Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!news.informatik.hu-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Thomas Heger Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.physics Subject: Re: gilber34 shows us a very good link Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 20:41:52 +0200 Lines: 97 Message-ID: References: <216117e07170ef27f719b137cb25b955@dizum.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net gvzlpeB2EwkpVSwSpH8KVQZNPaPEAdWsQseUeZtgX4GdiFBHCb Cancel-Lock: sha1:6pDckaVzg1UqZ8TYgT79GtJrbN0= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 In-Reply-To: <216117e07170ef27f719b137cb25b955@dizum.com> Xref: csiph.com alt.conspiracy:265944 sci.physics:518193 Am 31.08.2015 16:37, schrieb Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus: >>>>>> Thanks because the link used in that post was great. Here, I'll repost >>>>>> the link: >>>>>>> < > >>>>> Quote from that page: >>>>> >>>>> What kind of unconventional energy could have caused the Twin Towers to >>>>> turn to dust? >>>>> >>>>> A fissionless fusion thermo nuclear event? >>>>> Direct Energy Weapons? >>>>> HAARP? >>>>> A scaled up weaponized version of The Hutchison Effect? >>>>> >>>>> Actually I don't know, but something along this line sounds plausible. ... >> As far as I know John Hutchison supports Judy Wood. The idea of DEW >> actually stems from Judy Wood. And if Hutchison is supporting her, he >> most likely believes in her assumptions. >> >> Since John Hutchison is THE authority about the 'Hutchison effect' > > He's not. See below. > >> I would say, this explanation is actually plausible. > This is a technical/scientific question. At first sight the idea (of Judy Wood actually) seems to be plausible. The term 'plausible' does not mean 'true', but 'worth to investigate further'. In comparison the 'mini-nuke-theory' presented by 'Rocky' is not plausible. > >> But you should forgive me, since I personally have no experience in this >> kind of experiments and cannot tell, whether or not this idea is true. >> But it sounds plausible and observations (at the WTC) and experiments >> (by Hutchison) match. >> >> This explanation is far better than Nano-thermite or mini-nuke. >> >> The only problem is, that if such effects are possible, the destruction >> could be caused by anybody in possession of such knowledge and such >> devices. This ranges from KGB-spies to aliens. >> >> So we had to rethink this '9/11 was an inside job'-theory, too. > > Given that Mel Winfield (an electrician and mining promoter) is the > originator of the theoretical concept that Hutchinson claims as his > "Hutchinson Effect", and given that the Winfield Effect has never been > replicated in a controlled laboratory environment using the same type > of equipment Hutchinson uses, and given that Hutchinson himself cannot > replicate the effects on demand, and given that Hutchinson has had his > credibility damaged by his admission to fakery of some of the effects > seen: This is about the person John Hutchison, who certainly is a little strange. This behaviour may be of interest, if you want to write a book about him, but not in connection to 9/11. > > "Hutchison later admitted to being "creative" with the footage, citing > pressure from the Discovery Channel to create material for the show > and an inability to legally reproduce the original effect, according > to Tim Ventura of American Antigravity. Well, maybe the effect is already known by others (what is quite likely, if the effect exists at all). But this is another irrelevant question. First question should be, if there have been ANY replications of this experiments (by whom ever). This would allow to decide, if such effect exists at all. > In 2005, Hutchison admitted that he hadn't actually reproduced his > effect since approximately 1991." > Also irrelevant, since he had held demonstration of his effect since 1970. This would make 21 years with successful presentations of this effect (if they were successful then). > And given that now John's gone a little off the rails... yeeesss, agreed: Certainly 'a little strange' this guy. TH