This article is a summary of a longer one posted at http://tinyurl.com/911dewmu which has embedded links and reference to audio material and other evidence.
It is now clear that the real truth of 9/11 has been hidden by managing people’s perception of the evidence relating to the events of that day. In the mainstream media, we have mainly heard stories of hijackers, planes, fires and building “collapses”. Over the last 2 years, I have come to realise how a sophisticated perception management strategy is being operated within the 9/11 truth movement. One other author has also written about some general problems with the 9/11 Official Truth Movement. Additionally, I have written about how I think that key figures in what might be called the “9/11 Official Truth” movement seem to be involved in a mixture of “cover up” and “muddle up” regarding the discussion of and general conclusions about the most important 9/11-related evidence of all – which ultimately relates to what is known as “Free Energy” technology.
Accessing “Free Energy” means being able to extract useful energy from the environment, or from within materials themselves – without “burning” any fuel. Nikola Tesla called it “radiant energy” (as he proposed it was present everywhere – as sunlight is on a clear day). Others call it “vacuum energy” or “zero point energy” or even, perhaps, “orgone energy”. Mainstream science usually states that “zero point energy” cannot be made to do useful work because that would violate certain laws of physics. Some experimental evidence does call this conclusion into question, however.
More recently, Dr. Wood has posted studies that link the events of 9/11 to something known as the Hutchison Effect, and also to Hurricane Erin. Despite efforts to obfuscate and muddle up discussion of these studies, more and more people are becoming aware of them, not least because of Dr. Wood’s appearance on several regular and reasonably well known non-internet radio programmes such as those of Rollye James and Richard Syrett.
The New Chapter
The new “muddling” tactic seems to be to blame HAARP for the destruction of the World Trade Centre Complex and simply pretend that Dr. Judy Wood – and half of the research she has completed - does not exist!
It should be noted here that in April 2008, the Press Release I posted to introduce Dr. Wood’s Hurricane Erin Study, I specifically stated:
Now we consider recent actions by Alfred Webre, an International Lawyer, peace and environmental activist, prominent in the naissant field of Exopolitics, and Leuren Moret - a Geoscientist who has travelled the world to discuss and expose the dangers of radioactive contamination caused by the use of Depleted Uranium in modern artillery shells.
How could these 2 people, who have seemingly worked hard to get disclosure of the truth in their respective fields, possibly become negatively involved in the matter of discussing Dr. Judy Wood’s 9/11 research?
Both Alfred Webre and Leuren Moret attended Dr. Judy Wood’s presentation at a Conference in Madison, Aug 4th – 5th, 2007. At that conference, Leuren Moret gave a presentation about Depleted Uranium and Alfred Webre gave a presentation about false flag operations and the setting up of an international war crimes tribunal. In his presentation, Alfred Webre discussed the problems we, as people, e.g. in relation to solving environmental problems, he said:
Alfred Webre Interviews Dr Judy Wood and John Hutchison
On 14th Feb 2008, Alfred Webre, at his own home, interviewed Dr. Judy Wood and John Hutchison to discuss the relationship between their respective research. The interview – which was over 1 hour long - included a discussion of specific physical evidence relating to 9/11 - evidence that suggests the World Trade Centre towers were destroyed using one or more directed energy weapons. Alfred Webre then read segments from the Press Release about Dr. Wood’s Hutchison Effect/911 study, which I posted on 30th Jan 2008, including:
However, Webre omits, at that point the words, “to effects seen in John Hutchison’s ongoing experiments,” as it clearly states in the press release.
Alfred Webre and Leuren Moret Interviewed by Sofia Smallstorm
The next development in this story took place a few months later when, on November 14th 2008, Alfred Webre and Leuren Moret appeared on Sofia Smallstorm’s “Expansion” programme on RBN (Internet). Leuren Moret is introduced as a Geoscientist and Alfred Webre as an “international lawyer”. (i.e. neither speaker shares technical qualifications equivalent to those of Dr. Judy Wood). Just over half way through this interview, the following exchange took place.
Leuren Moret then repeatedly mentions “the energy budget” and that a “large” or “massive” amount of energy would be required to “basically powder[ise] those buildings”. Webre mentions nothing of his earlier interview with Dr Judy Wood and John Hutchison – which was very much related to the energy issue.
Questions about the Webre/Moret Interview
- In the interview, why is Leuren Moret so focused on “the energy budget” for what happened at the WTC? HAARP is a disclosed facility and its energy budget should be known or able to be known – in relatively specific terms. Leuren Moret does not give any figures for HAARP’s power consumption, nor does she attempt to quantify the energy used to destroy the WTC. She quotes no figures – at all.
- If HAARP was used to destroy the WTC, wouldn’t someone from the HAARP facility know this? If Moret thinks they would not know this, then why didn’t she describe or suggest how or why HAARP’s operation on 9/11 was covered up? Indeed, Moret provides no evidence that HAARP was even operational on 9/11.
- What particular expertise or knowledge qualifies Moret to be certain that HAARP was used on 9/11 to destroy the WTC?
- Why does Leuren Moret not comment on Alfred Webre’s instruction to her to “not mention Dr. Judy Wood”?
- Leuren Moret mixes up laser technology and HAARP - she says that she witnessed a demonstration of the Shiva laser – but she does not describe any links at all between this project and HAARP. (She mentions Micro-nukes too). Is Leuren Moret confused about this, or is she trying to confuse the audience?
- In relation to the energy issue, why doesn’t Webre mention any aspects of his discussion with Dr. Judy Wood and John Hutchison from the February 2008 interview?
- If Moret is sure that HAARP destroyed the WTC, then why didn’t she propose some action in relation to this conclusion or “proof”? For example, Dr. Wood has compiled her evidence into a Qui Tam case against NIST’s contractors.
November 17th 2008, Co-Op Radio Broadcast with Alfred Webre
This programme contains a very similar discussion to that given on Sofia’s “Expansion” programme on the 14th of November - Dr Wood’s research is discussed in some detail, but her name is not mentioned nor are her “Hutchison Effect” or Hurricane Erin studies.
Alfred Webre has posted an overview of the presentation, however, no specific links to Dr. Wood’s individual studies are included – only a single link her website. Lower down the page, he included this
Does Moret or Webre think “overlap” is a fair term to describe the way in which the evidence - compiled by Dr. Judy Wood and some of it posted for over 2 years on her website(s) - was taken and discussed by Moret for almost 3 hours (1 hour on 17th Nov, referenced above, and 2 hours on Sofia’s broadcast on the 21st Nov, referenced below) without any reference or credit to Dr. Wood?
On November 21st 2008, Alfred Webre and Leuren Moret again appeared on Sofia Smallstorm’s “Expansion” programme on RBN (Internet). At 40:06, Webre then HAARP again and links HAARP to 9/11, but two large problems soon become apparent in the ensuing monologues Moret.
The first is that again, Leuren Moret uses no science or analysis to directly or even indirectly link the points of evidence she discusses to any of the disclosed or suspected capabilities of the HAARP array. The second problem is that the detailed catalogue of evidence she recounts is, without exception, the list compiled by Dr. Judy Wood, one to two years before the airdate of this broadcast. Reference is made without mention of Dr. Wood’s name, website, or any of the additional important studies she has compiled.
Having considered and analysed the evidence here, I can only sensibly draw the following (likely unpopular) conclusions.
- There has been a deliberate and co-ordinated attempt to marginalise or even cut out Dr. Judy Wood’s name from the discussion of 9/11 evidence and research. This includes attempts to “take ownership” of her research and misquote and misuse it.
- There has been a deliberate attempt to cover up and/or muddle up the specific nature or characteristics of the Directed Energy Weapon or Weapons which were used at the WTC on 9/11, by excluding discussion of John Hutchison’s experiments in relation to key 9/11 evidence.
- There has been a deliberate attempt to cover up and/or muddle up the evidence which strongly indicates a link between real “free energy” technology or technologies that have been weaponised and were used on 9/11.
- There is a great reluctance to discuss specific legal action in relation to 9/11 – especially Dr. Wood’s Qui Tam case against NIST’s contractors.
- Advanced Directed Energy Weapon technology - which exploits “free energy” in a way similar to that discovered by John Hutchison - was used on 9/11 to destroy most of the WTC complex – as Dr. Wood studies, the first of which was posted in September 2006, have been documenting.
So, how will the “average person” know how to discern which Scientist is being truthful and, from the evidence, which one has drawn the most accurate conclusions? Once a scientist has repeatedly demonstrated their choice to be dishonest, have they not destroyed their own credibility? How do you know when a liar is telling the truth and when they are not?
To re-emphasise, I conclude that all the evidence documented above (and elsewhere) strongly suggests or even proves that there is a wish to cover up knowledge of Hurricane Erin’s presence on 9/11 and its likely role in the field matrix which was in place in NYC on that day. More importantly, what will you conclude?
FOR MORE EXTENSIVE COVERAGE AND DETAILS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION SEE