FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Chemtrails...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alex_V wrote:
marky 54 wrote:
this article was originally posted by newsspeak international in an other thread.

The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.

A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.

Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told.

While details of some secret trials have emerged in recent years, the 60-page report reveals new information about more than 100 covert experiments.

The report reveals that military personnel were briefed to tell any 'inquisitive inquirer' the trials were part of research projects into weather and air pollution.

The tests, carried out by government scientists at Porton Down, were designed to help the MoD assess Britain's vulnerability if the Russians were to have released clouds of deadly germs over the country.

In most cases, the trials did not use biological weapons but alternatives which scientists believed would mimic germ warfare and which the MoD claimed were harmless. But families in certain areas of the country who have children with birth defects are demanding a public inquiry.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4398507,00.html

mmm seems like its not delusional to think it afterall! please note at the end of the article it says.

Quote:
Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: 'It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.'


i don't know about you alex but what do you suppose ongoing means?


It was that article that prompted me to write on the subject. You can understand that it is a huge leap of faith to jump from that article to believing in chemtrails, yet that is exactly what conspiracy theorists seem to do. The idea that something secret is going on is taken as evidence that all manner of delusional nonsense is actually true, and proven to be true!


really? so why not link the article with your delusional dismissal in your original post of a report that shows us these things happen. without our knowledge!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker


Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marky 54 wrote:
really? so why not link the article with your delusional dismissal in your original post of a report that shows us these things happen. without our knowledge!


Fair comment. Although surely you accept that what is described in that report is a long way from what is being assumed to be happening with chemtrails. I am no defender of government, and I encourage people to be vigilant in terms of questioning those in power. But assuming that trails in the sky are full of chemicals to harm us without a single piece of evidence to prove it is a paranoid delusion imo - that way madness lies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Although surely you accept that what is described in that report is a long way from what is being assumed to be happening with chemtrails.


im not sure, i cannot just dismiss it without knowing more.

for two reasons.

Quote:
Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told.


how do you deposite micro organsms over vast swaths of the population?
from the air sounds like the most likely scenerio.

a bit like crop spraying.

Quote:
In most cases, the trials did not use biological weapons


in most cases biological weapons were not used. it is not saying they do not use them, it is saying in most cases.

Quote:
Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: 'It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.'


and the research is still going on.

do you have kids alex? no need to answer, im just pointing out this is'nt about you or me. who are the voices of the unheard? whos future does all this stuff effect? if you do have kids remember you were the one defending them being sprayed or exposed to god knows what. that you defended them being used as lab rats in some sort of sick experiment, just for the sake of being able to say to people on here, that they are delusional and you are right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker


Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marky 54 wrote:
Quote:
Although surely you accept that what is described in that report is a long way from what is being assumed to be happening with chemtrails.


im not sure, i cannot just dismiss it without knowing more.

for two reasons.

Quote:
Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told.


how do you deposite micro organsms over vast swaths of the population?
from the air sounds like the most likely scenerio.

a bit like crop spraying.

Quote:
In most cases, the trials did not use biological weapons


in most cases biological weapons were not used. it is not saying they do not use them, it is saying in most cases.

Quote:
Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: 'It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.'


and the research is still going on.

do you have kids alex? no need to answer, im just pointing out this is'nt about you or me. who are the voices of the unheard? whos future does all this stuff effect? if you do have kids remember you were the one defending them being sprayed or exposed to god knows what. that you defended them being used as lab rats in some sort of sick experiment, just for the sake of being able to say to people on here, that they are delusional and you are right.


But with zero evidence to convince us that chemtrails are real, we might as well pick anything to get concerned about - water supply, toothpaste, tomato ketchup, bus exhausts, supermarket apples. You could pick virtually anything in your life and wonder if it's a vehicle for NWO poisoning or testing or mind control drugs or whatever you'd like to come up with. I don't think there's any point mixing up an important issue (the idea of secret gvmt tests with a risk factor and no public approval or authorisation) with what is, at this stage anyway, dreamed up nonsense (chemtrails, poisoned water supply and toothpaste, the aids virus being manufactured etc).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But with zero evidence to convince us that chemtrails are real,


so your just going to ignore information to stay in your bubble?


Quote:
we might as well pick anything to get concerned about - water supply, toothpaste, tomato ketchup, bus exhausts, supermarket apples.


so your just going to ignore information to stay in your bubble?

you go on as though the article written by a national newspaper(not conspiracy theorists) dos'nt exsist or have any truth in it.

if there is no evidence then theres no evidence, but even when people link mainstream newspaper reports its just dismissed as though its all lies.

so with your mentality your just basically cherrypicking what is true and what is'nt, to either fit your comfort zone or belief system.

i'd rather stick to evidence.

theres no evidence so i don't believe it. there is evidence so i look ferther and consider it. i don't pick things i want to believe or do not want to believe.

in the perfect world i'd love to think everything is perfect. but i know it aint a perfect world. anyone fooling themselves it is, will be in for a shock.

instead of speculating, why not address what the article above is telling us.

i'll repeat....

Quote:
Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told.



how do you deposite micro organsms over vast swaths of the population?
from the air sounds like the most likely scenerio.

a bit like crop spraying.

Quote:
In most cases, the trials did not use biological weapons


in most cases biological weapons were not used. it is not saying they do not use them, it is saying in most cases.

Quote:
Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: 'It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.'



and the research is still going on.

read the god damned article. we ARE tested on WITHOUT our knowledge.

i would'nt call that ZERO evidence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eogz
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 262

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not a big follower of the Chemtrail argument.

HJowever when speaking to someone who is, he noted that most Chemtrails/longer contrails as a general rule start and stop mostly over heavily populated areas like big towns and cities.

I live in a rural area and very rarely see these 'chemtrail phenomena' if I do they tend to be single or at most two.

Yet when I visit Morecambe or Lancaster they often have a good few criss crosses and sometimes multiple criss crossing in the sky.

I do find that quite odd, could it be that the spraying is confined to urban areas or is it that the atmospherics are affected by areas of high population.

I know i'm fence sitting on this one, but I just don't know either way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Although I witness what we term 'chemtrails' on an almost daily basis, one thing I cannot get clear and would appreciate some clarification about is;

Clouds are;

'...a large collection of very tiny droplets of water or ice crystals. The droplets are so small and light that they can float in the air.'

We've all seen clouds, they float about and billow across the sky. Their composition and origin is intimately known - they are no mystery. It is also obvious that they do not dissipate, they certainly change shape depending on wind velocity, but remain up there in the sky moving from one side of the horizon to the other.

Chemtrails are what we label the lingering streams formed behind high altitude aircraft.

Last week I was sitting in my office watching such a plane passing through cloud. Its exhaust was unlike the usual 'contrail' vanishing at the same speed as the plane was travelling, in that it simply sat resolutely behind the aircraft for miles so took on the mantle of 'chemtrail'.

Simply put, if clouds are basically the same in composition as 'contrails' and the core argument for chemtrails is their visual longevity, how do we explain clouds existing for as long as they do when using the argument that contrails cannot last that long?

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

telecasterisation wrote:
Although I witness what we term 'chemtrails' on an almost daily basis, one thing I cannot get clear and would appreciate some clarification about is;

Clouds are;

'...a large collection of very tiny droplets of water or ice crystals. The droplets are so small and light that they can float in the air.'

We've all seen clouds, they float about and billow across the sky. Their composition and origin is intimately known - they are no mystery. It is also obvious that they do not dissipate, they certainly change shape depending on wind velocity, but remain up there in the sky moving from one side of the horizon to the other.

Chemtrails are what we label the lingering streams formed behind high altitude aircraft.

Last week I was sitting in my office watching such a plane passing through cloud. Its exhaust was unlike the usual 'contrail' vanishing at the same speed as the plane was travelling, in that it simply sat resolutely behind the aircraft for miles so took on the mantle of 'chemtrail'.

Simply put, if clouds are basically the same in composition as 'contrails' and the core argument for chemtrails is their visual longevity, how do we explain clouds existing for as long as they do when using the argument that contrails cannot last that long?


chemtrails do not exsist, ok. go back to being oblivous about them, they are contrails which is why they all act the same, and even appear on days when clouds do not.

the article above telling us we are tested on without our knowledge is a lie, its from the mainstream media afterall.

im certainly not bothered if they are dropping radiation on us or anything else, people would ignore it and put all the weirdness down to the natural. most people cannot remember what the sky looked like last week so how would they know if it is something that should'nt be there.

i can simply see why people are considered sheep.

if you were researching it you certainly would'nt need to ask question after question. moisture is needed to form clouds, yet 'chemtrails' appear on hot days with no cloud in the sky. if you'd researched you'd know this.

seems to me people car'nt be bothered to search themselves and rather offer excuses or denials so they can go back to how they want to interpratate the world around them.


baaa, no car'nt be true, baaa, no must be something natural, baaa no must be good for us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marky 54 wrote:
chemtrails do not exsist, ok. go back to being oblivous about them, they are contrails which is why they all act the same, and even appear on days when clouds do not.

the article above telling us we are tested on without our knowledge is a lie, its from the mainstream media afterall.

im certainly not bothered if they are dropping radiation on us or anything else, people would ignore it and put all the weirdness down to the natural. most people cannot remember what the sky looked like last week so how would they know if it is something that should'nt be there.

i can simply see why people are considered sheep.


Yo Big M,

You and I have debated many subjects and I have seen your literary abilities grow considerably. Possibly however, I phrase my questions in such a way that you are unable to grasp what it is I am actually asking;

Chemtrails do not exist? I am ignoring something? I am not saying either - I am asking a basic question which centres around the very essence of how we identify chemtrails from contrails. It is not meant to suggest anything other than what it asks and I pose it for the very reason I do not want to be blinkered into seeing things that aren't real - I simply need clarification not references to wooley farm animals;

Clouds exist due to a number of differing atmospheric conditions. They are very clear on some days, whilst on others there are none. Is it not possible that certain aircraft at certain heights could reproduce longer lasting contrails?

Your point about;

Quote:
they are contrails which is why they all act the same, and even appear on days when clouds do not.


Is well founded, but aircraft are not naturally occurring, therefore just because there are no clouds, we suddenly appear in an aircraft dispensing ice particles has no bearing whatsoever on what nature had planned at that time and altitude. In other words clouds and contrails/chemtrails are not intrinsically linked - one not exising with or without the other.

I firmly believe that the concept of chemtrails is quite plausible - BUT I am attempting to deal with all the possibilities before jumping to conclusions. Until my question is satisfactorily answered, I am flat-tyred. You have not attempted to sensibly respond to my question in any way.

I would point out that just a few months ago here we were crucifying the BBC for information they put out, yet a day does not pass without such sources being quoted here as if they gospel, so to cite 'mainstream media' as being reliable is somewhat floored.

One final point - have you considered the possibility that if there are aircraft flying about spraying 'something' - it may be to save us as opposed to harm us? Perhaps the damage to the ozone layer is far worse than previously thought and what is being sprayed is to reduce skin cancers - they cannot tell us as it may cause widespread panic. Just a suggestion and as we don't know, anything is possible.

My question still stands though - can you prove that under certain conditions, contrails wouldn't linger longer than usual given that clouds do exactly that?

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
In other words clouds and contrails/chemtrails are not intrinsically linked


Quote:
Simply put, if clouds are basically the same in composition as 'contrails' and the core argument for chemtrails is their visual longevity, how do we explain clouds existing for as long as they do when using the argument that contrails cannot last that long?


you maybe
Quote:
flat-tyred.


but so i am, my comments were not aimed at you personnally, i am quite simply flat tyred myself.

i have to wonder what it takes, and how much information is needed before people stand up and ask for answers from MP's.

what information is needed to stir people into noticing something is occuring. i do not know and i give up.

who cares if they bomarding us with (taken from the above article)
Quote:
potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms


i don't quite simply, because i am sick of wasting effort trying to point it out to people who just want to argue over and ignore what we are being told and what the information points to.

chemtrails are seen on cold days, they are seen on hot days, they are seen above clouds and below clouds. they are seen at the same time as a plane leaving no contrail at all but the other is, they are seen during clear skys. they are seen to start and end in a small area of sky, they are seen to stop and start, leaving dashes across the sky.

they never disperse, they linger and spread slowly causing a milky looking effect.

i could go on and on. the only thing i know is there is one consistency with these trails.

they appear in any conditions and any altitude, this should suggest or at least give a clue they are not linked to atomspheric conditions or weather systems.

how do we find out what they are? we don 't while ever we are argueing over their exsistence being natural or something other. imo MP's need pressuring to find out what they are, as they certainly are not contrails which are effected by atmosheric conditions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have lived for nearly 5 decades.

I have never, ever witnessed trails from aircraft expanding to fill the sky with misty clouds.

Until recently.

_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marky 54 wrote:
how do we find out what they are? we don 't while ever we are argueing over their exsistence being natural or something other. imo MP's need pressuring to find out what they are, as they certainly are not contrails which are effected by atmosheric conditions.


Do you honestly believe that your MP would be able find out anything? The Ministry Of Defence get a letter asking about chemtrails and they cave in because it carries an MP's signature?

I know my MP quite well and asked him about chemtrails back in September - he responded;

Thank you for your email. I am sorry that I have not been able to reply sooner.

I note with interest - and some concern - what you say about the possible content of aircraft trails. I shall make enquiries of at least one Government department and get back to you in due course.

Regards.

Steve W.


Although your question;

Quote:
how do we find out what they are?


Points to the biggest aspect - apart from going up and collecting samples, shooting one of the planes down or a whistleblower coming forward - you don't.

I note Mr Gobell's stance on the recent nature of his awareness. Possibly jet engine technology has changed somewhat to encompass cleaner exhaust/output and this manifests itself as what we now see in the skies?

Just a suggestion.

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Possibly jet engine technology has changed somewhat to encompass cleaner exhaust/output and this manifests itself as what we now see in the skies?


what evidence do you base this on?

ive never heard such technology mentioned as being in use when the mainstream media go on about the need to develop such technology to avert global warming.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate C - Climate Change & Air
ENV.C.3 - Clean Air & Transport

Brussels, 13-12-2007

ENV-C3/NL/ah CAB3312-A/19120-D(07)22236


Dear Mr. Gobell,

Thank you for your email of 16 November regarding "aerial spraying from aircraft".

The Commission is aware of claims that chemicals are deliberately sprayed from aircraft. However, apart from the agricultural practice of aerial spraying of crops with biocides (using small, low-flying aircraft), the Commission is aware of no evidence substantiating such claims.

