It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   
How can a Tower that is exploding upward and outward have any mass to crush anything? What some people just fail to realize is that as you watch the top of the Towers turn into dust, there is NO massive weight anywhere; it was dustified too fast to have any effect of crushing anything below it. The ' section ' of 30 some odd stories that tilted and then fell straight down was turned into dust as it entered the cloud: It never reappears and is dust just like the rest.

LOOK for Pete's sake!! The videos show it clearly: The Towers are jumping up far into the sky exploding..how does this equal a collapse? In a collapse the building crumbles in the direction of the weakest point: The ' section ' should have fallen over. But does it? NO!! What does it do? It simply STOPS the falling!! And then it falls down and turns to dust!!

Watch it a few times and it will sink in: This is no collapse: We are seeing the Hutchinson effect for sure.




posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
Can you point out which direction the intense energy beam is coming from?
And then consider what would happen to those rather large chunks of solid matter falling through the beam which would have to be 'dustified' also in mid air and in full view for all the cameras.

I'm not trying to be difficult but I just can't see any sign of such a beam in this picture or any others. That dark smoke cloud above the falling tower was there for quite a while before it fell.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
To anyone who demands "the smoking gun" proof about 9/11: If there was such obvious proof that the people of America would wake up, you would not be the first to know.
The purpose of this thread and any 9/11 thread is not to battle back and forth about semantics, but to logically disect the issues.
There will not be one big smoking gun, but rather tracers coming from the direction of the truth. That is many little facts and "coincidences" when put together, show the bigger picture.
In the DEW theory, the smoking gun is the volume of material that was left at ground zero. The pile of rubble was not even 1 story above ground level. Take into account there were 7 underground levels, the bottom of which was relatively in tact, and we are talking about 7 stories of material. We should expect to see the pile of rubble over 12% of the original height, which is typical in controlled demolitions ( I am only using controleld demolition as an example because the entire building was obliterated, there was no "chunk" of foundation or building at the bottom which we should expect to see based on presumptions of the official story). That being said, 12% of 110 is roughly 13. So we should expect to see 6-7 stories above ground leve of material from each tower piled up. Where did that insane volume of material go? Even the controlled demolition theory does not account for this. The controlled demolition theory is propogated by Steven Jones, who himself has worked on DEWs at Los Alamos. How convenient that he shows you all the right pictures and information while ignoring huge facts?

-1400 cars in the area of WTC were burnt in a very odd manner, some of these cars on FDR drive, which is several blocks away.

-there was no damage to the concrete structure under the WTC, which should be expected if those two towers "fell" onto it - can only be explained by the building pulverizing itself in mid-air, again, why?

-there are videos, which can be accessed from www.drjudywood.com, that clearly show steal beams turning to DUST in mid-air - no other explanation other than DEW can account for this.


All of this being said, I think we should make a huge list of all of the anomolies and things that seem to contradict the official story, and check each of the other theories against them. I think controlled demolition accounts for more than the official story, but still overlooks too much.
Can we agree on a few main theories that COULD be likely?
1. Official Story
2. Controlled Demolition
3. DEW
Are there any other theories that are legitimately debated that I have overlooked? CG and/or holograms seem pretty well debunked, but that aspect altogether is irrelevant and has no bearing on WHY the buildings collapsed, because it still could be DEW with or without CG.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Pilgrum, that's an asinine comment. We are talking about weapons that we theoretically understand and that we know are in existence. If the information on how a DEW works and how to build it were there, anyone could have this insane technology. It is tightly gaurded knowledge. For all we know, it could be an invisible beam of energy. Maybe there was a target placed in each of the towers, and all they did was shoot the targets when the time was right? I don't think its fair to try to discredit people by asking questions that you yourself cannot answer, even if you wanted to.

I think you should answer my question about the 1,400 burnt cars.

Or the one about the volume of material that was left?

I'm not trying to be hostile, but I feel like rhetorical questions like the ones you asked only need to arguements and not discussion. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I'm seeing a lot of claims of increasingly fanciful technology being responsible for what could also have happened without that technology and superweapons (WMDs anyone?)

Note I said 'could' not 'did'



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


That powerful DEW anti-gravity levitation coupled with high electromagnetic energy force, pulling those continuous massive support beams apart from their connecting collars, is why the twin towers fell exactly the way they did in controlled demolition.

Had more power been used, there would not have been steel left to identify, much less concrete and asbestos dust exploded outward in pyroclastic blast.

That was a very small DEW use relative to what could have transpired with more powerful energy. No real radioactivity of any consequence to explain away, such as that from and H- or A-bomb, of which both work on the same principle. As does TNT controlled demolition implosion without the radioactivity as well.

DC for 12 miles out from the Pentagon was at high radioactivity level consistent with the use of DU in cruise missiles.

Shanksville, PA? Was there any testing done for radioactivity?



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 




I agree. What ELSE could account for what is seen? Nothing. Cars turned upside down, exactly like the Hutchinson effect. The cars that are not upside down have their engine blocks gone, and paint peeling..on parts of the car and others are perfect! This is the effect seen in action, no doubt. This IS the big secret of 9-11: NO cave dweller could use our DEW weapons, now could they? it has to be US, the MOSSAD and the Neocon black ops guys doing their thing.

There is really NO other way to explain the effects seen, is there? No, there is not. Only the most ridiculous and least likley excuses can be offered to try and explain what is seen. I watch the Towers leaping up into the air, and others call this collapse..unreal.

Here is what I think happened: When the conventional charges and thermate went off at the sections close to the ' strike zone ' started, that when they turned the beam on. The top of the Towers, in both cases, near the strike zones, begin to fall as if the underneath had simply given way and offered NO resistance. At that monent, they tripped the switch and turned the beams on. We see the tops of the Towers JUMPING UP into the air, so energetic is the reaction. It is NOT falling, it is leaping up far into the air and exposing outwards. HOW on earth can anyone call that a collapse?

A building that turns into dust is NOT a likley candidate for the excuses given. The direction oif the beams were from above. There is no other way. We see the TOPS of the Towers leaping up. A poster above asks me about the direction and it has to be from above. the sections that start to fall and then turn to dust are SMOKING they are so hot!!

Take a look at some of the steel outer sections being peeled off the Towers and fall down: They are streaming smoke and show signs of EXTREME temperatures, when they shoud not have had any high temsp on them at all, if they were simply reacting to fire and gravity. The outer supports fall away, and are blown far from the Towers, by some energy that CANNOT be explained by fire and gravity.

WHY do so many people believe that the Towers would lose ALL, totally ALL, of its resistance and blow apart as it comes down? What on earth would cause the core and all the other steel to lose all strength and all at ONCE? ONLY a DEW can answer this.

There is simply no answer other than DEW. Nothing else even comes close to providing an answer. The perps had a great idea: Use technology that they wil not even admit exists to accomplish the deed. Only a very few people in the entire military could have access to that kind of control..very few. And those that did on 9-11 used it to wipe out the WTC complex and accomplish the NEOCON PNAC goals all at once.

If you add up all the pieces, there really is no other answer. Nothing else comes close. DEW all the way.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
This video is the smoking gun.
www.drjudywood.com...
Notice the steel beam on the left side. As it is falling, it literrally turns into dust!

Pilgrum, I think you should realize that it is basically common knowledge the "official story" is just a theory. This is supported by the fact that NIST could not determine why there was a global collapse. They were brought in to determine "the cause of collapse" for the towers, on the assumption that no explosives or weapons of any sort were present. Essentially, they took a bunch of smart people, gave them no information or evidence or samples to analyze, and asked them why the building started to collapse. Its all just theories. Now it is up to free thinking people that understand physics and reality to determine which of the theories are likely. As an engineer, I cannot accept the official story, its defies physics. I used to buy into the controlled demolition theory, but as I looked into it more, there are too many strange pieces of information not explained by CD. While I am not claiming to know what type of DEW was used and how it was exectured, I am claiming that this type of weapon is the only thing that can explain these other mysteries.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


I have a high suspicion some but not much conventional controlled demolitions was used. It would all be at the top, which is foolish to do in controlled demolitions implosions with TNT. As foolish as placing TNT only at the bottom, which can result in a shorter building still standing or a shorter toppled building.

The leaning south tower of Pisa is why I still suspect some controlled demolitions but not much. I contend it was to make people think that planes and jet fuel collapsed the buildings the way they fell. Yet, those who know science know what would actually happen, if a building is unevenly compromised. That portion of a building will lean to the side of compromise.

Not so with the leaning south tower of Pisa. It went to the outside not the side of alleged impact, which was at least 3 stories below the rift created by an alleged 767 impact. That never happened either. It is self-evident that never happened.

When steel is impacted and penetrated, it bends in the same direction a projectile is headed not in the opposite direction. Nor is it clean cut and still vertical as appears on WTC 1 in photographs all over the Internet.

