TOXIGENE

Homepage

CHEMTRAILS

Poison in our water. Poison in our food. So why not poison from the air? May 11th, 2020

Aerial experiments do happen!

This has got to be the hardest topic to approach. There are three types of 'chemtrail'. There are those which occur due to regular commercial (and sometimes military) traffic Then there are those which are actually part of an experiment with new types of jet fuel. Then there's the third kind. These have sinister implications. But how do we know which is which?

Chemtrails which have suspicious traits are certainly not frequent. And if such events are suspicious, what exactly is happening? A certain amount of logic has to be applied in an attempt to work out what is genuinely suspicious and which can be explained in a rational fashion.

I have been aware of chemtrail conspiracy discussions for a number of years, but I've never gone into and depth and explored the validity of the arguments being made. Well, that was until now.

Aerial supremacy

Once man had learned how to build craft that could fly, it was inevitable that the concept would taken up by the military. We have fought wars with large armies. We have fought naval battles with vessels more powerful than those of our enemies. We have sought to conquer and dominate both land and sea. It was inevitable that this would also apply to the skies.

World War I was possibly the first use of control of the skies to drop chemical weapons upon opposing armies. There is an interesting publication which covers the last few years of World War I and a link to the publication in question is given below. But first, a quote from the introduction:

"In World War I terms, chemical warfare included not only gas, but liquid flammable material, thermite, and smoke (all of which are relevant to the modern battlefield). This study will deal only with what participants referred to as "chemicals," "gases," or "war gases." These included real gases such as phosgene and chlorine, and also weapons that, while referred to as gases, were in fact vaporized liquids (mustard gas, for example) or finely ground solids. In this study the terms "chemical agent" and "gas" will be used interchangeably. Smoke will be discussed, but only as a ruse de guerre for gas; liquid flame and thermite will not be covered. Because most of the U.S. experience was on the Western Front, that theater of the war will receive detailed treatment."

To read more, go here: Leavenworth Papers

So the first lesson we learn is that such atrocities were quite acceptable war tactics a century ago. And with wars being fought at this time, it seems not much has changed. It's only the antagonists who have changed. But there again, have they? Or have the original perpetrators of chemical aerial warfare just upped their game?

The thing about aerial warfare, or experimentation, is that although the sky may be clear, and you can see what is happening, you can never be sure who is flying the plane that is doing something 'unusual'. After all, you can apprehend a land vehicle. You can likewise do so to a naval vessel. But a plane? It's an ideal way to do something and not be caught - at least not in one piece.

And what if that plane flying above your head belongs to some secret establishment, but which is authorised by people in the establishment with dark motives? And who is to say that a nation's leader, be it a President, Prime Minister, or whatever, would not resist an opportunity to approve a clandestine experiment if he, or she, was assured it would be 'harmless'? And if not completely harmless, justified in the interests of 'national security'?

I'll take this opportunity to remind the reader of a link I gave in the 'Virus' section of my website. Here's a quote from the article:

"Aircraft, lorries and ships spread 4,600kg of cadmium sulphide in one decade. Zinc Cadmium Sulfide ultra-fine particles: This inorganic compound was used by Cold War scientists in the UK and the US as a supposedly harmless proxy to simulate the behaviour, in the lower atmosphere and on the ground, of biological warfare substances. However it is still not known whether particles of ZCS that may have become embedded in people’s lungs for decades could ultimately cause disease."

How the British Government subjected thousands of people to chemical and biological warfare trials during Cold War. Also see ...

"Bacillus globigii. This bacterium was used as a supposedly harmless proxy to simulate the behaviour, in terms of dispersal and penetration, of biological warfare aerosols. Although not considered harmful when it was used in Cold War field trials, it is now known to be capable of causing fevers, food poisoning (occasionally resulting in death), peritonitis and septicaemia. Pasteurella pestis (now known as Yersina pestis). Clouds of this highly infections bacterium were dispersed only over areas of sea – but nevertheless very near to Lewis, a Scottish Island with thousands of inhabitants. In order not to infect the islands, it appears that the scientists relied entirely on the wind not changing direction and speed. This bacterium is the one that has caused plague epidemics worldwide in the past (including those of the medieval world’s Black Death). Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis. Clouds of this virus were dispersed over an area of sea close to an uninhabited island in the Bahamas. The virus debilitates or kills horses and donkeys and can also cause severe fever and even death in humans. Mosquitos spread the virus further by biting equines. G-series nerve agents. Clouds of this chemical warfare weapon were dispersed during field trials in a small part of southern Nigeria, some miles north of the town of Warri. G-series nerve agents were first developed by the Nazis before and during World War Two. The group includes substances like sarin and attacks the human nervous system, causing loss of bodily function and normally death. Survivors are likely to suffer long-term neurological damage and psychiatric disorders.

The desire to experiment on unsuspecting populations is established. The only question that remains is this; has policy changed?

Modern day warfare

Warfare can mean more than just attacks on populations. Scientists have suggested a war upon our environment to slow down 'global warming' - by maybe spraying chemical compounds in the upper atmosphere? Read on ...

"Experiment Earth—Climate change represents humanity's first planetwide experiment. But, if all else fails, it may not be the last. So-called geoengineering, radical interventions to either block sunlight or reduce greenhouse gases, is a potential last resort for addressing the challenge of climate change. Among the ideas: releasing sulfate particles in the air to mimic the cooling effects of a massive volcanic eruption; placing millions of small mirrors or lenses in space to deflect sunlight; covering portions of the planet with reflective films to bounce sunlight back into space; fertilizing the oceans with iron or other nutrients to enable plankton to absorb more carbon; and increasing cloud cover or the reflectivity of clouds that already form. All may have unintended consequences, making the solution worse than the original problem. But it is clear that at least some form of geoengineering will likely be required: capturing carbon dioxide before it is released and storing it in some fashion, either deep beneath the earth, at the bottom of the ocean or in carbonate minerals. Such carbon capture and storage is critical to any serious effort to combat climate change.

10 Solutions for Climate Change

The one solution nobody would dare to mention is population reduction. But I'll address this in my 'Future' section.

So, again I ask a pertinent question: How far is humanity prepared to go to resolve what most a problem that is called 'global warming'? Of course, some politicians do not want to accept this is happening. They feel it would harm the jobs of their voters if they were suddenly put locked out of their only form of income. Jobs = votes. Votes win elections. Turkeys do not vote for Thanksgiving (or Christmas).

Regardless, politicians do not stay in power forever. Policies can change, and politicians seeking power can use global warming as a ticket to attack any opponent who does not support the global warming concept. That all said and done, a ruling politician under pressure may agree that global warming is happening, but opt for a measure involving chemical technology (geoengineering).

Wikipedia: Greenhouse Gases

Evidence of chemtrails

Purely because of the nature of the conspiracy, it's going to be almost impossible to find any solid evidence. But let's look at what is out there.

[1] GENERAL FABIO MINI: CHEMTRAILS IN THE SKY? YOU'RE CONVINCED, AND SO AM I.

More from: NoGeoingegneria

[2] OPTION III: Chemical testing and/or warfare against the people

[3] CIA: WEATHER MODIFICATION

[4] Chemtrails: Aerosol and Electromagnetic Weapons in the Age of Nuclear War

More from: Transmissions Media