Clare Kuehn 9/11 Vancouver Hearings June 16, 2012

1. 9/11’s Twin Tower Destruction & a Possible Link to Ignored Science:orDr. 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) andaccuracy 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 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 cornermissed, 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 insulativerubber 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 1st 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)