|
Post by laurel on Aug 2, 2008 0:59:22 GMT -4
How can you tell that an airplane vapor trail contains weather-controlling chemicals just by looking at it?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Aug 2, 2008 1:17:44 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? Denial? Hah! I actually use evidence to form my arguments and opinions. You might want to try it sometime. METARs are weather OBSERVATIONS. If there had been something significant like lightning, they would have issued a special one. 12 hours before is not the day of is it? You've been arguing that it was te day of. Why can't you just admit you're wrong? There is no proof that "chemtrails" are anything more than persistent contrails. The mechanism behind contrail formation is well understood and has been for more than 7 decades. Cloudy or hazy the next day? Almost like a front came through possibly? The conditions that are known to be conducive to persistent contrail formation often occur before warm and cold fronts. You see what you want to see. How come those who believe in "chemtrails" have never chartered a plane to take samples from a trail in situ? That's the kind of evidence that they need and yet they seem to think collecting something on the ground will prove something. Why haven't they done it? Afraid of what they won't find? I've studied the "chemtrail" literature for years and done actual reasearch into both sides. You appear to have watched a few youtube videos and read a few crank sites that have no clue about anything to do with meteorology. You're the one in denial my friend.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 2, 2008 1:20:58 GMT -4
JFK Airport data indicated rain and thunder. I just drove home through a nasty thunderstorm (raining cats & dogs [ & goats & horses & elephants...] and lightning flashes every 5-10 seconds), I guess that means there was a hurricane over Lake Erie. Directed Energy Weapons capable of obliterating 3 skyscrapers from orbit: laughable and unrealistic. And, of course, the only method our "multitrillion dollar defense system" would have had to stop these "boxcutter-wielding Muslims" would have been to shoot down unarmed civilian airliners. If paranoid, authority-distrusting types like yourself can't even wrap your heads around the concept of "planes crash into buildings, causing damage and fires which weaken the structure until gravity wins," what kind of bloody murder would you and your ilk have been screaming about "government executes 3 planeloads of innocent civilians without provocation." Does all correlation denote causation? That's funny... others' analysis of the same data indicates pre-planted demolition charges destroyed the towers. Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pot on line 3.
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 2, 2008 1:49:57 GMT -4
How can you tell that an airplane vapor trail contains weather-controlling chemicals just by looking at it? When the entire sky, except for one small portion, is cloudy, and you then see a chemtrail in that one area, and then that area gets cloudy, common sense says there's something other than vapor coming from those planes. Contrails disappear in about 10 seconds. They don't linger around in the sky for hours. Contrails don't sometimes sputter out. Contrails don't sometimes have squiggly lines in it. Those long steaks are being sprayed for a reason: weather modification.
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 2, 2008 1:59:53 GMT -4
That's funny... others' analysis of the same data indicates pre-planted demolition charges destroyed the towers. The one promoting explosives is Steven Jones and his "followers". Jones is notorious for destroying free energy research funding back in the 80s. He worked at Los Alamos where directed energy weapons are researched. He was planted in the "truth movement" to steer its gullible members down a wrong path. Jones does not analyze the same data as Dr Wood. The "truth movement" was first conned into explosives on 9/11 itself by a Van Romero, a controlled demolitions expert from Mexico Tech who said the towers could have been taken down with a "relatively small amount of explosives". Romero participated in events at the Directed Energy Professional Society before and after 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 2, 2008 2:49:59 GMT -4
He was planted in the "truth movement" to steer its gullible members down a wrong path. How do you know this is not true of Dr. Wood?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 2, 2008 2:51:40 GMT -4
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. Erin was not expected to threaten the NYC area in any significant way. If by "approached" you mean the center of the storm coming within some hundreds of miles, then your version of "approached" is not very useful. 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.htmlIf there are reputable reports, I might stipulate to rain or thunder. It doesn't matter; there's no relation to the weather at the airport and what happened at WTC. Wrong. Dr Wood does not use the term "death ray", she uses the term "directed energy weapon".Really? So what kind of directed-energy weapon was it? And where was it? In the air? In low Earth orbit? "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.What are you on about? Directed-energy weapons exist, and have definite operational characteristics which were analyzed at length on the JREF thread. 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. Handwaving. Neither you nor Ms. Wood can even define the alleged process; your claim is entirely indistinguishable from an appeal to magic. In any case, one of the posters on the thread I linked provided quantitative values for directly turning steel into dust. The energy requirements to "dustify", "vaporize" or any other process to change the bulk of the WTC steel from solid to some dispersed vapor of any sort immediately show how bizarrely disconnected from reality Ms. Wood's scenario is. One can plainly see from these video clips the structural steel turning to dust and trickling down: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVRh4U2BlhQ www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaysznxCBzAFlatly at odds with reality; the vast majority of steel from the WTC buildings was recovered. Wrong. 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.A beam of unspecified nature, in an unspecified location, which is linked in an unspecified manner to a hurricane centered hundreds of miles away. The winds of the hurricane were nothing compared to the breeze from her handwaving. These "random facts" as you call them fit a pattern.A hurricane centered hundreds of miles away. Buildings collapsing following structural damage and fires. And some magic ray gun which you cannot identify. That's not a pattern; that's wishful thinking. If you're really a "practicing aerospace engineer" then you should know that ad hominems have no place in science. You don't get it. I did the "science" in analyzing the claims. They are laughable and silly. And the whole premise is based on handwaving: some kind of energy beam, somewhere, somehow linked to a hurricane. If you don't want your claims laughed at, don't make laughable claims. Words like "laughable", "silly", and "wild handwaving" show you have a predetermined conclusion to believe what you want to believe, aka Pathological Science. Pot, kettle, black. You "implicitly" trust someone who can't even define her claim! And that link from JFEF is another example. They ask where the proof is that the weapon exists?? How unscientific is that? Asking for proof - or simply evidence - is unscientific? In any case, I was asking for something far simpler and far more fundamental. I asked what kind of weapon it was. And now you are here telling us a directed-energy weapon destroyed the WTC buildings. So, what kind of weapon was it? The data shows DEW destroyed the towers.Simple fabrication. What data, exactly? The fact that the vast majority of the steel was recovered from the towers? Therefore DEW must exist.Straw man. Of course directed-energy weapons exist. I showed quantitatively how they are hopelessly inadequate to destroy, let alone vaporize (or "dustify"), the WTC buildings. I'm sure you will agree that you must go with the data, and not a silly predetermined conclusion. Which is why I analyzed the data, quantitavely, as did multiple other posters. Do you have any specific comments? Or are you just going to keep posturing? Also, Dr Wood didn't even know DEW existed until the data on 9/11 told her that it must.She didn't know directed-energy weapons existed? Was she living under a rock? I thought you're a "practicing aerospace engineer". Are you a meteorologist too??Nope. I can read, though. Erin began weakening on the 10th. No watches, let alone warnings, were issued for the East Coast at all from the 1st through the 15th. And then there's the National Hurricane Center specialist speaking on the late 10th/early 11th: That was my mistake. Should have been over 90 deg.Fair enough. Now, what kind of directed-energy weapon do you claim was used, and where do you think it was?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 2, 2008 3:02:24 GMT -4
Man are you WAY beyond help, and I mean psychiatric help. Let's just take one sentence because the rest of what you have posted is beyond loony.
Do you know what scientific is? I'm guessing not. See I can claim that the data shows that miniature space monkeys with ray guns destroyed the towers, which means that miniature space monkeys must exist, right? That's what you are telling us.
Read this very carefully. Nearly 1,500,000 tons of debris was removed from the WTC site and sorted through for evidence and human remains by over 1,000 FBI agents and other first responders and police. Now answer this question, WHERE DID THOSE DEBRIS COME FROM IF THE TOWERS WERE DUSTIFIED?
Judy Wood is mentally not all there, her theories are laughed at by most truthers, and that is saying something. Really, you are so far out on the branch that if you go any further you're going to fall off. Please come back to reality.
BTW, go and learn about contrails and what sort of conditions creates them. Strangely enough the conditions that result in stable contrails are the exact same conditions that result in high level cirrus clouds, imagine that.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 2, 2008 4:12:43 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. What is your take on it? It would appear that other hurricanes change direction. Felix did something, that on the outset to me, that looks similar to erin (apart from doubling back). So did many others. So I assume you are more ahead of me on this and understand it better. Is it the norm for storms above certain latitudes to follow this path? The ones that make landfall also appear to do that but obviously eventually a reduces status once over land. The comparison I made was not on that web site. I did look at other web sites. What set erin out from the rest that follow the same or similar path?
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 2, 2008 4:41:55 GMT -4
The Erin paper contains data from other storms as well for comparison. What is your take on it? It would appear that other hurricanes change direction. Felix did something, that on the outset to me, that looks similar to erin (apart from doubling back). So did many others. So I assume you are more ahead of me on this and understand it better. Is it the norm for storms above certain latitudes to follow this path? The ones that make landfall also appear to do that but obviously eventually a reduces status once over land. The comparison I made was not on that web site. I did look at other web sites. What set erin out from the rest that follow the same or similar path? I claim no expertise in this field, but do find it odd that the wind speed on 9/11 was 105MPH, and the wind speed of Katrina when it hit land was 105MPH. Both were controlled. This data in itself doesn't prove it was controlled, but when put together with all the other data on Dr Wood's site, will lead towards it.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 2, 2008 4:54:57 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 Good questions.No answers. Theories and chemtrails. In your own words if you can indulge me, what can circumvent the energies contained in these behemoths? You appear to have presented me with links to nothing definite. Searches on seeding throw up tests carried out and theories but nothing concrete. I seem to remember a program on this a few years ago that basically had the scientists still scratching their heads. More testing required. Reading a bit on seeding has opened a new line of thinking for me but still no sale. Microwaves. They have a nasty habit with attenuation in the atmosphere. And the power required to heat the ocean would be? That would also reflect on the sats required. Chemtrails. Apart from the usual paranoia I read about concerning these, would it not be seeding in this instance? HAARP. Not read enough on it to have any thoughts, help me out here. No links please, what does it do in this circumstance?
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 2, 2008 4:55:06 GMT -4
Man are you WAY beyond help, and I mean psychiatric help. Let's just take one sentence because the rest of what you have posted is beyond loony. Do you know what scientific is? I'm guessing not. See I can claim that the data shows that miniature space monkeys with ray guns destroyed the towers, which means that miniature space monkeys must exist, right? That's what you are telling us. Read this very carefully. Nearly 1,500,000 tons of debris was removed from the WTC site and sorted through for evidence and human remains by over 1,000 FBI agents and other first responders and police. Now answer this question, WHERE DID THOSE DEBRIS COME FROM IF THE TOWERS WERE DUSTIFIED? Judy Wood is mentally not all there, her theories are laughed at by most truthers, and that is saying something. Really, you are so far out on the branch that if you go any further you're going to fall off. Please come back to reality. BTW, go and learn about contrails and what sort of conditions creates them. Strangely enough the conditions that result in stable contrails are the exact same conditions that result in high level cirrus clouds, imagine that. Your childish namecalling just demonstrates your predetermination (aka "Pathological Science") to find this "alternate" theory unrealistic. Your quote: " Do you know what scientific is? I'm guessing not. See I can claim that the data shows that miniature space monkeys with ray guns destroyed the towers, which means that miniature space monkeys must exist, right? That's what you are telling us." proves you are brainwashed and can't think straight. If the data is authentic, then - DUH! - obviously that is what it would prove. 1.5 million tons was removed from Ground Zero, you say? Where's the proof of that? You need not bother searching for it, because I know you are dreaming. Perhaps you could explain where the debris went before it was removed?
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 2, 2008 5:08:48 GMT -4
I claim no expertise in this field, but do find it odd that the wind speed on 9/11 was 105MPH, and the wind speed of Katrina when it hit land was 105MPH. Both were controlled. This data in itself doesn't prove it was controlled, but when put together with all the other data on Dr Wood's site, will lead towards it. Both were controlled? I think I see a pattern. Maybe you can give the cut down version as you understand it. I can say it looks like storms act the way they do all the time up north, sorry if that is not technical enough. Katrina picked up energy from the bay infront of landfall. The day before it was stronger, crossing land weakens it and the speed continued to fall. Did I get that right?
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 2, 2008 5:35:07 GMT -4
How can you tell that an airplane vapor trail contains weather-controlling chemicals just by looking at it? When the entire sky, except for one small portion, is cloudy, and you then see a chemtrail in that one area, and then that area gets cloudy, common sense says there's something other than vapor coming from those planes. Contrails disappear in about 10 seconds. They don't linger around in the sky for hours. Contrails don't sometimes sputter out. Contrails don't sometimes have squiggly lines in it. Those long steaks are being sprayed for a reason: weather modification. I get a lot of contrails. Not sure what flight paths are above. They appear to do all of the above. That includes disappearing and lingering. I have not timed them or made a definitive study but I have lived in this part of the world for most of my life. See them all the time. You missed out the ones with gaps in.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 2, 2008 6:19:44 GMT -4
If the data is authentic, then - DUH! - obviously that is what it would prove. You have completely missed the point. He was talking about merely claiming that the data leads to a particular conclusion, without actually demonstrating that the data leads thusly by any rational scientific process. I look at video footage of WTC1 collapsing (data). I subsequently conclude that the Tooth Fairy sprinkled magical pixie dust on it, turning it's structural steel into delicious raspberry jam, thus weakening it's structural integrity, causing the collapse. The data is authentic. Is my conclusion sound? Have I just proven the existence of the Tooth Fairy? (There is exactly as much evidence in support of the above hypothesis as that of Dr. Wood) What sort of proof will you accept? Translation: I have a predetermined conclusion to cling to, hence I will disregard any data you present which might indicate differently. Excellent description of the event. All of the kinetic energy expended over a matter of years to lift all that steel, concrete, glass, office furnishings and equipment, etc. against the pull of gravity was stored as potential energy. When the structure failed, all that energy was released in a matter of seconds. And the vast majority of their volume consisted of air. Catastrophic structural collapses such as this tend to squeeze out the bubbles.
|
|