All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 15, 2013 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
01:05:44
Edition 106 - Where Did The Twin Towers Go?

This time it's a very controversial and contentious show featuring scientist Dr Judy Wood.Her 9-11 research she says shows the Twin Towers may have been turned to dust by a Directed EnergyWeapon.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Across the UK, across continental North America, and around the world on the internet, by webcast and by podcast, my name is Howard Hughes and this is The Unexplained.
Thank you very much for your recent communications.
If you've emailed the show lately, I have seen every single email and the contents of your emails are noted.
You've made some very good guest suggestions and also some very good and constructive points about the show.
All of them I will take on board.
As we say, the good thing about this show is when you send an email to the show, you know that I personally get to see it and I'll do something about it.
That is the difference between me and some of mainstream radio.
Thank you to Adam Cornwell, our talented webmaster at Creative Hotspot in Liverpool.
He's the guy who designed the website, www.theunexplained.tv, and also gets the show out to you.
If you want to go to the website right now, be very grateful.
Please put a hit on it.
You can also send me a message, maybe some thoughts about the show, how I might improve it, or some guests you'd like to hear.
And of course, you can make a donation to the show if you'd like to.
At this point in time, for me, absolutely vital.
And thank you if you have recently made a donation to the running of The Unexplained.tv.
I'm not going to waste a lot of time here because this is going to be a very big show and possibly the most controversial one that we've done in the years that we've been doing The Unexplained.
If you go to an internet search engine and you type in the words Dr. Judy Wood, you will find an American lady who's done some research on 9-11 and its causes.
She's a scientist and she's put together an intensively argued 500-page book that puts the point that 9-11 and the destruction of the Twin Towers may have been caused by a directed energy weapon used by someone for purposes we don't know.
Now, as you can imagine, this is really contentious stuff in the United States, so I do realize as we do this that that's the fact.
We're going to connect in a second with Judy Wood.
We'll also be talking with Pete Santilli, American talk show host and former U.S. Marine, who came across this material and feels that something needs to be done about it.
Do you feel something needs to be done about it?
Make your own mind up as you hear Dr. Judy Wood on this edition of The Unexplained.
So let's connect.
It's the first time we've done a three-way digital hookup here.
We're going to talk to Pete Santilli, talk show host in California, and then right across the United States, about 3,000 miles away from her thereabouts, Dr. Judy Wood in the Carolinas.
So Dr. Judy Wood and Pete Santilli, thank you very much for coming on The Unexplained.
Thank you for having me.
Thanks.
Right.
There is a hell of a lot to talk about here.
Judy, I want to start with you first of all.
I hope you don't mind me calling you Judy here.
I'll go right ahead.
Okay.
Dr. Wood, well, it's a little formal, Dr. Wood.
I've received the book, and it's one of those things that you just can't put down.
It's like a real page turner.
500 pages, hardcover book, incredible, intense detail that you have gone into.
I expected something that would be fairly academic because of what I know you to be, but I wasn't quite prepared for the level and depth of detail that you've gone into.
So tell me about yourself.
What is your background and what would motivate you to want to do something like this?
Two big questions in one small question.
Well, my background is in civil engineering, engineering mechanics, and materials engineering science.
I started out in civil engineering, but what I really wanted was engineering mechanics or experimental mechanics, figuring out how things work, figuring out material properties, and sort of like applied physics.
And I ended up with this interdisciplinary degree, using those tools to look at material properties, and specifically using image analysis to determine material properties.
My strengths are in observation.
So here we are on 9-11.
I'm looking at the TV set in the faculty conference room.
And what I see looks like a sweater unraveling, like somebody pulling a piece of yarn and the whole thing coming apart.
And my colleagues didn't see that.
And that was a very uncomfortable feeling.
But what I saw was just bizarre.
And I'm thinking, what on earth was going on?
And that stuck with me.
And as time went on, you know, I assumed the grown-ups were going to take care of it.
And I was going to be able to go back to my work.
And, you know, we all do our own work and everybody else, you know, somebody else takes care of it.
And you were looking forward to reading the findings of the report when it came out, but it didn't work out that way.
No.
And soon I realized the grown-ups weren't going to take care of it.
Who's going to take care of it?
Well, this is our country, our world.
It's our job to take care of it.
And I felt that I was in a position where that is my strength in doing that type of thing, especially when I already saw that here we have a problem.
So I started getting involved with it at that point.
All right.
So here we have an expert in why things fail, effectively.
I hope that's the right way of putting it in layman's terms.
Sure.
But it's one thing to be an expert in why things fail, and it's another thing to be so, as your words have just indicated, deeply motivated to want to do something about it.
That takes something else, and that something else must have been in your persona anyway.
Were you a campaigner, radical activist?
Oh, no.
I'm one who, you know, as a four-year-old or five-year-old, my first favorite toy was a chatty Kathy.
It was broken in a trash can.
So nobody could complain that I broke it.
So I got this thing, took it apart.
Would you believe it has a record in it, like a record player?
No.
A little stylist.
And I got it fixed.
And man, that felt good.
Gee, when was that, Judy?
You can't tell me, can you?
It's all right.
I'm not even going to ask.
Early 60s.
Okay, right.
That's your credentials.
And you're at the moment, are you still working in the engineering department of a big university there?
Are you still doing that?
No, I'm doing this.
And the two aren't really compatible because if you've looked at the internet, you know, you do a web search on my name and you get lots of junk.
Lots of junk.
Well, you get a lot of people all wanting to put in their two penneth and a certain amount of science.
But your stuff has to fight to be recognized, but that's just the internet.
That's the electronic world in which we live.
Everybody feels they have a view.
Pete Santilli in California, how do I describe you?
I know that you want to be the next pope, talk show host, radical thinker.
Will any of those descriptions do?
Well, certainly an opportunist because I see a job opening at the papacy.
So I just figured I'd throw my name in the ring.
It's a position, of course, that would allow me to gather or collect great wealth among the Roman Catholics.
But anyways, I was joking about that earlier.
And of course, you already have your own confessional, so you're going to be there.
I'm a recovering Roman Catholic, so I believe I'm highly qualified to take over.
Well, hell, I wish you luck with that.
But look, I know that you have a talk show.
I know that you talk about many of these things.
What I think we need to explain for our audience here, Pete, is why you're involved in this, because it sounds, because I have two of you on, people are going to say to me, is he just coming on to be PR for her?
Why does she need a PR?
No, certainly not.
I believe that my involvement as I guess as a, not necessarily a spokesperson, but as somebody who has literally over the past year, and if I could just give you just a brief background of how I came to radio, I've been a fan of radio dating all the way back to when I was eight years old.
I listened to Art Bell.
I've always been a listener of AM talk radio for my entire life.
I'm a former United States Marine.
And then very briefly, I'll give you a summation of my career.
I was a corporate executive with Bell South Telecommunications, one of the largest corporations in the world, and then went on to Coca-Cola as an executive at Coca-Cola.
And I had uncovered that Coca-Cola was actually stealing wages in their computer system.
And I became a whistleblower and unfortunately was terminated because I failed to accept their hush money per se.
And I went on to try to get my job back.
And I was unsuccessful because of what I had known.
I ended up.
Well, we have to be, where has that been?
Have you had that in a court of law?
We have to be very careful about claims that we make.
Oh, yes.
No, this is documented.
It was a case, a very prominent case in the United States.
It was filed with the legal system.
It was a $200 million class action lawsuit that has been settled.
The only thing I cannot discuss is the details of the settlement.
But yes, it was a very, very public event and it's well documented.
So, no, I would never make such claims unless I had things to back that up.
All right, so that gave you a taste for exposing things, did it?
That's exactly right.
And what I did was after Coca-Cola, I left corporate America, I became a consumer advocate.
I was an employee advocate at that particular time, but I became a consumer advocate as a professional.
And leading up to the financial crisis, I was actually traveling in the public speaking circuit.
Then I started helping people save their homes from foreclosure.
And about a year ago, I said, you know, I just, I have to do something here.
I have to help awaken people to some of the things that I've awakened to.
And what happened was, was a journey over a one-year period on radio, trying to help other people, educate them on the grand awakening from 9-11 conspiracy theories to what's going on behind the curtain in the financial sector.
And around October or November of last year, I had discovered somebody had sent me information and said, check out this link.
And I heard Jesse Ventura talking to a talk show host here in the United States.
And he said, he mentioned Dr. Judy Wood's name.
And I had Googled her name right there while I was listening to the segment.
And quite literally, my life had changed at that point because what I had discovered at that particular moment was that there was some information, regardless of what I had known about 9-11, that had been concealed from me.
And I had been, I guess, I had been studying this information since around 2006, 2007.
I realized that 9-11 was an inside job.
So I just took Dr. Judy's info.
Just very quickly, because I want to get talking to Judy, but are you a scientist?
How do you know this stuff is right?
I'm a journalist.
I don't know whether this is right.
I see a compelling case here, but I cannot tell you that it's right.
You seem to have made a decision.
I have made a decision.
And what I did was there was evidence contained in that book that to me, regardless of who put that in the book, you could not dispute the fact that a hurricane was off the coast of New York City.
And then suddenly it wasn't.
Well, it didn't disappear.
It did something that those hurricanes can't do, didn't it?
I was reading the book.
It backtracked.
That's right.
And I hadn't learned about that hurricane until November of last year.
But that's just one item of the many that I had gone through and I had taken a look at the evidence contained in this book.
And I said, this is indisputable.
Those towers could not have pre-fallen collapsed.
Okay.
Judy, I want to get to you now.
Pete, thank you for that.
Stay right there.
I'm going to bring you in and come in if you want to.
If you hear something that you want to get involved in, please do.
Judy Wood, you are taking on a task that is truly monumental.
You're challenging a lot of vested interests.
A lot of people are not going to like you.
It's not me telling you that.
You'll know that already.
There must be a powerful motivator behind you wanting to do that, knowing that it's going to make you a bit of a target in some people's minds.
Well, I remember the day I decided I really needed to do this, that the grown-ups weren't going to take care of it, you know, the controlling government agencies and so forth.
And I went into my class and I hypothetically told my students, I said, okay, if you knew two weeks from now the world was going to come to an end, would you, between now and then, try to do anything to stop it?
And they looked at me kind of, you know, and they thought about it and they said, well, what would you do?
And I said, well, two weeks from now, I don't want to have any regrets.
I don't want that, you know, wondering if there was something I could have done.
And two weeks from now isn't the time to start working on it.
It's now.
And I also, when I spoke with my mom telling her I was going to do this, she said, well, if you do that, you won't have a job.
And I said, if I don't, nobody will have a job.
it seems like it's that dire that something this monumental and what this is, you know, to find that there's some kind of technology that can turn a building into dust in mid-air.
All right, we need to get into that a little way down the track.
I want to start with a couple of comments at the very head of your book, which I went through in some detail yesterday, made an awful lot of notes about this.
So I hope you'll forgive me as I plow through.
We're going to leap around different parts of the book and hopefully make a cogent hole from it all.
The top of the book, there is a quotation, and the quotation is, he who controls the energy, controls the people.
Then there are some words from you, and you say, if you listen to the evidence carefully, it will speak to you.
What do you mean by that?
Another quote I often use is, empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic.
So if you look at, you have to begin with the evidence.
The evidence is the truth.
The evidence will tell you what happened.
And if you don't know what happens, keep listening to the dude.
I mean that figuratively, not audio evidence.
But the evidence, look at it, concentrate on it, touch it, feel it, smell it.
That's the way I kind of looked at this.
It's so like jumping into a mud puddle and covering yourself with mud, feeling the mud, tasting the mud, smelling the mud, checking its various qualities, material properties, and so forth.
That's what I did.
This isn't something that you can half do.
Once you begin to immerse yourself in this, you really do have to sink yourself into it.
And it does have to become, as I can hear from your voice, it has to become your life.
Let's go through some of this.
At the very start of the book, there is the famous photograph of the building with the plane-shaped hole in it.
And I've always thought that's kind of remarkable how the thing would keep its integrity and you'd have the shape of a fuselage and wings there.
But I never really remarked on it, and it hasn't really impacted my life at all.
You say in the book, how come this mark was plane-shaped?
It just looks like something out of a roadrunner cartoon, where the roadrunner falls, and we don't want to trivialize this terribly, terribly serious thing, this tragedy.
But the roadrunner falls and makes a hole in the ground that is the size and shape of a roadrunner.
Right.
Or rather, the coyote.
The coyote does that.
Yep, the silhouette of passage.
So why do you think that that is wrong?
Well, I'm not judging if it's right or wrong, but you look at it and it just sticks that upper wingtip.
Well, actually, it's not a case of being right or wrong.
It's a case of how can that be?
And you get this slice of a wingtip.
Well, the wingtip of an airplane can just hold a light bulb out there.
It can't even hold fuel out there.
But what I was doing initially is just looking and seeing what I saw.
And in the chapter one, that's how it impressed me.
And there's various other people who on that day, it impressed them that way.
Like WBAI was broadcasting live.
I've got a recording of their live broadcast where the announcer is watching the TV set, turn off the TV set, and then the TV reporter comes up and says, oh, there's an airplane shave hole.
And he kind of giggled about it.
And then the WBAI reporter repeated it and giggled.
That's what you do with Roadrunner cartoons because it's not normal.
But of course, if I put my fist through a window here, this is a bad analogy.
If it was a fairly substantial window, then the hole might be fist-shaped at the beginning, and then the window would start to fall apart.
Similarly, I presume, but I'm not an engineer, what do I know, that if a plane hits a building at high velocity, then the size of it in those first milliseconds, the shape of the hole is going to be plane-sized.
No, necessarily.
And I don't really want to get into the plane discussion.
That's just one part of it.
No, but what you're saying in the book is that that is somebody starting to want to make a case that planes did this.
And you're saying that there's a whole mass of other evidence that attests to the fact that planes didn't do this.
That's like one millionth of what the date I focus on.
And the case I make is with the building.
I show evidence of the building, and the building turned to dust in mid-air.
And as you say, we can't do that.
Many times buildings can't just unravel, which we all saw them do.
Right.
And you do calculations.
We can't do that either.
So it's a little bit distracting to get into that.
We could get into that, but then that takes up a lot of time.
No, no, no, that's cool.
I want to move on from here anyway.
You say the buildings can't unravel.
You do calculations based on momentum, resistance, and timing, which look very impressive to me.
I have to say, I was not good at science.
I'm an arts guy, so I had to really concentrate.
But on page 42 of your book, you say something that has stuck with me and will stick with me.
And you say a gravity-driven collapse in eight to ten seconds just can't happen.
Why?
Why can't it happen?
Because it takes time for material to get to the ground.
If you're in a vacuum and you drop a bowling ball off the roof, it takes 9.22 seconds for it to hit the pavement from building of that height.
The ground shook for only eight seconds.
And I see also later in the book, and I said we jump around the book, you have some calculations there for the timings.
And worst case scenario, something like 90-something seconds.
Best case scenario, maybe 30 seconds, a bit less than that.
But something going down in eight to 10 seconds can't happen.
Keep in mind that the title of this chapter is the billiard ball example.
It's an example.
It's an analogy.
It's a parallel kind of mental exercise.
This is not a model of the building.
This is not a calculation of what the building should have done.
And as I say in the book, that in order to prove that I couldn't have run to the store, run to here, run to there, all in two minutes, because that's like 10 times faster than the world's record.
All I need to do is, and I don't need to calculate how much longer it would have taken if I stopped to place a bet at the dog track because it's just using a simple example, you can disprove something else.
So, for example, if dropping a bowling ball off the roof of the building, it takes at least nine and a half seconds to hit the pavement, but the ground only shook for eight seconds, he can't explain the demise of the building through a gravity collapse in that amount of time.
And does that ring an alarm bell for you because of the old law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction?
And in this case, there wasn't.
There's another issue with that, too.
If you have one floor smashing on the next floor where it turns to dust, because we saw the building turning to dust as it went down, and if it was turning to dust because each floor was smashing against the next floor, the floor it smashes against has to be rigid in order for it to be pulverized when it smashes against.
This is exactly the point that you come to, isn't it?
You take on this, and we've all bought this, both sides of the Atlantic.
We all saw the diagrams.
It seemed to be worked out remarkably quickly by the so-called experts on TV.
The pancake theory, the idea that one floor goes, the next floor under it goes, and there is a kinetic energy buildup, and this thing is like an avalanche, and it gets faster and faster and faster, and then the next floor down is pulverized, and suddenly what you have is a lot of dust and a total collapse very quickly.
But that is impossible with what we observed.
For example, if you have this pile driver, you know, accumulating weight, accumulating all the stories as they stack up as they go down, you should have a stack of floors at the bottom.
That didn't happen.
Everything was at ground level, just about.
I mean, you can have a few sticks sticking up here and there.
But there was 110 stories, two 110-story buildings that went away.
And there isn't enough material left.
And what about the guys who survived in a little pocket?
Part of that building did survive, didn't it?
There were some people who survived and were brought out alive against all the odds.
Not just that, but they thought they were a goner.
I mean, they had 106 stories.
They were in the second, third, and fourth floor beast stairway of Tower 1.
And they assumed there's 106 floors above them that it's collapsed on top of them.
And there's no way they could get rescued before they die.
That's what they assumed.
But then the dust cleared, and they looked up at blue sky.
There's no building around them.
One of them described walking out onto what seemed to be an empty football field.
There was no building there.
It was either a miracle or something else.
Hold that thought, Judy.
Pete Santilli.
This is partly the crux of the argument, if that's not grammatically incorrect.
What have your listeners been saying to you about this stated fact here from Judy that things really cannot collapse in that way that fast?
What have your listeners been feeding back to you?
You know, it's...
All right, no, it disintegrates.
Sorry.
I know that's a sore point with you, Judy.
It's a matter of, I mean, our listeners, we teach them to never really trust anyone or anything because we're discovering the truth as the days pass.
But deprogramming myself is something that I've shared with my listeners that I literally had to deprogram myself from saying terms like collapse or red hot molten metal because we were told essentially what we were seeing.
We were told what we were saying and it created an impression in our minds.
And what I've discovered personally is that when I'm told that a building collapsed and then I discovered that the evidence suggests something completely different, that the buildings were turned to dust, when they realize what I've seen myself and I share that with them, it's a grand awakening.
And one by one, these listeners are waking up and we're getting very positive responses to it, especially when they take a look at the book themselves.
Good news.
Now, Judy, this is the fact.
The way you've put this book together, I've got to say, and I don't want to sound patronizing because that's patronizing.
I don't mean it that way, but it's remarkably well executed.
You take people through a bit of a scientific journey, people who don't really understand science or flunked it like I did.
You know, as I said, I'm an arts guy, so the science gives me a bit of a headache to read.
But you take people through a journey of changing their thought process here.
And I think that's valuable.
At one point, though, although a lot of it is hard science, you have to admit there is some speculation here.
You talk about the jumpers.
Now, the people who jumped from the towers.
Very, very sad.
That's an assumption.
I don't make that assumption.
I don't assume they jump.
I say they left the building.
All right, left.
I put jumpers in quotes of that.
Well, I would like to read a quote from one of those survivors from Sterwell B. He said, I looked and said, guys, there used to be 106 floors above us, and now I'm seeing sunshine.
There's nothing above us.
That big building doesn't exist.
And he later says, these were the biggest office buildings in the world, and I didn't see one desk, one chair, one phone, nothing.
But isn't it true before we talk about these people who exited the building?
And obviously, I'm not going to take up lots of time with that.
Lots of time with that.
But aren't we dealing here with forces that we've never seen in action before?
We've never seen something disintegrate, collapse, disappear on this scale before?
Is that speculation?
Well, no, look, this is completely new territory, isn't it, for most of us, isn't it?
Not really.
We can observe.
We know how to observe.
And what I have shown in the book, actually, is other examples of the same type of observation.
You've just not applied them before.
Okay, you looked at a place called the King Dome, I think in Seattle that was brought down, and you show photographs of how that did not come down in the same way.
Right.
So we can say this isn't the same.
But other things we have seen that are similar, let's jump ahead, tornadoes.
We have seen these phenomena with that.
So we know that there's such a physical process that exists, but we don't even need to know that.
You don't need to Know the serial number on something to know that this technology exists.
How I come down to it is to ask at the very end, think about this.
If you've been through a significant amount of the book, did the majority of the building turn to dust?
I'm asking you that.
Well, it certainly seemed to from what I saw, and I just assumed that here are such fundamental forces at work that when you look at something like that, anything can happen.
As an ordinary Joe watching TV pictures, what else do I know?
We've never seen that amount of dust, and then there's not much of the building left over.
But realizing that the building turns to dust in mid-air, the majority of the building, I'm not saying all of it, I'm saying a significant portion of it, then I'll ask you, does a technology exist that can do that?
And your answer to that is, yes, it does, which I want to get into in a little while.
If you say it doesn't, then you need to explain the contrast or the contradiction why something that is impossible to happen happened.
Okay, let's deal with this point of the people who— Because if you know that it happened, then you know that it's possible to happen and that something could do this.
Okay, it is, not to trivialize it, the smoking gun.
Let's just get back to the people who exited the building because you do engage in a little bit of speculation about them.
You say, why didn't they take something with them, like a photo of a loved one or a briefcase or something like that?
I'm asking that question as a thought process.
That's not, you know, it's just a thought.
It's not any kind of conclusion.
It's just what I noticed.
But it's part of the book.
And you also say, why do they appear to be so lethargic when they're fleeing a fire?
You know, if you were fleeing a fire, you would look pretty panicked.
I didn't, I don't think anywhere in there said they were lethargic.
Okay, well, I can't.
To the contrary, to the contrary.
Actually, the Melissa Doy recording, that she was in too much of a panic.
She should have been, you know how they have a time limit, how long you can stay in a hot tub?
Because you can't operate your muscles if you're too hot after a period of time.
But for at least five minutes of that recording, she's, I'm too hot, I'm too hot, I'm burning up, burning up, can't breathe, can't breathe, I'm too hot, I'm too hot.
And never once you heard her choke.
There's something different about that.
At first time I heard, I thought it was fake, but then I realized there's something else going on here.
You also get into describing what they're experiencing.
And that's that speculation saying this is not consistent with evidence of high heat.
Okay.
You also get into, and I want to deal with this very quickly before we move on because there is so much to cover.
A man who is seen to be hanging from the building and taking the time to remove his pants.
You think that that is significant?
Presumably, is that because you think he's being affected by the heat from an energy weapon?
I'm not concluding what, you know, it isn't, I don't start with the answer and then say, oh, you must be taking his pants off for that reason.
What I see is looking and seeing that somebody's just hanging from the 105th floor, dangling out from the 105th floor, hanging by one hand and one foot, and appear to be taking their pants off.
Whether they are or not is not the point.
But the point is they appear to be.
And it's that position of hanging by a hand and a foot, not two hands and two feet.
One hand and one foot.
And the other hand and foot is free from the 105th floor.
Obviously, they want to live because they're still hanging on.
And then you look at the other people on that floor, and you see people on the outside also hanging who don't have a shirt on, who don't have pants on.
That's weird because firefighters don't fight fires in the nude.
Firefighting clothing protects them from the fires.
Clothing protects you from fires.
So why would somebody take clothes off, especially hanging from the outside of the building?
There wasn't an abundance of smoke coming out that window.
I didn't really see any smoke coming out those windows.
But let's assume there's smoke inside.
Why not take in a big, deep breath, step inside, take the clothing off, and step back outside?
Why hang from the outside of the building from the 105th floor to remove clothing?
That is weird.
Now, look, I went to New York and covered the first and second anniversaries of 9-11 live from Ground Zero.
It was a part of my life because I covered the event itself from the London end.
I got enormously emotionally caught up in the whole thing.
I met an awful lot of the people who were involved in the rescue.
I met the families, the people whose lives have been forever scarred by this thing.
Are some of them saying to you, why are you doing this, Judy Wood?
You are stirring up something that we really want to let lie now.
for our sake, we have to be able to get on with our lives.
And by speculating on things like that, by publishing a book like this, you are not allowing them to...
You're not allowing them to rest in peace.
Speculating?
Okay, well, let's...
They're just a tremendous amount of appreciation because they want to know what happened.
And they want explanation.
There's some people who also made it out of there who wanted to know what the heck happened.
And after reading my book, they contacted me saying, you know, it's amazing.
That's, you know, spot on from what they witnessed.
And the first time they'd heard anyone talking about that.
But, you know, that fellow hanging from the outside of the building, appearing to be taking his pants off.
How do you think he was feeling?
Don't you think he would want us to determine what happened to him?
I can't argue with that.
I'm sure he would.
I merely needed to put that point because of all the people that I've met.
And I felt in a way that because I wasn't directly involved.
I had friends who were caught up in it, but I wasn't directly involved.
I took on board an awful lot of those people's pain on both occasions, and the second occasion it was just as strong as the first time.
And I feel like I have.
I feel like I have taken on that fellow's pain, and he needs someone to speak for him.
At first, the jumper issue is pretty gruesome to go through, but then I realized these people deserve to have this crime solved.
They deserve to have someone to speak for them, and that's why I've done it.
There is not speculation in there.
There's parallel examples, and just thinking out loud of, well, gee, you know, like I did just a little bit ago, saying if somebody for whatever reason wanted to take their pants off, why not hold the breath, step inside, take the pants off inside, then step back out?
You know, that's a question.
And there's various possibilities of that, but it still is put out there as something weird is going on here.
And also firefighters commented that never before in their 20-year career had they ever seen more than one person jump from a building.
All right, Pete Santali, you want to come in?
I do have something to add just from the, and this is where, this is why I believe my perspective is important because I'm a layman as well.
I'm a very patriotic American.
I'm a former United States Marine.
When I saw what happened on 9-11, our entire country, the entire world for that matter, all of our allies wanted to band together to go get Al-Qaeda because we were told Al-Qaeda had done it.
And we were very patriotic, very passionate about making sure that that never happened again.
And we were told how it happened.
Planes crashed into the building.
Well, recently I discovered that something much more nefarious took place and al-Qaeda could not have had the most dangerous weapon on the planet Earth.
And I then became extremely passionate, if not even more passionate.
Hey, Pete, listen, as a layman then, and I am too, how do you know that they couldn't have had the most deadly and dangerous weapon?
You don't know what people are doing, what research facilities they have access to, who they know and what they know, do you?
You're right.
What I do know now from looking at the evidence is that what I was told for the past 10 years can be basically just completely deleted from my memory.
It couldn't have been done because this evidence now that I've discovered recently has been concealed from me.
I have not been able to make a well-informed decision until recently.
Now I'm very, very passionate to share this with the rest of the world and not make any assumptions as to whether or not Al-Qaeda had the weapon.
But what I do know is that somebody evil used that weapon, that technology on 9-11 to kill people.
And the cover-up since then has killed even more, millions more potentially.
Okay, well, you and I can agree on the fact that we are both better informed, having read Judy's book.
I think there is no doubt about it.
Judy, among the many things you get into is the seismic impact of the collapse.
Now, you would expect the ground to shake and the ground for a very wide distance to shake for a very long time.
But in your book, you've got seismic charts.
If I've got this right and tell me if I haven't, the Richter scale reading, that's the earthquake scale reading, was only 2.3 and not for very long.
And that, you say, does not add up because the reading from the collapse of each tower should have been at least four on the Richter scale, and it should have been for an extended period.
Right.
And I don't really get into what it should have been, but we can compare the towers were on bedrock.
They were 30 times, that's three times 10 or 6 times 5.
They're a whole lot more than the kingdome.
The kingdome, there's lots of data on that, which was why it was used for comparison, was sitting on soft soil.
And it made a 2.3 when it was blown up for in-controlled demolition.
But sitting on bedrock, that should be like ringing a tuning fork and ring all the way to the seismic recording stations.
But would you know that the signal did not travel through the Earth?
It comes, when it travels through the Earth, there's the primary wave and the secondary wave that you usually get with earthquakes and controlled demolitions, where the P wave is like snapping a rubber band and it gets there first.
And then like waving a jump rope back and forth is how the S wave travels, the transverse wave and its later arrival with that gap tell you how far away the seismic depicenter is.
Well, there was no S wave or P wave with any of the events on 9-11.
None that were detectable in any case at various recording stations.
In other words, the signal did not travel through the Earth.
They only recorded surface waves, which is like if King Kong reached over, grabbed the towers and checked them up in outer space, taking that load off of the Earth, the ground springs back.
Like when you get up off of a mattress, the mattress springs back.
That's the only signal that was recorded.
So that adds to the case that these buildings were somehow vaporized and they didn't come down in the conventional way.
Right, not vaporize.
I use the word dustify because it's a new word.
A new phenomenon needs a new word to describe it.
Because vaporize implies high heat.
Pulverize implies pounding and grinding.
Whatever happened to the towers is the definition of dustification.
But the buildings were primarily turned to dust.
They were dustified.
And one of the things you say later in the book is that the cloud that people observe and the cloud that we see engulfing people in all that news footage wasn't a hot cloud as you would assume it to be.
It's actually reported by many people to be a cold cloud, and that too does not compute.
It was cooler than ambient temperature.
And there have been, I've got parallel evidence for that where we've seen that in other situations.
But correct.
And people were, you saw the famous pictures where the cloud is, you know, chasing people down the street.
Well, the cloud overtakes them and just leaves them covered with dust.
It doesn't leave piles of burned bodies.
Which I would certainly have expected.
But again, because I watched the footage, because it looks so realistic, because there are real people involved, you think this is so.
Now, the big theory has always been that this may have been some kind of controlled explosion, maybe using a device that isn't an explosive, but it is highly powerful.
It is able to burn through things called thermite, a thermitic reaction.
You dismiss that.
It's a welding material.
Welding material.
It's a welding material.
Thermite produces heat, lots of it.
There's no evidence of high heat.
You know, those 14 people who walked out of stairwell B, and there's also a couple of people above them who survived even though the building around them didn't.
And one of them rode the dust wave down.
Those people weren't cooked.
They didn't complain of being cooked.
They didn't complain of any kind of heat or being burned.
And that's pretty remarkable.
The building turns the dust all around them.
So there's no evidence of high heat.
Also, if there were bombs go boom, explosives, then the seismic signal would have reflected S waves and P waves like what you get in regular controlled demolitions.
And also, if you had any kind of explosives, because the building wasn't prepped for it, you have window glass in the buildings.
A Coke can on the windowsill is a projectile.
It's dangerous if it's flying at the speed of sound.
And so all of the adjacent buildings would have looked like they're machine gun fired.
That didn't happen.
You know, immediately the building across the street wasn't all shot up.
There were some oddities there that watching television pictures, and I used to say this to my listeners when I went there and reported back sometimes live from the site.
There were things that just didn't appear to add up.
There was a very big black building.
I think it's a bank building.
Is it the bankers'?
Yes, it's the Bankers Trust building on your photograph here.
I remember on two occasions standing right in front of that building.
And the question dawning in my head, although I didn't share it with my listeners because I really didn't think that was my job, how can a building so close to what happened there be in the state that it was in, which was not as bad as you would expect?
It didn't seem to add up for me, but again, it was just something that subconsciously raced through my head, has always bugged me a little because I can see that big black tower standing there.
But I never bothered to share that with anybody.
Actually, there's some pictures I use in my slide presentations that didn't make it in the book where I show, you know, okay, here you go to work that morning in Bankers Trust, about the 20th story, and you look out the window at, you know, I'm showing from zoomed out before you zoom in, where Tower 2 is right across the street.
So Tower 2 is a 110-story building.
So if you're in the 20th story of Bankers Trust and look out your air-conditioned office, what are you going to see?
You should see about the 20th story of this 110-story building.
And then I have this next picture is from this air-conditioned office, the windows still intact, no dust inside the room that you can see.
And whoops, no building across the street.
Empty, except for just a few outer walls up a couple of stories.
The building basically is gone.
And also the same with Building 4.
Few people talk about that.
I think no one else really talks about that.
It was kind of a T-shaped building, and all that was left was part of the north wing.
It looked like it was sliced off with an X-Acto knife.
And the main body of the buildings just went missing.
And the middle of Building 6 went missing.
Down to ground level, not below ground level.
And I've never heard, you're right.
I've never heard anybody talk about building four.
I've never heard anybody talk about anything other than the Twin Towers and Building Seven, to be perfectly frank.
Building seven, of course, because there was the big controversy about the so-called recorded radio transmission where the order is given to bring it down and that later denied.
Well, Building 3 also went missing, except for just a little stub at one corner where 14 people survived and walked out, but the rest of the building went missing.
So you're talking about here, I'm extrapolating from what you're saying to me now and from what I've seen in the book, that the only sort of thing that can produce an effect like that is something that is highly targetable and has a power that most of us cannot conceive of.
Yeah?
I start out with defining what happened, and that is one of the biggest keys that few people realize and how cover-ups can work.
In order to solve a problem, you have to define the problem.
And you have to define what happened before you can determine how it happened, before you can determine who did it and why they did it.
Of course, before noon, we heard Bin Laden did it because he hates his forefreed and it was done with airplanes.
What was it?
It was never determined.
But how you run a cover-up is to start, get people to focus on the who and the how, and they never look at the what happened.
So they're busy.
So if you haven't defined what the problem is, you're assuming what the problem is, so you're solving an imaginary problem, not a real problem.
And then people argue round and round and round and round and round, you know, thermite, mini-nukes, bombs, gravity collapse, round and round, round, round, and they never look at the evidence.
So they can never solve the problem, ever.
And that is where I think you've absolutely scored here with this 500-page hardcover book.
You don't get dragged into most of that stuff.
You just simply relentlessly, whenever it seems to me that the temptation for me, if I was writing this book, I'd want to start getting into speculation.
You don't do that.
You just proceed to the next thing.
And you do list an awful lot of oddities.
We haven't got time to go through all of the oddities here.
But there were, for example, toasted cars under FDR Drive.
How can that happen under this overpass thing?
There was the ambulance that appears from the photograph that you've got in the book, appears to have burned from the inside out.
How can that be?
And just finally, page 238, I noted down here, sheet metal delaminated as if something caused the material to melt or disintegrate from the inside.
Unequal paint peeling, unequal tire damage on vehicles.
All very odd.
One of the key things, tricks to going through this is to begin with looking at the evidence and just remember, immerse yourself in the evidence.
Don't do this pattern matching of multiple choice because if it's not on the list, you're fixing a mess up.
So starting with the answer and then cherry-picking the data to support your answer is bias.
And so you're saying, what can do this?
And try to, you know, just based on this one data, what can do this?
Another piece of data, what can do that?
That's bogus.
You're fixing a mess up.
You're fixing it to keep a cover up in place if you're doing that.
But be comfortable with not knowing, with just saying, okay, look at this.
This is weird.
This is a trend.
I see this split thickness peeling of the door, but these aren't laminated structures.
But it looks like somebody took a cheese slicer or a carrot peeler and just peeled half the thickness of the door down.
That is repeatable.
You see it in various pictures.
So you just start listing all of these phenomena.
You don't need to determine what caused them, but you start listing them.
Remember, let the data speak to you.
Don't tell the data what it's supposed to be.
Let the data tell you.
So you keep listing these things.
And that's why I put these strange terms to it that would be easy to remember rather than characteristic 49739-A.
And you're right, but terms you won't forget.
Like, for example, you use the term tortilla chips for the kind of flaking of metal that we see.
Right.
And an iron I-beam or a steel I-beam is just deteriorated down to just like little potato chips, tortilla chips.
And then there's burritos where these columns are not bent and buckled around the horizontal axis, which is what you would get with overloading.
They're curled up like rolled up carpets, but they're curled around the vertical axis.
So I call those rolled-up carpets.
Some look like, you know, burritos.
And then there's, of course, the lasagna noodle.
How on earth could you load that beam with any mechanical loading to cause it to look like that?
The one that's, each of the pieces are just curled up, smooth curls, no buckling, kind of like curling ribbon.
And I'm not here to sell books, but I have to say, the only way to understand this is to somehow see the book.
And now I understand why from the moment we made contact, you kept saying to me, you must see the book.
Don't read a synopsis.
You've got to get the book.
So you made a point of getting the book to me because these photographs, this evidence is there.
It speaks to you.
And also, it never computed in my head how so much paper survived.
They even found a passport of one of the hijackers in the rubble.
How can that be?
That never computed with me, but a lot of paper came through this in a way that the metal didn't.
Right.
And you can see paper next to these, I call them Cheeto fires.
Don't want to call them fires because we haven't determined it's a normal fire.
It's glowing, you know, like hot things glow, but not everything that glows is hot.
So you see something glowing, don't assume it's hot.
If it's sitting on a piece of paper, I doubt it's hot and the paper is not burning.
But we can look at other parallel evidence, such as a fluorescent light bulb and an incandescent light bulb.
One's hot, one's not, and they both glow.
So there's different processes.
But to first just look at what is there, observe what is there.
And like this photo of some earth moving equipment, picking up this orange glowing thing.
You think about this earth moving equipment with the hydraulics driving out onto your barbecue grill.
The hydraulics, 82 degrees centigrade or about 185 Fahrenheit, is the limit before you get permanent damage.
And there was no problem with a turnover of damaged equipment.
Also, people were walking on this.
You don't have people walking across a barbecue grill without burning.
You hear these stories, but few people stop to think of what they mean.
Like, you know, you heard the story of steel-toed boots melting, but there's no reports of burned feet.
Well, if my steel oven is melting, the turkey inside is more than well done.
Yet we have no reports of burned feet.
So the effect is a little bit like a microwave oven where you can put a cup of water in a microwave oven.
It's material specific.
Yeah, it's material specific.
The water will boil.
The cup will be hot, but you can hold it.
It's that kind of thing.
You talk about, cutting to the chase here, the only sorts of thing that can cause effects like the ones you document in this book.
And as I say, the book is...
I say we can reproduce all these with this.
I'm not saying it's the only thing, but it's something we know of.
And that is a directed energy weapon, electrographitic in nature.
Right.
Magnetic, electrogravitic nuclear reactions.
That's how I define this.
But it's, I'm not even, that isn't even the gizmo.
This is a class of what happened.
Like, you know, you can determine if something was melted from heat.
You can determine if something was smashed with a hammer.
Hammer is kinetic energy, and you have thermal energy, and then you have directed energy.
And I use that in the broadest term.
If you have something turning into dust in mid-air, in mid-air, not before, not after, but a hammer can't be hitting it.
A wrecking ball isn't hitting it.
A bomb doesn't do that.
Those are kinetic energy devices.
That did not do what happened.
So therefore, you know, and it isn't thermal energy.
Directed energy is, it was directed both geographically, you know, buildings with a WTC prefix, not across the street.
And also it was directed as in giving directions to the energy to do something differently than it normally does.
All right, let's just put a layman's point in here, though.
You say that other buildings were not affected, but if you say they weren't affected, it wasn't very lightly.
You would have expected more, but I lived for a week with the staff at the Marriott Financial Hotel on the first anniversary.
Many of them were still so traumatized they could barely talk about what they'd been through.
The hotel was closed for about a year, I think.
I was one of the first people back in there.
And they thought they were going to have to take it down.
That was infected, but they were able to clean it out.
What I mean by infected is There's an ongoing reaction taking place.
Bankers Trust, they tried to, they repaired the building and it was still ongoing, and then they had to unbuild the building.
They had to take the building down.
Don't you think that's a little strange to repair the building to dismantle it?
Very, very, very odd.
Are you saying that maybe you would do that because you wanted to hide evidence of something?
No, no, it was infected.
It was ongoing.
It wasn't stopping.
The area where they replaced the beams, you know, remember that gash in the front?
Understood, yes.
Yeah, they repaired the beams there.
And then when they were taking the building down and got down to that level, in that area, those columns look like they'd been at the bottom of an ocean for 100 years.
There's this thick, thick, furry rust.
How do you get that on the inside of a building?
And I know that for that period, I always thought it was kind of odd that they covered that from public view using a kind of black mesh netting, which hung in the front of it.
And they also had a negative air pressure system so that the air was captured in a filtration thing.
They used the cover story of asbestos, claim it was asbestos, but they were trying to contain everything and truck it out.
Also, with regard to the WTC complex area itself, there was dirt trucked in and trucked out beginning that night.
The next morning you see photos of these big clumps of fresh dirt.
You see trucks trucking out, fresh dirt trucking in, trucking out.
And I always wondered about that, and I wondered whether it was a decision that was taken at local government level simply to try to start to minimize the impact of this horror on the populace, because if people are traumatized in that way, you might provoke instability of some sort.
And that was how I rationalized it.
They had to move fast to take the trauma away from people or try to.
Oh, but this, what's, you know, they brought in dirt and took dirt out.
There's just dirt coming in and out.
That is.
There's a myth.
There's a myth that you might be confusing this with where people say, oh, they shipped all the evidence to China.
But the photographs of the site before noon that day, I mean, you have Building 7.
Its final demise was at 5.20 p.m.
It's still standing, so you know what day it is.
And where's the debris?
There was virtually no debris, just a fraction of it.
Actually, there's a news report I have recorded from just 24 hours later where Peter Jennings is in the studio.
George Stephanopoulos is at the scene.
And Peter Jennings asked George, George, Jackie Jedd has asked this, and other people have asked, well, where did all the rubble go?
And George, you know, trying to explain it, said, well, I've been asking people that.
And one volunteer, Robert Gerlinski, explained it all fell down to the ground, was pulverized and evaporated.
And that is, it's just something that is so without because, yeah, the buildings, where'd the building go?
Where'd it go?
And that's partly what inspired the title of my book, Where Did the Towers Go?
Well, you can't miss it on the bookshelves.
It's a great big photograph of the collapse of one of the towers, and there's a question mark in the middle of the page, and it says, Where did the towers go?
Evidence of directed free energy technology.
You talk about a thing.
What I mean by free energy technology in that title, let me explain.
This was a technology.
This technology was used.
Whatever technology it was, it's something that turned the building to dust and mid-air.
And the molecules that normally attract each other are now repelling each other.
That is some amazing technology.
That's a technology we could use for free energy.
So instead of using it for evil purposes, such as it was used here, let's use it for good.
This was a demonstration to the whole world that free energy technology exists.
It was demonstrated.
But people just were told it collapsed.
They look at the picture, they say they were, you know, like flashcard memory.
But the, look, the demonstration then, if demonstration it was, because we've all bought the notion that it was al-Qaeda and now we've got Osama bin Laden, so the world's a sunny day again, that demonstration failed, didn't it?
The only people it may have made a point to were perhaps members of the administration who might really know what happened.
We're only speculating.
I know you don't like that word, but we are.
Who's speculating?
Well, I am, okay.
Not you.
I'll exempt you from that.
Right, right.
I'm not saying this was intended as a demonstration, but this technology was demonstrated.
You know, unless you're denying that 9-11 happened, you know, that the buildings are still there, that the buildings went away.
But people were fooled into thinking it was collapsed because they were told to see a collapse.
They were told, you know, rubble pile, collapse, terrace, rubble pile, collapse, terrace.
And that's what they saw because that's what they were told to see.
All right.
I'm going to bring Pete in in just a second.
But Judy, I want to ask you this.
You want as many people as possible to know about this.
And I would rather like that too.
I'd like people to make their own minds up.
Are you ready for the consequences of that?
The consequences of that may be that people question their government and question the way the world as it is is ordered.
That's pretty big consequence.
I think this information pulls the rug out from under the power structure because the implications are almost infinite.
For one, free energy technology exists.
Somebody has it.
And also, if somebody has it, if we ignore this, that means somebody uses it again and again.
But if everybody knows about it, if it gets used again, that's like signing a confession.
You have it.
Let's go get these people.
But also, it allows, if everyone realized that this technology exists, then instead of people developing free energy technology in the secrecy of their basement and getting suicided, they can all now develop it in the light of day because everybody knows.
Well, that's to some people that might sound a little utopian.
That's the kind of thing that may happen, may not happen.
And the chances of it not happening are greater.
But, you know, worth having a go.
Pete Santilli, let's get to you in California.
I know you're not a scientist.
Neither am I. You're just there to take in information and turn it around.
And I'm not a politician.
Exactly.
Pete Santilli, who done it?
Who do you think?
Who done it?
You know, I've always thought about who done it, but guess what I've realized through this education process as I've deprogrammed myself is that I want to know mainly who has mesmerized me through this psyop, who diverted my attention away from this evidence,
who has convinced the entire world population that one thing took place when, in fact, when I saw with my own eyes, and I didn't even meet Dr. Judy other than the fact she showed me this, when she told me that the building had been turned to dust in midair, I couldn't quite absorb that.
But when I saw videos of steel beams on video falling in midair, turning to dust, and then disintegrating before it hit the ground, I knew that something very, very powerful was taking place.
And this is the answer to that question.
Whoever did it holds the power to turn this steel to dust in midair, and they're using it for nefarious purposes.
I would rather have the people, 7 billion people of the world, have possession of that technology.
So who done it is operating in secrecy.
And that's my biggest concern.
All right.
Judy Wood, do you feel scared at any time that you're getting involved in stuff that maybe somebody somewhere, maybe who is custodian of this frightening technology, this very powerful, could be potentially very useful technology, somebody there is not going to like you doing this and is going to want you silenced?
Well, there's no question in that.
It's already happened.
I mean, you know, you see all of the effort being made to silence this.
You have, you know, an entire truth movement trained to go after, you know, to divert well-meaning people to covering up without realizing it.
It's that mind control is so amazing.
9-11 was an attack on human consciousness and scrambled people's ability to think out problems, to be able to understand.
This isn't that hard to understand.
You know, you look, you see.
But people were told what they were supposed to see and they quit looking.
And what will you say to people?
Why do they say they quit looking at?
All right.
What will you say to people who say to you, it is perfectly clear what happened.
We've been told what happened.
We've got Osama bin Laden.
The world has moved on.
You are just making waves that don't need to be made, and you are just causing trouble and causing upset and grief where really that shouldn't be happening.
That's their opinion, and that's speculation.
And they need to have evidence to back that up.
All right, Judy.
I've been mesmerized and transfixed.
I don't know what to believe, but I am thinking now.
And I imagine that is what you want.
You want to make and help people to think this process through.
And you've certainly effected that with me.
I wish I could have given you more time.
I'd like to revisit you in this work at some point.
I will just say to you, please stay safe.
And I hope you do well with the book.
I know the book has been out now for two years, hasn't it?
Yes.
I would like to add one other thing for anyone who's listening to understand.
Know what you know that you know, not what you're told.
Know what you know that you know, and know that everything else you don't know.
And don't fill that in with speculation and guesses and hearsay and whatever else.
And that will serve you a whole lot better.
Not what people tell you to know, but know what you know that you know.
So if you hear something about, I use the example of the Sandy Hook event.
I wasn't there.
I don't see enough evidence to know what happened.
I don't know what happened there.
So I'm not going to speculate and fill it in.
You know, know what you know that you know and what your limitations are to that.
Judy Wood, if people want to know more about your work initially online and maybe later through the book, how do they do that?
Where did the towers go.com?
All in word, where the towersgo.com is the book.
And my website is drjudywood.com.
That's D-R-Judy Wood, four letter names.com.
Okay.
Well, Judy and Pete, thank you both.
The world can now know that we've done this through weird time zones.
It's middle of the night where you are, Judy.
It's very late at night where you are, Pete.
And it's very, well, it's breakfast time here in the UK.
But through the miracle of digital technology, we've been able to do this.
Thank you.
Thank you.
It's wonderful for you to be willing to get into this.
Okay, well, you know, I'm not taking sides.
I don't know.
But I'm interested in the evidence.
Truth doesn't have sides.
Pete Santimi, I guess you'd agree with that.
Oh, I certainly would.
And I do have one final comment for your listening audience.
Go for it.
I suggest that everyone, because the world was very passionate right after 9-11 about making sure that that never occurred again.
And now that we're discovering some additional truths and we're seeing some additional evidence, we need to be just as passionate about sharing that with the rest of the world.
Okay.
Pete Santilli in California.
Dr. Judy Wood in the Carolinas.
Thank you very much.
Be safe and go well both.
Thank you.
Well, I don't know what to say about all of that.
It's certainly given me some more food for thought and has made me perhaps look at 9-11 in a different way.
I'm not saying that I'm convinced by any of it.
It's not my job to be convinced and it's not my job to convince you.
But I'm glad we had a chance to give a controversial person an opportunity to put her view.
And I'm grateful also to Pete Santilli for being involved in this as well.
But the work of Dr. Judy Wood is controversial, fascinating, and I think we'll hear more about this.
I certainly need now, after doing this show, just a chance to be quiet and have a cup of coffee and think about it.
I don't know About you.
If you want to get in touch with me about the show, tell me what you thought about it, and give me some suggestions for future guests, always gratefully received.
Please go to the website www.theunexplained.tv, www.theunexplained.tv, and there you can send me an email, or if you would like to very gratefully receive, you can send me a donation to help me keep this show going.
Thank you to Adam Cornwell at Creative Hotspot in Liverpool for getting the show out to you and designing and keeping up our fantastic website.
Above all, thank you to you for being part of the family and keeping the faith with the unexplained.
Please tell your friends about this show.
It's vital we spread the word.
My name is Howard Hughes.
I'm in London.
Please take care and I'll see you soon on another edition of The Unexplained.
▲
Export Selection