Monthly Archive: September 2014

The Climate of Fear & 9/11 – Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up

With the imminent arrival of the thirteenth anniversary of 9/11, the public has once again been exposed to the manufactured “climate of fear” paradigm. Such a phenomenon has perhaps always existed throughout history and has been an effective tool for the powers that be to control the unwitting masses. The phenomenon has come into sharper focus over the last hundred or so years, thanks largely to the social engineering experiments of outfits such as The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. In the early decades of the twentieth century, the Institute’s study of “retrogressive psychology” [1] allowed the global agenda players to take advantage of many aspects of the human psychology; notably creating a kind of “crisis strategy” or “shock doctrine” [2] with which to manipulate and manage mass perceptions and emotions. One example in particular was the Institute’s extensive studies of post-traumatic stress caused by the bombings of Germany and Japan during WWII – via the Strategic Bombing Survey. [3]


Many significant social engineers had substantial connections to The Tavistock Institute. Edward Bernays encouraged mass irrationality by tapping into the deepest of human fears, for the benefit of the ruling elite. He called it “guiding from above.” Another, Walter Lippmann, is often credited with being one of the first to categorize the paranoid fear of nuclear destruction that became associated with the proverbial “Cold War”.

In the BBC documentary “The Power of Nightmares” [4], Adam Curtis examined how the threat of the Soviet Union was greatly exaggerated by the US elite in order to manipulate and control the perceptions and emotions of the masses. Elements of the US Neo-Conservative political cabal began perpetuating the notion that the USSR’s military capability was growing rapidly. Neo-Conservative heavyweight Donald Rumsfeld managed to convince US President Gerald Ford to set up an “independent” inquiry (called “Team B”) to prove that the Soviets intended an imminent nuclear strike against the US. However, the inquiry was far from “independent” – one member was fellow Neo-Con Paul Wolfowitz, whilst the chairman (Professor Richard Pipes) was a staunch critic of the Soviets. Additionally, the CIA had been watching the Soviets for some time and concluded that there was no truth to the inquiries claims. Team B actually examined all of the CIA’s data and found little evidence of a threat. Despite this, the inquiry claimed that the threat was very real and even argued that Soviet weapons systems were so advanced that they “defied detection”! They even fabricated evidence to support these conclusions.

On the basis of Team B’s “findings”, public information films were made to vilify the Soviets and raise the global profile of the US. The campaign was a whirlwind of propaganda and psychological manipulation. A “grand vision” for America’s future was established, with the intention of bolstering national pride and creating a sense of purpose amongst US citizens. The psychological precepts of mythology and fairy tales were utilised – having been recognised as an effective model for reshaping cultural preconceptions. A world of certainty was crafted, with clearly defined parameters establishing who the “good guys” were, who were “bad”, and how dire the circumstances would be if the “bad guys” ever gained the proverbial upper-hand. Ironically, years later, it was discovered that the CIA’s intelligence had been less than solidly reliable regarding Soviet capabilities. However, as this was not known at the time, it had no bearing on the enquiry’s conclusions or the subsequent psyop that ultimately engulfed much of the Western World.

 
Such scenarios have repeatedly surfaced in subsequent decades. The central mechanism of perception management in these scenarios is the mainstream news media. The media often  features “special reports” (known in the industry as “over the horizon” pieces) which present various “doomsday” scenarios such as asteroid collisions, alien invasions, solar flares, “climate change”, economic collapse, etc. These pieces often come with the addendum that mankind is on the brink of the proverbial abyss. We are told how society will (under such circumstances) probably be plunged into the Dark Ages, gangs of looters will stalk the streets, food and water will become scarce, the skies will darken and so on! The traumatic effect upon the viewer often undermines the ability to stand back and examine the issues in a critical, objective and unbiased manner. The scenarios presented are often cemented in our psyche as “inevitable certainties”.


