In Dr. Judy Wood's book,
Where Did The Towers Go?, there is a very interesting chapter on an event (that may or may not be connected to 9/11) I had never heard about. The evidence she presents is very intriguing.
The information in her book is more or less reproduced on her own website here: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/
I was astonished to learn that a category 3 hurricane (named 'Erin') was heading for New York on September 11, 2001. Apart from a couple of brief mentions of it here on the forum and some references to it online (mainly thanks to Judy Wood), it seems that this storm was a very hush-hush affair. Perhaps that is understandable given what happened that day. As we’ll see, however, media coverage of Hurricane Erin was also practically non-existent
before the WTC and Pentagon attacks.
According to data gathered by Wood, the storm was so close to NYC on the morning of 9/11 that thunder was reported at La Guardia, JFK and Newark airports, despite the clear blue skies. More powerful by most accounts than hurricane Katrina in 2005, Erin suddenly reversed direction by making a sharp eastward turn on 9/11 itself.
This obviously raises a lot of questions, but the one I'm asking just now is, why was there hardly any mention of this hurricane in the media BEFORE the Twin Towers were attacked? Compare and contrast with hurricane Sandy, for example...
This is an image of New York City on 9/11 that you've probably never seen before. That band of clouds out to sea is category 3 Hurricane Erin bearing down on New York:
Next, I’ll transcribe some choice excerpts from the relevant chapter in Wood's book:
By September 10, Hurricane Erin had become a Category 3 hurricane with wind speeds of 120 mph just as it passed Bermuda along its path towards NYC. And yet we heard nothing of this storm. the WTC Towers were built to withstand wind loads of up to 140 mph (225 km/hr), the equivalent force of a Category 4 hurricane and only 20 mph more than the wind speed of Hurricane Erin. [...]
People remember 9/11 as being one of the clearest days they had ever seen along the East Coast. [...] [And yet,] the outer bands of the storm reached Cape Cod and the end of Long Island:
Not even I knew there was a hurricane just outside of NYC on 9/11 until I discovered the fact while looking for weather-satellite images to study the rising dust plum from the destroyed WTC towers [visible in the above image].
In fact, as I was to discover, Erin came closest to NYC, and also reached its largest size, on 9/11 itself. Interestingly, the National Hurricane Center projected Erin to be of stronger force than it was to project in the case of Katrina four years later. How curious is it then that that this hurricane was not mentioned or shown by graphics on morning weather reports. Were meteorologists absolutely certain that this hurricane would make a right-hand turn away from NYC and head back out to sea before there was any major threat of storm surges? No – at least not according to the National Weather Service.
That’s an interesting point. How could meteorologists have been so certain that Erin was going to suddenly change course just a few hundred miles from New York? The National Weather Service issued the following report on Hurricane Erin at 11pm on 10th September:
There may be some fluctuations in intensity over the next 24-36 hours… as the inner eye wall collapses and the outer one takes over. Global models suggest that Erin could become a very vigorous extratropical system around the end of the forecast period… large swells generated by Erin will likely be a hazard along the Northeast US coast during the next couple of days.
Nothing about the fact that Erin had been picking up speed and intensity, going from a cat 1 to a cat 3 hurricane, and was making a beeline for landfall somewhere just north of NYC within 1-2 days. Nothing about it being pushed out to sea the next day.
The next National Weather Service report was issued at 5am, EDT, on 9/11:
Erin remains a significant hurricane.
In sharp contrast, ALL networks in the US were talking about catastrophic storm surges when it had barely left Cuba, one week to ten days before Hurricane Sandy made landfall near Atlantic City, New Jersey on 29/30 October.
And yet on the morning of 9/11, the TV networks' national weather reports either made no mention of Erin at all OR they casually brushed it off (watch
this video to get a flavour of what I mean) OR they went out of their way to insert "AS NICE AS IT CAN BE" on the part of their US weather map that should have shown a massive hurricane off the coast of New York! (CBS did this)
Approximately 500 miles in diameter, Erin was about the same size as Katrina and yet the public was not widely alerted to it. Still, Erin was the subject of extended study.
Next, Wood points out that "
unprecedented data collection" was going on in and around Erin, with NOAA, NASA and other agencies coordinating intensive field investigations from the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville, Florida. The official reason for this undertaking was to "
allow meteorologists to provide more accurate and timely warnings to the public." So although there was next to no media coverage, this was actually a particularly well-observed weather event.
The storm was a tropical depression on the first of September, reached minimum pressure on 9 Sept, max speed on September 10 and max diameter in September 11. On the morning of 9/11, the storm stopped at its closest approach to NYC, then in the afternoon it veered dramatically to the east. [...]
The data shows that Erin slowed down as it approached NY, and then remained almost stationary during the morning of 9/11. Immediately after the WTC was attacked, Erin began to move away from NYC. [...] For the 24 hours surrounding the events of 9/11, Hurricane Erin maintained the same wind speed, the same pressure, and approximately the same distance from NYC.
I should clarify that Wood’s discussion of Erin takes place in the context of analyzing the bizarre but clear evidence that some form of directed free-energy technology was responsible for making the WTC turn to dust and blow away in the wind on 9/11, so she recounts the various US TV networks’ coverage of the hurricane with a view to asking whether “Erin was somehow steered away from NYC” on 9/11.
I think it’s well worth considering this as a possibility (along with many other possibilities in between), but for now what stands out for me is the relative lack of media coverage, certainly compared with Hurricane Sandy.
At least one network, CNN was confident Erin would not strike NYC or the East Coast. Why?
CNN said:
Hurricane Erin weakens, but still strong storm, September 10, 2001 Posted: 6:59 PM EDT (2259 GMT)
Hurricane Erin posed no immediate threat to land on Monday after grazing past Bermuda overnight and moving into the open Atlantic. […]
The worst part of the storm, with maximum sustained winds of 120 mph (195 km/h), passed to the northeast of Bermuda on Sunday, according to the National Weather Service.
At 5 p.m. EDT, the weather service placed the center of Erin, the first hurricane of the 2001 Atlantic season, 540 miles (875 kilometers) south of Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. The storm was moving north-northwest near 8 mph (13 km/h).
The CNN article states that Erin was “moving north-northwest” after “grazing past Bermuda” but was “moving into the open Atlantic.” NYC is north-northwest of Bermuda, almost exactly in Erin’s path toward “the open Atlantic”. […]
At the same time, there was a cold front moving from the Midwest towards NYC that would have slowed the hurricane and turned it northward, but how sure could meteorologists have been about the
timing of the turn? How sure could they have been that the storm wouldn’t pose a serious threat to Cape Cod? If Erin had stalled a little bit longer where it was, storm surges would have flooded JFK and LaGuardia airports as well as Cape Cod. Not only in NYC near sea level, but so is most of Long Island.
Evacuation from these areas would be a mammoth undertaking and could not be organized at a moment’s notice – and yet the public remained uniformed.
Erin was closest to NYC between 8 and 9 am EDT on 9/11, yet the morning national weather reports, on ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS, all scheduled between 8.30 and 8.36am, made hardly any mention of it at all. Ten minutes later WTC1 was ‘hit’ and all attention from then of course focused on the attacks.
Just ahead of a storm, there is often dry lightning accompanied by thunder, another indication of the field effects of a storm. On 9/11, thunder was reported at nearby airports, including Newark, JFK and La Guardia airports. Rain was either reported or measured at all three of these airports too. The outer bands of Hurricane Erin passed over Cape Cod and Long Island, but the field affects accompanying the storm spread out even further. Weather data [shows that] the NYC area experienced the field affects of Hurricane Erin on the morning of 9/11.
Discussing the similarities of hurricanes to a Tesla coil, Wood notes that there were unusual magnetometer readings on 9/11, indicating flux in the planet’s magnetic field at particular points throughout the day. She goes into greater detail about this in a subsequent chapter, but for now I just want to note that Erin had locked on to a particular northwest trajectory, following “the minus-15 line of magnetic declination of the earth’s magnetic field” in the two days before 9/11, leaving Wood to wonder whether the sharp eastward turn in the hurricane was “closely related to the wider fluctuations in the magnetometer readings”?
Whatever about the media’s bizarre out of the ordinary silence about Erin, something else stands out. Erin entered the official US Hurricane Response Zone on 9/11, meaning that,
if normal procedure had been followed, evacuation and other emergency protocols should have swung into action. Shades of NORAD standing down...
Unquestionably, more data is needed before a conclusion could be made that magnetic activity caused course-change, or that both course-change and magnetic activity are both the result of something else, or that it is all just a coincidence. On the other hand, the use of directed energy technology on the huge scale of its use during 9/11 [Kniall - the case for which Wood makes earlier in this book, which includes lots of photographic evidence of vehicles that spontaneously burst into flames on the other side of Manhattan on 9/11] might very well have had weather-altering effects. Such technology might have been able to draw upon the vast energies and field effects of the enormous Tesla Coil known as Hurricane Erin. Thoughts of this kind are justified, even necessitated, by the fact if Erin’s having been treated as a carefully kept secret, much like a state secret.
Now let's review what the Cs have said about this:
Session 18 January 2003
Q: (A) I want to ask about the collapse of the World Trade Center. There is evidence of seismicity and unusual pulses that seem to have simply disintegrated matter.
A: Very good observation, but that does not mean human sabotage either. There were certainly "pulses." They were of a "natural" source that was "sculpted" or "shaped" and directed.
Q: What do you mean by a 'natural source?'
A: Energies of the planet artificially collected and disbursed. An artificial earthquake sort of.
Q: But we are still talking about technology. Where is the operational center for this type of thing?
A: 4th density technology.
Q: This we know. But there are human brains involved. What brains are behind this?
A: Did you ever wonder why the pentagon is a pentagon? Hint!
Q: Is that why they specifically included the Pentagon as one of the buildings to be hit in the 9-11 attack; to allay suspicions?
A: Yup!
Q: Are there 4th density sections to the Pentagon?
A: Absolutely. It is a "deep cover" kind of place.
On p.404 of her book, Wood says of the eye of Hurricane Erin:
Unique cloud formations are visible in the eye of the hurricane.
The eye wall was in the shape of a pentagon and the interior of the eye looks like a maze that winds back and forth. How, and why, are these unique formations there?
That may not mean anything, however, because geometric formations have been seen in the eyes of other hurricanes.
Session 6 August 2005
Q: (J) Were there really explosions at the WTC as reported by firefighters on the 24th Floor and in the basement by civilians?
A: Yes, but not necessary to plant charges. Only necessary to plant "conductors" for "shaped" EMP.
(Discussion about what these might be and of previous session where they mention that towers were felled by natural wave that was "contoured.").
Session 20 October 2005
(A) Were there some unusual weapons used on the WTC?
A: It was a fairly simple “hit,” with a specially prepared building.
Q: (J) What did they use then to make the steel beams collapse in the way they did, so completely? Did you have a question about that? (A) Well, specially prepared is essentially explosives that would cut the beams. But there are many. (H) But we’ve asked about explosives in the building, and they’ve said it was more something to shape the… (S) Yes, EMP (J) Conductors with shaped EMP. (H) That means that using shaped EMP waves is “fairly simple”. (Laughter) (J) If they could take down the Columbia… (H) Was it the same technology as with the shuttle Columbia?
A: Yup.
Q: (H) Did it come from the same source? (J) Space-based satellite?
A: Now you are getting into warm water.
Q: (H) I guess we don’t want to get into hot water… (Laughter) (A) It’s not our business. (H) Curiosity killed the cat.
A: Let us just remind you that it scared even George.
Q: (J) Was Robin Cook murdered?
A: What do you think, Laura got a herniated disc. How about a herniated heart?
Q: (J) But the interesting question is then, if that was deliberate, obviously, where was the concentration of negative energy coming from?
A: There must be a “local conduit.”
Q: (J) And that then may lead to a question about Italy. What was the cause of the spontaneous fires in Cannetto over the past two years on a couple of occasions?
A: Shall we say “practicing” and refining tech. Imagine, metal pipes that burn; steel beams that “dissolve.” Connection?
Q: (J) You know these pipes that were bursting into flames? (A) Yes. (L) Metal was bursting into flames. (J) Metal pipes. Electrical appliances. (H) And then steel beams in the WTC. (J) A couple of years ago. (R) We were looking at the videos from the WTC and we were wondering where the beams came from. (A) Still, I want to know what kind of physics is behind this because I can’t imagine any.
A: The nanotech you read about is going in the right direction.
Q: (J) You were reading about nanotech? (A) I was. Then I am in warm water. (L) Uh hmmm. (Laughter) (A) OK. What is the next question? (Laughter) (J) You’re in hot water! (Laughter)
[...]
(J) I want to know about these strange formations on the radar image of Hurricane Rita.
A: 4th density “battle.” Also includes some “practice.”
Q: (L) They’re practicing with new weapons. (J) Some people said Katrina was the product of HAARP heating up the waters in the Gulf.
A: We’ve already dealt with HAARP and weather. Read transcripts.
Q: (W) (Quoting transcripts) “HAARP has nothing to do with the weather or EM associated with same.” (H) Which suggests that there is EM associated with the weather. There could be some EM stuff associated with the weather that isn’t part of HAARP. (L) 4th density. (J) Were any of the storms manufactured from 3rd density or was it a natural storm?
A: Mfg in 3D? No. As we have said… 4D battles represent as weather. But the “veil” is thinning.
