It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why does Rhode Island need a Geo-engineering Act?

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: babybunnies

I bet it has to do with the lack of oversight in place for future geo-engineering projects. While it's extremely rare to have government think ahead and do something for the people, it's remotely possible. What makes me laugh is this is exactly the type of thing the chemtrail pushers would want, it's here, and they whine.




posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
I still find it interesting that Rhode Island is considering this act, given that any other type of air pollution is covered by state and federal statutes.

What are they so worried about?



are you sure that existing legislation covers things that might be used for geoengineering?

After all "pollution" is defined as "the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance which has harmful or poisonous effects." (via google define) - if you are putting something into the atmosphere that has beneficial effects then is it actually pollution?



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: UmbraSumus
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE





It specifically lists "aluminum oxide particles" from geo-engineering schemes. I don't think they are referring to aluminum in the atmosphere from "brake pads" as debunkers would have you believe the cause of such. So how did this glut of aluminum oxide find its way into the atmosphere?


Cloud seeding ?
I don't think the existence of this is controversial -


Cloud seeding has been around for decades, so no I don't think this legislation was written in response to that.

They mention Geo-engineering schemes, the only one I know like that is chemtrailing by jets. I wonder how long it will take for other jurisdictions to realize this is an issue and come up with their own new statutes to protect themselves from this.




Chemmies, please please please please please PLEASE stop posting ordinary pictures of contrails as if that one picture is so sinister it speaks for itself.

Personaly, i think the on you posted PlanetX is gorgeous. Very nice. But sinister? No. And to imply that you can tell by looking at it that its the dreaded chemtrails makes you look a bit silly.

As for Monsanto looking for aluminium resistant plants, has this not been debunked before? Its nothing new and nothing sinister.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: babybunnies

I bet it has to do with the lack of oversight in place for future geo-engineering projects. While it's extremely rare to have government think ahead and do something for the people, it's remotely possible. What makes me laugh is this is exactly the type of thing the chemtrail pushers would want, it's here, and they whine.


Quoted for agreement.

My first thought was "forward planning"



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: UmbraSumus
Cloud seeding ?
I don't think the existence of this is controversial -

--Cloud seeding and weather modification are indeed controversial, with many protests in places like Lubbock Texas, Witchita Falls Texas, Kansas, and California in which concerned citizens don't support unregulated dispersal of silver iodide, and I don't blame them, but they get treated like faceless freaks concerned about something they supposedly don't have "enough evidence" to protest because "enough damage" hasn't been done yet. The course of events has to go 1) public outcry about preventing damage to the environment, 2) officials (and those who support them) demand "evidence" of potential damage, 3) unethical, reckless, or unintentional environmental damage is done, 4) public protests, 5) officials use damage control, 6) contractors are paid to clean up the damage, 7) paid contractors find the damage can't really be reversed, 8) the damage is covered up by both paid contractors and officials, 9) in the end, someone calls this pattern of human behavior "normal."



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: UmbraSumus
Cloud seeding ?
I don't think the existence of this is controversial -

--Cloud seeding and weather modification are indeed controversial, with many protests in places like Lubbock Texas, Witchita Falls Texas, Kansas, and California in which concerned citizens don't support unregulated dispersal of silver iodide, and I don't blame them, but they get treated like faceless freaks concerned about something they supposedly don't have "enough evidence" to protest because "enough damage" hasn't been done yet. The course of events has to go 1) public outcry about preventing damage to the environment, 2) officials (and those who support them) demand "evidence" of potential damage, 3) unethical, reckless, or unintentional environmental damage is done, 4) public protests, 5) officials use damage control, 6) contractors are paid to clean up the damage, 7) paid contractors find the damage can't really be reversed, 8) the damage is covered up by both paid contractors and officials, 9) in the end, someone calls this pattern of human behavior "normal."


While the above is more of the same, I submit that this will be the crux of #9.

(he numbered them)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude


Personally. I'm giddy with excitement at the prospect of number 9.

I haven't been on them and cant as im about to get in the tube (metro) but does anyone know if our Petro has also posted these on the chemtrail website discussion boards? I'd be curious to see the response there. I'll check it out when I get to work.

Can anyone recommend some hard core chemtrail forums to "get educated" on?




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join