Tom Usher wrote or added | I'm going to tie Pearl Harbor and Chemtrails together here, so bear with me.
Concerning Chemtrails (and 9/11, which I'll touch upon below), believing the official governmental statements made ever since they decided to attempt to re-conceal the military experiments and then actual operations is an error made by the more naive, those who are too prepared to accept the idea that "It can't happen here," as in sociopaths coming to power in the US, etc.
[Note: I am cross-referencing this post with two other Wall posts of mine:
There has been a political-socialization process in America that has been geared to considering superiority as inherent but that actually conditions youth to not question. They are conditioned to disregard their inhibitions concerning right versus wrong. They are taught to like to kill and murder those who don't readily conform to that whole process regardless of the right or wrong of it.
The fact is that the American system has resulted in huge errors, hugely immoral acts, which have been then excused or ignored or covered up by that system. We seen the long histories of the atrocities and false-flag operations, etc., all of which were completely unnecessary and even counter-productive.
To see that history of atrocities and false-flag operations and then arbitrarily to draw the lines at chemtrails and/or 9/11 is irrational. It is not based upon sound reasoning. I have never read a single article or book that posits that 9/11 had zero inside elements to it or that chemtrails don't exist as deliberately persistent but are the result of ordinary jet-fuel exhaust which articles and books are based upon sound reasoning but rather more of the same appeal to American exceptionalism and without addressing that issue directly.
The long histories of the atrocities and false-flag operations exist. Needless atrocities and false-flag operations did occur with the foreknowledge and consent of those at the top. We know that John F. Kennedy rejected and thereby prevented one such false-flag operation (Operation Northwoods), which tells us that it would be unlikely that all the other false-flag operations that did go forward were the result of rogue elements – rogue against the then President. How many sitting Presidents would not have fired such rogue elements and dealt with them severely? It is a stretch to base one's thinking on the idea that no President or other extremely high ranking governmental officials ever had anything to do with authorizing "harsh interrogation techniques," a mere euphemism for torture for instance.
We know that George W. Bush has openly admitted that he authorized the illegality, as if he had the legal authority to do that. He hasn't even said that if he had it to do over that he would have said no to the "torture memos" of Jay Bybee and John Yoo, etc.
We know Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin. Those of us who are familiar with "Day of Deceit" and who have shaken off the conditioning of "American Exceptionalism," know that Franklin Roosevelt lied about Pearl Harbor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_memo There are others, but those two stick out, for one, because both were Democrats. Just to be "fair and balanced," George W., of course, was and is a Republican, and we know about the plan to paint US military jets in UN colors and then get Saddam Hussein to shoot one down. We certainly remember George's infamous "sixteen words": ""The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
I'm using Wikipedia here not because Wikipedia is always authoritative but to point out that these historical events are not hidden. The Wikipedia has been used by the CIA and FBI, etc., in that both have officially edited the Wikipedia. The Wikipedia has acknowledged that this has happened and has taken open steps to avoid at least the outward appearance of being a platform for mind-wars and psy-ops, etc. Even if the Wikipedia is still used in that capacity, with or without, the Wikipedia's consent, the fact remains that facts do make it into the Wikipedia and that there is a community of editors who will protect even controversial but established facts. The McCollum Memo is real. The US government did carry it out, just the way the Bybee and Yoo memos were used; but the McCollum memo was never to see the light of day as cover for plausible deniability, meaning an excuse for the non-lawyer, George W. Bush in this instance (who nevertheless knew full well that waterboarding was torture and illegal – he simply lied about it, as he lied about so much else – impeached his own witness to the American people and world over and over and over).
Those infamous sixteen words were the tipping point in American public opinion – sealing the deal in the false propaganda campaign to get the American people onboard for the wrongful and illegal attack on, and invasion of, Iraq.
Colin Powell didn't fool us with his computer graphics presented to the UN as evidence. We also remember the Big Lie about the "incubator babies" in Kuwait, which lie by George H. W. Bush was deliberately designed to cause disgust and even rage in the American people against Iraq and Saddam.
We know all about all the blatant lies in the lead-up to the invasion of Afghanistan before it. The Taliban was ready openly to deal but was deliberately ignored.
The two major political parties are equal opportunity employers when it comes to lying scoundrels for President.
Sure Johnson had his "War on Poverty," but that doesn't excuse his lies. FDR too was a mixed bag. Even the two Georges occasionally did isolated things one could and should commend.
Anyway, my point is that those are naive at best who 1) dismiss 9/11 inside-job preponderance of unanswered, uninvestigated leads or 2) dismiss chemtrails, even though the more observant amongst those old enough to remember saw the dramatic, instant change from zero-persistent trails (under such weather conditions) to very long-lasting trails when there had been zero changes in generally used jet fuels.
Yesterday at 2:44pm • Like •
This is interesting too:
I've read different accounts about what Dennis Kucinich said about this. One suggested that he said the Chemtrails part was slipped in without his knowledge or approval.
16 hours ago • Like •
"...creation of an aerial antenna using a barium stearate chemical trail." I'm glad I found this. It's what I was saying in a previous Wall-post comment (link to the Wall post is in the first comment above). I remembered about this from my days in Arizona but had never seen it in writing anywhere before.
16 hours ago • Like •
"In 1998 an American Meteorological Society report conceded that over the past 20 years 'experiments had been carried out on lightning suppression.'" Oh, I'm glad I found this too. It's another statement I made in that same Wall-post comment I just mentioned in the comment immediately above.
15 hours ago • Like •
Here's another interesting article. It's somewhat redundant but has enough additional info to make it worth the read. It appears that Bob Fitrakis is the go-to guy on Chemtrails at least concerning the early stuff. I'll have to check out more of his more recent writings.
15 hours ago • Like •