Plus, there was no actual debris seen inside the hole once the smoke did clear, and long prior to the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 to view any, including any alleged plane remains, which should have left at least 50' of plane filling both holes.

I find it too odd there are no photos of any hole in WTC 2. What people see is what appears to be a black hole, which may not be a hole at all. It is only seen from a distance and very little has been photographed and displayed for any currently alleged WTC 2 exterior compromises.

Holograms can look as real as actual physical matter forms. They are so dense for colored light waves, unless people can touch them, they will never know if what they are seeing is reality or illusion.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by thillygooth
 


There was a great deal of missing steel. That was self-evident. DEW literally rips apart molecules, leaving particles of fine solid dust molecules still bonded or nothing at all but gases. I have to agree with Dr. Wood. I do not prefer the word "dustification". I prefer molecular disintegration instead. It is far more explanatory.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
There was a great deal of missing steel. That was self-evident. DEW literally rips apart molecules



So can you show me where the DEW cuts are on the masses of core and perimeter columns laying all over Ground Zero? Or any partially-vaporized columns?



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
What masses are you referring to exactly? I think we should FOIA how much steel was shipped to China and India and compare it to what the buildings were constructed with as far as quantities.

Please look over some of the images from this page. You will see how buildings nearby had random holes top-down. Obviously these "other" buildings were WTC and Larry Silverstein was well compensated.
www.drjudywood.com...


This one shows you what little steel was left. It looks like scraps of sticks, not the tons upon tons that should be there. Also, please read my earlier posts on the size of the debris pile and how it does not coincide with the quantity of material present.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


DEW was not used for any type of internal cutting. It was used to levitate (anti-gravity), out of attachment collars holding continuously supporting of each center core beam support. Then high level electromagnetic energy was used to implode and molecularly disintegrate almost everything in both buildings.

The core beams were cast in shorter lengths, but longer than normal, and certainly massively larger in density. They were then stacked one on top of the other as individual continuous units, joined by attachment collars, bolts and welding at each floor level and topped with massive tons of hat trusses.

Those columns in collars and the collars were then attached with more than a few 2" diameter steel bolts, to each horizontal floor level beam running the entire length and width of the vertical core supports. Inside the core was first floor to roof more steel framing. DEW can definitely break all steel free from collars or any other attachment, and literally levitate all weigh and mass at each floor level of the twin towers to do it.

The only steel actually cut by some type of beam was the facade and perimeter steel framing. That is self-evident, based on photos across the Internet of the WTC 1 "hole in the wall".

That is how powerful lasers can be when used as weapons of mass destruction. Those lasers contain an enormous volume of thermal energy which can cut through structural steel before anyone realizes a beam of energy has been used.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
There had to be conventional explosives at the lower levels to explain what happened to Rodriguez and crew down in the basement levels. There were massive explosions that tore the lobby area of the Towers to shreds, so explosives were used down low also. I am sure that throughout the buildings there was some extra cutting agents and other exploives to augment the effect of the DEW: The perps had to have a few systems running to insure success in case of a problem with one system. these guys are playing for keeps: Murder is not a minor issue, and mass murder is a serious thing.

The explosives were probably placed at critical junctures where they had to start the fall: They could direct the area of the ' strike ' and predict which floors would be involved, and they could place enough explosives and cutting agents like thermite to insure that when it came time for the ' big drop ', they could make a realistic looking scene in which it appears that the upper section above the strike zone is suddenly allowed to drop staright down due to the underneath simply losing all resistance!! That in itself is a dead giveaway to a pro, but to the casual TV viewer listening to the liars it might appear so.

Then, when they blow the supports under the section, all at once and universally across the entire span of the Tower ( both times!!) the dustification begins. We see the section drop into a cloud generated by the initial explosions at the strike levels, in a row, straight across (!!) and then the section does not reappear as one would expect...NO!! What does it do? It turns into dust just like the rest of the building!! Imagine that!

ONLY a DEW can account for the almosy unbelievable energy needed to tear the molecular structure of those Towers apart and turn the entire area into a smoking and ruined mess, for blocks around; but, in specific ways and areas.

If one takes the cars and their condition, the holes in the area, the actual way the Towers blew apart and turned to dust, and the fact that we can see the core, steel so robust that there is no way possible on earth or in hell for it to turn to dust from gravity or fire being close to it or affecting it. The core seen standing for a few moments and then simply turning to dust is a giveaway...a totally smoking gun...proof POSITIVE that an energy force was used that exceeds BY FAR, too far to even contemplate,the energy in gravity or fire. Dustification of steel means only one thing: DEW.

