# Hurricane Sandy... Manufactured?

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by subhumn, Dec 1, 2012.

?

## Do you think that the modification of weather could effect climate?

4 vote(s)
57.1%

3 vote(s)
42.9%
1. ### subhumnRegistered Member

Messages:
33
Hi, my name is Richard and i am new to Sci-forums. I have a conspiracy theory that Hurricane Sandy was manufactured and I would like to share my theory and invite people to read the article provided that explains my theory. I am not a scientist and I am not educated in this field, but I have done my best to explain why I believe that Sandy is indeed manufactured. I have spent quite a lot of time on this article and my goal is to explain my alleged conspiracy so that anyone could understand it. The foundation of my theory is based on several major coincidences and is backed up by further coincidences.

I also have another theory that might cop a lot of flack in the climate change community but I think it should be debated and considered. I believe that the climate is changing because of the use of weather modification. Modifying the weather would in some way effect the balance of our climate. How do we know if weather is being manipulated behind our backs? Is this going on a lot? How can we prove its happening? I believe that governments are using and testing the technology behind weather modification and the general public have no idea. As we all know, countries wish to test the effectiveness and power of their weapons. Weather modification can be used as a weapon also. This theory questions whether carbon emissions are the defining arguments of climate change.

The United States used weather modification in the Vietnam War to limit the movement of enemy troops (You can look that up on "Weather Warfare" on Wikipedia if your interested and there is a link on my website also). I wonder at what stage of advancement in this technology the world is at now. Its been over forty years since the Vietnam War and the calculator on my desk is faster than the computers that existed back then. Unfortunately, we are unable to see the progress of top secret research programs relating to weather modification. I've only started to open my eyes to this recently. I would like other people to be open to the idea also. I'm sure that if we can spend millions researching the effect of carbon emissions, we can spend even a fraction of that researching the effect of weather modification.

Please read the article provided before replying to this post.

http://weatherwarfare.worldatwar.info/2012/11/hurricanesandy/

to hide all adverts.
3. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
14,143
So let's see. Your argument is that since:

-the storm followed a track that sorta looked like the coastline (although not really; it turned out to sea well before the indent at the top of Florida)

-the storm turned towards the coast once it hit the ridge of high pressure air near New York

-the storm sped up at that point

it was an "artificial" storm created by evil forces using weather modification.

If you are a conspiracy theorist, stop reading here; the rest of the post will just anger you. However, if you are actually just curious about whether or not that can happen, some notes.

1) The storm followed the same track a great many other storms follow. Claudette made the same turn near Florida in 2009; Hannah followed the coastline of the Northeast almost exactly in 2008.
2) The storm was predicted to turn west after it hit that ridge of high pressure. That's exactly what it did; no modification required.
3) The storm sped up once it hit the ridge. Slow moving storms are the most destructive; if you could control storms and wanted them to do damage, you certainly wouldn't speed them up to get them out of an area more quickly.
4) There have been a lot of attempts at weather modification; none have done more than make it rain a bit more.

to hide all adverts.
5. ### subhumnRegistered Member

Messages:
33
My article is written based on sourced information that I have looked for. I feel like im an average educated person and when I see those coincidences I question the storm. First of all there is more coincidences than the ones you listed, but ill talk about the ones on the main page of the article first.

#1 - Largest Atlantic Hurricane ever recorded
#2 - If you look at the topography, when the storm reaches North America it continues to stay the around the same distance away from the coastline. (I didnt think that the coastline effects the path of a storm?)
#3 - The storm curves with with the coastline (Same as above)
#4 - The storm speeds up just as it heads for New Jersey. (So the whole time of this storm it was at a steady rate and then just before the major catastrophe of the storm it speeds up, just before it circles New York)
#5 - Circles New York (Business capital of the world, business capital of the United States, most recognised city in the United States, where 9/11 happened).

I think the coincidences are enough to prompt thorough scientific investigation. Maybe it is just a storm, but I think a large number of experts need to sit down and look at it properly. People dont expect any storm to be manufactured so they never investigate. I think we should start.

Now theres more...

