Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect (New Paper by Judy Wood/John Hutchison)

Anyone familiar with the US Navy denial the Philadelphia Experiment ever took place? The following is what the Philadelphia Experiment was based on - anti-gravity and electro-magnetic energy:

www.americanantigravity.com...

"James Corum: PhD in Electrical Engineering and Tesla Historian -- Corum participated in a reverse-engineering effort for the Philadelphia Experiment not only confirming the basis for the tale, but also showing that Tesla and Einstein both participated in the project. The project goal was a "mirage effect" form of invisibility, but the use of Einstein's Unified Field theory may have actually opened a door to another world... [fig #2]"

Einstein's Unified Field Theory

I noticed this back in August

We -the general public- being so in the dark about how far this black ops technology has gone, it is certainly possible, but I just can't get on board with the no planes...

And as I pointed out here, if you're going to go with DEWs to explain the anomalous phenomena of the towers' pulverization/implosion/dustification/what-have-you, then why not -instead of denying all of the eyewitnesses, etc.- go with DEWs to explain the purportedly anomalous phenomena of the planes' "insertion" into the towers... an almost pornographic image...

Which brings me to my next point: seeing as Paris Hilton is a big John Hutchison fan will she be the next 9/11 truther?

This could do in the credibility of the movement once and for all.

reply to post by 0ivae


Do people realize that they can use anti-gravity and electro-magnetic energy to disappear something in mid-air? I do mean literally disappear. It literally rips apart every molecule in any physical matter construction. There would be nothing identifiable left for any observation or analysis. That is how powerful it is. That tech has become so sophisticated and held so secretly covert by the Pentagon and DOD, plus,anyone else having gotten ahold of it. They have had since WWII to perfect and make it that sophisticated.

The Nazi's were experimenting with Einstein's work they located when he was still in Europe before emigrating. He did not give that to them. They found it searching for his work, and contacting people having contact with Albert Einstein, while he was still in Europe. The Unified Field Theory evolved from his special theory of relativity.

It started out, as theoretical, based on what was then the theory of how black holes are made by the implosion of stars in on themselves. I call it reverse energy, for lack of a much better term when it happens. It is the complete opposite of what normally would happen in every day life on earth. Implosion is the reverse of explosion principle in quantum mechanics. Fission is implosion. Fusion is explosion.

One important fact that I think has been overlooked in this thread is Dr. Steven Jones. Steven Jones is one of the major proponents of the Controlled Demolition theory. "A friend" gave him a steel sample from the WTC debris, which he analyzed to find that thermate was present. Steven Jones is huge in the 9/11 Truth community and anyone who follows 9/11 knows this.
Recently it has been revealed that Dr. Jones worked on direct energy weapons at Los Alamos at some point in his career. Put this in conjunction with how hard he is pushing controlled demolition, even though DEW is still a plausible theory, especially when you consider the torched cars, and I think it becomes obvious that he is just an agent of misinformation. You have to wonder why Steven Jones is allowed to go all across the country and give his spiel about controlled demolition with no worries, but then a person like Judy Wood has been threatened and people close to her have mysteriously been murdered. The cars several blocks away getting burnt in a very strange fashion is what made me look into this more. www.drjudywood.com...

I don't think we can ever determine the exact means and methods of 9/11 until someone on the inside comes forward. If it was this intricate of a plan, it could be likely that the planes were armed with missles to create a big explosion and thermate was used to take out critical areas as a direct energy weapon went to work. I'm not saying we should stop looking, but it is a little depressing knowing how much there is that we don't know and won't find out, even if we determine who is guilty.

[Why do some people (i.e. Steven Jones, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers) get so nervous when asked about directed energy weapons?

This is a good question.

Steven Jones: Consider that his entire carreer has focused on energy and has been funded by the Department of Energy (DOE). He also has worked at Los Alamos, where Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) were developed. Steven Jones was involved in the "debunking" of cold fusion. (more -- see "heavy watergate")

Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers: In a press conference with these two people, Rumsfeld essentially admitted that DEW was being used in Iraq. This admission by Rumsfeld appeared to cause Myers a great deal of discomfort (or shame?).]

www.drjudywood.com...
#22 in the FAQ

This is taken from Anti72 on a similar thread. I think when you look at the unanswered questions that arise, you will only find more questions and there are no easy answers, but I don't think even the best "debunkers" could justify all of these issues....

Here are the principal data that must be explained:

1. The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain (free fall speed "collapse")
2. The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers
3. The rail lines, rail cars and tunnels had only light damage
4. The WTC mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends
5. The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on our comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition
6. The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up, unlike WTC7
7. The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth
8. File cabinet with folder dividers survive.
9. Office paper was densely spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often along side burning cars.
10. Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, plus a cylindrical arc into Bankers Trust and into Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust
11. All planes but top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes after WTC 1 had been destroyed
12. Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways during the destruction of the Twin Towers
13. The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub.
14. Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged or destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix, and no others.
15. The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared
16. The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the mass, unlike that of WTC7
17. Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by "unexplained" waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball and electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, the sound of explosions.
18. The possibility that a technology exists. Since invention of the microwave for cooking in 1945 and laser beam in 1955*, commercial and military development of beam technology has proceeded apace, so use of high-energy beams are likely.

Dr Judy Wood & Andrew Johnson on WPFC - We Ourselves 14th Jan 2007

Dr Wood and Andrew Johnson discuss how it looks as if the WTC was destroyed by some type of techonology related to the Hutchison Effect


MP3:
www.checktheevidence.co.uk...


VIDEO:

Google Video Link

[edit on 16-1-2008 by CB_Brooklyn]

If Dr.Woods is right and I think that there a good chance that she is, it is really sobering to think of the sort of technical abilities that are now within the reach of the most dangerous group of lunatics to stomp across the world stage since World War Two.

I was "mad as hell" when I thought they used dynamite to kill their own people in New York, but when I think that they pulled some brand new whiz bang toy out of the weapons research playpen for an experiment or a first time deployment on 9/11, my blood just boils.

This kind of thing has got to be stopped. Wake up America!

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


I was a thorough skeptic of DEW research as having advanced enough to bring it into the realm of possibility until I stumbled upon this, from Sandia Labs Accomplishements 2003:

Sandia's directed-energy group has successfully developed a highly compact high-voltage pulser capable of powering various directed-energy loads. The design uses Sandia's pulsed power experience and combines a battery-driven power supply and Marx generator in producing its output pulse. This development effort has resulted in a battery-driven pulser capable of delivering a 30 GW drive to a load. This extremely compact, lightweight, and rugged approach will enable many future directed-energy systems that require portable high-power drivers. Using technical assistance and advice provided by Sandia's Explosives Applications Dept. 15322 ‹ including on-the-ground support from Dale Preece ‹ the British Royal Engineers destroyed a cave complex on the border between the Paktika and Paktia provinces in Afghanistan on May 10, 2002. This Operation Enduring Freedom event was reportedly the largest explosion set off by the Royal Engineers since World War II.

I posted this on a moribund DEW thread but am reposting it here as it is quite relevant, real-world proof of the level of destructive energy "extremely compact" DEW weapons are already capable of achieving.

DEW research, what little of it seeps out, is clearly driven by a completely new paradigm in EM and physics. They're deep in Tesla's world and the overunity/antigrav/scalar "nutcases" like Hutchinson and Beardon.

And they are obviously making great headway, if the Brits can use a DEW to achieve "the largest explosion set off (by them) since WW II."

[edit on 17-1-2008 by gottago]

Originally posted by gottago
And they are obviously making great headway, if the Brits can use a DEW to achieve "the largest explosion set off since WW II."

That's the very problem for claims of a controlled demolition IE there is no large explosion to be observed - not one. If a directed energy beam were used wouldn't you expect to see some major disturbance in the smoke and dust it had to pass through?

[edit on 17/1/2008 by Pilgrum]

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by gottago
And they are obviously making great headway, if the Brits can use a DEW to achieve "the largest explosion set off since WW II."

That's the very problem for claims of a controlled demolition IE there is no large explosion to be observed - not one. If a directed energy beam were used wouldn't you expect to see some major disturbance in the smoke and dust it had to pass through?

No large explosion to be observed? Surely you jest:



Granted it is officially a gravity-driven collapse. By what mechanism, NIST has never explained. But officially, the USA is a constitutional republic, too.

To me, that pic has more in common with a waterfall than an explosion because it's a vast amount of smashed solid material but it moves as a fluid would in response to gravity. A powerful blast (I mean a real explosion) would look vastly different with radial ejections of the lighter materials and note the cloud of falling material to see if this DEW could actually penetrate that with being noticed.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
To me, that pic has more in common with a waterfall than an explosion because it's a vast amount of smashed solid material but it moves as a fluid would in response to gravity. A powerful blast (I mean a real explosion) would look vastly different with radial ejections of the lighter materials and note the cloud of falling material to see if this DEW could actually penetrate that with being noticed.

To me it looks more like a fountain, to keep with the water similies, and to me at least it certainly looks explosive. Ejecting major structural members 100s of yards indicates serious forces at play.

It certainly does not look like a gravity-driven collapse, at least to me.

The destruction at the WTC is filled with bizarre anomalies. The dust most notably.

Now I'm not wedded to DEW but that Sandia release is proof they've created portable, lightweight and highly destructive DEW weapons. They're not on orbital platforms. They've been used already in Afghanistan by our allies. They can destroy cave complexes and create massive explosions--if indeed what happened was an explosion, or simply was an easy shorthand to broadly characterize what occurred there.

As usual with most things surrounding 9/11, we're hobbled by classified or removed/destroyed evidence, and an official investigation with massive holes in it.

reply to post by Pilgrum


Not when the vacuum effect is on the inside even when set off from the outside in. Which is what DEW is. Set off from the inside out. That definitely looks like what happened be it controlled TNT or DEW. DEW is far more plausible since I bothered to research the plausibility of it.

No one heard any real explosions, except for the implosive effect inside the buildings bringing down that much weight and mass, in 10 seconds or less. WTC 7 did not fall as swiftly. That was controlled TNT to pull that building.

What people heard was explosive effect of molecules being literally ripped apart by high thermal energy and vacuum effect. That is why there was so little debris, compared to what was used for physical materials in two over 1300' steel and concrete buildings completely furnished, including with people.

Concrete is the reason vapor water was appearing. Concrete is mixed with water. There were plenty of concrete floors to produce water mist as those molecules were being ripped apart by thermal energy, to result in two separate molecules of hydrogen and one separate molecule of oxygen. No different than heat applied to water on any kitchen range.

DEW results in enormous thermal energy. Unimaginable to most, if not all, people. Enough thermal energy to vaporize. Isn't that what Dr. Judy Wood effectively explained? At least, that is what I got out of what she was explaining related to DEW (black hole) effect.

reply to post by gottago


Actually, to me, it looked exactly like any volcanic eruption, of massive proportions, or any A-bomb pyroclastic blast. I have to agree with Dr. Judy Wood on that one. I have no choice in the matter.

reply to post by gottago


DEW does not create explosion. It creates implosions, and explosion is a side effect of implosion. I recommend reading on collapsed stars leaving cooled off black holes when done. NASA website has excellent easy to understand articles on black holes, and how collapsed stars leave cooled off black holes.

reply to post by OrionStars
Respectfully, but truthfully, that is the worst of bad science and physics and makes no sense at all to anyone with even a rudimentary education in elementary science.

Black holes and stars did not implode in the buildings but they might have saved the cleanup by sucking all that debris into a tight little million ton ball. That's if they even exist as they're still a theory created to try to explain the physics of the universe which we do not, as yet, understand.

The basic problem for demolition ideas is evident in this thread if we take just 3 observations and interpretations of that picture.
1.
I see a huge mass falling and pulverising the mass below it with no visible explosion effects unless you call what happens when you belt a piece of concrete with a mallet an explosion. Tip: wear eye protection if you try this experiment.
2.
Gottago sees explosions going off ejecting material outward which is a reasonable observation except for the absence of blasts.
3.
Orion sees black holes generating vacuums which would 'suck' the material inward which sort of goes against the majority general interpretation of what's really happening.

Leads me to believe there are no actual explosions (or implosions) going on there or we'd all be seeing the same evidence or at least similar characteristics of those supposed devices.

