German Government admits participation in ChemTrail experiments

In this news segment from German television, the reporter looks into mysterious clouds that have appeared. They noticed differences in reality and satellite imaging provided by the Federal…

You may also like...

25 Responses

  1. PaterTenebrarum1 says:

    Düppel (engl. chaff, or “window”) is a method of radar deception that’s
    been used since the 1940s. Essentially, aluminum strips cut to about half
    the wave length of the radar to be deceived are released from planes,
    creating false radar reflections. 

  2. Claus Petersen says:

    wieviele Beweise soll es denn noch geben, damit unsere Umwelt ( Luft ,
    Wasser, Boden ) nach §§ gg20 a endlich geschützt wird und diese satanische
    Umweltverschmutzung sowie die Sonnendämpfung endlich gestoppt wird….Und
    kommt mir nicht mit dem Status Quo, Wir haben ein Recht auf normales
    gesundes Leben…

  3. brainphreak (Clownsec) says:

    @MrGopherhead – You are far too trusting if you think the EPA is out to
    protect you from the government and corporations… Just ask the first
    responders who helped rescue those at the WTC on 9/11. The EPA at times
    even FORCED them to take OFF the masks.. Because it would SCARE the public,
    and the air was PERFECTLY safe to breath… They now retract that and
    apologize for the deaths. Do you also expect the FDA to protect you from
    bad drugs? Even with all the recalls? The EPA will do nothing.

  4. MrGopherhead says:

    @brainphreak Wrong as usual, I wouldn’t expect a chemtard to understand or
    even be able to do a search on jet engines. jets operate on a continuous
    thermodymanic cycle. That means that intake, compression, combustion and
    exhaust cycles that occur in a 4 cycle engine occurs continuously and not
    in cycles like a 4 cycle engine. that alone makes a jet far more effecient
    at burning fuel with the least amount of unburned fuel in the exhaust.
    Commercial aircraft operate on JP-4

  5. brainphreak (Clownsec) says:

    @MrGopherhead – I did not once claim aircraft fly in the ionosphere, this
    is not my area of expertise. This is what is referred to as a ‘straw man’
    argument. AKA putting words in my mouth (or keyboard). Why not just read
    the HAARP site and mainstream news to see that metal is being put into the
    atmosphere. There is even a US bill in congress which allows this to take
    place. There is full explanation of using this method also to combat
    ‘global warming’. Lots of documents if you just look.

  6. brainphreak (Clownsec) says:

    @beachcomber2008 – Only straw men and logical fallacies fill your posts. If
    it is safe to breathe air, this does not mean it is safe to inject it into
    your bloodstream. If it is safe to use aluminum for your soda can to drink
    out of (debatable), this does not mean you should be breathing it in. Your
    idea that because components of a chemtrail can be found in a food
    container, that makes it safe to spray, is illogical. You wouldnt want to
    eat a food container, or melt it and breath it in either.

  7. Georg Rauh says:

    You are lying or need your German re-freshed. The video is referring to
    fake, “Ghost” clouds which are only appearing on weather radar. The video
    is about how those exercises disrupt and distract radar, making
    meteorologists see clouds on radar where in reality there are none. The
    text on screen is also a lie, because you simply put “chemtrails” in the
    caption where no one in the video talks about chemtrails. Are all your
    other arguments that chemtrails exist lies as well? Pretty weak.

  8. Jumpingflashlight says:

    From where did this originate?

  9. Weldorn Madomat says:

    the overall translation is ok, but it tries too hard in the decisive parts

  10. MrGopherhead says:

    @brainphreak The operating temperature is far higher than a gas engine also
    , this ensures more complete burning of the fuel. Your comparison to a car
    is absolute B.S. How many cars carry 200 people? How many planes are there
    compared to cars? Cars produce much more pollution that aircraft that is a
    proven fact. Pretending to be stupid won’t change that .

  11. MrGopherhead says:

    @brainphreak Wrong dumbass, they are talking about chaff which does nothing
    to the weather is simply disrupts the radar causing a radar image that is
    similar to a weather return ( a false image) that is what it is designed to
    do, cause a false image and prevent radar detection of what is actually
    there.

  12. beachcomber2008 says:

    You write “German authorities admitted putting chemicals into the air for
    government experiments” . Could you supply us with the proof of this,
    please?

