Originally posted by ChemBreather
So, are the artists and the movie capitol of the world just Cashing in on this, or is it more to it than just, 'bunk' ??
Originally posted by elfulanozutan0
if you take a look at the legislation. in the beggining it says that spraying chemical agents are illeglal. then later on it goes to include "exceptions" which these exceptions are exploited
Even more shocking, KSLA reports that secret biochemical experimentation was allowed by law"until nine years ago", but is still permitted in at least in some instances. See:
PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79] TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 1520 "CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM" "The use of human subjects will be allowed for the testing of chemical and biological agents by the U.S. Department of Defense, accounting to Congressional committees with respect to the experiments and studies." "The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States]." -SOURCE- Public Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 91, page 334, you will find Public Law 95-79. Public Law 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1882. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 96, page 1882, you will find Public Law 97-375.
KSLA's probing report left open the question of whether biochemical testing was currently underway, but raised a number of disturbing parallels and reason for suspicion.
Originally posted by Infadel
yea, you people can say whatever you want. but im here to tell you that its more than plausible, it IS happening.
2 years ago every time it snowed (i live in north central British Columbia) it was a nice and fresh white color, it packed into perfect snowballs that still broke on impact and the snow only refracted a portion of the light that it does now.
in the last 2 years the color of the snow has slowly been going blue, it refracts HUGE ammount of light, to the point that i can still hardley go out without my oakley maddogs (100% UV protection). when making snowballs you can REALY see the blue, and the snowballs pack to be way more dense than normal snow.
THIS is just the circumstantial evidance, i'll try and find the toxicolagy report for my DEAD DOG who died of aluminum hydroxide poisoning and the toxicolagy report of the "snow" in my back yard that is 1/8 aluminum hydroxide. basicley my dog died from eating the snow.
say whatever you want about chem trails, but know that your merley being ignorant.
Originally posted by Chadwickus
... It's to help out those that are on the fence about the whole subject and to quell the fear mongering and paranoia.
Because that's all it is.
Originally posted by MyNameIsNobody
Aaah, dear Chadwickus, we get your message: LIFE IS SO EASY, DON'T THINK, DON'T WORRY, BE HAPPY ... to die!
Originally posted by Chadwickus
Here's a list I've drawn up showing the TOTAL amount (in pounds) of barium, aluminium and their alternate forms released over 10 years.
- 1997 - 41,479,841
- 1998 - 273,161,271
- 1999 - 367,405,383
- 2000 - 381,077,404
- 2001 - 300,338,671
- 2002 - 255,367,294
- 2003 - 252,116,329
- 2004 - 283,923,691
- 2005 - 286,765,468
- 2006 - 272,520,410
- TOTAL - 2,714,155,762
2,714,155,762 pounds or 1,231,120,344.6 Kilograms!
From just two chemicals.
The US Energy Information Administration reports that a middle-sized nuclear plant produces about 23 tons of waste per year. This material comprises mostly uranium-238, which does not react like it's cousin uranium-235. Since uranium is very dense, 23 tons of waste amounts to one cubic meter, which would fit in the trunk of a car.
A comparable powered coal plant might produce 300,000 tons of ash in a year. About 99.5 percent of ash can be scrubbed from stack emissions, but this requires even greater quantities of limestone and water. The remaining half-a-percent of ash�the mass of the empty space shuttle�is allowed into the atmosphere along with copious carbon dioxide.
Under normal conditions, the public exposure to radiation from nuclear or coal power plants is minimal�far less than the dose from natural radiation sources like radon and cosmic rays, and less than the average personal dose from medical x-rays. But counterintuitively, the radiation dose from coal plants may be a great deal higher! Radioactive metals like uranium and thorium are relatively common in Earth's crust. Burning coal concentrates the metals within, which are then free to roam about the surface in dust or water. The US National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements estimates that the public dose of radiation from coal plants may be 100 times that from nuclear plants.
Coal is made up of uranium, thorium, aluminum, sulfur, iron and other materials. Coal ash contains oxides of silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium, magnesium, titanium, sodium, potassium, arsenic, mercury, and sulfur plus small quantities of uranium and thorium. A 1984 study puts the Uranium quantities at 1.3 ppm, and Thorium at 3.2 ppm.
IF a coal plant scrubber is working at optimum conditions, it will remove 99.5% of efficiency. This captures the "fly ash" instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. However, even the small portion that is released has radioactive materials in it. And those small quantities add up, and the number of coal plants is expected to increase. Nuclear power plants are actually expected to be replaced with coal plants over time.
Using data from 1982, based on 154 coal plants in the United States, 616 million short tons of coal were burned. Each of these plants released 5.2 tons of Uranium, including 74 pounds of U-235, and 12.8 tons of Thorium. For the entire United States that comes to 801 tons of Uranium (11,371 pounds of U-235) and 1971 tons of Thorium. Worldwide in 1982 there were 3640 tons of Uranium (51, 700 pounds of U-235) and 8960 tons of Thorium released.
Originally posted by Chadwickus
... Also, I can guarantee 110% that I won't die of poisoning from chemtrails.
Originally posted by apex
Originally posted by ChemBreather
Yes and he is FULLY briefed on EVERY THING hes airline DO ? Fat chance my friend !!! And how can you say we should crawl in under an commercial plane? we get arrested for trespassing and/or terrorism as fast as Zapp !
You seem to be forgetting that everything has a certain weight. For an airline, that is a rather large consideration, and an extra system to spray things, out of the engines no less, would add a lot of weight that only costs an airline money. In addition it would reduce the range, take up a lot of space (seriously, you are suggesting all that is chemical, for almost the entire flight range, that is almost as much as they carry fuel). All in all, no commercial airline would do such a ridiculous thing, it would waste their time. Oh, and funny thing, all these chemicals would surely be a massive hazard if something goes wrong, as well as some very suspicious looking wreckage in case of, say, controlled flight into terrain.
No one speaks the truth, just official websites where truths are distorted and hidden...
But clearly, you believe everyone else must be telling the truth. Thats an interesting standpoint, and rather naive, considering you are telling us we are naive for believing actual scientists.
They told us that the government was going to pay our airline, along
with others, to release special chemicals from commercial aircraft.
When asked what the chemicals were and why we were going to spray them,
they told us that information was given on a need-to-know basis and we
weren't cleared for it. They then went on to state that the chemicals
were harmless, but the program was of such importance that it needed to
be done at all costs.
I now have lab samples from a lab that tested "chemtrail" fallout without being told what it was. Among other nasties, the lab results show three distinct pathogens, air-dropped on a garage in the USA - probably from leaking nozzles on an approach to a nearby airport. A neighboring house was also splattered. The woman whose place was hit go sick and suffered a severe heart attack a few months later. No, it wasn't from too much cholesterol. It was caused by bacteria eating the walls of her heart.
It has been eight long years since phantom spray planes first appeared in the skies above our heads. This was in summer of 1998. Since then, there has been a ongoing high level campaign of discreditidation and ridicule directed at anyone who points out the strange anomalies occurring above.
This letter is from Dr. J. Michael Pece who I talked to on the 8/24/02 and who is a heck of a nice guy The bolded test is my emphasis. These facts Dr. Mike talks about here are - please note - documented chemspray related illness and effect. Documented by a doctor and lab reports. I am in awe that Dr. Mike has the guts to come forward with this, and what impressed me was why. Not for attention. Not to sell books or some personal cure. Only because he is stunned that this is going on and that it is making people very ill. And he would like to know what the hell is going on. Imagine if more doctors had the balls to help find the facts and ask questions..and why aren't they?
(What follows is part of a response from the EPA dated June 20, 2001, 18 months after the initial request and after a third contact to request EPA examine and identify materials found after an aerosol operation at Aspen, Colo.)
"Thank you for your letter of Jan. 12, 2000, and a related correspondence of May 30, 2000, concerning your request for us to examine and identify a ‘Fibrous substance Sample.’ " ... "We would like to take this opportunity to inform you that it is not the policy of this office of EPA to test, or otherwise analyze any unsolicited samples of materials or matter."
According to the EPA’s Mission Statement: "The mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment -- air, water, and land -- upon which life depends."