Weather on 9/11

[regex]

Heya all,

well this is another topic that I'm really interested in.

Media told us at 9/11 that the weather was clear and indeed on no available footage you will see any cloud. I know there is indeed no proof that it was a sunny day but it shouldn't be a big deal to find that out.
So this brings me to my question:

What if there was rain? Or even worse: strong winds and storms.


Going through the idea that on 9/11 there could have been storms, what would have the media told us?

Flying an airplane at almost sealevel is one thing, flying there with strong winds is another. So the fact that it could have been raining that day would have made the media story even more pathetic than it already is.

I just recently heard of the hurricane Erin that was active since the beginning of September 2001 and there was indeed the possibility that parts of it could have come in contact with New York.

So, what I'm thinking of atm is following:

• The story would have been just pathetic if there was rain and storms in New York on 9/11. Did the perps have a plan B or what would have they done in this scenario?
  
• Faking the live footage would have been more difficult (I'm not a pro in this but it's my guess). All the clouds in the background and so on.
  
• Now imagine there were serious storms that day: Noone would believe the story of unskilled alCIAda-ALLAH-ALLAH-bin-laden terrorists flying a huge plan under these circumstances. Did they have a plan B again?
• Was there even the possibility to render 3d graphics showing such huge clouds?

Now considering that the whole media hoax was calculated for the specific date, 9/11, it was pretty risky for them to have weather issues, don't you think?

I found the following during my little research:

“Due to a Tornado in the area we cannot connect your call”

said by a guy that tried to call someone in New York that day, here's the source
Could this even have something to do with the "electronic jamming" that we are discussing in another thread?

What are your opinions about the weather issue?

[nonhocapito]

...very interesting issue that has been discussed a number of times. Also consider the possibility that certain agencies or organizations might be in control of machines apt at changing the weather, and that one might have been used on 9/11 to make sure the whole NYC area was favored by high pressure, Erin would skip it, and the sky stayed clear.

At that point the only variable left would have been the direction of the wind which, like Simon suggested, could be one of the reasons to explain why the TV broadcast, although prepared in advance, had to be composed "live".

There is a lot of talk about "HAARP" on the internet and basically no evidence of the HAARP facility being directly responsible of anything. For all we know there might be dozens of such machines in the world, the thing is certainly scientifically possible.
Only recently, this news item confirms it.



I found rather appalling to see this guy ^ on CBS (let's call him the "as nice as can be guy"), during the live broadcast of 9/11, talk in the early morning about "miles and miles of sunshine" and adding, with hinting eyes: "it's very quiet around the country... It's too quiet."

[regex]

Smoke rises... no?

Uhm,.. yes and no.

If you've ever been on a pretty high building (200+ meters) you will realize the strong wind up there. This can easily be caused by some kind of wind that you don't even realize on the ground. Such a high building has nothing on it's side that would keep that wind away. Furthermore those winds can shake the building pretty much. I think the wtc could move from one to the other side up to 5 meters (at the top of course) but I'm not sure about that anymore.

We should check if the smoke plume has the correct direction.
The wind on 9/11 came from the north which happened just a few times (!!!) in the whole year 2001.

I've read several times now that hurricane Erin wasn't even mentioned in the morning news of 9/11. Can we somehow conform this?

edit:

here*'s a video of hurricane erin around september 1-13 i think. And noone ever mentioned it? What the heck?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVE36jVYvUI

[simonshack]

The wind on 9/11 came from the north which happened just a few times (!!!) in the whole year 2001.

I've read several times now that hurricane Erin wasn't even mentioned in the morning news of 9/11. Can we somehow conform this?

edit:
here*'s a video of hurricane erin around september 1-13 i think. And noone ever mentioned it? What the heck?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVE36jVYvUI

Excuse me for re-hashing the Erin issue, but in the light of some recent digging on this subject, I now have increased confidence in my original, intutive musings/speculations as to what Erin was - possibly - all about.

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

ERIN - the 9/11 weather fixer?

As mentioned by Regex in his opening post here, it would undoubtedly have been a big bonus for the 9/11 planners to be able to control two key aspects of the weather on 9/11. Since they had put together a prefabricated, made-for-TV movie showing a clear, blue day (well, sort of!) and smoke billowing from the WTC in a certain direction (southeast), it would surely have been extremely convenient - if not downright essential - to ensure the weather conditions on the day for :

1: Clear, cloudless skies
2: Wind moving southeast

This, of course, in order to keep the skies (and the smokeplume's orientation) to appear ALL TOO DIFFERENT from the prefabricated movie aired on TV.



Whether with HAARP or with other means, I do not think it is far-fetched to believe that man-made hurricanes are, in fact, feasible. I'm certainly no expert in this field - and I welcome any knowledgeable comments on this matter. For now, let's just assume that such technology exists. My point here is to add some elements of information I recently found which I believe are pretty interesting.

Here's from the National Hurricane Center:

"After brushing Bermuda, the hurricane (ERIN) continued to move mainly toward the north-northwest. On 10 September, Erin began to weaken, however the weakening was slower than usual over the ensuing days, due in part to slightly warmer than normal waters over the western subtropical Atlantic. A series of short-wave troughs weakened the western portion of the Atlantic subtropical ridge. This caused the motion of the hurricane to turn toward the right, with a decrease in forward speed, on the 11th."
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2001erin.html

Here's the map they have showing Erin's path. As you see, on the 11th, it appears to slow down its northwestern drift and turn northeast. In any event, Erin was due southeast of Manhattan on September 11, 2001:


Here's a rough map I made showing Erin's position (northeast of Bermuda) on Sept 11, 2001:


Now, one of the few facts I know/have learned about hurricanes is that they basically 'suck' towards their vortex any surrounding clouds. This would have, perhaps, sorted out the need for a clear sky on 9/11. Also, Erin's location on September 11 (due southeast of NYC) would possibly have ensured the (real) billowing smoke from the towers to drift in a southeastern direction. Does this make sense?


******************************************
Whoops! (edited for brainfade/typo today, July22 !! - Erin was of course southeast of Manhattan as seen on the National Hurricane Center's map) Thanks Fbenario - my bad! Have removed your post for clarity - but many thanks for correcting me. Please do comment anew - and tell me what you think.

[simonshack]

*
Just for the record:

At 12:00 into this video of the early morning of 9/11, NBC weatherman Al Roker DOES mention Hurricane Erin:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1iYl8UekJs

To be sure, Roker mentioned hurricane ERIN at around 7:11AM on the morning of 9/11.
(an anchor woman states that timeline just before introducing Al Roker's weather report).

It is worth noting the incredibly succinct and casual manner in which Roker mentions the looming, 90mph hurricane threat :

"...We've got hurricane Erin, winds 90mph - 430 miles E/SE of Atlantic City, it's moving North, look for rip tides and heavy swells along the North Eastern Atlantic coast... "

Roker might just as well have quipped: "Nothing to worry about, folks! Have a nice day"

[Herr der Elf]

Dear Mr. Shack,

I agree with your premise that Hurricane Erin may have been needed to achieve cloudless skies and favorable wind conditions, which are ideal for the made-for-telly event that they were producing. It would simplify the video faking.

But I also believe that the hurricane had another purpose as a back-up plan to a back-up plan.

You see, the energy requirements of the WTC content pulverization were massive. The destructive mechanisms were being deployed for the first time in a real-world operation and in conjunction with many other components, which is vastly different from the controlled environments where they may have tested it. Things could go wrong. In fact, they probably did if you think about the delayed demolition of WTC-7.

I found Dr. Wood's textbook, [a href="http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/"]Where Did the Towers Go?[/a], to be very informative. [If you don't already have a copy, my offer of providing you one is still open. Her treatment having run parallel to that of September Clues might be worthy of your video production talents to tell her story and how truth gets marginalized.]

I'm not saying that everything Dr. Wood writes is the gospel; I've run across a few niggly errors, and I do not believe that "beams from space" [which by the way is a deliberate mis-framing by her detractors] were used on WTC-1, 2, or 7. That being said, the question is still open whether or not such were deployed on the WTC-6 crater, the WTC-5 cylindrical bore-holes, and the WTC-4 leveling of the main edifice and not the North wing. And if they were deployed, the question of free-energy is also still open.

I deviate from Dr. Wood by recognizing that anomalous radiation readings were measured, 1st responder ailments align with Hiroshima survivors, under-rubble fires burned for many weeks, and some damage to vehicles (and not paper) is easier to explain as electromagnetic side-effects to a nuclear energy source. The PhD steerers for the "mainstream" 9/11 Truth Movement tried mightly to frame it as "because the readings weren't A or B and were near trace-level for C, then the nuclear devices weren't deployed." In reality, they should have said "because the readings weren't A or B, because we re-defined higher what trace-level of C was, then nuclear devices of type X, Y, or Z weren't deployed." They took off of the table anything nuclear, including a nuclear or cold-fusion generator that could feed massive amounts of energy to a DEW device and meet the pulverization energy requirements.

Bringing this back around to the subject, a hurricane waiting in the wings would have been important to wipe the slate clean and secure total evacuation of the area if any of the major pieces of the operation failed. Failure can be thought of as either not going off, or going off in excess of design. Under the cover of a raging storm, they could finish the job, destroy evidence, and then blame hi-jackers and a hurricane.

I apologize for the detour into Dr. Wood when this is a forum mostly dedicated to 9/11 video manipulation. However, a piece of the puzzle that brings understanding are the massive energy requirements and what either undershoot and overshoot in meeting them could mean. Control of the media is essential. The weatherman conspiracy to suppress the hurricane on 9/11 plays into this. If the operation is successful to within a certain degree, they wouldn't need the hurricane, could send it away with a flick of a HAARP switch, and wouldn't want the hurricane news overshadowing the desired telly shock-and-awe. On the other hand, if critical elements of the operation failed (by say, 11 a.m.), they had time to turn the hurricane and get the weathermen talking it up again to get everyone out of the city. [Tongue-in-cheek: The only catch to calling in the hurricane as the back-up to the back-up is that this new story would underscore the power and greatness of Allah even more that planes could go un-intercepted, plane impacts could demolish steel buildings in physics-defying manners, and hurricanes are coincidentally wrought forth to prove who is the mightier God.]

[fbenario]

You see, the energy requirements of the WTC content pulverization were massive. The destructive mechanisms were being deployed for the first time in a real-world operation and in conjunction with many other components, which is vastly different from the controlled environments where they may have tested it. Things could go wrong. In fact, they probably did if you think about the delayed demolition of WTC-7.

I found Dr. Wood's textbook, [a href="http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/"]Where Did the Towers Go?[/a], to be very informative. [If you don't already have a copy, my offer of providing you one is still open. Her treatment having run parallel to that of September Clues might be worthy of your video production talents to tell her story and how truth gets marginalized.]

I'm not saying that everything Dr. Wood writes is the gospel; I've run across a few niggly errors, and I do not believe that "beams from space" [which by the way is a deliberate mis-framing by her detractors] were used on WTC-1, 2, or 7. That being said, the question is still open whether or not such were deployed on the WTC-6 crater, the WTC-5 cylindrical bore-holes, and the WTC-4 leveling of the main edifice and not the North wing. And if they were deployed, the question of free-energy is also still open.

I deviate from Dr. Wood by recognizing that anomalous radiation readings were measured, 1st responder ailments align with Hiroshima survivors, under-rubble fires burned for many weeks, and some damage to vehicles (and not paper) is easier to explain as electromagnetic side-effects to a nuclear energy source. The PhD steerers for the "mainstream" 9/11 Truth Movement tried mightly to frame it as "because the readings weren't A or B and were near trace-level for C, then the nuclear devices weren't deployed." In reality, they should have said "because the readings weren't A or B, because we re-defined higher what trace-level of C was, then nuclear devices of type X, Y, or Z weren't deployed." They took off of the table anything nuclear, including a nuclear or cold-fusion generator that could feed massive amounts of energy to a DEW device and meet the pulverization energy requirements.

Bringing this back around to the subject, a hurricane waiting in the wings would have been important to wipe the slate clean and secure total evacuation of the area if any of the major pieces of the operation failed. Failure can be thought of as either not going off, or going off in excess of design. Under the cover of a raging storm, they could finish the job, destroy evidence, and then blame hi-jackers and a hurricane.

I apologize for the detour into Dr. Wood when this is a forum mostly dedicated to 9/11 video manipulation. However, a piece of the puzzle that brings understanding are the massive energy requirements and what either undershoot and overshoot in meeting them could mean. Control of the media is essential.

What the f**k?

You begin and end your post talking about hurricanes, the subject of this thread, but in the middle of your post you insert this long, entirely inappropriate, and wrongly located shout-out to Judy Wood's absurd theories, for which there is no evidence. Why in the world didn't you place it in the thread on her?

Go away.

[Dcopymope]

Weather modification is yet another prime example of old technology or science being sold to us as new. This is what the military could do back in the 60's.

Operation Popeye:

Operation Popeye (Project Popeye/Motorpool/Intermediary-Compatriot) was a US military cloud seeding operation (running from March 20, 1967 until July 5, 1972) during the Vietnam war to extend the monsoon season over Laos, specifically areas of the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The operation seeded clouds with silver iodide, resulting in the targeted areas seeing an extension of the monsoon period an average of 30 to 45 days. As the continuous rainfall slowed down the truck traffic, it was considered relatively successful.[1] The 54th Weather Reconnaissance Squadron carried out the operation to "make mud, not war." [2]
The resultant rain and subsequent flooding of the nearby Song Con River is sometimes blamed for the move of POWs from the prison camp at Son Tay and therefore, the failure of Operation Ivory Coast.[3]

We might as well call the chemtrail operations that continues unimpeded across the planet cloud seeding operations. If they can do this way back then, what can they do now? If they planned on showing us fake footage of a clear day over Manhattan, then I'm sure they wouldn't risk creating a Hurricane for any back up plan. The Hurricane most likely occurred naturally and was simply redirected using HAARP like pulsations. I've also heard that with the right chemical mix, they can eliminate a Hurricane altogether.

[antipodean]

You see, the energy requirements of the WTC content pulverization were massive. The destructive mechanisms were being deployed for the first time in a real-world operation and in conjunction with many other components, which is vastly different from the controlled environments where they may have tested it. Things could go wrong. In fact, they probably did if you think about the delayed demolition of WTC-7.

I found Dr. Wood's textbook, [a href="http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/"]Where Did the Towers Go?[/a], to be very informative. [If you don't already have a copy, my offer of providing you one is still open. Her treatment having run parallel to that of September Clues might be worthy of your video production talents to tell her story and how truth gets marginalized.]

What exactly was pulverised (or dustified another Woody term). Your analogy is based on faked footage.
There may have only been a few floors in each tower that were actually finished (concreted) used by the Port Authority, and a couple of floors occupied by private companies on mates rates, to show case the WTC as being a fully operational entity.
These floors could have had bolted down concrete slabs, removed prior to show time. The whole steel framework could literally have been unbolted (loosened).
The demolition process literally dismantling the towers, remember all the stories about the steel being shipped off to China.

[SmokingGunII]

I think claiming the weather was anything other than blue skies and sunny on 9/11 is ridiculous. Millions work in and around Manhattan, if it had been anything other than as shown (on most footage - I'll ignore the preposterous Fox yellow), we would have known about it immediately.

[lux]

I can't help thinking they wanted a featureless blue sky to facilitate some sort of live chromakey effects (which usually use a green or blue background). This might have been for the "amateur" shots taken by spooks in various ground positions.