9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom

Even Colonel Blimp types are asking questions now.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIPnxb7UCA8

I believe the approach to take on getting chemtrails taken seriously is to change the language and talk of weather modification and cloud seeding. Once the basic premise is accepted that this technology exists and the options are being considered then move onto the questions regarding covert programmes and evidence and opposition to ‘chemtrails’

http://www.weathermod.com/index.php includes some pictures of seeding equipment
http://www.weathermod.com/seeding_equipment.php

http://www.weathermodification.org/

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/events/macro_options.pdf
(mentions stratospheric aerosols)

Opposition

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... cleId=2423

http://www.stopchemtrailsuk.bravehost.com/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1516880.stm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4410309502

Hmmmm, I think possibly a better approach would be to bombard media types and celbs witha brain cell or two with info about chemtrails. Get people looking up. Incredibly amusing videos like the one above may get the attention of the sheep too!!!

I've been in Kent last few days, and as during previous visits, dozens of trails being laid down, just as in London.

ian neal wrote:

I believe the approach to take on getting chemtrails taken seriously is to change the language and talk of weather modification and cloud seeding. Once the basic premise is accepted that this technology exists and the options are being considered then move onto the questions regarding covert programmes and evidence and opposition to ‘chemtrails’

I believe that is mistaken on so many levels. First of all, it bypasses the simple, honest, and direct approach: "Look at that! WTF do you think THAT is?". As London Mick said, "Get people looking up".

It pre-supposes that weather modification is what chemtrails are for. Only "they" know that. Many commentators think something far more sinister is going on.

One can easily "prove" to most people that weather modification is "run of the mill" by reminding them of MSM stories about same for the McCartney gig in Moscow, the Olympics, publicly acknowledged plans for the military to "own the weather" etc.

Surely it is better to go right to the heart of the matter, that is so obvious to anyone over 30 who isn't completely brainwashed - that there IS a COVERT programme, with a budget of at least tens of millions p.a., of spraying SOMETHING.

In general, I can't agree with the strategy that seems to lie behind what you say, which seems to me to be "give people just a little truth (that's all they can handle), let them digest it, then give them a little more". That's too much like what "they" do, too quasi-(Leo) Strauss-ian for me.

Why skirt around the edges when you might have a good "head shot"? (Sorry to use such a militaristic analogy, but you know what I mean). I would say the same about other, ahem, "controversial" issues we have recently discussed.

Finally, the above approach could well be doing "their" dirty work for them. I think it's highly likely that if chemtrails as such are acknowledged, "they" will at first hint that they are part of a programme to save us all from anthropogenic global warming, the severity of which they've actually been DOWNplaying all along. It will be bullsh*t, naturally. That of course reflects my view that the "we're all going to die without global solutions" meme is part of the plan for fascist one world government. I realise that saying this might alienate those here who believe in man made global warming, but there you go - we should all speak the truth as it seems to us, it seems to me.

London Mick wrote:Even Colonel Blimp types are asking questions now.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIPnxb7UCA8

I strongly believe that Cnl Blimp type is you Londonmick
Well done

I say, do you really think so?

I'll tell you what, old boy, if everyone who looks at that jolly old video were to give it a rating, 10 out of ten say, it would shoot up to the top of the You Tube charts and millions of X factor fans and the like would look at it too.
What a simply splendid idea!

Look at the sky!

Bumper stickers! Now there's a smashing wheeze.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIPnxb7UCA8&feature=user

Same reason this one is, it is highly controversial and largely dismissed by meteorologists and aviators.

Emmanuel wrote:Why are all the chemtrails threads in "controversies" ???

Please continue to can gather and discuss the evidence here.

TonyGosling wrote:Same reason this one is, it is highly controversial and largely dismissed by meteorologists and aviators.

Emmanuel wrote:Why are all the chemtrails threads in "controversies" ???

Please continue to can gather and discuss the evidence here.

I've no reason to dismiss the reasoning
Still, aren't the meteorologists and aviators in the same category as the structural engineers and architects?
Blinded by their faith?

Tony - Why can't the thread remain visible in "LatestTopics" on the forum front page?

Cos it's still a controversy to most people out there. There are plenty of other chemtrails boards around and unless this goes mainstream with convincing research it will remain a controversy.

simplesimon wrote:Tony - Why can't the thread remain visible in "LatestTopics" on the forum front page?

I'll get back to that, but for now, how do you explain the fact that you generally advocate hiding threads about "the holocaust", but have chosen NOT to hide the thread "9-11 and The Holocaust", to which you have been contributing?

Has Tony been got at? This is very strange behaviour from one of our kind.
I'm afraid this website has lost all credibility for me now.

The West Yorkshire 9/11 site is smaller but it is still open and is not being censored. I think we need a new national 9/11 truth site.
This one has been hijacked.

Yes maybe it should be in controversies too. Would you like to discuss it over there?

Suggest you consider PMing me if you decide to diversify.

simplesimon wrote:I'll get back to that, but for now, how do you explain the fact that you generally advocate hiding threads about "the holocaust", but have chosen NOT to hide the thread "9-11 and The Holocaust", to which you have been contributing?

Someone posted in the wrong section. This is just me doing my job which is to keep the controversies to the controversies.

Errr.... come again, the site's been hijacked because you can't have chemtrails on the front page?

So no change in editorial policy there then...

London Mick wrote: The West Yorkshire 9/11 site is smaller but it is still open and is not being censored. I think we need a new national 9/11 truth site.
This one has been hijacked.

I think theres nothing immediately wrong with Chemtrails being considered a "controversy" subject

I can see there is a shift of opinion, I dont recall so many people being so positive about chemtrails before

If we have some really good threads on the subject with the best available evidence, chemtrails might be more likley to be considerd a viable campaigning subject and less "controversial"

Till then a damn good debate in the section already created seems a good course to follow

In addition, I never let whether a thread appears on a front page or not bother me: if the materials got integrety that isnt going to matter: in fact I rarely visit the front page of the site

London Mick wrote:Has Tony been got at? This is very strange behaviour from one of our kind.
I'm afraid this website has lost all credibility for me now.

The West Yorkshire 9/11 site is smaller but it is still open and is not being censored. I think we need a new national 9/11 truth site.
This one has been hijacked.

Go and make one then. Don't whinge to us about it

Thats if you really believe we are the sort of guys to be "got at": I doubt it, and it would be more fool you if you did

I believe that is mistaken on so many levels. First of all, it bypasses the simple, honest, and direct approach: "Look at that! WTF do you think THAT is?". As London Mick said, "Get people looking up".

It pre-supposes that weather modification is what chemtrails are for. Only "they" know that. Many commentators think something far more sinister is going on.

what do you mean pre supposes? chemicals trails delopyed to kill people was the first pre supposed idea/theory. i think your coming from the point of a made up mind, ie: they are chemtrails they are trying to kill us.

anyone who looks into chemtrails has to consider all possible scenerios.
that includes weather manipulation and global warming prevention. assuming it has to be something intended to harm people and which is the only motive for doing it, is not going to get any intrest in discussing the issue. instantly you come across as a paranoid.

highlighting weather modifaction and possible global prevention methods exposes that chemicals are indeed released in the atomoshere that could well be harmful if people are over exposed to it.

all it changes is motive, and thats all i think stops people considering it.

some people on here have already convinced themselves the motive is to kill us all, and have totally thrown out any possibility of it actually not being the motive at all, even if the chemicals are harmful.

the motive could well be weather modifaction first and foremost, or something else. the chemicals used and possible harm to the public could well be secondary to their actual intention.

i have not dismissed either scenerio, harmful on purpose to target people or harmful but the target is not people.

i think it would be foolish to dismiss, and assume it can only be trails designed and intended for people.

the only thing that can be said with any degree of certainity is that the trails are different.

when you look into barium (one of the chemicals that sparks the "they are doing it to kill us" theory), you soon find the barium may not be a result of the spraying.

Oxidation occurs very easily and, to remain pure, barium should be kept under a petroleum-based fluid (such as kerosene) or other suitable oxygen-free liquids that exclude air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barium

Barium is surprisingly abundant in the Earth's crust, being the 14th most abundant element. High amounts of barium may only be found in soils and in food, such as nuts, seaweed, fish and certain plants.
Because of the extensive use of barium in the industries human activities add greatly to the release of barium in the environment. As a result barium concentrations in air, water and soil may be higher than naturally occurring concentrations on many locations.

http://www.lenntech.com/Periodic-chart- ... /Ba-en.htm

im not suggesting barium is'nt harmful, only that more proof is needed of the source of barium when tests were carried out after a 'chemtrail' event, rather than assuming the source is the trails.

the barium could be coming from elsehwere and if present in kerosene, then could well be a case of fuel emissions mixing with the sprayed trails and gradually falling down to earth with particles from the trail.

marky 54 wrote:(quotes edited and/or re-ordered)

what do you mean pre supposes? chemicals trails delopyed to kill people was the first pre supposed idea/theory. i think your coming from the point of a made up mind, ie: they are chemtrails they are trying to kill us...anyone who looks into chemtrails has to consider all possible scenerios...that includes weather manipulation and global warming prevention...highlighting weather modifaction and possible global prevention methods exposes that chemicals are indeed released in the atomoshere that could well be harmful if people are over exposed to it.

It ought to be clear from my post that rather than having made my mind up, I was pointing out that Ian Neal might appear to have made his up, or worse, that his approach might make others' minds up. Up the garden path. It would be fair to say that I've practically made up my mind that (anthropogenic) global warming is a lie to further fascist global government, and so think that mitigation of global warming is the least likely explanation. Hence, it seems highly likely to me that if they are forced into an admission of sorts, that will involve a "limited hang out" and more lies, and I predict that any admission will be related to that. Have you ever considered the possibility that the purpose of chemtrails could be to modify the weather in order to make us believe in AGW?

assuming it has to be something intended to harm people and which is the only motive for doing it, is not going to get any intrest in discussing the issue. instantly you come across as a paranoid...all it changes is motive, and thats all i think stops people considering it.

In general I find the strongest barrier preventing people thinking freely, about 9-11, London tube bombs, war of terror etc., is their conditioned belief that "they" (the "PTB") act in "our" best interests. "They wouldn't DO THAT, surely?". I find that starting with observable facts rather than speculation is the best way to overcome conditioned fear of "paranoid conspiracy theorists". When I talk to people about chemtrails, I always say that none of "us" really know the purpose. I don't make any assumptions about the specific purpose, just point out that the programme is massive, very expensive, and covert. If they accept that obvious fact, then I tell them about reasons I have seen discussed - immune system supression / population reduction, military weather control, military radar / sensing, pacification, "mind control", benevolent weather modification etc. The last, I always combine with my assertion that if it was for our benefit, they would be trumpeting it. If you think that is an unreasonable assumption, or indicates paranoia, I can only say that I think you are mistaken.

the only thing that can be said with any degree of certainity is that the trails are different.

Agreed. That's why (apart from the principle) I think Ian is wrong to advocate the "hierarchy of truth" approach. When it comes to chemtrails, it's better to go straight to and start from the facts we know, and can point to, rather than start with possible excuses for such an outrageous situation.

highlighting weather modifaction and possible global prevention methods exposes that chemicals are indeed released in the atomoshere

Getting people to look at the sky, and realise that chemtrails are very different from the con-trails they were previously familiar with, "exposes that chemicals are indeed released", and is better in every respect, I say. Get people looking up, and encourage them to think for themselves.

Just to clarify my suggestion of framing the chemtrails debate as weather modification is one merely of tactics and of course people can follow or ignore my suggestions as they see fit. I believe but can't prove there is a covert programme of spraying aerosols into the stratosphrere. As many point out the first bit of evidence for this is straight over our heads most days. What would be the nature and purpose of this covert spraying? Hard to say but given that it would require the agreement of the military industrial complex to run such a programme, I'll wager it is not benign.

Personally I have no problem with threads from both controversies sections appearing on the front page, but equally I don't actually reckon it matters particularly. In case no one has noticed threads in controversies sections get just as many views / post as any other section. The main reason for creating the controversies section, which was explained at the time if anyone can be arsed to search for it, was to prevent every thread on the board being inundated with aggressive spam and arguments between planehuggers and no-planers.

If users want to understand why these sections exist they need only look back at the aggressive tactics used by posters such as MFP, Patrick Brown, Ally and Fred.

Has the 9/11 truth movement been infiltrated? Undoubtedly yes. But don't assume that the 'good guys' are people who agree with you and the gatekeepers are the ones who disagree with you. The powers that be (PTB) tend to be a bit more subtle than that and if the previous behaviour is a guide, we should assume they infiltrate both 'sides'. Has this site been taken? No. I know I'm on the level and defy anyone to prove otherwise.

Now working on the theory that the PTB will have known about 9/11 and how it went down and will have anticipated the 9/11 truth movement and working on the assumption that the controversial theories such as NPT, TVF and DEWs are all correct. Assuming that all this is true, is it not also reasonable to assume that the PTB would know this, would anticipate that groups such as Team+8, Scholars for Truth and the 'researchers' would emerge and then infiltrate those groups. The PTB could then marginalise and discredit these groups by persuing aggressive campaigning tactics and slipping them dodgy information/analysis.