The reason this occurs lies with the level of “legitimacy” that we apply to the information given to us. If we have no way of judging the accuracy of the information, our cognitive processes fall back upon the level of trust we have in the “apparent” source of the information. The level of trust determines the value of the information – and every subsequent source of information that is connected to the subject. This psychological process (when we do not know the original source or accuracy of a piece of information, but “trust” those who relate it to us – i.e.: the mainstream news, etc.) is called “source amnesia”. [5]

Mass conveyance of a manufactured or exaggerated concept can also saturate public consciousness to the point where we (the masses) will determine the degree of its inevitability. This is largely perpetuated by nothing more than a mass naïve trust in those who first conveyed the information or a collective herd mentality. It has happened time and time again in recent history. Notable examples include the aforementioned “The Cold War”, “Population Growth”, “Climate Change”, and the “War on Terror”.


As the 1990s drew to a close, the storm clouds of the Neo-Con cabal once again loomed on the horizon. In 1997, these individuals formed a Washington think-tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The work of this group was published in a document called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century” in September 2000. PNAC was effectively charged with creating a blueprint document outlining an aggressive military plan for the US during the coming years. This would be accomplished by the waging of “multiple simultaneous large-scale wars.” [6] The report singled out a number of countries that were in the American military’s cross-hares:

“According to the CIA, a number of regimes are deeply hostile to America – North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria.” [7]

The report concluded that:

“The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” [8]

Pearl Harbor was a false-flag event that swayed public opinion into supporting America’s entry in WWII. On September 11, 2001, exactly one year after “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, the world was delivered the promised “New Pearl Harbor”. In the decade that followed, the West would wage war against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and attempt to do the same with Iran, North Korea and Syria. It seemed that the folk from PNAC had a staggering ability to predict the future. Even more bizarrely, just a few months later, these individuals would end up literally running America.

The stage was set for one of the most elaborate and contrived perception management operations ever conceived. Since then, we (the masses) have been repeatedly exposed to the “climate of fear” paradigm. Not a day has gone by when the news media haven’t talked about extremist nutters making bombs and planning terrorist atrocities, vague amorphous armies, organisations and psychopathic dictators plotting the downfall of the Western world, civilian passenger planes being hijacked, blown up or shot down by various parties (more recently associated with our old “Cold War adversaries”.) Throw into this mix a few stories about out of control viruses and epidemics, social unrest, technology gone mad, and you might well feel that there really was a lot to be afraid of.



Of course, such a reaction is the desired intention of the orchestrated “climate of fear” paradigm. Many people look toward the news media and our “leaders” for reassurance and answers and ultimately end up feeling even more confused and uncertain. Notably, one key figure in the last fifty or so years of US politics (Zbigniew Brzezinski) once openly admitted that said mechanisms are a key part of the contemporary “War on Terror” paradigm.

“The vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a “war on terror” did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue.” [9]

At certain times during the year, the “climate of fear” mechanism kicks into overdrive. Recently, we have heard about new (potential large scale) military campaigns in Iraq and Syria. Russia has also been touted as a new (or old) bogeyman – once again bringing echoes of the fear driven days of the Cold War to mind. We’ve even been taunted by a potential Ebola pandemic on the horizon. There is one thing that these recent doom-mongering scenarios all have in common. Their timing coincides with the forthcoming anniversary of 9/11. Despite the fact that so many of these scenarios have their roots in 9/11, it is amazing how few people remember the catalyst. Perhaps this is testament to the effectiveness of perception management – particularly in the mainstream media.

Perhaps the greatest cover-up in living history is the one that was perpetuated in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001. The events of that day seemed almost “hyper-real” and could easily have occurred in the plot of some hokey political thriller novel, film or TV show. Within a few years of 9/11, I became aware of certain oddities – such as pre-9/11 insider trading that benefited those who had premises in and surrounding the World Trade Centre complex and the airline companies whose planes were allegedly “hijacked” on the day. I was also highly suspicious about the lack of disproportionate damage and confiscated surveillance camera footage during the events at The Pentagon. Additionally, there were any number of anomalies surrounding the destruction of the WTC7 building – particularly the BBC’s reporting of its destruction well in advance of the actual event. As for the destruction of the towers themselves, it was clear that there was something wrong with the official story.

Several years later, I became aware of two volumes of research that presented the most complete evidence of a cover-up on 9/11. Dr. Judy Wood (B.S. in Civil Engineering, M.S. in Engineering Mechanics / Applied Physics, and Ph.D. in Materials Engineering Science.) spent several years assembling a huge body of work – showing how evidence of directed free-energy technology was apparently utilised on that day in New York. Crucially, the evidence is such that it can be quantifiably measured and can be found in her landmark book “Where Did the Towers Go? – The Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11”. [10]

Dr Wood’s work examines multiple pieces of evidence – here are a few key facts that I believe are the most compelling:
•The disproportionately small seismic readings measured as the WTC was destroyed.
•The lack of the distinctive S (known as “Secondary” or “Shear”) and P (“Primary” or “Push-Pull”) wave in the seismic readings.
•Sizeable fluctuations in the Earth’s magnetic field at the time of the “plane impacts” and the destruction of the WTC.
•The rate, speed and nature of the destruction of the WTC.
•“Weird Fires” documented in the vicinity of the WTC.
•The lack of an appropriate amount of debris following the destruction of the WTC.
•The relatively undamaged sub-basement areas of the WTC and the “Bathtub Wall” – that prevents the Hudson River from flooding this area of Manhattan.
•The bizarre behaviour (and almost non-existent reporting) of Hurricane Erin that was due to make landfall in New York on the morning of 9/11.

The second book is Andrew Johnson’s book “9/11 – Finding the Truth”. [11] Not only does his book examine the evidence featured in Dr. Wood’s work, but it also exposes several key organisers within the so-called “9/11 Truth Movement” who have deliberately attacked Dr. Wood’s work and character. These same people have tried to obscure the larger implications of the reality of the directed free-energy technology which was employed in the destruction of the WTC complex.

These books / collections of evidence tell us what really happened to the World Trade Centre complex on 9/11 – a true and verifiable account, quite unlike what mainstream outlets presented to us. Currently, in my opinion, it is difficult to definitively say exactly who planned and perpetrated the destruction seen on 9/11. Similarly, the reasons why it was done and why it involved certain targets is also unclear. This prevents many people, even those who disbelieve the official fable, from investigating the available evidence. That is, they cannot see a reason for a cover up, or the promulgation of a “false conspiracy”, so they don’t even look.

What we can know (from studying the evidence) is that the story of four hijacked airliners, two of which “crashed” into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre and subsequently resulted in their “collapse” is nothing more than a hugely elaborate smokescreen. When studying the evidence collected by Dr. Wood, it becomes clear that an advanced weapons technology was used. This proves that the science and technology available to the agenda players is far in advance of the publicly-perceived level of such technology. 
 

Studying 9/11 in depth allows us to observe the larger global agenda mechanisms at work. Put simply, the greater lie precedes a truth which has been hidden. The 9/11 smokescreen has been successfully “wafted” across governments and into political leaders, military forces and intelligence agencies, the mainstream news and entertainment media industry, and so on. Given the scale of this lie, there will always be people who believe that those in the media and elsewhere, who helped perpetuate the lies, are complicit in hiding the “who did it” and “why they did it”… One can then suggest that senior figures in media organisations must know the “who did it” and the “why they did it”.


Sceptics and disbelievers imply that a cover up of the scale of that necessary to keep all the evidence secret would be so big that it would involve thousands or millions of people and so the cover up could not exist. However, the cover up works because the vast majority of people have a belief in the lie and an apathy or ignorance of the truth. It doesn’t take a psychologist to realise that “the greater the lie, the more people are willing to believe in it”. Continual and widespread repetition of a lie can go a long way – something the mainstream media has down to a fine art! Think about it. Can you accurately recall your gut instinct of 9/11 when you initially became aware of it? How did you find out? I suspect that most people would have been told, “Oh, terrorists hijacked a plane and flew it into the tower.” The media told the world this lie within moments of the first “plane impact”. How would they have known – that Islamic extremists had commandeered airliners – almost instantaneously… how could anybody know with such “certainty”, for that matter!?

The 9/11 cover-up demonstrates the reach and power of the agenda players. They can “snuff out” huge numbers of people without “batting an eyelid”. It is a frightening realisation and underlines how the 9/11 lie (in and of itself) has been an effective deterrent to anybody who dares to question the truth. I have witnessed the power of the 9/11 lie first-hand. I know of many open-minded people who will quite happily entertain the notions of extra-terrestrial life, mind control technology, secret societies and occult conspiracies, and so on. Yet, when the subject of 9/11 comes up (particularly the connection to directed free-energy), they seemingly shut down all critical thinking and see nothing more than the lie – even when presented with compelling and quantifiable evidence. Why is this?

