Massive Chemtrail Attack: Midwest

Many users claim to be pilots or aviation experts but they are no Geo-Engineering experts.

If you do the research Geo-Engineering & Chemtrails are true.

Geo-engineering: The radical ideas to combat global warming

guardian.co.uk

Now, in a special edition of the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, climate scientists and engineers have brought together the latest research and issued a call for a far-reaching assessment of a raft of geo-engineering techniques.

"We are now, or soon will be, confronting issues of whether, when and how to engineer a climate that is more to our liking,"

Some of the most extreme ideas for climate engineering involve reducing the sunlight falling on the Earth's surface, as a way to offset the increase in temperatures caused by greenhouse gas emissions

One approach is to insert "scatterers" into the stratosphere. Caldeira cites an idea to deploy jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and deposit clouds of tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide.

reply to post by dw31243


Yeah...congratulations, you are the 100,000th visitor to also find that same article, from the UK! You will be receiving your choice of an iPhone4, or new iPad once you complete the application process

Bear in mind that the link does say it is an "idea"....one of several being suggested. Suggested. Idea.

Those two words are key to comprehension.

Originally posted by hawaii50th
reply to post by jeichelberg

 

It's not cut and dried, for over a hundred years the people has been lied to, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonken, etc.
The world is a lot different today than it has ever been in all history. Technology can make people better liars then ever before. It's also much easier to con a people today than all previous in history.
The information is there, all it takes is good investigating and a passion to know the truth.

Look, this topic has had FIFTEEN-TWENTY YEARS of observation and anecdotal evidence...people coming forward with claims of illness and other adverse affects of these "chemtrails." By comparison, how much time did the issue with PG&E from initial investigations to FULL EXPOSURE...Honestly, if there was anything...anything at all, there would be lawyers all over the thing...

reply to ProudBird

You actually have to read the article and think.

NOTICE how they are qouted as saying "WE ARE NOW"

gaurdian.co.uk

"We are now, or soon will be, confronting issues of whether, when and how to engineer a climate that is more to our liking,"

deploy jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and deposit clouds of tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide.

Exactly, we are now seeing Chemtrails!

Originally posted by dw31243
reply to ProudBird

You actually have to read the article and think.

NOTICE how they are qouted as saying "WE ARE NOW"

gaurdian.co.uk

"We are now, or soon will be, confronting issues of whether, when and how to engineer a climate that is more to our liking,"

deploy jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and deposit clouds of tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide.

Exactly, we are now seeing Chemtrails!

Uhhhhhh no, they're saying we are confronting issues because of climate change. Or soon will be. We will have to think about whether, when or how we could engineer a climate that would better suit us.

None of those ideas are occurring now. Unless you have evidence that they are? There certainly wasn't any in the article...

reply to post by dw31243


Ummmm.......

NOTICE how they are qouted as saying "WE ARE NOW"

Yes. But, read it more carefully this time....and pay attention to what "we are now" is actually referring to.

Again, here is what they wrote:

"We are now, or soon will be, confronting issues......

See? "...confronting issues..." is what they "are now" doing.

Continuing:

...of whether, when and how to engineer a climate that is more to our liking,"

Quite clear to everyone who can read and understand the English language.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by dw31243

 

Ummmm.......

NOTICE how they are qouted as saying "WE ARE NOW"

Yes. But, read it more carefully this time....and pay attention to what "we are now" is actually referring to.

Again, here is what they wrote:

"We are now, or soon will be, confronting issues......

See? "...confronting issues..." is what they "are now" doing.

Continuing:

...of whether, when and how to engineer a climate that is more to our liking,"

Quite clear to everyone who can read and understand the English language.

Thank you for clarifying it.

NOT A QOUTE FROM THE SOURCE [Hence No Qoute TAG, ProudBird!]

We are now, confronting issues of whether by deploying jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and depositing clouds with tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide [Chemtrials].

Great work ProudBird!

Originally posted by dw31243
"We are now, confronting issues of whether by deploying jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and depositing clouds with tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide [Chemtrials].

Uhhhhh, no still off. To put it more plainly, "The issue we are confronting is if climate change will be (or is) enough of an issue to consider needing to alter the climate (through some sort of geo-engineering)."

Still no evidence of "chemtrailing" or massive geo-engineering projects related to climate, though.

reply to post by dw31243


You have altered an external source's quotes by re-arranging the words to change their meaning and implication. You are therefore perpetuating a HOAX on ATS. (among other infractions). This is against the policy and terms of this Board.

Here is the original text (again) properly written, so as to not be subverted and out of context:

Now, in a special edition of the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, climate scientists and engineers have brought together the latest research and issued a call for a far-reaching assessment of a raft of geo-engineering techniques.

