RR Episode #19
25 June 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNcrXPBtsr0
clip – 1stageofawareness

Transcript – Christoph Jung of Berlin Germany

(Thanks Christoph)

Time: 10m 14s

Dr. Judy Wood: The biggest issue is: why don’t more people see it?  That is the biggest puzzle.  I mean, I saw it right on day one and my colleagues around me were already sucked into this… whatever.  You know, people are more comfortable believing what people tell them rather than what they observe themselves.  That’s just a work of…

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: “Don’t believe your lyin’ eyes,” as the attorney would say in court, uh?  “Don’t believe your lyin’ eyes.”  People don’t trust their own mind, I guess.

Dr. Judy Wood: And so I’d like to go into that a little bit more.  But first, it’s very simply stated: the towers didn’t burn up, nor did they slam to the ground.  They turned into dust in mid-air.  And we know that, because there’s three main pieces of evidence.  One is, if they’d slammed to the ground, you’d see a pile of stuff left over, a pile of debris.  Where’d it go? 

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: A high pile would we see, 110 stories stacked up, more or less.  I mean it would be unmistakable.

Dr. Judy Wood: Instead, there’s an ambulance parked in front of the front door, that’s still there afterwards.  Doesn’t even look clobbered.  But where’s the building?  You can see right through the complex at ground level.  And Road Runner even survived, that statue of Road Runner.  The underground was not destroyed.  I’m not saying there was zero damage, but it wasn’t destroyed.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Yeah, the underground levels of the towers, right.

Dr. Judy Wood: And, ok, the second thing is: if these buildings, a half a million tons each, if they’d slammed to the ground, Lower Manhattan would have been flooded, because all the subways that connect down in there would have…water would have been all over the place, because few people realize that the towers were actually built in the Hudson River on bedrock that’s 70 feet, that’s seven times ten, 70 feet below the water table.  And to keep it dry down into the basement, they had a dike around it.  So if you are dropping a half million, two half-a-million ton buildings onto this dike, for sure you’re gonna rupture it. Didn’t happen.  And the third thing – this is the most significant – is: if you’d slammed two half a million ton buildings onto bedrock, not to mention the 230,000 ton building across the street, Building 7, and several other buildings.  You know, there were seven buildings destroyed that day.  But if you’d slam these buildings down onto the bedrock, that bedrock, it would be like ringing a tuning fork.  And the seismic station at the other end of that bedrock would have recorded it.  The seismic station did not record a signal that travelled through the earth, it only recorded surface waves.

Now when you get an earthquake, you get surface waves and signals that travel through the earth.  When you blow up a building with controlled demolition, you get surface waves and waves that travel through the earth.  There’s two kinds of waves that travel through the earth: S-waves and P-waves. P, the primary wave, is the first to arrive.  S, the shear wave, is secondary to arrive.  And they travel at different speeds, so the lag time of their arrival, ‘cuz the P-wave gets there first and then the S-wave arrives, the time between those two will tell you how far away the epicenter is.  Well, there was no S-wave or P-wave associated with the demise of the buildings, only a surface wave.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Now if they, they have multiple seismographic data sensors and they would all identify, at different distances, the same event, right?

Dr. Judy Wood: Right, you have various seismic stations all over the place and they pick it up at different speeds in different gaps between the speeds and you can figure out where the epicenter is, based on that – if it travels through the earth. But this did not travel through the earth.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: What about the argument, has anybody, I suppose on the internet there’s a little bit of everything.  I know, who was it?  September Clues or his crowd is saying that you can’t trust these data, you know, the seismic data?  And yet, if the fix was in, you’d fix the data, you’d corrupt the scientist somehow so as to reinforce the “collapse” story.  And yet, these data do not support the “collapse” story.  Have you encountered these negative responders on this, on the data?

Dr. Judy Wood: Yeah, it’s a desperation to distract people.  It’s like saying: “Well, what happens if everything you’ve perceived in your life is non-existent and you’re really blind, and you’ve just imagined everything?”  Well, if all the data is consistent with all of the images and the images are from a variety of different sources.  You know, they like to say that the images are all fake.  Well, are you saying that they drove in a truck-load of dust and with a big fan blew it all over Manhattan and then erased everybody’s memory or recollection of that having happened? While they disappeared the towers?  You know, it starts getting pretty ludicrous.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: It’s preposterous, yeah.  It’s crazy.

Dr. Judy Wood: Yet these same people claim the building was taken down by bombs in the building, but they have no evidence for that.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: It’s just amazing how persistent, but I guess it’s true with JFK’s assassination and on and on, all these events.

Dr. Judy Wood: It’s more tricky than that.  And I’ve gotten into this more, but back to the seismic thing.  The only thing that was recorded, essentially, was the surface waves, which you would get if you removed that loading on the ground.  If you picked up each of the half a million ton buildings and just lifted them up and blew them away in the wind, you’re unloading the ground.  You’re unloading that bedrock and it’s gonna rebound.  And that would cause a surface wave.  So it’s consistent with that.  So like if King Kong reached over and grabbed each of the towers and just chucked them into outer space, you’re taking that load off.  It’s like when you get up off your matrace in the morning, it rebounds.  Or getting off the sofa, it rebounds, because it no longer has your weight on it.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: So that would be enough to give a reading of this high – if that makes sense – for the surface wave?  Just disappearing the building?  That would create a surface wave from the pressure on the ground being relieved.

Dr. Judy Wood: Right and that wave dampened out, for the North Tower, dampened out in 8 seconds.  Now, it takes 9 1/2 seconds to drop a bowling ball off the roof and have it hit the ground.  But the ground only shook for 8 seconds.  In other words, that building could not have fallen to the ground.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: It’s just staggering, Dr. Wood!  Every fact after fact refutes all these other ideas or theories of what happened, because they’re inconsistent with the evidence. The evidence which is unshakeable.

(18m 9s … 21m 54s)

Dr. Judy Wood: The issue is that it’s so obvious.  Why do so many have trouble seeing what happened?  And I’ve come to even some newer revelations since my talk with you. But first of all, I’ve put into three categories what keeps people form seeing what happened.

Number one: problem solving skills, poor problem solving skills.

Number two: group think.  People like to go with peer pressure, they like to get herded and it feels safe if they’re doing what everyone else is doing.  Kind of like, I’ve got a picture of a flock of birds takin’ off and I betcha only one of them knows why they’re flying up. They all go together, because it’s survival instinct.

And then the third thing is: they’re terrified of the implications.  That has become more significant recently.

But the first thing, the problem solving.  Few people realize my book is not about a theory. My book is about what happened.  It doesn’t contain speculation, there’s no speculation in my work.  And so, it’s about the evidence of what happened.  Actually, at the beginning of my author’s preface, I state that the order of crime-solving is to first determine what happened and only then can you determine how it happened.  How can you determine how it happened if you don’t know what it is?  And then number three, who did it?  Number four, why they did it.

And I’d like to remind listeners of the Casey Anthony trial.  The prosecutors had failed to determine what happened.  So they didn’t have a case.  You know, “what’s the crime?” – “Uh, hmm, I don’t know!”  You have to define what happened before you can say how it happened and who did it and why they did it.  So, that’s so important.  And so many people overlook that.  And that is a huge thing, because the secret to cover-ups, as far as I can tell, THE main technique, just like with magic shows, is to get people to assume what happened and argue about how it happened before they’ve determined what it is.  They subconsciously assume what it was that happened without determining what it was.  So they argue about their perception of how it could have happened and you get this argument about opinions, of speculations of opinions, of hearsay of whatever, ’round and ’round and ’round and ’round and ’round and it will never be solved, ever.  You cannot solve it until you determine what it is.  So my book is about what happened.

(24m 33s … 25m 39s)

Dr. Judy Wood: And the only way people can marginalize it (the book), is to refer to it as “a theory” or “an opinion” or, you know, “Judy Wood’s views” or “thoughts,” “ideas.”  And no, this is evidence.  And the reason why my book cannot be refuted is because evidence cannot be refuted, evidence is what is.  And another phrase I like to use is… (cat meows), see, Yogi agrees, too.  ‘Let the evidence lead to the conclusions and not let the conclusions color the evidence.’  So you have to start with the evidence and (let it) lead to the conclusions.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: And this is not controversial, I would argue, because criminal investigations work that way.  And maybe they’re dramatized on C.S.I. on television, but everybody knows you gotta start by looking at the evidence.

Dr. Judy Wood: Exactly.  And for those who claim it was thermite, well, what was thermite?  What is it, that was thermite?  You know, the buildings turned to dust in mid-air.  How does thermite have anything to do with it?  Thermite is a welding material and it gets hot, really hot.  Well, you know, there’s no evidence of this.  You need to have evidence that leads to that and there’s no evidence to that.  It’s like saying, “the ingredients of chocolate chip cookies were found in the dust, so therefore chocolate chip cookies destroyed the buildings.”  Well, you need to prove how chocolate chip cookies can do what was done.  So what happened and defining what happened is the most important thing.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: And blinding light is really required to ignite thermite, correct?  You know, there’s such a high temperature required.  That came up in your Holland talk.

Dr. Judy Wood: (plays an audio of Blinded By The Light by Manfred Mann’s Earth Band) Yeah, I think that was something that was missing on 9/11.

(27m 35s … 28m 41s)

Dr. Judy Wood: I’d like to finish the three things that impede people from seeing what happened.  Because the evidence isn’t all that tricky, it’s getting the people to see the evidence right in front of them that is the tricky part.

And the problem solving skills is one thing and that is how cover- ups work: get people to start arguing about how it happened before they’ve determined what it is and they’ll just go ’round and ’round and ’round and ’round in circles and not ever solve it.  It’s like a magic show where people assume what the problem is and move on with that without noticing what really happened.  And that’s why they get tricked, that’s why they think it’s magic.

Now, group think, that’s pretty evident.  People feel safe if they go with the herd.  Even if the herd’s going in the wrong direction, they still feel safe and they don’t care.

But the ‘terrified of the implications’?  I discovered this early on, what the issue was without really putting a name to it.  Then I came up with my Billiard Ball Example.  It’s actually what I thought of on day one to, you know, (ask) “am I crazy or is the rest of the world crazy?”  And so I said, “Well, gee, how long should it take?,” and I’m thinking of, first I was thinking of an avalanche from a snow storm, where this moves, then that gets that part moving, that gets that part moving.  You don’t have a building just start moving all at once.  That’s just weird.  But the Billiard Ball thing is like, you can’t get the next floor moving until the one above has hit it to trigger it to move.  And if it, when it hits it, it turns to dust, it’s, you know, “splat” and you see all the dust coming out, you don’t have an accumulated mass pushing this, like a pile driver pushing things down.  And sure enough you don’t see any pile driver at the end.  The floors are getting destroyed as it goes and there’s just nothing left.  So that doesn’t make sense for…there’s this paradox of: you have resistance of something splattin’ into something else, but then it doesn’t have enough energy to trigger the next floor.  But why don’t people see that?  Especially colleagues who teach dynamics at a college level?  And then, when I wrote up my Billiard Ball Example – not a theory, it’s an example – what it does is you step outside of the flying bodies, the horror scene, everything that people have been trained to think of as this terrorizing event and just have these innocent billiard balls that people can focus on.  Then their brain works and they can think.  And that was just miraculous.

So I showed it to one of my colleagues in particular.  And he was working through it like a professor grading a student’s paper.  Yeah, he saw what assumptions I had made and how I put it together.  He worked his way down, case one, two, three, four.  And then pretty soon he realized he had painted himself into a corner that he couldn’t get out of.  There was only one conclusion he could come to and he was really uncomfortable.  ‘Cuz at that point, you step back and look at the real problem.  As long as there’s this billiard ball thing over here, innocent billiard balls, has nothing to do with reality, you know, and then he realized what it means.  It’s scary, it’s all, “get out!”  And he got really mad and he said: “Well, it takes a cynical person to do a thing like this.”  You know, the paper.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: He wasn’t appraised early on that it had a 9/11 application, so he realized it during the process?

Dr. Judy Wood: Oh no, I had told him in the beginning.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Ok, you told him at the outset.

Dr. Judy Wood: Right, but then he started focusing and getting drawn into watching the billiard balls, innocent billiard balls.  And then just checking the math from these, he saw how I made the assumptions.  OK.  And then looking through the math.  He wasn’t looking at the big picture until he was painted into a corner. And then that big picture hit him and “Yeow!”  And these, it’s like it short-circuited everything.  And that’s…

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: He wanted nothing more to do with it, right?

Dr. Judy Wood: Right.  It scared the heck out of him.  He was sort of…you know, walked himself into this backwards without realizing where he was going.  Literally like painting himself into a corner.  And looking back on that, I now realize more what was going on and why the Billiard Ball Example is so powerful, because of that.  Think of this: I was listening recently to a talk by Neil Sanders and Richard D. Hall.  It’s a fellow in England, I guess they’re both British.  And Neil Sanders’ area of study has been trauma-based mind control and schizophrenia and how if somebody is really traumatized, their personality kind of splits.  So they can kind of do something, you know, they can be separated from the horror. So they can be in one sense familiar with the horror and in another sense it’s a totally different person they know nothing about.  And it’s become more clear to me, that is what happened on a worldwide scale on 9/11.  As I say, I’ve often said it was an attack on human consciousness.  I think it was trauma-based mind control in effect for the general population.  Why people cannot deal with the reality of it.  And it’s a separate part of their personality.  They separate it out.  Like this professor who I as showing the Billiard Ball Example to.  He could follow that down.  It made perfect sense. And he got into a corner where he had to step back and see what happened on 9/11, it just freaked him out.  He could not handle that.  And so, if right at the onset, you know, if you start showing somebody the timing with the floors and all, not the billiard balls, they’re not going anywhere.  They cannot assimilate it.  They can’t.  It is too difficult.  It’s equivalent to the worst horror scene for a child and why that causes ’em to totally avoid a certain area of their personality.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Now, you’re making an explanation that has appeal.  [Professor] Eric Larsen and, I think, I are immediately judgmental.  In other words, this is part of the lying to yourself.  A nation of liars and a lack of courage.  It’s just very disappointing.  It makes me angry.  Now I know most of my colleagues in the academy don’t have much courage, but it’s just very, it’s sad.  And the only way out of that to live with yourself happily is to turn to the truth.  How do you react to that?

Dr. Judy Wood: It really is a split personality type issue from what I’ve seen recently.  I was talking to a neighbor who…I’ve gotten to know him pretty well.  He wants life as it used to be, everything nice.  So he keeps referring to the evidence I present as my “views” and “everybody is entitled to their own views and everybody’s views are correct, ‘cuz everybody’s entitled to their own opinion.”  Well, facts aren’t opinion.  But he needs it to be that way.  He’s not stupid, he can see through it, but he cannot handle it, I think.  So that it becomes this way of rationali-…just sep-…splitting it off, that part.  At times he’s understood it, but then he totally forgets that he ever understood it and there’ll be ways of rationalizing and rationalizing.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Yeah, philosophically, it’s an escape into subjectivism and trying to deny objective reality or closing your eyes to it, that segment of it that makes you uncomfortable.  It’s just sad.

Dr. Judy Wood: And one of the recent talks we had, he said, “Well, this country is just going through another cycle, you know?  The pendulum swings back and forth, it’ll be swinging back the other way soon and everything will be fine again.”

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Good luck with that!  What did Richard D. Hall contribute to your understanding?

Dr. Judy Wood: Well, it was this discussion with Neil Sanders on Richard Hall’s show and he went into a lot of this mind control business and how trauma really causes people’s personalities to split.  And I’ve heard of that before in terms of schizophrenia, where they have distinct personalities and that is their way of coping with horrible situations.  And then it just hits you in the face that that seems to be what happened on 9/11.  You know, why on earth would people say, “Well, you know, let’s allow them to do all of this with the frisking at the airports and taking away all our rights.”  Because it’s a trauma-based mind control, where they cannot stop and realize: it’s just so stupid!  Like someone recently pointed out, I think Jessie Ventura also pointed out, the big frisking lines at the airports.  If somebody, you know, a suicide bomber wanted to take out a bunch of people, he just stands in line, pulls, makes his bomb go off.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Right!

Dr. Judy Wood: And you take out a lot more people than on an airplane.  And he doesn’t need to go through a security check to do it.  So it’s, you know, hang on: I’m not advising that, I’m just pointing out the logic.  If you look through of the logic of this, it doesn’t add up.  And people are not that stupid, so what is keeping them from seeing it?  It’s got to be this other, a type of trauma-based mind control.  They’re so convinced.  Like, they saw the airplanes, so therefore, the airplanes caused the buildings to disintegrate — but these are structural engineers I’m talking to!  And just start asking questions and they get real uncomfortable, ‘cuz they don’t wanna let go of it.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: I can remember that morning, somebody had their TV on in the U.S. Department of Labour.  And OK, there’s something going on at the World Trade Center.  So you see this building.  And a hole in it and some black pufferies comin’ out and I, I looked at that and I said: “That building will not fall.”  OK, you know, in other words, this is ridiculous.  And, uh…

Dr. Judy Wood: And then it turns to dust.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: It’s just, it turned to dust instead, which I didn’t realize until you pointed this out years later.  But yeah, it’s just uh, it’s…, now, how do you feel about, well, we’ll call it the awakening?  Making progress on, you know, you wanna gra-, I wanna grab somebody and say:”Can’t you see? Look at this! This turning to dust!”

Dr. Judy Wood: Right, but look back at the Billiard Ball Example, just seeing the evidence to a professor who teaches dynamics.  You tell him the ground only shook for eight seconds. It takes 9 1/2 seconds to drop a billiard ball off the roof.  He would say: “Well, it, that’s the way it happened, so therefore it happ…,” you know, a whole go-around every which way, every possible argument to keep the official story intact, because the implications of anything else are just too terrifying.  And so if, I think maybe, I’m just thinking out loud here, but going by way of my billiard ball thing, doing something else you know, parallel, somebody can understand the parallel story, but then that jump back to the reality, it’s too much for people.  But still that gets them to see it.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Cognitive dissonance is one way to look at it.

(40m 39 … 41m 32s)

Dr. Judy Wood: It was about eight years ago, I had a conversation with this colleague of mine on campus.  And they said, after they understand the Billiard Ball Example, they said: “But no human being is that evil!”  I said: “Oh! But Bin Laden is? I guess he’s not a human?”

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: “Right, in other words, they find it plausible in this other allegation, other context, but not over here. It’s just amazing.

Dr. Judy Wood: Right, right!  And I loved what Jessie Ventura said: “We should have captured Bin Laden to find out what kinda technology he has to do this.”  You know, kind of sarcastically.

(42m 16s … 43m 47)

Dr. Judy Wood: But the issue of referring to this as “views” or (referring to) what’s in my book as “views” or “theory” or, you know, “that’s her theory” – “her theory is blah blah blah…”  What?  Somebody needs me to have a theory, so they’re assigning me a theory?

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Well, you do touch on the proof of concept, right?  You’re saying, “Well, hey, we’ve got some incredible, unusual effects here and there’s gotta be an explanation or we’ve gotta be able to improve our understanding of what caused these effects.”  And you look around and in other words, you’re saying, OK, one way to put it is proof of concept.

Dr. Judy Wood: Or parallel evidence.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Parallel, yeah. “Is there any precedent for this?,” and then you go off on the hunt and so that’s a bunch of facts, too, correct?

Dr. Judy Wood: Exactly.  Like tornadoes, you know?  Let’s observe what tornadoes can do! They do blah blah blah and I think it’s funny when Greg Jenkins is saying, “Well, you have to say, you have to calculate how much energy would be required to dustify the towers.” But why?  To prove that the towers are gone?  Or are they still there?  Just go look.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Yeah, I mean to an economist that is such a dumb idea that somehow…

Dr. Judy Wood: That’s like saying, in 1966 when a tornado went through Topeka, Kansas and did the worst damage of any tornado we’ve had in this country: “Oh, you can’t say the tornado did that damage until you calculate how much energy was required.”  It’s the equivalent.  You see a tornado went through and here’s the damage.  You know this technology, call it ‘ACME product xyz’, whatever you wanna call it, there’s a gizmo that did something and here’s what happened.  So that’s proof that this gizmo exists.  Because it happened.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Speaking of tornadoes, I was watching the Weather Channel, we had the loss of 24 lives in Moore, Oklahoma, south of Oklahoma City.  And they look at the evidence and then, after that assessment, they decide wether it was an FE1 up through 5, that’s the highest, the most devastating.  So they look at the facts.  That’s the way they proceed.

Dr. Judy Wood: Yeah, let the evidence lead to the conclusions.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Yes.

Dr. Judy Wood: And yeah, so I am showing you in my book what tornadoes do, I’m showing you what John Hutchison has done, I’m showing you what George Piggot has done, I’m showing you what Thomas Townsend Brown has done, what Tesla is said to have done and a lot of different examples.  Also, I show examples of, you know, ‘hot things glow, but not everything that glows is hot’ — an incandescent light versus a fluorescent light.  They both glow but one’s hot and one is not.  I’m not saying a fluorescent light destroyed the towers.  That’s not a theory, that, you know, just because it’s in my book.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Yeah.

Dr. Judy Wood: Or, I’m not saying that George Piggot destroyed the towers, just ‘cuz that’s in my book and on and on.  I’m just showing parallel evidence of concepts, because this is a book of evidence of what is known.  The book came out before the Texas tornado a little over a year ago, on 3 April, where you had those flying truck bodies.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Oh, you know, I saw that for the first time on your website.  The tape of your Holland 2012 talk.  I hadn’t seen that.  So go on!

Dr. Judy Wood: It was interesting that these truck trailers, not the engine part but the trailers, went up.  Way up, like several hundred feet up.  And then they fall out of the field and then they came down.  And they didn’t crash as hard as if they were just dropped, because they didn’t completely get destroyed.  Some of course did, but then there were other ones that were just…did a belly flop upside down and were gently set down.  And we do hear about various weird things in tornadoes, of people getting lifted up and set down elsewhere.  You’ve seen a car that ends up in a tree.  Undamaged, but it’s just sitting in a tree.  But why the cars?  And also you have tornadoes, that…they are well known for going after trailer parks…

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Yeah.

Dr. Judy Wood: …which brings up this thing about Moore, Oklahoma.  They comment, this community, it’s the third time that tornadoes wiped ’em out.  And there’s got to be something there that tornadoes like.  Well, they don’t have basements in those houses either.  Kind of interesting coincidence.  So you start looking at various concepts that you know.  And another thing I often say is: know what you know that you know.  And know that everything else you don’t know.  Don’t fill that gap in with speculation and mix that in with what you know, because you then have nothing, you just have all…if it’s jammed up together, you don’t know what you know anymore.  It’s ok to step aside and try out something in a separate box, like the billiard ball thing.  But I’m not saying the towers were made out of billiard balls and that’s not getting mixed into there.  But if you know various concepts, like, OK, we see from the World Trade Center data, you see something glowing sitting on a piece of paper.  Well, how hot can it be if the paper’s not burning?  But we know it’s glowing.  So just because it’s glowing, let’s not assume it’s hot.  But then here, in a parallel box over here, we have fluorescent lights and incandescent lights. So we know that things can glow without being hot.   So then you step back and that’s a sort of validation, validating evidence that this is a concept that is indeed true, that something can glow without being hot.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: It’s not outside the norms or the current physical paradigm, right? It doesn’t challenge that.

Dr. Judy Wood: Right, but you know that you know that you know it.  I mean from various aspects.  It’s something that becomes very consistent.  All the unburned paper that was blowing all over Manhattan.  If the building burned up, if it was this super-hot heat, why isn’t there burned up paper around?

(50m 31s … 50m 57s)

Dr. Morgan Reynolds: Dr. Wood, we’ve a-… you’ve addressed a number of things on 9/11 and I know, as I said earlier, that ‘toasted cars’ are of special interest, so let’s go there and talk ‘toasted cars!’

Dr. Judy Wood: Great!  And why I like to call them ‘toasted cars’, not burnt cars, ’cause they’re not necessarily burned.  We don’t know what happened to them, but we know they’re toast, they’re history, you know, you can’t fix it, gotta go get another one.  It’s, you know, it’s toast, it’s history.  So that’s what I mean by ‘toasted cars’ and these…these cars that looked to be going into spontaneous combustion, they just suddenly went in what looked to be flames.  I’m not going to assume they’re flames.  But this happened all around shortly after various events occurred and, you know, like the dust cloud rolls down from Tower One’s demise and then the cars lit up.  And we know that timing because the various fire fighters would say, you know, that the dust, you know, it went up and blocked out 100% of the sunlight.  You couldn’t see your hand in front of your face.  But then, thank goodness, the car in front of ’em just lit up, ’cause then they could see where they were.  So we know the cars, quote, ‘lit up’ right after the dust went, you know, blocked out the sunlight.  Blocked it out for several minutes at least.  So there’s this strange phenomenon that, and it appeared to be fire, but, you know, hot things glow, but not everything that glows is hot.  Plastic may not have been melted around, like, the window trim, yet the paint looked blistered up.  Just strange things occurring, and some as far as, you know, a quarter mile, or half a mile away were seen going into spontaneous combustions.

One thing kind of interesting with the car park: that it sounded like somebody shooting a gun, and it turns out, some police had extra bullets in his glove box and the bullets started exploding.  It sounded like gunfire.  That’s kind of interesting.  So this is a strange phenomenon.  Next to the cars there’s trees that didn’t look burned at all.  There’s paper that didn’t burn.  There’s buildings that didn’t get toasted, just the vehicles.  I’m not talking about absolutely every square inch of the whole city.  I’m talking about there are pictures where the cars appear to go into spontaneous combustion and nothing around them.  That’s weird.  So what do we have that’s consistent with this?  And you also notice, the tires go away, but when the wheel rim drops to the pavement, it seems to have stopped the effect, whatever it is, as though it was grounded then.  You start thinking, yeah, cars are up on rubber tires, they’re grounded – I mean they’re NOT grounded.  It doesn’t mean not grounded at all, but they can build up a charge and not be able to discharge it fast enough.  And there’s a similar thing when you look at the towers: the different distance from the top to the ground, yeah, it’s grounded, but it can build up a charge faster than it can discharge it.  With the exception of, like, the TV-antenna, but you bet that was super grounded.

Dr. Reynolds: Can I ask a sideline – hold that thought – a sideline question? Motorcycles aren’t grounded to the extent cars are.  Is that, am I, is my perception correct?  Yeah, I was…out there in a lightning storm.  So I’m saying, it’s better to be in a car at that…in that circumstance in terms of grounding, isn’t it?

Dr. Wood: Well, cars are further off the ground than the motorcycle is.  But, you know, also, are you in contact with the ground or not?  I just wouldn’t want to be ridin’ in a…in a thunderstorm.

Dr. Reynolds: Yes, yes, it…that makes me uncomfortable.  OK, well, go ahead, return to toasted cars!

Dr. Wood: Here’s another fun tidbit: remember that ambulance parked in front of the towers?  That survived and nothing else did?

Dr. Reynolds: Sure!

Dr. Wood: I’m willing to bet that when ambulances park, if they’re going to be loading and unloading passengers who might have heart problems, they probably have a thingy that drops down to the ground, so it’s connected to the ground.  And it may have been just enough to make…

Dr. Reynolds: Oh that may be, OK!

Dr. Wood: It could have made the difference.  I’m just saying, it’s a possibility, and I do know that it’s part of the regulations for ambulance design, the grounding issue, because of jumper cables or starting people’s hearts and so forth.  So here we have this issue of grounding.  So if the top of the towers, they’re the furthest away from the ground.  They’re gonna be building up a charge faster than they can discharge, with exception of maybe the core columns, they’re so beefy, that they probably have better connection to the ground.  So if there’s any part of that building that is gonna survive from being able to discharge faster, as fast as it is building up the charge, wouldn’t you expect it to be the core columns?

Dr. Reynolds: Yes.

Dr. Wood: Especially right next to the ground.

Dr. Reynolds: Hm-m. Anchored.

Dr. Wood: Right!  And I wonder if that was the issue with those remaining core columns that were about 700ft tall, that suddenly went poof, like after…, you know, a delayed effect, when there was probably more charge available.

Dr. Reynolds: A delay.

Dr. Wood: Yup!  This is just looking at observations.  I had also asked John Hutchison, who can replicate every single one of these effects, if, when he is running his gizmo, if there’s some issue with grounding.  He says: “Oh yeah!”  This was before he knew what the evidence was that I was talking about.  He said: “Yeah, things that aren’t grounded build up the charge faster and you get effects, they get toasted.”  So start applying that to why tornadoes like trailer parks!  They’re not as well grounded as regular houses.  They don’t have big sewer pipes and stuff going on.  They are grounded, but not as heavily grounded, so they can build up a charge faster than they can discharge.  And like the trailers last year in the Texas tornadoes, you know, a big metal box on rubber tires.  And you don’t see dumpsters and stuff going up, you just see the truck trailers going up.  So that seems to be a consistent thing.  And, you know, you think of Moore, Oklahoma.  If tornadoes have gone through there before, and you don’t have basements on these houses, and they immediately rebuild, that it probably is something similar to that.  And as well…so understanding all of these…

Dr. Reynolds: What about conventional teaching or the establishment analysis of tornadoes?  Is there…are there…is there something missing here that involves, you know, the static field and some kind of electromagnetic phenom or…

Dr. Wood: Right.

Dr. Reynolds: An interference that really underlies tornadoes that we don’t know about? Or we the public?

Dr. Wood: Yeah, they used to say, you know, a straw were to stick in trees, because of x, y and z, but they’ve realized, that doesn’t explain it.  They don’t, and so they shrug their shoulders now officially, in the official things.
But…but now, looking at all these things we’ve…we’ve looked at in common with, you know, what builds up a charge and if you… like the underground of the World Trade Center was not destroyed, I’m not saying zero damage, I’m saying it was not destroyed.  It pretty much stopped at ground level.  There’s something magical about that.  Except for the few outer Wheatchex* and the core columns sticking up.

Dr. Reynolds: Mm-mmh.

Dr. Wood: So it was just taken right down to the ground, but not below ground.  You didn’t see dustification down in the basement, for the most part and…

Dr. Reynolds: Yeah.

Dr. Wood: All this is consistent.  So let’s back up here, now how does Hutchison do the parallel evidence to all of this?  In which he also finds that something not grounded well builds up a charge faster than it can discharge?  What he does is create a static field and within that static field he interferes various radio frequency signals, for example microwave.  Now, ok, let’s look at weather events.  It’s normal in the Midwest to have storm systems moving through and get tornadoes, you know, “head to the southwest corner of your basement!”, right?  ‘Cause that’s usually where it’s coming from.  And that’s been normal for aeons.  But then suddenly in 2008, there was a sort of a step function in… you started getting these supersized tornadoes and, you know…

Dr. Reynolds: Yeah!

Dr. Wood: Really super duper weather events.  Well, if you normally have the storm system moving through the Midwest, you have a static field around the storm systems, you know, people say they can feel the storm coming, because of the different electricity in the air that they can sense and…

Dr. Reynolds: Mm-hmm.

Dr. Wood: If you have this static field and then it interferes with radio frequency signals, could be unintended consequences, but you’re fixin’ to mess up, something’s gonna happen.  And television went from, you know, analog to…they required everyone to switch to digital, beginning I think it was February 2009.  So the summer of 2008, they were finishing up putting in brand new radio frequency transmission towers for the digital television.  So here you have a step function of radio frequency transmission towers going up all over the place and you have the normal weather events in the Midwest, this, you know, storm system moving through: you’re gonna have unintended consequences, it’s fixin’ to mess up.  That deal in Beebe, Arkansas, where the birds fell out of the sky, they exhibited a lot of the similar effects, that… just something weird that happened there and the blob on the satellite image.  I downloaded them.  The blob didn’t move, even though the storm system was moving.  So if there’s a radio signal traversing that zone, where the storm system moved through, and it was just the mixture, it probably would have had that effect in a certain volume of space for a certain length of time.  The evidence is consistent with that.  It’s not absolute proof, but the evidence is very consistent with that, and if that didn’t happen then, it’s bound to happen at some point, because it’s a problem waiting to happen.

Ok, now we come – drum roll! – to the final straw.  So we had this static field around Manhattan on 9/11.  We don’t know if it was used or how it was used, but there was a static field there, because we had thunder recorded at three major airports surrounding Manhattan – JFK, La Guardia and Newark airports – and there happened to be this hurricane just offshore.  Well, that’s inconvenient to have to have a hurricane there, if that’s what you’re using it for, to get a static field.  Instead, now let’s think of…instead of having a storm system produce the static field, what other kind of fields might you have everywhere?  Smart meters.  If you have smart meters, that…

Dr. Reynolds: OK, tell us what a smart meter is!

Dr. Wood: Ah, we’re getting more and more wireless signals around. We’re getting, you know, cell phone, wireless and…, my router went belly up and I needed to get a new one. I went to ChinaMart and they only had wireless ones.  I wanted a wired one.  And that’s, it’s really getting hard to find wired-only equipment, that doesn’t put out wireless signals. And if we’re filling the air with wireless signals, what on earth are we doin’?  You know, that’s making this…so you don’t have to wait for a storm system to move through?  You have, you know there’s…

Dr. Reynolds: So…

Dr. Wood: You’re charging the atmosphere with all sorts of signals, and if we know for a fact that if Hutchison can reproduce all these effects that happened on 9/11…he can reproduce those in his lab by, you know, his evidence is: produ-…create a static field and within that, interfere various radio frequency signals and you get these weird effects.  What are we doing to our environment?  The smart meters…

Dr. Reynolds: Wow!

Dr. Wood: The smart meters do that.

Dr. Reynolds: But give me the…what is a smart meter?  Is this connected or part of any wireless equipment?

Dr. Wood: Yeah, it’s…, oh, instead of your electric meter on your house wired to the electric company, it taps off the electric line that feeds your house.  And they have a meter that shows how much electricity you’ve used and you get billed for it.  Instead of coming out to your house to read your meter, they just read it back remotely, it sends a signal to the office.

Dr. Reynolds: OK, so it’s just one more of these wireless signal systems that’s out there.

Dr. Wood: Yeah, but it is interesting…

Dr. Reynolds: Is that right?

Dr. Wood: Right, but why are they requiring it on every house?  And not just in the United States.  In England now.  And there’s somebody…, people who are very sensitive to the field effects from these wireless, you know, ‘smart meters’, they call ’em, that they’ve moved out in the boondocks, you know, up on some mountain somewhere and they’ve been required at gunpoint to get a smart meter, so to the point they have to say: “just unplug it!  I don’t want electricity then, I’ll find some solar panels or something.”  Why is it that important?

Dr. Reynolds: Hmmm, so that would suggest something nefarious, that they were not just unanticipated consequences.

Dr. Wood: It needs some explaining that nobody seems to be looking at.  And we know for a fact, what mixing these signals can do, so, you know…

Dr. Reynolds: Dangerous! Dangerous!

Dr. Wood: If it is unintended consequences, then accidentally somebody’s gonna dustify the whole planet?  If that, if it is unintended consequences, everybody better wise up and say: “Wait a minute!  We gotta look what we’re doing, before we do it!”

Dr. Reynolds: Yeah!  Yeah, you would think somebody would have thought about this in the engineering community earlier, huh?  But Judy Wood is the pioneer.

Dr. Wood: Yeah, this is not a theory.  This is, you know, let’s look at the parallel evidence. Parallel evidence produced by John Hutchison.  The reason why I looked through Hutchinson’s work is: I don’t have to rely on a textbook and stories.  Tesla died before I was born, I don’t…, so that’s a story.  But Hutchison, I go to his lab.  I went there.  I watched.  I experienced in my, you know, in person, I know it exists.  So that’s something in the here and now, that is demonstrated in front of me, so I know that this is a real effect. And so if you have a static field and interfere radio frequency signals within that static field, you’re fixin’ to mess up.  And so smart meters all over the country or the planet: you’re fixin’ to mess up, in a big way, in a really big way!

Dr. Reynolds: Free-energy of a destructive, uncontrolled kind, I gather, instead of a benign free-energy.

Dr. Wood: Well, oh!  Let me add to that.  The title of my book, I…that’s another distortion, that my detractors often say: “Oh, she said a free-energy device was used!”  No, there’s evidence of what happened on 9/11, that energy was directed in such a way as to do what was done, but that energy being directed in that way, it could also be directed in a different way to put out good, to put out free-energy for people.  So the…

Dr. Reynolds: Yeah!

Dr. Wood: The evidence shown on 9/11 is also a demonstration that free-energy technology exists.

Dr. Reynolds: It certainly is!  Was.  It…

Dr. Wood: It’s, it’s however it’s used is the way, whatever you call it.
Dr. Reynolds: OK, I gather we are near the end of the Reynolds Reveal episode 19, is that correct?  My…the wall…

Dr. Wood: Yes.

Dr. Reynolds: The clock on the wall suggests it is.

Dr. Wood: Sorry we didn’t get back to Ryan, but hopefully we answered his questions.

Dr. Reynolds: If not, we’re gonna make another go at it in a month or so.  I’m gonna have Dr. Judy Wood back on the Reynolds Reveal.

* see page 495 in “Where Did The Towers Go?” by Dr. Judy Wood:
“Wheatchex – Sets of three outer columns on the WTC towers, three stories tall, and connected by spandrel belts. These sections look like Wheatchex® cereal (or Shreddies® in the UK).  I first heard this term used by Chip East.”
HYPERLINK “http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/video/ ce8.mov” http:// digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/video/ ce8.mov Clip of Chip East
HYPERLINK “http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/ biggart_intro.htm” http:// digitaljournalist.org/ issue0111/biggart_intro.htm Bill Biggart’s photograph of WTC3