The Hutchinson Effect And 9/11

[Frankdee20]

Stay away people. This Judy Wood stuff is classic disinformation. I would put this right at the top of the list:

Disinfo List

• Judy Wood's 'space beam'
• Jim Fetzer's 'mini-nukes'
• The 'no plane' threory, usually something to do with holograms.
• The Pentagon missile strike

Many torched cars were towed towards the Brooklyn Bridge after 9/11. There is simply little parking space in Manhattan, and they can sell upwards of $200,000 apiece.

Judy Wood invokes a space beam—an invisible space beam.

Jim Fetzer's mini-nuke is a misnomer, since a critical mass is required for each atomic bomb. Even the smallest nuclear explosion would have caused far more damage. This here is the 'smallest theoretical.'

All of the hard evidence points to thermite. Very convincing chemical data has been obtained by Dr. Niels Harrit, PhD Chemistry.

• Harrit, Niels H. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol 2, 2009, doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007."

The calorimetry data really proves it, and so does the XEDS spectrographs. The XEDS maps are also revealing, as they indicate the size, composition, and relative location of each particle. Keep in mind that normal EDS is not quantitative, so you cannot accurately determine molar ratios with these.

This stuff has been created by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories:

• Simpson, Randall L., et al. Nanostructured energetic materials derived from sol-gel chemistry. No. UCRL-JC-136924. Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (US), 2000.

It is essentially just thermite ground to particles on the nanoscale, brought into solution with a silane, and then evaporated as the silanes polymerize. This embeds the particles at an effective density: not to close, and not to far apart. The hardest part is getting the aluminum in such small particles without it oxidizing, as it loses it's free electrons which are needed later for the thermite reaction. It is actually hard to make for just this reason alone. There are a few articles on this. This matches the chemical characteristics of what was reported by Niels Harrit perfectly.

The seismic data strongly indicates a bomb in the basement, perhaps on the main columns. The building rattled-down in pieces, which cannot explain the magnitude 2.3 seismic event picked-up from from 34 kilometers away. You can see the needle-traces below, with time-stamps:

• Kim, Won‐Young, et al. "Seismic waves generated by aircraft impacts and building collapses at World Trade Center, New York City." Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 82.47 (2001): 565-571.

And the columns were probably flexible-enough to absorb most of the impact. Another reason why the collapse couldn't have been responsible is in the timing. If you calculate the time of the seismic event in Manhattan using the propagation velocity through the granite bedrock which lies under Upstate New York, and the distance from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, you will find that it occurred before the collapse. Space beams are not known to cause seismic events.

The 'no plane' theory is painfully stupid simply for the fact that you cannot project a hologram on air and expect it to be visible where you would like it to be. Any projected image would simply end-up animating the nearest building, or nearest hard object.

The Pentagon Missile Strike is probably disinformation too, although it's actually somewhat plausible. Either way, it diverts attention and energy towards a trivial detail which is difficult to actually prove either way. I would avoid looking into it for that reason. There is so much more photographic, physical, chemical and seismological evidence available on what happened in Manhattan—plenty enough to make it plainly obvious what had happened. The entire country would know without a doubt if it weren't for the propaganda on the television, the intimidation of Senators, and the disinformation on the internet which detracts and makes the entire 9/11 investigation look ridiculous to many people.

Ok, so I buy that simple burning jet fuel didn't bring this down. Then how does thermite coincide with hijackers ? Collusion? Some entity was pulling these strings. I doubt 2 towel heads armed with box cutters could've known about a larger scheme. The question remains : who did 9/11 ? Mossad ? CIA ?

 

[burtlancast]

The Pentagon Missile Strike is probably disinformation too, although it's actually somewhat plausible.

What is more plausible?
That a plane hit the pentagon?

 

[Ideonaut]

great stuff--thanks, Kyle!

 

[Kyle M]

Stay away people. This Judy Wood stuff is classic disinformation. I would put this right at the top of the list

Why? I find her story compelling for two reason: 1) it offers an explanation of the lack of solid rubble from the collapses, 2) she is heavily censored even by Wikipedia, unlike the thermite and other explanations

 

[InChristAlone]

I think this is the best theory yet and I haven't even gotten to the part explaining what was used to disintegrate the buildings. Should be interesting. The military is always farther ahead than what they tell the public, I don't doubt they had the technology to bring down all 3 towers yet leaving little rubble.

 

[Travis]

I doubt 2 towel heads armed with box cutters could've known about a larger scheme. The question remains : who did 9/11 ? Mossad ? CIA ?

George Bush's brother ran the security for the World Trade Center in the months leading-up to the incident.

What is more plausible?
That a plane hit the pentagon?

I think so; but like I said, the missile theory is actually plausible (not like most of the other ones.) Airplane debris was found, although I have to admit that you might have expected more. It most certainly wasn't a large Boeing as the official story indicates due to a would-be impossible flight path, but it could have been like 727-size—a few witnesses do describe a smaller passenger jet. Light poles were knocked-down.

I find it much harder to say anything definite about the Pentagon.

I find her story compelling...

