Dr. Judy Wood and the Hutchison effect

alienentity

Illuminator
alienentity
Joined
Feb 21, 2009
Messages
4,325
I decided to open a new thread to discuss the various claims made by Judy Wood on either her website www.drjudywood.com or that of Andrew Johnson www.checktheevidence.com.

Lately she's been expanding on her analysis of anomalies on 9/11 to tie in with Hurricane Erin, so called 'field effects' and the work of eccentric Canadian experimenter John Hutchison.

Off the top of my head, her anomalies include:

1) Claims that not enough debris was found from the towers, so their mass disappeared somehow
2) debris fires couldn't have been as hot as claimed (no steam explosions, grapplers able to work without malfunctioning)
3) overturned and burnt cars were found next to unaffected objects, such as trees and paper
4) cars burnt but there were no charred bodies on the streets
5) circular holes in buildings with no explanation


etc


I'd like to invite people's comments. This is not meant as a place to PROVE her theories correct, but to discuss the evidence presented in a thoughtful way.
 
alienentity said:
I decided to open a new thread to discuss the various claims made by Judy Wood on either her website www.drjudywood.com or that of Andrew Johnson www.checktheevidence.com.

Lately she's been expanding on her analysis of anomalies on 9/11 to tie in with Hurricane Erin, so called 'field effects' and the work of eccentric Canadian experimenter John Hutchison.

Off the top of my head, her anomalies include:

1) Claims that not enough debris was found from the towers, so their mass disappeared somehow
2) debris fires couldn't have been as hot as claimed (no steam explosions, grapplers able to work without malfunctioning)
3) overturned and burnt cars were found next to unaffected objects, such as trees and paper
4) cars burnt but there were no charred bodies on the streets
5) circular holes in buildings with no explanation


etc


I'd like to invite people's comments. This is not meant as a place to PROVE her theories correct, but to discuss the evidence presented in a thoughtful way.
Click to expand...


Proving her theories correct might be difficult.
 
FineWine said:
Proving her theories correct might be difficult.
Click to expand...

This is true. I'm curious to know more about some of the details of toasted cars (that's her term btw) and emergency vehicles.

Another interesting physical phenomenon was rapid rust formation. Any good info on this?
 
FineWine said:
Mackey's post is amazing. He does this stuff for free? Wow!
Click to expand...

Agreed. Also Dr. Greg Jenkins did a very good job of exposing the impossibility of her original musings.

However, the idea of the Hutchison effect is that it requires much less power to operate, letting Dr. Wood off the hook, power-wise. She's pushing the idea of Hutchison-like 'molecular disassociation' as a way to explain the 'dustification' of steel, for example.
 
Between Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood: If you try to get answers to break their psuedo-science down to basic steps, they become evasive and avoid the direct answer to pertinent questions.
Their theories are bullsmack.
 
alienentity said:
Agreed. Also Dr. Greg Jenkins did a very good job of exposing the impossibility of her original musings.

However, the idea of the Hutchison effect is that it requires much less power to operate, letting Dr. Wood off the hook, power-wise. She's pushing the idea of Hutchison-like 'molecular disassociation' as a way to explain the 'dustification' of steel, for example.
Click to expand...

By my understanding of JREF, Hutchison and "molecular disassociation" belongs in the skeptics section along with perpetual motion machines and similar claims.
 
BigAl said:
By my understanding of JREF, Hutchison and "molecular disassociation" belongs in the skeptics section along with perpetual motion machines and similar claims.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but it is specifically the subject of 9/11, Judy Wood and the Hutchison effect that this thread is about. There is some crossover.
 
alienentity said:
1) Claims that not enough debris was found from the towers, so their mass disappeared somehow.
Click to expand...


This has been discussed several times with various Judy Wood supporters such as Ace Baker, jammonius, etc.. This claim is demonstrably false (as discussed here). It does come up again every now and then, but between the surveyed heights for the debris piles, the fact of the lower levels being documented as filled with debris, and the pictures showing the piles with clearly non-dustified steel, this one really should be put to bed.
 
Hokulele said:
This has been discussed several times with various Judy Wood supporters such as Ace Baker, jammonius, etc.. This claim is demonstrably false (as discussed here). It does come up again every now and then, but between the surveyed heights for the debris piles, the fact of the lower levels being documented as filled with debris, and the pictures showing the piles with clearly non-dustified steel, this one really should be put to bed.
Click to expand...

Judging from that thread Jammonius IS Judy Wood or Andrew Johnson. Whatever.
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:
5) circular holes in buildings with no explanation
Click to expand...



Haven't read all the responses yet, but I'll point out here that "with no explanation" is completely wrong. I provided a perfect explanation of the holes she describes:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2080456#post2080456

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2080799#post2080799

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2081582#post2081582

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2081784#post2081784


And that doesn't even address the issue that the holes aren't round.

Dr. Wood is a complete flake. Any serious scientist would at least acknowledge the above explanation, even if they disagree with it. She has never, to my knowledge, addressed this issue, preferring instead to go off on flights of fancy about the Hutchison Effect.
 
Last edited:
jammonius, and in fact poor Ms. Wood herself (who may or may not be the same person, I don't know) have never even defined Ms. Wood's claim. What kind of beam? Where was the weapon? There's been hints here and there, but in all the pages of the Directed-energy weapons and the WTC thread, jammonius studiously evaded the basic questions: What kind of weapon was used? Where was it (on the ground? in the air? in orbit?)

Four separate posters (myself, myriad , R. Mackey, and BenBurch) have produced quantitative analyses refuting Ms. Wood's scenario, which begins with a claim (WTC 1 & 2 mostly turned to dust) which is manifestly and inarguably* false.

*Yes, I know that doesn't stop it from being argued anyway. It's pretty much flat-Earther territory.
 
Thanks H.! I hadn't found the thread ' Star Wars Beam Weapon and the WTC Bathtub '. Looks like you guys covered most of this stuff way back when.

The thread is from 2006 (featuring 'Truthseeker1234), and I think the one with 'Jammonius' is from 2008. The arguments and logic (or lack thereof) are almost identical.

This post from 'Truthseeker' really said it all for me:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2090960#post2090960

It answers very well the question 'what happens when a major figure of the 9/11 'Truth' movement is confronted with contradictory facts or evidence which explains phenomena in an ordinary way?'

In both 2006 and 2008, JREF poster responses ranged from simple disbelief to musings about mental illness. I think both are justified.

Thanks for linking me to those discussions, I believe my questions have been sufficiently addressed, and my conclusions are roughly the same as those expressed in those threads.

There's no need to take up any more time with this topic, except for the fact that Dr. Wood, Morgan Reynolds and Andrew Johnson are still peddling this claptrap on the airwaves and internet...... I sincerely hope they're not getting a lot of traction out there.
 
Last edited:
sts60 said:
jammonius, and in fact poor Ms. Wood herself (who may or may not be the same person, I don't know) have never even defined Ms. Wood's claim. What kind of beam? Where was the weapon? There's been hints here and there, but in all the pages of the Directed-energy weapons and the WTC thread, jammonius studiously evaded the basic questions: What kind of weapon was used? Where was it (on the ground? in the air? in orbit?)

Four separate posters (myself, myriad , R. Mackey, and BenBurch) have produced quantitative analyses refuting Ms. Wood's scenario, which begins with a claim (WTC 1 & 2 mostly turned to dust) which is manifestly and inarguably* false.

*Yes, I know that doesn't stop it from being argued anyway. It's pretty much flat-Earther territory.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think Dr. Wood is playing a conscious word game, believing that she can convince people she hasn't already come to conclusions. She seems to be doing this by pretending to evaluate all the evidence without bias, yet she constantly misrepresents or ignores evidence that she doesn't like.

She must have a hell of a lot of time on her hands to go thru everything so meticulously and spin fiction on it. Weirdly, she relies almost exclusively on still photographic evidence as her 'evidence', yet hasn't apparently followed up by contacting ANYBODY who was actually a first responder or worker to corroborate her 'findings'.

This seems to me to be at best grossly incompetent investigation technique, but more likely it's just phony investigation to further CT agenda.

How fitting she would end up in some partnership with John Hutchison..
 
alienentity said:
This post from 'Truthseeker' really said it all for me:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2090960#post2090960
Click to expand...



It's been a while since I read that thread. I see my response to the linked post:


Horatius said:
There's so many mundane possibilities for what that dust might be, why do you jump right to the most exotic, least likely explanation? Shouldn't you at least try to eliminate a few other options first?
...
So a building already compromised by having a huge chunk taken out of the middle by one 110-story building falling on it, later collapsed entirely when another 110-story building fell on it. Again, why is this surprising?
Click to expand...


...is saying pretty much the same thing I said up thread!

;)
 
I do give her credit for having the stones to stand before a court!
I actually commend her for it.
 
Bobert said:
I do give her credit for having the stones to stand before a court!
I actually commend her for it.
Click to expand...


Stones? I think those look more like fuzzy blobs. We shouldn't call them stones, as that biases our conclusions.:D

She'd be fuming into nanohaze if she ever reads this, poor thing!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom