Manipulated Temperature Data: Global Warming - What Was Measured And How Was It Evaluated?

Tuesday, 11.24.2015 13:30
[Original article in German (here), translated using Google Translate]

The commentary on the research results of the geologist FK Ewert for extensive manipulation of global temperature data by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in ACHGUT by the well-known television journalist Günter Ederer has (and still does) struck high waves. On the side on which the Notrickszone English version was published, the operator Pierre Gosselin had already put on the brakes and has 2400 likes after initially further commentary set ....

Prof. Dr. K.F. Ewert (EIKE)

Two complexes has geologist studied in detail: the rear changes in temperature data between 2010 and 2012., therefore the manipulation of data, and regardless of the global development of temperatures between 1880 and 2010. This is covered in the attached pdf report in detail, the also briefly mentioned the manipulation in Section 2.2 and its rear amendments in Appendix 2 example illustrates: in March 2010, March 2012 and December 2012 provide the relevant data of the stations Darwin and Palma de Mallorca different temperature response lines - in December 2012 appeared the past - and thus the temperature - warmer than in March of 2010.
 

Prof. Ewert as well as Günter Ederer have under this article get many, many requests from reputable institutions and scientists around the world who want to have more facts and details on these results. At least the German-speaking among them can be helped. Read the short and the long version in pdf format below.

Global warming - what was measured and how was it evaluated?
 
Mankind always knew that constantly there are climate changes. The parable of the seven fat and seven lean years for an indication. With the development of science, people have recognized the causes of the changes - the sun changes its thermal radiation and the earth will change its orbit. This force since the beginning of Earth periodically, radiation cycles of Milankovitch but 'to have lost with the beginning of a new heating phase in the early 1980s its effect - supposedly the atmospheric trace gas CO2 became effective and now determined the evolution of the climate.

In any case, between the first environmental conference in Stockholm in 1972 and the following conferences in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro and 1997 recognized in Kyoto some environmental activists and so propagated. This had two consequences: 1) of Environmental Protection was climate change, and 2) the now as a problem child of the international policy in the area of ​​responsibility of the UN and within the mandate of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (IPCC) came. The activists were initially worried about the welfare of the earth lay, but soon recognized scientists their career opportunities and sought to evidence supporting the cause of global warming began around 1980. It helped the now available computer, because with him data processing and modeling of scenarios for the future were possible. The scenarios predicted in the event of further CO2 emissions the progress of the warming. 

Prof. John Christy, University of Alabama, has compared the predictions of the most important climate-computers together. He has found that all the results are different. The criterion for science is not satisfied, because it requires that several research approaches lead to the same result. The computer results show just the opposite: for the year 2020 is heating up from 0.3 to 1.3 ° C is expected. Which result is true if all are different? None! 

The climate data from the past few decades are enough according to a statement of the DWD, to calibrate the models for Klimasimulierung the future. This approach is not acceptable and can provide in view of terrestrial climate history of 4.5 billion years, with a myriad of unknown events only doubtful results. From a geological point of view and paläoklimatologischer climate facts of the past must be taken into account for the assessment of future development.Ulrich Berner and Hans-Jörg Streif have for the Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR), the Lower Saxony State Office for Soil Research (NLfB) and the Institute for Applied Geosciences (GGA), all based in Hannover, as editor in her book "Air Facts, the retrospective - a key to the future "climate development of the geological past to the present scientifically analyzed. They have shown with reference to the facts that global warming allegedly caused by us humans by means of our CO2 emissions does not take place.

Despite the technically correct analysis of John Christy and Ulrich Berner & Hans-Jörg Streif the official climate policy still claims that a strong global warming is taking place, cause we humans with our CO2 emissions. It is concluded that we need to reduce these emissions, so that the earth remains livable for mankind. Based on this assertion are still the climate simulation models that predict a strong warming despite the current slowdown phase. Although the IPCC (IPCC) had emphasized early on that predictions for climate are not possible, because it is a chaotic nonlinear system with many factors that determine their results still the climate policy, as well as the decisions of the G7 conference in Ellmau again confirm. 

