CHEMTRAILS%20-%20CONFIRMED%20-%202010%20by%20William%20Thomas

Columnist Jack Anderson broke the story about the politically sensitive operation in 1971 paving
the way for a Congressional investigation that documented these and other secret weather
modification warfare programs. As public anger grew, Senator Clayborn Pell of Rhode Island,
who originally believed it was better to be rained on with water than bombs, wrote an editorial in
the Providence Journal Bulletin in 1975 entitled “United States and Other World Powers Should
Outlaw Tampering With Weather for Use as War Weapon.”
That year, the U.S. and the Soviets began negotiations to ban weather modification as a military
weapon. On October 10, 1976, the UN produced the treaty “Convention on the Prohibition of
Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification” (ENMOD). Barnes argued that
the new “advanced weapons systems” were “more environmentally sensitive” and once again,
the military should be engaging in weather modification weapons.
In the years following Dr. Barnes’ presentation on fully integrating high-tech weather modification
into the U.S. military, so-called chemtrail sightings have occurred throughout the United States
and its Western allies. Barnes embraced the government’s HAARP Project in Alaska, also
managed by Phillips Laboratory, as a weapon “to enhance communications and surveillance
systems, e.g., over-the-horizon (for both civilian and defense purposes).” [columbusalive.com]
BRINGING HAARP TO HEEL
Will the EU intervene to internationally condemn chemtrails? A precedent was set in February 1998,
when the European Parliamentary Committee On Foreign Affairs, Security And Defense Policy held
public hearings in Brussels on the HAARP program. A Motion for Resolution submitted by the committee
to the European Parliament: “Considers HAARP by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment
to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an
international independent body; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States
Administration to give evidence to the public hearing into the environmental and public risks [of] the
HAARP program.”
The parliamentary committee went on to produce a “Green Paper” on “the environmental impacts of
military activities.”