Andrew Johnson – ad.johnson@ntlworld…. for German Nexus Magazine, Jul 2025
“I wonder if we could contrive … some magnificent myth that would in itself carry conviction to our whole community.” – Plato
Introduction
The weather is something which affects all of us, every day of our lives. It dictates our long and short-term plans. In the UK, the weather is the “default topic” of conversation for strangers and friends alike. Though it has obvious and far reaching importance, most people don’t know very much about the weather. These days, they don’t take time to observe it and probably spend more time looking at a screen than they do looking at the sky. They don’t really know why the weather seems to be changing. They are told by mainstream sources that anthropogenic (human) activity is having a negative effect on the weather. This assumption has now become “a message” which pervades all media. We are frequently subjected to “virtue signalling” statements such as “carbon neutral” or “net zero” which have become common parlance in corporate, government and non-government organisations.
In this article, I hope to challenge the reader with some evidence of “climate change” which they have never heard about before. This evidence is never discussed in mainstream environments and rarely discussed in “alternative” ones. I expand on much of this evidence in my self-published book “Climate Change and Global Warming Exposed: Hidden Evidence, Disguised Plans” – available free at www.checktheevidence… or via Amazon and other outlets.
Let me say at the outset, I am not a climatologist nor a meteorologist. My formal education included a study of physics and chemistry and some aspects of weather and climate, when I studied O Level Geography. (For example, I know what an Occlusion is). I went on to study Computer Science and Physics at University, graduating in 1986. At this point, I would like to ask …. “Do you need a meteorologist to tell you when it is raining?” That is, do you still have basic powers of observation and reasoning that allow you to evaluate what is happening in the world, without needing an expert to confirm or refute your own conclusions …? Do you need permission from an academic, an expert or someone in authority to know whether something is true or not? Of course, only you can answer these questions for yourself. I answered these questions for myself long ago.
Issue 118 of Nexus contained the first of 3 articles I wrote about antigravity research. The third article, through the evidence and analysis developed by Dr Judy Wood, established a firm connection between a technology which affects gravity and the destruction of the WTC on 9/11/01. In this article, I will present evidence which establishes a similarly firm connection between that same terrible event – and weather events which took place around the same time. I will also illustrate how this evidence has been covered up.
Human Caused Climate Change… or Manipulation?
Since just after the turn of the millennium, the term “geoengineering” has started to seep into informed discussion. For example, in 2010, the UK Government published a report called “The Regulation of Geoengineering”[i],
It was only in June 2013 that I became aware that in John F Kennedy’s Address at the U.N. General Assembly on 25 September 1961[ii], he said: “We shall propose further cooperative efforts between all nations in weather prediction and eventually in weather control.”
It is actually, then, not much of a secret that the US military like to be able to change or control the weather. When you start to explore this area, you will quickly find this quote by former Secretary of Defence (under Clinton), William Cohen, who talked of “eco-terrorism” in 1997[iii]. He said: “Others [terrorists] are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves … So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations …It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our [counterterrorism] efforts.”
It is interesting to see that Mick West’s “Metabunk” site claims to have “debunked” the fact that Cohen said this[iv] – when the transcript was quite clear on the archive.defense.gov website. Of course, the Cohen statement came four years before the events of 9/11. Personally, I have come to the considered conclusion that the “weather control” JFK spoke of and that the “climate altering” that Cohen spoke of – formed part of the 9/11 black operation.
If you have only reviewed data given out in the official narrative of 9/11 or “alternative” narratives based on the idea of “bombs in the buildings” or “controlled demolition of building 7”, you will not have been exposed to data and evidence which I argue is of vast importance. You will not be aware that this data is so significant and powerful that, as I briefly mentioned in the last of the “antigravity” articles, it was the subject of a “qui tam” science fraud case[v]. The defendants were the contractors whom NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) employed to contribute to the 10,000 pages of technical reports titled The Collapse of the World Trade Centre Towers. This is the US government’s official report about the destruction of the WTC towers.
Elsewhere, I have written a great deal about 9/11 – or more accurately, I have written about the cover up of what happened then. So, let’s first look at some things that happened on 9/11 and then look at the weather….
