Svartbjørn
Senior Member.
Your honor, the prosecution rests.
Alex Jones Video: Government Weather Manipulation Exposed
- Thread starter David
- Start date
Your honor, the prosecution rests.
occams rusty scissor
Senior Member.
I think so too. I think perhaps it's started as a result of him being a true believer then realising he could be a CT as well as turn it into coin. He does get pretty fired up/passionate about many things. A belief/hobby turned into a niche market due to supply and demand surrounding the paranoid/prepper phenomenon?
Gunguy45
Active Member
No he doesn't...all he has to be is a money grubber.
Jason
Senior Member
I agree, it seems like his foundational beliefs are in the NWO stuff.
Elfenlied
Member
Jet engines reach temperatures of over 1600°C, but Al2O3 is one of the main materials used for refractories because of its high melting point (2,072°C). Then again, it may depend on the particle size, melting point depression becomes prominent at atomic scales, say below 50 nm. Even if it doesn't melt, a constant grinding or polishing of your engine is probably not a good thing...
occams rusty scissor
Senior Member.
Interesting - the very "mainstream media" which he criticizes as untrustworthy and controlled by "Them" is now being used as evidence? So which is it, untrustworthy and biased? Or a potential source of truth?
Surely radioactive isotopes added to fuel are going to leave planes irradiated and far too dangerous to approach, let alone work on and travel in. Something tells me that a group of mechanics working on a plane contaminated with ionizing radiation might notice something is strange when they all start glowing in the dark and dropping dead with severe burns.
Svartbjørn
Senior Member.
Whatever he needs it to be at the moment.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Jet engines reach temperatures of over 1600°C, but Al2O3 is one of the main materials used for refractories because of its high melting point (2,072°C). Then again, it may depend on the particle size, melting point depression becomes prominent at atomic scales, say below 50 nm. Even if it doesn't melt, a constant grinding or polishing of your engine is probably not a good thing...
POINT is....any contamination in the fuel WILL result in engine destruction, very rapidly.
Please do some on-line research on this subject.
KAT
Active Member
That PROVES how long it's been going on, n'est ce pas?
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Efftup
Senior Member.
It's fantastic that a CFR document from 2008 talking about POSSIBLE stuff that COULD be done in the future, while warning of potential dangers, will then be used in conjunction with a patent that is CLEARLY nothing to do with Geo -engineering to be used as PROOF that Geo engineering has been going on since the 70's or 90's or whenever they need to say it started in the first place.
for the Chemtrail hoax to continue to exist, it NEEDS people who WANT to believe in this kind of thing who will then ignore that they continue using all the obviously debunked stuff which is good for hooking people on the subject, in their main pages etc, only to then revise timelines etc to accommodate evidence which proves THEIR official story WRONG.
for the Chemtrail hoax to continue to exist, it NEEDS people who WANT to believe in this kind of thing who will then ignore that they continue using all the obviously debunked stuff which is good for hooking people on the subject, in their main pages etc, only to then revise timelines etc to accommodate evidence which proves THEIR official story WRONG.
Sure, perhaps he can't prove what he says. That's not surprising given that the gov't has stolen more than 5100 of the best patents (unless you want to say that the gov't steals only the worst ones) submitted by members of the u.s. public in the name of nat'l security. So if they've grabbed them for nat'l security, how can you debunkers here state your "facts" which are necessarily ignorant of what the gov't has done and is doing with all of their stolen technology which since they stole it for nat'l security, what they do with it will necessarily be top secret?
You're all just saying that based on what you don't know that certain things are impossible. Sure, that may be true, but then what you're doing here is not at all interesting. Why wouldn't the 5100 best patents of the last decades be able to change the face of what is possible? All you guys can "prove" here is that no "known" technology can explain the things that you may be misunderstanding.
Pete Tar
Senior Member
If you have some evidence to offer that we are misunderstanding something then please provide it, otherwise this isn't a site for speculation on what might be happening where no one can see or prove anything. That may not be 'interesting' to you but that's not really our goal. Alex Jones however is definitely in the business of being 'interesting', but that doesn't mean 'true'.
