Case Orange Report: The History of Weather Manipulation

Rady Ananda  

At an international symposium held in Ghent, Belgium May 28-30, 2010, scientists asserted that “manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory.” It is “fully operational” with a solid sixty-year history. Though “hostile” environmental modification was banned by UN Convention in 1978, its “friendly” use today is being hailed as the new savior to climate change and to water and food shortages. The military-industrial complex stands poised to capitalize on controlling the world’s weather.  “In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” ~World Meteorological Organization, 2007 

 The only conspiracy surrounding geoengineering is that most governments and industry refuse to publicly admit what anyone with eyes can see. Peer-reviewed research is available to anyone willing and able to maneuver the labyrinth of scientific journals. So, while there is some disclosure on the topic, full public explanation is lacking. A brief list of confirmed cloud seeding events is produced at bottom, starting in 1915. 

  Going under a variety of names – atmospheric geoengineering, weather modification, solar radiation management, chemical buffering, cloud seeding, weather force multiplication – toxic aerial spraying is popularly known as chemtrails. However, this is merely one technique employed to modify weather. The practice of environmental modification is vast and well funded.  

  Hosted by the Belfort Group, which has been working for the last seven years to raise public awareness of toxic aerial spraying, the Symposium included chemtrail awareness groups from Greece, Germany, Holland, France and the U.S.  Belfort published five videos covering only May 29,[1] when filmmaker Michael Murphy (Environmental Deception and What in the world are they spraying)[2] and aerospace engineer Dr. Coen Vermeeren [3] gave the most dramatic presentations.  

  Dr Vermeeren, of the Delft University of Technology, presented [4] a 300-page scientific report entitled, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies.” [5]  

 Case Orange notes it was prepared for the Belfort Group by a team of scientists but presented anonymously. It was sent to embassies, news organizations and interested groups around the world “to force public debate.”  

 The report spends some time on HAARP, the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, [6] which is a military endeavor focused on ionospheric, electromagnetic, and global electrostatic field manipulation, and on other exotic weapon systems that manipulate the environment. While related, they go beyond this discussion of chemtrails.  

  In the interest of brevity, the health and environmental implications of cloud seeding is not discussed in any depth herein. Case Orange does go into it, as did most of the speakers at the Belfort Symposium. Cursory research reveals a debate among researchers as to chemtrail toxicity, but whether that’s a 50-50 or 99-1 argument is unknown. 

 Contrails Are Chemtrails

 Case Orange rejects use of the term ‘chemtrails’ because it is associated with amateur conspiracy theorists. The only credible document it could find that uses it is the Space Preservation Act of 2001 introduced by U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). [7]  H.R. 2977 sought to ban the use of exotic weapon systems that would damage climate, weather, tectonic and biological systems. “Chemtrails” are specifically listed. Though later removed, no version of the bill ever became law.  

  Instead, the writers prefer the term ‘persistent contrails’ to describe the phenomenon since all contrails are chemtrails. ‘Persistent contrails’ distinguishes those that contain weather-altering additives from those that represent normal aircraft exhaust that dissipates after a few seconds or minutes.  

  Case Orange also rejects misanthropic intentions behind persistent contrails. It shows that geoengineering is fully operational, but rejects it is used to sicken people on the assumptions that 1) public health agencies have the public interest at heart; and 2) the economy is consumer driven. The authors indicate no awareness of numerous reports of collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and government health agencies. This year, a significant conflict-of-interest report appeared in the prestigious British Medical Journal, which further heightened suspicions that the H1N1 flu and its vaccines were a scam.[8]  Nor do the authors consider that sick people will spur economic growth in a capitalist (for profit) health system.  

 Dr. Vermeeren gave his own introductory remarks and conclusions, but spent the bulk of the hour presenting information from Case Orange. He frankly admitted the existence of persistent contrails.  

 “We also know that chemtrails do exist because we do spraying; for crops, for example, and we know that they have been spraying for military purposes. So, chemtrails is nothing new. We know about it.”  

 “Weather manipulation through contrail formation… is in place and fully operational.”

 Case Orange cites publicly available material that shows geoengineering has been ongoing for “at least 60 years.” Used as a weapon of war in Hamburg by the UK during World War II, it was also used in the Vietnam Conflict by the US.  Controversy over its use, revealed by investigative reporter Jack Anderson, spurred Senate hearings in 1972. During those hearings, military officials denied the use of cloud seeding technology. Later, a private letter from Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird admitting that his testimony was false surfaced. He, again unbelievably, claimed he didn’t know what was happening. [9]  

  Environmental modification (EnMod) weaponry was finally banned by treaty in 1978. The UN Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques forced the end of such programs, overtly anyway.[10]  (Case Orange authors seem unaware of this international ban, as it is one of their recommendations.)  

 However, with widespread reporting of rising global temperatures, increasing population, and degradation of water supplies, renewed interest in EnMod is now becoming broadly supported. (See, e.g., Top economists recommend climate engineering, 4 Sep 2009 [11] and similarly, Top science body calls for geoengineering ‘plan B’, 1 Sep 2009.[12]) 

 The crew in Operation Stormfury in 1963. Note the special belly on the Douglas DC6-B for cloud seeding purposes. (From Case Orange)

  Building a case for old technology finding a new market, Case Orange discusses several U.S. patents. For example, authors describe a 1975 patent, “Powder Contrail Generation,” [13] for the invention of a:  

 “specific contrail generation apparatus for producing a powder contrail having maximum radiation scattering ability for a given weight [of] material. The seeding material… consists of 85% metallic particles and 15% colloidal Silica and Silica gel in order to produce a stable contrail that has a residence period of 1 up to 2 weeks.”  

 In 2009, researchers published “Modification of Cirrus clouds to reduce global warming,” which proposed two methods of delivery for this same proportion of metallics to silica and the same staying power of one to two weeks.[14]  

 Case Orange also reveals a 1991 patent held by Hughes Aircraft Company [15] that:  

 “contains 18 claims to reduce global warming through stratospheric seeding with aluminum oxide… thorium oxide… and refractory Welsbach material…”  

 The report notes that “the proposed scenario by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] in 2001 is identical to the claims” in Hughes Aircraft’s 1991 patent. Hughes was acquired by Raytheon, a private defense contractor, in 1997, “the same company that acquired E-systems and the HAARP contract.” 

 Case Orange presents evidence that Raytheon stands to control all weather, which the authors find repugnant given that it is a private corporation. The authors recommend suing private corporations instead of governments. But subcontracting is quite common for governments and agencies, especially the US military. The distinction between large, powerful corporations and governments is a fine line obscure to common folk. And, the effect is the same whether governments are spraying us with nano-sized metals, chemicals or biologicals, or whether corporations do. The authors’ protective posture toward governments is nonsensical.

 Case Orange suggests that geoengineering found new life in the global warming scare. Old patents are being dusted off and private interests stand to make substantial sums now that Cap and Trade has been exposed as ineffective in reducing greenhouse gases. (Although, lawmakers are still considering it since substantial sums can be made from the scheme, to wit: Al Gore reportedly achieved billionaire status from it.)  

 Since 2007, billionaire Bill Gates has spent at least $4.5 million on geoengineering research. [16]  Since reducing emissions is not popular with industry, ‘Plan B’ – geoengineering – is being touted as the answer to climate change and water shortage.  A longer description of Plan B is: Add more pollution to the sky and water to offset industrial pollution, without reducing industrial pollution. 

 Human rights and environmental watchdog, ETC Group, describes the momentum [17]: 

 The roll-out of geoengineering as Plan B is being skillfully executed: prominent high-level panels sponsored by prestigious groups, a spate of peer-reviewed articles this January in science journals, and a line-up of panicked politicians in northern countries, nodding nervously in agreement as scientists testify about the ‘need to research Plan B.’”  

 ETC reports that Gates’ top geoengineering advisor unveiled a plan to grow solar radiation management research “one-hundred-fold, from $10 million to $1 billion over ten years.”  

 Indeed, several watchdog groups recently ramped up calls to address clean water shortage. “At the end of July 2010, the United Nations General Assembly will vote on an important resolution, initiated by the Bolivian government, which would make clean water and sanitation a human right,” reports Food and Water Watch.[18] 

 Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025

 Case Orange ties a 1996 report by top military personnel in the U.S., “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” [19] to evidentiary details (like governmental spraying schedules, chemical orders, correct nomenclature used in airline operating manuals, and calls for geoengineering by economists) to support its notion of “heavy involvement of governments at top level in climate control projects.”  

Owning the Weather in 2025 provides a specific timeline for the use of EnMod technologies in cooperation with the Weather Modification Association (WMA), a business-government group promoting the beneficial uses of environmental modification [20]:  

 2000 Introduce ionic mirrors, with a sharp increase from 2008;  

 2000-2025 Use chemicals for atmospheric seeding by civilian (as well as military) aviation;  

 2004 Create smart clouds thru nanotechnology, with exponential increase after 2010;  

 2005 Introduce ‘carbon black dust’.  

 Though Case Orange decries the paucity of research into EnMod, in 2009 WMA published its position statement on the safety of seeding clouds with silver-iodide, citing three dozen research papers from 1970 through 2006. [21]  In 2007, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) published a statement that included “Guidelines for the Planning of Weather Modification Activities.” Acknowledging that the modern technology of weather modification began in the 1940s, it is still “an emerging technology” today. [22] WMO indicated disappointment that research is being abandoned for operations. 

 Case Orange contains no reference to the WMA position statement citing all that research, although it cites the group. Nor does it mention the World Meteorological Organization, an agency of the United Nations, which has a link to its Weather Modification portal on its Index page.

At the end of the section, The bare necessity of geoengineering through cloud generation for survival of the planet (5.2.7), Case Orange states:  

 “[O]ur investigation team comes to the conclusion that climate control programs, controlled by the military but approved by governments, are silently implemented in order to avoid the worst case scenarios they obviously do not want. The two basic instruments are temperature control through generation of artificial clouds and manipulation of the ionosphere through ionosphere heaters.  

 “Both remain basically military combat systems with the option to go into the offensive if deemed necessary. However since several ionosphere heaters are installed on various places around the globe one can assume that there is wide cooperation between governments in order to reach the climate targets by 2025: controlling the weather and thus the planet.”  

 “The spraying schemes seem to be organized in a logical pattern so that the whole of Europe is covered in a 3-day period,” the authors write. The following images cover January 3-5, 2010:  

 

 Case Orange agrees that climate change needs to be addressed. Regarding Climate-Gate, the authors suggest that the University of East Anglia deliberately manipulated the climate data to gradually prepare the global population for its future on a hotter planet.   

 They also cite research that supports the notion that climate change is real. During the three-day grounding of most aircraft after 9/11, scientists noticed an increase in temperature of 1.1 °C (2 °F). [23] This is an astounding increase in such a short time frame. The incidence of cloud seeding reports by the public increases exponentially after this.   

 The 1996 military piece, Owning the Weather in 2025, gives climate change skeptics “an insight in what to expect in the 21st century:   

 ‘Current demographic, economic and environmental trends will create global stresses that provide the impetus necessary for many countries or groups to turn weather modfication ability into capability. In the United States weather modification will likely become part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels.’”   

 Recommendations 

 “Persistent contrails,” however, “have a devastating impact on eco-systems on this planet and quality of life in general.” Case Orange joins the call of Bill Gates’ geoengineering advisor and the WMO for new research measuring the impact on human health and the environment from EnMod programs. 

 Case Orange also recommends an immediate and full disclosure of current EnMod activities to the public; and that all civil aviation laws be abided.    

 Of note, in response to policy interest in geoengineering as a means to control climate change and enhance water supplies, on May 14, 2010, the science subcommittee of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity proposed a geoengineering moratorium. [24] This proposed ban on “friendly” EnMod programs will be heard at the Tenth Conference of Parties to UN Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan this October.  

 Case Orange reports that China and Russia openly admit to cloud-seeding, while the U.S. denies such activities. The U.S. does permit open air testing of chemical and biological weapons but not under the law the authors cited, which they paraphrased:   

 The secretary of defense may conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological agents on civilian populations.   

 Public law of the United States, Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977.    

 Codified as 50 USC 1520, under Chapter 32 Chemical and Biological Warfare Program, Public Law 85-79 was repealed in 1997 by Public Law 105-85. In its place, 15 USC 1520a provides restrictions (such as informed consent). 50 USC 1512, however, allows open air testing of chemicals and biologicals and allows presidential override of notices and of public health considerations for national security reasons. [25] Case Orange authors are thus correct in asserting that such programs are legal in the U.S.  

 Epilogue 

 Having heard enough conspiracy theories to last me a lifetime, I hesitated researching the subject of chemtrails, and maintained skepticism. That all changed in March when I personally observed two jets seeding clouds, along with about 30 other people in the parking lot at lunchtime. Someone took a picture from her cell phone. 

The trails lasted for hours, and looked distinctly different from other clouds. Since then, I’ve been watching the skies and can now tell when they’ve been seeded. We often have a white haze instead of a deep blue sky, even when persistent contrails aren’t visible. 

 A few days ago, someone sent me a link to the Belfort Symposium videos. Four hours into it, I became riveted when Dr. Vermeeren began his presentation of the Case Orange report. That’s when I decided to seriously look into the subject. As informative as Case Orange is for the newcomer, any serious research into the subject reveals that what all those “conspiracy theorists” suggest is true: they are spraying the skies, and they’re not telling us. 

 Discovering that the World Meteorological Organization has a tab on its website called Weather Modification shocked me. Reading their disappointment that governments are going ahead with operations instead of doing more research confirmed all of it for me. And that was published in 2007! 

 So, while we’re not being told, the information is publicly available to any armchair researcher. 

 Being so late to the game on all this accords me sympathy for others. Military leaders have for centuries recognized that it rains after a heavy battle, but harnessing that power in a way that doesn’t cause a deluge like in San Diego in 1915 has been a task. I came upon other stories like that in my research – misdirected hurricanes, farm wars, massive flooding and mudslides. It’s no wonder there are so many books on the subject.  It’s no wonder this turned into a 3,000-word essay. 

 Chemtrails are no hoax; I spent time going to as many original sources as I could find. The record is replete with mainstream news accounts of the early days of the modern EnMod program. If its birth can be marked by Britain’s successful use of chaff in 1943 to jam enemy radar, the program is 67 years old. That’s quite a history to keep under the radar of most people. That reflects most poorly on mainstream news sources, who are supposed to expose government shenanigans. 

 A Brief History of Cloud Seeding 

 Cloud seeding, as a US military research project, began as early as the 1830s, according to Colby College professor, James R. Fleming. [26]  Verifiably successful rainmaking attempts did not occur until 1915.   

 1915  To end a prolonged drought, San Diego hired reputed rainmaker Charles Hatfield, who claimed that the evaporation of his secret chemical brew atop wooden towers could attract clouds.  San Diego was rewarded with a 17-day deluge that totaled 28 inches. The deadly downpour washed out more than 100 bridges, made roads impassable over a huge area, destroyed communications lines, and left thousands homeless. [27]   

Charles Hatfield’s rain washes out dam 1915, San Diego. Dozens died. 

 1943 “The first operational use of chaff (aluminium strips which are precisely cut to a quarter of the radar’s wavelength) took place in July 1943, when Hamburg was subjected to a devastating bombing raid. The radar screens were cluttered with reflections from the chaff and the air defence was, in effect, completely blinded.” [28]   

 1946  General Electric’s Vincent Schaefer dropped six pounds of dry ice into a cold cloud over Greylock Peak in the Berkshires, causing an “explosive” growth of three miles in the cloud. [29]   

New York dry ice seeding 1946 (Life Magazine) 

 1947  Australian meteorologists successfully repeated the process. [30]   

 1949  Project Cirrus: Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir and General Electric researcher Vincent Schaefer fed ten ounces of silver iodide into a blowtorch apparatus and brought down 320 billion gallons of rain across half of New Mexico from a desert near Albuquerque. [31]   

 1950  Harvard meteorologist Wallace Howell seeded New York City skies with dry ice and silver iodide smoke, filling the city’s reservoirs to near capacity. [32]   

 1952  The UK’s Operation Cumulus resulted in 250 times the normal amount of rainfall, killing dozens and destroying landscapes. [33]  

 1962-1983  Operation Stormfury, a hurricane modification program, had some success in reducing winds by up to 30%. [34]   

 1966-1972  Project Intermediary Compatriot (later called Pop Eye) successfully seeded clouds in Laos. The technique became part of military actions in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos from 1967 to 1972. Initially revealed by Jack Anderson in the Washington Post, 18 Mar 1971. [35]   

 1986  The Soviet air force diverted Chernobyl fallout from reaching Moscow by seeding clouds. Belarus, instead, was hit. [36]   

Notes: 

 [1] Belfort Group videos of International Symposium on Chemtrails, May 29, 2010 proceedings. http://www.ustream.tv/channel/belfort-test   

 [2] Michael Murphy website: http://truthmediaproductions.blogspot.com/   

 [3] Dr Coen Vermeeren, Delft University of Technology bio, n.d.

[4] Dr Coen Vermeeren Symposium speech, Afternoon Part 1 video, (starting at about 35 mins..) (29 May 2010) http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7299427   

 [5] Anonymous, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies,” 10 May 2010. PDF without appendices:

 http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/case_orange-5-10-2010-belfort-chemtrails.pdf   

 [6] High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, Fact Sheet, 15 Jun 2007. http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/factSheet.html   

 [7] Space Preservation Act of 2001, H.R.2977, 107th Congress, 1st Session. Introduced by U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich.   

 [8] Deborah Cohen and Philip Carter, “Conflicts of Interest: WHO and the pandemic ‘flu conspiracies,’” British Medical Journal 2010;340:c2912, 3 Jun 2010. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jun03_4/c2912   

 [9] The Sunshine Project, “The Limits of Inside Pressure: The US Congress Role in ENMOD,” n.d. Accessed July 2010. http://www.sunshine-project.org/enmod/US_Congr.html   

 [10] United Nations, “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques,” Resolution 31/72, 10 Dec 1976, effective 1978. Geneva. http://www.un-documents.net/enmod.htm   

 [11] Copenhagen Consensus Center, “Top economists recommend climate engineering,” 4 Sep 2009. Press release [pdf]

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=%2fFiles%2fFiler%2fPress+Releases+2010%2fCC_PRESS_STATEMENT__4september2010_.pdf   

 [12] Catherine Brahic, “Top science body calls for geoengineering ‘plan B’, New Scientist 1 Sep 2009.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17716-top-science-body-calls-for-geoengineering-plan-b.html   

 [13] Donald K. Werle, et al., “Powder contrail generation,” U.S. Patent 3,899,144, 12 Aug 1975. Assignee: U.S. Secretary of the Navy.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=3,899,144.PN.&OS=PN/3,899,144&RS=PN/3,899,144   

 [14] David L Mitchell and William Finnegan, “Modification of Cirrus clouds to reduce global warming,” Environmental Research Letters Vol. 4 No. 4, 30 Oct 2009. Available by subscription: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045102   

 [15] David B. Chang and I-Fu Shih, “Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming,” U.S. Patent 5,003,186, 26 Mar 1991. Assignee: Hughes Aircraft Company.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,003,186.PN.&OS=PN/5,003,186&RS=PN/5,003,186   

 [16] Eli Kintisch, “Bill Gates Funding Geoengineering Research,” Science Insider, 26 Jan 2010. http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/01/bill-gates-fund.html.   

 [17] ETC Group, “Top-down Planet Hackers Call for Bottom-up Governance: Geoengineers’ Bid to Establish Voluntary Testing Regime Must Be Opposed,” 11 Feb 2010. http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5073   

 [18] Food and Water Watch: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/world-water/right/  

 [19] Col Tamzy J. House, et al. “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025,” Department of Defense U.S. Air Force, 17 Jun 1996. Publicly released August 1996. Reproduced at Federation of American Scientists:

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm   

 [20] Weather Modicaton Association website: http://www.weathermodification.org/   

 [21] Weather Modification Association, “Position Statement on the Environmental Impact of Using Silver Iodides as a Cloud Seeding Agent,” July 2009.

http://www.weathermodification.org/AGI_toxicity.pdf 

 [22] World Meteorological Organization, “WMO Statement on Weather Modification,” UN Commission for Atmospheric Sciences Management Group, 26 Sep 2007.

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WM_statement_guidelines_approved.pdf 

 [23] Donald J. Travis, et al. “Contrails reduce daily temperature range,” Nature 418, 601, 8 Aug 2002. Reproduced in full by University of Washington, Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences:

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~rennert/etc/courses/pcc587/ref/Travis-etal2002_Nature.pdf   

 [24] Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, “In-depth Review of the Work on Biodiversity and Climate Change, Draft Recommendation,” Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Environmental Programme, UNEP/CBD/SBTTA/14/L.9, 15 May 2010. http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-14/in-session/sbstta-14-L-09-en.pdf   

 [25] United States Code, Title 50, Chapter 32, “Chemical and Biological Warfare Program.” http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C32.txt   

 [26] James Rodger Fleming, “The pathological history of weather and climate modification: Three cycles of promise and hype,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2006. Available at

http://www.colby.edu/sts/06_fleming_pathological.pdf   

 [27] Stephen Cole, “Weather on Demand,” American Heritage, 2005. http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2005/2/2005_2_48.shtml   

 [28] Monsignore Pizzafunghi Bosselese, “The History of Radar,” BBC, 14 Jul 2003. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A591545   

 [29] Fleming, citing New York Times, 15 Nov 1946, 24.   

 [30] Squires, P. & Smith, E. J., “The Artificial Stimulation of Precipitation by Means of Dry Ice,” Australian Journal of Scientific Research, Series A: Physical Sciences, vol. 2, p.232, 1949AuSRA…2..232S, 1949. Republished at Harvard University:

 http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1949AuSRA…2..232S/0000244.000.html  

 Also see: Stephen Cole, “Weather on Demand,” American Heritage, 2005.

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2005/2/2005_2_48.shtml   

 [31]  Life Magazine, “Solution to Water Shortage: Rain makers’ success shows how New York could fill its reservoirs,” p. 113, 20 Feb 1950.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FVMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA113&dq=Irving+Langmuir&as_pt=MAGAZINES&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Irving%20Langmuir&f=false   

 [32] Life Magazine, “U.S. Water: We can supplement our outgrown sources at a price,” 21 Aug 1950, p. 52.

http://books.google.com/books?id=wUoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=Irving+Langmuir+rainmaker&source=bl&ots=Ehqq8hZNsE&sig=

tkN51NoxqMsKVq6ClZU9Hvej8g0&hl=en&ei=9mhMTO3vG93llQfjpJHGDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false   

 [33] John Vidal and Helen Weinstein, “RAF rainmakers ’caused 1952 flood’: Unearthed documents suggest experiment triggered torrent that killed 35 in Devon disaster,” The Guardian, 30 Aug 2001.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/silly/story/0,10821,544259,00.html  

 Also see: BBC News, “Rain-making link to killer floods,” 30 Aug 2001. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1516880.stm  

 [34] Jerry E. Smith, “Weather Warfare: The Military’s Plan to Draft Mother Nature,” Adventures Unlimited Press, 2006. pp. 47-54.

http://books.google.com/books?id=G7t260XD8AYC&pg=PA47&dq=stormfury&hl=en&ei=9wJ

OTOfVE4G88gbZ3IGaDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=stormfury&f=false   

 [35] ibid. pp. 54-60.   

 [36] Richard Gray, “How we made the Chernobyl rain,” Daily Telegraph, 22 Apr 2007.

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549366/How-we-made-the-Chernobyl-rain.html   

 [37] Ian O’Neill, “The Chinese Weather Manipulation Missile Olympics,” Universe Today, 12 Aug 2008.

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/08/12/the-chinese-weather-manipulation-missile-olympics/   

 [38] Anonymous, “Moscow Halo,” cell phone video uploaded to YouTube, 7 Oct 2009. reposted at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXF9HSB627U

Zero Hora Newspaper Lies to Readers about Chem-trails

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
June 23, 2010

Chem-trails do not decorate or adorn the sky. They are part of an experiment used globally called Geo-engineering that seeks to limit the

Chem-trails are lines of toxic Aluminum Oxide, Barium and Sulfur left on the sky by airplanes with the intent of reflecting solar radiation.

amount of sunlight the planet receives in order to reduce the nonexistent global warming. As The Real Agenda already reported, chemical trails or chem-trails, as they are called in English, are composed of crystals of aluminum oxide, barium and sulfur, used to -according to some scientists-, block and reflect sunlight in order to decrease the temperature of the planet. The problem with these trails is that, inevitably, they become part of the air people breathe, causing them severe breathing problems and other health complications.

Geo-engineering, or the artificial manipulation of weather and climate patterns, is a topic that has stirred controversy after it was discovered that government agencies have studied and are still studying the application of weather modification techniques, they say, to eliminate or limit global warming and other weather “diseases”. As with other artificially engineered products, such as GM foods, most of us were ignorant about it and took a huge effort from the alternative media to uncover and expose this program. See the video of chemical trails over the city of Sao Leopoldo, RS, Brazil and planes spreading them here.

The use of chemical trails is not only a question of climate change, but involves a set of environmental changes. The first direct consequences of the spraying of chemicals have been a multitude of health complications to the population, as the effects of neurological and behavioral changes, impaired blood circulation, heart problems, effects on the eyes and vision, reproductive failure, damage to the immune system, gastrointestinal, liver and kidney function damage, hearing defects, disorders of the metabolism, dermatological lesions, asphyxiation and pulmonary embolism. How do we know? Tests conducted on people suffering from any or several of these complications have high levels of one or more of the chemicals sprayed on population centers. In other tests, air samples also showed high concentrations of barium and aluminum.

But if these tracks are not toxic chemicals, as the Zero Hora Newspaper says, why is Monsanto, a chemical company itself, creating seeds that can withstand the chemicals used in the spraying? According to Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri, the chemicals applied to populated and depopulated areas are harming not only the environment but also human health.

“… We also know that certain types of chemicals can damage human health and animals, especially the immune system … … the dangers of hormonal changes are now more fully explained in the Internet but are not well known by people who listen to traditional news media.(1) Most of these highly toxic chemicals are invisible and thus are easily out of our collective radar. With the level of stress created by the financial crisis deliberately orchestrated by the elites, where millions of people lost their jobs and homes, a deteriorating environment is not a priority for anyone, especially if there is little information about it. This scenario is part of a broader perspective and is what Naomi Klein writes in his book “The Shock Doctrine.” We have major crises, one after another, making it difficult to keep up with our daily routine, much less to have time to consider the toxicological implications of huge amounts of heavy metals and chemicals that poison our food chain and therefore our supposed health . “We’re on top of a food chain in ruins. ”

Read the complete evaluation from Dr. Perlingieri on Geo-engineering and climate change here.

Chem-trails over Sao Leopoldo, Brazil on June 4th, 2010

In spite of negative consequences, there are scientists who insist on the use of chemical trails.”I suggest that both the aluminum oxide as well as silica particles can be used diluted as an additive in the fuel used in aviation,” writes engineer John Gorman, who conducted experiments to test the feasibility of such a scenario. “We want to burn fuel containing the additive specifically when the aircraft is strolling in the lower stratosphere,” he adds. Reports of chemical trails over hundreds of cities in countries around the world are now common. Plumes of smoke paint the blue skies of gray after commercial and private planes release chemicals. Both government agencies and institutions such as the air force and private contractors are responsible for operating the aircraft, putting the chemicals in tanks or even in the fuel that airplanes use.

With all the negative effects that chem-trails have had on populations, many scientists have made pronouncements about the dangers that this type of Geo-engineering poses to the environment and people. Dan Schrag, from Harvard University, warned that any attempt to change the environment, including the ecosystem itself, could have disastrous consequences, including droughts and other natural disasters. “I think we should consider the climate engineering only as an emergency response to a climate crisis, but there is no evidence to show that a climate crisis exists,” said Schrag. Alan Robock, a professor at Rutgers University, says the consequences could go much further than drought. These experiences, he says, “could create disasters”, damaging the ozone layer and potentially changing the stratosphere, eliminating weather patterns, such as the rainy season from which billions of people depend on for their crops and to feed their families. “The problem is that this is exactly what the use of chemical trails are supposed to do: change weather patterns. The use of chemicals to block the sun’s rays will lead to drastic changes in the biosphere and atmosphere, such as the hydrological cycle, wind patterns and how the sun drives the winds around the planet. Other consequences such as soil fertility and water availability are beginning to be emerge.

Do not let the lies of the Zero Hora newspaper confuse you. Geo-engineering and chemical trails are not the same as condensation trails or contrails. While the contrails disappear after a few minutes in the sky, chem-trails are left by airplanes crossing the sky several times, producing figures like chessboards, circles and semi-circles.

If humans are responsible for global warming, why block the sun? The truth is that the sun is the most gigantic hot body in the solar system and as such, the element that determines the climate. Different calculations estimate that human activity emits only between 4 and 6 percent of total CO2 in the atmosphere, thus having little influence on weather patterns. Volcanic eruptions and the sun, for example, have a greater effect on climate than any human activity. CO2 is really what most of the biosphere uses as food. An environment rich with CO2, provides more fuel for the plants and trees and more food for animals and humans. Another consequence of chemical trails is acid rain. Raindrops containing chemicals cause massive acidification of lakes and rivers, contributing to the poisoning of humans, trees at higher elevations and many sensitive forest soils.

But not only those who reject the theory of anthropogenic global warming are skeptical about the use of chemical trails. The chief scientist of Greenpeace UK, Doug Parr, a defender of the explanation of anthropogenic global warming, disqualifies Geo-engineering as “strange” and “dangerous.” A report from KSLA earlier this year found that chemical experiments with aerosols have been happening for decades. The report revealed experiments exposed in 1977 in hearings before the U.S. Senate. The report showed experiments with biochemical compounds in humans and reported that “239 populated areas were contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969.

According to the article on Zero Hora, -which omits the name of the reporter- these tracks mean nothing more than random condensation of

This is what a chem-trail looks like 30 minutes after it was sprayed. It then spreads and covers the sky in what seems to be haze.

contrails, but the evidence shows exactly the opposite. The newspaper reporters are ignorant or simply lie to their readers deliberately.

If the ultimate goal of Geo-engineering is to reduce the effects of global warming due to human activity and their related emissions of greenhouse gases, you would think that this method would at least have a good chance of working, Would not you? Well, it happens that Geo-engineering has no effect in preventing what corrupt scientists say causes global warming in the atmosphere. Therefore, the use of chemical trails is at best an inefficient solution and, at worst, a mass poisoning of humanity.

Scientist David Suzuki says Geo-engineering is “madness” and goes further to say: “If we learned anything from the past, is that although we are very skillful in inventing new and powerful technologies, our knowledge of how our world works and how things are interconnected is almost zero. ”

But there is a more worrisome aspect about Geo-engineering We all know what governments are capable of doing when they want to manipulate people: inexplicable wars, false pandemics, non-existent terrorist events … Although the use of chemicals as weapons of war is generally seen as morally and universally banned, we have seen very convincing evidence that such a prohibition is not always respected. According to an article published in Wired Magazine, other forms of Geo-engineering such as ocean fertilization can be used to sterilize the oceans, that in turn would destroy fisheries and water ecosystems.

Even the globalist United Nations, traditional supporter of these policies expressed concern with the use of chemical trails. The 14th Session of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice was the first place where the United Nations Council discussed Geo-engineering since the signing of the ENMOD Treaty in 1976. The treaty banned Geo-engineering when it is used for hostile purposes.  SBSTTA 14 will recommend to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to impose a moratorium on all activities related to climate change through Geo-engineering at a meeting in Nagoya Japan on October 2010.

So why have we adopted a technique of changing the climate which is harmful to humans and whose main goal is not achievable? Who benefits from this type of Geo-engineering technologies that are adopted for other reasons? Certainly not the environment. More answers about chemical trails or chem-trails, its origins and what they mean can be found in The Science of “Air Pharmacology” and “Chemtrails.”

Naturally, the knowledge spreads faster and better when more people locally and responsibly report on these issues. So tell your family, friends and acquaintances about the origin and dangers of Geo-engineering around the globe. Just as THE PEOPLE exposed the lies about anthropogenic global warming and Climategate, it is our duty to expose this too.

To my colleagues at the Zero Hora newspaper, I have to say: it costs nothing to write a full report with credible sources and facts. But I think we all know why this newspaper avoids writing the truth. It is part of the great media empire from Brazil known as GLOBO. Maybe it’s hard to speak or write the truth while working there. Only those who lend themselves to lie or tell half-truths because of their ignorance or laziness have space in a company like Zero Hora or the GLOBO empire.

Jornal Zero Hora Mente para seus Leitores

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
Junho 8, 2010

As trilhas químicas não enfeitam ou adornam o céu. Elas são parte de um experimento de geo-engenharia usado globalmente que pretende limitar a quantidade de luz solar que o planeta recebe com o objetivo de diminuir o falso aquecimento global. Como The Real Agenda já reportou, trilhas químicas ou chemtrails, como se chamam em inglés, são compostas de cristais de óxido de alumínio, bário e enxofre que, segundo alguns cientistas, bloqueiam e refletem a luz solar com o objetivo de diminuir a temperatura do planeta. O problema com estas trilhas é que, inevitavelmente, os componentes químicos tornam-se parte do ar que as pessoas respiram, causado-lhes graves problemas respiratórios e outrascomplicações da saúde.

Geo-engenharia, ou a manipulação artificial das condições meteorológicas e padrões climáticos, é um tema que gerou polêmica depois que se descobriu que agências governamentais estudaram e continuam estudando a aplicação de técnicas de modificação do tempo, que eles dizem, é para eliminar ou limitar o aquecimento global e outras “doenças” atmosféricas. Como aconteceu com outros produtos artificiais, tais como alimentos transgênicos, a maioria de nós era ignorante sobre o assunto e levou um esforço gigante da mídia alternativa para descobrir e expor este programa. Veja o vídeo das trilhas químicas nos céus de São Leopoldo, RS, Brasil e de aviões espalhando-as aqui.

Trilhas Químicas sobre Sao Leopoldo, Brazil

O uso de trilhas químicas não é apenas uma questão de mudança do clima, mas implica um conjunto de mudanças ambientais. As primeiras consequências diretas da pulverização de compostos químicos têm sido uma multiplicidade de complicações de saúde às populações, como os efeitos neurológicos e alterações comportamentais, perturbações da circulação sanguínea, problemas cardíacos, efeitos sobre os olhos e a visão, falhas reprodutivas, danos ao sistema imunológico e gastrointestinal, danos ao fígado e às funções renais, defeitos de audição, distúrbios do metabolismo hormonal, efeitos dermatológicos, asfixia e embolia pulmonar. Como sabemos isso? Os testes realizados em pessoas que sofrem de alguma ou várias destas complicações apresentam níveis elevados de um ou mais dos produtos químicos pulverizados sobre centros populacionais. Em outros testes, amostras de ar também apresentaram altas concentrações de bário e alumínio.

Mas, se esses rastros químicos não são tóxicos, como o Jornal Zero Hora diz, porque a Monsanto, uma empresa química, está criando sementes que podem suportar os produtos químicos utilizados nestes percursos? Segundo a Dra. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri, os produtos químicos aplicados às áreas povoadas e despovoadas estão prejudicando não só o ambiente mas também a saúde humana.

“… Nós também sabemos que certos tipos de produtos químicos podem danificar a saúde humana e dos animais, especialmente o sistema imunológico … … os perigos das alterações hormonais estão agora mais amplamente explicadas na Internet, mas não são bem conhecidos pelas pessoas que escutam notícia dos meios de comunicação tradicionais. (1) A maioria destes produtos químicos altamente tóxicos são invisíveis e, portanto, estão facilmente fora do nosso radar coletivo. Com o nível de estresse criado deliberadamente pela crise financeira orquestrada pelas elites, onde milhões de pessoas perderam seus empregos e lares, um ambiente degradado não é prioridade para ninguém, especialmente se há pouca informação ao respeito. Este cenário faz parte de uma perspectiva mais ampla e é o que Naomi Klein escreve em seu livro “The Shock Doctrine”. Temos grandes crises, uma após a outra, sendo difícil manter o contato com nossa rotina diária, muito menos ter tempo para considerar as implicações toxicológicas de enormes quantidades de metais pesados e produtos químicos que envenenam nossa cadeia alimentar e, portanto, a nossa suposta saúde. ” Estamos no topo de uma cadeia alimentar em ruínas. ”

Leia a avaliação completa da Dra. Perlingieri sobre a geo-engenharia e as alterações climáticas aqui.

A pesar das consequências negativas, existem cientistas que insistem no uso de trilhas químicas. “Eu sugiro que tanto o óxido de

Depóis de 30 a 60 minutos as trilhas se extendem e encobrem o céu em São Leopoldo

alumínio quanto partículas de sílica podem ser usadas na estratosfera diluídas como um aditivo no combustível usado na aviação”, escreveu o engenheiro John Gorman, que conduziu experimentos para testar a viabilidade de tal cenário. “Nós queremos queimar combustível contendo o aditivo especificamente quando a aeronave esteja passeando na baixa estratosfera”, acrescenta. Relatórios de trilhas químicas ao longo de centenas de cidades em países ao redor do mundo são agora comuns. Plumas de fumaça pintam os céus azuis de cinza, após aviões comerciais e privados liberam os produtos químicos. Ambas agências governamentais e instituições como a Força Aérea ou empresas privadas contratadas são responsáveis por operar os aviões, colocar os componentes químicos em tanques independentes ou até mesmo no combustível que as naves usam.

Com todos os efeitos negativos que as trilhas tiveram sobre as populações, muitos cientistas fizeram pronunciamentos sobre os perigos que este tipo de geo-engenharia representa para o ambiente e as pessoas. Dan Schrag, da Universidade de Harvard, alertou que qualquer intenção de mudar o ambiente, incluindo o próprio ecossistema, poderia ter conseqüências desastrosas, entre elas, secas e outros desastres naturais. “Eu acho que nós deveríamos considerar a engenharia climática apenas como uma resposta de emergência a uma crise climática, mas não existem provas que mostrem uma crise climática”, disse Schrag. Alan Robock, professor da Rutgers University, diz que as consequências poderão ir muito mais longe do que secas. Estas experiências, ele diz, “poderiam criar catástrofes”, danificando a camada de ozônio e, potencialmente, alterando a estratosfera, eliminando os padrões climáticos, tais como a estação das chuvas, da qual bilhões de pessoas dependem para suas lavouras e alimentos para a população “. O problema é que este é exatamente o que o uso de trilhas químicas pretende fazer: mudar os padrões meteorológicos. A utilização de produtos químicos para bloquear os raios do sol implicará em mudanças drásticas na biosfera e atmosfera, tais como o ciclo hidrológico, padrões de vento e como o sol impulsiona os ventos ao redor do planeta. Com isso, outros aspectos tais como fertilidade do solo e a disponibilidade de água começam a aparecer.

Não deixe que as mentiras do jornal Zero Hora, do Rio Grande do Sul, confundam você. Geo-engenharia e trilhas químicas não é o mesmo que contrails ou trilhas de condensação. Enquanto os contrails desaparecem após alguns minutos no céu, chem-trails são deixadas por aviões que cruzam o céu várias vezes, produzindo figuras como um tabuleiro de xadrez, círculos e semi-circulos.

