Weather Weapons?

https://vigilantnews.com/post/theyre-in-shock-lawmakers-briefed-on-weather-modification-tech-come-to-bone-chilling-conclusion/

Thoughts?  “They’re in Shock”: Lawmakers Briefed on Weather Modification Tech Come to Bone-Chilling Conclusion

“They realized this [Hurricane Helene] was not a natural event.”

Share this:

XFacebookEmailTelegramTwitter

Published 15 seconds ago on October 8, 2024By Infowars

This article originally appeared on Infowars and was republished with permission.

Guest post by Jamie White

State representatives and senators in the Carolinas were briefed on weather modification technology and have come to the conclusion that Hurricane Helene was a weather weapon deployed against the American people, according to a geoengineering expert.

Dane Wigington joined Ret. Col. Douglas MacGregor’s podcast on Monday to reveal that he briefed numerous lawmakers about patented Defense Department-linked technology used to control major weather events like hurricanes, and the lawmakers were left stunned over what they heard.

“I had an hour conference call yesterday with the representatives and senators from the Carolinas, and we presented the data to them to answer their questions about how this manipulation occurs,” Wigington said.

“They realized this was not a natural event. They’re trying to digest the fact that their states were literally under assault from weather modification operations that are clearly connected to the DoD operations.”

“They’re in shock. Because when you realize you’re literally at war with those who control the federal government, how does one digest that?”

“And we can speculate again about the agendas and objectives being carried out but the fact that the storm was manipulated is absolutely inarguable,” he added.

Wigington went on to explain how the technology to stop hurricanes from occurring “has existed for decades with the manipulation of atmospheric pressure zones.”

“HAARP in Alaska is one example many people are familiar with,” he said. “That’s an ionosphere heater. That’s a weapon of mass destruction, period. It can cause an electrical chain reaction in the ionosphere, which heats it to extraordinarily high temperatures, which causes the atmosphere to bulge up and down. The downward push creates a high-pressure dome that can steer the jet stream, and the same type of manipulation can create low-pressure zones.”

“When they have this type of power over the climate system, they can make or break these storms anytime they want. And again, what we see now is storms kept weaker as they’re over the ocean because they’re harder to steer until they reach the land-based network of transmitters, and then we have rapid intensification.”

Wigington then explained how Hurricane Helene was “directed” to the Southeastern states using this advanced technology.

“The bottom line is it was directed there as the transmission recordings clearly show. They kept the moisture corralled there to deluge in the same location. So again, these are patented technologies, and the fact that we have the entire so-called meteorological community denying that this is going on to protect their paychecks and pensions is absolutely criminal at this point,” he said.

“We know we have private defense contractors that are neck-deep in the patents that manipulate these storms — Raytheon, Lockheed Martin — we know those two in particular do the weather modeling for the nation’s weather, National Weather Service and NOAA,” Wigington continued, adding those organizations have an “illegal gag order on them.”

“So at this point, this is an emperor-has-no-clothes moment. That’s the best description I can give for something so obvious and inarguable, it can only be considered weather warfare at this point, and the fact that the so-called science community is denying it at this manipulation is criminal. It’s absolutely criminal,” he added.

This comes amid growing speculation on social media that Hurricane Milton, which is set to hit Florida imminently, is the product of these advanced weather modification technologies given how quickly it formed into a Category 5 after it began as a small system in the middle of the Gulf.

Watch the full interview:

Copyright 2024 Infowars

Share this:

ChatGPT

The article from Infowars presents the idea that lawmakers were briefed on weather modification technologies and were "shocked" to learn that Hurricane Helene may have been intentionally manipulated. It leans heavily on the claim that weather manipulation technologies, such as HAARP (High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program), were used as weapons, referencing patented systems and defense contractors like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.

It's essential to approach such claims with caution, as Infowars has a reputation for promoting conspiracy theories. While weather modification technologies exist (like cloud seeding), their scope is limited, and scientific consensus generally rejects the idea that hurricanes can be controlled or weaponized on a large scale as described in the article. Most weather events are still driven by natural processes, even though there are ongoing discussions about climate engineering and its potential ethical and environmental impacts.

The appeal of this narrative lies in its framing: it taps into distrust of governmental and corporate power, aligning with concerns about secretive operations. However, without more credible evidence from independent scientific sources, claims like these should be viewed critically.

You said:

Well, you know what Alex says: 'Tomorrow's news today!'

ChatGPT

Yes, Alex Jones often uses that phrase to suggest he's ahead of the curve on major events or issues. His platform does appeal to those skeptical of mainstream narratives, but it's worth remembering that his claims frequently push boundaries without substantial evidence. While his predictions sometimes align with future news, they're often intertwined with conspiracy theories that remain controversial. Critical thinking is key when navigating such claims, ensuring that sensational stories are supported by solid evidence before drawing conclusions.

You said:

Has Alex ever been proven right?

ChatGPT

Alex Jones has occasionally made predictions or claims that later aligned with events or trends, but this has often been overshadowed by numerous instances where his assertions have been debunked or dismissed as conspiracy theories. Some examples where he has been perceived as "correct" include:

Surveillance State: Jones has long warned about increasing government surveillance and data collection on citizens. In recent years, revelations about mass surveillance programs, particularly those revealed by Edward Snowden, have supported some of his concerns about privacy erosion.

COVID-19 Origin Speculations: Early in the pandemic, Jones speculated about the virus's potential connections to biological warfare and government involvement. While this narrative gained some traction, it is important to note that most scientific evidence points to natural origins for the virus, despite ongoing investigations into the Wuhan lab leak theory.

Gun Control Legislation: Jones has consistently warned about potential government efforts to restrict gun rights. In various instances, proposed legislation following mass shootings has prompted debates about gun control, aligning with his fears of increased restrictions.

While these examples may resonate with certain audiences, they often come with significant caveats and controversies. His broader body of work includes many unfounded claims and conspiracy theories that have been widely criticized and debunked, making it difficult to consider him a reliable source. Ultimately, any alignment with future events is often anecdotal and doesn't necessarily validate his methods or overall narrative.

You said:

911?

ChatGPT

Alex Jones has often claimed that the September 11 attacks in 2001 were part of a larger conspiracy involving the U.S. government or intelligence agencies. He has suggested that elements within the government had prior knowledge of the attacks or were complicit in them to justify subsequent wars and increased security measures.

His theories surrounding 9/11 include:

Controlled Demolition: Jones has promoted the idea that the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7 were brought down by controlled demolitions rather than just the impact of the airplanes. This claim has been widely discredited by engineers and scientists, who cite the fires and structural damage as the cause of the collapses.

Government Complicity: He has suggested that the attacks were allowed to happen or facilitated by government actors as part of a broader agenda, including the expansion of military power and surveillance.

False Flag Operations: Jones often describes 9/11 as a "false flag" operation, a term used to suggest that an event is orchestrated to blame another party for political gain.

While some people find his theories compelling, they are generally dismissed by experts, including the 9/11 Commission, which concluded that the attacks were planned and executed by al-Qaeda. Overall, the majority of the evidence supports the view that 9/11 was a terrorist attack rather than an inside job, and claims to the contrary are often regarded as conspiracy theories without credible backing.

You said:

Didn't he predict it?

ChatGPT

Alex Jones did make predictions and express concerns about a potential terrorist attack prior to September 11, 2001. In the months leading up to the attacks, he spoke on his radio show about various threats, including the possibility of an impending terrorist attack on American soil, suggesting that such an event could be used to justify military actions and increased government control.

However, it's important to differentiate between general warnings about the possibility of terrorism—an established concern at the time—and the specifics of the 9/11 attacks, which were carried out by al-Qaeda. While he may have had a sense of an imminent threat, his claims about government involvement or foreknowledge became more pronounced after the attacks occurred, leading to his conspiracy theories about the event.

Many people raise questions about the credibility of his predictions, given that they were often vague and not substantiated by specific evidence. The assertion that he "predicted" 9/11 is often viewed through the lens of hindsight, as concerns about terrorism were widespread in the years leading up to the attacks.

You said:

Didn't he predict it specifically?

ChatGPT

Yes, Alex Jones did make specific claims leading up to the September 11 attacks that some interpret as predictions. For example:

Warnings About Terrorist Attacks: In the weeks and months prior to 9/11, Jones discussed the possibility of an imminent terrorist attack on U.S. soil, suggesting that it could be used to justify government overreach and military action. He referenced various intelligence reports and fears expressed by other commentators about potential attacks.

Specific Dates and Locations: In the days immediately before 9/11, Jones claimed that he had received information suggesting a significant attack was planned for that timeframe, though he did not specify the nature of the attack or the exact locations.

While he expressed concerns about terrorism and suggested that an event could be used as a pretext for war, many of his assertions became more detailed and conspiratorial after the fact, especially regarding the government's alleged foreknowledge or involvement in the attacks.

It's important to note that while some may view his pre-9/11 commentary as predictive, the broader context of public concern about terrorism during that time complicates the narrative. His predictions lacked concrete details about the specific events that unfolded on September 11, which were the actions of al-Qaeda terrorists. Thus, while he did warn about the possibility of attacks, his claims about them being orchestrated or facilitated by the government are regarded as conspiracy theories without credible evidence.

You said:

Didn't Tucker Karlson admit this after mocking Truthers for years?

ChatGPT

Yes, Tucker Carlson did acknowledge that there were elements of truth to some conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, particularly in the context of a broader discussion about government accountability and transparency. In a segment on his show in March 2021, he mentioned the widespread skepticism regarding the official narrative of the September 11 attacks and expressed concern about the lack of transparency in government operations.

Carlson's comments seemed to signal a shift in tone from his previous mocking of "Truthers"—those who believe in conspiracy theories related to 9/11. He suggested that many people have legitimate reasons to question the official accounts of major events, reflecting a growing skepticism about government narratives in general.

This acknowledgment sparked considerable debate and criticism, particularly among those who argue that it fuels dangerous conspiracy theories without grounding in credible evidence. While some may see this as validation of concerns raised by 9/11 Truthers, it's crucial to approach such discussions with a critical eye, as the majority of evidence supports the conclusion that the attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda and not part of a government conspiracy.

You said:

Why didn't Trump declassify 911 documents as promised instead of sponsoring Saudi golf tournaments?

ChatGPT

Donald Trump did express intentions to declassify documents related to the September 11 attacks during his presidency, particularly regarding the 28 pages of the 2002 Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the 9/11 attacks. These pages reportedly focus on potential connections between Saudi Arabia and the attackers. However, despite his promises, he did not fully declassify these documents during his time in office.

Here are a few possible reasons why Trump may not have followed through on declassifying the 9/11 documents:

National Security Concerns: Declassifying certain documents could potentially harm national security interests or diplomatic relations, especially concerning Saudi Arabia, which is a key ally of the U.S. in the Middle East. Officials may have weighed the potential fallout of releasing sensitive information against the public's desire for transparency.

Political Complications: The release of documents implicating Saudi involvement could have significant political repercussions. Maintaining relationships with Saudi Arabia is crucial for various U.S. interests, including oil supply, counterterrorism cooperation, and military alliances.

Distraction from Other Priorities: Trump's administration was marked by numerous controversies and policy initiatives. The focus on domestic issues, trade wars, and foreign policy challenges might have overshadowed the declassification of 9/11 documents.

Focus on Golf and Other Interests: Trump's participation in and promotion of Saudi-sponsored golf tournaments, such as those organized by the LIV Golf Series, drew criticism. Critics argue that this relationship could indicate a prioritization of personal or business interests over transparency regarding 9/11.

Ultimately, while Trump did promise to declassify 9/11-related documents, a combination of political, security, and personal interests may have influenced his decision not to do so. This inconsistency has led to ongoing skepticism and frustration among victims' families and advocates for greater transparency.

You said:

Just more bluster from the Orange Used Car Salesman?

ChatGPT

Many critics do characterize Trump’s promises and statements as "bluster," arguing that he often makes bold claims without following through on them. His tendency to use hyperbolic language and make grandiose promises is a hallmark of his communication style, which can lead to perceptions of insincerity or opportunism.

In the context of declassifying 9/11 documents, this viewpoint is compounded by the fact that many people feel let down by the lack of transparency regarding the events surrounding the attacks and the potential implications involving foreign governments like Saudi Arabia. For those who believe in accountability, Trump's failure to act on this promise, especially while engaging with Saudi interests through initiatives like golf tournaments, reinforces the idea that he may prioritize personal or political interests over fulfilling commitments.

This critique often reflects broader frustrations with his presidency, where many feel his rhetoric does not align with his actions, leading to skepticism about his intentions and trustworthiness.