glowing aluminum

An interesting little “article” by Judy Wood.

The purpose of this exercise was to demonstrate that aluminum does indeed glow. This work was conducted at Clemson University with Michael Zebuhr on 28 Feb 2006.

janedoe0911.tripod.com...

So, is she out of the SF911T group now or what?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
An interesting little “article” by Judy Wood.

The purpose of this exercise was to demonstrate that aluminum does indeed glow. This work was conducted at Clemson University with Michael Zebuhr on 28 Feb 2006.

janedoe0911.tripod.com...

So, is she out of the SF911T group now or what?

Yes, she has a very public "battle" going on with Steven Jones. Her and "MR. NOPLANES MORGAN REYNOLDS". You can find their correspondences at st911.org and will CLEARLY see who the shills are. You can follow the argument BACKWARDS from here: www.911blogger.com...

It is tru that in the dark, under the surface the Al glows, but as soon as it as exposed to the air it turns silvery.

There is a poster on here that supposedly worked at a foundry and explained it that way. If you have a vat of molten Al, the surface will be silvery, BUT, if you "dipped" under the surface in a fairly dark foundry, you would see it glow for a second until it is exposed to the air.

I suck at search on this site so I am sure someone else can find it here.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]

[edit on 11-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]

I thought you and Agent Smith debunked Judy Wood a long time ago? Didn't you guys call her a pot head and such. Now that she has some evidence to fit your theory, you feel it not hypocritical to use her work? Please explain.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
An interesting little “article” by Judy Wood.

Note that in you"paper" they state at 660C the melting point, Al is silvery, BUT then they never say what temp they brought it to to induce the "orange" color. ALSO, note that they contained the AL, and did not allow the natural reaction of molten Al to roll/slide away from the heat source.

Naw, it’s the guy from Iowa who’s the pot head. Judy is just a confused individual who seems to have a lot of other issues to deal with.

Her Billiard ball analogy is a classic of bad science.

I just find it funny that she seems to be all over the map on this one.





[edit on 11-9-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

I just find it funny that she seems to be all over the map on this one.

Maybe she's actually searching for truth? Usually when you have a theory and find that some part of it is wrong, don't you usually change your theory to reflect the new evidence? Some people on here like to marry their theories (not intentionally implying you, Howard) and won't budge no matter how much evidence is brought up. Would it be better if she stood by here wrong theory instead?