Consider these excerpts from clips of the Reynolds Reveal radio talk show, Episode #27
18 September 2013
clip – matrixcutter
The transcript has been produced and lightly edited by Christoph Jung. Well, a little light editing by Morgan too, I must admit. Mr. Jung was born in Munster, Germany, about an hour from the Dutch border and today lives in Berlin, Germany. Thanks much to Christoph for producing this transcript.
Time: 2m 13s
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: I wanna begin to establish credibility for those who don’t know of Dr. Judy Wood. And she’s uniquely qualified in the world by her training and experience to gather evidence from the incredible events of 9/11 and analyze it. Specifically, she holds a B.S. in civil engineering, emphasis on structural, 1981, a master’s of science in engineering mechanics or applied physics, 1983, and a Ph.D. in materials engineering science, 1992, all from Virginia Tech, for short, in Blacksburg, Virginia. Further, she has taught and done research at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina, co-authoring some sixty academic articles and in refereed engineering journals and made numerous presentations at engineering conferences. Now, can anybody question that she is a qualified forensic scientist? I don’t think they can, even though they [her enemies] have a lot of innuendo and shadowy remarks. So what could you add to that, Dr. Wood?
Dr. Judy Wood: Well, that my area of research is analyzing images to find material properties, to determine material properties, whether it’s looking at the deformation of materials and so forth and displacements of materials and using optical methods.
(3m 48s)…(6m 09s)
Dr. Judy Wood: The people tend to follow a leader, so you don’t need to control more people than one and then he controls the rest because people tend to follow, play follow the leader, they don’t think for themselves. They turn their thinking over to someone else’s keeping. And then that one person can claim plausible deniability or pretends to be stupid or ignorant or, you know, blind. Various scenarios. But when they start lying about science and they’re supposed to be scientists, we have something more seriously wrong.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Ok.
Dr. Judy Wood: And the first one that I came to was this someone [named below] who was arguing about something that’s high school physics and acted as though we needed an experiment and then claimed that my experiment was wrong. Back then we couldn’t find images on the internet very easily. So I went ahead and made my own image with material that I knew was what it was.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: So is this referring to the glowing metals and heat?
Dr. Judy Wood: Yes.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Yes.
Dr. Judy Wood: You know, whether it’s iron or aluminum or whatever it is: it glows at the same temperature. Iron, you know, melts at, at 1535°, that is Centigrade, and it’s glowing like white hot at that temperature. So if you’re gonna get aluminum glowing white hot at that temperature, you know, I mean, if aluminum is at that temperature, it’s gonna be glowing white hot.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Ok now, no…
Dr. Judy Wood: You don’t compare room temperature aluminum with 1535° iron. That, that’s ridiculous! You gotta compare both at the same temperature.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: So you know what this tells me? That the enemy camp recognized you were a problem, early on, the same way I recognized I’ve got to see if I can help her in any way and promote her work and help her in her work. So I wasn’t the only one who saw this. They see it as a big problem, ‘we gotta head her off at the pass or discredit her work somehow or other’ and I’m saying: ‘no, I need to help and promote her…’
(8m 36s)…(15m 47s)
Dr. Judy Wood: I think I have the clip I can play here.
Clip of an interview with Professor Steven E. Jones: “It took a while for the group to trace down this video evidence. A video, a couple of them, actually, showing and capturing this event, this very anomalous activity. This molten metal flowing from the window. You know, the moment I saw it, I knew it was not aluminum. I’ve worked with molten aluminum before and molten liquid aluminum has the property that it’s silvery, rather like aluminum foil, you know, at all temperatures in…, in daylight conditions, umm…”
Dr. Judy Wood: ‘…at all temperatures in daylight conditions.’
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: That’s obvious to a lay person, I would think.
Dr. Judy Wood: Right.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: You know, this has gotta be false!
Dr. Judy Wood: And I first contacted this person, Steven Jones, with, you know, ‘wait a minute! Are you having a senior moment? You can’t identify something by wether or not it’s glowing. Hot things glow and also things that aren’t hot glow. Just because it’s glowing, doesn’t tell you what material it is. If you wanna rule out aluminum, use a different line of reasoning, ‘cuz this one is bogus.’
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: So what did Professor Steven Jones, what was his reply?
Dr. Judy Wood: Oh it was, you know, round and round. Well, he saw what I did, he was gonna run an experiment. Well, I couldn’t come up with a reliable photo, so I made my own. I melted aluminum in my lab and my student was taking pictures, helping me. And I sent it to him and he says, ‘well, maybe it glows in Clemson, South Carolina, but it doesn’t glow in Provo, Utah.’
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: No! Yah! ‘A cannonball shot off in Alabama has a different path than than the same setup in Brazil.’ Right?
Dr. Judy Wood: Right. Thermal energy is thermal energy, you know, there’s different amounts of heat it (a material) would take in, but still it radiates in a particular colour at a particular temperature. Your stove burner, when it’s hot, it gets bright orange or sometimes whitish orange or yellowish orange. You know, that means it’s hot. It doesn’t have to be this material or that material. And what had hit me immediately was: my mom used to fire pottery in a kiln. The kiln was at 21 hundred degrees and so you look in there and everything is the same color. It’s all bright yellow white. You don’t have a black hole where you have something that was aluminum. That’s ridiculous, everything glows at the same temperature. Like when you cook something in your fire, your fireplace is really stoking hot, everything starts glowing when it’s at the same temperature. So like, can a Ph.D. educated nuclear physicist be this slow to catch on? Well, we originally said, ‘can he be this retarded?’ You know, being slow to catch on.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Yeah, and the answer is supposed to be ‘no!’, right?
Dr. Judy Wood: Right, but to keep people from answering that question, he claimed that we called him mentally retarded, you know, a retard or something like that and, ‘how dare they attack me?’ So people were distracted away from asking themselves that question. It was a beautiful diversion. But I found that, that question is…, when you find yourself naturally asking that question, ‘can a blank – you know, “fill in the blank!” – be this retarded?’ You know, slow to catch on, like music retards towards the end when you slow it down. And so, when you find yourself naturally asking that, you have to take a step back and pause and say ‘wait a minute, what’s going on here?’
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Hey, I’d like to point out, Gerard Holmgren, the now deceased famous ‘no-planer’ from Australia, caught Jones in a lie right away. Everybody was happy in September of ’05 when Jones appeared, ‘ok, we’ve got a credentialed physicist out of BYU who’s gonna take on the 9/11 challenge and put it up to the government, “no, this can’t be right!” ‘, and he supposedly…, well, he reported himself: ‘Oh, I went out to study a 767.”
Dr. Judy Wood: No, a 757.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Yeah, that’s right, it was a 757. He got the models wrong and…
Dr. Judy Wood: Yeah, he claimed that a 757 had hit the World Trade Center.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Right. And Jones, had been posturing already as: “I’m a scientist, I’ve got credentials, I’ve got a white smock or jacket to wear.” And everybody’s supposed to: “Oh, whatever you say, sir.” No! You know? And so, right away the guy is exposed. And we waited I think it was a year to really punk him bad in an article.
Dr. Judy Wood: Well, we just said, “why is he asking this question? Why isn’t he asking that question?” and so forth. And then went ahead and asked those questions, ‘cuz they needed to be asked. But taking that as the backdrop, you know, here we are with a PhD. educated nuclear physicist who teaches physics classes at Brigham Young University, yet he doesn’t realize the difference between thermal energy weapons and kinetic energy weapons and directed energy weapons. And (claims that) somehow a kinetic energy device caused the towers to go ‘poof’ instantly or (that) a thermal energy device, a welding material, caused the materials to turn into dust in mid-air? Without getting hot? It’s…, it’s so ridiculous.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: It is. But then you look at his career history, his ties to Los Alamos, his involvement in so-called ‘cold fusion’, a term attributed…, well…
Dr. Judy Wood: …to him!
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: …that he coined to ruin the whole Pons/ Fleischmann breakthrough.
Dr. Judy Wood: Right! It’s very amazing. We have to look back and learn from this as to how easily people are managed. They play ‘follow the leader’ and they trash whichever person the leader tells them to trash.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: It’s like the emperor has no clothes and it takes a five-year-old boy to point it out. Everybody else: “Ah, this is Royalty!”
Dr. Judy Wood: But then the emperor points to the boy and says: “Oh, he’s a liar, don’t believe him.” And the people don’t.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Yeah, and who are you gonna believe, the emperoror the five-year-old?
Dr. Judy Wood: Right. And that is exactly what happened.1 R5 0R1
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: We should, according to Dr. Wood, look at the evidence about whether the emperor is clothed or not, shouldn’t we?
