It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


U.S. Patent #5,003,186 coupled with U.S. Senate Bill 1807 & U.S. House Bill 3445 = Chemtrails

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 06:52 PM

Originally posted by interestedalways

Originally posted by Phage

The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment apparently had more important matters to concern itself with.

And you are basing that on what facts?

The fact that it did not get out of committee.

The bill was submitted in the 110th Congress (2007-2008). It was not passed. It is dead, dead, dead.

Link please

Same as I originally provided

Of course, Udall may reintroduce it (or something like it) in the 111th Congress. But as far as being "fast-tracked"

So then I wouldn't call it (as you did) dead dead dead.

No, it is dead. Udall may reintroduce it but 3445 is dead.

The bill was first introduced by Udall in 2005 (HR 2995, it died). He tried again in 2007 (HR 3445, it died). Sure he may try again, but even if he does the bill doesn't actually seem to do much but create more bureaucracy (he's a good democrat).

It is the purpose of this Act to develop and implement a comprehensive and coordinated national weather mitigation policy and a national cooperative Federal and State program of weather mitigation research and development.
The purpose is to create a board to work on coming up with a policy in regard to weather mitigation. It also allows for research into weather mitigation. The bill is not pro-mitigation, it is about studying the ramifications of mitigation. The board could come to the conclusion that mitigation is a bad thing. The OP is alarmist.

[edit on 1/26/2009 by Phage]

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:00 PM
reply to post by Phage

And where do we find the outcome of this.

Aug 24, 2007: Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:11 PM
reply to post by interestedalways

The bill did not get out of committee. If it had it would have been debated and voted upon in the House.

Voted on in House (did not occur)

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:37 PM
reply to post by Phage

The part I am not clear about is that the bill w: Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.

Where is the follow up on this?

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:21 PM
reply to post by interestedalways

It's what is meant when it is said that something "dies in committee". Regardless of the findings of a committee, the matter may still be brought up for vote.

If the matter never leaves committee, it may never be voted on and is therefore "dead".

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:02 AM
Hello Phage,

The EDB info, was to show it Can Be Used to deliver "other agents" just as dangerous to all plants and creatures.

I will reiterate

EDB would easily penetrate intact skin, and act as a carrier solvent (like DMSO)
to help other substances to cross the skin barrier.

EDB has many properties
It "SINKS" fast-

It ‘Goes Through Intact Skin’ fast-

It solvents, or carries other agents into
It is a carcinogen,
in its own right,
Mutagencity, is its birth right.

A little Goes a Long Way.

It is but the ‘Solvent Carrier Dropping Agent’ .
It just bridges the resistance gap.

It Does Not have to be Barrium alone.
It can be a cocktail of many Leftover toxins that Need dispersal.

And as far as China go's:
OH my! The Gov't of China wouldn't allow anything that IS detrimental to plants,animals,water quality,air quality, BABYs or anything to slip by them.
They've got a good grip on things, yea'sir, Right on top of it!

So they surely wont ever use anything toxic or risky, to LIFE, in testing out weather modification.
Just like the U.S. Gov't would never think of testing out any unsafe or down-right poisonous on the people,plants or animals, in this country, or others

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in