"We are now, or soon will be, confronting issues of whether, when and how to engineer a climate that is more to our liking,"

Some of the most extreme ideas for climate engineering involve reducing the sunlight falling on the Earth's surface, as a way to offset the increase in temperatures caused by greenhouse gas emissions

One approach is to insert "scatterers" into the stratosphere. Caldeira cites an idea to deploy jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and deposit clouds of tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide.

guardian.co.uk


If this behaviour continues, and the Moderators do not see it first, then there is a chance it will be reported to them.

reply to post by jeichelberg

Look, we all know that fluoride is used in water and people want it out. You can even get the Material Safety Data Sheet on Fluoride and it will tell you how bad that chemical is. Do you hear of any lawyers jumping on this like rice on white?
This chem-trail thing in the sky started to take off around 1992, prior to that the study and experiments were going on since the 50's.
Here is a link a video of a guy talking about Geo-engineering to counter the so called global warming issue. This video presentation is from "Ted" you know, the place where Bill Gates made his presentation on vaccines and how they can help control population. Listen closely to what he says, if you pick up what he says and read between the lines you will get it. It's being brought forward as an idea, if they came out and said they've been doing this along, then you'd see all the lawyers flocking.
He also says that he knows that this will work, why because of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, or computer models, highly unlikely. It's because they've been literally doing it already.
Those with the attitude, oh they wouldn't do such a thing, or just because TPTB hasn't told us, so it's not true, is still asleep.
Here's link:
www.ted.com...

Originally posted by dw31243
reply to ProudBird

You actually have to read the article and think.

NOTICE how they are qouted as saying "WE ARE NOW"

gaurdian.co.uk

"We are now, or soon will be, confronting issues of whether, when and how to engineer a climate that is more to our liking,"

Notice how they are quoted as saying "OR SOON WILL B" - selective quoting in order to change hte meaning is never a good look.

deploy jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and deposit clouds of tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide.

Exactly, we are now seeing Chemtrails!

More selctive quoting - the whole sentence is:

Caldeira cites an idea to deploy jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and deposit clouds of tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide.

So he mentions it as an idea.

Your misquoting of external sources is pretty obvious - do you really think that it helps your cause to manufacture "evidence" so obviously??

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by dw31243
reply to ProudBird

You actually have to read the article and think.

NOTICE how they are qouted as saying "WE ARE NOW"

gaurdian.co.uk

"We are now, or soon will be, confronting issues of whether, when and how to engineer a climate that is more to our liking,"

Notice how they are quoted as saying "OR SOON WILL B" - selective quoting in order to change hte meaning is never a good look.

deploy jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and deposit clouds of tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide.

Exactly, we are now seeing Chemtrails!

More selctive quoting - the whole sentence is:

Caldeira cites an idea to deploy jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and deposit clouds of tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide.

So he mentions it as an idea.

Your misquoting of external sources is pretty obvious - do you really think that it helps your cause to manufacture "evidence" so obviously??

There is no misquoting. I provide the sources of my information. Highlighting the import phrases of the article such as "WE ARE NOW" is not misrepresenting anything.


What really helps our cause of exposing the truth of Chemtrials is users on websites like this who repeatedly attack people like me, who post the truth.

More information right from the source that many of you want it from. Silver iodide-silver chloride seem to be the chemical of choice in this article.www.weathermodification.org...

csat.au.af.mil...

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Originally posted by dw31243

Your misquoting of external sources is pretty obvious - do you really think that it helps your cause to manufacture "evidence" so obviously??

There is no misquoting. I provide the sources of my information.

Yes - thank you for making it easy to spot your selective quoting to misrepresent what was said!

Highlighting the import phrases of the article such as "WE ARE NOW" is not misrepresenting anything.

Highlighting part of a sentence that is immediately qualified by the following words - such as OR SOON WILL BE, without also including the following words so that the meaning is changed is selective quoting - a grave mistake in most reputable circles.

What really helps our cause of exposing the truth of Chemtrials is users on websites like this who repeatedly attack people like me, who post the truth.

Selective quoting that changes the meaning of what was said is dishonest - not truthful!!

And that you think that it IS truthful is telling as to how far removed you are from being able to recognise truth!!

Originally posted by hawaii50th
More information right from the source that many of you want it from. Silver iodide-silver chloride seem to be the chemical of choice in this article.www.weathermodification.org...

silver iodide for cloud seeding - also called weather modification:

1/ is not done from airliners
2/ is not done at high altitude on clear days - it is CLOUD seeding...think about it....
3/ is done at low altitude
4/ has obvious external appendages to the aircraft that do do it
5/ is not secret (normally - the US military did use it in Vietnam of course, as part of the conflict there )

csat.au.af.mil...

"Owning the weather" - was there some aspect of it you wanted to highlight that hasn't been discussed before??

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

From that PDF: "Potential weather modification capabilities"

Here's its summary page:

- MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS IN SHORT TERM FORECASTS BY 2010
-14 DAY FORECASTS BY 2040

CURRENT CAPABILITIES
TARGETED FOG DISPERSAL
LOCAL CHANGES IN PRECIPITATION
CLOUD MODIFICATION - SURVEILLANCE/COVERAGE
HOLE BORING
CREATE/SUPPRESS CIRRUS/CONTRAILS
IONOSPHERIC MODIFICATION

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS TOO LARGE FOR MAJOR STORMS

TREATY RESTRICTIONS

NEW WEAPON SYSTEMS PUSH THE ENVELOPE
THE ENVIRONMENT MUST BE CONSIDERED FROM THE START OF THE CONCEPT/DESIGN FOR ALL NEW WEAPON SYSTEMS

Some of those almost look alarming....until you go into the presentation and see what they are actually talking about.

Eg Ionospheric modification - yep - there' s a picture of HAARP in there too - we know the ionosphere can be modified, no doubt about it. Nothing much else tho.

Or cloud modification - there' a couple of pages where they mention previous research - including contrails suppression, clearing fog, making holes in clouds, and cloud seeding, and using carbon black to increase cirrus cloud cover to degrade enemy surveillance capability and lower light levels for night operations.

So what about this do you think is important for us to know about in the context of civilian airliners leaving contrails??

Originally posted by hawaii50th
reply to post by jeichelberg

 

Look, we all know that fluoride is used in water and people want it out. You can even get the Material Safety Data Sheet on Fluoride and it will tell you how bad that chemical is. Do you hear of any lawyers jumping on this like rice on white?

No..I am not aware of any lawyers jumping all over fluoride...must be because there is no objective evidence in support of a cause of action...

This chem-trail thing in the sky started to take off around 1992, prior to that the study and experiments were going on since the 50's. Here is a link a video of a guy talking about Geo-engineering to counter the so called global warming issue. This video presentation is from "Ted" you know, the place where Bill Gates made his presentation on vaccines and how they can help control population. Listen closely to what he says, if you pick up what he says and read between the lines you will get it. It's being brought forward as an idea, if they came out and said they've been doing this along, then you'd see all the lawyers flocking. He also says that he knows that this will work, why because of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, or computer models, highly unlikely. It's because they've been literally doing it already. Those with the attitude, oh they wouldn't do such a thing, or just because TPTB hasn't told us, so it's not true, is still asleep. Here's link: www.ted.com...

Ah, the good old "read between the lines," bit...yeah, that works real well in front of the judge..."Your Honor, I have all the evidence you will ever need...just be real careful to read between the lines, and by the way, keep your bias toward objective, open-mindedness out of play in this case and adopt the ability to read between the lines whatever I tell you to read...pretty please, just this once!?!?!"

Your video has this excerpt as a descriptive synopsis:

"Environmental scientist David Keith proposes a cheap, effective, shocking means to address climate change: What if we injected a huge cloud of ash into the atmosphere to deflect sunlight and heat?"

That is a VERY BIG IF...and...
1) we have not yet reached the point, despite whatever hoakum is out there, this is necessary; and,
2) There is no indication the proposal would be accomplished with civilian passenger jets...

I have to apologize for ridiculing chemtrails..

If proud bird et al are on the case it is no hoax !

You have to bear in mind the FDA commits murder on a daily basis by rejecting potential cancer cures.

www.youtube.com...#!

Chemtrails don't seem so craxy now.

SCUM.

reply to post by mockrock

You're off topic but maybe if the results of the "clinical trials" could be reproduced the FDA would show some interest.

Although some proponents of antineoplaston therapy have suggested that the reviews of this treatment by conventional cancer specialists are biased by mistrust of alternative therapies, even some prominent figures in the field of alternative medicine have reservations about antineoplastons. According to Dr. Andrew Weil, "Over the years, Dr. Burzynski claims to have treated more than 8,000 patients, but his success rates are unknown. His Web site states only that he has helped 'many' people. If antineoplaston therapy works, we should have scientific studies showing what percentage of patients treated have survived and for how long, as well as evidence showing how Dr. Burzynski's method stacks up against conventional cancer treatment…. Until we have credible scientific evidence showing what antineoplastons are, how they act in the body, and what realistic expectations of treatment with them might be, I see no reason for any cancer patient to take this route."

Source

Originally posted by mockrock
I have to apologize for ridiculing chemtrails..

If proud bird et al are on the case it is no hoax !

You have to bear in mind the FDA commits murder on a daily basis by rejecting potential cancer cures.

www.youtube.com...#!

Chemtrails don't seem so craxy now.

SCUM.

YU-55 is responsible for the chemtrails I suppose?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mockrock

 

You're off topic but maybe if the results of the "clinical trials" could be reproduced the FDA would show some interest.

Although some proponents of antineoplaston therapy have suggested that the reviews of this treatment by conventional cancer specialists are biased by mistrust of alternative therapies, even some prominent figures in the field of alternative medicine have reservations about antineoplastons. According to Dr. Andrew Weil, "Over the years, Dr. Burzynski claims to have treated more than 8,000 patients, but his success rates are unknown. His Web site states only that he has helped 'many' people. If antineoplaston therapy works, we should have scientific studies showing what percentage of patients treated have survived and for how long, as well as evidence showing how Dr. Burzynski's method stacks up against conventional cancer treatment…. Until we have credible scientific evidence showing what antineoplastons are, how they act in the body, and what realistic expectations of treatment with them might be, I see no reason for any cancer patient to take this route."

Source

Did you watch the film ? Have you watched someone die from cancer? Watch the film again you have missed the point.. the FDA doesn't care about curing people. they care about preserving profit.
SCUM.