Actually ages ago the government did carry out secret tests to determine whether germ warfare could be successfully carried out by spraying over several U.S. cities. It is quite possible that this might happen again. But then there should be some evidence of it.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Military-Germs-US-Cities.htm
SAN FRANCISCO -- Fifty-one years ago, Edward J. Nevin checked into a San Francisco hospital, complaining of chills, fever and general malaise. Three weeks later, the 75-year-old retired pipe fitter was dead, the victim of what doctors said was an infection of the bacterium Serratia marcescens.
Decades later, Mr. Nevin's family learned what they believe was the cause of the infection, linked at the time to the hospitalizations of 10 other patients. In Senate subcommittee hearings in 1977, the U.S. Army revealed that weeks before Mr. Nevin sickened and died, the Army had staged a mock biological attack on San Francisco, secretly spraying the city with Serratia and other agents thought to be harmless.
The goal: to see what might happen in a real germ-warfare attack. The experiment, which involved blasting a bacterial fog over the entire 49-square-mile city from a Navy vessel offshore, was recorded with clinical nonchalance: "It was noted that a successful BW [biological warfare] attack on this area can be launched from the sea, and that effective dosages can be produced over relatively large areas," the Army wrote in its 1951 classified report on the experiment.
Now, with anthrax in the mail and fear mounting of further biological attacks, researchers are again looking back at the only other time this country faced the perils of germ warfare -- albeit self-inflicted. In fact, much of what the Pentagon knows about the effects of bacterial attacks on cities came from those secret tests conducted on San Francisco and other American cities from the 1940s through the 1960s, experts say.
Blog: http://kenthink7.blogspot.com/index.html Blog: http://kencan7.blogspot.com/index.html
--- On Fri, 9/11/09, Eubulides <paraconsistent at comcast.net> wrote:
> From: Eubulides <paraconsistent at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] chemtrails
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Friday, September 11, 2009, 8:13 PM
> RicardoStarkey at aol.com
> wrote:
> > In a message dated 9/10/2009 4:30:00 P.M. Pacific
> Daylight Time, billbartlett at aapt.net.au
> writes:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory
> >
> > "The chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some
> contrails are
> > actually chemicals or biological agents
> deliberately sprayed at high
> > altitudes for a purpose undisclosed to the
> general public. Versions
> > of the chemtrail conspiracy theory circulating
> on the internet and
> > radio talk shows theorize that the activity is
> directed by government
> > officials.[1] As a result, federal agencies have
> received thousands
> > of complaints from people who have demanded an
> explanation.[2] The
> > existence of chemtrails has been repeatedly
> refuted by government
> > agencies and scientists around the world.[3]"
>
>
> ==========================
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Bell
>
>
> http://educate-yourself.org/ct/
> [see photo near bottom]
>
> This stuff is part and parcel of what Noam Chomsky labeled
> anti-politics.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>