Chemtrails: chemical weapon or psychological weapon?

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.

Re: Chemtrails: chemical weapon or psychological weapon?

Postby hoi.polloi on July 25th, 2016, 3:28 am

I am not trying to dilute our great forum, I promise. Please understand that we have very high standards, even when discussing typical fakery, and there may be more important things to discuss, since — in all the discussions about chemtrails (which we faithfully and patiently avoid speculation on) we have not produced much hard evidence that such a thing would even have a precedence. Well, I believe that we should now seriously consider the possibility that it is.

And this chemical experimentation ("authorized" by undoubtedly illegal language, in terms of how it violates basic human rights) is indeed something that would explain the fluoride poisoning of our water, chemtrails, experimental drugs and injections, and pretty much anything else that conspiracy theorists rant about.

Here is the thing I came across, which I find very interesting. It's in a government document written to modify the present state of chemical and biological testing on not necessarily aware civilian populations, and how that is supposed to be reported to congress and authorized by local legislation.

Sorry for the awful formatting, but it comes from a scritchy-scratchy PDF http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/95/79.pdf

Here is the excerpt (taken from right below clarification on the sale of aircraft to Israel for some non-alphabetical reason...) and my bolds and highlights:

DOD
experiments and
studies, report
and accounting to
congressional
committees.
50
use
1520.

SEC.
808. (a) (1) The Secretary of Defense shall supply the Com-
mittees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives,
not later than October 1 of each year, a full accounting of all experi-
ments and studies conducted by the Department of Defense in the
preceding twelve-month period, whether directly or under contract,
which involve the use of human subjects for the testing of chemical or
biological agents
.
(2) Not later than thirty days after final approval within the
Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be con-
ducted by the Department of Defense, whether directly or under
contract, involving the use of human subjects for the testing of chemi-
cal or biological agents, the Secretary of Defense shall supply the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Represent-
atives with a full accounting of such plans for such experiment or
study, and such experiment or study may then be conducted only after
the expiration of the thirty-day period beginning on the date such
accounting is received by such committees.

(b) (1) The Secretary of Defense may not conduct any test or
experiment involving the use of any chemical or biological agent on
civilian populations unless local civilian officials in the area in which
the test or experiment is to be conducted are notified in advance
of
such test or experiment, and such test or experiment may then be con-
ducted only after the expiration of the thirty-day period beginning
on the date of such notification.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall apply to tests and experiments conducted
by Department of Defense personnel and tests and experiments con-
ducted on behalf of the Department of Defense by contractors.


The odd thing about this modification and clarification, among others, is that it applied to the year 1979 and is certainly not the first writing on the subject, given the fact this is the edit of existing legislation. (Indeed, you can read the full existing public law here — the entire Title 50 on National Defense is hair raising: http://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@t ... ion=prelim) Furthermore, it may not be the last modification and one wonders: what causes this level of "public law" to be modified in the first place?

And if it can be modified, how can we do so now, today, to ensure that tests of a chemical or biological nature are only done on people that willingly, knowingly, consent and volunteer, and who understand the risks?

Unfortunately, what this implies as an answer to Simon's question (Why would politicians do this to themselves? ) is that politicians are the first to know the full extent of where and how the experiments take place.

Might be time for another little FOIA action, hmm? <_<

---

The relevant portion of law presently reads (Title 50 Chapter 32 Section 1520) as follows:

(b) Exceptions
Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section, the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:

(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.

(c) Informed consent required
The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject.


(d) Prior notice to Congress
Not later than 30 days after the date of final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving the use of human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the experiment or study may then be conducted only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date such report is received by those committees.

(e) "Biological agent" defined
In this section, the term "biological agent" means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing-

(1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;
(2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or
(3) deleterious alteration of the environment.


In short, biological agents may be used to destroy, kill, maim or otherwise injure any and all life affected, given the subjects give prior consent — even in purposes of crowd control. How would such a scenario play out, and given the description of what constitutes "terrorists" these days, could it be "homegrown terrorism" is the new excuse for breaking biological laws?

Now, how do you suppose the present maniacs in military and government, operating on the principles of "Doctrine of Discovery" (in which consent to receive conversion, colonization and genocide from the Euro/Anglo invaders was implied by mumbling something unintelligible to the wind) even define "consent" right now?

And how do you suppose they reconcile biological agents used for "crowd control" of angry people obviously and blatantly not giving their consent to being attacked with biological agents? Are protestors all meant to sign some non-disclosure before meeting up and walking the streets? :huh:
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4744
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Previous

Return to General World Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests