the field of LENR/Cold Fusion – even though I had
followed some of the Cold Fusion saga back in the late 1980’s, when it was
One may write these facts off as some kind of weird
coincidence, of no importance. However, what is important is the truth – and we
can show that Steven E Jones has not always been truthful in his presentation
of the facts. In the clips below, you will hear Dr Steven E Jones claiming that
molten aluminium is silvery in appearance at all temperatures in daylight
conditions. This statement by Jones is incorrect. You will hear Steven E Jones
referring to “space beams” and “lasers and masers” in relation to Dr Judy
Wood’s research – which is an inappropriate and a disingenuous statement by
In the clip below, Jones states (as I mentioned earlier)
that he and a colleague coined the name Cold Fusion. Confusingly, then, he also
states that he told Martin Fleischmann (who developed the electrolytic process
with Stan Pons) should not call his process “fusion”. The truth is that Pons
and Fleischmann soon revised
their conclusion that nuclear fusion was involved:
earlier article I posted about a friend of Steven E Jones, Sterling D Allan,
includes more information about Steven E Jones and Cold Fusion. This
article relates, in part, to presentations
that were given by Dr Judy Wood at several venues in November 2012,
including at the Breakthrough Energy
Movement (BEM) conference in Hilversum. If you watch this presentation, you
will see that Dr Wood included a segment illustrating how Steven E Jones lead a
“vote” on a scientific panel about Cold Fusion research (this is
summarised in an article on the New Energy Times Website.) Could it be that
these illustrations are causing a “problem” for those who would cover up
knowledge of weaponised free energy? Is it this that
has prompted a possible effort to “re-write history”?
Is Steven E Jones Worried?
posting on 11 Jan 2014 on a site called “911 Blogger” (a site which I
rarely see referenced these days) states:
Many are aware that
Judy Wood continues to attack Richard Gage, me, and Niels
Harrit by name -- see for example her talk here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1NbBxDGSkI (especially towards the end).
I should like to add
that Wood's attack on me (in this talk) for a vote in 1989 regarding cold
fusion claims is misleading and most unfair. The question I raised was -- did
Pons and Fleischmann see deuteron-deuteron fusion as they claimed? My main
argument then as now is that the observation of anomalous excess heat does not
PROVE that d-d fusion is the cause, contrary to claims at the time. Even
Fleischmann before his passing in 2012 finally admitted that he should not have
called it "fusion".
This, accusation again is untrue, Dr Wood’s presentation,
does not “attack” Steven E Jones or anyone in the manner Jones states (one
might even say the reverse is actually true of Gage, and of Jones if you
listen to the clip above). Indeed, what he says above in relation about
Fleischmann and the vote being about d-d Fusion
is also untrue!
Caroline Louise and Scholars for 9/11 Truth
13 Jan 2014, I received an email with the subject “Judy Wood/ Steven Jones and
all the rest of it” from someone going by the name “Caroline Louise”. She
I'm writing a piece
about the confrontation that occurred 2006-7 between Judy Wood/Jim Fetzer/Morgan Reynolds
and others on one hand and Steve Jones/Kevin Ryan et al on the other. I've
talked to James Tracy of the Memory Hole blog about publishing it there.
I want it to be a
factual piece, as objective as possible, and I'm keen to talk to all sides. I've already made contact with Steve
Jones who has agreed to talk, and I'm hoping to get input from Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood and Morgan
Would you be interested
in talking to me about your perspective? As a non-US observer I think that
would be valuable (I'm from the UK
myself). I'm sure you're busy and I'll be happy to fit in to your
schedule. We can talk on the phone or email as you prefer.
I had never heard of this person and immediately wondered
about her 2nd name – as I don’t remember hearing anyone use a
surname of “Louise”. I was also curious about her referring
to “sides” in the matters of what is true and what is untrue. I was
therefore a little cautious / suspicious in my response to her, so I wrote back
with the following:
A quick response, with
some questions and answers.
1) Can you explain what
your objective is with this exercise?
2) Where will said
piece be published?
3) What is more
important, writing a piece about an alleged confrontation, or establishing what
happened on 9/11?
