Dr. Judy Wood, has published a new study on her website providing the details and coincidental information about the presence, during the events of 9/11/01, of category 3 Hurricane Erin off the northeast coast.

No conclusions are drawn, but there could be a relationship between the kind of destructive effects that she asserts took place and that hurricane.

However, the point of this thread is whether posters recall being aware of the presence of Hurricane Erin? I don't.

One might have thought that a powerful hurricane heading towards NYC would have been foder for a major hissy fit by mainstream media.

Afta all, a hurricane heading towards the apple would easily generate more fright than aficanized bees for instance. Fox News could have had a field day (no pun intended). Maybe some New Yorkers recall Hurricane Erin?



The little inset shows the 'smoke' plume from the World Trade Center, so that gives time reference for the picture.

A press release about Wood's new study is found here:

http://www.prlog.org/10073301-new-study-by...on-9-11-01.html

The actual study itself is found here:

http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin1.html

Interesting?



*Topic Moved*

It wasn't heading anywhere near NYC:USA today article from 9/10/01 about Hurricane Erin

The image shows it to be 'near' NYC; near enough, I would have thought for msm hype. On 9/10, the day of the USAToday article, Erin, then a category 3 hurricane was heading northwest, not out to sea. Granted, it ultimately did head northeast and away from NYC, but that could not have been taken for granted and could certainly have given media a chance for a hyperbolic field day, had they chosen to do so. But, they don't appear to have done that, as far as I know. What page was the USAToday article on?

I remember it. I was on the coast of NC the week prior and all the media was keeping an eye on what it would do. By Sunday night, weather forecasters knew it was no longer a threat, and that it would turn out to sea.

And no, the satellite picture does not show the storm near NYC. Note the position of the eye, and remember what a big place the earth is.

The morning or 9/11 in NYC was quite clear and pleasant.

Score another one for Judy in the woo column.

Query: given that the storm was heading out to sea, and never got close enough to have any effects on land, precisely why is Judy interested in the hurricane and what does she think it had to do with what happened on 9/11?

Was the supposed directed energy weapon she says was used on that day drawing on the power of the hurricane? Sort of like a giant vaccuum cleaner?

The answer appears to be "maybe so" from what I can gather from some of the pages in the series,

http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin1.html

But, that line of inquiry is not the essence of this thread.

What is the "essence" of this thread? Is Judy claiming there is a cover-up of Hurricane Erin? I can find plenty of information on it, including that it started turning eastward and away from land on September 11th. It might be mildly interesting that it was close to New York before it started moving away to the NE, but it was not close enough to have any effects.

Again, is there any particular reason to be interested in it? It never made landfall, although it did have a very close approach to Nova Scotia.

Apparently the "essence" of this thread is "does anybody recall Erin".

Yes, someone does. And it was front page news for a day or two (at least in the outer banks of North Carolina).

Bigger news took precedence on Tuesday.

This September 11, 2001 image from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument on board the Terra satellite features the northeastern United States coast. The image shows Hurricane Erin lingering in the Atlantic Ocean approximately 500 miles away from New York
PIC

SeaWiFS on board the Orbview 2 satellite captured these September 11 and 12 images of the Northeast United States. The September 11 & 12 pictures shows a clear day around the US, although hurricane Erin is lingering about 500 miles off the northeast coast.
PIC 1
PIC 2

- Goddard Space Flight Center

Erin was 500 miles away with 80-90 mph winds and moving away from land.

most new yorkers probably won't remember Erin on 9/11... we were holding elections and it was a sunny, warm day.

perhaps if you asked people traveling.... I expect some flights to Europe were delayed.
Maybe Judy Wood should hang out in JFK, 'interviewing' people

Welcome to conspiracy theory land, posters!

Now that we're home at last, I suppose we can all kick off our shoes and rest our tinfoil hats, get comfortable with our label and really get down to some serious discussion.

Speaking for me, I find the page Erin 4, detailing the similarities between tornados, hurricanes and tesla coils to be of interest. One has to assume the MIC members have also noticed those apparent similarities, as well as the similarity in effects generated, as demonstrated by Dr. Wood. If the MIC has noticed them, then they have probably tried to figure out a way to weaponize them.

