Hurricane Harvey and Weather Modification-- Trans-Pecos Weather Modification Association

That's why it's so hard to take you all seriously. You could do the math and prove it but instead you just guess.

Anyone that actually tries to claim that the HAARP installation is doing anything is a shill or stupid. HAARP was a research station in Alaska that was used to test/prototype the radar tech used in NEXRAD weather radars across the entire US, and various Doppler radar systems across the world.

WeatherWar101 is THE best channel out there at explaining and showing evidence for geoengineering. For the past year or so though, they've stopped pushing on the NEXRAD part of it since it's harder to collect evidence for other than just radar images, and have focused more on how power plants across the US and other countries are used to put vast clouds into the air to create/supplement storms.

It actually doesn't take that much energy to use NEXRAD to affect weather, though it is far above what NEXRAD is claimed to use, but definitely within what it is capable of.

I remember a big thread here years back regarding something like this in Arizona involving something about fraud and drought manipulation. Anyone remember that?

From your statistics in the other thread here which have no source granted.
The least powerful nuclear power plant located in jew york generates 7.2894e8 joules of energy every 24 hours archive.fo/W6kQw . Your least needed measurements to cover 1 square mile of the sky in energy to heat it 1 degree fahrenheit is 4.052555e18. It is reasonable to think that with three of the least powerful nuclear power plants you could generate the neccessary energy. This is before secret power plants, more powerful powerplants, and some hidden technology to increase the energy effeiciency. As a example the largest powerplant generates 5.66928e9 joules of electricity over twenty four hours. It would take only two of these power plants to generate the neccessary electricity to have the neccessary energy to heat the atmosphere for one square mile by 1 degree fahrenheit.
Watchya sliding schlomo? Is it these threads and this is a containment thread to discredit the other one?

My statistics actually, but, you're not real familiar with scientific notation, eh?

4.05x10^18 = 4050000000000000000
5.66x10^9 = 5660000000

It would take 715547703 of those power plants to generate that much energy.

If there's a more efficient mechanism other than heat, I've yet to hear of it. I can't listen to youtube videos because my hearing is temporarially gone, so would you give me a brief overview of the mechanism claimed?

(I'll likely end up with a couple IDs in here because I'm swapping my VPN around for other sites, before someone says I'm trying to samefag. I was 4f8b28)

Excellent work anons.

I'm not the person you're quoting from that other thread, not sure what in my post gave you the idea that I was. Didn't see that there was a second thread, just noticed this one.

Well, most of the heat is provided by power plants generating steam, such as in this webm.
The NEXRAD is more of a way to push/maneuver clouds by affecting the particles placed in the air by cloud seeding, as well as the aluminum oxide particles that are added into jet fuel to act as cloud seed material

The next question would be how did you come up with those statistics? How many joules per day a power plants generates is irrelevant if the target is moving or unexplained.

The point is that he's pulling those statistics out of his ass, just like in other threads, all the while refusing to give any possible natural occurence that would explain this webm , which is a massive increase in cloud density located directly over power plants

Well yea the most effeicient way to affect the temperature of the sky would be UHF radio waves that affect a particle near the clouds heating up a space around them casuing a inversion. All I know so far is how much electricity nuclear power plants generate. What data is needed now is how much is neccessary to heat different particles/elements in the sky, energy loss converting electricty to radio waves, and the best type of particle/element to seed in the clouds.

Aluminum oxide has a thermal conductivity of 30 W·m^−1·K^− archive.fo/gVeaJ . While silver iodide used in cloud seething in the 1950's only has a standard enthalpy of formationread thermal conductive potential of −62 kJ·mol^− which makes it a less suitable material to heat up. Surely there is something more naturally occuring that could be heated more effectively in the atmosphere?

So, let's look at the amount of steam a power plant could realistically generate. We'll take the large power plant from and say it is 10% efficient in generating power (far less than it really is) meaning about 9 times more energy leaves as waste heat than as electricity. That would give us about 5^10 joules to work with. That's the total amount of raw heat it could dump somewhere, which is far less than what I calculated here: - this makes sense, because if power plants were putting out heat on that scale, it would heat the atmosphere around them and kill the workers.

