TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @Kambeitz9
@Kambeitz9 - Tony Kambeitz
@Kangacollins123 @SpartaSnafu @RichardGage_911 Don’t Forget About the Floors Below Street Level. https://t.co/bkwT7i7rnx
Video Transcript AI Summary
Below ground, the building appears sliced off, with firefighters visible on the first story. Innovation Luggage and Hallmark cards are recognizable. Loading docks are color-coded for truck deliveries. Post-9/11, echoes are heard in the area. Deep in the parking garage, search crews seek survivors in an empty space, not a collapsed structure.
Translation: The building below ground looks sliced off, with firefighters visible on the first story. Loading docks are color-coded for truck deliveries. Post-9/11, echoes are heard in the area. Search crews look for survivors in an empty parking garage, not a collapsed one.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If we go down below the ground in that corner, well, here's what it looked like. The building indeed, you know, the main body went missing, just like it was sliced off there. So the mall is in the first story below ground, and there's some some firefighters that will walk along there. We're gonna go down one story and look at them. Here they are.
That's right under that area. It's a little bit punched in down here, but you can read Innovation Luggage, Hallmark cards, so you know right where they are. So now we're gonna go a couple of stories below that to the loading docks, and it's painted purple under building 5, so you know where you are, and then green under building 4. So it's color code so the delivery trucks know where to unload, and we're going to look down that direction just after 9:11. Listen to the echo in this audio clip.
Going down to the parking garage, we're in quite deep. These are the first pictures of search crews underneath the World Trade Center desperately looking for survivors. That's not a collapsed parking garage, that's not even a full parking garage. It's an empty parking garage.
@Kambeitz9 - Tony Kambeitz
@iamthebeef @RichardGage_911 @JustXAshton https://t.co/ZlDomhzD60
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Hutchinson effect involves strange phenomena like levitating objects and spontaneous metal fracturing. The US military briefly showed interest but struggled with control. Metal samples exhibited unusual properties like changing from hard to soft and disappearing. John Hutchison's work on these effects became more reliable over time. In 2007, he submitted an affidavit in a court case related to the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11, asserting that the event resembled scaled-up versions of his experiments. Military and industrial complex members have observed his work since 1979.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Hutchinson effect. Yep.
Speaker 1: That was one that is really highly controversial. It began, George Hathaway and another Canadian had shown us a film of some things that looked really, really strange. We had items that were levitating, accelerating, burning. One of the problems was the range of effects. Yeah.
So in in that case, I actually paid them to recreate the situation. Mhmm. And actually, he had discovered a number of these things kinda spontaneously.
Speaker 0: But the US military took an interest.
Speaker 1: Well, we did, for a while. The problem, frankly, is control. Mhmm. You know? K?
You cannot control the effects, but they're certainly interesting. For instance, they showed me at a quankshaft. Remember, he's grabbing crap literally out of the junkyard Yeah. And had exposed to it. They took it to BC Hydro for testing.
And the same piece of metal on one end is case hardened steel. On the other end is, you know, soft as lead. And it's just from being exposed to things. We had PVC that literally was pulverized and disappeared. Another one, it took a rat tail file, put it between 2 wooden boards, put it in there.
It lit up just like, remember, the old incandescent light bulbs? Sure. You have a wire across there. And just like that, it lights up. Got to the point the whole file, which was as big as my finger, just lit up and, you know, broke apart.
Split in 2. The interesting piece was, you know, as it had been white hot, they they reached in and picked it up, and it was cold.
Speaker 0: That was pretty risky. Yes.
Speaker 2: It appears that these effects were known to people at Los Alamos as early as 1983. In other words, this strange warping of metal, the levitation effect, which John was creating sporadically. Initially, John was not able to create these effects reliably, but as he worked and worked on this and, worked out how to tune his equipment, he was able to create effects very quickly within a few minutes. And we have done several interviews with John where he talks about his work and research. And in 2007, Doctor.
Judy Wood filed a court case and John Hutchison submitted an affidavit in doctor Wood's court case.