But show me 100%, no holds barred, smoking gun, omg proof of explosions and I'll be supporting it straight away as I'm not dedicated to any cause nor do I have any political or other agenda to defend at all costs plus I'm not a US citizen.

In 6 years I simply haven't seen any such proof so could the reason for that be it doesn't exist?

Originally posted by Pilgrum

The basic problem for demolition ideas is evident in this thread if we take just 3 observations and interpretations of that picture.
1.
I see a huge mass falling and pulverising the mass below it with no visible explosion effects unless you call what happens when you belt a piece of concrete with a mallet an explosion.
2.
Gottago sees explosions going off ejecting material outward which is a reasonable observation except for the absence of blasts.

...

But show me 100%, no holds barred, smoking gun, omg proof of explosions and I'll be supporting it straight away as I'm not dedicated to any cause nor do I have any political or other agenda to defend at all costs plus I'm not a US citizen.

In 6 years I simply haven't seen any such proof so could the reason for that be it doesn't exist?

Here we encounter basic problems of interpretation of the photo. I do not see any "huge mass falling and pulverizing the mass below." I see the upper building mass being ejected outward and the concrete being turned to dust.

The upper building mass simply no longer exists to drive the collapse. It is being strewn across the WTC site.

This I think is very obvious, I hope you agree.

Now, since most of the upper mass is being "liberated" in this manner, what mass is then driving the collapse?

How does the collapse continue at the rate it did?

You also know that the structural members--the core and perimeter columns--become much thicker toward the bottom of the buildings to support the upper masses. Why then, without 1/2, or, about a second later, 3/4 of the upper mass pressing down on them, do the buildings continue to collapse? At their strongest point?

This to me is the 100% rock solid proof you are asking for. It is staring you in the face in that photo, hidden in plain sight.

If you had witnessed real explosions in the presence of large amounts of pre-blast smoke and suspended fine dust, and I don't mean hollywood special effects or TV pyrotechnics, you'd notice a couple of things notably absent in the pictures.

Now I don't have the bandwidth or connection speed to attempt to find or even download a youtube example for illustrating the point and, if I did, I'd be met with a response like 'what's that got to do with the WTC' perhaps not from yourself but you get the picture there I'm sure.

If the blasts were strong enough to launch sections of the exterior wall horizontally there would be progressively longer distances and greater speeds achieved for progressively smaller pieces of debris hit by the blast. The blast wave itself would be very clearly visible propagating through the smoke and dust. Those things are not there along with others like the intense flash and, of course, the intensely loud bang. There's the sugggestion of multiple such blasts so wouldn't at least a few of them, if not all, have shown these characteristics?

The principles of how those buildings failed may never be understood.

It's true that it looks like a lot of the falling mass (not all) is spilling over the edges but isn't that after it has impacted and not before which means there's still a huge mass coming down at the collapse front itself and then spilling the excess material over the edges. Once that mass at the collapse front reached terminal velocity in relation to what resistance the floor trusses and truss seats could offer would you really expect it to stop before reaching terra firma? The core columns having lost all lateral connecting support because it was stripped away by the collapse front could not stand orphaned so they buckled and snapped at their joins under their own weight and this effect was captured on video.

From what I've seen physics wasn't defied on 9/11, it resoundling demonstrated itself on a never before seen scale (hopefully never to be seen again I might add).

I respect your opinion in regard to explosives but respectfully, I do not agree (not yet anyway).

edit: to remove large quote


[edit on 18/1/2008 by Pilgrum]

In relation to WTC2 the severe tilt of the top section at the start of collapse almost led to that section falling off the building before the floors beneath it gave enough to allow it to settle in. If it had fallen off I have no doubt the rest of WTC2 up to the impact point would still be standing. It was the mass off those upper floors that allowed the collapse to reach terminal speed.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
In relation to WTC2 the severe tilt of the top section at the start of collapse almost led to that section falling off the building before the floors beneath it gave enough to allow it to settle in.

And how did the floors beneath it give to allow it to settle? Think about it. One side of the tower would be crushing (the side the cap is tilting towards) while the other side would be experiencing pulling (the opposite side of the tilting). So, how did this side of the tower fail in a crushing manner when it was experiencing pull?