- The following is a transcript of Will Thomas' appearance
- on the Jeff Rense Program, June 5, 2003
-
- Jeff Rense: And. . . welcome back. I remember a number
of years ago having my next guest on the program after he had just released
his book called 'Bringing the War Home' - an extraordinary book, dealing
with Iraq, Gulf War veterans and the diseases, the tragedy and all the
rest of it: Gulf War I. We'll talk to him about that a little bit later
on, in light of what has transpired most recently in that poor, beleaguered,
bedraggled, trashed country called Iraq.
-
- My guest is William Thomas, a veteran investigative journalist
and certainly one of the key people working the chemtrail story for years
now, and we're very glad to have him on the program tonight. So, let's
get right to it and welcome Will Thomas back. How are you?
-
- William Thomas: I'm fine, thank you, Jeff. It's good
to be back with you and your listeners tonight.
-
- JR: Busier than ever, aren't you?
-
- WT: Oh, yes. Twenty different things at once, you know.
I feel like a fireman in a volunteer fire hall with the phone ringing every
few minutes, and another alarm, another blaze somewhere.
-
- JR: Well, it's true. You know, in a way, that's part
of the game to keep all of us, who are at least trying to stay up with
it all, at least overloaded if not completely in a blur. I've never seen
information come faster or more furiously at any time before.
-
- WT: That's absolutely right. It's a wonderful distraction
for people in a control mode, and it's pretty hard on the rest of us. These
stories of course change on a daily basis.
-
- JR: They come through so quickly. You're an investigative
journalist, how can you decide what to pursue? There are so many new leads.
And, of course, as I've said before, and let me repeat it again: When "they"
- and forgive the use of "they" - when they realized that the
Internet was a problem, - which was probably before the Internet even became
popular - they were going to have trouble with it. I think 'they' decided
right then and there that one of the ways to keep the advantage, or at
least keep the playing field even in terms of information control and mind
manipulation and all the rest of it - they call it "spin" now;
we used to call it lying - was to flood the Internet with half-truths,
quarter-truths, slight distortions of the truth. You name it. There are,
I am sure, hundreds and hundreds of people working around the clock to
keep the Internet noise level at the highest possible margin. I mean, they're
right up there all the time putting this stuff out. You see it, I see it.
It's a real problem.
-
- WT: Information overload is one problem. And as you correctly
say, noise is an even bigger problem. And for the multi-channel universe
we're heading into, it's a real headache for investigators and researchers
to discriminate among information, check leads, and then deal with new
stories. I guess to answer your question, Jeff, I'm fairly ruthless. I'm
doing chemtrails - updating my information all the time - and of course
I'm still on 911 after publishing a book on that subject. We still need
some answers to all of these questions.
-
- JR: Well, let's hope. Sen. Graham of Florida today said
if there is indication and there is evidence that George Bush manipulated
the claims of weapons of mass destruction in order to foment the turkey
shoot and slaughter in Iraq that the President will be held accountable.
So, talk's cheap, but it sounds encouraging.
-
- WT: Yes. There is, of course, plenty of evidence that
that did take place, with Mr. Powell's lecture before the UN that caused
laughter among the delegates.
-
- JR: Indeed it should have. It's still causing laughter
amongst people who read it for the first time. It's absurd, the whole thing.
Alright: 2003, we are here, we made it. I don't know what we made it to,
but we made it. Chemtrails are still here. They don't seem to be as persistent
in some areas as they were. They are certainly and obviously something
unusual. They've been around for about four years now by the best measurement
I know of. And there are people who write to me and say "Jeff, they've
gone away. We haven't had any for weeks." And then they will write
a week later and say "We've been hit every single day and the climate
hasn't changed a bit." And they ask me "What is wrong with people?
Why can't they see this? What is wrong with the meteorologists - those
people on the television who allege to know what the weather is and what
it's going to do? Why won't they even go outside and take a videocamera
and take a shot and at least introduce the concept to the public?"
They won't do it.
-
- So, where are we in 2003 in terms of waking people up?
Or are people becoming so desensitized now to the whole thing that they
don't really care much?
