Yes, hurricanes and tornadoes do have electrical natures, what do you think the lightning is all about?
I am a member of the U.K based TORnado and storm Research Organisation.
http://www.torro.org.uk/site/index.php
Tornadoes are atleast one area I do have experience of.
Tornadoes are the most powerful weather-related force on earth. Possibly the highest surface wind speeds ever recorded was taken by doppler reading on May 3 1999. 318mph during an F5 (highest old Fujita scale rating) tornado in the Oklahoma City area.
That is incredible power, but your little group of DEWphiles have yet to show any evidence such forces of nature have anything to do with 9\11 or energy weapons. Showing a bunch of pictures and wailing "hey look this is weird!" doesn't even come close.
This post reminded me of one of my small criticisms of Judy Wood. I'm not her biggest fan. That role is played by Morgan Reynolds and possibly Jerry Leaphart. But I am a fan. Her forensic investigation of the WTC attacks is, without a doubt, the best work on the subject.
What she does is separate out the various features of 9/11 and examines those features. For instance, the billiard ball analogy. She examined the gravity collapse model with this analogy. She subtracted some features of the gravity collapse model, and included others. She didn't include any notion of floors slamming into other floors. Rather, she hypothesized a billiard ball supported by nothing, floating motionless in air until a separate billiard ball that was stationed one floor above it had fallen to its own level. Again, she did not include any interaction between the billiard balls. In her model, the billiard balls did not impart any force on each other, rather served as a signal for the timing of fall of the billiard balls in succession. This was genius. By controlling for force in the model, she was able to investigate the timing issue in a clear-headed and simple way.
If one billiard ball can't fall until the next billiard ball reaches it, then the timing of the demise of the WTC buildings didn't match a gravity collapse model.
You might want to add in the force to the model, but it's already busted by the timing. Adding force into the model would only slow things down, not speed them up, and the confusion about this is because most of you people don't really "get" Newton's 3rd Law. You think of forces as going in one direction, but it isn't the case. Forces exist in pairs. They have opposite direction and equal magnitude.
If you want to add force into the model, you have to add ALL of the forces into the model. You can't just talk about the force of the floors of the WTC slamming downward without also mentioning that the lower floors would have exerted exactly and precisely that same amount of force in the upward direction. This upward force would slow the descent of the upper floors, had they begun crashing downwards, which they didn't, but whatever. The gravity collapse model says they did, and we're talking about that model.
If you want to add force into the model, you can't forget the horizontal forces. Building materials moved horizontally during the destruction. What does the gravity collapse model say about this? Not a darn thing, because gravity only works in one direction, down. Gravity doesn't cause things to shoot out horizontally. Gravity wouldn't have caused the steel beams to fly across the street and damage the Deutsche Bank. Items flew at least 300 feet horizontally during the destruction of the WTC, and the dust cloud rolled out for blocks, all the way to the tip of the island in Battery Park and up to Chambers Street. That's a lot of horizontal motion that isn't accounted for.
When you look at early pictures of the damage, you'll notice that relatively little of the WTC buildings ended up inside the footprints of the building. It can be said that the vast majority of the building material moved radially outward from the center of the building footprints. The pile above the footprints were not much more than two stories, if that. I saw this with my own eyes less than 72 hours after the attacks. There were some taller pieces leaning over, but not above the footprint. Horizontal motion is not adequately explained with the gravity collapse model.
Getting to my criticism of Judy Wood (notice how I started a thread about disrespecting Judy Wood? I doubt you'd have been as interested in replying to a thread called "praising Judy Wood" haha), she didn't flesh out the Hurricane Erin story as much as I wanted her to. She's still a working scientist. She might soon come out with a tighter, fuller explanation of the connection, if any, between Erin and 9/11, but the story remains incomplete so far.
She doesn't insist that Erin was the power source, unlike the claims of many of her detractors, but she does provide a good argument about the timing, position, and size of the storm. I just want more than is there, and I can't make a decision about Hurricane Erin yet.
