It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by stompk
reply to post by neformore
Nice cut and paste.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh sorry, he DID read it, but he didn't read it until AFTER it was submitted.
So what really happened? In a nutshell, Kucinich did not write the bill (or read it, until too late), the focus of the bill is nothing to do with chemtrails,
it was written by UFO enthusiasts trying to: A) nullify a conspiracy by the “military-industrial complex”,
B) allow the use of suppressed alien technology for free energy, and
C) avoid accidentally shooting down or scaring away visiting aliens.
They listed a bunch of weird weapons, including mind control, tectonic weapons and (very briefly) chemtrails.
"Q: Let me ask you specifically about last week's scare here in Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are to deal with that (inaudible), at B'nai Brith.\par
A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a false threat under the circumstances. But as we've learned in the intelligence community, we had something called -- and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."
So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.
DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen
The bill was re-written several time in less unusual language to give it chance of passing, but ultimately fizzled in committee.
The initial version of the act is the only one that makes mention of “exotic weapons systems”, listing several technologies that will be familiar to conspiracy theorists:
(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons (ii) chemtrails; (iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems; (iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;
(v) laser weapons systems; (vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and (vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.
Yes, it even includes “extraterrestrial weapons”, meaning weapons created by aliens (or created from alien technology from crashed flying saucers at Roswell), as well as psychotronic (mind control) weapons. Yet somehow “chemtrails” gets all the attention here.
So what’s Kucinich’s involvement in this? It’s difficult to say. Kucinich is anti-war, so perhaps that’s his motivation.
He does have a lot of new-age, UFO-believing, friends, but he’s also running for president. When he was made aware of the nature of the “exotic weapons” language in the bill, it was re-written, and when questioned about it, he said
“I’m not into that. Understand me. When I found out that was in there, I said, ‘Look, I’m not interested in going there.’”
Kucinich’s motivations are perhaps revealed by his speech to the house on May 18th, 2005, introducing a newer version of the bill:
“ *** speech ***
“Such an offense against humanity could bring the wrath of God upon this nation.”
contrailscience.com...
As for introducing bills they don't care about, many congresspeople introduce bills that they know nothing about, or that they don't read first
That's the whole point of the lobbyist. The lobbyist gets them money for their campaign and in return they get special consideration to what they care about.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
They wouldn't have to have found influence or money for 40 senators. It's very common for a senator to use the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" method to get a bill through, or get it sponsored.
They frequently will work out a deal where if another senator votes for their bill, they promise to vote for a bill the other senator is trying to get through.
That's how some of the bills that make no sense have gotten through.
They also wouldn't have to use money for the initial senator. They could promise favors, or they could work out a deal where they get people to give him money for his campaign, or any number of other promises.
Originally posted by StellarX
And while i am not going to argue that any of this is in fact impossible i must wonder why you would wish to go to these types of lengths to ensure that no one believes that any senator in the US senate actually read or believed any of the claims in that bill!
Each to their own i suppose.
Stellar
Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
It satisfies a certain constituency (ATSers, for example) yet is satisfyingly cost-free, as it will never make it out of committee.
Hey, they passed the "Patriot" act without reading it, you can't give them much credit for being thorough.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
Excuse me, but WHERE did I say that NONE of the senators read the bill?
I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. I simply explained how it would be possible to get 40 senators to sponsor the bill.
And I don't know that he was using favors to get it. It could be that some of them owed HIM a favor. I have no idea what was going on behind closed doors with this bill.
I was simply explaining how it would have been POSSIBLE for them to have gotten 40 senators to help sponsor the bill.
As for being patronizing, if you want to think that then fine. As you said, to each their own.
Originally posted by StellarX
Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
It satisfies a certain constituency (ATSers, for example) yet is satisfyingly cost-free, as it will never make it out of committee.
Not following so do clarify.
They knew very well that they were supposed to vote for that and that not doing so would just make things more difficult for them. I do not see how you can compete those bills that are meant to protect the population to those that are meant to oppress them!
Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
It's not unheard of for congresscritters to vote on bills to satisfy a block of their constituents, knowing full well that it's been guaranteed not to pass a vote or to be sent to committee to die.
They may not support it, or care, but their vote may garner support next election amongst the constituency it appeases. So it's of no importance if they vote it - it's cost-free.
It's sort of like those floor speeches you hear late night on C-SPAN, no one at all is in session, but some congress drone is up there running his mouth. It gets the comments on the record but no one has to actually bother listening. Those are for the constituents, not for their co-workers.
They're "supposed" to read them and not vote them if it's not in the best interests of their constituency, not that it's how business actually is conducted, which was my point.
Originally posted by StellarX
This is primarily a result of the lack of sufficient observations for contrail-forming environments and the inability to obtain reliable moisture measurements from rawinsonde data at contrail altitudes. For this reason, much of the previous research directed toward predicting contrail development has not utilized empirical temperature and moisture observations but instead relied mainly on physically based models that could not always be verified (Appleman 1953; Scorer and Davenport 1970; Hanson and Hanson 1995).
Lack of data? We launch 2 sondes a day into the upper atmosphere her in Oz. We have 42 stations nation wide that do it twice a day which equates to 84 upper air soundings per day. Multiply that by the the other 10,000 upper air observations around the world and see how many measurements happen on a daily basis. And if that isn't enough information for these so called experts, what is?
[
Originally posted by ralph nader
reply to post by Essan
go get a camera and show us your stuff.please.your research, not old research.peace.