-
- WT: No, I think this is the most pressing question I
deal with, and it can be the overriding issue that all of us in the information
business are so concerned about. I saw the very disturbing report some
months ago. One of the press organizations did a survey and found that
while our information has gone up quite drastically in the last few decades,
it's available if people look for it; the actual action based on that information
among private citizens has stayed at the very same low levels. I'm not
really sure what's going on. This seems to be more than apathy, more than
numbness. I'm sure you've had the experience, as I had and probably many
of your listeners: Outside, eight or ten trails overhead, you say to someone
"Look up! Look at that!" - they won't even raise their heads.
They won't even look at the sky.
-
- JR: No, they don't want to look.
-
- WT: There's something very troubling about this.
-
- JR: There's something really odd about it, you're right.
There's normally in human beings an inquisitiveness that I'm not seeing
like I used to. And I think that's what you are talking about. They'd rather
not engage.
-
- WT: I'm not sure how we got here. Certainly television
is a great brainwasher.
-
- JR: Yeah. We could spend a lot of time on that: toxins
in food, fluoride in the water, the manipulation of people through the
mass media - the electronic media - by sound, by vision. Other issues that
are unregulated and are certainly embedded in the "entertainment"
people are given. It can be in music, again, on CDs. But most likely it's
coming through the television.
-
- There is in the school systems, of course, a concerted
effort to make people less than inquisitive, to have them think about the
hive and the group all the time. It's the herd mentality. And then add
into that a major helping of fear, stir it all together, and you've got
people who don't want to look up.
-
- WT: Yes. They don't want to look up, they don't want
to look out. And let's see now: About eleven years ago or so, '92, I had
a book published as you said at the top of the show, Bringing the War Home.
Documented, fully attributed to US Marine Corps, other armed forces, government
documents, several congressional hearings by Shays and Rigel [sp?]. It
got no reviews. It broke the story of Gulf War illness. It took ten years
for the US media to begin to indicate that these stories and this information
was true. We certainly don't have ten years to find out what's really behind
and happening in Iraq. And we certainly don't have another six years to
go on chemtrails - I hope.
-
- JR: Thanks to Michael Powell and his FCC cabal, we are
going to have even less of an opportunity to find out these kinds of things
through the electronic media diversity that we had before. Now you know
that - I think maybe you know - that Powell came forward amongst that group
at the FCC and said he was all in favor of dropping ALL limits on ownership.
He wanted no limits, no cap on the number of stations that a corporation
could come into a city and buy. He wanted them to be able to buy all of
them if they wanted to. He had to finally back off and compromise on, I
guess it's 45 percent now.
-
- WT: Of course, we are talking about Clear Channel Communications,
which owns or controls some
- 1,500 radio stations, if I have that right, Jeff.
-
- JR: Yes.
-
- WT: And television: They're now moving into Canada, outlawing
songs like "Give Peace A Chance," outlawing all questioning and
dissent on their programs. Very dangerous. But of course, they can go ahead
and purchase stations through shell companies, through fronts. The FCC
rulings you're talking about are looking at minorities, women-owned stations,
black-owned stations. All is well and good on the face of it but this is
just another way, I fear, for Clear Channel to take control. . .
- JR: Absolutely. Of course. Sure, they'll get together
with some - let's just take feminists, who feel that they want to be in
the broadcasting business, they want their agenda presented to the public,
they have a right to. And guess where the funding will come from? Control:
shell companies, whatever.
-
- WT: Yep.
-
- JR: You bet, absolutely. And I'm very fearful that in
a few years programs like this will find it even harder. We're on over
100 stations and they are very loyal. To each and every one of you stations,
I salute you for having the courage to bring this information forward.
Hang tough. And please don't sell out! The sad thing is, Will, most everybody
has a price, and if you're in the radio business and somebody gives you
double what your station is worth, most people are probably going to take
it.
-
- WT: Yes, Jeff, but what price democracy? What price a
free country?
-
- JR: I'm with you and I'm sure our listeners agree. The
sad thing is: People do sell out. And that's why we have the monopoly now.
Twenty years ago, twenty-five years ago, there used to be an expression
that you heard in the news quite often. It was called 'antitrust'. That's
a dinosaur. That's gone. No one talks about antitrust any more.
-
- WT: Not with five - well, four now - corporations owning
worldwide media. I would say there's all kinds of room for antitrust action
there. But in fact it's going the other way. It's a concentration.
-
- JR: This is a slam dunk, and they're doing it right in
our faces. There is no hesitancy whatsoever. No subtlety. They're just
doing it. All right, we'll be right back with Will. And we're going to
go into the chemtrail issue next. There was a remarkable paper he released
some weeks ago which I'm trying to find to pull back up into headlines.
We're going to kind of work our way through some of that. He has really
done some extraordinary investigative work in this field and we'll bring
that forward as we continue in just a couple of minutes.
-
- JR: Okay, right back with you, talking with Will Thomas,
veteran journalist and investigative reporter, whose website is lifeboatnews.com
- click right on his name and go there. And hit reload on the home page
if it's not up there yet; it should be. And you'll find a lot of material
there on Will's site. Okay, let's talk about these chemtrails. We're four-plus
years into it now. And there was just a deal made -
- I think most of you heard about it: 100 Boeing air tankers.
They're going to be 'leased' by you and I and by the military. A hundred
new tankers. Does that raise an eyebrow, Will?
-
- WT: Yes. I looked at this story last year. Of course,
the 700-plane tanker fleet in the US Air Force inventory is aging. I mean,
the KC-135, of course, is the original Boeing 707, the first commercial
airliner. Upgrades, but. . .
-
- JR: That's right.
- WT: . . . a very old airframe.
-
- JR: That's a vintage 1950s aircraft.
-
- WT: That's right.
-
- JR: Well, they're still pushing B-52s around, so. . .
-
- WT: They are, with new wings and engines. But it's still
an old airframe and not very fuel-efficient. And they're tired. The fleet
is stretched beyond operational capability, according to US Air Force reports,
they've been complaining since Kosovo and the first Gulf War that they
just don't have the aircraft to carry out the missions.
-
- JR: 700 tankers.
-
- WT: 700 is the official listing.
-
- JR: The official total list. Okay.
-
- WT: 650 KC-135s and 50 KC-10s, which hold, by the way,
about 320,000 gallons of transferable fuel. The KC-135 about half that
amount. The Air Force says they don't want the Boeings that are being leased
and converted for them, at a cost - of course, you have to convert both
ways, back to civilian uses when you're finished - at a cost approaching
a new airplane.
-
- JR: It doesn't make a lot of sense.
-
- WT: No. A lot of what's going on makes no sense. But
it does seem quite striking that -- as you say, four and a half years into
at least the intense part of the chemtrail programs -- we see continued
activity in what must be an overriding concern that must be addressed by
such large fleets of aircraft and crew.
-
- JR: People will ask, "Well, okay, if this is true,
why haven't we gotten pictures of some of these things on the ground at
the secret bases they must be using? Why not clear pictures from aloft?
Why doesn't somebody go up there with a Lear jet. . ." And on and
on and on. We need, for our listeners who aren't too up to speed on this,
let's just talk about some of those things, if we can. Why no clear pictures?
-
- WT: That's a real problem. It's a frustration with me.
I get phone calls and e-mails: "Yes, we've seen them." In fact,
I have a real insider, an identified insider who has pointed the way toward
bases, let's say, in the northeastern United States, on the Northeast coast.
And yet it's very hard to find someone with professional camera equipment
that is: long telephoto lens, a good tripod (very important), and the time
and the nerve to drive up to these bases and get long shots (but close-up
shots, with a telephoto) of these planes. It's a serious problem, you're
right. We have no good pictures of these planes on the ground. And, frankly,
we're not going to see much even if we get photographs of tankers; they're
going to look like tankers. There is no exotic spray piping or apparatus
or nozzles.
-
- JR: There aren't nozzles sticking out on the wings. It's
not something we're going to see.
-
- WT: We're not going to see it on the tail or the wings.
According to the patents, as fuel is put through the engines . . . I understand
some people object that aluminum oxide is very abrasive.
-
- JR: To the fan blades.
-
- WT: Yes, to destroy turbines. In fact, a former engineer
with Alcoa Aluminum assured me that, at these sizes - we're talking 10
microns, a human hair is 100 microns in diameter. So, it's microscopic.
He said that will polish the blades. But it certainly would not hurt the
engines.
-
- JR: Oh, really? Interesting.
-
- WT: Yeah. Actually, he said it would just polish the
blades.
-
- JR: There were some e-mails I received a couple of years
ago allegedly from a major airline pilot who said he would check his engines
and they were aware that there was some kind of whitish dust on the blades
that shouldn't have been there. And that, allegedly, the maintenance people
were reporting that the blades were wearing much quicker than they should.
But, again, I have no confirmation on that.
-
- WT: That's a fascinating story, especially in light of
the Hughes patent which we're talking about here, circa '95, calling for
the seeding of the upper atmosphere for the reduction of global warming
by putting very fine aluminum oxide particulates - not refined aluminum,
but the oxide, like sand, basically - through these engines in commercial
airliners. And we have photographs. I have one in my book of an MV-80 airliner
and it sure looks like a chemtrail behind that airplane. But I can't imagine
an airline pilot receiving any kind of hint that this was going on who
would not walk away from the airplane and raise unholy heck.
-
- JR: Well, this guy got on the Internet and came through
some people I knew, but he didn't want to go public with it. They don't
want to lose their jobs. It's the same old story. It's the same old story.
So, when you folks think chemtrails, don't necessarily think white, unmarked
military spray aircraft. Because the commercial aircraft are being used,
apparently, just as much. Okay, Will Thomas is here. We'll be right back
with much more. Let me remind you that Rense.com brings you news from around
the world, around the clock -- around the calendar, in fact -- for you
to think about and consider as we try to figure it all out together.
-
- JR: Okay, back with Will Thomas. Will, it has always
interested me and intrigued me, the number of disinformation and spin people
who have been turned loose on the Internet to try to debunk the chemtrail
issue. I mean, they're real. They're as real as you and I are. There's
no question about it. These people are occasionally clever. They raise
issues that are easily taken apart. But there has been a concerted effort
to try to keep the issue in confusion amongst people on the Internet.
-
- WT: Very true. Very true. You mentioned an article I
just wrote in response to yet another alleged insider. I say "alleged"
because, of course, a true whistleblower, determined to halt illegal or
hazardous activities, will come forward at grave risk and cost to their
own career.
-
- JR: That's right.
-
- WT: But they will give their name and stand for their
information. If they don't, of course, it's not whistleblowing at all.
-
- JR: No. These unidentified sources - I'll look at them
and then just file them. That's all you can do with them.
-
- WT: Yes.
-
- JR: You can't do much more. 'They' have spent a lot of
time on this issue, they're trying to keep people confused and so forth.
Clifford Carnicom's work has been just heroic in terms of one man doing
research, teaching himself scientific investigative techniques and all
the rest of it. We know there is a lot of aluminum up there. I can't even
count the stories on my website talking about aluminum, the blood/brain
barrier, memory loss, long-term toxic neurological damage. We know this
to be a fact. We have people now in - brain fog is the common expression
of it - but people who have been sprayed heavily have trouble, they are
listless and all the rest of it. Are the symptoms changing at all, Will,
or are they just intensifying in certain areas?
-
- WT: Actually, in preparation for tonight's show I was
going over e-mails stretching back several months - recent 2003 e-mails
- same symptoms, same type of sightings. This stuff does not seem to go
away. We have the same problems reported four and a half years later. You
mentioned some of them. Add to that: gushing nosebleeds, severe headaches
. . .
-
- JR: Sinus problems, congestion, headaches. Of course.
I was just talking about the aluminum and the issue of Alzheimer's disease,
which is a clear link, we know that now. Underarm deodorants. It has been
in toothpaste. It is certainly in cookware. Aluminum is a big problem.
And now we are breathing it.
-
- WT: Apparently. Now, again, we have to emphasize here
we are talking about aluminum oxide, found in lab tests in Espanola, Ontario
several years ago, and more recently, last fall, in Edmonton, Alberta -
very good, properly conducted lab tests. High levels of aluminum oxide,
which is not, of course, the refined aluminum but small particulates of
the original mineral, if you like. Also finding very high levels of barium,
which is not friendly to human health.
-
- JR: Another toxin, sure.
-
- WT: But in all these exposures it seems to me that it's
the size of the particulate that is of most concern. We have the EPA coming
out in the last year with an urgent warning calling small particulates
- regardless of toxicity - a "extreme human health hazard." There
were. . . And now they're talking about particles and this is micron or
smaller.
-
- JR: Okay, that's down almost to virus size. Virus size
is one micron or less, usually.
-
- WT: Okay, this is ten microns. We're quoting medical
studies conducted over years in the United States, in Britain, published
in The Lancet. The American newspaper, The New York Times. There's no question
that these small particulates. . . They were looking at air pollution in
the cities at ground level. But it really doesn't matter where your exposure
came from, these small particulates can lodge in the lungs, get in the
blood, interfere with the heart, and cause a significant increase in deaths
within 24 hours of exposure. I'm quoting the EPA here. So, the small particulate
size is extremely dangerous to susceptible individuals. And let's remember
that this is entirely random. When these planes let loose at 22, 25, 30
thousand [feet], we have radar tracks of them over Edmonton at 37,000 feet.
This stuff, of course, disperses over a wide area, and people say, well,
it's so dispersed it can't really be that hazardous. Well, in fact, we're
finding - whether we're measuring radia
- tion from Chernobyl or pollution - it tends to come down
in clumps so that someone literally 30 or 40 feet away could have minimum
exposure compared with another person who happened to be hit with a random
clumping of these particulates.
-
- JR: Micro-small particles are so small, even smaller
than 10 microns. And they'll actually stay up in a suspended state in the
atmosphere. That's not a problem. They can be pushed all over the place.
-
- WT: That was the thinking behind the Hughes patent, that
they would stay up and circulate. Again, some clump and come right down.
We do have, I believe, a very strong biological component to chemtrails.
I don't believe that it's intentional. My suspicion is that these particulates
are precipitating out of the upper atmosphere: novel viruses, bacteria,
molds, and fungi that have been found since the '80s to be living and breeding
-- and mutating, of course, in all that UV - in the upper atmosphere.
-
- JR: Isn't that amazing to think about that there's actually
biological life up that high that is, as you say, living, breeding, and
obviously mutating. And then eventually coming down to visit us.
-
- WT: To visit our immune systems that cannot recognize
or deal with novel pathogens.
-
- JR: They could be from another planet.
-
- WT: Perhaps they are, but we, our bodies, have a hard
time dealing with this. Two scientists working on the chemtrails project
at Wright-Patterson AFB, talking to an award-winning reporter, Bob Fitrakis
in Columbus Alive, a little over a year ago now, also said - I was surprised
- without prompting that they thought that this was also a major factor,
that the chemtrails were precipitating out of the sky micro-organisms harmful
to human health.
-
- JR: Okay. It doesn't bode well for us in the future here
at all. Strange things going on on this planet, naturally and otherwise.
Will Thomas is my guest. We'll talk about the geopolitical aspects of the
chemtrail phenomenon next, which again takes us to pretty much a worldwide
venue. Although there are some great cities on the planet which don't have
chemtrails - another one of those things that people who are skeptics refuse
to confront. We'll be back in just a minute.
-
- JR: Okay, right back with you. Will, some of the cities
on the planet just do not have this problem. Most seem to report them,
at least in the western hemisphere and northern hemisphere. But not all
of them do in the southern, of course. There are some real obvious differences.
Talk to me about that.
-
- WT: These appear to be "allied" countries.
And, you're right, we have very few sightings south of the Equator. The
ones we do have, including recent sightings out at Sydney, Australia, are
from that great continent, that great nation to the south. Recently, that
is to say February of this year, on Feb. 16th, the Ethnos newspaper of
Aegina island in Greece published a front-page story questioning the spraying
suddenly appearing in their sky.
-
- JR: Right.
-
- WT: And now we have the people in Greece demanding answers
from their government. I have seen pictures out of Turkey as well as Greece.
Some of the countries that have supplied photographs, as well as many sightings
of chemtrails, include: Australia, as we mentioned, Belgium, here in Canada,
of course.
-
- JR: We just had some from Sweden, too.
-
- WT: That's right, Sweden. Croatia, one day after they
joined NATO, chemtrails appeared. Of course: England, France, Germany,
Holland, Ireland, Italy, Scotland, and the USA. So, over a dozen allied
nations. None of the former Soviet bloc countries reporting chemtrails.
And, of course, with the Internet we do have access into those countries
now.
-
- JR: We do. Access into communist China. Beijing doesn't
get pasted, either.
-
- WT: No. And I haven't seen any good photographs south
of the border, that is, in Mexico and South America. Nothing yet.
-
- JR: And this is after four-plus years, friends. You have
to keep that in mind. Will Thomas, among others, is a virtual clearinghouse.
We get reports here all the time, too. And I think those of you who have
followed this issue know full well that what he is saying is absolutely
correct: This is not a worldwide phenomenon. It seems to be something affecting
our "allies."
-
- WT: That's right. Obviously, governments have to agree
with this operation or at least their militaries agree to this military
operation.
-
- JR: Or they're told to agree, depending on who it is.
-
- WT: That's right. Using, in most cases, United States
aircraft because the United States owns the majority of the air tanker
fleet. We don't fly them in Canada. And in Britain they use, I believe,
the Nimrod. But in many of these other countries reported, they have no
aerial refuelling tankers. So, to have another country come over and spray
your skies with the trails you are told are not hazardous, you have to
wonder. With. . .
-
- JR: Excuse me, but what is it? Do you think they're pushing
the global warming mitigation aspect? What are they doing with this issue
in terms of selling it, forcing it upon our allied friends and neighbors
and so forth? What's your best guess?
-
- WT: My best guess is that the major powers of the planet
are close to panic in terms of the realization that global warming is,
in fact, real. Let's call it planet change, because this could slip into
an ice age in a matter of decades. We have seen warming that we have not
seen in over 400,000 years on this planet. According to ice core samples
in Antarctica, we have the Arctic ice sheet, Jeff, 40 percent gone in the
last decade!
-
- JR: Right.
-
- WT: The poles are melting. The insurance companies, as
I detail in my book, Chemtrails Confirmed, are publicly and often speaking
out, saying "we're going bankrupt with these extreme weather events."
They're not debating this. There's no question in their mind because they're
literally paying the bills on freakish weather that is so much a part of
our, I'd say, daily lives now, certainly our daily headlines. The atmosphere's
becoming increasingly chaotic. And governments are very concerned because
if, in fact, the premise of Kyoto was correct, and it was correct enough
for almost every country on the planet to come together and finally agree
on this - with one major exception - this was going to be a huge problem
and it can only be addressed by drastically cutting our carbon consumption
and burning, and moving on to alternative fuels - where we have to go,
anyway. I mean, we're going to get there sooner or later. And it's best
to make the transition while we have some oil left
- to make it with.
-
- JR: Yes, of course.
-
- WT: Europe has said last year that they are going to
make a concerted effort to move to a hydrogen-based economy. They're leaving
petroleum. Obviously, we have to do something to protect ourselves from
massive changes, not only in the atmosphere but particularly in the oceans,
which are very slow to change. But as a long-time ocean sailor, I know
that the big changes on this planet are taking place out of sight of land.
And when those oceans move, they stay moved. That is, when they get warm
and cause new storms to spawn and newweather circulation, that - at least
in human terms - is just about permanent.
-
- JR: A very good point. I read a long, lengthy dissertation
on the Edward Teller idea of trying to shield Earth from this global warming
issue with spraying. But his technology was to deploy it far higher --
in fact, outside of our atmosphere - than what we are seeing with normal
chemtrail spraying. Do you see it that way? Did you come up with any other
patents that would apply directly to what we are seeing here? You mentioned
one earlier, the Hughes patent.
-
- WT: The Hughes patent is what I based my work on. Mike
Castle uncovered that some years ago and pointed us in that direction.
It talks about spraying behind airliners in the stratosphere. We're talking
35,000 feet. Of course, using fleets of airplanes that are destroying the
ozone layer and polluting like crazy, just by themselves. I mean, contrails,
normal contrails, are a significant hazard in themselves in terms, NASA
tells us, of changing the weather and increasing cloud cover over parts
of the United States by 20 percent since those first 707s took off, and
5 percent overall. And just a little tweak in cloud cover disturbs the
heat balance that drives weather. So, you add chemtrails to this mix, to
an unstable atmosphere, and anything can happen. And one of the big things
that's going to happen with dessicants like the barium and other particulates
is they will dry up the available moisture in air that is not saturated
with moisture. Instead of triggering rain, they will i
- ntensify drought.
-
- JR: So, the salesmanship revolves around global warming
- that's your best guess.
-
- WT: Well, let's say it revolves around money, of course
- money in terms of the big oil cartels, the oil mafia does not want to
cut back.
-
- JR: This is allowing them to carry on business as normal,
or at least that's the goal.
-
- WT: That's correct. And they want petroleum pollution
and profits as usual. And this is incalculable. It's one of the biggest
industries on the planet. But insurance is even bigger. And it's going
to be very interesting to see whether these two cartels will publicly come
to blows, as one profits and the other faces bankruptcy. And of course,
as the insurers point out to our respective governments: If we go down,
the big banks that back us, the money markets, the whole roulette comes
to a stop, the whole economic roulette. So, there's a lot at stake here.