Se os seres humanos são responsáveis pelo aquecimento global, por que bloquear o sol? A verdade é que o sol é o mais gigantesco corpo quente do sistema solar e como tal, o elemento que determina o clima. Diferentes cálculos estimam que a atividade humana emite apenas entre 4 e 6 por cento do total de CO2 na atmosfera, portanto, tendo pouca influência sobre os padrões climáticos. Erupções vulcânicas e o sol, por exemplo, têm um efeito maior no clima do que qualquer atividade humana. O CO2 é realmente o que a maioria da biosfera usa como alimento. Um ambiente rico em CO2, então, fornece mais combustível para as plantas e as árvores e mais alimentos para animais e seres humanos.

Em una ou duas horas, os compostos químicos formam uma neblina o névoa que mais tarde cai como chuva ácida.

Outra conseqüência das trilhas químicas é a chuva ácida. Gotas de chuva contendo elementos químicos causam enorme acidificação dos lagos e rios, contribuindo com o envenenamento dos humanos, árvores em altitudes elevadas e muitos solos florestais sensíveis. Mas não só aqueles que rejeitam a teoria do aquecimento global antropogênico são céticos sobre o uso de trilhas químicas. O cientista chefe do Greenpeace no Reino Unido, Doug Parr, um defensor da explicação do aquecimento global antropogênico, desqualifica as tentativas de Geo-engenharia do planeta como “estranhas” e “perigosas”. Uma reportagem da KSLA no início deste ano constatou que experimentos químicos com aerosóis vêm acontecendo por décadas. A reportagem revelou experimentos expostos em 1977 em audiências do Senado dos Estados Unidos. O relatório mostrou as experiências com compostos bioquímicos em humanos e relatou que “239 áreas povoadas foram contaminadas com agentes biológicos, entre 1949 e 1969.

Então, para os que escreveram o artigo na Zero Hora, -o qual não tem o nome do repórter- estas trilhas não significam nada mais do que condensação casual de contrails, mas as provas mostram exatamente o oposto. Os repórteres no jornal são ignorantes ou simplesmente mentem para os seus leitores deliberadamente.

Se o objetivo final da Geo-engenharia é reduzir os efeitos do aquecimento global devido à atividade humana e às suas consequentes emissões de gases estufa, pensaríamos que este método teria pelo menos uma boa chance de funcionar, não é? Bem, acontece que a Geo-engenharia bioquímica não tem efeito nenhum para evitar o aquecimento que cientistas corruptos dizem causam o efeito estufa na atmosfera. Portanto, o uso de trilhas químicas é, no mínimo, uma solução incompleta e, no máximo, um envenenamento massivo da humanidade.

O cientista David Suzuki diz que a geo-engenharia é uma “loucura” e vai mais longe ao dizer: “Se nós aprendemos alguma coisa do passado, é que apesar de estarmos muito hábeis em inventar novas e poderosas tecnologias, nosso conhecimento de como o mundo e as coisas estão interligadas é quase zero. ”

No final de tudo isso há um aspecto mais preocupante da geo-engenharia. Nós todos sabemos o que os governos são capazes de fazer quando querem manipular as pessoas: guerras inexplicáveis, pandemias inexistentes, eventos terroristas … Embora o uso de produtos químicos como arma de guerra é geralmente visto como moralmente e universalmente proibido, temos visto evidências muito convincentes de que essa proibição nem sempre é respeitada. Segundo um artigo publicado na Revista Wired Magazine, outras formas de geo-engenharia, tais como fertilização dos oceanos, podem ser usados para proliferação de algas que esterilizam os oceanos, isto, por sua vez destruirá a pesca e os ecossistemas de água.

Mesmo os globalistas das Nações Unidas, tradicionalmente defensores destas politicas, manifestaram sua preocupação com a

Algumas trilhas tomaram completamente os céus de São Leopoldo em 03 de junho.

utilização das trilhas químicas. A 14ª Sessão do Órgão Subsidiário de Assessoramento Científico, Técnico e Tecnológico foi o primeiro lugar onde o Conselho das Nações Unidas discutiu a geo-engenharia, desde a assinatura do Tratado ENMOD em 1976. O tratado proibiu a geo-engenharia, quando ela é usada para objetivos “hostis”. SBSTTA 14 irá recomendar à Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre a Diversidade Biológica a imposição de uma moratória sobre todas as atividades de modificação do clima através de geo-engenharia em uma reunião em Nagoya, Japão em outubro 2010. Naturalmente, o conhecimento se dissemina mais rápido e melhor quando as pessoas mais a nível local são responsáveis por informar sobre estas questões. Então, conte à sua família, amigos e conhecidos sobre a origem e os perigos de armas laser e a modificação do clima com geo- engenharia ao redor do globo. Assim como OS POVOS expuseram as mentiras sobre o aquecimento global antropogênico e Climategate, é nosso dever expor isso também.

Então, por que adotamos uma técnica de modificação do clima que é prejudicial aos seres humanos e cujo principal objetivo não pode ser alcançado? Quem se beneficia deste tipo de tecnologias de geo-engenharia se são adotadas por outras razões? Certamente não será o meio ambiente. Mais respostas sobre trilhas químicas ou chemtrails, suas origens e o que elas significam pode ser encontrado em A Ciência da “Farmacologia do Ar” ou “Chemtrails”. Aos meus colegas na Zero Hora quero dizer: não custa nada escrever uma reportagem completa com fontes confiáveis e com fatos. Mas acho que todos sabemos porque este jornal evita escrever a verdade. Como parte do grande império da Globo, talvez é dificil falar ou escrever a verdade. Somente os que se prestam para mentir ou falar meias verdades por causa da sua ignorância -voluntária ou não- e /ou preguiça profissional têm espaço numa empresa como o Jornal Zero Hora ou o império Globo.