It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No Longer a Conspiracy Theory: CIA Director Admits Plans of Aerosol Spraying for Geoengineering

page: 2
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TobyFlenderson

I'm with you.
And, how do we know this is even a good idea? What are the effects after 10 years? 20? 100?

We continually screw up this planet, with our "good intentions"




posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: RainbowPhoenix



A study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health is suggesting that geoengineering has already begun, and the substance being used is a toxic by-product of coal burning call coal-fly ash.


Some of us already accepted this to be true but now the naysayers don't really have a leg to stand on. I think this one "conspiracy" that can be moved to the truth column.


I am suggesting it's not happening. Is my suggestion any more valid than that of the paper you sourced?

if you look into the coal fly ash thing, you find that Marvin Herndon wrote a paper then had to retract it due to many errors. And if you actually do look at his paper and offer it any significance, you find that he used a filter at ground level to collect his samples. Any chance those chemicals came from a terrestrial source? Any chance at all?



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: DustbowlDebutante
I was always under the impression that when speaking about "chemtrails", we are talking about an unknown substance being sprayed into the air of an unwitting populace, with sinister or nefarious purposes, most likely the intent of altering human behavior and/or health.

What they are talking about in this article doesn't really fit into this definition of "chemtrail" for me. They are telling you exactly what substance they are considering and for what purpose. And when the purpose is for weather modification, well, this has been going on for decades...seriously, since before I was born. I don't think it's too sinister or nefarious when they are telling you all the "why's" and "how's"...

My mom has always told me about all the cloud seeding they did where she was growing up in the early 1960's. This is quite literally nothing new.

I'm not saying I don't think our gov would ever spray us with some bad stuff, I'm just saying that I don't think this is it.


No, that's what some people may want to think with chemtrails. I for one believe in chemtrails, but I don't think they are for "nefarious" purposes because they'd be poisoning themselves as well. I think they are for deflecting the sun's shortwave infrared radiation, which is an attempt to help stop global warming. Solar energy hits the planet, heats up the surface, and is usually emitted from the surface as longwave infrared, but the CO2 and C4 levels are causing an atmospheric blanket trapping the longwave infrared radation and causing global warming. Clouds help to deflect the sunlight.

Also, many people claim there are too many pilots needed and someone would have broken their silence on the issue, but not if those pilots are unaware they are spraying at all. Why can't the spraying be controlled from the surface?



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Anyone interested in what he was actually talking about?

Another example is the array of technologies—often referred to collectively as geoengineering—that potentially could help reverse the warming effects of global climate change. One that has gained my personal attention is stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, a method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat, in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do.

An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some risks associated with higher temperatures and providing the world economy additional time to transition from fossil fuels. The process is also relatively inexpensive—the National Research Council estimates that a fully deployed SAI program would cost about $10 billion yearly.

As promising as it may be, moving forward on SAI would raise a number of challenges for our government and for the international community. On the technical side, greenhouse gas emission reductions would still have to accompany SAI to address other climate change effects, such as ocean acidification, because SAI alone would not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

www.cia.gov...

So...no
edit on 3/27/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

And where are the chemicals coming from? Fuel is randomly tested before it's loaded, and quality is always monitored, because of how sensitive jet engines are to things in the fuel. It would also have to be something that isn't going to cause added wear to the engine, which drastically limits what it could be.

Jet engines are almost absurdly vulnerable to things going through them, besides fuel and air, and even the fuel has to be very specific, or it's going to cause problems. They have reached a point where engines are reaching unheard of hours on the wing. In 2003, a CFM56-3C engine, hung on the wing of a 737-500, reached 40,538 hours, and 17,405 cycles without a shop visit. It was installed on the aircraft in 1990, and finally removed in September of 2003 for a routine maintenance cycle that required a shop visit. The CFM56 family in 2003, had a shut down rate of 1 per 500,000 flight hours.

If you were to add something like sulfur, or a metallic compound to be used to reflect sunlight, there is no way that any engine could reach that level of operational service. The metal hitting the turbine blades, even at a PPM level, would cause wear on the blades, and they'd fail, or reach the replacement level long before they even got close to that kind of in service point.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: chiefsmom

Another idea about the spraying is that it's ozone. There was a member here named Amatrine who made a post on one of my threads a few years ago saying that in the 1980's she worked for a man who created a way to deliver ozone into the atmosphere in the 1980’s, but his work was seized by the government, classified and he wasn’t able to do that kind of work anymore. Very interesting, and several years later, chemtrails begin to appear in the skies above us. Well, it's said that they started to appear in the 1990's.

Here was that exchange between two members, Amatrine and Jonny Mnemonic.

