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: 4857
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Chemtrails: chemical weapon or psychological weapon?

Postby NotRappaport on October 16th, 2017, 7:57 am

MrSinclair » February 16th, 2012, 6:25 pm wrote:From my office I have a great view of the sky and how they pollute it with chemtrails. One thing I see often are planes ascending at a steep angle no passenger jet would ever attempt. In 100% of the cases where planes are flying in these unusual trajectories they are leaving a chemtrail behind.

I've witnessed this myself at least half a dozen times this year - a plane travelling at a ridiculously steep angle, nearly straight up, and leaving a fat chemtrail behind. It will typically intersect with another horizontal trail that was either sprayed previously or will be sprayed soon after about 20° to 30° above the horizon. The bizarre ascent angles is how I know these are NOT passenger jets. These are special planes flown specifically for the purpose of spraying whatever is in those trails.

The planes that ascend normally never leave a trail as they do so. When there's a blue clear sky, I can spot plenty of planes flying at high altitude leaving no trail whatsoever (I live within 30 miles of two major airports - SFO and OAK - and I have good eyes). It's only some planes that make these trails, and they also fly at medium to high and very high altitude. I see them leaving trails at the same time other planes in the sky are not leaving any trail.

I am determined to get some good pictures to illustrate this, but I'm almost always driving when I see them. Sadly, every Youtube video I've ever watched on the subject seems to be pushing some sort of disinfo. It's one of those things you just have to see and study for yourself.
NotRappaport
Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: October 3rd, 2017, 10:01 pm

Re: Chemtrails: chemical weapon or psychological weapon?

Postby Flabbergasted on October 16th, 2017, 12:02 pm

NotRappaport wrote:It's one of those things you just have to see and study for yourself.

Fortunately, that´s easily done :)

Chemtrailing is particularly intensive in rich Western countries. This squares well with Simon's working hypothesis that chemtrails are sprayed to generate an artificial 'ionosphere layer' to enable our modern-day telecommunications. viewtopic.php?f=29&t=1761&p=2393091#p2393091

Disinfo-free video of chemtrailing plane (filmed/edited by my brother):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntnfi5kieegw4 ... w.wmv?dl=0

Tail sprays turned on and off @ 0:36 (video of unverifiable source):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/scvyj9ih0cxf8 ... f.mp4?dl=0

No amount of NASA damage control can explain away the steep ascents and the on-off patterns.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 671
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: Chemtrails: chemical weapon or psychological weapon?

Postby CluedIn on October 16th, 2017, 1:43 pm

A few years ago I wrote an email to our local weatherman, Paul Gross, to point out the newspeak he was injecting into his forecasts. I also brought up chemtrails. Here's a portion of my email and his reply:

I sent an email last week about your newspeak terms you throw into your forecasts as if they have been around forever;, with no response to date. So today I see you threw out yet another new term that the dumbed down masses certainly never would have heard of but for your informational wordy forecasts. Today's lesson:

Clear skies, calm air, and a fresh snowpack are perfect conditions for what’s called radiational cooling Tuesday night…a very efficient cooling mechanism that will allow temperatures to drop to zero in Detroit, and possibly as low as -10° in the coldest suburbs

WHAT IN THE HELL IS RADIATIONAL COOLING? That doesn't sound very healthy to me Paul. Would that have anything to do with your other newspeak descriptions like the Urban Heat Island or the Polar Vortex or the Temperature Inversion? Maybe it has more to do with weather phenomenon - you know the term you guys like to throw at us dumbed down masses when a large mass of geo-engineered weather forms an unusual shape or some other unexplainable weather shows up.

We aren't all sheep, Paul. Maybe you should enlighten yourself to the gov't involvement in weather manipulation and be honest with us, that is if you're claiming not to know about it. Being a college educated meteorologist I would think your thirst for knowledge would have led you to at least a few sites or books about the government conducting weather modification programs.

Reply:

First of all, I generally do not respond to e-mails written in the antagonistic tone that you wrote yours. When people cannot communicate civilly, it’s much easier to delete the e-mails than engage that person.

Second, I can only count on one hand the number of people that have complained about my style of online written forecast in all the years I’ve been putting it on our website. In fact, I get bombarded with thanks and compliments for being the only one in town that does this. People actually come up to me in stores and restaurants telling me how much they appreciate these forecasts. Obviously, I cannot please everybody. However, almost everybody prefers my forecasts to what they see elsewhere.

Finally, I have been to dozens of meteorology conferences over my thirty-two year career…including a number of them in Europe. Never once at any conference, or in any scientific journal that I have seen has there ever been an atmospheric scientist who believes that chem trails are real. You can cite any website you want, but the bottom line on this and any science issue is the peer-reviewed science journals…that’s where scientists present their research and debate each other. If you follow the SCIENCE, there are no chem trails…just regular aircraft contrails. :puke:

Have a nice day,

Paul Gross
WDIV-TV Meteorologist
CluedIn
Member
 
Posts: 258
Joined: December 1st, 2015, 1:15 pm

Re: Chemtrails: chemical weapon or psychological weapon?

Postby hoi.polloi on October 16th, 2017, 5:26 pm

Wow, interesting. You mentioned a lot more than chemtrails. Maybe he's disturbed by the phenomenon too and this is the way he winks and pantomimes to you "Do not look behind the curtain!"
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4857
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Chemtrails: chemical weapon or psychological weapon?

Postby NotRappaport on October 17th, 2017, 4:19 am

Lot's of spraying today. I saw this one while driving earlier and pulled over to snap a picture. The trail was probably left an hour or more prior (didn't catch it in the act, darn it!), but it shows the plane's flight path had made a complete 180 degree turn. Not the clearest picture, but I hope it helps demonstrate some of the insane manoeuvres these planes pull off.

Image
NotRappaport
Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: October 3rd, 2017, 10:01 pm

Re: Chemtrails: chemical weapon or psychological weapon?

Postby Farcevalue on October 18th, 2017, 5:01 am

CluedIn » October 16th, 2017, 8:43 am wrote:A few years ago I wrote an email to our local weatherman, Paul Gross, to point out the newspeak he was injecting into his forecasts. I also brought up chemtrails. Here's a portion of my email and his reply:

I sent an email last week about your newspeak terms you throw into your forecasts as if they have been around forever;, with no response to date. So today I see you threw out yet another new term that the dumbed down masses certainly never would have heard of but for your informational wordy forecasts. Today's lesson:

Clear skies, calm air, and a fresh snowpack are perfect conditions for what’s called radiational cooling Tuesday night…a very efficient cooling mechanism that will allow temperatures to drop to zero in Detroit, and possibly as low as -10° in the coldest suburbs

WHAT IN THE HELL IS RADIATIONAL COOLING? That doesn't sound very healthy to me Paul. Would that have anything to do with your other newspeak descriptions like the Urban Heat Island or the Polar Vortex or the Temperature Inversion? Maybe it has more to do with weather phenomenon - you know the term you guys like to throw at us dumbed down masses when a large mass of geo-engineered weather forms an unusual shape or some other unexplainable weather shows up.

We aren't all sheep, Paul. Maybe you should enlighten yourself to the gov't involvement in weather manipulation and be honest with us, that is if you're claiming not to know about it. Being a college educated meteorologist I would think your thirst for knowledge would have led you to at least a few sites or books about the government conducting weather modification programs.

Reply:

First of all, I generally do not respond to e-mails written in the antagonistic tone that you wrote yours. When people cannot communicate civilly, it’s much easier to delete the e-mails than engage that person.

Second, I can only count on one hand the number of people that have complained about my style of online written forecast in all the years I’ve been putting it on our website. In fact, I get bombarded with thanks and compliments for being the only one in town that does this. People actually come up to me in stores and restaurants telling me how much they appreciate these forecasts. Obviously, I cannot please everybody. However, almost everybody prefers my forecasts to what they see elsewhere.

Finally, I have been to dozens of meteorology conferences over my thirty-two year career…including a number of them in Europe. Never once at any conference, or in any scientific journal that I have seen has there ever been an atmospheric scientist who believes that chem trails are real. You can cite any website you want, but the bottom line on this and any science issue is the peer-reviewed science journals…that’s where scientists present their research and debate each other. If you follow the SCIENCE, there are no chem trails…just regular aircraft contrails. :puke:

Have a nice day,

Paul Gross
WDIV-TV Meteorologist


Apparently Mr. Gross is grossly misinformed:

In this experiment, the scientists will fly two pair of rockets. One in each pair will measure data about the charged or "ionized" gas -- called plasma -- as well as the neutral gas, through which it travels. The other will shoot out a long trail of lithium gas to track the wind movement. The instrumented rockets are 40 feet long and 17 inches in diameter, carrying a payload of 600 lbs. The lithium rockets are 14 inches in diameter and are about six feet long.


https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sune ... 8YDBGVlkck
Farcevalue
Member
 
Posts: 380
Joined: August 27th, 2011, 12:21 pm

Previous

Return to General World Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest