Weather Weapons: the dark world of environmental warfare

[The following is extremely well researched and documented. This is information that all people across the planet should be aware of.  While the Club of Rome, the so-called ‘government’ and NASA are blaming the  ‘people’ for  “climate change”, the industrial military complex is covertly and intentionally creating climate devastation across the globe. Before you read the following, please note that: it was NASA that introduced the global warming theory.]

T.J. Coles (2010)

pdf version

Didn’t it rain

Declassified records show that from 1949 to 1955, the Royal Air Force (RAF) released various substances, including dry ice, silver iodide, and salt into the atmosphere at high altitudes in order to induce rain. ‘The clouds would then precipitate, pulled down below freezing point by the extra weight of dense particles, thus making it rain sooner and heavier than it might have done’, the Guardian reported.1 Using chemicals supplied by ICI, ‘international scientists’ were involved in the experiments, including specialists from the Cranfield College of Aeronautics and the RAF’s meteorological research base at Farnborough. Perhaps the most significant aspect of the programme was that the weather weaponisation experiments continued three years after they had produced the worst recorded flood in British history, the Lynmouth disaster of 1952.

The Telegraph reported how “Former RAF servicemen….. described how they took part in the experiments in the years running up to the flood.” 2  Of Project Cumulus, or Operation Witch Doctor as it was nicknamed by Squadron Leader Len Otley, the BBC reported how the glider pilot Alan Yates sprayed chemicals over Bedfordshire, after which ‘Scientists told him it caused a heavy downpour in Staines, 50 miles (80 kilometres) away in Middlesex.’3 This claim appears to be disinformation because BBC radio reports confirm that the gliders were actually spraying over Lynmouth village itself.4

Concerning the seeding operations that caused the Lynmouth disaster, RAF Captain John Hart explained how, in 1952, ‘We flew straight through the top of the cloud, poured dry ice down into the cloud. We flew down to see if any rain came out of the cloud and it did, about 30 minutes later, and we all cheered…… [senior lecturer at Cranfield College of Aeronautics] Alan Yates said the BBC had been filming the experiments, but the resulting programme was abandoned when the country awoke to news of the Lynmouth flood the day before it was due to be broadcast.’5

Within a few hours of the cloud seeding operations, some 90 million tonnes of water fell onto Lynmouth, destroying hundreds of homes and businesses, and causing the deaths of 35 people. Reporting in 2001, ‘a BBC investigation has confirmed that secret experiments were causing heavy rainfall’, though the Ministry of Defence (MOD) denied any connection between the seeding experiments and the flood. Initially, the MoD even denied conducting any cloud seeding experiments at all. ‘Survivors tell how the air smelled of sulphur on the afternoon of the floods, and the rain fell so hard it hurt people’s faces’, the BBC reported. ‘Trees were uprooted and formed dams behind bridges, creating walls of water that carried huge boulders into the village, destroying shops, hotels and homes. Bodies washed out to sea were never found.’ The report quoted Tony Speller, a former North Devon MP, saying that when he asked for Ministry of Defence files, ‘I could never find anything of any consequence, except the fact that papers were clearly missing for the significant years [1949-55].’6

The BBC reported 34 deaths and the newspapers 35, and a decade later the BBC documentary Country Tracks (broadcast in 2011) confirmed that one corpse — perhaps a member of the secret services dispatched to monitor the operations — could not be accounted for. ‘[D]ocuments express concern by the [Ministry of Defence] over who would be financially liable if such rainmaking experiments went wrong’, the Telegraph reported, ending with a citation from a Ministry of Defence statement made in 2001 in light of the revelations: ‘Cloud seeding has rarely been successful anywhere in the world. Consequently the Met Office had not pursued this line of research for many years.’7 The MoD not only contradicted itself then, because its earlier statements denied involvement in any cloud seeding operations, but it contradicted itself in 2010 by announcing in a public document that out to 2040:

‘Weather modification will continue to be explored. The aims are to obtain more water, reduce hail damage, eliminate fog, or other similar practical result in response to a recognised need. Manipulation of the weather may affect changes in operating conditions, limit aviation flight envelopes, generate poor visibility while providing concealment and disrupt lines of communications. Weather modification may also affect morale.’

Returning home to see your house floating down the river is indeed bound to ‘affect morale.’