#6 - Largest Atlantic Hurricane hits late in the Hurricane Season.. (Id think the largest would be at peak period).
#7 - Very far north for the largest Atlantic Hurricane...
#8 - Very fast for a Hurricane (so its the biggest, its very fast, not at the right time, very far north)
#9 - Biggest Storm surge ever seen (and now the storm surge has created some of the worst flooding ever seen)
#10 - The weather channel labelled it a "Frankenstorm"... If you remember Frankenstein was created, he was not born, he was manufactured too...

to hide all adverts.
7. ### AlexGLike nailing Jello to a treeValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,304
So a conspiracy nut put up a web site. Everything on it is simply one fruitcakes opinion. None of the points raised is particularly conspiracy worthy. It was a big storm. Well, 2012 was the warmest year on record, which means more energy in the atmosphere, which will lead to more energetic weather events. And the storm wasn't especially violent for a hurricane. It also wasn't fast, it was very slow, which is why it did so much damage.

Many storms on that track follow the Gulf Stream. Storms gain energy from warm, moist air.

BTW, do you think that a newscaster using the term frankenstorm really has any significance? The phrase 'The Perfect Storm' was overused, so they made up another. The only thing created was a catchword.

8. ### subhumnRegistered Member

Messages:
33
Im not a nut or a fruitcake... Im just an average person who sees what an average person sees. Ill let it go. Thank you for letting me talk about this.

9. ### AlexGLike nailing Jello to a treeValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,304
I didn't say you were. I was speaking of the author of the web site you linked to.

Also bear in mind that the energy contained by an average hurricane is as much as 200 times the total electrical generating capacity on earth. (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html)

10. ### GorlitzIron ManRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
Well seems like they must be breeding some awfully large butterflies in Aisa then.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

11. ### RhaedasValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,516
On your first point, how big the storm was. It's not like that area hasn't been hit a lot before. It's not as common as more tropical areas, but it's not unusual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_England_hurricanes

We obviously don't have satellite photos or even accurate readings for most of these, but based on just damage along, Sandy was not the worse it could have been.

On following the coastline - there is a reason why the eastern coastline is eroded the way it is. If you look at a group history of hurricanes in the Atlantic, you'll see a trend.

Speeding up towards New Jersey - it makes sense that its speed increased, new forces were controlling the path. It had ran into the front north of it, as predicted, and of course its vector is going to be different, both in path and speed.

Circling New York City? I don't see that on meteorological charts. Looks like as it diminished it continued inland into the state.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

12. ### Boris2Valued Senior Member

Messages:
1,106
no matter how you look at it there has to be a "biggest storm ever". what i would like to know is how much do you actually know about meteorology? as for the US modifying the weather in Vietnam they only can make it rain where there are rain bearing clouds anyway. they can't produce the rain bearing clouds. if you look at Operation Popeye, which was the program, then you'll see it was to extended the monsoon season. so there would have been rain clouds. they wouldn't have much success during the dry season.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye

Messages:
1,654
14. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
14,143
>#1 - Largest Atlantic Hurricane ever recorded

Not even the top 10 in intensity though. Size doesn't mean much; you would _much_ rather be hit by a monstrous tropical storm than by a small category 4 hurricane.

>#2 - If you look at the topography, when the storm reaches North America it continues to stay the around the same distance away from the coastline. (I didnt think that the coastline effects the path of a storm?)

No, look at what it does when it passes the northern part of Florida. Its turn does not line up with the coast's turn towards Georgia.

>#4 - The storm speeds up just as it heads for New Jersey. (So the whole time of this storm it was at a steady rate and then just before the major catastrophe of the storm it speeds up, just before it circles New York)

It sped up as predicted by most forecasters.

>#5 - Circles New York (Business capital of the world, business capital of the United States, most recognised city in the United States, where 9/11 happened).

If it was targeted at New York you think it would have hit New York dead on, rather than New Jersey.

>#6 - Largest Atlantic Hurricane hits late in the Hurricane Season.. (Id think the largest would be at peak period).

Hurricane Kate formed in November 20th as a category 3 and did a lot of damage - it was more intense and formed a month after Sandy.

>#7 - Very far north for the largest Atlantic Hurricane...

Hurricane Ella was a category 4 hurricane that got as far north as 45 degrees - much farther than Sandy, which was a less intense storm.

>#8 - Very fast for a Hurricane (so its the biggest, its very fast, not at the right time, very far north)

It's not even in the top 10 fastest storms. Sandy moved about 30mph. The fastest 1 through 8 storms moved at 62-70mph, more than twice its speed.

>#9 - Biggest Storm surge ever seen (and now the storm surge has created some of the worst flooding ever seen)

Biggest storm surge: 1899 storm Mahina, 43 feet
Biggest US storm surge: Katrina, 41 feet
Second biggest: Camille, 35 feet
Sandy's surge: 12 feet

Someone's been feeding you some incorrect information. Ask yourself why. Perhaps do a little digging to find out what they have to gain by lying to you. Isn't that worth investigating?

15. ### Captain KremmenAll aboard, me Hearties!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
12,738
It is certainly possible to manipulate weather.
Clouds can be seeded.
Is it possible to alter the intensity of rainfall from a hurricane?
Possibly, but I doubt you could alter its course.

Sandy is a poor choice for a conspiracy theory.
It was not a particularly large storm.
It was the combination of unusual climatic conditions
stretching over tens of thousands of square miles that made it so damaging.

16. ### subhumnRegistered Member

Messages:
33
Just a video id like you to watch which talks somewhat on the effect of weather modification on climate...

Messages:
4,304
No thanks.

18. ### PantazRegistered Member

Messages:
31
How about you write a quick synopsis?

19. ### subhumnRegistered Member

Messages:
33
Sure. The opening sequence of the video says "Even small changes in the abundance or location of clouds could change the climate more than the anticipated changes caused by greenhouse gases..." That was a statement by NASA.

Ive sourced this statement from a NASA PDF document titled "The Importance of Understanding Clouds".

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/135641main_clouds_trifold21.pdf

20. ### PantazRegistered Member

Messages:
31
That is perilously close to inferring that the video was endorsed by NASA. I have no doubt that NASA would heartily disagree with the conclusions asserted by this video.

(FYI: A synopsis is a summary of the entire subject matter, not just the "opening sequence".)

I was bored (well, procrastinating), so I watched a few minutes of this thing. The actual title is "Skywatcher - Contrails, Chemtrails and Artificial Clouds -- A science documentary", written by Dave Dahl. (It's 28 minutes long, but I only lasted 10, then I started skipping ahead. Too many unsupported assertions and conspiracy theories.)

Synopsis: Cloud-seeding aircraft "such as bombadier [he says "bombadier", but I think he means Bombardier, the aircraft manufacturer] jets and high-altitude propeller planes" disperse silver iodide above commercial aircraft corridors so the "steam" from commercial jet exhaust will mix with the silver iodide, creating "persistent contrails" which in turn become clouds, containing vast quantities of water. This effect supposedly grows into major climate changing events, such as drought (by shifting the location of rain), or creating low-pressure zones (from the cooling effect) that permit off-shore storms to venture farther inland than normal. He goes on with something about how this all ties into vast economic manipulation conspiracies.

I transcribed a few of the highlights from those first 10 minutes:

• "Humans make clouds inadvertently and on purpose."
• "This movie explains exactly how we make clouds and how humans are changing the climate through the use of aircraft."
• "The atmosphere is different today, compared to last century, for a very specific reason, and it isn't the buildup of CO2."
• "Global Dimming - Complete sky coverage from persistent jet contrails."
• "Silver iodide is sprayed into the stratosphere across the United States, India, England, ..." (continues to list additional countries.)
• Defines "Chemtrails" as "Persistent contrails"
• "Stratos clouds above are usually formed by aircraft"

While trying to find out who "Dave Dahl" is, I came across a more comprehensive debunking of this video (see post #47) ...

21. ### subhumnRegistered Member

Messages:
33
Thank you Pantaz for watching. I agree, we should talk more about the PDF article from NASA and not the documentary. It's the opening statement that got me interested in the documentary. I'm trying not to dabble in conspiracy and look into fact. Getting weather modification exposed means a lot to me.

So, instead i have added another entry to my website. I have added the NASA pdf file also and referenced it on my article and rather than using the documentary I will go on to explain the link between climate change and weather modification myself. It's titled "why am I so concerned?". It brings into play a military operation called "Operation Popeye" which extended the monsoon season in Vietnam during the Vietnam war to limit the movement of the Vietnamese.

http://weatherwarfare.worldatwar.info/2012/12/why-am-i-so-concerned/

22. ### PantazRegistered Member

Messages:
31
Whoa, hold up a minute -- "I agree" -- you agree with who? I never said we should talk about the NASA article, and I don't see anyone else here even mentioning it!

In case you don't understand, that document ("The Importance of Understanding Clouds") is about the natural development of clouds (not cloud seeding), and their natural (not human-directed) effect on climate.

23. ### subhumnRegistered Member

Messages:
33
Ok it looks like you want an arguement...

The document itself was endorsed by NASA. Would NASA "heartily disagree" with the document that they themselves presented? Is it because the document is credible that you dont want to talk about the statement "Even small changes in the abundance or location of clouds could change the climate more than the anticipated changes caused by greenhouse gases..."?