So, let's look at the steam. We'll say the water is already at 100C - it's not, but I'd rather overestimate if I'm arguing something is impossible. Water has an enthalpy of vaporization of about 40500j/mol, and a molar mass of 18. So, with 5^10J of energy, we can vaporize about 1234567 mol (seriously, calculate it out if you think I made it up because of the weird number) of H2O or, 22222222g, or 222222kg. We'll say 300,000kg, which is conveniently 300,000 liters of water. 300,000 liters is about .24 acre-feet, or about 10,000 cubic feet - this is the amount of water Addicks releases every 2.5 seconds.

The NEXRAD bit is far more interesting, and one I don't know how to approach from a feasibility standpoint. I'm not aware of a way electromagnetic waves could move non-magnetic particles at a distance, but I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to claim that it's impossible. Energetically, if you had a way to move them, it's feasible enough that it's worth considering. Heating them, however, is impossible for the same reasons I've already mentioned.

A fair question. Let's walk through it.

Standard atmospheric pressure is 14.8 pounds per square inch. That means, above every square inch of earth's surface, there are 14.8 pounds of air. There are 4014489600 square inches per square mile, so there are 5.94x10^10 pounds of air or 2.7x10^10 kilograms of air, or 2.7x10^13 grams of air above every square mile of earth. Air's molar mass is around 30, so that's about 9x10^11 mols of air. The specific heat of air is about 1kj/mol, or 1,000j/mol, meaning that to raise 1 sq mile of air by 1 degree, you need 9x10^14J, so my quicker calculation in was actually an underestimation. 2x10^18 was the estimation of the amount of heat that would be needed to raise the amount of air under a hurricane (~70k sq mi) in that estimation, that number would change to ~6.3x10^19 but on these scales, a factor of 10 isn't really a big difference.

It takes a minute to type mate.

Thermal conductivity is how quickly heat can flow through a material, and isn't generally used for particles for a lot of reasons. Enthalpy of formation refers to the amount of energy gained or released during a chemical reaction, and has nothing to do with how easily a material is heated. You still need a source for that energy in order to be able to transmit it anywhere - radio/electromagnetic waves do not create energy, they transport energy.

Forgot to mention that 's power plant generated that much energy every 24 hours, so the power plant could put 300k liters of h2o into the atmosphere every 24h - my analysis is useless if I don't mention a rate. Addicks is releasing 34560 times more water per day than a power plant could pump into the atmosphere.

The fuck does the flow rate of a dam have to do with power plants generating steam?
Also, calculations are nice and all, but they can't explain away videos like this one youtube.com/watch?v=OFM8rB2cc9Q (would embed, but already did in Harvey #8, as well as a number of other videos like it, in which people like you refused to respond to), of power plants outputting vast clouds.

Sky was weird last evening. All these little tiny clouds everywhere with like a big river of clear sky the whole way across. I was thinking it must be haarp. Didn't put it together with all the shit going on in Texas until now.

Since it's been a while since I've watched that video, most of it is done visually and with text, the channel avoids using any voice to keep the owner anonymous.

Another thing to consider is that even as far back as 1971, scientists knew that a nuclear power plant (Zion Nuclear Power Plant in particular, was located near Chicago) would have an effect on the weather

The water got into the dam from Harvey. It's an easy number to show how much water is being dumped by Harvey compared to the amount of water that could be put out of the steam stack of a power plant, rather than trying to figure out the amount of rain Harvey dumped in a 24h period, which would be much tougher to calculate, and is much larger than the amount of water in the dams (given that the dams were rising from the rain.)

I didn't check to see if it had text, I'll go ahead and watch it. A power plant might marginally, MARGINALLY change the behavior of small thunderstorms, but a hurricane is a whole different issue and many many times more energy, moisture, etc. The amount of water vapor all of the world's power plants combined can put into the air is a tiny fraction of what the oceans put into the air.

