It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 04:38 PM
Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect


Judy Wood and John Hutchison


In considering how the WTC complex was destroyed, many people have criticised the research posted here because it does not state or describe the exact technology employed.

These pages include data which strongly implicates a class of technology as being one of the main ones used.

The data below seem to strongly tie up with features of what has become known as “The Hutchison Effect”. The Hutchison Effect actually seems to describe a range of observed characteristics, some of which are listed below. John Hutchison is a Canadian inventor and experimental scientist who has been experimenting with “field effects” for almost 30 years. There is a great deal of information about him on the internet, and a selection is linked from this set of pages.

The table below lists effects and events seen at or in the vicinity of World Trade Center and compares those with observed characteristics of the Hutchison Effect. Clearly, the posting of this material is quite controversial, but even in the various documentaries that have featured John Hutchison, he has suggested that the techniques he has discovered and developed have been further refined by places like Lockheed Skunkworks, S.A.I.C. (Science Applications International Corp.), and also by perhaps other defense companies.

My comments: Although still under construction, the new paper gives many clues to the technology that was used to destroy the World Trade Center. Take a look at the many pictures and see for yourself! People can no longer claim that this technology does not exist. It definitely DOES exist!

Also note the two companies mentioned in the excerpt above (Lockheed Martin and SAIC). Both are sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society! The government even contracted with SAIC for the NIST Report.

See the "News" section of Dr Wood's website for upcoming interviews with Andrew Johnson where he will discuss the new paper. Also in the "news" section is a downloadable MP3 of an interview with John Hutchison.

For proof that the 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 cover up, and the 9/11 "truth movement" were all orchestrated by people associated with directed energy weapons and the media, see my new article:

9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline

Also note the two Court Cases in the US District Court, Southern New York, with attorney Jerry Leaphart:

Dr Judy Wood, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that Directed Energy Weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center.

Dr Morgan Reynolds, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that the Media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane hitting the South Tower.

Bottom line... there were NO hijackings on 9/11 and the entire War On Terror is BOGUS!

Even Peter Jennings knew the 9/11 airplane video was fake. Note his nervousness and word fumbling when ABC plays the clip back in slow motion:

As retired Aerospace Engineer Joseph Kieth says: "The video is phony because airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!"

What about the eyewitnesses who say they saw planes hit the towers, you ask? See the following analysis of the WTC Task Force Interviews, which were published in the New York Times. You'll learn that only a very small percentage of the First Responders reported seeing airplanes hit the towers. Even fewer reported hearing them. But... they had no trouble hearing the fighter jets later on! Whatever they saw "hit" the towers was a projection:

Going in Search of Planes in NYC

What about the airplane wreckage, you ask? Well, first of all, there are NO verified airplane parts. (The government refuses to release any.) And second, when an airplane crashes into a building, the engines are not going to wind up underneath scaffolding:

See here for more:

What about the cell phone calls, you ask? Faked using advanced voice synthesizer technology as reported in the Washington Post two and a half years before 9/11:

There were NO hijackings on 9/11.

There were NO plane crashes on 9/11.

The entire War On Terror is BOGUS.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:07 AM

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:24 AM
The Hutchinson Effect is aka black hole effect. He is demonstrating somewhat the effect is anything moving remotely near a black hole. First, it is rapidly pulled in and the then ripped apart. Leaving only minute particles. Some needing the most powerful microscope ever invented to see any of the particles of matter ripped apart. How do they know? Because every once in a while black holes spit out what they intake, and those particles are examined by exceptionally powerful telescopes constantly placed on black holes.

I can believe it was used. If it is any consolation to those who actually care about people caught in the buildings, I seriously doubt they suffered at all. Before the shock of the building coming down on their heads had a chance to register with the pain areas of their brains, it would be over.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:37 AM

This is a link to the Judy Wood site metioned above that gives a detailed written definition as to what the Hutchinson effect is and how it works.

There is a lot of info on that page and down the page a ways there are videos and articles that are must reads. I am really excited to read about this: Watch the video that moves and shows Tower 2 erupting. I had not seen that angle before and it clearly shows the top of the Tower literally leaping into the air: It is not just being blown apart, you can see the streamers of debris leaping into the air and blowing upwards. It is as if the Hutchinson effect exactly applied to concrete and such and with great force.

I know a lot of people rag on Judy, but when you sit down and really dig deep into the possible caauses for what we see happening, she has the best guess of all. No amount of conventional explosives could account for what is seen, unless the Towers were full of it. Fire and gravity are a one really believes that fire and gravity can make huge buildings blow up far into the air, so energetically that huge spires of debris are jettisoned high above the area of building falling..and so on.