  13. Greg McKee says:

    Read about cabin pressurisation. Air from outside an airliner is pumped
    inside without being filtered first. That is 80,000 passenger planes a day
    yet none of them fill up with aluminium, nor is it even detected even
    though CTs claim the white trails are aluminium oxide, the same substance
    as sandpaper grit. It doesn’t enter airliners because it isn’t present in
    the sky. Aviators know exactly what the trails are: water.

  14. Lisa Stienster says:

    They are saying both: there are particles being released by military planes
    AND that the data on the meteorological maps is being changed/distorted. I
    live in Holland and have noticed that nightly news TV weather report NEVER
    shows the actual meteorological satellite views anymore. I can’t even find
    them online. Now all I find are satellite views which have been PROCESSED.

  15. MrGopherhead says:

    The particles discussed in this video are fairly large and don’t stay in
    the air very long or leave “trails” in the sky. They are two different
    things.

  16. brainphreak (Clownsec) says:

    @beachcomber2008 – Scientifically speaking yes, all those things could
    leave types of chemtrails. The difference being one is a natural bi-product
    of the fuel while others such as ‘CHAFF’ (vague), are man made chemtrails
    made for the purpose of deliberately delivering them into the atmosphere.
    Food wrapper material is often made of chemicals yes. Falling from the sky,
    sitting on a shelf or not, this remains true. Using a chemical for one
    thing, does not make it safe for all things.

  17. brainphreak (Clownsec) says:

    @beachcomber2008 – Your first statements contradicts itself. I never made
    any mention of food wrappers, that is completely irrelevant as I already
    stated. Yes food wrappers are often made up of chemicals as I said… This
    next statement is why I don’t believe you are genuine. What is being
    sprayed? You said yourself its Chaff. Assuming that’s what it is, it is
    being sprayed into the air just as guns spray bullets into the air on new
    years day. Where? the air… Need coordinates? yes sprayed.

  18. patrick McHenry says:

    Maybe size or shape of aluminum particles could affect radar reflectivity;
    fine, dust-like particles might not “jam” radar and yet serve to block some
    solar radiation, as proponents of “chem-trails” believe.

  19. beachcomber2008 says:

    @brainphreak Water and carbon dioxide are compounds with specific
    compositions which are given off by aircraft, cars, and YOU They are
    chemicals too. Almost EVERYTHING is, save for the few raw elemental gases
    and the dense element metals. YOU are “chemicals” Quit coyly hiding in
    non-specificity and show me EVIDENCE

  20. brainphreak (Clownsec) says:

    @beachcomber2008 – In the english language there are several ways to
    describe a scientific fact. If I saw, the air is moist.. I could say ‘there
    is water in the air”. this is how english language works. When we say there
    is chemtrails, this means that planes are leaving trails of chemical. You
    are only arguing now that aluminum zinc and plastic are not chemicals. I
    didn’t invent the definition of chemicals, trails, or chemtrails. When
    someone is dropping chemicals into the air, we say chemtrail

  21. MrGopherhead says:

    @brainphreak Yes I have heard this dozens of times. Something proposed has
    nothing to do with the trails in the sky that have been recorded for over
    90 years. It will never happen anyway the EPA is never going to allow it to
    happen.

  22. brainphreak (Clownsec) says:

    @beachcomber2008 – If chemicals were dropped out of airplanes in 1939, yes
    I would say that was a chemtrail. Again I didn’t invent the english
    language, so your semantic arguments are pointless. In chemistry, a
    chemical substance is a material with a specific chemical composition. In
    English a trail means ‘to lag or linger behind’. Therefore 1999, 2021,
    1939, no matter what year… The term holds true, dropping chemicals from a
    plane is called a “chemtrail” why are you upset at proper english?

  23. MrGopherhead says:

    @brainphreak Most people are claiming that the military is releasing a
    chemical that is creating a change in weather that is showing up on radar.
    That is incorrect. They are releasing “chaff” which contains metal that the
    radar signal bounces off of causing a return that appears as a weather
    system on their radar when there isn’t a weather system present. Not the
    same thing at all

  24. brainphreak (Clownsec) says:

    @MrGopherhead – Here is a quote from another youtuber: “They are saying
    both: there are particles being released by military planes AND that the
    data on the meteorological maps is being changed/distorted. I live in
    Holland and have noticed that nightly news TV weather report NEVER shows
    the actual meteorological satellite views anymore. ” Also keep in mind that
    this metal that is released into the atmosphere will effect weather as
    well, even thin reflective layers effect the solar rays.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>