Tesla, Hutchinson Effect, Directed Energy and Dr. Judy Wood

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

AndrewDJohnson
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:03 am

Re: Tesla, Hutchinson Effect, Directed Energy and Dr. Judy Wood

Unread post by AndrewDJohnson » Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:09 pm

kevin wrote:AndrewDjohnson,
kevin is kevin.
of Oxfordshire.
I am a dowser.
there is a duality of spin flows that are detectable.
in balance as the egyptians showed, all is fine.
They spiral in their pathways.
concentrate either one, or atune a %, then turn anything in creation to NO-THING.
Kevin
Thanks Kevin - I tend to agree - Wilbert Smith talked about Spin as being one of the fundamental attributes of "stuff" in the Universe.

User avatar
PookztA
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:18 am
Location: Illinois

Re: Tesla, Hutchinson Effect, Directed Energy and Dr. Judy Wood

Unread post by PookztA » Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:02 pm

mathew wrote:Hello All,
Thought this footage of internal steel building columns turning to dust may interest some.

CNN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goGGQhhTcDY
NBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Sv0My2zfFA

The future of science is here now. Dr. Judy Wood has compiled a massive database of EVIDENCE:
http://www.drjudywood.com/

Take some time and familiarize yourself with longitudinal wave effects, field effects, "toasted cars"
and continuing degradation of materials. also consider-

Image

That is the bottom lobby wall of the building- should this be crushed?
Towers of Dust:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPJUP-Ry7d0

So what could possibly have caused such MASSIVE destruction?

excellent post, great information! I have been looking into this topic for a while, so I wanted to contribute by sharing some information. Here are two videos and an article which help shed more light on this:

1. The Hutchison Effect - Iron Bar Warping (Recent Experiment) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnBdhsXl088
2. Boyd Bushman, a Senior Scientist of Lockheed Martin, on The Hutchison Effect http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57ZKTA7nx8U
3. Anti-Gravity Technology Is Real. Thank You Nikola Tesla & John Hutchison! http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_i ... 233&ref=mf

Hope this helps!

Cheers,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

http://facebook.com/AbrahamHafizRodriguez
http://youtube.com/pookzta

User avatar
solrey
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Tesla, Hutchinson Effect, Directed Energy and Dr. Judy Wood

Unread post by solrey » Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:35 pm

And.... waddyaknow - once again, I seem to be the only one using my real name... so come on brave ones, change your handles to your real names - with links to your websites and ways we can contact you!
Ummmm...for someone that seems to be a bit unhinged? Not gonna happen. We all have a right to privacy and the right to decide who we trust with personal contact information. My handle is the nickname all my personal friends, who know my real name, have known for nearly a decade.

I just don't know what to say at this point to anyone who thinks the "spire" just turned to dust if they can't see it listing, falling over and shaking off the dust it was covered with in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaysznxC ... re=related

Those box columns are designed and formed with a steel alloy that provides strength and flexibility. They're designed to be flexible to horizontal shear forces yet rigid to vertical compression forces. Nothing about those bent columns is indicative of deformation from the hutchison effect as demonstrated in this comparison to an I beam wrapped around a tree after a tronado. 110 stories of a 40,000 ton building falling down would likely produce similarly bent columns during the chaotic mele.

Image
Mobile home I beam wrapped around tree during tornado.

Look familiar?

Image
"Anomalous" bent column from WTC

That's not the only thing that the "materials scientist" Judy Woods didn't do her homework over. Apparently she nor her little cadre of followers didn't bother to research how those images of crushed/burned firetruck front end drivers compartments used on her website as evidence of "missing engine blocks" are some serious heavy equipment which aren't even built with the engines at the very front where the damage is. That's not an unexplained anomaly, it's how that equipment is designed.
That is the bottom lobby wall of the building- should this be crushed?
Image

Crushed? Where? They're made that way. See? :roll:

Image

A street or salvage lot with stripped/burned vehicles in NYC? What's anomalous about that? Burned vehicles with paint peeling or blistering? That's what paint will do in the kind of heat produced by a fire.

