знаете!!!!
абе некој од тие паметните таму у еир форс заборавил да употреби вистински хемиски арсенал...па идејава е дебилна бидејки секоја употреба на хемиско оружје е однапред планирана па потоа зависи од временски услови не може кога ке ти текне!!!!
а и на крај краеви
најчесто реакцијата е задоцнета!!!!!!
Major bullshit!!!!!!!
јас озбилно
си реков медиумите завршија работа!!!!
[SIZE=+1] само ЗАВЕРИ!!!!!!!!
Contrails ("CHEMTRAILS") are [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]
NORMAL[/SIZE]. The International Space Station crew sees them
all the time, except when airplanes are
not flying, as happened in the days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Here is the report from
www.space.com from September 14th, 2001: "
Three days after suicide airplane hijackers toppled the World Trade Center in New York and slammed into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., the station crew noted an obvious absence of airborne jetliners from their perch 240 miles (384 kilometers) above Earth. 'I’ll tell you one thing that’s really strange: Normally when we go over the U.S., the sky is like a spider web of contrails,' U.S. astronaut and outpost commander Frank Culbertson told flight controllers at NASA’s Mission Control Center in Houston. 'And now the sky is just about completely empty. There are no contrails in the sky,' he added. 'It’s very, very weird.' 'I hadn’t thought of that perspective,' fellow astronaut Cady Coleman replied."
Source:
http://www.space.com./missionlaunches/missions/airtraffic_absence_010914.html
[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE] [SIZE=+4]
Old-timer Debunks Chemtrails![/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]
John Day, meteorologist ([/SIZE]Photo credit :Willamette Week[SIZE=+2]
)[/SIZE]
Chris Lydgate of the Willamette Week (Oregon) wrote a detailed report on Sept. 26th, 2001 on the "CHEM TRAIL" phenomenon. Lydgate wrote about Portland observers of the "Chemtrails," and even New Mexico's own
Cliff Carnicom (see
http://www.nmsr.org/chemtrls.htm). He also included comments from an old-timer meteorologist who puts the kibosh on the "Trails." He wrote "
If there is a giant conspiracy to spray chemicals from the sky, chances are good that Professor John Day is not a part of it. The author of six books on meteorology, Day is a world-renowned expert on clouds, a professor emeritus at Linfield College and a regular contributor to the McMinnville News-Register, ... When he hears the word 'chemtrail,' however, Day's frosty mustache droops, and his sky-blue eyes darken. 'I don't happen to warm up to that phenomenon,' he sighs. Despite his reluctance to be drawn into the controversy, Day graciously agreed to examine photographs of chemtrails to see if he spotted anything unusual. 'This is a perfectly normal situation with cirrocumulus cloud and a single spreading contrail,' he declared after inspecting one photo for a full minute. Then he flipped to the next. 'Nothing weird about that. Cirrostratus cloud...' And the next. 'The criss-cross pattern is a consequence of planes flying criss-cross patterns....' And the next. 'I've seen many situations like this one....' Contrail formation, Day explained, depends on the relative humidity of the atmosphere-- he ratio of what is to what could be at a particular temperature. When relative humidity is low, contrails dissipate within seconds. But when relative humidity is high, especially at the subzero temperatures of the upper atmosphere, the addition of even a tiny amount of water vapor acts as a catalyst. Under these conditions, contrails may linger and spread to cover the whole sky. ...At length, Day extracted from his bookshelf a well-thumbed edition of Peterson's Field Guide to Clouds and Weather, which he co-authored in 1991 (a good 10 years before chemtrails became widely discussed), turned to the section on contrails, and pointed to a photograph of a thick, white plume--a plume that looked for all the world like a chemtrail..."
ама ги веат рајата:pos2::pos2:
BEFORE you e-mail me to flaunt the
Nov. 9th "Chemtrails" report by Louisiana station KSLA (on Youtube .
At just over 50 seconds into the segment, Investigative Reporter Jeff Ferrell says
"KSLA News 12 had the sample tested at a lab. The results: A high level of barium, 6.8 parts per million, (ppm). That's more than three times the toxic level set by the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA."
The Problem? The actual video clearly shows 68.8 ug/L (stands for MICROGRAMS PER LITER), eg 68.8 ppb (STANDS FOR PARTS PER BILLION). A Liter of water is 1000 grams, or 1 kilogram. Just as 1+1=2, so does a millionth of a gram out of one thousand grams correspond to one part per Billion. And so does 68.8 millionths of a gram per liter correspond to 68.8 parts per BILLION.
The reporter was not off by a factor of 1000, but only 100 instead, but only because he read the "68.8" as "6.8". So Ferrell only over-estimated the amount of barium in the test report by a factor of 100 (or, 10,000 PER CENT if you prefer percentages).
From the
EPA/CDC site:
"The EPA has set a limit of 2.0 milligrams of barium per liter of drinking water (2.0 mg/L), which is the same as 2 ppm [parts per million]."
The reporter got it wrong. The test result was not "three times the toxic level set by the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA." (i.e. 300%). It was actually less than 3.5%.
It was around 30 times LESS THAN THE EPA'S TOXIC LIMIT.