Chemtrail Central
Member List
Image Database
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Flight Explorer
Silver Orbs
News Archive

Chemtrail Central
Search   FAQs   Messages   Members   Profile
Chemtrails Promoted & Taught in 7th Grade Science Textbo

Post new topic Reply to topic
Chemtrail Central > Chemtrails

Author Thread

Joined: 16 Jul 2000
Posts: 5370
Chemtrails Promoted & Taught in 7th Grade Science Textbo PostWed Jul 02, 2008 8:07 pm  Reply with quote

Chemtrails Promoted & Taught in 7th Grade Science Textbooks !!!....

Actually, no more than the stuff that was lies and misinformation in our school books, but just proves times have not changed for the better!! I just don't want my kids and grandkids to have lies and be brainwashed anymore...Peace, Joy

Hi All:

I stumbled upon this little jewel. Please send this article on to all who continue to doubt that chemtrails are for real. Tell them to take their heads out of the sand do their homework and just take a look at the sky!


A is for Apple.

B is for Boy.

C is for Chemtrails

At least this is what one American father found while paging through his child's science book. SmT was astonished to find seventh graders being taught about chemtrails. And geoengineeering their home planet.

Anyone with questions about the "spray programs" he now says, "should perhaps just ask their kids."

The chemtrails section is found in the Centre Point Learning Science I Essential Interactions science book. Under "Solutions for Global Warming", section 5.19 features a photo of a big multi-engine jet sporting a familiar orange/red paint scheme.

The caption reads: "Figure 1- Jet engines running on richer fuel would add particles to the atmosphere to create a sunscreen".

The logo on the plane says: "Particle Air".

"I kid you not," SmT insists. "Why did I spend all of that time doing research when I could have just asked my kids?"

Helping habituate children to a life under lethal sunshine and "protective" spray planes, this trippy textbook urges young readers to "Use Sun Block". But its authors are referring to a sunscreen spread across the sky.

"Could we deliberately add particles to the atmosphere?" asks the text, before helpfully suggesting that "Burning coal adds soot to the air."

You might be old enough to recoil at such a notion. But in a country where down is up and wrong is right, your kids could be learning that what used to be bad and a bummer is a now good thing!


"Be real interesting to see the politics of the folks putting this out." SmT suggests.

In the current White House, those politics are as "crude" as invading oil-rich Iraq over a bogus nuclear threat - while permitting Pakistan to export atom bomb materials to terrorist organizations in return for the chance at an election-boosting capture of Osama bin Laden by US forces in the Hindu Kush later this month. [New Yorker Mar1/04]

Why shouldn't the same petrol politics produce textbooks for children inheriting a nightmare? Led by a piggish petroleum president, with most major nations cutting back, US oil consumption is rising as steeply as supplies of cheap crude are collapsing.

The coal connection is this: In order to briefly "stretch the glide" of the fast-looming end of cheap oil that will utterly transform life as we know it, America's unelected oil president recently revoked pollution regulations on more than 2,000 of the nation's biggest polluting coal-fired power plants.

Ironically, this move - like so many others made by an oil-addled White House - will only hasten an Earthwreck as shattering to all onboard as a lurching square-rigger striking a rocky reef. Except our spaceship is surrounded by the cold, irradiated vacuum of deep space.

It turns out that a single 150-megawatt coal-burning power plant produces more emissions than 300,000 cars. Termed an "Extreme Human health Hazard" by the EPA, microscopic coal particles also rot lungs, stop hearts, kill lakes, choke cities - and stunt the lives of school kids with deadly sulphuric acid rain. [AP Aug27/03; LA Times Aug28/03]

Airborne soot also blocks sunlight, lowering greenhouse temperatures. Volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa and Pinatubo - and globe-circling soot from 1,000 burning oil wells during Desert Storm - belched enough sulphur into the stratosphere to cause a plunge in world temperatures, temporarily slowing global warming.

World scientists looking at deliberately putting megatons more sulphur into a closed, recirculating atmosphere already smoggy enough to depresses orbiting astronauts, decided that a sulphur sunscreen is not a swift idea.

But not this Jr. High science text. "Creating either kind of sunscreen would be cheap," it tells young readers. As if "cheap" is the only consideration.

Even this claim is bogus. SmT says he looked, but the section on the downstream costs associated with the health and environmental effects of massive coal pollution - or the 10 million tons of a chemical sunscreen suggested by the late Edward Teller - "seemed to have been left out."
 View user's profile Send private message
Orwell knew

Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 475
Location: Mid-Missouri
PostThu Jul 03, 2008 12:02 am  Reply with quote  

That is way too cool Cool that you found that older article, I was posting as Show-me truth here (SmT) -- (missouri the *show-me state)-- and William Thomas ( I think his name was, though I didn't see it in the linked credits) took some of the posts here (where I had found they WERE teaching my kids "the solution to pollution is MORE POLLUTION" here in Mid-Missouri and he wrote a really entertaining piece around it, IMHO.

Though I must add, at first I believed (like some still may) that these intentional aerosol/particulate scatterings (like described in my children's 7th grade science book) might really be for sun/ozone etc. blocking (Teller). I have recently come to doubt that, that they are even beneign, and honestly I'm starting to feel more and more that their MAIN purpose is most likely militarily/politically as WEAPONS to be used both within and without the U.S. (empire) often as a weather weapon but with multi uses.(social engineering etc.)

But it is still interesting that they were teaching "geo-engineering" to 7th graders to at least try and indoctrinate them into accepting this constant almost round the clock "spraying". Judging from the droughts and floods and fires and storm damage this year I would have to judge these "chemtrailing" efforts a total failure.

Perhaps though, those who profit from such things disagree, and are achieving the intended results after all. Evil or Very Mad

SmT (Orwell knew)

Ps I switched my name when I could no longer get the first name to work (never could figure out why)
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Cloudy Skies

Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 122
Location: UK
PostThu Jul 03, 2008 3:46 pm  Reply with quote  

Yes, a textbook exists in which various 'futuristic' ideas for combating global warming are explained. One of them being to put sulphur particles into the atmosphere using aircraft ..... An idea which subsequent research has shown to have a serious flaw in it ....

One therefore hope the text book will be removed from the shelves for being out of date Wink

As for soot - well that's even worse that CO2 for causing GW
 View user's profile Send private message
Orwell knew

Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 475
Location: Mid-Missouri
PostThu Jul 03, 2008 7:38 pm  Reply with quote  

Not sure what you mean by "futuristic". These constant aerosol/ particulate scatterings and the concurring weather manipulation efforts have been going full force since at least the late 90's.
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Post new topic Reply to topic
Forum Jump:
Jump to:  

All times are GMT.
The time now is Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:12 pm

  Display posts from previous:      

© 21st Century Thermonuclear Productions
All Rights Reserved, All Wrongs Revenged, Novus Ordo Seclorum, All Your Base