Exposed: Secret Presidential Chemtrail Budget Uncovered – Congress Exceeds Billions To Spray Popul

reply to post by mrthumpy

With regard to the Guardian newspaper article and Norman Baker's forcing the government to admit chemical testing on the population, this was not a 'claim' but this was an admission of guilt by the UK government. They did not say they would not 'drop' chemicals or germs for testing on the UK population ever again however.

I don't know if anyone can remember but a few years ago, in Ukraine, during a terrible flu epidemic in which the young people in particular were dying very quickly of pneumonia there were reports of small planes (not the large chemtrailing variety) spraying the population. People were suddenly contrating this powerful virus and dying of pneumonia very quickly.

My Aunt lives just across the Ukraine / Hungary border. She kept two pigs. They were very healthy and well cared for. During this epidemic, very suddenly one morning they started to struggle to breathe, then turned blue. Within half an hour the pigs both died. Unusual? But this happened to a few other pigs in the village and the flu epidemic was also rampant in this area, again affecting the young.

Now, does any of that mean anything? Probably not at all, but imagine if this virus was man made. More than likely not, but if you could spray that over everyone............well, you'd have a whole lot less welfare payments to make, wouldn't you?

I'm sure no one would ever want to do something like that though?

reply to post by binkbonk
This planet has 'stood' for billions of years and does not need us to die in order to protect itself.
What it needs is to be relieved of power crazed financially greedy psycopaths who would do anything to make money no matter what the cost to the planet and environment. Greed and Globalization are the causes of this planet's problems not the simple folk of this world who have no say over the system.

Originally posted by Elliot
reply to post by mrthumpy

 

With regard to the Guardian newspaper article and Norman Baker's forcing the government to admit chemical testing on the population, this was not a 'claim' but this was an admission of guilt by the UK government. They did not say they would not 'drop' chemicals or germs for testing on the UK population ever again however.

There we have it again. "chemical testing on the population". What tests were carried out on the population? What was the purpose of the tests?

This kind of misrepresentation is my entire point.

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by RoScoLaz

 

Provided that the winds and all other air currents are obeying their devious plans.
Because anything released at that altitude in an aerosol is not going to be easy to control just where the "stuff" is going to land.
How do you think they overcome this little obstacle?
Or is controlling wind and gravity just another part of the "chemtrail" lore?
... Why would the government write stuff like "controlling the weather by the year 2025"?
and yes the technology exists to redirect a hurricane, to kill or strongly diminish it's power or even start one.
That's old news.

I would really like someone on the "chemtrails are real" side to answer this.
Physics and air currents seem to get in the way of "chemtrails" being any kind of a delivery system...at least one that makes sense.

...hm physics. Never seen any persistent contrail the first 50 years of my life. I don't live in the USA or Britain where the government has been conducting experiments since WWII by the way.
www.guardian.co.uk...
Millions were in germ war tests
Much of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials

reply to post by Antinazi


You maybe interested in this thread here. A few bots are in there but some good info also.

Nice post

Originally posted by Antinazi
Never seen any persistent contrail the first 50 years of my life.

I remember when I was young we had proper winters with lovely deep crisp snow. Every year it was snowball fights, sledging, snowmen and I even made igloos in the back garden! Not like these days.

In reality I have no idea how often that happened, I'd have to go and check the records to see how often we got snow like that but in my mind it was all the time.


The records show that either: you're mistaken, your memory is playing tricks on you, you weren't paying attention, you didn't live in an area that had much air traffic at the time or you're just lying to prove a point. Your choice.

Originally posted by Antinazi
[Never seen any persistent contrail the first 50 years of my life.

And so therefore they didn't exist at all?

There are millions of things I have never seen at all - same for you - does that mean they do not exist??

I never saw a persistent contrail for the first 9 years of my life - they the local domestic airline started flying Boeing 737's in 1968 and I recall seeing persistent contrails as a kid in Christchurch, New Zealand. I'd see the contrail from a flight from Wellington to Dunedin (Chch is half way), and then sometimes a while later (I'd guess over an hour from flight and turn-around times) iI'd see the contrail of the return flight, while hte 1st one was still there.

Then in 1976 I started an apprenticeship as an aircraft mechanic and worked on those very same Boeing 737's - and you know what?? They never had any sort of "chemtrail spray" equipment fitted, and they used the same kerosene as the Fokker F-27 Friendship and Hawker Sidley 748 turboprops that didn't leave contrails because they didn't fly high enough.

And when I finished my apprenticeship I worked for a year on fuel components - pumps and burner nozzles mainly - and there was nothing odd about the jet fuel I worked with there either.

I don't live in the USA or Britain where the government has been conducting experiments since WWII by the way.
www.guardian.co.uk...
Millions were in germ war tests
Much of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials

Yep - which looked nothing like persistent contrails.

reply to post by Antinazi


I am with the others. You either:
1) Don't remember, which is believable because we don't remember what we do not notice
2) Lived in an area where there was not flight path, which is believable because 50 years ago, flight was relatively rare
3) Have allowed the "chemtrail" propaganda to alter your perception about what you saw 50 years ago
or
4) Are flat out lying.
I will be 52 soon. My father was a management/industrial engineering consultant who traveled by plane every week between the years I was 7 to 15 (roughly). I watched the skies, especially on the days he would be returning home. There were contrails then, like there are contrails now.
Just less of them, because air traffic has greatly increased in the mean time.

Originally posted by PLAYERONE01
until you have seen 2 jets fly side by side one with a con trail and one with a chem trail then you ask questions.

Yea, I know what you mean. Like the first question I would have is HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW IT'S A CHEMTRAIL AND NOT A CONTRAIL?

Of course I already know the answer, you cannot. You are making stuff up to suit your agenda.
Or, I guess it's possible that you just have no idea what a contrail actually is.

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by fireyaguns

 

But wouldn't they be spraying themselves, their children, their cousins, their friends and nieces and nephews and other people they potentially care about?

I've never understood this part... And what for?

Don't bring logic into this, the chemtrailers hate that.

Just nod and smile until you've safely reached the door.

Originally posted by flyswatter
There is nothing wrong with hypothesizing and saying "maybe they are doing this" or "maybe they are doing it for this reason". The problem occurs when those people go from "maybe they are doing this" to "they ARE doing this". There's a big difference, and the line between the two often gets blurred by "chemtrail" believers. Without proof (beyond your ideas of what a trail might be), it just makes them look ignorant.

edit on 21-3-2013 by flyswatter because: (no reason given)

Then there's no difference whatsoever to people saying "they ARE NOT doing this"..is there?

Ignorance is rife on both sides of the fence.

reply to post by MysterX

Ignorance is rife on both sides of the fence

Actually one side tries to deny ignorance, while the other seems to embrace it...

I need not say which side does what, but the thread title does a good job of explaining which side does what..

reply to post by MysterX


Yes the is a difference - for one claim there is evidence, for the other there is none..

So no, ignorance is not evenly distributed.

Originally posted by MysterX

Then there's no difference whatsoever to people saying "they ARE NOT doing this"..is there?

Ignorance is rife on both sides of the fence.

I think a crucial difference is that one side says that the total lack of evidence of spraying, other than lies and misrepresentations from the hoaxmasters, means one can reasonably conclude that its not happening, while the other side says that spraying IS happening because someone on the internet says so.

Only one side displaying ignorance there chum.