On Judy Woods website an Atlantic hurricane off the east coast is listed as a weather "anomaly". Really? A hurricane off the U.S. Atlantic Coast in early September? Geewhiz, when has that ever happened? Oh yeah, hurricane Earl way back in September of 2010. :shock:

Doctor Judy, eh? :?
Debunking Judy Woods nonsense is about as challenging as shooting fish in a barrel 'cept the fish are more clever. :P
Last edited by solrey on Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla

kevin
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Tesla, Hutchinson Effect, Directed Energy and Dr. Judy Wood

Unread post by kevin » Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:01 am

Solrey,
"FIRE"
It doesn't have to be fire that caused the effects that resembele fire damage, and it may be one reason why so much paper survived.
Transmutation of certain elements that respond to a fine tuned resonant flow will cause a local heat without any normal heat been applied in a conventional manner.
The local geometry around that site will lead to any overloaded flows seeking to follow the route of least resistance to go to earth, if that mean';t travelling several blocks , that is how the flows travel, I can follow them in nature with ease.
there is a lattice matrix that is omni present.
I suspect that the bath tub was positioned very carefully to ensure contact with the bedrock was solid with bentonite clay utilised for it's unique interaction with the flows.
I know that any talk of flows that are not recognised by current sciences is easily ridiculed and not understood, but it is my passion to follow this dualistic spin STUFF about.
it is the basis of all of mythology and especially spirals in cultures all around the globe.
The duality supplies all to REMEMBER how it is currently arranged.
If a weapon that utilises this exists in whoevers secret services, then if deployed will make nuclear look like fizzy pops, and leave no disernable after affects.
If directed at rockets or planes or people, they will simply forget how they are locally arranged, thus turn to dust, which will be the base elements that best resist the unlocking of their local memory.
kevin

User avatar
solrey
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Tesla, Hutchinson Effect, Directed Energy and Dr. Judy Wood

Unread post by solrey » Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:19 am

It doesn't have to be fire that caused the effects that resembele fire damage, and it may be one reason why so much paper survived.
WTF? That kind of logic is about as thin as the paper what didn't burn. :roll:

:lol:
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla

CTJG 1986
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Southwestern Ontario, Canada

Re: Tesla, Hutchinson Effect, Directed Energy and Dr. Judy Wood

Unread post by CTJG 1986 » Thu Oct 21, 2010 4:16 am

solrey wrote:
It doesn't have to be fire that caused the effects that resembele fire damage, and it may be one reason why so much paper survived.
WTF? That kind of logic is about as thin as the paper what didn't burn. :roll:

:lol:
Solrey becoming a troll? I never thought I'd see it, very sad. :cry:

Mining one quote out of his post and questioning the logic of it when in the very next sentence you ignored he states why it may be possible that there can be 'fire damage'(heat damage really) without conventional fire being involved is a hallmark of trolls everywhere.
Transmutation of certain elements that respond to a fine tuned resonant flow will cause a local heat without any normal heat been applied in a conventional manner.
Do you disagree with the possibility of transmutation (or any other electromagnetic effects) being able to cause such damage without actual fire involved?

As for the subject of Directed Energy weapons I highly recommend you pick up a book called "Effects of Directed Energy Weapons: High Power Lasers, High Power Microwaves, Particle Beams" written in 1994 by Philip E. Nielson.

The science behind DEW is very solid, and as that book states in the mid 90's the U.S military was awaiting advancements in particle accelerator technology to make the science a reality. Such accelerator technology was advanced rapidly in the mid to late 90's and such weapons could easily have been in development (if not service) at the time of 9/11.

DEW's do exist and they mostly function using elements of the EU, I honestly don't get how you can dismiss the claims based on one or two pictures or stories you say aren't real.

IF DEW were used then it most certainly does connect to the EU.
The difference between a Creationist and a believer in the Big Bang is that the Creationists admit they are operating on blind faith... Big Bang believers call their blind faith "theoretical mathematical variables" and claim to be scientists rather than the theologists they really are.

mathew
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 7:04 pm
Location: Sierra Nevada Mountains
Contact:

Re: Tesla, Hutchinson Effect, Directed Energy and Dr. Judy Wood

Unread post by mathew » Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:37 am

Thanks Everyone for making this thread so darned interesting, I have posted on the Thunderbolts forum because

I have the greatest respect for the electric universe folks. http://www.veritasshow.com/ has excellent

interviews with Dr. Wood and Andrew Johnson.
GaryN said:There is something very fundamental we are missing in the electro-magnetic sciences, some phase

relationship of the known fields perhaps, that causes this loosening of the bonds keeping things 'solid'.
Thank you for that.