Here are a couple of
facts for you:
A) Dr Judy Wood
submitted a Qui Tam case in 2007
B) Steven E Jones et al
did not submit a Qui Tam case - indeed, they did not even submit the evidence
that they claimed explained the destruction of the towers:
(some links out of
As “Caroline Louise” had talked about involving me in a
“discussion” of some kind, I also wrote:
So really, there's not
much point in involving me in discussion - the evidence is all posted really -
so you can just reference that. If you want to quote me, you can say:
"There are a
number of folks that I have come into contact with over the years, in relation
to 9/11 research. I've written about the interactions I've had - and have
published them in my free e-book '911 Finding the Truth'. I have collected
considerable amounts of evidence that Steven E Jones, Jim Fetzer
and others have taken actions or said things to help keep the truth of what
happened to the World Trade Centre, as established in Dr Judy Wood's definitive
research, covered up. I encourage people to study Dr Wood's research and then
read my free eBook. I will send people free DVD's if they are of use, although
all the evidence is posted on my website,
Caroline Louise responded a few days later, describing my
email as “helpful” and she answered my questions as
follows (please note her stated
1. My objective is
to try and tell the story of what actually happened to 9/11 Truth in the
summer-winter of 2006-7. It was momentous for the movement and,
concomitantly, for humanity, and yet it's never really been examined, in fact a
lot of people in the movement are not really aware of what happened at all. But
when you begin to piece everything together - as I've been doing lately - a
quite amazing story unfolds. It's a human story as well as a massive debate on
what science is, how investigation should be done, what telling the truth
2. As regards where it
will appear. I've talked to James Tracy of Memory Hole blog and he's expressed
interest in hosting an article there.
3. I don't think you
can separate the struggle to establish the truth of 9/11 from what happened in
2006. Everyone concerned in that event alleged that they were fighting for
this truth, but in the end the "truth" was the first casualty.
Examining how and why that happened is important.
I certainly did not agree with Caroline
Louise’s statement in (3) – it is quite easy to separate what happened
on 9/11 from the statements made by various people in 2006 about it. Simply ask
yourself the question “did the towers turn mostly to dust?”. This is a starting
point – the truth of which can be established by observation which has nothing
to do with what anyone may have said since it actually happened. That’s what
the truth is – and “other talk” has often proved to be a distraction from that
truth. Caroline Louise’s statement about “truth being a
casualty” in 2006 happened because Steven E Jones and Jim Fetzer did not want to talk about it, not because Dr Judy
Wood presented the evidence she had been collecting!
I decided to respond thus, as I felt she had ignored the
evidence I sent:
Thanks for your response.
However, you didn't refer to the evidence I posted. If people are interested in
the truth, they have to study the evidence - and talk about their conclusions.
Although you gave me some general answers and comments, you didn't comment
specifically on the other evidence I presented you with. This is one way in
which the truth gets covered up - by not talking about it.
>Examining how and
why that happened is important.
This is exactly what
myself and Dr Judy Wood have in our respective research. It resulted in Court
Action in 2007. How important do you think that is?
> But when you begin
to piece everything together - as I've been doing
> lately - a quite
amazing story unfolds.
Yes, and I started to
do this in 2006 as well - and I have been writing about it ever since. It is
very clear from the evidence that Steven E Jones and Jim Fetzer
are part of the cover up of what happened on 9/11. What else would you expect
me to say? "Oh it's all just an intellectual disagreement?"
I am not sure you have
fully grasped what Jones and Fetzer are part of - and
why they would say the things they have said or implied, at different times,
about the sorts of things we have shown to the public.
So, everything else is already
on my website - but if you have *specific* questions, or you find any errors or
omissions in what I have posted, please do write and tell me.
Caroline Louise then responded:
I do appreciate your POV, and I'm entirely open to your being
correct. It's not that I don't believe this or that person is a disinfo agent,
it's that I am trying to map out how the accusations came to be made and how
communication broke down as completely as it did. If you like it's more of a
meta approach. Looking at the drama engendered by the conflicting beliefs
rather than the beliefs themselves. The thing is, at the moment *your* POV appears on your website, Fetzer's
appears on his, Jones' appears wherever his considerable fan base gather, and
that is fine. I'm not proposing to take one side or to even examine in detail
the claims themselves. What I want to do is examine the history of how they
came to be made. Thanks for being open to answer any questions I might have. I
do appreciate that.
Do you have an email
address for Judy Wood?
The thing I must emphasise strongly is that I was not
expressing a “point of view” – I was showing evidence (as I am here – just I
have been doing, in similar ways, for over 7 years). “Evidence” is not a “point
of view”. Another oddity was that she had asked for Dr Wood’s email address
(dropping the title). I therefore responded thus:
That Fetzer and Jones have lied in relation to 9/11 research is
not a "POV", it is a fact - which can be established from studying
the evidence. It is fact in the same way that the towers turned mostly to dust
(which they have tried to cover up or cover up the method by which this was
I am concerned that you
do not have Dr Judy Wood's email address, as this would indicate you have not
visited her website: http://www.drjudywood.com/ - the email address is given in
the top right hand corner. Does this mean you have not studied the available
evidence of what happened the WTC on 9/11? (To emphasize, this is not a
"Point of View". It isn't a theory, nor is it a hypothesis.
