Did you hear the one about part of a Boeing 767 wing and thick rope found wedged between two buildings a block away from the site of the old World Trade Center in Manhattan? No, this isn't a joke - they really did claim last week to find a chunk of one of the hijacked aircraft flown into the Twin Towers over 11 years ago on 9/11. Not only that, it was discovered at 51 Park Place, Lower Manhattan, site of the planned Islamic community center. Talk about "catapulting the propaganda"... or maybe that should be 'lowering the propaganda into place'?...

Coming on the heels of the Boston Drill/Bombings on Patriots' Day last month, as well as a 'ricin poisoned letters' scare that transported us all back in time to that crazy week in September 2001 when letters laced with anthrax were sent to politicians, the spectre of the 9/11 attacks looms large as ever over the U.S. and much of Western civilization.

"9/11 was an inside job," is by now a familiar mantra in the small but active alternative online community. It has even found its way into the mainstream, despite years of ridicule and the heavy presence of COINTELPRO types derailing efforts to investigate and publish the truth of what happened on 9/11.

So, was it really an 'inside job'? Certainly, there is evidence that Israeli intelligence and elements in the U.S. government colluded to cover-up what really happened and used the event for their own gain. We know that prior to 9/11, certain high-level members of Bush Jr.'s administration dreamed of 'a new Pearl Harbor', the catalyst for expanding American hegemony.

But does that necessarily mean they orchestrated it? What about the evidence for 9/11 being an 'outside job'? Many anomalous aspects of the attacks that day have been overlooked. This week we invited Dr. Judy Wood on the show to discuss the compelling evidence she has gathered and analysed in her book Where Did the Towers Go?, pointing to some form of 'exotic technology' may have been responsible for destroying the World Trade Center on 9/11.

In the second part of the show, we tried to look at 9/11 from a broader perspective with Lisa Guliani, former internet-based political talk show host, political writer and editor. As you'll soon discover, however, even over 11 years later, it's no easier today to get a coherent discussion going about Israel and the NeoCons' role in 9/11... can we conclude that 9/11 as a psy-ops has successfully neutralized the so-called 'Truth Movement'?

Running Time: 03:00:00

Download: MP3

Here's the transcript:


Niall: Hello, listeners, and welcome back to SoTT Talk Radio. I'm your host Niall Bradley, together with Joe Quinn.

Joe: Hi there!

Niall: We're joined this week by Pierre Lescaudron.

Pierre: Hello.

Niall: And Jason Martin.

Jason: Hey, what's going on!

Niall: So, the topic of this week's show: "No Ordinary Inside Job: The 9-11 Psy-ops." Well, why this topic? Well, it's never really far from the news, even eleven years later. Of course we had the Boston bombings recently, and this immediately took us back to 9/11. We had in the immediate aftermath of the bombing, the ricin poisoned letter scare, which of course is a reminder of the anthrax letter scare which happened in the aftermath of 9-11. And then I came across this Associated Press story, April 29, "9-11 Plane Debris Found a Block Away From the World Trade Center Site." The story is that they found, well originally, the story is that they found a portion of landing gear wedged between...

Joe: Do you want to go to a live broadcast on that? Just rather than have you explaining it?

Broadcast recording:
"And now to that stunning find in New York City we first reported last night here on World News. A piece of one of the planes that hit the Twin Towers on 9/11, found in an alley in downtown Manhattan, wedged between two buildings. Tonight, many asking, how could no one have noticed this now more than a decade after 9/11? ABC's John Triffin, on the investigation and the many questions tonight:

"Just a few blocks from ground zero sits, what's believed to be, landing gear from one of the hijacked jets that crashed into the World Trade Towers."

Interviewee: After such a long period of time, I'm really amazed by this discovery right now.

It's wedged between two buildings in a narrow alley that hasn't been touched in more than a decade.

Interviewee: The space between the two buildings is only 18 inches. Now the part has been measured to be five feet by four feet by seventeen inches.

Authorities say it was found Wednesday morning by workers doing construction on a controversial Islamic cultural center.

Interviewee: You see how confined this space is. You realize the chaos that existed down here on this street. I think it's unfathomable.

But authorities don't know is how it got there. If you look closely you can see there's a rope attached to it.

Interviewee: It could have been lowered at some time. It's possible. If you look to see if there are marks on the wall, it doesn't appear to be marks on the wall.

With so many unanswered questions, authorities will now take their time combing through the rest of the area for other debris or even human remains.

Interviewer: Could there be remains of victims inside?

Interviewee: The chief medical examiner will do an in-depth examination of the site to see if in fact, there are human remains there.

And police are guarding the entrance to the alley where that plane part sits because this is now considered a crime scene. And because it could be toxic, authorities will wait until Monday to determine just how they will move this remarkable discovery."
Jason: Hold on. I just want to say something.

Joe: Well let's not say too much, let's not say too much about that right now, because blah ba blah, 'let's not say too much because...

Jason: I want to point one thing out.

Joe: Okay, go ahead.

Jason: You noticed that people start saying about how inconsistent something is and then they follow it up with 'but that's understandable.' No it's not!

Joe: Yeah, I know.

Jason: It's not understandable.

Joe: Yeah, well...

Jason: The greatest terror attack ever and they didn't comb the entire area for all the evidence? They missed a piece? How thorough was their investigation...

Joe: Yeah.

Jason:'s not understandable.

Niall: Well, we're also going to have a special guest on by the name of Dr. Judy Wood, who we're delighted to have on today. She is a....all right, let's check first. Dr. Wood, are you there?

Joe: Hi, Dr. Wood, are you there?


Joe: Hello, are you receiving us? You should be.

Jason: Might be having some trouble with her microphone.

Unknown person answering: Are you talking on this line? Or are you talking on this line?

Joe: Oh, sorry. This is not Dr. Wood. Who is this?

Caller: Oh, my name is Pete Santilli, how are you?

Joe: Hi Pete.

Pete: Hi, how are you?

Joe: Not too bad. What's going on?

Pete: You were asking for Dr. Wood on this line?

Joe: We were making a mistake there, but go ahead.

Niall: Did you call...

Pete: Yes, I think you were. I was, no, I was listening in. I'm very intrigued by your presentation and I understand you're focused. Now this is what I've been learning within the past year or so, about 9/11 evidence, and in listening to your opening presentation, of course, criticising the fact that they've overlooked some evidence. I also want to encourage everyone to make sure that they don't overlook the evidence that exists, especially in Where Did the Towers Go? We want to also consider that evidence as well, and not exclude that. I find that a lot of the 9/11, the so-called 9-11 Truthers, and the Scholars and all of those organizations out there, they seem to be pushing their agenda when, in fact, they're also excluding the evidence that's contained in Where Did the Towers Go? So I want to remind everybody, that although we can run around and criticise and say, 'look what we've found', you know, this piece, this piece of landing gear on a plane that, quite frankly to me, it doesn't even matter. The planes don't matter. So, you can tell me that you found an entire jumbo jet laying in the Hudson River. It has nothing to do with how the buildings turned to dust in mid-air.

Jason: Right. I would, I would agree with you, but l'd like to add to that one thing. The interesting thing about 9/11 is that no matter story they tell, no matter what kind of lie they try to sell, it's incredible that people don't think that's it's completely retarded, even if you believe their story, what kind of investigation they did. I mean, you see like TV shows about FBI investigations where they gather up every little tiny piece of the plane and try to reassemble it.

Joe: Right.

Jason: You know we have this illusion that they do a thorough investigation. You know, how does a giant piece of landing gear go missing? I mean, in the book Where Did the Towers Go? there's no rubble, right? Where's the wreckage....

Niall: Or very little.

Jason: ...where's the wreckage from the plane type of thing, you know?

Niall: Yeah.

Jason: Did they just assume well it must have gotten burned up, because, you know what? No, it doesn't! Where did it go? And no matter how...

Pete: That's right, where did the, where did the towers go? That's right.

Jason: No matter how you look at their explanation, there are always huge holes in it, because they're making shit up! They're just lying!

Pete: They really, really are. And this is, from what I've observed in learning this, because you know, I 'm a former United States Marine, I was a very, very patriotic individual. I immediately, from the narrative that they unraveled, right from moment number one, I wanted to go kill brown people in the desert immediately, from the initial story. Now, you now, ten, twelve years later, I'm discovering, that as this evidence starting coming out, organizations like the FBI are, may not be necessarily incompetent. I would say, at the very least, they're incompetent. But what their job is, is to find out what we start to know over that ten-year period, and that's where they go and they try to cover up what actually happened. I believe...

Jason: Well, here's the thing...

Pete: ...the FBI, go ahead.

Jason: The thing that you just hit on the main point. No matter how you slice the situation, they have to go. The people that were in power at the time, or are in power, they got to go, because, at the very least, they're completely incompetent, and have no business running things.

Pete: Yes, um-hm.

Jason: At the very least! I mean even if they're not culpable of criminal conspiracy, they're still so fricking incompetent that you got to...

Pete: They are.

Jason: them, you know?

Pete: They actually are.

Joe: Pete, have you got an online presence or anything like that? Or are you active online in 9/11 Truth and stuff like that?

Pete: I do, but very sincerely, that's not, you know, that's not the main reason for my call, to promote. I actually quit my day job as a consumer advocate and small business owner in December, 2011 and I said,

Joe: Okay, Pete, can I...

Pete: I said I was going to start a radio show. So I have a radio show, yeah, yes, um-hm.

Joe: Okay. Cool. Can I just...

Pete: But I'm not here to promote that. I'm sincerely not, and I don't like when people do that on my show, to come and 'promote me'. I wanted come to call in because it is one of the most important things in our generation to establish the truth about 9/11.

Jason: Right.

Joe: Okay, Pete. Just hold on there for a second. I have to go to another call here, and a little introduction so if you can just hold on the line there for a second.

Pete: You sure can, but I do have more that I want to share with you...

Joe: Okay, just give me a second.

Pete: ...and everyone. Sure.

Niall: Okay, today we've got Judy Wood, and Judy Wood is on the line now.

Joe: Okay, excellent.

Niall: Judy, are you there?

Judy: Uh, yes. Doctor Wood.

Niall: Excuse me. Dr. Wood is here, excellent, thank you.

Niall: Okay, Dr. Wood has written, as our previous caller has brought up, a very interesting book on 9/11. It's called Where Did the Towers Go? Thank you for agreeing to come on at such a short notice. I should explain to our listeners, a lot of people probably heard of your work, or of your website or book, but I'll just give a little brief bio. So Dr. Wood has a degree in, a PhD rather, in mechanics engineering. Is that correct Doctor?

Judy: My bachelor's degree is in civil engineering, structural engineering. My master's degree is in engineering mechanics, which is applied physics, and my PhD is in materials engineering science, which is an inter-disciplinary study between engineering mechanics and materials engineering.

Niall: Thank you, thank you Dr. Wood. So in the first half of the show, we want to look at what makes 9/11 no ordinary inside job. Now Dr. Wood has compiled and analyzed a lot of the evidence that...

Judy: Uhm.

Niall: Yes, sorry.

Judy: You said it was an inside job. You assumed it was an inside job. Now, an inside job...

Niall: Now, that's just...

Jason: It's what people bandy around you know, so we're saying that it's not this, you know...people like "oh, it's an inside job."

Joe: Well, I suppose the words 'inside job' was used just to make it, to dismiss the official story I suppose, as a general term to dismiss the official story.

Judy: This way of putting it, it's not this, you know, it's not the story as advertised.

Joe: Exactly. That's really what we mean by 'inside job.' It's just such a common term we just decided to use it.

Jason: Somebody knows it's not the truth.

Judy: But that means it got started about being an 'inside job' that's actually counterproductive. Because what you're doing is starting out saying you know who did it, before you even know what got done.

Joe: Well, I think what we're trying to say is that we're pretty sure that we know that what the government says about who did it is not true.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: Like, basically Osama bin Laden from a cave in Afghanistan. I think most people can agree that we can kind of dispense with that.

Pierre: But I understand your point, Dr. Wood, and I think the right way to go is to follow the evidence without preconception...

Judy: Thank you.

Pierre: ...and to see where it leads us. So maybe we can start addressing those points and in particular, I think this 'dustification' process that specifically shows that the official story doesn't hold water, and the alternative story, this thermite, or this controlled demolition....

Judy: Uh, it's...

Pierre: just doesn't hold water at all.

Judy: Wait a minute. This isn't, this isn't Russian roulette. This isn't a multiple-choice pop quiz. In order to determine anything, you need to begin with what happened. You determine what happened. You need to identify the problem that you are trying to solve. You can't say well, the answer is 27. I just know the answer is 27, right or wrong. Well, what's the question? You have to know what the question is, in order to know what the answer is. And the way cover-ups work is to get people to immediately assume how 'it' was done, before they determine what 'it' is, who did 'it', why they did 'it'. You know, 'they hate us for our freedoms', your airplanes in the building, Osama bin Laden. They tell us all these things. Everything except for what happened, and you have to begin with what happened. That's your problem statement.

Joe: That's true.

Judy: If you being with anything else, you can never, ever solve the problem.

Joe: Um, you...

Judy: You know why? Because if you start out with a theory, what you do, if you start out with how 'it' was done, you have to assume, you have to imagine what 'it' is. So you're solving an imaginary problem. You're not solving the real problem. And you're never going to solve the real problem if you're solving an imaginary problem.

Joe: Although we are told, 'how' it happened by the official story, which is that two planes crashed...

Judy: How 'it' happened. What is 'it'? What is 'it' that happened?

Joe: Well, 'it' is the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and the destruction of the Pentagon, and that it was caused by three planes hijacked by Arab terrorists. That's the how.

Jason: With box-cutters!

Joe: That's the official story.

Judy: But you first need to determine what 'it' is that happened.

Joe: Well, that's what I just said. What 'it' is, as far as the American people and the world public, 'it' is the attack by Arab terrorists, on America, specifically the attack that involved the hijacking of airplanes...

Judy: But...

Joe: ...that's the...

Judy: But because people are engaging in conspiracy theories, doesn't it mean you need to, does it?

Jason: Well, what are you talking about?

Joe: What do you mean?

Jason: This is conspiracy theory?

Judy: Well you're, you're, it's this conspiracy theory that this guy bin Laden did x, y, and z, and conspired with his group of people. A conspiracy is when two or more people plan to do something illegal. So that's a conspiracy.

Joe: Of course, yeah, but...

Judy: So that's a conspiracy theory. There's other conspiracy theories that go around that somebody planted thermite in the building and other people did this, other people bombs in the, all that is conspiracy theory, it doesn't get you anywhere. You need to begin with determining what happened, by looking at the evidence.

Pierre: Okay, maybe we can...

Judy: And that's the only way you can solve the problem. Otherwise it's just a waste of time. It, an example I've been giving lately is, uh, well, a couple of examples. One is the Casey Anthony trial that everyone got all upset about because they were busy assuming who did it, before they even knew what got done. The reason why the case had to end up with, you know, not guilty because what was the crime? They had yet to determine what happened to the child. And you can't convict somebody...

Pierre: That's the first step.

Judy: ...if you don't know what happened.

Joe: Um-hm

Judy: And the same thing, if you also look at um, uh, you know people are getting all worked up about this Sandy Hook thing. And another thing I say is 'know what you know, that you know', establish what you know. Well, what do you know about Sandy Hook, nothing. So everything is just imagination and, you know, just all sorts of theories about this, that and the other, and you can never solve anything.

Joe: Well, Dr. Wood...

Judy: So you have to begin with evidence about what happened.

Joe: Dr. Wood. Of course, yeah, you're talking about evidence but, when you talk about 'what happened', there is a narrative, an official narrative of what happened on 9/11. And, obviously by implication, you're saying that is false, and has to be looked at again because the evidence does not support that theory, or that clue of what...

Judy: I, I don't know what all that, I don't know what all that story is because on 9/11, when I saw what I saw on the TV set, what they were telling me didn't agree with what I was seeing, so I just tuned it out. When my eyes disagree, I just ignore, block out, all the, you know, the talk, the noise.

Jason: Right. But you can't be like an ostrich with your head in the sand about that kind of stuff. You know, I mean there is obvious...okay, here's...there's evidence, there's hard evidence....

Judy: No, what I'm saying I don't want to...

Jason: ...there's hard evidence...

Judy: ...waste time with conspiracy theories because that gets nowhere. So I just tune out conspiracy theories because I want to know what happened. I see evidence in front of me. I want to go look at the evidence. So I go look at the evidence.

Joe: Okay...

Judy: I don't need to know what various theories are if I have evidence in front of me.

Pierre: That's what matters, yeah. I agree with that. Before theory, there is evidence.

Jason: No, no. You're being unscientific right there because you are classifying evidence as being only physical. And that's not fair. Because there is, there's verbal evidence, the story that they tell, the narrative....

Judy: Uh, all right, wait...hang on...

Jason: ...the news is evidence.

Judy: Hang on, wait. You've made an assumption, a false assumption or a false accusation that is incorrect. You said I'm not being scientific. It is the inverse of that. It is the scientific thing to do to first begin with what happened. Not he said, she said, who said, what said. That is not even admissible in court. It's called hearsay. You have to begin with evidence.

Pierre: And, uh...

Judy: What the evidence says, not what somebody says, somebody else says, what somebody else said. You know if somebody on the TV, some news reporter said that they heard from somebody else, who heard from somebody else, something about bin Laden. That is hearsay. I tune it out, because it's meaningless.

Pierre: It's true.

Judy: Until you first establish what happened.

Joe: Okay. Dr. Wood, you probably shouldn't dispense with the idea of a conspiracy theory, because maybe the evidence that you...

Judy: Hang on! You have to begin with what happened.

Joe: Yes, but I'm just saying that ultimately...

Judy: You can get, you can get that, that's, you know that's step number three and four about who did it and why.

Joe: Yeah. No, but I, but I...

Judy: A conspiracy involves who conspired with whom.

Joe: Yeah, the...

Judy: And I'm not talking about the 'who' part, I'm talking about the physical evidence.

Joe: But, ultimately...

Judy: ...and it has nothing to do with 'who.'

Joe: Ultimately, your evidence might point to a conspiracy, evidence of a conspiracy. No?

Judy: You need to begin with what happened.

Joe: Yeah, of course...

Jason: Yeah...

Pierre: Okay, step by step.

Judy: That's number one. You can't be start, if you start solving step number four, before you solve step number one.

Joe: Um-hm.

Judy: You know you're assuming what step number one is, so you're solving an imaginary problem, not a real problem. In order to solve a real problem you must begin with, number one, determining what happened.

Pierre: Okay, but...

Judy: And then, and only then can you determine how 'it' happened. You have to define what 'it' is, before you can solve what....

Pierre: Okay, let's start with step number one.

Judy: that 'it' happened.

Pierre: Doctor...Doctor...

Judy: ...and then, and then number three is who did 'it', or who planned to do 'it'. You still have to determine what 'it' is that got done.

Pierre: Okay, let's start with step number one, and let's see where the evidence leads to.

Niall: Well yeah, let's...okay, hot spots....

Judy: That, that's scientific.

Pierre: And then we can go on with the steps two and three, but indeed, step number one is evidence, hard facts. What are the observations, the concrete observations?

Judy: The reason why I was being so rigorous about that is because that is why no one can solve it.

Joe: Um-hm

Pierre: Yeah. True.

Judy: Because they begin with step number two, three or four, and they assume what step number one is, so they only solve and assumed problem. And, it, it may sound a bit odd, and a little self-serving, but it, it's not. My book is the only determination of what happened. It is out there in the public domain, and that includes the NIST report. The NIST report, what they did was assume a problem, they solved a hypothetical problem. They did not determine what happened. So, let us determine what happened.

Pierre: Yeah.

Joe: Yeah, go ahead. Do you want to give us a, do you have a summation, or?

Judy: Well, in simple terms, what I determined, in most simple, the most simple way, is that the towers, and, but you know, all seven buildings were destroyed, it wasn't three buildings, it wasn't four buildings, but seven buildings. And uh, they didn't burn up, nor did they slam to the ground. They turned into dust in mid-air. How do we know that? We know that because if they had slammed to the ground, you'd see a pile of debris left over, which didn't happen. If they slammed to the ground, you'd, you know, it's something that few people realize is that the towers were built in the Hudson River on bedrock that's seventy feet below the water table. And it has a dike built around it that they refer to as the Bathtub, or slurry wall. The "slurry wall" initially when they were building it, but it's sort of like the reverse of a bath tub. It keeps the water out, because the lower seven storeys or so are below the water table. And so, if those buildings had slammed to the ground, they'd have ruptured the, the dike.

Pierre: Yeah, because we are talking about one million tons the two towers amount to. One million tons slamming to the ground and damaging the dike and damaging also the whole underpass under the ground. The shopping mall, and the tourne (rotate, turn around) for the metro and the car parks that were pristine after this event, right?

Judy: Well not pristine but it was, you could walk around in there without bending over.

Joe: Yeah.

Judy: And you could read, like in the mall, you could read the signs. You could see the merchandise stacked up on the shelves just covered with dust. So the lights didn't come loose out of the ceilings. The PATH train station had a train sitting there, and some of the cars were damaged, but I think there was at least four of them that were absolutely not damaged at all. When they were excavating stuff in February, the picture of them pulling out one of the PATH trains from the station in pristine condition. It had the FEMA red 'x' on it, where they count bodies, you know, how many alive or dead or whatever, you know, that thing that FEMA puts on things when they go through something. But a...

Pierre: So the bathtub was intact, and also the seismic records show figures that are much lower than what was expected when you compare, for example, to the records relating to the Seattle [King] Dome, right?

Judy: Yeah, the seismic signal. Yeah, the third thing is that if you have buildings slamming to the ground, you would have had a seismic signal that reflected that, and it did not. Not only that, the real smoking gun of it all is that these towers were on bedrock. If you're slamming anything down on that bedrock it's like hitting a tuning fork with a hammer. It's going to ring. And you have a seismic recording station at the other end of that same bedrock. Yet, yet...

Pierre: Just to give an idea of figures, the potential energy of the World Trade Center was about thirty times more than the one of the Seattle [King] Dome, and the magnitude was roughly the same, 2.1, 2.3?

Judy: Right. The Seattle Kingdome made the equivalent of a 2.3 on the Richter scale.

Pierre: Uh-huh.

Judy: And it was on sort of a "Jell-O" foundation, you know, the washout from erosion. And it was kind of at water level, but it wasn't on bedrock. It made a 2.3 equivalent on the Richter scale. Tower One, when it supposedly slammed to the ground, or allegedly slammed to the ground, it made a 2.3 on the Richter scale equivalent, and Tower Two made a 2.1. And that was only estimated through surface waves for the two towers. This is...

Pierre: These are key points.

Judy: ...the difference between those. Not S-waves or P-waves. S-waves, the shear waves, it uh, cause[s] motion transverse to the direction of travel. Kind of like wiggling a jump-rope back and forth. And the P-waves, is a primary wave. It's like snapping a rubber band, you know. You hit the hammer on a rock and it will sing directly through it. That's a P-wave. There was no P-wave or S-wave, no detectable P-wave or S-wave associated with the demise of any of the WTC buildings.

Pierre: And the, what is your take on it, because this WTC...

Judy: That's...

Pierre: Yes?

Judy: That means it did not travel through the earth. The signal did not travel through the earth.

Pierre: So by the clear...

Judy: The 2.3 was surface waves only.

Pierre: So by the clear most nothing, nothing real event, or nothing massive hit the ground.

Judy: Uh, yeah.

Niall: Something that we would expect to see.

Judy: Not only that, it's like the only wave that was recorded was the surface wave, which is what you would get if you lifted the buildings off of the ground, and the ground now no longer had a million tons sitting on it. It kind of did a rebound.

Pierre: Yeah.

Judy: That's all that was recorded was the surface waves. And earlier there was...

Pierre: And this discrepancy...

Judy: ...there was a gas tank, storage tank in New Jersey that exploded. Somebody overfilled it and it exploded. Didn't even melt the steel, and this is an above-ground explosion, and it caused a 3.0 on the Richter scale, and also made both an S-wave and a P-wave, as well as a surface wave.

Pierre: And the same with WTC 7, where the magnitude was 0.6 for [a] building that had a potential energy ten times greater than the Seattle [King] Dome, right? It's really an inconsistency.

Judy: There's six times greater potential energy than the Seattle Kingdome, but it made a 0.6 on the Richter scale which is almost nothing. Think of a dump truck rolling down, an empty dump truck rolling down the street going over bumps in the street, ka-bumpity, bumpity, bump, you know I think it's probably less than that. So that's maybe not...

Joe: So all of this, all of this is fairly conclusive or fairly strong evidence that the buildings did not just collapse in toto with their entire weight, the weight of materials hitting the ground.

Judy: Exactly. The seismic thing is hard to get around. There are quite a few different recordings stations, and they all agree. And Building 7, some of the recording stations, they could not even pick up the signal difference out of background noise.

Joe: I was going to ask you what NIST made of all this, but I presume that NIST just ignored it.

Judy: They, they correctly reported it. They just didn't know what to do about it.

Joe: But they didn't find it significant. Yeah.

Judy: They just kind of, 'hmm, hmm, wonder what to think of that?' Now one thing is interesting is, I think, you know, that NIST people were limited to what their conclusion could be. But what goes into the report has to be correct information. The data has to be correct.

Joe: Uh-huh.

Judy: They can misinterpret it, or omit it, but they can't, like, put it in Photoshop.

Joe: Yeah.

Judy: They can't put in fake data.

Joe: So they....

Judy: That's treasonous, if they do that.

Joe: So they generally just glossed over stuff.

Judy: Right, right. And actually in my book I have, I have the real quotes from the NIST report, stating that there was no S-wave and P-wave associated with it! (laughing) But they failed to make a conclusion from that, and the conclusion from it is, if you don't have an S-wave and a P-wave, you don't have a signal traveling through the earth.

Joe: Um-hm.

Judy: If the signal's not traveling through the earth, the building didn't slam to the ground.

Niall: Okay. They didn't give a conclusion, but they also didn't ask the question. That begs the question, right?

Judy: Right, they gave the data.

Niall: That was never asked.

Pierre: And, uh...

Judy: They gave the data.

Pierre: If there were no seismic records, or very faint ones, where did the towers go? There was not much debris, there was not much seismic records, so where are they? Where did they go?

Judy: Well, there was a lot of dust there. And if you do some estimates about the depth of the dust, it's ankle deep a half a mile away, and you can kind of see from the satellite image a circular area, or an arc, and I estimated that if it was a full circle, 'cause you can't see within the river. If you estimate the size of that circle and approximate depth of it, and do some average calculations, it does kind of jive with the amount of material gone. If you assume [a] certain kind of, you know density of it.

Pierre: Okay, and a lot of dust. And what about the debris because when you see pictures of, for example, this picture that is three pages in your book, the amount of debris are very, very small. There might be the equivalent of one, two, three storeys of debris, where we expect maybe twenty or thirty storeys high of debris.

Judy: Which pictures? Which pictures are you referring to?

Joe: It's the pull-out page, you know, the color, the big color...

Judy: Oh, the bookmark.

Pierre: Yeah, the bookmark. Yeah, the debris is very, very small compared to what we could expect.

Judy: Right. And it didn't spill much across the street!

Joe: Yeah. I think people can see with their own eyes what you have discovered, based on your analysis, which is that a large part of the buildings do seem to have turned to dust rather than collapsed as largely intact pieces.

Judy: And we also saw a lot of the dust go up.

Niall: Indeed. Up into the air

Joe: So there was some kind of...almost like there was some kind of propulsion mechanism propelling this dust outwards and upwards.

Judy: Were taking it up, maybe it was, like it had helium balloons in it, taking it up, but it definitely went up. It was on a mission, it was going somewhere. Some of the satellite images showed this sort of like, tube of it just going up.

Joe: I'm, I'm...

Judy: And it really is curious why it would go up. But the fact that it went up, and we know that a significant amount of it went up because initially, it blocked out 100% of the sunlight for several minutes. People couldn't even see their hand in front of their face.

Joe: Um-hm.

Judy: So we know it went up, because it blocked out the sun. But also, the fact that a significant amount of the dust went up, means that whatever is left on the ground is a biased sample of it. You can't just analyse that dust, because you don't know what went up, what part of it went up.

Joe: But in the analysis of that...

Judy: And...

Joe: ... in the analysis of that dust on the ground or, was there anything anomalous about it?

Judy: The greatest thing, because you know, the 'dustified' building, it has constituents of everything that was in the building. But the biggest thing to comment on is the size of it. That it was, you know, a large portion of it was along the size of DNA; one-hundredth of the size of red blood cells. So obviously, people inhaling that went right into their blood stream. Their lungs didn't filter that out at all.

Joe: Um-hmm.

Pierre: Some kind of nano-dust?

Judy: Yeah, super, super-nano. It was, you know, very small size particulates going into the air.

Pierre: In this dust actually, you have all the contents of the building. That is steel, furniture, concrete and also human beings?

Judy: Uh, yeah. And uh, there's the one, the creepiest parts of this is that in one of the studies of the fumes coming off is that those fumes could not be high heat. Yet that is what caused the fumes. Because in that, those fumes, that's what called it, generically, 'fumes', whatever this foggy stuff is that rises up is biological content, organic components. You wouldn't have that...

Pierre: Because a lot of it degraded.

Judy: If it was, if it was a vapor from heat, you know, the material that vaporized, you wouldn't have that in there.

Pierre: Exactly.

Joe: So that was then, that was analysed, and there were those organic contents?

Judy: Yes.

Joe: Is that what you're saying, okay.

Judy: That's in the book.

Pierre: It brings [us] to another point, one of the anomalies is, it's difficult to use words because they are loaded, but those fumes, what we could call some kind of fires, or glowing stuff, didn't seem to be associated with the usual heat and high temperature that goes with it.

Judy: Excellent! You deserve a great applause for that one! Yeah, the "glowing stuff", the orange stuff. Right, it wasn't associated with heat.

Joe: You mean in the rubble.

Judy: Yeah. People saw orange stuff that was glowing. Well, the orange stuff that was glowing, some people would say "Oh, that's hot molten metal" or it's glowing red-hot, but the stuff was sitting on paper that wasn't burning....

Joe: Although there was...

Judy: it can't be hot.

Joe: Although there does seem to have been reports, there are several reports, I mean I'm relying on YouTube here and archival footage, of fire, firemen and rescue personnel etc. working on the rubble for several weeks afterwards, making statements that, that it was hot.

Judy: Ah, yes. Can you walk on your barbeque grill?

Joe: Well, no. They've said that their boots were melting and all this kind of stuff.

Judy: Right, right. See, if my steel oven, they said their steel-toe boots were melting, if my steel oven is melting, the turkey inside is more than well-done. It's like scorched to nothing.

Pierre: It would be well-cooked. So here's the lack of temperature you're talking about...

Judy: Right. But these are not materials scientists, they're not also trained to analyse what they're doing. They're there for a different purpose. And people have questions, and as soon as they get an answer, they usually just run with it, especially in an emergency kind of situation, or traumatic event. You don't stop and analyse if that makes sense or not. Like the steel-toe boots melting. That was just repeated, repeated, repeated, and nobody realized, you know, why they're saying it. They just assumed it was true because somebody told them that and it just goes on. And that the weirdest one is the statement by Rudy Giuliani. I'm not charging him at all, and I sort of feel sorry for him for having said this because he's probably embarrassed now, but somebody apparently told him that, that the ground was 2,000 degrees right below, and fires would break out. He was talking about it to the governor, "Well I can be standing here, and you could be standing there, Governor, and there'd be a fire breakout between us!"

Joe: Hmm.

Pierre: There seems to be an agent...

Judy: That it was something by an act of God that they weren't killed or something like that.

Joe: So you're, so Dr. Wood, you're saying that...

Niall: It was not hot.

Joe: You're saying, obviously you're suggesting that it was not hot, that this glowing red stuff was not hot?

Niall: Therefore was not fire.

Judy: If it's on a piece of paper and the piece of paper's not burning.

Joe: Okay. I....

Judy: I look at the evidence, not, not people's interpretation of the evidence. People can say, you know, the steel-toe boots were melting, but you stop and think about it, if the feet inside aren't cooked, you know, the people have to get their legs amputated, how could they be going through how many pairs of steel-toe boots melting?

Pierre: There seems to be a cause, and non-causative agent that leads some materials, because it seems quite material-specific, that bows, that bends, that softens those materials and, at the same time, there's not the associated high temperatures.

Judy: Right. And people have they're set views of life. They have like, as set of multiple choices that they can pick from, and the right answer isn't in their set of choices. So they just pick one of them. Like, that's why they say, you know, hot, boiling, molten metal because they don't know how to describe something that they've not been taught before.

Joe: Okay. Dr. Wood, we have a call here. I'm just going to go ahead and take it...

Judy: Okay.

Joe: ...and see if he has an interesting question for you.

Judy: Okay.

Joe: Hi caller. What's your name and where are you calling from? Hello? Caller?

Pete: Hello. Are you asking for me again?

Joe: Yes.

Pete: Oh, this is Pete, this is Pete Santilli. You know, in the interest of full disclosure....

Joe: Okay, Pete, not, Pete, not you. Sorry...

Pete: Oh!

Joe: Other caller. Are you there?

Niall: Sorry, Pete!

Caller: Hello?

Joe: Hello. Can you turn your speakers off?

Caller: There we go.

Niall: We're getting feedback.

Joe: Okay.

Pierre: Thank you.

Joe: What's your name and where are you calling from?

Caller: My name is Betsy, and I'm calling from North Carolina.

Joe: Hi, Betsy.

Pierre: Hi!

Betsy: Hi. How are you all doing?

Joe: Pretty good.

Betsy: I just have a question for Dr. Wood. I'm curious how she determined, I mean I totally agree with her that there's not enough debris. Definitely something's up that we haven't seen before. But I'd like to know how she determined that this was some type of energy weapon, as opposed to say, nano-machines, which we know the government already has, at least they've admitted it to a certain degree, which means they are probably a lot farther along in the development of nano-machines than they're letting us know. And it would account for all the other anomalies we see of the glowing metal and the whole nine yards, if this was done by something like that. Or in the other type of unknown technology, how did she eliminate those, as opposed to the energy weapons?

Judy: There are three basic categories I put weapons into. There's kinetic energy weapons that could destroy a building, including a wrecking ball, you know, a missile, a hammer, a jack-hammer, a bomb, you know, something that physically hits something else and harms it that way. Then there are thermal energy weapons, heat, you know, was the building cooked to death, was it melted, was it vaporized because of the extremely high heat? And then the third category is energy weapons. These are just overall categories.

Betsy: Well you don't have the computerized weapons in there, the nano-machines. That's what I was asking.

Judy: How, what is their mode of operation? Is it uh, disassembling the parts bit by bit, eating it up, is it a nano, you know, a termite that eats things or, what is it?

Betsy: In very simplistic terms, yeah, you could call them computerized termites...

Judy: Okay, well that's, that's...

Betsy: ...but it goes so incredibly fast you know, they're using them in the body now to eat plaque off the arteries, umm...

Judy: Okay, if that goes fast then that means it, obviously it's a kinetic energy weapon.

Betsy: Okay, That's what I was, okay.

Judy: Something that physically is touching something and taking it apart. If it's like a nano-termite, it's going to be eating things. It's going to be taking bites out of it.

Betsy: Right.

Judy: That's just like a mini-bomb. It's taking bites out of it.

Betsy: Billions of them. Yeah. Exactly, that's what I'm wondering, because when I saw that, and I saw not enough debris to account for that entire building, but at the same time there is some debris, and just the way the fires broke out in certain areas. That is...

Judy: Uh, the apparent fires.

Betsy: Pardon me?

Judy: Apparent fires.

Pierre: Cold fires that's uh...

Betsy: The stuff with the flames coming out. Um-hm.

Judy: Right, right. There you go. Yeah, our language you know is very biasing and it's hard to pick a neutral language, but it's important just to pick something. Instead of saying characteristic 297-5A, you know it's easier to pick another word like, well, what I use is "Cheetos." The initial picture I saw, it looked like old Cheetos on the ground, [an] orange thing that was glowing. But I ended up calling them 'Cheetos fires' or, you know, weird fires or...

Betsy: Okay, then nano-machines could account for the Cheetos.

Judy: Because they work so fast, that they heat up something?

Betsy: If there was a, picture a cloud of a billion nano-machines that are released suddenly in multiple locations...

Judy: If they' working that fast....

Betsy: would get the same effect that we saw in those videos.

Judy: Not, not really. If they're working so fast eating this up, and using friction or mechanical force to take the building apart, there is going to be...

Betsy: Or chemical.

Judy: ...there is going to be a lot of heat, and that's...

Betsy: And that's where the heat came from, a nano-machine that is most likely also to be using a chemical as opposed to a mechanical way of...

Judy: But you would call....

Betsy: ...actually turning, as you put, 'dustifying' it.

Judy: So you would call it, what you are saying is that its action is a thermal energy weapon.

Betsy: Say that again. A what?

Judy: So you're saying it's actually, it's acting as a thermal energy weapon, if it's working with a fast...

Betsy: I'm saying it could be either. I certainly don't know what it is, but what I'm saying is that nano-machines are being designed and already are in use...

Judy: Right, but let's...

Betsy: ...that use both chemical and mechanical, so you really wouldn't know which one they would use.

Judy: Uh, but you can rule out a thermal energy weapon.

Betsy: Why?

Judy: Because how many people were, I usually play the, maybe I could play it, that there'd be a lot of heat involved.

Betsy: Right.

Judy: Now, how many, you know, how many people do you know who reported being blinded?

Betsy: I don't have any of the stats on the people hurt in front of me at all. I do know a lot got out, which would, you think if an energy weapon was involved, would be boom, instantaneous. I know lots of people got out down the stairs using their cell phones...

Judy: No, no, see, you're assuming, you're assuming is that just because...

Betsy: ...they had time to escape, so there wasn't an instantaneous vaporization.

Judy: No. But what you're assuming is "it can't be an energy weapon because this is my idea of an energy weapon. So therefore it's not, it doesn't fit my idea so therefore it can't be an energy weapon," and that's the argument you're using. You need to begin at the front end and do in the very most general basis you can do is energy weapon is something that doesn't physically contact something, and it doesn't destroy it by means of heat. If you think of a...

Betsy: What does it use?

Judy: Different kinds of energy waves. For example, it's not usually used as a weapon, but a type of directed energy is a radio signal.

Betsy: What I mean, please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it couldn't be an energy weapon, the question I was asking is how did you decide it was an energy weapon as opposed to a nano-machine?

Judy: Looking at the evidence. We haven't quite gotten to that part, but there are images where you have steel beams falling through the air and they never hit the ground because they've turned into dust before they hit the ground.

Niall: Another thing here is that if we actually look at what Dr. Wood is briefing us, that we can't really determine what kind of weapon. I mean, we can get some ideas based on looking at the evidence, but it's too hard to say exactly what kind of weapon was used.

Judy: But we can say...

Betsy: Yeah, that was my point.

Judy: ...but we can say what category of weapon. We can know what we can rule out.

Betsy: How would we do that?

Judy: Know what you know, that you know. Know what you know, that you know. Now, here's something that may have been missing on 9/11. Let's see if I can play it here (music playing). Did you hear that? Manfred Mann's Earth Band - Blinded by the Light. How many people on 9/11 were blinded by the light? If something is using high heat, if it's going to be glowing because it's hot, you'd have that thing lit up like a Fourth of July sparkler. And who, you didn't see any blinding light coming out of the thing. Also, there were fourteen people in Stairwell B who walked out on their own. There is two more above where these guys were trapped in the first, second, third, and fourth floor, that area, but there's two more above that in Stairwell B who survived even though the building didn't.

Pierre: Without burns....

Judy: And then there's another group, so, they walked out on their own. They didn't complain of being cooked to death.

Betsy: So what you're saying is, it would have to be an energy weapon, but could be an energy weapon planted inside a nano-machine.

Judy: We're not getting into guessing at this, that and the other. Just keep it in the general categories of thermal energy.

Joe: We've got some ground to cover before we can answer those questions, Betsy, so uh, but thanks for your call.

Judy: Right.

Betsy: Okay, bye.

Joe: All right, thank you

Pierre: And uh, maybe we can...

Joe: Hang on second. Let me just go to Pete. Pete, are you there?

Pete: I am.

Joe: Pete, Pete...

Pete: I'm so sorry you guys had my line open. I didn't expect to be on. Yes.

Joe: I know, I'm so sorry for keeping you on the line there but, if you have a question for Dr. Wood, can you just get it out there...

Pete: I do, yes.

Joe: ...a statement or a comment? Make it brief, thanks.

Pete: Yeah, I'm going to, I'm going to make it brief. But I uh, in the interest of full disclosure, I've had pretty much all of my answers to my questions provided by Dr. Wood. I've actually had her on my show. There was a comment here, and then I'll get off the line, I don't need to be on here, and Dr. Wood will do just fine. But you opened up the show, and this is my main thing that I would like to convey, and ask why anyone would say that 'it' is an attack by Arab terrorists? What I've been able to determine through looking at and learning from Dr. Judy Wood, is that 'it' being the Arab terrorists has nothing to do with the evidence whatsoever. As a matter of fact, the evidence quite frankly points in a completely different direction. But one thing I would like to share before I leave, is that the most important thing that I've learned, is that by shows like this regurgitating the terminology of the psy-op, I think it's prolonged the psy-op to about twelve years. You got to be really, really cautious, and I've learned that. But Dr. Wood, don't you agree that by using their terminology, over, and over, and over again, it perpetuates the psy-ops. Don't you agree with that?

Judy: Oh, as well as, it's just making assumptions like steel-toed boots melting or all steel shipped to China, or various other science, it's all this macho, it just gets regurgitated over and over again, and people stay locked into their assumptions of what happened instead of looking at the evidence. And uh, what I've come to realize is how easy, easy it is to run a cover-up.

Joe: Um-hmm.

Judy: What you need to do is get people to jump in and start guessing; 'it was this kind of weapon, it was that kind of weapon, it was a nano-bot, it was a thermite, it was a this or that.' But what they're doing is they jump into how it was done, without looking at what was done, they're having to assume what was done, so they're solving an imaginary problem, not a real problem. And they can never, ever, ever solve it that way. So they just go round, round, round arguing about their opinions and speculations or theories and hypotheses, and never get anywhere. And they don't realize that they didn't even look at the evidence. Like on day one, look at the TV set, it's showing a building turning into dust in mid-air. Why, for almost twelve years, have people been unable to see that?

Joe: Um-hmm.

Judy: That is psy-ops.

Joe: Very true. Pete, I'm going to let you go.

Pete: Thank you.

Joe: All right, thanks for the call.

Pierre: And maybe we can go back to empirical evidence, and observations. One causative agent seemed to have had some effect on the molecular level. Maybe you can talk a bit about those, quickly, very quickly about 'rusitification' and separation of carbon and iron in steel material?

Judy: Right. If steel, if, you know, what I've seen looking at various other parallel evidence, you know, I'm not saying what did 'it', I can say, you know, it's like I've drawn a circle...

Pierre: Yes.

Judy: ...around the 'what' about everything, and then I can talk out of that, what can't be, like thermal energy weapons, or kinetic energy weapons. And so it does leave us with some type of energy that was directed and used as a weapon. And what I mean by directed is, it's directed geographically, you know, those [buildings] with the WTC prefix for the most part, and also directed as in giving it instructions to do something differently than it normally does. Energy, usually, you know, you have molecules attract each other.

Pierre: Yes.

Judy: The evidence shows that they, that they suddenly started repelling each other. They were doing the opposite of what they normally do.

Pierre: Okay, Dr., Dr....

Judy: And when they start repelling each other I've looked at, you know, other types of, of known technology that do this, and my analogy for this is like, you have uh, musical chairs. When the music's playing and people are up and walking around, then somebody pulls out a chair when the music stops, you have to sit down, and somebody misses out because one of the chairs is gone. And then the music plays and they're up and moving around again. If you use that analogy, and say while this energy field is in effect, that's directing the music that the molecules kind of let go of each other. And when the music stops, they reconnect. But if, while they're up, moving around, floating around, if there is like in steel, is made mostly of iron, but it has other things in there, like carbon, and it enhances its mechanical properties. It also enhances its resistance to environmental degradation. If the music stops, and the carbon doesn't get back to where it was, then you'd have, you could have pure iron on the surface. And if you look at the steel, it looks like it rusts instantly, like iron would. You get an iron skillet in your sink and you scrub it with soap, you take all the grease out of it, walk away and come back, that thing's bright orange, like, like you know, it's just uniform rust all over it. And there are a lot of the steel pipes that look like that, as well as some vehicles, that just instant rust and regular steel, like on cars, does not rust like that.

Joe: Um-hmm.

Judy: So that's another indication that something upset the molecular structure of the surface.

Joe: Okay...

Judy: And...

Joe: Dr. Wood, we actually have a guest in the studio with us today. He's a, his name is Arkadius Jadczyk, he's a mathematical physicist. And, just on your comment about kind of, directed energy weapons, and almost like that they were 'informed' or in some way to, or you said they were changed, I mean the idea being...

Judy: You know...

Joe: 'dustify.'

Judy: Energy was directed. Energy was directed.

Joe: Energy was directed and changed in some way.

Judy: Call it 'instructed energy weapons', call it...

Joe: Instructed in some way to change, to do something to physical matter.

Judy: Right, it's...

Joe: Is that a very basic idea...

Judy: The energy field, the energy field, but there's a whole lot of evidence that needs to go behind that before you can start jumping in. You've kind of jumped ahead for some reason. But if you look at, for example, the vehicles, you know, the toasted cars, that were all over Manhattan. And they appeared to go into spontaneous combustion, when they're way far away, you know, too far for the burning material to be hitting them. And not, you know the sea of unburned paper in between.

Joe: Okay.

Judy: Also, it wasn't a thermal thing, so there's some type of energy effect. You see that, you know, after you accumulate mountains of evidence to look at that.

Joe: Yeah, I just, but the reason I introduced Arkadius, who's a physicist here with us, is because, just to get his input on that idea of, from the point of view of theoretical physics, if that idea of a directed energy weapon, instructed in some way...

Judy: Here's what I would like to say that it's vitally important...

Joe: Well, okay.

Judy: that we saw, we saw these steel beams falling, and turning into dust in mid-air, and they did not hit the ground. We have plenty of evidence from all different sources and different ways that establish that. That the steel as it was falling turned into dust in mid-air, much of it. I'm not saying every speck of it, but the majority of it did.

Joe: Yeah.

Judy: And, and do you agree with that?

Joe: We do. Well what I'm trying to do here...

Judy: Because the, if the...

Joe: If you give me a moment, what I'm trying to do here is ask Arkadius for his opinion on...

Judy: Ah, this is, this is...

Joe: ...the possibility of a...

Judy: ...particular of that.

Joe: On the basic idea of a directed energy weapon, that's all I wanted to do. And I think he might provide....

Judy: Uh, well, well....

Joe: ...some corroborating evidence.

Judy:'s something that I would like to, to, to finish saying, is that do you agree that the majority of the building turned to dust in mid-air?

Everyone: Absolutely, we agree, yes.

Judy: Okay! All right, you agree, you agree! Now...

Joe: Yes, absolutely, but you get...

Jason: You got to understand that...

Judy: No, hang on, hang on, there's a second part of that question, there's a second part of that question,

Jason: You're preaching to the choir!

Joe: Go ahead.

Judy: The second part of that question is; does there exist a technology that can do that?

Joe: That's the question that I wanted to ask him.

Judy: Oh, you're saying something impossible happened? That what happened was impossible?

Jason: No, no, NO! This is....

Judy: Because if that didn't happen...

Jason: ....stop, stop, stop!

Judy: Because if that didn't happen, but it did happen,

Joe: No, no....

Jason: Hold on, hold on.

Judy: I've got proof that it happened.

Jason: Dr. Wood, Dr. Wood. You're preaching to the choir. You don't have to...

Judy: Wait, but...

Jason: We believe you here, we...

Joe: We agree, and the reason we are bringing in...

Judy: But what I am responding to is the people who say 'you don't have any proof of this weapon'. The proof of the weapon is...

Joe: I'm trying...

Judy: ...the evidence!

Joe: What I'm trying to, at the moment I'm trying to give our resident physicist, theoretical physicist, an opportunity to provide perhaps some corroborating evidence for what you're saying...

Niall: For what you're saying.

Joe: that level of directed energy. Can you hold on for a second and let him speak?

Judy: Right. But I would like to finish that point, is that the fact that the building is turning into dust in mid-air...

Joe: Yes.

Judy: ...that is observable to anyone....

Joe: Yeah, we've seen that. Everybody...

Judy: ...that is proof...

Joe: Everybody can see...

Judy: ...that weapons that can do that exist.

Joe: Okay! And I want now, our physicist to maybe, to pitch in on the actual evidence in the world of theoretical physics for that kind of a weapon existing. So Ark.

Ark: Yes, yes, yes. Hello. Hi, Judy. You said in your book that what you provide is a hypothesis, is a suggestion right? That, uh...

Judy: What?

Ark: It's a suggestion.

Judy: What is a suggestion?

Ark: How this effect, or another effect, we don't really know right?

Judy: All right, no.

Ark: You call it...

Judy: This isn't a suggestion that the building turned into dust in mid-air.

Joe: No, no. That...

Judy: We've established that from the empirical evidence.

Joe: No, directed energy...

Judy: So that is...

Ark: You're interested in energy. How do you know it was energy and not [an] information weapon?

Judy: It is...

Ark: At the level of quantum information?

Judy: It was not...

Ark: Destroying each molecule...

Judy: It was not a kinetic energy weapon.

Ark: Hmm?

Judy: It was not a kinetic energy, and by the way, in...

Ark: How do you know?

Judy: ...the way I define directed energy is energy that is directed and used as a weapon. And that also could include...

Ark: How do you know it was energy?

Judy: Now, hang on, that also...

Ark: How do you know it was [inaudible]?

Judy: ...that also, includes anti-matter. I mean it's a very general category, directed energy. It's non-contact. It's doesn't destroy the building with heat. It doesn't, you know, the building wasn't pounded to death...

Ark: But where is...

Judy: ...nor was...

Ark: ...the energy?

Judy: ...was it cooked to death.

Ark: Where is the energy? How do you know its energy and not information? Some kind of quantum, on the quantum level?

Judy: Energy is manipulated within the material, to do something differently than it normally does.

Ark: How do you know its energy that's being manipulated and not just molecular bonding and for that it [inaudible]...

Judy: Well, what they're bonding is an energy.

Ark: Well, it's not...

Judy: That's what they're bonding isn't it?

Ark: Well no. no. no. Molecular bonding, you define as energy, but in fact it's...

Judy: That right, that's right, that's right! It's a type of energy, and you're instructing that energy to do something differently than it normally does.

Ark: Ah instruct, you see, so it's an information.

Judy: That's what I was saying before, you can say 'instructed energy weapon', you know, that's what I mean by directed energy; energy that is directed, or instructed.

Ark: All right.

Judy: It's directed, energy that is directed and used as a weapon.

Ark: Okay. So...

Judy: That is in my book...

Ark: Yeah.

Judy: ...if you look at the back. And I also describe this into hot directed energy weapons, and there are cold directed energy weapons, or C-DEW, and if you want to get particular about this, you know, this is some sort of a C-DEW.

Ark: Now...

Judy:'s a cold, directed energy weapon, it doesn't act...

Ark: All right, all right. You called it directed. Now, but it was not very precisely directed because some cars were destroyed, and some others nearby were not, right?

Judy: Part of the effect. That is part of the effect. It isn't, this isn't a point-and-shoot like a laser beam deal.

Ark: Right.

Judy: This is a field effect thing, and it has to do with the interference of different types of fields...

Ark: Okay.

Judy: ...from what I can tell. And as the parallel evidence shows, in the book I show parallel evidence to this.

Ark: Okay, right. But we are not on, we are not sure that it it's also electromagnetic effect, right? We don't know what it is.

Judy: Right. It, uh, it, I can see how you can produce parallel evidence. I've demonstrated that in a lot of different ways. You look at the e-action of tornadoes.

Ark: Right.

Judy: There are a lot of similarities here, levitation, you know I show in my presentations, the videos from a year ago, where those trucks over in Dallas-Ft. Worth were elevated, they were levitated. They were, you know, flying trucks some hundred feet up off the ground. Yet when they crash-landed, they didn't get totally, you know, smashed to smithereens. And people who have been picked up by tornadoes, they can still breathe. There's something else going on with the tornadoes. It's a different type of energy field. And as for people who claim that you need to calculate, you know how much energy it requires, well, what kind of energy? You have to make an assumption then. But you know that a tornado destroyed a large portion of Topeka, Kansas in the late sixties. Do you need to calculate how much energy is possible, to know that Tornado Row destroyed those buildings? No. Tornadoes, you know that they do it, because you saw it. It got done. You need to make no assumptions then. It's just direct observation. So you see that...

Ark: Okay.

Judy: ...that type of evidence, we can also see, you know, the work of John Hutchison, the work of George Piggott, the work of Thomas Townsend Brown, and of course the work of Nikola Tesla, but the people who are in books, who are no longer around, we're having to rely on stories in books, and that's why I refer to it as, but...

Ark: Yeah, this is...

Judy: ...John Hutchison lives in the here and now, and I can go to his lab and have him demonstrate in front of me...

Ark: Right, these are the things...

Judy: ...which I did.

Ark: ...that we know about, but there are probably many more effects that we don't know about, right?

Judy: Right. But, but I've seen how this parallel evidence is produced, and you know, when I came upon that, it was pretty amazing. I'd already, you know, tabulated all of the different pieces of evidence and I didn't feel compelled to, to say 'it was this, it was this, this is how 'it' happened. No, I just said these are all...

Ark: Okay.

Judy: ...things I was noticing.

Ark: Okay, Judy, Judy...

Judy: And then, when I came upon the Hutchison Effect, I realized, you know, when I came upon John Hutchison's blog, I realized, wait a minute, these are all of the same effects. How interesting! How did he do it? Let's...

Ark: All right.

Judy: ...go see what he does. You know that is, I'm not saying that is what did this. I'm saying this is parallel evidence, and actually George Piggott, who's no longer with us and he got a patent on the same type of thing in the, it was awarded in 1911, Radiant electrical energy, where he was levitating things using a static field and something else. But it's, you see it's just not things we are taught in our books. But that exist if you observe it. Especially tornadoes, people also can feel a storm coming because they feel a change in the environment.

Joe: In the air pressure.

Ark: Judy, Judy, Judy, I want to, I want to make another comment about what you wrote in your book, okay? As a scientist, as a physicist, you wrote that this is a kind of energy, or phenomenon that can be used as a weapon, or it can be used for the good, for good, right?

Judy: Exactly.

Ark: Now, but, I am not so sure that we...

Judy: That it can be used for good?

Ark: ...we can have full control over these things, and that it really can be used for good. I am not sure that whoever did it has the full control. And I don't know the price for that. Maybe the price is so high that it cannot be repeated. What would you say?

Judy: What, what I say is that, you know, we know this weapon exists because we saw that it was used. We saw the results so we know it exists. And if that exists, and we keep our mouths shut and don't say anything about it, it's going to used again, and in perhaps, you know, do worse things. So we're not making the world any safer by not talking about it.

Ark: Well, it would depend on the price right? It depends on the price.

Judy: Well, it exists. It's going to be, somebody has this weapon. And if one person has it...

Ark: That, but what is the...

Judy: ...then another person will have it. You know, this weapon already exists. The cat is out of the bag. What do we...

Ark: You know...

Judy: now?

Ark: ...but, but this is not a Kalashnikov, that you go to the store and buy for, you know, hundred dollars. It may, such a thing, to arrange such a thing, may cost more than the biggest nation can afford right?

Judy: Here's a, but it exists. It exists. That's the fact. Now...

Ark: Yeah, but it may be not...

Judy: ...there's something else I point out, there's something else I point out in the book. And it's something that I've been really like, intrigued about was, both Nikola Tesla and Ed Leedskalnin who built Coral Castle. Now, one grew up in Serbia, and the other one grew up in Latvia. Kind of similar areas of the world...

Ark: Judy, Judy. Big Bang...

Judy: ...but, hang on...

Ark: Big Bang happened, right?

Judy: May I finish this, this important piece of information? There's something in common with both of these people. Like Ed Leedskalnin, who built Coral Castle, lifting these fifteen-ton stones by himself with his little rinky-dink chain, because he, you know, he did something very interesting that he wouldn't show anybody, and why would he do it in secrecy? Now he worked at night, and if anyone looked, he'd stop working. And I believe the reason why he did that, is because people need to earn the right to this technology. Once they, if you grow up an entire generation understanding what this can do, only then can you use it. Now, it's like guns. You don't leave the gun cabinet unlocked unless everybody in the family knows what guns can do. And so if you grow up a generation understanding what it can do, then you, you're on the road to being able to perhaps develop a different type of civilization that can have respect for this technology and use it for good. I'm not saying you use it, that it happens overnight, but understanding what it can do, understanding what it did on 9/11 is vital. If everyone, also if everyone knows, that, you know, what happened, there's no secret any more. So if it's used again, people can point and say "Ah-ha, that person is confessing they have a gizmo. Let's go get them." You know, whatever, you know, the response would be. But it would be recognizable.

Pierre: Yeah, I understand. I understand both points of view. Clearly, Dr. Wood has one point. We saw the effect of this unknown technology, and actually it's kind of a historic moment from a scientific point of view, because for the first time in the history of humanity, we saw the display, the effect of this unknown technology. Now, will it be used again? When it would be used would it be used for good, for bad? I guess the future is open, and we will see.

Judy: But, but educating the public as to how to recognize it...

Pierre: That's true.

Judy: ...keeps it safer, than not doing so.

Pierre: Definitely, and certainly you kill two birds with one stone because at the same time you show that the current, uh, mainstream theory and the current alternative theories, are not the truth, that don't fit with the facts...

Judy: Yeah, that's not my...

Pierre: ...with the evidence.

Judy:, that's not so much my objective, you know, it's sort of like a, uh, as I often put it that, 'if you don't like the lie behind door number two, number one, they'll give you the lie behind door number two. If you don't like that they'll give you the lie behind door number three.' Anything to keep you from looking at the open field behind you with all the evidence that shows you exactly what happened.

Pierre: Agreed.

Judy: And it is also part of my motivation, is to educate people how to think through things, rather than, 'oh, it's this, it's this, this person said this, this person...aaahhhh, I guess we'll never figure out what happened. I have no idea how to figure something out.' Like what I say about Sandy Hook, "You know what you know, that you know." Well, you know nothing about it? You can't solve it. Move on! Don't start theorizing, and hypothesizing, speculating and arguing about, you know, opinions of whatever, because it's useless. It's important to be able to first determine what happened, before you can go anywhere else. Because if you go anywhere else, you're assuming what the problem is, and you are solving an imaginary problem.

Joe: Okay. Can we get into some more of the actual details...

Judy: Sure.

Joe: ...that are in the book of the evidence for, you know, that what happened is so far from the official story as to be just ridiculous. The high strangeness, can I call it high strangeness?

Jason: Yeah!

Joe: The high strangeness aspect of it.

Niall: Well, something that struck me was that Dr. Wood has collected a number of eyewitness statements where people describe being lifted up at the moment, or just before the collapse. And apparently flung a whole block or so, and yet....

Judy: Right.

Niall: ...more or less, walking up and getting away without a scratch.

Jason: There were a few stories like that.

Niall: What's going on?

Judy: That's the picture, that no one was injured, but there was EMTs who, who floated down a flight of stairs, and you know with her world view of things, how could she have levitated and floated down the stairs? So she decided God must have, she must have died and God carried her down the stairs. And she's trying, you know, to get an answer to her question about why she floated down the stairs. But you do see many things like that. And the biggest tell of that type of thing was why are the cars parked upside down?

Niall: Yeah.

Judy: The leaves were still on the trees. There wasn't a horrendous wind. And there was one fella, who when WTC 2 was coming apart, he dove under the emergency vehicle, and then everything went black and he thought he was buried in a tunnel or something, and then eventually the sunlight came in. The sunlight came in! There was no vehicle on top of him! He had no idea where the vehicle went. He didn't know if it blew off of him, or flew up or, he had no idea where it went. It was just gone!

Joe: God does it!

Pierre: Maybe, uh...

Judy: Right, right.

Pierre: ...something strange also, we won't call it smog because it suggests strongly a notion of heat and fire, but let's call it fumes. Can you talk a bit more about those fumes that go, that don't follow the direction of the wind, that last for literally weeks, that only go out from one side of the building?

Joe: [inaudible]

Judy: Oh, the winds that came out of one side, and one side only.

Pierre: Yes.

Judy: I use the term 'lather', because it's opaque...

Pierre: Yeah, lather, yeah.

Judy: know you can see through it. It's my term, my sort of like, placeholder. If you don't know what the phenomenon is, don't give it a name of a known phenomenon because you're misleading. So I give it, you know it's going to mix this up with shower lather, but you get this opaque stuff coming out, and I put that as separate from, initially separate from, Alka-Seltzer, you know, when the steel beams are falling, this opaque dust is flowing off of them, with stuff obviously coming apart. I think it's the same thing, the same phenomenon, that the buildings are standing still, and they're lathering up, they're 'Alka-Seltzering.'

Niall: Yeah, it's almost like they're....

Judy: Because there's a lot of material pouring off of them.

Niall: It's almost like they were being dissolved in a solution. I mean there's this...

Judy: Right, it, it...

Niall: Go ahead.

Judy: As I've said about like Alka-Seltzer tablets, they're rigid objects as long as they're dry, but you change their environment, you put them in water, they effervesce and dissolve. Well steel, in its normal environment, is rigid and solid. You change its environment, it effervesces and dissolves. So we need to figure out what about its environment did that to it, so some environmental change that caused that to happen. And when I introduced some of these images in my presentations, I give people this mental exercise to help them see that, that's not just a little bit of dust blowing off the steel beam. So okay, say you're going to impersonate the steel beam, this one in the picture. So what do you do, you jump off, you cover yourself with dust, jump off the top of the building. Okay, people from the ground looking up, do they see that kind of dust trailing off you? No. The dust is blown off, and gone immediately. Okay, so you take a couple arm-loads of bags of flour and as you jump off you're heaving that flour out as fast as you can. You're going to run out of flour pretty fast and still not be able to produce an opaque dust trail.

Pierre: Yes.

Judy: So pretty soon you come to realize that steel beam must be frothing up into dust, and turning to dust. And then, right, you look at the ground where it was headed towards, and you see no solid steel beams on the ground.

Jason: Okay, I have a question actually, that interests me, because I'm not a scientist, is the problem. That I can't really evaluate the evidence you know, very directly, because of course I don't have the scientific training. But I do have a curiosity. Now in your presentation you talked about, I think it was Hurricane Erin was off the coast of New York. And you also talked about the tornadoes in various areas, and you showed some videos in your presentation of like, tractor trailer trucks flying through the air as if they were paper, and then landing and rolling, and stuff like that, so it was very interesting. And I just wanted to ask; is it possible that the hurricane was actually, because in your presentation you indicate perhaps that the hurricane may have been deflected or had some sort of interaction with it. But would it be possible that the hurricane was an integral component of the situation? I mean if we're talking about like, when a tornado or a hurricane goes through, weird stuff happens. I'm from Florida, I've seen boards....

Judy: Exactly.

Jason: ...go through trees.

Judy: Right.

Jason: Weird stuff happens in a hurricane, right? So is it possible that the hurricane was in some way, actually a part of the process? That it wasn't that somebody has a gun and they stood up on a building and pointed it, but that the presence of the hurricane was essential to the situation.

Judy: Exactly. I look at the, you know, 'what I know' parallel evidence. I also know the limit of 'what I know, that I know, that I know'. And anything beyond that is speculation and I don't like to go there. It's okay to step aside into a parallel box and test an idea, but not to mix that in with the exact scenario. But what I do know is that this hurricane was aimed straight for New York City for four days, and then you knew it was going to turn around at some point because of the high-pressure system coming. And they, you know, did these text messages that on day one they thought it was going to turn around, it didn't. They thought on day two it was going to turn around, it didn't. They thought on day three it was going to turn around, it didn't. They thought it was going to turn around on day four, and it's a good thing it did because it was right, you know, right outside. It didn't have any more leeway there. It was actually raining in Cape Cod then, from the outer bands. But what was so strange about it is that the very under-reporting of it.

Pierre: Yeah.

Judy: It was just people didn't realize it was there. And also this high-pressure system met up and did battle with the, the two weather systems, right at, you know, the maximum pressure, this high-pressure system as it moves in, you can see the pressure at JFK Airport going up, and then it immediately starts going down, so you can tell the two systems were mixing at that point, and doing battle with each other. And that was coincidently, 10 a.m. on 9/11....

Pierre: Yeah.

Judy: know, at the peak of that pressure chart. So this is a fact, keeping separate, but it was so puzzling that how could they be absolutely sure that this hurricane was going to turn around when it did, at the last minute to the point that they didn't even warn people, like when Hurricane Rita was going towards Houston, they gave a certain time of voluntary evacuation, then it became mandatory. Like Hurricane Bill, that was headed towards New York City a few years ago, they were suggesting voluntary evacuation, and Hurricane Irene, I think that became mandatory, but you know, if they don't know, they give people warnings, because you can't evacuate millions of people from Manhattan in one hour, or two hours. So that was, you know, drew my attention. So, I won't make the last step and say I know it was controlled, but what I will say is, it seems that they were absolutely 100% sure they knew it was not going to be making landfall, or doing anything. But they did, I believe close....

Jason: Well, I wasn't suggesting that it was controlled. I was wondering if maybe something was harnessed about it

Judy: Oh yeah. But we do know that, so I looked at what hurricanes can do, by the way, I think they closed Atlantic City Beach because of the undertow from the storm. They took their various battleships out to sea so they wouldn't get beat up against the docks. But anyway, ahead of a storm system, there's a type of energy field that, and often people with arthritis say they can feel a storm coming, because they feel that change. It's not just the pressure change it's some electricity in the air. And when I go, it's interesting, when I fly out to Seattle and the plane's landing, I start feeling really good. Man, it just feels so good, it's like "Home again!" You feel elated. That feeling has something to do with the weather systems there, that there's a lot of ionic exchange, but, you know, I'm not talking about the cloud cover issue, but the electrical feeling, why people feel good next to waterfalls.

Jason: Yep.

Judy: So think of the structure of a tesla coil. You have this wrapped around the stem, and then you have this toroid wrapped around the top. If you look at how a tornado, I mean a, well a tornado, but how a hurricane is, you know, the anatomy of that, it's very similar. And you can easily see that, if water is going around, if very moist air is going around in there, you could have conductivity. So it's like a super-sized tesla coil that's going to create a static field. And then I looked at the reports of the various airports, major airports surrounding Manhattan, Newark Airport, JFK Airport, and LaGuardia Airport, all reported thunder on 9/11.

Pierre: Electric discharge.

Judy: And that comes ahead of a storm. When Hurricane Wilma was hitting the Yucatan Peninsula, I remember I was talking to my students one morning, there were a lot of hurricanes that year, and I put pictures of them on my desktop, on my computer, for the power point presentations. I had it there for chit-chat before class starts. And I said, "I think this things going to make a right-angle turn and go back and hit Ft. Meyers, FL." And they said, "How do you know, because they say it's going to go up towards New Orleans." And I said, "Ah. I read this morning that the birds left town!" (laughing)

Jason: So here's another thing...

Judy: If birds leave town, they know the storm's coming that way.

Jason: So the other thing I wanted to ask about was, in your presentation you talked about that there were measurable fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field, or something like that? That there was some sort of magnetic field problem, there were spikes, or dips, or something like that, at the time of the fall that lasted for the time of the fall that were grotesquely curious. They were out of proportion to anything you were seeing normally. Everything is going along, and then, boom.

Judy: They weren't necessarily out of proportion but they were all doing it at the same time. For like three or four days beforehand, you know, you can see that they're averaging within certain bounds. And about twenty minutes before the north tower got it's hole, the first event of the day, you see them all trending down, all six of them trending down, and precisely when the north tower get' it's hole, they starting trending back up. Precisely when the south tower gets its hole...

Jason: How often is that seen? Is that something that you've seen?

Judy: You see various anomalous signals quite frequently.

Jason: Yeah, okay. So there's....

Judy: The fact that we have five events that day and all in five of them, there was abrupt changes.

Jason: Um-hmm.

Judy: You know, at the precise happening. Actually, the NIST report, the uh, Palisades seismographic station and the 9/11 Commission report all give different times, you know, exact times for when the north tower got its hole, and I used to joke and say I could tell you which one's right based on the magnetic field because that actually, it falls right in that cluster of those three times that are given. They're all like within thirty seconds of each other.

Jason: So Dr. Wood, I appreciate that my questions are not, you know, completely, one hundred percent scientific, so I hope that you will forgive me for that because I'm not a scientist.

Judy: Well if you will forgive me for a, getting you on track.(laughing)

Jason: Aaaabsolutely. I'm a big fan, I'm a big fan and I loved the presentation. I thought it was great. I thought it was kind of a little bit strange that keep you having problems with clickers. And I thought there was maybe a conspiracy behind that, but, you know in the video halfway through your presentation the clicker failed, and then that happened on the second presentation as well. Which I thought was kind of interesting. Is that something that happens to you a lot?

Judy: I don't know which one you're, you're speaking of.

Jason: The video on your site, of your presentation.

Joe: Yeah, the latest one at the top of your site.

Judy: Oh, that one from the energy conference. Yeah, that one, and also some of the videos didn't actually run, and they inserted some. They, they uh, thing's...

Jason: Yeah, I saw that.

Judy: ...were not quite the same. They did an excellent job overall of the editing.

Jason: It was great actually. It was a very compelling video. So I have one last question, and this one is a little bit, it is kind of a, some thought that occurs to me. Um, why haven't they used this particular method again? Now, I'm not saying they should be, like, using it every day, but let's just say that...

Judy: Okay, how do you know they haven't?

Jason: But let's say...

Judy: You've assume they haven't, how do you know that?

Jason: Right, right, right, well, I don't, okay? So, I'm not assuming. Hold on, we're not assuming anything, we're just saying, "Okay, have we seen evidence of it being used again?" Okay, that's a valid question...

Judy: Yes, yes.

Jason: if you know of evidence of them doing again, then...

Judy: I haven't studied other events as strictly, but there are events that I'm very suspicious of that point in that direction very strongly, for example...

Jason: Could you name one?

Judy: ...Oklahoma City. Yeah Oklahoma City. You've got these cylindrical cut-outs in the building look, you know, virtually identical to the ones in Building 6. And I show this on the front page of my website, and I say "History repeats?" I think with a question mark. And it, you know, "Can you tell the difference?" and I give you a hint, 'only one of them has Wheat Chex at the bottom.' And also one of them is nine stories tall, and one of them is eight stories tall. But you get the same pattern where the, these cylindrical cut-outs, now the bomb down there on the road making no divot in the road and making cylindrical cut-outs in the building?

Jason: I mean, I mean it's, I think any reasonable person who has looked at the Oklahoma City bombing is pretty convinced that it was not a truck sitting out front on the street, considering...

Judy: Right, but you see these...

Jason: ...the fact that the...

Judy: If you see the...

Jason: But in that sense, you know...

Judy: If you see the image from the roof of the Murrah Building, you see these distinct, you know, scallops.

Jason: Yeah.

Judy: And also I have on my website in part of my response to, when I was gathering my data together for my response to NIST. When they're saying, you know, they're saying well you need to show evidence that, you know, ARA is manufacturing and developing energy weapons. And I showed a short course that they had advertised on their website that looked like a model, an exact thing with the scallops.

Jason: So even considering Oklahoma City, I'm afraid that my question still kind of stands. I mean, because it seems to be a rather, a rather perfect...

Judy: What do, what do you mean?

Jason: My question is why don't they use it more often right? I mean...

Judy: Well, it...

Jason: should be kind of like the go-to, the go-to weapon.

Judy: Well for what? What's the purpose? What's the objective? You got to figure out what their objective is to know whether or not...

Jason: But again, you know, there we're having again the problem of you're coming into, like, the conspiracies that you're always saying, 'Hold on, let's not go there, let's figure out what happens...'

Judy: But you're...

Jason: ...what happens...

Judy: But you're asking the question....

Jason: ...what happens, and then how?

Judy: But you're asking why they haven't used it.

Jason: And I am asking a question....

Judy: You're asking why they haven't used it.

Jason: ...why?

Judy: You're asking why they haven't used it.

Jason: But, yeah, okay...

Judy: That requires knowing what the job is that they're assigned to do.

Jason: No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't because, okay, if a policeman has a gun, he fires it a lot of times. People fire guns all the time, because a gun is a very optimized weapon for killing people. If that's what you want to do...

Judy: But the gun shooting is also used.

Jason: ...right. Forgetting about the....

Judy: Hang on...

Jason: If we're thinking about it...

Judy: ...a gun is also used to start, to start a bike race.

Jason: Yes, exactly! So they're used a lot. When you have it, it's like this utilitarian thing, right? So you see...

Judy: Right. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you have to use it for the same thing. So you need to know what...

Jason: No, no, no. You don't, you don't, you don't...

Judy: ...what exactly...

Jason: But okay, so if you have evidence that this is being used all the time, okay, I'm totally interested in that evidence.

Judy: But wait...

Jason: But I'm just saying that I haven't seen...

Judy: We still have this problem.

Jason: ...evidence of this being used a lot.

Judy: You are assuming a, what problem are you trying to solve? You are assuming...

Jason: I'm just asking the question. I'm asking the question of "Why don't we see buildings coming down like the Twin Towers in terrorist attacks more often?" I mean, see, you'd think...

Judy: Yes. Why would you, why would you...

Jason: ...that if this weapon is...

Judy: ...why is that required? Why is that the objective? You got to...

Jason: Because it would be interesting.

Judy: ...first determine what the objective is before you can determine if that is appropriate.

Jason: Well, okay.

Judy: If it's, is this the right weapon for the job? Well, you got to know what the job is that needs to get done. You know...

Jason: This is the...yeah...

Judy: ...for example...

Jason: I think this is a...

Judy: ...for example, in Middle East, let's, let's just, we're off in the parallel world here, we can speculate in this parallel world.

Joe: Yeah.

Judy: Looking at an example because that's what you're doing, you're speculating, let's speculate the objective is just to wreak havoc all over the Middle East, and set everybody fighting with everybody, keep everything all in turmoil and stirred up. You wouldn't want a nice, clean weapon that cleanly, boom, takes out something. No. That's, that's, that's counter, you know, counterproductive...

Joe: Yeah.

Judy: ...if you just want to wreak havoc. So like in Manhattan, it was a very surgical destruction. If you wanted to wreak havoc in New York City, you would tip the building over and take out all of Manhattan.

Joe: Um-hmm.

Judy: Which didn't happen. So your objective matters in whether or not, in what you would want to use. Also the more that it's used the more it might get found out.

Joe: Yeah, true.

Judy: The cat would be out of the bag more loudly.

Joe: Yep, good point.

Pierre: That's true. Dr. Wood, if you want to, we're going to go back to observation because your book is really packed with observation, with evidence. And, often the people who agree with the controlled demolition theory mention those explosions, those successive explosions and you have some interesting, an interesting analysis, some interesting observations about this point. So, how could it be explained? And those explosions...

Judy: I don't look to explain it away. I look at what I have evidence of. There's evidence of people talking about hearing explosions. They don't see a bomb.

Pierre: True.

Judy: There's no evidence of anyone who saw a bomb explode. They hear things go boom. Well we know that bombs go boom, but we also know everything that goes boom is not a bomb. Your microwave oven; you put an egg in there, it goes boom. It doesn't mean somebody put a bomb in it. So, whatever's happening, it appears that hearing booms is part of it. Well, if you're going to be 'dustifying' an entire building, you can have at least above a certain level you're going to have pressure vessels in there. When the walls of those pressure vessels weakened, at some point, they can no longer hold the pressure, and it's going to go boom, like a balloon. You know if you start, you put some, let's see, what kind of material is good for deteriorating the rubber on a balloon? You put that, and set the balloon on it, and at some point, it's going to rupture that balloon. It's going to go pop. It's going to go bang. Doesn't mean a bomb went bang.

Pierre: Like the oxygen tanks? The oxygen tanks that were for firemen?

Judy: Right the uh, there's the observations that were identified as 'what went boom' are at ground level. Yeah, there were extra air tanks, like the firefighters wear, air tanks so they can breathe clean air when they're fighting fires. And they're called Scott tanks. And there are quite a few observations of Scott tanks exploding or letting go and going boom. They were sitting on fire trucks at ground level or in ambulances. So that's one thing we can identify that went boom. So that shows that pressure vessels were going boom.

Pierre: Yeah, and that would explain the reports from witnesses saying they heard explosions and it doesn't mean that necessarily explosives were planted in the building. Another, quote-unquote, evidence brought by defenders of the controlled demolition theory that there were traces of nano-thermite in the rubble. But actually the correct tracing is, traces of thermitic material. Can you tell us more about it?

Judy: Oh, I don't, I don't agree...

Pierre: About your observation of it?

Judy: ...that there was thermitic material there because what thermitic material is, is what, powdered aluminum and iron oxide. And it...

Pierre: And the buildings were made of steel and some iron...

Judy: With aluminum cladding.

Pierre: ...and aluminum.

Judy: Right. So if you 'dustify' the buildings, which we saw this happening, you 'dustify' aluminum, you 'dustify', and also de..., you have micro dissociation of the steel, which you have the carbon out of it, you just have the iron, you get little specks of iron. They're going to instantly rust in atmospheric conditions, so you're going to have iron oxide. So what you would expect to find in the dust is aluminum powder and iron oxide. That is what they're calling thermitic material.

Joe: Yeah. Dr. Wood...

Judy: And this is diverting people away from the fact that the buildings turned to dust.

Pierre: Okay.

Joe: Yeah. They absolutely did. Dr. Wood, we have a call here.

Judy: If thermite...

Joe: We have a call...

Judy: ...if thermite had been used, the towers would have looked like a glowing sparkler. I could play my recording again about Blinded by the Light (laughing)...and that didn't happen.

Joe: Yeah, exactly, absolutely. We have a call here we're going to take, to see if we have an interesting question for you.

Judy: Okay.

Joe: Hi caller. What's your name and where are you calling from?

Caller: Hi, this is Corey. I'm calling from Iowa.

Joe: Hi Corey.

Niall: Welcome Corey!

Corey: I actually had a really quick question for Ark. A while back he had said something about the cost associated with using this weapon, and I was wondering if he was referring to just, the financial cost of putting something like this together, or if he was talking about something else?

Joe: Okay. We'll let Ark take that one.

Corey: Thank you.

Joe: Was that it?

Ark: Well, my answer will be short. There are financial costs and political costs.

Corey: Okay.

Ark: It would be both.

Judy: And there's also the human cost. I mean it could woops, destroyed the planet.

Joe: Yep.

Corey: All right. Okay. I was actually wondering if it was more along the lines of opening a time-space continuum-type thing...

Joe: Well, you never know!

Corey: ...that's what I had in mind.

Joe: Yeah.

Corey: Thank you!

Joe: All right, thanks Corey.

Niall: You never know because, I mean, are they tinkering with forces they don't really understand? You know...

Joe: Well they seem to understand them pretty well on 9/11.

Niall: But we're talking about some kind of...

Judy: Yes, but not entirely, not entirely. There was something that really gave me the creeps that night I came upon John Hutchison's' work, when I started reading about it. Because I thought, whoa, these are all the same phenomenon. And there's a phenomenon that was not seen by most people, is that, this comment about the Hutchison effect is this, the more mass involved, the less likelihood that it is to be self-quenching. That really got to me, because that is what I noticed from the evidence. The fact that is was ongoing, it didn't stop. It, you know, gradually wound down but it was an ongoing thing that went for years. You know went for days, weeks, months. There are pictures into; it was end of October where you have these, looks like fuzz coming out of the ground, through wet dirt. And it, you know, the stories of fires for ninety-nine days that was a good cover for why you had this fuming coming up.

Joe: Um-hmm.

Judy: The fuming diminished but it still kept coming up. And you think about why they had to build fountains, water fountains on the foundation. It brings up some other questions about why they, you know just, and other sites where they've built water fountains.

Pierre: Yeah, what we can speculate here that this 'dustification' process, the one who manage it, who use it, are not necessarily able to study the specific time, and more importantly, they are not necessarily able to stop it totally at another specific time.

Judy: Right.

Pierre: It's an ongoing process that you kind of break....

Judy: And there's another piece of data that came to mind was when they tested the first atomic bomb, the folks who decided to go forward with the test knew that the scientists did not know if it would be self-quenching.

Joe: Hmm.

Judy: In other words, would they destroy the planet.

Pierre: Could go on.

Joe: Yeah. I mean, wow, they're playing, well, they're not playing with fire, but they're playing with...

Judy: And they still went forward with that. So humans who are power-hungry perhaps, you know, would indeed go forward with something not knowing if it was something self-quenching or not, or the length of it.

Joe: Um-hmm. Dr. Wood, you just said "they." Can we...

Judy: Whoever "they" are. 'The crew.' I refer to them as 'the crew.'

Joe: Do you, at any point, publicly speculate on the "they?"

Judy: No, and I don't think we can get there from here. We, I know who knows and they were defendants in my court case, which is probably why the Court of Appeals you know, denied the case going forward, even stating in the written decision, very respectfully, that they were ignoring the law to dismiss the case.

Joe: Yeah, they had to.

Judy: Right. Because if I have as my defendant people who, you know, almost surely know who did it. Their area of expertise is energy weapons. So they not only know, and also they had a contract with, and still do, with the U.S. government to know everything about any weapon of mass destruction that is being developed, or has been developed anywhere. So, not only do they know, recognize what kind of weapon it is, they probably know whose weapon it was. You know, what fingerprints?

Joe: Um-hmm

Judy: And so if you put that person under oath, you can't do that in, you know, open court. So you can't hold it behind closed doors without letting the cat out of the bag as to why you're holding it behind closed doors. It's, so that's about as close we could have gotten. I don't know, you know, who did it, but I know who likely knows who did it. That's as close as I can get, but I can also see various scenarios where people say 'Oh, it's the U.S. government.'

Joe: Um-hmm.

Judy: I tend not to think so, because it's too large of a mess. It doesn't mean that somebody doesn't have a gun to their head, to tell them to, you know, behave this way or that way.

Joe: Well, saying "the government" is a very broad description, I mean....

Judy: Right.

Joe:'s not very specific, you know?

Judy: And uh, something I started saying, you know, nearly from the beginning, the scenario, and it seems almost to be coming true. For example, if people need an example, "Well, of course the U.S. government did it. Give an example of otherwise." And I say, "Well, okay, (again this is hypothetical), let's say you're one of a handful of people that wants to take over the U.S. government, take over the whole country, "

Joe: Um-hmm.

Judy: "You don't go in the front door, because the U.S. military would come get you, and you'd be done with."

Joe: Um-hmm.

Judy: So what you do is you have this weapon, or access to the weapon at gunpoint or whatever, and you 'dustify' the towers and the Pentagon or whatever. And then you start a truth movement going to get the country to destroy itself from within. You get the people to hate their government so badly they want any government but the one they have. Then you walk in the front door and they welcome you with open arms. Piece of cake!"

Joe: Oh yeah, problem, reaction.

Judy: It looks like it might actually be, you know, kind of playing itself out here. But people are just, they're so eager to blame the government, they don't look at why they've been led like that and the cost of that.

Jason: Right. And then the problem that people think is that there's no real "the government." I mean, was the Department of Transportation in on it, you know, type of thing? "The government" is a huge thing, I mean, it's highly unlikely that a whole bunch of people were in on it, you know. So even those people who come along and say, "Oh, we need to get rid of the government." It's like, actually that's a really bad idea, be honest, because no...

Judy: That's, that's what...

Jason: government has ever been...

Judy: ...whoever did this is wanting to do. Think of how destructive it's been.

Jason: ...yeah, no government has ever been overthrown to the benefit of the people.

Joe: Yeah.

Jason: It's never happened.

Joe: When you say, "think of how destructive it's been", what do you mean?

Judy: Well, since 9/11, look at how destructive our country has been. It's really come apart from within.

Joe: Well, it kind of consolidated the power of the government and the authorities, hasn't it?

Judy: Right, right.

Joe: We've given carte blanche to pass laws, restrictive laws, draconian laws.

Judy: And that's another reason why I have a problem with people who say ' oh the government did it. Of course the government did it.' You know, 'get mad at the government, blame the government', and meanwhile they're doing nothing but just getting riled up, to get people riled up to, you know, destroy their government.

Joe: Um-hmm.

Judy: Rather than solving what the problem is. They never determine what happened. You got to define the problem before you can solve it.

Joe: Absolutely. We agree and, Dr. Wood, we're going to go to a break, and then go to the last part of our show here, and we're going to let you go. And we're going to say thank you very much for being on our show. And thank you very much for writing this book which is extremely, your book Where Did the Towers Go?, which is extremely informative, and as far as we're concerned, is probably the best book in terms of, as you say, what happened, explaining what happened on 9/11. Yeah. So thank you, and keep up the good work.

Pierre: Thank you very much.

Judy: I would like to add why I've been, you know, kind of harsh about this and, you know, very hard-nosed, is that how the book gets covered up is misinterpretations. People jump into "Oh, she speculates this is, this is, you know, how it was done, and this is how it was done, and they totally miss the point of this rigorous avenue of beginning with determining what happened. And that is the key to everything!

Joe: Um-hmm.

Judy: Think about what is going on. If you're misled into concluding how something was done before you know what was done, you're messing up (laughing). So it, it's so important.

Joe: Absolutely.

Judy: But once you know what happened, then you know everything else.

Joe: Absolutely. Then you can move from there, go somewhere.

Judy: Yep. Great, thanks for having me on.

Joe: All right, thank you.

Niall: Thank you very much, Dr. Wood. Take care.

Pierre: Thank you.

Judy: Sure.

Joe: All right. Well, we hope you enjoyed that segment of the show. We're going to, with our remaining time, which is kind of open to, open to...

Niall: The time-space continuum?

Joe: Time-space continuum, because we have a little bit of time to play with here, and we're going to go to a short break. And then we'll be back with a little bit more discussion on other aspects of 9/11. So we hope you can join us, and we're going to give you a little song here that you haven't heard before, and we hope you'll enjoy it.

Song break.

Niall: Yeah, we're going to be...

Joe: Hang on a sec.

Niall: Okay, so we're back. We're back on. So, in the next part of the show, we want to look at some other aspects of 9/11. Particularly what took place at...

Caller: Hello....hello?

Joe: Hi, Lisa.

Lisa: Hi.

Joe: Hi Lisa, how you doing?

Lisa: Good. How are you?

Joe: Not too bad. Sorry for the chaotic reintroduction there. We're just getting to grips with how to work this whole show business, and having two parts, and having different guests on, and stuff. But uh,

Lisa: That's all right.

Joe: Huh?

Lisa: I said that's all right.

Joe: Okay. We, I know we kind of ran over there with Judy Wood, Lisa. But it's to be expected, but we have time to play with. We have a three hour show, if we want to do a three hour show, so we'll just run on for a little bit, if that's okay with you?

Lisa: Okay. I, uh, can you hear me okay?

Joe: Absolutely.

Niall: You're coming through fine, yeah. No problem.

Lisa: Okay, I just wanted to make sure.

Joe: Okay, so we're going to give you a little introduction, just for our listeners.

Lisa: Okay.

Joe: We're just going to...

Lisa: Let me ask you a question real quick.

Joe: Yeah.

Lisa: Do you want me to leave the name Wing TV out of the whole thing, or what, of the show?

Joe: Yeah, no, whatever, but actually we're on air right now.

Lisa: Oh (laughing).

Jason: Okay...

Pierre: So the name is in. The cat's out of the bag, yeah.

Joe: Sorry, because... But yeah, we're just going to give you a quick introduction here because...

Lisa: You know why I asked that? Because people have had a problem with me saying it, so, on other shows.

Joe: Well, you know, we're not going have, we're not going to have a problem with you saying anything on this show.

Jason: Because this is the second time it's come up. If somebody calls in, you know, are we so Nazi that we're going to be, like 'no you can't mention your website on our show?' No, no, of course you can!

Lisa: I just thought I would give you the respect of asking.

Joe: Well, we appreciate it, we do.

Jason: We really appreciate that.

Joe: Anyway, Niall, get to the introduction of Lisa so people know who we're talking about. I'm sure most people know, but, go ahead.

Niall: Well, Lisa Guliani has been talking about 9/11, trying to get people to wake the hell up, for as long as I can remember. She used to have her own radio show called Wing TV, and she has written numerous articles. She's been really pushing the envelope on a lot of aspects of 9/11, and what went down, that frankly, few if any other people are talking about. So we really value her input, and that's why we want to talk to you.

Joe: She's been writing some great articles for

Jason: Of course, yes!

Joe: Some of which...

Jason: Totally awesome.

Joe: ...some of which are kind of polemic, you know, in the sense that we get some idiots on there who scream and shout and we generally, you know, we generally defend Lisa to the last. But yeah, you're basically a former internet-based political talk show host, political writer, researcher, activist, conscientious objector, and a known protester. And you're also a self-described thought provocateur.

Jason: (whispered with French accent) Une provocateur.

Joe: Have you been provoking many thoughts in people, any uh, you mentioned to me the other day that you tend to make some people's blood pressure...

Lisa: Spike? Yes (laughing).

Joe: Spike a little bit?

Lisa: First of all, hello to everyone, and I thank you for having me on. I'm not a scientist.

Joe: No. Neither are we.

Lisa: But a, I've tried to hone my common sense over the years, and I think that's just as valuable as scientific training.

Joe: Um-hm.

Niall: Yep, for sure.

Joe: We said this part of the show is just going to basically be about the broader aspect of 9/11, but also there's something that I want to talk about in terms of Dr. Judy Wood's kind of angle on the situation in the sense that saying that it was an inside job. For example, we were pulled up on the 'inside job.'

Niall: Oh, yeah.

Joe: Even the fact that we used in the title of the show, "inside job" was a no-no. And she has, I mean and they're probably going to complain about this, but we have a little chat on the radio show, a live chat-type of thing, and she had various followers there who were quite vociferous in their typing.

Lisa: Um-hmm.

Joe: About, about....

Jason: You got to understand, because she has been unfairly attacked as well. And...

Joe: I understand, but, but they were saying....

Jason: She needs to roll with her crew, I mean....

Joe: Absolutely, but she was saying that they, that you're not allowed, and they were saying, you know, this whole idea of saying that it was an inside job, that the government did it, is part of a cover-up essentially. It's part of a cover-up, and I'm not sure. It depends, the point about it, for me the point about it is you have to know your audience, or you have to understand who it is you're trying to convince, and what it is that you're trying to convince them of. For a long time, based on my experience with people, I'm trying to get people to understand certain things, the public at large, everything. I've had to tone down my expectations...

Jason & Lisa: Yeah.

Joe: ...of what I could actually convey to people, you know. And if I wanted to talk to them at all, unless I was just going to preach to the choir, if I wanted to talk to the people sitting on the fence, or the people who might have a semi, half-open, 20%-open-mind-type of thing, or who might even listen a little bit, that I needed to really, not so much soft-selling the truth to them, it's about just understanding where they're at, and how far they're able to go. So for me, the idea of just, if I can only convince, if the only thing I can do is convince those people that their government is out to get them.

Niall: Yeah.

Jason: Right.

Joe: Then, fair enough, I'll do that. I'll take that over nothing. I'll take that over the government getting its little hands on their minds.

Jason: Well, I mean, Dr. Judy Wood is a scientist in the great, you know, tradition of Galileo and Velikovsky, of people who spoke the truth to people who were not only not interested in the truth but were willing to you know, to really harm someone, or trash them, thrash them. I mean, it's a long tradition of scientists who, who tell the truth and get trashed, and I think in a certain sense, you know, she's a little bit naïve with that because I can put myself in a normal person's shoes and what she say's is still, is still pretty conspiratorial in a certain sense. I mean even though she keep saying, "I'm not saying this" but by implication she says it. I mean you can't help avoid the implication. A normal person infers that you're saying that it was a directed energy weapon, somebody had to fire it.

Joe: Um-hmm.

Jason: And she says things like 'they' and then says "Wait, I'm not going to comment on that"...

Lisa: Um-mm

Jason: ...but the act of saying 'not going to comment' makes people think "Oh, she thinks it's even worse than I thought!" you know, and that's the truth.

Joe: What do you think, Lisa?

Lisa: First of all, I tried very hard to follow the flow of conversation during the first hour. And it was rather difficult, and so right off the bat I would like to offer the opportunity to Arkadius Jadczyk, if he wants to complete the thoughts he was trying make, the points he was trying to make, the opportunity to do so because he is another great mind and he is scientifically trained and I do have respect and value his opinion. So I would like to offer however much time, if he has anything else he wants to say?

Joe: Well, he's actually, he actually had enough. He left the room, so uh...

Lisa: Okay, well...

Joe: But I think...

Lisa: So get back to your thing.

Jason: Well I mean...

Joe: Yeah, go ahead.

Lisa: I found that her, I wrote that down, I was trying to take notes and the first, one of the first things she mentioned was that to call it an inside job, 9/11 an inside job, would be counterproductive. I have to tell you with the many years, I started looking into 9/11 two months after it happened, for almost two months before that I believed the official version. To call it counterproductive, I've heard this out of the mouth of every disinformation artist and internet troll since I started looking into it.

I find this suspicious, because I don't see how you could look at an event and not have any curiosity about who did it. Okay? And I've watched these similar, similar, these discussions have evolved, these scientific discussions, I appreciate them, I value them. I may not understand them at the level of a scientist, okay? But, I've watched them. They have one common thing about them, over the years. They are circular. They go around and around. They don't really lead anywhere, and ultimately I always find that I'm asking, "What does this accomplish in the bigger picture?" We're made aware of these various weapons. We're made aware of the energy involved and all the scientific equations necessary to compute all this stuff and we have all kinds of competing theories as well as competing egos involved. And you know, she talks about admissibility in court, she had a court case. I'd like to know, because many people have tried to bring the issue of 9/11 to court. We put out a book that presented virtually, we took a book and made a direct examination of all the evidence that we had compiled from numerous sources. And we were told by an attorney in New York, who did a radio show, Lionel that uh, this was would make a direct, this was the best direct examination of witnesses. We made every chapter of the book as if it were a witness, right? And this would have been a great thing to take into a court if such a court existed. But as far as I can see there is no compelling authority and there is no court in the United States of America that is going to take on a case like this. And who, if in the event anybody got, you know, the perps down to a 't', name and everything, who's going to bring them to justice?

Joe: Yeah.

Lisa: Who is?

Joe: People have to dispense with that idea of there being justice...

Jason: (laughing) Yeah.

Joe: ...for the perpetrators.

Lisa: Yeah. I don't think there's going to be justice. All we can do, you know, is keep digging into information, new information; it's very hard for new information to come out. We had various hopes among all kinds of individuals over the years. I did. For example, the former Bush administration official, Morgan Reynolds, a group of credentialed people got together a few years in, not as early as the first tier of 9/11 researchers like SOTT was one of the first tier researchers, you know, and I was in there looking at it pretty early on too, but, as were others. But, you know, these credentialed people came on a few years after the fact. And they essentially kind of, I don't know, it sure seemed like that to the rest of us, they just wanted to disregard what research had been done before, and nobody's opinion seemed to count except the people with alphabet soup behind their name.

Joe: Um-hmm.

Jason: Yeah, you know.

Lisa: So they were disregarding other people's research, and only wanted people to look and consider as valuable, their own research. And so when she says something, and I want to make sure I got this right, because she said, she was basically saying that the World Trade Center collapses, there's no evidence of it being a thermal situation...

Joe: Uh, yes.

Lisa: ...there was no thermal effect?

Niall: Yeah, there...

Lisa: There were not hot spots?

Niall: There wasn't enough heat to completely...

Lisa: Okay, but, then I want to ask you this,

Joe: ...destroy it.

Lisa: NASA used an air-borne infrared image spectrometer, and recorded temperatures of over a thousand degrees Fahrenheit on the surface. There is one spot...

Jason: Or so they say.

Lisa: Huh?

Jason: Or so they say.

Lisa: Well listen, with one spot on the south tower that recorded thirteen hundred seventy-seven degrees.

Jason: Umm, yeah. I mean, it's possible, but there is that, there are several pictures she has that where these hot spots being shown...

Lisa: Right.

Jason: ...and there's like a plastic cooler next to them. And they're saying the steel-toe boots are melting, but no one is saying anybody's toes got burned off. So I mean I do see that she's coming at, she's saying 'hold on a second, it doesn't add up.' So I do agree with that.

Joe: Well, maybe this...

Lisa: Yeah, well, what about the witnesses?

Joe: Maybe it's a good point basically, because Ark just re-entered the building...

Lisa: Okay.

Joe: ...and you had, you wanted to give Ark...

Lisa: Sure!

Joe: ...or ask Ark if he would expand, or give him an opportunity to expand on the little comment you made about energy weapons and information, possibly. So we'll maybe let, Ark, what do you think?

Ark: Uh, I don't know.

Joe: You don't know. Do you have anything more to say (laughing) on...

Ark: What I want to say is that, I see no evidence that this is, this was electromagnetic energy. I see no evidence that it was some kind of purely thermal energy. What I see is that it was something that we do not know much about. And we are, do not have full control over it.

Joe: Umm-hmm

Ark: That's what I think.

Lisa: I would agree with that.

Ark: Most certainly.

Joe: Well yeah, something went on that nobody...

Ark: I would stress the fact that evidently it's not fully controlled.

Lisa: Um-hmm.

Joe: Yeah.

Lisa: Thank you, Ark.

Pierre: Ark, maybe you could expand a bit about information. How information can structure matter, can explain what happened. Because for most, this energy may not be very clear information, maybe an essential factor in matter, in phenomenon we see every day, and in particular, what we observed during 9/11.

Ark: Well, information is a little bit [of an] abstract concept for most people. But if I would say it can affect [the] very space-time structure at the micro-level or even below, that may be better.

Pierre: Including molecular bonding.

Ark: Oh of course, in particular. But uh, but I don't think that's it because from the fact that we had unexpected weather phenomena, it follows that it's not [a] localized effect, and it distributes as a kind of, let me use the word, non-linear way, chaotic, and when you think about chaos, chaos is entropy, chaos is destroying information.

Joe: Um-mm, okay. So that's from a theoretical physics point of view?

Ark: Yeah, quite abstract, and quite general. I don't want to speculate.

Joe: You don't want to speculate on any hard science basis for that, no?

Ark: Right. There are too many speculations already.

Joe: (chuckling) Too many speculations already.

Niall: Well, on the one hand, that's what Dr. Wood was stressing, you know. Let's not speculate.

Jason: But that's problematic.

Niall: First we need all the evidence, but do we know? Does Dr. Wood know she has all the evidence?

Lisa: Thank you!

Niall: From which to start making...

Jason: Well, here's the other thing...

Niall: ...directed weapons idea, theory.

Jason: There are a couple of problems with that. First of all, like in the situation with Sandy Hook. You're dealing with a situation where you, as a regular person, don't have access to the...

Niall: You're not privy to all the...

Jason: You're not privy to the evidence in every situation. Now, with 9/11 there is a lot of evidence. It's very big and there are samples collected and things like this. But me not having a scientific background, when Judy Wood says this happened and this happened, molecular bonds, I don't know anything about it. I can't, I can trust her as an authority, but that's just me doing the same problem over and over again.

Joe: Ark wants to say something.

Ark: Well, I would say that speculating about nano-weapons is even worse.

Jason: Yeah, but what I wanted to say is that, you know, in a certain sense, like if you see a dead body that has holes in it and then you see a person with bloody hands but you don't see a murder weapon, you're not necessarily making a big error if you say, "Did you kill that person?" And arguing over the size of the knife, and the type of knife or was it an ice pick? That is relevant information in a court of law, sure, but we're never going to get into a court of law. But if you see that person, I'm like, I'm not leaving you alone with my wife because guess what? I think you just stabbed that person to death and...

Joe: Yeah. There's room for intuition, I mean, there's more to human experience and human life, than just pure, hard science. And people have to live their lives without being scientists themselves, and being able to discern every single thing. And on the Sandy Hook thing, there's more to it, like Dr. Wood said that basically Sandy Hook you don't have any evidence, so...

Jason: So, shut up.

Joe: basically, don't go there. But hang on a minute! I personally, in terms of Sandy Hook, when I looked at it, I was able to put it into a historical context...

Jason: Right...

Joe: ...and look at it...

Jason: It's historical evidence, narrative evidence.

Joe: Exactly, and I could draw, what I think is a reasonable conclusion based on that alone, without any access to the actual forensic evidence. I could come up with a reasonable, plausible scenario as to what actually happened at Sandy Hook.

Jason: Because forensic evidence is not the only type of evidence that exists.

Joe: No, it's very important...

Lisa: Joe and look at...

Joe: In reality....

Lisa: many people have been, I'm sorry to interrupt you...

Joe: Go ahead.

Lisa: Look at how many people have been convicted in courts of so-called law, based on circumstantial evidence alone.

Joe: Absolutely.

Lisa: You know, over the years.

Joe: We have a caller here.

Lisa: And here is something else she said...

Joe: Yeah, go ahead.

Lisa: She said, 'know what you know,' well, I would counter that with this: we know the government has never proven any of its allegations regarding 9/11. We know that.

Jason: Yeah, the burden of proof is on the accusers.

Lisa: And one more thing that she said. Well, she said like we didn't start from step one, we started it, you know, to paraphrase her, its step two or step three. Well, I would say I disagree with that because what we started with was the government's official version of events.

Niall: Which is how we started the show.

Lisa: I've always stressed that.

Jason: Yeah. They made a statement and we said, "Well, is that true?" The physical evidence from the towers obviously says a) it's not, but there's other evidence. There's historical evidence. There's psychological evidence, there's the narrative evidence of what have they said before, what has happened, what has been revealed.

Joe: Absolutely. And all of that has to be put together for a complete picture.

Jason: Yeah.

Joe: We've got a call here, Lisa. I'm just going to take it, and hope that it's not some kind of nutter.

Lisa: Yeah, me too. (laughing)

Joe: (laughing) Don't worry. Hi caller, what's your name and where are you calling from? Hello, caller?

Caller: Yes, I'm here.

Joe: Hi caller, what's your name, and where are you calling from?

Caller: My name is Ashley. I'm calling from Rhode Island.

Joe: Hi. Welcome to the show.

Ashley: Hi.

Niall: Hi Ashley.

Ashley: Thank you so much for taking my call. I have a question for Miss Guliani? Is that her last name?

Lisa: You can call me Lisa.

Ashley: Okay Lisa. My question is this: I've read Dr. Judy Wood's book twice now, and still going through it. And there's a mountain of evidence, empirical evidence in there. And just to let you know a little bit of who I am, I've been involved with the 9/11 truth movement since around 2006. Rupert Dowsky, Korey, what was it, Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe, and the likes of those people.

Lisa: The Loose Change people.

Ashley: Yes. I was also at Richard Gage's first ever meeting to brainstorm AE for 9/11 Truth.

Lisa: Um-hmm.

Ashley: Okay. So that is just a little bit about who I am and what I know. And I, you know, have been following everything since the second it happened on 9/11. I knew it wasn't what they were saying. And I just want to say that the evidence that Dr. Judy Wood presents in her book, has been covered up, even from me. I was dissuaded from looking at that evidence. And she focused me to look at the evidence for themselves and not speculate on anything. The evidence is there if you just look with your eyes, and not listen to what anybody says. And the fact that who did it, why it was done is not as important as what has happened on 9/11.

Lisa: It's not?

Ashley: No, because what happened, is the most important thing because...

Jason: Why?

Lisa: But what do you do with it? What do you do with that information about what happened? Once, once you establish what happened, which to my mind-set, it has not been clearly established what happened. There's facts and there's evidence, and I'm not so sure that everything that has been presented by many 9/11 researchers is actually evidence, you know, or facts that actually represent the objective reality.

Ashley: When I...

Jason: Well, let's be fair to Dr. Wood's book. It is an extremely detailed, extremely well put together collection of some very, very damning evidence that it is difficult to dispute the fact that it exists and it happened, right? So in all fairness to her book, it is kind of like the evidence bible, in a certain sense, of what happened to the towers. It might not be the whole picture. No one ever can claim they have all of the information.

Lisa: Right.

Jason: But I mean we're not....

Lisa: It, it sounded like she was. Like she sounded like she....

Jason: Who?

Lisa: ...made a determination.

Jason: Well, that's okay, because everyone does that.

Joe: Have you read the book Lisa?

Lisa: No, I didn't read the book. I've followed her on the internet.

Ashley: Well then how can you say that...

Lisa: I'm not dissing her, I'm just saying I'm bringing up points I disagree with that she made, if you listen to me.

Ashley: Well you need to read the book. You first need to read the book before you can try to...

Lisa: Well, let me tell you what my deal is, okay?

Jason: Aw no, you can have an opinion.

Lisa: My deal is this...

Ashley: Without reading the book...

Jason: Well, anyone can have an opinion.

Ashley: Well you can have an opinion.

Lisa: Can I say something?

Joe: Yeah, go ahead, Lisa.

Lisa: Thank you. You know after so many years of being involved in these discussions about the mechanics of the collapses of the towers, and what happened, and the minutiae, it ended up being minutiae. People going around and around about the same points over and over, and everybody has a competing idea and theory and opinion and fact. You know after a while you start, well, it's like what Dr. Wood said, if you can't solve it, move on. That's what she just said, okay? So, I agree with that. I do agree with what she said there, because I think after, let's see, this happened in 2001. It is 2013 now. How long are we going to go round and round chasing our tails? I'm not saying don't examine her evidence, or her facts, or her ideas or theories or her books.

Ashley: Well they're not ideas or theories. These are actual facts that happened.

Lisa: Well, you know, she's not open to other people's ideas and research either, you know. And I know this from experience, because I've been privy to email exchanges. Long, on-going email exchanges over the years, between her and the 9/11, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and various other researchers, I was made...

Ashley: Which are...

Lisa: ...which I was...

Ashley: ...they are psy-op.

Lisa: ...which I was made privy, if you'd let me finish, thank you.

Ashley: I'm sorry.

Lisa: You know I was made privy to these. I didn't want to be privy to these because they turned out to be very combative, hostile, extremely nasty, rude, filthy exchanges between the battle of egos. Because I've learned over the years most of the people in it that said they were in it to find the truth, were really in it to gain notoriety for themselves as solving 9/11.

Jason: Right.

Lisa: They wanted to sell merchandise. They wanted to sell books and products, and things like that. And it started to be more and more evidence was excluded. I am not a proponent of excluding evidence, so by all means, I would like to read that book, I have a whole stack of books I'd like to read, you know?

Joe: Um-hmm

Ashley: Okay.

Lisa: But I don't think that...

Ashley: If she were to send you the book, would you read it?

Lisa: Yeah, absolutely.

Ashley: If she were to send you the book....

Lisa: She doesn't have to send it to me. I'll buy it!

Joe: Yeah, absolutely.

Ashley: Okay, you should buy her book.

Jason: I have a question for Ashley.

Joe: Okay, go ahead.

Jason: I have a question for Ashley. This is...

Ashley: Okay, sure.

Jason: question. I have looked at what I can understand of Dr. Wood's material, okay?

Ashley: Okay.

Jason: And I am converted. I believe, I don't see, when she's talking about the evidence, I don't see a secondary agenda. I see her reporting the facts as she sees them and saying 'hey, this is curious', and she strings them together, it's very good. I am converted. You don't need to covert me. I believe. I've drunk the Kool-Aid. I've been saved by Jesus. What am I going to do next because you're not going to get an argument with me about Dr. Wood's work because it's impeccable? I mean you can't really argue with it. You can niggle one or two points maybe. Anybody can. But the evidence that she presents is extremely compelling, and that, the active word there being compelling. What am I compelled to do once, I mean, do I just accept that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins and then I go about my day? What am I supposed to do next?

Ashley: Well this is what I've been compelled to do ever since I have read her book, and going through the evidence. Because it doesn't matter who wrote the book, all that matters is the evidence that is in the book.

Joe: Absolutely.

Jason: Right. So you're preaching the choir.

Ashley: Yes, but I'm just saying as far as with Lisa, she needs to read the book before she comes on and says it's a theory because....

Jason: Right.

Ashley: ...if you don't read something, how do you know it's a theory?

Lisa: Well I don't think that it's...

Jason: Right, she needs some churching up! She needs to come to Christ, okay. But what are we going to do next?

Ashley: Well, yeah. And I'm just saying, what I've been doing now is trying to show the empirical evidence that has been covered up, for years, by the...

Jason: Right. The truth that Jesus is our saviour! I understand.

Ashley: ...the so-called 9/11 truth movement and 9/11 Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Jason: Right.

Ashley: Okay, to bring that home, to bring that to light.

Jason: We need to convert the sinners and the infidels. I understand.

Ashley: Well no, I'm not saying....

Lisa: I don't want anybody to misconstrue...

Ashley: to think about...

Lisa: ...what I'm saying here Ashley, okay, I don't want you to misconstrue what I'm saying.

Joe: Yeah, okay, Ashley...

Lisa: I'm saying examine whatever evidence or information is out there, you know? And the things she says are compelling. We always said, you know, the underground fires that burned for nearly a hundred days after 9/11 that they couldn't put out, you know, is indicative of a higher energy source being used because it was a nearly oxygen-starved environment under the ground.

Ashley: Well, how do you know they were fires?

Lisa: She's discounting ...well...

Ashley: How do you know it was fire? Just 'cause it looks like fire doesn't mean it is fire. There are...

Lisa: Well, there was definitely heat, okay?

Jason: Who cares if it was a pile of steaming dung, you know?

Ashley: Well there was no heat in the reaction.

Joe: Look, let me just butt in here and say something.

Lisa: I thought this was going to be my, my time, to, you know,

Joe: It is,

Lisa: ...Judy Wood went on, you know, for a long time...

Joe: It is, Lisa, it is, hang on, let me...

Ashley: But she's not here to defend herself.

Joe: Ashley, nobody's attacking Judy Wood here. Look, hang on a minute here! We're all in agreement that 9/11 is not what we are told it was, and there is compelling evidence that can convince a lot of people, if they would look at it, that 9/11 was not what we were told it is.

Ashley: Well, I'm just...

Joe: And that's all anybody really needs to do, and then decide, everybody together, then decide 'what are we going to do about this?' What are we going to do about the fact that 9/11 was not done by Al Qaida? And they launched wars on that basis and there are thousands of U.S. soldiers that have been killed on the basis of 9/11. This is a high crime, by the government, well, by whoever did it. The government obviously plays a part in it...

Lisa: Absolutely.

Joe: ...because it's pursuing that agenda. So let's do something about it.

Lisa: How could it not be involved? Seriously...

Joe: Of course!

Lisa: could the government not be?

Ashley: She's not saying that they're not involved. She's just saying that she doesn't know. Just to look at the evidence.

Joe: I know and that's fine that she doesn't know, so we're going to take it from here. So Ashley, thank you for your call.

Ashley: Okay. So just read the book please Lisa.

Lisa: I absolutely will thank you. I will.

Joe: Okay. We cut her off. Listen, that's enough. I mean people shouldn't...

Jason: Yeah, we are not attacking...

Joe: ...callers can't go on and on and on about something that's very simple. Lisa, take it away.

Lisa: Well, I just have a problem with people who want to look at the crime, but not look at who you know, who did the crime. It's like, I liken it to a rape. Say ten guys rape a woman, and you only go after three of them, or you don't go after any of them. You know, how do you just stop there?

Joe: Um-hmm

Jason: You spend all your time with swabs.

Lisa: How do you just stop looking at the crime and not trying to track back, like who was involved? And then look at what has unfolded since then, my God! Illegal invasions and occupations of other countries, people who never raised a hand to us, are being slaughtered en masse. And if I'm not mistaken, wasn't it Osama bin Laden that was put up as the icon of terror? Look at what that has done. They've never proven that. I believe in the beginning, and you'll, I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong; he even denied involvement in 9/11, in the events of 9/11.

Joe: bin Laden? Of course, of course he did, yeah.

Niall: He did, yeah.

Lisa: Okay, but look! Look at what has happened to the public mind-set when they look at people who are of Muslim faith, Arabs, you know, everybody is pointing the finger at them, and yet the real perps are going scot-free. And you can't....

Joe: The problem...

Lisa: I'm sorry you can't look at this crime without looking further than just the crime scene.

Jason: One hundred percent.

Pierre: Maybe, Lisa, one point is not very clear in my mind yet, but when I look at this story again, and again, I have a feeling that there are several layers in the onion as far as the perpetrators are concerned. As if some actors involved knew part of the picture but were set up. You see, for example, the Pentagon strike, targeting specifically the Naval Intelligence Office. You see the Pentagon being attacked and therefore somehow creating a kind of alibi for maybe the perpetrators or a party that was involved, a part of the government. At the same time you see these, those five Jewish guys next to this van dancing when they see the World Trade Center collapsing. You're wondering did they have the [whole] picture or were they also partly set up because if the public stopped believing it was the government they would turn against Mossad and Israel. At the same time when you see the magnitude of the event you're wondering, but those guys, those Jewish guys, were they really perpetrators, did they push the button? It seems this complicated technology was involved so it doesn't seem to me it was five guys in a van nearby who pressed the button and disintegrated the Towers. So I'm not sure it's black and white. I'm not sure there is a...

Lisa: Right, right.

Pierre: I think there are several levels of patsies, and set-up.

Lisa: Yes, I agree with you. And I'm not discounting any use of higher, you know, technology weaponry. I'm not saying that because I don't know. And you know what I think? I think nobody really knows the truth. I think we can come close to the truth, and I think as time goes on, maybe perhaps, I hope, I hope for the sake of all those who lost their lives and continue to lose their lives, and have to live this nightmare, that we will come closer to the truth. But frankly, I don't think anybody has it a hundred percent as fact.

Jason: Right.

Joe: No.

Pierre: And that's...

Lisa: And anybody who says they do, you know, I'm sorry, there's so much yet we still don't know.

Joe: Yeah. I appreciate the research that Judy Wood has pulled together. And here I would say that its evidence that is there that isn't hers, its evidence that she's collected and she's done a good job and she deserves appreciation for putting the evidence together. But it's just evidence that's there. And it fits for me when I, I mean, I don't have to read the book, although I have, but when I see the way the towers collapsed, they collapsed into dust.

Jason: Yeah, she makes, she makes the argument...

Joe: I mean there's something very strange happened on 9/11, and as Ark has just said, Ark as a scientist isn't even willing to go anywhere. And he knows far more than anybody about the possibilities of what could have potentially caused this, but he's not willing to speculate, because it's in the realm of, kind of crazy, so far out of normal mainstream science, that if you're going to talk about it, you may as well drop the hard science...

Jason: Yeah, the circumstances...

Joe: ...rigidity and just go with the flow. And that's what, in a way, that's what I, I mean, I appreciate the way that Judy deals with the situation and stuff, and puts the evidence forward. But if she's going to talk about it, she should allow herself, but maybe she can't because of her reputation....

Jason: She should give up the...

Niall: No, I think the reason she is like that, is because she's afraid it will all descend into chaos.

Joe: Which it probably will.

Niall: Wait. There will be infighting, there will be arguing, there will be going back and forth...

Jason: There already is.

Niall: Wait. There'll be polemics.

Lisa: Guaranteed.

Jason & Joe: Which is exactly what has happened for the last twelve years!

Joe: And Lisa, you know that better than anyone?

Lisa: Yes I do. Well, maybe not better than anybody but....

Joe: Well...

Lisa: ...I do know.

Pierre: This being said, you know this, in the beginning of the show, it was obvious that we were, I read this book twice, cover to cover, I find it, the evidence that [is] available, it's probably not all the evidence, nobody has all of the evidence but there's a lot of evidence that is very compelling, that is very consistent, and is scientifically sound from my point of view. And it has a consequence on the political level, because I'm not willing to do any conclusion about the kind of weapon that was used. The only conclusion I can draw is that it was exotic. It was something unknown. So we can suss on the political level that perpetrators were not basic terrorists. It was not bin Laden, it was not, it's a high level thing. It's a...

Joe: And that's a good point because you can take the various levels of evidence. There's pretty 'vanilla' evidence, you know, that you can present to people, and it says the official story is bullshit. You can go as far as taking, reading Dr. Judy Wood's book cover to cover and find this evidence of, kind of, high strangeness and very strange things going on, but it's still points back to the fact that the official story is bullshit, and the government, as a proponent of the official story, is lying to us. And that I think is a very, very important point for the lay person, who does not, is not able to go into the high strangeness and all that kind of stuff. They just need to understand 'your government is not working in your best interest.'

Lisa: Right. And, may I say something?

Joe: Yeah.

Lisa: I have not tried to convince people over the years. What I've tried to do is to provoke people to think about what they were told repeatedly, and what's been going on. What's happened since, and how these things don't add up. A lot of things don't add up, and how the government has not proven anything that it said. You know, I'm not trying to say you have to believe me. I've asked people to look for themselves and do research and do homework about it, and expose themselves to more information sources than just their television.

Joe: Um-hmm.

Jason: I would point something out on this topic. How long has it been since Kennedy was assassinated?

Joe: Oh, a good fifty-some years.

Jason: And how many times have you heard the 'magic bullet' argument? And how unscientific it is?

Joe: Yeah.

Jason: They're still arguing over that piece of shit.

Joe: I know.

Lisa: Right, right.

Jason: It's like, yeah, we know!

Joe: Take a lesson, take a lesson, yeah.

Jason: It's like you can't niggle on the evidence, the evidence is there. Cool, got it. All right, move on, because we need to do something about it. And what I wanted to say earlier, and I missed the chance, is a great quote from Martin Luther King that "Justice delayed, is justice denied."

Joe: Uh-huh.

Jason: And that's the government's modus operandi. They just prevent you from finding anything out. They have this rule for seventy-five years later you can find out what happened, but by then...

Joe: Everybody's dead.

Jason: ...nobody gives a shit, and nobody can do anything about it, right?

Joe: Yeah.

Jason: And that's how the government works. They delay, and that's how they deny.

Lisa: Well, I think that you...

Joe: Ark was going to say something.

Lisa: I'm sorry, go ahead.

Ark: Okay, Lisa, concerning this book, by Judy. I like the book, what is inside. I don't like the title. The title is "Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology." I think it's not scientifically correct. It's not exact. It's a guess, and the guess should not be in the title. But, probably the book was not, the title of the book was not invented by Judy, I am not sure...

Joe: Probably by the publisher.

Ark: ...I am not sure, but it's, for me as a scientist, it's not a scientific title.

Joe: Okay.

Jason: Yeah, for me too, it was a big turn-off to see the free-energy term there, and I still don't agree with the directed energy weapon situation.

Joe: It was something weird, and let's just leave it at that. Because no one can speculate any further. What were you going to say, Lisa?

Lisa: Yeah, I agree with you, it was weird.

Joe: Lisa, do you want to take a call?

Lisa: Okay.

Joe: We'll be quicker on the uptake with this one. (laughing)

Jason: Wow.

Joe: Hi caller, what's your name and where are you calling from? Hello, caller?

Caller: Is this my line?

Joe: this is your line, yep.

Caller: Okay. My name is Ryan:. I'm from San Jose.

Joe: Ryan:? Hi.

Jason: Hey, Ryan:.

Joe: How are you doing? You have a question for Lisa?

Ryan:: Oh, well, kind of. I just wanted to say that I totally agree that, you know, government really doesn't have our best interest in mind. You know, you guys are definitely right on track there. And, really I wanted to start by saying thank you for having Dr. Wood on your show. I mean that was a crucial interview. Thanks for doing that.

Joe: Okay.

Ryan:: You know, really the truth is people have used 9/11 to build their careers and try to sell themselves and you know, sell their credibility, right?

Lisa: Um-mm

Joe: Yeah.

Ryan:: I mean it's become a fight of really who's credible. Who can we look to? Who's credible in the fight for truth?

Jason: That's a trap, man. That's a trap.

Ryan:: What's a trap?

Jason: That's a trap. The whole 'who is credible' because that's when you start falling victim to ad hominem attacks, you know, because when you start looking at [inaudible]....

Ryan:: No, no. That's not what I'm, I'm saying, how do you establish the credibility of people? You get what I'm saying?

Jason: You can't. What a person says is true or it's not, you got to try to evaluate it on your own. You can't, you can't look to a lab coat and say, okay, that person has 'x' number of degrees therefore they're 'x' amount more credible than somebody else. I mean that's a trap because...

Ryan:: Yeah.

Jason: know you have to look at the evidence yourself. I mean, if it's not convincing to you, then you're going to have to say, 'wait a minute, I don't understand it, it's not convincing to me, I need to find out more'. You can't say like, well, such and such a...

Ryan:: Completely, yeah.

Jason: ...person has a degree or, because the government carts out people with degrees all the time. Like that Steven Jones guy, who slammed Fleishman and what's-his-name. You know, those guys had degrees on that panel. And...

Ryan:: Yeah, I mean, intellectual dishonesty is generally spelled out when people get into 'credentialism' I would say.

Jason: Right, yeah, that's what I was saying.

Ryan:: When people get into 'my doctor is better than your doctor.'

Lisa: Right.

Ryan:: It's really about what, who has the cure, right?

Jason: Well, yeah, it also...

Ryan:: That's what it comes down to, right?

Jason: I mean, if somebody says something intelligent, it doesn't matter if the guy's a drunk, wino, sex addict, you know, reformed Christian, or something like that, I don't care. If what he has to say on 9/11 is going to be relevant, if it's logical, if I sit there and say, okay, what you said is true, and what's true is true, it doesn't matter who says it. And that's the founding idea of science, is that ad hominem attacks are irrelevant, and the minute somebody makes an ad hominem attack, then I will tend to discredit them based on the fact that they're attacking somebody's reputation, instead of attacking the evidence.

Ryan:: I totally agree. And that's why I support Dr. Judy Wood, because I think that the truth is that, you need look no further to establish credibility of the analysis of evidence in the book Where Did the Towers Go? In the author's preface, if you read her book, Judy Wood gives a qualification for her forensic evidence, and she says the order of crime is to determine what happened, then how it happened, then who did it, and only then can we address why they did it. One of your...

Jason: Right, but she forgets, she forgot one point, which is one of the most important, which is what do you do with what happened, with certain conclusions. That's what happens in a court, there's a jury, and then there's a thing called a judgement, and that judgement metes out some form or something called justice. And that goes back to the Martin Luther King, "Delayed justice is denied justice" that there is an ultimate goal to the evaluation of the evidence and that's important, you know. And so...

Ryan:: Well, there's always been the possibility of wrongful judgement on the case, in any case, and...

Jason: Yeah, in any case.

Ryan:: ...we've seen this time and time again with our government. I mean, I know personal victims in my life, you know.

Jason: Listen, listen, we love Dr. Wood, I kind of, I want to say this because I kind of keep getting the feeling when Dr. Wood was on, she seemed like, that she was expecting that we has some sort of negative opinion, or that we were going to attack her, or make some kind of like, negative assumptions about her, which was not the case...

Ryan:: You know, I...

Jason: ...I'm a big fan...

Lisa: That wasn't the impression I got all...

Jason: Whoa, whoa, whoa, so it's a cool show, we love her work, we love the book, we recommend the book, you know. We're in her camp here on this end, and we understand she's got to roll with her clique, and we really think it's awesome that people are calling in to show their support, but now we're kind of moving on to new stuff.

Joe: Yeah.

Jason: We'd like to go forward with this, and not keep coming back to Dr. Wood's stuff even though it's important.

Joe: All right, Ryan:. Thanks and we're going to let you...

Ryan:: Can I just say one thing?

Joe: Yeah, go ahead.

Ryan:: I think you might have got the wrong impression of Dr. Wood, because I've been following her for a few years, and I feel that, I've watched her interviews, and I've seen the more negative discussion, and the more positive discussion. And I've just seen that Dr. Wood, she's on the defensive and needfully so....

Jason: We understand.

Ryan:: ...the point is if you look at....

Jason: We're no strangers.

Ryan:: ...the specific discourse...

Jason: We're no stranger to defamation.

Ryan:: Right. So if you look at....

Jason: So we totally understand!

Ryan:: ...the discourse of your show, she is simply trying to bring the lenses back towards the what. That's it.

Joe: Yeah

Jason: We appreciate that.

Ryan:: That's all she's trying to do and she really doesn't see you as attacking her, I don't think.

Joe: No, absolutely, and we appreciate that, and that's one part of the whole 9/11 discussion and we're moving on to another part of it, okay, so thanks for your call Ryan:.

Ryan:: Thanks a lot. Have a good day.

Jason: Have a good day, dude!

Joe: All right. Lisa, there's another call that's been sitting here for twenty minutes, and I'm going to see if we can get...

Lisa: Okay, go ahead.

Joe: I'm going to see if we can get somebody to ask something a bit more relevant. Hi caller, what's your name and where are you calling from?

Caller: Am I on? Is this me?

Joe: You are on. Sorry for keeping you.

Caller: You know, the title, in the title of your show it says that 9/11 - Psy-ops.

Joe: Yeah.

Lisa: Um-hmm.

Caller: And to say yeah, and this is where you see a bunch of people who are really, really upset because they know when a psy-op is being employed because we've been under one for twelve years.

Joe: Yeah.

Caller: So, so to say, you know, 'What does one do with the evidence? Dr. Judy forgot about that. What does one do?' Well that's called a psy-op because that tells everybody "Oh well, we're going to argue about it forever, we'll never be able to solve anything...

Lisa: Right.

Caller: might as well just go ahead and give up.' And to tell everyone that they should be fatigued and walk away; it's called a psy-op. So whether you know it or not Lisa, by Lisa saying, you know, how can you look at a crime scene, I'm sorry, at a crime, and not want to look at who did it? Well, how can Lisa walk into a crime scene, ignore all of the evidence, and then go on to...

Lisa: That's not accurate! I haven't...

Caller: I mean if you can't stick over there...

Lisa: ...ignored all the evidence.

Caller: Hold on, hold on one second.

Lisa: Absolutely not!

Caller: I mean, let me finish!

Lisa: We did a whole documentary on it. You know, we wrote books about it.

Caller: Let me finish...let me finish, you can't...

Joe: Hang on dude, she...

Caller: But she formed her opinion, let me finish...

Joe: She didn't know all the evidence...

Caller: But she...

Joe: You made a statement. She did not ignore all the evidence.

Caller: Hold on a second, she....

Lisa: [inaudible] a statement...

Caller: Hold on a second.

Joe: Thank yooouuu...

Lisa: I made a statement...

Caller: Well first of all she didn't read...

Jason: Back up, dude!

Caller: That would be ignoring...

Jason: Hey! Back up, dude. Back up, duuuuuude!

Caller: She hasn't read the bible, and it's ok. She didn't respond.

Jason: Back up, dude!

Caller: Just allowing...

Lisa: Opposing views are not allowed.

Caller: You made a statement...

Jason: Let her answer, bro, seriously man, come on!

Caller: ...let me finish....

Jason: ...I want you on this show.

Caller: ...because I'm not done, and then you can add to it. But, how could Lisa say, you know, how can you look at a crime and not look at who did it. Well, how could she form her opinion based on emails from James Fetzer? And...

Lisa: It wasn't emails alone, it was...

Caller: ...Scholars for 9/11 Truth?

Lisa: ...I was in the 9/11...

Caller: ...and I...

Lisa: ...research team myself. Since late 2001. And maybe you're not familiar with me...

Caller: And not [inaudible]...

Lisa: ...or any of the things that I've done over the course of the years. And I don't really, you know, tout it too much on the internet, because I'm not trying to hawk any product, okay? But my main interest in this whole thing was to...

Caller: We're, we're just trying....

Lisa: out the...

Caller: stop the psy-ops.

Lisa: ...Sir? Sir!

Caller: We're not trying to hawk any product.

Lisa: I'm not, I never ignored the crime scene, or the evidence, okay? There is an enormous...

Caller: You...

Lisa: ...amount of information to go through...

Joe: Lisa, I just cut that guy off because...

Lisa: Okay.

Joe: ...he's making stupid, stupid comments. It's not...

Lisa: Yeah, I expected this, you know.

Joe: Do you know what I'm going to say right now? Judy Wood's book is good. You see all the people who follow her? Judy, ditch them! Because...

Jason: I mean, seriously!

Joe: ...because they have a problem. They have a serious problem.

Jason: They have an incredible problem.

Lisa: You know what this is reminding me of, the Alex Jones groupies.

Joe: I know it's terrible.

Jason: Yeah, you know?

Joe: You know, Judy, take a look at your followers, because... Okay, there's one more caller on hold, and that's the last one we're going to take. And this person better not... Hi caller, what's your name and where are you calling from?

Caller: Hello, this is Lindsey, from Atlanta.

Joe: Hi, Lindsey.

Lisa: Hi.

Lindsey: Hey Lisa, you remember me from years ago...

Lisa: Lindsey [last name omitted for privacy].

Lindsey: Yeah.

Lisa: That's you! Yes I remember you.

Lindsey: Yeah. It's been a long, long time, and I just woke up, but I heard that you were doing a show and I've listened for about maybe about twenty-five minutes, and not one word about "Isra-hell's..."

Lisa: Yes, I know.

Lindsey: ...orchestration of 9/11. I wanted to get to....

Joe: Hey dude, we're getting into it. Give us a chance, we've been taking all these calls and we...

Lisa: Well, we're trying to get past all the Judy Wood fan club.

Lindsey: Right. And I...

Joe: Dude, we didn't even have time.

Jason: I mean seriously, it's like the Christians....

Joe: Do you want us to get into Israel, Lindsey?

Lindsey: Well, actually I just wanted to give the name of an essay, and also of her ex-husband, Victor Thorne's book entitled, and frankly is the best book on 9/11 bar none. The title is....

Lisa: Meh, I wouldn't "bar none." 9/11: The Ultimate Truth is an excellent book. I suggest you read it...

Joe: Well, I wouldn't....

Lisa: Laura Knight-Jadczyk and Joe Quinn.

Lindsey: I haven't read it. But yeah, it's entitled 9/11 Evil: Israhell's Central Role in 9/11, and also there was an essay by the real ZCF the real Zion crime factory entitled Israel Did 9/11: All the Proof in the World.

Lisa: Yup.

Lindsey: And, if you're not aware, Dr. Alan Sabrosky, he was the former...

Lisa: Yes, I'm aware.

Lindsey: Right. Well, I'm not sure if the SOTT folks are aware...

Lisa: Yes. They published it on their website.

Lindsey: Oh really?! (laughing)

Lisa: Yes, they're aware.

Lindsey: Okay!

Jason: Just for a, just, let's just pretend we've been doing this for a while...

Joe: We're on top of it.

Niall: Just for the record, SOTT was probably...

Lisa: Thank you, Lindsey. I appreciate you calling.

Lindsey: No, it's my pleasure and I just wanted to, you know, to help steer the conversation to something more relevant for people to be able to be more tangible.

Joe: Thanks. Thanks, we've got half an hour left, and we're going to do that. Thanks for your call, Lindsey.

Lindsey: Okay, yeah, bye, bye.

Joe: Bye.

Niall: Just so all of Judy Wood's fans are aware, has been on this since it happened and it has...

Jason: Since the day it happened.

Niall: ...been attacked endlessly, endlessly, endlessly...

Lisa: That's right.

Niall: ...flamed, to the point that, while quite a lot of people out there seem to know all about Judy Wood, although their argument is, well, nobody's ever heard of her, hardly anyone really knows about

Lisa: That's right, because you've quietly been doing the research and writing about this for many, many years, without the fanfare.

Jason: Yeah. We don't want the fanfare.

Pierre: The Pentagon Strike video is good example.

Joe & Jason: Yeah!

Pierre: Five hundred million viewers.

Joe: At one billion.

Pierre: One billion...

Niall: No way.

Pierre: That's quite a lot, and no mention whatsoever in mainstream media, and actually they were mentioning...

Jason: We went to the Cannes Film Festival for that.

Pierre: Yeah, and they were mentioning indirectly the content of the video but never was mentioned the website, the source. The ideas was to discredit the idea but at the same time not give any publicity to the source because they knew it was, that interest was counterproductive from their point of view.

Joe: Yeah, Lisa:

Lisa: I would like to recommend to anyone listening who hasn't read the book you and Laura Knight-Jadczyk wrote, 9/11: The Ultimate Truth, to please check that book out because...

Joe: A good bedtime read!

Lisa: ...I think that's the defining book for 9/11, and I urge everybody to get a copy of it. It's a shame that more people haven't heard about it. You know, you guys operate a lot differently than (chuckling) pretty much everybody else in this so-called truth movement and research community, and conspiracy circles. You know, a lot of people don't realize that the people of SOTT are very meticulous, very thorough, and they look under every rock. Every rock they can find, so it's not like they just happened on the scene last week.

Jason: Yeah, but people treat us like that perpetually.

Lisa: I know.

Jason: They think that we were born yesterday.

Lisa: I know.

Jason: I mean, Judy's going to come up here and roll like, ten deep, and think that we don't see exactly what's going on? We appreciate it; we understand it because we've been under attack plenty too. I mean, she's got giant shell-shock, you know? So we appreciate that shit.

Joe: Yeah. And on the Israel thing that Ashley [Lindsey] mentioned, you know Israel did it, I think that again, or saying any one person, or any one group of people did it, is kind of too simplistic, you know.

Lisa: Um-hm.

Joe: Because obviously we're dealing with something here that was kind of the crime of the century, in a big, big way.

Lisa: Right.

Jason: I think it's beyond nations.

Joe: Yeah its multi-nation, it's got to be. I mean when we talk about this stuff, we have to kind of, you know, into real conspiracy...

Jason: Yeah.

Joe: ...terms and stuff. Like the shadow government and stuff, but that...

Lisa: You know what I'm going to say?

Joe: No.

Lisa: I'm going to say it like this, so that I can get attacked again (chuckles). Ready?

Joe: Go ahead.

Lisa: I think it was a faction within the United States government, at the Federal level. Zionist, dual American-Israeli citizens in high-level power positions, and also working in conjunction with Israeli government intelligence, okay? I'm not saying it's our whole government, and their whole government, although I can't really speak to their government because, well, I look at both of them like crime syndicates, you know. And that's what I call them, crime syndicates...

Jason: Well, that's who they are.

Lisa: ...posing as governments. At least these factions within them that are actually dominating the turn of events, you know? And everything that's happened since 9/11, I don't know how anybody could not stop to wonder, because they always tie everything back to 9/11, using 9/11 as the justification for everything they're doing. Yet, if I may, if you allow me, to repeat for the third time because I'm saying this, and I don't want it to be taken lightly, we know the government's never proven any of its allegations about 9/11 yet! Everything that's happened since has been justified because of 9/11. And if they haven't proven it, if they haven't proven that what they're saying is true, you know, we know, some of the hijackers, the alleged hijackers supposedly were alive after 9/11. How could that even be possible, if they all died?

Joe: Um-hmm.

Jason: Sloppy, sloppy.

Pierre: One more inconsistency.

Lisa: I mean....

Pierre: I have a question, Lisa.

Lisa: Yes?

Pierre: If you allow me, I'm wondering if there's not several conspiracies within conspiracies, and several agents as it were, because now, twelve years later, when you think about the issue, if you ask the question: Qui bono?, who benefits from the crime? Obviously the totalitarian, the Middle East has been the loser, Israel has been a winner, military contractors have been a winner. And now, twelve years later, I'm wondering if the main loser is not the American people.

Jason: Yeah.

Lisa: Oh, I think so.

Pierre: Wasn't the American people the real target in the end? And wasn't 9/11 the trigger to institute a totalitarian, dystopian society in the U.S.?

Lisa: I think you're right about that. I think they went the long road around to get to the end point, and we haven't quite reached the end point yet, but they sure have made progress over the years in my opinion. You keep a people in a level of fear and it's amazing what you can accomplish. I mean, look at what just happened in Boston where they locked down Boston, and people were cheering for that. They were cheering at the end.

Joe: Yeah, exactly.

Lisa: Wow, they pulled that one off. Let's see what they can do with some other cities, you know?

Joe: Well, absolutely, and just, people need to make that link back to 9/11 from Boston, because there is a direct link back to 9/11 because Boston was terrorism and people have been conditioned since 9/11, because of 9/11 and all of the terror plots since then, they have been conditioned to be afraid, and to be terrorized by this idea of terrorism, and some kind of an external threat. Originally, initially, it was an external threat that could attack us obviously in the U.S. on 9/11. Afterwards it was, you know, various threats from Arab terrorists, blah-blah. At this stage, it doesn't matter if it Chechens or...

Lisa: Um-hmm

Jason: Yeah, who cares?

Joe: ...Papua New Guineans, or pygmies, or something. For the American people, it's a terror threat, we're under attack, and like you just said Lisa, the end result is they have got the American people to cheer and clap when they're put under martial law, and their houses are raided by the police...

Jason: But they will, I mean, martial law....

Lisa: But look at how it evolved, right? The threat was originally external to the United States, according to the official version of events, okay. The original conspiracy theory, but now, we're the threat.

Joe: Absolutely, yeah, people within the U.S. Homegrown terrorists and it's directly linked. They've just manoeuvred, they just moved the goal posts...

Lisa: Exactly!

Joe: ...and manoeuvred people around, and to the extent....

Lisa: And it's very subtle and incremental you know? It's not, I call them 'spikes', when they highlight certain stories in the news and they run with them, and it's to promote, it's to ratchet up that fear factor in the population, and the paranoia factor. And it's worked. It's worked masterfully.

Pierre: Following this thread of multiple agendas, non-linear development of those events, and perpetrators screwing up, screwing other perpetrators, it reminds me of those Christian Zionists. They're not Jewish; they probably don't have Israel's interest at heart.

Joe: No.

Pierre: And this fulfilment of prophecy, where somehow you bait Israel in going over the line and digging its own tomb by doing too much in the Middle East. Thanks to 9/11 and finally fulfilling the prophecy where Israel is destructed in order to reach the domination of the Zionist Christians. So it's really not straightforward, there's a lot of players and there's a lot of cheating and set-up and it develops over years and years, almost decades.

Jason: Because I don't think that Israel has really benefited. The current....

Pierre: Short-term!

Jason: ...of anti-Semitism, especially among Christians, white Christians and just Christians in general, is always below the surface. And after the Holocaust of course, it was suppressed but it's still there. There's a lot of anti-Semitism.

Lisa: Well, Jason, if I could throw this in?

Jason: And it's being developed...

Joe: Yeah.

Lisa: I think Israel's benefited in a few ways, but one of them, right off the top of my head, is that Israel never wanted a balance of power in the Middle East. It's, you know, you get rid of, you take out Iraq and they're happy about that because they don't want them around. And as far as I can see, they don't really want any of their neighbours around. They want to just expand their land grab and control...

Jason: Yeah, in the short-term

Lisa: ...or cause to flee any people that stand in their way.

Jason: I'm not ignorant of that, I just remember what the Baron von Harkenaan (a character from Frank Herbert's book Dune) said you know, "People hate a popular person." I mean, Israel is kind of like in the, they're getting their way all the time you now? And people don't like that. They're held up...

Lisa: But how do you look at them as a victim when they're killing so many Palestinians?

Jason: I'm not looking at them as a victim. I'm saying they are being...

Lisa: Not you, I mean in general.

Jason: ...I'm saying that they are being allowed, all of the anti-Semitic Christians, all these people who don't really like the Jews, they're standing back and saying "Oh yeah, you can have it whatever you want." And they just keep asking for more and more, and it's one of those give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves-type of situation. Because people, I mean, I have noticed that there is a huge rise in "Israel did it! Israel, those Israelis!" you know.

Lisa: Yeah.

Jason: And there's a lot of anger that's going to explode at a certain point against Israel, which is going to lead to this whole Christian-Zionist, Armageddon on the hills of wherever it is in Israel type of thing...

Joe: Megiddo

Jason: Yeah, where the people...

Lisa: I think that it's important to make the distinction between Zionists and Jewish people and the whole thing, you know?

Jason: When the shit hits the fan, nobody will.

Lisa: And it's not the Jews overall.

Jason: When the shit hits the fan, nobody will.

Lisa: And I want to say this, if the Jewish people don't want Zionism speaking for them, then they really need to speak up...

Pierre: Yeah.

Lisa: ...and make that known because right now Zionism seems to be speaking for all the Jewish people.

Jason: Just like the American, just like Obama speaks for the American people.

Pierre: But, if you follow...

Lisa: Yeah, exactly.

Pierre: If you follow the reasoning it's worse than that. Well, we're not sure about what is going to happen, but in this scenario presented previously, you have the Zionists, not necessarily Jewish by the way,...

Lisa: Right.

Pierre: ...who work, who prepare the annihilation of the Semitic people. Semitic Arabs and the Jewish Semitic, you see what I mean?

Lisa: Um-hmm.

Pierre: So it's not Zionists, extremist Jewish or nationalized Jewish, it's anti-Semitic Zionist. It seems a paradox but it might be what will happen in the end. Non-Jewish Zionists, which are anti-Semitic, that will prepare the destruction of the Jewish people.

Lisa: Yeah. You know for all the, for all we know, the Jewish people are also being made a target here too by their own political movement and the Zionist mindset.

Joe: Um-mm. Yeah, and it's seems to me we're talking again about who did 9/11. We're talking about a certain group of people that are really above and beyond national boundaries and religious or ethnic kind of ideologies or considerations. Their desire and goal is to control people regardless of identity, and the way they control people is to make them, you know, divide and conquer. Set them against each other, encourage conflicts, wars. These people are sitting somewhere up on high, you know, in their own heads. And they're looking at the world as their little oyster. That they think about things in a global sense. They see all seven billion people on this little blue marble kind of thing, and they go (Gollum voice) "Mine!"

Jason: "My precioussss!"

Joe: And they use ideologies, sure, in their manipulations of people, you know, and when you say Zionism and Israelis, yeah, I think you're talking about kind of high up in that level. But even they are getting their orders from someone who really has this global perspective. And has a broad understanding, a broad knowledge base. I mean, they're not stupid people. They're obviously, they're evil, but they're smart.

Jason: Yeah.

Lisa: Sounds diabolical, but they're super-intelligent, and I think one thing we can say we know for sure, whoever pulled off 9/11 holds no sanctity for the value of a human life.

Joe: Absolutely. That's what it comes down to.

Pierre: On the, on the contrary....

Lisa: I think it's safe to say that, right?

Joe: Yep!

Jason: Well, look at Sandy Hook.

Pierre: I think one of the drivers, one of the main drivers is, as Joe said, controlling social destruction, and those top perpetrators, they, for them, humans seem to be, all humans are expendable.

Lisa: Yes.

Pierre: A potential source of suffering and, actually even a CIA agent, ONI agent, FBI officials, Mossad leaders, Israeli government, and U.S. government, in the end it's all the same. Everybody's expendable and that's what those middle-range perpetrators forget. They think they're top of the range, their on top of the pyramid. They're not. And I think ultimately that they will realize that they were set up too.

Joe: Um-hmm

Lisa: Yes.

Jason: I mean, there's a...

Lisa: We were all set up.

Jason: ...sacrifice character to a lot of the terrorist-type of thing? I mean, you kind of imagine that maybe these people are like some sort of weird satanistic kind of cult. I don't know that's the best word I can come up with. That they organize these terrorist attacks, to them it's sort of like sacrificing people on the altar. Sandy Hook and stuff like that. These types of people, I mean, they're evil, in that kind of way where we have no words to truly describe what kind of evil they are, except to call them things like satanists. That's not really fair because, you know that's not really...

Lisa: How about we call them psychopaths?

Jason: Yeah, we could, but then that implies they couldn't do otherwise. And I think at the top, that they're not.

Joe: They're conscious.

Jason: They're not just machines. I think that psychopaths are the tools of these people, but recognize the existence...

Joe: They're people with black souls, if you want to call it that.

Jason: I think they are evil people. They must be evil people, because there's a certain craft to what they do, that underlies a kind of malevolent creativity that I don't think would be present in a psychopath.

Pierre: The level of skills necessary probably requires more than a psychopath. Psychopaths are kind of ideal tools, ideal robots because they're kind of innately attracted towards destruction. So when you have a dark soul like that, it's probably....

Joe: Well one of the problems of the idea of it being a psychopath is that, psychopaths generally speaking, don't envision very far into the future...

Niall: Long-term.

Joe: ...or long-term, but these people show this long-term strategizing that is really diabolic and diabolical and really devious, you know what I mean? Because obviously, I mean, the 9/11 thing was planned well in advance, and it's coming to fruition now, took them at least twenty years there. Maybe you could even go back to JFK, the same type of people involved, or their ideological descendants, you know. And this is what people don't understand, and this is the scary part of the story.

Niall: That is what makes it a psy-ops.

Joe: This is what makes, well this is what, no, not what makes it a psy-op, this is, this picture we're presenting of this all-seeing eye can I say? What this, basically a force, a power in the world that is controlling the entire planet and it can see long-term and can, and has a really in-depth knowledge of the human psychology and how to manipulate masses of people. I mean, I don't know anybody else, and I can understand why they don't, but I don't know anybody who would even want to go there, or even go there. They all want to fixate on the little minutiae of their own little corner....

Lisa: Yeah, I know. And that's why I know you all do, and I try to everyday, encourage people to expand their knowledge base by reading. A lot of people ask what's the point of reading a book? What's the point of seeking out books and getting information? Well, the point is arming yourself with knowledge because, as we all like to say, "knowledge protects." You know?

Joe: It can save your life.

Lisa: "Ignorance endangers." And I think most of the people out there don't realize the gravity of the situation. They're being misinformed because they watch their televisions, and for a number of other reasons. A lot them are on antidepressant drugs, and not thinking clearly, and a lot of them aren't thinking at all.

Joe: Absolutely.

Lisa: I think it's important to read and gather as much information. That's why I, you know, I'm all for reading Judy's book, not to bring it up again, but I am all for reading it. I just, I haven't been able to read it yet.

Joe: I think the point that, to answer our detractors and the fanatical people who really don't make Judy Wood look very good, is that we're talking here just about the truth and getting people away from out of the clutches of government, and the manipulations of government to try and pull them in and make them trust and believe in authority which will only end in their own destruction. To get people away from that, you don't need necessarily, and it's not even for a lot of people it's not even appropriate or useful, to try and get them to look at all the details, in-depth, etc.

Jason: Right, they can't judge it anyway.

Joe: If you can simply bring up and you tailor it to each person. If you've got a little demographic who are of this type of person, this type of mind or whatever, you just present them with a certain type of information. And it's kind of softer, or it's easier for them to grasp. You take them along one step at a time. You just say listen, "Your government probably doesn't have your best interest at heart." Or any number of little details, you know? I'm sure, Lisa, you've tried to do that in various different ways yourself, and...

Lisa: Yes, sir.

Joe: ...and that's the approach we have to take, because you can't just be a fanatic for one particular way of doing it. Because you're going to miss out on a lot of people, and there are some people who will say that, "'Well to hell with all the people out there, they've given up, and I've given up on them long ago." But we don't. We haven't given up on the potential of the possibility for snatching one or two out of the fire, even at the last moment. And whatever way we can tailor our message, which is consistent in its core, but we can tailor it in different ways to try to appeal and reach those people and see if, even just one at a time, see if in the sense of getting them out of the clutches of evil government.

Jason: Well, look at, like, the education system. The pedagogical method is standardized test. Everybody does the exact same thing and then they've gone and done studies, and they say some people a kinesthetic, you know, some people do better this way,...

Joe: Yeah!

Jason: ...some people do better that way. And it's the same basic philosophy. You got to educate somebody, and if you present it to them one way, you're going to guarantee that they're not going to get it, basically. I mean, you're just going to cut them off.

Joe: Absolutely.

Jason: If you can just change the way you say things to present the same information in a palatable way, you know, you might help them. You don't know.

Lisa: Right.

Jason: And it's about helping people in the end. It's not about being right.

Joe: Yep.

Jason: Being right is never the point. It's being good. It's helping people who are suffering in the world. People are suffering. People are dying, they're being murdered. Children are being murdered.

Lisa: And that's why I take issue with people who, who continue to want to believe what they're hearing on their TV, and innocent people are dying. And they keep dying every day. They keep being killed every day because of the lies that are based, all the way tracked back to 9/11 in 2001.

Joe: Absolutely.

Lisa: It's so important, and there's a lot of people don't even want to hear about 9/11 anymore, because it was so long ago now. The years have flown by rather quickly you know. But it's still just as relevant today as it was when it happened.

Jason: Do you know what the scary shit is? The scary thing is that actually I think it tracks back further.

Lisa: Yeah, I know it does.

Jason: It goes back to JFK...

Lisa: But you can't even go there because, you know...

Jason: It goes back before then.

Joe: Yeah.

Jason: I mean all of these Nazi scientists who were into the occult, got nationalized and put into all these key positions of scientific power in all the intelligence agencies...

Lisa: Right.

Jason: ...and look what happened.

Joe: The generations...

Jason: It smells. It smells of them. I mean it reeks.

Pierre: And, I want to mention....

Lisa: A lot of people say "our government wouldn't do that to us." You know, well, let's look at the Kent State shooting, and we don't even have to go into that, but they killed American citizens at Kent State. They killed our own people, and that's another thing that irks me too.

Jason: The Tuskegee Experiment.

Lisa: Huh?

Jason: The Tuskegee Experiment.

Lisa: Oh, absolutely.

Jason: Where they forcibly infected a bunch of Afro-Americans with syphilis...

Lisa: Yeah,

Jason: see how long it would take them to suffer and die.

Lisa: You know I just wish people would look for alternative news sources other than their TV. The TV has steered people away from the truth ever since it happened. I'm sure, and I know, and you know, there are other stories that they don't tell the truth about, they violate their own code of journalistic ethics, and well they used to have one, I don't really think they have one anymore.

Joe: No.

Lisa: That's debatable, I guess.

Pierre: I just wanted to add to what Lisa said when you mentioned that when you regret the apathy of the masses in front of the daily suffering and daily killing of children. I was thinking about those dark elites, and I was wondering somehow feeding from the suffering and submission of human beings, I was wondering of the people, I was wondering if maybe even more important to them than the suffering and the death of thousands of children, was not this induced apathy in human beings, because at the deep level there's probably a struggle for the souls of individuals, you know? And this mass apathy of billions of people, it's a huge, huge victory...

Jason: Overwhelming.

Pierre: ...of the dark forces.

Joe: Um-hmm.

Jason: And apathy is the only true sin in the world.

Joe: Absolutely. People talk about wanting to get everybody has to read Dr. Judy Wood's book, and sure, anybody who is at that level, where they have gone through the process where they're willing to expose themselves to that kind of information, that in-depth information, it's fine, but you know what? There's millions, and millions, and millions of other people who are still, have the potential who...

Lisa: That's right.

Joe: ...all they, all they need right now is to care a little bit about the death of children, the death of Palestinians, the fact that the U.S is...

Lisa: It's not just American children, it's not just when the bullet flies home that it matters, that the bullet appeared at all. This selective empathy that I have written about on some occasions....

Joe: On SOTT a while ago, yes.

Lisa: just kills me to see that. Why is an American life...

Jason: It's American!

Lisa: ...more important than any other life? It isn't.

Joe: It's a terrible indictment on human beings, to say that they don't care to that extent. And we're trying, in our own way, to try and even just to get people up to that level where they care in a simple way. Forget about even all 9/11 and all that kind of stuff, just...

Lisa: Yeah! Just care about the fact that people are dying!

Joe: Exactly.

Pierre: And we are.

Jason: Why not just stop!

Pierre: And we are opposing here, we are witnessing the opposition of two fundamental, and non-mutually exclusive factors, that is the emotion, the empathy, the compassion, the emotional dimension, and on the other side, where the Judy Wood presents the intellectual side, the evidence, the facts, and actually for human beings, symbolically to walk correctly, he needs those two legs; intellect and emotion. You need...

Lisa: Yes.

Pierre: ...both. It goes hand in hand, actually, truth and compassion and empathy.

Lisa: Well, isn't that what makes us human, the two together?

Pierre: Yes, exactly! So we have to walk towards those two goals, and they go together.

Lisa: I think apathy is a weapon of mass destruction, but what people don't realize, many people don't realize is that who it's destroying is us.

Joe: Absolutely.

Jason: It's destroys the apathetic person in the end.

Pierre: Yeah.

Joe: All right, Lisa. We're getting pretty close to our end time here, real end time. And that we can't actually continue, we've just got a couple minutes left. And do you have anything, you know, monumental or...

Lisa: Well, I would just like to say this: because so much of the 9/11 truth movement has omitted the information, I would urge everyone to look into the Israeli connection to 9/11, the Israeli government connection to 9/11. There's a lot of information out there about it, and I do think that a faction within the Israeli government played a central role in what happened.

Joe: Um-hmm. Okay. Well listen, Lisa, thanks for being on. It's been good to talk to you and hear your voice, and have your opinions on this topic of topics.

Lisa: I thank you all, very much.

Joe: And we hope....

Jason: Thank you very much, Lisa!

Niall: Thank you!

Lisa: All right, take care.

Joe: We hope we can have you back soon, okay?

Jason: See you soon!

Lisa: All right. Thanks.

Joe: Take care of yourself.

Lisa: Yes, I will thanks.

Niall: Thanks to our listeners.

Joe: All right, folks, that's it. It's been a bit of a polemic show and it's all because we invited Dr. Judy Wood on the show.

Jason: I think it was a good thing.

Pierre: She was very good.

Joe: It was a good thing, absolutely, and we wanted...

Jason: I loved all of her callers.

Joe: We wanted, you love them all?

Jason: I did, I think....

Joe: You should have seen some of the comments they were making on the thing [the chat room].

Jason: Yeah, but that's good!

Joe: But they're real. They're like if you don't follow the bible you're evil!

Jason: I mean they're, they're in there with their bible reading you know, quoting chapter and verse.

Joe: Yeah. Anyway listen, folks we'll be back next week with some other topic of some description.

Niall: Next week we've got Dr. Colin Ross.

Joe: Exactly, Dr. Colin Ross. Look him up.

Niall: He'll be talking about CIA doctors and psychiatry.

Outro music.