Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA

Latest LIVE show

Hereward Fenton

September 13, 2014
Climb aboard the ship of truth with Hereward Fenton at the helm, as we plough through uncharted waters of geo-politics, scandals, cover-ups, war and tyranny.

Listen Live or Call In !

Recent News & Podcasts

NO FEAR TRILOGY - Three Sydney Truth Events in September!

31 July 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

From John Bursill | johnbursill@aapt.net.au | +61 414 878499

 

Event 1

 

DELUSION 911
PUBLIC MEETING THURSDAY SEPTEMBER-11-7pm

Tom Mann Theatre

136 Chalmers St Surry Hills Sydney - 5mins walk from Central Station

Find out why millions of people around the world reject the official explanation of 9/11!

SPEAKERS

  • Dr David Leifer - Architect and Associated Engineer
  • Dr Frank Legge – Chemist/Scientist and Peace Activist
  • James O’Neil - Barrister at Law and Peace Activist
  • Gillian Norman - Film Maker, former BBC Journalist
  • John Bursill - Licensed Aircraft Engineer and Green
  • Kevin Bracken - Victorian Union Secretary
  • Green’s Political Representative – To be confirmed

 

Presented by Sydney Truth Action

E-mail info@truthaction.org.au


Event 2

 

Film screening and panel discussion "ShadowPlay"

September 12 - 7:00pm

Tom Mann Theatre

136 Chalmers St Surry Hills Sydney - 5mins walk from Central Station

SHADOWPLAY PART I
9/11 PUPPETMASTERS

Revealing dark PuppetMasters behind the 9/11 ShadowPlay of Deception

 

Featuring:

  • CHARLIE SHEEN - with InfoWars.com
  • General LEONID IVASHOV - Commander of Russian Armed Forces, September 11, 2001
  • ANDREAS VON BUELOW - Former State Secretary of Defense,Germany
  • CONNIE FOGAL - Leader Canadian Action Party, Canada
  • WEBSTER GRIFFIN TARPLEY - Historian, USA
  • G.EDWARD GRIFFIN - Founder Freedom Force International, USA
  • WILL THOMAS - Investigative Journalist
  • BARRIE ZWICKER - Media Critic, Canada
  • Prof KEVIN BARRETT - Islamologist, Univ Wisconsin-Madison, USA
  • Prof MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY - Economist, Univ Ottawa, Canada
  • Prof JOHN McMURTRY - Moral Philosopher, Univ Guelph, Canada
  • YUKIHISA FUJITA MP - Director of the Parliamentary Defense Committee
  • Dr STEVEN JONES - Physicist, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice
  • Dr FRANK LEGGE - Chemist. Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice


Plus many more...


Event 3

 

SYDNEY TRUTH ACTION FUNDRAISER 13 Sep 7-10pm

Bat and Ball Hotel, 495 Cleveland St Surry Hills, 10mins from Central

Dinner and Live Acoustic Music from Vitarley, Suggested donation at door $35

 

FREE PARTY BAND “SPINDRIFT” AFTER 1Opm for all 9/11 Truthers

All proceeds will go to covering the cost of these Sydney Truth Action events!

Please spread the word and attend if possible!

Kind regards John Bursill

 

A beautiful deconstruction of “conspiracy theory” doublethink

30 July 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

The guardian.co.uk opinion page currently features a brilliant article from Dan Hind which is a response to an earlier article by Charlie Brooker, titled "So, you believe in conspiracy theories, do you? You probably also think you're the Emperor of Pluto".

 

The first article broke all records for online responses, topping out at 1,700. From my casual glance through it doesn't appear that Charlie Brooker has much support from the readership.

 

links:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/17/september11 www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/14/september11.usa

 

While Charlie Brooker draws on all the usual stereotypes and prejudices against "conspiracy believers" as mentally unstable social outcasts who irrationally cling to the idea of secret knowledge in order to improve their self esteem, Hind deconstructs the concept, demonstrating that recent policies of the current U.S. Administration (especially with regard to Saddam Hussein and WMD) have been informed by unsubstantiated and irrational conspiracy theories.

 

When you think about it, much of the fear mongering over Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions can be viewed as conspiracy theory too.

 

During the Cold War there was a widespread conspiracy theory about the threat of Communist world domination. These beliefs informed the policies of the Menzies era in Australia and led to censorship and the erosion of civil liberties.

 

Indeed, the view of 9/11 put forth by the 9/11 Commission and the Military Commissions at Guantanamo could correctly be described as "conspiracy theory" too, since there is no evidence other than the confessions of men who have have been held without due process for up to six years, tortured and dehumanised to the point that their testimony is now legally worthless.

 

Dan Hind's article, unlike David Coady's casual dismissial of 9/11 Truth as "irrational conspiracy theories", leaves the question of which conspiracy theory is correct unanswered - which is at least a more intellectually honest response to the "knowns" and "unknowns" of 9/11.

TNRA 25 July 2008

July 25, 2008, part 1 of 1.
Download mp3 » click here

25 July 2008 | Permalink | comments: 100

Categories: [ ]

In tonight’s show we take a look at a variety of current stories in Australia and overseas, with special attention given to the ongoing global warming / carbon trading controversy and the pending execution of the convicted Bali bombers.

In the second half of the show we have two special guests, Emily and Matilda, with whom we engage in an extended open discussion of the question of responsibility in relation to the task of questioning official truth. In the discussion we express our views in regard to the criteria which are needed to distinguish valid investigative research from fantasy and speculation, and we take a look at a few fringe ideas such as the theories of David Icke and UFO’s.

Links to all major stories are provided below.

Next week we will be interviewing Glen Clancy, creator of the film Fool Me Twice, for a discussion of his ground breaking research into the Bali Bombings.

Thanks for listening!

———————————

Australian Greenhouse Expert David Evans Blows Whistle on CO2

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-7583,00.html

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

———————————

Media Statement Sunday 1st July 2007

A new organisation called “The Carbon Sense Coalition” has been set up to defend the role of carbon on earth and in the atmosphere.

Chairman of the new group, Mr Viv Forbes, a pasture manager, soil scientist and geologist from Rosevale in Queensland, says the group is concerned at the growing and unjustified vilification of carbon by politicians and the media.

More information on The Carbon Sense Coalition can be found on our web site at www.carbon-sense.com.

“The impetus for the formation of the group was, firstly the proposal that carbon dioxide be labelled as a pollutant in the Federal National Pollutant Inventory, and secondly a set of wholly destructive policy proposals from the Queensland government in their document Climate Smart 2050 – Queensland climate change strategy 2007 – a low carbon future.”

———————————

Two student activists have won a court challenge to special World Youth Day laws that allowed police to detain people or fine them $5,500 for annoying or inconveniencing Catholic pilgrims.


No To Pope Coalition members Amber Pike and Rachel Evans took the New South Wales Government to the Federal Court, arguing the laws were unconstitutional because they would make their peaceful protest illegal.

———————————

Bali bombers waive right to seek presidential pardon

www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/21/2310039.htm

Indonesia’s Attorney-General has confirmed the three convicted Bali bombers have waived their right to seek a presidential pardon and he hopes their executions go ahead in the next few weeks.

———————————

Cynthia McKinney has won the presidential nomination of the Green Party of the United States
www.911oz.com/weblogid/145

www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/07/12/mckinney_green_nomination.html

CHICAGO — Former Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney reassumed the national political stage Saturday, winning the presidential nomination of the Green Party of the United States at the party’s national convention here.

