Dr Judy Wood. Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 911
505 views
•
Published 4 years ago
•
Dr. Judy D. Wood is a former professor of mechanical engineering with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of biomaterials and composite materials. She is a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), co-founded SEM's Biological Systems and Materials Division, and has served on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division. Dr. Wood received her B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering), M.S. Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics, 1983), and Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992).
For many years, we have heard that a "free-energy1 device is just around the corner," but it never seems to come to fruition. Nikola Tesla wanted to give free energy to the world nearly 100 years ago but was afraid it would fall into the wrong hands and be used for destructive purposes. Well, that is no longer just a risk; it has already happened. However, until we understand just how powerful this technology is as well as how powerful the interests are that control it, we won't see it in general use. We first need to respect what this technology can do, otherwise it would be like leaving a gun cabinet unlocked around children who do not know what guns can do. We also need the world to see what this technology has done. This technology was used to destroy the World Trade Center complex on 9/11/01 and was a demonstration of a new kind of free-energy technology in front of the entire world. As more people around the world recognize this, the less power the controlling interests will have. And if the entire world knows that free-energy technology exists, individuals can openly build their own devices and share their designs with others. It won't be a secret!
Anyone declaring who did what or how they did it before they have determined what was done is merely promoting either speculation or propaganda. The popular chant, "9/11 was an inside job," is, scientifically speaking, no different from the chant that "19 bad guys with box cutters did it." Neither one is the result of a scientific investigation supported by evidence that would be admissible in court. Neither identifies what crime was committed or how it was committed.
The order of crime solving is to determine
1) WHAT happened, then
2) HOW it happened (e.g., what weapon), then
3) WHO did it. And only then can we address
4) WHY they did it (i.e. motive).
For many years, we have heard that a "free-energy1 device is just around the corner," but it never seems to come to fruition. Nikola Tesla wanted to give free energy to the world nearly 100 years ago but was afraid it would fall into the wrong hands and be used for destructive purposes. Well, that is no longer just a risk; it has already happened. However, until we understand just how powerful this technology is as well as how powerful the interests are that control it, we won't see it in general use. We first need to respect what this technology can do, otherwise it would be like leaving a gun cabinet unlocked around children who do not know what guns can do. We also need the world to see what this technology has done. This technology was used to destroy the World Trade Center complex on 9/11/01 and was a demonstration of a new kind of free-energy technology in front of the entire world. As more people around the world recognize this, the less power the controlling interests will have. And if the entire world knows that free-energy technology exists, individuals can openly build their own devices and share their designs with others. It won't be a secret!
Anyone declaring who did what or how they did it before they have determined what was done is merely promoting either speculation or propaganda. The popular chant, "9/11 was an inside job," is, scientifically speaking, no different from the chant that "19 bad guys with box cutters did it." Neither one is the result of a scientific investigation supported by evidence that would be admissible in court. Neither identifies what crime was committed or how it was committed.
The order of crime solving is to determine
1) WHAT happened, then
2) HOW it happened (e.g., what weapon), then
3) WHO did it. And only then can we address
4) WHY they did it (i.e. motive).
Keywords
science911free energy
FREE email alerts of the most important BANNED videos in the world
Get FREE email alerts of the most important BANNED videos in the world that are usually blacklisted by YouTube, Facebook, Google, Twitter and Vimeo. Watch documentaries the techno-fascists don't want you to know even exist. Join the free Brighteon email newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time. 100% privacy protected.
Your privacy is protected. Subscription confirmation required.
Related videos