Declassified Docs Reveal Genocide Caused By Chemtrail Testing

reply to post by network dude


Carnicom as proof makes me laugh every time.
He is the ultimate authority after all. He's blamed "chemtrails" for just about everything.

remember...
"Geo-Engineering and Chemtrails: This forum is dedicated to the discussion and speculation of cover-ups, scandals, and other conspiracies related to systematic modification of the earth and its atmosphere. Participants should be aware that this forum is under close staff scrutiny due to general rudeness by some. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com\'s tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals."

but people would rather focus on coincidence theorys, uncover-downs and hmm.... "encouragement, praise"

www.opposite-word.com...

thank you to whoever is starring my posts by the way at least someone appreciates my efforts

reply to post by anonymous1legion

and youtube what in the world are they sprayin,

Before you post yourself into being banned, might I suggest a little reading that discusses this video...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

they do tests and im more likely to believe them than some ats shill

You may change your mind after reading the thread I linked to above, and then again you may not...

Originally posted by anonymous1legion
reply to post by network dude

 

so is your stance "they did it and realised their mistake and would never dream of doing it again" ???!!!!

No - my stance is that we know what they did then, what is supposedly beign done now looking nothing like it, looks exactly like contrails, behaves like contrails, is generated like contails, the tests supposedly proving it are invariably bad science (at best) or deceptive (at worst), and it is ineherently unlikey anyway, so there's no actul credible evidence that "it" is being done.

go back to shleep!

Happy to - feel free to wake me up if you get anything new and original...preferably also rational, credible, checkable.

Originally posted by anonymous1legion
reply to post by stars15k

 

did you not see the post where i proved testing has been done on rain/ground water?

I was discussing this last night on here. As I said then, finding stuff in rainwater, leaving aside considerations about what should and shouldn't be there anyway, tells you nothing about where it has come from. It can be no more than an assumption that it is coming from aircraft trails so it doesn't prove anything. It also doesn't prove a deliberate operation to poison. Contaminants and pollutants originate from many sources as an unintentional, and perhaps under-controlled, byproduct.

So why should people get all uptight about chemtrails? We do know that any trails we see in the sky conform to what has been known about contrails for decades, so to accept that it's NOT just a contrails is what requires the evidence.

Also where is the logistical chain? Someone would have to order this stuff, someone else would have to make it, it would also need to be transported, installed in some sort of aircraft and used.

The absolute lack of evidence for any of that is staggering. My opinion of that is that it is simply not credible that political organisations and personnel that get caught out doing something they shouldn't on what seems like a daily basis can keep a secret like that for 20 years or that Nobody involved in that chain has come forward out of conscience or desire for a big payday ever. Nah.

And you really need to drop that shill nonsense, people are allowed different opinions you know.

reply to post by anonymous1legion

exactly but if i posted evidence people would still naysay so it does not matter, even if i had solid proof you wouldnt beleive it

This is TOTAL CROCK!!! If you can post even the slightest amount of evidence the trails we see above our heads contain anything other than water vapor and associated by product from jet fuel combustion, then not only will I believe that evidence, I will help file the largest environmental lawsuit in the history of the world. Erin Brockovich will be lead attorney. We only need to meet a FIFTY-ONE percent threshold...not even beyond reasonable doubt...All we need to establish is a LITTLE BIT OF REASONABLE doubt...

Got that? Please focus on the word>>>REASONABLE!!!

I see what the OP is trying to say. It's not a huge leap to think that the Army was spraying these chemicals so why couldn't/wouldn't the Air Force or other branch spray these chemicals from planes(chemtrails).

Also, I live within this channels viewing area and they recently had a story about a small area north of StL that had a cluster of very rare cancers like Appendix cancer etc. Very interesting story.

im not a believer in ''Chemtrails'' as they are generally described, although i am definitely open to the idea if somebody could provide me with even some anecdotal evidence i would be more than happy to consider the supposed phenomenon.

Now the the question i always ask, and yet to recieve any kind of reply, and i mean any, is what are they spraying (ie. what ''chemicals'' or contaminants) and what effect are they having on the population? why arent we seeing widespread health problems or lower intelligence stardards or whatever the supposed effects are on some populations, especially in some areas that many chemtrail proponents are claiming to be actively sprayed regularly?

Im a contaminated land scientist, i understand the effects of contaminants on organisms and ecosytems much better than your average scientist, let alone regular untrained observers. When i have questions about chemtrails for people who are big believers in chemtrails, they cant even begin to answer the most basic questions from a contamination perspective, questions that i have to ask for many different sites every day. i deal with everything from aerosol to ground and surface water and soil contamination, and im well versed in exposure pathways and residence times of chemicals in the environment and there different breakdown rates under varying conditions.

So, what are they spraying?

Why are they spraying it?

What effects are they having in the environment?

What effects are they having on organisms?

So go on chemtrail proponents, convince me.

reply to post by BeReasonable

I love having experts show up in forums.
I have been telling people for a long time that a test of surface water and ground level air (or rooftops, as is suggested by Cliff Carnicom) is not sufficient to prove something is falling down from what they call "chemtrails." Such a claim is not well received.
Am I right or should I start reading Carnicom with more respect?

reply to post by stars15k


you are 100% correct. it would be very hard to prove conclusively that something found on the ground was a product of ''chemtrailing''. however, if it was something specific (chemically) that isn't found generally in the environment, then you have to start examing potential sources to rule out contamination from other offsite influences. You collect anecdotal evidence that tells you what you should be looking for and where to look for it. they you extensively sample a huge area and try to narrow it down. The thing is, you dont just get a sample of soil/water/air and test for everything, it doesnt work like that, you have to know what you are looking for before you can actually look for it, but saying that when i do an environmental investigation and we have no data on what to look for, i just get s suite of analytes tested for such as Hydrocarbons (Polycyclic, Monocyclic and total) Organchlorine and Organophosphorus Pesticides, Poly Chlorinated Biphenyls, At least 8 heavy metals, pH and Electrical Conductivity, those at the very least. But there are a huge range of things to test for, you have to make a somewhat educated guess as to what to look for. some of those tests might not give you much information on there own but if something is missing or at low concentrations that can tell you to look for something more particular. You also have to consider Phytotoxicity, plant health is very sensitive to contaminants. Plant stress is an excellent indicator of something where it doesnt belong.

So what do i look for in Chemtrails then?

Originally posted by TheOriginalMolonLabe
I see what the OP is trying to say. It's not a huge leap to think that the Army was spraying these chemicals so why couldn't/wouldn't the Air Force or other branch spray these chemicals from planes(chemtrails).

That is suspicion - nothing wrong with being suspicious, especialy when such behaviour has been exhibited before, as you point out.

But being suspicious is not proof that it is happening.

Also, I live within this channels viewing area and they recently had a story about a small area north of StL that had a cluster of very rare cancers like Appendix cancer etc. Very interesting story.

clusters are utterly irrelevant unless you can link them to something - in a random spread you invariably get some areas where "x" is clustered and other areas where "x" is rare - if "x" was evernly spread everywhere then it is not actually random at all!

reply to post by BeReasonable


The usual culprits are aluminum and barium.
There is a whole laundry list of things "found" in tests done by "chemtrail" components includes this alarming air quality test:

cadmium is 126x the toxic limit
chromium is 282x the toxic limit and
nickel is 169x the toxic limit.
aluminum is a stagg 6,400x the toxic limit,
iron is 28,000x the toxic limit,
magnesium is 5.3x the toxic limit,
potassium is 793x the toxic limit and
sodium is 15.9x the toxic limit
barium is 278x the toxic limit,
copper is 98x the toxic limit,
manganese is a staggering
5,820x the toxic limit
zinc is 593x the toxic limit ,

source

Add in the claim of un-named pharmaceuticals, molds, fungus, viruses, even blood cells. And "webs", which are just considered toxic, but don't ever seem to have been tested. The same goes with descriptions like "brown goo", "sticky spots", and "oily film."
Then there is the camp who think it's technologically-based. These people claim nanobots and "smart dust."
I have yet to see a "chemtrail" site offer a test that was not earth-based, whether air or surface water.
The tests that make me wonder the most are the one's that claim "chemtrails" are contaminating ground water. Perhaps it is weird, but I know the difference between ground water and surface water. Maybe others don't and are mixing the terms; I wouldn't be surprised. Testing ground water is pointless for something you are seeing right now, isn't it? I would love to see the hydrology reports, but source work on "chemtrail" sites is strangely lacking.

reply to post by stars15k


that list of analytes reads almost like a standard list of things i test for a great deal of the time. If any of those substances were affecting environmental quality i would be the first one to notice, cause i spend a great deal of time looking at raw analytical data from a large range of different sites in the state of NSW in Australia.

Barium and aluminium sulphate have been used extensively in cloud seeding pilot programs but the sheer volume of barium and aluminium needed to create cloud seeding effects on a regional scale would be phenomenal.

In regards to groundwater, groundwater is what you call an environmental receptor, and you would certainly find something in groundwater if it was applied to the surface in any kind of substantial amount, but not neccesarily where it is deposited. But again as i mentioned, Phytotoxicity (plant stress) is a primary indicator of ecological stress related to soil or groundwater contamination, and if groundwater was affected then plant stress would be evident in some or all species, as well as microbiological impacts which further increase stress as the food chain can start to collapse from the bottom up.

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by BeReasonable

 

The usual culprits are aluminum and barium.
There is a whole laundry list of things "found" in tests done by "chemtrail" components includes this alarming air quality test:

cadmium is 126x the toxic limit
........etc,

source

And what is that toxic limit??

Well actually they invented it themselves-

We have designated the "Maximum Contaminant Level", or toxic limit, of these materials in the soil to be twice that for drinking water. This is due to the absence of any realistic soil standards that would account for the health effects of these materials in the soil, which is blown around repeatedly by strong Arizona winds and dust storms.

(3rd para down)

I do not understand how anyone can think they are free to designate an arbitrary number as a "toxic limit" and have it considered seriously.

that is, of course, on top of the other egregious sampling errors and disinfo tactics they practice - such as saying that the make up of soil/dust blowing in the air is also the makeup of the air.

This thread is like being in a burning house and two people are sitting there arguing if they're going to die from the fire or smoke inhalation first.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


your incorrect in the asssumption that these numbers are just plucked out of the air. i regularly have to refer to international and national guidelines for contaminants. The data are derived from scientific studies on LD25 LD50 and LD100 (LD= Lethal dose, LD25 meaning dosage required to kill 25% of population etc) numbers for each species, usually starting with the most sensitive organisms, which usually means micro-organisms. If there is a criteria, then there is ample data. anything that has no criteria usually reads (ID)- insufficient data and will state that insufficient data has been collected to allocate a criteria, although sometimes they will provide a screen guide criteria that may not have enough conclusive data to be certain from a scientific perspective but maybe enough to make an educated guess

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by BeReasonable

 

The usual culprits are aluminum and barium.
There is a whole laundry list of things "found" in tests done by "chemtrail" components includes this alarming air quality test:

cadmium is 126x the toxic limit
........etc,

source

And what is that toxic limit??

Well actually they invented it themselves-

We have designated the "Maximum Contaminant Level", or toxic limit, of these materials in the soil to be twice that for drinking water. This is due to the absence of any realistic soil standards that would account for the health effects of these materials in the soil, which is blown around repeatedly by strong Arizona winds and dust storms.

(3rd para down)

I do not understand how anyone can think they are free to designate an arbitrary number as a "toxic limit" and have it considered seriously.

that is, of course, on top of the other egregious sampling errors and disinfo tactics they practice - such as saying that the make up of soil/dust blowing in the air is also the makeup of the air.

see above post. I do this stuff all day i know what im talking about

Originally posted by BeReasonable
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

your incorrect in the asssumption that these numbers are just plucked out of the air.

It is the limit that is "plucked out the air" (sic) - they didn't use LD50's or any other standard, international or otherwise - they decided the limit in soil should be twice the allowed limit in water - which is usually well below actual toxic limits anyway!

reply to post by Druscilla


You are the nutter if you truly believe that no harm comes fron fluoride, GMO's, or vaccines.