Dr. Wood

Discussion in 'Nuclear fusion at the WTC?' started by jeff, Apr 18, 2015.

  1. jeff

    jeff New Member

    It is nice to see Dr. Wood's work getting discussed favorably (albeit briefly) in a variety of places around the internet (I like the use of the cover picture from her book at the start of the article). This article is a good starting point. I am wondering why the author didn't go "all in" and actually read and review the work of Dr. Wood. And for that matter, the author could read and review the work of Andrew Johnson as well. Andrew does a nice job of fleshing out some of the darker elements in the Truth community.

    Fetzer and Jones have an agenda. That is provable. The most obvious proof is that neither one of them have done anything. They have lots of discussions and they do what the author of this article appears to me to have done which is equate the work of Dr. Wood with different theories about mini-nukes or super nano-thermite (whatever that is).

    There are differences between Wood's work and the stuff produced by Jones and Fetzer and those differences are largely self-evident. Dr. Wood took a Qui Tam case to the Supreme Court. Fetzer and Jones did not support her efforts. If anyone looks into this can find out for themselves that you do not mess around with the Supreme Court. The Court does not take kindly to people who are there to waste their time with fanciful theories. If Fetzer, Jones, et al truly had the grist and determination to go all in they too could have gone to the Supreme Court to challenge the official investigation. Oddly, they didn't.

    And for those that have a modicum of curiosity about what actually happened, I encourage them to look at the work of Dr. Wood. Her book is excellent and is the only complete forensic analysis of the events in New York on that day by someone who is actually qualified to do that kind of analysis. Dr. Wood offers emphatic proof that loopy theories about mini-nukes and nano-thermite do not jibe with the data.

    As the author of this article would know, it is always good to start with a comprehensive survey of the actual data.

    Also, the stories about cold fusion and Dr. Jones are murky to say the least. But, that is another topic for another time.

    Insofar as I am feeling generous, I will offer to purchase a copy of Dr. Wood's book for Dr. Jerry Russell if he wants one to read. In exchange however it would be nice to see a review of the book so that others can begin to discern for themselves that all is not what it seems even amongst those who purport to be edgy and insightful seekers of truth.
    gilius likes this.
  2. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    Hi Jeff,

    Thanks for the offer of the review copy of Judy Wood's book. Oddly enough, Derrick Grimmer also offered to send me his copy several years ago, but for some reason it never happened. Judging from the prices at Amazon, Wood's book seems to be a collectors' item now. Meanwhile, I've located Andrew Johnson's website and downloaded a copy of his "9-11 - Finding the Truth"; 382 pages. It appears to be largely based on Wood's work; if I only have time to read one book, which would you recommend? Or are there specific chapters in Johnson's book that I could read to get the gist?

    I have put some effort into trying to understand the Hutchison effect. I can't make head or tails of it. Do you understand what the Hutchison effect is?

    There's been no update to Wood's web page on her Qui Tam case since 2009. There were some rumors in 2010 indicating that the case had been dismissed by the Supreme Court. So whatever the merits of that strategy might have been, it doesn't seem to have payed off, would you agree?

    Since I'm advocating a sort of "loopy theory about mini-nukes" (specifically, pure fusion mini-nukes) could you be more specific about the evidence presented by Dr. Wood that would disprove this?

    Sorry you found my articles "murky". If you could be more specific about the points you felt were unclear, I will try to clarify.
    gilius likes this.
  3. jeff

    jeff New Member

    Hi Jerry,

    thanks for detailed response. I am happy to send you Dr. Wood's book (consider it done and thank you). I think it is an excellent reference. And, I know that as an engineer, you will appreciate her abilities as forensic engineer.

    For Jones and cold fusion thang, that is very long story. The name cold fusion is a bit misleading and that was one of Jones' contributions to that process. It really should be called Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). That is more accurate.