Dr. Judy Wood: Yes, exactly, you have to begin with the evidence and see what the evidence leads you to. You don’t begin with a theory. And right off the bat, Steven Jones was teaching people ‘what the scientific method is.’ And he would say it in such a way that people just, in his cutesy way, that people would just kind of, you know, ooh and aah over him. And fall for it. You know, a good salesman isn’t gonna be harsh, a good salesman is gonna be slick and smooth. And so people decided ‘ok, that must be the scientific method.’ Well, that’s the scientific method if you’re trying to come up with a theory of gravity or a theory of some aspect of nature, you know, a natural phenomenon, but not for doing a crime scene investigation. You don’t solve a crime based on a theory. You solve a crime based on evidence. And you have to go where the evidence leads. You don’t have a theory of an autopsy, you have an actual autopsy. It’s either conclusive or not conclusive. If it’s conclusive, then there’s no question as to what the deal is. You know, if the guy doesn’t have a bullet hole in him, you can’t say, ‘the person holding the smoking gun there shot it off.’ You know the body would need to have a bullet hole in it. You know, there’s various, obvious things like that. We have the same thing at the World Trade Center. We have no evidence of a kinetic energy weapon. Instead, we actually have evidence to the contrary. If a kinetic energy weapon…we’re talking about a missile, a wrecking ball, a big hammer, lots of little hammers, you know, things that go bang like bombs, things that use velocity to hit something with a mass. A variety of things. We didn’t have that. And if, if…
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: What would be an example of some of that evidence, that, hey, there aren’t…?
Dr. Judy Wood: Well…
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Go ahead.
Dr. Judy Wood: You’d have…the building would blow into chunks and the chunks would go flying and they’d stay chunks all the way through their flight until they hit something – they wouldn’t dissolve into dust as they’re flying. But also they would hit the ground – BOOM. And it would be recorded on the seismic chart. If you hit a rock with a hammer, a big hammer, let’s say you get a wrecking ball and go boom on a rock. It’s gonna be recorded in the local seismic station, because it’s like hitting a tuning fork.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: And each tower – I don’t think this is disputed any longer – weighed an estimated 500,000 tons, each tower.
Dr. Judy Wood: Correct, and if that had slammed to the ground, it would be like a huge hammer hitting a tuning fork and it would ring at the local recording station. But there were no S-waves or P-waves, that’s the waves that travel through the earth. Only surface waves, which is what you would get if you just took…picked the building up and took it off the ground and, you know, tossed it up into outer space or whatever, just taking the weight off the ground or turning it into dust. If you chopped the building up into chunks, you know, bust it up with things hitting it, bombs blowing up, whatnot, and the pieces slammed to the ground, it would be recorded on the seismic chart. Also bombs create heat, lots of it. And this welding material, it works by thermal conductivity. And how long would it take that heat to go through a 1 inch thick steel column? How about a 4 inch thick or a 5 inch thick steel column? You’re not gonna do it in nanoseconds. For the North Tower, the ground shook, the surface wave that is, shook for 8 seconds. It takes 9,5 seconds to drop a bowling ball off the roof and have it hit the ground. In other words, the building turned to dust in mid-air before hitting the ground and it was destroyed faster than it would take to drop a bowling ball off the roof. That proves the building did not slam to the ground.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: And all the evidence is consistent, I mean that so much of this evidence is easily understood. The visual evidence that the buildings and chunks of the building are turning to dust in mid-air.
Dr. Judy Wood: Oh, very much. And one of the things that I find the funniest is when people say, ‘Oh, it all, you know, the missing debris? Cuz if the building, you know, fell to the ground, you’d see a pile of debris there. And they say: ‘well, it’s in the basement.’ And I like to point this out about the North Tower: there were 14 people, you know, 13 first responders and one civilian, that walked out of there. They survived in Stairwell B in the second, third and fourth floor. There were two more people that survived above that level, where the building didn’t even survive. And one guy who was on the 22nd floor just rode the dust cloud down and ended up on top of that Stairwell B. But those guys who survived in Stairwell B, if the building was getting mashed into the basement, how did it get there? Did it take a detour, you know, go down Vesey Street and around and take the elevator down to get down to the basement? How did it get around those people without squashing ’em? It couldn’t have. We also have pictures of the PATH train station, where there’s the PATH trains sitting there. There’s water there, of course, because there’s fire hoses that’ve been all over the place, but you know how FEMA goes in and they spray paint these red X’s and they count how many live bodies, how many dead bodies and whatever that, it’s in their, their symbol that they put on there. They were down there and were doing that. You know the basement’s still there.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: It’s amazing to me even though I should know better, the resistance to the Where Did The Towers Go? Buy this book, folks, wheredidthetowersgo.com! The resistance is still amazing. Now where is the scientific refutation? Where should we go to find coherent, telling criticisms of your book?
Dr. Judy Wood: There’s no…
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: You know, that this evidence is wrong!
Dr. Judy Wood: Yeah. There’s no refutation of my book, you know, there can’t be because evidence isn’t wrong. And I present evidence and only evidence, not a theory. And when folks refer to my work as a theory, then they are introducing doubt by misnaming it. I have evidence.
It’s kind of like an autopsy report: it’s either conclusive or not conclusive. A conclusive autopsy report is to have enough information to determine what happened to the body. That’s basically what I have about what happened to the buildings. And there’s evidence that no one else can come up with a different answer than that. And it’s, you know, just based on logic and looking at it. You go look at every single picture, ok, where’s all the material? We have George Stephanopolous on the scene talking to Peter Jennings in the studio saying, ‘well, you know, I’ve been asking…’ when Peter Jennings says ‘ where did all the, the rubble go?’ And George Stephanopolous says, ‘Well, I’ve been asking folks that and one volunteer, Robert Gerlinski explained, it all fell down into the ground, was pulverized, evaporated.’
And, you know, the poor guy [Stephanopolous], that’s the best that he could do. He’s supposed to be telling the world what he sees and that’s the best he can come up with for why there’s not enough rubble there. And that’s about 24 hours after the towers went away. So any which…any piece of data you look at, it’s all consistent. It’s all consistent with the buildings turning to dust in mid-air. Especially looking at…you can follow this chunk of steel falling down with all this dust, you know, opaque dust, pouring off of it. And then pretty soon you don’t see the steel beam anymore and the dust is wafting away, the beam doesn’t hit the ground.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: And the dust is not coming off the beam, that is the former beam.
Dr. Judy Wood: Right.
(24m 20s)…(40m 47s)
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: You would have had flying glass and of the conventional sort: jagged, linear…and there would have been windows out in the whole downtown Manhattan and yet that didn’t happen.
Dr. Judy Wood: Right, right. And, you know the Seattle Kingdome is a good example. I remember that they were saying, ‘and the dust filled the air for almost, almost twenty minutes.’ Uh-huh!
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Yeah, right.
Dr. Judy Wood: But it was, covering Manhattan for months, years, you know? It kept coming up. But you think about it! If you squashed this building down…let’s say you remove all the windows and then you emulsify everything inside into fluff and you’re just gonna mash this thing down like an accordion, the stuff inside has got to come out. And it’s gonna be coming out, you know, it’s gonna be, the average speed will exceed Mach 1 about halfway down. And by the time it gets to the ground, it’s like Mach 1.4 average, but from the centre it’s like Mach 2.4 . So that’s gonna be like machine gun firing all the adjacent buildings.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: And it’s basically the air, the gas between the floors…?
Dr. Judy Wood: Or, or…, yeah, if you turned all the insides to powder, to dust, and just fluffed it up. But then that flu-…
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Ok, ok.
Dr. Judy Wood: And that fluff had to come out. Like all the dust is mysteriously, you know, fluffed up, but still you’re saying, it was mashed down. Just to give you an idea how fast that stuff had to move out of the way if it was kinetic energy, you know, floating something, you would be launching out, you know, chunks of stuff. And to prove that the building did indeed turn to dust in mid-air, it didn’t have to shoot out anywhere, it just turned to dust.
(42m 40s)…(49m 05s)
Dr. Judy Wood: My favorite one is this character who had this debunking of Hurricane Erin not…, of being underreported. I said it was underreported, I didn’t say it as ‘no reporting at all,’ and actually I quote the FOX weather guy as saying, ‘Now, there’s a real storm system, folks.’ I don’t know if you remember that. You know, they’ve got this, I don’t remember the exact words, but there was this high pressure system moving in and whatnot. And the debunker had used that clip to say, ‘See, Judy Woods doesn’t even know…’ Some of them even misspell my name, ‘Judy Woods doesn’t even know about this.’ And somebody posted that quote from my book and the debunker says, ‘Where, where did you get that from?’ — ‘Oh, from Dr. Wood’s book, page such and such, you gotta read what you’re trying to debunk first.’
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Yes, and quote it! There’s a compete lack of precision among your critics. They paint with a wide brush and almost everything is wrong.
Dr. Judy Wood: But why is that their goal in life? Instead of determining what happened and going after–you know–making sure this won’t happen again? Or whatever the objective is.
(50m 19s)…(59m 48s)
Dr. Judy Wood: You know, a lot of people put this big stake in the BBC person saying Building 7 had met its demise before it did. [But] you know, that’s…this is coincidence because they’d probably heard that Building 7 was in trouble. A lot of people thought it was, people had to evacuate it. Just like with One Liberty Plaza, they announced ahead of time that it had collapsed. They even said it on the ticker across the bottom, it was confirmed, that it collapsed. Well, the building is still standing now. So there was just a lot of confusion going on that day and people wanted to be the first to report it, or they wanna know what’s happening and they’re in a panic, they wanna know if their world’s upside down. You know, ‘Is Washington, D.C burned up? Is it still there or has it been bombed to death?’ They have no idea and they’re just groveling (?) on information. So it’s also important to take that kind of thing into consideration.