Solrey: thank you for proving my point- if controlled demo dropped the building as you and others claim, then the

lobby wall should be crushed- follow the line of thinking ;) !! Cheers all!
The wind.. in its greatest power, whirls. -Black Elk

User avatar
solrey
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Tesla, Hutchinson Effect, Directed Energy and Dr. Judy Wood

Unread post by solrey » Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:20 am

Hmmmm...So because I don't believe directed energy weapons were used on 911, I either don't believe in their existence and/or the technology/theories... or I do but just don't "get it"? Is that it?

Actually, it's the other way around. Been studying that stuff, and more, on and off for forty years starting with my first electronics kit when I was like 6 or 7. I think Tesla discovered some things that scared the daylights out of him. Been tapping into the metaphysical in a variety of ways for at least twenty years as well. Got a degree in aerospace technology and an A&P license. Oh yeah... I get it.

Which is why I don't see evidence for the use of directed energy weapons on 911. If one had been used I would expect to see something quite different than what actually happened. Each of the so called "anomalies" in the pictures on Woods website has a logical explanation that's easily proven with a little research. The "missing" engine blocks in the firetrucks for example. It took me like five minutes to sort through the search results to come up with a pic of Ladder 3 that shows it's an aerial ladder truck that doesn't even have an engine where Woods et al thinks it should be and that applies to both firetrucks used as "evidence". Same with the bent "like a pretzel" column, that Woods et al thinks can only be explained by DEW's, countered with the pic of an I beam wrapped around a tree during a tornado. Researching that stuff takes very little time if one is well informed in a number of subject matters. I would also expect most vehicles in the path of the falling debris or the high velocity dust cloud to be destroyed and crushed in all sorts of weird ways with a large percentage of them catching on fire due to ruptured fuel tanks, severed fuel and electrical lines, electrical shorts and a few exploding batteries so take your pick to describe the localized fire damage to each of the damaged vehicles. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the "spire" falls leaving the dust it was covered with hanging in the air. Yeah I've seen the so called "evidence" and it's pathetically weak. I think I'll stick with my own critical thinking which agrees with the conclusions of 1,300 architects and engineers and countless thousands of other learned professionals around the world.
Solrey: thank you for proving my point- if controlled demo dropped the building as you and others claim, then the lobby wall should be crushed-
So what did you mean when you said?
That is the bottom lobby wall of the building- should this be crushed?
So you meant "shouldn't they be crushed too"?

Anyways, they're designed to not be "crushed", i.e. they withstand a tremendous amount of vertical compression, so random sections of columns around the perimeter of the base (the thickest strongest columns are at the base, obviously) that didn't experience strong enough shear force to bend them over, could still be standing. In a controlled demolition of that nature, or even a natural collapse, to a building of that design, it would be perfectly normal if not expected for some perimeter columns to remain standing. There is absolutely nothing anomalous about it that requires speculative explanations. Does that still "prove your point"?

If DEW's brought down the buildings as you and others claim, then wouldn't those columns be bent "like pretzels", or vaorized, or otherwise show evidence they were atomically dissociated also?

Occams razor is a double edged sword. ;)

To me it's obvious that Woods et al are trying to cram a round peg into a square hole and there's absolutely no reason to sully EU theories reputation by trying to associate the two.

Or for me to waste any more time on such nonsense.

cheers
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla

mathew
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 7:04 pm
Location: Sierra Nevada Mountains
Contact:

Re: Tesla, Hutchinson Effect, Directed Energy and Dr. Judy Wood

Unread post by mathew » Thu Oct 21, 2010 4:22 pm

Where is the pile?