Where does the 5100 seized patents come from and is there any credible evidence for that?
you'll tell me if you think "wired" is credible: http://www.wired.com/2013/04/gov-secrecy-orders-on-patents/
and so your site is dedicated to proving that certain difficult to explain things can't be done as long as nobody has access to any technology that you don't know about. Kind of reduces my interest in your site. I think I prefer the Sherlock Holmes method, eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, no matter how improbable is the truth. Your method seems to be to eliminate the improbable to make way for the impossible. Why can't a model be made of a wtc tower that would collapse in the same way at the temperatures plausible in an office fire lasting about one hour? Because fire didn't make those buildings fall perhaps?
Svartbjørn
Senior Member.
Patents are nothing more than ideas that are recorded so that IF they DO become reality the person that came up with the idea makes money or to prove that a person or company came up with an idea and it prevents someone else from 'stealing' the idea and making money on it. There are literally MILLIONS of patents in existence.. there have been a few failed patents posted here as examples of evidence that just because a patent exists that the invention the patent covers doesnt always exist as well.
Furthermore if these patents you're referring to WERE being used for some clandestine government based/sponsored weather control/mind control/population control etc.. dont you think the government would pull the patents from the patent office so that nosey people like Alex Jones (since the government's out to get him ANY way for exposing their lies and all) couldnt find them and prove their existence? Keep in mind.. all of this is being done right under our noses.. we're all just blind sheep that are buying into the government propaganda and Mr Jones and his friends are the ones that are truly awake and warning us etc... and since there ARE people out there who are immune to the propaganda lie machine (like Mr Jones for example) that every government in the world is a part of, and that they're all secretly co-operating behind our backs (including such amazing allies like Iran, China, and North Korea), wouldnt it make sense that these same governments would go to EXTREME measures to make sure they couldnt get caught or exposed by people who are immune to their lies? Like removing the patents so they cant be searched?
Anyone can go to the US Patent Office and do a patent search.. anyone. If you dont have a computer or a phone that can do it on the internet, you're welcome to walk into the office itself and do a search there physically. Hell you can even file an FOIA request... They're ALL public record. Public being the key word.
This is why, as Pete mentioned above, we look at evidence.. not supposition. Trying to prove a what-if statement is true is like trying to prove that the taste of the color 7 is nothing like the smell of the letter blue. You can what-if any topic to death and it doesnt prove or disprove anything. Evidence, on the other hand.. ACTUAL evidence... physical evidence for example, that DOES show that this is going on will further the case.
Evidence is something that can be tested and the experiment can be reproduced again and again and again with the results being identical or nearly identical (within a certain margin for error). Thats something Mr Jones lacks in every single one of his presentations. He provides a scenario and then cherry picks bits and pieces of nonsensical (and usually unrelated ) junk he runs across so that he can sell his products based purely on the fear he creates himself and never provides any ACTUAL evidence for any of his claims.. just massive leaps in fallible and disprovable logic that -sound- reasonable, but fall apart once you actually scratch the venire off the surface.
Last edited:
LouV
Member
Sorry, but the Sherlock Holmes method isn't that great.
More here : http://debunkingdenialism.com/2014/09/13/incinerating-the-sherlock-holmes-gambitExternal Quote:
To add to what Svartbjørn said : I don't see what your story about seized patents have to do with what was discussed. Jones et al. use publicly available patents to argue their position, the posters here react to this.
NoParty
Senior Member.
Like some others, I did a double-take at this sentence, and then wondered why you initially offered no evidence.
Now that the short Wired article is linked, I have some idea of what you're trying to say, but I'm still not clear:
None of the examples in the article refer to patents being "stolen," in any sense that the word is normally used.
Can you reconcile your use of "stolen" with the actual patents discussed? Are you just using the word in a new way?
And I'm pretty sure you don't mean to imply that the reason Alex can't substantiate even 15% of his claims
is because the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's lack of transparency...so what are you saying?
Lastly, I'm willing to bet that lots and lots of folks find Alex and other entertainers like him more "interesting"
than people calmly, politely discussing the properties of water vapor or the effects of fire on a building's steel frame.
That's probably why Infowars is ranked 1,281 (U.S.) on Alexa and Metabunk is a less glitzy 27,955. To each his own.
For what it's worth, at number 2,995, TaylorSwift.com is much closer to Infowars-level "interesting," than Metabunk.