I guess that qualifies as a conspiracy theory rant.

'Tis a gorgeous, fascinating picture, though.

I thought so too. I would have thought it irresitible to msm. Someone above said it was 500miles from land. That may be true for the eye of the storm, but the outer bands appear to be at Cape Cod; hence, an ideal candidate for teevee hype.

OK, but since we're here in CT land; I guess we should focus on the fact that it is Dr. Judy Wood who's calling attention to Erin, so I gather we're supposed to assume that means it's all a conspiracy. I gather she is, in fact, suggesting the possibility that Erin could have been a power source for the DEW, of some variety, that she claims destroyed the WTC.

In other words, in answer to the oft-repeated query: where was the power source? Answer: Erin, perhaps.

That almost qualifies as a theory, except for one final problem: if the theory is "the MIC weaponized Erin," the next part of the theory should be an explanation of how.

By the way, there are usually dozens of Atlantic hurricanes each year, I know the conspiracy crowd does have a small section who thinks the MIC knows how to steer and direct them and use them as weapons, it would be pretty amazing if they think they can actually tap the power of the ones at sea and direct it elsewhere.

If the MIC has this capability, would seem to me Tehran or Pyongyang would have been targeted by these mysterious hurricane-harnessing energy weapons by now.

Prolonged drought in NKorea, mysterious train explosions and their nuke fizzle are considered candidate events in that country; and recent disasters in Iran have also raised the question of whether exotic weapons, including weather weapons have been used. As you may know, it is official Air Force policy to have "control of the weather" by 2025. Problem is, that is official Air Force doctrine, so conspiracy buffs can't take any credit for it.

As to Iran, I have long suspected that if Iran were to be attacked, it would be done by DEW. However, the problem with that is that if anyone videoed it, then it might end up looking too much like the WTC destruction; assuming that was caused by DEW.

Do you have any reason to suspect the recent satellite shoot-down was done by DEW? I know, for instance, that at least one, and perhaps two, of the ships assigned to that task are outfitted with DEW, according to publicly available information.

By the way, I only claim access to publicly available, unclassified information; thus, I would not be able to address the issue of how to weaponize weather, other than with publicly available information, of which there is some. I've never seen a secret document. What can other posters say?

Because it might come out too large, I have not reposted the photo, but posters are invited to take a look at the eye of the hurricane. It has wave-like cloud features that are, in my limited experience, unusual. Are there any experts amongst us who can offer up some information about those wavy looking thingys in the eye of Erin?

thanks

So, all Iran needs to defend itself against DEW attack is a lot of video cameras set-up!

The laws of physics are not classified. If it was physically possible, there should be a method for doing so. Neither Judy nor you seem to be providing one.

I don't know what page it was on, because I found it online.
But speaking as someone from Long Island, a place where insurance companies are canceling people's homeowner's insurance because they're afraid we're due for one (haven't had one hit us since 1986) I can tell you that as soon as we hear that it's heading out to see we pretty much stop caring. There are what, 20+ hurricanes a year? I couldn't name 1/10th of the ones that DIDN'T hit land.
And as it was said, it was a beautiful day out so nobody really cared about a storm 500 miles away. Then after the planes hit, it was the farthest thing from ANYONE'S mind!

Fair enough, Erin didn't hit th east coast and did veer away. However, for what it's worth, here's a screen shot from teevee news on the morning of 9/11/01, before the events that made that day famous unfolded:



Say what you will about how far away Erin was etc., but the fact is that the teevee depiction shows a map extending way out into the Atlantic Ocean and does NOT show Erin. Separate and apart from whether it was a threat or not -- and, as of the morning of 9/11, it had not veered to the northeast and was still heading northwest -- it was still present and was located offshore the northeast US in an area that was within the area depicted on teevee, as and for a weather map. Yet it is not there.

This confirms in a rather remarkable way how teevee distorts even as it relates to something as basic as weather.

Granted, one can say that people don't care about hurricanes in the Atlantic, or whatever; but if that is the case, then why should teevee show any part of the ocean at all?

I would say that if teevee is going to show a weather map and have within that map an area where a hurricane is situated, it should show the hurricane, unless it is intentionally engaging in deception. At a bare minimum, I think posters here will understand that teevee omitted a detail from its weather map depiction. It omitted a hurricane in the Atlantic Ocean. I am here stating a fact, not a theory.

Are you really this gullible, or are you intentionally having us on? Ok -

1) The "teevee" screen shot has no date, no time, no inclination of when it was taken. Can you prove this was 9/11/01? (Actually, the picture itself says it was taken "Today".)
2) As of the morning of 9/11/01, Erin had veered away and was heading away from the coast. Your statement to the contrary is false. Erin started turning Sunday night.
3) The screenshot is not a detailed weather map. It is a map of various temperatures and conditions across the country. Usually a satellite picture would follow showing high and low pressure, as well as storms and cloud formations. Can you provide proof this didn't happen?
4) Are you stating as your opinion that meteorologists are part of the cover up, and therefore complicit to murder? How many thousands of people does this add to the grand scheme?
5) You are not anywhere near stating fact. You may as well say the sun was used as a power source, or 10 million hamsters on 5 million wheels, if you can offer no "how" to your "why". (Do YOU own a hamster, jamm? What was YOUR hamster doing on 9/11/01?? Is Your Hamster Still Alive Today? WHY NOT??)

Until jammonious can produce a live hamster that can account for its whereabouts on the morning in question, I propose he is intentionally engaging in deception.

I think so; and, I am not joking. Iran can protect itself from attack with video cameras. (period)

Another reason why I think that may be so is because absent DEWs, the US hasn't got the military capability to attack Iran. The Army is hopelessly bogged down and there are not enough troops and/or vehicles, fresh, serviceable or otherwise, to invade Iran. Plus, Iran has an army.

It would be impracticable to nuke Iran because the fallout might spread indiscriminately, affecting, among other countries, the one with the people we choose to protect and whose interests we place above all others, including our own; you know which country I'm here speaking of, right?

Iran probably cannot be effectively attacked by sea, either; so, that leaves only DEW which are currently placed on land platforms, ships, planes and quite probably, in space. See: www.kirtland.af.mil/afrl_de/

Now, here's where I can be helpful in imparting some useful CT speculation. I think the main problem with DEW is that the military itself is afraid of them. They are too powerful; and, if someone slips up and either miscalibrates or misfires a DEW, there could very easily be one of those "oops" moments where instead of Tehran, there goes, say, Beirut. Which, if not intended, could result in the US having some 'splaining to do.

apparently the space based destructor ray of unimaginable power theory didn't work....
sooo, I guess Wood is going try and link the HAARP conspiracy to her theories

Baghdad was attacked from the sea.... twice. Why can't Iran be attacked by sea?

one of Hussein's biggest blunders...
he never understood his palace in Baghdad could be attacked by submarine.

The above is, in my view, unworthy of this discussion. If you want to contradict th assertion the screenshot is from 9/11/01, you could have posted up one showing Hurricane Erin from that date. Instead, you've engaged in a manuver where you are demanding more proof.

However, that manuver is never-ending, potentially. More proof begets more demands for more of the same. The point is not that much in dispute that multiple layers of proof are needed; it has already been established that Erin was not hyped by media in the days leading up to 9/11.

I will tell you that the screen shot is from Dr. Wood's website, which is linked in the very first post in this thread. That is where the information is from; she asserts it is from 9/11 and she is a reliable, painstaking researcher who's assertions can be accredited, in my view. You are, of course, free to disagree; but absent some contradictory proof FROM YOU, your disagreement is without much weight, in my view.



Your assertion is unsupported by weather data. On the other hand, however, Dr. Wood has presented quite a lot of the weather data for Erin in rather significant detail. I'm content to let the data speak for itself. The data show that Erin was at its closest to the US coast on 9/11 and that it did not veer away until the next day.


For additional tracking information on Erin see: http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/erin/



The "more proof demand" manuver again. Videos of the entire 9/11 weather segments from which the screenshot was taken can be found on Dr. Wood's above referenced webpage segment. Try Erin1 for starters.



No, I am not saying that; are you? This is an instance where the data simply speaks for itself. It is not unusual for data to generate as many questions, if not more, than it answers, but in this instance, I am merely presenting data; that and nothing more and nothing less.