Caroline Louise then responded:
Actually I have read
pretty much everything on Judy Wood's website, and did email her
at the address
provided, but haven't yet received a reply, so I was wondering if it
might be a discontinued
address. If it's still operational I'll email her again.
Dr. Wood advsed me that a search
of her email archive showed that up to this point, she had never received an
email from a “Caroline Louise” although she had received a similar email from a
“Hilary Swinton” a few days earlier. (See
end of file on this link)
Note that Caroline Louise said she has read everything on
[Dr] Judy Wood’s website.
Oddly, Caroline Louise then
Can you tell me more
about the alleged threats made to Judy by Fetzer and
Jones at different times? I understand Jones sent her an email after Michael Zebuhr's tragic murder, implying the same thing might
happen again? I've seen a one-sentence quote from that email. A longer quote,
putting the threat in context would be helpful, if poss.
So I replied:
I have not written about any threats by Steven E Jones on my
website. I did wonder why she had immediately “zoned in” on matters relating to
threats by Jones and Fetzer. In any case, the threat
by Fetzer “appeared” in 2008, not 2006-7, which was
the period Caroline Louise stated she was going to write about. She responded:
As I've said several
times now, I HAVE read pretty much everything to do with this question on your
website and on Judy Wood's, Morgan Reynold's and Jim Fetzer's. I've read every paper I can find, watched
countless hours of video, read endless debates on various websites. I am very VERY familiar with the claims to fact made by all sides, but what I am trying to do is record
the history and development of the schism, which means I have to document
rather than editorialise, do you see?
With the emboldened quote above, Caroline Louise is again talking about “sides” and she completely fails to
acknowledge that I had already recorded history – over a 2-3 year period, as it happened, and it is already published – as
referenced documentation (including audio recordings) not in editorial.
Therefore, there is no debate. It is a true and accurate record. So why doesn’t
she “get it”? Why can’t she see that what I have said above is true it
is not an opinion nor is it a theory, etc. After I had read this, I
began to wonder if Caroline Louise was attempting to re-write history. At this
point, therefore, I chose not to respond.
Steven E Jones - “Read My Lips” on Cold Fusion
However, a few days later, I received a rather specific
message from Caroline Louise, thus:
This immediately raised 2 questions in my mind. Firstly, Caroline Louise had stated her objective was “to try and
tell the story of what actually happened to 9/11 Truth in the summer-winter of
2006-7” – and yet, this question pertained to something which happened back in
1989 and involved, you’ve guessed it – Steven E Jones. Secondly, I wondered why
she had incorrectly stated that I had attributed a quote to Jones/Koonin (a fellow physicist) when the author of this posting
is clearly given as Russ Gerst
(who has helped Dr Wood and myself on many occasions and specifically with the
publication and distribution of the “Where Did The Towers Go?” book). I quickly
wrote back to Caroline Louise, saying
What problem are you
trying to solve? Are you trying to say there is no connection between Steven E
Jones, Cold Fusion, and what happened to the towers...?
I said I would check the posting/timeline when I had time
(as I had not written the posting, I wasn’t sure exactly what the issue was).
Having checked Dr Mallove’s
“Fire From Ice” book, I wrote back to her thus:
The date of 05 March
2007 on the above page was incorrect and should have been 05 March 2008
I have checked the
references, and the summary that Russ did is perhaps slightly inaccurate in the
entry you highlighted. I have now updated the text thus:
implies Pons and Fleishmann are "delusional" at APES Meetings May
Jones says "Is it
a shortcut to Fusion Energy? Read my lips... 'No'
Eugene Mallove, “Fire from Ice”, 1991, p. 143, p145
FYI, this page is also
included in "the main site" here:
(this had the correct date of 05 March 2008 at the top).
I again asked her what problem she was trying to solve? I asked her if she wanted
to debate the difference between the adjectives “crazy” and
delusional. I then asked her who she was (I had no idea who she really
was) and sent her additional links, holding
evidence about Steven E Jones, similar to what I have referenced above. Her
next response was the most illuminating:
What problem am I
trying to solve? Fair question. I'm trying to document the rift in Scholars for
9/11 Truth 2006-7 which (whatever "side"
one takes) was bad news for the movement and for the momentum gathering around
the call for a new enquiry.
Am I trying to say
there's no connection between Steve Jones, cold fusion and what happened to the
towers? No, I'm trying to ascertain to my own satisfaction whether there was a
connection or not.
