Former FBI Chief Ted Gunderson Says Chemtrail Death Dumps Must Be Stopped

reply to post by vermonster


chem trails are everywhere not sure what they do to us I've been gassed by F-16s up Romo what they were dumping blue and made me really sick stalker isthere was also some kind of special blood that was released to believe it was some form pesticide

I'll film a time lapse where I live. It'll Show a LARGE Mnt. Area before and during a Grid spay over with chemtrails. (That MEANS a LARGE area from Mnt range to range)
.And after... I'll film it while contrails are flying by from commercial jets at a different elevation. At the same time.
I said I'd never respond to chemtrails being real again thread.
We got nailed hard the last 2 days. The flight patterns and grid making are hard too deny.

To keep out harmful rays from space, or to poisen us,or block out satellite activity from space for ground movement is not the question.

Under who's authority is.

That they're not real is beyond disinfos payscale.
You can only lie for a paycheck for so long.

Rediculous.

reply to post by allprowolfy


This guy as made ALL SORTS of CRAZY claims since he retired.....for instance that Sonny Bono was killed by a Satanic Cult!!! At best he is just a poor old man, who was once quite bright, but who is now suffering from some level of Dementia. At worst he is an active agent for powers unknown meant to spread disinformation. I go with option one to be honest. Not to mention even if the guy did have all his ducks in order, I see no claims of any insider knowledge here. Other than he saw two unmarked planes! LOL! That really does very little to prove anything. If he did have inside knowledge he would give details to back all of this up....or at the very least he would say WHY they are making chemrails...instead of just making vague links to bird/fish deaths and calling it "genocide".

reply to post by allprowolfy

Originally posted by niceguybob
To keep out harmful rays from space, or to poisen us,or block out satellite activity from space for ground movement is not the question.

no - it never has been unless you care to perptrate a monstrous hoax on the gullible.

Under who's authority is.

If you live in hte USA then it is under the FAA's authority - another easy answer.

That they're not real is beyond disinfos payscale.

that they are not chemtrails is simple truth that requires no payscale,

You can only lie for a paycheck for so long.

I dispute that - the people perpetrating this hoax seem to be doing quite well off it - website adds for all and sundry conspiracy theory income streams, DVD's, personal appearances, etc.

I think Will Thomas was who came up with it, and started selling some things. Then he and Len Horowitz seems to team up together too at some point. Not long afterwards, Don Croft started peddling his orgone stuff at ridiculous prices, and Horowitz is in some other world now it would appear.

I did read online an accusation of Will Thomas taking $7000 dollars to come speak, and the people thought they did not get at all their moneys worth.

Originally posted by pirep
Trying to understand chem trails. So if anybody can help me with the reasoning why, please let me know. If chem trails are real why? what is the therorized purpose?

You can't understand chemtrails unless you start from a premise that the laws of physics and chemistry are not as we know them - it all start with the chap Boyle, of Boyle's law fame - he lived in the 1600's so you have to believe the conspiracy started then.

And also unless you think that millions of people worldwide are in on the hoax - aircraft designers, mechanics, drivers, chemical plant employees, atmospheric scientists and metrologists.

you also can't underastand it unless you think that all the standard texts on atmospherics for hte last 60 years have been deliberate falsehoods.

And if you can believe all that then why does it matter what the theorised purpose is - you've already decided yuo don't actually care about what is real - you can invent anything for it you like!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

you also can't underastand it unless you think that all the standard texts on atmospherics for hte last 60 years have been deliberate falsehoods.

And there are chemtrailers who believe exactly that..actually that also TPTB have gone back and edited those old books too.. Strange world they live in, those members of the Insane Cloud Posse

Watch out, another low level death dump!!

cdn-www.airliners.net...

reply to post by firepilot


LOL!! Never seen a 737 on skis, before!!!!

(Pssst ....remember, do NOT retract the gear!!)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by firepilot

 

LOL!! Never seen a 737 on skis, before!!!!

(Pssst ....remember, do NOT retract the gear!!)

I am pretty sure its not skiis, but a gravel shield so that any gravel kicked up by the nose gear does not go fly into the engines and body.

Yeah - back in the late 70's the airline I worked for had a 737-200 that had been part of Boeing's research into operating from rough airstrips - it had been fitted with a simlar shield, and also with air nozzles prortruding forward from the bottom of the nacelles - both were attempts to prevent foreign object ingestion to the engines.

We didn't need it, but it as apparently a standard option available to anyone who did.

found a pic -


And a thread about it on airliners.net - click on hte pics to see them - the one above is hte 1st in th ethread.

PS how do you make pics show inline with hte message instead of as a link??

reply to post by firepilot


Lots of low level death dumps at Contrail Science's "Ground level contrails" page

I have quoted my own posts from the bottom of that page for a C-130 and a truck generating them -

Ground level contrails in antarctica from a C-130 – 1st 20 seconds, again from about 3:15, again at 3:50 – notice also the truck generating a wee one – puts the volume of air passing through a turbine into perspective!!

also clearly visible is the contrail coming from the exhaust – although there is undoubtably some blown snow there there isn’t once the a/c is in the air at 5:00

I would not use Ted Gunderson as a reference. And your correct, He has taken one too many positions from the extreme, after he left the FBI office in L.A..
To imply that some people can't see the difference between a controlled spray of WHATEVER disspersment,is really hard to comprehend, after the number of times some of us have seen it.
Almost comical.
Gunderson? Borderline lunacy in his post FBI career.
I'll film it...and then tell me I used trick photography... It wont change the realty they spray something.
No need to convince nonbelievers.....
UH oh... They're NOT spraying now. LOOK Blue skies.. WIND blew away the crap...
OHHH Look....1,2 4 SIX jets flying in different directions without leaving the deposits...Looks like a Seattle to Phoniex,San Fran to Denver,Or Seattle to Vegas or who knows?..
NOT leaving deposits... Just a small trail behind them....Hmmmm
I dunt no the difense...

