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.
Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Tecumte
Here's a part of why we have these ridiculous threads here with ridiculous titles like... "chemtrail hoax" lol, whatever, and people engage in these silly exchanges to infinity, pretending to look, but not really,instead of engaging in bringing forward these topics, there is enough info on weather mod and tests to spend weeks if not months researching but instead the 'usual suspects' can't help but reverting back to the usual ways. Yawn...
Well I found this very funny when I visited your link...
and the description of the photo...
A woman looks up at the mass of contrails left by a jet aircraft crossing the sky above St. Michael's Tower near Glastonbury, England. (Matt Cardy/Getty Images)
www.theepochtimes.com...
Yet this is the title to the article...
“Chemtrails” rain aluminum nanoparticles on man, beast, and land.
Do you see what the problem here is?
Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Tecumte
So this was from your link which you quote...
In the Las Vegas Tribune report, the U.S. Air Force on their website called chemtrails a “chemtrail hoax,” but “scientists working at Wright Patterson Air Force Base confirmed to the Ohio newspaper, Columbus Alive, that they were involved in aerial spraying experiments. One involved aluminum oxide spraying related to global warming and the other involved barium stearate and had to do with high-tech military communications.”
But I found something that was very interesting...
The documentary film What in the World Are They Spraying? produced by G. Edward Griffin, Michael Murphy, and Paul Wittenberger shows the impact on the environment of chemtrails. For instance, the snow on Mount Shasta normally has 7 parts per billion (ppb) of aluminum, but over the last four or five years it has increased to 61,000 ppb.
Well, that in itself shows the site is less than credible, but take a look at this concerning that movie..
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I would try and find a better source than that..
Yes, I see the problem quite well. We have a very finite but powerfully connnected group of people who want to play god with the entire earth , and the rest of the 99.999999% of humanity that want to be left alone.
Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Tecumte
Yes, I see the problem quite well. We have a very finite but powerfully connnected group of people who want to play god with the entire earth , and the rest of the 99.999999% of humanity that want to be left alone.
Well that isn't what I was talking about, but hey your way sounds more conspiratorial than what I was talking about.
www.geoengineeringwatch.org...
Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by Tecumte
Who will own the weather you ask?
In the 80's a Russian author wrote a book called "weather wars". He stated in the near future countries would attack each other with weather weapons and the people would not be allowed to know about it because it would cause widespread panic.
Things that make you go hummmm.
Pikaplookie on 11/09/2012 at 9:55 pm said:
They don’t even try to hide it here in Texas. Though when I questioned about what was in the crap they are spraying I get this response: “I can only tell you what is being used in Texas for rain enhancement (cloud seeding). The attachment is a listing of the ingredients used in pyrotechnics (or flares) to disperse seeding materials.”
“I can only tell you what is being used for rain seeding” as if there are other projects he’s not allowed to discuss with the public.
Here is the info he sent me:
Composition of the RS-3 pyrotechnic (flare) manufactured in San Angelo and used in the Texas cloud seeding program:
AgIO3 62 percent
KClO4 15 percent
NH4ClO4 8 percent
Gilsonite 8 percent
Epoxy resin 7 percent
State website brags about the project: www.license.state.tx.us...
Pikaplookie on 11/09/2012 at 9:55 pm said:
They don’t even try to hide it here in Texas. Though when I questioned about what was in the crap they are spraying I get this response: “I can only tell you what is being used in Texas for rain enhancement (cloud seeding). The attachment is a listing of the ingredients used in pyrotechnics (or flares) to disperse seeding materials.”
“I can only tell you what is being used for rain seeding” as if there are other projects he’s not allowed to discuss with the public.
One of the more pervasive myths regarding “chemtrails” is that 2008 presidential hopeful Dennis Kuchinich tried to have them banned by an act of congress, but was pressured by the government to modify the act to remove the mention of “chemtrails”.
So what really happened? In a nutshell, Kucinich did not write the bill (or read it, until too late), the focus of the bill is nothing to do with chemtrails, it was written by UFO enthusiasts Alfred Webre and Carol Rosin, who were trying to:
Nullify a vast conspiracy by the “military-industrial complex”
Allow the use of suppressed alien technology for free energy
Avoid accidentally shooting down (or scaring away) visiting aliens.
They listed a bunch of weird weapons, including mind control, tectonic weapons and (very briefly) chemtrails. The bill was re-written several time in less unusual language to give it chance of passing, but ultimately fizzled in committee.
The specific act was HR 2977, the “Space Preservation Act of 2001″, the stated goal of which was:
“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.”
So what’s Kucinich’s involvement in this? It’s difficult to say. Kucinich is anti-war, so perhaps that’s his motivation. He does have a lot of new-age, UFO-believing, friends, but he’s also running for president. When he was made aware of the nature of the “exotic weapons” language in the bill, it was re-written, and when questioned about it, he said
“I’m not into that. Understand me. When I found out that was in there, I said, ‘Look, I’m not interested in going there.’”
Kucinich’s motivations are perhaps revealed by his speech to the house on May 18th, 2005, introducing a newer version of the bill:
“What has happened to our country? Why are we projecting fear and paranoia to such heights? Have we so lost our way and our faith that we are prepared to transform the heavens into hell? If the kingdom and the will of God is to be done on earth as it is in heaven, what is to happen when the United States takes nuclear fire up to the gates of heaven?
“Such an offense against humanity could bring the wrath of God upon this nation.”
Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Tecumte
From your own quoted post...
Pikaplookie on 11/09/2012 at 9:55 pm said:
They don’t even try to hide it here in Texas. Though when I questioned about what was in the crap they are spraying I get this response: “I can only tell you what is being used in Texas for rain enhancement (cloud seeding). The attachment is a listing of the ingredients used in pyrotechnics (or flares) to disperse seeding materials.”
You do understand why they don't try to hide cloud seeding don't you?
Cloud seeding has been going on for over 60 years and is nothing new.
Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by Tecumte
“I can only tell you what is being used for rain seeding” as if there are other projects he’s not allowed to discuss with the public.
OR, he can only tell you the stuff he knows about. It is a perfectly reasonable response from, for example, someone who may be familiar with cloud seeding that is being questioned about aerial spraying in general.
You appear to be presenting speculative interpretation as proof. Perspective is a good thing.
Also, there is nothing in the link that lends any credibility to chemtrails. I see an article that declares the chemtrail threat exists, with contrail photos to illustrate, but no attempt to show why they arent contrails, then tries to justify that position by listing known wrongdoings of the past that arent, themselves, anything to do with chemtrails, with a photo of Nazi uniforms thrown in for alliterative resonance just in case the reader isn't picking up the vibe. What in there do you consider useful?edit on 27-11-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)