Andrew - Do you think Mallove's book documents Jones trying to discredit or cover
up cold fusion? Do you think he intended this to be the message of his book?
I got your latest reply
just as I was writing this - I'll look into that a bit later and check out all
BTW - this is me
Caroline Louise was again repeating the
So I now knew that:
a) Caroline Louise was not her real name
b) She seemed to be focussing more specifically on Steven E Jones and Cold
Fusion rather than matters related to 9/11 or what happened in the period
2006-7 within the Scholars Group. (Her stated objective was to write about the
break up of the Scholars group).
The signs were not good. Reading Karoline Leach’s Wikipedia
page (referenced above) I noted that she is
a British playwright
and author and she wrote a book she wrote in 1999 called “In the Shadow
of the Dreamchild”
Her book was about the life of Lewis Carroll (author of “Alice’s Adventures in
Wonderland”). The Wikipedia page also notes:
An article in the Times
Literary Supplement labeled Leach and her supporters
as 'revisionists' attempting to rewrite history
How odd that someone would use the phrase
which had “popped into my mind” early on in the correspondence with Caroline Louise – sorry – Karoline Leach
a later email, I asked her
Is it moral, just or
right to cover up the knowledge of advanced energy production technology
and then turn it into some kind of weapon?)
No, it isn't. But have
we actually established this is what Jones was doing? Don't we need to do that
first before rushing to condemnation?
I had been researching these topics for several years –
arguably as many as 10, so I certainly wasn’t “rushing to judgement.” Here, she
had either not bothered to check the dates on the evidence I sent her, or she
was getting ready to mischaracterise what I had written.
In another email where I was asking the reasons for her
writing to me she said:
I'm just trying to get a clear picture of the events. My personal POV is that the less we resort to polarised
thinking in any situation, the better. I find it hard to think of any
time in history when "you're either with us or against us" has
produced anything positive.
Again, she refers to a “point of view”. However, it is not a
“point of view” that the truth and lies will always be polarised. I would then
also like to observe how her Wikipedia page says:
This book and her
subsequent work on what she terms the "Carroll Myth" have been major sources
of upheaval and controversy in recent years and she has produced very polarized
responses from Carroll scholars and lay enthusiasts.
She sent me a few more emails and in them, it became clearer
that she was specifically focused on trying to re-characterise or re-package
the evidence of Jones’ role in Cold Fusion. For example, she queries what I
wrote in earlier email:
didn't just NOT say "Jones covered up cold fusion", he praised him
for his work on cold fusion and predicted he would be a "hero" to the
cause. Was he deluded in your view? Was Jones not really a cold fusion pioneer?
Not really a potential "hero"? How so?
What I have been telling people are the facts. Jones “appeared” in 9/11
research in Aug/Sep 2005. Mallove was murdered in May
2004. Of course you would say “there is no connection between these things”.
You and anyone else are entitled not to think so. Unfortunately, due to weight
of evidence I have compiled, I no longer have that luxury.
And this weight of
evidence would all be on your website? Is there anything you know that isn't on
The last statement I found very interesting. I leave the
reader to work out why. Again, what becomes clear is that she has not actually
read what is on Dr Judy Wood’s website – especially the postings about Steven E.
Jones email to Greg Jenkins, Recruiting a Hit Piece nor the posting where
even more evidence about “Cold Fusion” (LENR) and
Steven E Jones is collected. This latter page references a quote by
Mallove in his “New Energy Times”, from February
Dr. Steven Jones in his
skeletal three-page commentary confirms that he still trusts his sparse cold
fusion neutron measurements—fair enough. But Jones, the egocentric denier of
excess heat claims from day one, apparently has learned nothing and still knows
nothing about the process of science. He is an example of the kind of scientist
identified in the Bockris quote above. Jones writes
disingenuously, "It is high time to strongly question claims of cold
fusion based on crude techniques and to demand tests at a rigorous
scientific-proof level. . .I have not seen any compelling evidence of any 'cold
fusion' effects to date."
So it seems that Karoline Leach has not “pretty much
read everything on [Dr] Judy Wood’s Website”. Caroline
Louise’s focus on Steven E Jones seems to be additionally confirmed in
comments on a 2-year old Willy
Loman Blog. Additionally,
a comment made by a YouTube user with the name Caroline Louise on 08 Jan
2014 (five days before a Caroline Louise initially contacted me) on a YouTube
video entitled Steven
E. Jones Cold Fusion Cover-Up incorrectly states:
As I understand it
Jones et al had been working on "cold fusion" at BYU since 1986, long
before P-F began their work.
