Transcript to view Clare`s PowerPoint presentation ()

Added on July 3, 2012:
The original talk’s slides were almost the same as you have here, except for
some typographic errors and shorter & overly compressed, note-like
sentences & thoughts, most of which things I corrected or expanded
before submitting this set of slides to the public directly on the Web.
• However, today I have gone through the presentation in light of some
corrections and comments for clarification I felt I should make, based on
some early comments and suggestions made after the talk was given.
They are almost all labelled on separate slides, such as this one. Sadly,
they interrupt some of the flow. It will be best to treat them as expanded
footnotes to assist the main slides.
• For simplicity’s sake, of course, I will not be adjusting this set of slides any
more; any further errors must stand, not in a refusal to correct things on
my part, but rather left for the reader as if in a published book; I continue
to be grateful for any discussion which adds to or refines this work
elsewhere.
Fair Use Notice
FAIR USE NOTICE: These Slides may contain copyrighted (©) material,
the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance
understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic,
democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It
is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material, as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who express a general interest in
receiving similar information for research and educational
purposes.
Every attempt has been made to direct people to the relevant sources:
to Dr. Wood’s book and Websites (where further accreditation is
given on some materials) if not otherwise mentioned; to other
Websites and books if specifically noted.
9/11’s Twin Tower Destruction
&
a Possible Link to Ignored
Science:
or
Dr. Judy Wood’s Conclusions,
with Contexts Found in Others’ Work
Clare Kuehn
9/11 Vancouver Hearings
June 16, 2012
With special thanks to Darryl Learie for his amazing technical help
and to Don Deppeller for his research skills on Tesla white-fire experiments
Purpose of this talk:
•
To present Dr. Judy Wood's physics findings, for the evidence from 9/11 in New
York City, compare it to some current other conclusions.
•
Expand people's awareness of the “new” physics context she mentions, by
presenting in more depth her own suggestions of possibly related findings
from other scientists, and adding to those examples of possible related
contexts. This is to help the audience have a fuller appreciation of Dr Wood's
general physics position.
•
Ensure intellectual honesty about the Twin Towers area of destruction and Dr.
Judy Wood’s contentions from the data:
- for wider discussion of the data points and conclusions Dr. Wood raises
- provide more background on the physics implications of those conclusions,
whether her conclusions are ultimately right, wrong or partly right
Credit where Credit is due:
Dr. Wood …
Book “Where Did the Towers Go?” (2010) and two Websites: http://drjudywood.com/ and the
more recent http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/
•
Greatly expanded our EXPLANANDUM – that which (existential factoids which) must be
explained/ accounted for, to gain new levels of recognized facts about the case
•
Raised a Qui Tam court case in good faith
•
Presented a professional, expert and coherent conclusion (theory/ explanation) with room
for further work, whether right or wrong
•
Continues to raise awareness of general physics findings long mischaracterized, ignored or
discounted in public science
First part of my talk:
•
Will discuss a range of examples from her explanandum, selected for brevity, with the logic of
the case in mind:
- Thus, will mention some of her conclusions and suggestions for the explanandum, along the
way
- An explanandum is the set of what must be explained: i.e., the describable sensory
impressions (factoid facts) noticed, compiled and initially separated from what seems to be
insignificant in order to find the facts about these facts
- We can call “facts” the existential initial observed facts, which are really factoids, and we
can call “facts” the discovered links, i.e., proper interpretation of these facts. Unfortunately,
most people use the term fact to mean the latter as if it’s the same as the former, but there’s
a process of understanding which goes on. We will show both sides (both types of fact) in this
part of the talk.
•
Will end with some comparisons between Dr. Wood's findings and the mini-nuke hypothesis
Added on July 3, 2012:
Errata et addenda discussed:
•
Andrew Johnson has questioned publicly on http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=
com_content&task=view&id=352&Itemid=60 as to why the mini-nuke hypothesis is mentioned on several slides in this talk, “in a way which is not
relevant to what is in the WDTTG book”.
- My attempt is to go beyond the literal contents of the book in this area, because much has been raised at this conference, which people might think
needs direct rebuttal. Hence follows a more direct comparison of mini-nuke explanations for Dr. Wood’s observations than in Dr. Wood’s book.
•
Johnson has also questioned, on the same Webpage, that “if someone had read the book, they would realise there is no possibility ‘nukes’ were
involved.”
- Speaking as if Dr. Wood could be correct or incorrect, for the moment, so as not to sound biased:
If Dr. Wood’s position is correct and actually does eliminate nukes of some kind, this does not mean that all persons would see it. To boot,
people are well known to get confused enough about a position that they sometimes don’t realize when some new fact about the opposite side does
or doesn’t debunk an aspect of the side they previously took to be true.
So I am trying here to address some very specific points raised by the “mini-nuke” proponents, even though I already think Dr. Wood’s
positions eliminate the mini-nuke possibility. I don’t feel she showed the comparison with mini-nukes very well directly. I do think that her general
actual position (theory, conclusion, as equivalent terms in this case) eliminates the need to postulate mini-nukes, but I also personally believe that
she has shown her side of things yet but not shown the comparable details on mini-nukes directly, in the ways they are being discussed here.
For the audience, I mention some more detailed comparisons I have determined are important between her work and mini-nukes; I do so
on the basis of discussions on mini-nukes, with Prager and Fox, and the attempts they make to explain her points with nukes or, in one case, with
possibly thermite in the clouds (for the car fires).
•
Johnson has also taken umbrage that the last slide of this presentation suggests that more work is to be done on the mini-nuke and Wood positions. I
do suggest this, to make people look at the comparisons. To be formally open-minded, I suggest the nukes might be able to surmount Wood’s
obstacles, or that I have missed some way they do! But I think that I’ve already shown you, the audience by that point that:
- mini-nukes do not seem to explain some of Dr. Wood’s points (such as the levitation and car fires in some of their details),
- whereas Free-Energy DEWs (if related to Hutchison’s work) do seem to have capacity to change elements, the main issue the mini-nuke
proponents point to.
(For the “dust” argument: the mini-nuke proponents mostly rely on nuclear changes in the dust to postulate that mini-nukes were used. In this presentation
I include a paper countering the idea that only nukes create nuclear changes. The item is a paper by people studying a sample of Hutchison’s
material. They show that nuclear transmutation occurred in the presence of the interference waves Hutchison uses. I also present Nobel prizewinning nuclear physicist Dr. Julian Schwinger’s reasoning – theory structure – which shows that original electric cold fusion is possible, not Dr.
Steven Jones’ other version of cold fusion, in case anyone disbelieves Dr. Wood’s trust in electric cold fusion.) I found it to be important to be
formally clear that I will consider nukes if it satisfies the principle of “best evidence and explanation wins”, but only if the proponents change their
explanations of the cars and levitation and Renae O’Connell’s testimony, which they have not covered to my satisfaction to date. Johnson, therefore,
need not worry that I am including mini-nukes to be too wishy-washy on Dr. Wood’s material. I am trying to show the audience some points of
comparison which I feel they might want to hear which are not directly bothered with, in Dr. Wood’s book, so sure is she that her position eliminates
them for the audience. I believed the audience needs a bit more to chew on when it comes to the comparison, that is all. And I do apologize for any
errors I’ve made and missed in the notes about nukes or Dr. Wood’s material. No presenter is perfect, is my excuse.
Second part of my talk:
• Covers the contexts which might have a bearing on explaining Dr. Wood's
findings, for wider understanding and perusal in future discussion of 9/11
and in other cases
My intention for this part of the talk:
• Extend people's knowledge about the experimental findings (and some of
the explanatory theories) of scientists whom Dr. Wood mentions in
context of her conclusions
• Add to her list of possibly related experimental and theoretical work
Theory is not a dirty word
Remember the term “theory” has weak vs. strong usages:
1. Notional attempt to explain vs. Proper adherence to data, along with knowledgeable explanation
2. Data points (factoids as facts) vs. Evidence in a case (meaning of facts found properly at all levels)
3. Case development (hypotheses along the way – theory in progress) vs. Case made (final theory attempt on one line)
vs. Correct case made (final theory chosen from among all)
Note:
Data do not speak on their own; they are noticed and addressed.
We compare and analyze, for relevance as evidence in a case.
Thus:
Literal mimicry is not the whole aspect of a right conclusion:
•
Accuracy in recounting data points (true mimicry) and accuracy in thinking through connections and contrasts
(which = having proper and complete thoughts about the data), are both important in an explanation, a theory.
•
Thinking through is noting or comparing accurately: following facts in this sense is a special type of mimicry, a
rare meaning, i.e., to think through the facts; thus it is perhaps inadvisable to use the term mimicry.
•
Interpretation: can be well done or not, but all conclusions are interpretations. Dr. Wood and all persons ought
to remind people that they are not at fault for interpreting, but rather that faulty interpretation is a fault.
Added on June 3, 2012
THEORY MEANS A REASONING STRUCTURE within an explanation:
•
It can be about facts, about figments, regard a truth, regard a mere notion.
•
Theory is not a disparagement, nor does it necessarily mean something is unknown yet or unknowable.
•
It comes ALSO to mean sometimes a “proper name” for a whole reasoning structure as well: a title, as it were, not only for the reasoning structures
within an explanation, but an explanation’s final form (“a” theory as a total).
•
It can be used to name the bad or good reasoning in any explanation.
•
When used to name the reasoning behind the connections someone makes between facts, and if those reasons are natural and factual as well, the
person has a correct physical theory, or structured thought.
•
I am not disparaging Dr. Wood by pointing out that what I think is her wonderful explanation, is a theory of one kind, the better kind: one which follows
the facts and, I submit, accurately. TOO MANY PERSONS IN THE MODERN WORLD FEAR SAYING THEY THEORIZE (THINK) AND INTERPRET (EVEN WITH
CARE), AND SO EMPHASIZE THE FACTS THEY NOTICE AND INTERPRET, AS IF CONCLUSIONS ARE NOT REASONED (DEMONSTRATED BY EXPLANATION),
BUT RATHER AS IF DESCRIPTIONS ARE ENOUGH, and call these “facts”. This shows an insecurity (not merely in Dr. Wood) in admitting they have a mind
to interpret with; instead of defending their reasoning, they list their reasoning and claim truth without admitting they are arguing a point. She is not at
all alone these days in acting in this mode, but it is unfortunate, for really it is the excellence of the reasoning, not fear of admitting it, which ought
to be at issue.
She does mention she has a theory in one way: she says that a theory must “mimic” facts, an admission that she has a theory in the sense I mean it:
where it’s responsible to the facts. (Yet, mimicry in the simplest sense perhaps used inadvisedly, for the general audience, because it the word means
simple mimicry most of the time.) In her typical usage, “mimicry” seems to mean “following” or “proper adherence to the facts” WITH proper
interpretation. More people, I hope, can now realize that her denial of “theory, interpretation” and her claims of “mimicry” are different usage of words
– and can understand that she has a proper theory, at least in form if not in conclusion too. (I submit she does have proper conclusions, too, of course.)
She mimics observations only in a higher sense: following the fullest explanandum! We can thus stop quibbling over words and look at her
interpretation of the factoids (explanandum), to see the facts she raises about these simpler initial observations or facts, & (I hope) find value in her
conclusions.
Some people do not realize that theory does not mean something which is not factual, nor does it mean something inconclusive. It can mean the
REASONING STRUCTURE within the explanation of the facts’ natural relationship to one another and in fact in the best cases is incontrovertible.
Andrew Johnson has in effect taken a position about my comments on the word theory such that I would be disparaging Dr. Wood’s facts to suggest she
was involved in interpreting them. The question is not whether a scientist interprets, but whether he or she interprets wrongly. I am not saying she
interpreted wrongly; but an explanation is an interpretation (correct, sometimes) and only explicitly understanding what the thinking process, or
REASONING STRUCTURE about the facts is, can show if the scientist has found well-reasoned truth about the key facts about the facts, or if it’s bad
adherence to the facts about the factoids (lower facts). Johnson’s comments are here: http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option
=com_content&task=view&id=352&Itemid=60
•
•
•
The Explanandum and Dr. Wood's Conclusions
The explanandum and Dr. Wood's Conclusions
• Did not start with preconceptions of what happened
• Used neutral terms for the noticed data points (observed factoids as initial
facts), e.g., she calls smokey material “fumes” not “steam” or “smoke”, in
case there’s another process as a fact behind the factoid that there is
something like smoke that we literally can see
• Note: Did use preknowledge to use to compare and contrast: Newton's
mathematical theory of gravity, behaviour of materials under certain
stresses usually, etc. This is not prejudice or notional theory (or
preconceptions or interpretations, in a negative sense of any of those
words).
Part 1 of Talk
• The Facts: initial empiricist factoid observations,
• The Facts: Facts about the Facts related to
physical knowledge. This includes comparison
(reasoning) between how the Facts of Laws are
found to be broken or upheld in the observed
factoids ...
• Comparison of some different overall reasoned
conclusions/theories (Wood’s vs. Mini-nuke and
others) – to determine the best and final Fact
(final explanation/theory).
Facts
Added July 4, 2012:
•
The 1st level of fact is an initial described empirical observation: literal mimicry or factoid.
•
The 2nd level of fact is interpretation based on known laws, theory. This is understanding, well or poorly done; it is
comparison and contrast used to explain.
•
Andrew Johnson lists both levels in one, when he lists “43 facts” at the bottom of
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=352
&Itemid=60 . He is dealing at the level of fact as understanding about the observed phenomena, but writes often
as if there is no interpretation of those phenomena involved. Interpretation can be absolutely appropriate and
thus truthful, but it is more honest not to treat the interpretation as something which is absent. THERE IS NO
DISHONOUR IN INTERPRETATION AS LONG AS IT IS CORRECTLY NATURAL, LAWFUL, “FACTUAL” INTERPRETATION.
But it is disingenuous to act as though one’s reasoning isn’t there.
•
It is common to conflate the word fact as factoid with understanding about a factoid, as if the former is the latter,
whereas the former and the latter interact – well or poorly. The latter can be literal (true) but not literal (low-end).
•
To act as if the 1st level is the 2nd is to be “empiricist” and disingenuous; to be clear on the interaction of the two is
to be positively empirical and positively reasonable. Dr. Wood’s work is the latter (and I believe well done), but like
many people nowadays, she has spoken as if the former attitude is to be admired, when it is not. This has
confused some people and raised more resistance in others who also speak as she does: that they have the
“facts”.
•
To act as if the factoid is the fact in reasoning is a danger: it makes it sound as if one’s reasoning is absent. This is a
common temptation nowadays: one’s reasoning may be as self-evidently true as a description of a senseperception would be, but only if described as reasoning, not as a sense-perception, or people end up thinking
they’re arguing between sense-perceptions, when they’re arguing reasoning about those sense-perceptions.
•
We will be showing sense-perceptual factoids (explanandum) which Dr. Wood has identified AND showing why
they need explanation AND what her explanation is. All of those things are facts in different ways.
Dr. Wood finds data from the WTC, which eliminate a gravity-driven collapse ...
both
•
from pancaking under pure pressure or structural failure (as with an earthquake or a lower
floor failure)
and
•
from buckling and collapsing from fire (also gravity-driven when collapsing)
And she finds other data which eliminate these and controlled demolition as a primary destructive
mechanism, as well.
Selections from her arguments and the data supporting them:
1. The time of final destruction is too short
• Resistance per floor, per column portion, etc., eliminate
both top-heavy pressure collapse and fire-buckling
collapse, or failed joints from fire or pressure
• The mathematical models in the computer “simulations”
created for the legitimate government and people, were
adjusted to the point where the images would collapse, but
were not realistic anymore by that point.
2. Lack of a raging inferno
• Nothing to weaken, much less melt the steel itself from fire, which
was fire-resistant beyond ordinary steel. Joints could have been
weakened in fire, but then we are back to a gravity problem and
concrete pours and not intense dust that we saw.
• Stone-cold heat sink steel below the holes
• Also have Testimony:
On the communications radio, the experienced NY Fire Chief figured
the fires at the “impact” site were not severe. Note: This was for
the tower which was destroyed first but hit second (less time to
become an inferno). The smoke was almost gone, the fire choked.
3. Lack of debris piles and total debris (strewn) contained insufficient bulk of
material and height
•
In buckling from fire and in pressure-driven or earthquake collapses, the material
remains largely in a pile, roughly 12% of the building height
•
Even an ambulance at the front area of WTC 1 with no surrounding large piles
Aside:
LEFT fake propaganda photo
•
Two “Flag Raising” photos
•
Nonexistent high piles of debris are implied by famous “Flag Raising” photo attributed to Thomas E.
Franklin (left) in an angle where there was no such close pile, known from other photos. (Note:
right-hand version not one of them.)
•
Unsure if Dr. Wood is implying the famous one is faked – seems to be but text is unclear
•
Piles did not exist in that direction, and definitely not so close up that beams would look large
•
Flagpole top is different in both images: damage to Ricky Flores photo version (right) wraps around
pole enough to show in both versions if Franklin version (left) is authentic.
The fake one became a major propaganda image
(as above, on eBay), but most important, it is
used to suggest high and close piles of debris
The real debris! (The same ambulance we saw is on the left
at ground level, in front of missing WTC 1)
Back to Dr. Judy's points:
4. The worry and care taken with the retaining wall or “bathtub” during clean-up
shows no worse pounding during destruction of towers.
Thus no fire-buckling gravity collapse, mere relatively cold steel pancaking, or controlled
demolition.
Apologies – only thumbnail available on line
5. Seismograph readings are grossly inadequate in intensity, S vs. P wave presence, for bedrock (amplifier of waves).
•
Particularly notable is that bedrock would amplify the waves
The waves are less than for the Kingdome, destroyed (by explosives).
- was less massive & on earth, not bedrock.
Thus no bombs with big expulsions or near ground at that point, and little collapsed debris during main
destruction period, on this basis alone, unless these readings were faked.
•
Testimony:
Confirms the weird lack of big debris overall in the dust clouds.