The 9/11 continues today. Not only has history been completely falsified in keeping with the lie, not only has it fuelled the many excuses that the powers that be continually use to justify the reasons for psychological manipulation and perception management of the masses, but it also continues amongst the ranks of certain groups and individuals who “claim” to be fighting to “expose the truth” about what happened on 9/11. An article posted by Andrew Johnson in February 2014 (entitled “9/11 and Cold Fusion – a Possible Attempt to Rewrite History?”) evidentially examines the continuing nature of the latter phenomenon. I have also reposted the article here on this website and included the links to both in the footnotes of this article. [12]



There are many people – for all manner of reasons – who would quite happily consign 9/11 to a closed page of the history books.  We are often told that to keep the subject alive in the public consciousness is disrespectful to the memory of the victims, that it fuels the fires of extremism throughout the world, that there are no real answers to be found and that the events were as “officially” accounted. These are convenient notions (and in some cases outright lies) designed to keep people from seeing the truth. It should always be our obligation to ask questions and expose lies wherever they exist.  If nothing else, we owe it to ourselves, to our loved ones, to all of our fellow human beings, to always seek out the truth.
If those who perpetuate lies and cover ups had their way, each and every one of us would be mindless automatons – born into servitude, both living and dying the same way. Our freedom lies with our ability to question and examine our “reality”.


If we bury our heads in ignorance, then there really is little hope.
The Truth Seeker’s Guide.

[1] An incredible amount of detailed information on this subject can be found here: http://www.moderntimesworkplace.com/archives/archives.html The Material relates to Tavistock pioneer Eric L. Trist – notably: The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations Foundation (History, Research and Publications 1941 – 1989), “The Social Engagement of Social Science: A Tavistock Anthology” – Volume I – The Socio-Psychological Perspective, Volume II – The Socio-Technical Systems Perspective, & Volume III – The Socio-Ecological Perspective. See also: Dr. John Coleman, “Conspirators’ Hierarchy – The Story of The Committee of 300”, 1992 – http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_committee300_00.htm#menu
[2] Naomi Klein has written an interesting book on this related subject called “The Shock Doctrine” – Knopf Canada, 2007, ISBN 978-0676978001
[3] See: Tavistock Institute Quotes – http://www.whale.to/b/tavistock_q.html
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares See also: https://archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares-Episode1BabyItsColdOutside
[5] The “academic” perspective is that source amnesia is an “episodic memory disorder” – an affliction rather than a common psychological trait – see: https://www.boundless.com/psychology/definition/source-amnesia/ However, the trait appears to be quite common in human behaviour, at least on a superficial and generic level.
[6] “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century”, September 2000 (pg. 6 / pdf version: pg. 18) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
[7] Ibid. (Pg. 51 – 52 / pdf version: pg. 64 – 65) Iraq is heavily emphasised, being referenced 24 times in the reports seventy-odd pages (ninety pages in the pdf version).
[8] Ibid. (Pg. 51 / pdf version: pg. 63)
[9] Zbigniew Brzezinski, “Terrorized by ‘War on Terror'”, The Washington Post, March 25, 2007 – http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301613.html
[10] Dr Judy Wood’s website: http://www.drjudywood.com/ See also: Dr. Judy Wood, “Where Did The Towers Go? – The Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11” – http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/
[11] Andrew Johnson, “9-11 – Finding the Truth” – http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=238&Itemid=60 His thoroughly extensive research (on a variety of subjects) can found at the website: http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/

Permanent link to this article: https://news.truthjuice.co.uk/index.php/the-climate-of-fear-911-exposing-the-greatest-cover-up/

9/11 and Cold Fusion – a Possible Attempt to Rewrite History?

The following is an article by Andrew Johnson, posted on his website on 03 Feb 2014 http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=389&Itemid=60

History

 
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.
 

Facts

 
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 ongoing.
 
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 Jones.
(To hear this recording click the following link: http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/audio/911/SEJones/01-Jones%20on%20911.mp3)
<object classid=”clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000″ style=”width:320px; height:20px;” codebase=”http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0″ >< param name=”movie” value=”http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms//mambots/content/plugin_jw_allvideos/jw_allvideos_player.swf?file=http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/SEJones/01-Jones%20on%20911.mp3&autostart=false” />< param name=”autostart” value=”false” />< embed src=”http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms//mambots/content/plugin_jw_allvideos/jw_allvideos_player.swf?file=http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/SEJones/01-Jones%20on%20911.mp3&autostart=false” style=”width:320px; height:20px;” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” pluginspage=”http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer” />< /object>
 
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:

<object classid=”clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000″ style=”width:320px; height:20px;” codebase=”http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0″ >< param name=”movie” value=”http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms//mambots/content/plugin_jw_allvideos/jw_allvideos_player.swf?file=http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/SEJones/02-Jones%20Cold%20Fusion.mp3&autostart=false” />< param name=”autostart” value=”false” />< embed src=”http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms//mambots/content/plugin_jw_allvideos/jw_allvideos_player.swf?file=http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/SEJones/02-Jones%20Cold%20Fusion.mp3&autostart=false” style=”width:320px; height:20px;” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” pluginspage=”http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer” />< /object>

 
An 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?

 
A 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

 
 
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 Reynolds.
 
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 date).
 
 
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, http://www.checktheevidence.com/.”
 
Caroline Louise responded a few days later, describing my email as “helpful” and she answered my questions as follows  (please note her stated objective):
 
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 really means.
 
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:
 
Dear Caroline,
 
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.
You wrote:
 
>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?
 
You said:
 
> 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.
 
Best Wishes
 
Andrew Johnson
 
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:
 
Dear Caroline,
 
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 achieved).
 
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.
 
Regards
Andrew Johnson
 
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 asked.
 
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 did not refer to the threat from Mr Fetzer, but it is discussed in an article I
wrote.
 
 
I did not refer to threats by Steven E Jones, so I am not sure what you are referring
to.
 
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:
 
Hi Andrew – trying to trace a quote you attribute to Jones/Koonin on this page:
 
 
Namely that cold fusion was “crazy, impossible” – you source it to pp. 140-45 of Mallove’s book “Fire From Ice”, but I have searched the book and can’t find that quote anywhere.
 
Can you remember where you found it?
 
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:
 
5/1-3/1989
 
Koonin implies Pons and Fleishmann are “delusional” at APES Meetings May 1-3, 1989.
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:
 
 
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 the links.
BTW – this is me
.
 
 
Caroline Louise was again repeating the “side”/division meme.
 
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
 
In 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?)
 
She replied:
 
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:
 
Atm 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:
 
Mallove 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 there?
 
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 2001” :
 
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 Chemistry Building at the University of Utah.
 
 
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, 2013.
 
In the email to Dr Wood, Caroline Louise wrote:
 
Jim Fetzer 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 happened 2006-7.
 
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?”

 
At 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:
 
“AE911Truth will begin pursuing legal avenues to require correction of the NIST report and holding NIST investigators personally accountable.”
 
I 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.
8) A 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.

Permanent link to this article: https://news.truthjuice.co.uk/index.php/911-and-cold-fusion-a-possible-attempt-to-rewrite-history/

Peter Lindemann’s Newsletter, August 2014

Well, it’s been 7 days since my last Update. I’d like to wish a warm welcome to all
of the new people who signed up for this service during that time. If you are
interested, you can find many of my previous Update Newsletters on the
Newsletter Archive page of my website:

http://www.free-energy.ws/newsletter-archive.html

Amazing Energy Technology

Here’s a quick story about a conventional energy solution that could be coming to
a neighborhood near you soon! It’s called the Solar Roadway and it really is an
amazing idea. Take a look at this News Report from one of my local TV stations,
right here in Spokane, Washington.
http://www.krem.com/news/technology/Electric-Avenue-Next-step-to-solar-roadways–255424831.html

SIXTH 2014 Conference Release

mark-mckay

Today, we are releasing Mark McKay’s conference presentation titled The Real History of the Ed Gray Motor, Part 2. This is Mark’s second installment of
accurate, historical information regarding the Ed Gray technology. Here’s how this
developed. In early February of 2014, I got a phone call from George Durnford,
an early supporter and investor in Evgray Enterprises, Inc. that I have kept in
touch with over the years. George is actually the source of most of the high
quality photographs of Gray’s technology that I have had on my website for years.

