Home » Best Evidence

Best Evidence

An Overview of Weather Modification in the USA
By Barbara Aho, watch.pair.com.

Between 1962 and 1983, the United States Navy, the U.S. Weather Bureau and the National Science Foundation carried out an experimental research program that was yielding some success in moderating hurricanes. Project Stormfury was suspended, however, and eventually terminated for specious reasons. Commenting on an overview of The Stormfury Era by the Hurricane Research Division of the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Dick Eastman, MS, MA, noted that the privatization of weather-related government agencies was a factor in the termination of this project:

“[Project Stormfury] was discontinued just as new planes for doing the interventions were made available. It seems that we had a deliberate effort to stifle success at the very time that the national weather bureau and other weather-related government agencies were being privatized (the National Weather Service, like the Federal Reserve Bank, the Atomic Energy Commission and the National Science Foundation are privately owned and controlled organizations — each operating in their respective fields in totally unregulated and largely unsupervised environments, with the public thinking that each is part of the government…

“Storm Fury demonstrated — regardless of the sophistry — that hurricane winds can be reduced from 130 mph to 75 or 80 mph — a difference that means the a difference of billions in damages and of doubtless many lives.

“But we are not only seeing the deliberate decision to let disaster happen when it could be prevented — we are seeing something much worse — the deliberate use of this technology developed by minds that sought to help mankind as a means of destroying our homes and killing our people for the sake of ’disaster-industry’ profit and ‘national-emergency’ power.”

Gordon J. F. MacDonald (1929-2002) was an associate director of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at UCLA, a member of President Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. In his 1968 book, Unless Peace Comes: A Scientific Forecast Of New Weapons, MacDonald wrote a chapter titled “How to Wreck the Environment” (read below) in which he revealed that weather modification was in the experimental stages. MacDonald predicted that it would only be a matter of time before man would be able to manipulate the weather for use as a weapon:

“Among future means of obtaining national objectives by force, one possibility hinges on man’s ability to control and manipulate the environment of his planet. When achieved, this power over his environment will provide man with a new force capable of doing great and indiscriminate damage. Our present primitive understanding of deliberate environmental change makes it difficult to imagine a world in which geophysical warfare is practised. Such a world might be one in which nuclear weapons were effectively banned and the weapons of mass destruction were those of environmental catastrophe. As I will argue, these weapons are peculiarly suited for covert or secret wars…

“As economic competition among many advanced nations heightens, it may be to a country’s advantage to ensure a peaceful natural environment for itself and a disturbed environment for its competitors. Operations producing such conditions might be carried out covertly, since nature’s great irregularity permits storms, ?oods, droughts, earthquakes and tidal waves to be viewed as unusual but not unexpected. Such a ‘secret war’ need never be declared or even known by the affected populations. It could go on for years with only the security forces involved being aware of it. The years of drought and storm would be attributed to unkindly nature and only after a nation were thoroughly drained would an armed take-over be attempted.

“In addition to their covert nature, a feature common to several modi?cation schemes is their ability to affect the Earth as a whole. The environment knows no political boundaries; it is independent of the institutions based on geography and the effects of modi?cation can be projected from any one point to any other on the Earth. Because environmental modi?cation may be a dominant feature of future world decades, there is concern that this incipient technology is in total con?ict with many of the traditional geographical and political units and concepts.

“Political, legal, economic and sociological consequences of deliberate environmental modi?cation, even for peaceful purposes, will be of such complexity that perhaps all our present involvements in nuclear affairs will seem simple.”

In his 1970 book, Between Two Ages, former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brezezinski (CFR/TC/B) mentioned “weather control” as a “new weapon” for the U.S. military and a “key element of strategy.”

“Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised… Techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm.”

Also in 1970, the U.S. Weather Bureau was renamed the National Weather Service and the privatization of the weather-related government agencies began, a process that was expedited under President Bill Clinton.

“In accordance with the Administration’s FY 1996 Proposed Budget and the Administration’s Reinventing Government initiatives issued in early 1995, the National Weather Service (NWS) initiated a transition program to transfer NWS Agricultural Weather Services and non-federal non-wildfire weather support to private meteorological firms willing to assume these responsibilities…

“The transition of agricultural weather services to the private sector is dynamic. Both the NWS and the private meteorological sector will need to continue to work together to provide maximum service to the nation’s growers. Privatization efforts are not new to the NWS. Over the years, the NWS has transferred services such as direct commercial radio and television broadcasts, newspaper weather page preparation, and weather by phone successfully to the private sector.” (National Weather Service)

In 1977, the Geneva Convention proposed an international treaty prohibiting the military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques. The Convention opened for signature on May 18, 1977 in Geneva and the treaty was enforced on October 5, 1978. Eighty-seven (87) nations signed this treaty:

CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OF MILITARY OR ANY OTHER HOSTILE USE

OF ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES

Signed in Geneva May 18, 1977
Entered into force October 5, 1978
Ratification by U.S. President December 13, 1979
U.S. ratification deposited at New York January 17, 1980

The States Parties to this Convention,

Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, and wishing to contribute to the cause of halting the arms race, and of bringing about general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare,

Determined to continue negotiations with a view to achieving effective progress towards further measures in the field of disarmament,

Recognizing that scientific and technical advances may open new possibilities with respect to modification of the environment,

Recalling the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment adopted at Stockholm on 16 June 1972,

Realizing that the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes could improve the interrelationship of man and nature and contribute to the preservation and improvement of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations,

Recognizing, however, that military or any other hostile use of such techniques could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare,

Desiring to prohibit effectively military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangers to mankind from such use, and affirming their willingness to work towards the achievement of this objective,

Desiring also to contribute to the strengthening of trust among nations and to the further improvement of the international situation in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Have agreed as follows:

Article I

1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.

2. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to assist, encourage or induce any State, group of States or international organization to engage in activities contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article. (continued)

In 1996, the U.S. Air Force published a research paper produced in the Department of Defense titled, “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025.” Disregarding the Geneva Convention Treaty on Weather Modification, the stated purpose of the paper was “to outline a strategy for the use of a future weather-modification system to achieve military objectives…”

2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government…

“In 2025, US aerospace forces can ‘own the weather’ by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications. Such a capability offers the war fighter tools to shape the battlespace in ways never before possible. It provides opportunities to impact operations across the full spectrum of conflict and is pertinent to all possible futures. The purpose of this paper is to outline a strategy for the use of a future weather-modification system to achieve military objectives rather than to provide a detailed technical road map.

“A high-risk, high-reward endeavor, weather-modification offers a dilemma not unlike the splitting of the atom. While some segments of society will always be reluctant to examine controversial issues such as weather-modification, the tremendous military capabilities that could result from this field are ignored at our own peril. From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary…”

Contents

Chapter

Disclaimer

Illustrations

Tables

Acknowledgments

Executive Summary

  1. Introduction
  2. Required Capability
  • Why Would We Want to Mess with the Weather?
  • What Do We Mean by “Weather-modification”?
  1. System Description
  • The Global Weather Network
  • Applying Weather-modification to Military Operations
  1. Concept of Operations
  • Precipitation
  • Fog
  • Storms
  • Exploitation of “NearSpace” for Space Control
  • Opportunities Afforded by Space Weather-modification
  • Communications Dominance via Ionospheric Modification
  • Artificial Weather
  • Concept of Operations Summary
  1. Investigation Recommendations
  • How Do We Get There From Here?
  • Conclusions

Appendix
A Why Is the Ionosphere Important?

B Research to Better Understand and Predict Ionospheric Effects

C Acronyms and Definitions

Bibliography
Notes

Illustrations

Figure

3-1. Global Weather Network

3-2. The Military System for Weather-Modification Operations

4-1. Crossed-Beam Approach for Generating an Artificial Ionospheric Mirror

4-2. Artificial Ionospheric Mirrors Point-to-Point Communications

4-3. Artificial Ionospheric Mirror Over-the-Horizon Surveillance Concept

4-4. Scenarios for Telecommunications Degradation

5-1. A Core Competency Road Map to Weather Modification in 2025

5-2. A Systems Development Road Map to Weather Modification in 2025

Tables

Table

1 – Operational Capabilities Matrix

In 1997, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen revealed that electromagnetic weapons were being used to manipulate the environment. The following remarks were made by Cohen at a Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy held in Athens, GA:

“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.” (U.S. Department of Defense News Transcript)

In 2005, bills that would have regulated the various weather agencies were introduced in both houses of the U.S. Congress. H.R. 2995 was designed to officially institutionalize within the U.S. Government a major “weather modification” policy and program under the Secretary of the Department of Commerce. Senate Bill S. 517, entitled “Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005” and scheduled to take effect on October 1, 2005, stated:

It is the purpose of this Act to develop and implement a comprehensive and coordinated national weather modification policy and a national cooperative Federal and State program of weather modification research and development

The Board may enter into cooperative agreements with the head of any department or agency of the United States, an appropriate official of any State or political subdivision of a State, or an appropriate official of any private or public agency or organization for conducting weather modification activities or cloud-seeding operations.

“There is authorized to be appropriated to the Board for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2014.”

H.R. 2995 Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005

S. 517: Weather Modification Research and Development Policy Authorization Act of 2005

The stated purpose of the Act was “to develop and implement a comprehensive and coordinated national weather modification policy and a national cooperative Federal and State program of weather modification research and development.” A Weather Modification Subcommittee was to be established comprised of representatives from NOAA, NASA and the National Science Foundation who would submit reports and be accountable to Congress and the President:

Section 4
Directs the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to establish a Weather Modification Subcommittee to coordinate a national research program on weather modification. Requires the Subcommittee to include representatives from:
(1) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA);
(2) the National Science Foundation (NSF); and
(3) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).Provides for a representative from NOAA and a representative from NSF to serve together as co-chairs of such Subcommittee.Requires the Director to develop and submit a plan for coordinated federal activities under the program, which shall:
(1) for a ten-year period, establish the goals and priorities for federal research that most effectively advances scientific understanding of weather modification;
(2) describe specific activities required to achieve such goals and priorities, including funding of competitive research grants, training and support for scientists, and participation in international research efforts;
(3) identify and address, as appropriate, relevant programs and activities of the federal agencies and departments that would contribute to the program;
(4) consider and use, as appropriate, reports and studies conducted by federal agencies and departments, and other expert scientific bodies, including the National Research Council report on Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research;
(5) make recommendations for the coordination of program activities with weather modification activities of other national and international organizations;
(6) incorporate recommendations from the Weather Modification Research Advisory Board; and
(7) estimate federal funding for research activities to be conducted under the program.Specifies activities related to weather modification that may be included under the program, including:
(1) interdisciplinary research and coordination of research and activities to improve understanding of processes relating to weather modification, including cloud modeling, cloud seeding, improving forecast and decision-making technologies, related severe weather research, and potential adverse affects of weather modification;
(2) development, through partnerships among federal agencies, states, and academic institutions, of new technologies and approaches for weather modification; and
(3) scholarships and educational opportunities that encourage an interdisciplinary approach to weather modification.Requires the Director to prepare and submit to the President and Congress annual reports on the activities conducted pursuant to this Act respecting the Weather Modification Subcommittee, including:
(1) a summary of the achievements of federal weather modification research;
(2) an analysis of the progress made toward achieving the goals and objectives of the plan;
(3) a copy or summary of the plan and any changes made to it;
(4) a summary of agency budgets for weather modification activities;
(5) any recommendations regarding additional action or legislation that may be required to assist in achieving the purposes of this Act;
(6) a description of the relationship between research conducted on weather modification and research conducted pursuant to the Global Change Research Act of 1990, as well as research on weather forecasting and prediction; and
(7) a description of any potential adverse consequences on life, property, or water resource availability from weather modification efforts, and any suggested means of mitigating or reducing such consequences if such efforts are undertaken.Section 5
Establishes in the Office of Science and Technology Policy the Weather Modification Research Advisory Board to:
(1) make recommendations to the Weather Modification Subcommittee on matters related to weather modification; and
(2) advise such Subcommittee on the research and development, studies, and investigations with respect to potential uses of technologies and observation systems for weather modification research and assessments and evaluations of the efficacy of weather modification, both purposeful, (including cloud-seeding operations) and inadvertent (including downwind effects and anthropogenic effects).Section 6
Instructs U.S. departments and agencies and any other public or private agencies and institutions that receive research funds from the United States related to weather modification to give full support and cooperation to the Weather Modification Subcommittee.