Ian - I'd like to make it clear that I have never said and do not think that you or Tony Gosling are "owned", or motivated by anything other than honourable intent. I've had a great deal of respect for Tony for years before joining this forum, engendered mainly by his excellent and important work on www.bilderberg.org. I do think that Tony has applied double standards with regard to that other thread though, and I hope he won't think I'm being harsh when I say that it looks like that could be because it provided an opportunity to advance his own ideas about religion and Christianity. That's fair enough, of itself, we all want our opinions seen and considered by as many readers as possible. I think it illustrates the problems of the moderation system itself. Of course, if I ever get round to writing at length about my thoughts on that, it will be in "About this website". Suffice to say for now that I sympathise with the discomfort that you must feel when certain topics are raised here, and when trying to accomodate what you believe to be conflicting priorities.

No problem mate I was responding more to the concerns of others that this site may be 'dodgy' and censoring certain views.

Whilst there may be a temptation for moderation to be influenced by ones own views, this shouldn't be the case. It should based on an impartial interpretation of the rules which should be applied fairly to all and all viewpoints should be welcomed and respected. That should certainly be the aim anyway

Simon,

We moderators can't have eyes and ears everywhere thank goodness and rely on public spirited users pointing stuff out sometimes. Please explain why you think that other thread should be moved either in a PM or on that thread.

We haven't been infiltrated yet to my knowledge and I do try to keep an eye out for such happenings.

simplesimon wrote:Ian - I'd like to make it clear that I have never said and do not think that you or Tony Gosling are "owned", or motivated by anything other than honourable intent. I've had a great deal of respect for Tony for years before joining this forum, engendered mainly by his excellent and important work on www.bilderberg.org. I do think that Tony has applied double standards with regard to that other thread though, and I hope he won't think I'm being harsh when I say that it looks like that could be because it provided an opportunity to advance his own ideas about religion and Christianity. That's fair enough, of itself, we all want our opinions seen and considered by as many readers as possible. I think it illustrates the problems of the moderation system itself. Of course, if I ever get round to writing at length about my thoughts on that, it will be in "About this website". Suffice to say for now that I sympathise with the discomfort that you must feel when certain topics are raised here, and when trying to accomodate what you believe to be conflicting priorities.

A jet aircraft at sufficient altitude in cold conditions will lay down a contrail. How long the trail lasts will depend on atmospheric conditions, but there will be a contrail.

The natural contrail takes a while to form, as the exhaust gasses have to cool to condensation temperature. So, there is a clearly visible gap between the engine and the beginning of the contrail.

If that same aircraft is spraying a "chemtrail" then the aircraft will be :

1) laying down more trails than it has engines (where the chemtrail spray emanates from somewhere other than the engine exhaust area)

or

2) laying down a trail that starts immediately (where the chemtrail spray emanates from the engine exhaust area)

Could just one chemtrail believer please show some evidence of either of these phenomena? They would be extremely easy to capture with a good quality camera.

Regards

Sam

If you think that is an unreasonable assumption, or indicates paranoia, I can only say that I think you are mistaken.

i do not think people are paranoid, i never said i think people are paranoid.

what i said, was when coming across as though you have already made up your mind and the only option discussed is chemtrails certainly are there to kill us and intended for us, then you come across as a paranoid, not to me, but to everyone with a closed mind.

surely this is obvious with the amount of ridicule the subject gets.

on the other hand there are numerous mainstream reports about weather moderfaction and other things, which openly report the release of chemicals. imo pointing out things like this makes the debate more approachable without being dismissed as a paranoid.

it helps people understand there are trails that are NOT contrails.

that the chemicals could be harmful if over exposed.

cloud seeding uses silver iodide.

Health effects of silver

Soluble silver salts, specially AgNO3, are lethal in concentrations of up to 2g (0.070 oz). Silver compounds can be slowly absorbed by body tissues, with the consequent bluish or blackish skin pigmentation (argiria).

Eye contact: may cause severe corneal injury if liquid comes in contact with the eyes. Skin contact: may cause skin irritation. Repeated and prolonged contact with skin may cause allergic dermatitis. Inhalation hazards: exposure to high concentrations of vapors may cause dizziness, breathing difficulty, headaches or respiratory irritation. Extremely high concentrations may cause drowsiness, staggering, confusion, unconsciousness, coma or death.

Liquid or vapor may be irritating to skin, eyes, throat, or lungs. Intentional misuse by deliberately concentrating and inhaling the contents of this product can be harmful or fatal.

Ingestion hazards: moderately toxic. May cause stomach discomfort, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and narcosis. Aspiration of material into lungs if swallowed or if vomiting occurs can cause chemical pneumonitis which can be fatal.

Target organ: chronic overexposure to a component or components in this material has been found to cause the following effects in laboratory animals:

- Kidney damage
- Eye damage
- Lung damage
- Liver damage
- Anemia
- Brain damage

Chronic overexposure to a component or components in this product has been suggested as a cause of the following effects in humans:

- Cardiac abnormalities
- Reports have associated repeated and prolonged overexposure to solvents with permanent brain and nervous system damage.
- Repeated breathing or skin contact of methyl ethyl ketone may increase the potency of neurotoxins such as hexane if exposures occur at the same time.

http://www.lenntech.com/Periodic-chart- ... /Ag-en.htm

is cloud seeding harmful?

http://www.ranches.org/cloudSeedingHarmful.htm

Personal protectionMinimize exposure. Recover waste silver for re-use if possible.

http://www.pcl.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/SI/silver_iodide.html

everything i look at raises doubt over the saftey of prolonged use, cloud seeding is widely accepted and reported, so cannot be denied.

the only question is how harmful is it?

it seems like a good place to start imo to get people aware of chemicals being put in the air that have potential harm on health, all of a sudden chemtrails dos'nt seem like such a wacky theory afterall once this has been considered and looked at.

but by assuming they are intended to kill people or is their only or first objective is what puts people of even considering such theorys. regardless of if their is any truth in it, and they would much rather believe the trails are simply normal contrails.[/b]

London Mick wrote:Has Tony been got at? This is very strange behaviour from one of our kind.
I'm afraid this website has lost all credibility for me now.

The West Yorkshire 9/11 site is smaller but it is still open and is not being censored. I think we need a new national 9/11 truth site.
This one has been hijacked.

That's the West Yorkshire forum that lets everything in
I think you mean
You're a top contributor

a trail plane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOJ4z8yqa54

telecasterisation wrote:

I'll admit that is funny.

But you've probably got some of the simpler natives all excited now.

paul wright wrote:a trail plane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOJ4z8yqa54

Where is the full frame shot of the entire aircraft showing the logo on the side and the registration number? This could then be easily identified - instead we get a carefully framed image where you can't make out anything.

This probably measures air quality or something similar, the interior is full of electronics not containers of chemicals for dispersal. Too slow and not enough range for nefarious goings-on.

Just my opinion, but nothing to do 'chemtrails'.

Tony Gosling wrote:

Simon,

We moderators can't have eyes and ears everywhere thank goodness and rely on public spirited users pointing stuff out sometimes. Please explain why you think that other thread should be moved either in a PM or on that thread.

We haven't been infiltrated yet to my knowledge and I do try to keep an eye out for such happenings.

Tony - my starting point is that free speech is either absolute, or meaningless, and ideally I would have no moderation here whatsoever. Obviously things are not ideal, there are libel laws, and as a new member I don't know anything about what has happened in the past, and the problems, real or perceived, that you and the others have had reconciling your presumed commitment to free speech with maintaining a useful discussion forum. I have thought about this over the last few days, and intend to write about it after more time on the forum. Not that I expect to have any great insights, or to come up with anything that hasn't already been debated.

Similarly, I think that this forum ideally should operate with complete openness and transparency, including discussions about it's rules. Ideally. I am averse to the idea of PMing you about this, or anything else. Clearly, the moderators have felt unable to uphold this absolute position, and I presume they honestly believe that compromising it has been necessary and justified.

If by "We haven't been infiltrated yet" you mean the mod. team, I would re-iterate that I see no reason to think otherwise, and have never even hinted at it.

I presume you have previously discussed the question of whether moving items to "controversies" amounts to censorship, restriction of free speech, or not. It seems obvious to me that that despite what John White says above, threads not in "Latest Topics" will get fewer views.

My concerns about "the other thread" arise because I have gained the impression that you advocate moving any discussion questioning the official truth of the holocaust to controversies, or the dustbin, "where it belongs". I disagree, as should be obvious from my words above. But anyway...

It seemed to me, that moving this thread, while not following your declared policy regarding "the other thread", was inconsistent. Combined with the fact that you were contributing to "the other thread", it seemed to me that you were being selective, and using your position as moderator to favour your own posts. I apologise if I'm wrong, or if I'm making too much of this. Nothing personal, as I said "I think it illustrates the problems of the moderation system itself". Irrespective of all this, hats off to all of you for the time and effort. Regards, Simon.