The Hutchison Effect and 9/11 - Handling the Truth
Andrew Johnson (ad.johnson@ntlworld.com)
6 April 2008
|
|
 |
| Beam bent as a result of the Hutchison Effect | Beam bent as a result of "whatever it was that happened at the WTC" |
 |
|
||
| Beam deformed as a result of the Hutchison Effect | Beams deformed as a result of "whatever it was that happened at the WTC" |
Some people have now observed that the 9/11 Truth Movement is being directed and controlled, in order that only a certain amount of information is revealed — at a certain time, and in a certain way. I first began to understand how this seemed to be happening during the break up of the original Scholars for 9/11 Truth Group in about Feb 2007. More recently, I feel I have, with the help of others, been able to document another significant instance of the attempted control of 9-11 related information. In completing this documentation, I have been somewhat concerned that I may be accused of some type of "ad hominem attack" against those whose statements and actions I am documenting. I feel somewhat similar about writing this article, for the same reasons. Weighed against this, I feel that certain truths need to be told in order that people have a chance to understand how the mechanics of the control of information related to 9/11 - and the energy cover up — are operating. In short, I have now come to the conclusion that, when trying to get to the truth, the history, behaviour and psychology of those presenting or discussing evidence has to be carefully considered.
In this article, I will present evidence concerning the latest attempts to cover up one of the "central secrets" of the 9/11 Black Operations. That secret, I strongly contend, is this: free energy technology, related to the Hutchison Effect technology was used to destroy the majority of the WTC complex. "Free Energy" technology is a "catch all" term to describe a kind of technology that can be used to "get out more energy than you put in" (i.e. you apparently get the energy for free). Mainstream science rejects this idea on its face, because it is said that it breaks the laws of thermodynamics. (When looked at from a different perspective, however, this seems to be incorrect — it is known that the energy is real, but assumed it is too difficult to construct technology to use or extract it to do "useful work".) Cold fusion is one example where many, many experiments show a small input energy can result, in certain circumstances, in a large energy output. (See www.lenr-canr.org)
Some of the effects observed in John Hutchison’s experiments are apparently the result of an output of very high energy levels, and yet his input energy is small — only a few kilowatts at maximum. (This is the energy required to operate a kettle to boil water).
In December 2007, Dr. Judy Wood posted her study of the very striking similarity of experimental characteristics of the "Hutchison Effect" to a number of pieces of evidence at the WTC. Dr. Wood and I were given an opportunity to discuss this issue on Ambrose Lane’s "We Ourselves" show in January 2008 and on our second appearance, John Hutchison joined the discussion. Following this radio show appearance, two of the people associated with the 911 Scholars group —Prof Jim Fetzer (the founder) and Ace Baker (not a listed member of the Scholars group, but a regular guest on Fetzer’s radio show) - when challenged, began to behave differently towards Dr. Wood and I— at least in relation to the "Hutchison Effect" study. I attempted to document this "change in behaviour" in the articles linked above. Following the actions of Baker and Fetzer, I asked that my name be deleted from the 911 Scholars list.
In the articles linked above, I documented the very strong reaction of Fetzer and Baker — they both (essentially) agreed that John Hutchison was a fraud — and in saying this, ignored a considerable amount of evidence which suggested, beyond reasonable doubt, that John Hutchison’s work was valid.
It is interesting to note that there was an apparent "change in strategy" by Fetzer - sometime in February 2008 — from apparent support of Dr. Wood’s study to his support of Baker’s pernicious debunking tactics.
“Good Cop?”
On Feb 5th 2008, Jim Fetzer sent Dr. Wood an e-mail which had come from one of his contacts which included these paragraphs. This contact was enthusiastic about Dr. Wood’s research:
In this article, I will present evidence concerning the latest attempts to cover up one of the "central secrets" of the 9/11 Black Operations. That secret, I strongly contend, is this: free energy technology, related to the Hutchison Effect technology was used to destroy the majority of the WTC complex. "Free Energy" technology is a "catch all" term to describe a kind of technology that can be used to "get out more energy than you put in" (i.e. you apparently get the energy for free). Mainstream science rejects this idea on its face, because it is said that it breaks the laws of thermodynamics. (When looked at from a different perspective, however, this seems to be incorrect — it is known that the energy is real, but assumed it is too difficult to construct technology to use or extract it to do "useful work".) Cold fusion is one example where many, many experiments show a small input energy can result, in certain circumstances, in a large energy output. (See www.lenr-canr.org)
Some of the effects observed in John Hutchison’s experiments are apparently the result of an output of very high energy levels, and yet his input energy is small — only a few kilowatts at maximum. (This is the energy required to operate a kettle to boil water).
In December 2007, Dr. Judy Wood posted her study of the very striking similarity of experimental characteristics of the "Hutchison Effect" to a number of pieces of evidence at the WTC. Dr. Wood and I were given an opportunity to discuss this issue on Ambrose Lane’s "We Ourselves" show in January 2008 and on our second appearance, John Hutchison joined the discussion. Following this radio show appearance, two of the people associated with the 911 Scholars group —Prof Jim Fetzer (the founder) and Ace Baker (not a listed member of the Scholars group, but a regular guest on Fetzer’s radio show) - when challenged, began to behave differently towards Dr. Wood and I— at least in relation to the "Hutchison Effect" study. I attempted to document this "change in behaviour" in the articles linked above. Following the actions of Baker and Fetzer, I asked that my name be deleted from the 911 Scholars list.
In the articles linked above, I documented the very strong reaction of Fetzer and Baker — they both (essentially) agreed that John Hutchison was a fraud — and in saying this, ignored a considerable amount of evidence which suggested, beyond reasonable doubt, that John Hutchison’s work was valid.
It is interesting to note that there was an apparent "change in strategy" by Fetzer - sometime in February 2008 — from apparent support of Dr. Wood’s study to his support of Baker’s pernicious debunking tactics.
“Good Cop?”
On Feb 5th 2008, Jim Fetzer sent Dr. Wood an e-mail which had come from one of his contacts which included these paragraphs. This contact was enthusiastic about Dr. Wood’s research:
|
I've been meaning to write to you on a number of issues, not least your collaboration with my dear friend, Dr. _________, which I was instrumental in bringing about and for which he is very grateful. In particular for "having opened their minds to the work of Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds as well as your own". |
…and
|
Hi ______, You've been right about Judy Wood, I have been studying the website and I had to update mine, this is of such importance that I have c.e.r.n. people and international physicists on the edge of their seats and today I will have a meeting with one of them. We we might just nail the evidence soon. Thanks!!! |
(It should be noted that Jim Fetzer has not posted any of his own original 9/11 research in the way Dr. Wood has, though he has other research posted on the possible involvement of directed energy weapons in the death of Senator Paul Wellstone).
From reading these forwarded messages, it seemed that people at CERN were interested in Dr. Wood’s research. This seemed, on its face, like a very positive development — much of the research at CERN concerns Energy Phenomena of one type or another.
However, these messages were never followed up with anything more substantive and were therefore quickly forgotten about — especially once the Ace Baker "campaign" was underway.
The next few e-mail exchanges centred around Ace Baker’s fake video debunking attempt, but on 26th Feb 2008, Ace Baker announced he would be appearing on Jim Fetzer’s show. Dr. Wood thought this was rather an odd way to do things — that Fetzer was going to get someone else to talk about Dr. Wood’s research with Fetzer before Dr. Wood did. Dr. Wood therefore e-mailed Fetzer and several others in a small group to say this much. It was an especially odd way of doing things because Ace Baker, as it was known by this time, had already circulated a false story that he had bought equipment on e-bay to reproduce the effect, but he then made and posted a fake video to apparently reproduce a very limited number of the effects seen in John Hutchison’s own work. Additionally, unlike Dr. Wood, Baker had no real relevant qualifications. Fetzer soon replied.