Image

That was a one-hundred and ten story building, and that pile is less than three stories high. Where did It go?
Here's a clue-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPJUP-Ry7d0
P.S. I do not always agree w/Irving & Lawson, but I agree w/this.
The wind.. in its greatest power, whirls. -Black Elk

77Jack
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:22 pm

Re: Tesla, Hutchinson Effect, Directed Energy and Dr. Judy Wood

Unread post by 77Jack » Thu Oct 21, 2010 4:26 pm

Image

So I just had to see if a fire truck's engine is actually located in the middle or at the front and as you can see, in the above pic, that the engines are located at the front. Now these may not be the exact same make and model of Ladder 3, but they look very similar. Here's a link to a different site http://www.brevardcounty.us/fire_rescue ... ngines.cfm

I have no clue what dropped the towers, but 1 and 2 seem to have gone down quite differently than 7. I think most people would agree that 7 was a conventional implosion. I know 1300 architects and engineers say that towers 1 and 2 came down by nano-thermite, but aren't we here to find the truth not just the consensus? I mean isn't that what the mainstream does? "All tops scientists say that AGW is real" or "all top scientists say that the universe is run by gravity".

I think since there is no definitive answer we should all just keep open minds.

Jack

CTJG 1986
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Southwestern Ontario, Canada

Re: Tesla, Hutchinson Effect, Directed Energy and Dr. Judy Wood

Unread post by CTJG 1986 » Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:40 pm

77Jack wrote:Image

So I just had to see if a fire truck's engine is actually located in the middle or at the front and as you can see, in the above pic, that the engines are located at the front. Now these may not be the exact same make and model of Ladder 3, but they look very similar. Here's a link to a different site http://www.brevardcounty.us/fire_rescue ... ngines.cfm

I have no clue what dropped the towers, but 1 and 2 seem to have gone down quite differently than 7. I think most people would agree that 7 was a conventional implosion. I know 1300 architects and engineers say that towers 1 and 2 came down by nano-thermite, but aren't we here to find the truth not just the consensus? I mean isn't that what the mainstream does? "All tops scientists say that AGW is real" or "all top scientists say that the universe is run by gravity".

I think since there is no definitive answer we should all just keep open minds.

Jack
I was just going to point out to Solrey that the photo of "Ladder 3 on a better day" was taken in 2007 or 2008, it is the NEW REPLACEMENT engine for the one destroyed on 9/11 and it is not the same model of truck. Comparing the two is not wise.

That being said the engines(motors) in 90% of ladder trucks these days are located either directly behind and partially under the crew cabin or further back closer to the rear axles which is supposed to provide better stability for the ladder when extended.

There is however some parts under the front of the crew cabin as you will notice the grill at the front for air intake for the engine block, but the engine block itself is usually further back just left of the man in the photo behind the front wheels/axle. The only way to get to it though is to lift the entire cab as seen as the rest of the truck is full of equipment and storage boxes and such.

Although I wasn't able to find out exact make and model info for the original Ladder 3 I share Solrey's opinion that the engine block was/is not in the section that is most badly mangled.

However the crew cabin and ladder above are built extremely tough and meant to handle some extreme situations, although it's not impossible the damage was caused by a massive piece of heavy debris I have seen numerous photos or videos of Ladder 3 from different directions and:

1. I have yet to see any piece of debris nearby the truck that could have caused the damage, nor any sign that a large piece or debris was removed so soon after the attacks when more pressing matters were priority. Though if it was blocking the street I could see them moving it off the street, but again I haven't seen any large debris anywhere nearby and I doubt they would have hauled it out of there completely by that time.

2. The size and weight of the debris needed to mangle the very strong cabin and ladder of the truck would indicate that...

a) the vehicle(s) and light post right next to it should be at least as badly damaged - which it is not;

b) the road itself should show damage from such a massive debris hit - which it does not.

3. Why is the ladder showing seemingly clean bends that look like a result of high heat rather than debris landing on it? (note: the biggest bend is clearly from the heat/fire evidenced directly below it)

If it is heat damage why does the passenger door of the crew cabin not have any signs of fire/soot on it while the rear of the crew cabin shows soot stains from an apparent fire?

The engine block spontaneously combusted and left the rest of the truck mangled but showing no fire damage?

I've seen normal vehicle fires before, including a firetruck that had it's engine block catch fire and I have never seen such 'contained' fire damage.

Perhaps it was a flaming piece of debris that landed on it and mangled it, then it bounced off a long ways away(thus not viewable in any photo/video I've seen from any direction) and then it started a very contained fire in or above the engine block... I've seen/heard crazier things, but I still won't be betting on it.

I am not completely sold on the idea of DEW being involved in the attacks however I do know a demo expert in the Canadian Armed Forces who says there is no way in hell that towers 1 and 2 could have come down like that and as quickly as that with normal explosives of any kind(including thermite/thermate/nano-thermite, etc) because there simply was TOO MUCH STRUCTURE in the way of the "collapse".

To cause such a rapid "collapse" would require removing at least 70%(his number) of the entire interior structure completely from the buildings, not just cutting it into pieces which would still be in the way of the "collapse".

Explosives could be used to blast much of the concrete structure into dust thus removing it and accounting for large amounts of dust from the towers, but explosives don't dustify steel. It could have liquefied the steel perhaps but then the heat required for that would have been noticed by the survivors who traveled down the stairwells nearby that structure and reported only feeling "warm" air flows, no extreme heat.

I do agree building 7 was conventional demolition but an expert I trust with my life and who has never steered me wrong before says there is no possible way towers 1 and 2 could come down like that with conventional explosives. I'm not usually someone who cares about the 'expert opinions' but when it comes to explosives and such the experts are very valuable.

Also, specifically @ Solrey - Studying directed energy and studying Directed Energy Weapons systems being developed by the U.S Military Industrial Complex are 2 different things. If you dig through government, military and private 'military contractor' websites for many hours a day as I have been doing for years you will know that I can't even mention some of the projects in the works here because they seem too insane even for most EU advocates.

But the most advanced particle beam weapons in development today(that I can find accessible info on) are designed specifically to penetrate into the INTERIOR of a structure using "relativistic particles" to 'attack' the structure of a hardened site and cause catastrophic collapse from the inside.

It doesn't de-atomize or de-molecularize the structure it simply weakens the molecular bonds of the matter severely reducing their load capabilities and causing them to fail(and cause steel beams to bend and twist like pipe cleaners).

The theory is that if you have a hardened structure with say multiple feet thick reinforced concrete walls and roofs it is more efficient and cheaper to simply bypass the exterior "armor" and attack the interior structure than it is to use a bunker buster or laser system to punch through it(BB's are expensive and not re-usable, lasers and such spread their energy over the entire surface area and use far greater amounts of energy than a particle beam).

I am not saying that such a weapon was used but that with such technology in existence and under the control of the people it is under the control of(Black ops/budget groups and the MIC), and with the U.S government(Rumsfield) having practically declared war on those very groups for trillions of embezzled tax payer dollars on September 10, 2001 I can not understand how an intelligent person can rule out the possibility.
On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/ ... 5985.shtml
The difference between a Creationist and a believer in the Big Bang is that the Creationists admit they are operating on blind faith... Big Bang believers call their blind faith "theoretical mathematical variables" and claim to be scientists rather than the theologists they really are.

CTJG 1986
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Southwestern Ontario, Canada

Re: Tesla, Hutchinson Effect, Directed Energy and Dr. Judy Wood

Unread post by CTJG 1986 » Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:27 pm

It's too late to edit so I just need to make a correction to my previous post.

After having reviewed a series of emails he sent me a few months back I need to correct this sentence: "To cause such a rapid "collapse" would require removing at least 70%(his number) of the entire interior structure completely from the buildings..."

That 70% should be 35%-40%, the 70% I honestly have no idea where it came from but it was in my head at the time for some reason, but it most definitely is NOT the number he gave me as I mistakenly stated.

I'm just glad I decided to review the emails before someone picked out that incorrect number and I started arguing over my own mistake. :)
The difference between a Creationist and a believer in the Big Bang is that the Creationists admit they are operating on blind faith... Big Bang believers call their blind faith "theoretical mathematical variables" and claim to be scientists rather than the theologists they really are.