Yes hence why I was giving statistics on electricity generated. How much electricty does a antenna array need to generate X amount of waves heating X particle in the atmosphere therefore creating a inversion. The particle is not silver iodide that is for sure.
Yes I know, when talking about heating particles in the atmosphere you want waves to flow slowly through the particle as to generate the most heat.

Ok but what about a flat surface outside the hurricane? All you would need is to measure the size of the leading front where the weather changes drastically to get how much of an area you need to heat up to cause it to stop.

Heating up an area like you describe would just raise the hurricane higher into the sky. Literally who cares?

You're trying to imply that power plants need to put water vapor into the air as fast as it comes down, as if that's even remotely required, when all they need to do is put a bunch into the air over time, and then when the rainfall happens, it happens a lot faster than it was put up there.

Lets take a look at the formation/creation of a hurricane, in this case, Hurricane Dora, from January this year

Webm?

It's a 10 minute video with constantly changing images due to being satellite footage of the formation of a hurricane(over 6 days), I'm not skilled enough in webm magic to get that under 12mb while still being clear enough to tell what's going on.

For anons wanting to look into HAARP for whatever reason, the one in Alaska is said to have not been active for a few years now and they have a new array in the arctic. As you would exspect information on the new one is very small.

Hell, there's even weather news outlets that will sometimes explain part of what's going on(power plant cloud generation), though they'll never go into enough detail to properly show the effects

Nigger are you not reading the thread? I already addressed how HAARP is not affecting the weather in the US, and that the tech prototyped in it was put into NEXRAD stations all over the US, in this post
Pic related, the map of NEXRAD stations in the US, and their coverage area.

Thermal conductivity is a measure of how quickly heat in the form of intra-molecular motion flows through a material, not how quickly electromagnetic waves flow through a material. Your argument is roughly tantamount to telling me that you can fuel your car with water because the car is red. The things you're citing have no relation to the things you're claiming.

Okay, I found the full text of the study the guy cites. Here's perhaps the most instructive pieces.

Calculations of the typical ingestion of moisture from both small shower clouds and thunderstorms indicated that the cooling tower releases of moisture into the atmosphere at a Zion-?type installation would be very small compared with the natural fluxes in storm clouds. However, it appears quite possible that the cooling tower addition to existing convective clouds might be sufficient occasionally under a favorable set of atmospheric conditions to intensify natural cloud processes, resulting in additional precipitation downwind and possibly other undesirable intensification of naturally occurring weather events.

Results of the abbreviated model study indicated that under steady light rain conditions, the water vapor flux from Zion towers could lead to a small increase in storm rainfall (trace amounts) within a few thousand feet of the tower. However, when these increases are added to the normal annual amounts from steady rains, the addition is insignificant, amounting to only a fraction of 1 percent annually. The model computations indicated that the tower plume would affect snowfall for a distance of approximately 2 miles inland in the presence of storms with onshore winds, and that the total annual snowfall would be increased 1 to 2 inches within this lake-?effect zone. Indications were found that the tower plume could also trigger thunderstorms under certain favorable weather conditions. However, since there exists such a void in the measurement of meteorological parameters in conjunction with the operation of large cooling towers, it is not possible to calculate with a high degree of confidence the specific increases in thunderstorms and other severe weather events that might be triggered by cooling tower effluents.

In the literature reviewed for this report quantitative data pertaining to the effects of moist plumes from cooling towers on clouds and precipitation are extremely meager. Occasional observations of light drizzle or snow have been reported in the vicinity of towers, such as mentioned by Culkowski (1962), Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (1968), Zeller et al. (1969), and Decker (1969). A few calculations have been attempted to determine the cloud and precipitation producing potential of cooling tower plumes, but as pointed out by Hanna and Swisher (1970), no analysis has been made of the possibility of these plumes augmenting precipitation from naturally occurring storms.

Analyses of E G & G (1970) indicate that moist tower plumes can initiate cloud formation. In their studies at Keystone, Pennsylvania, Visbisky et al. (1970) find that tower plumes will contribute to local cloud formations at times in varying degrees, depending upon atmospheric conditions. They conclude, however, that any cloud effect at Keystone did not appear to have a significant effect upon airport operations approximately 2 miles northwest of the plant.

(Cont'd…)

Carson (1970) states that the extra heat and water vapor from cooling towers may create cumulus clouds and that the possibility of tower plumes acting as a trigger to produce extra cumulus congestus clouds and precipitation miles downwind of the release must be considered. In reviewing findings of Central Electricity Generating Board of Great Britain, Carson points out that they had found no reports of drizzle downwind from cooling towers. Cumulus clouds are sometimes formed, but they have not observed showers or precipitation being generated by the tower plumes. However, they did observe that sunshine could be altered in the area, since the visible plume may persist for a number of miles.In the literature reviewed for this report quantitative data pertaining to the effects of moist plumes from cooling towers on clouds and precipitation are extremely meager. Occasional observations of light drizzle or snow have been reported in the vicinity of towers, such as mentioned by Culkowski (1962), Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (1968), Zeller et al. (1969), and Decker (1969). A few calculations have been attempted to determine the cloud and precipitation producing potential of cooling tower plumes, but as pointed out by Hanna and Swisher (1970), no analysis has been made of the possibility of these plumes augmenting precipitation from naturally occurring storms.

Analyses of E G & G (1970) indicate that moist tower plumes can initiate cloud formation. In their studies at Keystone, Pennsylvania, Visbisky et al. (1970) find that tower plumes will contribute to local cloud formations at times in varying degrees, depending upon atmospheric conditions. They conclude, however, that any cloud effect at Keystone did not appear to have a significant effect upon airport operations approximately 2 miles northwest of the plant.

Carson (1970) states that the extra heat and water vapor from cooling towers may create cumulus clouds and that the possibility of tower plumes acting as a trigger to produce extra cumulus congestus clouds and precipitation miles downwind of the release must be considered. In reviewing findings of Central Electricity Generating Board of Great Britain, Carson points out that they had found no reports of drizzle downwind from cooling towers. Cumulus clouds are sometimes formed, but they have not observed showers or precipitation being generated by the tower plumes. However, they did observe that sunshine could be altered in the area, since the visible plume may persist for a number of miles.

In other words, what I said above: It has a marginal effect under very specific circumstances.

No, what I am saying is if the power plant is putting up less than .001% of the water that is coming down, it's not making a significant difference. Water vapor does not magically stay in the same air column, it dissipates, which means it doesn't "load up". Even if it did, we're still talking about an effect of .01-.1% intensification. If someone's 23 and me comes back as .001% Jew are you going to start arguing that they behave the way they do because they're Jewish? I use analogies like the dam release or heating a square mile's worth of air to point out how incredibly far off the energy required vs the energy available is.

Oh i also just remembered, I understand an exceptional amount of water / rain was in these storms/

Few days befor the storms sea water in Brazil receded to an unheard of level overnight
People ran thing a Tsunami was going to hit but nothing did.

going to post a few more JewTubes

...

...

Sorry, The hole of South America not just Brazil

Thank you for proving you're still continuing to ignore the video evidence of power plants making massive clouds.

Well then, I guess all the weather news stories in the past few years of power plants affecting weather downwind are just made up, right?

Also i remember how you could see when HAARP was active because you could see its waves emitting from Alaska on weather radar.

The same pattern was emitting from Antarctica across South America wile all this water was receding days befor the stroms

YES I KNOW, secureteam10 BUT A DESCENT VIDEO OF IT

I remember reading about other haarp type installations. I think there was a big ass one in pine gap australia. So these are like small versions of haarp but there's a shitload of them?

You keep pulling figures like that out of your ass, while also ignoring that there are thousands of power plants that can do this and they can do it for days at a time, not to mention that the satellite data shows that these releases happen at just the right moments to help fuel storm systems(as is shown in nearly every single WeatherWar101 video)

ITT: people who have no idea how orders of magnitude of difference there is between the power output of an electrical plant and a hurricane.

We've got a brainlet here.
When a radio wave of sufficient frequency hits an object it causes heat in the form of either radiation or reflection of the wave. I cited thermal conductivity as a measurement of how long a particle would stay "hot" for when hit with said UHF wave. You need to know how long it stays hot thermal efficiency as to calculate the efficient transfer of heat from electrcity to ultra high frequency radio wave of unknown baud to particle emiting heat.

You are just using random goalposts to say the needed energy is too great without actually giving a estimation of the needed space to be heated as to stop the cold front.

what is basic cloud formation archive.fo/xm0Wa

In case you missed it earlier in the thread here NEXRAD systems are Doppler radar systems inside the white sphere in pic related, HAARP was a prototype/proof of concept.

Oh look, another poster completely ignoring any and all evidence posted.

Go try to use a Bic lighter to boil a swimming pool and let me know how it goes.

glaciogenic flares

Leave it to a shill to completely change the topic to something unrelated, ignoring all evidence in the thread, in some attempt to look smart.

Yes, cloud seeding is also a part of it, combined with power plant generated clouds and NEXRAD.

...

Well atleast Holla Forums knows it is on to something if the shill (((they))) sent was this smart initially but then gave up and changed tactics.

Tornadoes and stuff like that are derived from ELECTROMAGNETIC phenomenon unknown for mainstream audience. Truly something very weird is going on.

←——– Check this out:

The electric universe model really affects the whole geoengineering discussion

On the topic of tornadoes, they're heavily affected by NEXRAD

Y U NO WEBM. SO MUCH YOUTUBE BUT Y U NO.

Download youtube-dl and ffmpeg. Then go download it either via GUI or cmd.exe/terminal
youtube-dl (insert video url here) best
Then take that video and go from a command line like cmd.exe and with ffmpeg go
ffmpeg -i (insert video here).mp4 uploadthis.webm
Then upload it.

That said any kind of winds can be produced by electromagnetic fields.

The entirety of both weatherwar101 and thunderboltsproject are worth watching, they're goldmines of info.

silver iodide
nawcinc.com/photos.html

Yeah, weather is so much more complicated than anyone could ever imagined. It's not a vacuum or something like that where only water, temperature changes and air somehow produces all what we call "weather". It's so much more complicated, there are factors like electricity, magnetism, interplanetary and interstellar radiation and stuff and of course they are major factors for the end result that what weather will be. And if they mess up with spraying something there and mess up with electromagnetic fields then all these anomalies happening could be explained. Who knows added to this what kind of unknown forces are also present there.

Average hurricane releases energy at a rate of 10^14 watts.

The total electrical generation capacity of the human species is about half a percent of that.

Still saging, no source, and no explanation as to what the fuck that has to do with anything.

It is irrelevent how much energy capacity a storm has. What matters is the distance a cold front covers as to measure how much area needs to be heated to stop/slow the storm.

I don't need to get into the weeds about the intracate differences between nucleate boiling vs film boiling to answer the question of whether or not a Bic lighter can boil a swimming pool.

Your problem is that you don't understand exponents. Until you fix that, you're not going to get anywhere.

.001% is a high estimate for the percentage of rain over Houston that could be attributed to a power plant, based on the comparison between the flows from Addicks (a small percentage of Harvey's rain) and the steam generated by a power plant. In reality, you could tack on a few more zeros to the front there.

No, that's not how energy works for a lot of reasons. It doesn't make a bit of difference "how long the particle would stay hot". What matters is the energy transferred between the UHF wave and the particle, from there the energy will make it into the air regardless of the thermal conductivity of the particle because it has nowhere else to go. You didn't know how scientific notation worked, you didn't know what an enthalpy of formation was, and you have no clue how to use thermal conductivity. Regardless, arguing about how efficiently you could transfer energy (hint, it's less than 100%) is pointless when you don't have the energy available or any inking of a way to get it.

When the goalposts are nearly a billion times larger than what you have available to you, it really doesn't matter if you move them. Does it make a difference if you need the energy of 700 million nuclear power plants, or 7 million nuclear power plants, or 70,000 nuclear power plants? No, because you won't be able to build any of those numbers, so even if you only needed to heat a tiny fraction of the area you still don't have the energy to do it.

Power plants make massive clouds on the scale of you. That is the point of the math, because how large they are to you has no bearing on how large they are to hurricanes. I don't know why there were big tides in Brazil, but I doubt it has anything to do with Harvey, and you haven't proposed any kind of link between the two.

It's funny because he literally doesn't.

Resorting to ad hominim attacks and trying to sage at the same time? Was getting caught part of your plan? I won't fuck up on exponents so easily in the future now.
Before you crash my sides with no survivors proceed to
>>>/4chan/
>>>/reddit/
>>>/gaschamber/
Or my favorite
>>>/bane/

Last time I'll try to explain how ridiculous this whole thing is.

Total world energy consumption per year is ~5.67x10^20 Joules. Let's again say that's 10% efficient, so we're going to release 10x that much heat, and it's all going to convert perfectly into water vapor. Using the same series of steps from here you wind up with 2.52x10^14 liters of water produced annually by every power plant in the world if they were all super inefficient and cooled by evaporation. or 2.52x10^11 m^3. Total annual rainfall of the world is ~5x10^14m^3 (archive.is/g7h5c)

So, even using ridiculously, absurdly generous assumptions for how much water vapor is being produced, power plants could only possibly create 0.05% of the world's total rainfall, Even if I'm off by a factor of 10 somewhere, you get .5%. So little that it wouldn't be statistically detectable if we measured for 100 years.

This is what idiots like are spouting with the naive smugness of a leftist lecturing you about how white people are to blame, using terms he doesn't know to back up arguments he doesn't understand.

(c9db57, I disagree with you, but you're not a massive faggot parading around in his ignorance.)

When you can get the actual vertical distance needed to make what is essentially a wall of hot air using UHF radio waves and particles heated by said waves get back to me.
Also stop saging if you are correct. Give the knowledge back to us, the people.

Still there.

wtwma.com/Daily Operations/TPWMA/08242017T.pdf

You're a shill.

How much energy would it take to block the Yellowstone gysers which let off excess pressure? It would take negligible energy, and the result would be Yellowstone erupting. You don't need large amounts of energy to manipulate natural phenomena. By seeding the clouds in certain areas they can create low pressure zones, by expending a seemingly negligible amount in other places they create high pressure zones. You don't need to expend much energy at all to create a hurricane, you just need to exploit the energy that's already there and guide it.

0/10 fire this agent

Math || GTFO

You're literally the same guy I just replied to just on your alternate IP

It would take a massive amount of energy, or at least material, to block Yellowstone enough to cause an eruption - leaving aside that they aren't comparable. Your little plug would blow out long before you'd make it erupt. Humans are incredibly small and weak in comparison to geological forces.

You can yell shill in your delusion all you'd like while ascribing your enemies with magical powers over the weather.

No, and if I were trying to samefag I wouldn't have told people that my ID was changing.

most chaotic timeline

we all know it'd be one of patrician taste

youtube-dl -F
youtube-dl -f 250
downloads directly to webm

Hello fellow traveller, I'm 100% on board with the core Eu guys. Wallace Thornhill David Talbott, Dwardu Cardona, Tony Parrat, Steven (the fucking boss) Crothers and many others. I'd include Ben Davidson in the mix. Sadly it's been infiltrated by MIC with their sun experiment - it's to be expected. They are now actively wasting big bux on a project that will go nowhere, military and US "scientists" crawling all over it. But alas, they do hold the keys to an enormous shift in the zeitgeist which is definitely needed.

if you run it through ffmpeg again it runs the size down even further than letting youtube-dl do it.

The big news was Ben Davidson's model predictive power with regard to large scale earthquakes. It was working like a charm getting 80+% of success, then suddenly it stopped working. Coincidence? Something else is happening? The data he relies on has beeen compromised? Who knows. It's an unfolding story.

nice, I'll try that next time

Getting sick of seeing a pink sky in the afternoon.

I remember that as well user but then again I am old as dirt.

I don't remember the last time I saw a cloudless sunset.

The Commiefornians did it with their stupid cloud seeding.

May the sky be dark blue again.

I've talked about it on here before and I see in firsthand here in Los Angeles at least a few times a month. They say our pink sunsets are beautiful, but I, I know.

Interesting comments in the video. youtube.com/watch?v=Oqi4dCnrJAc

slide train anti bump

I actually live and work around this area. We had crazy amounts of rain the last couple of weeks and it's ironic that this thread pops up to give an explanation for it all.

um um um um guys is this the plane that started irma what day did irma form.

flightradar24.com/2017-08-28/00:15/12x/GLF4/ea3e2af

WTF

Why is this thread sticky no more?

weather.com/forecast/regional/news/meteorological-fall-chilly-temperatures-eastern-southern-us-september-2017
First Week of Meteorological Fall Will Live Up to Its Name as Chilly Temperatures Engulf Eastern, Southern U.S.
BAD REPUBLICAN STATES

>weather.com/forecast/regional/news/meteorological-fall-chilly-temperatures-eastern-southern-us-september-2017

Cold fronts are high pressure systems that tend to push away hurricanes. If you believe the Jews are capable of manipulating the Jet Stream (they aren't), then they're protecting the east coast from the hurricane, not pulling it in. The Jet Stream dip you're referring to here is why so many of the potential tracks have the storm skipping up along the coast without a landfall.

The same people who realized that the holocaust didn't happen because the most advanced state in the world at the time was physically incapable of cremating 6 million bodies are arguing that modern ZOG has the ability to control the weather on a large scale, which is far more difficult than burning some Jews. This is why I keep coming back and "shilling". It would take less energy to pack up every non-white on the planet, transport them to a camp, kill them with masturbation machines, and then cremate their remains, and then finely dust those ashes over the world so no-one could find a trace than to manipulate a hurricane (or alter the path of the jet stream). You could have thousands upon thousands of holocausts for the amount of energy we are talking about.

Do you not know how geysers work?

What does the jetstream have to do with the ability to generate enough electricty to generate radio waves to heat up a particle in the sky? I could see ZOG using it to amplify their efforts of moving a storm along but they don't control that.

The cold front in question is coming from a dip in the jet stream. The user I was responding to was insinuating that ZOG was creating that cold front (presumably by moving the jet stream) in order to cause the hurricane to do more damage. Cold fronts are high pressure systems that repel hurricanes, so if ZOG did create the cold front, they would be pushing it away from the east coast and out to sea, thereby reducing the damage it would cause.

So, what my response meant was that either ZOG can't control the weather, or they don't want Irma to impact the US.

...

This happened way in west texas where they've been having severe droughts. Was ineffective as well, they try to use this technology for droughts all the time with little result. Dumb hotep niggers were passing this around Twitter and it was btfod there

...

This is a stupid question, but would one not wish to seed the clouds in order to cause more rainfall in order to dissipate the hurricane and avoid it from building or getting stronger? Honest question. On a side note, check out Dane Wigington's site. Geo-engineering is exponentially worse than cloud seeding but I may be missing or overlooking the point to this article.

No not at all. Look at their excuses, they claim it to be contrails which they are obviously not. If you've lived out in the country you'll see contrails all the time. However there is definite proof and evidence to show that what is coming from these planes are not contrails. Another point of contention is that their transponders have been switched off. This is a direct violation according to the American laws and extremely unusual.

t. ATC connection

They actually spent some time experimenting with that. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Stormfury

Which is what makes it so funny that the geoengineering crowd tries to use cloudseeding as an argument for gov't created hurricanes.

debnump

Artificial cloud making show on mainstream media:

bump