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by pirep
Trying to understand chem trails. So if anybody can help me with the reasoning why, please let me know. If chem trails are real why? what is the therorized purpose?

You can't understand chemtrails unless you start from a premise that the laws of physics and chemistry are not as we know them - it all start with the chap Boyle, of Boyle's law fame - he lived in the 1600's so you have to believe the conspiracy started then.

And also unless you think that millions of people worldwide are in on the hoax - aircraft designers, mechanics, drivers, chemical plant employees, atmospheric scientists and metrologists.

you also can't underastand it unless you think that all the standard texts on atmospherics for hte last 60 years have been deliberate falsehoods.

And if you can believe all that then why does it matter what the theorised purpose is - you've already decided yuo don't actually care about what is real - you can invent anything for it you like!

I like this from The Guardian circa 2004 heck, it even explains those myriads of metallised balloons often thought of as UFO's. BTW, notwithstanding this serious link, let's get real, there is a lot that a jet's exhaust can accomplish in it's own right.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Originally posted by niceguybob
I'll film it...and then tell me I used trick photography...

why would someone say you are using trick photography for filming contrails?

It wont change the realty they spray something.

H2O, CO2, CO, various NOx's, particulate traces of carbon (soot), aluminium, steel alloys, brass, rubber, plastic & anything else that might be geenrated by a functioning jet engine.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


"H2O, CO2, CO, various NOx's, particulate traces of carbon (soot), aluminium, steel alloys, brass, rubber, plastic & anything else that might be geenrated by a functioning jet engine."

You left out chemical changes and reactions due to conbustion and reactions after the exhaust which includes the naughty stuff in the fuel into particulates, then there are particulate heavy metals in a size so small to be toxic, that includes aluminium while not considered a heavy metal, it is considered toxic inside the body as it is not a trace metal used by the body. So there you have it, a chemtrail from just the engine, like it or not. The exhaust alone is a function that is clouding our skies continuously, anything else is additional.

no I didn't exclude the results of combustion - that's exactly what I listed - H2O, Co2 and NOx are hte main ones.

Since there is no aluminium in fuel I included it a a result of mechanical wear and tear, along with various other things that generate minute particulates as a result of the engine being a machine with surfaces that wear.

There is some other stuff too - some engine oil and combustion products for that, etc.

The rest of your post is pure supposition for which you have no evidence.

And it would not be hard to get evidence if it existed - just fly up there and take some samples - get together with some like minded believers, hire some expertise & go do it.

But for some reason no-one ever does that - personally I think the chemtrail conspiracy is with those who refuse to back up their clims with solid evidence when that evidence is so easy to get - because they know that it's all drivel and actually doing the one thing that can prove their case would actually crush them once and for all.

Why don't disbelievers do it? Because none of you nutjobs would believe us! you already do not believe thousands of existing scientific studies that were done without intending to disprove you but which do anyway, so there's no way in hell you'er going to believe another one that specifically shows you to be full of baloney!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
no I didn't exclude the results of combustion - that's exactly what I listed - H2O, Co2 and NOx are hte main ones.

Since there is no aluminium in fuel I included it a a result of mechanical wear and tear, along with various other things that generate minute particulates as a result of the engine being a machine with surfaces that wear.

There is some other stuff too - some engine oil and combustion products for that, etc.

The rest of your post is pure supposition for which you have no evidence.

And it would not be hard to get evidence if it existed - just fly up there and take some samples - get together with some like minded believers, hire some expertise & go do it.

But for some reason no-one ever does that - personally I think the chemtrail conspiracy is with those who refuse to back up their clims with solid evidence when that evidence is so easy to get - because they know that it's all drivel and actually doing the one thing that can prove their case would actually crush them once and for all.

Why don't disbelievers do it? Because none of you nutjobs would believe us! you already do not believe thousands of existing scientific studies that were done without intending to disprove you but which do anyway, so there's no way in hell you'er going to believe another one that specifically shows you to be full of baloney!

edit on 13-2-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: crappy spelling

Thanks for your dodgey rant, but I can't help that. Who and what are the disbelievers and believers you mention. I am referring to the jet exhaust specifically, if you read my post properly. BTW there is Aluminium by product used in jet fuel, look it up. As for tiny this and tiny that, it is the major factor that makes these things so toxic, the smaller it is the worse it is.

AFAIK ther is no aluminium in jet fuel, and the idea that the smaller it is the deadlier it is sounds liek homeopathic poison - when it no longer exists it's instantly fatal?!

your posts are full of generalised accusation - what aluminium in jet fuel? What heavy metals? what is the evidence for your conclusions?

the products of jet fuel combustion are well known and have been extensively studied for decades - the presence of Nitrous Oxides (NOx) for example is considered a major pollutant and jet engine manufacturers ahve spnt fortunes getting it reduced to as low a level as possible.