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

Originally posted by Griff
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.

That's still going to be a truckload or two of thermite which would be hard to set off in secret. Weren't most of those significant horizontal steel beams on the core columns actually under the concrete of the floors (floor truss inner mountings) ?

Don't forget soundless.

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

I don't know the source of that term but it certainly deserves a copyright

Originally posted by eyewitness86
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.

Doesn't that eruption of fire happen after the top of the building is visibly falling? If it was the cause of the fall it would be seen prior to any movement.
Looks like the rush of air being forced out of those burning floors fanning the existing fires to me.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
That's still going to be a truckload or two of thermite which would be hard to set off in secret.

Honestly no matter what the technical feats were on 9/11, I think we should all be open-minded to things happening that should make our jaws drop. The whole event of 9/11 was a jaw-dropping event. They're not supposed to happen. So somewhere along the line, in preparation of the events, other things that were not supposed to ever happen also occurred.

If it comes down to requiring a few truck loads of thermite (I don't think at all that this is the case, btw), then it could have happened if the right people wanted it to. We don't know whether it actually did or not (apparently at this point anyway). But the physical possibility is certainly there. There is nothing that makes it physically impossible. Including rolling your eyes.

Originally posted by cams
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.

If I may be so bold as to attempt to address your post:

The squibs were no doubt from conventional explosives, ALTHOUGH the Hutchinson effect CAN cause eruptions from various places in the objects affected, including round holes in glass, etc. The squibs were part of the insurance that the perps had: They had to have several systems operating: In an event like this, which when started is played for keeps, the perps must have had a few back up plans for insuring the ' collapse ' would appear to be what they claimed, or as close as possible.

Certain major areas had to be blown to insure that sections would crumble and insure a TOTAL fall: Just think, if they had relied SOLELY on DEW and the effect was not as energetic as imagined by the operators, then they had to have back up explosions to insure that key junctions were severed so that total collapse would occur: The perps could NOT in any way have the Towers or any other WTC property standing after it was all over. It was all or nothing, and when the Neocon master of the plan gave the final go ahead, no doubt Cheney or someone siomilar, there was no stopping it.

The squibs were NOT ' air ' being expelled: impossible. The squibs are far too low, way below the sections affected and falling, to press air out. Also, the squibs would exit from many points if it was air: The least secure windown would pop out and expel minor debris and air.. we see something far different. There are isolated and highly energetic expulsions from select locations, spread far apart, and again, way too low to be caused by compression of internal oxygen. We see that the eruption of fire at the moment of collapse is aling a straight line across the entire Tower(s) just prior to dropping. Then there are NO signs of ' air ' escaping ahead of the collapse...wonder why?

The reason is this: The buildings came down so fast from being riopped apart that air was not being pressed upon in an enclosed container as some imagine: No, the Towers were blown apart shooting UPward and OUTward at a rate that denied any downward pressure at all, or at least to any significant degree. Many people think that there was massive weight bearing down on the portions below the strike area, but there was NOT!!

The Towers were being shredded and therefore unable to exert much downward force at all: LOOK at the Hutchinson effect: The gravity is altered and the building was literally being lifted up and blown apart, from the top down. The beams were from above and when activated began the process of alteriong the very molecular structure of the Towers: this is the ONLY way to explain the various ' inexplicable anomalies ' that we see, such as the ' toasted cars ' and the ' dustification ' of the concrete, etc. the list goes on ad nauseum.

So NO great weights bearing down on the core and remaining strructure meant no escuse for the official lie. There are far too many telling similarities between the effects seen in the Hutchinson videos and written accounts and what we see at the Towers. it explains it all and no other answer does so; not even close. Hope this helped.

reply to post by Pilgrum



You may be right. It might have been the fires. But were ALL floors equally ablaze? The report of Chief Oreo Palmer that two lines were needed to put down ' two isolated pockets of fire ' indicates that perhaps there was NOT a solid line of ire from one side to the other, as seen erupting just a second after the downward plunge begins. No way to tell exactly.

What would cause the area UNDER the strike zone to suddenly lose it's resistance? When the one Tower tilts, the tilt was caused by some energetic action: The Tower was stable and unmoving until a sudden force cause the tilt to begin and one side to lose resistance from the bottom. Then, miracle of miracles, on the way to droping over into the street, the tilt STOPS, and the section drops straight down, and at THAT moment we see the effects of the DEW begin.

First, what could stop the tilt and allow the entire section to drop down? ONLY the TOTAL loss of resistance under the portion still in contact with the core and framework . WHAT could cause that total lack of resistance? At that level, under the section, opnly explosives could have been used, as the beams were from above. Then, the beams turned the section into dust as it fell into the cloud created by the original drop sequence. the section never emerges, now does it? No, it turns to dust also!! Imagine that!

To even think that those fires could initiate a total dustification of the Towers is absurd: ONLY a controlled media could keep such nonsense accepted by the Fox news drones. No scientist of merit will sit down and go over the evidence in a debate with a knowledgeable 9-11 truth scientist..no way. The government will not allow any of its people to debate the issue, because of the obvious silliness that it takes to believe the official lie. And on we go..

Originally posted by Pilgrum

That's still going to be a truckload or two of thermite which would be hard to set off in secret. Weren't most of those significant horizontal steel beams on the core columns actually under the concrete of the floors (floor truss inner mountings) ?

Between every floor above the 1st, there were wide open 4' crawl spaces. The floors were spaced 12' apart and had drop ceilings under each floor. There there is all that wide open space in elevator shafts. Between 1 and 2, there were a combined number of 198 elevators.

reply to post by eyewitness86


Eyewitness, you are correct in your observations.

What did we primarily have left? Molecular grains of solid matter no different than a stockpile of sugar, sand, soil or any molecular type same solid grain effect. Only this time it was molecularly disintegrated individual grains of thousands of tons of steel as well. Molecules of the solid ripped completely apart into individual solid molecular grains. That makes a great deal less pile up, than solid pieces of bonded molecular solid matter. It is not dust. Sugar is not dust nor is sand or dirt. Steel grains are no different in that effect respect when DEW effect is over.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
What would cause the area UNDER the strike zone to suddenly lose it's resistance? When the one Tower tilts, the tilt was caused by some energetic action: The Tower was stable and unmoving until a sudden force cause the tilt to begin and one side to lose resistance from the bottom. Then, miracle of miracles, on the way to droping over into the street, the tilt STOPS, and the section drops straight down, and at THAT moment we see the effects of the DEW begin.

It was a very gradual failure as the remaining core columns started to give way and imperceptable until the walls started visibly buckling indicating they were bearing far more weight than they could sustain with so many of the outer columns on the impact side broken. If the resultant force of the angular motion (tilting) and gravity applied to the centre of gravity of the top section had moved outside the wall it would have toppled right off (it must have been very very close to doing exactly that). The top section was then using the wall as a fulcrum and it looks like the floors gave way just a little faster than that wall which was just barely enough to counteract the tilting and keep it inside.

If all these beams were aimed at the building plus all the planted explosives and incendiaries: what would the masterminds have done if that top section had in fact toppled clean off the building leaving nothing to drive a collapse?

We'd either have a standing, but shorter, tower there or an unquestionable violation of physics.

Like I said many times - just my view

[edit on 21/1/2008 by Pilgrum]

Nothing went the way it should have. There are protocols for a crime scene and protocols for a building collapse and protocols for a fire. None of these happened. If it was not an inside job, why did no one want to determine why those buildings fell? If an airplane can hit the tallest building in America and make it fall, wouldn't we expect insurance premiums to go up? 9/11 was the day that changed everything, but I fail to understand why normal protocols changed also. Obviously any real investigation would have pointed to an outside energy source, which would all come back on the government, because how is Al Qaeda going to rig a building with thermate and/or buy and and use a DEW? The lack of investigation shows the guilty parties, but also covers their methods. There is so much disinformation out there, even on ATS, it would be so tough to get the truth.

If there are trolls and government agents infultrating all of these sites, what is the point of discussing any of this? They know who you are and what you believe

Has anyone ever wondered if they made 9/11 such an obvious cover up just to isolate the free and rational thinkers so they can be the first one into the deathcamps?

Who can you trust these days? Does anyone still think Alex Jones is legit? I apologize for getting off topic, but I think this stuff all connects. While the evidence points to certain things and the official story is a lie, we are still accusing Bush and Cheney of killing 3,000 Americans. If they are running the show, and our military technology is at least 50 years ahead of the civilian, they know everything we've ever said and they've got to be pissed.

reply to post by Pilgrum


If those cores are not strategically (particular floors have the demolitions packed inside all core supports) symmetrically set to slide the top of the support off the bottom in rapid succession, the building will tilt, and will not drop straight into its own footprint. That is what happened with WTC 1 and 2 - pulled straight down into their own footprints - which is proof all supports were symmetrically cut. People can naysay until doomsday. However, all that proves is people nay saying do not understand how controlled demolition implosion actually works.

After more study of the buildings dropping, the amount of all debris, and too little steel left for two over 1300' steel and concrete buildings, I am now convinced DEW was used on WTC 1 and 2 but not 7. I could not see enough of 7 to be convinced 7 was not conventional controlled demolition implosion. The easily identifiable mess left from 7, after it was over, is typical of buildings being dropped into their own footprints, using conventional demolition implosion methods. There was a massive amount of intact steel, concrete and other debris typical of conventional methods. Not so at the sites of WTC 1 and 2.

pilgrim wants so badly to believe that the perps are in a cave and not the White House..sad. The excuse given, that the core, barely touched in one event, and NO PROOF of any substantial core damage at all, somehow ' gradually ' lost its ability to hold up the rest of the building is a real laugh.

The core was not affected to the degree that would cause it to fail, and even if it was, it would not drop straight down..no way..a;ways the path of least resistance, not the greatest. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.Pilgrim also supposed that the area under the section that tilted somehow also gave way..and then lo and behold the tilt stops and down it goes!! Who would have thought?!

There is now way, like a poster above shows, that the supports ALL could have severed at the same monent, in both cases. BOTH Towers turn to dust!! HOW in the hell do the official story believers do it? how do they justify the total dustification of BOTH Towers and the planes hit in totally different ways and caused totally different patterns of damage..yet both Towers explode upward and outward and turn to dust and still some people see a collapse. It boggles the mind. How do they explain the Towers leaping up into the air and becoming dust right in front of our eyes? How does a building ' gradually lose strength and then sag...and then just jump up and turn to dust !!

Amazing that anyone still accepst the foolish lie that fire and gravity caused the damage seen...it is beyond impossible. This is high tech destruction and you can bet your life the perps are not overseas but right here swigging Scotch in a fancy club and laughing about how stupid the average American is. If we ever want to get the last laugh, we had better get our thinking caps on and take off the blinders.

reply to post by eyewitness86
You seem to be mistaking me for someone firmly aligned with some cause which is not the case, I assure you.

If it were truly impossible for those buildings to fall as they appeared to without extra help there'd be no controversy. The problem is that we will never know what damage was done to the core structure so we can only go by what we didn't see (explosions and energy beams for example) so it remains distinctly possible that it did simply fail.

If someone came along tomorrow with the full 100% true story of what happened that day and it didn't involve bombs or death rays - would you believe it? (Just a test of blind dedication to a cause)

If the core supports had "simply failed", both towers would have toppled not dropped straight into their own footprints - for what was minutely left of all that massive tonnage of steel. Too little steel left intact for all the steel used to construct both buildings. Molecular disintegration certainly does that to steel. That had nothing to do with nature on earth.

Not only would the core supports have had to fail. So would all that steel framing inside the core supports have had to fail. What steel framing inside core supports you might ask. The internal steel framing inside the core supports which appears in the first photo on following website:

911research.wtc7.net...

Do people seriously expect any Boeing 767 to take out those massively redundantly built steel buildings? They have not yet attached the steel facade starting at the lower levels. Nor are the steel framed interior walls seen at the top - yet. What is already in for interior steel framed walls on the lower floors cannot be seen, because of the redundant steel decking over trusses hiding the interior steel wall frames. Grids of steel, including trusses, supporting each reinforced concrete floor at each level.

John Hutchison is a fraud, a compulsive liar and a con-man.
Hutchison has never been able to duplicate his results in a controled environment.

socialtech.ca...
www.skywise711.com...
actionskeptics.blogspot.com...
forums.randi.org...

These people can do the "Hutchison Effect" too:

www.youtube.com...
www.trailerparkscience.com...
youtube.com...

reply to post by Rey T Fox



If the Hutchison Effect were used on 9/11, what would the perps be doing right now??? hmmm.

The idea that Mr Hutchison didn't duplicate his effects is not true.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by CB_Brooklyn]

Is that you, Doctor Judy Wood?

youtube.com...

I find it amusing that people are still daft enough to believe in the stupidly fake Hutchison Effect. I guess wire, magnets and upside-down filming brought down the twin towers, eh? I wonder if that crazy old hippy will ever fess up?

[edit on 3-3-2008 by Gojira]

I found this through a search so i guess I'm resurecting an old post. I interviewed hutchison on my own show earlier this year and he mentioned Judy Woods investigations, but he also thought it was pretty plausable that the official story of terrorists may be true.

I have tried to upload that episode here and asked permission of overlord but seems its not up yet and i havnt got reply.

as i have experienced before if i link my own material here they take down the post so if anyones interested they can u2u me for the link.

I think directed energy explains it all except for WTC7 which was taken down by conventional demolition method. I have told people time and time again the 2 towers were brought down by directed energy methods, not nukes, not micro nukes or hydrogen and definately not thermate.

But if folks want to continue entertaing the thermate argument be my guest. I can tell you now thats not what it was and no..it doesnt take a PhD to figure it out. However it sounds impressive to listen to PhD engineers speak of thermate with conventional physics equations.

The Hutchison Theory is closer to the truth than Dr Jones thermate theory. You can excite molecules in matter and make it melt with various forms of directed energy...it doesnt require thermate. However..exciting the molecules of matter isnt the entire process. You have to factor in ressonant frequencies and some other weird technologies that are still thought of as scifi nonsense.

I didn't see the video's below posted in this thread, so I posted them.
I Don't know what to think of the theories, but I "enjoyed" them as a new perspective (for me) on this strange piece of history.

Google Video Link

Google Video Link