As we swing into the New Year, many are going to be feeling more than a little impatient that the perpetrators of the toxic air-born emissions which create engineered clouds over vast areas of our skies, still remain largely anonymous.
Anonymous by name, but no doubt to be found within the ranks of military industrial proponents and psychopathic secret society hegemons: those who hide behind the 1991 Hughes Aircraft atmospheric aerosol patent. The patent that formalized an engineering technique which alters the climate and sickens the planetary population with its debilitating fall-out.
This response to the first question would be quite typical “It’s obvious, 9/11 was an al-Qaeda mission led by bin Laden. There’s nothing suspicious about it.” And on chemtrails “They don’t exist”.
What one runs into when confronted with such an unquestioning response, creates a genuine human dilemma. Where can one turn if fellow human beings are unwilling to examine, in any detail, incriminating evidence that stands behind such crime’s against humanity?
However, things take on a vastly magnified significance once one seeks to solicit the truth from those well placed to actually know something about what goes on in the higher echelons of military defense planning, or amongst those concerned with environmental protection, weather forecasting and civil aviation. The silence in these quarters is deafening.
Atmospheric aerosol geoengineering (chemtrails) is one of the most crudely in-your-face debasements of civil justice and environmental and human health, ever to have been enacted upon mankind – outside of outright war.
Even if one thought it might be happening as some form of defense against ‘global warming’, one could hardly fail to realize that nobody ever asked if you, or anyone else for that matter, were in agreement for such an experiment to be undertaken in the sky above your home, and from one end to the other of your country of residence.
The mind tries to grasp how it could be that the smothering of our skies with toxic engineered clouds, a process that has been going on for at least two decades, could fail to elicit any response from the majority of mortals living on planet Earth. Yet most claim ‘not to have noticed’ these activities, and others have told me “I never look up”.
What an indictment concerning the state of imprisonment that great swathes of humanity try to make their peace with.
So what do we actually know about the manufacture of these aerosols? Who is behind them – and how are they dispersed in the atmosphere?
In short, we know that in 1975 the US navy was granted a patent which describes the dispersion method for a ‘powdered contrail’ able to sustain itself in the atmosphere for long periods. And in 1990 the US Department of Defense used the word ‘chemtrails’ as the title of a chemistry manual for pilots attending the US Air Force Academy. A manual that teaches how to make these aerosols. This is verifiable information in the public domain – so that does away with the ‘conspiracy theory’ factor straight away.
We know, from public records, that airborne chemical spraying – in one form or another – has been going on for at least sixty years. Early examples include cloud seeding during World War Two and in Vietnam during the US invasion of the late 1960’s.
Atmospheric geoengineering has come about and continues to operate, as a military project. In the 1980’s it became known as an ‘Environmental Modification Weapon’ (En Mod), and due to the widespread controversy this aroused, such techniques were banned under the auspices of UN Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, 1987.
However this UN edict is not enshrined in law, and it is quite clear that whoever is behind the atmospheric weaponry, is not unduly phased, and continues to order the mining and smelting of vast tonnages of aluminium as well as other components such as barium and titanium; to be processed into a substance which is then spread around the world via aircraft flying at around twenty five to thirty thousand feet.
If anyone ‘official’ has anything to say at all about this activity, it is that “there is some discussion about using geoengineering techniques to counter the affects of sunlight as a cause of global warming.” We know that British and US governments have, since 2009, been ‘discussing’ the use of geoengineering to combat climate change via the spreading aerosols in the atmosphere.
In recent years more and more independent research projects, both in Europe and the USA, have revealed the presence of aluminium, barium and titanium in water courses far from any likely factory processing zones. In Germany and Switzerland recent research has revealed alarmingly high levels detected at many sites; and in France nanotech chemtrail ‘filaments’ have recently been recorded at locations all over the country.
Most of what I have described up until now is not new knowledge, but needs repeating so as to remind us of the extent to which the chemtrails phenominum has become a ubiquitous feature of modern life.
But why, given this fact, haven’t we nailed the perpetrators years ago? How could something so deadly be practiced on a global scale and yet manage to remain almost completely unidentified at source?
For example, how many millions of tons of alluminium are used in the course of a year’s spraying?
Where does it come from? Who organizes the shipments – the processing and the delivery to airports? How come governments remain totally silent?
The answer to these questions – that are out there – remain sketchy. Maybe because just a handful of dedicated self resourced activist researchers have, up until now, led the way in identifying just about all we know about these activities. That needs to change. Many more need to be involved and the exposure needs to be ramped up ten fold.
There is still some controversy concerning exactly how the spraying is carried out. What technology is used? Who fits it? Is it fitted to military and civilian commercial jet airlines ? And if so – how many people working in the industry know about this, but remain quiet?
I have been researching atmospheric aerosol geoengineering for the past ten years or more*(see end) and I have increasingly come to suspect that the high altitude dispersal method is achieved via mixing nanoparticulates into jet fuels and thereby into the exhaust gases of the aircraft’s jet engines. Observation alone, shows that the majority of trails start from the exhaust gases expelled at the back of the engine.
The fact that there are many reports of pilots becoming unconscious and passengers getting sick, due to fumes entering the cockpit and cabin, bears testimony to the existence of some highly toxic substances circulating around the fuselage of modern passenger aircraft. The air conditioning units in such planes are powered by the engines.
What exactly is the composition of the fuel going into these engines?
A recent study by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, aimed to ascertain the composition of the exhaust fumes directly they leave the turbines of high-flying jet aircraft. What the initial study found was very revealing: there were sixteen different metals detected in the composition of the engine exhaust – and they included aluminium and barium.
Now anyone with an ounce of intelligence is going to ask why would aluminium and barium be added to commercial jet fuels – not to mention the other fourteen metals.
We already know that ‘overt’ spraying is carried out by specially adapted aircraft into which special tanks and equipment are installed, with spraying nozzles fitted externally. Engineers have photographed such apparatus in the fuselage of planes they have worked on, and these pictures can be found on the net.
But this form of ‘overt’ spraying cannot account for the large number of planes which spread the ‘covert’ aerosol trails that cover our skies, year in year out, from one end of the world to the other.
There has to be a vast network of internationally interconnected fueling bases involved in order for an operation of this magnitude to be realizable.
Only a highly sophisticated and globally managed operation could mastermind chemtrail activity on this scale.
It is highly probable, that standing behind this operation, is the same psychopathic secretive cabal that is behind all such manipulative global missions. Behind all attempts to take control of the planet and exert ‘full spectrum dominance’ over humanity as a whole.
A cabal which is familiar with mind control techniques, genetic modification of the food chain and the pharmaceutical repression of natural health. The existence of aluminium as a vaccination adjuvant has already been widely exposed. Its addition to airline fuels has not yet received the same attention – but clearly needs to.
Barium and strontium, the two other widely identified elements detected in water samples, have equally damaging and degenerating neurological and internal organ repercussions, on both human and animal health, as well as a dangerously repressive effect on plant health. The almost continuous toxic barrage, which all species are subjected to, represents a direct threat to the gene pool upon which all life on earth is predicated.
Let’s make 2018 the year in which the brutality of chemtrail activity is decisively brought into the foreground of people’s attention worldwide; and let’s ensure that we can finally name the names of those behind this mass genocide. A genocide affecting every aspect of the unique biological diversity of our beloved and beleaguered planet Earth.
Foremost in our minds this coming year, should be the need to achieve the complete eradication of atmospheric aerosol engineering and an end to the secrecy which enables such heinous projects to ever get off the ground.
About the Author
Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK Organic farming, a writer, actor, social entrepreneur and international activist. During the 1970’s he worked in experimental theatre as actor and assistant director, co-founding the The Institute for Creative Development, in Belgium, teaching holistic thinking and dramatic art. In the 1980’s he returned to the UK to take over the family farm and convert it to an organic system. His experience as a leader in reviving rural economies throughout the 1990’s, led him to be invited to join the advisory board of the South East of England Development Agency, and the Country Land Owners Association. He also served on the Oxfordshire Economic Partnership and was founder-chairman of The Association of Rural Businesses in Oxfordshire. In 2,000 he led an innovative project to revive regionally important market towns as centres of vibrant local activity and hubs for rejuvenated local food initiatives.
Julian is a prolific writer and broadcaster, his articles appear in a wide diversity of journals and on-line sites. Visit www.julianrose.info to find out about Julian’s highly diverse life and acclaimed books ‘Changing Course for Life’ and ‘In Defence of Life’.