(1h 00m 45s)…(1h 01m 19s)
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: You know, so much of journalism, the motto is: ‘Get it first, get it right!’ Well, they’ve got it in the wrong order, you know: ‘Get it right! And it’s nice if you’re first, but get it right!’
Dr. Judy Wood: Right, right, there’s a lot of that. How would anyone know what was going on on 9/11? And you could say that you heard some rumors some place about Bin Laden and they were putting that out there and then it was this self-fulfilling thing. Rather than, you know, some evil person inserting that into the media. There’s all sorts of different scenarios you can come up with, that’s why you begin with the evidence and what it is that you know that you know that you know.
(1h 02m 01s)…(1h 02m 41s)
Dr. Judy Wood: Yeah, maybe they just test to see what’ll fit in, what people will accept or who knows why. But the reason why…you know the secret with cover-ups? The biggest secret, this was a real revelation when I realized this, is because when you’re crime solving, the order you must proceed in is first, what happened? And only then do you proceed to how it happened. And then who did it and why they did it and so forth. But if you start with how it happened, when you haven’t determined what it is that happened, people have to imagine what it was that happened in order to say that such and such did it. So what they are actually doing is solving an imaginary problem, not a real problem. And they can never ever solve the real problem as long as they are solving an imaginary problem. And so if you get everyone jumping to how it happened, who did it, why they did it, you’re never gonna solve it. Never ever, because you first have to determine what it was that happened.
And you know my favorite example is Casey Anthony’s trial. The prosecution had failed to solve the crime. They hadn’t determined what happened. So the jury was left with, you know: was she guilty or innocent of–what was the crime now? If you haven’t established the crime, how can you charge someone with it? It isn’t stating that she’s [the accused] innocent or guilty, it’s just that the crime wasn’t solved.
And so it’s so important to start out with what happened and do it in an unbiased way instead of, ‘oh, this is what I think happened’ and they go cherry-pick the data to fit in with it. Like what Steven Jones told people early on, ‘this is the scientific method: first guess at the answer then you go cherry-picking the data to support it.’ No, no, no, no, no! You need to determine what happened.
(1h 04m 37s)…(1h 07m 36s)
Dr. Judy Wood: The amount of weapons they have is, it’s enormous and people don’t realize, and thanks for bringing that up. And this–the Active Denial System–has been around since, I guess, the mid eighties maybe? But they keep bringing it out every once in a while. And they’ll bring it out again. I call it boomerang journalism, where they bring it up like it just came out, like it’s brand new. Brand new information! And then the talk about the Active Denial System will come up every so often. I don’t know why they do that. They do it usually before a protest march, as though, you know, ‘we’re gonna try out our new toys on you.’ As a threat. Who knows? But yeah, there’s all sorts of energy weapons that are out there.
(1h 08m 21s)…(1h 09m 08s)
Dr. Judy Wood: Just imagine what all they don’t tell you about too. They say lasers came to be around the mid-fifties and microwaves, you know, according to public knowledge came to be in the mid forties. So you’d think that they’d advanced a little bit more since then.
(1h 09m 28s)…(1h 10m 11s)
Dr. Judy Wood: But what we do know is what this thing can do because we saw it. You know, a lot of folks say, “Well, you’d need to do ‘Name The Weapon,’ you know, and prove it exists or you got nothin.'” No. I have the evidence that the building turned into dust in mid-air. So therefore a gizmo that can turn a building into dust in mid-air must exist. That’s the proof.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: And then they say, ‘Oh, it would take all this enormous energy and where is it, Dr. Wood?’
Dr. Judy Wood: There was enough, obviously.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: They had enough, yeah.
Dr. Judy Wood: Yeah, ‘cuz it happened, but, you know, instead of making calculations, why not just look out your window and see if there’s a tower still standing there or not?
(1h 10m 54s)…(1h 12m 03s)
Dr. Judy Wood: All sorts of different camps wanted to cover this up, doesn’t matter whose weapon it was or who did 9/11. What 9/11 shows, if people, enough people, get it, they realize that the weaponry, this technology used on 9/11, can be used for free energy, to provide free energy. So therefore, what was demonstrated on 9/11, you can say, was free energy technology. It wasn’t used that way necessarily there. But it demonstrated a technology that can be used to provide free, clean energy to the world. Now, who wouldn’t want you to know that?
(1h 12m 50s)…(1h 27m 30s)
Dr. Judy Wood: You know, my book is just evidence, so why do people have such a problem with it? Because it uncovers a whole lot of what went on. No matter whose technology was used that day there’s a lot of companies that have a big stake in keeping that covered up, because…you know, oil companies for example. And oil makes the world go ’round, doesn’t it? You know, as far as corporations.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Yeah, it’s not love, it’s not love.
Dr. Judy Wood: Right. It’s, you know, various corporations. And if this information was out, I mean, they’ve got a stake in keeping this covered up. And then you can go to every other group that has control over people. You know, he who controls the energy, controls the people. But there’s even…
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Yeah, that’s what I say about socialism: he who controls the means of production, controls the means of life. And this is very, very similar. Energy is so important, yes. And the government, well I shouldn’t say the government alone but many economists wanna strip out of the consumer price index two things: food and fuel. Well, it’s hard to find things more important than food and fuel, you know? And fuel, that means energy.
Dr. Judy Wood: Right. But if energy was free to whoever wanted it…you know what I mean by free is: it’s, you know, not metered, off the grid, free for the taking, not stealing, but, you know, free for the taking. I use a kind of a generic “free,” meaning it’s not something that gets controlled, we control it. And if it can be clean energy, gee, then he who currently controls the energy, isn’t gonna get to control us anymore. They don’t like that. But there’s…
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Right, and clearly, energy is all around us, it’s just the magic of harnessing it for useful purposes and if its supply is endless, that spells trouble for scarce suppliers of energy.
Dr. Judy Wood: Exactly, the economic side of it. There’s even one step further than that. I’m gonna add on to the phrase: he who controls the energy, controls the people, but he who controls the thinking of those people, controls everything. Think of that one: He who controls people’s perception of reality…
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Yeah. Let’s just think of the task you’ve taken on, Dr. Wood! The task is enormous, you know…
Dr. Judy Wood: Uh huh!
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: …because now you gotta teach people how to think or problem-solve, or at least, you know, you’re pointing to this as an important issue and it’s just… hey, there it maybe goes back as you say to the educational system and multiple choice.
Dr. Judy Wood: But hang on, let’s go back and think of that last phrase I’ve made: he who controls perception, controls everything. They control your sense of reality. You talk about people are worried about World War III. World War III has already begun: it’s a psychological warfare. Now look back at how many people on 9/11/01 recognized that what they saw on the TV screen was the towers turning into dust in mid-air. No, they’re told “collapse”, they’re told “pile”, they’re told “terrorists.” “Collapse – pile – terrorists – collapse – pile -terrorists.” And so that’s what they see. Someone else is controlling their reality. And that’s more powerful than controlling energy.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Oh yeah, that’s the ultimate.
Dr. Judy Wood: Yup.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: The ultimate control is: you think you’re free, but you’re the captive of this superior power and yes…
Dr. Judy Wood: Yes.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: The psychological control.
Dr. Judy Wood: Yes, so, you know: he who controls the energy, controls the people, but he who controls their perception, controls everything.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Yeah, in a sense, you control the perception, then you got control of reality, in a sense.
Dr. Judy Wood: Yeah. And that’s…
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Well, this is very old, this is millenia-after-milennia-old, because the state – I’ll make a bold statement – the state and organized religion are about mind control. Clearly! It’s a top-down type thing, instead of a bottom-up, it’s a vertical society instead of a horizontal one.
Dr. Judy Wood: So what do we have with the groups that are in quest of free-energy technology? Don’t you think they’d wanna control that, too?
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Oh, yeah! Right, because they’re [afraid?] of the intruders. The force or the ideas that could remake society and throw out the ExxonMobile’s or BP’s etc. . Sure! So…
Dr. Judy Wood: Right, so they need to [keep] an eye on them.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: So you need to lead the free-energy movement, right? If you’re the existing energy monopolists.
Dr. Judy Wood: Right, right! If it’s your job to keep a lid on this, then you got a problem. So how will they keep a lid on this?
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Well, as you pointed out earlier, and this was a novel idea: if 9/11 is kept secret, the people don’t understand it, that’s the key to stopping free-energy.
Dr. Judy Wood: Yup. And if you’re in these various clubs that, you know, are in quest of free-energy, what would you think of my book?
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Well, I would think they’d be hopping gleefully: “Hey, you know, this energy…techniques have been used to weaponize, we need to civilianize and help mankind!,” and they should be all in, supporting Dr. Wood’s work.
Dr. Judy Wood: Yeah, shouldn’t it be like, you know, I use an old cliché here: “Separate the men from the boys.” Who is truly interested in free-energy and who’s interested in covering it up?
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: OK, so shall we mention a name? There’s somebody in the free-energy movement who purports to be a friend of Dr. Wood’s work, but there are reasons to disbelieve that portrayal.
Dr. Judy Wood: They may even think to themselves that they’re respectful of my work, but then their actions need explaining. You know, this isn’t: “Just because they don’t agree with me, I’m gonna go get ’em.” No, their actions need an explanation. Someone who is interested in free-energy, wouldn’t they wanna read my book and digest it and see what all it has to say?
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: I was reading somewhere–let’s see if you can confirm this idea– that Nikolai Tesla’s work in a sense was rejected in the twentieth century, you know, post-AC [alternating current] and then some of his wireless work etc., but the ideas were kept alive in eastern Europe and Russia to some extent and taught in the universities, whereas most people in the US didn’t know of Tesla’s work, really.
Dr. Judy Wood: Right, so in our history books or in our science books in public schools, I didn’t learn about Tesla there. It’s so underplayed, which is so shocking. There’s a lot of different aspects to that and the biggest thing I’ve come to is [that] according to our history books, in the year 600 BC that was when static electricity was discovered. But then, according to our history books, it says, it took another 2400 years to discover electricity. That doesn’t make sense to me.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Yeah, right! Come again?
Dr. Judy Wood: You know, and then, there’s some thunderstorms, you know? And I think this is what happens: it gets discovered and it gets suppressed and “undiscovered” and then rediscovered and “undiscovered,” so it’s just treading water. It’s just going ’round and ’round and ’round and ’round and ’round, until it’s, you know, too hard to control and who knows what happens. But this technology is very well known to people who didn’t go to school even. You know, like John Hutchison, he can do things with this, because he’s trying to replicate Nikola Tesla’s work.
And then there’s Ed Leedskalnin who has supposedly a fourth grade education, who built Coral castle. Who quarried out fifteen-ton stones, made out of grain coral and built a castle. And this guy is like 100, 120 pounds, somewhere around there and the equipment he used, no way it could lift that kind of weight. And instead he has, you know, magnets on this spinning wheel and he had some other gizmos, but he worked alone. And he would stop working if somebody started looking. And a lot of folks say: “Well, he really didn’t know anything, he was just pulling a fraud.” But I came to understand why he didn’t show what he knew. You have to earn the right to know this technology. It’s like your gun cabinet: you don’t leave a gun cabinet unlocked until everybody in the family knows what guns can do and that there’s no “undo” key. That it’s, you know, permanent damage. And the same with 9/11: you can’t really turn this technology loose until everybody knows.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: What’s wrong with mainstream science? We’ve already indirectly discussed an aspect of this, but the thing is, it’s like mainstream science is almost a cover-up of so much of this. Is that because in part the military controls a lot of our scientists?
Dr. Judy Wood: Yeah and I don’t have the quote right in front of me, but the academic industrial complex. Most grants in engineering come from some relationship to the military-industrial complex, from government grants or from these other agencies. So you’re not gonna get funding unless you’re gonna, you know, solve the problems they want solved.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: And that’s one of the major ways academics get ahead, bringing in lucrative contracts for the university.
Dr. Judy Wood: Right, right, if you go off and work on, you know like, for example 9/11, who’s gonna fund you for that? So you have to do that in your spare time. Not only that, you’re…
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: You’re gonna get fired, right? You’re gonna get fired.
Dr. Judy Wood: Or you’re going to…you know, also as far as the teaching goes, the students are going to be too distracted by looking at all the trolls on the internet and what all the trolls are sayin’ and, you know, it’s just a mess. So that’s why you can’t really get into this as an academic.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: And by and large, they haven’t, with certain exceptions. Like yours truly being a retiree, but you being much younger, it’s not going to be a career improver.
Dr. Judy Wood: No! No and as it was, you know, students were emailing my department chair, I mean, that’s false, I’m sorry: trolls were emailing my department chair, emailing the dean, you know, emailing my colleagues. You know, you think the internet’s bad, I mean, I saw posted on the internet my landlord’s name, address, phone number, what company he owns, what books he’s written. You know, this is a real invasion of privacy.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Yeah, certainly, people don’t fight fair, many of them don’t fight fair.
Dr. Judy Wood: Right. So you look at, you know, for the listener out there: look at why someone is doing it! Is it because they’re interested in determining what happened on 9/11 or are they interested in just attacking somebody for the fun of it or are they interested in covering up what happened on 9/11? But you know, various folks are in all sorts of groups. Like that song “Won’t Get Fooled Again” by THE WHO. You know, I love the words to that, ’cause these guys had it figured out back then! You know:
“The change that had to come
we knew it all along
we’re liberated from the fold, that’s all
but the world looks just the same
and history ain’t changed,
cause the banners, they’re flown in the next war”
and then, you know, the next verse is:
“There’s nothing in the streets
looks any different to me
and the slogans are replaced bye-the-bye
and the parting on the left
is now a parting on the right
and the beards have all grown longer overnight”
and they end with:
“Meet the new boss
same as the old boss”
If people stay occupied in these groups and just chase their tails until they’re tired of chasin’ their tails and they move on. And that’s what the various groups are all about.
(1h 41m 40s)…(1h 42m 37s)
Dr. Judy Wood: There was nothing wrong with my qui tam case. The judges who dismissed it even wrote in a footnote when they dismissed it that they acknowledged that the law applied to my case but they’re ignoring the law in order to dismiss the case. And they got to do that because nobody cared. If people had cared I think we would have had a different outcome. And then what you’re saying about people standing up against [US military intervention in) Syria, yeah, that influences things.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: It shows it can be done, but our problem is how to get there on 9/11. It’s just…
Dr. Judy Wood: And that’s why we have this truth movement that keeps people from standing behind this.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Agreed. It’s amazing what a minority we are. Amazing.
Dr. Judy Wood: Yeah. Yeah, why is that? You know, people out there need to stop and think what their objective is.
(1h 43m 34s)…(1h 47m 45s)
Dr. Judy Wood: And, yeah, it’s, ‘Well, so many theories, huh, guess, we’ll never know what really happened.’ And the one that really gets me is like, you know, it’s two plus three is five. You know, “Judy ‘Woods’ has this theory and then somebody else has this theory that two plus three equals six, somebody else has this theory that two plus three is seven, guess we’ll never know what two plus three is, might as well throw our hands up and leave it!” No, wait! Two plus three is five. Look at the evidence, and you can get to the answer, you don’t need somebody else to tell you how to sum up those numbers. You just need to be able to look at the evidence. It’s not about a theory, it’s about evidence.
(1h 48m 24s)…(1h 49m 48s)
Dr. Judy Wood: As long as people don’t lose their thinking before the end of the road. But with regard to how to approach others, say, when they don’t know who to believe or what to believe: believe yourself! Don’t believe me! Believe yourself! You know, look at the evidence and think for yourself! And that’s the only way out of this, because how did we get into this fix to begin with? Because we turned our thinking over to someone else’s keeping. We need to take it back into our own keeping.
Other resources: https://wheredidthetowersgo.com, http://www.drjudywood.com/wp/, https://nomoregames.net/2012/02/09/wtc-destruction-five-facts-falsify-five-theories/, https://nomoregames.net/2012/02/27/bombs-did-not-unravel-the-towers/, https://nomoregames.net/2012/09/11/new-york-city-on-911-where-did-all-the-rubble-go/
For all those uneducated on the damage DEW weapons cause. There is, an excellent video on lockheed martin of EXACTLY the effects of toasted cars.
People are perpetuating the 9/11 problem by ignoring it. 9/11 weaponry is being used to erase neighborhoods as “wildfires” not only in California, but all around the world. Deborah Tavares claims that smart meters are being used to designate the targets. Recently the gas company has been installing shutoff valves in the street for each home in my neighborhood. If the neighborhood is erased, an easy method will make it easy to extinguish the gas fire where each house used to be. Could you ask Dr. Wood to compare 9/11 evidence with “wildfire” evidence?
Please consider that whatever happened or did not happen in these terrible fires and whatever their cause, it does not affect what happened on 911 and what is shown in the evidence pertaining to the events on *that* day.
I want to thank you for your reply,Thomas. However, I don’t think it’s normal for a neighborhood of homes to be burned to the foundation leaving the trees between them
untouched. Check out the last half of this 2 min. video of a wildfire in Gatlinberg,Tennessee. This is a fire that only burns houses and not trees. It was probably done by a very active mean spirited arsonist. I’m sure that the 9/11 weapon has been retired.
“Now, can anybody question that she is a qualified forensic scientist?”
Dr. Reynolds, I have always regarded you as being above such nonsense.
Dachsie, huh? Establishing the credibility of a witness or analyst is job 1 under normal interview circumstances and many do not know Dr. Judy Wood’s work or her qualifications, so that’s where I started. This is standard practice, for example, in expert testimony in the courtroom. Yes, I am a critic of our overly “credentialist” society but that’s because credentials are overused and abused, not because they are entirely meritless under all circumstances.
What embarrassing idiocy!
Judy can use her brain damage as an excuse, but Reynolds was once a respected economist. We understand why neither of these clowns will ever debate anybody.
Why cant you debate anybody on the evidence pomeroo?….instead of your exclusive and restricted abuse and insult?…Are you too ignorant to debate?