He told me he had found some old audio tapes in his attic that had information on
them concerning the Ed Gray technology. As it turns out, the tapes were George
interviewing Richard Hackenberger and a few others at Ed Gray’s old facility in
Van Nuys, California. I told him that that was awesome, that I was very interested
in what was on the tapes, but that I was swamped with work and wouldn’t have
time to do anything with them for a while.

I also told him that Mark McKay was really the archivist for this sort of revelation
and that he would probably LOVE to talk to him about it. George knew Mark
already because Mark had interviewed him extensively in the past about Gray’s
technology. So, George and Mark got together on the phone and George
eventually sent Mark a written transcript of the audio taped interviews.

The Real History of the Ed Gray Motor, Part 2:

For the first time ever, we finally have intimate details, in the voice of the Chief
Engineer, about the power supplies for Ed Gray’s motors and solid-state “camper
lights.” At one point, Hackenberger even says that the output of the power supply
transformer looks like a “hay field”, meaning thousands of high voltage “radiant
spikes”! This is what we always thought, but now we know for sure.

A lot more is covered in the 1 hour lecture, and to beef up the value, we are
including a complete copy of Mark’s illustrated lecture as an MP4 file, a PDF file
which includes all of the images shown in the Power Point slides, and a copy of
the audio taped transcripts for your own study purposes. To learn more about this
historic development, just follow the link below.

The Real History of the Ed Gray Motor, Part 2:

Coming Next….

John Polakowski’s Conference Presentation
titled Cosmic Induction Generator has just been released. This, of course, is the
complete expose about Eric Dollard’s amazing machine for the study of Nature’s
Etheric Formative Forces. I’ll tell you more about this product release in the
coming days.

Update:

The Cosmic Induction Generator is a very important technology with many applications, but the first goal was to demonstrate the manifestation of visible evidence of the intrinsic formative forces of the universe, which is done in the spirit of Tesla technology.

The Tesla Transmitters are designed to replicate the ideas expressed in Wilhelm Reich’s “Cosmic Superimposition” of formative fields. When two living energy fields mutually interact, they can stimulate each others’ excitation to the point of illumination – in other words, CREATE LIGHT!

You’ll be getting a 72 minute, in-depth presentation explaining the history and science of the Cosmic Induction Generator and it’s use as a study aid for the “etheric formative forces” of the Electrical Universe. Also included are complete schematics and circuit characteristics based on Eric Dollard’s “transmission line” theory of operation.

There is also quite a bit of Q & A throughout the presentation – John answers a LOT of questions!

As a bonus, you’ll even get over 180 MB of photos of John Polakowski & Eric Dollard working on the CIG at EPD Laboratories and three videos about the CIG that have already been put on YouTube but are included for your convenience. They are interviews with Eric, John with some video of them working on the CIG.


To re-cap, here are the links to the Summer Releases currently available. As new
product packages are released, I’ll send you an email with the links.

The Secret of Tesla’s Power Magnification

Extraluminal Transmission Systems

Dynaflux Alternator

Ignition Secrets

Water Fuel Secrets

Tesla’s Ideal Flying Machine

Coming Soon…..

After we are done releasing the 2014 Energy Science and Technology
Conference series, the next release, coming in September, will be the next book
by Eric Dollard, titled Versor Algebra as Applied to Multi-Phase Power
Systems. This is Eric’s astonishing thesis, taking the Versor Algebra model of the
Four Quadrant Theory, and applying it to higher dimensionalities.

And, of course, the final installment of Bedini SG, The Complete Advanced
Handbook will be released (hopefully) by the end of October.

That’s it for now. Thanks again for your interest in this year’s Conference
Presentations and for helping build a better world!

Warm regards,

Peter Lindemann, DSc

http://www.free-energy.ws/newsletter-archive.html

Permanent link to this article: https://news.truthjuice.co.uk/index.php/peter-lindemanns-newsletter-august-2014/

» Newer posts