Is there really any other choice that fufills the various elements? No.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Does anyone have a link to a trustworthy source of info on how much steel was recovered from the site compared to the volume of steel used in construction?
Just to get an idea of how much steel could have been 'dustified' by whatever method.

Wasn't all the rubble including steel removed to the Staten Island landfill initially? Apart from several reported truckloads of steel misappropriated in unscrupulous scrap deals but those were forced to be returned (or was it just the ones they knew about). There it was sorted through for clues and human remains, personal effects of victims etc.

There would have to be an account somewhere of how many tons of scrap steel were actually handled with the going rate for steel scrap being about $120/ton.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


There is none. FEMA told NIST what they could have. And the rest was immediately hauled off by sub-contractors hired by FEMA or someone at the highest bureaucratic levels. The trucks had GPS on them to ensure what was hauled was not going to be moved anywhere, but where FEMA told them to move it.

FBI was forbidden access to forensically examine all evidence at crimes scenes, as was anyone else qualified to forensically examine. FEMA took total control.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
Sorry Griff - almost missed your post at the bottom of page 2

How the WTC2 collapse started is the big question alright
I know what you mean about the missing upward pull on the north side but isn't that assuming the core acting as a fulcrum in which case the upper section would have a little more balance?

The core appears to have failed completely at the impact zone allowing the upper section to drop down using the mostly intact north side as a hinge until that hinge broke. It wouldn't take much horizontal displacement of the upper section for the broken core column ends to slide past each other somewhat like the ends of broken bones do but in this case the 'tissue' being torn was the floors of the building.

I've watched the start of that collapse many times and there's no sign of any explosions cutting the core which would have been very visible in all that smoke. Also the smoke didn't change colour or move more vigorously as it would if a large amount of thermite was ignited. The smoke indicates nothing explosive happening immediately before the top section was visibly moving IE nothing increasing the rate of smoke production. The only signs were the walls - buckling as they strained the remaining trusses until the bolts attaching them to the truss seats were sheared.

That's just my intepretation of what I see and I can accept being totally wrong about it. I may carry on a lot about the smoke but it speaks volumes about what is or isn't going on behind it or through it (like energy beams).

If explosives are there they have to be totally smokeless, producing no gases or changes in air pressure which would imply they were heatless as well.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by Griff
Sorry Griff - almost missed your post at the bottom of page 2

How the WTC2 collapse started is the big question alright
I know what you mean about the missing upward pull on the north side but isn't that assuming the core acting as a fulcrum in which case the upper section would have a little more balance?

The core appears to have failed completely at the impact zone allowing the upper section to drop down using the mostly intact north side as a hinge until that hinge broke. It wouldn't take much horizontal displacement of the upper section for the broken core column ends to slide past each other somewhat like the ends of broken bones do but in this case the 'tissue' being torn was the floors of the building.


That's basically what I'm saying. I've held on to the idea that the inner core had to collapse first in order for what we see happening.


I've watched the start of that collapse many times and there's no sign of any explosions cutting the core which would have been very visible in all that smoke. Also the smoke didn't change colour or move more vigorously as it would if a large amount of thermite was ignited. The smoke indicates nothing explosive happening immediately before the top section was visibly moving IE nothing increasing the rate of smoke production. The only signs were the walls - buckling as they strained the remaining trusses until the bolts attaching them to the truss seats were sheared.


In your view, could this have happened if thermite was used to sever horizontal beams (at key locations) for the columns in the core inducing Euler buckling? That would solve the "thermite can't cut horizontally" argument I believe.


If explosives are there they have to be totally smokeless, producing no gases or changes in air pressure which would imply they were heatless as well.


Don't forget soundless.

Was it Damocles who coined "hush-a-boom" bombs or was it Howard Roarke?



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So can you show me where the DEW cuts are on the masses of core and perimeter columns laying all over Ground Zero? Or any partially-vaporized columns?


Could this be from a DEW? And not gypsum/thermate whatever?

Our chemists around here would know more than I.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   
What about the row of fire that erupted as the plunge downward started? Recall that line of fire belching out as the section starts to fall? That was not fire that came from the inner fires, it went in a line across the whole Tower just prior to dropping.

Fire erupts in a straight line across the Tower, and then it drops.The point is that the underneath gave way all at once symmetriclly along the building; what causes the entire length of the Tower to suddenly lose all resistance? That is the question.

We KNOW that DEW is the only explanation, and the best one. Secret technology: What could work better than that?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join