Her understanding about Pons and Fleischmann is wrong - as
is documented in Issue 5
of Infinite Energy Magazine. On page 105 states:
Fleischmann and Pons
spent over five years and $100,000 of their own money on cold fusion research
prior to 1989. They conducted experiments in Pons’ laboratory in the Henry Eyring
at the University
an earlier email to me, regarding the “timeline” Karoline Leach wrote:
Do understand - I'm not
defending Jones here, I'm just looking for accuracy. I'm pretty sure you are
too, and neither of us want to be in the position of our sources being shown up
as faulty or non-existent!
Well, it now seems like she does not mind about inaccurate
remarks being made by her about Pons and Fleischmann (in her YouTube comment), but she does mind about possible
inaccuracy in the “timeline” article I had on my website. This was the only
page on my website which she specifically referenced and asked about.
Karoline Leach also stated that her article was to be for the
“Memory Hole Blog,” run by James Tracy. Curiously, there are additional posts
on this blog where Dr Wood’s research is brought up, and mischaracterised in
one way or another. One posting
was actually about Hurricane Erin and another was originally started about
Sandy Hook, but then someone using the name of “Hilary” posts many comments
incorrectly describing Wood’ s research – for
example as a “high energy beam theory”. Just for the record, James Tracy
has been a guest on Jim Fetzer’s “Real Deal” Pod Cast on
January 14, 2013 and October 11,
In the email to Dr Wood, Caroline Louise
and Andrew Johnson have both suggested I contact you in relation to work
I'm doing on the history of the split in the Scholars truth movement that
I find three interesting things
about this – firstly, it is inaccurate to say I suggested she write to Dr Wood – I merely asked Caroline
Louise if she was not able to see the email address on the website when Caroline Louise had asked me for it. Secondly, it appears
she was in communication with Jim Fetzer before
writing to Dr Wood. Is this why she was reluctant to discuss the threat that Fetzer made in 2008? Is this why she was reluctant to
discuss any of the content in “9/11 Finding the Truth”, but instead focused on
a small detail in an article about Steven E Jones, which I
had not written (but I had posted)? Thirdly, Dr. Wood and
Dr Reynolds resigned from the original “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” group on
August 17, 2006, before Jones and Fetzer began
fighting and split up. Wood and Reynolds proceeded to conduct independent
research and investigation – which is what many were calling for.
“Want to hold NIST accountable?”
this point, I would like to note a recent campaign posted on the Architects and
Engineers for 9/11 “Truth” Website.
As can be seen, they have a “membership”
drive – and ask
participants to donate $2.50/month. Their page states:
will begin pursuing legal avenues to require correction of the NIST report and
holding NIST investigators personally accountable.”
only need reference here that Steven E Jones and Richard Gage already submitted
an RFC (Request for Correction) to NIST in 2007 – almost 7 years ago – and they
did not reference the “thermite” evidence they claimed was a “smoking
gun” in the destruction of the WTC. Neither did they take further action. Dr
Judy Wood also submitted an RFC – 3 weeks earlier, which resulted in a Qui Tam
case. Knowing these facts, can we imagine a connection between the “launch”
of this new AE911 “membership drive” and attempts to publish new articles with
a “different point of view” about what actually happened in 2006 and 2007 in
relation to research into 9/11?
Summary / Conclusions
Here is a summary of the information I have collected here
1) Caroline Louise contacted me claiming to be interested in writing a
piece about the “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” group.
2) For some reason, she did not use her real/full name
3) She seemed much more interested in articles and evidence to do with
Steven E Jones and Cold Fusion
4) She was already researching the Steven E Jones/Cold Fusion issue before
she first contacted me.
5) She was in communication with Jim Fetzer
around the same time as she first wrote to me and Dr Judy Wood
6) Her intent was to post on the “Memory Hole” blog
7) As a playwright and author, she has previously written a book which was
said to “rewrite” some of the history of Lewis Carroll.
new AE911 membership and “NIST accountability” campaign has been launched.
So, can I conclude that Jim Fetzer
had somehow contacted Karoline Leach and asked her to write a piece to help
“defend” Steve E Jones? After all, it was Steven E Jones and Jim Fetzer who originally formed “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” in
2006”. Perhaps because of the efforts of a number of people, including Dr
Judy Wood and myself, there is something of a growing awareness of the parallels
between 9/11 evidence and “Cold Fusion” (LENR) evidence - for example, the tritium data.
They are also beginning to see the obvious role of Steven E Jones in these two
supposedly disconnected fields of research. It is a very, very “dangerous”
(revealing) connection for people to be making. The importance of covering up
this connection must be enormous. So to keep it covered up, and with a new campaign to get money out of “truthers”,
history would urgently need to be re-written.