Danger in the Sky-the Chemtrail Phenomenon VID-Evergreen Aviation Admits to USAF Chemtrail Contracts

reply to post by OuttaTime



What about it?

It is a list of dead scientists - the lsit uses words like "apparently" and supposedly" to make it appear as if the causes of death are suspect or not actually known.

it tries to create an image of some programme to kill of scientists who "know something" or might be about to "blow the cover" of something.

As with 99% of Renses stuff it has no actual evidence of such a claim - it jsut infers it and leaves it to your imagination & credibility ....or gullibility.

so what is factual there? That those people existed - more than likely. that they are dead - I'll give you that too.

and from there everything else is unsupported supposition.

Sad that people buy into it and live in fear over something that there is not actually any credible evidence for at all!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

so chemtrails are all a jewish bankers conspiracy now??

Don't go putting words in my mouth

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I'm not paranoid, nor do I live in fear. Far from it. What I see in that link is that many of them were involved in biogenetics, aerosols, military technologies, bioterrorism, etc. I just find it a bit peculiar that people with that type of sensitive knowledge died in such odd ways. When you think of it, an alphabet may contract an assassin. The assassin makes his hit, and the assassin is assassinated. Acieves the desired result, knowledgeable parties are mitigated, and no defining prints at the crimescene. No property battles or intellectual property violated... In this subversive society, don't you think it is a possibility?
I see a whole list of valuable people who were at one time, among us, and still had alot to offer. Perhaps they were potential whistleblowers? Conspired to 'compromise national security', anything like that?

reply to post by OuttaTime


A lot of people die by accident in the US every year - almost 100,000 in 2002 - add anothe 28,000 or so for firearms if you want to include those.

Given that the scientists in the lists died over a period of several years, from various causes, and many of them were not so young any more, it is not any sort of evidence to say "this group of people died, they al lwork in some very vaguely related way, therefore it is evidence of a conspiracy".

anything is "possible" in he sense that it can be imagined - hence we have a lot of fiction wirtten - to say that something is "possible" is also not actually any sort of evidence that it actually happened either.

I am a bit disappointed that you can say that Rense is a good source of facts - and then to defend this list you have to construct a "possible" scenario involving assassins being assasinated. Do you not see that your need to construct such a scenario is illustrative of how little factual information the site actually presents on a subject like this?

If it WAS well researched and credible you would not have to create a "possible" story - there would be good information right there for you to present, and for me to read.

Originally posted by OuttaTime
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

so chemtrails are all a jewish bankers conspiracy now??

Don't go putting words in my mouth

I didn't - I asked a question.

If I was putting words into your mouth i would ahve said "I do not believe that chemtrails are a jewish conspiracy as you have suggested" - or somethign liek that.

But the question is perfectly valid - you identified a (in)famous jewish banker as a backer of Standard Petroleum, which you blame for benzene, and you think it has something to do with chemtrails.

it is perfectly reasonable to ask a question to clarify your position, and the question still stands - so chemtrails are all a jewish bankers conspiracy now??

And so does the other one you ignored - what has benzene got to do with chemtrails??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


It was a link to Rense, yes, but since it was not proper enough for the skeptics, I also included a Steve Quayle link, but then again it took like 20 seconds to type it into a search engine (try it, just type in 'dead scientists'). Again, check the link and look at the specifics of their research, not their 'mysterious deaths'. They were in some pretty sensitive areas of research. Just think where society would be if they were successful in their research, and not smacked down. Just like Tesla, in which much of his research vanished.
Yes people do die everyday, and there are some that could have made monumental advances, had they lived longer.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Good try at deflecting insinuations into conversation. I've seen that trick before. And again, I did not refer to Rockerfeller as a 'jewish banker' as you so eloquently put it. Rockerfeller was a selfish oil baron who cared more about money than people. If people were killed or poisoned, it only mattered to him if his wealth increased. That was no conspiracy. It still exists today as Exxon, and a handful of other conglomerates.

Originally posted by OuttaTime


I'm not paranoid, nor do I live in fear. Far from it. What I see in that link is that many of them were involved in biogenetics, aerosols, military technologies, bioterrorism, etc. I just find it a bit peculiar that people with that type of sensitive knowledge died in such odd ways.

If you look at any field, you'll find people in it die. Celebrities, for example. Look at all these famous people who died in 2010, lots of them not particularly old either.

www.ranker.com...

Film Editor Sally Menke, suspiciously "dropped dead" on a "hike" - so presumably the CIA must have had her rubbed out?

Surfer Andy Irons found dead in his hotel room - must be assassination?

Do you think that scientists should somehow be more immortal than celebrities? Of course some of them are going to die.

reply to post by OuttaTime

Year after year, the same old, same old.
Take a look back sometime and see how long these chemtrail threads have been stalked and spammed.
Year after year.
There is a saying, "never argue with a pig....."
Or a troll.
Good to see another on ATS with common sense and a keen eye, but beware the trolls.

reply to post by OuttaTime



I didn't say that you did refer to rockerfeller as a jewish banker - I did that myself because he is well known as that.

So again - my question still stands - do you think chemtrails are a conspiracy by jewish bankers??

and what has benzene got to do with chemtrails at all anyway??

They are fairly simple questions - and whether you used specific words or not they are a direct result of your posts.

Why are you avoiding answering them?

Yes ther are many lsits of "dead scientists" - and they all do the same thing - suggest connections without actually providing any credible evidence of such connections. By all means be the first to make the connections real and credible!

sir clem - have you figured out what there is on contrail Science that is disinfo yet? You didn't answer last time - or if you did you didn't put it in the same thread, so it's good to see you back and hopefully prepared to back up your statements with some evidence

and of course the reason why the debunking doesn't change is quite simple - the science hasn't changed. The reason contrails weeer made in WW1 adn WW2 and the 2000's is exactly the same - water from combustion of hydrocarbons, and atmospheric conditions.

It is only the "chemtrail hoax" that changes - whether it's to poison us (whether with aluminum/barium, fibres, nanoparticles, mysterious organisms), or geo-engineer, or hide nibiru or amplify HAARP or whatever - all the chemtrail theories have 2 things in common:

1/ they are debunked by well known and old science
2/ there is no verifiable evidence for any of them

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I won't answer because you are using a baiting technique and I'll not be drawn in to it. I fail to see how your perception of Rockerfeller is connected to my analogy of what his business practices were. Are you looking to pull a race card on this assumption? Is this what you and your buddies talk about on contrailscience? If you wish to get information about your 'Rockerfeller jewish banker conspiracy' feel free to start a thread. If I have an opinion on that, I will participate. Until then, no dice.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Are you sure you aren't confusing the Rothschilds with the Rockefellers?

reply to post by adeclerk


Ah - well spotted - yes I am confusing the 2 - thanks for pointing out my error!

So Outtatime could have done so instead of going off about what turns out to be an entirely irrelevant question of mine!

lol - classic!

Or of course he could just have said "No" - that would ahve been sufficient answer too. Given the propensity of CT's to take things from lack of information, I wonder what this "actually" means about OT's belief in the question....despite me getting it so badly wrong?? might there be more to this persistent refuseal to answer than meets the eye??

But regardless, "my" "jewish question" is resolved - the Rockerfellers are not (AFAIK) jewish, so my question is moot.

So, Outtatime - how about the Benzene one - what has benzene got to do with contrails, or even chemtrails??

And what "me & my buddies" talk about on contrail science is there for all to see - by all means go have a read & see what you can find. Perhaps you can find the disinfo that Sir Clem is so quiet about?? Hopefully you might learn a thing or 2 even.......

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I was wondering where you were going with the rockerfeller thingie. Perhaps you knew something I was unaware of. No biggie.

Presently the benzene issue is more squelched, yet in the oil industry, they knew of the hazards of the effects of benzene so:

In 1948 the American Petroleum Institute published a toxicological review of benzene, noting that benzene causes leukemia and that the only safe level of exposure to benzene is ZERO ppm (parts per million). The first epidemiologic study of benzene among Pliofilm rubber workers showing significantly increased risks of leukemia was published in 1977. Since then, many epidemiologic studies of benzene have been done, which establish benzene as a cause of various human hematologic cancers and diseases. Among the diseases that have been associated in the literature with benzene are acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), hairy cell leukemia (HCL), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), Hodgkin's disease, multiple myeloma, myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), aplastic anemia, pancytopenia, other cytopenias, myelofibrosis, and polycythemia vera.

Back in the 40s Standard oil was a prime supplier of fuel, whether it be auto or plane. I'm quite sure he was made aware of the hazards, just like the foreknowledge of his lead factory (which NJ state closed down for health violations). He sold his benzene laden fuel to aviators, who blew benzene waste all over the atmosphere (there was a war going on). Was it intentional? Perhaps, but not definately. Was it a product of internal combustion? Yes. Did it suspend in the atmosphere? Yes. Did it make people sick? Yes. Moreso with planes as they evolved into the jet age. Jet engines back then were not very efficient, therefore spewing more benzene into the atmosphere than an entire neighborhood of cars then. Regardless if they planned them as 'trails' or not, they still happened. That's why the API banned it in 1948. I cannot say if it was a rockerfeller conspiracy to do what he did, but he was a very shrewd businessman who had a hatred for any waste product . It ate into his profits and treating waste was a waste of his money. I would say it was a major neglect on his part to properly refine the oil, but then again, I'm sure he knew that benzene and lead were both toxic. And look how big his empire is now.

reply to post by OuttaTime


How about some sources, there were a lot of assumptions in your post (like claiming an airplane would spew out more benzene than a neighborhood full of cars ).'

Also, are you aware that 1 part per billion is 0 in parts per million?

reply to post by Uncinus


Ah yes, the celebrities. So what important deeds or research did these celebrities contribute to society beyond the consumerism plague? Did they explore fields of stem cell revitalization? Gene mapping? Autoimmune system enhancing? Astrophysics? No. They were people who get paid to pretend to be someone else. Or take videos of someone pretending to be someone else.

reply to post by adeclerk


Um, 1 takeoff can burn thousands of pounds of fuel. How long would it take 30 cars to burn the same amount? Now multiply that by the amount of airplanes that take off just in the US. Yes cars contribute to the global pollution ratio, but think of all them planes all burning up that much fuel and gliding as clean as a bird through the troposphere. Those planes and jets and military craft fly alot closer to the upper atmosphere than cars do.

reply to post by OuttaTime


Aloysius will correct any discrepancies with the takeoff assessment.

Guess what happens when you burn fuel, the higher up you go?

Also, compare the number of cars to the number of airplanes. Then you'll see why I'm skeptical (well that and you refuse to offer sources).

reply to post by adeclerk


Have you ever been near a large plane when it is revving up to take off? Have you not seen the overwhelming exhaust velocities? Being a Navy brat and a Navy guy myself, I've been around a few planes in my lifetime. Ever been 100' from the exhaust of an F-14 or and F-4? Ever smelled the exhaust from one (pre and post afterburner)? Ever watch a P-3 start up and billow black smoke until the rings on the pistons fully seat? I've seen jumbo jets blow a car over 50' away. The exhaust is nasty, and not nearly as refined as gasoline.

Extract of "Airports: Deadly Neighbors"
by Charles R. Miller

About the Author: Mr. Miller was formerly a supervisor with a major airline and is currently a director of the Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare (AReCO) working on airport environmental issues.

What kinds of health effects may be occurring to the population in your neighborhood can be seen from a report, dated June 20, 1997 to the Georgetown Crime Prevention and Community Council by the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health. Georgetown is an area of Seattle, and surrounds the King County International Airport (Boeing Field), King County, in turn, surrounds greater Seattle. (The Georgetown Council is a sister organization to AReCO and member of US-CAW (United States Citizens Aviation Watch). When comparing hospitalization rates for Georgetown (Zip Code 98108) to those of King and North King Counties, the following, alarming statistics resulted:

a 57% higher asthma rate
a 28% higher pneumonia/influenza rate
a 26% higher respiratory disease rate
an 83% higher pregnancy complication rate
a 50% higher infant mortality rate
genetic diseases are statistically higher
mortality rates are 48% higher for all causes of death: 57% higher for heart disease, a 36% higher cancer death rate with pneumonia and influenza among the top five leading causes
average life expectancy 70.4 years (the same as in many developing nations) compared to Seattle's of 76.0 years.

Did you ever wonder what blows out of a jet airplane? Here is what you'll find in the air around an airport:

Freon 11, Freon 12, Methyl Bromide, Dichloromethane, cis-l,2-Dichloroethylene, 1,1,1-Trichloro-ethane, Carbon Tetrachloride, Benzene, Trichloroethylene, Toluene, Tetrachloroethene, Ethylbenzene, m,p-Xylene, o-Xylene, Styrene, 1,3,5-Trimethyl-benzene, 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, o-Dichlorobenzene, Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde, Acrolein, Acetone, Propinaldehyde, Crotonaldehyde, Isobutylaldehyde, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, Benzaldehyde, Veraldehyde, Hexanaldehyde, Ethyl Alcohol, Acetone, Isopropyl Alcohol, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, Butane, Isopentane, Pentane, Hexane, Butyl Alcohol, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, n,n-Dimethyl Acetamide, Dimethyl Disulfide, m-Cresol, 4-Ethyl Toulene, n-Heptaldehyde, Octanal, 1,4-Dioxane, Methyl Phenyl Ketone, Vinyl Acetate, Heptane, Phenol, Octane, Anthracene, Dimethylnapthalene (isomers), Flouranthene, 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, Naph-thalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene , Benzo(a)pyrene, 1-nitropyrene, 1,8-dinitropyrene, 1,3-Butadiene, sulfites, nitrites, nitrogen oxide, nitrogen monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, nitrogen trioxide, nitric acid, sulfur oxides, sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid, urea, ammonia, carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5).

One aircraft take-off can burn thousands of pounds of fuel.

The pollution from just one, two-minute 747 takeoff is equal to operating 2.4 million lawnmowers simultaneously.

The immunotoxicology of jet fuel:
In the early 1990's the United States Air Force began introducing a new safer, less explosive jet fuel, JP-8. Health complaints by engine mechanics and fuel handlers prompted a systematic effort to study the immunosuppressive potential of JP-8. We are testing the hypothesis that that dermal exposure to JP-8 induces immune suppression. Both DTH in vivo and T cell proliferation in vitro were suppressed following dermal application of JP-8. Suppression results after a single large exposure to JP-8, or following multiple smaller exposures. The effect of JP-8 is selective; doses of jet fuel that completely suppress DTH and T cell proliferation fail to interfere with antibody production. Cytokines and biological response modifiers, especially IL-10 and PGE2 appear to be involved. We are particularly interested in determining the mechanisms underlying JP-8-induced immune suppression. We are particularly interested in determining whether using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can overcome JP-8-induced immune suppression, thereby reducing the risk factor that jet fuel exposure has on the health status of exposed personnel. Ullrich, S.E. (1999) Dermal application of JP-8 jet fuel induces immune suppression.
Toxicological Sciences 52:61-67. Ullrich, S.E. and Lyons, H.L. (2000) Mechanisms involved in the immunotoxicity induced by dermal application of JP-8 jet fuel.

Toxicological Sciences 58:290-298. [email protected]

Can't be too good spilling this all over the place eh?

According to this page Aviation is the 2nd biggest user of fuel - next to road transport. This is for Europe.

Road transport consumed 83% of the measure - aviation 13% - that's a long way 2nd

US Dept of Transport figures - the most recent year is 2009 and road transport uses some 86 BILLION gallons (if I'm reading it right), and Aviation about 11.15 BILLION gallons.

So in the US road outstrips aviation by a slighly larger % fraction (again assuming I'm reading it right)

So yes, aircraft usse fuel at a prodigious rate for takeoff and climb - which is why they try to get those out of the way ASAP. then fuel consumption is relatively low for cruise, and even less for descent - one of hte factors in the recent 777 crash in London (as I understand it) was because the fuel flow in descent was SO low, that it froze up again between the fuel heater and the engine due to the "cold soak" of the engine and airframe!