Cloud seeding = seeds of death? Monsanto in the sky?

reply to post by luxordelphi


Cloud seeding is done openly and publicly -- often because a local municipality (or groups of municipalities) is paying for it with tax-payer money. Therefore it has to be done in public.

Also, cloud-seeding does not create clouds. Only existing clouds can be seeded. The idea is that the silver iodide sprinkled in a cloud can cause the moisture to collect around it, causing the moisture to fall from the cloud. Cloud-seeding is not making it more cloudy.

Maybe you haven't tried to link persistent contrails to cloud seeding, but many others on ATS have.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

Maybe you haven't tried to link persistent contrails to cloud seeding, but many others on ATS have.

Chemtrails, jet emissions and cloud seeding all have one thing in common: pollutants in the atmosphere. They are also, all three, a form of geoengineering in that they alter the ecosystem by i.e. creating cirrus where there were none etc. It is serious business to dump, spray, catapult etc. substances into the atmosphere to see what will happen because that remains the current state of the art. Predictability will improve because experimentation on the populace will provide data.

Weather modification efforts in states west of the Rockies have been at full throttle. What has been the impact for states adjacent and down wind? Have they been adversely affected? Do they have less rain and snow than they should because the precipitation is falling elsewhere? These observations are put forth in this article:

americanfreepress.net...

But that’s only the beginning. Ms. Macmillan noted another byproduct: “The lack of snow cover in winter creates soil diseases and E. coli in cows because certain bugs don’t die off. Most people aren’t aware of it, but the cantaloupe listeria outbreak that killed 25 people began in Colorado.”

This story, though, has broader ramifications. Ms. Macmillan paints the picture. “Because it’s so dry, eastern Colorado has suffered a rash of wildfires,” she said. “But we’re not the only ones. Every state along the Continental Divide permits cloud seeding. So, if you’ve noticed, there were deadly fires last summer in Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, all because of drought conditions.”

Then there is the fact that cloud seeding has never been proven to actually work. This invites a multitude of possibilities. Is it really cloud seeding? Are the materials used as stated? Has someone lightened the pocket books of gullible countries and states by fast talk and loose facts? Weather modification outfits have multiplied like rabbits exceeded only by the nano-tech outfits. There has been a lot of trouble over Monsanto because their method and ingredient is a trade secret and court orders requiring years to obtain are needed to find the truth. Is this a similar situation?

The last item I'll discuss is a system wherein substancs are remotely detonated and catapulted using a cell phone hooked to the internet. This absolutely floored me.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Chemtrails, jet emissions and cloud seeding all have one thing in common: pollutants in the atmosphere ...

You forgot automobiles. Automobiles pollute the air much more than jets leaving trails (due to sheer numbers of cars and to the high efficiency of jet engines). I'm willing to bet that cars pollute the air more than jets and cloud seeding combined.

But, yeah -- I'd say pollution of any kind is bad, whether it be a contrail or my car's exhaust. However, let's stop making it sound like there is some vast organized conspiracy, which is the assertion made by most people who believe contrails are chemtrails.

reply to post by luxordelphi


You may appreciate the data contained in this thread:

Manufactoring industry - The REAL chem trail

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Chemtrails, jet emissions and cloud seeding all have one thing in common: pollutants in the atmosphere ...

But, yeah -- I'd say pollution of any kind is bad, whether it be a contrail or my car's exhaust. However, let's stop making it sound like there is some vast organized conspiracy, which is the assertion made by most people who believe contrails are chemtrails.

We all have, and are experiencing,
profit over human health, or life.
I take that statement as profit, is not a conspiracy, it is a way of life,
regardless of the ill effects to life.
I find it hard to believe there is no conspiracy to create profit.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

But, yeah -- I'd say pollution of any kind is bad, whether it be a contrail or my car's exhaust. However, let's stop making it sound like there is some vast organized conspiracy, which is the assertion made by most people who believe contrails are chemtrails.

Thank you for your contribution. Contrails, technically, are chemtrails because jet emissions contain pollutants, however, jet emissions are not chemtrails because chemtrails are deliberately introduced into the atmosphere and we know this because observationally they have the effect of 'global dimming.' We also know this because artificial clouds as obscurants have been deliberately created since WWII. We also know this because flight paths do not resemble the flying circus skies we see.

I don't believe that there is any vague conspiracy; I believe that a dedicated concerted effort is behind the chemical skies with maps and wind currents and computer modeling to show where and how particulants will carry.

Automobiles are polluters but they are no longer unchecked. I have to pay for a smog check every year and in my recent times in Los Angeles the air is not brown as it used to be before control of emissions became a big deal.

The sky, on the other hand, seems to be one big laboratory for experimentation. Disclosure is still 20 years in the future if Agent Orange is any gage.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
At the time, with some research, I found these theories plausible and distinctly in line with unbridled greed, an ancient human foible.

Sorry I thought this started out as greed/profit as you stated,
but it seems you are reaching a compromise ( I have done it also ).
But what ever is going on in these sky's is because people are conspiring to make a profit.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Thank you for your two lines. Enjoyed your thread and I see where the persons quoting aluminum levels got them from - you - many years ago. I have my own views on aluminum specifically and specifically in the state of Oregon. Had meant to do a thread on it and forgot until your thread reminded me.

Truth is, though, that this is a brave new world and bulk aluminum toxicity levels have little to do with nano aluminum.

reply to post by luxordelphi


I would of expected more of a reaction from you in regards to this.

You are concerned with pollutants and how they're poisoning everyone and also concerned that money over rules doing the right thing in regards to these pollutants.

Yes jets create pollution, but what's up there typically stays up there, it's not coming down to hurt us.

Now factories, mines and other manufacturing plants are where the nasty stuff is at.

Why aren't you concerned with what ground based sources are spewing out?

Aluminium and barium, the two I focused on in that thread are two of hundreds of chemicals and compounds being spewed out into the air we breathe.

Billions and billions of pounds over the years with hundreds of super fund sites where it's proven that these places have done damage to the environment.

...Yet planes and their contrails get all the attention.

Someone has been running an extremely proficient disinformation campaign.

reply to post by Gmoneycricket


Thank you for your astute contributions particularly on why car emission standards were set - learned something right here and right now.

Sorry I thought this started out as greed/profit as you stated, but it seems you are reaching a compromise ( I have done it also ). But what ever is going on in these sky's is because people are conspiring to make a profit.

You're on track...there's been no compromise. Posters have just been a bit all over the place and profit from the misfortune of others is a hard thing to talk aout without some side-trips.

NM

reply to post by Chadwickus

Yes jets create pollution, but what's up there typically stays up there, it's not coming down to hurt us.

Yes it is coming down.

www.ucsusa.org...

Air pollution occurs when the air contains gases, dust, fumes or odor in harmful amounts—aerosols are a subset of air pollution that refers to the tiny particles suspended everywhere in our atmosphere. These particles can be both solid and liquid and are collectively referred to as ‘atmospheric aerosol particles’ [1]. Most are produced by natural processes such as erupting volcanoes, and some are from human industrial and agricultural activities (see Figure 1). Those particles in the lowest layer of the atmosphere, where our weather occurs, usually stay relatively close to the source of emissions and remain in the atmosphere only a few days to a week before they fall to the ground or are rained out; those higher up in the atmosphere travel farther and may linger in the atmosphere for a few years.

saive.com...

Not all contrails develop into cirrus clouds and if they do, what is the exact scientific base? Well, aircraft emissions as explained in paragraph 3.2.2. are actually aerosols, microscopic particles suspended in the air. They act like seeds: water molecules can condense or freeze on to them to form cloud particles.

It is accepted that knowledge on man made Cirrus cloud is relatively poor and that study of the impact of contrails on the Stratosphere is only in its initial phases. However one can assume that it might have an impact on higher layers and the ozone layer. Ozone depletion does not only occur as a result of industrial activity, but also due to multiple nuclear tests conducted in the 20th century.

This chapter will furthermore not only prove that weather manipulation through contrail formation is not that fictional, but will also produce evidence through patents and research documents that this system is in place and fully operational.

Why aren't you concerned with what ground based sources are spewing out?

What kind of a question is this? Weather modification employs ground based delivery systems as well as planes. Globally there are ongoing battles with factory and mining emissions and even still with asbestos. There is danger all around but none so great as the deliberate interference with a global atmospheric system based on a trial and error - let's do this and see what happens - approach.

