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

reply to post by Witness2008


I was basically blown away by the video because she makes an undeniable case for a weapon other than nano explosives. Because so little is known about substances manipulated at the nano-scale there is a lot of room left for thinking along the lines of we just don't really know what result some of these materials might bring. And from what I've read about directed energy weapons, particle beams are not ruled out. So there may be a happy marriage yet of these two items.

Cold fusion has an interesting short history. In the video, one of the team from cold fusion said something about being able to produce it 2 or so out of 5 tries. Here's a short definition of cold fusion although it leaves out the most interesting fact which is that for some reason our governments in their stranglehold on the scientific community and even sections of the 9/11 truth movement want this process to remain mythical.

cold fusion

cold fusion is a hypothetical process in which hydrogen fusion supposedly occurs at room temperature. The topic is controversial, because the notion appears to defy the laws of physics. Some scientists believe that cold fusion represents a real phenomenon and that it will someday form the basis for an abundant, cheap source of energy. Others maintain that cold fusion, like perpetual motion, is impossible.

In 1989, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann of the University of Utah claimed to have produced hydrogen fusion in a controlled experiment at room temperature. The news created a stir among scientists, engineers, government agencies, and the public. It also caused a controversy among physicists that has been going on ever since.

Pretty soon we may be seeing forums for Chemtrails and Weaponry, Chemtrails and Survival, Chemtrails and Monsanto.

I'll add to that: chemtrails and HAARP and a submissive populace. Recently read an article on the strange drop in U.S. homicides. It talks about an all-time high for the U.S. reached in the early 1990's and then a fall off a cliff - 40% drop by the early 2000's. The author of the article leans toward attributing this 40% decline to the banning of lead but for me it falls right into the chemtrail/HAARP timeline and the jury is still out on what might have caused this. Here's the article:

Growing body of evidence connects lead's deleterious effects to criminal behavior

reply to post by Witness2008


The other thing that really caught my attention in that video was Hurricane Erin and how it just fizzled out. We just went through a totally fizzled hurricane season. And yet it was predicted, on all fronts, to be above-normal. I think meteorologists are still scratching their heads, trying to understand what happened.

The OP article by James Fleming, weather modification historian, touches on some early thoughts relating to steering hurricanes. In the video, windshear is mentioned as the reason that Hurricane Erin went nowhere.

The last articles on hurricane mitigation that I could find date from 2007 or so. There doesn't seem to be much after that. There are also substantial legal reasons for hurricane mitigation technology, if it exists in any useful form, to go underground and become highly classified.

Scientists a step closer to steering hurricanes

Under one scheme, aircraft would drop soot into the near-freezing cloud at the top of a hurricane, causing it to warm up and so reduce wind speeds. Computer simulations of the forces at work in the most violent storms have shown that even small changes can affect their paths – enabling them to be diverted from major cities.

But the hurricane modifiers are fighting more than the weather. Lawyers warn that diverting a hurricane from one city to save life and property could result in multi-billion dollar lawsuits from towns that bear the brunt instead.

On a plus side for corporate mind-sets, modifying the hurricane could be done with waste products:

Moshe Alamaro, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), told The Sunday Telegraph of his plans to "paint" the tops of hurricanes black by scattering carbon particles – either soot or black particles from the manufacture of tyres – from aircraft flying above the storms. The particles would absorb heat from the sun, leading to changes in the airflows within the storm. Satellites could also heat the cloud tops by beaming microwaves from space. "If they're done in the right place at the right time they can affect the strength of the hurricane," Mr Alamaro said.

Last month scientists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem announced that they had simulated the effect of sowing clouds with microscopic dust to cool the hurricane's base, also weakening it. The dust would attract water but would form droplets too small to fall as rain. Instead, they would rise and evaporate, cooling hot air at the hurricane base.

On the down side: soot has to be dropped into a pristine environment at 50,000 feet.

Fleet of transport aircraft flying at 50,000ft drop soot in the path of and at targeted areas of the hurricane.

reply to post by luxordelphi


So you're going with 'chemtrails control hurricanes,' not 'chemtrails are chemical/biological agents?'

luxordelphi
reply to post by Witness2008

 

The other thing that really caught my attention in that video was Hurricane Erin and how it just fizzled out.

Possibly because Tropical Storm Erin wasn't actually a hurricane.

We just went through a totally fizzled hurricane season. And yet it was predicted, on all fronts, to be above-normal. I think meteorologists are still scratching their heads, trying to understand what happened.

nope - they think they know -

Dr. Jeff Masters of Weather Underground noted that unusually dry air from the Sahara and northeastern Brazil was enough to offset the otherwise favorable conditions for tropical cyclogenesis.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


The names of hurricanes get used over again. The link on Erin that you put up was about an Erin from 2013. The Erin that has been discussed in this thread is the one from the 2001 to 2002 Atlantic hurricane season. It was brought up because it was somehow left out of the news back then.

2001 Atlantic hurricane season/Hurricane Erin

Hurricane Erin developed from a tropical wave on September 1, and strengthened to a 60 mph (95 km/h) tropical storm as it moved to the west-northwest. After weakening due to wind shear, the remnants re-organized into a tropical depression the next day, and Erin strengthened into a hurricane on September 9 while moving northwestward. The hurricane quickly intensified and reached peak winds of 120 mph (195 km/h) later on September 9. A trough turned Erin to the northeast, and after passing just east of Cape Race, Newfoundland it became extratropical on September 15.

I think people are still speculating about what happened with the 2013 to 2014 Atlantic hurricane season.

Atlantic hurricane season fizzles out

NOAA attributed the fewer hurricanes in large part to “persistent, unfavourable atmospheric conditions over the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, and tropical Atlantic Ocean."

“This unexpectedly low activity is linked to an unpredictable atmospheric pattern that prevented the growth of storms by producing exceptionally dry, sinking air and strong vertical wind shear in much of the main hurricane formation region, which spans the tropical Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea. Also detrimental to some tropical cyclones this year were several strong outbreaks of dry and stable air that originated over Africa,” Bell said.

When words like unexpected and unpredictable are used it means that there are some unknowns here. The mechanics are being speculated on but the why behind them remains mysterious.

reply to post by luxordelphi

It was brought up because it was somehow left out of the news back then.

It didn't seem to pose a danger if it made landfall. Perhaps there were other things going on in September, 2001 that the media thought were more newsworthy.

DJW001
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

So you're going with 'chemtrails control hurricanes,' not 'chemtrails are chemical/biological agents?'

I've given way more thought to your question than I should have and even so the only way to really answer remains no and no. Perhaps it was just rhetorical? Kind of a dig?

DJW001
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

It was brought up because it was somehow left out of the news back then.

It didn't seem to pose a danger if it made landfall. Perhaps there were other things going on in September, 2001 that the media thought were more newsworthy.

The wiki article says that it was heading northwest on Sept. 9 BUT I have not looked at news articles from that date so don't know if it got mention then or not. It doesn't say when exactly it turned east but it does mention that it moved along the coast.

reply to post by luxordelphi


It doesn't seem to me that it was ever really a threat.

On 10 September, Erin began to weaken, however the weakening was slower than usual over the ensuing days, due in part to slightly warmer than normal waters over the western subtropical Atlantic. A series of short-wave troughs weakened the western portion of the Atlantic subtropical ridge. This caused the motion of the hurricane to turn toward the right, with a decrease in forward speed, on the 11th. Erin's heading veered toward the east-northeast and east on the 12th.

Much more at www.nhc.noaa.gov...

Scroll down to fig.1 near the bottom to see the track.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Interesting track. Seems like almost every site on the internet about this hurricane shows a different track as well as different satellite images. IMO, I think this hurricane was supremely important. Why remains to be fished out. It was allegedly the most studied hurricane in history to that point and surprise of surprises, on Sept. 10, 2001 there was a rather extensive mission to measure it and drop sondes.

pesn.com...

(Unable to attach link so go to this link above and then link to Mission Summary at the bottom.)

Name of link: Mission Summary/Hurricane Erin/20010910H/Aircraft:N43RF

luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

The names of hurricanes get used over again. The link on Erin that you put up was about an Erin from 2013. The Erin that has been discussed in this thread is the one from the 2001 to 2002 Atlantic hurricane season. It was brought up because it was somehow left out of the news back then.

Indeed I was talking about the 2013 one because you had mentioned that the 2013 season had "fizzled"

And I have seen the various theories linking the 2001 Erin to 9/11, etc......but given that on 9/11 it was actually closer to Bermuda than NY (ref the timeline on its wiki page) it's a pretty simple matter to roll ones eyes and wonder what those folk are smoking.

the actual distance from ConUSA may also be part of the reason why no-one was reporting much about it in the news - it seems it was a relatively small hurricane, and even at it's closes approach to mainland north America off Nova Scotia the cloud barely covered any land at all - eg see wiki photo

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Given that 3 planes were scrambled on Sept. 10, 2001 to go out and deal with this 'insignificant' category 3, I'm going to have to differ with you. There's surely some reason for all that activity.

HRD scheduled a synoptic surveillance mission into Hurricane Erin with N42RF and the NASA DC-8 and ER-2 aircraft for 10 September 2001.

reply to post by luxordelphi


They surveil hurricanes - that's not "dealing with" it - that's LOOKING AT IT.

Mission report

It is called the Hurricane RESEARCH division after all.........so.......you'd therefore expect them to .......go do some.....research??