Aircraft engines emit a number of substances as a simple result of the fact that they are propelled by combustion engines which, when combusting the fuel, produce a number of emissions. The main emissions from jet aircraft are C02, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and water vapour.

The trails that are sometimes visible behind an aircraft are so-called condensation trails which consist of small ice particles. These particles are produced when water vapour present in the air surrounding the aircraft condenses onto small particles (combustion residues) or onto ice crystals formed from the water vapour in the hot exhaust air when it is cooled down due to the mixing with ambient air in the exhaust plume of the engine.

The extent to which aircraft condensation trails form and the speed at which they disappear are mainly determined by pressure, temperature, and the relative humidity at a given flight level. Fuel and combustion properties and the overall propulsive efficiency may also have an impact.

The Commission is not aware of any programmes being carried out to deliberately spray other substances or chemicals into the air. If you wish to read more about aircraft emissions and condensation trails a well-known resource is the 1999 of the IPCC Special Report on Aviation and the Global Climate, which is available on the internet for free.

Yours sincerely,

Stefan Moser
Acting Head of Unit

_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marky 54 wrote:
Quote:
Possibly jet engine technology has changed somewhat to encompass cleaner exhaust/output and this manifests itself as what we now see in the skies?


what evidence do you base this on?


You are doing it again - it is a question.

However, we now have 'greener' car fuels and more efficient car engines, my car does more than 70 to the gallon - why not aircraft engines too? Aren't the latest Boeings equipped with quieter engines which point to differing designs?

I would completely agree with the concept of harmful spraying if masses of people were coming down with the same mystery illness, but there is no evidence of that whatsoever.

I reiterate, I am not trying to prove you wrong but you keep saying we are being sprayed with dodgy stuff - can you cite a single example that anyone is ill from being sprayed?

Mr Gobell has supplied a stock response via official lines = that is all you will ever get via that route.

Make a positive suggestion marky - what do we do?

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

telecasterisation wrote:
marky 54 wrote:
Quote:
Possibly jet engine technology has changed somewhat to encompass cleaner exhaust/output and this manifests itself as what we now see in the skies?


what evidence do you base this on?


You are doing it again - it is a question.

However, we now have 'greener' car fuels and more efficient car engines, my car does more than 70 to the gallon - why not aircraft engines too? Aren't the latest Boeings equipped with quieter engines which point to differing designs?

I would completely agree with the concept of harmful spraying if masses of people were coming down with the same mystery illness, but there is no evidence of that whatsoever.

I reiterate, I am not trying to prove you wrong but you keep saying we are being sprayed with dodgy stuff - can you cite a single example that anyone is ill from being sprayed?

Mr Gobell has supplied a stock response via official lines = that is all you will ever get via that route.

Make a positive suggestion marky - what do we do?


tele i do not keep saying we are being sprayed with dodgy stuff.

i have not got a clue what it is, it could be anything. the fact is it is vastly different to contrails. the response that mark gobell got shows a complete denial of these 'different' trails' as though they do not appear or exsist.

my only points are these.

1. most know and agree the trails are different and act different to normal contrails(barring critics of cause who will deny the obvious).

2. the article i linked above shows testing is carried out on populations without their knowledge and they are exposed to potentially harmful substances.

3. these trails mostly appear over heavily populated areas.

therefore finding out what they are, is all i ask people to try and do, rather than dismissing out of hand. if they turn out to be harmless then good. but dismissing the exsistence of different trails and ignoring information which tells us testing on the public is happening is'nt going to make the theory go away or prove it is'nt happening.

my stance is this could well be harmless stuff going of, but i am not willing to ignore the potential of it being something else untill i know what they are. at this present time i can only hope they are not harmful, but i am mindful that they could be something harmful.

Quote:
Make a positive suggestion marky - what do we do?


we keep researching and looking at information, beware of disinfo or jumping to conclusions. keep an eye on the sky and question if what you are seeing is normal. document the events, get photos or video footage if possible.

you say there is no evidence of illness as a result, but i would argue if they are harmful but we don't know what they are, then we won't know what illnesses to look for. for example they could cause anything from nothing to a normal cold upto a long term illness which dos'nt come out for a long time, they could cause anything because we don't know what they are. my only point all along is not dismissing them untill somebody either finds out or tell us what they are, instead all we get is denial they even exsist, the trails do, what they are i have no idea.

it could be nothing, but should'nt be ignored imo, the response to mark gobell mentions nothing that sounds like one of these trails, its as though they are just ignoring their exsistence altogether and passing them of as normal contrails.

which to me is strange, if these new trails are harmless why avoid their exsistence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marky 54 wrote:

which to me is strange, if these new trails are harmless why avoid their exsistence.


Because the person who responded (Stefan Moser, Acting Head of Unit), is just some pate guzzling numpty in an office in Brussels who will have no more idea than me or you. They can hardly say they've seen the trails and would like to know too.

This person believes they are in a position of some authority, someone who should know what is going on, instead they are way down the food chain, but still cannot admit they exist for fear of;

1) Losing his job.

2) Promoting panic.

Poor old Stefan's hands are tied - you genuinely question why chemtrails are not officially acknowledged in any way?

As the trails appearing over heavily populated areas, this makes no sense. Let's say that the 'stuff' is sprayed at 30,000ft. Do you think it would simply flutter directly to earth?

'One of the world's biggest exports is invisible, generates absolutely no economic gain and is moved around the globe, continent to continent, by the tons. It's a commodity that's tiny and foreign -- in fact you might be breathing some right now.

It's plain old dust, and enough of it crosses the Atlantic Ocean from Africa to America to eclipse federal government limits in Florida. In a recent storm it was spotted wafting from China to North America, clear across the Pacific.

A 1999 study showed that African dust makes its way across the Atlantic, filling skies with enough particles to push parts of Florida, at least, over the prescribed air quality limit set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).'


So to suggest that any particles sprayed over populated areas ever reach the ground directly below the spraying just ain't gonna happen.

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker


Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marky 54 wrote:
tele i do not keep saying we are being sprayed with dodgy stuff.


Sounds to me very much like you are. Though you always say you are sitting on the fence...

Quote:
i have not got a clue what it is, it could be anything.


That I agree with.

Quote:
...the fact is it is vastly different to contrails.


Evidence for that?

Quote:
the response that mark gobell got shows a complete denial of these 'different' trails' as though they do not appear or exsist.


I read the response a very different way (I would though wouldn't i?). The response accepts that these trails exist, but has an innocent explanation for them. Many meteorologists/scientists seem to give the same explanation. We're back to the old chestnut - are they all being paid off by the NWO?

Quote:
1. most know and agree the trails are different and act different to normal contrails(barring critics of cause who will deny the obvious).


Find me one scientist or meteorologist or expert on any feature of aircraft trails and show me where they have admitted that observed aircraft trails that are somehow 'different' to contrails. Find one!

Quote:
2. the article i linked above shows testing is carried out on populations without their knowledge and they are exposed to potentially harmful substances.


That was the allegation in the article - the mod denied they were harmful. The intention was to check the spread of bacteria in the air, rather than test human reactions to anything, just to be clear...

Quote:
3. these trails mostly appear over heavily populated areas.


As do more airplanes no doubt.

Quote:
therefore finding out what they are, is all i ask people to try and do, rather than dismissing out of hand. if they turn out to be harmless then good. but dismissing the exsistence of different trails and ignoring information which tells us testing on the public is happening is'nt going to make the theory go away or prove it is'nt happening.


I agree in principle. But the theory holds about as much water so far as the idea that snails are spreading the harmful chemicals through elaborate slime release systems under their shells.

Quote:
we keep researching and looking at information, beware of disinfo or jumping to conclusions. keep an eye on the sky and question if what you are seeing is normal. document the events, get photos or video footage if possible.


I agree that one single properly documented survey of activity in the skies would help your cause no end. Not "I saw chemtrails last Thursday" but a proper survey on the same bits of sky, noting trails, weather conditions, aircraft activity etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Possibly jet engine technology has changed somewhat to encompass cleaner exhaust/output and this manifests itself as what we now see in the skies?


to answer this question which i forgot to answer, im not saying it is impossible, but going on evidence i have no more reason to think that than anything else.

surely there has to be something around which mentions the technology in aircraft engines and the effect of the trails as a result?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Sounds to me very much like you are. Though you always say you are sitting on the fence...


of cause it does, you think nothing is possible and would defend anything goverments do that is not in the intrests of its people.

Quote:
Evidence for that?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I4wWTifb9o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_Y56geHKpw

note: different trails, they ARE NOT the same, yet flying in the same conditions. now take back you sarcasm and accept if these trails are normal they are vastly different from NORMAL contrails.


Quote:
I read the response a very different way (I would though wouldn't i?).


of cause you would, you see me as a conspiracy theorists, what else would i expect?

Quote:
The response accepts that these trails exist, but has an innocent explanation for them. Many meteorologists/scientists seem to give the same explanation. We're back to the old chestnut - are they all being paid off by the NWO?


pointless comment, it assumes im being a conspiracy theorists over this.
even if NWO exsist how could i possibly know the answer?



Quote:
Find me one scientist or meteorologist or expert on any feature of aircraft trails and show me where they have admitted that observed aircraft trails that are somehow 'different' to contrails. Find one!


i don't need to, i have provided video evidence above for the 'different trails' which i have witnessed with my own two eyes where i live, the exact same thing.


Quote:
That was the allegation in the article - the mod denied they were harmful. The intention was to check the spread of bacteria in the air, rather than test human reactions to anything, just to be clear...


then why do it without public knowledge? do we not have a right to know what they are putting in the air?

Quote:
As do more airplanes no doubt.


actually if you watched all day, some do, most don't.

Quote:
I agree in principle. But the theory holds about as much water so far as the idea that snails are spreading the harmful chemicals through elaborate slime release systems under their shells.


i said throughout my responses that there is as muct possibility of them being nothing than harmful. but there you go again making it up or putting words in my mouth.

Quote:
I agree that one single properly documented survey of activity in the skies would help your cause no end. Not "I saw chemtrails last Thursday" but a proper survey on the same bits of sky, noting trails, weather conditions, aircraft activity etc.


good i agree to. i have never claimed the evidence is overwhelming, only that there IS a difference in trails, and to FIND OUT why.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When I first started noticing the unusual clouds that formed from the trails left by aircraft, I was struck by a sudden burst of people around me, apparently discussing them. . .
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker


Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

marky 54 wrote:
you think nothing is possible and would defend anything goverments do that is not in the intrests of its people.


Not true. I just think there's a difference between a genuine grievance and (what appears to be) a made-up one. Imo.

Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I4wWTifb9o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_Y56geHKpw

note: different trails, they ARE NOT the same, yet flying in the same conditions. now take back you sarcasm and accept if these trails are normal they are vastly different from NORMAL contrails.


These videos are the same old "Look what happened this morning" ones that I think are largely a waste of time. The ones I've seen offer no evidence whatsoever of anything other than the fact that airplanes can leave trails in the sky. Some look different in different bits of the sky, might be different airplanes, at different altitudes, with different engines etc. I'm no expert, but i can look at a trail out the back of an aircraft and NOT assume it's intentional chemical dispersal.

Quote:
i have provided video evidence above for the 'different trails' which i have witnessed with my own two eyes where i live, the exact same thing.


Faced with an authoritative answer to these trails, you prefer to side with people who hold video cameras to the sky and say "doesn't this look weird today". I prefer to side with (what appear to be) experts.

Quote:
then why do it without public knowledge? do we not have a right to know what they are putting in the air?


Fair comment. I agree.

Quote:
i said throughout my responses that there is as muct possibility of them being nothing than harmful. but there you go again making it up or putting words in my mouth.


But if we assume that EVERYTHING is harmful, then we end up with an oxygen mask on hiding in our closets. I don't think it's a rational way to approach these issues.

Quote:
i have never claimed the evidence is overwhelming, only that there IS a difference in trails, and to FIND OUT why.


Fair enough - good luck. I don't see anything unremarkable about trails that linger in the sky, especially given that you can search explanations for these trails in a matter of seconds on the internet. Let's agree to disagree...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote]These videos are the same old "Look what happened this morning" ones that I think are largely a waste of time. The ones I've seen offer no evidence whatsoever of anything other than the fact that airplanes can leave trails in the sky. Some look different in different bits of the sky, might be different airplanes, at different altitudes, with different engines etc. I'm no expert, but i can look at a trail out the back of an aircraft and NOT assume it's intentional chemical dispersal. [quote/]



those video's proved the difference between the two trails, which previous to me linking them this was said.

I SAID
Quote:
...the fact is it is vastly different to contrails.


ALEX SAID.
Quote:
Evidence for that?


so i provide evidence they are different and are both occuring at the same time, then you change you stance as though you wanted evidence for some other reason to prove something other than them being 'different'.

Quote:
but i can look at a trail out the back of an aircraft and NOT assume it's intentional chemical dispersal.


but alex i have explained one hundred times, i do not assume it is harmful, at the same time i do not assume it is'nt. theres only one way to know. learn more find something that accounts for both sets of trails, the short disapearing ones (which are 100% contrails) but also the very long lingering all day long ones.

Quote:
Faced with an authoritative answer to these trails, you prefer to side with people who hold video cameras to the sky and say "doesn't this look weird today". I prefer to side with (what appear to be) experts.


no i prefer to side with my own experiences and what i witness with my own eyes, but please tell me, what the hell was i suppose to link to show the difference in the two trails? a snapshot of my memory?. don't put words in my mouth, you said "you prefer to side with people who hold video cameras to the sky and say "doesn't this look weird today". no that was just a video i linked to show the difference.

Quote:
But if we assume that EVERYTHING is harmful, then we end up with an oxygen mask on hiding in our closets. I don't think it's a rational way to approach these issues.


but alex i have explained one hundred times, i do not assume it is harmful, at the same time i do not assume it is'nt.

why do you keep telling me what i think rather than reading my words?

when people deny the difference it only fuels the conspiracy theory, admitting the difference and explaining would seem more approiate if there is nothing to hide.

Quote:
Fair enough - good luck. I don't see anything unremarkable about trails that linger in the sky, especially given that you can search explanations for these trails in a matter of seconds on the internet. Let's agree to disagree...


thats your choice obviously, i really do not understand the denial there are two clear sets of trails happening at the same time in the same conditions and over the same place.

if that is due to different engines provide some data that proves it. something that proves how the long lingering versions are caused and why they act different to usual contrails, and why both appear at the same time in the same conditions.

people have no reason to believe anything without some sort of evidence to support it, it works no different with you apparent explainations. if anybody can find something that is a reasonable source i'd be satisfied.

however while ever people are just saying it i have no more reason to believe them than i do anybody else. however after witnessing this type of thing myself, i am looking for something to confirm or disprove, not just heresay by alex v or whoever else.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker


Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
but alex i have explained one hundred times, i do not assume it is harmful, at the same time i do not assume it is'nt. theres only one way to know. learn more find something that accounts for both sets of trails, the short disapearing ones (which are 100% contrails) but also the very long lingering all day long ones.


I accept that you don't assume they are harmful. Many obviously do though - can we agree that that would be an over-reaction?

In a brief net search I was able to find accounts that explained, in quite simple and clear terms, what contrails are and what can cause them to linger in the sky some of the time. I don't really understand why that's not good enough to at least calm people down on the issue.

Quote:
no i prefer to side with my own experiences and what i witness with my own eyes, but please tell me, what the hell was i suppose to link to show the difference in the two trails? a snapshot of my memory?. don't put words in my mouth, you said "you prefer to side with people who hold video cameras to the sky and say "doesn't this look weird today". no that was just a video i linked to show the difference.


Here's the US air force explanations from the wiki, for example (there are many others around the net)...

Quote:
* Contrails can remain visible for very long periods of time with the lifetime a function of the temperature, humidity, winds, and aircraft exhaust characteristics.
* Contrails can form many shapes as they are dispersed by horizontal and vertical wind shear.
* Sunlight refracted or reflected from contrails can produce vibrant and eye-catching colors and patterns.
* Observation and scientific analysis of contrails and their duration date back to at least 1953.
* The National Airspace System of the United States is oriented in an east-west and north-south grid with aircraft flying at designated 2000-foot increments of elevation (1000 feet after the introduction of Reduced Vertical Separation Minima in 2002-2004).
* Contrails formed by aircraft may appear to form a grid as the winds disperse the contrails.
* More contrails are seen in recent years due to the growth in the civil aviation market.


Does this explain your different trails? I think it does. So the issue is not the trails themselves, but that you simply don't necessarily believe the answers provided. Because if you broadly accept the explanations provided, there is no case to really answer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
* Contrails can remain visible for very long periods of time with the lifetime a function of the temperature, humidity, winds, and aircraft exhaust characteristics.
* Contrails can form many shapes as they are dispersed by horizontal and vertical wind shear.
* Sunlight refracted or reflected from contrails can produce vibrant and eye-catching colors and patterns.
* Observation and scientific analysis of contrails and their duration date back to at least 1953.
* The National Airspace System of the United States is oriented in an east-west and north-south grid with aircraft flying at designated 2000-foot increments of elevation (1000 feet after the introduction of Reduced Vertical Separation Minima in 2002-2004).
* Contrails formed by aircraft may appear to form a grid as the winds disperse the contrails.
* More contrails are seen in recent years due to the growth in the civil aviation market.


can you point out where it says that both short and long contrails can appear in the same conditions in the same space and time?

what you have linked explains contrails, it clearly says they are caused by conditions in the sky.

so please tell me why some planes don't leave a trail yet another plane flying at the same time leaves a long lingering trail?

or why some planes leave a short trail which moves along with the plane, but others leaves a long trail that stays, and both occure at the same time same space and roughly same altitude?

it seems to me you are totally missing what it is that is the problem here and what you linked dos'nt explain.

the evidence i would be looking for, would explain both trails short disapearing/long lingering happening at identical times and roughly same altitude.

and what are the chances of wiki having fullproof information out of intrest? i have heard members are allowed to edit pages and add information. what would stop a disinfo merchant changing the page?

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=956&highlight=wikipe dia

notice how one member mentions changing a page on wiki, to suit their view.

whats stopping somebody else changing it to what they believe?

i totally disagree contrails can cause a grid. unless the longer trails that last long periods can be shown to be the same via the proof i mentioned.

the evidence i would be looking for, would explain both trails short disapearing/long lingering happening at identical times and roughly same altitude.

the only explaination has been different engines. but no proof has been shown of that so far.


Last edited by marky 54 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:01 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karlos
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is so much evidence that mass medication has been a practice for various regimes over a number of decades.
The communists and the nazis practiced mass medication via the water supply.
Today Britain poisons it's citizens by adding flouride and other chemicals to our water supply. But it is not a guaranteed method so other delivery systems need to be found because many people like myself use water filters or drink bottled water only.

Chemtrails is real, it is happening and the evidence for it is overwhelming. Barium Oxide has been found to be one of the main constituants. But there is still no answer to the reason why they are doing this.
Atmosphere change?
Population control?
Global warming/coolong/dimming?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

telecasterisation wrote:
marky 54 wrote:

which to me is strange, if these new trails are harmless why avoid their exsistence.


Because the person who responded (Stefan Moser, Acting Head of Unit), is just some pate guzzling numpty in an office in Brussels who will have no more idea than me or you. They can hardly say they've seen the trails and would like to know too.

