Monday, October 6, 2008

Mushroom Cloud




Look above the tower after it begins exploding, beginning around :10. Notice the huge, rising, expanding new cloud. Observe the plume expanding to the right, which is west, which is against the wind. Marvel at the cauliflower shapes, much more distinct than the surrounding smoke that has diffused into the air. There is one and only one explanation for this phenomenon - a very large heat energy input. Standard demolitions do not create a mushroom cloud. This one did.

Besides proving demolition, this video rules out Judy Wood's ridiculous claim of "no significant heat". For anyone who hasn't been paying attention, Judy Wood is a fraud. John Hutchison is a fraud. There is no such thing as any Hutchison Effect. The twin towers were blown up with explosives, most likely nuclear.

Judy Wood is certainly an insider charged with the task of misinterpreting the evidence, and leading people to a false conclusion. 

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ace,


The YouTube vid's not there anymore.

What happened to it?

waiguoren said...

Might I ask, what makes you think nukes were used? I.e. what evidence do they account for?

I haven't thought so much about what exactly brought the towers down, since that seems like one of the hardest parts of this thing to analyze without a lot of highly specialized knowledge (as opposed to the video fakery stuff, most of which is relatively straightforward to see even for a layman), but the simple fact that the collapses started at the "impact" point and rippled downward leads me to believe that they must have blown the thing out using explosives placed floor by floor (WTC 1 and 2 at least). So, all the nuke-in-the-basement scenarios never made much sense to me.

Ace Baker said...

You're correct that the explosives were throughout the tower, and sequenced to detonate from "impact" zone downwards.

Nuclear accounts for

1. Complete pulverization to dust.
2. Meltdown or "China Syndrome" persistent reaction.
3. High tritium levels.
4. High rate of rare cancer.
5. Mushroom cloud.

L.L. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ace Baker said...

The cars on FDR drive were towed there to get them out of the way.

Toasted cars is much more indicative of a nuclear reaction than anything. I've seen photos from Nagasaki with toasted cars and firetrucks.

We know for certain that Judy Wood is lying to us, because we know for certain that there is no Hutchison Effect.

Anonymous said...

Fission or fusion? Tritium or "China Syndrome"
Which is it man?

I don't see enough heat for either!

Ace Baker said...

I've just shown you the heat, man!

I think it was a hydrogen fusion reaction, very low yield, very efficient, with little residual radiation.

This explains the tritium. What else can?

The exit signs? That's what Steven Jones says, and I don't fucking believe him. I think he lied right to my face.

L.L. said...

I don't think Judy Wood can be discredited merely on the basis of her support of Hutchison. She may be wrong about that, however, she is not the only one that supports the DEW hypothesis.

You're lumping DEWs in with Hutchison, but from my reading on her site, the Hutchison similarities are only one part of the evidence.

Ace Baker said...

I know Judy Wood personally. She is a liar and a fraud. In my opinion, based on the evidence, and based on my experience, Judy Wood is intentionally participating in conspiracy to commit mass murder.

Judy is not "wrong" about the Hutchison Effect. She is very smart, and she doesn't believe Hutchison's silly fake videos any more than I do. She is lying.

They cooked up the November 2007 "Boat video" just to fit it in with 9/11.

L.L. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ace Baker said...

Have you seen scandalous false page Judy wrote about me? Why won't Hutchison take me up on my $100,000 challenge? Why won't he let anybody see his "boat video" in original quality? Why is it only moving at 3 frames per second?

I have completely debunked John Hutchison and the Hutchison Effect. Upon seeing his videos, I immediately recognized his video fakery techniques, they are old-school.

I recreated them for you to experience. Having done so, I begged and pleaded with Judy Wood to please reconsider incorporating Hutchison into her work.

Instead, she and the rest of her psy-op team went into full battle mode, drafting a huge affidavit for Hutchison.

One of Wood's main objectives is to destroy the case for molten metal. She called me on the phone and tried to get me to believe the videos of molten metal dripping out of the south tower were fake.


See:

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/03/judy-wood-falls-on-her-sword.html

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/03/john-hutchison-is-fraud-part-2.html

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/08/100000-hutchison-effect-challenge.html

spooked said...

for those interested in nuclear weapons at the WTC, the following two blogs show evidence of
1. EMP--Electromagnetic Pulse (only from nukes)
2. Great Heat during the WTC destruction
3. Great Heat for weeks and months afterward--China Syndrome Aftermath evidence
4. much other evidence.

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/

http://wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com/

All evidence indicates that nuclear bombs destroyed the WTC, and the "China Syndrome" aftermath resulted.

Anonymous said...

How do you hide the isotopic signature of fissionable materials simmering for months? You can't.

Advanced fusion devices are more likely, but even cold fusion cells produce observable light and heat. I really don't see the thermal energy or electromagnetic effects that would be present.

That thar is the wimpiest mushroom cloud I ever did see.

I think this is some sort of molecular effect, not nuclear. I do appreciate your fine work, and my intent here is to refine not bash!

L.L. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ace Baker said...

Your link leads to an article by CB_Brooklyn. CB_Brooklyn is Judy Wood.

Judy would publish the visual evidence in order to associate it in people's minds with a false theory, so that they throw the whole thing away.

It fits perfectly with my model of disinformation.

L.L. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Ace, whoa, way too hard on Dr. Wood. Unlike others, she does not pre-conceive a politically palatable conclusion and try to fit the facts around it (ie, thermite).
DEW is a theory she has that explains the observed phenomena. Other theories that could explain the observed phenomena are:
1. anti matter bomb--nuclear heat and shockwave without the fallout.
2.non depleted uranium bunker buster gbu 28? (high heat dirty bomb where the u238 turns into sister isotopes seen in the dust)
Look at the pictures of these babies in the UN EOS post attack study in Lebanon. They look just like the wtc. serious mushroom clouds. the depleted uranium also gives out mushroom cloud but signature would be highly recognizable in the dust.
occam's razor points to this number I think. Buildings in lebanon cannot be built over the old sites where large bunker buster bombs were used because the ground underneath is just too darn radioactive: sound familiar?
I bet Dr. Wood would sign off on something like this if it explained the observed phenomena.

Ace Baker said...

L.L., the idea with the disinfo was to put as many theories out there as possible. The more the merrier.

Somebody had to have the job of actually presenting the visual evidence, and that task went to Judy. She then associated it all with the most preposterous theory, DEW, and a proven fraud, Hutchison.

The perps can monitor pretty closely which ideas are catching on and which are not. They are managing the situation so as to fragment truthers as much as possible.

Ace Baker said...

anonymous - You're right, Judy Wood isn't being politically correct, she's being the opposite. She is deliberately promoting a theory she knows is false, and that she knows most people will never believe. She knows Hutchison is a fake, and I know she knows it.

That's the whole idea -capture some faction of the truth movement, and lead them to a false conclusion. In the end, her followers and her theory can easily be made to look utterly foolish.

L.L. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ace Baker said...

What's ridiculous is thinking the perpetrators would leave the truth movement to its own.

"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves"

-Vladimir Lenin

Anonymous said...

hey, I think wood's embrace of the hutchinson effect is due to observed anomalies, that even continue up to the present. It (dew/hutchison)is an attempt to explain the weirdness.

as far as making observations, you have to credit her for being the most painstaking observer and chronicler of those observations.

everyone in the u.s. has always thought einstein was this mad experimenter, etc. But the truth is, he formulated the special theory, and general theory, just sitting in his chair, riding a train, doing intuitive thought experiments that ruled out and went beyond the dogmas of the day. I think it is possible to do just such a thought experiment based on what is known right now. Who cares who gets the credit.

spooked said...

There is nothing wrong with Wood's basic "observations" -- which support extremely powerful demolition. The problem is her denial of extreme heat at ground zero and her ludicrous DEW theory, for which there is not a shred of direct evidence. As far as I can tell, DEW is a cover-up for what they really did, which was some sort of nuclear demolition.

David Howard said...

we got nuked on 9/11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Worby

GreyICE said...

Out of curiosity, what do you think happens when a nuclear bomb goes off? The nuke dropped on Hiroshima was 12 kilotons of TNT equivalent. That is, if you're counting, 12,000 TONS of TNT. 24 MILLION pounds of TNT.

I work about 10 blocks from where the twin towers used to be. My building is not scorched, blasted, and melted. This is because 24 million pounds of TNT were not detonated on 9/11.

Also, FYI modern nuclear warheads have in the MEGATON range. That's millions of tons, if you're following.

They've superimposed the detonation of one on the skyline of NYC. It's to scale. It's a bit larger than the skyline.

Y'all MIGHT want to think about what you're typing someday.

Ace Baker said...

There are low yield, and low radiation nuclear explosives.

I am also open to the possibility that anti-matter has been weaponized.

Collapse and/or conventional explosives cannot explain the results.

GreyICE said...

Okay, lets consider the scale of a so-called 'low yield nuke' for a second.

The so-called Mother of All Bombs (MOAB, actually stands for Massive Ordinance Air Blast) perhaps the largest conventional explosive in existence, consists of 18,700 pounds of H6, at 1.35 times the power of conventional TNT. This represents an unimaginable 25,000 pounds of TNT equivalent. Untrained experts are unable to distinguish this bomb from a nuclear explosion upon watching footage of it.

Most bombers struggle to carry one of these. If we launched 80 of those bombers in a row, from the runway, and each of those bombers dropped their bombs on exactly the same point and detonated them, you would have a kiloton of damage.

The actual force would be far less of course, because you'd have to somehow tie all 80 together and detonate them all at the same time in the same place to get that kiloton of effect, but lets roll with it.

Now send a wing of 80 MOAB equipped aircraft airborne for each kiloton you think was in the bomb.

You think it might be a tad bit noticeable when one of those suckers goes off? We're not talking a couple buildings falling down here.

The antimatter concept is... interesting. Unfortunately Captain Picard wasn't available for comment, but I hope he's keeping a good watch on that stuff.

Ace Baker said...

Clearly what occurred to the towers was not "a bomb". There were explosives at every floor level, set off in sequence.

The devices were small, and placed against steel members during the fireproofing upgrade.

Anonymous said...

Ace, I totally agree with you that the observed phenomena point towards some sort of nuclear-type event.
I think it is good that you are at least open to the weaponisation of anti-matter as a possible theory. There is a large aspect of dew that involves anti-matter if you look at you know who's calculations.
Regarding the guy who pokes fun at the antimatter idea (captain Picard), how many dollars are spent in the us making positrons?
these are positively charged neutrons, aka anti matter. check out u. of e. washington, pullman.

GreyICE said...

Positrons are anti-electrons. They have a mass of 10^-31 kg. That means to get the force of a stick of dynamite. Good news though, you'd only need 10^21 or so of them to get the energy in a kilogram of TNT.

For reference, if we assume that there's 6 billion people on earth and that the average age of a human is 30 years old, it's only about 5 times more than the age of the entire human race IN SECONDS.

That gives us the explosive force of maybe 5 or so pounds of TNT.

Somehow I don't think they'll be scaling up their experiments any time soon.

Ace Baker said...

For reference -

A single liter of water has 35.5 x 10^24 atoms. That's 355,000 times greater than your 10^21.

Large numbers of tiny anti-particles could fit in very small devices.