If You Think These Are Just “Contrails” Think Again – Here’s What They Really Are

a reply to: jaws1975

Army scientist's secretly spray St. Louis residents

You may want to read this...

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: jaws1975

So I guess the question is why should I believe the handful of debunkers that jump on every chemtrail thread over people that have a real resume?

And you know these people personally enough that you can vouch for them and their backgrounds, because if not all your doing is believing what the Youtube uploader tells you, and that youtube video you discuss is coming from a sham artist Dane Wigington who has nothing but gullible people which believe his crap.

Also if you had this much info why would you go to a small town meeting instead of raising this stink in Washington, where the world would find out the truth, you see questions like that are what make the video a farce.

Why have the debunkers not addressed the link in the op?

This is why...

What In The World Are They Spraying? (Full Length)

Once that movie is used for a source all bet's are off and the link just committed suicide, as that movie has been proven to be lies in fact here is a bit more about that...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

To me, this is where the rubber hits the road, but instead we have three pages of fruitless bickering.

And it is only bickering because you need to do some real research into this topic and quit believing things that are coming from scam artists who only rely on the gullible and their money to live.

a reply to: jaws1975

Interesting if true. You would think that the Shasta County Commissioners would not be too happy if they knew that those people were fabricating their credentials.

It's not up to the commissioners to question the people's backgrounds and their credentials as they are just there to listen.

But if they knew I imagine they wouldn't be thrilled.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

You might have forgotten to include the rest of the disclaimer:

2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the
concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space
force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school
environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense.

And this...

The
views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the
United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.

...is a standard procedure in documents so to explain that if the document has a typo, a miscalculation, an error or something, the blame falls on the authors of the document, and not on the whole USAF nor the Government.


furthermore, this...

This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or
events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.

...is not proof that the document is fictional, it means that the document contains fictive scenarios - in other words, simulations.

originally posted by: Dabrazzo
a reply to: waynos

Here you go.

Beijing Weather Modification Office

The Beijing Weather Modification Office form a part of China's nationwide weather control effort, believed to be the world's largest; it employs 37,000 people nationwide, who seed clouds by firing rockets and shells loaded with silver iodide into them.[4] According to Zhang Qiang, head of the Office, cloud seeding increased precipitation in Beijing by about one-eighth in 2004; nationwide, similar efforts added 7.4 trillion cubic feet (210 km3) of rain between 1995 and 2003.[5]

Indeed I truly do believe it to be baffling people do not acknowledge weather modification is real.

If you've read this thread and similar threads, you would know that there isn't anyone who say cloud seeding isn't real.

I'm not sure where you are getting that idea.

a reply to: swanne

Funny how people only ever focus on Volume 3, chapter 15

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

You might have forgotten to include the rest of the disclaimer:

2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the
concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space
force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school
environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense.

And this...

The
views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the
United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.

...is a standard procedure in documents so to explain that if the document has a typo, a miscalculation, an error or something, the blame falls on the authors of the document, and not on the whole USAF nor the Government.


furthermore, this...

This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or
events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.

...is not proof that the document is fictional, it means that the document contains fictive scenarios - in other words, simulations.

a reply to: swanne

It was written as an exercise for USAF cadets. Seriously, look into it as deep as you can.

a reply to: mrthumpy

Wow, thank you for the link! I was not even aware that this document was but one chapter of an entire series on warfare. Thanks!

a reply to: network dude

And this is but one document amongst so many about weather control.

Look as deep as you can.

a reply to: swanne

Right. And it is proof of nothing other than some cadets did their homework.

Perhaps you missed the part where it was presented as evidence.....

So far, none of the documents seem to be the smoking gun on chemtrails. But if you find one, please present it here.

a reply to: network dude

Why all the focus on chemtrails exclusively? They are not the only way to control the weather.

Cloud seeding methods

There are three cloud seeding methods: static, dynamic and hygroscopic.

Static cloud seeding involves spreading a chemical like silver iodide into clouds. The silver iodide provides a crystal around which moisture can condense. The moisture is already present in the clouds, but silver iodide essentially makes rain clouds more effective at dispensing their water.

Dynamic cloud seeding aims to boost vertical air currents, which encourages more water to pass through the clouds, translating into more rain [source: Cotton]. Up to 100 times more ice crystals are used in dynamic cloud seeding than in the static method. The process is considered more complex than static clouding seeding because it depends on a sequence of events working properly. Dr. William R. Cotton, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, and other researchers break down dynamic cloud seeding into 11 separate stages. An unexpected outcome in one stage could ruin the entire process, making the technique less dependable than static cloud seeding.

Hygroscopic cloud seeding disperses salts through flares or explosives in the lower portions of clouds. The salts grow in size as water joins with them. In his report on cloud seeding, Cotton says that hygroscopic cloud seeding holds much promise, but requires further research.

As for smoking evidences... you do know about the 2008 Beijing olympics, right??

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: mrthumpy

Wow, thank you for the link! I was not even aware that this document was but one chapter of an entire series on warfare. Thanks!

Excellent research skills you have there. Congratulations

a reply to: mrthumpy

I am not sure if that last post was sarcastic or not?

a reply to: swanne

Definitely. You can decide what the Disclaimer means but you had no idea on the context of the document. Well done.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: network dude

Why all the focus on chemtrails exclusively? They are not the only way to control the weather.

Cloud seeding methods...

...As for smoking evidences... you do know about the 2008 Beijing olympics, right??

I'm not sure what cloud seeding has to do with people (such as the OP) who try to equate contrails with chemtrails.

We know cloud seeding is real, but those puffy white lines we see high in the sky at jet cruising altitudes have nothing whatsoever to do with cloud seeding, and they are not what people usually refer to as "chemtrails".

Contrails are contrails (i.e., not chemtrails), and cloud seeding is cloud seeding; they are unrelated.

a reply to: mrthumpy

The disclaimer applied for all documents. Otherwise the disclaimer would not have been written at the start of every documents. Thus there was no way I could discover that there was more than one document based solely on the disclaimer.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

And I am not sure why all the focus on chemtrails in the first place (given that there are so many methods out there), that is why I asked the question to NetworkDude, who by the way has a lovely avatar.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: mrthumpy

The disclaimer applied for all documents. Otherwise the disclaimer would not have been written at the start of every documents. Thus there was no way I could discover that there was more than one document based solely on the disclaimer.

I wonder how I managed to stumble on the rest of the paper then? Oh that's right, I started looking into what it was all about and why it was written.

a reply to: swanne

It just seems to be a strawman argument when someone says "Chemtrails are real! The fact that they performed cloud seeding at the Beijing Olympics proves that chentrails are real!"

I mean, who is denying that cloud seeding is real?

So there are people who have been attempting to get rain out of clouds (the clouds need to be "heavy" with moisture in the first place) by putting silver iodide or salt in those heavy clouds, and they have been attempting this method of rainmaking for about 60 years, with varying degrees of claims of success.

I'm not sure where the conspiracy is in all of this.