———————————

Navy Prosecutor In Gitmo Case: “If they hadn’t shot down the fourth plane it would’ve hit the dome”

Though the trial the man, dubbed “Osama bin Laden’s driver”, is primarily functioning as a show piece for the Bush administration’s “war on terror”, some interesting information emerged from the Guantanamo Bay naval base yesterday in the form of a direct admission from a US prosecutor that the fourth plane was “shot down”.

www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=214

———————————

CNN reporter criticizes TSA, finds self on terror watch list
www.rawstory.com/news/2008/CNN_reporter_wants_off_terror_watch_0716.html

The post-9/11 airline watch list that is supposed to keep terrorists off of airplanes has swelled to more than 1 million names, including at least one investigative reporter who had been critical of the Transportation Security Agency, which maintains the watch list

———————————

Want some torture with your peanuts?

www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/…want-some-torture-with-your-peanuts/

Here is a story so bizarre and so ridiculous that it sounds like either a hoax or a monty python script: a “shock bracelet” which combines RFID tracking with electro-shock weapon technology all in one handy package now being assessed by the United States Department of Homeland Security for use in passenger aircraft.



A senior government official with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has expressed great interest in a so-called safety bracelet that would serve as a stun device, similar to that of a police Taser®. According to this promotional video found at the Lamperd Less Lethal, Inc. website, the bracelet would be worn by all airline passengers (video also shown below).
This bracelet would:
• Take the place of an airline boarding pass
• Contain personal information about the traveler
• Be able to monitor the whereabouts of each passenger and his/her luggage
• Shock the wearer on command, completely immobilizing him/her for several minutes

www.911oz.com/weblogid/148

———————————

UFO Article and Clip

www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story...32,00.html

Shock bracelets? Now they’ve really gone too far…

23 July 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Here is a story so bizarre and so ridiculous that it sounds like either a hoax or a monty python script: a "shock bracelet" which combines RFID tracking with electro-shock weapon technology all in one handy package now being assessed by the United States Department of Homeland Security for use in passenger aircraft.

 

The new device is patented by Lamperd Less Lethal, a company which specialises in "less lethal weapons". They made a promotional video for their crazy invention a few years ago which received little attention.

 

Now however things have changed.

 

A senior official from the Department of Homeland Security has expressed interest in the device, and this was covered in a recent Fox News story which we present below:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cBSRLrJbGg

 

The fact that the man interviewed plays down the "electro-shock" aspect of this device does not give me much comfort. Clearly the reporter is rather disturbed, as she fumbles for words during the interview.

 

Stories like this go a long way towards validating the worst case scenariois of where America is headed, and historically, where America goes, Australia soon follows.

 

CNN reporter criticizes TSA, finds self on terror watch list

19 July 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

David Edwards and Nick Juliano
Published: Wednesday July 16, 2008

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/...terror_watch_0716.html

 

The post-9/11 airline watch list that is supposed to keep terrorists off of airplanes has swelled to more than 1 million names, including at least one investigative reporter who had been critical of the Transportation Security Agency, which maintains the watch list.

 

CNN's Drew Griffin reported on the bloating of the watch list, which an ACLU count pegged at 1,001,308 names Wednesday afternoon. Griffin's is one of those names, he says.

 

"Coincidentally, this all began in May, shortly after I began a series of investigative reports critical of the TSA. Eleven flights now since May 19. On different airlines, my name pops up forcing me to go to the counter, show my identification, sometimes the agent has to make a call before I get my ticket," Griffin reported. "What does the TSA say? Nothing, at least nothing on camera. Over the phone a public affairs worker told me again I'm not on the watch list, and don't even think that someone in the TSA or anyone else is trying to get even."

 

The TSA, which is a part of the Department of Homeland Security, said Griffin's name wasn't even on the watch list, and the agency blamed the airlines for the delays the reporter experienced. The airlines, on the other hand, said they were simply following a list provided by TSA.

 

While it wouldn't be much of a stretch for plenty of people to believe the TSA would exercise its revenge via watch-list meddling, an agency spokesman insists that just isn't the case.

 

"So if there's any thought or shadow of a thought that TSA somehow put you on a watch list because of your reporting," spokesman Christopher White said, "it is absolutely fabricated."

 

This video is from CNN's American Morning, broadcast July 16, 2008.

  
Download video


Cynthia McKinney Green Party Presidential candidate acceptance speech

17 July 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Cynthia McKinney Green Party Presidential candidate speaks at the Convention By Craig Seeman
View in HD  Download 720p HD Version  Visit Craig Seeman's ExposureRoom Videos Page
Cynthia McKinney & Rosa Clemente Press Conference after Green Party Presidential, Vice Presidential By Craig Seeman
View in HD  Download 720p HD Version  Visit Craig Seeman's ExposureRoom Videos Page

McKinney wins Green Party nomination

14 July 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Cynthia McKinney has won the presidential nomination of the Green Party of the United States.

 

This excellent video is from 2007 when Cynthia began her association with the Greens.

 

Her passion, intelligence and heroism is unparalleled in contemporary politics.

 

During this speech Cynthia reaffirms her commitment to truth and justice on many issues, including the assassination of Martin Luther King Jnr, co-intel subversion of the civil rights movement, the September 11th atacks and the Iraq War.

 

She documents here how the power elites behind the political process went about to destroy her career in the Democratic Party.

 

With her nomination by the Greens it looks like a new chapter is opening for Cynthia, for America and for the world.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2508693105235438933

 

By JEFFRY SCOTT
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 07/12/08

http://www.ajc.com/...mckinney_green_nomination.html

 

CHICAGO — Former Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney reassumed the national political stage Saturday, winning the presidential nomination of the Green Party of the United States at the party's national convention here.

 

Amid chants of "Paint The White House Green" and signs proclaiming, "Truth. McKinney 2008," McKinney revved up a crowd of about 350 Green Party delegates from 38 states who elected her on the first ballot.

 

"I am asking you to vote your conscience, vote your dreams, vote your future, vote Green," McKinney told the convention in a 30 minute speech following an address by her running mate, hip hop artist and political activist Rosa Clemente.

 

She was joined by her father, former Georgia representative Billy McKinney; her mother Leola, and her son Coy, on the stage in the elegant Michigan Avenue hall where the Chicago Symphony Orchestra performs,

 

McKinney, 53, was the odds-on favorite to win the nomination, coming into the convention with a 10-1 delegate lead over her closest rival, Jesse Johnson of West Virginia.

 

Since last fall, McKinney has campaigned in 30 states on the slogan "Power To The People" and a platform that calls for single-payer universal health care, the immediate withdrawal of American forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, the creation of a Department of Peace, and reparations for African-Americans.

 

In her address, Clemente, 36, vowed that she and McKinney would fight all "-isms and ideologies that divide us." Clemente jokingly threw down a challenge to the nation's sitting vice president: "Dick Cheney, bring it on."

 

In her unlikely re-emergence on the national political stage as the presidential nominee of the Green Party, which she joined in 2007 after leaving the Democratic Party where she had served six terms representing DeKalb County's 4th Congressional district, McKinney faces a stiff – extremely long-shot – run at the presidency.

 

She as much conceded winning the presidency was not her goal in her speech Saturday. She said the thrust of her campaign would be to get 5 percent of the vote in November, effectively establishing the Greens as a third party that would not have to fight state-by-state to get on the ballot every four years.

 

"We are in this to build a movement," said McKinney to roars from the crowd. "A vote for the Green Party is a vote for the movement that will turn this country right-side-up again."

 

In Georgia, because the party failed to qualify under state laws, McKinney and Clemente will not be on the ballot in November. Green Party leaders expect she will be on the ballot in 36 states, where ballot qualification rules vary.

 

David Cobb, who ran for president on the Green Party ticket in 2004 – and pulled in just 0.1 percent of the vote – said Saturday that one of the appeals of McKinney' as a candidate is her name recognition.

 

"Before she has even won the nomination, she has pulled new members into the party," said Cobb, who introduced McKinney at the convention, praising her work in Congress and for having introduced articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of State Condolezza Rice. He estimated Green Party membership is about 500,000.

 

McKinney is the second former member of Congress from Georgia mounting a presidential run this year. Former 7th District Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) is running for president on the Libertarian Party ticket.

 

A lighten-rod political figure, McKinney was defeated in 2006 by the 4th District's present congressman, U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), after a much-publicized run-in with a U.S. Capitol police officer and her accusations that the Bush administration covered up information about the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

 

That incendiary quality seemed to endear McKinney to Green delegates who, throughout the convention, inveighed against the "crimes" of the Bush administration and the distortions of the news by "corporate media" – which, except for the cable network C-SPAN, have given little coverage to the convention.

 

"Don't expect me to keep a count of the major flip flops of the other candidates between now and November, I'm sure there will be plenty," McKinney told the crowd. "They are in this flip flop because they have to appear to share our values — while they serve somebody else."

 

 

Movie Review - “The Reflecting Pool” by Nathan lee

13 July 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

I post this article not because it has any merit, but rather to illustrate the depths of depravity to which the hack writers employed by major media organisations will sink in order to stifle dissent and discredit the voices of reason and justice.

 

This article borders on defamation.

 


 

Trade Secrets
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/movies/11refl.html?_r=1&ref=movies&oref=slogin

 

By NATHAN LEE
Published: July 11, 2008

 

The problem with “The Reflecting Pool,” an investigative drama that mucks around with 9/11 conspiracy theories, is not that its ideas are silly. Strictly from an imaginative point of view, there is something unnerving about the weirdly elegant way the towers fell. And not just the north and south buildings but also the adjacent 7 World Trade Center, a smaller edifice, suffering much less damage, that collapsed in an identical manner but received far less coverage from — what’s the phrase I’m looking for? — oh yes: a complicit, propaganda-foisting media/industrial complex in the pocket of the Bush administration and the Jews and the oil industry!

 

Er, to continue. The problem, which dwarfs whatever you might feel about the topic, is in the drama, or utter lack thereof. Written and directed by Jarek Kupsc, the movie has the tone, rhythm and structure of a set of numbered, handwritten notes derived from 9/11 conspiracy Web sites, photocopied at Kinko’s and distributed at an anarchist bookshop.

 

This pamphlet narrative follows the efforts of Alex Prokop (Mr. Kupsc again), an investigative journalist for a lefty magazine about to “go corporate,” and Paul Cooper (Joseph Culp), a 9/11 obsessive whose daughter died in the attack, to unearth the truth in the face of suppressed information, disturbing ambiguities and, when needling the powers that be, their own amateurism.

 

Page 88 of 106 pages ‹ First  < 86 87 88 89 90 >  Last ›

Listen Live

Recent Comments

Christine pretty much covered it id say, especially as your only “evidence” seems to come from the all trustworthy USA government and a “chemtrail” debunking website.

you want evidence? open your eyes and look up. dont forget to take a few healthy gulps too.

btw.. how long does a post need to ferment in “moderation” before you approve a few lously links?

By Skywatcher on 2012 08 02 - 21:03:46
From the entry 'Conspiracy theory: exploring the outer limits with Damon Crowe'.

(continuing)

Climate change scepticism gained a new lease of life and many ecologists fell into confusion. But there was a stranger transformation. Although Climategate could easily be seen as discrediting the authenticity of the anthropogenic climate change scenario, after Climategate a number of prominent climate change sceptics renounced their “scepticism”, on the understanding that geoengineering should be seen as the appropriate solution to the climate change problem which these former “sceptics” now recognized. This transformation of sceptic into non-sceptic advocate of geoengineering did not include only high-profile politicians like George W. Bush. Mass-media “scientists” like Bjorn Lomborg, who had made a career for himself as a climate change sceptic , underwent the same change.

The climate change debate has largely gone out of fashion. Top politicians can no longer be mobilized to attend the climate summits. In its place a new debate is emerging, at the grass roots, the debate on “Financialization of Nature”.

Ecologists were needed prior to passage of emissions trading legislation to say that global warming/climate change is a problem. Their instincts did not make them very likely candidates for the job of promoting geoengineering. This was something that had to be left to “repentant” “sceptics”.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 08 02 - 20:47:06
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

One of the first declarations of geoengineering policy was Edward Teller’s 1997 paper, summarised here: http://www.hoover.org/​publications/hoover-digest/​article/6791

This was a declaration of climate change scepticism accompanied by a proposal for using geoengineering to solve a problem of whose reality Teller was sceptical. This is a non-viable stance for anyone other than the late Edward Teller. For geoengineering to proceed, what are needed are two separate clienteles: one clientele to say there is a problem of global warming or climate change; the other clientele to say that geoengineering is the solution to it.

The first task was assigned to ecologists, the second at first just to a few specialists such as David Keith and Ken Caldeira (later they would be joined by .
repentant former “climate change sceptics”).

There was a legal difficulty with deliberate aerosol spraying from aircraft. If it could be construed as being for military purposes it was banned under the ENMOD convention, ratified by the US in 1980. If it could not be construed as being for military purposes there were still difficulties, as I outlined in the first article I wrote on this subject:
http://www.lightwatcher.com/​chemtrails/strategies_hall.html

The unresolved status of geoengineering under international law is an issue that was being investigated, in the mid-nineties, by the environmental lawyer Bodansky. Among the questions he raised were: who should make geoengineering decisions? Should all countries be able to participate in decision-making? (since all will be affected and there will be both positive and negative impacts). How should liability and compensation for damages be handled? From the legal viewpoint, schemes to inject particles into the atmosphere are purportedly among the most problematic of all geoengineering proposals because the atmosphere above any country is part of its airspace. Nations lay claim to their airspace and may act on the claims, for example, by shooting down aircraft. Geoengineering activity in the atmosphere could be viewed as infringements of national sovereignty. Obviously, the simplest way of dealing with legal problems of this kind, pending negotiation of the necessary adjustments to international law, is to deny that any such activity is occurring.

Policy therefore was to postulate a “chemtrails hoax” and say that the new type of trail appearing in the sky was not new, and was not “deliberate”. It was just emissions of the same type as had been familiar since the emergence of jet air travel.

The part of the scenario assigned to ecologists was, as indicated, the assertion that there was a problem of anthropogenic climate change. So this what the ecological organizations focused on, marginalizing “conspiracy theorists” who tried to introduce extraneous issues. The task or marginalizing was made easier by the fact that the majority of chemtrails activists have been, and remain, anthropogenic climate change sceptics.

Through the input of Al Gore and other “realpolitikers” of the ecological milieu, the environmental concerns of global warming activists were harnessed to muster support for emissions trading schemes, whose scope in the EU was extended to include aviation. (There is great potential dissonance between the agenda of the activists against aircraft emissions and the agenda of the geoengineers because the former see aircraft emissions as contributing to global warming; the latter propose the utilization of aircraft emissions to mitigate global warming.)

In any case, as indicated, ecologists were exclusively focused on the idea of global warming as a problem and spent most of the first decade of the 21st century fighting with the climate change sceptics to have their orientation accepted. The situation began to change towards the end of the decade, as by this time emissions trading schemes had mostly been written into law so that the political support of ecologists was no longer so necessary. At this point, just before the Copenhagen Climate Summit, the sceptics were unleashed again through the mechanism of the Climategate scandal.          (to be continued)

By Wayne Hall on 2012 08 02 - 20:45:25
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

ok josh…

its impossible to turn contrails on and off right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dVMHpQ_1Nxg

my intellectual integrity allows me to know that the explosive destruction of the WTC towers was not a mere gravitational collapse, as it also allows me to differentiate between contrails, and aerosol spraying that doesnt dissipate, instead spreads out and blankets the skies.

no qualifications needed.

re youre earth is flat comment.. i couldnt think of a more lame retort.. good job well done. stop trying to look clever, it doesnt suit you.

By Skywatcher on 2012 08 02 - 20:44:53
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Skywatcher,

I don’t think we should start talking about qualifications. Otherwise the same doubt can be voiced about chemtrail promoters who obviously have no knowledge about atmospheric processes and meteorology.

Now, would you please point out just one “unqualified opinon”, preferably on the topic of the article?

And then let’s discuss the facts behind that opinion, with references to solid evidence, papers and studies.