In this article from the opening post, weather modification was performed west of the Rockies and the weather east of the Rockies was negatively impacted. That's actually an understatement - it was disastrous for those involved. Read the story. The last few paragraphs deal with the profit motive.

americanfreepress.net...

reply to post by luxordelphi


You don't even understand the links you read, and then add here on ATS???

Try re-reading, for comprehension.........

reply to post by luxordelphi


Your own source says from a few days to a week.

Have you seen a 'chemtrail' that lasts for days have you?

And that's only the lower atmosphere, the troposphere.

Contrails...or your 'chemtrails' form in the lower stratosphere, above the troposphere.

What kind of a question is this? Weather modification employs ground based delivery systems as well as planes.

Why are you so fixed on weather modification?

It's not happening any where near the scale you believe it is, this includes cloud seeding.

You've got blinders on, especially when you're seemingly shrugging off the real issue.

What state do you live in? Let's see how many superfund sites are there.

reply to post by luxordelphi


A short observation followed by a question is hardly a rant, Luxor. You should know better than trying to demean other respondents, shouldn't you?

While you didn't directly say that cloud seeding was from contrails, what else were you referring to when you observed jets entering a cloud, and it rained the following day? Besides, how many times have you observed jets do this when it HASN'T rained? Where does the weight of the observational evidence point?

Leaving aside the fact that cloud seeding has never been proven to work...BUT that now it apparently works...and leaving aside the obvious questions of what changed...and leaving aside, for the moment, what the devastating impacts for non-rain targeted areas are...And following just the money:

americanfreepress.net...

Billions of dollars in destruction came in the aftermath, leaving families homeless, communities wrecked, and insurance companies scrambling to cover their costs. With so many lives ruined, what could possibly be the motive for this possible cloud-seeding plot? An answer might be found in something called the Colorado River Compact where cities built on desert land such as Las Vegas and Los Angeles are starved for water and therefore rely on surpluses from their northern mountain neighbors. Thus, with substantially more rain and snow west of the Continental Divide due to cloud seeding, teeming reservoirs spill into the Colorado River, which then feeds Las Vegas and the L.A. aqueducts.

What we’re talking about are water wars and astronomical amounts of money being paid to Colorado by water-hungry areas in the southwest. Ms. Macmillan weighed in: “Last year, the city and county of Denver spent $200,000 on cloud seeding. But in Colorado, there’s a blackout on this story among those in the press.”

So if the states like CA and NV can fill their reservoirs and lakes using weather modification, they wouldn't need to pay CO for water. A number of businesses would also profit and agriculture would reap tremendous benefits because rain would fall.

But what about the destruction east of the Rockies inadvertently, (assuming,) caused by the boon in snow pack west of the Rockies? How could anyone possibly profit from lack of snow fall, lack of rain, drought, disease, fires and tornados east of the Rockies while the west hogs the rain?

When AFP inquired as to why insurance companies haven’t investigated this matter, Ms. Macmillan responded, “I don’t think they’ve put the whole picture together yet.”

Let's have a look at insurance companies liable for the destruction east of the Rockies to see whether or not they've put the picture together.

www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org...

Your local weather forecasters either don't know about or deliverately won't report on ongoing experimental weather modification programs letting the public believe that the weather that they are experiencing is unusual or extremem without identifying any ongoing weather modification programs. These weather modification experiments, if known by the public, could lead to liability lawsuits due to damage caused by these programs to be levied against those conducting these experiments, which include, but are not limited to, private indidivduals, corporations, military experiments, and programs initiated by cities, counties, states, and other government agencies.

U.S. Senate Bill S601 (introduced by Senator Kay Bail Hutchison-Texas), was not passed by the U.S. Senate in 2010. Senator Hutchison has introduced a version of this bill each year since 2005, and the public has lobbied successfully to stop passage. It is highly likely that Senator Hutchison will again introduce a similar version of this bill in the Senate in 2011 or 2012. This bill allows anyone to mitigate or modify your weather without public notification, consent, oversight or debate. This bill could also be added as an amendment to other legislation and passed. The implication for agriculture, watersheds, water supplies, and who will receive the benefits or the negative consequences are hidden from public view.

vimeo.com...

While controlling the weather is most often presented as fantasy, such as the super powers of Marvel Comics character Storm, modern technology has made it relatively easy to influence certain weather patterns. In fact, there are weather modification programs ongoing in over seventy countries throughout the world – including here in the United States. These programs are far from secret, as many are advertised and government-run. But what most people don’t realize is the extent to which these programs can also influence our economy – and not in ways you’d expect.

Since climate control programs are fairly unregulated, as no public notice is needed to run these programs except to report them to the NOAA, they often go unnoticed by the general public.

(continued in next post...)

(...continuation from previous post)

Adding to the complication of this matter is the fact that weather futures are a tradable commodity. Since 1999, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange has traded weather derivative contracts, currently trading for 35 cities in the United States, Europe, Canada and Japan. Therein lies the concern – if the weather can act as a “stock” and weather can be manipulated, what is to stop companies running unregulated weather modification programs from buying and selling weather futures, and committing what amounts to insider trading?

ozhouse.org...

Below is a link to a memo from Andrea Psoras dated May 5, 2008, who is from QED International, to the Secretary of the Commodities Future Trading Commission (CFTC) discussing the ‘legitimacy’ of trading insurance risk related to weather events, as commodities.

Commodities are traded every day on the stock markets all over the world. Insurance companies insure for “events” that protect these commodities as well as property. These “event” contracts are also traded on the stock market.

So the question is, according to this memo, “Should insurance companies be liable for the “weather manipulation” events that occur that are covered under insurance policies?”

Basically, the insurance industry wants the term “natural event” to be completely redefined to mean “only natural events” and leave out any “weather manipulation/modification or earth shaking events” from the policies. The insurance companies don’t want to be liable for providing compensation for what the government, military, and intelligence agencies are creating with weather manipulation technologies.

www.cftc.gov...@lrfederalregister/documents/frcomment/08-004c002.pdf

Not everything is a commodity, nor should something that is typically covered by some sort of property and casualty insurance suddenly become exchange tradable. Insurance companies for a number of years have provided compensation of some sort for random, but periodic events. Where insurance industry wants to off-load their risk at the expense of other commodities markets participants, contributes to sorts of moral hazards – which I vigorously oppose.

If where there is ‘interest’ to develop these sorts of risk event instruments, to me it seems an admission that the insurance sector is perhaps marginal or worse, incompetent or too greedy to determine how to offer insurance for events presumably produced by nature.

So the few profit while many lose their lives, limbs, families, homes and livelihoods. I don't know about you but if I never hear the word 'derivative' again it won't be too soon.

Here also is a BIG reason for secrecy - the profit is in insider trading - the few who KNOW. If many know - there's no profit.

reply to post by ProudBird

Try re-reading, for comprehension.........

Talking to yourself again? Let me give you a hand up - forget re-reading. Just try reading.

And while I have your attention, head on back to your calculator and re-figure these altitudes, would ya? Just for the sake of accuracy!!

saive.com...

Cirrus clouds (WMO abbreviation Ci) are formed in a natural way when water vapor freezes into ice crystals at altitudes above 8000 meters (26,000 ft) in the higher part of the troposphere. The exact altitude depends also on the height of the tropopauze, the boundary with the stratosphere and the higher levels of earth's atmosphere. That means that Cirrus clouds in polar regions will appear at a much lower altitude than at the equator.

reply to post by Chadwickus

Why are you so fixed on weather modification?

Interesting question. Here's my list:

1. Because it's so highly visible
2. Because it creates epic disasters
3. Because the sky is occluded and I have a hard time seeing incoming
4. Because weather phenoms have become outrageous
5. Because it's the new 'Sky Net'
6. Because it's better than a drone

reply to post by waynos

While you didn't directly say that cloud seeding was from contrails, what else were you referring to when you observed jets entering a cloud, and it rained the following day? Besides, how many times have you observed jets do this when it HASN'T rained? Where does the weight of the observational evidence point?

There's nothing to read into what I said. I'll make a point of letting you know when I'm being cryptic.

P.S. Are you ever going to respond to the thread? Waiting...hoping...tapping my foot.