Syria has confirmed that the US led coalition whose very presence in Syria is illegal according to international law, has recently dropped white phosphorus munitions over a village in Deir ez-Zor.
Similar to the infamous napalm munitions the US used in the war on Vietnam, white phosphorus melts the skin off human bones, resulting in an excruciatingly torturous death.
SANA reports that thus far three civilians have been killed while another five have been seriously injured.
Sputnik further reports,
“The news comes a day after a report that coalition airstrikes left nine civilians dead in the northeastern province Hasaka. Those killed included an Iraqi family of six that had escaped Daesh violence in Mosul, according to SANA. Citing sources, the agency added that the coalition had also launched airstrikes on the villages Hadaj, Huneidis and Hassan Ali near the Iraqi border, which has resulted in “huge material damage”.
The coalitions airstrikes have resulted in death of hundreds of people in Syria. On August 4, the coalition admitted that “at least 624 civilians have been unintentionally killed by Coalition strikes since the start of Operation Inherent Resolve” against Daesh in Iraq and Syria in 2014″.
The forensic and field images shown below, demonstrate what happens to human bodies after they are hit by white phosphorus
White phosphorus is highly noticeable when being dropped from war planes as it leaves a distinctive set of white vapour trails when dropped.
The US has previous used white phosphorus in Raqqa, Syria as well as in Mosul, Iraq.
The current Ukrainian regime in Kiev has also used the banned munitions on civilian populations.
Recent events confirm the long held view of many that adherence to international law is, for the Americans, at best an optional extra rather than being an essential component of conduct between States.
The first example relates to the current standoff between the US and North Korea. Article 2 (3) of the UN Charter, a document the US was instrumental in formulating, requires that:
“All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means….”
Article 2 (4) further provides that:
“All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity …..of any State…..”
Scarcely a day has passed in recent weeks without those obligations being violated in respect of North Korea. President Trump himself has threatened “fire and fury like you have never seen”. He, along with his Defence Secretary Mattis and the US ambassador to the Un Nikki Haley have variously referred to “all options are on the table” or “North Korea will be obliterated” and similar phrases, all of which are unsubtle overt threats.
It is not just words. Massive military exercises have been conducted close to North Korea’s borders, both land and maritime. We are told that one of the objectives of the exercise is to practice the “decapitation” of the North Korean leadership. Nuclear-armed bombers patrol Korean air space, and missile systems have been installed. The latter are purportedly for “defensive” purposes but in reality they are part of an offensive missile system aimed at Russia and China.
The second example was the unprecedented incursions by US federal officers into the Russian consulate in San Francisco and the homes of Russian consular staff. This is a breach of one of the most important international conventions, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Optional Protocols (“the Vienna Convention.”)
Article 22 of the Vienna Convention states:
- The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
- The receiving State is under a special obligation to take appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission……
- The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property therein and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
There is no scope for ambiguity here. Inviolable means exactly what it says. What is less clear are the American’s motives for such a blatant and unacceptable breach of international norms. Christopher Black quotes the Russian Foreign Ministry as saying that the only reason for such a search to be conducted, aside from bullying and intimidation, is to use it as an opportunity for the Americans to plant items to be used in their propaganda war against Russia.
That is certainly possible, and it is a reasonable inference to draw from the fact that the Americans demanded that the premises be vacated while the search was undertaken. It is also consistent with a long record of such duplicity by the United States, and its persistent false claims used to justify aggression.
The allegations against the Libyan government’s ‘killing of its own people’; the alleged sarin gas attacks by the Syrian government against its own people; Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction; and Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program are only four of the most recent and egregious examples.
The consequences of those falsehoods have been devastating for three of the four countries concerned. Notwithstanding convincing evidence to the contrary, successive US governments have persisted in these falsehoods, with the willing complicity of the mainstream media.
Black also correctly points out that it acts as a precedent that can rebound against the United States, as the US cannot now logically argue that its own diplomatic missions remain immune.
The third possibility is that the actions were simply a result of terminal hubris and stupidity. The US has long regarded itself as the “exceptional nation” with that perception now irrefutably extended to being exempt from the provisions of international law.
This would not be a novel conclusion as their actions for many decades have long demonstrated both stupidity and a disregard for international law. The invasion and searching of diplomatic premises in violation of the Vienna Convention is therefore simply an extension of a well-established pattern of behaviour.
The third illustration of why the word of the United States cannot be trusted is the one with potentially the most dangerous consequences. The US and its allies have long claimed that Iran had a nuclear weapons program. Israel has claimed for 20 years that Iran was “only months away” from possessing a nuclear weapon, including a bizarre presentation by Benjamin Netanyahu to the UN General Assembly.
The complete absence of any supporting evidence, and indeed the existence of two unanimous US Intelligence Reports to the contrary, was never sufficient to stop the relentless propaganda barrage against Iran, nor prevent the imposition of sanctions.
The net effect was to dangerously ratchet up tensions to the point where a single act of stupidity, such as Israel carrying out one of its multiple threats to attack Iran, could easily have led to a wider war.
Thanks largely to the initiatives of the Russian and Chinese governments, and a rare moment of sanity by the then US administration, an agreement between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the European Union’s Foreign Affairs High Representative, Germany and Iran was negotiated. Known as the Joint comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) it was agreed to by all parties in July 2015.
The UN Security Council subsequently endorsed the agreement unanimously on 20 July 2015 (UNSC Resolution 2231). Three key provisions from the Preamble are worth briefly noting:
(iii) Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire nuclear weapons.
(v) The JCPOA will produce the comprehensive lifting of all UNSC sanctions as well as multilateral and national sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program.
(viii) The E3/EU+3 and Iran commit to implement this JCPOA in good faith and to refrain from any action inconsistent with the letter, spirit and intent of this JCPOA that would undermine its successful implementation.
The UNSC Resolution effectively turned the JCPOA into an instrument of international law. The US Congress also passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act under which the President is required to provide a “compliance certification” to Congress every 90 days to verify Iran’s adherence to the terms of the JCPOA.
Under the terms of the JCPOA the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is also entitled to carry out inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities (civilian use is permitted) and issue its own compliance certificates. It has repeatedly done so.
Trump has twice thus far met his obligations to report compliance to Congress, but he told the Wall Street Journal that if it was up to him he would have found Iran non-compliant 180 days ago (i.e. when he was inaugurated).
Trump’s ignorance is bad enough, but it is now known that he has instructed his intelligence agencies to provide proof of Iran’s non-compliance. This is extraordinary and dangerous. Trump clearly has an a priori conclusion that Iran is non-compliant and wants the intelligence agencies to produce what can only be described as ‘fake facts’ to justify his pre-held conclusion.
This is reminiscent of the point noted by the head of British Intelligence in the lead up to the Iraq war when he noted that “the facts were being made to fit the policy.”
The US has also not only failed to life the sanctions in accordance with the JCPOA but has imposed new sanctions on the pretext that Iran has carried out ballistic missile tests (not banned under the JCPOA) and is a “sponsor of terrorism.” Again, facts are not allowed to intrude upon the policy. It is simply impossible to reconcile these and other actions with the obligation of “good faith” in the JCPOA.
The three illustrations noted here confirm the truth of President Putin’s observation that America was HeAOROBOPOCNOCO6Hb1, which I understand, translates as “non-agreement capable.”
The only remaining mystery is why anyone would accept America’s commitment to anything when compliance is completely at the whim of the administration of the day.
James O’Neill, an Australian-based Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Damascus has accused the US and Britain of supplying toxic materials to Syria. According to political analyst Vladimir Shapovalov, the allegations are very serious and should be investigated.
The claims that the United States and United Kingdom supplied militant groups in Syria with toxic agents could be verified by a UN mission, said Vasily Nebenzya, Russia’s Ambassador to the United Nations.
Earlier this week, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad accused the US and the UK of supplying toxic agents to terrorists based on evidence found in Aleppo and a Damascus suburb.
These allegations are putting Washington and London in a situation where they cannot refuse an international probe into the matter, according to Vladimir Shapovalov, deputy director of the Center for Historical and Political Studies at the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute.
“Russia’s stance in this situation is absolutely reasonable. Moreover, I think that the US and Britain should endorse it. If Washington and London block such an investigation the international community may have the impression that the two countries are responsible [for the deliveries of toxic agents to Syria] and trying to hide the facts,” Shapovalov told Radio Sputnik.
According to Shapovalov, the information revealed by the Syrian government is very serious and concerning and must be thoroughly investigated regardless of the current political climate.
“Any activities related to poisonous materials must be closely monitored and investigated. This should not be a one-sided game. It is necessary to consider any possibility of such deliveries, no matter where they can come from. As for the information revealed by Damascus, it is a very solid piece of evidence,” Shapovalov pointed out.
According to the Syrian Foreign Ministry, the toxic materials discovered in Aleppo and a Damascus suburb were produced by one British company and two American companies.”The special equipment found consisted of hand grenades and rounds for grenade launchers equipped with CS and CN toxic agents. … The chemical munitions were produced by the Federal Laboratories company in the US. The toxic agents were produced by Chemring Defence (UK) and NonLethal Technologies (US),” Mekdad said Wednesday.
He also underscored that in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons, the use of toxic agents is permitted only to combat riots. It is prohibited to use them in warfare.
Commenting on the allegations, the Pentagon said that its assistance to Syrian opposition groups “does not now, nor has it ever, included chemical agents.”
In turn, a spokesperson for the British Foreign Office told Sputnik that the UK refutes any claims to the alleged supply of lethal equipment, including chemical weapons, to any of the conflicting sides in Syria.Several incidents involving toxic materials have been reported during the course of the Syrian conflict. The deadliest one took place in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta in August 2013. According to varying estimates, it claimed from several hundred up to 1,500 lives. On April 4, the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces announced that several dozen people had been killed by a suspected chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun in Syria’s province of Idlib. The US blamed Damascus for the incident without providing evidence to back this theory up. Syrian authorities refuted any involvement in the incident.
In June, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said that its fact-finding mission confirmed that man-made chemical sarin was used in the Khan Shaikhoun attack, but did not determine who was responsible.Following the Ghouta attack, Syria joined the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. This was the result of an agreement between Russia and the US on the destruction of chemical weapons in the country under the control of the OPCW and it prevented a US military intervention in Syria. In January 2016, the OPCW reported that all chemical weapons in Syria had been destroyed.
Aug 20, 2017
An Iranian court demanded the US administration to pay $245 million to the victims of chemical attacks carried out by Saddam Hussein’s forces during the Iran-Iraqi war of 1980-1988, Iran’s Judiciary spokesman Gholam Hossein Mohseni Eje’i said Sunday.
MOSCOW (Sputnik) — An Iranian court demanded the US administration to pay $245 million to the victims of chemical attacks carried out by Saddam Hussein’s forces during the Iran-Iraqi war of 1980-1988, Iran’s Judiciary spokesman Gholam Hossein Mohseni Eje’i said Sunday.
“A number of people who have been harmed during the chemical bombing have filed lawsuits and a court has issued decrees for 18 of them who have been harmed or died and estimated their ransom,” Mohseni Eje’i was quoted as saying by the Fars news agency.
In September 1980, Hussein started the invasion of Iran. The devastating war that followed only ended in 1988. An estimated 1.5 million people died in the conflict.During the war Washington supported Iraq with monetary assistance, weaponry, intelligence, technology and also provided materials found by UN experts in the fragments of chemical weapons used by the Iraqi army in Iran.
It’s OK, as it’s not war crimes when the UK or USA are involved in it. It’s called tools for freedom and democracy.
This week Syria has alleged that in addition to the already acknowledged arming of terrorists in Syria with weapons and vehicles, America and Britain also gave them access to chemicals which could easily be weaponised.
Specifically, chemical weapons confirmed by the OPCW to be in the hands of terrorists in Aleppo and Damascus are said to have derived from the US and UK.
Today, the Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Maria Zakharova stated,
“This information requires immediate verification by international bodies. This is not the first time when the western countries, namely, the representatives and the states involved in the US-led coalition, are suspected of supplying and supporting extremist groups, terrorists and militants. The information requires serious attention and immediate verification”.
This crucial information that Russia intends to verify as soon as possible not only validates an OPCW report and mission which signed off on the fact that the Syrian government has not possessed chemical weapons since 2014, but that the terrorists in Syria which have been known to use such weapons may have obtained them via the United States and United Kingdom.