Guest guest Posted May 22, 2004 Report Share Posted May 22, 2004 > http://www.AwakeningsEnergy.com > > Conspiracy Theories > Behind the Chemtrails > The FREE AMERICAN > > Hear Clay Douglas Every Morning at 6 AM Mountain Time on WWCR 12.160 > Shortwave, Satellite from TruthRadio.com or click on the banner above to > listen live or hear archived shows! > > A WORD FROM THE WEBMASTER > This essay, as with all other anonymous submissions, cannot be verified and > the Free American is therefore unable to endorse nor refute the statements > made here. > We present this kind of information under the title of Conspiracy Theories > for that reason. > Personally, I think this is the kind of information THEY (whoever THEY are!) > release when folks start catching on and WE start making sense to the > average, " TeleTranced " indivdual . > " Why ain't that plane doin' it, Charlie? > " Does that look like a cloud to you, Rufus? " > I don't think the pilots would cooperate unless they believed they were > doing for the good of mankind. But they too, are naive. > That is why I believe parts of this story. I believe they don't know what > it is they are spraying. > Is this really to save mankind? > I doubt that, unless you are one of the elite few who believes the > population HAS to be thinned, or culled if you will, for the ultimate good > of the survivors. (Does a deep, underground, UNDISCLOSED LOCATION mean > anything to you now? > Read this article, compare it to what you already know and suspect and come > to your own conclusions....TJ* [:{)> > " Better to read everything and believe only what you choose than to read > nothing and believe everything you are told. " > (If you use the quote, the date was 8/28/03 from me.) > Clay Douglas > *PS - TJ - This is me when I am NOT smiling. . . [:{(> > The Shield Project. > > > Here we quote the communication from " Deep Shield " : > > Having read your email, I must say that you are full of questions. These > questions I would dismiss immediately as being the frustrated attempts of > fringe groups to bring a halt to the project, however these reports of > biological material being part of the spray should be addressed. Therefore I > will give as much attention to all of your questions as possible. > > > 1. What purpose do polymer threads imbedded with biological material serve > in this scenario? > > Polymers are part of the mixture and they do form in threads and in `tufts'. > The idea is simple and comes to us from the spider. As you may know spider > webbing is very light, some newborn spiders spin a `parachute' to catch the > prevailing breeze to travel far from their place of birth. Spiders have been > able to attain high altitudes and travel great distances for long periods of > time. Most of the elements used in the spray are heavier than air, even in > their powdered form they are heavier and will sink quickly. Mixing them with > the polymers suspends the particles in the atmosphere high above the surface > for longer periods of time, therefore in theory we do not need to spray as > often or as much material. Since the suspended particles eventually do > settle into the lowest part of the atmosphere and are inhaled by all life > forms on the surface there is an attempt to counter the growth of mold by > adding to the mixture mold growth suppressants - some of which may be of > biological material. > > Mold comes in spores that travel on the winds; the polymers can attract mold > spores through static charges created by the friction of the polymer threads > and the atmosphere. Add a bit of warmth and moisture and mold begins to > grow. The polymer is stored in a liquid form as two separate chemicals. When > sprayed they combine behind the plane `spinning' long polymer chains > (threads). Much tinkering has been done which the chemical matrix in past > years. Many polymers (plastics) are non-biodegradable thus add to the > problem of pollution. Various formula have been used, some which even use > biological agents. It would be great if we could reproduce the same web > material that spiders make, it is extremely strong, extremely lightweight > and breaks down relatively fast in the ecology. > > > 2. If this spraying is to mitigate global warming, why does so much of it > take place at night? > > Though it would appear that the dispersal rate of the spray is fast, it is > actually takes much longer to be an effective shield. There is a desired > concentration being sought. One that is thick enough to stem the UV and the > Infrared, while being thin enough to allow visible light through. A > perpetual cloud cover would have disastrous effects on plant life; the food > chain thus disrupted would soon collapse. The desired effect wanted is a > thin cover that would theoretically create a daytime haze that allows plenty > of sunlight while providing protection. From UV radiation and also reflect > enough infrared to maintain nominal temperatures. > > The optimal condition is to use the least amount of material to provide the > maximum amount of shielding. Ideally that would be a one-time application > which would stay suspended for years, however, as noted, barium and aluminum > and other trace elements are far heavier than air and they sink rather > rapidly. The different temperatures between day and night causes massive > volumes of air to rise during the night, the warm air trapped at the surface > rises above the cooling air above. By strategically spraying in certain > areas at night, we get the advantage of the rising air, which not only > pushes the material higher, but also causes the material to disperse into a > thin layer. > > I would suggest studying on the subject of weather, namely highs and lows > and how air moves to fully understand the times of spraying. I note, it is > not just global warming we are combating here, we are also combating UV > Summer. Global warming could effectively be treated by applications during > the night, when the warm air rises. However the UV needs to be treated > during the day. This is why on some days one finds that more spraying is > done during the day. The UV indexes are monitored constantly for local > areas. If the problem were simply cooling the earth, rockets would have been > used to suspend particles in the high atmosphere. However the delicate > nature of the Ozone Layer precludes this method of shielding. More on this > in the answer to Question 6. > > > 3. What other military programs are in place involving the spraying of > barium and what are their purposes? Do you know and understand the chemical > make up of the element? > > A little knowledge will go a long way to understanding the need to use > barium: Barium is often used in barium-nickel alloys for spark-plug > electrodes and in vacuum tubes as a drying and oxygen-removing agent. Barium > oxidizes in air, and it reacts vigorously with water to form the hydroxide, > liberating hydrogen. In moist air it may spontaneously ignite. It burns in > air to form the peroxide, which produces hydrogen peroxide when treated with > water. Barium reacts with almost all of the nonmetals; all of its > water-soluble and acid-soluble compounds are poisonous. Barium carbonate is > used in glass, as a pottery glaze, and as a rat poison. Chrome yellow > (barium chromate) is used as a paint pigment and in safety matches. The > chlorate and nitrate are used in pyrotechnics to provide a green color. > Barium oxide strongly absorbs carbon dioxide and water; it is used as a > drying agent. Barium chloride is used in medicinal preparations and as a > water softener. Barium sulfide phosphoresces after exposure to light; it is > sometimes used as a paint pigment. Barite, the sulfate ore, has many > industrial uses. Because barium sulfate is virtually insoluble in water and > acids, it can be used to coat the alimentary tract to increase the contrast > for X-ray photography without being absorbed by the body and poisoning the > subject. > > Note what Barium Oxide can do, absorb carbon dioxide - one of the chief > gasses causing the green house effect. In my answer to Question 4 I will > discuss the need to carry a current in the shield. I would like to point out > that barium and aluminum work together to diffuse and strengthen an > electrical charge. Somewhat like the current produced when acid is > introduced between two dissimilar metals, such as iron and copper. There are > military applications for everything you can think of, can not a butter > knife be used as a weapon? The same concept holds true here. > > > 4. What is the connection between ELF, EMF, VLF and Chemtrails spraying? Or > is there one? > > To understand the use of radio waves in the shield, one first understands > how ozone is created. I cannot stress to you how dire the situation really > is. The shield in place is only a partial solution; we must counter the > depletion of the ozone- this means we must make ozone in the stratosphere. > Ozone at ground levels does no good; indeed, ozone pollution at ground > levels it what is used to determine the air quality. Higher levels of ground > level ozone mean that air quality is bad. Pure ozone is an unstable, faintly > bluish gas with a characteristic fresh, penetrating odor. The gas has a > density of 2.144 grams per liter at standard temperature and pressure. Below > its boiling point (-112?) ozone is a dark blue liquid; below its melting > point (-193?) it is a blue-black crystalline solid. Ozone is triatomic > oxygen, O3, and has a molecular weight of 47.9982 atomic mass units (amu). > It is the most chemically active form of oxygen. It is formed in the ozone > layer of the stratosphere by the action of solar ultraviolet light on > oxygen. Although it is present in this layer only to an extent of about 10 > parts per million, ozone is important because its formation prevents most > ultraviolet and other high-energy radiation, which is harmful to life, from > penetrating to the earth's surface. Ultraviolet light is absorbed when its > strikes an ozone molecule; the molecule is split into atomic and diatomic > oxygen: 03+ ultraviolet light ->0+02. Later, in the presence of a catalyst, > the atomic and diatomic oxygen reunite to form ozone. > > Ozone is also formed when an electric discharge passes through air; for > example, it is formed by lightning and by some electric motors and > generators. Ozone is produced commercially by passing dry air between two > concentric-tube or plate electrodes connected to an alternating high > voltage; this is called the silent electric discharge method. Since UV > radiation is the problem, we can not use UV to produce more stratospheric > ozone. Another method must be found. The shield acts like one plate of the > electrode, when tickled with certain radio waves; it produces an opposite > charge to stratospheric layers producing low atmosphere to stratosphere > lightening. Creating ozone where it is needed. > > > 5. If this is being done for the reasons you say, then why are other > chemicals being used, why are different sprays being used? > > Correcting the ecological damage that mankind has done has NEVER BEEN DONE > BEFORE. We are relatively new to this notion of terraforming on a real > scale. That is what we are doing, Terraforming. We are trying to recreate > the ideal life-sustaining conditions on a dying planet. We have never done > this before, not