Added on July 3, 2012:
• Addendum:
The thumbnail on the previous slide was grabbed from the Internet during a
set of technical troubles ½ hour before the talk was due; under pressure, it
was what came up in simple search. The larger image’s page was moved. I
do apologize belatedly for the unintentional result, especially to Dr. Wood
and Andrew Johnson, the latter of whom has pointed out that some other
information and part of the image’s contents are available at
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html#Results
On the other hand, the best images and incredibly detailed analysis of seismic
information is in the book, Chapter 6: “Seismic Impact”, pp. 61-93.
6. Dust
Behaviour, sheer amount suspended, thickness of dust clouds and the analyzed
particle size ratio ... all eliminate regular causes, including controlled demolition
•
Even thermite takes too long, is not explosive enough:
- Not considered an explosive
- Iron (from steel) and sulphur could have been in the dust anyway
- Organic materials should have been burned in dust
- Thermite burns bright and would have been a lasting bright flame during main
destruction, which didn’t happen
- More micro materials than larger materials: aberrant compared with other dust
tested in destructions
- Thermite takes longer to burn through car engines than whole towers did
- Explosives not principal destructive mechanism – unless nuke, another issue
•
Note: Dr. Wood goes further:
- Electric fields (computers, cell phones) set off explosives, so no even for effect.
- Rings of charges around floors not seen.
- “Squib” puffs: she attributes to air pressure (Aside: occur far below the main
destruction dust, in pairs of squibs, during the main destruction period, so this is
possibly wrong?)
• Dr. Wood
compares
tritium
Nobel laureate in nuclear physics says cold
fusion problems are possible to solve, and
works out how! – Whether or not they have
been solved yet in fact, he adds.
Dr. Julian Schwinger
http://www.infiniteenergy.com/iemagazine/issue1/colfusthe.html
• ASIDE about the official explanation:
NOTE: Most people don’t carefully address the fact that the official
position really relies on a combination of fire and collapse in NYC
WTC 1&2 on 9/11:
- upper heat/ melt/ inner sag (no sag or massive heat) really
present; dust is not smoke mainly; bent top section during
destrucion main period has other explanations
- crushing, pounding (impossibly powerful and rapid) in
“pancake” form through lower floors of cold steel & concrete
• RETURN TO MAIN ARGUMENT:
So what DID happen?
Dr. Wood's contention for the main destruction period:
• The buildings were disintegrating (“exploding” in ordinary
parlance, but not with explosives or bombs) in situ (in
place), on every floor but not from conventional explosives
…
• Not “exploding” in upwards fashion, but ejection out and
dust flowing out and down, looking more explosive than
they were
• Instead, they were turning to dust ...
• And starting an on-going reaction (nuclear & other(?)
changes)
Spire turns to dust ... 60 stories high, untouched by whatever other destructive mechanisms affected floors
around it (even mini-nukes, if they went off in sequence near it). Dustifying even in MID-AIR.
•
Some contend they cannot “see” this but it occurs in most videos, some of the of the spire, some of them of
other spires arcing and lathering through the air.
•
This video example was from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4
(sorry, my player won’t play the video properly here). There are other copies, good and bad.
Note it “wibble-wobbles” like Jello or a string, but in a sinewave-like shape, falls down leaving a distinctly
different coloured and shaped, and thicker trail of dust in front of other objects. Yes, we see the steel beam
top, as it falls: for a moment still somewhat keeping its own dark shape inside its dust column, but this cannot
be a coherent beam falling and shaking off some dust, for that dust would be barely visible around a regular
solid beam. It also would not show a whole beam column linearly tracing briefly a weak wobble along its height
as it falls. It falls AND turns to dust in mid-air.
•
There are claims that explosive power gave off debris, in a major upward thrust:
•
Don Fox (mini-nuke device proponent) and “9/11 Eyewitness” video (controlled demolition bombs proponent) claim
there was a piece of the tower with a 45-degree upward thrust. However, careful viewing will show that it was not a
falling column rising, but dust rising around the top of a dustifying column while the main part of the column arcs as
a unit down and out. One can determine this because the unit of dusty column detachies and falls, while lighter dust
swirls up, giving the 45-degree effect. A piece was not, itself, blasted up at 45 degrees -- at least in this example.
•
There was debris 400 to 600 feet away. That is another issue. Dr. Wood suggests lateral air pressure and height
account for this. (If there was explosive force to the mechanism of directed energy weapons or nukes and DEWs were
used, this could also explain this?)
– Note: This video attempts to prove WTC destroyed by regular controlled demolition rather than official story.
Nevertheless, it concurs with (mentions at one point) a “vaporized steel” section, the 60-storey spire (see previous
slide). The video does not see a contradiction between controlled demolition and vaporized/ dustified steel.
Video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6498070204870579516# (see 33:17 to 33:52). Title: “911 Eyewitness”.
Overall, it is a good compendium of some of the problems with the official story.
• Dr. Wood
shows that
Debris fell far,
rather than
exploded far
New point:
Most of WTC 4 was gone
•
•
One wing standing, clean cut. & 1 corner missed, wilted.
Perfect cut to wing. No damage to underground except holes. Not collapse, too
specific for nukes, even shaped charges: leaves a line of destruction.
• Gash in Bankers Trust (Deutsche Bank) too large for cladding in it
• Later, rusted beams kept occurring and they couldn't fix so they rebuilt
• On-going process at molecular or nuclear level?
• Particularly, soldered connections between beams were affected – in
underground or Bankers Trust (I forget the reference she cites). Could the
specific corrosion be electrical resistance?
• Flames showed at the beginning of destruction, but not during. Not
thermite and not regular explosives alone.
• A “smoke screen” cover-story?
Cars burst into flame rapidly and without
warning – water didn’t affect some of them
•
•
•
•
•
Not all engine blocks, but many seemed particularly affected: pulse effect
beyond what EMP from nukes would do?
Sometimes partial segments were affected, particularly where electrically
insulative rubber would have been
Unburned paper or seating material was worked into one of the seats all the
rest having been consumed around it: not an oxygen-less area which can leave
something unburned.
As far away as JFK drive
Quick rustification, odd holes, wilting, handles and trim gone without much
other damage sometimes
Many testimonies
• One was a firefighter who said water wouldn't stop the fires
Selective insulation of flame effects
Seat or paper interwoven in seat and uncharred but all else down
to metal – can’t be lack of oxygen in the fire area (BLACK box)
Cars burst into flame rapidly and without warning
Not all engine blocks, but many seemed particularly affected: pulse effect?
Sometimes partial segments where insulative rubber would have been
Unburned paper worked into one of them
As far away as JFK drive
Quick rustification, odd holes, wilting, handles and trim gone without much other
damage sometimes
Many testimonies
One was a firefighter who said water wouldn't stop the fires
• Windows broke in circles in some cases multiple times
• Sometimes one pane only
• Dr. Wood suggests lateral waves
Strange levitation of cars and people (Cloud moved about 30 mph.)
• “Flipped” cars among others unflipped, like tornados (usually
claimed to be from wind speed in tornados, but Wood shows a
picture of a car nicely resting atop a fence after a tornado, p. 438,
from Hurricane Wilma; original source from
http://imageshack.us/img503/7780/dsc07405fu.jpg )
People: “punched” and “lifted” and dropped in the dust cloud after
• Photographer Handschuh for “a block”!!!
• Emergency Medical worker Renae O'Connell and others!?!
• One man hid under truck and it was just “gone” when the dust
cleared: no major wind or he’d have felt it directly!?!?
• Testimony:
- Trucks were “tossed like toys” down the street in the cloud!?!
•
•
There were round and almost debris-less holes all around the site
No sign of major heat: some wilting but no damage to ceilings
USGS satellite - Claims of high heat and molten metal in debris.
• “Loose Change” movie suggested heat well over 1,000 degrees, but official
claim was about 800 degrees from USGS who did the satellite data.
• Glowing metal, some still hot possibly (iron burns, continues heating)
might not be general heat
• But note: no major glowing during dustification --- was this glow from a
continuing process? [If there was molten metal (which Dr. Wood
discounts), could it have been very localized and from continued iron
“burning” slowly in increasing amounts, which has occurred, or could have
been from metal other than steel?]
• NO STEAM or burns from it – none reported, Grapplers worked
•
Famous image of firefighters at “glowing hole” is overexposed light on ground, from video context.
The video, which tries to debunk elements of 9/11 big-conspiracy theory, contains accurately the video
source from which this “photo” came: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YXzjAKJQOg (see 1:51
to 2:36). Title: “9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Pools of Molten Steel”, posted by “RKOwens4”, in 2007.
• Fuming on the day and years after
• THIS, however, is water with fumes, note grappler not seized up
from area heat
• Dirt trucked in and out, ultimately filled much of the
Bathtub retaining area with dirt; Hazmat suits used for
some lucky workers, hosing down the workers years later
Lathering effects
Dr. Wood points out that WTC 7 was NOT a regular controlled demolition, at least for the main part of its destruction.
On bldg 7 we have photos from several angles yet only a glow on some floors. Lathering for a few hours. Bombs early
on and more height to debris pile, but irregular seizmograph and fuming/lathering.
Testimony:
•
(Barry Jennings claimed several bombs or explosions and many dead in WTC 7 earlier than the take-down later)
Note: WTC 7 had another tiny seismograph reading when it came down.
• On bldg 1 more lather,
right as WTC 2 comes
down.
• All of one side, like
WTC 7.
• Some people thought
the WTC 7 images
were fake, but they
come from different
angles and fit the
profile of the strange
dusty fumes (lather)
on other buildings
• Heat effects and sudden flames:
• Some people had clothing on fire or sudden burns in the dust cloud
• Others felt no heat, felt no debris worth mentioning, just thick dust
Testimony:
• Renae O'Connell reached WTC to help 11 minutes before 1st destruction
(WTC 2). At ¾ miles away, on Washington Bridge, several minutes before
that, she felt intense heat.
Was it regular heat or wave “toasting” (like a microwave)? (As with jumpers
possibly.) Could nukes be going off constantly and would they leave this
effect so far away?
Added on July 3, 2012:
• Erratum:
Renae O’Connell was on the Manhattan Bridge, .75 miles from the WTC, not on the Washington Bridge.
(Explanation as to why this error occurred: This slide presentation was in technical limbo until about ½
hour before due. Some items were typed from memory, such as this one; the error is mine.)
Thank you to Andrew Johnson at http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=352&Itemid=60 , for pointing out the error!
•
Aside:
The comment at the bottom of the previous slide, as to whether nukes could give off such an effect was
inserted in question form, to make people think this through. It was rhetorical, on my part. I believe
people will see that nukes could not have been giving off such effects as a continuum for so long, at
least – even if, as Prager seemed to suggest to me in private correspondence, the mini-nukes might
have very short ranges for their most destructive effects and quickly have a “fall off” of the worst
immediate effects (aside from over time, when secondary and tertiary fusion occur). And certainly
regular demolition bombs of any kind would not have microwave-like effects. The reason I write
here about the rhetorical device in the previous slide, is that Johnson has taken me literally in some
of his comments about it, at the link given above.
“Jumpers”
• Numerous testimonies:
• “Raining people”: constant falling people
- 10 to 30 seconds apart at one point
- Videos do not capture this (they may have
recycled and composited imagery from earlier
in the day)
• Some seem to be DISrobing
• Would sprinkler wetting leave them more
susceptible to field effects?
• Then numbers of people are impelled to jump – is
this an effect like flash-microwave effect weapons
now being released?
• Do they feel a pulse like the levitating people
later?
Magnetosphere readings in Alaska changed
specifically on 9/11, not in a general solar effect.
And they changed increasingly for 20 minutes
BEFORE the “1st hit”, then stayed increasingly
anomalous (though more complex) through the
day.
(Would nukes have been going off enough to
change readings so early?)
A hurricane off the coast at its widest and closest
to NY (though not as violent)
• Hurricane Erin might be connected to 9/11
events deliberately – directed, used.
Dr. Wood gives details about ...
• The seemingly very strange eye of the storm: like worms in a knot
• Chemtrail analysis, barium, etc.
• Discussion of other atmospheric waveform and defense initiatives, such
as:
• February 8, 2006 03:06 PM
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002163.html
Someday the U.S. military could drive a trailer to a spot just beyond
insurgent fighting and, within minutes, reconfigure part of the
atmosphere, blocking an enemy's ability to receive satellite signals, even
as U.S. troops are able to see into the area with radar.
• Hurricane and other weather control initiatives, some pursued but “in the
future yet
Straw in trees after
Hurricanes/Tornados
Collection by Russian V.I. Merkulov
•
Beams are not buckled (some are very straight – whole outside cladding)
•
Others are twisted (tall beams and small metal on floor). Yet others are curled as
a group (large beams on floor, as if their connector bound them in a roll)
•
Not regular pressure and bombs
Paper unburned:
•
•
•
•
In street
In dust cloud
In compact “meteorite-looking debris”
Worked into the seat of the car shown before
(unless that was equally odd, uncharred seating
material)
“Meteorite” from 9/11 NYC (left):
mix of metals and mix of paper
and other materials.
Conjoined, not simply pressure
John Hutchison metal
(right): one of the
fused metal objects.
Some claim this is
fake. They have
not addressed other
embedded objects,
or other definitely
unfakeable items,
such as the iron bar
which dissolves into a
contorted mess.
• And paper was attached to a “once-molten” filing cabinet,
the only one found
Think about that. The paper was:
• Attached, with colour remaining
• Attached to “hot” metal without burning
• Remember, this is supposed to have been attached to “hot”
metal, not in a different segment of a room, with no oxygen
for a fire, where you might find some unburned items
survive unharmed.
Dr. Wood connects these events to waveforms interacting:
1. Levitation
2. Changing matter (dust) and on-going reactions (fuming without steam
explosions, for years)
3. Lateral wave effects in windows
4. Sudden selective fires in cars with peeling, toasting without normal burn in
many cases, unaffected by water
5. Holes (near misses of a wave effect?)
6. Missing parts of buildings (WTC 4 mostly gone to ground level, “gash” in
Deutsche Bank – Bankers Trust – building, too large for the cladding stuck
in it to have caused it)
• Dr. Wood's expertise is in interferometry.
• She studies stresses and waveforms interacting in
different materials.
• Her conclusions come partly from that experience, but
she does feel she has eliminated other hypotheses
from the evidence and thus not had blinders on for
other theoretical (explanatory conclusion) options.
• She HAS helped to eliminate regular collapsing from fires
and colder pancaking of steel below the fires.
• She has helped eliminate regular explosives as main
destructive mechanism. (Though some would argue there
were some explosives used as well. There was a team of
unsecure “workers” laying cable lines right before 9/11 for
days. – Were they electric cable or for explosives or both?
Regular controlled demolitions of whole buildings are very
unreliable at times, when charges don't go off right and we
didn't see mere puffs and flashes in rows around the
buildings.)
• The other main contender is nukes.
But here are some things which Dr. Wood has raised
which suggest that even mini-nuke bombs, flashing
quickly and starting reactions, would not properly
account for ...
See for yourself:
Pre-magnetosphere 20 mins
Heat – Renae O'Connell before and far away
Unburned but disrobing victims
Jumper frequency/ amount
Cars – fires common, selective effects, water sometimes ineffective
Levitation with low windspeed – trucks “tossed like toys”; another truck right above
someone “gone” when dust cleared; people carried, dropped (like a rough “setting down”).
Unburned material – paper and something interwoven in car seat
Hurricane Erin – connected? Unconnected? unintentionally connected?
Unmentioned or mentioned?
Formed, reformed
Eye of storm odd
Closest, biggest on day and moved away striking angle
Part 2 of Talk
• Background science facts: nearly lost and
disparaged work
“Lost Science”
DR. JUDY WOOD MENTIONS OTHER SCIENTISTS & FINDINGS TO SUPPORT ASPECTS OF ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE
WAVES CAUSING THINGS SIMILAR TO 9/11 NYC:
Website and book references (Website drjudywood.com has a lot on these):
•
Control of atmosphere
•
Different directed and field-effect directed-energy weaponry
Scientists (some have more detail in book than on Website, but Hutchison is best on Website and his own,
http://www.thehutchisoneffect.com/ )
•
Hutchison
•
Tesla
•
TT Brown (Biefield-Brown effect)
•
Piggott
•
Leedskalnin
•
(other) Pyramids at Giza, Egypt
I am going to go into more detail on some of these than Dr. Wood does, so that you have more to discuss about her
recommendations on relevant science findings and on possibly relevant science findings.
I will also add some persons to the list for you to consider.
HUTCHISON
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
forms of metal “bursting”/ looking like hardened spiky jelly
levitation: water and objects
holes with thinning of edges poof.
Fumy dust
strange fires along and on ends of metal (boat, etc.)
collapse into self (iron bar)
flaking
contortions
effects continue when electricity turned off
low power source
papers by the hundreds show official interest in his work, and the theory of what makes it work
lots of camera crews, one clearly witness to levitation (sponge in back area and H was surprised)
all kinds of materials affected somehow, sometimes
fused materials (p. 361 fig. 376) cf. 9/11 Fused coins (p. 362 fig. 377 b)
not all findings made it into final edits, supposedly
mutation of chemicals in stone and metal
other work: crystals and battery power and other things
peeled metal: (pp. 360-361 figs. 373 & 375) – some might say car doors laminated but not; some
might say paint but burn would singe. Some singeing from prob. Mix of reg. Fire and unusual
unresponsive to water fires.
One example of many: No expert
explanation for this which matches the
metal condition
Again: What further does Dr. Wood say about the field effects she posits/ concludes
did the main destruction? Can she point to a physical corollary other than 9/11?
•
The effects she has identified, she links to others' work. Particularly and 1st she
mentions John Hutchison's work with electrical interference waves:
1. Influenced by Tesla.
2. Works with low power sources.
3. Radio and other waves interact.
4. Levitation (even of a sponge, which TV crew witnessed), moving and bending,
holes, destruction of iron (including fumy dust), fusion of materials (wood in
metal, metal in metal), strange fires – claimed for many different materials.
5. Changed elements.
•
Hutchison Effect holes/ “burns” (top right, comparable with some trucks, cars on 9/11)
•
Hutchison Effect levitation of water (pp. 376-377) & objects (not shown on this slide, but a 9/11 example bottom right & others mentioned by
witnesses)
•
Hutchison Effect bending of metal as if alive (not shown on this slide, but 9/11 example top left)
•
Hutchison Effect destruction in peeling like 9/11 cars and some beams (not shown on this slide, but see 9/11 police car door in earlier slide)
•
Hutchison effect weird fires (bottom left, comparable with 9/11 cars?)
VIDEOS OF HUTCHISON WORK
Ace Baker on Hutchison:
– attempt to fake
– expertise in video fake techniques
– convinced fake ahead of time – but still did a
service: could it be faked video?
– no success and selective treatment
– no coverage of other aspects than videos
Mutation of elements?
• Available at
http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/johnkhut
chison/uo2-samples-exposed-to-jh-device-1/3
• This is a report on materials showing changes in
elemental composition, reproduced on next
slides:
Added July 3, 2012:
• Note that the paper concludes some nuclear
(element mutation) is consistent with known
nuclear transformations, albeit not under these
circumstances, but that one (the new presence of
gold) in these previous materials does not seem
consistent with ANY transformations of the
“stable” materials, though they postulate a
possible means of change.
• The authors recommend further work.
Tesla
WHITE-FIRE
•
•
It’s the ultimate reason he's known for “weird” things
Dr. Wood does not cover this aspect of Tesla’s claims, but it is the source of much of his later work,
so I am covering it here
White-fire
• Experiment & reasoning (explanation, theory) about white-fire was the source of much of his later
work
Tesla discovered properties of something which ultimately he called white-fire.
• It was an uncontrolled, known effect during Edison's direct current use.
• Tried to engineer it away.
• Tesla didn't avoid looking at why it happened.
• Through many twists and turns of experiments, he ultimately became convinced it was not
predicted or covered by Maxwell's equations (for it was a) unknown to be included, and b)
unpredicted b/c it didn't follow the principles set out in M's choices of what were “primary”
electro-magnetic effects).
White-fire tests and findings
In the process, he tested the effects also in oil, eliminating the possibility it was mere air ionization he
was noting. He also tested many versions of safety barriers, coils, switches, distances and so on,
related to the effect.
He found the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
it vaporized and exploded the switches and other materials in the vicinity
it pulsed painfully, like a shock but one which did not return to its source
it could be controlled for safety and for type of power
it gave off light effects which ran over object surfaces
the more cut up the object surface, the more the surrounding effect gave off power
it gave off more power than put in (up to millions of volts)
it could be safe
its pulses could be controlled so they were so rapid the body didn't feel them and it was safe
it could transmit infinitely
it could light and affect things far away
New energy results?
Regular concepts of current as electrons pushed along a wire was wrong: this occurred
BEFORE they moved any current.
Tesla’s Language after and all subsequent work based on “new” found energy
• others said/say it was not “new”
Tesla spoke in hydraulic terms about the universe’s creative power:
•
•
•
•
•
Universe gives off potential
Infinite, in a sense
Related to Universe but you draw on the source
Electricity is one “nearly first” observable effect from basic source material waves of the Universe
Technical details of how Tesla eliminated regular explanations and mathematical
and experimental assumptions, and why this white-fire is special (though not
unique) for implications for physics:
http://customers.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/tesla.htm
All quotations on white-fire are from this site. But for more information, another good
source is Gerry Vassilatos’ book, “Lost Science” (1997?)
White-fire replaced polyphase
• Polyphase (A/C) is unnatural: the universe is about impulses not
alternations
• “Polyphase was a most unnatural form of energy. Natural activity
is suffused with impulses, not alternations.”
• “Maxwell could not predict these values. Tesla empirically
discovered most of the rules for impulse behavior. He found that
the transformative abilities of these smooth copper coils were
maximum when the coil mass equal[l]ed the mass of the impulser's
conductive copper strap.”
White-fire and 9/11 explosions, vaporizations
•
“Tesla was stung by a pressure blast of needle-like penetrations. Closing the
dynamo down, he rubbed his face, neck, arms, chest, and hands. The irritation was
distinct. He thought while the dynamo whirred down to a slow spin. The blast was
powerful. He must have been sprayed by hot metal droplets as small as smoke
particles. Though he examined his person, he fortunately found no wounds. No
evidence of the stinging blast, which he so powerful felt.”
•
“Placing a large glass plate between himself and the exploding wire, he performed
the test again. Bang! The wire again turned to vapor ... but the pressured stinging
effect was still felt. But, what was this? How were these stinging effects able to
penetrate the glass plate?”
Bangs or impulses?
Bangs, shocks, pressure effects?
Or IMPULSES?
•
“Through careful isolation of each experimental component, Tesla gradually
realized that he was observing a very rare electrical phenomenon. Each ‘bang’
produced the same unexpected shock response in Tesla, while exploding small
wire sections into vapor. The instantaneous burst produced strange effects never
observed with alternating currents. The painful shocking sensation appeared each
time he closed or opened the switch. These sudden shock currents were
IMPULSES, not alternations. What surprised him was the fact that these needlelike shocks were able to reach him from a distance: he was standing almost ten
feet from the discharge site!”
•
“These electrical irritations expanded out of the wire in all directions and filled the
room in a mystifying manner. He had never before observed such an effect. He
thought that the hot metal vapor might be acting as a ‘carrier’ for the electrical
charges. This would explain the strong pressure wave accompanied by the
sensation of electrical shock. He utilized longer wires. When the discharge wire
was resistive enough, no explosion could occur.”
•
“Wire in place, the dynamo whirred at a slower speed. He threw the switch for a
brief instant, and was again caught off guard by the stinging pressure wave! The
effect persisted despite the absence of an explosive conductor.”
Electrostatic forces preceding electron
charges
“... rapid electrical impulses actually exceed the ability of fixed
charges to transmit the applied forces. Charges lag where
electrostatic forces continue propagating. One is compelled
to see that electrostatic forces precede the movement of
charges.”
“... in confirmation of his suspicions, no current was ever
measured at the free terminals of these coils. A ‘zero coil
current’ condition!”
Watts into Volts – and lots
Conversion of watts into volts in millions, unheard of
(“more energy” detectable to us coming out than in)
•
“Tesla remarked that the electrostatic potentials along the coil surface (from end
to end) could be as much as ten thousand volts per inch of winding! A ten-inch coil
of proper volume could produce one hundred thousand volt discharges. In
addition, and in confirmation of his suspicions, no current was ever measured at
the free terminals of these coils. A ‘zero coil current’ condition!”
And:
• “Tesla found it possible to produce millions of electrostatic volts by this method.”
What others think
• “Most imagine that the Tesla impulse system is merely a ‘very high frequency alternator’. This is a completely erroneous notion, resulting in effects, which can never equal those to which Tesla referred.”
• “The ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ of Tesla Transformers are not magnetic
inductors. They are resistive capacitors. Coil-shaped capacitors! Tesla
Transformer action is electrostatic induction.”
Electrostatic Resonance
He made impulses safe but could also destroy ...
directly, or by impulses far away
• “It did not matter how thin the coil windings were.
The equality of copper masses brought maximum
transformative effects. When this equal mass
condition was fulfilled, Tesla said that the coilcapacitors were ‘in resonance’. Electrostatic
resonance.”
Tesla’s Universal Hydraulics
“Aether gas power manifested as the electromagnetic forces themselves,
adequate reason to pursue the development of an Aether gas engine.
Such an engine could run forever on the eternal kinetic energies of the
Aether itself, it being both generated and driven by the stars.”
Have others found this?
Why have others have not fully developed Tesla's work on white-fire as source
• actually they have worked on it or on related items:
• e.g. Hutchison, Shoulders, HAARP and black projects (?) in different ways
Remember:
• Citizens: lower budget, partial understanding, other interests, disbelief
• HAARP: different purpose, probable discounting of white-fire's special
relationship to the Universe (aetheric vs charge)
• Black projects: probably same discounting as in HAARP but we won't know
– maybe 9/11 shows development of concept and use
TT Brown & Biefield
Levitation, propulsion, pulses in very special electrical experiments
Used Oil tests & high-vacuum: not ionization as most sources claim
• Planet positions: effects were heightened, irrespective of electric
intensity – no explanation yet found and most don’t try
• Propulsion
• Lift
Article by Brown reproduced in David Hatcher Childress’ odd compendium book, “Anti-Gravity and the Unified
Field” (1990), along with a great analytical article following it, by an electrical engineer (named Bell, if I
recall)
Piggott
• Metal balls electrically lifted in lab
• Got patent, 1911
Leedskalnin
• Coral Castle, Florida
Giza Pyramids
Just one point about the pyramids here:
ORIENTING blocks perfectly with huge crews is
impossible: can’t get enough persons to touch
or co-ordinate exactly at those numbers
Plus much else. Compare Leedskalnin.
Now my additions
Dr. Kaluza, Dr. Einstein
Unified field theory (UFT)
Dr. Kron
Claimed TESTS of UFT through electrical
anomalies and conceptual electrical systems
“machines” which could be built
Farrell on Torsion: Kaluza, Einstein,
Kron, Phil. Exp., Nazi Bell
Torsion: UFT/Kron’s name for interpenetrating effects through all matter:
concept framework historically ascendent during 30s/40s when Phil. Exp. &
Nazi Bell were conceived (if they were real ... Do check it out deeply)
Philadelphia Experiment
Radar (radio) invisibility
Scientists have tested principle findings – Farrell reproduces their paper
Was it done, and if so, was torsion found – accidentally or not?
Nazi Bell
Intentional weaponization – studies of torsion?
Though not covering the Nazi Bell in the detail in his other books, Farrell’s best & updated comparative work on these items taken
together is “Secrets of the Unified Field” (2008). His thoughts range to some odd things even in this book, but the basic
arguments on the main topic are fair and clear.
Where does this lead us to?
•
A physics behind our physics, a kind of “AEther” or hydraulic potential in the universe, resonant
electrical “machines” which channel it and separate it from the flow of electrons (Tesla's whitefire), explosions, levitations, weaponization, theory predicting and explaining some of this both
imagistically (Tesla) and mathematically (torsion).
•
Dr. Wood does not claim “space beams” did this. This is not “a beam”. This is conditions under
which Tornado-like and other even more extreme effects are found to be anomalous (not mere
ionization or taking up material) which are themselves rethought and possibly weirder than people
think of, are controlled and might vaporize, pulse, conjoin materials, not burn or burn depending on
where the fields interact, leave sudden combustion, some of it hot (felt on people) and some of it a
skin sensation, some of it not hot and flaming or glowing and some transmutation of elements.
•
Designer of HAARP claimed he was not only controlling weather effects, but that the concept of
concentrated energy came from Tesla. This might connect with human influence on Hurr. Erin
(though some people think that would be too risky for such a well-planned storyboard timeline as
9/11 needed).
–
Beyond whether HAARP or something influenced Hurr. Erin, or even if Hurr. Erin was involved at all directly
in the events, deliberately, the PR director of HAARP said in a documentary, proudly, that they were
helping Philips Labs develop “space beam” weaponry, by doing experiments for them – though they are
supposed to be civilian in research. Space beams may be real, but also field effects may be used as well. The
video where the PR director was interviewed is “Holes In Heaven: H.A.A.R.P. and Advances in Telsa
Technology” (copy posted at http://911scholars.ning.com/video/holes-in-heaven-haarp-and )
Final comments
I hope you understand more about:
•
Dr. Judy Wood's own findings: the FACTS (data points and comparisons), and the CASE she makes
•
the implications she mentions in other science experiments
•
why other people might mention even more about Tesla, torsion, and “new” physics than she does, but also why
it might be relevant, too
“New” physics and interference wave weapons:
plausible
already experimented on publicly
possibly weaponized and even used on 9/11
MORE WORK TO BE DONE on:
whether such weaponry would be used in conjunction with nukes, in case there is some overlap she missed but ...
I personally believe the anomalies here mentioned are not properly covered by primary and secondary fusion at all,
and that the dust nuclear change co-efficients might well be possible with electrical effects alone
•
•
•
This might not be a beam or from a space platform. (Dr Wood mentions the Star Wars program on her Website,
but that is a PROGRAM of development, and this energy might be concentrated to areas but not “beams”.)
Maybe DEWs and field effects were studied even BEFORE that SDI program.
And might well have been used, she seems to show, on 9/11.