Dr. Judy Wood and the Hutchison effect

[dtugg]

Perhaps there is vastly more disinfo than we know about dtugg ?

Perhaps the idea of disinfo is disinfo. But don't pay attention to me. I could be disinfo.

 

[alexi_drago]

Bill, do you think there might be something in the Hutchison effect?

 

[alienentity]

I've had a response from Andrew Johnson at 'checktheevidence.com'. I'd sent him an email to let him know about this thread and to invite him to present a couple of his best pieces of evidence for debate.

He has declined (apparently) to surface here, giving an apparent excuse that JREF isn't a place to debate science.

FYI, on a whim, I had previously offered to put up $5000.00 (in trust) if he would do the same, on a wager about whether or not he and Judy could win a criminal case against the 'perps' in a legitimate court. He immediately went off about Ace Baker, and came up with all sorts of excuses. Oh well. Here's a link to the exchange:

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=233&Itemid=60



Here is his response to my emails expressing skepticism about the 'Hutchison effect'. I didn't get into the specific claims, just made some general comments. If any of you would like to address the things Andrew writes about the HE, please do!!

'Wonder if this person has an explanation for the evidence.... He's coming out with some pretty usual comments "John Hutchison must be a fraud". In which case the Hutchison Effect is not relevant to 9/11. So, how did the cars get turned upside down? How did the beams get bent into a "horseshoe" shape? Why not try to explain these things rather than implying Andrew Johnson or Dr Judy Wood or John Hutchison is/are "insane" (see below). This is the difference between looking for the truth and "debunking". i.e. "This is the correct explanation..." not simply "you are wrong and you are stupid" (q.v.)
Looks like the person has not read John's Affidavit, which includes reference to Ken Shoulders, Robert Koontz, Hal Puthoff and others. But hey, if you're gonna ignore inverted cars at the WTC, why not ignore the other evidence documented in articles here too. Heck, you can even ignore the 500lbs of metal samples too! Why not, while we're on a roll...!!
-----Original Message-----

Sent: 17 May 2009 07:06

To: [email protected]
Subject: Contact from CheckEv

message_text: Some thoughts about John Hutchison. After so many decades with his miraculous instruments, Mr. Hutchison has been unable to set up legitimate scientific verification of his work.

My sense is that he believes in the idea of what he's claiming, but is unable to produce the genuine result, so is manufacturing the effects by other means.

A dreamer who admires the genius of Tesla, but is unable to produce anything genuine himself.

Mostly he's a fine raconteur, an entertainer.

-----Original Message-----

Sent: 17 May 2009 07:12

To: [email protected]
Subject: Contact from CheckEv

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

message_text: Pardon me, just to add to that Hutchison message - it would be quite easy indeed to verify his results scientifically if he really wanted that to happen.

Of that I have absolutely no doubt.

And he would be extremely wealthy if his claims were factual. He would have made some of the most important scientific discoveries of all time. I'm sure he has many excuses as to why this hasn't happened - but that's one of his talents, to spin tall tales.

Perhaps he should write science fiction instead!

char_count: 3

So, how many would agree that the JREF forum is a good place for Scientific Debate? How many named, credentialed scientists openly take part on the threads? Go and look at the thread and decide if there are valid legitimate alternative explanations for the WTC evidence. This guy thinks plane impacts can invert cars (selectively) on the ground. etc etc etc You'll just have to decide whether you agree with him. I don't.

Why is he still at this? If he "cares about the truth", then what the heck is it? The official 9/11 story? Wow. Why is he telling me it's the truth? Doesn't he think I can read the official story myself? All rather odd if you ask me.

But let's start a "betting section" in Scientific American or New Scientist - will be a much more reliable way of establishing scientific truths won't it? What have peope got to lose? If their published work is true, they can win money!!'

 

[alienentity]

I just sent this message to Andrew at checktheevidence.com

'Hi Andrew,

I noticed you've added my Hutchison emails, etc.

I've added some of your comments to the JREF thread today. Two things I wanted to mention:

1) You seemed puzzled by the fact that I sent emails to different addresses of yours. No mystery there - your 500 character limit in your website contact section was too short. I kept running out of space.

2) There hasn't been much response at JREF. Worse, no truthers have come to your defense.

best regards

alienentity'


Again, I invite Andrew to present his case here and defend it.

 

[BigAl]

I'm sure you all will agree that this is a reaction of the most extreme kind to somebody who is, when all is said and done a minor player in the 9/11 picture. It is akin to Holocaust denial to mention Judy Woods it seems. 'No-planes' gets a fairly strong dose of the same treatment.

Personally I have always found this behaviour intriguing. Maybe we should really go for it and analyse Judy's claims right down to the bone ? Are we all agreed ? lol

There is no video of anything beam-like attacking the WTC buildings.

As one of many people that would have gotten a suntan or much worse if her claims are accurate, I find her claims verge on being offensive.

Her claims of strange burning cars sans bodies and miles away is silly to anyone that was in Manhattan on 9/11 and the days after and watched the news of the cleanup.

The Naudet film shows what happened to the cars on the morning of 9/11 and afterwords.

Anyone that gives her claims a moment's credibility has demonstrated ignorance of sever areas of expertise and gullibility and can be dismissed.

 

[BenBurch]

It is actually totally normal in a fire involving a lot of steel. One of the oldest methods of producing hydrogen gas in a pure form was to pass steam over bare iron in a hot chamber (but not too hot, lest it explode.)

At high temperatures water readily gives up its hydrogen and allows the oxygen to bond with the iron.

Instant rust.

In fact, this is the usual way Hydrogen is made. For fuel use. And I think we can all see the problem here in terms of energy wasted! First you need to refine that iron, second you need to heat it almost white hot, and then you need to create steam to react with it.

If you do all that with fossil-fuel energy from the electric company, you might as well build a steam car and shovel in the coal in terms of reducing the impact to the planet!

 

[Travis]

My standing question regarding Wood's beam weapon is what powers it? A Directed Energy Weapon of any substantial value requires one hell of a lot of electricity to power it. We're talking like a whole nuclear reactor or a solar array of immense size. Both of which, were they in space, probably would have been spotted by now (by Russia if by no one else) and would raise questions on how they were lofted into orbit.

 

[alexi_drago]

.... We're talking like a whole nuclear reactor or a solar array of immense size. Both of which, were they in space, probably would have been spotted by now (by Russia if by no one else) and would raise questions on how they were lofted into orbit.

It's obvious, space lifts using cables made with nanotubes.

Damn that nano gets everywhere.

 

[Travis]

Ah, yes. Invisible space elevators! Why didn't I think of that?

 

[alexi_drago]

Ah, yes. Invisible space elevators! Why didn't I think of that?

Nah, while invisibilty is included in the Hutchison effect I doubt the Space Laser would be fully operational until it was in orbit.

 

[tsig]

You really will believe anything, huh bill?

He's a fisherman's dream.

 

[tsig]

Perhaps there is vastly more disinfo than we know about dtugg ?

Sounds like a confession Bill.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

My standing question regarding Wood's beam weapon is what powers it? A Directed Energy Weapon of any substantial value requires one hell of a lot of electricity to power it. We're talking like a whole nuclear reactor or a solar array of immense size. Both of which, were they in space, probably would have been spotted by now (by Russia if by no one else) and would raise questions on how they were lofted into orbit.

In the case of the U.S. Air Force nose-mounted COIL we've all seen pictures of, practically the ENTIRE ass end of the aircraft is devoted to powering the sucker. Now, I don't have access to DARPA or anything, but I'm pretty sure the ABL program is the pinnacle of DEW technology that's able to be fielded right now. A weapon that carried enough energy to destroy the towers would have a MASSIVE, MASSIVE power source. I'm pretty sure it'd be so damned big you could see it from Earth without a telescope.

 

[BenBurch]

In the case of the U.S. Air Force nose-mounted COIL we've all seen pictures of, practically the ENTIRE ass end of the aircraft is devoted to powering the sucker. Now, I don't have access to DARPA or anything, but I'm pretty sure the ABL program is the pinnacle of DEW technology that's able to be fielded right now. A weapon that carried enough energy to destroy the towers would have a MASSIVE, MASSIVE power source. I'm pretty sure it'd be so damned big you could see it from Earth without a telescope.

And it would likely need to be refueled after a single shot, too.

 

[Travis]

In the case of the U.S. Air Force nose-mounted COIL we've all seen pictures of, practically the ENTIRE ass end of the aircraft is devoted to powering the sucker. Now, I don't have access to DARPA or anything, but I'm pretty sure the ABL program is the pinnacle of DEW technology that's able to be fielded right now. A weapon that carried enough energy to destroy the towers would have a MASSIVE, MASSIVE power source. I'm pretty sure it'd be so damned big you could see it from Earth without a telescope.

Exactly. Beam weapons are nice for movies but are as of yet completely impractical with all current technology.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Exactly. Beam weapons are nice for movies but are as of yet completely impractical with all current technology.

Well, that's not entirely the case depending on what you consider a "beam weapon." We're a long way away from frying tanks and building with laser beams, but high output laser weapons systems have proven to be effective in downing aerial targets ranging in size from full-blown theater ballistic missiles to mortar rounds.

 

[alexi_drago]

Would I be right in thinking it would also have to be in a geosyncronous orbit as the time for any object to orbit the earth could not be as short as the time between the two towers collapsing?

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Would I be right in thinking it would also have to be in a geosyncronous orbit as the time for any object to orbit the earth could not be as short as the time between the two towers collapsing?

It'd have to be geosync in order to focus the beam on the target. If it existed.

 

[BenBurch]

It'd have to be geosync in order to focus the beam on the target. If it existed.

OR there would have to be a constellation of them.

You know Astronomers would notice. Even if they were utterly non-reflective (and if so, where does the solar heat go?) they would pass in front of the SUN and the MOON and be easily seen;

As in the attached image of the space station passing in front of the moon;