Speaker 3: Upon examination of the destructive effects done to the World Trade Center on 911 as documented by doctor Judy Wood and as reviewed by me, I can and do assert that the World Trade Center was destroyed by devices that are scaled up, refined, and or weaponized versions of the effects that I have named the Hutchison effect. Levitation of heavy objects, the spontaneous fracturing of metals, changes in the crystalline structure and physical properties of metals, fusion of dissimilar materials such as metal and wood while lacking any displacement, the anomalous heating of metals without burning adjacent material, and the disappearance of metal samples. I have witnessed the tops of steel bars turn to dust and white powders as well as chrome plating being blown off other samples. In the years from and after 1979, many members of the so called and aptly named military industrial complex have visited my lab, corresponded with me, and or in a variety of other respects, observed my work and my inventions.
reSee.it AI Summary
Dr. Judy Wood, former professor of Mechanical Engineering, presents evidence on the 13th anniversary of 9/11, suggesting a destructive mechanism involving directed energy technology caused most of the WTC buildings to turn to dust. Steel beams were observed flying through the air and disintegrating, according to Dr. Wood.
@Kambeitz9 - Tony Kambeitz
Coast to Coast Guest, Dr. Judy Wood, a Former Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University, Presents Evidence on the 13th Anniversary of 9/11, of the Destructive Mechanism Which Caused Most of the WTC Buildings to Turn to DUST as a Result of Some Sort of Directed Energy Technology. “You Have Steel Beams Flying Through the Air and Turning to DUST,” Dr. Wood Said.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Dr. Judy Wood, a former professor of mechanical engineering, discusses her research on the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11. She argues that the buildings did not collapse or burn up, but instead turned to dust in midair. She suggests that a directed free energy technology was used as the destructive mechanism, although she does not speculate on the source or location of this energy. Dr. Wood emphasizes the importance of focusing on the evidence and not jumping to conclusions or theories. She also mentions her unsuccessful attempt to sue contractors involved in the NIST report on the collapse of the towers.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Before we get going into our program tonight, I would hope that all of you would take just a brief moment of silence, a bit of a prayer for the nearly 3,000 people who died on 9,112,001. A tragedy will never be forgotten, and it changed us probably forever. In a moment, doctor Judy Wood will join us with her thoughts, her theory on what happened on that day. Regardless of your belief system and what took down those buildings and how those planes crashed into the buildings, remember this. Nearly 3,000 people died tragically jumping from buildings, dying in the rubble, firemen, policemen, responders, people working in the office buildings.
Show them at least how much you care about their life and just take a brief moment, a brief prayer for that if you would do that. Well, in a moment, doctor Judy Wood joins us. Her book, where did the towers go, will be talking about her thoughts on 911. Hard to believe, folks, it's been 13 years since that tragic day. 13 years.
Where does the time go? But look how this planet has changed. Up next, doctor Judy Wood on Coast to Coast Day. Welcome back to Coast to coast. I'm George Nory.
As I was mentioning, 13 years ago, of course, we saw and witnessed perhaps one of our most tragic events in our lifetime. Maybe the most tragic event we will ever see, but maybe not. Doctor Judy Wood, former professor of mechanical engineering, she has research expertise and experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, materials characterization, and materials engineering science. Now in the time since 911, she has applied her expertise to a forensic study of more than 40,000 images, hundreds of video clips, and the large volume of witness testimony pertaining to the destruction of the World Trade Center complex. Her work, where did the towers go?
Judy was on with me about 3 years ago and here she is back on coast to coast on this ominous day. Judy, it's a pleasure to have you back.
Speaker 1: It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 0: In the 3 years or so that we last had you on, have you seen any new evidence or has anything changed to either continue to back up your theory or to change your mind?
Speaker 1: It's not a theory. I deal with evidence. And as I say, know, if you don't have enough evidence to solve a problem, you can't solve it. You don't have enough evidence. And you don't replace what you don't have with guesses and theories and speculation because then you're solving an imaginary problem, not the real problem.
You can't solve the real problem if you don't have enough evidence. And so you can but what evidence you do have, you can go within that, and that's what I've done. And after you, collect the evidence and evaluate the evidence to determine what happened, then you go to defining what the destructive mechanism was. And in doing that, you can eliminate the impossible and then retain what's left. It's like you start out with this big circle Mhmm.
Around everything, and then you can toss to find a circle that is impossible.
Speaker 0: Judy, in your work, where did the towers go? Evidence of directed free energy technology on 911. I want you to, for those who, 1, didn't hear you with me 3 years ago and are brand new to the program, tell us about this and about your work and then we'll get into the interview.
Speaker 1: Okay. What I did is look at all of the evidence and starting at the beginning, you know, the issue of how fast the building went away. I don't see collapse. It didn't collapse. It went away.
It turned to dust and, you know It's
Speaker 0: gone wrong, basically.
Speaker 1: And, also, it didn't it it didn't burn up. It didn't slam to the ground, but most of it turned into dust in midair. I know that sounds strange, but you look at the evidence, and that's what you see. All of Manhattan was covered in, you know, ankle deep dust and quite, you know, went down the eastern seaboard, went up and away. How do we know that it didn't slam to the ground?
Well, the seismic chart doesn't reflect that. There's no s or p wave. Those are the seismic signals that traveled through the Earth.
Speaker 0: And they should have registered something. Okay.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's like hitting a rock with a hammer. You know, it's like hitting a tuning fork. It should ring. Didn't.
There is no detectable s or p waves for any of the 5 events. You know, the north tower got a hold, south tower got a hold, south tower went away, north tower went away, then building 7 went away. For all those 5 events, there's no S or P waves. But in regular controlled demolition, you get S waves and P waves and surface waves. Not only that, they they calculate the seismic signal, the equivalent Richter scale reading based on the surface wave.
And even the surface waves were so weak that, it was equal or less than when they blew up the Seattle Kingdom. That was a a 2.3 on the Richter scale. The the North Tower is a 2.3, and the South Tower is a 2 point 1, and it should have been a lot more than that. It was equivalent to the bottom, you know, 18 or 20 stories of building.
Speaker 0: And there wasn't any and, Judy, there wasn't any concrete mass concrete from all those levels. They it should have been all over the place. Concrete should have been in huge heaps. It was all dust as you said.
Speaker 1: Oh, and not just the concrete, but everything. You know, file cabinets, chairs, desks, toilets. Toilets are easy to to see, you know, like in the junkyard, remnants of toilets. You know, shiny porcelain surfaces. There wasn't even one recognizable part of 1, and it should have been over 3,000.
Speaker 0: And I want I wanna point out, by way, every time we do programs on this, we do get some emails from some people who feel somewhat offended. They feel as if, you know, we're not being patriotic because we're questioning the official version. I wanna say this right now. It is healthy to be skeptic. It is healthy to investigate, and I think you really never can take the official version, which is, the, you know, could be the John f Kennedy assassination with a Warren report or this report of the 911 commission.
You just can't take it at face value. You have investigate. And, Judy, what was it that you saw that got you to start looking at it and coming up with the conclusions that you came up with?
Speaker 1: Well, on on that day, you know, we're told this is a collapse. And I grew up without a TV set, and I'm not used to listening to a TV. And if the TV is telling me something that conflicts with what I'm seeing, I just shut off my ears. And what I saw was a building turning into dust in midair like a, you know, sort of like a bubbler drinking fountain. And and it wasn't a building collapsing.
And, like, this is bizarre, but the grown ups will take care of it. They'll look into it. I have my job to do. It was, you know, that mentality, but it came clear, over the next year or 2 that nobody was looking into it. The grown ups weren't gonna fix it.
It. Whose job was it to look into it? Not only that, you know, I was thinking very much of the people who died there, and especially the people hanging outside the building from the 100 and 5th floor.
Speaker 0: Oh my god. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I felt like we owe it to them to find out what happened, and I sort of made them a promise that I would find out what happened and tell their story.
Speaker 0: Judy, I had Richard Gage on several days ago. Richard Gage, of course, from the 2000, architects and engineers for 911 truth. He doesn't agree with your conclusions. He and I find this important and fascinating. Both of you, of course, don't agree with the official version of what happened that day, but he doesn't believe that a free energy device or technology took those buildings.
So react to that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I don't I don't start with the answer and work backwards. I start with, you know, the evidence and then looking at the destructive mechanism. The towers didn't burn up, and they didn't slam on the ground, but mostly turned into dust in midair. We know that because the seismic signal was inappropriate for building slamming the ground.
Also, the towers were built in this bathtub, it sounded like a dike. They kept outside the river because they were built on bedrock 70, that's 7 times 10, 70 feet below the water table. And if you had 2 half 1000000 ton buildings slamming to the ground, you would have ruptured the bathtub. Didn't happen. Also, if they slam the ground, you see a pile of stuff left over.
And, actually, when I first started, publicly talking about this, I was heavily ridiculed and laughed at. She says that the building's turned into dust. Isn't that funny? No. All the rubble's there.
You know, none of it turned into dust in mid air. But that's that's changing because I've been driving this, you know, for quite a while. So if you look at that, already we can tell that let's look at types of energy, kinetic energy. That's like a wrecking ball, a missile, a bomb that blows stuff apart. Those would have a seismic signal.
They also launch chunks at a very fast rate that would slam into adjacent buildings. None of the adjacent buildings looked machine gun fired. Also, the debris would have to go somewhere if you blew up the building. The ground shook with surface waves for 8 seconds, but it would take 9 and a half seconds to drop a bowling ball off the roof to the ground. That's another piece of evidence that says that building didn't slam to the ground.
So kinetic energy, can be eliminated as a destructive mechanism. We're not talking about the device. We're talking about the mechanism of destruction. You have to first look at the mechanism, the failure mode, so to speak. And let's look at thermal energy, where the building is cooked to death.
You know, if they're cooked to death, well, you would have seen some, you know, bright, blinding light if it was high heat. You would see the you would see unburned paper flying all over the place.
Speaker 0: No. You would not.
Speaker 1: When the dust cloud rolled down the street, you know, people were trying to outrun it, but they couldn't. And then it just mowed over and what kept on going. It just left them covered with dust. And they've had trouble breathing, but they're they're weren't cooked.
Speaker 0: Judy, when we come back, I want you to explain how a directed free energy device or technology works and where they may have been situated if those buildings came down that way. I'm George Nory back in a moment on Coast TO Coast AM. And welcome back to Coast TO Coast. George Nory with you and, of course, doctor Judy Wood as we talk about her conclusions about the towers and 911. Judy, explain how this directed free energy technology works, if you would, where the devices would have to be.
Just put it in perspective for us.
Speaker 1: Well, again, as I was saying, you first must determine what happened and and look you look at all the evidence, and then you determine what the destructive mechanism was. And you can't solve the problem unless you have enough evidence. So jumping to the answer and you're coming up with a theory and speculation and so forth is solving an imaginary problem. You have to go be very disciplined. I know it's tough.
And and the, average person, especially in our current educational system, is not geared to doing that. They're geared to jumping to the answer of a multiple choice test. What happens if you're if the correct answer is not one of the choices? So if you start with this very methodical way of going about it, you can determine as much as you can determine according to the evidence. And what the evidence shows is that, you can eliminate kinetic energy as the destructive mechanism.
I'm not talking about, Acme mile x extra mile 17 of the ACMI weapon store. I'm talking about the destructive mechanism. Kinetic energy means that it would mean that buildings were beaten to death. So like a gravity class or wrecking ball or missile or bomb. Thermal energy would mean the buildings were cooked to death.
Lots of heat. We could those two things, the evidence rules out. But directed energy, as I define it, is energy is instructed to do something differently than it normally does. Instead of the bonding forces of matter being attracted to each other, they're directed to repel each other. It's not like, something physically hitting it or cooking it.
And and so within that, it's a big umbrella of of things. But it's a you know, energy is directed somehow to do something differently than it normally does. A lot of people are uncomfortable with that. They they want to have a device, you know, an ACME model, whatever.
Speaker 0: Yes. And, well, that's that's how we think. I mean, to me Right. You know, somebody's in another building up on top of the roof aiming this huge pulse machine at all the at at all the World Trade Center buildings and firing away. You're you're you're you're saying, hey.
Didn't happen like that.
Speaker 1: Well, we can't we don't have enough evidence to say that's what happened. But what from what the evidence shows, you know, we can define that. And then we can look at parallel evidence that produces the same thing.
Speaker 0: Well, but let me ask you this, though, Judy, because I wanna get a better understanding for this. What you're saying that some kind of directed technology took down the building.
Speaker 1: Correct? Energy was directed in some way.
Speaker 0: Now could it have been within the building?
Speaker 1: Sure. It could've been anywhere. Wait. Wait. I'm I'm a be careful because, you know, the detractors will say, oh, she said it was within the building.
No. It could No.
Speaker 0: We're just looking at possibilities. Could it
Speaker 1: have been
Speaker 0: from a satellite?
Speaker 1: It could have been from a a variety of places, but here's an example to to maybe help you let go of needing to to know exactly where it is. Do you have a cell phone? Mhmm. Do you know where the tower is that your cell phone connects?
Speaker 0: I have no idea.
Speaker 1: Bingo. You just know that it works.
Speaker 0: I know that it works.
Speaker 1: And you're within the range.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: And and your cell phone works, and you're within the range of the tower it connects to. You need those two things to make your phone work. And it's it might be a similar type thing where it's an interference like that of different energies where you need different components. But for now, it's, you know, nothing touch well, here's one of the pieces of evidence. You have a steel beam flying through the air, and it's dissolving as it flies through the air.
It's turning to dust, and it's not hitting anything.
Speaker 0: That's amazing. That is amazing. I mean, just like it's like like like a Star Trek thing. It's just poof. It's gone.
Speaker 1: Or it's sort of like, an elkist house or tablet effervescent. Yeah. And as I say, if people have trouble understanding that, you know, I ask them to look at the picture and I say, okay. Let's say you're gonna impersonate that beam.
Speaker 0: Could we could we say, Judy, that it, like, dissolves away but at a very rapid clip?
Speaker 1: It's sort of so follow along with me here. If you're gonna impersonate this bee, I mean, you're gonna okay. So you're gonna cover yourself with dust and jump off the top of the building. Some man in the ground isn't gonna see that amount of dust coming off of you. Okay.
So you grab a couple of bags of flour and start heaving that out of the way down. That still isn't gonna count for the amount of dust you see coming out of these steel beams. And pretty soon you realize those steel beams have to be turning into dust in order to do do what's getting done. And you there's also, video of a steel beam falling with the dust. It looks like it overtakes it, and you know that doesn't happen.
It just run out of dust. It's run out of solid. It's turned Yeah. Totally turned to dust. It was You look at the intersection where it was supposed to land, and and there aren't any solid chunks of steel down there.
Speaker 0: How big, how much energy would you need if you're gonna take down these buildings?
Speaker 1: I know. A lot of people like to ask that question. You know, what what are calculations? Well, what are the calculations gonna show that the buildings with air that's gone? Just just look.
Whatever was needed, there was enough. And, in order to make calculations, you have to make assumptions. And remember when you make the assumptions, you're now solving an imaginary problem, not a real problem. So that's why with with this unusual problem, the discipline of just staying with what you know that you know that you know and knowing that that is something separate from what you don't know and not mixing the 2 or filling it in with speculation and hypotheses and theories and guesswork. But we can establish what we do know that, you know, kinetic energy, the building wasn't beaten to death.
Thermal Energy ruled that out, wasn't cooked to death. And one of the easiest examples or piece of evidence of that is the people at the bottom of stairwell b in tower 1. You know, the the cover image on my book that looks like I call it the bubbler.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: You know, in the Midwest, they call drinking fountains, you know, they're constantly going a bubbler. That's what that looks like. And would you believe when that picture was taken, there are people in stairwell b right at the base of that? And they weren't squashed. They weren't beaten to death.
They weren't cooked to death. And, they thought they're buried under a huge pile of building, and they thought there's no way they're gonna get out by the time they, you know, they could excavate to them. They thought they had a 100 6 stories on top of them. But it turns out that the dust had gone up and blocked out some sunlight. That's why it was dark.
But when the dust cleared, they looked up and saw a blue sky.
Speaker 0: Now tell tell me this, though, Judy. Tell me this. If if if this is all correct and some kind of directed energy took these all down, how long do you think they would have needed to have been either pulsing at the building or however Wait.
Speaker 1: Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.
You're making assumptions. Again, that's that's dangerous because then you're up solving an imaginary problem. If you stick with what you know that you know that you know, this
Speaker 0: is just Alright. Well, what do we know?
Speaker 1: What we do know is that the buildings weren't cooked to death, and they weren't beaten to death. So that means the destructive mechanism was not kinetic energy or thermal energy. So bombs blowing up are ruled out.
Speaker 0: They found thermite. Right? Did they not?
Speaker 1: No. They didn't find thermite. They found, aluminum powder and iron oxide. Those are some of the ingredients used to make thermite. And, you know, the, peer reviewed paper that they call peer reviewed that pay pay for publishing saying it I don't disagree with it, that aluminum powder and iron oxide were found.
But guess what? You know what the building was made out of? What? It's a steel frame building with aluminum cladding.
Speaker 0: Jeez. Alright.
Speaker 1: So if it's turned to dust, what are you gonna find in the dust? But okay. So if if, let's say, they're gonna climb that with thermite. What's the destructive mechanism? You know, what in that dust baggy connects to what happened to the buildings?
If you can't make that connection, you don't go anywhere. And the the part in my book that I talked about, I I used instead of thermite, I used chocolate chip cookies. So the buildings were turned to dust. Therefore, the dust would be expected to contain traces of all materials that were in the building. Finding traces of chocolate, sugar, and nano wheat flour, in the dust would not prove that chocolate chip cookies turned the buildings to dust.
It would not prove that these ingredients had been combined as chocolate chip cookies in the buildings, nor would it prove that such cookies were capable of turning building to dust. The same is true for thermite.
Speaker 0: Now there are some people, Judy, who say that planes didn't even hit those buildings. I I find that, preposterous.
Speaker 1: Well, the the building mostly turned to dust. Air can airplanes turn buildings to
Speaker 0: dust? No. But people saw planes hit the buildings.
Speaker 1: But did the building did did, that turn the building to powder in midair?
Speaker 0: No. No. I'm I'm not saying the planes alone may have done it, but I'm saying the planes did hit.
Speaker 1: I'm looking at the destructive mechanism. You know, some people say there's fake planes and some people say it's real planes. Well, fake planes can't turn a building to dust and neither can real planes. So getting people arguing about planes and no planes or whatever is a distraction away from what happened to the building. And and so I'm I'm very focused on what happened to the building.
So I don't I don't deal with the planes.
Speaker 0: Alright. So that's not your, area of expertise, basically.
Speaker 1: Well, it's it's it's, you know, I don't also, pay attention to what the operator of the technology had for breakfast. It doesn't solve what happened to the building. You know, that's that's a different issue.
Speaker 0: There was always talk that building 7, which apparently wasn't hit by almost that with with nothing basically, was pulled. Where what are we talking about there? Same thing happened?
Speaker 1: Yep. Same thing. And did you know it wasn't, 3 buildings that were destroyed that day? It wasn't 4 buildings that were destroyed that day. It wasn't 5 buildings.
It wasn't 6 buildings. It was 7 buildings that were destroyed that day. Building 4 is is what I've become fascinated with at times where the entire main body of the building went missing. Gone. You know, gone with the wind and the powder.
I'm not saying, you know, disappeared or vaporized. I'm saying it's just it's not there. You get a lot of powder around. You know, there's some scraps and stuff, but it and it's also images right below the ground of where that was. It was punched down a little bit into the first layer below ground, but the in the parking garage, a few short stories below that, you can't even tell anything happened.
The lights are still on. There's maybe dustier than usual. But where's the building go? Building 4. That was a, you know, kind of a large it was a a 9 story building, but width wise, it was, you know, bigger footprint.
But it's gone. Building 3, gone except the little shoe box at one end. Building 6, you know, someone today wrote me and said it was saying it was like a jack o'-lantern all carved out in the middle. Building 5 had these cylindrical holes in it. There's you know, building 7, it had all this stuff pouring out of it all afternoon for about 7 hours.
A lot of material. And then when it went away, it made a 0.6 on the Richter scale. That's like a jackhammer.
Speaker 0: Well, it sure is. How much energy, Judy, do you think was needed to destroy these buildings?
Speaker 1: May it could even be negative energy. If if you can understand the mechanism, that's what the beauty of this is. If there's a silver lining in this. It's that this technology was used for for destructive purposes, but it doesn't have to be. It could be used for good purposes, for providing free energy to the world.
If you have the ability to to affect, you know, the nature of matter, instead of having atoms attract each other, they're repelling each other. So if you just give it that instruction, it isn't like you have to put in a whole lot of bonds and a lot of energy that way. It could be the energy comes from the material. And, actually, the dust cloud that rolled down the street, first responders that I talked to said it was cooler than ambient temperature. Not only was it not hot, it was cooler.
And then it started feeling warm because, you know, you put acid on your hands. You it feels like it's burning up, but it could be room temperature. It there was something in the dust that was eating on their skin, and they just couldn't like, they're scrubbing off in the shower afterwards. Just couldn't get it out. It was, interesting.
Speaker 0: So what would happen, Judy? I don't wanna get morbid here, but if a human being is in that building and gets hit with this directed energy, what happens to the human? Is is the human pulverized too?
Speaker 1: I wanna, like, get away from the idea of, you know, a point and shoot laser beam. It's more of a field effect like the like the coverage range of your cell phone. You know, it's a it's a, a zone of effect. But remember the, people who left the building early, they've been referred to as jumpers. I don't think they voluntarily jumped, but they they somehow found themselves, you know, getting away from something and then up out out the window.
And weird other things were happening in the building. Like, one woman called her husband and said, oh, we're gonna start downstairs. And, you got, you know, wet t shirt wrapped around the head. We'll be we'll call you on the cell phone when we get to the bottom. And 2 or 3 stories later, she went out the window.
Speaker 0: Do you ever get doctor Wood into the WHO?
Speaker 1: No. But I got us about as close as, I got closer than anybody has in the public domain that is. I pretty much know who knows, and that's who I try to take to court.
Speaker 0: And tell me about that.
Speaker 1: These were contractors on the NIST report, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And they were mandated by congress to determine why and how the towers collapsed.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: They didn't do that. And I wrote a a request for correction to NIST saying, you know, the contractors were were leaving them astray. And and, you know, we can't sue a government agency, but we can sue contractors for fraud for of a government agency. And there's a couple of the contractors, and one in particular that had the most number of people on the contract, on this report, they are developers and manufacturers of energy weapons. Uh-huh.
Not only that, they also had and still have, I believe, contract with the US government to know everything about any weapon of mass destruction exists or is being developed anywhere. So not only do they know what technology it is, but they know whose technology it is. Would have been nice to have them under oath.
Speaker 0: What happened to the suit?
Speaker 1: See, the lower court, judge dismissed it saying, he wasn't gonna hear a case about who shot JFK or what landed on the moon. Oh. Excuse me, sir. Did you read the decision about that? Did you get confused?
That's which
Speaker 0: Yeah. Not that case.
Speaker 1: So we appeal it, and and those those 3 judges in the court of appeals, they were very respectful. But, see, while working on the case, I couldn't talk about it and couldn't advertise it. And there was a kind of, a clamp down on, anybody else talking about it. Not legally, but, you know, those who didn't want this case to go forward were keeping everybody else from knowing about it. But there was only, like, 5 of us or 6 of us, you you know, count them on one hand, who supported this case.
Now if you're those judges, what would you do? And what those judges did in their very respectful in doing this, they wrote in the written decision. They acknowledge the law applied to this case, but they're ignoring the law and dismissed the case.
Speaker 0: Absolutely riveting, Judy. I've I've gotta tell you, as as as so many people have all their different theories, this one is very frightening.
Speaker 1: It's not a theory. It's not a theory. It's I know. I know what I know that I know.
Speaker 0: I know. I know the way you feel about that, but, a lot of people believe that. They they a lot of people do call it a theory, don't they?
Speaker 1: Because that's what they're used to doing. It's just, you know, what someone says, oh, that's a theory. That's a theory. And is 2 plus 3, equal to 5? Is that a theory?
Speaker 0: It shouldn't be.
Speaker 1: If I want to know your height, I would start with a tape measure, not a theory. What I'm reporting here is basically that, it's evidence. Evidence that anyone can observe if they look in my book. I don't tell people what to think.
Speaker 0: Let me ask you this. And we're coming up to the break, so I may
Speaker 1: have to
Speaker 0: ask you next hour. But why do you not accept the theory or conclusion of gauge gauge in the
Speaker 1: evidence. He presents theories. It is a theory.
Speaker 0: Okay. But could you could you you know, I asked him. I asked I says, how in the heck could you put explosives in these buildings and nobody see it?
Speaker 1: Yeah. It came to work one morning and the wall's missing because somebody's putting something in there, and it somebody doesn't notice. But not only that, is how do you detonate it? It's one of the parts in my book I showed just to remind people, I showed pictures of these signs you see at the side of the road saying, blasting zone ahead, turn off cell phones and two way radios. Okay.
How do you do that from Manhattan for 6 months?
Speaker 0: Yeah. You can't. Judy, stay with us. We're gonna come back in a moment. Doctor Judy, what conclusions about where did the towers go?
And we'll take your phone calls this hour as well on coast to coast AM.
@Kambeitz9 - Tony Kambeitz
@CHRIS_Toph111 @RichardGage_911 https://t.co/EGmh45wWVR
Video Transcript AI Summary
Bearden claims satellite photos show mysterious non-nuclear explosions near an uninhabited island in the East Siberian Sea, suggesting they are from an RF weapon using intersecting energy beams called scalars. This technology can create electromagnetic explosions or implosions at a distance, extracting energy from afar, resembling a cold explosion.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Bearden believes that these satellite photographs are of mysterious non nuclear explosions near an uninhabited island in the East Siberian Sea, and that they are discharges from an RF weapon that uses intersecting energy beams called scalars.
Speaker 1: In doing so, you can create, for example, either an electromagnetic explosion at a distance or you can create an electromagnetic implosion at a distance, the extraction of energy from a distant point. This would look like a cold explosion, so to speak.
@Kambeitz9 - Tony Kambeitz
In 2014, then U.S. State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki was Asked about Victoria Nuland's Leaked Phone Call, in Which she Discusses the U.S. Plan to Install a Government in Ukraine. Nuland’s Leaked Phone Call is After Jen Psaki’s BS. https://t.co/RvMqJczOnY
Video Transcript AI Summary
US officials are involved in discussions regarding Ukraine, with plans to broker a future government. Private diplomatic conversations are common, including talks about UN involvement. There is a disagreement over public versus private statements on US involvement in Ukraine. Additionally, there are discussions about the roles of key political figures like Klitschko in the government. The focus is on maintaining unity among moderate Democrats and strategizing for the future. Plans for further conversations and meetings are being considered.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: US officials talk about issues around the world the world. Of course, we do. That's what you do. That's what diplomats do and discuss, especially, issues where we've been closely engaged. You know, the secretary met with the opposition this weekend.
He stopped by a meeting with the foreign minister. It's up to the people of Ukraine, including officials from both sides, to determine the path forward, but it shouldn't be a surprise that there are discussions about events on the ground.
Speaker 1: More than discussions, though. This was 2 top US officials
Speaker 0: that are on the ground discussing a plan that they have to broker a future government and bringing officials from the UN to kind of seal the deal. This is more than the US trying to, make suggestions. This is the US midwifing the process. Well, Elise, you're talking about a private diplomatic conversation. Those happen all the time.
Of course, as part of private diplomatic conversations, there are discussions about what involvement the UN can have, what involvement or engagement should happen on the ground. That shouldn't be a surprise. Of course, these things are being discussed.
Speaker 2: I don't think that it is honest for you to say, no. We don't have an opinion, and that's all completely up to the people in
Speaker 0: the US. There's a
Speaker 2: And I specifically mean, in this case, I'm talking about Egypt.
Speaker 0: Sure. Well, let me
Speaker 2: just Because you do have it
Speaker 3: in here.
Speaker 0: One comment here. There is a difference between private discussions that happen in the interagency process, in the building, and what we convey publicly as a US government. And we have a responsibility to convey what our position is. Of course, you're discussing a range of options on a range of issues. But if you That's what you do as as a I'm sorry.
Diplomat.
Speaker 1: If you're saying privately behind the scenes that you're cooking up a deal and then you're saying publicly that this is up for Ukrainians to decide, those are 2 totally different things. I understand that diplomatic discussions are sensitive and you don't want everything to come out but those are 2 totally different, totally different positions. Elise, what do
Speaker 0: you think happens behind closed doors when people are discussing issues internally through the interagency?
Speaker 1: Discussing issues. This is talking about a deal that the US was was cooking up.
Speaker 0: I I think I would disagree with you. I think you're overstating and overqualifying a a couple of minutes from a privately recorded phone.
Speaker 3: What do you think?
Speaker 4: I think we're in play. The Klitschko piece is obviously the complicated electron here, especially the announcement of him as Deputy Prime Minister. And you've seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now. So we're trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone call we want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yachts.
And I'm glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I'm very glad he said what he said in response.
Speaker 3: Good. So, I don't think cleats should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary. I don't think it's a
Speaker 4: good idea. Yes. I mean, I guess you think in terms of him not going into the government, just let him sort of stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate Democrats together. The problem is going to be tiny book and his guys.
And I'm sure that's part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all of this.
Speaker 3: I think Yac is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's he's the guy you know, what he needs is cleech and tiny book on the outside. He needs to be talking to them 4 times a week. You know? I I I just think Klitsch going in, he's gonna be at that level working for Yacineuk.
It's just not going to work.
Speaker 4: Yes. No. I think that's I think that's right. Okay. Good.
Would you want us to try to set up a call with him as the next step?
Speaker 3: My understanding from that call, but you tell me was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yabs was gonna offer in that context a 3 way you know, 3 plus 1 conversation or 3+2 with