Further consideration of the S. Bill 517 was tabled by request of President Bush and neither bill was passed.

In a December 13, 2005, letter to Senator Hutchison, John H. Marburger, III, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, wrote:

“The Administration respectfully requests that you defer further consideration of the bill pending the outcome of an inter-agency discussion of these issues that the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) would coordinate – with the Department of Justice on legal issues, with the Department of State on foreign policy implications, with the Departments of Defense and State on national security implications, and with pertinent research agencies to consider the reasons the U.S. Government previously halted its work in this area. At the conclusion of this review, the Administration would report back to you on the results of these discussions so you are fully apprised of all possible issues associated with authorizing a new Federal program on this topic.” (SourceWatch)

Another bill was proposed in 2007 which also did not pass. The intent of S. 1807 was to permit experimentation on the weather in the United States:

S. 1807: Weather Mitigation Research and Development Policy Authorization Act of 2007

“(3) RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT- The term ‘research and development’ means theoretical analysis, exploration, experimentation, and the extension of investigative findings and theories of a scientific or technical nature into practical application for experimental and demonstration purposes, including the experimental production and testing of models, devices, equipment, materials, and processes.”

A watchdog organization in California protested the outrageous and alarming prospect of “experimenting” on the environment:

Experimental weather modification coming to your neighborhood, soon 11-02-07

“Prepare yourself for more water shortages, floods, droughts, and a sharp decline in food supplies in the United States when U.S. Senate Bill 1807 & U.S. House Bill 3445, that were introduced on July 17, 2007, are voted into law…

“Senate Bill 1807 does not address these issues but intends to implement more experimental weather modification programs without a national debate or public oversight…

“The December 2005 Popular Science Magazine discussed a plan to use an oil slick to stop hurricanes without noting the adverse environmental impacts of the oil used to cover the ocean. Popular Science also noted that a private company, Dyn-O-Mat had been conducting ‘…early trials. In July 2001, Dyn-O-Mat engineers dumped 8,000 pounds of their Dyn-O-Mat Gel (capable of absorbing 4,000 tons of water), over a small thunderstorm near the Florida coast. Within minutes the storm disappeared from Doppler weather radar…’

“When this toxic secret chemical drops into the ocean or over land what are the environmental effects? Who is studying what happens to marine life, crops, soils, and drinking water supplies when this chemical mixes with rainfall on the ground?

“According to Popular Science ‘…Dyn-O-Mat’s founder and CEO, has already arranged to lease a specially rigged 747 ‘supertanker’ to conduct trials on actual hurricanes. Meanwhile, he has assembled an all-star team of scientists and labs at Florida State University, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, NOAA, and elsewhere to begin running computer models that analyze the gel’s effect on larger storms…’We already know the gel works’, says Cordani…’Now we need to figure out how much to use and where to put it’…‘Could hurricane and other experiments be causing drought in Georgia and other states in 2007?’”

A Dyn-O-Mat Plan to Avoid Disaster? is also quite interesting. Was the BP oil spill an experiment to see what they could do with this gel product? The BP oil spill happened during the hurricane season. Who knows what experiments they were really doing out there in the Gulf?

In 2011, the House of Rothschild acquired a majority stake in Weather Central, the world’s leader in weather, forecasting, traffic, news and sports systems.

January 31, 2011 03:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time

“E.L. Rothschild LLC Acquires a Majority Stake in Weather Central, LP Sir Evelyn and Lynn Forester de Rothschild’s Firm Sees Opportunity for Growth in Multi-Platform Weather Solutions Company”

“NEW YORK–(BUSINESS WIRE)–E.L. Rothschild LLC, a private investment company led by Chairman Sir Evelyn de Rothschild and CEO Lynn Forester de Rothschild, today announced the signing of a definitive agreement to acquire a 70% interest in Weather Central, LP (www.wxc.com). The world’s leading provider of interactive weather graphics and data services for television, web, and mobile, Weather Central’s highly accurate and personalized forecasting offers businesses and consumers a truly unique suite of science-driven weather information products. The company will continue to operate under CEO and founder, Terry Kelly, as well as current management. Financial terms of the acquisition were not disclosed…

“Chairman of E.L. Rothschild LLC, Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, added: ‘… As weather becomes more extreme around the planet, with greater human and financial ramifications, we believe that Weather Central will play a major role in mitigating damage and improving lives. This is important to the Rothschilds, as it is to Weather Central. We are proud of our new partnership with them.’” (BusinessWire)

Weather experimentation and modification are life or death issues that must involve public discussion, informed consent and accountability to all Americans. Passage of H.R. 2995 would have required government transparency and limited the use of weather modification for the welfare of the people. The failure of the Congress to establish a national policy board and a program for weather modification that is accountable the American people made it possible for the government to work in secret with agencies and private corporations in covert weather modification operations. That government transparency, regulation and accountability were so readily tabled supports the case that the present use of weather modification is not for humanitarian purposes, but for the wrong reasons.

Weather Modification, Inc. is one private company in North Dakota that provides full-service aerial and ground-based “cloud seeding” for private entities and governments in the U.S. and around the world. Weather Modification, Inc. is not regulated by the U.S. government, at least not by law, and is therefore unaccountable to the American citizens who are affected by its cloud seeding operations. WMI’s Clients & Projects page appears to have been sanitized of much incriminating evidence, however, three of the projects published demonstrate that this company is, in part, responsible for helping to create the disastrous flooding of the Missouri River:

North Dakota Cloud Modification Project (NDCMP)
Objective: Hail Damage Mitigation and Rainfall Enhancement
Duration: 1961 – Present

Upper Payette River Basin Cloud Seeding Program (Idaho)
Objective: Snowpack Augmentation
Duration: 2002 – Present

Wyoming Weather Modification Pilot Program
Objective: Snowpack Augmentation and Atmospheric Assessment and Evaluation
Duration: 2005-Present

23 Feet of Snow in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado

“Thanks to a blizzard-filled winter and an unusually cold and wet spring, more than 90 measuring sites from Montana to New Mexico and California to Colorado have record snowpack totals on the ground for late May, according to a federal report released last week.
“Those giant and spectacularly beautiful snowpacks will now melt under the hotter, sunnier skies of June—mildly if weather conditions are just right, wildly and perhaps catastrophically if they are not.”

Record Snowpack

This evidence is revealing, for these projects demonstrate that Weather Modification, Inc. has not mitigated but intensified the rainfall and subsequent flooding of the Missouri River, which is presently at disaster levels. With the National Guard and FEMA on location, the Army Corps of Engineers is preparing to break South Dakota dams to release Missouri River flooding into Mississippi River.