“This Doesn’t Look Right to Me…”
On Feb 27th 2008, Jim Fetzer sent Dr. Wood an e-mail expressing concern that she had notified several others of the group that she was being critical that Ace Baker would be going on Jim Fetzer’s show to discuss the Hutchison Effect:
From reading these forwarded messages, it seemed that people at CERN were interested in Dr. Wood’s research. This seemed, on its face, like a very positive development — much of the research at CERN concerns Energy Phenomena of one type or another.
However, these messages were never followed up with anything more substantive and were therefore quickly forgotten about — especially once the Ace Baker "campaign" was underway.
The next few e-mail exchanges centred around Ace Baker’s fake video debunking attempt, but on 26th Feb 2008, Ace Baker announced he would be appearing on Jim Fetzer’s show. Dr. Wood thought this was rather an odd way to do things — that Fetzer was going to get someone else to talk about Dr. Wood’s research with Fetzer before Dr. Wood did. Dr. Wood therefore e-mailed Fetzer and several others in a small group to say this much. It was an especially odd way of doing things because Ace Baker, as it was known by this time, had already circulated a false story that he had bought equipment on e-bay to reproduce the effect, but he then made and posted a fake video to apparently reproduce a very limited number of the effects seen in John Hutchison’s own work. Additionally, unlike Dr. Wood, Baker had no real relevant qualifications. Fetzer soon replied.
“This Doesn’t Look Right to Me…”
On Feb 27th 2008, Jim Fetzer sent Dr. Wood an e-mail expressing concern that she had notified several others of the group that she was being critical that Ace Baker would be going on Jim Fetzer’s show to discuss the Hutchison Effect:
|
Just between us, why didn't you send me a personal note when you noticed what you perceived to be a problem? What's going on there? I find that a bit odd. And you and John already appeared with Morgan to discuss the H-effect, so what's the deal if Ace is doing something with it? I admit I have been sicker than a dog with stomach flu and simply tried to solve what you took to be a problem, but if you couldn't come on Wednesday anyway and have already discussed it with Morgan, why is it such a big deal? No one holds your work is greater esteem than do I. Give me a break, OK? |
One point here is that John Hutchison had not yet appeared with Dr. Morgan Reynolds on the Dynamic Duo show – though he had planned to, it never happened. Why did Fetzer ask Judy to “give him a break”? Once the Ace Baker broadcast and associated blog entries were complete, it seemed quite clear that a full-scale debunking exercise was underway, and this therefore seemed to justify Dr. Wood’s earlier concern.
“Bad Cop”
On Mar 3rd 2008, shortly after Judy Wood and John Hutchison’s broadcast on the Dynamic Duo, Jim Fetzer sent another e-mail to Dr. Wood. The tone of this message was rather different to previous messages he had sent.
“Bad Cop”
On Mar 3rd 2008, shortly after Judy Wood and John Hutchison’s broadcast on the Dynamic Duo, Jim Fetzer sent another e-mail to Dr. Wood. The tone of this message was rather different to previous messages he had sent.
|
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. Whether she is willing to do that, I have no idea. But this is certainly an option that is available to her. We all make mistakes and have misplaced enthusiasm. But my opinion is that--absence physical explanations of the kind I asked of him at the time on the air--he is most unlikely to contribute to our/her success. |
Here, Fetzer suggests Dr. Wood should not continue her "relations" with John Hutchison. The reason given here is not based on any evidence - it is that Fetzer "considers John to be a fraud". Fetzer specifies no particular evidence, merely that John could "not explain" his phenomenon. However, this statement by Fetzer is not 100% accurate — John did provide a basic explanation of his phenomenon during the broadcast, and it was thus:
|
OK. I don’t normally go into theories too much — I have my own personal theory that it’s affected on a subatomic level, but Rene Louis Vallee and Andrei Sakharov brought up some interesting reports, along with many others, on what happens here and we found that the RF fields are not the cause — or the electrostatics — it’s something that happens after that. They seem to join or [be] combined in space and time to cause a[n] other effect — which happens to be like a shielding of the gravity pull — basically the reverse of gravity — and you see things lift off. Things go in a translational motion as well as … if not, metals seem to start bending and twisting and pulling into different patterns and shapes. We also found it affects the background radiation, to quite an extent — where you get a couple of counts per minute. |
John then names several scientists who have evaluated the phenomenon — and several of them have posted reports (see http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJAppendix1.html). If John Hutchison was a fraud, why did he agree to come on Fetzer’s radio show (no fee is paid), where he could, in theory, be exposed as a fraud?
Recently, part of the interview with Fetzer and Hutchison was transcribed for us by someone. One section makes particularly interesting reading:
|
||||||||||
Why does Fetzer ask about John’s upbringing rather than the interest of the US military in his experiments? At this point, Fetzer knew that US Defence Contractors such as SAIC and ARA were defendants in the Qui Tam Cases of Drs. Wood and Reynolds, so why doesn’t Fetzer have an interest in what John has to say about the Military’s work with John? (Fetzer does not discuss this at all in the rest of the programme.)
Fetzer Ignores Evidence
Again, as documented previously, Fetzer wilfully ignores the strong correspondence between the WTC evidence and fully documented effects seen in John Hutchison’s experiments — bent "horseshoe" beams, spontaneous cold fires, levitation, transmutation of materials and ongoing effects.
How can Fetzer threaten Dr. Judy Wood’s reputation? What gives him the right to do so? What gives him grounds for using this sort of language when Dr. Wood’s association with Fetzer is completely informal — she is not an employee, nor does Fetzer have any agreed method of working with her. Therefore, what on earth compels him to talk about "salvaging her reputation"? Can this e-mail therefore be perceived as some kind of thinly-veiled threat?
Another peculiar aspect of the message is that, rather than starting a new message, or replying to one from Dr. Wood, Fetzer had forwarded an article from the Washington Post entitled The New Art of War. He also changed the subject line of the message. Why did he include this article in the message to Dr. Wood — which was also copied to Jerry Leaphart and Dr. Morgan Reynolds? Why did it include a very long list of recipients, to which the original forwarded message was sent (this list included Steven E Jones and others)?
The New Art of War article begins as follows:
Again, as documented previously, Fetzer wilfully ignores the strong correspondence between the WTC evidence and fully documented effects seen in John Hutchison’s experiments — bent "horseshoe" beams, spontaneous cold fires, levitation, transmutation of materials and ongoing effects.
How can Fetzer threaten Dr. Judy Wood’s reputation? What gives him the right to do so? What gives him grounds for using this sort of language when Dr. Wood’s association with Fetzer is completely informal — she is not an employee, nor does Fetzer have any agreed method of working with her. Therefore, what on earth compels him to talk about "salvaging her reputation"? Can this e-mail therefore be perceived as some kind of thinly-veiled threat?
Another peculiar aspect of the message is that, rather than starting a new message, or replying to one from Dr. Wood, Fetzer had forwarded an article from the Washington Post entitled The New Art of War. He also changed the subject line of the message. Why did he include this article in the message to Dr. Wood — which was also copied to Jerry Leaphart and Dr. Morgan Reynolds? Why did it include a very long list of recipients, to which the original forwarded message was sent (this list included Steven E Jones and others)?
The New Art of War article begins as follows:
| If there were any doubts that the United States is preparing for war in space and cyberspace, testimony before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee last week would have wiped them away. According to Gen. Kevin P. Chilton, head of U.S. Strategic Command, "our adversaries understand our dependence upon space-based capabilities, and we must be ready to detect, track, characterize, attribute, predict and respond to any threat to our space infrastructure." Although space threats have received much attention in the past, it was the possibility of cyberspace warfare that was given new emphasis at the hearing. |