    You were probably still working as an engineer when Pons and Fleishmann made their original announcement (I wonder how much of that you remember). I need to be careful about what I say because I don't want to make statements that could be construed as hearsay. However, if you recall, their work was controversial. And, MIT claimed that they did not or could not achieve the same COP that Pons and Fleischmann had achieved. From what I remember, MIT has since retracted that claim and according to my last look at their web site they are actively researching this topic further (and making claims about how high their COP numbers are--over a hundred from what I recall). Jones was part of that scene. But, I wouldn't characterize his contributions as being supportive of what Pons and Fleishmann had done.

    I hated watching that unfold. It was like the whole high energy physics community went after them. Pons and Fleischmann had completed ground breaking work, however their careers were destroyed rather than being celebrated.

    What more would you like to know?

    Hutchison is legit. I am a professional engineer and I have training in material science, metallurgy and failure mechanics and I saw his work first hand. I made point of it because it is important. Hutch used radio waves to cause material dissociation (exothermically I might add) and what appears to be levitation. Dr. Wood has some good photos of his work on her web site and in her book. Those material samples she shows are real. Try to imagine how you might cause those kind of failures. Then imagine how you jam a wooden pencil through a piece of aluminum. Those are tricky problems.

    Htuch couldn't really explain what he had done, or more correctly he never completely explained it to me. He did say that he used radio waves and played with interference using tuners to get the effects he found.

    I have some theories on this if you want talk about them. But, we have consider the possibility that we do not have an accurate understanding of gravity or of the structure of atoms. That is a lot to consider, however I am happy to share with you want I have found. If you think of gravity like an electro-magnetic archimedes screw then you have what I believe is a more accurate understanding of what it actually is. If you recall, I think the Japanese have proven that gravity waves (now readily acknowledged to exist) travel at the speed of light.

    If you recall, viktor schauberger observed trout being pulled up fast moving streams by water vortexes or like an archimedes screw. That is a natural corollary of this idea gravity: it is a vortex pulling something against a friction or drag force caused by the moving water.

    This is not my area of expertise, but I will say it consistent with what we know about gravity. If gravity waves travel at the speed of light then at the speed of light you can't have gravity so objects can't travel faster than light because they would cease to be objects. This is not exactly what Einstein said as you know but he did postulate that you can't travel faster then the speed of light.

    The point about Hutch is that he was essentially a hacker. The people that may have the kind of tech he was working on have much larger budgets, much better facilities and a very large number of extremely bright people who might want to work on that kind of project. If Hutch did it, then how likely is that others with more resources and at least 50 years to work on this stuff, have made bit more progress. A thinkin' man would probably guess that there are people that have the tech to cause material dissociation (in line with what Tesla spoke about) working pretty well by now.

    We should have long discussion about gravity, the structure of atoms and how there is a pile of malarkey a mile high that prevents the hoi polloi from ever figuring this stuff out. I don't think it is that hard, but there are some fundamental missteps in the information bright young engineers and physicists get fed in all of the good schools around the planet. Too bad too, because we really can change things for the better if we had some this stuff working for the betterment of the world (rather than what appears to me to be rather nasty applications).

    But, while you are considering this, imagine how you might move 1,800 ton stones around the temple at Baalbek. That is also a tricky problem. Also, consider how you might cut one of those stones from a quarry. That is also a head-scratcher. Or have a look at some of the video and photographic evidence of Dr. Wood's web site around the topic of gravity and material dissociation as it occurs in nature. These kind of events have occurred naturally. The evidence is hidden in plain sight as everyone says.

    gilius likes this.
  4. jeff

    jeff New Member

    One more quick note, on the topic of Qui Tam case. Indeed the supreme court did not want to hear it. Dr. Wood could have put people on the stand who would have had to testify under oath about what they knew about material dissociation technology. But, embedded within this piece of information is something really important. The Court did not want to hear the case, but they also did not censure Dr. Wood in any way for attempting to bring the case to their court. That is also meaningful. The Court has the ability to make people's live pretty challenging if they think that someone is wasting their time or trying to mislead them in anyway. Obviously, they did not think that about Dr. Wood.
    gilius likes this.
  5. jeff

    jeff New Member

    oops, one more point.

    I haven't read much of your work on cold fusion (or LENR). I only found this site yesterday after listening to you on Red Ice. Good interview and I have enjoyed your work immensely so far. I don't mean to sound critical. I really do hope you get a chance to look at this stuff further and that we get to talk about it more.