I don't find this compelling at all. She spends a few pages talking about potential energy and the 2.3 Richter energy estimation, yet says nothing about the most plausible explanation. Numerous witnesses describe a subterranean explosion before the collapse, and some eyewitness accounts were given on the same day. Tiles were blown-off the lobby wall and people were injured. There was so much proof of this explosion that it necessitated the government/media to confabulate an "official explanation" of his event. The official explanation impossibly involves jet fuel to explain this—having it fall 70+ floors down the elevator shafts and then exploding in the basement.

If you were to go through the seismology data and calculate the time, using the bedrock wave propagation speed in Upstate New York, you will find that it happened before the collapse. The seismic event proceeded to collapse, and no witnesses describe a space beam. The Judy Wood website it basically all innuendo with Hutchinson Effects occasionally peppered-in.

The Hutchinson Effect has never caused anything to explode. ​

for two reason: 1) it offers an explanation of the lack of solid rubble from the collapses,

These buildings were 90% empty space. If you count the gypsum and concrete which had turned to dust, then even less. The concrete was a low-density variety, and a good amount of steel was actually blown through the facades of neighboring buildings and onto the the rooftops of some shorter ones.​

2) she is heavily censored even by Wikipedia, unlike the thermite and other explanations

The Wiki "9/11 conspiracy theories" page is under semi-protection. I'll see if I can't throw something in about Judy Wood after my four-day waiting period. There is no mention of Jim Fetzer either on that page, although he does have a biographical Wiki page of his own.

And don't forget that the the thermite explanation is the only one with hard physical, and chemical, proof. If you read this study, the only possible conclusion is that thermite was indeed found or that the entire study was faked.

• Harrit, Niels H. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol 2, 2009, doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007."

Iron microspheres were found by others. The USGS afterwards had found some, and electron micrographs can be found here. Also, the RJ Lee Group had found iron microspheres when they hired an independent lab to help with their insurance analysis. The formation of microspheres necessitates a temperature high enough to liquefy steel. This is over 2,500°F, and not an easy task considering the conductive effects of all connected steel. Welders and brazers, among others, know that you need a much higher temperature to melt steel because the applied heat is quickly conducted throughout the entire beam.

• OF 2005-1165: Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust
• Signature Assessment
  130 Liberty Street Property
  Expert Report
  WTC Dust Signature
  Report Date: May 2004

​

 

[burtlancast]

What is more plausible?
That a plane hit the pentagon?

I think so; but like I said, the missile theory is actually plausible (not like most of the other ones.) Airplane debris was found, although I have to admit that you might have expected more. It most certainly wasn't a large Boeing as the official story indicates due to a would-be impossible flight path, but it could have been like 727-size—a few witnesses do describe a smaller passenger jet. Light poles were knocked-down.

I find it much harder to say anything definite about the Pentagon.

​

Funny you would say that.
Of the entire 911 official fairy tale, the pentagon disappearing plane is the most blatant fraud and the easiest to grasp by normal everyday folks.

This is precisely why debunkers have concentrated their (futile) efforts in coming up with a wealth of exotic explanations as to why the plane wasn't shut down by the missiles protecting the pentagone, why not a single wreckage piece with their serial numbers was presented for evidence to the press (remember, parts like the engine and landing gears are quasi indestructible) and why the pentagon hole was ridiculously too small for the entire plane to have disappeared).

But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you ?

 

[Frankdee20]

Nice job, I found Judy's shtick too exotic of an explanation.

 

[burtlancast]

So, Travis thinks a Boeing 727 is more likely to have hit the pentagon than a missile.

Here's a Boeing 727, practically the same lenght (46.68 m) as a 757 (47 m):

And here's the pentagon hole with a Boeing 757 superimposed:

Very plausible indeed.

Well done Travis.

 

[Travis]

But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you ?

I have read all about those things. There are photographs of landing gear, a wheel rim, and even an engine inside of the rubble.

The Penatagon was being renovated during the time of impact. It was being strenthened. Kevlar fabric was added in the inside of the brickwork.

Photographs minutes after impact show airplane debris.

Read the eyewitness accounts. Over three hundred have been collated on one website.

the pentagon disappearing plane is the most blatant fraud and the easiest to grasp by normal everyday folks.

It's more ambiguous that Manhattan because there is about one-hundred times less evidence. There are eyewitness accounts and a hole that looks smaller than what you would immediately expect from a passenger jet impact. That is not to say that a missile did this, as the wings would have been destroyed by the lightpoles that were knocked-down in the flightpath.

Can you do any better? Can you explain the:

• Felled lightpoles.
• The airplane skin debris in Boeing colors on the lawn moments after impact.
• The landing gear, wheel, and engine photos taken from inside.
• Dozens of eyewitnesses who describe an airplane impacting The Pentagon.

So . . . instead of just using a plane they had decided to topple the lamp-posts, quickly plant airplane debris in lawn, and later plant airplane debris inside?

Perhaps, but this sounds no more plausible to me than a small jet actually impacting the building with all of the flyover testimonials more-or-less invented or taken-out of context. Sometimes, witnesses can be led to get the sort of answer that you'd like.

But I don't think that there is enough real evidence available online to be completely certain either way. All you can find is a few hundred photographs—none of them showing impact—and a few hundred eyewitness accounts. Many of these describe an airplane impacting the building, but most just describe either the sound or the fireball.

 

[Travis]

That hole above↑ is from the interior of The Pentagon, on the inner wall facing the yard. One of those inner-holes was reported to have been made by a rescue team. The most clearest image is probably this collage↓ created from many different perspectives, from many different times.

Imagine a 727 with truncated wings—either weakened or severed by the few lamposts that were in the flightpath. These lampposts were knocked down and a smaller piece of which impaled a taxi cab—not the other upright base, but the lighter and smaller arm which holds the light.

A few minutes spent looking at airplane wreckage should convince most people that the thin aluminum skin of passenger jets can burn completely at temperatures achievable in crashes.

 

[burtlancast]

Very good, Travis.

So, tell us, what happened on 911, according to you?

 

[Rand56]

I get the feeling that trying to explain off the plane into the pentagon, is like trying to put a good sell job on the magic bullet theory with JFK.

 

[Rand56]

@Travis What are your thought's on Wood's explanation that if it was thermite, it would have given off a blinding type flash, and that was not seen?

 

[InChristAlone]

Yeah if it was thermite why no bright flash? And she explains the the seismograph doesn't show a controlled demolition.

 

[Travis]

So, tell us, what happened on 911, according to you?

I think nanothermite was most certainly used. You can see molten iron flowing out of the windows in some videos. This would have lessened the need for the actually louder concussive explosives like RDX, if they were used at all. Nanothermite can be explosive if mixed properly; and it depends on the carbon content of the silane matrix whether pressure/volume explosions are created. Flashes and squibs can be seen in this video. Niels Harrit's paper is a good physical proof of thermite, and he explains it well in lectures.

Disinformation is created both to confuse and make non-official 9/11 explanations seem absurd. Online trolls, like perhaps Rand56 above, make the situation worse by arguing against obvious facts. Some probably actually get paid to do this.

I get the feeling that trying to explain off the plane into the pentagon, is like trying to put a good sell job on the magic bullet theory with JFK.

Don't be shy. Explain you're reasoning for a missile. What sort of damage would you expect from a steel and kevlar-reinforced stone wall? and how would you explain the long stretch of no-wall on the first floor? Does this not seem somewhat more consistent with wing damage than with a missile?

@Travis What are your thought's on Wood's explanation that if it was thermite, it would have given off a blinding type flash, and that was not seen?

Flashes were seen. The day was sunny enough, and the inner glass reflective enough, to hide most of this.

And she explains the the seismograph doesn't show a controlled demolition.

I don't think that she explains much of anything. It's true that the seismograph recording could not be explained by the peppering of steel on the street, but it can be explained by a powerful explosion in the basement—coupled to a main column. The main columns were huge, and was the only part of the building that was in direct physical contact with the bedrock. The seismic shock wave traveled through this bedrock 34 kilometers to where it was recorded, in Palisades New York. This was the compression wave; these are the fastest seismic waves and the first to arrive. All of this has been recorded by geologists.

Last year I did my own calculations which showed that the collapse of the building couldn't have produced the 2.3 Richter. It would take the majority of the building compressed into one solid mass falling from the height of the top floor to do this. Seismograph traces are often used to estimate the energy of falling objects, and even airplanes, and there are good articles about doing this.

• Matthews, Robert. "On the use of seismometers to detect the impact of meteorites." Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 31 (1990): 181-189.

Judy Wood picks-apart some obvious holes in the main story, but she has no real explanation. She can never be refuted because she never seems to propose anything; all she has is innuendo about space beams, cold fusion, and secret weapons.

 

[Rand56]

Online trolls, like perhaps Rand56 above, make the situation worse by arguing against obvious facts. Some probably actually get paid to do this.

I don't get paid anything. How much do you get paid?

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Ok, so I buy that simple burning jet fuel didn't bring this down. Then how does thermite coincide with hijackers ? Collusion? Some entity was pulling these strings. I doubt 2 towel heads armed with box cutters could've known about a larger scheme. The question remains : who did 9/11 ? Mossad ? CIA ?

Mossad in collusion with the United States government and some connected elites in New York.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Stay away people. This Judy Wood stuff is classic disinformation. I would put this right at the top of the list:

Disinfo List

• Judy Wood's 'space beam'
• Jim Fetzer's 'mini-nukes'
• The 'no plane' threory, usually something to do with holograms.
• The Pentagon missile strike

Agreed.

 

[InChristAlone]

So I just watched an engineer's experiments using thermate to melt steel and he was successful and came up with a good theory on how it was already placed when it was built. But he thought it might have just been used to weaken the beams before the final blow. So what was the final blow?

I like that we can discuss this. I think any explanation needs to have science to back it up, and not just come up with outlandish theories that are disproven. I had no clue what Hutchison Effect was. Her theories could certainly be disinformation, and detract from our efforts to get the truth out. Either way it was a huge cover up.