Why Dr Judy Wood Is Probably Mistaken About Hurricane Erin and 9/11-Part 3

[ATTENTION! {Update April 2013}: this article has been revised and updated and is now available in 4 parts here]
**********************************************************

 Part 3-Why Dr Judy Wood Is Probably Mistaken About Hurricane Erin and 9/11

[Or: "Dr Judy Woods 9/11 Research- The Good , The Bad and the Ugly"]

N.B. This article is in 3 sections [1]: "The Good", and [2] "The Bad", are in the preceeding blog post.


Part 3 : "The Ugly"


Anyhoo, enough of time discrepancies, I believe that there is a far more serious omission of information regarding Dr Wood's claim that Erin was artificially controlled on 9/11.

As I said earlier, Dr Woods' claims about Erin originally interested me because I live on the SE coast of the US where hurricanes hit or pass by fairly frequently, and have lived here for 20+ years, and so have a fair amount of experience with and interest in the need to track hurricanes accurately.

Another , Less Well Known But Directly Related Natural Phenomena Occurrence on 9/11?

I was fairly sure [from memory] of one very important [for hurricane trackers] natural occurrence influencing the weather on the East coast that day , and was interested to see whether or not Dr Wood had considered it/ included it or accounted for it in her research.

What Important Naturally Occurring Phenomena Was Omitted From Dr Wood's Research on Erin's Movements?

Five words: "eastward traveling, humongous cold front"!

That is, a large mass of cold, dry air [i.e. a high pressure system] moving in the opposite direction to the hurricane[ i.e. West to East].

A Regular, Fall U.S. Weather Pattern

In the US in the fall, these large masses of high pressure, cold dry air typically originate over Western Canada, and then spill down East of the Rocky mountains and usually move West to East across the US, often traversing the entire continent in a few days as they typically reach further and further South while traveling East.

This pattern of cold air movement is a regular part of the annual fall weather scenario for the continental US.

Check For Yourself

You can review the regularity of this September through October weather pattern for yourself for any year 2001- through '08 here:http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/noaa/noaa_archive.php

Any Experienced Hurricane Watcher Knows About The Effect on Hurricane Systems of Large Masses of Cold Air!

Any intelligent , experienced private hurricane watcher [e.g coastal inhabitants of SE US and the gulf regions], knows just through prior personal experience that a large, steadily moving mass of high pressure, cooler dry air traveling West to East in the US will start to influence any hurricane approaching the US from the East [i.e. traveling approximately East to West towards the East coast of the US] speed and direction sooner or later - and in fact , that the hurricane will always be deflected away from the cold front as long as it [the cold dry air] continues to advance Eastward.

Was a Large Mass of Eastward - Moving Cold Air Present on 9/11?

As a matter of fact, yes. And there was even another one that immediately preceded it.

Archive For 09/04/01





[click on image to enlarge]

If you take a look at the national weather archives starting 09/04/01 above, you will see a large mass of cold air starting to form in Western Canada. This is the mass we will be following [ direction, development ] over the next few days, through am 09/11/01. Also notice 2 other high pressure areas and cold fronts to the East of the most westerly one we will be mostly watching.

Archive For 09/05/01




[click on image to enlarge]

Now take a look at the map for the next day 09/05/01 above, and you see that the most Westerly cold air mass over Canada has straightened out a little and now runs at an approximate 20 degree angle upwards across Canada. Meanwhile, another large mass of cold air is pushing South down the East coast. [but its the most Westerly cold front you need to watch!]



Archive For 09/06/01




[click on image to enlarge]

Next, above is the archive map for 09/06/01. You can see that the cold front that started high up and to the West has now spilled down East of the rockies into the US and has started to move Eastward, pushing a large mass of moist, warm air [outlined in yellow] ahead of it. Meanwhile the other mass of cold air already over the East coast has pushed down and offshore. [This other front would probably have already been influencing Erin's speed and direction to some degree.]


Archive For 09/07/01





[click on image to enlarge]

Above is the archive for 09/07/01. Here we see the huge mass of cold air has extended both Eastwards and further South, and that the warmer moist air [low pressure,large yellow outline + smaller red outline for severe thunderstorms] being pushed ahead of it is has increased in size as well .