BTW, if you believe your own eyes more than common knowledge, you should be convinced that the earth is flat.

By Josh on 2012 08 02 - 20:25:14
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

josh..mike glynn.. et al; youre not qualified to ease the concerns of a large percentage of the population that want answers for what they see with their own eyes that causes them concern.

nor is hereward, or anyone else.

as with the events of 911, the only suitable solution is an independent transparent unfettered investigation, where all evidence is presented, and expert testimony from both sides can be heard under oath and cross examination, until a verdict can be reached beyond all reasonable doubt.

your unqualified opinions, and articles like this, do nothing but contribute more hot air, and like the defenders of the 911 myth.. you have to ask why people are so determined to win arguments on internet forums on topics they dont believe in..

do you also go around denouncing leprechauns.. or unicorns?

if not, why not? do you believe that they might be real?

hereward still is yet to “moderate” a post i made last week.. not surprising because he has proven himself to be less than genuine in the past..

By Skywatcher on 2012 08 02 - 20:09:41
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

You have not answered some questions I have asked you, either, Mike Glynn. Questions that are more relevant to political decisions that are being made without ever being opened to coherent and comprehensible public discussion.

What happens is that one half-truth is fed to one half of the political spectrum and the other half-truth is fed to the other half of the political spectrum.

Then people engage in endless repetitive wrangling as at this forum, with arrogant chemtrails debunkers absolutely sure that they are wiser than everyone else.

If aircraft emissions contribute to global warming, why are they proposed by geoengineers as a medium for mitigating global warming?

The problem is touched on obliquely, and in Aesopian language in this paper (doubtless one of many such):
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/aviation_tyndall_research.pdf

Growth Scenarios for EU & UK Aviation:
contradictions with climate policy

Find out yourself why you are not dead, Mike Glynn. It is not because aerosol spraying programmes are not being conducted almost everywhere, for geoengineering and/or other undisclosed purposes.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 08 02 - 17:01:24
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Noobs, holding patterns can be hundreds of miles from airports. Wayne, you don’t do rhetorical questions very well do you? The reason I am in good health is because there isn’t any chemicals in the air apart from what nature put there. Did you see me try to avoid those clouds at all? If I thought for a second they were laden with chemicals I would have avoided flying through them. The only clouds I am at pains to avoid are thunderstorms… For obvious reasons. The rest we just plow straight through, as you saw.
I don’t get you guys. I give you bona fide evidence that you fears and suspicions are unfounded, yet you seem to want to have this conspiracy theory confirmed… Confirmation bias writ large. There are no chemtrails. If they were there I should be dead by now. You saw me flying blithely through clouds identified by activists over and over as Chemclouds…. Yet nothing happened. How much proof do you need to real use you have been duped?

By Mike Glynn on 2012 08 02 - 16:03:38
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

So we are reverting to the contrails vs chemtrails dialogue of the deaf, which is the discussion the architects of geoengineering wanted us to continue having, and to have forever.

Mike Glynn, given that nobody seems to be able to answer the question you asked, or if able to answer to be interested in joining this particular discussion, surely you are the one who should start making enquiries to find out the reasons for the alleged lack of symptoms in yourself and among your passengers. All that I know, for we are not talking about my life experience or my professional working space, is that the reason is not because of the non-existence of unexplained (probably because illegal) aerosol spraying from aircraft.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 08 02 - 13:22:36
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Holding patterns are for planes waiting to land, where I witnessed that particular event was nowhere (and I mean hundreds of KM away from)near any airport.  If it was a plane in a holding pattern then why haven’t I seen more planes in the same holding pattern before or since?  Why is it that the one plane in a ‘holding pattern’ just happened to be spraying trails?

The trails formed by the prop blade tips aren’t contrails but vortices. They stem from a lowered dewpoint due to lower pressure and disappear as soon as the pressure returns to normal.

I’ve seen contrails and I’ve seen chemtrails, I know the difference and I’ve heard all the apologists arguments and they simply aren’t sufficient to explain the evidence.

By Noobs on 2012 08 02 - 12:44:48
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories