Understanding the "Hutchison Effect" with science

Without proper documentation of how John Hutchison did his experiments or the off camera tricks used to produce these effects we see on video, we have no choice but to conclude that these were video effects and not real actual experiments that happened. Without well kept lab notes, we have no idea how to reproduce the experiments ourselves, and John Hutchison should be held as an example to all of how NOT to do science.

Proof of Mechanism

The Burden of Proof for Dr. Wood's theory relies on the ability to provide experimental scientific proof for a mechanism (technology) which can demonstrate the rapid molecular dissociation of steel and concrete in a manner resembling the actual destruction of the WTC. In my 9/11 Hypothesis Video I asked for Dr. Wood to put her efforts into experimental verification by formalizing a theory of the Hutchison Effect. Which is her proposed mechanism to explain the observed phenomena. If she wanted to get the mainstream scientific community to start paying attention, this would be an important first step. In addition to a formal paper explaining the Hutchison Effect, I'd also like to see some demonstrations of a technology that can "dustify" steel and concrete at high efficiency.

Electromagnetic beam effects on conductors and metals

The Skin Effect and Gauss's Law for closed conductors, are two examples of established science which disproves the idea of using microwave weapons to cause molecular dissociation of steel (or any other conductor), since the penetration depth of electromgnetic waves striking the surface of a conductor tend to set up electromagnetic Eddy currents in materials which only penetrate a small distance inside conductors (the formula varies for higher frequencies). In both cases the conductivity of the material is still the over-riding term, making the penetration depth vanishingly small, and thus the reason why currents tend to travel on the surface of conductors, where their influence upon neighboring ions is transmitted most efficiently. The free electrons move their position to balance the externally applied fields thus effecting neighbors and allowing for electrical signal and power transmission over long distances. Electricity takes the shortest path, and that happens to be along the surface of a conductor. According to Gauss's law closed, grounded conductive surfaces act like Faraday Cages, since the grounded electrons resist the temptations of externally applied fields. Ungrounded conductors have free electrons which align and balance with externally applied EM fields, EM waves will travel through a Faraday cage that is NOT grounded, however, they will not penetrate deeply inside the actual conductive materials, they will just be redirected around them.

The penetration depth of electromagnetic waves within materials is inversely proportional to the conductivity of a material. The "free-ness" of the electrons, determines the penetration depth. Conductors shield (reflect or absorb) a lot of em radiation and are much harder to penetrate than dielectrics such as glass, or the human body. Directed Energy Weapons work best with non-metal, non-conductive materials, since those are much easier to penetrate. I have seen no experiments which show how to cause molecular dissociation of steel. Or any metallic conductor for that matter.

Lasers can be used to heat and melt, or even vaporize metals. A laser works kind of like a magnifying glass focusing energy on a single point to heat it rapidly. When you divide that same power over a larger area it loses the effect. The WTCs were a very large area and would have required enormous amounts of electromagnetic energy to create this level of destruction with a DEW or laser weapon. For one the weapon would need to be enormous (larger than the WTC itself) there would need to be more than one, and there would need to be a way to produce that much power.

Chemical Bonding Theory and Calculating the Required Energy to Vaporize the WTC

Here is a video giving an overview on the theory of chemical bonding and how to calculate the energy of chemical bonds. For the case of the WTC we would need to take the sum of all the chemical bonds in the WTC steel and Concrete which Judy Wood claims was vaporized. That's 90,000 tonnes of steel and concrete * molecules per ton of steel * energy of each molecular bond!!! The real calculations for the WTC get tricky bc it's steel and there are many different types of bonds and no good data available on these types of bonding energies and so forth. A rough calculation using (Iron is 55.845 g/mol, or ~(1x10¹⁰) moles X Avagadros number (1x10²³) X the bond strength (which requires lengthy calculations even for the most simplest bonds).

It's still on the order of 1x10³³ x average Bond Energy in the material... even at 1 trillionth (10^-12) of a watt per bond, its still 10²⁴ or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Watts!!! This is an absurd amount of energy...

John Hutchison

John Hutchison has released many pictures and videos of strange effects he's been able to achieve with metal, but will not reveal his methods... making peer-review of his claims to "Adverse electromagnetic resonance effects" impossible.

Despite Dr. Judy Wood's Ph.D. Background she has not stepped up to the task of scientifically documenting these anomalous resonance or dissociation effects. Nor does a melted metal bar constitute evidence of such an effect.

Directed Energy Weapons

One major problem with laser weapons (and directed-energy weapons in general) is their high electric energy requirements. Existing methods of storing, conducting, transforming, and directing energy are inadequate to produce a convenient hand-held weapon. Existing lasers waste much energy as heat, requiring still-bulky cooling equipment to avoid overheating damage. Air cooling could yield an unacceptable delay between shots. These problems, which severely limit laser weapon practicality at present, might be offset by:

1. Cheap high-temperature superconductors to make the weapon more efficient.

2. More convenient high volume electricity storage/generation. Part of the energy could be used to cool the device.

Chemical lasers use energy from a suitable chemical reaction instead. Chemical oxygen iodine laser (hydrogen peroxide with iodine) and deuterium fluoride laser (atomic fluorine reacting with deuterium) are two laser types capable of megawatt-range continuous beam output. Managing chemical fuel presents other problems, so the problems of cooling and overall inefficiency remain. This problem could also be lessened if the weapon were mounted either at a defensive position near a power plant, or on board a large, possibly nuclear powered, water-going ship. A ship would have the advantage of water for cooling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon

In 1979 Edward Teller contributed to a Hoover Institution publication where he claimed that the US would be facing an emboldened USSR due to their work on civil defense. Two years later at a conference in Italy, he made the same claims about their ambitions, but with a subtle change; now he claimed that the reason for their boldness was their development of new space-based weapons. In fact, there was no evidence at all that such research was being carried out, what had really changed was that Teller was now selling his latest nuclear weapon, the x-ray laser. Finding limited success in his efforts to get funding for the project, his speech in Italy was a new attempt to create a missile gap.[21]

The new weapon was the result of a 1977 development by George Chapline, Jr. of Lawrence Livermore's "O-Group". Livermore had been working on x-ray lasers for some time, but Chapline found a new solution that used the massive release of x-rays from a nuclear warhead as the source of light for a small baseball-bat sized lasing crystal in the form of a metal rod.[22] The concept was first tried out in 1978s underground nuclear test "Diablo Hawk" but had failed. Peter Hagelstein, new to O Group, set about creating computer simulations of the system in order to understand why. At first he demonstrated that Chapline's original calculations were simply wrong and the Diablo Hawk system could not possibly work. But as he continued his efforts, he found, to his dismay, that using heavier metals appeared to make a machine that would work. Through 1979 a new test was planned to take advantage of his work.[23] The follow-up test in November 1980s "Dauphin" appeared to be a success, and plans were made for a major series of experiments in the early 1980s under "Excalibur".[24]

Since the lasing medium was fairly small, a single bomb could host a number of them and attack multiple ICBMs in a single burst. The Soviet ICBM fleet had tens of thousands of warheads, but only about 1,400 missiles.[25] If each satellite had two dozen lasers, two dozen satellites on-station would significantly blunt any attack. In Molniya orbits, where the satellites would spend much of their time over the USSR, only a few dozen satellites would be needed, in total. An article in Aviation Week and Space Technology described how the devices "... are so small that a single payload bay on the space shuttle could carry to orbit a number sufficient to stop a Soviet nuclear weapons attack".[24] Some time later Teller used similar language in a letter to Paul Nitze, who was preparing a new round of strategic limitations talks, stating that "A single x-ray laser module the size of an executive desk... could potentially shoot down the entire Soviet land-based missile force..."[26]

Livermore is just one of several major US weapons labs. Other labs had been working on ideas of their own, from new space or ground-based missiles, to chemical lasers, to particle beam weapons. Angelo Codevilla argued for similar funding for powerful chemical lasers as well.[24] None of these efforts were taken very seriously by members of the Carter administration. In a meeting with Teller and Lowell Wood, a critic noted that the Soviets could easily defeat the system by attacking the satellite, whose only defense was to destroy itself. They also pointed out that the US public would be unlikely to accept nuclear bombs in space, regardless of the potential benefits. At the time Teller was stymied by these arguments; the concept was later adapted to be popped-up from submarines based off the Russian coast.

SPAR - Space Propulsion Advanced Reactor

In March of 2014 at the MIT Cold Fusion/LANR Colloquium I listened to a presentation by Robert (Bob) Smith, a Pentagon Star Wars SDI Space Program insider who helped design the power systems for these space based microwave lasers. According to him, the power for these weapons comes from something called SPAR or Space Power Advanced Reactor.

This lead me to more in-depth research on space power systems and Government Research and Development into such programs, and what their capabilities and level of advancement was. One such document I found was this PDF on Power Conversion Techniques in Space which has a chronology of developments of space reactor technology over the years.

I can find no other evidence for other space based power systmes being developed or patented prior to 2001 that could account for the energies (power) needed to demolish the WTCs on 9/11 in under 11-12 seconds.

Free Energy Technology?

The first "excuse" is "Free Energy" technology. Long revered by the conspiracy community this is the perfect excuse for many people who believe that 1. Free Energy Exists and is possible within the laws of physics, and 2. The Government is hiding free energy technology from the public and using it in defense programs like SDI.

Evidence for "free energy" has yet to be confirmed... and many remain skeptical. But that's ok, because Judy Wood and her crowd have an even better bullshit argument, involving HAARP, Hurricanes and very few details...