This person believes they are in a position of some authority, someone who should know what is going on, instead they are way down the food chain, but still cannot admit they exist for fear of;

1) Losing his job.

2) Promoting panic.

Poor old Stefan's hands are tied - you genuinely question why chemtrails are not officially acknowledged in any way?

As the trails appearing over heavily populated areas, this makes no sense. Let's say that the 'stuff' is sprayed at 30,000ft. Do you think it would simply flutter directly to earth?

'One of the world's biggest exports is invisible, generates absolutely no economic gain and is moved around the globe, continent to continent, by the tons. It's a commodity that's tiny and foreign -- in fact you might be breathing some right now.

It's plain old dust, and enough of it crosses the Atlantic Ocean from Africa to America to eclipse federal government limits in Florida. In a recent storm it was spotted wafting from China to North America, clear across the Pacific.

A 1999 study showed that African dust makes its way across the Atlantic, filling skies with enough particles to push parts of Florida, at least, over the prescribed air quality limit set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).'


So to suggest that any particles sprayed over populated areas ever reach the ground directly below the spraying just ain't gonna happen.


for some reason i totally missed this post, i only noticed it after reading back through posts to get a clearer picture of what had been discussed and eliminated in the discussion.

anyway you make a good point on the fact that if this stuff is sprayed high up (assuming its not normal, just for arguements sake) then it dos'nt mean it will reach the ground below where it has been sprayed.

however that is assuming the chemtrail scenerio is the only scenerio.

there are 3 possibilities ive heard(well the main ones anyway).

1. you have people saying its chemicals to make people ill.

2. you have people saying it is chemicals used for some form of effecting wether or reflecting the sun etc weather control.

3. its nothing, however some contrails vary and can appear in the same space and same time and roughly at the same altitude and emit different variations of contrails which are effected by air conditions yet exhibit totally different variations short/disapearing long/lingering.

(which would have to be true if theres nothing in it).

so your point is noted, however it dos'nt really mean anything other than it will reach the ground somewhere else depending on weather systems.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

karlos wrote:
Chemtrails is real, it is happening and the evidence for it is overwhelming. Barium Oxide has been found to be one of the main constituants. But there is still no answer to the reason why they are doing this.


I am quite uncomfortable following this avenue of approach, but having seen your use of 'overwhelming', there is little option other than to ask you to overwhelm me with the evidence.

You are clearly intelligent and thoughtful, so I am sure I do not need to point out that evidence of deliberate spraying by high altitude jet aircraft has to actually be exactly that and not assumptive conjecture.

Overwhelm away.

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker


Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marky 54 wrote:
can you point out where it says that both short and long contrails can appear in the same conditions in the same space and time?

what you have linked explains contrails, it clearly says they are caused by conditions in the sky.

so please tell me why some planes don't leave a trail yet another plane flying at the same time leaves a long lingering trail?

or why some planes leave a short trail which moves along with the plane, but others leaves a long trail that stays, and both occure at the same time same space and roughly same altitude?

it seems to me you are totally missing what it is that is the problem here and what you linked dos'nt explain.

the evidence i would be looking for, would explain both trails short disapearing/long lingering happening at identical times and roughly same altitude.

and what are the chances of wiki having fullproof information out of intrest? i have heard members are allowed to edit pages and add information. what would stop a disinfo merchant changing the page?

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=956&highlight=wikipe dia

notice how one member mentions changing a page on wiki, to suit their view.

whats stopping somebody else changing it to what they believe?

i totally disagree contrails can cause a grid. unless the longer trails that last long periods can be shown to be the same via the proof i mentioned.

the evidence i would be looking for, would explain both trails short disapearing/long lingering happening at identical times and roughly same altitude.

the only explaination has been different engines. but no proof has been shown of that so far.


Wiki is not always accurate, it is true. I simply used it to provide a quick summary of the many explanations offered for the contrails you mention. Do you accept that, if accurate, these explanations could explain most occurances of lingering contrails?

Your complaint seems to be a specific one, about planes in visible view having different sorts of contrails. The video that I think you are basing your questions on is a highly questionable bit of evidence, but I think you have a reasonable question to ask - is it possible that contrails can appear differently within the same sky? I can't offer a specific answer as I'm not an expert.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker


Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

karlos wrote:
There is so much evidence that mass medication has been a practice for various regimes over a number of decades.
The communists and the nazis practiced mass medication via the water supply.
Today Britain poisons it's citizens by adding flouride and other chemicals to our water supply. But it is not a guaranteed method so other delivery systems need to be found because many people like myself use water filters or drink bottled water only.

Chemtrails is real, it is happening and the evidence for it is overwhelming. Barium Oxide has been found to be one of the main constituants. But there is still no answer to the reason why they are doing this.
Atmosphere change?
Population control?
Global warming/coolong/dimming?


I too would like to see this overwhelming evidence. It's certainly a bold claim.

How and where was Barium Oxide found?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 2 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group