Hurricane Sandy: Be Thankful

Mainstream · November 13, 2012, 11:48am

^

statiktech · November 13, 2012, 2:51pm

Yes—

phyllo · November 13, 2012, 4:30pm

That news story has been shown to be wrong:

A news station reported the results of tests on what they called chemtrails[when?]. “It seemed like some mornings it was just criss-crossing the whole sky. It was just like a giant checkerboard,” said Bill Nichols, who reportedly noticed the “unusual clouds” begin as normal contrails from a jet engine, but unlike normal contrails, he claims, do not fade away. He then noticed “it would drop to the ground in a haze”, the material collecting on the ground and in water he had sitting in bowls. KSLA News 12 sampled the water at a lab and initially reported a high level of barium, 6.8 parts per million, more than three times the toxic level set by the EPA. After contacting the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, the news station was told that these levels are very unusual, but proving the source “is a whole 'nother matter”. KSLA discovered during their investigation that barium is a hallmark of other chemtrail testing.[29] However the KSLA reporter had misread the reading, which was actually 68 parts per billion, well within expected ranges, and the station retracted the story.[30] The phenomenon attracted the attention of a Los Angeles network affiliate, which aired a similar investigation called “Toxic Sky?”[31] Following suit, Phoenix News Reporter Pat McReynolds at CBS KPHO interviewed Geoengineering[32] investigators and concluded that chemtrails do not exist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_ … chemtrails

csicop.org/si/show/curious_c … m_the_sky/

captaincrunk · November 13, 2012, 4:59pm

phyllo:

Mainstream:

This is the state of government investments in “chemtrails”

What?

If you have evidence of the deliberate spraying of toxic chemicals to harm the average citizen, please present it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiJ_R8JVpi4[/youtube]

That news story has been shown to be wrong:

A news station reported the results of tests on what they called chemtrails[when?]. “It seemed like some mornings it was just criss-crossing the whole sky. It was just like a giant checkerboard,” said Bill Nichols, who reportedly noticed the “unusual clouds” begin as normal contrails from a jet engine, but unlike normal contrails, he claims, do not fade away. He then noticed “it would drop to the ground in a haze”, the material collecting on the ground and in water he had sitting in bowls. KSLA News 12 sampled the water at a lab and initially reported a high level of barium, 6.8 parts per million, more than three times the toxic level set by the EPA. After contacting the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, the news station was told that these levels are very unusual, but proving the source “is a whole 'nother matter”. KSLA discovered during their investigation that barium is a hallmark of other chemtrail testing.[29] However the KSLA reporter had misread the reading, which was actually 68 parts per billion, well within expected ranges, and the station retracted the story.[30] The phenomenon attracted the attention of a Los Angeles network affiliate, which aired a similar investigation called “Toxic Sky?”[31] Following suit, Phoenix News Reporter Pat McReynolds at CBS KPHO interviewed Geoengineering[32] investigators and concluded that chemtrails do not exist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_ … chemtrails

Scary, isn’t it? Except that SI contributing editor David E. Thomas, a physicist, took a closer look at the TV report. As Thomas notes, “The actual video clearly shows 68.8 μg/L (micrograms per liter), or 68.8 ppb (parts per billion). . . . 68.8 millionths of a gram per liter corresponds to 68.8 parts per billion. . . . Ferrell overestimated the amount of barium in the test report by a factor of 100. . . . The test result was not ‘three times the toxic level set by the EPA’; it was around thirty times less than the EPA’s toxic limit.”

csicop.org/si/show/curious_c … m_the_sky/

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

C’mon Gobbo, whose on deck? Because you’re fried now. Lmao

phyllo · November 13, 2012, 6:35pm

Misidentifying aircraft components:[attachment=2]nozzle.JPG[/attachment]
The items identified in the video as spray nozzles are flap hinge fairings:
[attachment=1]kc-10under.JPG[/attachment]
[attachment=0]kc10flaps.jpg[/attachment]

Misunderstanding what is happening:
At about 2:10 in the video, they make a statement that gives a clue to what is going on:
“It’s like it’s spraying out of the top of his wings.”

Right. They are observing a condensation cloud forming on top of the wing.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az7pt58J1KE[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pifW34Rk7nE[/youtube]
You can google or youtube ‘wing condensation’ to see more examples.

statiktech · November 13, 2012, 7:20pm

Regarding persistence of contrails—

Regarding the mention of “chemtrails” in congressional bill—

http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/:

Kucinich, Chemtrails and HR 2977

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.”

The initial version of the act is the only one that makes mention of “exotic weapons systems”, listing several technologies that will be familiar to conspiracy theorists:

(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;
(ii) chemtrails;
(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;
(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;
(v) laser weapons systems;
(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and
(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.

Yes, it even includes “extraterrestrial weapons”, meaning weapons created by aliens (or created from alien technology from crashed flying saucers at Roswell), as well as psychotronic (mind control) weapons. Yet somehow “chemtrails” gets all the attention here.

[…]

Comment From Carol Rosin

Perhaps I can help correct some fuzzy information that is being spread about H.R.3616, the Space Preservation Act of 2002, and Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

This bill will only ban space-based weapons and the use of weapons to destroy or damage objects in space that are in orbit. It is NOT a bill to ban chemtrails and/or psychotronics or mind control devises or any specific weapons listed in the category of definitions in the original bill.

I’m not sure where that rumor started, but in any case, those definitional were only listed on the original bill for definitional purposes…to exemplify what space-based weapons might be deployed in space if the space-based weapons bill isn’t passed. Frequently bills are revised, and things like definitions are removed. No big deal. The legislation is in no way compromised. This Congressman and his legislation maintain their integrity and commitment to ban space-based weapons. It was never a bill to ban chemtrails or mind control technologies.

More HERE

Mainstream · November 13, 2012, 10:14pm

phyllo:

Mainstream:

This is the state of government investments in “chemtrails”

What?

If you have evidence of the deliberate spraying of toxic chemicals to harm the average citizen, please present it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiJ_R8JVpi4[/youtube]

That news story has been shown to be wrong:

A news station reported the results of tests on what they called chemtrails[when?]. “It seemed like some mornings it was just criss-crossing the whole sky. It was just like a giant checkerboard,” said Bill Nichols, who reportedly noticed the “unusual clouds” begin as normal contrails from a jet engine, but unlike normal contrails, he claims, do not fade away. He then noticed “it would drop to the ground in a haze”, the material collecting on the ground and in water he had sitting in bowls. KSLA News 12 sampled the water at a lab and initially reported a high level of barium, 6.8 parts per million, more than three times the toxic level set by the EPA. After contacting the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, the news station was told that these levels are very unusual, but proving the source “is a whole 'nother matter”. KSLA discovered during their investigation that barium is a hallmark of other chemtrail testing.[29] However the KSLA reporter had misread the reading, which was actually 68 parts per billion, well within expected ranges, and the station retracted the story.[30] The phenomenon attracted the attention of a Los Angeles network affiliate, which aired a similar investigation called “Toxic Sky?”[31] Following suit, Phoenix News Reporter Pat McReynolds at CBS KPHO interviewed Geoengineering[32] investigators and concluded that chemtrails do not exist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_ … chemtrails

Scary, isn’t it? Except that SI contributing editor David E. Thomas, a physicist, took a closer look at the TV report. As Thomas notes, “The actual video clearly shows 68.8 μg/L (micrograms per liter), or 68.8 ppb (parts per billion). . . . 68.8 millionths of a gram per liter corresponds to 68.8 parts per billion. . . . Ferrell overestimated the amount of barium in the test report by a factor of 100. . . . The test result was not ‘three times the toxic level set by the EPA’; it was around thirty times less than the EPA’s toxic limit.”

csicop.org/si/show/curious_c … m_the_sky/

So basically everything stands except that the levels of barium were different than than what the report initially said. I fail to see how that proves anything except that the initial report had a decimal mistake. I like that you guys are doing some research, though. This is good news.

This part is particularly good. Lol they just conclude it’s false.

Dan1 · November 13, 2012, 10:22pm

The amount of destructive power that the u.s. covert military guys have is so large by now it is crazy. I heard they are 50 years ahead of common techs, but I think that may be even more with what they salvaged from crashed alien crafts. If the whole earth explodes one day I won’t be surprised. I’ll be dead but unsurprised.