From Amatrine:



I have a question. I am not a scientist, so this may sound stupid, but I have to ask. What if we pumped ozone into the atmosphere? I worked for a scientist that invented the ozone machine. I worked for him back in the 80's. He had invented a way for planes to put ozone into the atmosphere, and the government seized that work and classified it, and he was no longer allowed to pursue that area of work. I use ozone to this day in my home to kill molds and bacteria. Would ozone in the home have any effect on these gasses if they were to enter the home, ozone is O3, until it destabilizes to 02. How would sulfide react to 03?


From Jonny Mnemonic:




Yes, ozone helps! It reacts away hydrogen sulfide: O3 + H2S --> H2O + O2 + S.

I have three ozone generators going constantly. I don't wanna be seen as promoting any particular product, and I own no stock in ozone generators (or anything else), but ozone generators are a good idea. That should help eliminate any H2S that infiltrates your home. If your clothes or cardboard boxes or books have absorbed any, it should help there too. Interesting about the planes generating ozone being classified. That's a big problem, how to create ozone in the upper atmosphere. It's so incredibly reactive that it's basically impossible to transport, so it has to be created where you need it. I suspect that's partly what chemtrails and HAARP are for: to generate electrical arcs in the stratosphere, which would create ozone there. If planes could create it too, all the better!

I don't really know about chemtrails, but I do see the giant checkerboards in the sky, and I did mention a proposed reason for that. You ever look at the screen in your microwave? Grid pattern, to slow/stop radiation leakage. So yeah, I do think 'they' are trying some stuff, to buy us a bit of time if nothing else. Doesn't matter to the hypothesis though. If they're not trying any protective measures then we'll just die a little faster. And I don't think they can SPRAY ozone. But I didn't know about any classified ozone-generating planes before either, so who knows. I hope they ARE trying stuff to protect us, being one of those don't-wanna-die-sooner-than-necessary type of people. Heh.


Just another idea.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

High bypass turbofans, which produce more contrails than low and medium bypass turbofans hit the big time in the 1990s with the introduction of the new model 747s, and 777s, and other new aircraft. Which is why people say that is when chemtrails began.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

In my post above this one, I referenced that conversation where they discuss ozone reacting away hydrogen sulfide. Ozone can also react away other gases, such as methane.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

What does that have to do with me posting the context of Brennan's speech? Context which makes it clear that he did not say geoengineering is being carried out.
edit on 3/27/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

If they had a classified way to create ozone from an airplane, would he admit that?



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

The point is, his words were taken completely out of context in order to make it sound as if he said that geoengineering is occurring or is planned to be done.

The point is, he did not say that.
edit on 3/27/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yea, I get that. I'm only suggesting that, besides what he says, it may be happening. I wouldn't trust a word these days from either Brennan or Comey, they are both a pair of Obama stooges, but, I'll try to refrain from getting political. Forgive me.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Rezlooper

High bypass turbofans, which produce more contrails than low and medium bypass turbofans hit the big time in the 1990s with the introduction of the new model 747s, and 777s, and other new aircraft. Which is why people say that is when chemtrails began.


yes, that's a good cover. But, a contrail should not form a lasting cloud in the sky or should it? So you are saying these high bypass turbofans create enough condensation to fill the entire sky with cloud-cover. If so, then i guess it's still a good thing in the global warming fight.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

Contrails have formed cloud cover as long as they've been formed. They saw the first persistent contrail linger and spread back around 1915 or 1918. In WWII bombers left contrails that spread so badly they had to reroute back to their base because they couldn't see to navigate.

The difference with high bypass turbofans is that because they bypass such a high percentage of air they form contrails at a lower altitude, and because of them forming where previous engines didn't, they form in areas that are either at the point, or very close to the point that they'd be persistent contrails. A low or medium bypass turbofan required a much narrower window to leave contrails and have them be persistent.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks for explaining that. I've read about the WWII reports, but never understood the reasoning for the major increase in the 1990's.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

The newer engines are much more efficient, but only something like 10% of the air that goes into the intake actually goes through the engine itself. The rest is pushed out the back of the fan section. That air is compressed before it's pushed out, so it has more moisture in it from being compressed.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

Perhaps you ought to pay attention to what Mr Brennan was saying? He is nt talking about any current program. He is talking about possible future geoengineering, which will by look or act anything like what people call "chemtrails" (which are simply ordinary persistent contrails).



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rezlooper
If so, then i guess it's still a good thing in the global warming fight.

No, it is a BAD thing. Contrails trap heat and cause global warming. Which makes it all the more ironic that chemtrail believers claim that contrails are being created deliberately for geoengineering: they have exactly the OPPOSITE effect of geoengineering proposals.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

Even back in 1980 researchers were finding that the east/west upper air routes covering the Midwest States was producing more cloud cover.

Richard Semonin, Illinois Institute of Natual Resources states.


In the absense of natural clouds given the correct atmospheric conditions jet aircraft in high frequency can almost completely cover the atmosphere, visible atmosphere, with clouds.





posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

good to see you still among the living. Hadn't seen you around for a while. Hope all is well.




top topics



 
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join