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.

 

How will we know if it's natural weather or weaponized weather warfare?

page: 11
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by sunnynights
 





I would think they could hold several hundred thousand tonne.


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

HA!!! 2nd line.

3rd line.
edit on 20-2-2014 by totallackey because: further content

edit on 20-2-2014 by totallackey because: further content

edit on 20-2-2014 by totallackey because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by sunnynights
 


What an interesting read! Thank you for putting that up. Hard to believe that way way back in 1966, geo-engineers aka weather modifiers were already allowed to do whatever they wanted without fear of consequence. Where do these hard hearts come from? Why are science experiments more important than the safety of the citizens?

Had a few excerpts from that link that I thought were interesting to discuss:

A Recommended National Program In Weather Modification/1966

The DOD, FAA and NASA were already in hiding:


I elected to concentrate attention on the above four agencies, since their programs, as set forth in the ICAS Select Panel Report, project to over 98% of the total national weather modification activity in 1970. Because the programs of the Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation Agency, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration were such a small part of the total, they were not reviewed in detail.


Transparency and accountability had already left the building in 1966:


9. There must be regulation and control of weather modification activities, especially as those activities increase in magnitude and frequency and become international in scope. This is required especially to provide a mechanism for protection against harmful consequences of weather modification activity but also to permit valid experimentation.


Some impressive numbers for a segment of this program already appearing in 1966:


"Project Skyfire of the U.S. Forest Service is performing an active research program aimed at suppression of lightning which causes some 10,000 forest fires annually in the United States. A field experiment is testing the effects of very heavy seeding with silver iodide on lightning storms. The results to date show a 32 percent reduction in cloud-to-ground lightning from seeded storms.


Also, they seem to know more than we do now:


The type of lightning discharge most likely to ignite forest fires has been identified.


And some information seems to have been lost along the way:


A program at the University of Wyoming devoted to the study of cap clouds has produced amounts of water which appear to offer promise of economic significance.


Hurricane mitigation, the sometime subject in this thread, seems also to have been in full swing way back then and so I'm not sure what the recent 2006 and 2007 developments mean.

The electric universe also seems to have taken equal mention in 1966 and so that's a lot of years in between then and now to be refining all this stuff and I wonder what it would look like in practice in 2014.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
It never ceases to amuse me how people can look at something, see what isn't there, and not bother to check anything about it before bursting into print.

Just for example, how suddenly the "possibility of rain being economic" becomes "them" knowing more than "we do now" - as if all the people paying for cloud seeding these days are doing it for charity.

Or knowing what sort of lightening might be moer likely to cause fires.

You'd think that if someone was going to spend time reading and analyzing 1 document they'd be clever enough to follow up with some basic research on the state of the concepts now. I guess it just goes to show the infinite variety that ignorance can take.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by sunnynights
 


while I firmly believe that tanks and tankers have been used in the sky, the sky can easily be trashed without them. This has been known since the 1950's or so.

Full text of "History of Project Cirrus...


So many nuclei could be produced with silver -iodide smoke that calculations indicated all the air of the United States could be nucleated at one time with a few pounds of silver iodide, so that the air would contain one particle of silver iodide per cubic inch--far more than the number of ice nuclei occurring normally under natural conditions.



"Theory has predicted and experiments are confirming the fact that a few pounds of silver iodide released into the atmosphere in the form of fine particles can exercise a profound influence over the weather hundreds c£ miles away from the point of release. Clearly no private individual or group can be permitted to carry on operations likely to affect weather conditions over thousands or hundreds of thousands of square miles.


When ultra-fine/nano sized particles are used: less is more. The Danish Airport Council recently put together a study on airport pollution which they term state of the art and I agree with them. They no longer measure ultra-fine/nano sized particles by mass but instead have elected to measure the number of particles. So while their total mass/substance within a certain space amounts to nothing...the number of particles within that space is huge.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Aloysius the Gaul
It never ceases to amuse me how people can look at something, see what isn't there, and not bother to check anything about it before bursting into print.



So we are all just to take your word for it now are we???