Here's the full plan of flights from 2001 - back up a page and you can get the plans for every year back to 1997......

reply to post by luxordelphi


Perhaps you have already seen the latest from Geoengineering Watch, posting just in case you haven't.

www.youtube.com...

I'm watching it now, incredible.

reply to post by Witness2008


Thank you for putting that up!! Was actually watching it in another thread and had to pause after 30 minutes and then couldn't find it again! Has some great stuff in it right from the horses at HAARP.

luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Given that 3 planes were scrambled on Sept. 10, 2001 to go out and deal with this 'insignificant' category 3, I'm going to have to differ with you. There's surely some reason for all that activity.

HRD scheduled a synoptic surveillance mission into Hurricane Erin with N42RF and the NASA DC-8 and ER-2 aircraft for 10 September 2001.

You don't schedule a scramble. It's a contradiction in terms. Your quote clearly reports a scheduled surveillance flight, not a scramble to deal with anything.

Have you never watched the movie "Battle of Britain"? That's what a scramble looks like

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


There's just something about 2001 Hurricane Erin...

So here's what happened (based on my cursory readings of links that follow): NOAA and NASA decide that it's time to look deeper and more intensively inside of hurricanes. They decide this, based on the timeline in your link, on August 15, 2001. They take a dry run out to Tropical Storm Chantal on August 20. Then they decide to tackle their first hurricane and just happen to pick Hurricane Erin and just happen to commence on Sept. 10, 2001.

What's happening with Erin immediately before and during this mission? Erin is strengthening. From Sept. 9 to Sept. 10 it gets stronger. 3 NOAA satellites and 3 NASA satellites track it to the tune of over 100 observations per day.

Then on Sept. 10, 2001, the CAMEX-4 mission with 3 aircraft go in. Immediately the storm starts weakening. It weakens considerably between two of the eye penetrations that one of the aircraft make. Even the very first eye penetration showed the hurricane already beginning to weaken.

One of the scientists, at some point in the mission, observes how extremely dirty the eye is. He bases this on measurements and on a comparison with other hurricanes where cloud condensation nuclei were also measured. African dusts (from when Erin was an infant wind) and urban pollutions are put forward as source speculations.

Shear gets mention too...but, basically, just to say that there was too little to affect intensity and yet, "remarkably", it did.

NOAA Hurricane Research

NOAA Hurricane Research 2

Mission Summary

Factors Affecting the Evolution of Hurricane Erin (2001)...

Warm Core Structure of Hurricane Erin Diagnosed from High Altitude Dropsondes during CAMEX-4

A Multi-Platform View of Hurricane Erin

My thoughts here go back to an earlier post I put up on hurricane mitigation and the status of the art in 2006 or 2007 or so and I'm wondering what that would look like, in practice, and how a hurricane would behave if someone came along and dumped a bunch of soot into it (onto it?).

(P.S. Gaul: thank you for the Mission Summary usable link - my computing skills are truly awful.)

waynos

luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Given that 3 planes were scrambled on Sept. 10, 2001 to go out and deal with this 'insignificant' category 3, I'm going to have to differ with you. There's surely some reason for all that activity.

HRD scheduled a synoptic surveillance mission into Hurricane Erin with N42RF and the NASA DC-8 and ER-2 aircraft for 10 September 2001.

You don't schedule a scramble. It's a contradiction in terms. Your quote clearly reports a scheduled surveillance flight, not a scramble to deal with anything.

Have you never watched the movie "Battle of Britain"? That's what a scramble looks like

edit on 13-2-2014 by waynos because: (no reason given)

It was/is poetic license or conspiracy forum posting license because there is no evidence to support a schedule that I have found yet. I will read it more carefully to see if a date that it was scheduled is given. I am still wrestling with the data that seems to tell me it took 4 hours for the mission to reach the hurricane eye.

Haven't ever watched "Battle of Britain." Is it a good one?

luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

There's just something about 2001 Hurricane Erin...

So here's what happened (based on my cursory readings of links that follow): NOAA and NASA decide that it's time to look deeper and more intensively inside of hurricanes. They decide this, based on the timeline in your link, on August 15, 2001.

Did you miss the bit about the missions going back to 1997 that are also on the web site??

They take a dry run out to Tropical Storm Chantal on August 20.

You seem to have missed the missions to TS Barry on 4/5 Aug and the surveillance of Chantel on 19 August - why be so selective??

Then they decide to tackle their first hurricane and just happen to pick Hurricane Erin and just happen to commence on Sept. 10, 2001.

Given Erin was the FIRST hurricane of that season it seems fairly reasonable to me that it would also be the first of that season that they "happen to pick"...

Yes...I can see how the coincidences are weighing on your mind........