Undisclosed Clouds Over Western Skies

`Owning’ the weather? PART VI

By Rahnuma Ahmed

“Our goals are not to gain political control, monetary wealth nor military power, but rather to pray and to promote the welfare of all living beings and to preserve the world in a natural way… For many years there has been great fear and danger of World War Three…This is now a time to weigh the choices for our future. We do have a choice. If you, the nations of this Earth, create another great war, the Hopi believe we humans will burn ourselves to death with ashes.”

— Banyacya, Interpreter for Hopi Traditional Elders, in his address to the UN General Assembly in New York, International Year of the Indigenous People, December 10, 1992

The weaponisation of weather has led to the creation of new distinctions in our understanding of phenomena which was unhesitatingly termed natural, previously. Readers must have noted this, that some researchers and activists now distinguish `earth-quakes’ from `HAARP-quakes.’
A somewhat similar distinction has emerged in recent years as heated arguments occur over `contrails’ and `chemtrails.’ The controversy centres around the trails left by planes in the sky. Are these trails `contrails,’ short for condensation trails i.e., do these artificial clouds form because “water vapour condenses and freezes around small particles (aerosols) that exist in aircraft exhaust” (Science Directorate at National Space and Aeronautics Administration, NASA)? Or, are they, as investigative reporter and author William Thomas has insisted for over a decade, `chemtrails’ (`chem’ short for chemical)?
Chemtrails look like contrails, but are usually much thicker, and extend across the sky. They are laid down in varying patterns of Xs, grids, checker boards and parallel lines. Unlike contrails, they do not dissipate but open into fluffy formations which join together, forming a thin white or milky veil, or, a “fake cirrus-type cloud” which persists for hours.
`Strange’ contrails were first reported on 20 February 1999 by `concerned citizens’ of Long Island, New York who took photos. William Thomas, the first reporter to draw national attention to the issue, dubbed these `chemtrails.‘ These, he alleged, were caused by aerosol spraying by government aircrafts. Early sightings in the first quarter of 1999 were accompanied by reports of sudden and unexplained illness in local newspapers: “a wave of respiratory illnesses” (in Berlin, New Jersey), “everyone is coming down with something” (San Francisco), “a new bacteria” (Castle Rock, Colorado), “flu-type symptoms” (7 counties in Kentucky), “throat, lung, and upper respiratory ailments” (in Akron, Ohio), “totally packed” hospitals (in Chandler, Arizona).
A former Raytheon Missile Systems engineering technician “positively identified” two of the aircrafts most often involved in aerial spraying incidents, Boeing KC-135, Boeing KC-10, both used by the US Air Force for air-to-air re-fueling. When most of the KC-135s were grounded for repair and maintenance, wrote Thomas, chemtrail sightings dropped, only to pick up after the aircrafts resumed flying. The US government, he says, is purposely spraying something in attempts to modify the weather, an allegation that is denied by the government.
Increasing numbers of people and activist social networks, both physical and virtual (i.e., on the internet) are convinced that the US government, and other western ones too, are spraying the skies. Some term it an “aerosol weapon.” They argue that its deployment?for purposes other than dusting, cloud seeding, or aerial firefighting within national borders, to further common goals?constitutes an “aerial crime.” Close watchers of chemtrails allege that spraying steadily increased throughout the 1980s; since 1998, it is conducted on a nearly daily basis with an average of 1 “clear” day per week; most areas in the US, Canada, England and Europe have been sprayed intensely, including areas which have no commercial flight paths overhead. In recent years, they claim, chemtrail spraying has been extended to Australia, Mexico, South Africa, Bahamas, Puerto Rico and Croatia.

chemtrails — Chemtrail activists say, it contributes to global dimming

“The air we breathe,” writes Amy Worthington, is laden with “asbestos-sized synthetic fibers and toxic metals, including barium salts, aluminum, and reportedly, radioactive thorium” (Chemtrails: aerosol and electromagnetic weapons in the age of nuclear war, Global Research, 1 June 2004). Particles and polymers which are spewed into the atmosphere “bypass lung filters and enter the blood stream” causing radical changes in the endocrine and nervous systems (may trigger high blood pressure, cause heart attack). These give rise to increased asthma, allergy and serious skin lesions (including itchy skin with crawling, biting sensations, white granules from skin and hair follicles, chronic fatigue, fibrous material coming from skin, a disease dubbed as `Morgellons’ by its sufferers).

Chemtrails 2 — Public health concerns at the community-level have led to activism aimed at raising public awareness against chem-trails.

Like other accounts that challenge the US government’s version of reality, `chemtrail theory’ has been dubbed a conspiracy theory?a pseudoscience, the work of nutters, rightwingers, feverish speculators?by mainstream media, and by ruling class’ ideologues. These include government officials, experts and scientists. Also, website and blog-owners. Of course, not all ideologues are equally dismissive and slanderous; some seem good-hearted but atrociously naive. I come across a blogger who provides evidence of chemtrail-like cloud formations from scanned images of clouds from a 1905 book. He insists, like many others, that it is increased jet flights which lead to grids in the sky.
But I am not persuaded. Chemtrail debunkers rest their case?bolstered no doubt by evidence?on the unvoiced assumption that until the US government admits to spraying in the skies, it isn’t true. It can’t be true. They choose to forget the 1977 Senate hearings. Between 1949-1969, 239 populated areas had been contaminated with biological agents. They forget the 1994 Rockefeller report. Hundreds of thousands of American military personnel had been subjected to secret biological experiments over the last 60 years. They seem blinded by their unwavering? belief in science, in scientific findings as neutral and impartial. Not politically-driven (unlike social science, of course). Nor corporate-motivated. Not even as climategate unfolds exposing climate science (as practised), and global warming theory, to be a sham. To be the “greatest scientific fraud in this history of mankind.” But that’s next week’s story. Back to chemtrail.
Why should aerosol be released into the atmosphere over America? Dr Stephen D McKay, who has researched on this for 6 years, thinks that it is aimed at setting up an electrical and chemical environment that supports radio frequency (RF) ducting from point A to point B for the RFMP/VTRPE warfare system. It enables the system to work over land masses, to visually see the battlefield terrain in 3-dimensions (3-D) on a TV screen. The Radio Frequency Mission Planner/Variable Terrain Radio Parabolic Equation is the US Navy’s most secretive programme. The mixture of barium salts in the atmosphere, by supporting moisture, lends itself to another project, a weather control project, which utilises Nikola Tesla’s concepts of radio frequency radiation (HAARP). A. C. Griffith, a whistle-blower, earlier associated with CIA operations, who had enjoyed top secret clearance, says the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Environmental Quality “have been told to keep their nose out” of the aerosol programme. When it comes to air quality and aerosol, they are instructed to talk about the “ozone level” instead. “The pilots probably do not know what they are doing, the crews that put it there they have no idea what it was for. We believe that it was sold to governments as global warming fix.”
Banyacya, the last of four Hopi messengers selected by Hopi Elders in 1948 to deliver an urgent prophetic message to all people, had suffered 7 years of federal imprisonment for having refused to register for WW II. “No Hopis or other original native peoples should be forced to go to war against another people and land. It invites even greater destruction.” While addressing the UN General Assembly, he had said, As children of Mother Earth, we should clean up this mess before it’s too late. The nations of the world must be stopped from moving towards self-destruction.
The skies had been clear the night before. The evening after his presentation, a strong winter storm, with hurricane-force wind gusts, lashed New York City. Tidewaters rose, there were “transportation shutdowns, power failures, and extensive flooding” including the lower subfloors of the UN building. UN personnel were asked to go home. Banyacya, in a meeting with UN representatives and other native peoples, spontaneously called on all to form a great circle?the circle of unity?and to pray. No further storm damage occurred. Soon the storm itself abated.
Did the world’s leaders listen to the Hopi prophecy? Did American leaders?the nation with the most capable military, the highest defence budget, the largest number of military bases etc etc?listen to the Hopis, who are, to them nothing more than a defeated nation? And, of all things, to a prophecy? Obviously not. But not because they thought, as you might expect, that the paranormal belongs to the realm of occultism and voodooo. After all, DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) had investigated paranormal phenomena during the Cold World to search ways of how it might give the Americans a military edge over the Soviets. The leaders didn’t listen because it’d have dampened political control, monetary wealth, military power…
And what lies ahead? If one messes with Mother Nature, said the Hopi Elders, nothing short of self-destruction.
Published in New Age 8 March 2010

`Conspiracy theories.' Learning from 9/11

By Rahnuma Ahmed

The truth is, conspiracies sometimes do occur.

Michael Meacher, current Labour MP, former British minister for the environment

`Bangladeshis love conspiracy theories’ was a comment I came across in foreign news reports, news analyses and blog talk soon after the BDR rebellion. Somewhat piqued, I thought, surely that’s not something essentially Bangladeshi? And, surely not more than the Bush administration?

Contending accounts of 9/11

Nagging disbelief about many aspects of the official story has seen the rise of a movement, initially grassroots, but later joined by professionals — pilots, architects, engineers, scientists, firefighters, lawyers, medical professionals, former intelligence officers including FBI and CIA whistleblowers, politicians — that has come to be known as the 9/11 Truth Movement, extending from America to Europe, and beyond. Its members have raised hard-nosed questions based on rigorous and meticuluously detailed research, serving to sideline the crackpots, and to turn it into a serious community of truth-seekers, seeking to expose the official lies and cover-up surrounding the events of September 11th, 2001. And, seeking justice and redress for those wronged on September 11th, or as a result of those events. One of its central demands is the complete disclosure of all records and evidence.

The mainstream press, both in the US and in other western countries, generally refer to the members of the movement, as conspiracy theorists. Matthew Rothschild, in Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already writes, “Here’s what the conspiracists believe: 9/11 was an inside job. Members of the Bush administration ordered it, not Osama bin Laden. Arab hijackers may not have done the deed. The Twin Towers fell not because of the impact of the airplanes and the ensuing fires but because of explosives. I’m amazed at how many people give credence to these theories.” (September 2006).

But, as Dr David Ray Griffin, professor of philosophy of religion and theology, and a renowned author of a series of eye-opening books on 9/11 (The New Pearl Harbour: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, 2004; The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions, 2004) points out, many journalists avoid `getting empirical’ about 9/11. Professor Griffin, in a televised lecture available on YouTube says, what Matthew Rothschild should have added, was: `Here’s what the government conspiracists believe: 19 hijackers with knives and box cutters defeated the most sophisticated defense system in history. Hani Hanjour, who could barely fly a Piper Cub, flew an astounding trajectory to crash Flight 77 into the Pentagon, the most well-protected building on the planet. Other hijacker pilots, by flying planes into two buildings of the World Trade Centre, caused three of them to collapse at virtually free-fall speed, straight down. I’m amazed at how many people give credence to these theories.’

Professor Paul Zarembka (State University of New York, Buffalo, editor of The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, publ. 2006) also dismisses the official account, he calls it `absurd.’ If you just relaxed and dreamed it up no one would believe that the US could be taken out by 19 hijackers. If this had happened in Russia, we would have laughed it out. We wouldn’t have believed that they would let it happen. I don’t know exactly who did it but the evidence points that it was done internally.

But, Michael Keefer, professor of English at the University of Guelph, Ontario says, disbelieving the official account is taboo. And it is so, because of the people’s contract, the implicit contract that they [western peoples] have with their governments. Namely, that the government will kill others, and not us. That it will not turn against us. Or, in the words of a young protester at one of the 9/11 Truth Movement rallies that I watched on YouTube, In the US, the people are convinced that the government loves them. But if it was, say Russia, if you say something bad about the government, people are likely to listen to what you have to say.

Andreas von Bulow, former German defense minister (in Helmut Schmidt’s government), finds the official account `totally incredible’. Convinced that it was a covert operation, Bulow argues, `It was a highly sophisticated operation. Who [else] was capable of doing it? It was not possible for a non-inside force, to do it.’ And the reasons? To influence and brainwash the American people into a “long, long, ongoing conflict with the Muslim world,” to get “the last oil reserves which we need for the next decades before the oil age” goes out. But, how could a government, one that leads the world’s most powerful democracy, entertain the idea, let alone carry it out, of doing something as heinous, as immoral, and well, outright murderous? Bulow’s words are chillingly clear, `It’s a form of war. In war, it’s acceptable for people to die, even on your own side.”

But could so large an operation, one that must have involved hundreds, if not thousands of people, remain a secret? Professor Griffins offers an interesting instance from history. The Manhattan project to build nuclear bomb involved 100,000 workers, it was kept so secret that even vice-president Harry Truman didn’t know about it until he became president.?

Who Benefited from 9/11?

`Cui Bono?’ is the question that any good investigator asks after a crime has been committed. In other words, who benefited from 9/11??
The answers, 9/11 truth-seekers claim, are contained in `Rebuilding America’s Defenses. Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century’, a PNAC (Project for the New American Century) document drafted by the US military machine’s think-tank. `This is about control of middle-eastern oil,’ says Meacher. `It indicates that America is aiming for global leadership both militarily and economically and what it says, is, I think, chilling. It says if we are going to transform America to tomorrow’s dominant force, that’s their phrase, then it’s going to be a long process. Unless there is a catastrophic and catalysing event — like a new Pearl Harbour.’
And, 9/11 took place 12 months later.
Who benefited? As many 9/11 truth-seekers point out, Iraq didn’t, nor did Saddam Hussein, nor al-Qaeda, nor any of the Arab countries. But Larry Silverstein did. He had acquired the lease of the WTC complex a few weeks before 9/11, had re-worked the insurance policy to cover terrorist attacks, and after what is known as `Twin Tower’, received $7 billion in compensation. For an original investment worth $15 million only! So did those who took part in insider trading on the stocks of parent companies of American Airlines (AMR) and United Airlines (UAL), bringing in profits running to millions, possibly, as high as a billion dollars. And, the PNAC group, did. As did Dick Cheney (Halliburton), the arms industry (`there’s nothing better for the arms industry than a war’), the Bush family (Carlyle group), US oil companies (the oil pipeline from the Caspian oil fields to Afghanistan was signed the day after Karzai was installed), the US government (provided it with the excuse to pursue its goal of a new world order by means of war).

The 9/11 Commission: neither structurally nor procedurally independent

President Bush resisted forming an investigatory commission for a year. The 9/11 Commission that was subsequently formed was, despite its stated intention, neither `independent’, nor `impartial’, nor `thorough’. Bryan Sacks (a contributor to The Hidden History of 9/11) writes, it was structurally compomised by bias-inducing connections to subjects of the investigation (for instance, its executive director Philip Zelikow worked closely with Condoleeza Rice, was also her co-author). It was also procedurally compromised, on three counts. It failed to take up promising lines of inquiry, to force the release of key documents that were closely guarded by the Bush administration, the FBI and various intelligence sources. It distorted information about pre-9/11 military preparedness, foreknowledge of the attacks or similar attacks. It omitted information related to the funding of the plot and the specific whereabouts of key officials (foremost among them, vice-president Dick Cheney) on the morning of September 11, 2001.

These two key features, writes Sacks, converged to produce a report that unquestioningly accepted the official version that left unchallenged key myths associated with American exceptionalism (`the US government loves its people,’ `it would not conspire against them’).

Lessons for us

The new US administration led by Barack Obama speaks of change. Will the change be substantive? Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, who has done ground-breaking research on 9/11, thinks not. Obama’s arrival is “set to rehabilitate American hegemony and restore some sense of credibility and even respectability to US military and financial power” in the context of Bush administration’s trampling of? “any semblance of half-decent PR” during the last eight years. And even though Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State recently said that the use of the phrase `war on terror’ was to be discontinued, Obama’s formal request to Congress for $83.4 billion in ?emergency? supplemental funding to pay for the continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his words to students in Strasbourg, “those terrorists are still plotting today. And there — if there is another al Qaeda attack, it is just as likely, if not more, that it will be here in Europe, in a European city,” sound ominous to my ears. ?

Although our Commerce Minister, who is also coordinator of the investigations into the BDR rebellion has become more reticent recently, no longer chattering about the alleged mutineers links to Islamic militants, and the JMB, the incidents of custodial deaths, and allegations of torture cast doubts on the credibility of the evidence that is being gathered. One can only hope that the government will learn its lessons from the 9/11 Truth Movement, and that its investigative committee will not produce a report that is neither `independent’, nor `impartial’, nor `thorough’.