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Tesla, Hutchinson Effect, Directed Energy and Dr. Judy Wood

Unread post by GaryN » Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:07 pm

An EMP device is the only thing I can imagine as being the major destructive force. I wouldn't argue with explosives being used in some capacity. An EMP device would be quiet, even if it was powered by a 'suitcase' micro-nuke. I think they could have just used A/C power, though I couldn't calculate how many watts they would have needed to cause such destruction. A 1.8 GW device is available from these guys, and it's not very big.
http://www.amazing1.com/emp.htm
Having the blueprints for the building would make it fairly straightforward to figure the resonance of the core components, and determine the changes required to the pulse rate/shape to take into account the shortening antenna. The 'weird EM' emissions would have been most powerful at the top, which is what I believe responsible for the 'fountain' of dust at the onset. The top of the girders would evaporate, leading to the top down destruction as the antenna/s shortened.
The micro-nuke option might be supported by the fact that there is an increase amongst the survivors of lymphatic and blood cancers, due I would think to neutron emissions from the device.
As Kevin noted though, the technologies used , if my scenario is correct, could tell us something about forces/fields that are operating in the Universe which might explain some heavenly events, maybe even quasars or magnetars. Pulsing is Powerful.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

kevin
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Tesla, Hutchinson Effect, Directed Energy and Dr. Judy Wood

Unread post by kevin » Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:54 am

The bathtub is what attracts my attention, especially when thinking in tesla terms?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/foundation.html
And the extensive use of bentonite clays in it's construction, the anchoring into the bedrock will have provided these towers with perfect wardenclyff properties?

Instead of arguing about their destruction , perhaps a look at what they were , may be better?
Built in plain site, but containg what technology?
Kevin

User avatar
solrey
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Tesla, Hutchinson Effect, Directed Energy and Dr. Judy Wood

Unread post by solrey » Fri Oct 22, 2010 6:29 am

The bathtub is what attracts my attention, especially when thinking in tesla terms?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/foundation.html
And the extensive use of bentonite clays in it's construction, the anchoring into the bedrock will have provided these towers with perfect wardenclyff properties?

Instead of arguing about their destruction , perhaps a look at what they were , may be better?
Built in plain site, but containg what technology?
Kevin
Kevin, if you're going to compare the design of the twin towers to Wardenclyff then I wonder how well you really understand Tesla.

Speaking of the "bathtub" (a levee to hold back the Hudson). The bathtub was necessary because the underground levels of the WTC complex were like 60 to 80 feet deep. The sublevels were a huge cavernous space that covered nearly the same area as the entire WTC complex. That's where some of the alleged "missing" debris from the twin towers went. That one story high pile of debris is the top of a pile that goes at least six stories underground, the rest was scattered around a wide debris field and the concrete was pulverized into dust. There was no missing debris.


77jack said:
So I just had to see if a fire truck's engine is actually located in the middle or at the front and as you can see, in the above pic, that the engines are located at the front.
As you can see in the pic, the engine is located more under the crew compartment behind the drivers compartment, not at the very front where Woods et al say it should be. I wasn't exactly right on how far back it was located but the gist is that it wasn't located right up front like most passenger vehicles.
I do agree building 7 was conventional demolition but an expert I trust with my life and who has never steered me wrong before says there is no possible way towers 1 and 2 could come down like that with conventional explosives. I'm not usually someone who cares about the 'expert opinions' but when it comes to explosives and such the experts are very valuable.
Sorry, your "expert" doesn't know what they're talking about. What's their area of expertise anyway?

As I said before:
That's easy to explain with controlled demolition because the different designs of the buildings would dictate different styles of demolition. The tall overbuilt twin towers would have to be shredded while building 7 only needed a more standard implosion.
Regarding the twin towers:
Specifically cutting charges on the core columns and floor joists with shaped charges to pulverize the concrete floor slabs. I was a demolition specialist in the army reserves so I have some background in that area of expertise.
Which is why there was a wide debris field and high velocity lateral ejection in the collapse of the twin towers compared to the neat pile of building 7 after a conventional implosion. ;)


Not surprised to see a reunion of the Leedskalnin fan club on this thread. :roll:
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests