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.

 

Whas Hurricane Harvey Man Made

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Now dont be too quick to dismiss this story. This site is somewhat consertative. There's been times when I've been tempted to think this site is a 'system outlet' site but they keep coming up with things that go against the grain of that suspicion.


In this article you will find:

Indications that weather modification is an established science and;

Dane Wigington’s description of the sea-based apparatus (like HAARP) that is capable of steering a hurricane to a particular city.

A brief look at possible Inside Jobs using weather, for example: Katrina in 2005, the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, the Victorian bushfire of 2009 (Australia), and the tsunami of 2011 in Japan.


Might we be somewhat naive if we thought that in a world full of technological developments that weather modification technology is not being developed?

The two ladies that run this Australian site are every good at analyzing things and joining dots. One has been contesting a seat in a state election in the US and is a lawyer by profession. If nothing else this article is a very interesting read. enjoy.

Link



edit on 1-9-2017 by Azureblue because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue

No.

From your link;



My background in weather warfare is pretty thin, and my knowledge of meteorological technology is nil.


Nuff said.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Everything seems to be a paranoid delusion lately.

Sometimes, things just happen. No nefarious motives needed.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Harvey may have been "man enhanced" according to AlGore's global warming followers. The closer it got to mankind, the faster he strengthened.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 04:54 AM
link   
for everyone that think natural disasters are man made, ask yourself this

How big, complex and obvious would a facility have to be to impart enough energy into the atmosphere to make something like a cyclone, tornado, hurricane, tropical storm or monsoon.

These natural events are driven by so much energy I expect the world simply isn't capable of generating that much power, let alone focusing it into a small area



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 04:56 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust


that's because it hit land, and gained thermal energy. People don't live out at sea in great numbers.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Interesting but have they taken in consideration currently the state of HAARP facilities? Alaska HAARP is gone, sold and dismantled. The one is Puerto Rico one located at the SETI telescope is on standstill. The sea-based apparatus(doubting it can do anything near what claimed HAARP could do) is near Korea monitoring the threat. That would leave the one in Norway and in Russia.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Dane Wiginton. Not credible, to say the least!



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 05:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue

Look...

There is something you need to understand about storms like these. Tornados and Hurricanes, like fire, can be fed by certain circumstances. Unlike fire, the circumstances which play into how a Hurricane or a Tornado forms and moves, are related to what humidity and temperature is at play, both in the path ahead of the weather system, and indeed to what circumstances birthed the thing in the first place, windspeeds, temperature of the air being blown into the storm and driving it forward, temperature and humidity it will encounter in its path, windspeeds in regions ahead of it, wind direction in areas ahead of it, and so on.

What is crucial to understand with the particular case of Texas, is that Texas has been, in general, very warm of late, with decent levels of humidity. Storms generally tend, assuming wind direction allows it, to suckle on such circumstances like an infant upon the teat, only lending fury to them, driving them, keeping them going. Running into colder, drier circumstances tends to have the opposite effect, which is why hurricanes and tornadoes tend to occur most frequently during the hotter months in a given location.

A storm will flourish the closer to humid and hot circumstances it gets, because, from a thermodynamic point of view, there is simply more energy imparted to it by those circumstances. Simply put, heat = energy, cold = a lack of it. The particles in a hot area of air, are more excited and agitated, more energetic, than particles in colder areas. This means, necessarily, that as more heat and humidity are added to a storm, it will have more energy in total than if it had run up against an extremely cold area of air, and sucked that up instead.

So when a storm whirls faster as it approaches a given area, when its groundspeed picks up, this is usually a result of its coming into contact with air which is hotter and more energetic.

What I am getting at is this:

While it may look for all the world as if this storm "deliberately" sped up, the better to slam into Texas, and have its merry way with the place, all that actually happened, is that normal thermodynamic effects produced a terrible, but utterly predictable result. No manipulation of the weather was required in the least, because, as far as these things go, the process occurred in a totally natural manner, following only the same physical laws which operate everywhere else.

Further to that, I just want to add that in order to manipulate weather in a controlled and predictable manner, one would have to be able to track variables and control them, in such number and to such a fine degree, at such remoteness from them, as to render the process physically impossible. I do not care how powerful the equipment one assumes is being used might be, nor do I care much what degree of processing power and monitoring functionality one might be able to accumulate and deploy, even with a budget black as night and broad as the ocean. The simple fact of the matter that these weather patterns are not well enough understood for a scientist, mad or otherwise, to pin point a place in the sky to aim a beam or a heat ray or a microwave or any other thing, to produce a predictable weather effect at the end of it.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

It's too bad we don't have whether technology to break up these hurricanes before they can reach land. It would be worth spending millions to research the possibility, considering it causes billions worth of damage and leaves many people homeless. If these devastating hurricanes continue to wreck havoc on coastal areas, government will have to declare these areas uninhabitable.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 05:58 AM
link   
No.

If it were a tidal wave however I would have postulated that DB fell of a cruise ship in the Gulf of Mexico.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons

It could be worth experimenting with detonating a MOAB in the middle of the thing as it forms out at sea, but probably not, because of the power it would be working against.

The thing is that it just is not necessary to call these places uninhabitable. You CAN inhabit them, and the threats and dangers posed by these storms are easily mitigated by building houses which are designed from the ground up, or from under the ground up even, to account for them.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 06:24 AM
link   
How about hurricanes that have been occurring since before antiquity? Were those "man-made" too? Hurricanes are nothing new...

edit on 1-9-2017 by Kromlech because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Dane Wiggington. Just no. A guy who failed in every aspect of his life, and now makes BANK by scaring the uneducated into believing that clouds are out to get them. He has no job other than his web site and "appearances", yet maintains a large home with lots of land in an exclusive CA environment. Clouds, really.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: Azureblue

No.

From your link;



My background in weather warfare is pretty thin, and my knowledge of meteorological technology is nil.


Nuff said.

At least he didn't say "HARP", lol.

But hey, I heard speculation back during the Gulf Oil disaster that the carpet of crude on the sea bottom of the gulf 'could' perform as a giant heat sink and future storms could be 'intensified' by it, to some degree.

Well here we are...
edit on 1-9-2017 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Yes. It's all trumps fault for pulling out of the Paris climate accord.

Why not sounds good.

LOL



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: MasterAtArms

Thermal energy doesn't do a thing to strengthen a hurricane. It's warm water and few winds aloft that contribute to its growth. Hurricanes die when they move over land.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: dreamingawake

HAARP? They studied the upper atmosphere nothing at all to do with weather.
I thought we'd moved beyond that silliness a long time ago.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Hurricanes and tornados from in completely different ways.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Yes, but a similar mixture of humidity, temperature, and the presence of wind are necessary to create both. They displace themselves differently during formation, but the ingredients are similar.




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join