The WTC Towers Turned Mostly to Dust on 9/11
The book “Where Did the Towers Go? ” by former professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University (South Carolina), Dr Judy Wood, stands as an independent forensic investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Centre. She has stated publicly on many, many occasions[vi]: “The towers did not burn up, nor did they slam to the ground – they turned mostly to dust in mid-air.” On her website, she has a picture[vii], which is shown below:
From the evidence Dr Wood examined over approximately seven years, she compiled a list of things that official (and many “alternative”) accounts do not explain. Here are a few of the salient points.
- The Twin Towers turned mostly to dust – before they hit the ground – faster than physics can explain.
- The seismic impact from the buildings’ demise was minimal and the protective bathtub flood barrier, in which the WTC complex was constructed, was not significantly damaged.
- The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the total mass of the buildings.
- The WTC7 rubble pile was too small for the total mass of the building and consisted of a lot of mud.
- The remaining dust continued to break down after the destruction of each building – and it became finer and finer.
- Molecular dissociation and transmutation, was demonstrated by the near-instant rusting of affected steel and the presence of tritium (an isotope of hydrogen).
- The appearance of fire, but without evidence of heating. Witnesses reported that the initial dust cloud felt cooler than ambient temperatures. No evidence of burned bodies.
- Approximately 1400 vehicles had to be towed away because they ware ‘toasted’ in strange ways during the destruction of the Twin Towers. There were some flipped over cars in the neighbourhood of the WTC complex near trees with full foliage remaining.
- Eyewitness testimony of Scott-pack (personal air tank) explosions in fire trucks – reports and evidence of fire trucks exploding near the WTC.
(The above image was, I understand, made from a series of frames from a video)
|
|
|
On the afternoon of 9/11/2001 the “rubble pile” left from WTC1 is essentially non-existent. WTC7 can be seen in the distance, revealing the photo was taken before 5:20 PM that day. |
Dustification
In certain photos (like this one)
Dr Wood noted the dust rising into the atmosphere – conventional demolition dust does not do this. So she continued to study what the dust was doing and she noted it could be seen on satellite images, indicating it had somehow ascended to the upper atmosphere… Wood’s research indicated the dust plume did not behave like particulate smoke from a chemical or wood fire. Dr Wood observed that the dust continued to break down – which is why particles became lighter and lighter and continued to ascend.
It was while researching characteristics of the very fine (nano) dust that was generated in the destruction of the WTC that Dr Wood found the image shown below. This image, like much of the evidence presented in this article, seems to be subject to the strongest taboo of all. Dr Wood’s “Where Did The Towers Go?” book has been available since late 2010/early 2011 but the evidence shown below is almost never discussed – even though, to me, it is clear and unequivocal. Perhaps this is because it is so world-changing and so profound that few people can take it all in – and face the conclusions that should be made…
Hurricane Erin on 9/11
Weather from Space
Notice the apparent pentacle in the eye of the hurricane!
Source: web.archive.org/web/…
Or without box-out of fuming cloud:
Few people are aware that this category three storm, comparable in diameter to Hurricane Katrina (which caused massive devastation in Louisianna in 2005), was closest to New York City at about 8 am on the morning of 9/11/2001. Below, we see one of several traces of the path of Erin:
|
|
|
Path of Hurricane Erin – 01 to 14 September 2001 (Above image has been modified to show the relative size of the hurricane at each point). |
In her book, Dr Wood notes the details of this track – Hurricane Erin was “born” on about 1 September 2001, and travelled up towards NYC. Hurricane Erin was the closest to NYC on 9/11/2001 and was the largest on this date (although wind speeds were greater the day before). Close-ups from photos of Erin on 9/11 clearly show the plume of material from the destroyed WTC.
In the morning TV weather reports of the day, the coverage of Erin was quite low key considering that it had been moving, in a fairly straight line, towards New York City since its encounter with Bermuda (where it caused some damage) on 7th September 2001[ix]. By 8:35am, none of the Fox, ABC, NBC or CBS weather reports showed Erin on the Weather Maps (some had shown it in earlier broadcasts on the same day). Even though it could be argued they knew the cold front would sweep the hurricane away, Erin was still causing storm surges – which could have posed a risk of flooding – potentially to New York’s subway system, had the hurricane remained where it was on 9/11/2001. Oddly, on 12 September 2001, the Hurricane made a sharp 135º turn and moved off east, towards Newfoundland.)
The crew of the International Space Station (ISS), including Frank Culbertson[x], observed the fuming and dust plume emerging from the destroyed WTC – but they did not report seeing a hurricane that was just out of their camera shot.[xi] Indeed, Culbertson said “I am looking up and down the east coast – to see if I can see anything else.”
It’s hardly surprising that any memory of the Hurricane’s presence was all but erased, after the terrible events that unfolded and then them being instantly blamed on Osama Bin Laden and terrorist hijackings. No one talked about Erin’s sharp change of course on 12 September 2001, because the War Drums were already being sounded.
Weather On the Ground
Dr. Judy Wood has shown that the barometric pressure and wind speed measured at JFK airport in NYC were constant throughout the events of 9/11 – coincident with Erin’s closest approach to NYC and greatest expanse of cloud. Again, morning news and weather reports made light of the hurricane’s previous path (shown above) – even though the outer bands of the storm system reached over to Cape Cod.
Here, we can also note that the timing of the arrival of the afore-mentioned cold front was also somewhat coincident with the events of 9/11. Also of note is that dry thunder was reported at all 3 of the New York Airports (JFK, La Guardia and Newark) and it can be argued that the electrostatic field in the storm system would have reached all 3 of the sites where events took place on 9/11 – New York, Washington DC and Shanksville.
One of the most striking pieces of the data presented is that from a set of magnetometers monitored by the University of Alaska[xii][xiii]. Several instruments show significant deviations from “background” or “normal” readings as the events of 9/11 were unfolding.
This trace from the magnetometers shows that, coincidentally, there was a “dip” in the earth’s magnetic field at the precise moment when the first hole appeared in WTC1’s face (for which the official explanation is a plane crash).
Regarding coverage of the hurricane, readers are invited to compare the media treatments of Hurricane Erin, 2001 to Hurricane Bill (2009) and Hurricane Sandy (2012). Also, note that the “Erin” name wasn’t retired[xiv] – it was used after 9/11 for other hurricanes, which is against the normal protocol.
Under reported, but Significantly Studied
Dr Wood also noted that NOAA and NASA completed a significant study of Hurricane Erin[xv][xvi]. The study, involved researchers from 10 universities and they flew in an ER-2 and DC-8 aircraft, which took off from the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville, Fla. Erin was analysed between Aug 16 and Sep 24 (it was the longest lasting hurricane of the 2001 season). In the study, referenced above, “Twenty instrumented packages, called dropsondes, were dropped into Erin’s eye.” These were used to map temperature patterns in the hurricane which allowed the scientists to “reconstruct the structure of the eye in three dimensions from as high as 70,000 feet, down to the ocean surface, in great detail.”
What Was the Significance of Hurricane Erin?
The data I have presented above is real. There are two possibilities to consider:
- The presence and movements of Hurricane Erin around the time of 9/11/2001 are coincidence – and the storm had nothing to do with anything that happened on that day.
- The presence and movements of Hurricane Erin around the time of 9/11/2001 are not coincidence – and the storm did have something to do with what happened on that day.
In issue 120, the “Secrets of Gravity” article discussed Canadian researcher and experimenter John Hutchison – and I illustrated how effects seen in evidence at the WTC were also seen in some of his experiments. These effects do show that some type of energy weapon was used to destroy the WTC. To re-iterate what was discussed in the previous article, in the 9/11 evidence shown in Dr Wood’s book and evidence from John Hutchison’s experiments, we can see:
- Anomalous Lift (levitation) and disruption of samples (flipped and toasted cars).
- Material specific effects (metal “melted” with nearby paper unburned)
- Weird fires (fire seen but paper or other materials nearby not burned).
- Transmutation of elements (steel rusts very quickly)
- Metal turned to jelly – or deformed in ways inconsistent with mechanical stress (beams deformed, engine blocks of cars missing).
In simple terms, then, it seems Hurricane Erin formed an “electrostatic field component” of an energy interference system – one which was used to turn the WTC towers to dust in about 20 seconds. Dr Wood has illustrated that it’s important to understand the concept of “field effects” and how fields of energy can interact and interfere with one another to produce certain results. In her book, she shows evidence of effects created by electricity, microwaves and magnetism and considers whether resonance may also play a role in creating a region of destruction, causing materials in that region to “come apart.”
When Dr Wood started to study the aftermath of hurricanes – and more particularly tornados, she found photos which seemed, again, to show effects similar to those seen in some of Hutchison’s experiments – levitation and softening or jellification of materials. Some examples are shown below.
Aftermath of Hurricane Andrew, 1992.
Aftermath of a tornado in Joplin Missouri, May 2011
In one photo, from the aftermath of Hurricane Wilma, Wood notes that, in a seemingly fairly undamaged parking lot, one car has been flipped and it sits in between two that have not. She asks how could the first and third cars be virtually undamaged if the middle car had blown in from elsewhere? If that middle car had been parked there, how could it have been flipped up and rotated while the other cars remained virtually undamaged?
Aftermath of Hurricane Wilma, 2005
Dr Wood also compares the general structure of tornados and “supercells” to the structure of a Tesla Coil. To expand a little on the idea described above, it is therefore suggested that the electrical properties of large storm systems may have some similarities to Tesla coils and there is a possibility that technology exists to utilise or manipulate the energy in these storm systems for “secondary” purposes. Hutchison uses either a tesla coil or a van de Graaf generator to supply the electrostatic field needed to create the unusual effects seen in some of his experiments. Was Hurricane Erin fulfilling a similar role on 9/11?
There are evidently strong parallels between 9/11 evidence, the Hutchison effect evidence and the evidence seen in the wake of tornados and hurricane.
Who Knows about Hurricane Erin?
In this section, we will look at a few examples of how Erin has been discussed by commentators that should already have been informed, in some way, about it. I will give some details which might seem superfluous, but my goal is to try and illustrate how attention can be taken off important evidence so that less people get chance to understand it and its likely significance. In essence, then, the evidence can get covered up.
Geraldo Rivera – US News Journalist
In a 2010 retrospective of his 40-year career, Geraldo Rivera[xviii] said that, as a (USA) journalist, he was drawn to covering hurricanes at least partly because “it’s like war – only no one is shooting at you specifically.” He also said “if only a Hurricane Came on 9/11…” How is it that a journalist who reported on quite a few hurricanes did not seem to know about or mention Hurricane Erin. Why didn’t he say something like “it almost came – and could have changed what happened on 9/11.”?
Weather.com and The National Weather Desk
Fourteen years after the events of 9/11, Weather.com posted an article by Jon Erdman titled “The 9/11 Hurricane That Missed New York City”[xix]. It described the basics about Hurricane Erin but, being a mainstream source, could not mention Dr Wood’s research. However, it noted “In a strange coincidence, almost exactly 10 years after the Sept. 11 attacks, Hurricane Katia was spinning in almost the same location on Sept. 9, 2011. As with Erin, Hurricane Katia made a hard-right turn before reaching the East Coast.” Did the Geoengineers need to show that Erin’s appearance on 9/11 was indeed a coincidence…?
Twenty-three years after the events of 9/11, on 11 Sep 2024, The National Weather Desk posted a 55-second video titled “Sept 11, 2001: the Unknown Story of Hurricane Erin.”[xx] It mentions the view from ISS showing the plume of dust/fumes and shows 2 photos like the ones Dr Wood discovered and, curiously, one of the photos in the video is captioned “The same front that brought sunshine that day steered the hurricane away from the east coast.” (I would have said “swept away…”) Again, there is no mention of anything else discussed above.
Dane Wigington and GeoengineeringWatch….
Those who have developed an interest in “Chemtrails” and related topics will, probably, at some point, have come across Mr Dane Wigington – who has appeared in a number of videos and podcasts – and I understand he used to conduct his own interviews. Here, we can examine one part of an interview he conducted – on 27 Sept 2014 – with a certain Richard Gage who used to head up a group called “Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.” [xxi] Not surprisingly, they were discussing the events of 9/11. The topic of Dr Wood’s research came up and Wigington said “We have 1 person – Dr Judy Wood – ignoring evidence and disputing literally not just 2200 experts but many more when you count all these other first responders that heard the explosions. One person denying – who knows how many – 2500, 3000 experts from various fields. Which would people be reasonable in believing? Obviously, you guys are standing on solid ground. Nobody else is.” Absent from the discussion is the topic of the weather on 9/11. Neither do they discuss any of the evidence I highlighted earlier in this article. It seems that, even though Wigington runs a site called “Geoengineering Watch[xxii],” he did not want to talk about evidence of possible geoengineering operations around the time of 9/11. Neither did he wish to discuss the person who had, over 3 years earlier, published a text book containing this evidence[xxiii].
Perhaps we can note his connection[xxiv] to Bechtel[xxv] – and note the sorts of projects that this large corporation undertakes and who its customers are.
Joyce Riley and “The Power Hour” (2010)
The Power Hour was originally hosted by Dave Von Kleist and Joyce Riley. It was a popular radio show which looked at conspiracies and geopolitical topics not discussed by mainstream outlets. When it came to a discussion of Hurricane Erin, it seemed to proceed in a far more complicated way than necessary.
On 23rd March 2010, Joyce Riley interviewed Dr Judy Wood in relation to her research into the destruction of the WTC complex, and resulting Qui Tam Case[xxvi]. At about 11:50 into the interview, Joyce Riley talks about the building being brought down by thermite charges. At about 29:00 Hurricane Erin is brought up and Joyce Riley states that she had “never heard about this.” A few seconds later she says that “people are emailing her because they do not believe what they’re hearing.” She makes no other comment and expresses no surprise.
When Dr Wood started to discuss her court case, and about the contractors she had sued – but she does not get chance to name them. Joyce Riley then abruptly cuts in saying “OK let me just say to Larry in Texas we’re gonna get to what she believes to be the err the reason…” Dr Wood then says “No, this isn’t about belief.” Riley continues “Alright – what she says her belief is… Larry did you want to say anything else?” Soon there is a break after which Joyce Riley then says “We’re having a bit of a contentious discussion between some people who believe and don’t believe what Dr Judy Wood says – now I’m open. I don’t have a dog in this fight – other than I want the truth – I’m just like her. I want to know what the evidence shows – what the documentation shows…” Joyce Riley later talks about “buildings coming down” and Dr Wood then goes on to say the buildings “went away.” Dr Wood goes on to explain what actually happened with the ongoing and voluminous “fuming” of WTC 7 – which lasted for about 7 hours. … Riley says “Well I don’t know about that. Here again you’re asking us to deal with a fact I am not aware of.” Joyce Riley does not let Dr Wood elaborate on the evidence and present the truth about what happened to WTC 7. Rather, she then takes a phone call which turns out to be “Steve from Florida.” He asks if he is “loud and clear” and then launches into a tirade[xxvii] saying “Judy you have misrepresented the facts concerning Hurricane Erin. I live here in Hurricane Country – Florida, I track all the Hurricanes. Erin hit Corpus Christy Texas, 15 August 2007.” The caller then talks about other 9/11 videos and people and mentions, for example “Richard Gage’s Blueprint for 9/11 Truth.”
Dr Judy Wood’s voice is then heard saying “as for Hurricane Erin, they did not retire that name[xxviii].” Later in the interview, another caller implies there was no Hurricane on 9/11 – saying “in every picture I’ve seen of New York on that day – the sky was blue – pure blue – not a cloud in the sky.” He then talks about thermite, nano thermite and burning metals. The host tries to cast doubt on the veracity of Wood’s statements, claiming the evidence can’t be verified but Dr Judy Wood points out that the hurricane is documented at the National Hurricane Centre.
Whilst Joyce Riley appears to be supportive and complimentary at some points, she also injects doubt regularly, for example at one point she states: “we can’t verify some of your so-called evidence here.” She states at the end “we don’t know the answers – we don’t have the truth…” This kind of commentary is misleading – what she should say is “I haven’t had the opportunity to study the evidence you have described.”
Again, some people will consider I am being over critical here – because, after all, Joyce Riley offered a platform to Dr Judy Wood which, at the time of broadcast on shortwave radio, potentially had a fairly large audience. However, details of the broadcast need to be studied to see that, at best, it was a muddle up and at worst it was an attempt to cast Dr Judy Wood in a bad light – primarily because her audio was muted when she needed to respond promptly to a point made and when she was not really given sufficient time to respond carefully to points raised. It is important to point out that if Dr Wood was seen in a bad light, then the importance of the Hurricane Erin evidence is made easier to ignore or even ridicule.
Two weeks after Dr Wood’s “Power Hour” interview, Joyce Riley also interviewed John Hutchison and she asked what he thought about 9/11. He mentioned that he thought “Dr Wood is the expert” and he expressed respect for her qualifications in engineering and her analysis of 9/11. At 30:59, John also brings up the thermite theory, saying “I call them the ‘Welding Materials People.’ I mean there’s no way that people put hundreds of tons of thermite in all those buildings. John then discusses thermite is a welding material and that it was used for this purpose in World War One and World War Two. Joyce Riley still seemed keen to talk about thermite, though.
Again, on the surface, it looks as if Joyce Riley is helping to raise awareness of Dr Judy Wood’s research – particularly as she also had John Hutchison on her programme – but she did not allow a sufficient discussion of the evidence. This is really quite straightforward, if a host takes time to listen or research for themselves – and, importantly, the host does not have an agenda to distract, muddle up, confuse or lead the discussion into a “dead end.” Riley repeatedly mentioned thermite and I sensed there was a need for this bogus theory to be kept “in the frame” for the listening audience – rather than it being exposed as a fraudulent, misleading deception.
Truthstream Media
This is the name of a website[xxix] run by Aaron and Melissa Dykes who used to work with Alex Jones on Infowars.com[xxx]. They also have a YouTube channel. On 14 Sep 2017, they posted a video called “And Speaking of Weird Hurricanes…”[xxxi]. Though this video does discuss 9/11 and Hurricane Erin, there is no mention of Dr Judy Wood’s research or book, but the video does highlight the difference between media coverage for Erin and other hurricanes moving in the same or a similar direction.
WeatherWar101 YouTube channel
On 13 Sep 2016, this YouTube channel posted a video called “9/11: Manufactured Hurricane Erin”[xxxii]. This video contains some interesting time-lapse GOES satellite video of apparent water vapour generation in the atmosphere and then discusses Hurricane Erin. The video argues that the cold front was generated by a heterodyne (gravity) wave which “arrived early” on the east coast – and thus the hurricane was swept away, when it should have struck New York. The video description states “As I have said for many years, in all of my research – I have yet to see a natural or unaltered storm system going back as far as Hurricane Andrew in 1992.”
Like the Truthstream Media video discussed earlier, the video does not mention Dr Judy Wood’s research or book. This is a shame because Wood documents additional evidence which suggests that the weather was being finely controlled as the destruction of the WTC complex took place. That is, it seems less likely that “the Hurricane arrived too late.”
Elana Freeland – “Under an Ionised Sky”
Nexus has featured some of the research and writing of Elana Freeland, so I felt it necessary to mention her book about Geoengineering and Chemtrails which was published by Feral House in 2018[xxxiii]. In the Preface, she mentions several significant world events, including 9/11. She also mentions Dr Judy Wood’s book “Where Did the Towers Go?” (but incorrectly implies it was published in 2005 – it was published in 2011.) Whilst she reports accurately that Wood related effects seen in the WTC destruction to Directed Energy and the Hutchison Effect, she seems to “mix in” a few things which are either incorrect or unproven or not discussed in Wood’s book. For example, though she correctly describes some elements of the Hutchison Effect, she states that it “…follows from ELF (extremely low frequency) steering of radio waves.” To my knowledge, ELF is not used in the “levitation and anomalous metal effects” experiments that John Hutchison does. Freeland also suggests that there was a “backup system” for the destruction of the WTC which “included eleven Stealth fighters possibly loaded with DEWs” and “explosive charges pre-placed in the towers for a boost…” (This is something that Dr Wood and I have discussed quite a few times, but we can’t really see why it was needed or why someone would risk getting discovered when pre-planting charges in the WTC.)
Freeland does mention Hurricane Erin, and suggests that it was “whipped up by chemtrails and ionospheric heaters” and that it was in waiting “to provide yet more energy if needed.” This is not the correct interpretation of what Dr Wood described in her book and research. As mentioned above, it is much more likely that Erin formed an electrostatic field component and that it was not, directly, used as an energy source (like a battery) to power some type of weapon system. It probably acted more like a catalyst in a chemical reaction. (A catalyst is a substance used to increase the speed of a chemical reaction without being changed by that reaction.)
A Dearth of Others Speaking of Erin
Since Dr Wood and I first started publicly discussing the Erin information in early 2008, hardly anyone has spoken accurately of the evidence described above and its likely significance. Dr David A Hughes (formerly of Lincoln University), author of “Covid-19, Psychological Operations, and the War for Technocracy[xxxiv]” has been a more recent voice who has publicly spoken, at length, of the importance of Dr Wood’s research[xxxv] but said in a 2025 interview with Elze van Hamelen[xxxvi] “I don’t think that Hurricane Erin actually had anything to do with the destruction of the Twin Towers… The magnetometer data that Wood presents, as well, I don’t think actually bears any meaningful relation to the destruction of the buildings.” He says this despite acknowledging (in other presentations) the detail and thoroughness of Wood’s findings – and the peculiar coincidence of timings of Erin’s movements.
Dr Wood herself stated that she does not know for sure if Hurricane Erin was used as part of the 9/11 operation – she has merely shown the Erin evidence in her book and on her website and noted that the reporting of it seemed unusual compared to coverage of hurricanes which have followed a similar path.
Hurricanes Since 9/11
A few web-based researchers have noted anomalies with hurricanes which have made land fall in the years since 9/11. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans, made landfall twice and some reports seemed to suggest some damage in the area was made intentionally worse – because river levees were “blown up” using explosives[xxxvii] when the hurricane did not seem to have caused “the required amount of damage,” so the flooding of the area needed to be induced. Can we argue that these hurricanes were steered or manipulated? More research is needed.
In 2005, Hurricane Ophelia’s MIMIC (Morphed Integrated Microwave Imagery) trace showed unusual linear patterns/banding, suggesting some sort of manipulation:
|
|
|
Hurricane Ophelia – Wisconsin University MIMIC recording. tropic.ssec.wisc.edu… (animated) |
It is now very difficult to find the original source image for this as the Wisconsin University Archive seems to have broken links and pages which are no longer linked to parent pages. However, this peculiar image can still be found, with perseverance[xxxviii]. Such image anomalies can be explained away as RADAR echoes or being the result of image stitching – where lines are seen near the boundaries of each image that has been stitched together. The problem here, of course, is that around the time these anomalies are seen, the hurricane appeared to change course…
In 2017, parts of Texas were devastated by Hurricane Harvey. Some people have asked questions, again, as to how this storm could have strengthened while over land. It is noteworthy how several media articles hurriedly connected the severity of the storm with “global warming and climate change.” For example, the UK Guardian proclaimed, “It’s a fact: climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly[xxxix].”
In my free “Climate Change and Global Warming” book, I include numerous further examples of weather anomalies seen both on RADAR images and ordinary photographs. You can also find further examples of them on some of the sites and YouTube channels referenced here.
Conclusion and Summary
In this article, we’ve considered the appearance and development of Hurricane Erin around the time of 9/11. From the evidence primarily gathered by Dr Wood, I would argue that it was manipulated or steered and deliberately used as part of the 9/11 black operation. Perhaps we can describe the hurricane steering as another instance of “directing energy.” I feel I can also conclude that there is some kind of extensive network which has helped to keep knowledge of Hurricane Erin and its coincident movements covered up – for 23 years. This conclusion has the most profound implications for any discussion of “climate change” or “global warming” – as well as our use of energy in everyday life.
[xxi] checktheevidencecom…. Gage-clip.mp3