You've constructed an argument of your own making in the above. Best wishes for a prompt resolution of your dispute with yourself.



I here assert that the above is indicative that the writer of it engages in verbal 'cheap shots' that add nothing whatever of substance to the discussion board.

My wording was carefully chosen. I didn't say Iran couldn't be attacked by sea, the word "effectively" was used to qualify the assertion. Assuming, for sake of discussion, you meant to fully paraphrase my assertion, I will answer thusly:

A sea based attack is highly cumbersome because although some ships have a lot of firepower, it's not sufficient to do any meaningful damage to a country that is as large as Iran is. Sure, a few buildings could be dusted, but that wouldn't have any military significance and would only jack up the price of oil and further entrench the USA in the role of a rogue nation, engaged in aggressive war crimes. I hasten to add that this status does not matter in 'Murka and that our people are quite comfortable with military aggression. We have come to believe that we are entitled to do such things in the world. However, and for the record, I think the US would be engaging in a war crime were it to attack Iran.

So, in summary, all of the consequences of shelling Iran from sea would be counterproductive in every sense except the machismo of doing so.

You can decide for yourself whether you think dusting up Iran from sea would be effective. I assert it would not be.

No, it hasn't. Several people here, myself included remember it. Kim provided a USA Today link showing the "hype". Your credibility in this issue is gone. You can't even establish your basic premise.

Judy Wood is not a credible source. She is, to be kind, out of her mind. My Hamster theory is just as credible as the harnessed hurricane theory.

Now, if you cannot provide basic proof of your screenshot - which I contend was from today (because it says it is) - then say so.


Where is your hamster, jamm?

I had some fun with this thread, but seriously;

Can you or Judy show how a hurricane powers the DEW? Can you provide any measure of physics showing if a hurricane is even capable of producing the energy needed to power up a DEW of the magnitude called for?

Proof has been established that not only do people remember Erin, but that it was not ignored by the media. Isn't that what you originally asked for?

If you're serious about wanting to know more about field effects and their possible relationship to DEW and RF (radio frequency) weaponry, then, by all means, take a look at what Dr. Wood has provided: http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/erin/erin4.html

However, it has already been established that you rely on the demand for "more proof" as if your expression of doubt (thus needing more proof) serves to establish that there is doubt about the issue at hand. I'm here to say that I don't think that that is true. Your expression of doubt, absent your own proof of a contrary position is just that: your doubt.

Your doubt is not self-validating. This may come as a surprise to you, but I am not here seeking to persuade you of anything; once again: I am presenting data.

Hurricanes and tornadoes are assessed by Dr. Wood on the basis of their electromagnetic potential, as I understand it (as I'm not a scientist, I might not understand it that well).

Hurricanes and tornadoes have proprties that are not unlike an electromagnetic coil, as depicted here:



and here (Tesla coil):



Just the other day there was an excellent video-learning opportunity, perhaps some of you saw it. On 5/9/08 a tornado struck in Alabama and caught an episode where two cars were almost simultaneously upended and smashed one into the other. The Weather Channel commentary was apparently to the effect that the winds were circular; however, what was not apparently well understood is that the effect seen was most likely the result of an electromagnetic phenomenon associated with tornadoes, not wind.

I am not here trying to convince anyone of this point. Apparently, there's a lot still to be learned about hurricanes and tornadoes and especially about their electromagnetic properties. The bet is that the US is looking at them too for purposes of weaponizing them. I do not know this for sure.

Far be it for anyone in the TM to actually make a stand.

Just asking questions.

Where's your hamster?

The above is about as disengenuous as it gets. Media hype does not consist in the showing of 1 newspaper article that might or might not (Kim didn't know and couldn't say) have even been on the first page. Your exaggeration about the hype (or lack thereof) comes a lot closer to exemplifying the meaning of hype than does your proof about Hurricane Erin.

I do not rely on you for credibility and I am not asking you to believe anything. However, your assertion that my credibility "in this issue is gone" is not something that you have proven. Rather, this is yet another situation where if the message is unpopular, and messages based on Judy Wood's contentions about 9/11 tend to be unpopular, almost always result in attacks on the credibility of those who cite her work, like, say, me.

People can only be so honest with themselves. I would imagine that you, hanibal, probably consider yourself to be quite objective and that your observations about the work of Dr. Judy Wood are accurate.

You're not. You are not entitled to demand more proof. If you contend the screen shot is not from 9/11/01, then you prove it.

Look at what's at stake here. It is a matter of tangential interest, at most, that there was a hurricane offshore NY on 9/11/01, that most people don't seem to recall. The available information is that it wasn't considered newsworthy even before the events of 9/11 took place. It is not necessary to politicize that matter and to make it the source of a saga of never-ending calls for proof about it, that can never be satisfied. Yet, taking the discussion in that direction certainly detracts from taking into consideration the substance of Wood's thesis about field effects and possible energy effects.

Your tactic speaks for itself. It confirms, to some, that Dr. Wood must be correct because the effort to marginalize her work sure is intensive, even if a bit trite.

If her work were off base, it wouldn't be necessary to use dirty tricks to deflect attention away from what she is calling attention to and demonstrating.

Separate and apart from the cheap shot distractions, it might be of interest to some, especially if you live in NYC and most especially if you frequent GZ, that Dr.Wood has called attention to another interesting effect; namely, that the destructive and toxic mechanism unleashed on 9/11/01 is non-self quenching. That is to say, it continues to the present.

Here's a recent photo showing workers in hazmat suits inspecting obvious serious rusting to NEW steel beams that had been installed at GZ, As some New Yorkers know, the Path station is now in its 4th "temporary" location, with no end in the moving about hither, thither and yon, in sight. While the information concerning whether or not construction is actually ongoing at GZ is confused, at best, there is no doubt that the Bankers Trust building, 130 Liberty Street, has not been either repaired (as it was first scheduled to do) or dismantled. It is to be dismantled supposedly because it has "mould". It would occur to some, or at least a few, that if mould were the only problem, then why has it taken more than 6 1/2 years to do next to nothing with that building?

White hazmat suits at seen being used in December, 2006, as per Dr. Wood:

Okay. The photo clearly says "Today". Today is May 21, 2008, not September 11, 2001.

Debunked.

The below picture is proof positive. (Remember, as stated, no one can ask for more proof. You are not entitled.)

Judy Wood's latest theory (in a pictorial account):



Case Closed.

Query: can you provide an example of an offshore hurricane that never made landfall that was "newsworthy", i.e. covered anywhere other than say on weather.com or in the weather section?

I am unaware of newsworthy hurricanes that never struck land; most of the ones that made it into the true "news" section usually did so because they made landfall.

Is Judy Wood suggesting Hurricane Erin was covered up? I admit myself not remembering if I noticed much about it in the time period in question, but it seems hard to argue there has been any effort to conceal its existence subsequently, considering there are all the meteorological charts, graphs, and tables she used herself in the making of those web pages.

BTW, so so far we have "hurricanes may have electromagnetic properties," we're still several steps away from explaining how those properties could then be translated into a destructive force unleashed on buildings 500 miles away, but I'll await further explanation.

nd you expect to be taken seriously? Thanks for sharing, hannibal

Thanks, seeker, for a thoughtful post.

The comparison you suggest in how hurricanes are covered has not, to my knowledge, been done, other than to compare it with Katrina, where, it was noted, the 2 hurricanes were statistically similar, but obviously on very different paths. I think the data show that on the days leading up to 9/11 and most especially 9/9 and 9/10, Erin was a fairly massive and fairly powerful hurricane heading north by northwest which placed on a track heading for the northeast coast, potentially including NYC. Yet there was no hype aout it. I think the point here is that this is a curiosity, but I don't see where Dr. Wood is taking the issue any further than what the data, including the teevee news broadcasts, show.

I think all that I can do is suggest you look closely at the Erin pages, as I am also doing. I don't think any definite conclusions are drawn, nor are any direct assertions made that Erin was used as a power source for the exotic weaponry used to destroy the WTC. However, I think additional research might be undertaken by any of us who are interested. One starting point that I could suggest would be the AirForce 2025 website found at:

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/

Please understand, it's not a matter of receiving further explanation; but rather, one of encouraging people to think about these matters for ourselves. Dr. Wood's website clearly reveals that she is taking legal action of a certain specific type and apparently the case is proceeding along, step by step. So, for her, the issue isn't about winning arguments on internet discussion boards, rather, she has engaged in official court challenges. I guess people calling her "nutty as a fruitcake" didn't deter her from putting her proof to the actual test, in court. And there the matter stands.

Meanwhile, there sat Hurricane Erin, right offshore NYC. And there sits the airforce that, in 1996, was already proclaiming the intent to control the weather by 2025. I don't think Judy Wood makes the claim, but I, myself, wonder whether Erin was something in the nature of a "Plan B," some sort of contingency in case the 9/11 destruction went wrong; as it apparently, nearly did. I say that because the destructve effects are shown by Dr. Wood to be very hard to extinguish.

So, if the reacion had gotten further out of control; or if it started to look even more bizarre than it did, such that people wondered more openly than they did about what the heck had happened, they could have brought Erin in to distract from the screw up.

Hey, since we had to bring this discussion into CT, why not let it rip.

nahh... I'll let the other members decide your veracity....
Iran could be effectively attacked by sea and air. Just like Iraq was attacked, by sea and air.
you should check out some of the weapon systems that's already been used during desert storm and what's deployed now.
I don't think you're that well informed.

Tomahawk missiles can be launched from ship and submarine, they're low altitude long range missiles and are precise and effective... and have been used against military targets in the past

MOAB is deployed in Iraq.
They use that thing, its REALLY going to be affect the thing its dropped on... and very effective in removing its target from existence.

This September 11, 2001 image from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument on board the Terra satellite features the northeastern United States coast. The image shows Hurricane Erin lingering in the Atlantic Ocean approximately 500 miles away from New York.

Goddard Space Flight Center

SeaWiFS on board the Orbview 2 satellite captured these September 11 and 12 images of the Northeast United States. The September 11 & 12 pictures shows a clear day around the US, although hurricane Erin is lingering about 500 miles off the northeast coast.

Goddard Space Flight Center
Goddard Space Flight Center

It's an interesting document. I pored over it. Seems like a wishlist of what the Air Force hopes to be capable of doing by 2025, rather than a statement of existing capabilities.

Control of precipitation isn't anything new; cloudseeding for rain with silver oxide I think goes back to the 1930s, IIRC. There's a lot in there about how they hope to be able to either generate or dissipate rain and cloud cover in an area preceding an airstrike ... I can see why they would want to pursue that capability, either to hinder an enemy airforce or ease the access of their own.

I can't find anything in there where they state they are even trying to direct hurricanes or harness their energy by 2025. Can you?

Hurricane Erin was barely Cat 2 on 9/11... when it passed NY


-wiki

I guess people calling her "nutty as a fruitcake" didn't deter her from putting her proof to the actual test, in court.

No, she is nutty as a fruitcake.... even the insane can sue the government.
the only reason why she's still running around now.... she's not a threat to herself or others.

By effectively, I mean for a strategic or tactical purpose, actually carried out. Bombing Iran would not halt, and most likely would accelerate its nuclear program. It wouldn't halt it because there's nothing the US could destroy that couldn't be rebuilt. Plus, as a result of a US attack, Iran would be given carte blanche justification to defend itself by developinmg nukes. Meanwhile, and as an immediate consequence of bombing Iran, world sympathy for that country would increase and the price of oil would increase, probably by a factor of double. That price already set a new record today,coming in at $133/barrel. When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, oil was at $32 - 34, per barrel; or, $100/bbl less than it is today (5/21/08). That, then, is a measure of a military blunder of the first order of magnitude. You appear to be recommending another.

If Iran were to retaliate by attacking the Strait of Hormuz shipping lane, a distinct possibiility of large bombs, like the MOAB were dropped on it, then oil might not be available at any price. That situation would bring on the immediate collapse of the entire US economy and threaten that of much of the world. Of course, there is only about a 50/50 chance that the US can avoid complete economic collapse before the end of this year in any event.

Perhaps hastening that event, as a result of an intentional war crime would help deflect blame for that collapse away from fiscal mismanagement by the administration and congress, but that would be small comfort and certainly not a strategic gain, as collaspe by either of those means is still collapse.

I will, however, submit that DEW have both offensive and defensive capabilities. The US could probably protect its ships and might be able to thwart the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz by use of DEW. Thus, the supply might continue from countries other than Iran, but taking Iran's supply out would still threaten collapse of the global economic system.

America is a highly unstable country, in my view, and insane actions cannot be ruled out. I here claim that attacking Iran would be a measure of stark raving lunacy.

The nutty fruitcake poster, hannibal, (the foregoing is a fully accurate statement), see post #36, may take delight in name calling and so may you. However, the nutty fruitcake poster, hannibal, posted his comment this afternoon. I wonder how much of Dr. Wood's information on Erin he had even read by then, let alone understood?

By the way, the court system generally reviews information submitted carefully and with painstaking precision. I think that that is what Dr. Wood is relying on.

Take a closer look at the data at Dr. Wood's website in the Erin series. This will have most appeal to those who are slef-declared geeks as it involves magnetometer readings and so on. There are data correlations in time to the destructive events of 9/11 and changes in certain electrical phenomena as recorded in various locations OTHER THAN the locations associated with the HAARP device, for which data are not readily available.

An admittedly CT-type website does provide some interesting info on use of weather as a weapon and upon hurricane modification, direction and, perhaps, creation at: http://www.abbaswatchman.com/Hurricane%20K...and%20Wilma.htm

I am not vouching for the accuracy of the information at the website listed above, but I do think you can rely on the accuracy of the data Dr. Wood has presented; and, in any event, you are welcomed to form your own conclusions.

As I've elsewhere said, I have never seen a 'secret' document and have no interest in doing so. It is unlikely that publicly available informationn will reveal anything more than tantalizing clues, inferential information and hints. That is one reason why the incessant demand for "more proof" is a bit disengenuous. All we as ordinary citizens are permitted to do at present is rely on the information that we can access. However, the one advantage that Dr. Wood has is that her information is presented in court. Those who are contesting her claims there cannot use false information and, if they pull out secret information, then, presumably, Wood would be able to see it provided she agrees to keep what she sees confidential.

Again, her objective is not to win chat room arguments, instead, she's out to demonstrate that DEW destroyed the WTC and to call to account those who engaged in fraud and coverup activities. Others are, of course, free to characterize her work in any way that makes them feel bigger, better, or whatever. The nutty fruitcake poster, hannibal, has already made up his mind after less than one day of the Erin information even being available. I haven't digested all that Wood has put forward as the information is a bit overwhelming to me and is far outside my area of training which is not scientific. She, on the other hand, is a credentialed materials engineering scientist.

Thanks for the data. You might have indicated that a Category 2 hurricane has winds of over 100mph and if one were to hit NYC, it wouldn't be a cakewalk (neither of the fruit variety, nor any other cake style).

So ...

The US has the ability to harness the weather? Up to and including tapping into a hurricane to power a DEW with enough force to (in JW's world) "dustify" the World Trade Center?

Then why would the US economy collapse over something as trivial as oil?

Why worry about oil at all? Just create a hurricane and run every generator in the free world with it. (No need to worry about it's destructive power, as apparently it can be steered also.)

To ultra top secret to do it this way? Why worry, obviously the media does not cover hurricanes anymore. (When they are told not to.)

Jamm - where's your hamster?

Well, poster of the nutty fruitcake, hannibal, you have very pleasantly surprised me. I am truly impressed. Here's why: The following query of yours is highly prescient:



Therein lies the question that actually needs answering. However, right here, at the very beginning, hannibal, a choice probably needs to be made. If you're asking for purposes of laying a foundation for scorn and for ridicule, then I must rrespectfully decline to serve as 'straight man' in an ensuing game. If, on the other hand, you'd like to engage in a joint query, joined in by other posters, perhaps, then I'll engage.

The process I'd be willing to engage in would entail a search for answers, not the typical 'oneupsmanship' message board approach of seeing who can prove the other to be wrong, idiotic, etc. I haven't any interest in that.

One hint that I can give at this point to help you decide whether you want to 'play' the way I'm proposing or not is: free energy. Google it, then you can post whether the subject is something you'd like to engage in cooperative research on, or not.