I hope you find something that holds your interest in the unfortunate event that we prove unable...
A little suspicious that Alex does so
well on Alexa...and they are almost
the same word...I'd like to ask Alex
to look into this suspicious situation
Last edited:
Hama Neggs
Senior Member
Are you talking about geoengineering? I don't remember anyone here saying that sort of technology doesn't exist. I suppose you are trying to say that what looks like normal contrails could STILL be geoengineering via some unknown technology. That's a heck of a reach. Seems like you are using the "Anything is possible" argument. Not very convincing.
Pete Tar
Senior Member
Specifically, what possibilities have you eliminated from this subject that leave you to think the improbable is the only solution?
Wrong thread.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/us...models-for-investigating-9-11-collapses.3828/
Well that's all very interesting, but doesn't particularly change anything about the arguments used in this thread.
Last edited:
occams rusty scissor
Senior Member.
And therein lies the problem. You might have also finished this sentence with "..nor does he work with facts, and prefers hyperbole to common sense, uses tangential arguments and is not shy when it comes to peddling hysteria."
Would you also believe him if he said that there really is a Santa Claus, and the government imprisoned him in Guantanamo Bay "because Conspiracy!"? That's an extreme point, I know, but if he wants to be seen as an independent news source, then some credibility might help his cause. And his credibility is still pending...
So is it interesting tales or truth that you want?
Hevach
Senior Member.
The Holmes method only works if you can eliminate every impossibility until only one possibility remains. If you approach a problem honestly, that is a nearly impossible accomplishment - even listing every possibility is incredibly daunting. In practice it will only get you half way. You need Occam's Razor to finish the job.
Arthur Conan Doyle did not approach problems honestly - the reader was not privy to all the information Holmes collected or his thought processes, events were seen through the eyes of the hopelessly inferior Watson, who misses key clues and makes incorrect assumptions, and Holmes and his method exist as a deus ex machina to resolve the problem using facts unknown to Watson and thus the reader.
This is the same pattern you see from Infowars - the reader is given to accept the conclusion of a train of thought they are not invited to ride, and expected to trust that indeed all infinite impossibilities are accounted for.
If somebody cites the Holmes method for a conclusion, you should always be skeptical. At best, they have played with an incomplete deck - eliminated all but one from an incomplete list of possibilities. At worst (and unfortunately most likely), they have committed the same sin Arthur Conan Doyle did in so many stories, and simply crafted a path of data leading to a desired conclusion, giving the reader insufficient information to reach any conclusion on their own and asserting the infallibility of their own.
Arthur Conan Doyle did not approach problems honestly - the reader was not privy to all the information Holmes collected or his thought processes, events were seen through the eyes of the hopelessly inferior Watson, who misses key clues and makes incorrect assumptions, and Holmes and his method exist as a deus ex machina to resolve the problem using facts unknown to Watson and thus the reader.
This is the same pattern you see from Infowars - the reader is given to accept the conclusion of a train of thought they are not invited to ride, and expected to trust that indeed all infinite impossibilities are accounted for.
If somebody cites the Holmes method for a conclusion, you should always be skeptical. At best, they have played with an incomplete deck - eliminated all but one from an incomplete list of possibilities. At worst (and unfortunately most likely), they have committed the same sin Arthur Conan Doyle did in so many stories, and simply crafted a path of data leading to a desired conclusion, giving the reader insufficient information to reach any conclusion on their own and asserting the infallibility of their own.
Saying "he sells stuff" does not discredit someone. CNN sells ads and has major sponsors too. I think AJ has just used the common model to pay for his operation and for some reason people think it is worth attacking. It is a red herring.
Much of this thread was spent on contrails by some people who obviously love to talk about them. But in this video he discusses not contrails but rather geo-engineering and weather modification and says it is bad and being done by bad people. In this thread I've only seen people throw out geo-engineering and weather modification as if it is perfectly acceptable. It seems it is just down to different foundational beliefs re: government and large corporately funded foundations messing messing with the sky.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
OK...BACK to the topic of Alex Jones.
He "says" all of those things you cited (and more), but....HAS NO PROOF! Only the typical un-scientific and easily refuted reality of NORMAL contrails that have, actually, a very, very, very minimal effect on the overall Global climate.
Jones wants "ratings". Full Stop.
See, here is the meat of the CONSPIRACY. No-one here has any PROOF that allowing governments or privately funded foundations to modify the weather or the climate is good. It is simply thrown out as something that is happening as if to imply it is OK. AJ's position is that it is not OK. There is legitimate grounding in this position, i.e. we don't know what the heck we are doing, and the globe got along really well without us messing with the sky. So let's not allow government and corporations modify it under a cloak of secrecy.
Here you are back on the script of talking about contrails. There is a complete forum already dedicated to contrails that has over thirty thousand posts. Let's leave the contrail posts in there and stick to the topic of this thread, namely the exposing of government weather manipulation and geo-engineering, which AJ is in my opinion doing a decent job on.
@WeedWhacker, is it your position that the government is not engaged in geo-engineering and weather modification? I'd like to be clear on this. AJ is saying they are. You are saying he has no PROOF that they are. But what is your own position? Do you disagree with his assertion or are you merely quibbling?
Last edited:
Efftup
Senior Member.
There are many geo-engineering proposals. The ONLY ONE that the likes of Alex Jones put out is chemtrails. People who believe in chemtrails are now equating it to Geo Engineering because they still want to believe that chemtrails are real and this is something that actually HAS been proposed (well sort of, actually much higher in the sky than flown by the commercial aircraft that make nearly all the contrails we do see)
They NEVER talk about ANY of the other proposed schemes:
THIS is the reason that people have gone on about contrails on this thread. The reason being that for the CT promoters, Geo engineering and weather control are the new words for chemtrails cos chemtrails is now a dirty word.
The only other weather control type thing that the CT promoters is going on is more bunk about HAARP.
SO, I for one, am stating quite categorically that I DO NOT BELIEVE that anyone is currently attempting to geo-engineer the planet, covertly or otherwise.
The promoters of the idea are talking about this as possibly necessary because we didn't reduce our greenhouse gasses like we should have done. But they are very concerned about the possible side effects and long term consequences to the planet and so they would like to see research, transparency and international co-operation to make sure it;s the right thing BEFORE we do anything.
The thing is , of course, if we couldn't co-operate to reduce greenhouse gasses, how the hell anyone seriously thinks we could co-operate on geo-engineering proposals I don't know.
They NEVER talk about ANY of the other proposed schemes:
THIS is the reason that people have gone on about contrails on this thread. The reason being that for the CT promoters, Geo engineering and weather control are the new words for chemtrails cos chemtrails is now a dirty word.
The only other weather control type thing that the CT promoters is going on is more bunk about HAARP.
SO, I for one, am stating quite categorically that I DO NOT BELIEVE that anyone is currently attempting to geo-engineer the planet, covertly or otherwise.
The promoters of the idea are talking about this as possibly necessary because we didn't reduce our greenhouse gasses like we should have done. But they are very concerned about the possible side effects and long term consequences to the planet and so they would like to see research, transparency and international co-operation to make sure it;s the right thing BEFORE we do anything.
The thing is , of course, if we couldn't co-operate to reduce greenhouse gasses, how the hell anyone seriously thinks we could co-operate on geo-engineering proposals I don't know.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Yes...which is the "point"!
Look...it's very simple to understand: ANY sort of "global" effort to 'modify' weather (AND, we should stop here to define the difference between the term "weather" and "climate"...TWO very different definitions)..."weather" is localized, and usually transitory. "Climate" is long-term, and can traverse years, or even centuries...or even millenia.
BACK to my "point" above?
"IN ORDER" for a sort of "Global Conspiracy" that involves so-called "climate-change" to happen?? Would require a HUGE International
"conspiracy"....and, well....who has seen this?
What I am trying to point out is that the "chemtrail" so-called "conspiracy" is nonsense because....this phenomenon (which are just normal contrails) continues to be reported ALL over the globe.
Yet? EVERY aviation jurisdiction, around the Globe, have SPECIFIC rules and regulations....meaning?
Jets cannot just fly "willy-nilly" anywhere that they want to!!! This is NOT how modern aviation works.
Last edited:
Back on contrails again! Put that with the other 30,600 posts on chemtrails/contrails @WeedWhacker. It is a distraction.
So were you just quibbling? Or is your position that government is not involved in geo-engineering and weather modification? Not meaning to sound rude, I'm just trying to stay on topic.
So were you just quibbling? Or is your position that government is not involved in geo-engineering and weather modification? Not meaning to sound rude, I'm just trying to stay on topic.
Cairenn
Senior Member
There is NO evidence that the government is involved in either at this time. The knowledge to effect the weather, other than some cloud seeding, is not available. If you study what is being learned about the weather, you would understand that much of it develops IN the oceans and their currents. The atmosphere reflects what happens in the oceans. Last week's cold snap in much of America, came from a Pacific typhoon hitting Alaska.
The weather is like a pool table, where every ball has a different weight, surface and size and where they can change while they roll.
The weather is like a pool table, where every ball has a different weight, surface and size and where they can change while they roll.
cloudspotter
Senior Member.
I think you need to be more specific. As Efftup points out there are a number of different geoengineering methods, and as weedwhacker points out weather modification is not geoengineering. In fact weather modification has been carried out for decades and has never been a secret.
Svartbjørn
Senior Member.
CNN doesn't peddle their own brand of antichemtrail pills or gas masks or anti DNA gathering phone guards either. They sell their commercial air time. That's the difference...and as was mentioned chemtrails were brought up because it IS part of Jones' geoengineering narrative.. Just not in THIS particular vid. I have no issue with the man making money... I have issue with the man perpetuating hoaxes to make money by scaring ppl into buying his products.
Last edited:
scombrid
Senior Member.
Can you quote and link to the posts in which people state that geoengineering and /or weather modification by any entity is good?
Please quote and link the posts in which this occurs, the something being geoclimateengineering.
You can't divorce contrails from a geoengineering/weather mod thread when the people that promote the geoengineering/weathermod conspiracy theories conflate persistent contrails with things like deliberate solar radiation management. Alex Jones does exactly that.
External Quote:
He isn't exposing anything when he claims that ground based radio transmitter/recievers are controlling the weather and fails to prove the extraordinary claim.
e.g.
Tall claim counter to what 100% of meteorologists both public and private will tell you.External Quote:
Unless you give us the documents we are going to assume that you are lying since your claim runs counter to 100% of qualified subject area experts.External Quote:
@scombrid, you just set up a Straw Man and knocked it down. You cite this radio stuff which presumably is either classified or BS at 8:15, but fail to refer to a very specific claim that AJ makes immediately before that where he specifically distances himself from the notion that all contrails are chemtrails:
But to specifically address how "chemtrails" factor into the discussion, there are serious sources discussing the use of chemicals to effect geo-engineering. And they are summarized by AJ and not referenced by any of you except @Efftup a few posts up, who at least broadly referenced geo-engineering with that picture, but who still implies that it is normal and harmless, which is NOT PROVEN. Anyhow, here are about half of the "all of this" papers that he was referencing:
Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy - Congressional Research Service Report for Congress - refers to aerosolized injection of H2S.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee - The Regulation of Geoengineering - AJ specifically refers to page 62- Oral evidence Taken before the Science and Technology Committee (Science and Technology Sub-Committee)on Wednesday 13 January 2010
Unilateral Geoengineering - Non-technical Briefing Notes for a Workshop At the Council on Foreign Relations
Washington DC, May 05, 2008 - refers to stratospheric injection of "aerosolized...sulfur dioxide, aluminum
oxide dust or even designer self-levitating aerosols that might be engineered to migrate to particular regions..."
Indirect and Semi-Direct Aerosol Campaign (ISDAC) - A proposal to deploy an intensive cloud and aerosol observing system ... to test our understanding of droplet nucleation, crystal nucleation and ice multiplication mechanisms both through analysis of the aerosol, liquid and ice measurements to be collected and by evaluating the ability of cloud models to simulate differences between the clouds during the two seasons.
Stratospheric Injection of Reflective Aerosols or Particles by Means of Aviation Fuel Additives. - A Harvard abstract of a paper discussing using stratospheric aerosols or particles to simulate the observed cooling effect of major volcanic eruptions. The chemicals discussed are dimethyl sulphide to produce sulphur dioxide and tetra ethyl silicate to produce silica particles via the combustion process in a jet engine.
He makes the point immediately after showing all of these sources that he correctly told everyone what the NSA was doing back in 1996, and which was subsequently born out by Edward Snowden. So presumably this is meant to imply that the radio tower stuff is currently classified. I don't know about all of that...but I do know that he did indeed tell everyone what the NSA was doing back in 1996, to be dismissed by people like all of you here because he didn't have proof. He was made fun of A LOT for his NSA rants. How long has Metabunk been around? Maybe some of you were making fun of him for not having proof back then. Any long term debunkers who wholeheartedly trust in government here that made fun of AJ in the 1990's for telling people that the NSA was listening to every one of their phone calls? The accompanying text at the time would have been an appeal to "authority" very similar to this: "No...the NSA is on record saying they do not listen to our phone calls. (link to NSA). Case closed." hehehe
I note that you also refer again to contrails, which belong in their own 30,600 post forum on Metabunk and not here. It seems to be a very serious pet topic for many of you here, and is a huge waste of your time in my opinion.External Quote:
But to specifically address how "chemtrails" factor into the discussion, there are serious sources discussing the use of chemicals to effect geo-engineering. And they are summarized by AJ and not referenced by any of you except @Efftup a few posts up, who at least broadly referenced geo-engineering with that picture, but who still implies that it is normal and harmless, which is NOT PROVEN. Anyhow, here are about half of the "all of this" papers that he was referencing:
Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy - Congressional Research Service Report for Congress - refers to aerosolized injection of H2S.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee - The Regulation of Geoengineering - AJ specifically refers to page 62- Oral evidence Taken before the Science and Technology Committee (Science and Technology Sub-Committee)on Wednesday 13 January 2010
Unilateral Geoengineering - Non-technical Briefing Notes for a Workshop At the Council on Foreign Relations
Washington DC, May 05, 2008 - refers to stratospheric injection of "aerosolized...sulfur dioxide, aluminum
oxide dust or even designer self-levitating aerosols that might be engineered to migrate to particular regions..."
Indirect and Semi-Direct Aerosol Campaign (ISDAC) - A proposal to deploy an intensive cloud and aerosol observing system ... to test our understanding of droplet nucleation, crystal nucleation and ice multiplication mechanisms both through analysis of the aerosol, liquid and ice measurements to be collected and by evaluating the ability of cloud models to simulate differences between the clouds during the two seasons.
Stratospheric Injection of Reflective Aerosols or Particles by Means of Aviation Fuel Additives. - A Harvard abstract of a paper discussing using stratospheric aerosols or particles to simulate the observed cooling effect of major volcanic eruptions. The chemicals discussed are dimethyl sulphide to produce sulphur dioxide and tetra ethyl silicate to produce silica particles via the combustion process in a jet engine.
He makes the point immediately after showing all of these sources that he correctly told everyone what the NSA was doing back in 1996, and which was subsequently born out by Edward Snowden. So presumably this is meant to imply that the radio tower stuff is currently classified. I don't know about all of that...but I do know that he did indeed tell everyone what the NSA was doing back in 1996, to be dismissed by people like all of you here because he didn't have proof. He was made fun of A LOT for his NSA rants. How long has Metabunk been around? Maybe some of you were making fun of him for not having proof back then. Any long term debunkers who wholeheartedly trust in government here that made fun of AJ in the 1990's for telling people that the NSA was listening to every one of their phone calls? The accompanying text at the time would have been an appeal to "authority" very similar to this: "No...the NSA is on record saying they do not listen to our phone calls. (link to NSA). Case closed." hehehe
Last edited:
NoParty
Senior Member.
Are you saying that radio personalities should be taken seriously when they make claims with no proof?@scombrid, you just set up a Straw Man and knocked it down. While you cite this radio stuff which presumably is either classified or BS at 8:15, but fail to refer to a very specific claim that AJ makes immediately before this where he distances himself from the notion that all contrails are chemtrails:
I note that you also refer again to contrails, which belong in their own 30,600 post forum on Metabunk and not here. It seems to be a very serious pet topic for many of you here, and is a huge waste of your time in my opinion.External Quote:
But to specifically address how "chemtrails" factor into the discussion, there are serious sources discussing the use of chemicals to effect geo-engineering. And they are summarized by AJ and not referenced by any of you, who instead went for the weaker sources it seems. Anyhow, here are about half of the "all of this" that he had referenced:
Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy - Congressional Research Service Report for Congress - refers to aerosolized injection of H2S.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee - The Regulation of Geoengineering - AJ specifically refers to page 62- Oral evidence Taken before the Science and Technology Committee (Science and Technology Sub-Committee)on Wednesday 13 January 2010
Unilateral Geoengineering - Non-technical Briefing Notes for a Workshop At the Council on Foreign Relations
Washington DC, May 05, 2008 - refers to stratospheric injection of "aerosolized...sulfur dioxide, aluminum
oxide dust or even designer self-levitating aerosols that might be engineered to migrate to particular regions..."
Indirect and Semi-Direct Aerosol Campaign (ISDAC) - A proposal to deploy an intensive cloud and aerosol observing system ... to test our understanding of droplet nucleation, crystal nucleation and ice multiplication mechanisms both through analysis of the aerosol, liquid and ice measurements to be collected and by evaluating the ability of cloud models to simulate differences between the clouds during the two seasons.
Stratospheric Injection of Reflective Aerosols or Particles by Means of Aviation Fuel Additives. - A Harvard abstract of a paper discussing using stratospheric aerosols or particles to simulate the observed cooling effect of major volcanic eruptions. The chemicals discussed are dimethyl sulphide to produce sulphur dioxide and tetra ethyl silicate to produce silica particles via the combustion process in a jet engine.
He makes the point immediately after showing all of these sources that he correctly told everyone what the NSA was doing back in 1996, and which was subsequently born out by Edward Snowden. So presumably this is meant to imply that the radio tower stuff is currently classified. I don't know about all of that...but I do know that he did indeed tell everyone what the NSA was doing back in 1996, to be dismissed by people like all of you here because he didn't have proof. He was made fun of A LOT for his NSA rants. How long has Metabunk been around? Maybe some of you were making fun of him for not having proof back then. Any long term debunkers who wholeheartedly trust in government here that made fun of AJ in the 1990's for telling people that the NSA was listening to every one of their phone calls? The accompanying text at the time would have been an appeal to "authority" very similar to this: "No...the NSA is on record saying they do not listen to our phone calls. (link to NSA). Case closed." hehehe
(on the theory that proof might someday exist?)
I do admire the chutzpah that combines phrases like "debunkers who wholeheartedly trust in government"
in the very same post that complains about straw man statements.
@Libertarian, you seem to be conflating Weather Modification (cloud seeding) with SRM Geoengineering. Before we proceed, can you briefly state what the difference is, so we are on common ground?
scombrid
Senior Member.
Except I didn't. He conflates contrails/chemtrails with both geoengineering and weather modification even if at some point he claims that "not all trails are chemtrails".
He said that Doppler towers are for weather control and that he was given documents as proof of this. He either has that proof or he does not. Since he presents no proof then I don't believe him. Can you find a single meteorologist on this planet working in either the private or public sectors that can corroborate Alex Jones story? Or a physicist that can explain how a transmitter of that size could significantly manipulate the weather?
Most chemtrail believers claim they can tell the difference between a "normal contrail" and a "chemtrail". That is what Jones does with that statement.
Do any of those links demonstrate ongoing activity? I can't see that they do.
There are numerous lengthy SRM thread here at Metabunk. We are all aware of proposed and theoretical programs. Some of us that studied Marine Science and Climatology 15 years ago have been aware of them for a long time.
We are also aware that the chemtrail conspiracy proponents seem to be freshly discovering SRM theories and absorbing them into the greater chemtrail conspiracy theory that stems from the belief that some trails behind airplanes are abnormal.
What about some links supporting his claims that RADAR is controlling weather?
Last edited:
scombrid
Senior Member.
Alex Jones mashes the concepts together by insisting that stuff is being sprayed that is dimming the planet and then insisting that the stuff that is being sprayed is being manipulated with radars to alter the weather. The video is pretty scattered. It would be helpful to know exactly what is being discussed.
Similar threads
Trending content
-
Thread 'Reported drones over Fort Lesley McNair and possible DC counter-UAS laser deployment'- Kyle Ferriter
Replies: 2 -
-
-
-
