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.

 

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

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by stavis
 


What's to debunk there? The video lists the source in the title page. It's cloud seeding, burning silver iodide flares. Not a secret, and nothing like contrails/chemtrails

Source:
users.pld.com...
en.wikipedia.org...




posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Sorry here we go
...



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



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by stavis
 


Could you be a bit more specific about what you'd like me to debunk? I'd be quite happy to address specific claims, but just throwing youtube videos at me seems a bit undirected.

The first video has been debunked many many times here on ATS. The person who took the video even posted an explanation.

The second video just rehashes the usual claims, with no evidence. Was there one thing in particular there you wanted addressing?



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


In the second video you will see the difference between contrails and chemtrails.
But it is of course the viewer's eyes to what you want to see or not. To argue over a topic that is currently being investigated by authorities in different countries is simply ignorant? Thus, chemtrails are real and there are different types of chemtrails.
You can of course claim that their purpose is quite different from what that actually happened, but it falls on its own reasonableness dont you think?
I do not see your reason to try to get people to doubt the chemtrails, but you may think you are not concerned? why question the facts? will you challenge the facts if your loved ones suffering from chemtrails?
Take a deep breath...aaah fresh air...hmm....



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by stavis
 


Yet again...you have brought nothing new here. Just have MISunderstood many, many many things. As usual.

It grows tiresome, having to constantly explain these things that are so easy to research, properly. The "2025" report was an intellectual exercise in "what ifs"...nothing more.

Your coup de grace of inanity was the KC-10 video!! It illustrates perfectly how the lack of rational thought and reason is so pervasive.....


In the second video you will see the difference between contrails and chemtrails.


BULL!! You (like so, so many) fall for the same lies, misconceptions and SLICK 'production values' in quite a few of these videos....snappy, peppy music (or funeral dirges), clever editing, etc.

Second video (remove the soundtrack) and you have....instances of the SAME LIE about contrails not persisting. Lie. False. You are being fooled, and you are falling for the HOAX.


edit on 12 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
In October 2007 they used one of their weapons in space to beam energy into the ocean to try and steer a typhoon.

They greatly underestimated it's power. The weapons test was visible to beach front hotel onlookers at a pacific island who snapped up pictures of the weapons test.

www.wired.com...


It looked like the dang sun was rising in the West!

After the weapons test plant life far far away on neighboring islands in the region nearly died. Ripped a hole in the atmosphere or magnetic field or something and the cosmic rays burnt everything to a crisp.

That thing is more powerful than atomic bombs. The sustained energy emission was quite awhile. It looked like the frekin sun was rising in the West! Biblical sunrise looking rays fanning up from the fireball on the ocean surface.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 



In October 2007 they used one of their weapons in space to beam energy into the ocean to try and steer a typhoon.


I read the source you linked.

Show where it says that...AT ALL.

The article is about new testing and studies to (hopefully) find a way to harness Solar energy from orbiting satellites, and beam it to ground stations.

The only "climate change" aspect involved, there, is the benefits derived from CLEAN energy, from the Sun....and the weaning of reliance on other forms of energy production, harmful to our environment and thus, climate.

I wonder, sometimes, if people actually read the links they post......



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 03:13 PM
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?


Of course they do, noticed how mad they get when their errors are pointed out?

That paper was never submitted to the "director" of the USAF, there is not such a position. Students in the Air War College and Squadron Officer School at Maxwell AFB, have papers to write as part of their classes, and some of that could be speculation, ideas, anything to think forward. But in chemtrail land, writing a paper somehow magically wills something into existence.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
to the OP - how can it be a "secret agenda" when it's been freely available on the 'net for years?



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Uncinus
 


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


what have you seen that shows that?


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. ......


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


did you miss the very 1st part of it perhaps - here - let me repeat it -


IF ....


did you notice the "if" at the front??

For most people that would mean that the section is about some future possiblity. I know that future tense is a bit hard for you to handle, but I hope someone else will notice it and not be as confused by it as you.

Now the rest of it:


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).




Hmm....so no chemtrails aer the dumping of hydrocarbon fuel into afterburner to generate carbon soot - not aluminium or barium any more??

well I guess that's some "improvement".....at least it means you have given up on anything generating a contrail if it doesn't have an afterburner.

......except how does this tie in with your "powder contrail" theory above?

Damn....still self contradicting ...oh well......i'm sure you'll change it to something else shortly.

found anything wrong over at contrail Science yet?



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
If anyone is interested, the paper Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 is one chapter of many from 4 volumes written by air force students.

Full index can be found here:

csat.au.af.mil...

I don't know why only one chapter gets all the attention when the others are as equally speculative.

But anyway, makes for interesting reading at least.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Uncinus
 


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


what have you seen that shows that?


I expect he means smoke generators, as used by aerobatical display teams - oh, look, chemtrails!


www.focuspocus.org...



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


...heh....proof that you haven't even read the patent....


Deny Ignorance buddy



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


SIGH......"the" patent? As if, there is only one in the entire world?

I am pretty sure I know which one you've wrapped that twisted logic around this time, but why not tell everyone (and Essan) which one you mean, again, so that we all can be on the same page?

Maybe we will be able to point out to you, finally, the terrible misconceptions you labor under........



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


The patent is like a smoke generator, in that it's an artificial trail intended for visibility (labeled a contrail for convenience, as that's what it looks like). This is marketed in the patent as an improvement on that. It's specifically intended for target vehicles, see the patent:

www.hiddenmysteries.org...


The present invention is for a powder generator requiring no heat source to emit a "contrail" with sufficient visibility to aid in visual acquisition of an aircraft target vehicle and the like. The term "contrail" was adopted for convenience in identifying the visible powder trail of this invention. Aircraft target vehicles are used to simulate aerial threats for missile tests and often fly at altitudes between 5,000 and 20,000 feet at speeds of 300 and 400 knots or more. The present invention is also suitable for use in other aircraft vehicles to generate contrails or reflective screens for any desired purpose.


It's not rocket science. It's just a big tub of powder, some compressed gas, a pipe, and a hopper. It's not more complex than a lawn sprinkler. Why anyone think it's evidence of anything is quite bemusing. It's blindingly obvious that planes can spray things.


edit on 13-5-2011 by Uncinus because: typo

edit on 13-5-2011 by Uncinus because: added link to patent



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   


It's blindingly obvious that planes can spray things.


To some people this is just down right crazy talk....

No way man..thats impossible

And ...I'm sure not a single person has invented something similar or developed on said inventions...



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Perhaps someone more knowledgable than ourselves can explain how this would produce persistent contrails that over time merge to cover the sky? Because it's got me beat!

Or have we moved on to yet another set of moving goaposts?



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


It's called Chemistry.

I am not a chemist and obviously neither are you....

But I am sure a Chemist could easily figure that out.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 



And ...I'm sure not a single person has invented something similar or developed on said inventions...


Well....then where are the "patents"? This one is obviously incapable of dispensing the vast, vast amounts of material seen, and ignorantly called a "chem"-trail......when in fact, it is merely water vapor.

Water.

Vapor.

Frozen.

Also, any sort of device designed to expel HUGE quantities...well, those HUGE quantities have to be carried up, by the airplane. Where is it loaded onto the airplane?? Where? What types of airplanes? WHY are there no photos, ever? Of these "modified" airplanes that carry all these tons and tons of...whatever?

No photos.

No facilities.

No evidence.

Lots of fantasy ....




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join