Aside from what happened to the World Trade Centers there was also a lot of solar activity taking place on the Sun since these events occurred during the last Solar Maximum.
Anomalous Magnetometer Data from across the globe showed that: "An eruption occurred on the Sun, travelled to Earth, and globally disturbed the local geomagnetic field at several moments of highly unusual human events."
This is what's known as a Flux Transfer Event and these vents are forever opening and closing as the magnetic portal connecting the Sun and the Earth changes every 8 minutes.
Below is a video of Solar Flaring on the Sun from September 11th to September 13th, 2001 on SOHO LASCO C2:
TESIS Russian Solar Imaging Archive:
From Left to Right:
1.Screenshot shows 12 Solar Flares on September 11, 2001.
2.Screenshot shows 8 Solar Flares on September 12, 2001.
3.Screenshot shows 9 Solar Flares on September 13, 2001.
With TESIS images above we can see the total number of Solar Flares from September 10th to September 13th, 2001 totals at 39. That's a lot of solar activity, compared to our current cycle.
"The Phenomenon: A 1.8 Degree Celsius Increase In Temperature in North America: The study found '...an anomalous increase in the average diurnal temperature range (that is, the difference between the daytime maximum and night-time minimum temperatures) for the period 11-14 September 2001.'
They explain: 'Because persisting contrails can reduce the transfer of both incoming solar and outgoing infrared radiation and so reduce the daily temperature range, we attribute at least a portion of this anomaly to the absence of contrails over this period.'"
Talkin' Physics: Did you know the speed of light and gravitational 'constant' vary?
Morphic Resonance: everything depends on evolving habits not on fixed laws.
(9:52) I want to spend a few moments on the 'constants of nature' too, because these are again are assumed to be constant. Things like the gravitational constant, the speed of light are called the fundamental constants. Are they really constant?
(10:07) Well, when I got interested in this question I tried to find out, they're given in physics handbooks; handbooks in physics list the existing fundamental constants and tell you their value, but I wanted to see if they had changed.
(10:21) So I got the old volumes of physical handbooks and I went to the patent office library here in London, and they're the only place I could find that kept the old volumes; you know normally people throw them away when the new values come out they throw away the old ones.
(10:36) When I did this I found that the speed of light dropped between 1928 and 1945 by about 20 km/s, that's a huge drop because they are given with errors within a fractions of decimal point of error.
(10:52) And yet, all over the world it dropped. And they were all getting values very similar to each other with tiny errors and then in 1948 it went up again and then people started getting very similar news again.
(11:08) I was very intrigued by this and I couldn't make sense of it so I went to see the head of Meteorology at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington; Meteorology is the science in which people measures constants.
(11:21) And I asked him about this, I said, "What do you make of this drop in the speed of light between 1928 and 1945?"
(11:29) And he said, "Oh dear, you've uncovered the most embarrassing episode in the history of our science."
(11:37) So, I said, "Well, could the speed of light have actually dropped and that would have amazing implications if so."
(11:42) He said, "No, no, of course it couldn't have actually dropped, it's a constant."
(11:47) So, "Oh, well then how do you explain the fact that everyone was finding it going must slower during that period? Is it because they were fudging their results to get to what they thought other people should be getting and the whole thing was just produced in the minds of physicists?"
(12:04) He said, "We don't like to use the word Fudge," and I said, "What do you prefer?" And he said, "We prefer to call it intellectual phase-locking."
(12:20) So, I said, "Well if it was going on then how can we be so sure it's not going on today and that the present values aren't produced by intellectual phase-locking?" And he said, "Oh, we know that's not the case." And I said, "how do we know?" And he said, "Well, we've solved the problem."
(12:35) And I said, "Well how?" And he said, "Well we fixed the speed of light by definition in 1972." So I said, "but it might still change…" And he said, "Yes, but we'd never know because we've defined the meter in terms of speed of light so the units change with it." So he looked very please about that, they'd fixed that problem.
(12:57) But I said, "Well then, what about Big G? The gravitational constant known in the trade as 'Big G' because it's written with a capital G. Newtons Universal Gravitational Constant that's varied by 1.3% in recent years and it seems to vary from place to place and from time to time."
(13:17) And he said, "Oh well those are just errors." And unfortunately there are quiet big errors with Big G. So I said, "What if it's really changing? Perhaps it's really changing…"
Pull Quote on Variable Rate of Radioactive Decay:
"That's when they discovered something strange. The data produced gave random numbers for the individual atoms, yes, but the overall decay wasn't constant, flying in the face of the accepted rules of chemistry...Intriguingly, the decay seemed to vary with the seasons, with the rate a little faster in the winter and a little slower in the summer."
(13:29) And then I looked at how they do it: what happens is they measure it in different labs, they get different values on different days and then they average them. And then, other labs around the world do the same and they come out, usually, with a rather different average and then the International Committee on Meteorology meets every 10 years or so and averages the ones from labs from around the world to come up with the value of Big G.
(13:51) But what if G were actually fluctuating, what if it changed? There's already evidence actually that it changes through out the day and throughout the year...
(14:11) Maybe they all change together, what if these 'errors' are going up together and down together. For more than 10 years I've been trying to persuade Meteorologists to look at the raw data, in fact I am now trying to persuade them to put it online on the internet with the dates and the actual measurements and see if they're correlated: to see if they're all up at one time and all down at another.
(14:32) If so they might be fluctuating together and that would tell us something very, very interesting; but no one has done this, they haven't done it because 'G is a constant,' there's no point looking for changes.
(14:43) You see, here is a very simple example of where a dogmatic assumption actually inhibits inquiry. I myself think that the constants may vary quite considerably, well within limits, but they may all varying and I think the day will come when scientific journals, like Nature, will have a weekly report on the constants like stock market reports in newspapers, you know like: this week Big G was slightly up, the charge on the electron was down and the speed of light held steady...