intentionally. We are testing and trying different methods. > Granted, if we do nothing 89% of all species will go extinct and humanity > stands a high chance of not surviving through two more generations (or > less). However the idea of 2 billion casualties death and permanent injury > is not easy to swallow either. > > Several attempts to improve the application of Shielding material and > getting the most out of each application are taking place all the time. The > combined resources of the nations of earth are not enough to allow constant > spraying. Though we have achieved a high level of technology, there is a > great surface area that needs to be covered nearly daily. Large sections of > ocean are all but ignored; the remaining land masses are more than what can > be covered effectively. The Shield would work best if it was a single thin > layer without interruption, however due to the movement of air, weather > patterns and the sad fact that we do not have the means to place ample > amounts of material at the same level at the same time we are getting a > small fraction of the effectiveness from our applications. > > > 6. Why is spraying found before storm fronts? Is it to cause drought? > > Before a storm there is a front, the front clears the air before a storm, > pushing particulate matter ahead of it, leaving a space relatively clear of > particulate matter. UV radiation levels rise in these areas, sometimes to > dangerous levels. The shield must be maintained. Since barium absorbs water > as well as carbon dioxide, precipitation has been affected. Other kinds of > sprays are in development and testing which may reduce the affects on > precipitation. As I stated above, this is a new technology we are working > with, it is still in its infancy and there are some problems with it. > > > 7. Why are UFO's and disappearing spray planes reported? > > I do not know. > > > 8. What about the reports of sickness after spraying? > > There are several causatives for this. Some people are more sensitive to > metals, whiles others are sensitive to the polymer chemicals. As stated in a > previous email, people will get sick, and some will die. It is estimated > that 2 billion worldwide will be affected to some degree by the spraying. > Without spraying we have a 90% + chance of becoming extinct as a species > with in the next 20 years. > > > 9. What is the relationship between these spraying programs and One World > Order? > > Personally I am against the move for globalization, and yes, there is > potential to use the Shield to speed up the process of globalization, there > are several countries that are involved in this project: European Union > Nations, USA and Russia are the largest contributors to the project, many of > the allied nations and UN Members participate to one extent or another. The > material (chemical spray as you may call it) comes from all of these > nations. > > To insure that the chemicals are not tampered with, they are mixed and > sprayed over random nations. This means that chemicals produced in the USA > has a good chance of being sprayed over Russia, England and the USA. This > random spray of material means that no nation would be certain that their > chemicals will be sprayed over a nation which they have issues with. Russian > planes may be seen in USA skies, but so too will USA planes be seen in > Russian skies. The canisters used are sealed in a third nation that has no > idea where its canister is going. Participating nations have their observers > at every station where canister loading is done. All of this to insure that > the shield is not used as a weapon. To further insure that the shield is not > used as a weapon, non participant nations are sprayed by participants who > must spray in order to get enough material to maintain their nations shield. > It is understood that not spraying is as much a military offense as shooting > at them. > > Without the shield, UV poisoning would cause great death. The threat is a > common one, which has brought nations together in defense. The natural > outcome of having a common enemy is to strengthen international ties - a > step toward globalization. > > > 10. Is the Spraying related to terrorism? > > Yes and no. Recent terrorist activity can be traced to resistance groups who > feel that we should not interfere with the natural order of things. As you > know, there are many rumors out there as to what the Shield Program is. Some > believe that this is a population reduction scheme, designed to kill off > 'undesirable' peoples. While others hold that this is a mind control > program. There are many theories which have sinister plots in them these are > propagated by the resistance groups in an attempt to stop the shield > regardless of the consequences. > > The same delivery method could be used for biological and chemical warfare. > It could also be used to inoculate large populations, the effectiveness of > these uses are low, there are better methods that can be used. As a means to > fight terrorism it is ineffectual, it is far easier to inoculate a > population individually and would insure full inoculation against germ > warfare. > > > 11. Why all the secrecy? > > Due to the severity of the situation it is mandatory to maintain public calm > for as long as possible. The Earth is dying. Humanity is on the road to > extinction - without the Shield mankind will die off with in 20 to 50 years. > Most people alive today could live to see this extinction take place. This > means that an announcement of the situation we face boils down to telling > every man, woman and child on earth that they have no future, they are going > to be killed. People would panic. There would be economic collapse, the > production and movement of goods would collapse. Millions would die in all > cities on earth, riots and violence would reduce civilian centers to rubble > within days. Half of the population in dense metropolitan areas would try to > leave the cities seeking 'safety' in the rural areas thinking that they > would be safe. Those left behind in the cities would be at war with their > neighbors, fighting for the remaining supplies. We would be telling the > world that the world is coming to an end, and even with the Shield the > chances of survival are small. > > UV Summer and Global Warming are the immediate problems we face, there are > far greater problems that are raising their ugly heads and will present new > problems which in some cases have no viable solutions at this time. > Ecologies are collapsing. The extinction rate of species is climbing. The > amount of chemical pollutants in the water and soil are fast approaching and > in many places has surpassed the earth's ability to heal itself. Crop > failure is on the rise, even in the USA the returns on crops are smaller > than they were 10 years ago. Even with the advances in genetically altered > food crops, we are falling behind in our ability to produce enough to go > around. Throughout the 20th century chemical fertilizers and pesticides were > used to insure the best yields. Unfortunately many of these have > contaminated ground water, killed beneficial insects along with the > undesirable insects. These chemicals have gotten into the food chain and are > affected other species besides mankind. It is only a matter of years before > famine spreads like a cancer throughout the world. > > Clean fresh water is in short supply, in many places well water is > nonpotable, containing the run off of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers > that have been used on crops and lawns. The water treatment facilities we > have are unable to scrub out all of the toxins we have placed in the soil > and water supply. Many of the toxins we find build up over time in the body, > a long slow poisoning which has been making its presence felt in many areas > of the world in the form of cancers, leukemia, sterility, birth defects, > learning disorders, immune deficiency problems, etc. These are on the rise, > any good researcher can find the records. For decades there was public > outcry for the end to pollution. For every small step we made to clean up > our production, millions where born who added to the problem. Yes, pollution > is down per individual, however there are a couple more billion individuals > producing pollution, thus the real numbers have an increase in over all > pollution produced. Name a city that does not have problems with smog. You > would be hard pressed to find one. Though smog controls on automobiles is > higher than ever before, the number of autos on the road has increased thus > the amount of smog producing pollutants is higher than ever before. All the > clean air acts passed to curb individual factory and auto emissions did not > address the production of more factories and more autos. Here an uneasy > compromise was made between the need to maintain the economy against the > need to maintain the ecology. The ecology lost since it was estimated to be > a problem decades from now. The economy was a problem that would have dire > effects today. > > All of these factors combined have produced a scenario that in shorts boils > down to the end of the world in 50 to 75 years. Even if we were to stop all > emissions of pollution today, the inertia of past decades is enough to carry > us over the brink in 100 years. However we cannot stop the production of > pollution, to do so would mean shutting down every factory, every auto, > every train, truck, ship and every household on the planet. Electricity is > used to heat many homes in the Western World. The production of electricity > produces fewer pollutants than heating all homes with wood or coal. Cutting > our power generation abilities down to hydroelectric and fission reactors > would leave a good chunk of the world in the dark. It is an impossible > situation, our civilization is geared to the use of energy, take away our > energy and civilization will collapse. > > > 12. When will spraying stop? > > There are several factors governing this: > > A. Should the Ozone layer repair itself or our active attempts at repair > reduces the amount of ground level UV to acceptable levels, spraying will > stop. Present calculations place this between 2018 and 2024. > > B. Should another method be found which is more effective, less costly or > presents us with long-term solutions the Shield project would be replaced. > > C. When the other problems become too big to make the maintenance of the > shield worth the effort. The estimated date for this is 2025 to 2050. > > > 13. Since Global Warming and UV summer are the problem, why is the > Government backing down on its pollution controls? > > Because they are ineffectual and will cause more economic problems than they > would solve ecological problems. We surpassed the threshold of Earth's > ability to absorb pollutants in the 1970's. Since that time the earth's > population has nearly doubled. Emerging Industrial nations have come into > being, more pollutants are produced now than back then, even with the > stringent controls in place. The world is heading for economic depression, > more emission controls would add to the economic problems. This translates > into our being unable to do anything to start solving the problems. > > Unfortunately our technologies require a strong economy to advance. We need > that advancement, we need the trillions of dollars spent on research that a > strong economy causes. Each corporation that produces a product has a > product development program in place. Many of the past products invented > came by accident through other unrelated products. There is a corporate > drive to find methods to clean up the ecology, to reduce emissions, etc. > These goals have been in place for decades, many of the large corporations > are in the know when it comes to the ecological problems we face thus they > are spending a great deal of money and time on finding solutions to the > problems we face. Take away the economy and their research stops. > > > 14. How are you related to the Chemtrails? How do you know that this is what > is happening? > > I would prefer to not state who I am or how I am related to all of this. To > validate what I say, would require a bit of research on your behalf. I would > recommend the following subjects to look up and study: > > A. Population numbers for industrial nations and the tons of pollutants > produced annually. Start with 1975 and work your way up. > > B. Number of emerging Industrial Nations. > > C. Number of cases of Skin cancers worldwide. > > D. Crop Production vs. land area dedicated to crop production. Simple math > will show that more acreage is needed to produce food per individual. > > E. Automobile production from 1975 to present, estimated number of autos on > the road and the average emissions of later model cars produced as compared > the emissions of earlier model cars. A little math will show that though > individual autos produce less emissions, the amount of emissions has risen > due to the number of autos on the road. Remember that many autos are the > road that were built before present emission control standards. 1980 is a > cut off date - anything put on the road before then produces more pollutants > than autos produced today. I would include research in the number of diesel > autos produced, diesel has not been under the emissions control acts. > > F. Severity of storms and the number of severe storms. Also include heat > waves and droughts in that research, you will find that the numbers are > staggering when compared to data from 1950, 1960 and 1970. > > G. Research how naturally occurring Ozone is produced in the stratosphere. > Compare to how it is produced industrially. > > H. Research political reforms in the past 30 years, see which political > institutions have changed, which nations have joined with whom. Concentrate > more on these from 1982 onward. This would include the fall of the Wall and > Iron Curtain. > > I. Research polymers and how they are made, look at recent research done in > biological polymers, medical polymers and filaments. > > J. Check out spiders and spider web and the way spiders use their different > webs and threads. > > K. Research clean fresh water estimates as compared to the 1970's to today - > world wide. > > L. Research the following medical conditions per capita: Birth Defects > Cancers Leukemia Immune deficiency diseases (excluding virus borne ID > illnesses such as HIV) Occurrences of Learning disabilities, including > dyslexia, ADD, and over all IQ tests Sterility for both male and females > world wide Instances of glaucoma and cataracts. > > M. Compare the history of UV indexes from 1970 to present. You may note that > it was on sharp rise until 1997-99. > > N. I would strongly recommend researching the reactions of different barium > and aluminum compounds and how they are used. Research how long it takes for > these metals in pure form to oxidize, how they combine with nitrates, carbon > monoxide carbon dioxide and fluorocarbons and hydrocarbons and water vapor. > > O. Research how mold propagates, the conditions it needs to grow and just > how abundant it is in the atmosphere. > > If you pursue these lines of inquiry, you will see the Shield Project as it > really is. > At the time of the US-lead invasion of Iraq I had the opportunity to ask a > few supplementary questions. There has been no attempt to integrate these > questions and answers into the previous section therefore some may appear > somewhat out of logical order. > > A couple of the questions have a Canadian approach. By the way, I came up > with the name - have to call the source something! > > > Here we quote the further communication from " Deep Shield " : > > 15. Could you, " Deep Shield " - be described as a scientist or...? > > Scientist is a good generic term. I do study and research in a scientific > manner. I carry papers and degrees. My official capacity is in direct > research of atmospheric issues in relation to pollutants. I also create > models of potential long-term effects of green house gasses on the climate. > Predict wind patterns, weather patterns, etc. > > I have spent a good many years working on the project calculating the amount > of material needed and creating models for dispersion patterns. I work other > members who know the chemicals used and their interactions with the > atmosphere, pollution and water vapor. I am part of a team which itself is > part of a larger team, which is part of still a larger team. Government work > with many chiefs and levels above the workers. > > > 16. Are you prepared to comment upon your personal motives for sharing this > information? > > Not at this time, no. > > > 17. Have you signed a non-disclosure or Secrets Act document that > specifically relates to this project? > > Yes. > > > 18. To your knowledge what categories of individuals officially know of the > Project and are expected to remain silent? For example, my list of suspects > includes government down to the county level, military especially air force, > meteorologists, health specialists, mainstream media etc. > > All those who know are expected to remain silent. All of those who suspect > are either faced with trying to prove the virtually unprovable or are faced > with good enough reasons to remain silent. I would assume that this > situation is worldwide and could be considered one of the dangers of this > project. > > It was presented to me as a matter of national security. I can see the > reasons why there is a desire to repress the information not that spraying > is taking place but the hard little fact that we are facing a period of > human history which might be the end of civilization. > > > 19. Is the mainstream controlled media specifically ordered to avoid any > mention of chemtrails? If so, have you anything further to add such as how > was this done? > > I would assume that the Media is controlled by its own desire to make money > from what it reports. Since there is enough debunking out there, which says > that contrails are part of the normal use of jet engines in the atmosphere, > this would leave a reporter with very little to report unless there was > solid evidence or pictures or something that could not be explained away. > > You must know by now all the debunking methods that have been employed. The > 'official' announcements are the media's main dish. The rest they regulate > to the realm of the National Enquirer. > > > 20. What government agency or agencies control this program? Is it under > international control? > > It is an international program. Many nations contribute in different ways. > Measures have been taken to insure that what is sprayed over all countries > is the same through triple blind deliveries; which include not knowing where > a certain canister will end up, not knowing which aircraft a certain > canister will be flown, and not even knowing who (in military craft) will be > piloting a craft which has the purpose of spraying (Note: in today's world > there is usually a mixed crew of different nationalities flying any one > military aircraft on a Shield mission). I believe the Media caught Canadians > in Iraq recently when Canada's official say on the matter was that Canada > was not giving any support to the military might. > > The fact remains that there were Canadian military with the USA forces. Some > on aircraft carriers most being pilots. I think you can connect the dots. > > > 21. How is the project funded - who pays for it? Have you any idea of the > total direct operating cost? Also, does Canada make a funding contribution > for the activities in our skies? > > Most governments tend to over charge themselves to cover for their black > operations (unofficial operations). That money comes out of the collection > of taxes. So in effect the taxpayers of the world are paying for this > project. > > I would assume Canada does contribute funding to the Project. Canada is one > of the top nations contributing time, material and funding to this project. > Most of the Free World, the Western World, has taken on most of the burden > of the costs. > > > 22. Is the Shield Project the only such aerial spraying program? > > Is it the only project designed to avert ecological disaster? Then yes. > There are countless other projects that could be taking place which include > spraying of some sort or another. Pesticides are usually sprayed. There has > been great interest in weather control such as bringing rain to arid regio ns > and taking the punch out of hurricanes and typhoons. > > Weather control may be one of the final options left to us. Considering the > amount of global warming that has taken place. There is a strong need to > deflect a storm's fury, or to bring rain back to those regions which have > been suffering drought. > > What Mother Nature has done for millions of years automatically may now > require mankind's hand to keep the schedule. > > > 23. There are reports of four different chemtrail programs and other " code " > names. For example, see: Holmestead: Chemtrails - what are they? Any > comments? > > It is possible that the Military does have a use for similar sprays. I > cannot speak for the Military. However, my own personal research has come > across these things as well. Are they possible? Yes. Are they practical? > Only in the small scale say over the battlefield, or in the case of say the > Iraq War, over Baghdad. Global application would be far too expensive and > would require an obvious flight pattern of grids, circles and other heavy > spray patterns. > > > 24. Is all the spraying done using the " tank kits " described earlier or are > the KC-135R and KC-10 types filled to the brim? Such aircraft have a load > capacity of 200,000 pounds or more for refueling missions. > > No. Several types of craft are used. Commercial jet airliners are used and > they are not diverted from their flight paths to do so. How the canisters > and the spraying is done on this kind of craft is unknown to me exactly. I > do have my suspicions. I know best that which is my field; this is not to > say that we do not talk around the water tank. So I know more than just my > area and am able to think the matter through to its logical end. > > I do know that even all the commercial jetliners in use are not enough to > insure complete coverage all of the time. My computer models require knowing > how much material needs to be sprayed. Certain conditions cause wide areas > to suddenly (over hours) open up in the Shield. Then and only then is mass > spraying done - and would be done with the most logical craft, a tanker. > > Why not spray more from individual jetliners? That is one of the problems. > Jetliners do not carry much material (100 to 500 gallons) because the > material has to be spread out thinly. > > Look at the kinds of material being used, aluminum, barium, titanium, etc. > Most are highly reflective; in some instances the material is an absorber of > gasses. In the case of reflection the desire is to reflect X amount of heat > and X amount of UV while still maintaining acceptable (nominal) levels of UV > and heat reaching the planet's surface. > > Life requires a certain amount of both UV and Heat too much will kill - so > will too little. The apparent amount looks like a lot more than what is > actually being sprayed per volume of air it is covering. Most of the > whitening of the sky is not the material per se, but the collection of water > vapor, which forms into suspended ice crystals. The introduction of the > material causes the water vapor to collect like rain collects on individual > particles of dust. > > Too much material would cause a " mud fall " of sorts where the naturally > occurring water vapor would precipitate carrying the material with it. > > Spraying is done in such away as to " layer " the material through a volume > that will allow an acceptable level of UV and heat through along with all > the other wavelengths of light. Photosynthesis is the foundation of life on > our planet. > > Only when all the material is removed in a local area does it require a > massive spray, this is usually in the front of a weather system, or after a > heavy period of precipitation. Then a tanker is flown, fully loaded. > > > 25. Is there any truth in the story that some of the spraying is done by > jetliners with modifications in the " honey " or waste compartment? For > example, see mechanic story: Mechanic. > > The technology used for spraying is rather simple. It requires at least two > tanks under pressure, each carries half of the mixture which is sprayed at > the same time forming a complete compound which is designed to be > lightweight (so as to be suspended for longer periods of time). > > There have been attempts to incorporate the materials in jet fuel, however > the material binds with unburned jet fuel, water vapor, etc and does not > have the added buoyancy of the polymer threads. The end result is a spray > that is less than half as effective and is more dangerous since it can lead > to sulfates, acids and other mixtures, which are more lethal than the spray. > > It is very possible that the " honey " compartment is used. The amount of > material needed is small compared to the payload of any given commercial > airliner. > > However, there is a good deal of fuel tank that is not used. Airliners only > fuel their craft for the journey ahead of them; they rarely top off the > tank. This has become public knowledge in light of 9-11. It was this small > fact that caused the terrorists to pick pan-continental flights so they > would have a plane fully loaded. > > The majority of flights are short range and do not require the full capacity > of an airliners fuel tanks. Any adaptations needed could easily be done > during routine maintenance, and could be easily explained away as being a > modification for safety and-or pollution controls. > > This last is my own theory. > > We can assume that any means possible to deliver the material is tried. > Independent nations may favor one way of doing so over another. > > > 26. Where are the official sources that state that a certain number of > people (worldwide?) will sicken and possibly die as a result of the > spraying? In other words, what *internal* studies have been done on the > health issues and who carried them out? > > WHO (World Health Organization) carried out most of the studies. Other > nations have carried their own research on the matter. Some have said the > ill effects will be minimal - along the lines of a million or so, while > others have found the numbers to be far higher - 3 to 4 billion. > > Some of the organizations include the CDC and independent labs. We are > dealing with a situation where the amount of contamination is estimated to > be far higher than what would normally take place but is far lower than > historical instances of industrial contamination. This is important to note, > the only real history we have with barium/aluminum/titanium etc. > contamination is through factory workers, miners, etc, who receive a far > greater dosage of the material than what is to be experienced by the > populace under the Shield. > > The amount of spray is very small compared to the volume of the space that > is covered. Most of the harmful chemicals that are used are being dissipated > over vast areas. Near coastal regions the fall out is not reaching land at > all, but is being carried out to the oceans. The addition of polymers to > make the material remain suspended in the air longer means that less > material is being used. > > Today the material used and its application is nothing like in the early > days when it was sprayed in greater quantities and settling far faster to be > inhaled by all. > > The accepted Estimated Casualties (from WHO) is 2 billion over the course of > 6 decades. The majority will be either the elderly, or those who are prone > to respiratory problems. These numbers are based on the current estimates of > the general health of the population, the average age and the occurrence of > respiratory problems as a health issue. All are estimates since there are no > solid numbers to work with. > > > 27. Could you summarize the root causes of the initial destruction of the > atmosphere that requires this " repair " work? Did it perhaps result in part > from fluorides released/produced by the nuclear weapons programs? > > In a word - Industry. Most fail to understand that the products we use, wear > and live with are made in a manner that dumps CFC's and green houses gasses > into the atmosphere. There is no one single causative in this issue. It goes > way back to the Industrial Revolution and the use of coal to power steam > engines. Since that time we have consumed greater and greater energy > resources, dumping the waste where ever we wanted. > > Up until very recently refrigeration was a big contributor, imagine all > those hundreds of millions of households that owned and operated freon > cooled refrigerators from 1940 to 1970. Not just one refrigerator per > household, but over the course of time often multiple freon units. This > doesn't include the various air conditioner systems or industrial > refrigeration systems. > > For a long period when the refrigerator or air conditioner unit was > replaced, the old one was taken to the dump and thrown into the heap - the > freon was free to escape and make its way up into the stratosphere to eat > away at the ozone layer. > > You can add to that list. Think of all the cars that had air conditioners, > think of all those hair spray cans with their propellant gasses - the amount > of those alone were enough to do great damage. > > Styrofoam is another industry and product that has contributed to the > problem. In the scheme of things atomic energy has contributed little > compared to the consumer goods that have been manufactured during the past > century. > > Think of all the cars on the road today. In the late 1970's smog controls > started getting stronger. Think of all the pre-1978 cars on the road - they > are still producing a good many chemicals that leech into every corner of > the globe. > > > 28. Have you any comment on the use of so-called " CloudBusters " based upon > the theories of Wilhelm Reich? For an example of this see: CloudBuster. > > I could go on for hours about the particular errors of this site. Let us > just cut to the chase: I seriously doubt that this machine does as it is > reported to do. I could be wrong, but then I do not work with alternative > energy sources such as Orgone energy. > > > Points to Ponder: Conroy Penner, British Columbia. > > > Here is the second item mentioned above: > > Conroy Penner, of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada contacted me directly > with his story. He told me that some years ago he used to work for a > certain company in Western Canada and along with another person who was a > qualified aerospace welder/fabricator he was assigned to work on > construction of some special spray equipment for the United States Air > Force. > > The workers were told that the USAF contract involved equipment to be used > to spray insects at airforce bases in the States. The spray systems > incorporated exotic alloys and specially machined parts with large holding, > pressure and surge tanks along with pumps. Penner became suspicious of the > actual purpose of the whole project as, in his opinion, things simply did > not " add up " . He resigned after there were confrontations with the US > military people and the management over the true purpose of the equipment. > > Penner provided this photograph, that was taken in 1988 of some finished > spray equipment on a flat bed trailer. There are parts carts in the > foreground. > > The description states that the green tank sections are coated aluminum and > the others are stainless steel for certain other chemicals. The smaller > tanks are for the solution for purging the system. The large tanks are some > 15 feet long and approximately 3 feet in diameter. The box seen at the > right side of the photograph is the control panel, and the plumbing and > pumps are underneath the tanks. It is said that these units were designed > for use with Hercules C-130 aircraft and it is understood that in total > eleven systems were to be made, this being the first. > > I have on hand many other specifics from Penner but that is the general > outline. All of this took place in 1988/89. > > > Comments: There are obviously some problems with this - it would be great > to have the exact dates along with the names of the company management > involved. Also the names and rank of the US military personnel involved is > lacking. > > As for the equipment itself - it looks much as if it could be ordinary > aerial spraying systems - that is because indeed it may be just that with > suitable modifications for the specialized USAF requirements. At this time > the aerial spraying programme (chemtrails) was in the early stages of > experimental development. Certainly at first it was reported that the C-130 > was seen being used for aerial spraying (of unknown substances) and only > later were the large refuelling tankers seen spraying " chemtrails " . > > > Further comments: Added 26 March 2003 - is an addition from (and confirmed > by) the source of the main item above. > > The canisters that are shown above are similar to what is known to be > incorporated into this programme. > > Two large ones are carried, one carrying one part of the chemical mix, the > other carrying the other part, when combined they form long polymer chains - > threads if you will. Even the green tint finish is typical. > > However, the way it is understood here, is that the small tank provides the > propellant (compressed gas) which is released into the larger tank. Much > like a large aerosol can, except the compressed gas is stored in a separate > tank which is much stronger, and able to sustain a far greater pressure than > a larger tank. > > http://www.AwakeningsEnergy.com > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.