Full Page Newspaper Ad Questioning Chem-trail Dangers, page 1

A T S n e w s . c o m

This topic is in the General Conspiracy Discussion discussion forum. (rss)

Full Page Newspaper Ad Questioning Chem-trail Dangers

Topic started on 5-1-2009 @ 05:57 PM by DimensionalDetective
This is a full page ad that appeared in a Redding, California newspaper in June. It has some pretty interesting information, and asks some pretty valid questions IMHO. They are claiming to have conducted over 3 dozen lab tests that indicate sky-high levels of aluminum, Barium, and Stronium. If indeed this turns out to be chem-trail related, then how can they say it doesn't have any impact on our health? They are spraying this crap from one end of the sky to the other, almost on a daily basis in my area. Another interesting point they bring up is two "weather modification" Bills that were being fast-tracked by congress at the time (not sure if they were passed): U.S. Senate Bill 1807 & U.S. House Bill 3445 This would lead me to believe that there IS something to this, and it's not just "conspiracy-nuts" making something up here... Full Article: www.rense.com...
copyright & usage
Click here for more General Conspiracy Discussion topics Hot Topics \| Top Topics \| This Week \| Subscribe \| Home
reply posted on 5-1-2009 @ 06:34 PM by pteridine
I would suspect that rense.com is not the best source of information and has been dishonest in the past. The test protocols are not shown, the tests do not prove the source of the alumina, and no other analyses are shown. The analyses were related to drinking water, but some were done in snow and some were done in a new pond that had sat for a year under unknown conditions. If the sampling did not core the snow, but merely skimmed the surface after a windstorm, results would have been artificially high. Alumina is common in dust and all of this could have been the results of airborne dust. Write this one off to rense trying to get attention.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 07:53 PM by doctordoom
reply to post by DimensionalDetective Extremely important topic. People have no idea the suffering that this has caused, and will cause. Generations are going to suffer. The closely watched annual health spending figures released today by the federal government were published, fittingly enough, in the January/February issue of the journal Health Affairs. Fittingly, because this month's issue is devoted to chronic illness, and about 75 percent of the $2.2 trillion the United States spends on healthcare goes toward treating chronic conditions like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. That $2.2 trillion works out to $7,421 per person www.usnews.com... Skeptics deny all you want. The truth will be known, weather you like it or not.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 08:11 PM by OzWeatherman
Originally posted by pteridine The test protocols are not shown, the tests do not prove the source of the alumina, and no other analyses are shown. The analyses were related to drinking water, but some were done in snow and some were done in a new pond that had sat for a year under unknown conditions. If the sampling did not core the snow, but merely skimmed the surface after a windstorm, results would have been artificially high. Alumina is common in dust and all of this could have been the results of airborne dust. Write this one off to rense trying to get attention. That is quite correct. I remember some time ago someone actually got hold of an official lab report straight from the technicians who did the testing. The lab report stated that there were high levels of nasties but it was unlikely that the elements found were from an airborne source [edit on 6/1/2009 by OzWeatherman]
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 08:56 PM by Exuberant1
reply to post by OzWeatherman "The lab report stated that there were high levels of nasties but it was unlikely that the elements found were from an airborne source" Well then where did the high levels of "nasties" come from? All he did was a test a sample that was given to him right? *He didn't collect it, so how did he come to this determination?
copyright & usage

reply posted on 7-1-2009 @ 12:08 AM by Chadwickus
Ahhh Rense.com that alone should send warning bells off for most people. So we got some lab test results, it doesn't really have too many specifics does it? Did they even use sterilised testing equipment? It would be good to know exactly how they performed the tests. Moving on, it seems whoever wrote the article didn't do their homework: The US military has openly stated it is their goal to "OWN THE WEATHER" by 2025. Talk about beating a dead horse! From HERE Disclaimer 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. This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only. This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities, is unclassified, and is cleared for public release. _______________________________________________________________ I'm a firm believer that contaminated soil and water samples are caused not by chemtrails, but by industry and mining. Here's a list of contaminated waste sites in Shasta and it's surrounding countys: J.H. Baxter & CO Grey Eagle Mine Iron Mountain Mine Celtor Chemical Works Del Norte Pesticide Storage Don't forget these are the known sites that have contaminated the environment around them. I got this list from HERE There are over a hundred contaminated sites in California alone. Here's a link to a previous thread I started regarding industry emissions: www.abovetopsecret.com... From THIS site it shows in 2006 The state of California produced 2,547,883 pounds of barium and aluminium waste. Still blaming contrails in the sky? [edit on 7-1-2009 by Chadwickus]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 7-1-2009 @ 12:10 AM by Exuberant1
reply to post by Chadwickus "Ahhh Rense.com that alone should send warning bells off for most people. " But doesn't he just link to other sources? What sort of 'warning bells' should be set off by an article making it onto his website?
copyright & usage

reply posted on 7-1-2009 @ 12:14 AM by Chadwickus
Originally posted by Exuberant1 reply to post by Chadwickus "Ahhh Rense.com that alone should send warning bells off for most people. " But doesn't he just link to other sources? What sort of 'warning bells' should be set off by an article making it onto his website? The alarm bells are because he will post ANYTHING that he believes strengthens his "cause" From inaccurate test results to misquoted documents. Why don't you focus on the rest of my post rather than my dig at a disreputable website?
copyright & usage