On June 2, 2011 CNN iReport stated, “At the moment, we’ve got our eye on the Missouri River Basin, where the Dakotas, Iowa, Nebraska and other states are under water or bracing for flooding from record rains and melting snow in the northern Rocky Mountains. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has urged people living along the river to make evacuation plans.” Reuters today reported mandatory evacuations in North Dakota:

“Flooding forces North Dakota evacuations

“SALMON, Idaho (Reuters) – Rising waters forced evacuations in Minot, North Dakota, on Tuesday as officials in South Dakota raced to finish levees to protect the state capital and other cities from the swollen Missouri River.

“Mandatory evacuations over the next couple of days are expected to displace 10,000 to 12,000 Minot residents as the Souris River, a tributary of the Red River, eclipses records set in damaging floods of 1976 and 1969, officials said.

“Communities along the Upper Missouri River basin also are bracing for flooding as officials plan historic water releases to relieve pressure on six reservoirs from Montana through South Dakota from heavy rains and a thick melting snowpack.”

The following AP report also states that “heavy runoff from melting Rocky Mountain snow could soon compound the problem.”

“Residents of Dakota Dunes construct a wall to protect a home against the rising waters of the Missouri River, in Dakota Dunes, S.D., Wednesday, June 1 AP – By WAYNE ORTMAN, Associated Press – Thu Jun 2, 6:07 am ET

“DAKOTA DUNES, S.D. – South Dakota’s governor has urged some residents to evacuate from three cities considered early trouble spots as officials brace for a prolonged period of Missouri River flooding.

“Gov. Dennis Daugaard asked residents in threatened areas in the state capital of Pierre and neighboring Fort Pierre as well as residents of Dakota Dunes to evacuate by Thursday night. Daugaard’s announcement was a request and not a mandatory evacuation, but law enforcement officials were going door-to-door Wednesday evening to tell residents about it.

“Flooding is a concern as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers releases excess water from Missouri River dams after record rainfall across the northern Plains. Heavy runoff from melting Rocky Mountains’ snow could soon compound the problem, and officials say flooding could last into July.” (Associated Press 6/2/11)

We have already seen that Weather Modification, Inc. has, for many years, been augmenting the snow supply in the Rocky Mountains in the Mountain states of Idaho and Wyoming, which is in the Missouri River Basin. WMI has also been enhancing the rainfall with cloud seeding in North Dakota, also in the Missouri River Basin!

Missouri River Basin Map

© www.extremeinstability.com

The above map of the dams along the Missouri River Basin was posted by a resident of the area who has also provided detailed documentation of the record-breaking snow and rainfall along the Missouri River:

“I’m just learning the ins and outs of this coming mess and thought it’d be nice to put on one page, for myself and maybe others to understand some of it. My extent will be fairly basic but maybe useful none the less. I like to figure out perspective first, especially when it’s being titled…the most severe the region has seen since the river’s reservoir system was constructed in the 1950s and 1960s (here). Basically the mountains up there received 200% of normal snow over the winter. This year has been abnormally cool in the north. Sounds like they are still getting snow in June. They have then had “years worth of rain in a couple weeks”. Sounds like most of that came after May 1st. So all that and other rains have to make their way down the Missouri River Basin and through a sequence of massive reservoirs and dams. Basically if one dam increases release, well then the dams below it will have to as well, if their reservoirs are already full as well.” (2011 Historic Missouri River Flooding Information and Links)

Authorities are preparing the state for “a prolonged period of Missouri River flooding…which could last into July.” Moreover, the massive, swollen Missouri River will eventually empty into the Mississippi River, and this will place more water weight on the already overtaxed New Madrid Seismic Zone. To understand the probability and dire ramifications of an earthquake on the New Madrid fault line, please read: “Death of the Phoenix: Destruction of the Bible Belt.”

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.2/10 (28 votes cast)
Best Evidence, 8.2 out of 10 based on 28 ratings

© 2014 AirCrap.org. All Rights Reserved. Log in
-