    But, I do know something about the travails of LENR research. It is like mentioning sasquatches in a biology class. Do so at your own peril. If there is one major failure of the peer-review process is its effectiveness at controlling the direction research takes.
  6. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    Hi Jeff,

    Yes, I do remember when the Cold Fusion story was a mass media event in 1989. When the news first came out, I was feeling cautiously skeptical, and unable to come up with any explanation for the phenomenon in conventional physics as I knew it. Thus, when the field went down in flames, I wasn't surprised, and was happy to join the consensus viewpoint. But, a few years later, I became aware that there was still a controversy; and after 9/11/2001, I started to follow the research more closely. But it wasn't until I started reading about muon-catalyzed fusion, and looking for patents in that area, that I could make any sense out of the results from a theoretical standpoint.

    I do prefer the term "Cold Fusion" rather than LENR: partly because the terminology is well-known, and partly because it's infamous. I know that when I choose to refer to "Cold Fusion" I am flaunting my dismay against the scientific establishment. But another factor is that LENR is emerging as a codeword for Widom-Larsen theory, which holds that the reaction is proton+electron -> neutron, rather than D+D->He. The energy barrier to the Widom-Larsen reaction is actually much greater than the coulomb barrier to fusion, and I can't understand their explanation of how this barrier is overcome.

    Do you believe you have enough information from Hutchison to re-create any of his experiments? Many "Cold Fusion" results are documented in excruciating detail, and often in either peer-reviewed journals, or written to peer-review standards. So I feel that given an adequate budget, I could duplicate the results; in fact, I'm confident enough that I feel it would be just a waste of money. (Scaling up the process to a commercially viable level is, of course, an entirely different matter.) I can't say the same about Hutchison: I feel completely clueless about what he's trying to say, and your remarks about gravity waves haven't helped much so far.

    Did you mention Sasquatch? Any ideas what to make of Loren's post here below? The source looks sketchy to me, but I'm hesitant to dismiss anything out-of-hand anymore. Further investigation needed?

    Last edited: Apr 19, 2015
    gilius likes this.
  7. jeff

    jeff New Member

    Hi Jerry,

    Ok, I get why you are using the term cold fusion. Thanks for the explanation. I liked LENR because it included what Hutch did.

    I think I could reproduce Hutch's work now. I have more to go on. These things are always time consuming. I might play with it. Good suggestion!

    However, I wouldn't do it to convince myself that material dissociation takes place. Dr. Wood's book if full of that kind of evidence. It is rather compelling. I guess that is why I found your use of the word fusion not perfect for my understanding of those events. I would have characterize the dustification (Wood's word) as an LENR event not a fusion event. But why quibble.

    Also, I have seen it first hand. Maybe this tech could be commercialized. It would certainly change the mining industry. My thinking on this is that people have already by bashing away at this problem since the time of Tesla. And, many of those people are pretty bright and capable. Also, nobody likes it when you do this kind of research. I guess it is threatening. I don't expect to see patents on it any time soon. Maybe those will come. If someone were to patent this kind thing, how would the world respond? I think there are many powerful people who wouldn't be keen on it.

    I used that idea about gravity to show that we have to be careful about what we assume we know when it comes to theories about physics. Your site appears to be me to dedicated to revealing some the more tendentious elements within a variety on influential theories and myths. Do you think the same thing hasn't gone on in the world of science? Are you sure you understand the structure of the atom and gravity correctly? Are you sure that Einstein was telling us the truth about gravity?

    The Sasquatch thing was just a throw away remark. I didn't have any specific references in mind. Except, if you are asking, I am comfortable with those things existing. I've seen things in the forest that are very hard to explain in any other way. And, the Paterson film has never been debunked so all that is ok with me. Thanks for the reference though.

    I made the comment about Sasquatches because of how you can't have a serious discussion about the topic with academics. In the same way, Dr. Wood got the nickname for her work of "space-beams" or something like that. That kind of derision serves an agenda and that agenda is not to look for the truth.

    The funny part of the space-beam reference was that it didn't make sense. Dr. Wood didn't write a book about theoretical weapons. She wrote a book that was a forensic analysis of a very public and important event. She did conclude in that analysis that there were some unusual data and she did try to find ways to explain that data. But the idea of space-beams, or moon-beams, or butterflies with frickin' laser beams, etc. does not have much to do with what she wrote. So, it was a nonsensical form of derision. And, kind of offensive if you were to ask me.

    I have a hard time explaining many of the elements she found in her research. But, that sometimes happens with empirical data. When you come across that as an honest researcher you either give up or find a new theory to explain it. A dishonest researcher throws out the unexplainable data and sticks with stuff they can explain. Hence the need for a comprehensive forensic investigation. Ten page papers on one specific aspect of the dust do not cut it. Sorry!

    Also, when you look at the video, especially after reading her material, you can never see that event the same way again. So, there is lots more to do in this area. And, yes engineers and other researches like myself will gradually pick up the pieces from this and reproduce the tech. That is inevitable. I'll keep you posted as to any progress that I make. I am happy to make it an open forum research effort on your website if you are interested. That could be a fun way to continue with this. Although, in general, there are not many people who really have it going on enough right now to do anything with this information. There is a pretty big difference between a blogger with an internet connection and someone who has spent their life studying and researching aspects of science and engineering. But, I know you know that.

    Last edited: Apr 19, 2015
    gilius likes this.
  8. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    Hi Jeff,

    I don't think the process I'm imagining for the WTC, is the same thing as you are describing as a "LENR event". I'm imagining that they used a fairly large number of very small nuclear explosives, which produced heat and gamma rays and perhaps fast neutrons that blasted, melted and/or "dustified" the surrounding structure. These explosives might have been built using the hybrid fusion + uranium technology discussed by Del Giudice & Torrealta in "The Secret of the Three Bullets" or it might have been something like the MRI chamber conceived in the Jacobson patent application. Perhaps the quantum electron entanglements were contained within cavitation bubbles, like those which LeClair at NanoSpire claims can be used to create fusion effects.

    I am not suggesting that I know how to create "disassociation", "dustification" or any similar effect, by means of electromagnetic energy directed towards bulk matter. Whereas Dr. Wood, at this page on her website, talks about "The Star Wars Beam Weapons and Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW)", and states that she can rule out any other means of destruction of the towers. Also, Dr. Wood's book is subtitled "The evidence of directed free-energy technology on 9/11". So the "space-beam" reference seems entirely accurate as far as I can tell, though I know that some people would intend to use it derisively.

    If you have any specific ideas about how to build directed free-energy technology using the Hutchison Effect, please do tell us more!
    gilius likes this.
  9. jeff

    jeff New Member

    Yikes! Where is that coming from? What evidence is there to support small nuclear devices? Seriously. What exactly is a small nuclear device? Does it produce heat? What is the speed of the shock wave? Where did all of the debris go? How is it consistent with the seismic data? Where should we begin?

    Mini-nukes certainly seem to have some magical qualities. Should we take a bit of time to run through some of that data to see how well the data fits with the notion a small nuclear device. Before we do, I would like a general description of what this thing does. That way we can have an authentic and meaningful discussion. I won't however hold you to the same standard Dr. Wood gets held to when people demand to know who made the directed energy weapon and how much power does it use and at what voltage does it operate. I just need some general data about the amount of energy, the time or duration of the blast, and if you have it, the speed of the shock wave. Then we can look for from clues that may shore up that idea somehow.

    Hutch's stuff is Hutch's stuff. I am not making any claims about what I know about how he did what he did. I will emphatically state however that his results are real and have been reviewed by several engineers (including me) and a large metallurgical analysis lab. I believe there is a letter floating around on the internet somewhere that has those results.\

    I do however I some ideas about how I might be able to repeat his results. If you are wondering whether his results have been repeated have a look at some of the debris from 911. There are some undeniable similarities.
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2015
    gilius likes this.
  10. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    Hello Jeff,

    Chris Busby has made some reports indicating that very small nukes ~1 kiloton or less, are being used occasionally in Mideast theaters. Fetzer tries to fit this into a mold of conventional thermonuclear, but Busby indicates in correspondence with Prager that he doesn't buy that. He thinks it's a cold fusion technology, like Del Giudice describes in his book. If you don't know of Del Giudice, he was a world-class condensed-matter physicist before he recently passed away.

    Or, it might be a pure fusion technology based on the insights I discuss in my article "Haroche's Cockroach" here on the site. If so, it would be scalable to any size the perpetrators wanted, and would be capable of "dustification" by means of heat and gamma radiation. These properties do indeed seem magical, and I would be the first to admit I have absolutely no evidence that such a technology exists in the real world. It is often said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

    The same, of course, could well be true for Hutchison's results. I would be very interested if you could share exactly what you did to review his work, and the findings of the metallurgical analysis lab. "I believe there is a letter floating around on the internet somewhere that has those results." Link, please??
    gilius likes this.
  11. lorenhough

    lorenhough Well-Known Member

    1. The victims of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings sued the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for damages. A decision was handed down in 2006, assigning liability for the bombings to the Port Authority.
    2. 1993 World Trade Center bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Alan watt has suggested that in 1993 is when they started refitting the World Trade Center for what would happen in 2001, dr. Chris buzz bee has been under a lot of pressure not to tell the truth about Fukushima inside information not to poison the well just be careful. Like any building they know they're going to have to take it down some day; they would build it in a way that it would come down in a controlled fashion perhaps also? Certainly could be a combination of things, is there solid proof that there was molten still in the basement for 30 days? They does seem to be melting metal outside of the building before The building blew up so the process has started before it physically collapsed.
    gilius likes this.
  12. lorenhough

    lorenhough Well-Known Member

    Book Review:

    Courtesy of Remy Chevalier (Weston, CT)
    In a newly published book called Cold Fusion: Secret Energy Revolution, author Antony C. Sutton, D.Sc., declares that cold fusion in several variants is already working in research labs around the world and will soon be brought to market by several different companies.
    "Conventional wisdom holds that 'free energy' is impossible," Sutton says. "Free energy is defined as absence of fuel costs (coal, oil etc.). There is always a capital cost. According to orthodox science, high temperature and pressure is the only way to release the energy of the atom.
    "This position is now proven wrong. Cold fusion today has many variants including catalytic, vapor phase, [and] solid state and has been verified in over 200 laboratories world wide. These include U.S. government labs... Numerous private firms worldwide have also confirmed, including Fiat, Motorola, Westinghouse, Toyota, EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) and Stanford Research Institute," he says.
    Sutton's book reveals that a New Jersey company called BlackLight Power, Inc. is on the verge of announcing a catalytic hydrogen technology that "originates in cold fusion." Another company called Catalytic Fusion Power, Inc. "uses a standard, off the shelf carbon platinum catalyst with deuterium gas" to produce power. This technology is currently being scaled up to a marketable level and has been financed by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), Sutton says.
    "Free energy is here with water as fuel and will revolutionize our world. One device is the size of a thermos flask, uses water as fuel and lasts indefinitely," Sutton declares.[​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]http://www.infinite-energy.com/resources/inthenews.html
    Cold Fusion in the News
    Since cold fusion first burst into the news on March 23, 1989 with the press conference by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, media coverage of the field has been mixed. In this section we document some of the more recent high-profile coverage it has received.

    03/28/15 Current Science Journal Publishes Special Cold Fusion Issue
  13. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    Anthony Sutton was an excellent researcher, but I'm not sure how much background he had in physics. Randell Mills of Blacklight Power claims to have invented a "Unified Classical Mechanics" which replaces quantum theory, and postulates that hydrogen atoms have states below quantum ground state. Standard quantum theory has proven itself in a huge variety of situations & applications. Mills' theory does not supplement or complement quantum theory, but rather it contradicts it. Furthermore, BlackLight has been "on the verge" of success for at least 20 years, and never produced a product.

    Pons & Fleischmann cold fusion relies on palladium crystal structure, and Del Guidice states that uranium (an even heavier atom with larger crystalline structure) should be more beneficial for encouraging the reaction. Using carbon or nickel as the catalyst seems to be going in the wrong direction, which makes me feel basically skeptical about "Catalytic Fusion Power Inc" (now long gone?) as well as Rossi.

    Winston Churchill: "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." Perhaps he was talking about cold fusion? Surrounded at least by a lot of confusion, if not worse.
  14. Lloyd Miller

    Lloyd Miller New Member

    She said Star Wars "Beam" Weapons and Star Wars "Directed Energy" Weapons! Energy beams are a possibility, but directed energy is very general and may have nothing to do with beams--2 different concepts.

    Directed energy can be by induction or subtle wave interference, field phenomena, or other not widely known phenomena, etc. So, the "space beam" smear is not accurate. Anyway, her book attempts to prove that neither fire nor planted demolition charges can explain the evidence. Something else must have caused the "dustification" of most of the building mass. Dustification can only be caused by energy of some type, but part of the energy could come from the matter itself if there is some sort of directed triggering energy.

    Personally, I find the planting of extensive charges in all those buildings or designing buildings for later destruction very unlikely due to the large number of people necessary. Operating a top secret weapon to achieve the destruction seems more likely.
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2016
  15. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    Hi Lloyd,

    According to Wiki, the applicable definition of a "beam" is "a narrow, propagating stream of propagating energy". So the idea of "directed energy" seems intrinsically related to "beam" as far as I can tell. Electromagnetic beams propagate by mutual induction of electric and magnetic fields.

    I don't know what you mean by "subtle wave interference, field phenomena, or other not widely known phenomena, etc." I'm not sure what sort of triggering energy could cause inert concrete to yield up its own internal energy and dustify itself. If you are saying these phenomena are not "widely known", nevertheless do you believe they are known by anyone, anywhere? And can this knowledge be accessed by us ordinary mortals, or must it remain in the realm of the twilight zone?
  16. Lloyd Miller

    Lloyd Miller New Member

    I don't know either, but that is the point. We don't have to know what type of weapon might have been used to understand there is an unsolved problem at hand.

    Yes, a beam is a narrow stream of propagating energy. The other field phenomena postulated are far more subtle and, you are right, unproven publically and possibly non-existent! No publically known energy beam, propagating from a space ship or satellite could cause the type of damage observed either. The beam would have to be different from anything we know about. A powerful lazer, for instance, would look like that science fiction movie (was it Judgement Day?) in which the aliens destroyed the Whitehouse.

    The point is that the type of destruction and debris field observed has not been adequately explained, thus wild speculation is in order. Speculation is valid when one searches for a theory that could possibly be then be verified later by specific research. Speculation if coincidentally "on target" or "near target" could possibly bring forth testimony from compartmentalized actors as well.

    Think of this speculation: 3 powerful towers exist propagating some sort of radiation (radiowaves? gravity waves? who knows?) in all directions. Of course, the radiation forms a complex interference pattern, ie. the radiation from each tower would reinforce or negate waves from other towers at specific points in space. Further, the transmissions from each tower could be time varied in infinitely complex ways. Maybe a dustification interference pattern could be created at specific points in space by such a set-up. Perhaps something like "cold fusion," if it exists, could be triggered from a distance. The photos I see of alleged "cold fusion" involves electrodes applying voltage and current to substances. Maybe a field interference pattern could do the same thing.

    Tesla, of course, had ideas about similar phenomena. For instance, transmission of electrical a/c power between 2 distant points without the energy showing itself between the 2 points. In other words, one could stand between the 2 points and experience no energy flow. It is claimed he was successful in such a demonstration.
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2016
  17. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    Beamed electromagnetic waves or particle streams such as those used in Tesla's documented experiments, can indeed transmit power from point to point. There is normally very little power absorbed in between, such as in empty space or the atmosphere. However, an antenna placed in the stream can detect and extract energy from the stream.
  18. dude

    dude New Member

    i remember where i was on the day that i accidentally saw a video of wtc7 collapse in 2009. Just as i remember watching the actual 911 attacks. The hairs went up on the back of my neck .... in 2009 that is. I knew from my physics training that it was some sort of deliberate and spectacular destruction of a building.... and it wasnt done by foreign terrorists hijacking planes. My world changed (which is more than it did on 9/11 2001). I lost all faith in representative democracy. I revisited the twin towers and shook my head in disbelief. How did i not see what was in front of my eyes for what it really was?

