1. 9/11’s Twin Tower Destruction & a Possible Link to Ignored Science: or Dr. Judy Wood’s Conclusions, with Contexts Found in Others’ Work Clare Kuehn 9/11 Vancouver Hearings June 16, 2012 With special thanks to Darryl Learie for his amazing technical help and to Don Deppeller for his research skills on Tesla white-fire experiments

2. Purpose of this talk: To present Dr. Judy Wood's physics findings, for the evidence from 9/11 in New York City, compare it to some current other conclusions. Expand people's awareness of the “new” physics context she mentions, by presenting in more depth her own suggestions of possibly related findings from other scientists, and adding to those examples of possible related contexts. This is to help the audience have a fuller appreciation of Dr Wood's general physics position. Ensure intellectual honesty about the Twin Towers area of destruction and Dr. Judy Wood’s contentions from the data: - for wider discussion of the data points and conclusions Dr. Wood raises - provide more background on the physics implications of those conclusions, whether her conclusions are ultimately right, wrong or partly right

3. Credit where Credit is due: Dr. Wood … Book “Where Did the Towers Go?” (2010) and two Websites: http://drjudywood.com/ and the more recent http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/ Greatly expanded our EXPLANANDUM – that which must be explained/ accounted for Raised a Qui Tam court case in good faith Presented a professional, expert and coherent conclusion (theory/ explanation) with room for further work, whether right or wrong Continues to raise awareness of general physics findings long mischaracterized, ignored or discounted in public science

4. First part of my talk: Will discuss a range of examples from her explanandum, selected for brevity, with the logic of the case in mind: - Thus, will mention some of her conclusions and suggestions for the explanandum, along the way Will end with some comparisons between Dr. Wood's findings and the mini-nuke hypothesis

5. Second part of my talk: Covers the contexts which might have a bearing on explaining Dr. Wood's findings, for wider understanding and perusal in future discussion of 9/11 and in other cases My intention for this part of the talk: Extend people's knowledge about the experimental findings (and some of the explanatory theories) of scientists whom Dr. Wood mentions in context of her conclusions Add to her list of possibly related experimental and theoretical work

6. Theory is not a dirty word Remember the term “theory” has weak vs. strong usages: 1. Notional attempt to explain vs. Proper adherence to data, along with knowledgeable explanation 2. Data points (factoids) vs. Evidence in a case 3. Case development (hypotheses along the way – theory in progress) vs. Case made (final theory attempt on one line) vs. Correct case made (final theory chosen from among all) Note: Data do not speak on their own; they are noticed and addressed. We compare and analyze, for relevance as evidence in a case. Thus: Literal mimicry is not the whole aspect of a right conclusion: Accuracy in recounting data points (true mimicry) and accuracy in thinking through (noting) connections and contrasts (which = having proper and complete thoughts about the data), are both important in an explanation, a theory.

7. The Explanandum and Dr. Wood's Conclusions Did not start with preconceptions of what happened Used neutral terms for data points noticed (e.g., fumes not steam, in case other process) Note: Did use is preknowledge to use to compare and contrast: Newton's mathematical theory of gravity, behaviour of materials under certain stresses usually, etc. This is not prejudice or notional theory (preconceptions in a negative sense).

8. Dr. Wood finds data from the WTC, which eliminate a gravity-driven collapse... both from pancaking under pure pressure or structural failure (as with an earthquake or a lower floor failure) and from buckling and collapsing from fire (also gravity-driven when collapsing) And she finds other data which eliminate these and controlled demolition as a primary destructive mechanism, as well.

12. Selections from her arguments and the data supporting them: 1. The time of final destruction is too short Resistance per floor, per column portion, etc., eliminate both top-heavy pressure collapse and fire-buckling collapse, or failed joints from fire or pressure The mathematical models in the computer “simulations” created for the legitimate government and people, were adjusted to the point where the images would collapse, but were not realistic anymore by that point.

13. 2. Lack of a raging inferno Nothing to weaken, much less melt the steel itself from fire, which was fire-resistant beyond ordinary steel. Joints could have been weakened in fire, but then we are back to a gravity problem and concrete pours and not intense dust that we saw. Stone-cold heat sink steel below the holes Also have Testimony: On the communications radio, the experienced NY Fire Chief figured the fires at the “impact” site were not severe. Note: This was for the tower which was destroyed first but hit second (less time to become an inferno). The smoke was almost gone, the fire choked.

14. 3. Lack of debris piles and total debris (strewn) contained insufficient bulk of material and height In buckling from fire and in pressure-driven or earthquake collapses, the material remains largely in a pile, roughly 12% of the building height Even an ambulance at the front area of WTC 1 with no surrounding large piles

15. Aside: LEFT fake propaganda photo Two “Flag Raising” photos Nonexistent high piles of debris are implied by famous “Flag Raising” photo attributed to Thomas E. Franklin (left) in an angle where there was no such close pile, known from other photos. (Note: right-hand version not one of them.) Unsure if Dr. Wood is implying the famous one is faked – seems to be but text is unclear Piles did not exist in that direction, and definitely not so close up that beams would look large Flagpole top is different in both images: damage to Ricky Flores photo version (right) wraps around pole enough to show in both versions if Franklin version (left) is authentic.

16. The fake one became a major propaganda image, but most important, it is used to suggest high and close piles of debris

17. The real debris! (The same ambulance we saw is on the left at ground level, in front of missing WTC 1)

18. Back to Dr. Judy's points: 4. The worry and care taken with the retaining wall or “bathtub” during clean-up shows no worse pounding during destruction of towers. Thus no fire-buckling gravity collapse, mere relatively cold steel pancaking, or controlled demolition.

19. 5. Seismograph readings are grossly inadequate in intensity, S vs. P wave presence, for bedrock (amplifier of waves). Particularly notable is that bedrock would amplify the waves The waves are less than for the Kingdome, destroyed (by explosives). - was less massive & on earth, not bedrock. Thus no bombs with big expulsions or near ground at that point, and little collapsed debris during main destruction period, on this basis alone, unless these readings were faked. Testimony: Confirms the weird lack of big debris overall in the dust clouds. Apologies – only thumbnail available on line

20. 6. Dust Behaviour, sheer amount suspended, thickness of dust clouds and the analyzed particle size ratio... all eliminate regular causes, including controlled demolition Even thermite takes too long, is not explosive enough: - Not considered an explosive - Iron (from steel) and sulphur could have been in the dust anyway - Organic materials should have been burned in dust - Thermite burns bright and would have been a lasting bright flame during main destruction, which didn’t happen - More micro materials than larger materials: aberrant compared with other dust tested in destructions - Thermite takes longer to burn through car engines than whole towers did - Explosives not principal destructive mechanism – unless nuke, another issue Note: Dr. Wood goes further: - Electric fields (computers, cell phones) set off explosives, so no even for effect. - Rings of charges around floors not seen. - “Squib” puffs: she attributes to air pressure (Aside: occur far below the main destruction dust, in pairs of squibs, during the main destruction period, so this is possibly wrong?)

21. Dr. Wood compares tritium

22. Nobel laureate in nuclear physics says cold fusion problems are possible to solve and works out how – whether or not they have been, he adds. Dr. Julian Schwinger http://www.infinite- energy.com/iemagazine/issue1/colfusthe.html

23. ASIDE about the official explanation: NOTE: Most people don’t carefully address the fact that the official position really relies on a combination of fire and collapse in NYC WTC 1&2 on 9/11: - upper heat/ melt/ inner sag (no sag or massive heat) really present; dust is not smoke mainly; bent top section during destrucion main period has other explanations - crushing, pounding (impossibly powerful and rapid) in “pancake” form through lower floors of cold steel & concrete RETURN TO MAIN ARGUMENT: So what DID happen?

24. Dr. Wood's contention for the main destruction period: The buildings were disintegrating (“exploding” in ordinary parlance, but not with explosives or bombs) in situ (in place), on every floor but not from conventional explosives … Not “exploding” in upwards fashion, but ejection out and dust flowing out and down, looking more explosive than they were Instead, they were turning to dust... And starting an on-going reaction (nuclear & other(?) changes)

26. Spire turns to dust... 60 stories high, untouched by whatever other destructive mechanisms affected floors around it (even mini-nukes, if they went off in sequence near it). Dustifying even in MID-AIR. Some contend they cannot “see” this but it occurs in most videos, some of the of the spire, some of them of other spires arcing and lathering through the air. This video example was from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4 (sorry, my player won’t play the video properly here). There are other copies, good and bad. Note it “wibble-wobbles” like Jello or a string, but in a sinewave-like shape, falls down leaving a distinctly different coloured and shaped, and thicker trail of dust in front of other objects. Yes, we see the steel beam top, as it falls: for a moment still somewhat keeping its own dark shape inside its dust column, but this cannot be a coherent beam falling and shaking off some dust, for that dust would be barely visible around a regular solid beam. It also would not show a whole beam column linearly tracing briefly a weak wobble along its height as it falls. It falls AND turns to dust in mid-air.

27. There are claims that explosive power gave off debris, in a major upward thrust: Don Fox (mini-nuke device proponent) and “9/11 Eyewitness” video (controlled demolition bombs proponent) claim there was a piece of the tower with a 45-degree upward thrust. However, careful viewing will show that it was not a falling column rising, but dust rising around the top of a dustifying column while the main part of the column arcs as a unit down and out. One can determine this because the unit of dusty column detachies and falls, while lighter dust swirls up, giving the 45-degree effect. A piece was not, itself, blasted up at 45 degrees -- at least in this example. There was debris 400 to 600 feet away. That is another issue. Dr. Wood suggests lateral air pressure and height account for this. (If there was explosive force to the mechanism of directed energy weapons or nukes and DEWs were used, this could also explain this?) – Note: This video attempts to prove WTC destroyed by regular controlled demolition rather than official story. Nevertheless, it concurs with (mentions at one point) a “vaporized steel” section, the 60-storey spire (see previous slide). The video does not see a contradiction between controlled demolition and vaporized/ dustified steel. Video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6498070204870579516# (see 33:17 to 33:52). Title: “911 Eyewitness”. Overall, it is a good compendium of some of the problems with the official story.

28. Dr. Wood shows that Debris fell far, rather than exploded far

29. New point: Most of WTC 4 was gone One wing standing, clean cut. & 1 corner missed, wilted. Perfect cut to wing. No damage to underground except holes. Not collapse, too specific for nukes, even shaped charges: leaves a line of destruction.

30. Gash in Bankers Trust (Deutsche Bank) too large for cladding in it Later, rusted beams kept occurring and they couldn't fix so they rebuilt On-going process at molecular or nuclear level? Particularly, soldered connections between beams were affected – in underground or Bankers Trust (I forget the reference she cites). Could the specific corrosion be electrical resistance?

31. Flames showed at the beginning of destruction, but not during. Not thermite and not regular explosives alone. A “smoke screen” cover-story?

32. Cars burst into flame rapidly and without warning – water didn’t affect some of them Not all engine blocks, but many seemed particularly affected: pulse effect beyond what EMP from nukes would do? Sometimes partial segments were affected, particularly where electrically insulative rubber would have been Unburned paper or seating material was worked into one of the seats all the rest having been consumed around it: not an oxygen-less area which can leave something unburned. As far away as JFK drive Quick rustification, odd holes, wilting, handles and trim gone without much other damage sometimes Many testimonies One was a firefighter who said water wouldn't stop the fires

34. Selective insulation of flame effects Seat or paper interwoven in seat and uncharred but all else down to metal – can’t be lack of oxygen in the fire area (BLACK box)

37. Cars burst into flame rapidly and without warning Not all engine blocks, but many seemed particularly affected: pulse effect? Sometimes partial segments where insulative rubber would have been Unburned paper worked into one of them As far away as JFK drive Quick rustification, odd holes, wilting, handles and trim gone without much other damage sometimes Many testimonies One was a firefighter who said water wouldn't stop the fires

38. Windows broke in circles in some cases multiple times Sometimes one pane only Dr. Wood suggests lateral waves

39. Strange levitation of cars and people (Cloud moved about 30 mph.) “Flipped” cars among others unflipped, like tornados People: “punched” and “lifted” and dropped in the dust cloud after Photographer Handschuh for “a block” Emergency Medical worker Renae O'Connell and others One man hid under truck and it was just “gone” when the dust cleared: no major wind or he’d have felt it Testimony: - Trucks were “tossed like toys” down the street in the cloud!

40. There were round and almost debris-less holes all around the site No sign of major heat: some wilting but no damage to ceilings

41. USGS satellite - Claims of high heat and molten metal in debris. “Loose Change” movie suggested heat well over 1,000 degrees, but official claim was about 800 degrees from USGS who did the satellite data. Glowing metal, some still hot possibly (iron burns, continues heating) might not be general heat But note: no major glowing during dustification --- was this glow from a continuing process? [If there was molten metal (which Dr. Wood discounts), could it have been very localized and from continued iron “burning” slowly in increasing amounts, which has occurred, or could have been from metal other than steel?] NO STEAM or burns from it – none reported, Grapplers worked

42. Famous image of firefighters at “glowing hole” is overexposed light on ground, from video context. The video, which tries to debunk elements of 9/11 big-conspiracy theory, contains accurately the video source from which this “photo” came: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YXzjAKJQOg (see 1:51 to 2:36). Title: “9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Pools of Molten Steel”, posted by “RKOwens4”, in 2007.

43. Fuming on the day and years after THIS, however, is water with fumes, note grappler not seized up from area heat

44. Dirt trucked in and out, ultimately filled much of the Bathtub retaining area with dirt; Hazmat suits used for some lucky workers, hosing down the workers years later

45. Lathering effects

46. Dr. Wood points out that WTC 7 was NOT a regular controlled demolition, at least for the main part of its destruction. On bldg 7 we have photos from several angles yet only a glow on some floors. Lathering for a few hours. Bombs early on and more height to debris pile, but irregular seizmograph and fuming/lathering. Testimony: (Barry Jennings claimed several bombs or explosions and many dead in WTC 7 earlier than the take-down later) Note: WTC 7 had another tiny seismograph reading when it came down.

48. On bldg 1 more lather, right as WTC 2 comes down. All of one side, like WTC 7. Some people thought the WTC 7 images were fake, but they come from different angles and fit the profile of the strange dusty fumes (lather) on other buildings

49. Heat effects and sudden flames: Some people had clothing on fire or sudden burns in the dust cloud Others felt no heat, felt no debris worth mentioning, just thick dust Testimony: Renae O'Connell reached WTC to help 11 minutes before 1 st destruction (WTC 2). At ¾ miles away, on Washington Bridge, several minutes before that, she felt intense heat. Was it regular heat or wave “toasting” (like a microwave)? (As with jumpers possibly.) Could nukes be going off constantly and would they leave this effect so far away?

50. “Jumpers” Numerous testimonies: “Raining people”: constant falling people -10 to 30 seconds apart at one point -Videos do not capture this (they may have recycled and composited imagery from earlier in the day)

51. Some seem to be DISrobing Would sprinkler wetting leave them more susceptible to field effects? Then numbers of people are impelled to jump – is this an effect like flash-microwave effect weapons now being released? Do they feel a pulse like the levitating people later?

52. Magnetosphere readings in Alaska changed specifically on 9/11, not in a general solar effect. And they changed increasingly for 20 minutes BEFORE the “1 st hit”, then stayed increasingly anomalous (though more complex) through the day. (Would nukes have been going off enough to change readings so early?)

53. A hurricane off the coast at its widest and closest to NY (though not as violent) Hurricane Erin might be connected to 9/11 events deliberately – directed, used.

54. Dr. Wood gives details about... The seemingly very strange eye of the storm: like worms in a knot Chemtrail analysis, barium, etc. Discussion of other atmospheric waveform and defense initiatives, such as: February 8, 2006 03:06 PM http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002163.html Someday the U.S. military could drive a trailer to a spot just beyond insurgent fighting and, within minutes, reconfigure part of the atmosphere, blocking an enemy's ability to receive satellite signals, even as U.S. troops are able to see into the area with radar. Hurricane and other weather control initiatives, some pursued but “in the future yet

55. Straw in trees after Hurricanes/Tornados

56. Collection by Russian V.I. Merkulov

59. Beams are not buckled (some are very straight – whole outside cladding) Others are twisted (tall beams and small metal on floor). Yet others are curled as a group (large beams on floor, as if their connector bound them in a roll) Not regular pressure and bombs

60. Paper unburned: In street In dust cloud In compact “meteorite-looking debris”

61. “Meteorite” from 9/11 NYC (left): mix of metals and mix of paper and other materials. Conjoined, not simply pressure John Hutchison metal (right): one of the fused metal objects. Some claim this is fake. They have not addressed other embedded objects, or other definitely unfakeable items, such as the iron bar which dissolves into a contorted mess.

62. And paper was attached to a “once-molten” filing cabinet, the only one found Think about that. The paper was: Attached, with colour remaining Attached to “hot” metal without burning Remember, this is supposed to have been attached to “hot” metal, not in a different segment of a room, with no oxygen for a fire, where you might find some unburned items survive unharmed.

63. Dr. Wood connects these events to waveforms interacting: 1. Levitation 2. Changing matter (dust) and on-going reactions (fuming without steam explosions, for years) 3. Lateral wave effects in windows 4. Sudden selective fires in cars with peeling, toasting without normal burn in many cases, unaffected by water 5. Holes (near misses of a wave effect?) 6. Missing parts of buildings (WTC 4 mostly gone to ground level, “gash” in Deutsche Bank – Bankers Trust – building, too large for the cladding stuck in it to have caused it)

64. Dr. Wood's expertise is in interferometry. She studies stresses and waveforms interacting in different materials. Her conclusions come partly from that experience, but she does feel she has eliminated other hypotheses from the evidence and thus not had blinders on for other theoretical (explanatory conclusion) options.

65. She HAS helped to eliminate regular collapsing from fires and colder pancaking of steel below the fires. She has helped eliminate regular explosives as main destructive mechanism. (Though some would argue there were some explosives used as well. There was a team of unsecure “workers” laying cable lines right before 9/11 for days. – Were they electric cable or for explosives or both? Regular controlled demolitions of whole buildings are very unreliable at times, when charges don't go off right and we didn't see mere puffs and flashes in rows around the buildings.)

66. The other main contender is nukes. But here are some things which Dr. Wood has raised which suggest even mini-nuke bombs, flashing quickly and starting reactions, would not properly account for. See for yourself:

67. Pre-magnetosphere 20 mins Heat – Renae O'Connell before and far away Unburned but disrobing victims Jumper frequency/ amount Cars – fires common, selective effects, water sometimes ineffective Levitation with low windspeed – trucks “tossed like toys”; another truck right above someone “gone” when dust cleared; people carried, dropped (like a rough “setting down”). Unburned material – paper and something interwoven in car seat Hurricane Erin – connected? Unconnected? unintentionally connected? Unmentioned or mentioned? Formed, reformed Eye of storm odd Closest, biggest on day and moved away striking angle

68. “Lost Science” DR. JUDY WOOD MENTIONS OTHER SCIENTISTS & FINDINGS TO SUPPORT ASPECTS OF ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE WAVES CAUSING THINGS SIMILAR TO 9/11 NYC: Website and book references (Website drjudywood.com has a lot on these): Control of atmosphere Different directed and field-effect directed-energy weaponry Scientists (some have more detail in book than on Website, but Hutchison is best on Website and his own, http://www.thehutchisoneffect.com/ ) Hutchison Tesla TT Brown (Biefield-Brown effect) Piggott Leedskalnin (other) Pyramids at Giza, Egypt

69. HUTCHISON forms of metal “bursting”/ looking like hardened spiky jelly levitation: water and objects holes with thinning of edges poof. Fumy dust strange fires along and on ends of metal (boat, etc.) collapse into self (iron bar) flaking contortions effects continue when electricity turned off low power source papers by the hundreds show official interest in his work, and the theory of what makes it work lots of camera crews, one clearly witness to levitation (sponge in back area and H was surprised) all kinds of materials affected somehow, sometimes fused materials (p. 361 fig. 376) cf. 9/11 Fused coins (p. 362 fig. 377 b) not all findings made it into final edits, supposedly mutation of chemicals in stone and metal other work: crystals and battery power and other things peeled metal: (pp. 360-361 figs. 373 & 375) – some might say car doors laminated but not; some might say paint but burn would singe. Some singeing from prob. Mix of reg. Fire and unusual unresponsive to warer fires.

70. One example only: No expert explanation for this which matches the metal condition

71. Again: What further does Dr. Wood say about the field effects she posits/ concludes did the main destruction? Can she point to a physical corollary other than 9/11? The effects she has identified, she links to others' work. Particularly and 1 st she mentions John Hutchison's work with electrical interference waves: 1. Influenced by Tesla. 2. Works with low power sources. 3. Radio and other waves interact. 4. Levitation (even of a sponge, which TV crew witnessed), moving and bending, holes, destruction of iron (including fumy dust), fusion of materials (wood in metal, metal in metal), strange fires – claimed for many different materials. 5. Changed elements.

72. Hutchison Effect holes/ “burns” (top right, comparable with some trucks, cars on 9/11) Hutchison Effect levitation of water, objects (not shown on this slide, but 9/11 example bottom right and mentioned by witnesses) Hutchison Effect bending of metal as if alive (not shown on this slide, but 9/11 example top left) Hutchison Effect destruction in peeling like 9/11 cars and some beams (not shown on this slide, but see 9/11 police car door in earlier slide) Hutchison effect weird fires (bottom left, comparable with 9/11 cars?)

73. VIDEOS OF HUTCHISON WORK Ace Baker on Hutchison: – attempt to fake – expertise in video fake techniques – convinced fake ahead of time – but still did a service: could it be faked video? – no success and selective treatment – no coverage of other aspects than videos

74. Mutation of elements? Available at http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/johnkhut chison/uo2-samples-exposed-to-jh-device-1/3 This is a report on materials showing changes in elemental composition, reproduced on next slides:

81. Tesla WHITE-FIRE It’s the ultimate reason he's known for “weird” things Dr. Wood does not cover this aspect of Tesla’s claims, but it is the source of much of his later work, so I am covering it here White-fire Experiment & reasoning (explanation, theory) about white-fire was the source of much of his later work Tesla discovered properties of something which ultimately he called white-fire. It was an uncontrolled, known effect during Edison's direct current use. Tried to engineer it away. Tesla didn't avoid looking at why it happened. Through many twists and turns of experiments, he ultimately became convinced it was not predicted or covered by Maxwell's equations (for it was a) unknown to be included, and b) unpredicted b/c it didn't follow the principles set out in M's choices of what were “primary” electro-magnetic effects).

82. White-fire tests and findings In the process, he tested the effects also in oil, eliminating the possibility it was mere air ionization he was noting. He also tested many versions of safety barriers, coils, switches, distances and so on, related to the effect. He found the following: it vaporized and exploded the switches and other materials in the vicinity it pulsed painfully, like a shock but one which did not return to its source it could be controlled for safety and for type of power it gave off light effects which ran over object surfaces the more cut up the object surface, the more the surrounding effect gave off power it gave off more power than put in (up to millions of volts) it could be safe its pulses could be controlled so they were so rapid the body didn't feel them and it was safe it could transmit infinitely it could light and affect things far away

83. New energy results? Regular concepts of current as electrons pushed along a wire was wrong: this occurred BEFORE they moved any current. Tesla’s Language after and all subsequent work based on “new” found energy others said/say it was not “new” Tesla spoke in hydraulic terms about the universe’s creative power: Universe gives off potential Infinite, in a sense Related to Universe but you draw on the source Electricity is one “nearly first” observable effect from basic source material waves of the Universe Technical details of how Tesla eliminated regular explanations and mathematical and experimental assumptions, and why this white-fire is special (though not unique) for implications for physics: http://customers.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/tesla.htm All quotations on white-fire are from this site. But for more information, another good source is Gerry Vassilatos’ book, “Lost Science” (1997?)

84. White-fire replaced polyphase Polyphase (A/C) is unnatural: the universe is about impulses not alternations “Polyphase was a most unnatural form of energy. Natural activity is suffused with impulses, not alternations.” “Maxwell could not predict these values. Tesla empirically discovered most of the rules for impulse behavior. He found that the transformative abilities of these smooth copper coils were maximum when the coil mass equal[l]ed the mass of the impulser's conductive copper strap.”

85. White-fire and 9/11 explosions, vaporizations “Tesla was stung by a pressure blast of needle-like penetrations. Closing the dynamo down, he rubbed his face, neck, arms, chest, and hands. The irritation was distinct. He thought while the dynamo whirred down to a slow spin. The blast was powerful. He must have been sprayed by hot metal droplets as small as smoke particles. Though he examined his person, he fortunately found no wounds. No evidence of the stinging blast, which he so powerful felt.” “Placing a large glass plate between himself and the exploding wire, he performed the test again. Bang! The wire again turned to vapor... but the pressured stinging effect was still felt. But, what was this? How were these sting­ing effects able to penetrate the glass plate?”

86. Bangs or impulses? Bangs, shocks, pressure effects? Or IMPULSES? “Through careful isolation of each experimental component, Tesla gradu­ally realized that he was observing a very rare electrical phenomenon. Each ‘bang’ produced the same unexpected shock response in Tesla, while exploding small wire sections into vapor. The instantaneous burst produced strange effects never observed with alternating currents. The painful shocking sensation appeared each time he closed or opened the switch. These sudden shock currents were IMPULSES, not alternations. What surprised him was the fact that these needle- like shocks were able to reach him from a distance: he was standing almost ten feet from the discharge site!” “These electrical irritations expanded out of the wire in all directions and filled the room in a mystifying manner. He had never before observed such an effect. He thought that the hot metal vapor might be acting as a ‘carrier’ for the electrical charges. This would explain the strong pressure wave accompanied by the sensation of electrical shock. He utilized longer wires. When the discharge wire was resistive enough, no explosion could occur.” “Wire in place, the dynamo whirred at a slower speed. He threw the switch for a brief instant, and was again caught off guard by the stinging pressure wave! The effect persisted despite the absence of an explosive conductor.”

87. Electrostatic forces preceding electron charges “... rapid electrical impulses actually exceed the ability of fixed charges to transmit the applied forces. Charges lag where electrostatic forces continue propagating. One is compelled to see that electrostatic forces precede the movement of charges.” “... in confirmation of his suspicions, no current was ever measured at the free terminals of these coils. A ‘zero coil current’ condition!”

88. Watts into Volts – and lots Conversion of watts into volts in millions, unheard of (“more energy” detectable to us coming out than in) “Tesla remarked that the electrostatic potentials along the coil surface (from end to end) could be as much as ten thousand volts per inch of winding! A ten-inch coil of proper volume could produce one hundred thousand volt dis­charges. In addition, and in confirmation of his suspicions, no current was ever measured at the free terminals of these coils. A ‘zero coil current’ condition!” And: “Tesla found it possible to produce millions of electrostatic volts by this method.”

89. What others think “Most imagine that the Tesla impulse system is merely a ‘very high fre­ quency alternator’. This is a completely erroneous notion, resulting in ef­ fects, which can never equal those to which Tesla referred.” “The ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ of Tesla Transformers are not magnetic inductors. They are resistive capacitors. Coil-shaped capacitors! Tesla Transformer action is electrostatic induction.”

90. Electrostatic Resonance He made impulses safe but could also destroy... directly, or by impulses far away “It did not matter how thin the coil windings were. The equality of copper masses brought maximum trans­formative effects. When this equal mass condition was fulfilled, Tesla said that the coil- capacitors were ‘in resonance’. Electrostatic resonance.”

91. Tesla’s Universal Hydraulics “Aether gas power manifested as the electromagnetic forces themselves, adequate reason to pursue the development of an Aether gas engine. Such an engine could run forever on the eternal kinetic energies of the Aether itself, it being both generated and driven by the stars.”

92. Have others found this? Why have others have not fully developed Tesla's work on white-fire as source actually they have worked on it or on related items: e.g. Hutchison, Shoulders, HAARP and black projects (?) in different ways Remember: Citizens: lower budget, partial understanding, other interests, disbelief HAARP: different purpose, probable discounting of white-fire's special relationship to the Universe (aetheric vs charge) Black projects: probably same discounting as in HAARP but we won't know – maybe 9/11 shows development of concept and use

93. TT Brown & Biefield Oil tests & high-vacuum: not ionization Planets Propulsion Lift Article by Brown reproduced in David Hatcher Childress’ odd compendium book, “Anti-Gravity and the Unified Field” (1990), along with a great analytical article following it, by an electrical engineer (named Bell, if I recall)

94. Piggott Metal balls electrically lifted in lab and patent, 1911

95. Leedskalnin Coral Castle, Florida

96. Pyramids Just one point about the pyramids here: ORIENTING blocks perfectly with huge crews is impossible Plus much else. Compare Leedskalnin.

97. Now my additions Dr. Kaluza, Dr. Einstein Unified field theory Dr. Kron TESTS through electrical anomalies and systems “machines”

98. Farrell on Torsion: Kaluza, Einstein, Kron, Phil. Exp., Nazi Bell Philadelphia Experiment Radar (radio) invisibility Scientists have tested principle findings – Farrell reproduces their paper Was it done, and if so, was torsion found – accidentally or not? Nazi Bell Intentional weaponization – studies of torsion? Though not covering the Nazi Bell in the detail in his other books, Farrell’s best & updated comparative work on these items taken together is “Secrets of the Unified Field” (2008). His thoughts range to some odd things even in this book, but the basic arguments on the main topic are fair and clear.

99. Where does this lead us to? A physics behind our physics, a kind of “AEther” or hydraulic potential in the universe, resonant electrical “machines” which channel it and separate it from the flow of electrons (Tesla's white- fire), explosions, levitations, weaponization, theory predicting and explaining some of this both imagistically (Tesla) and mathematically (torsion). Dr. Wood does not claim “space beams” did this. This is not “a beam”. This is conditions under which Tornado-like and other even more extreme effects are found to be anomalous (not mere ionization or taking up material) which are themselves rethought and possibly weirder than people think of, are controlled and might vaporize, pulse, conjoin materials, not burn or burn depending on where the fields interact, leave sudden combustion, some of it hot (felt on people) and some of it a skin sensation, some of it not hot and flaming or glowing and some transmutation of elements. Designer of HAARP claimed he was not only controlling weather effects, but that the concept of concentrated energy came from Tesla. This might connect with human influence on Hurr. Erin (though some people think that would be too risky for such a well-planned storyboard timeline as 9/11 needed). Beyond whether HAARP or something influenced Hurr. Erin, or even if Hurr. Erin was involved at all directly in the events, deliberately, the PR director of HAARP said in a documentary, proudly, that they were helping Philips Labs develop “space beam” weaponry, by doing experiments for them – though they are supposed to be civilian in research. Space beams may be real, but also field effects may be used as well. The video where the PR director was interviewed is “Holes In Heaven: H.A.A.R.P. and Advances in Telsa Technology” (copy posted at http://911scholars.ning.com/video/holes-in-heaven-haarp-and )

100. Final comments I hope you understand more about: Dr. Judy Wood's own findings the implications she mentions why other people might mention more about Tesla, torsion, and “new” physics “New” physics and interference wave weapons: -plausible -already experimented on publicly -possibly weaponized and even used on 9/11 MORE WORK TO BE DONE on: -whether such weaponry would be used in conjunction with nukes I personally believe the anomalies here mentioned are not properly covered by primary and secondary fission, and so on. This might not be a beam or from a space platform. (Dr Wood mentions the Star Wars program on her Website, but that is a PROGRAM of development, and this energy might be concentrated to areas but not “beams”.) Maybe DEWs and field effects were studied even BEFORE that SDI program. And might well have been used, she seems to show, on 9/11.