While this model has not been proven, there is ample evidence that the CO2 emissions are insignificant. This evidence is also little attention to the assessment of climate change, as measured for more than a hundred years, temperatures have been carried out by tens of thousands of weather stations around the world guards. Therefore, it was necessary to manually evaluate from 1881-2010 registered temperatures in detail. The results containing the attached pdf-file report. The following chart summarizes the main results together.


 

• 1881 and 2010, four cooling between stages and three warm phases have alternated

• Stronger warming, despite longer cooling periods happened before the start of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions

• The temperature in the last century has a total of slightly cooled

• An influence of our CO2 Emissiomem the temperatures can not be seen.

The long version can be loaded into two parts as pdf:

Part 1: http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/EIKE_NASA-GISS_Anl__22.11.15.pdf

Part 2: http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/EIKE_NASA-GISS_TXT_22.11.15.pdf





Sources:

Original article (in German): Manipulierte Temperatur-Daten? Erderwärmung – was wurde gemessen und wie wurde ausgewertet? - http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-cache/manipulierte-temperatur-daten-erderwaermung-was-wurde-gemessen-und-wie-wurde-ausgewertet/

German Scientist Accused NASA of ‘Massive’ Temperature Alterations:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/german-scientist-accuses-nasa-massive-alteration-temperature

Paper Fused to Steel on 9/11: The Ground Zero Bible

Here, we see paper fused to a piece of steel; this is truly an unbelievable artifact found by a firefighter at Ground Zero after 9/11. It was given to photographer Joel Meyerowitz during the recovery after 9/11/01, who eventually gave it to the 9/11 Memorial Museum in New York. Now known as "The Ground Zero Bible," this item appears to defy the known laws of thermodynamics.

It is opened to the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Chapter 5, where we find the following:

But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil. You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him. And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two, Give to him that asketh of thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away. [Matthew 5:37-42]

A CBS correspondent describes The Ground Zero Bible saying, "This portion of this Bible, open to an 'eye-for-an-eye' passage (Matthew), fused into this piece of hardened steel. It has been authenticated, it almost doesn't seem believable, but it has been authenticated, of course."

How does paper fuse to steel? The flash point of paper is 218°-246°C, while the melting point of steel is 1100°-1600°C. Heat cannot be the cause of this phenomena.







Read the only existing forensic study into the destruction of seven World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 by Dr. Judy Wood, entitled Where Did The Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11. http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/buy

Dr. Wood's Request for Corrections (RFC) to NIST (March 16, 2007): http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_Wood_RFC.html

Dr. Wood's Appeal to the NIST's Response (August 22, 2007): http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_WoodAppeal.html

Subsequent Qui Tam case (October 20, 2009): http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml

Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration per F.R. Civ. P59(e) and Local Rule 6.3, Sttorney Jerry V. Leaphart (July 11, 2008): www.drjudywood.com/pdf/080711_Wood_07CV3314_103.pdf

Pope Tours 9/11 Museum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SLmxbhbBhk&feature=youtu.be&t=1m12s

Remembering 9/11: The Ground Zero Bible
http://www.history.com/topics/9-11-attacks/videos/remembering-911-the-ground-zero-bible

PHYSICAL CONSTANTS FOR INVESTIGATORS: http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html

The Miracle of Directed Energy Technology on 9/11: http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=34375

Purchasing Consensus: Peer Review and The Age of Dogmatism

Werner Karl Heisenberg - pioneer of quantum mechanics

The Age of Dogmatism

Empiricism has been lost in this age of dogmatism, where many seek validation from peer-review rather than from empirical evidence. The entire peer-review process is highly suspect, for it has largely become a process of purchasing consensus. Peer-review is only designed to show that a study is worthy of further investigation, nothing more.

It is evident that the peer-review process has become perverted by corporate interests. So often it is used to impose consensus on the "scientific" community at large rather than to promote further investigation. To purchase consensus by the "scientific" community, through the stamp of approval called "peer-review," is not science; it is the antithesis to science. Theory has largely replaced empirical evidence in much of what passes as science today. This is nothing more than dogmatic "science."

Dogmatic "science" has failed us and has produced arrogant demagogues, like Michio Kaku, Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson, who attempt to enforce their materialist worldview in the media through an appeal to authority, over and above physical evidence. What these demagogues say is taken as gospel and is used by materialist followers in their quest for confirmation bias.

Simply because a paper is peer-reviewed does not mean that the paper is conclusive nor that it has been validated. Peer-review is a low-grade process of filtering out bad papers, but it is certainly not infallible.

The Peer-Review Process is Flawed: The "CRAP" Paper

One pertinent example of fallibility in the peer-revew process is a paper submitted to The Open Information Science Journal by Philip Davis and Kent Anderson, entitled "Deconstructing Access Points." It was an intentionally senseless paper produced by a computer program called SCIgen. Davis and Anderson left a clue for the publishers as to the authenticity of the paper where they stated their institutional affiliation as the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology (CRAP).

As NewScientist.com reported:

"[Philip] Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham’s editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham.

The paper, entitled 'Deconstructing Access Points' made no sense whatsoever, as this sample reveals:
'In this section, we discuss existing research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware [10]. On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9].'"

The "CRAP" paper was accepted and published by Bentham Science Publishers' Open Information Science Journal, and while this does not completely invalidate the "peer-review" process, it does highlight the fallibility of "peer-review."

The Age of Empiricism

We must turn from this age of dogmatism to an age of empiricism. We must learn to conjoin all forms of knowledge, and find true empirical science again through its origins: interdisciplinary natural philosophy. We must stop relying upon theory as a basis for knowledge; no longer can we rely on theories where we should be relying on evidence. Evidence must come before theory.

Sources:

"CRAP" paper accepted by journal: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-crap-paper-accepted-by-journal/

SCIgen: https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/

Deconstructing Access Points (pdf) - Confluence - Cornell University: https://confluence.cornell.edu/download/attachments/2523490/Access+Points.pdf

Was 9/11 An Inside Job?

I do not contend that 9/11 was an "inside job." The government rarely does any "job" in and of itself.

As for the investigation of 9/11, defense contractors were put up to the job, such as ARA and SAIC, who happen to also develop directed energy weapons and conduct psychological operations.I cannot claim whether the "job" was "inside" or "outside" because we do not have enough evidence to say who did this, but we can say what was done and who covered it up -- particularly, government contractors.
Truthfully, government is an abstract concept. It does not exist but as a figment of our imaginations. There is a hierarchy of corporate alliances that conduct psychological operations in order to maintain war and endless debt-driven financing of state functions, and we often refer to this alliance as the "government," while it is making decisions independent of Congress, the President and the Supreme Court.

Government is derived from two Latin words, "gubernare mentis," meaning to "control the mind" or "mind control," and it literally exists in the mind. The functional definition of this abstract is any entity which uses monopolization of market influences to advance military objectives, being funded by means of theft (taxation).
No governmental body, nor any other 9/11 researcher, has produced a forensic study into the destruction of any of the seven WTC buildings in New York.Page 43 of the RFC filed by Dr. Wood asserts that the basic integrity of NCSTAR 1 is lacking because, by its own admission, it did not investigate the actual destruction of the World Trade Center Towers. That is, NIST did not accomplish its stated goal of determining "why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed."



NCSTAR 1 states:

The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the 'probable collapse sequence,' although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.

_____

World Trade Center Disaster Study (NIST): http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/

Dr. Judy Wood has produced the only forensic study on the destructive mechanism of seven World Trade Center buildings on 9/11, contained in the book, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? EVIDENCE OF DIRECTED FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY ON 9/11, and she has filed her evidence with the federal courts in her RFC to NIST (http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_Wood_RFC.html).

Dr. Wood's Request for Corrections (RFC) to NIST (March 16, 2007): http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_Wood_RFC.html
Dr. Wood's Appeal to the NIST's Response (August 22, 2007): http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_WoodAppeal.html
Subsequent Qui Tam case (October 20, 2009): http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration per F.R. Civ. P59(e) and Local Rule 6.3, Sttorney Jerry V. Leaphart (July 11, 2008): www.drjudywood.com/pdf/080711_Wood_07CV3314_103.pdf

[VIDEO] Attorney Jerry Leaphart on the NIST Data Quality Act: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2-u6eHAJ1w

Dr. Judy Wood: A Qualified Scientist Who Completed A Forensic Study Into The Destructrion of Seven WTC Buildings

Read the only existing forensic study into the destruction of seven World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 by Dr. Judy Wood, entitled Where Did The Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11 (http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/buy)

Dr. Wood's Request for Corrections (RFC) to NIST (March 16, 2007): http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_Wood_RFC.html

Dr. Wood's Appeal to the NIST's Response (August 22, 2007): http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_WoodAppeal.html

Subsequent Qui Tam case (October 20, 2009): http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml

Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration per F.R. Civ. P59(e) and Local Rule 6.3, Sttorney Jerry V. Leaphart (July 11, 2008): http://www.drjudywood.com/pdf/080711_Wood_07CV3314_103.pdf

____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ 
Dr. Judy Wood received her

• B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering),

• M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and

• Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.

Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. She has taught courses including

• Experimental Stress Analysis,

• Engineering Mechanics,

• Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials)

• Strength of Materials Testing

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/a/bio/Wood_Bio.html

Peer-review papers from Dr. Judy Wood (available online):

Deformation Measurements of Composite Multi-Span Beam Shear Specimens by Moire Interferometry: http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA304605
Detection of Delamination Onset in a Composite Laminate Using Moiré Interferometry: http://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/JOURNALS/COMPTECH/PAGES/CTR10308J.htm

Deformations and strains in a thick adherend lap joint: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19890022713

Determination of thermal strains by moiré interferometry: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02321415

Micromechanical Study of Thermal Strains near the Interface of a Bimaterial Joint by Microscopic Moiré Interferometry: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992exme.conf.1692W

Thermal Stresses in a Bimaterial Joint: An Experimental Analysis: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=1411212

Influence of Matrix Chemistry on the Short Term, Hydrothermal Aging of Vinyl Ester Matrix and Composites under Both Isothermal and Thermal Spiking Conditions : http://jcm.sagepub.com/content/33/20/1918.short

Determination of thermal strains in the neighborhood of a bimaterial interface: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-06072006-124140/ (Only available to Virginia Tech staff)

Response to All Disinfo-Trolls Who Claim Superiority to Dr. Judy Wood and Her Research: Let's See Your Federal Case and Investigation!

DR. JUDY WOOD IS THE ONLY 9/11 RESEARCHER WHO HAS SUBMITTED EVIDENCE TO THE COURTS ABOUT THE DESTRUCTIVE MECHANISM OF SEVEN WORLD TRADE CENTER BUILDINGS IN PURSUIT OF THE TRUTH.

Read Dr. Wood's Request For Corrections (RFC) to NIST: http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_Wood_RFC.html

& the Appeal: http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_WoodAppeal.html

You may also want to review the subsequent Qui Tam case: http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Initial_Qui_Tam_Wood.html#complaint

& Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration per F.R. Civ. P59(e) and Local Rule 6.3 July 11, 2008, Jerry V. Leaphart: http://www.drjudywood.com/pdf/080711_Wood_07CV3314_103.pdf

DR. JUDY WOOD on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff/Relator,
vs.
Defendants.
APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. (ARA), SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP.(SAIC), UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC., WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES, INC. (WJE), ROLF JENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.(RJA), COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC., SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER, INC. (SGH), SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL, LLP (SOM), GILSANZ MURRAY STEFICEK LLP (GMS), UGHES ASSOCIATES, INC. (HA), ROSENWASSER/GROSSMAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P.C., S. K. GHOSH ASSOCIATES, INC. (GA), TENG & ASSOCIATES, INC. (TA), AJMAL ABBASI, EDUARDO KAUSEL, DAVID PARKS, DAVID SHARP, JOSEF VAN DYCK, KASPAR WILLIAM, DANIELE VENEZANO, DATASOURCE, INC., GEOSTAATS, INC., NuSTATS,

...MOST IMPORTANTLY, READ THE BOOK!

For a forensic study of what happened to seven World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001, read the book "Where Did The Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11" by Dr. Judy Wood, a structural engineer with a Ph.D. in Materials Engineering Science and expertise in experimental stress analysis, engineering mechanics and strength of materials testing. http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/buy/

More than just pictures and video clips:

SEISMIC IMPACT FOR WTC 1 (110-stories, 500,000 tons):
Local Magnitude (ML) 2.3 -- without p-wave or s-wave

SEISMIC IMPACT FOR WTC 2 (110-stories, 500,000 tons):
Local Magnitude (ML) 2.1 -- without p-wave or s-wave

SEISMIC IMPACT FOR WTC 7 (47-stories, 230,000 tons):
Local Magnitude (ML) 0.6 -- without p-wave or s-wave

www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/fact_sheet.htm

*For comparison: Seismic Impact for Seattle Kingdome Collapse (130,000 tons):
Local Magnitude (ML) 2.3 -- with p-wave and s-wave

16 Survivors at Stairwell B:
http://www.thrnewmedia.com/adayinseptember/jonas.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2035963/9-11-Anniversary-Miraculous-escape-16-trapped-North-Towers-Stairwell-B.html

Tritium at WTC: https://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/240430.pdf

Magnetometer data: http://magnet.gi.alaska.edu/table_index/2001_table.html

Top 3 Disinfo-Troll Tactics:

#1: When in doubt, call people names.

#2: When someone talks about evidence, refer to it as a theory and talk about something else, anything else but the evidence.

#3: When confronted with unwanted information, claim that you have already debunked it, but never claim that you actually read the source material because then you could be held liable for what you say about it (i.e. your opponent might ask you to cite specific wording on a specific page).

Materials Contained in the World Trade Center Complex & Seismic Evidence

The World Trade Center complex contained 200,000 tons of steel. In addition, there were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete, which extrapolates to 1,721,250,000 tons in USCS units, contained in the World Trade Center complex.

Certainly, this is not comparable with the seismic data observed of 2.3 (WTC 1), 2.1 (WTC 2) and 0.6 (WTC 7), none of which showed primary nor secondary waves recorded, meaning there was no discernable impact travelling through the earth when seven World Trade Center buildings were destroyed on 9/11/01 (WTC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7).

SEISMIC IMPACT FOR WTC 1 (110-stories, 500,000 tons):
Local Magnitude (ML) 2.3 -- without p-wave or s-wave

SEISMIC IMPACT FOR WTC 2 (110-stories, 500,000 tons):
Local Magnitude (ML) 2.1 -- without p-wave or s-wave

SEISMIC IMPACT FOR WTC 7 (47-stories, 230,000 tons):
Local Magnitude (ML) 0.6 -- without p-wave or s-wave

www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/fact_sheet.htm

*For comparison: Seismic Impact for Seattle Kingdome Collapse (130,000 tons):
Local Magnitude (ML) 2.3 -- with p-wave and s-wave

For further information, visit the following websites:
http://drjudywood.com



Read the only existing forensic study of the destruction of seven World Trade Center buildings on 9/11, Where Did The Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11 by Dr. Judy Wood, a structural engineer with a Ph.D. in Materials Engineering Science and expertise in experimental stress analysis, engineering mechanics and strength of materials testing.
http://wheredidthetowersgo.com

The World Trade Center complex contained:
- 200,000 tons of steel
- 425,000 cubic yards of concrete
- 43,600 windows
- 12,000 miles of electric cables

(The WTC complex had its own zip code: 10048)

World Trade Center 1 & 2, each were:
- 110 floors
- 208 ft by 208 ft at base
- 500,000 tons in weight

WTC 1: 1,368 ft high (north tower)
WTC 2: 1,362 ft high (south tower)

[Sources:]

WTC statistics:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html
https://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/about/facts.html

Concrete information:
http://www.cemexusa.com/ProductsServices/ReadyMixConcreteFaq.aspx

World Trade Center 7: 47-Stories Created A 0.6 Seismic Impact

A 0.6 seismic reading can be referred to as a "microearthquake" and is of such a low magnitude that it is indiscernible from natural tectonic origins. How can a 47-story building be destroyed and leave a seismic signal that is not distinct from natural causes?

SEISMIC IMPACT FOR WTC 1 (110-stories, 500,000 tons): Local Magnitude (ML) 2.3 -- without p-wave or s-wave
SEISMIC IMPACT FOR WTC 2 (110-stories, 500,000 tons): Local Magnitude (ML) 2.1 -- without p-wave or s-wave
SEISMIC IMPACT FOR WTC 7 (47-stories, 230,000 tons): Local Magnitude (ML) 0.6 -- without p-wave or s-wave
www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/…/…/20010911_WTC/fact_sheet.htm

WHAT IS SEISMOLOGY AND WHAT ARE SEISMIC WAVES? http://www.geo.mtu.edu/UPSeis/waves.html




_______
For a forensic study of what happened to seven World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001, read the book "Where Did The Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11" by Dr. Judy Wood, a structural engineer with a Ph.D. in Materials Engineering Science and expertise in experimental stress analysis, engineering mechanics and strength of materials testing.

Buy  WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?  EVIDENCE OF DIRECTED FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY ON 9/11 by Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., PhD.       http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/buy/

_______
Dr. Judy Wood earned a Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and is a former professor of mechanical engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry in forensic science. She taught graduate and undergraduate engineering classes and has authored or co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed papers and journal publications in her areas of expertise.

In the time since 9/11/01, she has applied her expertise in materials science, image analysis and interferometry, to a forensic study of over 40,000 images, hundreds of video clips, a large volume of witness testimony, analyses of dust samples, seismic data, and the analysis of other environmental evidence pertaining to the destruction of the World Trade Center complex. Dr. Wood has conducted a comprehensive forensic investigation of what physically happened to the World Trade Center site on 9/11. And, based on her analysis of the evidence she gathered, in 2007, she filed a federal Qui Tam case for science fraud against the contractors who contributed to the official National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report about the destruction of the World Trade Center towers. In December of 2009, this case was filed in the US Supreme Court. To this day, Dr. Wood's investigation and body of evidence as compiled in her book is the only comprehensive forensic investigation in the public domain. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? is not a book of poetry, yet it has some beautiful prose. It is not a novel yet it tells a complete story. It is not a photography book, yet the pictures will grab you. It is not just a text book, yet its data is empirical and it teaches critical thinking. It is not the Bible yet it will be one of the most important books you will ever read.  http://drjudywood.com

Abraham Rodriguez: A Personal Experience of the Suppression of Dr. Judy Wood's Work

"Dear Friends & Family,

The following experience of mine is very important, which is why I am sharing it with all of you. This incident occurred while I was in my first year of medical school at the University of Illinois College of Medicine in Urbana-Champaign, IL. Please don't hesitate to email me at pookzta@gmail.com if you would like copies of the emails I received from these high-ranking military officers. Here is my story:

On March 4th, 2010, United States Army Major Doug Rokke (ret.) spontaneously contacted me and tried to convince me that only thermite or other explosives were used to destroy the WTC buildings on 9/11, but NOT directed energy weapons. He tried to convince me that directed energy weapons do not exist (other than lasers), despite the fact that easily verifiable physical evidence shows they are currently being used by our military and that they were used on 9/11. He refused to meet with me in public, but repeatedly insisted that I come meet him at his private dwelling just outside of Urbana-Champaign, IL.

Major Rokke contacted me shortly after I began raising awareness about Dr. Judy Wood and the thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents she has gathered, which conclusively show that directed energy weapons were used on 9/11. Despite my desire to meet in a public place, he repeatedly insisted that we meet in “private” at his home outside of town, so he could “show me something” related to proving that thermite and other explosives were used on the WTC buildings, but not directed energy weapons.

I chose not to meet with him for several reasons, not only because whatever he wanted to show me in private he should have been able to show me in public, but also because after I had done some quick research, I had some other major concerns about the situation. Here is why:
First, I asked Dr. Judy Wood about him, and it turns out he is trying to discredit her and the enormous amount of evidence she has gathered. Major Rokke attended one of Dr. Judy Wood’s “New Hiroshima” presentations in Madison, WI, and he sat front and center and tried to disrupt her, interrupt her, and constantly yelled unprofessional statements throughout her lecture to try and discredit her. This is another reason why I chose not to meet with him.

Yet another reason why I chose not to meet with him is because I contacted one of my academic deans to share what had happened, and she informed me that Major Rokke was actually fired from the University of Illinois a long time ago for lying by claiming he was a professor, when in fact he was not. It concerned me that Mr. Rokke had claimed that he 'retired' from the University of Illinois during our email exchange, when in fact, he was actually fired. It turns out that Major Rokke has a long history of lying and deceitfulness, so my dean strongly suggested that I do not meet with him as well, and she had already began making calls about him before I had left her office.

If you would like proof of my email exchange with Major Rokke, please email me at pookzta@gmail.com and I will forward copies of the emails to you.

Although the incident was very suspicious, it was not until my next encounter that I realized what was going on. A few weeks after my encounter with Major Rokke...

Soviet Nuclear Intelligence Officer Dimitri Khalezov (ret.) contacted me and tried to convince me that pre-planted underground nuclear explosives were used to destroy the WTC buildings on 9/11, but NOT directed energy weapons. He claimed that Dr. Wood is 'wrong' in her conclusion, yet he could not provide any credible evidence to back up his claim when I inquired. He requested that I watch his 4-5 hour "WTC nuclear demolition" presentation, promising me that it was full of evidence that proves his claims. I watched his presentation with an open mind, only to discover that a majority of the video presentation was him making unsubstantiated claims and expecting the viewer to accept them as fact based solely on his 'expert testimony', without providing empirical evidence.

Considering that thermal and kinetic energy weapons of any kind (e.g. jetfuel, airplanes, explosives, thermite, nuclear bombs) are not consistent with the large body of empirical evidence from 9/11, Mr. Khalezov's unscientific 'expert testimony' turned out to be much more like propaganda than a presentation of evidence. If you are interested in learning more about this incident, you can view some of the actual text from my discussion with Officer Khalezov here: http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=290&Itemid=60
I find it very odd that two high-ranking retired military officers spontaneously contacted me within a short period of time trying to convince me that only explosives (i.e. thermite or nuclear bombs) were used on 9/11, and that directed energy weapons were NOT used on 9/11 despite the overwhelmingly conclusive body of evidence showing beyond any reasonable doubt that they were in fact used, yet they couldn't even provide credible evidence to back up their claims...

...I also wonder why these high-ranking retired military officers chose to spontaneously contact an insignificant first year medical student with their "evidence" and concerns, when they should be contacting government officials and law enforcement personnel...

Thanks for studying this very important topic if you do,

-Abe
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez, M.D.
PGY3 Neurological Surgery
B.S. Biology/Neurobiology

Dear World,

Humankind has made a major scientific discovery by learning to manipulate matter using directed energy in a new and extremely powerful way. This is one of the most important scientific discoveries since the nuclear fission technology that was used to create the atomic bomb!

I hope you are brave enough to consider my words with an open mind, and to not look negatively upon me for my attempts to make our world a better place. I must stress to you that despite the negative connotations associated with the tragedy of the 9/11 attacks, you may someday agree with me that 9/11 is one of the primary reasons that immensely positive changes and increasing levels of citizen activism are sweeping across our planet at a more rapid pace than ever before. To better understand my intention in sharing this information, please consider the following words from Martin Luther King, Jr.

'Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.' Martin Luther King Jr. (I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches That Changed the World)

9/11 is irrefutable proof that highly advanced forms of energy technology, such as those discovered and inspired by the great Nikola Tesla, do indeed exist and could be providing our entire planet with a breakthrough form of energy technology, right now. 9/11 is irrefutable proof that countless lives and resources have been wasted on wars of death and destruction, all as a result of an extremely inaccurate, unscientific story, when these precious lives and resources could instead be used to improve our beautiful country and planet. Most importantly, 9/11 is irrefutable proof that each and every one of us is capable of seeing right through the dishonesty and deception by thinking critically and studying the available facts for ourselves, which is a self-empowering and life-transforming fact. The large body of empirical evidence from 9/11, gathered and assembled by materials science engineer Dr. Judy Wood PhD, is conclusive and irrefutable, so one only needs to study it in detail to prove this beyond any reasonable doubt, no theorizing or speculation are necessary.

Please study the publicly available, verifiable evidence from 9/11, including University of Alaska magnetometer data, Columbia University NYC seismographic data, United States Geological Survey (USGS) dust analysis, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) AVIRIS thermal imaging, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) AVIRIS dust and iron (ferrous/ferric) spectrometer imaging, WTC1 & 2 steel turning to dust in midair, WTC1 'lathering up', WTC7 'lathering up', WTC2 'sillystring' trails, WTC1 & 2 minimal seismic impact, WTC7 minimal seismic impact, WTC lack of P-wave seismic signal, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) verified Hurricane Erin (category 3), WTC1 & 2 rapid speed of destruction, WTC1 & 2 top-down direction of destruction, WTC7 'free fall' destruction, disappearance of most of WTC4, vertical cylindrical holes in surrounding WTC buildings, relative lack of rubble compared to explosive controlled demolitions, lack of major damage to surrounding non-WTC buildings other than Bankers Trust, rapid spontaneous rusting of metals, Bankers Trust rapid spontaneous rusting, Bankers Trust warped metal beams, 1400+ 'toasted' and warped cars up to 1/2 mile away, numerous flipped cars, spontaneous 'weird' fires, ground zero fuming for years without high heat, truck loads of fresh dirt being hauled in and out of ground zero for years, numerous unharmed survivors in WTC stairwells, mostly undamaged WTC shopping mall, mostly undamaged PATH trains, mostly undamaged WTC 'Bathtub' foundation, presence of dust 'fuzzballs', strange round window holes, shriveled steel beams, strangely curved steel beams, wavy steel beams, vertical axis 'rolling up' of steel beams, thinning of steel beams, holes in steel beams, objects fusing with unburned paper, missing file cabinets, missing office machinery, missing office furniture, missing toilets, missing door knobs, lack of high heat, cool temperature of WTC dust, unburned paper, unburned clothing, unburned pedestrians, elevated levels of tritium, lack of ionizing radiation, glowing and molten materials, spontaneous explosion of Scott air tanks, numerous similarities between 'The Hutchison Effect' and phenomena observed at ground zero, and much more.

This table briefly summarizes and compares the various explanations that attempt to address the large body of empirical evidence from 9/11 (table from Dr. Judy Wood's presentation at the 2012 'Breakthrough Energy Movement' conference in Holland).

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=516718861726078&set=a.108769095854392.12444.108768449187790&type=1&permPage=1
Source: http://drjudywood.com/ & http://vimeo.com/57923364
Thanks to communication technology and passionate activism that are currently spreading throughout our world, this is the best chance we have ever had in all of history to escape this dishonesty and corruption, so we may create a magnificent future guided by truth, justice, freedom, peace, and love, for our children and all future generations. With all of my heart, I request that you please study the large body of empirical evidence from 9/11 in great detail, for our entire planet and everything on it will benefit if you do."

www.WhereDidTheTowersGo.com
www.DrJudyWood.com
www.CheckTheEvidence.com
www.Facebook.com/DrJudyWood
www.StahnkeFiles.com/DrJudyWood
www.pookzta.blogspot.com
~Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez, M.D.
PGY3 Neurological Surgery
B.S. Biology/Neurobiology

Tornado Formation and Destruction

by Ryan G. Banister

 

In modern literature, the term "tornado" is used in relation to two different physical processes, which have some similarities.

One process is caused by the uprising of air from the heated surface of the Earth. A moderate circulation of air at the periphery transforms into a strong rotation in the middle creating a helical flow directed upward. With this helical flow, the air entrains the dust from the ground. This type of tornado is referred to as a "dust devil."

The other process, born from a "tornadic" cumulonimbus cloud or a large cumulus cloud, is quite different. This united swirling flow, the more dangerous form of a tornado, touches the Earth's surface in the form of a long, narrow funnel. The air inside the funnel rotates with a high speed, which sometimes approaches the speed of sound.

The thunderstorm cloud, which is part of a small tropical hurricane, has a so-called "eye." This cloud has a spiral structure. If the whirlwind cloud has a large size, it will appear to be very similar to a cyclone. Cyclones can often produce tornadoes.

A circular cavity is formed in the center of the funnel by rotating clouds. The pressure inside of a tornado is very low, and when the cavity touches a building with windows tightly shut, the building almost explodes from inside and the walls can can be thrust outward. Tornadoes have such an incredible force that they can throw tractor trailers across large distances. However, they can have quite selective effects and have been seen removing a roof from a house, leaving many objects inside the house intact. They can also expose the bottom of lakes, sucking up the water contained therein.

Source:

Merkulov, Vladimir I. Amazing Hydromechanics. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2012. Print

How to get protected against tornado, Vladimir I. Merkulov:

http://www.slideshare.net/akvalex/how-to-get-protected-against-tornado

More information:
http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/education/svrwx101/tornadoes/

http://www.livescience.com/topics/tornadoes/