There had to be some huge energy source to make the Towers turn into dust instead of crumbling and falling as opne would expect. That energy can only be of a few types: DEW or some other method of delivering these frequencies at enough power to do what we see happen to the steel and such in the video about the Hutchinson effect. This may very well be the proof positive that a DEW was used. The effects are the same, and the results the same. Makes sense .

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:08 PM
reply to post by eyewitness86

Eyewitness, conventional can explain it. But so can anti-gravity and implosion, no differently than what happens when imploding stars end up as black holes, with tremendous, unimaginable vacuum and then implosion effect. That is the same principle on which conventional controlled demolition implosion is done.

Implosion effect is what people witnessed on WTC 1 and 2. Only they did not see the debris all being hurled in all directions once it hit the ground in its own footprint. They witnessed implosion effect in both pyroclastic blasts erupting over and out from both WTC 1 and 2.

What people saw in the video Ivan presented, in this discussion, is minor compared to what scientists, with far more money, were doing in their labs - quite a bit at taxpayer expense using federal research grants paying for those experiments and far more sophisiticated labs. Where do they learn it? In the university labs afforded federal and private research grants in physics getting their PhD's in physics and quanturm mechanics.

Max Planck Institute is an excellent website to research black hole/Hutchison effect. They write in easy to read layperson language. One does not have to be a physicist to read and comprehend what they write.

It helps to be somewhat versed in basic physics and quantum mechanics taught in basic physics, in order to more fully comprehend what they do write. It is still very easy to read and comprehend their articles without it. They are masters in the area of physics, particularly quantum mechanics.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:20 PM
People can think what they wish on any of this. However, I am taking what John Lear has theorized very seriously now. This is why. Please note the steel on what we were told was an outside impact hole.

It is too vast majority clean cut and unbent to be an impact from the outside or the inside. That means one of two occurrences. That double steel wall was cut with a laser and deliberately made to seem like an outside impact to push the steel inside. The condition of the cut steel makes liars out of the "official" reports designers. Or, the entire event is indeed one of the most sophiscated 3-D holograms as yet unrevealed to the general public.

What steel sections appearing to be bent are bent to the outside indicating internal implosion of a minor force effect, pulling the steel inward. The photos are the same or with no bent steel or figure of any woman, across the Internet. They either show no bent steel or bent outwards.

The woman pictured has been claimed by someone having been interviewed as her husband. All that raging fire "melting steel", and there stand this woman waving in the midst of all that "raging fire melting steel". Utterly unbelievable because it is.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 04:14 PM
The lady died and was not interviewed.The picture proves that there were no inferno's blazing on 9-11. The jet fuel fires burned off fast, and then office stuff smoldering and small fires were all that was left. Had it not been for ther perps blowing it all up, the fire would have been contained and out that day.

The video of Tower 2 blowing up into geysers of debris and steel sections being hurled smoking far from the building looks exactly like the effects of a DEW. It does NOT look like the effects of conventional explosives in that there are no reports we can hear that would account for that much damage, and explosive would not turn the Towers ino DUST !! That is one point that the official story people can never reconcile: They dust is too fine and there is far too much of it to be a simple collapse by fire. No way, Jose.

Nothing turns concrete and people and computers into dust except extremely high energy and that cannot be found at the scene of these events. The plumes of dust are exploding upwards and in the hell do the people not see this? Why can they look at it and not see an obvious reaction so energetic that we are watching two huge Towers being literally exploded into dust with huge geysers erupting at the top and continuing down the rest of the way...what else do youy think could explain the core turing to dust also? there is nothing else. Only DEW satisfies the parameters.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:51 PM
No offense intended to anyone. Just a little correction here because I have noted at least a couple of people saying it, and it gives the wrong impression of the effect on the buildings, and how they were demolished.

No one blew up the buildings. They imploded them to pull in on themselves. The effect is completely different.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:52 PM
reply to post by eyewitness86

The lady was claimed by someone stating he was her surviving husband. He was interviewed.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:56 PM
reply to post by eyewitness86

The buildings were very tall and heavy. Yes, conventional demolitions can make it look like that, because they were constructed the way they were. I am not saying they were conventional explosives. Maybe they were and maybe not. The black hole effect would also result in the same pyroclastic effect, because that, too, is implosion not explosion. Fission in nuclear bombs will also give off the identical effect of pyroclastic blast, because, it, too, works off implosion effect. Fusion works off explosion effect.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 07:00 PM
What is Judy Wood a doctor of? Is she a doctor of medicine, physics, philosophy? I am curious.

Is DEW (meaning energy weapon not early warning) the most likely explanation for the destruction on 9/11? Really?

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 07:46 PM
reply to post by DogHead

If you were actually interested in the biography Dr. Wood, you could have researched it as easily as I did:

She is a mechanical engineer, and quite qualified to assess what would cause any buildings to drop as they did on 9/11/2001. She is directly involved in physics and quantum mechanics research.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 09:00 PM

Originally posted by OrionStars

She is a mechanical engineer, and quite qualified to assess what would cause any buildings to drop as they did on 9/11/2001. She is directly involved in physics and quantum mechanics research.


Physics research?

Here ya go :


lol "Dr." Judy Wood...

[edit on 14-1-2008 by Soloist]

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 09:09 PM
reply to post by Soloist

You did not bother to read her biography before making snide remarks of such a foolish nature. That is what she is doing as of late, because she is qualified as a structural and mechanics design engineer. Do you know the full impact of what that means?

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 09:22 PM
For those not in the know...

The video posted by Soloist above is an interview of Dr Wood conducted by Greg Jenkins.

Jenkins has ties to the NSA and DEW research.

The interview was a professional hit piece.

See here for full information:

Jenkins is one of several people with DEW connections trying to discredit the DEW and TV-Fakery evidence.

See here:

9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:01 PM
Here's a set of videos from the 9/11 conference last August:

Dr Judy Wood-9-11 The New Hiroshima Pt 1a

Dr Judy Wood-9-11 The New Hiroshima Pt 1b

Dr Judy Wood-9-11 The New Hiroshima Pt 1c

Dr Judy Wood-9-11 The New Hiroshima Pt 1d

Dr Judy Wood-9-11 The New Hiroshima Pt 1e

Dr Judy Wood-9-11 The New Hiroshima Pt 1f

9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Part 1 (with inserted slides for clarity)

9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Part 2

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:58 PM
reply to post by CB_Brooklyn

If he was going to be fair, he would have told her exactly what they werre going to discuss. It is clear he deliberately did not do that. The reason it is being falsely stated the WTC 1 and 2 did not fall into it's own footprint, is because once the footprintd (sub-levels) were filled straight down and packed in, the rubble and all that fine concrete and other pulverized debris would start spreading any rubble pile above the footprint, as more weight landed on top of it. That would be normal without retainer walls catching it above ground.

If people do not believe it, try to take dirt and have it land in one place, without retainer walls confining it as it is dropping down into on particular flat suirface spot.

He deliberately tried to trap her, by leaving her completely unprepared. That was a dirty trick on his part.

I agree with his physics but not his methods of interview.

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 12:20 AM
If DEWs were used, what does one make of the observed squibs? Does this mean that conventional explosives were also used in conjuntion with DEWs or was it merely pressurised air from collapsing floors as per the official version?
The fine dust particles do raise many questions, but I tend to believe that conventional explosives were definitely involved at some point (eg witnesses hearing, seeing, and feeling explosions, molten metal, the FBI investigating 'bombs in the building', apparent traces of thermite etc).

Whatever method was used, it appears as if the culprits will succeed in covering up the whole affair, just as they have done with the JFK assassination over the decades.

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 12:30 AM
If you look at Fig. 39 on this page of Dr. Wood's site:

you will see something that I've pointed out in a couple of other posts in other threads. I hope I don't irritate anyone by reiterating it here but Fig.39 is a slo-mo of one of the towers collapsing. You can easily see wreckage moving in a RISING arc and TRAILING COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF SMOKE as it falls.

I realize that most truthers don't have to be informed of the above. However, if you still believe the official story and are sane and not a co-conspiritor, I suggest you have a good look at Fig.39 on the page linked above. This kind of thing doesn't happen in a simple collapse.

I just thought of a classic debunker line. "How can you tell ANYTHING about how the building came down? There's too much smoke!"

Having said that, I look forward to digging into the OP's links. Interesting thread.

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 01:27 AM
I have been thinking about Hutchison effect ever since 9/11. I'm not surprised one bit that someone else has brought this up. To bring down a building that is as massive as the WTC using said knowledge is possible, but highly unlikely. Hutchison is like the modern mad scientist and has done some amazing things. Changing molecular structure of steel and making it start to turn into a liquid by harnessing frequencies, electricity, magnetism etc. The average person hearing about this sort of stuff just thinks it's crazy. It is crazy, but it's real! The government has been messing with this stuff since Nikola Telsa.

A lot of it is hidden locked away technology by the government. For instance, If crowds get out of control on a large scale they could use dishes that shoot frequencies at you that causes dizziness, vomiting/sickness, pain and muscle spasms like you've been stunned by a tazer. I have seen a working military surplus version, a dish slightly smaller then a direct TV satellite dish can be mounted on a hummer or tank etc and fully self contained. Large enough to bring down crowd of people to their knees a few yards away. If you can imagine it then likely government has it.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by sean]

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in