You have read it all.

you have concluded it's nothing at all.

You are telling everyone don't bother you have been over it, the other side is lying.



Give your self a



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Hard hearts alright. Maybe they are held at ransom in some way? Who knows.

Great link HERE

Towards the bottom, it talks about the airports. ones I've never heard of. Maybe they are (private). ;-)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   

sunnynights

Aloysius the Gaul
It never ceases to amuse me how people can look at something, see what isn't there, and not bother to check anything about it before bursting into print.



So we are all just to take your word for it now are we???

You have read it all.

you have concluded it's nothing at all.

You are telling everyone don't bother you have been over it, the other side is lying.



Give your self a


network dude
reply to post by sunnynights
 


Hell no, I encourage everyone to read it. Perhaps you might try and then you could DISCUSS it instead of discussing me.

Please let me know if you find the mental faculties to talk about what in that report troubles you.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


If that's true, please post the link again just so it's easy for someone to find and read.

Thanks you



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Re: the weakening of Erin.

While Erin may have moved into cooler waters late Sept. 9, it weakened on Sept. 10 during the ER-2 flights and changed course "sharply" after the ER-2 event.

Warm Core Structure of Hurricane Erin...


The storm had weakened by 13 m s-1 between the first and second eye penetrations.



Even on the first penetration, airborne radar showed that the eyewall cloud towers were dying.



Rapid deepening of Erin ensued on 8 and 9 September with a peak maximum sustained wind of 105 kt (54 m s-1) briefly attained by 1800 UTC 9 September. Thereafter Erin maintained this intensity level until 1200 UTC 10 September, at which point the maximum wind speed began to weaken. As the CAMEX-4 mission was flown into Erin, the storm weakened 25 kt (13 m s-1) while moving toward the northwest at approximately 8–10 kt (4–5 m s-1). On 11 September, a more gradual weakening commenced and the storm recurved sharply toward the east.



The weakening of Erin’s convective towers is a direct indication of the storm’s decrease in strength over the ensuing two to three hours between these two ER-2 overflights.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   

sunnynights

Aloysius the Gaul
It never ceases to amuse me how people can look at something, see what isn't there, and not bother to check anything about it before bursting into print.



So we are all just to take your word for it now are we???

You have read it all.


Gosh - thanks....but no, not even I can read it ALL.

so I rely on other people to highlight the good bits - you know the PROOF that all this stuff is happening....then I get to have a look at that and think for myself.


you have concluded it's nothing at all.


Correct - there's no verifiable evidence that there is anything other than contrails and the like. Not one piece. EVER.


You are telling everyone don't bother you have been over it, the other side is lying.


I think a lot of people "on the other side" are honestly mistaken - taken in by propaganda and group think, wishful thinking, guilt by association (ie the Govt is guilty of chemtrails because they are guilty of other stuff), paranoia and ignorance.

I think only a few are deliberately lying, but they are "leaders" and do not get questioned because anyone who doubts their line gets instantly labeled as a shill, sheeple, disinfo agent or the like, and usually banned from the discussion shortly after.


Give your self a


Thank you - I am not self congratulatory but I appreciate your offer.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





The ER-2 goes to 70,00 feet? Gosh - I'd never have realised......if it weren't for the fact that it is a version of the U-2 that NASA has been operating since 1981!


Honestly, Gaul, relevance is lost on you. There was no U-2 at 2001 Hurricane Erin on Sept. 10, 2001. It was an ER-2.

I put up the specs for the ER-2 because if dropping soot was the goal, it has to be able to get up above the hurricane, fully loaded, and the ER-2 can certainly manage that. Further, I put up the specs because it gets really high really fast and flies really fast and there seems to be some time lost somewhere but I have not yet put that together as far as yea or nay.




Adding to the general perception that Erin was nothing of particular interest to New Yorkers in Sept 2001:


Gotta love the way hindsight can be propaganda. But cute find...hope it didn't take waaay too long.




you cannot do geoengineering in "small isolated areas around the planet" - geo-engineering, BY DEFINITION, is altering the climate OF HET WHOLE PLANET.


What!!??!!

We live in a closed inter-connected eco-system. What happens in Vegas doesn't really stay there.




Just in case anyone missed it by, say, not bothering to read it, this link shows why Hurricane Erin changed course - a massive high pressure system covering the whole of the Mideast & eastern USA driving eastwards.


That's the same retrospect/hindsight article. But let me tell you what I'm going to do for you: I'm going to make a list of all the reasons (from source links) brought up so far as to why Erin weakened:

1. High pressure system
2. Wind shear
3. Cooler waters
4. African dusts
5. Urban pollutions
6. ER-2




chemise are always telling people to "do their own research"


Chemise? Kind of a cute foreign sort of twist on your chemmies?



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
How will I know? the most important question is, why should I care? If we have a weather weapon that we've perfected, we need to start using it. Reducing the worlds population by about 40% would shut Al Gore up once and for all. If it's one of those deals where it takes YEARS to affect something, you really can't call that a weapon can u ?



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   

luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





The ER-2 goes to 70,00 feet? Gosh - I'd never have realised......if it weren't for the fact that it is a version of the U-2 that NASA has been operating since 1981!


Honestly, Gaul, relevance is lost on you. There was no U-2 at 2001 Hurricane Erin on Sept. 10, 2001. It was an ER-2.


Since no-one said it was a U-2 that's a bit off topic. I was pointing out that the ER-2 is a version of the U-2.


I put up the specs for the ER-2 because if dropping soot was the goal, it has to be able to get up above the hurricane, fully loaded, and the ER-2 can certainly manage that. Further, I put up the specs because it gets really high really fast and flies really fast and there seems to be some time lost somewhere but I have not yet put that together as far as yea or nay.


It doesn't fly particularly fast, and do you actually have any evidence it was "dropping soot" or that was actually the goal?

If not why mention it?





Adding to the general perception that Erin was nothing of particular interest to New Yorkers in Sept 2001:


Gotta love the way hindsight can be propaganda. But cute find...hope it didn't take waaay too long.


It took so little time I am surprised you hadn't found it already.

And speaking of hindsight........isn't that your whole position about Erin - it is only in hindsight that there is anything "suspicious" about it, it is only in hindsight and BECAUSE of eth flights measuring it that we know it was weakening.....





you cannot do geoengineering in "small isolated areas around the planet" - geo-engineering, BY DEFINITION, is altering the climate OF HET WHOLE PLANET.


What!!??!!

We live in a closed inter-connected eco-system. What happens in Vegas doesn't really stay there.


I'll repeat it for you a bit differently, since you apparently didn't understand:

Geo-engineering comes from 2 roots - "Geo" comes from Greek meaning earth, and "engineering" means to deliberately bring something about by design.

So Geoengineering means the deliberate large-scale manipulation of an environmental process that affects the earth's climate, in an attempt to counteract the effects of global warming. - so, by definition, anything small scale cannot be geoengineering, because it is not large scale - which is part of the definition.

I hope that helps you come to grips why you breathing is not geoengineering.





Just in case anyone missed it by, say, not bothering to read it, this link shows why Hurricane Erin changed course - a massive high pressure system covering the whole of the Mideast & eastern USA driving eastwards.


That's the same retrospect/hindsight article. But let me tell you what I'm going to do for you: I'm going to make a list of all the reasons (from source links) brought up so far as to why Erin weakened:

1. High pressure system
2. Wind shear
3. Cooler waters
4. African dusts
5. Urban pollutions
6. ER-2


Given that all monitoring of hurricanes is hindsight, and your own points are all hindsight, so what?

did you mean to make some actual comment? come to a conclusion? Reveal something interesting??






chemise are always telling people to "do their own research"


Chemise? Kind of a cute foreign sort of twist on your chemmies?


mis-spelling and auto-correct - it's all the fault of Americans - both the keyboard layout and the software
edit on 20-2-2014 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   
We'lll never know



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Re:

A Recommended National Program In Weather Modification


Over the past twenty years experiments have been conducted on weather modification, particularly on the effects of seedinq clouds with - such materials as silver iodide crystals. The results are limited.


A very strange statement for the 1966 report to make particularly in light of this from 1948:

Full text of "History of Project Cirrus...


Four seeding operations were conducted on the October 14 flight. The details of these seedings and the results obtained were discussed at considerable length by Langmuir in an occasional report. (^O) But a summary of his findings is to the effect that rainfall was produced over an area of more than 40,000 square miles as a result of the seeding--about a quarter of the area of the State of New Mexico. And substantially all of the rain for the whole of New Mexico that fell on October 14 and 15 was the result of the seeding operations near Albuquerque on October 14. ''The odds in favor of this conclusion as compared to the assumption that the rain was due to natural causes are many millions to one."



An early estimate by Langmuir was that about 100,000,000 tons of rainfall was produced. Later, using the rain reports from 330 stations given in a U. S. Weather Bureau publication, he concluded that the original estimate was unduly conservative.'^*-*^ Said he: ''The evidence indicated that the rain started from near the point of seeding shortly after the time of seeding and then spread gradually at a rate which at no place exceeded 22 miles per hour, over an area of at least 12,000 square miles north to northeast of Albuquerque with an average of about 0.3.5 inches. This corresponded to about 300,000,000 tons."


Project Cirrus was under a military umbrella (so that G.E. wouldn't get sued) and the 1966 report left out all the military data...I think they called it "insignificant."



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 





That video is the best compilation of evidence that I have ever seen.


I agree with you. In 1.5 hours he touched on everything and told some interesting stories like the guy who wanted to talk winding up in a landfill.

Also liked his explanation of the Venus albedo...had read it somewhere but never really 'got it.' Venus is very bright, very reflective and close to 900 degrees F on the surface. Sounds like good solar radiation management to me. Something we have to look forward to once the geo-engineers make earth reflective enough: there won't be any life left but we'll look bright and beautiful to the other planets!



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


No-one has ever denied that cloud seeding has been done now for over fifty years. It is not geo-engineering, and it is certainly not being done by commercial jet aircraft. So long as you are quoting an old study, you might want to read all of it:


As in any of the physical phenomena, there are definite limitations to the degree in which experimental meteorology may be employed in modifying clouds in the free atmosphere. Some of these apparent limitations may disappear as our knowledge increases, although most of the restrictions now recognized are imposed by known physical laws.


www.archive.org...



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 01:43 AM
link   

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by network dude
 





How does my understanding of contrails and science mean that I am gung-ho for the government?


Isn't a paid shill supposed to be that way?



This attempt to derail the thread with insults is low.

You are trying to have this thread shut down aren’t you?


Someone should report you.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 





No-one has ever denied that cloud seeding has been done now for over fifty years. It is not geo-engineering, and it is certainly not being done by commercial jet aircraft. So long as you are quoting an old study, you might want to read all of it:



I am so glad we are on the same page But just to be sure:
You agree we cloud seed
You agree that is weather modification
Wouldn’t you agree that weather modification maybe harmful to life of earth including vegetation and animal forms?
Wouldn’t you agree that enough has been documented (NASA alone) that proves the experiments
Missions
Projects
Operations have indeed been documented and archived.



So now we can stop with this silly Contrail/Chemtrail dog and pony show and get into the when, the where, the how, the who and why in regards to weather modification.

Not this silly all you’re seeing is contrails. That means you are saying cloud seeding is invisible and harmless, Totally harmless YES?



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:27 AM
link   

sunnynights
You agree we cloud seed


Yes


You agree that is weather modification


Yes, although whether it actually works is a moot point.


Wouldn’t you agree that weather modification maybe harmful to life of earth including vegetation and animal forms?


There's no evidence that it is and if there were then we'd find an alternative substance to use a cloud condensation nuclei



So now we can stop with this silly Contrail/Chemtrail dog and pony show and get into the when, the where, the how, the who and why in regards to weather modification.


Most US ski resorts, every winter, using cannons, to increase snowfall, by commercial US companies.




top topics



 
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join