N.B. Archives For the Next Two Days [09/08/01 and 09/09/01] Are Missing From Source Site.
Unfortunately the archives for the next 2 days [8th and 9th] are missing from the archives and so we must now skip ahead to the archive for 09/10/01.
[you can check availability for yourself at: http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/noaa/noaa_archive.php ]



Archive For 09/10/01




[click on image to enlarge]

This one [above] dramatically shows how far, and how fast this HUGE air mass had traveled over the previous two days, and how deep [i.e how far South], it had penetrated by the 10th . As you can see, on the morning of 09/10/01[i.e.about 24 hours prior to the events of 911] it extended all the way up the Eastern seaboard into Canada , and all the way down into the Gulf of Mexico and beyond, and that it at this point covered most of the US , East to West.

Two Questions

At This Point , 2 Questions For You :

[1] based on prior performance, where do you think this huge mass of cold dry, high pressure air was going to be the very next day, on the morning of 911?
Please consider both its prior speed, and prior direction.

[2] What do you think such a vast mass of cold dry air will do to a hurricane moving in almost the exact opposite direction, when "push comes to shove" given how it is already seen to be treating the warm, moist air just in front of it?.

As I said before, any reasonably intelligent hurricane watcher knows for a fact that given a continuation of the cold air mass' direction , that in this scenario it is hurricane Erin that would have to give way, as other hurricanes preceding it always have done under similar circumstances, and as other hurricanes in the future always will. Its inevitable.

And Don't Forget The Other,Previous Large Cold Air Mass- a "Double Whammy"

And , don't forget that Erin more than likely had already been somewhat influenced [i.e. slowed, changed direction] by the cold air mass that immediately preceded the even larger cold air mass that followed,and which we have mostly concentrated on here.[Nature's equivalent of a left jab followed by a knockout, right cross?]

09/11/01 Archive





[click on image to enlarge]

So here we are on the morning of 911. notice that the cold air mass has now moved entirely offshore from North Carolina on up. {My only problem with this archive is that it does not show the blue line extending southwards into South Carolina and Georgia [where I live] when I know for a fact that we experienced exactly the same conditions, that morning as the majority of the East coast i.e. cold dry air, crystal clear blue skies].

My Conclusion: Erin's Directional Change Is a Natural Event-No Mystery
It seems logical to me that Erin's directional change is very easy to explain - it was changed via a very powerful natural phenomena, that is, an extremely large mass of cold dry air steadily moving from West to East, and not by any mysterious, artificial means that were somehow directly related to the deliberate demolition of WTC 1 and 2, as Dr Wood has claimed.

For myself, and others who watch hurricanes closely merely because of survival instincts, there is absolutely no mystery about Erin's change in direction from predominantly NNE to NNW during the early morning [around 2am] of 09/11/01; any intelligent east coast inhabitant, and more importantly, any weather professional or even a lowly weather bureaucrat could reasonably conclude well ahead of time, and with almost no shadow of a doubt, exactly how Erin would perform on the morning of 9/11.

Erin - An Assured Fate

As Dr Wood's own data shows [fig.7, in part 2 above], and as the NOAA data displayed in this java plot reveals : http://weather.terrapin.com/wx/DisplayStorm.jsp?STORM=01279&dtype=JAVA

at 2 am on the morning of 09/11/01 Erin's virtually assured fate was finally confirmed as it, after coming to an almost complete stop in the cooler waters of the NE, and after also being slowed/ affected by a previous cold front, was finally forced/bounced/deflected away from NYC in an NNE direction [a 45 degree change in direction ], by a much larger, still steadily advancing , much colder , much dryer naturally-occurring, high pressure air system , which had over 6 previous days made its way across almost the entire US.

Why Dr Judy Wood Is Probably Mistaken About Hurricane Erin and 9/11-parts1&2

[ATTENTION! {Update April 2013}: this article has been revised and updated and is now available in 4 parts here]
*************************************************
Why Dr Judy Wood Is Probably Mistaken About Hurricane Erin and 9/11
[Or: "Dr Judy Woods 9/11 Research- The Good , The Bad and the Ugly"]

N.B. This article is in 3 sections [1]: "The Good", [2] "The Bad", [3] "The Ugly"

Part [1] :The Good: Logic, Procedure, [Initial] Open Mindedness.
I first came across Dr Wood's research via a book:" The 9/11 Conspiracy - The Scamming of America" edited by J. Fetzer.

After then reviewing the abundant wealth of information she presented at her excellent website , I became open to the idea that some type of secret military technology may well have destroyed the 2 main WTC towers.

An Adherence To The Main Principles of Scientific Investigation [unlike other "scientists" involved in 9/11 research]
What impressed me most about her work at the time was her seeming refusal to draw premature conclusions, but instead to gather, and continue to gather, as much evidence as possible of many different types, even including evidence of post destruction preparations for new construction, and even post 9/11 construction results - i.e. strange things that have since happened to both old and new structures [unexplained fires, steel girders prematurely rusting, paint bubbling etc.]

As a non-scientist[ unless you wish to include the science of human action-or "praxeology", a social science], I found her early scientific methodology and adherence to principle very refreshing - something she appears to have abandoned to a small degree, at least as far as her research and conclusions about Hurricane Erin's involvement on 9/11 go- which is why I have written these two [overlong] articles dedicated to analyzing Dr Wood's Erin research methodology.

However, disregarding her conclusions about Erin, to this day I remain very open to the idea that direct energy weapons [D.E.W.] may well have brought down the 2 towers. Based on my limited knowledge, and given all of the many strange anomalies, her proposal _still_ makes the most sense to date.

And regardless, to this day ,her website: http://www.drjudywood.com/ to me has some of the best, most thought provoking photos, research and theories available on the internet.

Troubling Questions: Pre-Testing? Where?
The biggest question I have regarding the use of D.E.W. on 9/11 would be this:

The perpetrators had to be absolutely sure that D.E.W.'s]would do the job .

Unlike video fakery, which could be tested and retested until it looked right, the demolition of the 2 towers was to happen in real time and therefor mistakes could not be made.

Surely they would have to have done a significant amount of testing somewhere, on something similar to WTC 1 &2, to ensure that the weapon would actually do the job that morning?

So where were the tests carried out- and on what?

At this time I have no idea, [do you?] but in any case, it is time to move on to part [2], what I see as " The Bad"[and then finally, in a separate blog, to part[3] "The Ugly"] in Dr Wood's 9/11research.

************************************************************************

Part 2: The "Bad"- Hurricane Erin Time Inaccuracies and Discrepancies
[By the way, both part [2]"Bad" and part [3]"Ugly" labels apply _only_ to Dr Wood's claims about the direct involvement of the natural phenomena named Hurricane Erin, they in no way apply to her earlier research and work on D.E.W. and 9/11 in general.]

I initially considered Dr Wood's claim that hurricane Erin was directly involved in the events of 9/11 from the viewpoint of a 20 + year inhabitant of the S.E. coast of the U.S..

Hurricanes pass close by almost annually and so one naturally becomes hyper-aware of both the storms themselves, and of the types of natural conditions that are needed to prevent them from endangering my approximate area.

So in reviewing Dr Wood's claims, I was very interested to see if she had considered/allowed for the one natural event which both myself and any other experienced hurricane watcher knows will stop a hurricane dead in its tracks, and which will cause a significant change in direction, if not destroy it. [She did not, and has not to date- this is what I call part [3] :"the Ugly" here below - it comprises the last part of this article]. In the meanwhile,.....back to Part 2.

Radio Interviews

After initially only glancing through Dr Wood's website claims concerning Hurricane Erin's connection to the events of 09/11/01, I came across 2 archived radio interviews at her site [both with Andrew Johnson on Jim Fetzer's "Dynamic duo" show,] which further piqued my interest, inspiring me to go back and take a closer look at the relevant pages on her website [Erin 1 through 10] .

Those radio interviews [ with Mr Andrew Johnson] can be heard here:

[1] http://www.drjudywood.com/media/080730_Wood_Johnson_Erin_DD.mp3

[2] http://www.drjudywood.com/media/080731_Wood_Johnson_Erin_DD.mp3


Dr. Wood Says: Erin Closest at Around 8am EDT on 9/11

In the first of those 2 interviews Dr Woods said that Erin was :

"closest to NYC on the morning of 911, around 8am. And then it just stopped, it didn't keep going East, or West, it just stopped and then it turned around and started heading back out"
In those 2 interviews Dr Wood made other, related comments/claims regarding Erin's position and behavior , including claims that Erin's behavior on 911, as revealed by her own graph [ fig 7 at: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin10.html ] revealed classic signs of it being an artificially controlled environment.


Dr Wood's Own Data Refutes Her Claim About Erin's Eye Being Closest at around 8am on 9/11

Here below is fig 7 below , taken from : http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin10.html



[Click on illustration to enlarge]

As you can see,the bottom , blue line above indicates the distance for Erin's eye from NYC, based on NOAA data. The lighter blue points along that line indicate times for those distance readings given in Eastern Daylight Time[ EDT] .

Here is a close up of the relevant part of the bottom, blue line that represents position of Erin's eye relative to NYC on 9/11:





Notice how the purple line above the blue plot line gives a 2am EDT reading [although the number"2" has been partly obscured by my image crop], that lines up with the unlabeled light blue plot point on the blue line directly below it, making that blue point below also a 2 am EDT point.

Also notice the 2 upward steps in the blue line [look closely now!] between the first unlabeled [2am] light blue plot point and the 8am EDT plot point directly to its right.

Notice how this blue plot line continues at an increasing upward angle as it moves to the right of the graph and as Erin's eye continued to move further away from NYC.

It seems clear to me that the NOAA data that Dr Wood's has used in her graph[ fig7.] clearly shows [IF you look closely!], that Erin's eye was in fact at its closest to NYC at around 2am EDT on 911, a full 6 hours before Dr Wood claims it that was closest, and that by 8 am EDT it was actually already moving away from NYC in a new, NNE direction. This movement away by 8am can be seen in the graph above taken from her website: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin10.html.

A Minor Point- An Insignificant Difference?

If you believe that what I show above is an insignificant [ a couple of millimeters ?] difference between the height above the baseline of 2am plot point versus the 8am one, all I can tell you is that it is inevitable that it looks this way, given the format that the data was entered into.

Best View

The best view for actual position would be shown in a pictorial that plots NOAA data for actual times and positions looking down on Erin's path.

I found many, unclear, confusing depictions of such information at Dr Wood's site , most of which are for _predicted_, as opposed to actual path taken.

Where actual path was plotted, time and position points often blur/overlap to make then almost useless for close analysis.

Best Plot For Erin?

The best, clearest plot of Erin's actual path, based on NOAA data, I found not at Dr Wood's site, but here:

http://weather.terrapin.com/wx/DisplayStorm.jsp?STORM=01279&dtype=JAVA

This is an animated Java plot that, if you are fast with a mouse or trackpad, can be stopped at various time and position points along the route. Sometimes the site does not work properly, you have to fiddle with it a little and click "reload" sometimes to get it to play.

The Graph Confirms Erin Was Closest at 2am

This plot also shows Erin to be closest at 2am on the morning of 9/11, at which time it turned to the right, and that it had already moved a significant distance away from NYC by 8am.


N.B. "The Ugly"- PART 3 of "Why Dr Judy Wood Is Probably Mistaken About Hurricane Erin and 9/11"- Dr Judy Woods 9/11 Research- The Good , The Bad and the Ugly" follows in the next blog entry.

9/11- Most Likely-No Planes, and No Standard Demolitions

9/11- Most Likely-No Planes, and No Standard Demolitions


Introduction

Knowledge is Finite

First of all, I think that is worth mentioning that regardless of what you or I believe happened on 911, as always, knowledge is finite. This is an unavoidable fact of life that we all must deal with on a daily basis. Or, you can simply try to ignore it and go nuts in the process!

There are many who freely choose that route!

Reality- Nobody [except the perpetrators] Really Knows What Happened With Absolute Certainty

Fact: unfortunately, neither you or I, or anyone else, has absolute perfect knowledge of the truth about what happened that day- and, it is impossible for any one person to have access to all of that information, particularly in light of the fact that much information is yet to be discovered, as always.

Always Remain Open To New Possibilities

Because of my understanding of this principle [knowledge is always finite], I have always tried to remain open to new explanations as to what might have happened, and have therefor tried to remain flexible to new possibilities as new information came to light, rather than just painting my self into a corner of supposed "absolute truth", a habit which seems common even among those gifted individuals whose research I mention below, and also among the all too numerous "others" as well.

As a result of my deliberately open policy, my own ideas have been through numerous changes since 911, and will probably change again in the future, given the nature of the immutable laws of reality and of individual finite knowledge for any one point in time.

This is why I use the phrase " most likely" or similar on a regular basis!

Having said that, the views expressed below about the events of 09/11/01 are, to the best of my current knowledge "true".

N.B. "Ridiculous", "Impossible" etc. ?

The research sighted below will appear "ridiculous", "impossible", or even worse to some who read it. I understand- not so long ago I would have reacted the same way, and it has taken me a lot of time and thought to reach the seemingly ridiculous [to some] positions outlined below.

Nevertheless, these positions make up the main core of my current views about the events of 911. Remember, knowledge is finite, so if you have not been exposed to the evidence given below before the views expressed below might seem outrageous.

If the information is new to you, I ask only that you attempt to honestly suspend all pre-judgement, and to merely look at and then thoroughly analyze the evidence presented to support my perhaps ridiculous conclusions on the events of 911.

******************************
Main Article: 9/11- No Planes, and No Standard Demolitions

1] No Planes?

Most likely, on 09/11/01 there were no planes,only faked "live" footage on time delay of from about 3 to 17 seconds.

See:"September Clues Part 1"

and: "September Clues Part 2"

2] Impossible Impact Speeds?

No planes were flying at 550mph at 600ft above sea level. 550mph is a cruising speed for large airliners at 35,000ft, where the air is much thinner. Because of air density, the same speed is impossible for them at 600 ft. above sea level. Maximum sustainable speed at 600 ft for a large Boeing, according to Boeing? -around 220mph.

See:"Flight 175- Impossible Speed"

3] Pencils Through Wire Screens?

Also, aluminum skinned planes with plastic nose cones traveling at a max speed of around 220mph , or even at the impossible speed of 525 mph!] cannot fly almost completely through [disappearing inside in one piece no less!] 500,000 ton buildings made of steel girders and reinforced concrete, and all without slowing down visibly at impact, with no parts [e.g. engines, wings, tail] falling off at impact, with no engine sound prior to impact,[i.e flight 175] and with no actual discernable impact sound at impact

See: "Flight 175, Stabilized"

4]No Conventional Explosives Used For [Unconventional]Tower Demolitions?

Most likely, no explosives were used to demolish the twin towers [ possible exception of WTC7] .

Unfortunately for the "demolition brought them down" crowd, the majority of both collapse and post collapse photographic and seismic evidence simply does not support the use of standard demolition procedures.

See: http://www.drjudywood.com/


5]Steel Girders Turned To Dust?

Also, conventional demolitions do not and cannot literally turn steel girders to dust in mid air, within seconds. See:http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image42.jpg


Neither could conventional demolitions of 1300ft high buildings occur at freefall or greater,speeds,[e.g 8 seconds from start to finish ]despite what the "pre-planted demolition charges" crowd would have you believe. See:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

6]Holes in Towers Made By Missiles or Explosives?

Most likely, explosives _ were_ used to make wing shapes in towers after either [a] a missile made the main "entry" hole, _or_,[b] the initial hole was also made with explosive charges.

This can be seen clearly here, as the wing shapes do not appear until a full 6 seconds after the main "entry" hole in the buildings' side, appears, and the plane, wings and all, has supposedly already completely disappeared inside in one piece!

See: "Amateur part 2"