First off, I think it's pretty darned likely you're trolling. Assuming you're not...
Oh my, where to begin.
this site is worthless then because the POWERS that BE will never be stupid enough to LEAVE PROOF of their nefarious activities. You are asking for the impossible. You are asking for a fairy tale basically. Regular people like you and me will never find proof we'd be dead 3 hours later.
So in other words, you just said that you have no proof or evidence of weather modification
at all. In that case, why in the world should we believe you? No, really - all you have is just speculation of a possible motive. You can't prove a case in court with just a motive, so why should we bother even listening to you?
Now that that's out of the way, let's discuss some of your more basic issues.
what do you want? you want me to take a trip to DC and find the proof in some historal archive somewhere with my library card? that's just ridiculous.
Yes, in fact that's exactly what we want you to do. Since you won't do it, since no conspiracy theorist ever does, I'll allow you to stick to online sources. If you actually put up and do some legwork considering the size of what you're alleging, I would be impressed.
2. Here's another tidbit you won't hear about in the history books. My grandfather told me this story. He saw with own eyes during WW2 german U-BOATS off the coast of the islands. There's plenty of islands about a 1000 islands total. Plenty of places to hide a u-boat. But what he told me was the Germans were there to collect "HEAVY WATER". Anybody know what that's used for? it's used to enrich uranium. supposedly they used the U-boats to "access" sub-oceanic pockets of heavy water. The way the Philippine Archipeligo is situated in the ocean it is in a perfect spot for heavywater deposits. Now this is all just hypothetical because I don't know much about heavy water but what are the chances that the heavy water might still be there to this day? That's a resource isn't it?
Oh boy, where to begin. First off there is no such thing as a 'deposit' of heavy water, much less under the ocean, and I
seriously doubt any physicist has ever thought there would be such a thing.
Second, I'll readily believe seeing subs off the islands. During ww2, they were
crawling with American submarines, looking for Japanese ships to sink. It worked, too, as we sunk practically the entire Japanese merchant fleet during the war. Unless you try to tell me your grandfather could tell the difference between an american submarine, a Japanese submarine (they controlled the islands for 2-3 years, remember) and a german submarine, considering he had likely never seen a submarine before, I think we can discount your U-boat story. (You
do know a U-boat is a submarine, right?)
Response: whenever science say "oh it can't be done!" Here's a list of things that makes me doubt that it can't be done.
1. The Wright Brothers first flight.
2. Man on the Moon.
3. A person can make a wireless phone call from a device that can also be use as a portable computer that fits in your pocket. aka IPHONE!
history is full of examples of "CANNOTS" that eventually became "COULD BE DONE".
Ok, here's another error. "The Wright Brothers first flight" - science never said it couldn't be done. Uniformed, ignorant people said it couldn't be done. "A man on the moon" - once again, since the early 1900's in this case, science has said it can be done. Uniformed, ignorant people said it couldn't be done.
"A person can make a wireless phone call from a device that can also be use as a portable computer that fits in your pocket. aka IPHONE!." Here you actually have something more then your own imagination. Many people failed, early on, to predict the small size of future computers.
However, nobody said it would violate the laws of physics, which is what we're talking about here.
just like them boys on the Grassy Knoll. (Quote from "Shooter" the movie)lol
Movie quotes are not evidence.
Now that we've got the outstanding non-adressed technical issues out of the way, we can get to the heart of the matter. Youtube is NOT a credible source. It's not a credible source at the college level, or even the high school level.
From what I've seen somewhere on Youtube...
Is not even a source at all. If you're going to use youtube as a source (and you shouldn't), at least link to the relevant videos so we can discuss them.
For the purposes if this discussion, even though I disagree with you on this, I'll grant you that the US would benefit from the storm. I AM NOT saying that is the case, I'm just not going to challenge you on this. Discussions of motives can go on forever.
Now, what is your evidence that it CAN be done?
You're going against well-established laws of physics and understanding of the atmosphere. Considering that the Philippines are frequently his by typhoons, and this is
not the strongest Pacific typhoon on record, there's nothing out of the ordinary about it from a meteorological perspective.
From what I've seen somewhere on Youtube that HAARP doesn't actually "create" storms per se. What they do is look at weather patterns like the "perfect storm" most times storms form over the ocean and hardly ever hit land and they use HAARP to "activate" some kinda of metallic dust maybe aluminum tossed out of a plane above the storm and then HAARP is used to "redirect" the storm to where they want it. so yea I stand corrected. they don't MAKE STORMS they redirect naturally occuring storms to where ever they want.
Ok, this is a complete load of BullS**t (moderators, feel free to modify that word as appropriate for this forum). I'm NOT a meteorologist, nor do I claim to be one. However, I have taken college-level meteorology courses. Have you? I can say that, based on that understanding, you're completely wrong. Can you?
that's just my 2 cents as a filipino
My 2 cents says they didn't. And why should
anybody take your 2 cents over my 2 cents? You say they did, I say they didn't. How do we decide who is right?
The answer is
EVIDENCE. Facts. They can show who is right and who is wrong. That's how we decide, and that's what this site's for.
You admitted you have no relevant facts. What facts you gave are laughably wrong. So, what
evidence do you have that should make someone decide to believe you over me?
Ball's in your court, your move.