Gov't shutdown and Chemtrails link???

Mikeultra

totallackey

Mikeultra

totallackey

Mikeultra

totallackey

Mikeultra

totallackey
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

Okay. Excellent. Since you have it saved and I have it saved, then what chapter would you care to discuss as it relates to the topic of chemtrails and weather modification?

Section II
Chapter 9
Program Area C
Preventing Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
Objectives
b. To develop strategies aimed at mitigating the adverse effects of ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth's surface as a consequence of depletion and modification of the stratospheric ozone layer.
habitat.igc.org...

Excellent choice for discussion.

From the same Agenda 21 Section:

Activities

9.24. Governments at the appropriate level, with the cooperation of the relevant United Nations bodies and, as appropriate, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, and the private sector, should:
a. Ratify, accept or approve the Montreal Protocol and its 1990 amendments; pay their contributions towards the Vienna/Montreal trust funds and the interim multilateral ozone fund promptly; and contribute, as appropriate, towards ongoing efforts under the Montreal Protocol and its implementing mechanisms, including making available substitutes for CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances and facilitating the transfer of the corresponding technologies to developing countries in order to enable them to comply with the obligations of the Protocol;
b. Support further expansion of the Global Ozone Observing System by facilitating - through bilateral and multilateral funding - the establishment and operation of additional systematic observation stations, especially in the tropical belt in the southern hemisphere;
c. Participate actively in the continuous assessment of scientific information and the health and environmental effects, as well as of the technological/economic implications of stratospheric ozone depletion; and consider further actions that prove warranted and feasible on the basis of these assessments;
d. Based on the results of research on the effects of the additional ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth's surface, consider taking appropriate remedial measures in the fields of human health, agriculture and marine environment;
e. Replace CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances, consistent with the Montreal Protocol, recognizing that a replacement's suitability should be evaluated holistically and not simply based on its contribution to solving one atmospheric or environmental problem

Can you identify, from any of these listed activities from Agenda 21, anything involving aircraft and supposed chemtrails?

Yes. Section C.

Okay. Specifically, what do you read in this section:

c. Participate actively in the continuous assessment of scientific information and the health and environmental effects, as well as of the technological/economic implications of stratospheric ozone depletion; and consider further actions that prove warranted and feasible on the basis of these assessments;

that leads you to believe aircraft and chemtrails are being used to counter ozone depletion of the atmosphere?

That's not the correct section C. PREVENTING STRATOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION This is.oi44.tinypic.com...

edit on 10-10-2013 by Mikeultra because: Title of Section C

Okay. I understand.

The Section C you referenced is located in the portion labeled, "OBJECTIVES." Specifically, objectives are what a policy/procedure/agenda is TRYING to achieve.

Immediately after the, "OBJECTIVES," section, you will find a section labeled, "ACTIVITIES." This section SPECIFICALLY LISTS the activities that WILL BE PERFORMED in order to achieve the objectives.

Do you understand?

Yes, I think I do. Activities are what they are willing to admit to doing. Objectives have to remain in more murky wording. You need to read between the lines, it's a talent I have gotten better at as the world has approached the edge of the abyss. Kind of like 3-D glasses.

The objectives are clearly not murky. The activities are clearly not murky. I mean, I find them to be written in clear, concise English (capable of being translated into any language through the use of Google), and there is no ambiguity in terminology.

I am sorry, but I cannot see one concrete or veiled reference to contrails, aircraft, or any other such activity (i.e., chemtrails) presented in Agenda 21.

Thanks for discussing the point though...very enlightening and demonstrative of the abilities necessary to formulate such conclusions.

reply to post by waynos


That is not what it says. It says any thread. Like I said, more information needed at the very least for the OP.

I live in MI, and drive to Detroit 5-6 days a week for work. The sky has been absolutely clear here for over a week, no planes dumping that #e....although there are plenty in the sky. One thing I have noticed though, is that there have not been any tanker airplanes taking off from the large ANG base by Mt. Clemens (I drive past it almost everyday). On the days that there is heavy spraying, there are numerous large tankers flying about.

Some may say that this is all circumstantial..... But following Occum's Razor, if it walks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. But that is just my 2-cents from experiencing all the activity associated with this phenomena.

reply to post by InCeNdIaDrAcOnIs


I posted a very clear picture of my area taken today. A clearly visible trail, fitting the OP defintion of a "chemtrail," is present in the picture.

I say it is a contrail, based on the available scientific information.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it must be a duck.

Or can you explain how it appears, given the supposed absence of your tankers?

reply to post by InCeNdIaDrAcOnIs


So it looks like a contrail, forms like a contrail, and acts like a contrail, but it's not a contrail. So much for looks like a dick.

reply to post by smurfy


Please provide one example where a member has the right to make a determination of who can, what can, when can, be posted in a topic of discussion.

Thank you.

reply to post by smurfy


Well, I took it to mean any thread on a forum such as this one, but I didn't write it so it's only my guess I'm afraid, the mod would have to clarify that for him.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I think that's called a Freudian slip zap

reply to post by Zaphod58


SO, what are your thoughts on this article piece below? I really think it's indeed possible our technology is this advanced and we are stupid enough to try and scientifically "test" it out.

A new ice age seemed to be approaching as part of the natural glacial cycle, perhaps hastened by human pollution that blocked sunlight. Technological optimists suggested ways to counter this threat too. We might spread soot from cargo aircraft to darken the Arctic snows, or even shatter the Arctic ice pack with “clean” thermonuclear explosions. *** The bitter fighting among communities over cloud-seeding would be as nothing compared with conflicts over attempts to engineer global climate. Moreover, as Budyko and Western scientists alike warned, scientists could not predict the consequences of such engineering efforts.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Here are 3 photos.
1st photo - 12:58 PM eastern
2nd photo - 12:59 PM eastern
3rd photo - 4:31 PM eastern

These show cause and effect.

oi42.tinypic.com...
oi41.tinypic.com...
oi43.tinypic.com...

The gas station attendant wanted to know what I was taking pictures of. I told him "death from above." He thought nothing of the poison fallout. But as you can see by the 3rd photo, only 3.5 hours later, what was a bluebird day turned into a grey nuclear fallout chemically overcast sky. Sometimes it even burns my eyes somewhat.

reply to post by Mikeultra

But as you can see by the 3rd photo, only 3.5 hours later, what was a bluebird day turned into a grey nuclear fallout chemically overcast sky.

Looks like stratus clouds to me. It's called weather. It changes.

reply to post by MamaJ


A cargo plane simply can't carry enough material. I sat down in a different thread and looked at what it would take and it was staggering.

He threw out 20 megatons of material. You can't run that through the engines because it will destroy them almost immediately. A 747-400 freighter can carry 124 tons of cargo. If all of that was the material to be dispersed (which it obviously couldn't be), and every single -400 was still flying and used for nothing else, it would take hundreds of flights for each one to disperse that much material.

Using a mixed fleet requires more flights because obviously a smaller plane has a smaller payload.

The nukes part of it, good luck with that. They'd be lynched in no time.

reply to post by MamaJ

That article reinforces my belief that there are indeed mad scientists. If they are talking about nuking the arctic ice caps, than merely polluting the skies with chem-trails pales in comparison.

reply to post by Mikeultra


And where is the evidence this went anywhere but the theoretical stage?

Mikeultra
Here are 3 photos.
1st photo - 12:58 PM eastern
2nd photo - 12:59 PM eastern
3rd photo - 4:31 PM eastern

These show cause and effect.

oi42.tinypic.com...
oi41.tinypic.com...
oi43.tinypic.com...

The gas station attendant wanted to know what I was taking pictures of. I told him "death from above." He thought nothing of the poison fallout. But as you can see by the 3rd photo, only 3.5 hours later, what was a bluebird day turned into a grey nuclear fallout chemically overcast sky. Sometimes it even burns my eyes somewhat.

Here are your photos, embedded in the thread. Quite easy to do. Please try to learn how to do this.


The only question I have, is where the hell is the gas station attendant in the third photo?
Other than that, the first two photos show contrails and the third photo shows the expected cloudiness arriving with an incoming weather front.

reply to post by Mikeultra


Bad time journaling. If you're going to do research based off photographs for this kind of study you never ever leave the site of the first photo. You've completely destroyed ANY argument you could have made with those photos.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

And where is the evidence this went anywhere but the theoretical stage?

It shows their depraved, reckless manner of problem solving. I'm pointing out that the eco-freaks are dangerous!

reply to post by Mikeultra


And what of the data for those trails? Namely aircraft type, registration, flight number, operator, departure point and destination altitude, time and date?

I do this for all my photos. Without it they mean, and prove, nothing.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by totallackey


Oh hey thanks! That does look nicer and more convenient for readers. Could you teach me how to do that. I promise I won't get carried away posting too many chem-trail evidence photos. I don't want you to be shunned by your side. The gas station attendant? I left him behind at the gas station.

reply to post by Mikeultra


It's a THEORETICAL solution to a problem. The idea is to throw ideas at the problem then pick the best solution. Just because an idea is out there doesn't mean they ate doing it.