The MoD continued: ‘Analysis by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) has shown that, if successful, rainfall enhancement and hail suppression operations could have significant economic benefit. The WMO Atmospheric Research and Environment Programme notes that there are several operational programmes in fog dispersion, rain and snow enhancement, as well as hail suppression. (Emphases added).’8

Coupled with the Pentagon’s commitment to achieve Full Spectrum Dominance by 2020, the fact that the MoD and the US Air Force had the capability to destroy an entire village with 90 million tonnes of rainfall as far back as the 1950s, means we must take seriously the possibility that weather weaponisation is being used, under the cover of anthropogenic global warming (which is no doubt happening, but provides a perfect cover for freak weather events). The US Air Force 2025 think-tank stated in a long-term study that weather weaponisation ‘provides opportunities to impact operations across the full spectrum of conflict and is pertinent to all possible futures.’ The US Air Force is counting on the fact that ‘some segments of society will always be reluctant to examine controversial issues such as weather-modification.’9

HAARP and advances in Tesla technology

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/holes-in-heaven/

“Science is but a perversion of itself, unless it has as its ultimate goal the betterment of humanity.”
Nikola Tesla, 1919

The globalists and their corporations however view science altogether differently:

“All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: who will be the beneficiary?”
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars (pg 6)

The US$, Oil and War

Kissinger quote:

“Who controls the food supply controls the people;
who controls the energy can control whole continents;
who controls money can control the world.”

Sept 10, 2011
By Nalliah Thayabharan

UNDERSTANDING THE PETRODOLLAR

At the end of WWII, an agreement was reached at the Bretton Woods Conference which pegged the value of gold at US$35 per ounce and that became the international standard against which currency was measured. But in 1971, US President Richard Nixon took the US$ off the gold standard and ever since the US$ has been the most important global monetary instrument, and only the US can print them. However, there were problems with this arrangement not least of all that the US$ was effectively worthless before it reneged on the gold-standard. But more importantly because it was the world’s reserve currency, everybody was saving their surpluses in US$. To maintain the US$’s pre-eminence, the Richard Nixon administration impressed upon Saudi Arabia and therefore Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to sell their oil only in US$. This did two things; it meant that oil sales supported the US$ and also allowed the USA access to exchange risk free oil. The USA propagates war to protect its oil supplies, but even more importantly, to safeguard the strength of the US$. The fear of the consequences of a weaker US$, particularly higher oil prices, is seen as underlying and explaining many aspects of the US foreign policy, including the Iraq and Libyan War.

The reality is that the value of the US$ is determined by the fact that oil is sold in US$. If the denomination changes to another currency, such as the euro, many countries would sell US$ and cause the banks to shift their reserves, as they would no longer need US$ to buy oil.

The Energy Myths: Peak Oil and Global Warming

AL Whitney (C) copyright 2011 Permission is granted for redistribution if linked to original and the AntiCorruption Society is acknowledged

BY A FORMER PROMOTER OF BOTH THEORIES

As a culture we are literally drowning in ‘bogus’ bought-and-paid-for corporate ‘science’. This has been ongoing for a long time. Professors, researchers, physicians, dentists and many other professionals have literally been drummed out of their professions for violating unwritten codes of scientific censorship.

Both “oil is a fossil fuel” and “man-made global warming” fall into the category of protected bogus (“tobacco”) science.

However, it cannot be said that the extraction, processing and burning of coal and petroleum products does not pollute the environment. They are both unquestionably responsible for producing serious pollution. But, both peak oil (carbon tax) and global warming (cap and trade) are about energy and control of populations and resources.

The globalist Henry Kissinger, a member of the Club of Rome (that Rockefeller money started), stated the following: “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”

Warming the globe and melting the polar ice cap

AL Whitney (C) copyright 2011 Permission is granted for redistribution if linked to original and the AntiCorruption Society is acknowledged

HAARP’S ‘WEAPON SYSTEM OF MASS DESTRUCTION’ CAN DO BOTH!

watch?v=MnRPZOUVhJ4

watch?v=MnRPZOUVhJ4

Was the Seattle-Vancouver Earthquake Triggered by Environmental War? [1]

Excerpts:

Environmental impact studies show that HAARP – and EM environmental weapons deployed secretly by many nations – could superheat the ionosphere, and substantially damage or destroy it in a runaway ecological process.

HAARP’s 1990 environmental impact statement.