    I went first to steven jones .... and then i noticed all that dust. I noticed huge trails of dust from falling detached parts of the building ....... and i didnt understand how that was possible. So i quickly discovered Judy Wood's work and for a while i was convinced that she was genuine. A couple of years in fact.

    But then i noticed that she (as well as jones and fetzer) became increasingly ridiculous in their public claims and behaviour (not least to each other). Judy Wood claimed that her book was all the scientific evidence that was needed. (what?) That there was no need for a new investigation into 9/11 (what?) That jon hutchison was a maverick scientist who had discovered new physics (what?) I had researched him and found his youtube channel. I found the fake ufo levitating video he had made and read accounts of the 'phenomena' whereby either he was alone with the experiment or he wasnt present but alone in another room. I discovered his new claims for anti radiation and his alter ego karla kniption rothschilds .

    They all unravelled. They all look ridiculous to anyone with scientific training. The only ones left with any credibility is perhaps http://www.ae911truth.org/

    BUT ... what about all that dust? I was trained in physics and i would like to hear what a chemist has to say about it. Even JW describes it as if the building is 'dissolving' in mid air. Is it possible to set up a chemical reaction that dissolves that much matter? Particularly inorganic matter? A gas perhaps?
  19. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    Hi dude, welcome to party.

    Jerry and I actually met in a 9/11 email discussion group shortly after 9/11. The WTC dust was indeed a major source of interest back then, among other anomalous aspects. This has generally led to the various speculations that some sort of exotic technology was used, including Jerry's latest look into what might be possible with exotic nuclear devices, in case you haven't looked at this yet.

    Besides the obviously controlled manner in which Building 7 came down, that building had several curious aspects as well, including that the bottom portion of the building seemed to be dedicated to some sort of electrical energy distribution for the utility company, with transformers, switches and the like. As such some researchers have pondered that this space may have been used as part of the main show phenomenon with the towers. One of the more creative and 'elegant' ideas introduced then, I think by the late Jeff King, was that of injecting resonant standing waves into the buildings' structures, but the calculations to determine the power needed to accomplish anything like what was witnessed is beyond my skills. In any case, doing so would require massive inductors and capacitor banks, etc. to provide enough energy at the correct resonant frequency.

    Whether or not such was done, or could have been done, was partially driven by the unique design of the towers, with the uniformal structures being seemingly perfect for such a resonance concept. But this unique design also leads to a lot of other possibilities that might have been employed. And of course, it seems for a number of reasons that much of what occurred, as to the actual tower collapses, was centered in the basements. As you've probably learned, the buildings have a curious history, from birth to their end, which I say was ritualized, as part of the wider historical and religious tableau we try to examine here.
  20. dude

    dude New Member

    Yes people with power love to ritualise their own behaviour ...... just as those without power like to join in with the ritual too. Ritual can easily descend into sado masochism .... though not necessarily so. Conspiracy theorists generally only have the power of youtube comments ... but hey at least that is something! :)

    Judy Wood is no high priestess for me. And john hutchison is nothing but a youtube joker. For those who cannot see the latter (or choose not to) then judy wood is the ultimate in 9/11 conspiracy theory.

    It is similar with regard to nasa conspiracies too. Those who do not have the power to think scientifically or know from experience, are bound to be in a position of trust. Its a small jump from trusting a celebrity stranger to taking part in a ritual of allegiance and adoration. Whether mainstream or conspiracy theory. It makes no difference. It is all media.

    WTC7 ..... it teaches us more about trust and conformity than it does about truth and justice. Judy wood, fetzer, steven jones ..... all trusted by people who feel they have no choice but to trust a leader. That is why i lost trust in representative democracy. The ritual of voting away your vote to a set of complete strangers, and telling yourself that you know who they are really.

    Are there any chemists here?

Share This Page