Geoengineering, Chemtrails and The Climate Industrial Complex 3

Updates include Interview with Geoengineer, David Keith on Colbert Nation.

Chemtrails: The Exotic Weapon

NASA Documents Reveal Mission of Military and Federal Agencies to Modify the Climate

Video Script (PDF):  AGW, Artificial Global Warming and the Climate Industrial Complex

__________________________________________________

Men in Black Neuralyzer Chemtrails SRM sm

____________________________________________________

It’s unacceptable that the UN/IPCC continue to push CO2 as the cause for climate change but refuse to acknowledge the military has been actively engaged in Climate Warming Weapons Technologies for more than 20 years.

http://video.mit.edu/watch/historical-perspectives-on-fixing-the-sky-4832/.

James Fleming - Fixing the Sky FIXING THE SKY, James Fleming

Colbert David Keith Geoengineer, David Keith, Colbert Nation

TITLE:“Present and Future Plans of Federal Agencies in Weather-Climate Modification” (PDF)

This set of documents from 1966 reveals a network of government agencies in perpetual and secret collaboration with each other and the military to Modify the Global climate. Created by the elitist National Academy of Sciences – decades of an inter-agency culture of secrecy explains why the issue of covert aerosol Geoengineering is a taboo topic to be degraded to…

View original post 9,055 more words

3 comments

  1. The soft-kill fallacy: the idea of “non-lethal weapons” is politically attractive and purposively misleading. (includes related weapons glossary) “Non-lethal weapons disable or destroy without causing significant injury or damage,” asserted Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in a March 1991 memorandum. This is an important misconception. Nevertheless, Wolfowitz wrote, “A U.S. lead in non-lethal technologies will increase our options and reinforce our position in the post-Cold War world.”(2)

    Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    September 1, 1994 http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-15756460.html Details about programs to develop socalled “non-lethal” weapons are slowly emerging from the U.S. government’s secret “black budget.” The futuristic aura of many non-lethal weapons is seductive, and their advent has been heralded uncritically by many media reports of kinder, gentler weapons.(1) But basic political, legal, and strategic questions about the utility of the non-lethal thrust remain unanswered – sometimes even unasked.
    Dozens of non-lethal weapons have been proposed or developed, mostly in laboratory-scale models. They encompass a broad range of technologies, including chemical, biological kinetic, electromagnetic, and acoustic weapons, as well as informational techniques such as computer viruses (see “A Non-lethal Laundry List,” page 43).
    “Non-lethal weapons disable or destroy without causing significant injury or damage,” asserted Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in a March 1991 memorandum. This is an important misconception. Nevertheless, Wolfowitz wrote, “A U.S. lead in non-lethal technologies will increase our options and reinforce our position in the post-Cold War world.”(2)

    The concept of non-lethal weapons is not new; the term appears in heavily censored CIA documents dating from the 1960s. But research and development in non-lethal technologies has received new impetus as post-Cold War Pentagon planning has shifted its focus to regional conflicts, insurgencies, and peacekeeping.

    Dozens of non-lethal weapons have been proposed or developed, mostly in laboratory-scale models. They encompass a broad range of technologies, including chemical, biological kinetic, electromagnetic, and acoustic weapons, as well as informational techniques such as computer viruses (see “A Non-lethal Laundry List,” page 43).

    Of course, the arsenal of conventional warfare already includes systems like electronic jamming devices and anti-radar missiles that are “non-lethal” in the sense that they disable enemy weapons – but only in the context of armed and deadly conflict. In contrast, the proponents of non-lethal weapons apparently envision a relatively benign battlefield.

    Sticky foams and “calmatives” would immobilize or sedate adversaries. Specially cultured bacteria would corrode and degrade components of weapons systems. Optical munitions would cripple sensors and dazzle, if not blind, soldiers. Acoustic beam weapons would knock them out. Netting and shrouds would thwart the movement of aircraft, tank, and armored vehicles. These and many other related technologies have already been demonstrated at a …

  2. Pingback: enviroment – 7_06_2014 | Headline News

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s