|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 1, 2008 8:54:32 GMT -4
I have been following Dr Wood's 9/11 research for some time now and trust her implicitly. However, I do verify data. This is easy to do since the info on her site is sourced. You'll find the source information below each image and table. The sources includes NASA and NOAA. If anyone on this board can find any errors in her data collection, you should email them to her and she will correct it. Note that Dr Wood does not draw any conclusions from the Erin data regarding the events of 9/11. She merely presents the data, offers her analytical ability as a former Professor of Mechanical Engineering, and encourages everyone to think for themselves. If Erin were not controlled, wouldn't we have been warned about this??? How did they know the CAT2 hurricane would suddenly make a sharp 270 deg right hand turn and head back out to sea?? i87.photobucket.com/albums/k126/CB_Brooklyn/TM-FES-GEA/010911_wtc_terra1_cbc.jpg
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 1, 2008 9:13:01 GMT -4
How did they know the CAT2 hurricane would suddenly make a sharp 270 deg right hand turn and head back out to sea??
Without any direct reference to this facts of particular event. Hurricanes are wind storms. and they follow the flow of the winds around them. If the jet stream was blowing strongly to the east in the path of the storm, then the storm would turn to the east. This is easily determined as the location of the jet stream is detectable.
She merely presents the data, offers her analytical ability as a former Professor of Mechanical Engineering, and encourages everyone to think for themselves.
You mean her ability in designing artificial teeth. What does this have to do with knowing anything about hurricanes?
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 1, 2008 9:21:04 GMT -4
I have been following Dr Wood's 9/11 research for some time now and trust her implicitly. However, I do verify data. This is easy to do since the info on her site is sourced. You'll find the source information below each image and table. The sources includes NASA and NOAA. If anyone on this board can find any errors in her data collection, you should email them to her and she will correct it. Note that Dr Wood does not draw any conclusions from the Erin data regarding the events of 9/11. She merely presents the data, offers her analytical ability as a former Professor of Mechanical Engineering, and encourages everyone to think for themselves. If Erin were not controlled, wouldn't we have been warned about this??? How did they know the CAT2 hurricane would suddenly make a sharp 270 deg right hand turn and head back out to sea?? Then present the info where it was controlled and an explanation. I have already said this is not my bag, hurricanes that is, but willing to learn. I like explanations on things occasionally rather than links to pages loaded with info. So far I have seen tracks and maps and images but am I missing the info on control and any mechanism to back it up? Also the reasons why it is not the natural course? How do you propose that we can circumvent huge forces that are in those monster storms and control them and then let Katrina batter the coast?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Aug 1, 2008 9:21:49 GMT -4
I have been following Dr Wood's 9/11 research for some time now and trust her implicitly. However, I do verify data. This is easy to do since the info on her site is sourced. You'll find the source information below each image and table. The sources includes NASA and NOAA. If anyone on this board can find any errors in her data collection, you should email them to her and she will correct it. I already showed her info about lightning at JFK to be bogus. You didn't verify that.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Aug 1, 2008 9:24:04 GMT -4
Conversely, if Erin were controlled, was every weatherman in on it? None of them thought it was a threat and for good reason. They know how to do their jobs. Judy Wood is not a meteorologist and is failing miserably at it.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 1, 2008 9:55:40 GMT -4
Just been nosing around the net. Felix in 1995 did something similar and many appear to veer NE above a certain latitude?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 1, 2008 11:21:19 GMT -4
I have been following Dr Wood's 9/11 research for some time now and trust her implicitly. However, I do verify data.Really? You were wrong about the hurricane being stronger than Katrina; wrong about it threatening the East Coast (meteorologists projected it would not approach); wrong about the weather at the airport. This is easy to do since the info on her site is sourced. You'll find the source information below each image and table. The sources includes NASA and NOAA. If anyone on this board can find any errors in her data collection, you should email them to her and she will correct it.The correctness of certain random facts is not the primary issue, but rather the wild claims which are alleged to be "based" on these data, but in fact are logically and scientifically disconnected from them. "Look, there's a hurricane! Clearly it was used as a power source for a death ray!" Note that Dr Wood does not draw any conclusions from the Erin data regarding the events of 9/11. She claims that a death ray was used to vaporize hundreds of thousands of tons of skyscrapers, and that a hurricane somehow powered the whole thing, but can provide no evidence or theoretical support for the whole fantastic claim. She can't even say what kind of death ray she believes was used! It's nothing more than an appeal to magic - and that's before we look at the numerous embarrassing errors of fact in her claims. She merely presents the data,Random facts with neither logical, nor theoretical, nor empirical connection to her claims. Such as they are. offers her analytical ability as a former Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Incorrect; there is not a hint of engineering analysis in her wild handwaving. And that is based on my analytical ability as a practicing aerospace engineer, and I have already provided a link to my analysis of her vague and silly "directed-energy weapon" claims. and encourages everyone to think for themselves.I have thought for myself. Her claims are laughable. If Erin were not controlled, wouldn't we have been warned about this??? Begging the question. Warnings were not needed because the hurricane was expected not to approach the U.S. East Coast, due to normal, natural factors. How did they know the CAT2 hurricane would suddenly make a sharp 270 deg right hand turn and head back out to sea??Complex question. Do you have any evidence that a "sharp 270 degree right hand turn" was predicted? Or was it merely that the path was predicted to not approach the NYC area? By the way, that was more like a 110 degree turn. A 270-degree right-hand turn would have had the hurricane heading toward the coast. What was that about verifying data again?