Mainstream · November 13, 2012, 10:29pm

OLD CODE: PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79] TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 1520 “CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM” “The use of human subjects will be allowed for the testing of chemical and biological agents by the U.S. Department of Defense, accounting to Congressional committees with respect to the experiments and studies.” “The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States].” -SOURCE- Public Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 91, page 334, you will find Public Law 95-79. Public Law 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1882. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 96, page 1882, you will find Public Law 97-375.

This was only repealed in 1997 . . .
Section 1520. Repealed. Pub. L. 105-85, Div. A, Title X, Sec. 1078(G), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1916, And Pub. L. 105-277, Div. I, Title Vi, Sec. 601, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-886 . . . "

Mainstream · November 13, 2012, 10:31pm

Mainstream · November 13, 2012, 10:33pm

captaincrunk · November 13, 2012, 10:35pm

Do you honestly think an alien species presumeably from outside our solar system took the massive effort to travel all the way to our star system, our planet, our atmosphere, just to crash so weakly that the technology survived? Do you also think we would even understand such technology? Because you know it wouldn’t be in working order when we got there, otherwise they would fly away again.

Mainstream · November 13, 2012, 10:36pm

I get the feeling you copypasted this from somewhere else. If you watched the entiee video you could see why this is all non-explanatory, but I doubt you watched the entire video.

statiktech · November 13, 2012, 11:05pm

So, just to clarify, you think:

Hurricane Sandy was a result of cloud seeding?
Cloud seeding has been “perfected”?
Cloud seeding leaves persistent trails?
Cloud seeding elevates barium, and other chemicals, to deleterious levels?
Orgone can somehow counteract cloud seeding?

Tralix · November 13, 2012, 11:10pm

Mainstream patents don’t have to be scientifically verified they just have to state what they are for so that if anyone else uses them they are said to have stolen your idea. In fact a large majority of patents contain totally untested ideas. It’s something you do when you think the idea might work, because if you don’t then Thomas Edison claims to have invented the light bulb and you lose out on the cash from your intellectual property if it turns out to be useful.

Patents are copyrights basically, they don’t actually have to work.

Mainstream · November 13, 2012, 11:20pm

Sure, sure, I’m just giving you the evidence you asked for.

I understand it will never be enough.

Tralix · November 13, 2012, 11:23pm

Well I think that is laudable, but likewise any evidence we give will never be enough also. All we can do is disagree on what any evidence means, and reading yours, the testing seems to be anything but conclusive, on things that have a positive effect let alone a negative which your evidence does not seem to be about.

Mainstream · November 14, 2012, 2:26am

Yes the main difference is that me and the rest of the conspiracy crew here think about all of this stuff in accordance with historical precdence, using common sense, and extrapolation from other topics.

You, CC, and the like basically treat this like as a thought experiment where the topic is analyzed in a vaccum and you ignore everything else. Which is weird. If it’s any other subject then you guys will bring in outside evidence, and… you know, basically think normally, but if it’s a conspiracy topic you allow it to stand on its own, presumably unconsciously because it’s easier to deal with it that way.

None of this can be properly discussed without a holistic understanding of the world. I think you guys know that at some level. That’s why my goal is to promote research instead of just provide answers. It’s not really about the ‘evidence’ in the manner you are desribing. I don’t know why you cannot see it’s patently absurd to expect testimony saying 'Yeah, this is for sure 100% what we’re doing, and we’re telling you." Or some report that is just going to explain in perfect detail the stuff that is clearly a secret.

You will simply never see evidence like that, and again, I think that you all know that at some level as well. The reason you continue to ask is because you want to “win” this argument - which is understandable, given human psychology - but I hope you can see I’m far, far past caring about whether I am ‘victorious’ with these conversations.

phyllo · November 14, 2012, 3:27am

The report was based on the wrong reading of test results. What else is there?

phyllo · November 14, 2012, 3:35am

I put it together myself. Wing condensation seems to be what is coming off that tanker. The visuals and the description is constant with that explanation.

I watched all the videos. What do you think I missed?