Owning the weather in 2025-The secret agenda of atmospheric manipulation.

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Owning the Weather an elite dream



Back in 1995, a document titled "Owning the Weather in 2025" was submitted to the director of the United States Air Force, under a disguised notion that it was a fictional report and was not intended to be applied to real-life scenarios. The document was a detailed research analysis paper which described the potential of developing aerospace technologies, and more importantly, how they might best be used to harness, control and manipulate the natural forces of weather on this planet. The technologies and capabilities described in this report have now become a reality, and have been documented all over the world. The "Space Preservation Act of 2001" was introduced on the floor of the House of Representatives by Dennis Kucinich and was an attempt to legislate the use of certain types of advanced weaponry, and not surprisingly, did not pass.
Although Kucinich is just another gear in the NWO mechanism, the first-draft edition of this bill contains some very startling admissions to the types of weaponry the United States Air Force has been developing since the end of WWII, including such categories of weaponry as "biological", "electromagnetic", "tectonic", and most disturbingly, "chemtrails."

This film attempts to show that chemtrails are not a hoax, they are real, and they are part of an international conspiracy aimed not only at controlling the elements, but also at ascribing this new technology immediately to war-fighting applications. The 2nd Cold War has arrived here in the 21st century, and it will now be a race for total technological dominance of Earth's atmosphere. All chemtrail documentation in the this film was shot by me in the skies of South-Eastern New York and Western Connecticut between December ' 06 and March ' 07. This film contains unlicensed footage from NBC, Sr. Rosalie Bertell, Clifford E. Carnicom, and Walt Disney. It also features the musical stylings of Apocalyptica, Beethoven, Bob Dylan, Dieselboy, DJ Darkfada, The Suicide Machines and Blind Willie Johnson.
Also this was made in 1995-2007.

Hav a close look 35min into the movie


Google Video Link
edit on 12-5-2011 by stavis because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by stavis
 


Document in vid to be found here:

HR 2977 IH

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2977

To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 2, 2001

Mr. KUCINICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Space Preservation Act of 2001'.

SEC. 2. REAFFIRMATION OF POLICY ON THE PRESERVATION OF PEACE IN SPACE.

Congress reaffirms the policy expressed in section 102(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451(a)), stating that it `is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.'.

SEC. 3. PERMANENT BAN ON BASING OF WEAPONS IN SPACE.

The President shall--

(1) implement a permanent ban on space-based weapons of the United States and remove from space any existing space-based weapons of the United States; and

(2) immediately order the permanent termination of research and development, testing, manufacturing, production, and deployment of all space-based weapons of the United States and their components.

SEC. 4. WORLD AGREEMENT BANNING SPACE-BASED WEAPONS.

The President shall direct the United States representatives to the United Nations and other international organizations to immediately work toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing a world agreement banning space-based weapons.

SEC. 5. REPORT.

The President shall submit to Congress not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, a report on--

(1) the implementation of the permanent ban on space-based weapons required by section 3; and

(2) progress toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing the agreement described in section 4.

SEC. 6. NON SPACE-BASED WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.

Nothing in this Act may be construed as prohibiting the use of funds for--

(1) space exploration;

(2) space research and development;

(3) testing, manufacturing, or production that is not related to space-based weapons or systems; or

(4) civil, commercial, or defense activities (including communications, navigation, surveillance, reconnaissance, early warning, or remote sensing) that are not related to space-based weapons or systems.

SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) The term `space' means all space extending upward from an altitude greater than 60 kilometers above the surface of the earth and any celestial body in such space.

(2)(A) The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following:

(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by--

(I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;

(II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;

(III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or

(IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.

(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)--

(I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);

(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or

(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.

(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--

(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;

(ii) chemtrails;

(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;

(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;

(v) laser weapons systems;

(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and

(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.

(C) The term `exotic weapons systems' includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.

HR 2977 (IH)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I'll research and give a better opinion later. Nice OP , S&F.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
i just saw in tiewan a tornado in the city, right next to high rise buildings.

it was wild, the weather has been weird there they said.

i can't find and clips right now but i'm sure they will be up soon.

ya gotta see this.

sorry, i'm not trying to derail your thread but this was so weird!



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by WordPlayJAy
 


Kucinich's HR 2977 was actually written by Alfred Webre and Carol Rosin. The original idea was to block weaons based in space, but when they inserted their "Be friendly to aliens, and release the hidden alien technology" agenda to it with their list of weird weapons, then they killed any chance of it being taken seriously. When Kucinich found out what the list of weapons was supposed to mean, then he distanced himself from the bill.

Full story here:

contrailscience.com...



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Doesn't really matter if he distanced himself from the bill..... It was a bill written to be voted on.... that doesn't mean they made up everything on the bill.

Also, don't link that BS website especially when it has something to do with politics....

If you want to show us that Kucinich distanced himself use his website or perhaps another government site... otherwise it's just propaganda.
edit on 12-5-2011 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


The reason that this thread was made was to spread this information so everyone can decide for them self what to make of it. Take it easy and keep this clean
edit on 12-5-2011 by stavis because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
....and to any debunkers that come along.... WE DON"T NEED YOU.... your opinions (yes opinions) are worthless since you are here to debunk and that's it.

You debunkers are not skeptical ...your mind was made up before you even clicked on the thread.....

Sure we need some healthy skeptics and good constructive debate... but again... you debunkers do not want to debate... you will not take anything that anyone says seriously ...instead you will say .."you are wrong" and then flood the thread with your same links in every other thread......

And somehow...specifically the debunkers... manage to do that on this site 365 days a year 24 hours a day...

Hmmmm could it be their job....



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by stavis
Back in 1995, a document titled "Owning the Weather in 2025" was submitted to the director of the United States Air Force, under a disguised notion that it was a fictional report and was not intended to be applied to real-life scenarios. The document was a detailed research analysis paper which described the potential of developing aerospace technologies, and more importantly, how they might best be used to harness, control and manipulate the natural forces of weather on this planet.


It wasn't described as fictional. It was just a thesis (i.e. basically an academic paper), speculating what might happen in the field of weather control used as a weapon. Here's how the paper discussed the its scope:



The term weather-modification may have negative connotations for many people, civilians and military members alike. It is thus important to define the scope to be considered in this paper so that potential critics or proponents of further research have a common basis for discussion. In the broadest sense, weather-modification can be divided into two major categories: suppression and intensification of weather patterns. In extreme cases, it might involve the creation of completely new weather patterns, attenuation or control of severe storms, or even alteration of global climate on a far-reaching and/or long-lasting scale. In the mildest and least controversial cases it may consist of inducing or suppressing precipitation, clouds, or fog for short times over a small-scale region. Other low-intensity applications might include the alteration and/or use of near space as a medium to enhance communications, disrupt active or passive sensing, or other purposes. In conducting the research for this study, the broadest possible interpretation of weather-modification was initially embraced, so that the widest range of opportunities available for our military in 2025 were thoughtfully considered. However, for several reasons described below, this paper focuses primarily on localized and short-term forms of weather-modification and how these could be incorporated into war-fighting capability. The primary areas discussed include generation and dissipation of precipitation, clouds, and fog; modification of localized storm systems; and the use of the ionosphere and near space for space control and communications dominance. These applications are consistent with CJCSI 3810.01, “Meteorological and Oceanographic Operations.”

Extreme and controversial examples of weather modification—creation of made-to-order weather, large-scale climate modification, creation and/or control (or “steering”) of severe storms, etc.—were researched as part of this study but receive only brief mention here because, in the authors’ judgment, the technical obstacles preventing their application appear insurmountable within 30 years. If this were not the case, such applications would have been included in this report as potential military options, despite their controversial and potentially malevolent nature and their inconsistency with standing UN agreements to which the US is a signatory.

On the other hand, the weather-modification applications proposed in this report range from technically proven to potentially feasible. They are similar, however, in that none are currently employed or envisioned for employment by our operational forces


Full paper:
csat.au.af.mil...

See also the USAF's later clarification, with respect to contrails:

www.af.mil...



A hoax that has been around since 1996 accuses the Air Force of being involved in spraying the US population with mysterious substances and show various Air Force aircraft "releasing sprays" or generating unusual contrail patterns. Several authors cite an Air University research paper titled "Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025" that suggests the Air Force is conducting weather modification experiments. The purpose of that paper was part of a thesis to outline a strategy for the use of a future weather modification system to achieve military objectives and it does not reflect current military policy, practice, or capability.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 



yourmind was made up before you even clicked on the thread....


As was yours...Hypocritical much?



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   


And somehow...specifically the debunkers... manage to do that on this site 365 days a year 24 hours a day...

Hmmmm could it be their job....


No, it's my hobby. I debunk because it's my hobby.

De-bunking is removing the bunk. Would you prefer that the bunk stayed? There's nothing wrong with debunking. I just identify mistakes or omissions, and I point them out.

You are welcome to do the same with anything on contrailscience.com.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


Guess you right
But they will change their minds one of these days...TGE cant back down now, everything has gone to far and there is no turning back this time
what be most be, let god sort them out



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Right... you are here to debunk.... end of story.

If you would take me seriously and not dismiss every single thing I have seen with my own eyes then we might be able to have a good debate.... but instead you will say.."your testimony is garbage..or a lie..and so on"

I have seen plenty to know that a "Powder Contrail" or something like that patent is being used today...

Also, I don't think we should ever expect the Air Force to be up front with us and honest.

Here is a little snippet from the article you linked which is was interesting.


If precipitation enhancement techniques are successfully developed and the right natural conditions also exist, we must also be able to disperse carbon dust into the desired location. Transporting it in a completely controlled, safe, cost-effective, and reliable manner requires innovation. Numerous dispersal techniques have already been studied, but the most convenient, safe, and cost-effective method discussed is the use of afterburner-type jet engines to generate carbon particles while flying through targeted air. This method is based on injection of liquid hydrocarbon fuel into the afterburner's combustion gases. This direct generation method was found to be more desirerable than another plausible method (i.e., the transport of large quantities of previously produced and properly sized carbon dust to the desired altitude).


Sounds like a Contrail/Chemtrail to me....



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
Right... you are here to debunk.... end of story.


So explain what is wrong with debunking? You would prefer that bunk remains, so long as it supports your thesis?



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517

Also, I don't think we should ever expect the Air Force to be up front with us and honest.

Here is a little snippet from the article you linked which is was interesting.


If precipitation enhancement techniques are successfully developed and the right natural conditions also exist, we must also be able to disperse carbon dust into the desired location. Transporting it in a completely controlled, safe, cost-effective, and reliable manner requires innovation. Numerous dispersal techniques have already been studied, but the most convenient, safe, and cost-effective method discussed is the use of afterburner-type jet engines to generate carbon particles while flying through targeted air. This method is based on injection of liquid hydrocarbon fuel into the afterburner's combustion gases. This direct generation method was found to be more desirerable than another plausible method (i.e., the transport of large quantities of previously produced and properly sized carbon dust to the desired altitude).


Sounds like a Contrail/Chemtrail to me....


If you don't expect the AF to be honest, then why are you quoting them?

And why are you quoting them without context? They are describing low level localized cloud seeding to create RAIN. Rain will not form at contrail altitudes, so this is nothing like contrails.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


This is not about the topic of Chemtrails but.... Stanton says it better... listen to the whole thing.




posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 





And why are you quoting them without context? They are describing low level localized cloud seeding to create RAIN. Rain will not form at contrail altitudes, so this is nothing like contrails.


HAHA ...thanks ...exactly my point...nothing like contrails.... more like a Forced contrail with the use of chemicals..

and don't criticize me for quoting your link.....



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Uncinus
 





And why are you quoting them without context? They are describing low level localized cloud seeding to create RAIN. Rain will not form at contrail altitudes, so this is nothing like contrails.


HAHA ...thanks ...exactly my point...nothing like contrails.... more like a Forced contrail with the use of chemicals..

and don't criticize me for quoting your link.....


But you said contrails/chemtrails. So are you now saying that chemtrails don't look at all like contrails?

Do you have a photo of chemtrail that does not look like a contrail? That should settle the matter.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by dplum517
Right... you are here to debunk.... end of story.


So explain what is wrong with debunking? You would prefer that bunk remains, so long as it supports your thesis?


Please...what are you? silly?...well try to understand what you are seeing and THEN please debunk all you want and please link to your SOURCE





posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


We're back to that old game are we?

It's a chemtrails!
No, it's a contrail.
Well in that case it's cloud seeding
But cloud seeding occurs within existing low level clouds and cannot be observed from the ground
Ah, but, it's chaff
Which also can't be seen from the ground, but does show up on radar
Well it's stratospheric spraying then
Which, guess what?

And so we go round and round and round.

A chemtrail by definition is high level and visible from the ground. Anything that is not is not a chemtrail.

And no-one has ever produced a chemtrail that doesn't look and act in every way exactly like a contrail.

Ergo: chemtrails are contrails. Nothing more.


Of course, if you really want to see weather modification in action, go to your local airport when fog is forecast





top topics
 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join