Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 575 Location: the eyevolution
Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:47 am Post subject: Hurricane Erin 9/11 : Checking the Evidence
9/11 researchers Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson have often commented with wonderous suspicion about Hurricane Erin on 9/11 2001.
This animation is featured on Judy Wood's website showing the gradual path of Hurricane Erin.
Many questions are asked and comments made about Hurricane Erin by Wood and Johnson such as the one based on this picture below.
The inset is a focus-in on the smoking Ground Zero during 9/11.
Quote:
The crew of the International Space Station (ISS) can see "terrorist Carnage" in NYC on 9/11/01, they did not report seeing a hurricane that was just out of their camera shot...
Strange one might think?
Well, how strange is it that the astronauts on the ISS on 9/11 didn't mention the hurricane?
Let's check the evidence....
The ISS station crew onboard the space station on 9/11 2001 formed Expedition 3 the 2nd expedition 0f 2001.
The crew launched on August 10, 2001 on Space Shuttle Discovery during mission STS-105 and took control of the complex on August 13, 2001.
So by 9/11 the crew had been onboard the space station for about a month.
During this time, from August 13th to September 11th there were 2 Tropical Storms and 3 hurricanes in the area known as the North Atlantic. A veritable hotspot for many Hurricanes and Tropical Storms every single year.
Here's a list of the ones between Aug 13th & Sept 11th 2001 with their paths.
The fact is the astronauts of Expedition 3 looking down on New York would have already seen many storms off the coast of the U.S. by the time 9/11 came around.
Furthermore, Frank Culbertson the astronaut that links up with Earth for a live broadcast on 9/11 had vast experience of Space flights. These flights included piloting STS-38 Atlantis in 1990, commanding STS-51 Discovery in 1993, and launching on STS-105 Endeavour to the ISS in 2001.
The astronauts of Expedition 3 would have been used to seeing many Hurricanes and Tropical Storms from their viewpoint in space and treated them as a matter of course.
Could this have been why the astronauts didn't mention Hurricane Erin on 9/11?
Seems the most probable reason wouldn't you say?
Afterall you dont see a 9/11 every day never mind 9/11 from space...
Also, the second picture at the top of this thread, which is used by Wood to bring up the "astronauts not mentioning Erin anomaly" is not from the pictures Frank Culbertson took.
The one below is a shot from the film of Culbertson.
Notice how the hurricane is not visible in shot. The Hurricane is not as burgeoning on the coastline as one might believe. Not as much of threat as Wood likes to suggest.
Also, is the ISS for weather monitoring?
It doesn't seem to be on first glance. Try googling for yourself. I am willing to look at evidence to the contrary.
Also, if you were an astronaut on the ISS looking down at 9/11 from space, talking to a newscaster live on mainstream news being beamed across the world hearing about the devastation and loss of life; would you turn round and say...
YOU: Wow, thousands maybe dead, geez that's awful...and I hate to tell you it may be a few thousand more because there's a whacking great hurricane heading your way, get in cars now maaan get the f**k outa town you're all gonna die"
Other statements are made by Wood and Johnson about Hurricane Erin's suggested suspicion.
Quote:
The development of the Erin is considered, and a comparison made to Hurricane Katrina, for the reason that Katrina and Erin were of comparable size (Erin was bigger, by most measures), yet we heard almost nothing of the risk Erin posed near 9/11 compared to what we heard about Katrina.
Is this strange?
No mention of Erin on the morning of 9/11?
Let's check the evidence...
Well according to Wood's own website she concedes that Erin's windspeed had dropped significantly by 9/11 from the Hurricane's top windspeed of the previous day.
The picture below is from the animation featured on Wood's website.
Note Time: 1200 pm Date 09/10. Wind: 125mph
By 0300 am of the next day(some 6 hours before 9/11) the windspeed has dropped considerably by 27mph
Is it really that strange afterall that a Hurricane seen to be losing wind power isn't reported as a threat in the hours before 9/11.
Let's consider North Atlantic Hurricanes in detail.
Below is a picture of Hurricane activity in that region between August and October in the years 1950 - 2001.
See how many of them if not most of them do not make landfall and have remarkably similar paths to Erin, i.e. moving in toward the coastline and then swinging out again in a curving motion.
Just like Erin.
Here are some more pictures of Hurricane activity during whole years.
I chose the years randomly from a list I found which stretches from 1851 to 2008.
1853
1926
1953
1974
It would appear that many storms appear in that region every year and many make a similar path to Erin every year but end up as not much of a threat to the populations of cities on the North East coast where New York is situated.
Here's a link for you to check the years yourself.
See how many Storms there are every year and how used to tracking, monitoring and predicting their paths the authorities would have been by 2001.
At least a hundred and fifty years of making sure if cities would or would not need to be evacuated.
Lots of practice.
Is this also why the astronauts on 9/11 didn't mention Erin? Not only is it not part of their briefing to monitor weather (it's left to the department which...monitors weather) but...even if they were concerned enough to mention it to mission control on Earth, is it not feasible to suggest that Mission Control would contact the relevant weather dept discuss the astronauts concerns with the relevant people, find out that the hurricane was losing wind speed and then get back to the astronauts so they would no longer be concerned and get on with the mission?
After checking the evidence is Hurricane Erin really that much of mystery on 9/11?
Last edited by GodSaveTheTeam on Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:28 pm; edited 2 times in total
thanks for this very comprehensive explanation - which should put this issue to bed once and for all.
the desperate, straw clutching claims about hurricane erin are just an example of the old "two things happen at the same time so they must be connected" logical fallacy - and it's a complete red herring that's about as convincing as the "missing rubble", "dustified steel" and "toasted cars" garbage which are little more than a bad joke to anyone who isn't staggeringly gullible and ignorant.
the problem is that judy wood's "truthseeking" admirers have a pathological inability to accept the truth that she's a fraud whose claims have been completely demolished. I guess they must think that trying to maintain a lie is preferable to losing face by admitting they've been conned. _________________ Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
The same conclusion applies to Wood's claim that there is deep significance (vis-à-vis HAARP and DEW) in the fact that several geophysical stations in Alaska recorded violent fluctuations in the components of the Earth's magnetic field shortly before Flight 17 hit the North Tower and continued throughout the day even after both towers collapsed. What she conveniently omits to mention (although I'm sure she had reviewed the data) is, that if one looks back at the daily record of such fluctuations, one finds numerous days over previous months in 2001 when the magnetic field varied just as markedly (and even more so) from the background level. The implication is that the deviation from average values recorded on 9/11 for the terrestrial magnetic field in Alaska was not significantly different from that on many previous days. Yet she presents the magnetic data for that day as evidence of some HAARP-like injection of electromagnetic energy into the ionosphere that was beamed down into the WTC to destroy it!
At best, Woods does not understand how to assess scientific data. At worst, she is deliberately misleading visitors to her website in order to persuade them that her DEW theory is correct. Perhaps the truth is that elements of both are at work.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:00 pm Post subject:
Micpsi wrote:
What she conveniently omits to mention (although I'm sure she had reviewed the data) is, that if one looks back at the daily record of such fluctuations, one finds numerous days over previous months in 2001 when the magnetic field varied just as markedly (and even more so) from the background level. The implication is that the deviation from average values recorded on 9/11 for the terrestrial magnetic field in Alaska was not significantly different from that on many previous days. Yet she presents the magnetic data for that day as evidence of some HAARP-like injection of electromagnetic energy into the ionosphere that was beamed down into the WTC to destroy it!
At best, Woods does not understand how to assess scientific data. At worst, she is deliberately misleading visitors to her website in order to persuade them that her DEW theory is correct. Perhaps the truth is that elements of both are at work.
I recall pointing the same out to Colossal_Birdbrain_ Brooklyn when Johnson and Wood first began pimping this wild herring.
Needless to say, no response was forthcoming.
Just as with the hurricane data, you just have to look and compare.
It doesn't take a genius. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
"Right now it doesn't look like it's going to affect land," said Eric Blake, a hurricane specialist at the National Hurricane Center in Miami.
Blake said Erin was expected to weaken during the night as it moved across colder water.
"We haven't had the big seas they're talking about, but the rip currents are sucking pretty hard," said Robert Levy, chief of the Atlantic City Beach Patrol. "We'll keep our beaches open and play it by ear."
It was moving toward the north-northwest at 8 mph but was expected to turn toward the northeast.
I'd say so. Wood's argument that there was a conspiracy of silence in the media about this hurricane is blown away by the simple explanation (for which you provide evidence) that it was never going to hit the coast, so no one thought it was worth talking about at the time of 9/11:lol:
I think you've closed the case for anyone who is interested in finding out the truth based on what the evidence shows.
but as I'm sure you know, although judy wood's fanboys go on ad nauseam about how important it is to "check the evidence" - whenever someone does that as thoroughly as you have done in this case, it invariably shows that they are wrong - and their reaction is to either go into tantrum mode and/or disappear pretty quickly - only to return at a later date repeating the same old bull regardless....
it's nevertheless valuable to be able to point to a comprehensive analysis of this kind whenever the subject of hurricane erin is raised (or "toasted cars", "missing rubble" etc), so that people can compare the full facts with judy wood's cherry picked version and make up their own minds.
on doing so, i have no doubt that the overwhelming majority will come to the same conclusions that you have. _________________ Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:12 am Post subject:
Just been watching a dvd about Erin, 911 Hutchinson etc. In it Dr Wood shows a weather report for the morning which actually stated that the seas would be choppy off the coast. this would be precisely in accordance with the report you posted GSTT.
It might be worth keeping a log of all the different organisations that must be "in on it" and covering up the "truth"
In this Hurricane Erin "evidence" we have implicated
NASA
ISS Crew
US Weather Stations
US MSM
oh and probably all of you who have dared to question
From my understanding of Dr Wood's presentation it is a thought that the power/energy /field effects (poor terminology on my part) of a Hurricane could be harnassed to provide some of the necessary "components" of DEW and that the PTB can control the weather. OR a side effect of DEW is to attract the power/energy /field effects of the Hurricane. Well I think that was what was implied.
I am beginning to think that DEW or some other exotic weaponary might have been used and that all this additional "stuff" is just to make us throw the baby out with the bath water. _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
There is no need to hypothesize that DEWs were used.
Of course, if you want to believe her misdirection about the fluctuations in the Earth's magnetic field, then you are entitled to be misled by her.
Of course, if you feel to need that something other than tons and tons of high-explosives were enough to reduce much of two towers to dust, then you are entitled to entertain superfluous ideas.
Of course, if you want to regard a red herring like Hurricane Erin as evidence to support your fantasies, you are entitled to fantasize.
But, please don't call it science. Some of us know better.
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:37 pm Post subject:
Micpsi wrote:
There is no need to hypothesize that DEWs were used.
Of course, if you feel to need that something other than tons and tons of high-explosives were enough to reduce much of two towers to dust, then you are entitled to entertain superfluous ideas.
I like to keep a fairly open mind . Thats why most of so called DEW "evidence" put forward is IMO very weak at times utter nonsense. However the deployment of tons and tons of high explosives within the 3 towers gives me a problem. Also not being familiar with the effects of high explosives and not having a clue about DEW i am looking for something that might explain the huge bent girders/beams and the "meterorite" of steel embedded in concrete. The idea of some other exotic weaponary is still in my pending tray.
The evidence of unreacted thermite in the dust is a key piece and am waiting to see what is done with it. Dr Wood and others got laughed out of court with their evidence (and perhaps rightly so IMO) but at least they had the courage of their convictions to take it to court. Hoping Prof Niels Harritt, Stephen Jones and co do likewise with their peer reviewed evidence _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1491 Location: North Lancashire
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:35 pm Post subject:
Quote:
I like to keep a fairly open mind .
Quote:
However the deployment of tons and tons of high explosives within the 3 towers gives me a problem. Also not being familiar with the effects of high explosives and not having a clue about DEW
Quote:
i am looking for something that might explain the huge bent girders/beams and the "meterorite" of steel embedded in concrete.
Quote:
The idea of some other exotic weaponary is still in my pending tray.
Quote:
Dr Wood and others ...............but at least they had the courage of their convictions to take it to court.
Quote:
Hoping Prof Niels Harritt, Stephen Jones and co do likewise with their peer reviewed evidence
Some good points there fish5133.
My evidence based conclusions are that 3 high rise buildings were collapsed using two different man made techniques/technologies.
The same technique was used on WTC1 & 2 but WTC7 was different.
WTC7 is so obviously CD and thats why imo it was hidden.
The energy input though required to produce the effects for WTC1 and 2 goes well beyond thermite and CD.
From a truthseekers viewpoint of finding the truth its far from " case closed" imo GSTT.
Sadly this site, since its takeover, no longer does what it says on the tin "the quest for the truth" when such threads are put in "controversies" and kept off the front page. _________________ Pikey
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 575 Location: the eyevolution
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:31 pm Post subject:
Pikey wrote:
My evidence based conclusions are that 3 high rise buildings were collapsed using two different man made techniques/technologies.
Evidence?
Is there really evidence behind your conclusions?
You may believe the buildings were turned to dust but I'm afraid your basing that conclusion on pictorially-guided suggestion.
There are many pictures of masses of steel debris from the day which counter your claims.
To simply say DEW exists based on this or that source does not mean it was used on 9/11.
Quote:
The energy input though required to produce the effects for WTC1 and 2 goes well beyond thermite and CD.
This statement is only valid in the sense that what you say is required is only required to prove your DEW based hypothesis.
Quote:
From a truthseekers viewpoint of finding the truth its far from " case closed" imo GSTT.
The fact is that the questions raised by Wood/Johnson which are included in the above analysis of Erin have been answered based on evidence.
Here they are again...
"Why didn't the astronauts mention Erin on 9/11?"
Because by 9/11, and during their careers, they would have seen many tropical storms and hurricanes all over the globe. Not to mention in the North Atlantic region in which Erin, like several hurricanes per year , are active in almost identical ways.
They only mentioned 9/11 because they had not seen a 9/11 before and mentioning yet another non-threatening hurricane in the hurricane hot-spot of the N. Atlantic would seem superfluous to such a dramatic never before seen event such as 9/11.
"Why didn't we hear more about the threat posed by Erin before and after 9/11."
Because at 3:00 am on 9/11, six hours before 9/11, Erin's windspeed had reduced considerably. Infact, the day before on 9/10, weather experts had assessed that Erin was not a threat.
Now, you may choose to ignore the evidence and continue to believe those questions have pertinence as though you had not come across the evidence I have presented. But I'm afraid the questions have been answered.
Until you actually engage with the answers, you will all continue to march ever onward down a 9/11 cul-de-sac ignoring the fact that at some point you will have to about face.
Quote:
Sadly this site, since its takeover, no longer does what it says on the tin "the quest for the truth" when such threads are put in "controversies" and kept off the front page.
In my opinion, "controversies" or controversial is an understatement when summarising the attitude of many people that follow some of the beliefs and theories that end up in said section.
Their inability to engage with anything that counters their belief system and just parrot-on with the same old so called evidence is quite frankly unbelievable. _________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/bobzimmerfan?feature=mhum#p/a
The evidence of unreacted thermite in the dust is a key piece and am waiting to see what is done with it. Dr Wood and others got laughed out of court with their evidence (and perhaps rightly so IMO) but at least they had the courage of their convictions to take it to court. Hoping Prof Niels Harritt, Stephen Jones and co do likewise with their peer reviewed evidence
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 6:40 pm Post subject:
Seems like your doing a good job GSTT helping to document and discredit "serious" research. Its a case of picking out the serious from the sad research. Not wanting to discourage any research but when you cant help see some "evidence" as poor, weak or easily debunked its hard not to say something.
Andrew Johnson writes on his website (Bold emphasis mine)
Quote:
Having written a series of these articles, I am conscious that some people may think adding another one to the series may be “over-doing it”. Statements such as “you’re promoting ‘infighting’ instead of ‘harmony’” may be made. However, weighed against that, there appears to be a need to document the ongoing effort to discredit serious research, and the strategy of misdirecting the focus of attention from the core of this same research. Please forgive me for my attempts in trying to accurately document what I consider to be the harder-to-perceive aspects of the 9/11 and free energy cover up. As ever, in all of these matters, the reader is advised to “keep their wits about them” and watch out for misdirection, subtle false statements or points where true information and false information may be being mixed together – both in what is written here, and elsewhere.
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:22 pm Post subject:
Pikey wrote
Quote:
My question is this:-
Having fully considered the evidence shown of all three building collapses, WTC1, 2 and 7 would you say:-
A - all structures collapse are the same?
B - all structures collapse are different?
C- two structures collapse are the same? If yes name the structures that are the same WTC1, 2 or 7.
Just to play devils advocate
A all structure collapses are the same. One moment a building is there the next its in a pile of rubble (and dust) on the ground (gravity)
B All structure collapses are different. All different but with similarities
C 2 structures collapse the same i.e top down in contrast to bottom up _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1491 Location: North Lancashire
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:46 pm Post subject:
Pity you wont address the simple question I've raised.
Guys I'm not familiar with DEW technology so I am not in a position to judge. I'm not saying and have never stated that DEW was responsible but based on observation of the evidence shown my opinion is that:-
WTC1 & 2 were the same form of collapse but WTC7 was different.
Fact is those responsible did not want us to see the collapse of WTC7 because imo it was so obviously a CD job.
To come to the conclusion that all three structures collapsed due to CD is imo based on what you see totally flawed.
I do support and appreciate any serious evidence based research though and imo Andrew Johnson presents a pretty compelling case which deserves consideration with an open mind. _________________ Pikey
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:45 pm Post subject:
Pikey wrote
Quote:
I do support and appreciate any serious evidence based research though and imo Andrew Johnson presents a pretty compelling case which deserves consideration with an open mind.
I have some agreement with that and i am greatful for those who have highlighted DEW although we know little of its capability (unlike Controlled Demolitions). The possibility of other exotic weaponary cannot be discounted. But even with an open mind the photographic evidence and suggestions made by AJ and Dr Wood take a lot of swallowing IMO
e.g the fire truck and missing engine photo with the speculation that some DEW particulary eats engine blocks has been debunked because some of the large fire trucks dont have their engines in the front just a large cab that overhangs the front wheels. The engine is in the middle or rear. This does not help their cause
In another of AJs dvds ive just watch (Hutchison Effect and 9/11) AJ and Judy are commenting about what they saw at Ground Zero when they were their in Jan 2008 (I think). Woods comments about fumes still rising from the ground implying some reaction is still ongoing. What she fails to see is the drilling rig drilling the ground for rock anchors to be inserted . The so called fumes are more obviously dust from the concrete being drilled into.
Comments about continual hosing down also imply that some unknown contamination/reaction is still ongoing. What she perhaps doesnt know is that most if not every building contract stipulates that surrounding roads have to be kept clean and vehicle wheels and the like should be washed (hosing or wheel washes). In litigation mad USA this would be followed quite stringently.
Woods also makes reference to some steelwork and aluminium cladding that is rolled up like a carpet and sees this as evidence of the Hutchison effect. However video footage of the ground zero clean up shows mechanical plant rolling up steel into manageable sized balls to fit onto trucks.
AJs recent outing of Stephen Jones as a liar (thermite issue)is an interesting development and will polarise opinions until truth comes out.
"Unity with diversity" is a phrase coined in church circles. For the sake of unity do we just take things back to the lowest common denominator? and in diversity allow different avenues to be persued? _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 575 Location: the eyevolution
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:47 am Post subject:
Pikey wrote:
I do support and appreciate any serious evidence based research though and imo Andrew Johnson presents a pretty compelling case which deserves consideration with an open mind.
The compelling case becomes less and less compelling with a bit of checking of the evidence in my opinion.
Fish wrote:
"Unity with diversity" is a phrase coined in church circles. For the sake of unity do we just take things back to the lowest common denominator? and in diversity allow different avenues to be persued?
I suppose that's an option.
But like a congregation may say "we believe God exists, but we are just not sure in what way"...
Pikey your waisting your energy mate its not worth getting into. They have made there mind up. Fish you said last week on a thread i carnt find now that you are neutral. I'm not being funny but you are not neutral, you have a biases towards real planes and thermite/thermate.
As for open minds it all depends from what perspective your looking from.
The important thing to establish is that we have been lied to by government and media about 9/11 in a way that suggests the attack could not have succeeded without at the very least the complicity of of powerful figures within the Bush regime.
The method used to destroy the twin towers is still open to debate but I wish the people who advocate any particular theory would debate is cooly with those who hold a different opinion without slagging others off with name-calling and straw man arguments. This behaviour damages the reputation of the movement and becomes the story that is reported by the media to discredit us.
What we know for certain is that the WTC, according to the way the buildings fell, symmetrically into their own footprint, could not have been destroyed merely by plane impact or fire as the US government and the BBC allege. http://bbc911confile.blogspot.com/2008/11/bbc-biasinaccuracy.html
Reinvestigate9/11 takes no view on how the WTC was destroyed.
I suggest we should not just get angry (particularly not with each other) but get active campaigning. Reinvestigate 9/11 needs more supporters to help with the task in hand.
But if you don't agree with the Reinvestigate9/11 approach of demanding a new inquiry, get on with your approach: perhaps street campaigning to inform the public of how we have been lied to, perhaps in conjunction with We Are Change etc.
There's masses of work which needs to be done.
Quote:
And another thing:
Why not ask yourselves whether Einstein's maxim, "Dismissal without investigation is the highest form of ignorance," rings true for you. If it does and you still find yourself totally committed to one particular idea about how the WTC was destroyed, would it not make sense to examine alternative theories and try to understand them? If you really understand what others are saying you will be in a much stronger position to argue your case convincingly.
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 575 Location: the eyevolution
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:24 pm Post subject:
Stephen wrote:
You go to far. Just leave out the insults.
What insults?
Stephen wrote:
Lee,
Your wrong on the debrie pile.
This is your opinion. Show me how.
pikey wrote:
Why not ask yourselves whether Einstein's maxim, "Dismissal without investigation is the highest form of ignorance," rings true for you.
It doesn't ring true for me.
That's why I have checked the Erin evidence.
pikey wrote:
If it does and you still find yourself totally committed to one particular idea about how the WTC was destroyed, would it not make sense to examine alternative theories and try to understand them?
That's why I have checked the Erin evidence. Have you?
pikey wrote:
If you really understand what others are saying you will be in a much stronger position to argue your case convincingly.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