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 1, 2008 12:39:03 GMT -4
Ccbrooklyn, could you please stop posting such large images? The rule is not to post images larger than 400x400 pixels.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 1, 2008 15:27:13 GMT -4
I have been following Dr Wood's 9/11 research for some time now and trust her implicitly. [Adam Savage mode]Well there's your problem[/Adam Savage mode]
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 1, 2008 20:42:14 GMT -4
Really? You were wrong about the hurricane being stronger than Katrina; wrong about it threatening the East Coast (meteorologists projected it would not approach); wrong about the weather at the airport.Erin was projected to be stronger. My mistake, which at least I admit. Erin already approached the east coast. Look at the pictures and use some common sense. JFK Airport data indicated rain and thunder. Go to the "Airport Weather Reports in the NYC Area on 9/11/01, (9/11/01)" section on this page: drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin9.htmlThe correctness of certain random facts is not the primary issue, but rather the wild claims which are alleged to be "based" on these data, but in fact are logically and scientifically disconnected from them. "Look, there's a hurricane! Clearly it was used as a power source for a death ray!
She claims that a death ray was used to vaporize hundreds of thousands of tons of skyscrapers, and that a hurricane somehow powered the whole thing, but can provide no evidence or theoretical support for the whole fantastic claim. She can't even say what kind of death ray she believes was used! It's nothing more than an appeal to magic - and that's before we look at the numerous embarrassing errors of fact in her claims.Wrong. Dr Wood does not use the term "death ray", she uses the term "directed energy weapon". "Death ray" is a term used these days by people who want to consider the idea of directed energy weapons laughable and unrealistic. These people usually fear the idea of this technology being real. Wrong. Dr Wood never said the towers were "vaporized". Vaporization requires enormous amounts of energy to turn a solid to a liquid and then to a gas. Wood coined the term "dustification" to describe the yet undefined process. One can plainly see from these video clips the structural steel turning to dust and trickling down: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVRh4U2BlhQwww.youtube.com/watch?v=vaysznxCBzAWrong. Dr Wood never said the hurricane "powered" the whole thing. She does indicate the hurricane was part of the mechanism that turned the towers to dust. The only embarrassing claim is the idea of a guy from a cave in Afghanistan conspiring with 19 boxcutter-wielding Muslims to outwit our entire multitrillion dollar defense system. Random facts with neither logical, nor theoretical, nor empirical connection to her claims. Such as they are.These "random facts" as you call them fit a pattern. Incorrect; there is not a hint of engineering analysis in her wild handwaving. And that is based on my analytical ability as a practicing aerospace engineer, and I have already provided a link to my analysis of her vague and sillyIf you're really a "practicing aerospace engineer" then you should know that ad hominems have no place in science. Words like "laughable", "silly", and "wild handwaving" show you have a predetermined conclusion to believe what you want to believe, aka Pathological Science. And that link from JFEF is another example. They ask where the proof is that the weapon exists?? How unscientific is that? The data shows DEW destroyed the towers. Therefore DEW must exist. I'm sure you will agree that you must go with the data, and not a silly predetermined conclusion. Also, Dr Wood didn't even know DEW existed until the data on 9/11 told her that it must. I have thought for myself. Her claims are laughable.That's because you're not looking at the data, but instead have a predetermined conclusion. Begging the question. Warnings were not needed because the hurricane was expected not to approach the U.S. East Coast, due to normal, natural factors. I thought you're a "practicing aerospace engineer". Are you a meteorologist too?? Complex question. Do you have any evidence that a "sharp 270 degree right hand turn" was predicted? Or was it merely that the path was predicted to not approach the NYC area?
By the way, that was more like a 110 degree turn. A 270-degree right-hand turn would have had the hurricane heading toward the coast. What was that about verifying data again?That was my mistake. Should have been over 90 deg.
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 1, 2008 20:44:21 GMT -4
Just been nosing around the net. Felix in 1995 did something similar and many appear to veer NE above a certain latitude? The Erin paper contains data from other storms as well for comparison.
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 1, 2008 20:45:43 GMT -4
Ccbrooklyn, could you please stop posting such large images? The rule is not to post images larger than 400x400 pixels. Sorry 'bout that. It's corrected.
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 1, 2008 20:53:24 GMT -4
Then present the info where it was controlled and an explanation. I have already said this is not my bag, hurricanes that is, but willing to learn. I like explanations on things occasionally rather than links to pages loaded with info. So far I have seen tracks and maps and images but am I missing the info on control and any mechanism to back it up? Also the reasons why it is not the natural course? How do you propose that we can circumvent huge forces that are in those monster storms and control them and then let Katrina batter the coast? Good questions. Weather control has existed for many decades. Look up HAARP and chemtrails. See here too: Space age plan to tame might of hurricanesMicrowave radiation and controlled oil slicks could change the path and sap the power of tropical stormsRobin McKie, science editor October 10 2004 www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/oct/10/weather.theobserverOwning the Weather - 45 min (Discovery Science Channel) Documentary that looks at the history of weather modification and its use by the military. Among the topics covered are: cloud seeding, HAARP and declassified experiments video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8262483364410309502
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Aug 1, 2008 23:14:26 GMT -4
Again, wrong. Here are all the METARs for JFK on September 11th 2001. There was no lightning. english.wunderground.com/history/airport/KJFK/2001/9/11/DailyHistory.html?theprefset=SHOWMETAR&theprefvalue=1all day long for 11 September 2001 and no mention of thunder and lightning. Also of note is each METAR is an hour after the previous one. If something significant happens, like say lightning, they issue a special one. There are none of those. Judy Wood is wrong and likely a liar. Why does she have to lie about the weather that day? What does that say about her credibility? now I know you're beyond help. There is absolutely no evidence that HAARP, a non classified program that even offers tours, does anything to the weather. There is also absolutely no evidence that "chemtrails" even exist.
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 2, 2008 0:39:08 GMT -4
Again, wrong. Here are all the METARs for JFK on September 11th 2001. There was no lightning. english.wunderground.com/history/airport/KJFK/2001/9/11/DailyHistory.html?theprefset=SHOWMETAR&theprefvalue=1all day long for 11 September 2001 and no mention of thunder and lightning. Also of note is each METAR is an hour after the previous one. If something significant happens, like say lightning, they issue a special one. There are none of those. Judy Wood is wrong and likely a liar. Why does she have to lie about the weather that day? What does that say about her credibility? now I know you're beyond help. There is absolutely no evidence that HAARP, a non classified program that even offers tours, does anything to the weather. There is also absolutely no evidence that "chemtrails" even exist. You must be one of the many desperately trying to hold on to your denial state. METAR is not the only source of weather info. When Dr Wood updates her already-highly-sourced paper, she will provide the source info to prove thunder and rain were reported at JFK on 9/11. The weather data in the link you provided shows there were thunderstorms a little over 12 hours before the 9/11 events. This is when Erin was at its strongest speeds, as a CAT 3. I know for a fact that chemtrails exist since I see them with my own eyes in my own neighborhood. And it turns cloudy or hazy the next day, like clockwork. Want to talk about credibility? How about the NIST Report??? The report states its mandate being to find out why the towers "collapsed", then later in the same report it says they didn't analyze the collapses! Real credible, huh?
|
|