-
- JR: There has been a lot of talk about using chemtrails
in a military and a defense configuration, as well. Do you have anything
lately on that?
-
- WT: No.
-
- JR: Clifford Carnicom made the point of [their] charging
up the atmosphere and turning it into at least a passive or static plasma
state that could be energized for a variety of reasons.
-
- WT: Yes, I've looked at that since he broke that story
some years ago. I've certainly come to accept that there is a significant
component of that military application. We're talking barium here, a material
that acts like an electrolyte in your battery to duct or conduct electrical
energy from radar and radio over the horizon. I believe, Jeff, that these
chemtrails were used in Afghanistan as temporary antennas to bounce radio
signals to fly the pilotless drones, because the satellites which could
have been used for the same purpose offer just too much delay. We're talking
seconds, but still for remote-piloted aircraft it was felt that direct
radio links would be better. Interesting, again, the scientists at Wright-Patterson
who worked on the specific military project, which is also used to give
a 3-D mapping display, concurred that they were
- used for drones in Afghanistan. Now, what I don't understand
is why we are finding - again, in lab tests out of Edmonton, Alberta last
fa
- ll - why we are finding such high levels of barium over
cities. What is the military application over cities that they have to
spray barium for?
-
- JR: Sure. This is obviously a multifaceted program, a
deployment. It's not a test. There are several things at work here. We
don't have all the answers. Some day there will be a real, honest-to-God
whistleblower who will come forward with his or her name right out in the
open, and then we'll have something.
-
- WT: Well, you know, we might have had that last week,
as a matter of fact.
-
- JR: Oh, really?
-
- WT: I haven't broken this news item, but let's do it
tonight.
-
- JR: Okay. We've got a break coming up. An then an exclusive
from Will Thomas. We will do that after the top of the hour break here.
Let me remind you he also has a website, willthomas.net, in which you can
order his books directly, right off the Net anytime you like. Or - write
this number down for Will Thomas materials, books and videos: 866-470-0740,
toll-free. All right, an exclusive from Will. Stay tuned for this one.
We'll pause for just a few minutes and be right back.
-
- JR: And let's roll into hour number three already. Will
Thomas is my guest. We're talking about chemtrails. And, again, he wrote
a very lengthy, I guess we'd call it a rebuttal, an analysis, of one of
those people on the Internet who tend to talk at great length about exactly
what chemtrails are, and so forth. But let's go first, Will, to your exclusive.
I'd like very much to hear what you have to say regarding a potential whistleblower
who may or may not be coming forward.
-
- WT: This is going to be big - very, very big. Imagine
one of the most respected politicians in America, a man constantly in the
news. Not only that, but a man who served as the head of the House Armed
Services Committee looking after so-called exotic weaponry, top-secret
projects, including HAARP and chemtrails. Of course I'm referring to Democratic
presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich from Ohio, who introduced House
Resolution 2977 back in the fall of 2001. Your listeners are familiar with
this bill that sought to outline weapons in space -- a very good idea --
and other exotic weapons, including, in one subsection, chemtrails. Last
week in Santa Cruz, California at a public meeting Mr. Kucinich was asked
"What about chemtrails?" And he replied with three blockbuster
words. His reply was: "Chemtrails are real."
-
- JR: Wow!
-
- WT: I'm attempting to track down Dennis Kucinich to get
an interview with him. When I do, Jeff, I'll have an article for your site.
The word on the street is, of course, he'd rather distance himself from
this issue going into a presidential race.
-
- JR: Of course. Going back to that first bill, it was
revised and the word "chemtrails," if I remember, was deleted.
-
- WT: That's correct. It was totally deleted, under enormous
pressure from scientists who had quite a bit at stake with that program,
I'm told, by people on the Hill who were involved, at least as spectators,
in the uproar that followed his bill.
-
- JR: That's a sensational piece of news. Do you have a
transcript of that actual comment in its context?
-
- WT: It's coming. It's coming. I'm on to people there
who were at the meeting who reported this to me. And the transcript is
going to come. I have a close personal friend of Dennis Kucinich who I've
asked to intercede and ask for a brief interview to corroborate that. And
I would respectfully ask your listeners to, again, respectfully ask Mr.
Kucinich when he comes to their city or a city near them on his campaign
tour, ask the candidate about chemtrails.
-
|