• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

Judy Wood says in her book that the earth's magnetic field was affected in particular ways during the attacks of 9/11. Hurricane Erin is part of that discussion. Thunder at the NYC airports is another part. Magnetometer data from Alaska hasn't even been mentioned, yet, but that's another part.

You do know what Judy says about the magnetic field measurements, don't you?

There was NO THUNDER at the NYC airports on 9/11. I've already shown you the link to historical weather data. That you ignore it is your fault. That you live in ignorance is your fault.


FYI - George RR Martin says in HIS book that Daneryus is the queen of dragons. Do you believe dragons exist?
 
I'm not inventing these weather reports. I'm just pointing to them.


And selectively ignoring the very valid explanations that don't require a weapon using beams of unspecified energy from an unspecified location causing unspecified effects, proposed by a person who has demonstrable difficulties analyzing evidence.
 
I'm not inventing these weather reports. I'm just pointing to them.

And a scientist would be asking why it is that only airports "Reported" thunder while nowhere else did. Here's a hint. Look at how those reports are generated.
 
What self-respecting evil cabal that develops and tests a sooper seekrit death-ray would then allow . . . individuals to publicly speculate about the implementation of said sooper seekrit death-ray?

Unless, unless that cabal knew these speculators had no evidence and in fact the idea is bat-guano crazy.

They're crafty, them caballers.
 
Last edited:
Why? What's the relevance?

They may or may not be relevant to the attacks of 9/11. Reports of thunder at the NYC airports are an indication of electromagnetic activity in the atmosphere. Hurricane Erin might have played a role in this. Magnetometer reports show anomalies in the electromagnetic field in the northern hemisphere. Hey, maybe none of it is relevant.

But maybe it is. It isn't my theory, but energy weapons have been suggested to be the mechanism of destruction of the WTC. Strangely timed deviations in the Earth's electromagnetic field are a possible part of the picture. Do you know what she's saying about all this?
 
They may or may not be relevant to the attacks of 9/11. Reports of thunder at the NYC airports are an indication of electromagnetic activity in the atmosphere automated listening stations hearing loud sounds, most likely sonic booms from aircraft.
fixed.
From Changnon, Stanley A., 2001: Assessment of the Quality of Thunderstorm Data at First-Order Stations. J. Appl. Meteor., 40, 783–794.


The nature of detecting thunderstorm occurrences based on audibility has the potential for inconsistent record keeping. Since 1947, records were kept at FOS of the time when thunder was first heard and the time 15 min after the last peal of thunder, and each such period was defined as a “thunder event” (Changery 1981). A thunder event can and often does occur more than once a day. The average number of events per thunder day is 1.6 at points in the central United States, diminishing to 1.1 on the West Coast and to 1.4 on the East Coast (Changnon 1988b).

The recording of a thunder day at first-order stations of the National Weather Service has been done since the 1870s. Beginning in 1894, a day with thunder was one when one or more distinct peals of thunder were heard, but before 1894 a thunder day was recorded only when it was accompanied by rain, and this shift is a major discontinuity in the records. Hence, a day when thunder was heard at a first-order station has been defined as a “thunder day” since 1894 (Weather Bureau 1951), and these data serve as the only long-term records of thunderstorm activity in the United States. Volunteer observers at cooperative substations have also been asked to record a thunder day when they heard thunder, but this was a voluntary endeavor and not all observers have kept records of thunder occurrences.

The thunder data from both types of stations need to be evaluated for their accuracy. A procedure for evaluating cooperative substation records of thunder-day data has been devised, tested, and found useful for detecting periods with quality substation values (Changnon 1967). This paper describes an assessment of the quality of the historical thunder-day data collected at 130 FOS in the contiguous United States with long records covering all or most of the 1896–1995 period.
 
If you want to talk about this very difficult subject, I suggest you communicate in a more straightforward way. I can't really understand what you're saying. Too many jokes and reversals.

Don't be ridiculous. I've made no reversals in this thread, and only one joke, which was not directed at you -- and frankly, the fact that it was a joke should have been abundantly apparent to everyone.

Further, please don't presume to lecture me about communicating in a straightforward way, unless your goal is to set some kind of record for most ironic post. If you can't understand what I'm saying, the problem (to put things bluntly) probably doesn't reside with me.

But if you prefer to use this rather transparent dodge to avoid responding to my serious questions -- such as why no one can see Dr. Woods' spaced-based DEW weapon, which if it exists should be readily observable -- then by all means do so.
 
I'm not inventing these weather reports. I'm just pointing to them.

No, you've parroted claims someone else made about them.

Prove me wrong: actually *cite* these weather reports?
 
As long as you misrepresent her conclusions, you'll never make progress in debunking her, if that was your goal. Saying the weapon could be in space isn't the same thing as saying it was in space. She says it could be anywhere, on a mountain, in the sea, etc.

Don't be ridiculous. I've made no reversals in this thread, and only one joke, which was not directed at you -- and frankly, the fact that it was a joke should have been abundantly apparent to everyone.

Further, please don't presume to lecture me about communicating in a straightforward way, unless your goal is to set some kind of record for most ironic post. If you can't understand what I'm saying, the problem (to put things bluntly) probably doesn't reside with me.

But if you prefer to use this rather transparent dodge to avoid responding to my serious questions -- such as why no one can see Dr. Woods' spaced-based DEW weapon, which if it exists should be readily observable -- then by all means do so.
 
Judy Wood says in her book that the earth's magnetic field was affected in particular ways during the attacks of 9/11. Hurricane Erin is part of that discussion. Thunder at the NYC airports is another part. Magnetometer data from Alaska hasn't even been mentioned, yet, but that's another part.

You do know what Judy says about the magnetic field measurements, don't you?

What???

None -- and I mean none -- of that makes a lick of sense. Never mind 9/11; please explain how any hurricane or any thunder can be affected by any change in the Earth's magnetic field.
 
No, you've parroted claims someone else made about them.

Prove me wrong: actually *cite* these weather reports?

No thanks. You can spend your time finding the original references, if you choose, or you can just look at the references that Dr. Wood uses.
 
What???

None -- and I mean none -- of that makes a lick of sense. Never mind 9/11; please explain how any hurricane or any thunder can be affected by any change in the Earth's magnetic field.


An earth scientist would be better able to explain it to you. All I can say is that hurricanes are associated with electrical activity in the atmosphere. Things like lightning and thunder are a result.

There were reports of thunder on 9/11. There was a hurricane on 9/11. There were anomalies detected in the Earth's magnetic field on 9/11. Wood might or might not be correct in making a connection between them.
 
What effects did the magnetometers record and what was anomalous about them?

You didn't read Judy's book. Shame. Yeah, she shows data that indicates big fluctuations in the electromagnetic field in the northern hemisphere at key points in time on 9/11/2001. She adds this to the pile of evidence indicating energy weapons were used.

If, as she claims, energy weapons were used, the Earth's magnetic field might wobble as a result. She showed that the field did wobble. I think it's good evidence.
 
You are confirming what I'm saying. You're saying that the wake doesn't stop at the moment of impact. I am correct.

I'm not teaching anyone about flying. I'm speaking the obvious truth that the wake doesn't stop at the moment of impact, as you agree.

Nope. You are wrong. The best analogy I can give is that wake turbulence is laid down by the plane, just like paint off a roller. And it stops the moment the wings stop generating lift, with the residual dissipating fairly quickly.

So, please don't tell me I agree.

Eta: I will concede that there is a very small amount of turbulence generated by parasite and form drag from the fuselage, antennae, etc., but it doesn't keep moving forward as some cone of air being dragged along. Also, that small bit of turbulence, especially from a sophisticated shape like an airliner, especially Boeing products, is completely overwhelmed by the wing tip vortices which behave the way I, beachnut, and others have described.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom