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.

 

California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho Under New Form of Marshall Law After March 11th, 2009

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth

They think they can get "permission" with this 1,000 page legislation they want to sneak past everybody -- so they can say "It's the law." It is an attack, a military attack, on four states.

And these four states are slated by the UN to be wilderness corridors for the wild animals, rewilded, no humans allowed to set foot. I guess they will clear the humans out right quick, blow up a lot of roads and houses, and get that rewilding accomplished right quick with all these new and improved military weapons they plan to test out on four states, four BIG states, and the Pacific ocean to go with it.


I have not read all 1000+ pages. Is the stuff about the wilderness corridors in the EIS or in a UN document?

I'm not as ready as you are to assume it's war against the people but i sure don't like their secretive approach. the pubic hearings were not well publicized. Since you alerted us to this information I've contacted a marine biologist friend and another who served in the army near the NW training complex. no comments from either yet.




posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by earlywatcher
 


Here's the Wilderness Biodiversity Map of the UN. You can see the same areas slated to be bombed and sprayed down are the same areas slated for rewilding, no humans allowed to set foot on the land.


Watch Alex Jones film 9/11 Road to Tyranny and he's got it all laid out, the training exercises (of which this is way more than that) but you can see the intent, the degree the military has gone so far, back in 2002 when Alex made this film. This attack is slated to go on in March, coincides with Purim and with the Vogue magazine message of a huge terror war bloodshed in March, March 10 or a Tuesday in March. You can skip the first part of the film because it's over two hours long (well worth watching all of it) but the last 45 minutes or so is all about military training exercises, how they do not get permission, they scare the people half to death, and that it is to acclimate the soldiers to firing on American citizens, to rounding us up. Move the counter to 1 hour and 15 minutes and watch to the end.



[edit on 23-2-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I would like to direct your attention to this post where I actually took the time to look at the EIS, the Northwest Training Range's website, and a few other places regarding the EIS and most of the fears caused by the newswithviews article is nonsense.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by RussianScientists
TravelerintheDark you need to read the complete articles instead of just skimming over it.

The legislation gives the Navy the right to do chemical and biological warefare, to dump chemicals, waste and whatever. Run all types of exercises. Experiment with Weather Control, production of Earthquakes, Radiation Warfare and anything else.

It does not say that they have to clean up anything, nor does it state that they will keep off of private property in those states. It gives them the right to search any house or business in that area without a warrant, calling it training exercises.


Four of the five articles are all the same, written by the same woman. (couldn't open the 3rd link so have no idea of what it is.)

Here's the actual statement if anyone wants to read it.
www.nwtrangecomplexeis.com...
Let me know if you find a part about searching houses.

As travelerinthedark pointed out, it's just the Environmental Impact Statement.

As a side note, I live close to 2 bases and 2 outlying training areas (on the east coast). Only impact is noise and window rattling from live fire exercises and very low flying jets from the training field.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Actual training exercises were filmed in 2002. AJ interviewed town officials, police chiefs, regarding the arrangements that were and weren't made for these exercises. No, the people were not told. Yes, the people were scared out of their wits. The exercises are shocking. You have to see this

Move the marker to 1 point 15, and watch the last 45 minutes of the film, 9/11 Road to Tyranny. It's all there. Once you see this you can decide about how innocent or necessary these training exercises are.



If the military sends its own soldiers back sick and maimed, traumatized and neglected after drafting them for repeated tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, what makes you think they will treat the general American populace any better? This area is scheduled to get a total onslaught of destructive weapons rained down on it, and will serve the general purpose of moving the population out. To say its purpose is to study the environmental impact makes as much sense as hitting your grandmother over the head with a hammer to see how big a lump you'd get.

The only difference that I can see between what the Navy plans to do in these 4 states and what it might do in Iraq is that in Iraq it would be called waging war, and here it will be called an environmental impact statement.

America is under attack and doesn't even know it.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


Do you know what an Environmental Impact Statement is?



Environmental Impact Statement
An environmental impact statement (EIS) under United States environmental law, is a document required by the National Environmental Policy Act for federal government agency actions "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." A tool for decision making, an EIS describes the positive and negative environmental effects of proposed agency action - and cites alternative actions.


Now how is that even remotely similar to a war? It's a piece of paper. A bunch of pieces of paper actually.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

An environmental impact statement (EIS) under United States environmental law, is a document required by the National Environmental Policy Act for federal government agency actions "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." A tool for decision making, an EIS describes the positive and negative environmental effects of proposed agency action - and cites alternative actions. Now how is that even remotely similar to a war? It's a piece of paper. A bunch of pieces of paper actually.


Precisely, not even remotely similar; rather, an extremely lame euphemism.

As to the "positive and negative impacts," what a joke. Radiation, poisons, germ warfare, herbicides, napalm, shock and awe, DU, triggering earthquakes, volcanos, forest fires -- to think anybody would seriously suggest any of this could be construed as a "positive impact" would only be thinking in terms of war, because only in war is destruction and death considered a good thing, or if you are comparing the land mass to the UN Rewilding Map of Biodiversity when it's all over and all the human life has been removed from the designated areas marked in red.
www.citizenreviewonline.org..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Jenna, nothing is said about war. But the fact is, that if you read what is happening, this legislation is opening pandoras box for the Navy to get in and do whatever they want in 4 states.

Military testing and exercises are included in the legislation. An EIS is used mainly for mining and construction purposes showing and proving how it will not be detrimental to the area; and if it is, how they are going to fix it in advance.

In this legislation that the Navy has, show me where it states that their testing and exercises using chemicals and biological whatnot are "not" going to be detrimental to the water, land, animals and humans.

Show me their "exact plans" of what they intend to do if they use chemicals and biological warefare. Your "exact plans" as to what you are going to do have to be filed in advance, and then if you don't stand up to what you would say you would do, then the government comes in and sues you and shuts you down.

Nowhere in this legislation is anything like that stated. They are just given an open door policy to do whatever they want, and if they want to come door to door in their "exercises" and check out everything on and in your property then they can legally do it without a search warrant, just like Marshal Law.

Otherwise prove to me that they can't come onto anyones property during one of their "exercises" and do a search for whatever they want.

Prove to me that they won't use chemical and biological weapons on humans, animals and land.

Prove to me that they won't contaminate the water.

Prove to me that they won't be storing chemical, biological and nuclear wastes where ever they want just like the Military does in AREA 51.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by RussianScientists
reply to post by Jenna
 


Jenna, nothing is said about war. But the fact is, that if you read what is happening, this legislation is opening pandoras box for the Navy to get in and do whatever they want in 4 states.

Military testing and exercises are included in the legislation. An EIS is used mainly for mining and construction purposes showing and proving how it will not be detrimental to the area; and if it is, how they are going to fix it in advance.

In this legislation that the Navy has, show me where it states that their testing and exercises using chemicals and biological whatnot are "not" going to be detrimental to the water, land, animals and humans.


I wouldn't call it "military" testing as much as "weapons" testing -- purpose being to test new weapons. What is a good weapon? One that destroys a lot, kills a lot. You could say we are just testing our bunker busters and Depleted Uranium bombs and missiles in Iraq, right? Just testing them?

Well, the Navy is just going to test some new and improved weapons of all kinds, things we've not ever heard of probably many of them, and they are going to test them over a wide area that includes four large states out West. Could some of these "tests" be to see if they can incite earthquakes, volcanic eruptions? Would some tests be to see if they can use microwave beams to control or kill people and/or wildlife? What kind of bombs and missiles do they plan to use, and how many forest fires will be started? How many houses will be flattened, roads destroyed? These areas are located where UN goals of rewilding designate these same areas to remove human life from those areas, that they be rewilded, per the map I posted. The red areas are to be wildlife corridors where no human will be allowed to set foot, places that perhaps many woodsmen and survivalist type people had planned to live in and try to avoid the horrors to come. If it is deforested and contaminated, that's not going to happen. The NWO doesn't want people to be able to run to the forests and live in caves, to kill rabbits with slingshots, to catch fish, to survive off the land.

This is not the same kind of thing as the military exercises of so-called role-play of gun confiscation and gun shop owner raids we've been discussing about the Iowa situation in some other threads. This is plain all out war. Nothing pretend about any of this. This is weapons testing, not military exercises or roleplay to train and condition soldiers to close down gun shops and confiscate guns from private citizens in rural communities.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


This is what you said in the post I responded to:


The only difference that I can see between what the Navy plans to do in these 4 states and what it might do in Iraq is that in Iraq it would be called waging war, and here it will be called an environmental impact statement.


So again I say, how are they even remotely similar? An EIS is a piece of paper and cannot be compared to a war. Paper doesn't do anything but sit there, it doesn't kill anyone or anything, no deaths are caused by an EIS it is merely a report. War on the other hand causes many, many, many deaths.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by RussianScientists
Jenna, nothing is said about war. But the fact is, that if you read what is happening, this legislation is opening pandoras box for the Navy to get in and do whatever they want in 4 states.


I have read most of it in the last two days while debunking the fears on the other thread. Did you by chance go read the post I linked to?


Military testing and exercises are included in the legislation. An EIS is used mainly for mining and construction purposes showing and proving how it will not be detrimental to the area; and if it is, how they are going to fix it in advance.


I already posted the definition for what an EIS is. It is not strictly a mining and construction thing, it is used anytime there may be an impact on the environment. Guess what's included in this one. Yep, ways in which it could be detrimental to the area and what actions they are taking to minimize or prevent the damage. Guess what else is in there. Three different proposal alternatives.


In this legislation that the Navy has, show me where it states that their testing and exercises using chemicals and biological whatnot are "not" going to be detrimental to the water, land, animals and humans.


See the thing is, they are already using this land, they just want to do more training on it and build a few things so they have to file the EIS. They will continue to do what they have done since the NWTRC opened when it comes to hazardous materials.


The overall amount of hazardous materials generated during training under Alternatives 1 and 2 would be more than that generated under the No Action Alternative, due primarily to the increased number of training activities.
All hazardous materials would continue to be managed in compliance with applicable federal and state regulations, and Department of Defense guidelines. No substantial changes in hazardous materials management practices are anticipated under any of the alternatives. The anticipated amounts of hazardous materials generated are well within the capacity of the Navy's afloat and ashore hazardous waste management systems.



Show me their "exact plans" of what they intend to do if they use chemicals and biological warefare. Your "exact plans" as to what you are going to do have to be filed in advance, and then if you don't stand up to what you would say you would do, then the government comes in and sues you and shuts you down.


Again, they are already testing weapons in the testing sites they currently have.


Nowhere in this legislation is anything like that stated. They are just given an open door policy to do whatever they want, and if they want to come door to door in their "exercises" and check out everything on and in your property then they can legally do it without a search warrant, just like Marshal Law.


It's martial law, not marshal law. And that is fear-mongering if ever I saw it. I don't see where you are jumping from an EIS to illegal searches and seizures. Go back and look at the definition I posted again. An EIS is about the environment. It has nothing to do with martial law, search warrants, or knocking on doors. That is not the purpose of an EIS.


Otherwise prove to me that they can't come onto anyones property during one of their "exercises" and do a search for whatever they want.


Again, that's not what an EIS is for. Or would you like me to miracle the information into it?


Prove to me that they won't use chemical and biological weapons on humans, animals and land.

Prove to me that they won't contaminate the water.

Prove to me that they won't be storing chemical, biological and nuclear wastes where ever they want just like the Military does in AREA 51.


Oh for heavens sake. This is an EIS, it's about the environment not a list of training dates and activities that I can look through and say "oh yeah they are going to drop a biological weapon on our heads on June 8th" or "nope, no biological weapons are scheduled to be used this year."


Water Resources page 3.4-49

As a result of the EODMU Eleven relocation, mine warfare
underwater detonation training will significantly decrease from a yearly maximum of 60 underwater detonation as analyzed in the No Action Alternative (the baseline) to no more than four annual underwater detonation as analyzed in Alternatives 1 and 2, a decline of over 90 percent. The maximum charge size for these four explosions would be 2.5 pounds.

Adverse impacts from this level of activity would be negligible because of relatively low level of activity and standard site investigation and clean up procedures. Lastly, 98 percent of explosion byproducts are normal constituents of seawater. Turbidity resulting from detonation would dissipate rather quickly depending on the site conditions at the time, such as wind speed and tidal currents.



Terrestria l Biological Resources Page 3.11-13
Land Based Training
Under Alternative 2, the vehicle and equipment use and foot traffic associated with an increase of EOD training activities at the DTR Seaplane Base and DTR Bangor, as described in Chapter 2, would have a negligible effect on wildlife because of the disturbed and poor quality habitat the areas provide. Animals that are present would either be habituated to the human and vehicular presence or would avoid the area when activities were occurring.

EODMU and ISR training activities at Seaplane Base Survival Area would have short-term minor adverse effects from the presence of personnel and noise and disturbance generated during activities. These exercises are not expected to result in chronic stress to wildlife based on the low number of activities that occur per year, the short duration of the exercises, and the low number of vehicles and/or personnel involved in the exercises. There would be no change in populations of animals because of vehicle use, presence of personnel, or use of ordnance and pyrotechnics associated with these training activities.

Impacts of NSW training at Indian Island on wildlife and wildlife habitat under Alternative 2 would be the same as the No Action Alternative as training activities would be occurring at the same level. Because the covert nature of these Special Forces which have a light footprint, cause little disruption because of noise, and the small number of personnel involved, the effects of this training would result in temporary displacement of individuals and would disrupt for very brief periods foraging and/or resting behaviors. As these activities are short-term and infrequent, there would not be any population level effects.


It's all right there in the EIS if you read it.

[edit on 24-2-2009 by Jenna]



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Jenna, you haven't debunked squat on the other thread, you only told your view as you see it. You are only reading what the Nayv wants you to see. Its an old Magicians trick, the Navy has you look at what they are doing with one hand and with the other hand the Navy is doing tricks.

Its what the Navy is leaving out of their EIS that you should be concerned about. You haven't proved anything that I've stated as being wrong. Later on, after they have been there awhile, I will be able to come back and tell you, "told you so" and you know it.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by RussianScientists
 


Oh ok. I guess me doing a complete copy and paste of my sources was me twisting it around too.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
pa.water.usgs.gov...
Heres a small taste of the reality of "testing".
Or just call it a little oopsy daisy if stuff don't work out.
www.idahostatesman.com...
Remember we're talking about an aquifer that supplies
drinking water to hundreds of thousands!
(there are no rights anymore when talking Na. Sec.)
Of course it's only chloride listed! hehe(I'll keep lookin')
Geez, heres another one...
www.davistownmuseum.org...
back to the wonderfull internet I go...
Google, Phil Batt and his batt-le with these "wonderfull people".
www.mothersalert.org...
Oh no, more stuff, not the infamous PIT 9!
nsnfp.inel.gov...
No, not more from official sources:
water.usgs.gov...
Know what Tritium is?
Another "DOSE" of reality from a state that had NO SAY SO in your fancy a** EIS!!!
www.snakeriveralliance.org...

Still trust 'em? Good for you!!!
Wow, what commitment you are showing us!
Don't flame me yet I'm not done!!!

Oh gee whiz what did my roving fingers find?
A sacred EPA statement about this very thing!
www.epa.gov...
This is not the study of the "plume" but it clearly
says it is radioactive!!
Funny how that all seemed to get buried pretty well!

Okay, I'm done, for now. (Maybe)
Your either with us or your not.



[edit on 24-2-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by dodadoom
 


RussianScientist asked about what was in the EIS, that is what I provided. Go ahead and change what was asked now. It matters not to me.

Edit: Mistakenly said you asked instead of RussianScientists.

Edit #2: I had to go back and look to figure out what you were talking about. If you disagree with something I said in the other thread, it's helpful if you respond there in order to keep things in context as opposed to just disagreeing in a completely different thread.


[edit on 24-2-2009 by Jenna]



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


I did not ask about it and I don't give a blank anyway.
They have lied before and they'll do it again.
Whats written on any paper doesn't mean squat.
What matters is who has the biggest gun.
But thanks for answering someone. I guess.
Notice that post was not a reply, but this one most
definately is.
You talk like you know it all. I'm actually jealous of you
so enjoy that. I really wish I could put on the blinders,
I sure wouldn't be on here debunking others real experiences.
I'd be finding out some stuff for myself instead of listening to the PTB.


[edit on 24-2-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Thanks for the helpfull tip!
I may just do that.
I still have no say about it either way in this state! Do I?



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by dodadoom
 


Actually I don't talk like I know it all. I look things up and don't just blindly believe what anyone says so long as it is anti-government or anti-military. And where ever your hostility is coming from, kindly direct it somewhere else as I have done nothing to you and there is no call for it.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 

I'm sorry if you take it that way instead of blind rage!

You obviously will only believe a certain reality.
Does no good to waste my time here. Or anywhere with you.
I'll let others determine their own conclusions from info posted.
I'm just posting a "dose" of reality for you, sorry
if I won't conform to your version of it.

EDIT- One more thing, don't tell me you look up and read information.
I KNOW you didn't look at mine I posted!
Now your lying like they do! BUSTED!!!


[edit on 24-2-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Perhaps the problem here is that the Navy has mislabeled its intentions. (I'm being sarcastic)

Supposedly the intent is to conduct an Environmental Impact study. This would mean to go in and examine what's already been done, see what impact it had.

But the true intent of the Navy is to conduct massive weapons testing which it has not yet done. It's going to test the weapons first. Then the environmental impact statement will be presented as to how much damage has been done.

The damage has not been done. The Navy is not asking permission to conduct an environmental impact study. It is requesting permission to blow four states to smithereens, use all kinds of new (and unrevealed) weapons on the ocean.

Nobody is going to deny the Navy or anybody else a Environmental Impact Statement. Anybody could go over to Iraq today and conduct one. We can go do one in our back yard today and don't need anybody's permission.

What the Navy is looking for is the green light to try out powerful new weapons over four states, and in an area already slated for rewilding.

So let's stop playing games of semantics here. I'm surprised the Mod lets Jenna blather on as though, taking the thread off course while she plays dumb and pretends the Navy is looking for permission to go in and test the soil in four states.

Come on, Jenna. Did you listen to the last 45 minutes of AJ's Road to Tyranny documentary yet about military training exercises, how they are conducted, their purpose, the procedures the Marines in this case went through or didn't go through with the locals to obtain their knowledge and consent? If you want to hyjack these threads, at least do a little homework.

Do you work for DoD? Are you paid to throw up smokescreens on information like this so people can remain in the dark? Are you here to help the government keep people in the dark?

BTW, I'm also curious why your avatar is losing her dress, kinda like Janet Jackson. You should photoshop that or else get a new avatar.




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join