It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Flannery proposes 'global dimming' to save planet

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on May, 25 2008 @ 06:51 PM
Yet another thread where I can only be honest with myself by saying... I DONT KNOW if they are adding chemicals to the atmosphere.. but I CANT say they are not, tho I would BET they are.. Id lay money on it.

Anybody who says they are not up to SOMETHING in the sky are either in denial and trust their government completely about everything... or they are some kinda spanner in the works.

Im seeing so many photos and trails in the sky with my own eyes that Im pretty sure wasnt always there in abundance.

Ok so forget the chemical element for a minute, is it NORMAL for ''commercial'' airliners to form criss crosses and hash symbols #### all over the sky? NO... and is it normal for jets? NO.. unless they are the Red Arrows or something!

Look at these famous pics

I dare anybody to say thats NORMAL?

These are 'diet trails' compared to the above, more like a now NORMAL Britain sky.. which I took in my own garden.

So I wana know, WHY is that? is it coincidence? dont make me laugh. And sometimes I see 2 or 3 planes doing the ###'s.. they go out in pairs and teams to do this stuff.. at a cost of how much?

Oh and this is the dirtiest chem/contrail video Ive seen yet. He claims hes scraped metalic dirt off his windows after a spraying, tho I cant vouch for that part I dont see why he would lie either?

How can anybody watch this and say theres nothing ABNORMAL happening?

Man gets chemtrail dirt analysed finding high levels of barium? [newscast]

[edit on 05/09/2008 by P-a-r-a-d-o-X-2]

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 07:25 PM
reply to post by P-a-r-a-d-o-X-2

Just the first pic, there are so many, but its source is a Las Vegas newspaper....

The LAS VOR is a major point in many routes...both West to East, East to West, North to South.....Southwest to Northeast, you name it!!

Almost avery flight from LAX to the Eastern Seaboard will be routed over LAS. SAN (San Diego) to, say SLC (Salt Lake City) or MSP (Minneapolis)....just a few to consider.

Again, referring just to that first can see how some contrails are very narrow....they were just formed a few minutes before the picture was snapped, by two different airplanes at different altitudes. The other contrails have spread a little....again, each formed by a different airplane, but atmospheric conditions allow them to persist.

The air traffic is about the same every day, yet contrails only form occasionally....why?? Because sometimes the air at altitude is too dry....or they form, and 'evaporate' very quickly (the correct term is 'sublimate', since they are ice crystals....sublimation is the term for H2O transitioning from solid directly to gas, without the intermediate step of turning into liquid....)

Really....sorry, but youtube is not a great source for research....try a textbook!

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 07:32 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

For instance, I just looked....and between 0600 PDT and 1600 PDT there are seventeen flights between Los Angeles and New York Kennedy alone.

There are three major airports in the NYC area. There are two in the Washington DC area, there is Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Minneapolis.....dozens of flights every day from LAX eastbound, and vice-versa......

With that much commercial traffic there's no room for the military!!! Besides, they're all tied up right now....can they call you back????

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 08:00 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Normal flight paths, Ok I understand what youre saying about the timing and sizes.. about that one photo [which I really cannot tell altitude distances from - looks to be on the same level to me] and the airports all over.... but do you know Britains sky? Normal or abnormal its getting SICK looking. Isnt it?

For all I know chemicals could be added to the fuel [without any pilots knowing anything?] and they go about their normal jobs flying people about.. and its just convenient that there are so many planes back and forth creating grids of trails, blanketing over wide areas.. it could be happening with hardly anybody knowing whats in the fuel [if anything]

Youtube is swag get a book? what good is a book when we are talking about visuals? Did you even watch the last 2 videos?

What about the news cast, obviously it wasnt a youtube newscast it was THE tube news [I know... which nobody believes either - until its showing them things they WANT TO agree with, like Osama Bin Laden blowing up the WTC]..
or an OBL 'I done it video'... yeah then people believe the news.

So do you think there is a concentrated effort to get conspiracy theorists on the chemtrail bandwagon?
what is the gain from all that do you think? apart from people debating and arguing all over the place.

[edit on 05/09/2008 by P-a-r-a-d-o-X-2]

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 08:52 PM
There is a big difference between a few aircraft spraying out chemicals and this form of geoengineering that would be of a scale that few of us could comprehend. We know that individual volcanic eruptions can affect global climate for a short period (geologically speaking) just depending on the volcano itself.

But what is being proposed here is something quite different. First of all, how would we possibly be able to manually set off these volcanic eruptions? With explosives or nukes? And even if we did, what about the local population around that volcano? Not to mention, the sheer quanitity of sulphur dioxide to make the kind of changes they are talking about is unimaginably huge.

And there is a possibility it could backfire and start killing plants off due to less sunlight. Then you would have less oxygen being created, less carbon dioxide being used up by those plants, and then you would be building the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to unsafe levels over time which would put you in an even worse position than you started in.

And what would we do about all these millions of cubic miles of sulphur dioxide once the climate is what we want it? There would be no viable way of effectively extracting all of it with man-made means unless you had a giant global network of filtration systems. These would basically be massive clean-air factories. Affecting the balance of our atmosphere by dumping in sulphur on a scale such as this could have irreversible effects that we haven't thought of yet and noone I have read about has offered an economically viable way of applying current technology to make such a theory work in reality nor does anyone really know the climatological risks involved with such a mass-scale operation.

And after all of this sulphur dumping and after an extremely long period (hundreds of years? who knows) we have all this sulphur that has to be dealt with. Not to mention the unknown effect that massive sulphur content would have on existing gases within our atmosphere that are critical to our survival.

If our civilization were willing to pay all that money, expend all that time and energy, and then still be in a tough spot, why not simply filter out the carbon from the air from the very beginning? We have the technology and means of doing it on a massive scale which would, over time, lower the carbon dioxide level of our atmosphere back to a safer level. These carbon collectors could then create an entire new economic resource ,which would benefit the world, in the form of pure carbon.

There are simply other more feasible means of geoengineering which lessen the overall risk of accidentally putting ourselves in a situation we can't get out of.


posted on May, 25 2008 @ 10:18 PM
reply to post by P-a-r-a-d-o-X-2

I'll reply to your second paragaph first, as i have on other threads of this nature...about unkown fuel additives in commercial Jet-A fuel.

Any appreciable amount of additive would change the density, and therefore, the weight of the fuel. We calculate everything based on weight. In the US, we us pounds, most countries use Kg.

Our fuel quantity guages read in pounds (or Kg, as appropriate). The Fuel Flow guages, the fuel used counters...all by weight. (actually, by volume, but adjusted for weight. BUT, the sensors in the fuel tanks use the known density, based on temperature, to calculate the quantity. There are multiple sensors in each tank.

When we are fueled, on the ground, it is measured in gallons (US)....this is a time to verify that there is no discrepancty in the Fuel Quantity system....before fueling, there is a Known Quantity. The gallons uplifted are multiplied by the appropriate number (average is 6.7 lbs/ very cold ambient temps, it could be 6.8lbs/gal). This result is added to FOB (fuel on board) at block in from the last flight, to ensure it matches the Dispatch Fuel load as needed for the upcoming flight.

A gross error must be investigated. If fuel has been adulterated, it would show....besides, who is adding any alleged chemicals?? Some people working minimum wage?? Nope....doesn't happen, they'd make a fortune blowing the whistle.

Fuel quantity can also be verified, by Maintenance, using the sticks that drop down from below the tanks, at various locations....the readings are taken (they're called 'drip' sticks), and charts are referred to....even the slope of the ground is taken into account....this is done, BTW, before all Extended OverWater flights...

Back to youtube....even if some 'breathless bubble-headed bleach blond' from a local newscast somewhere gets posted.....consider the source....

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 10:28 PM
reply to post by P-a-r-a-d-o-X-2

Your last that is a big one! I really don't know where this notion of 'chemtrails' first blossomed. Not sure if it was idle speculation, that ballooned because of the immediacy of the Internet (I like to call it the interwebs) or if it was intentional, to promote bad science in the hope of selling books....a self-promotion ploy.

I find it eerily similar to the proliferation of the 'Moon Hoax' conspiracy offense, I don't know you, except that you live in the UK, but a quick glance at YT will find hordes of, mostly late teens, early twenties blokes trying to (with incredibly bad science) 'prove' a Moon landing 'hoax'...funny, actually started in the US!!! Thing is, on YT, when you actually challenge one of them with valid science, they block you from posting!!!! It's a one-way street to them....

your question about WHY there's this conspiracy 'theory' brings to mind a possible Master's Thesis subject....hmmmmmm

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 10:38 PM
reply to post by P-a-r-a-d-o-X-2

Oh, and I just scrolled to your own pictures, from your garden...paradox...

Here's a challenge for you: Try to look at the same general point in the sky, every day (assuming no overcast) at the same time. Note, if you can, the meteoroligcal conditions at the higher altitudes. (There are likely resources comparable to the NWS here in the States).

Note how some days, nothing shows....other days, the trail will persist for just minutes, dissipating at the end, shortly after the airplane's passage. Other days, the contrails will spread, and stay for hours....indeed, there may be an approaching weather front, and more natural cirrus clouds will form, and merge with the lingering contrails...look for signs of alto-cumulus clouds too, especially when you see a lot of high-altitude cirrus.

Finally....when the 'criss-cross' patterns are observed, remember that from your vantage on the ground, you really cannot tell the difference of a 1000 foot vertical height have no reference points, when they are 35 times that distance above your head.

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 11:05 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Hi mate. Thanks for all that, dont forget its not all about youtube tho as a source. I posted 2 vids that were only posted on youtube.. isnt like youtube originates the vids.

I appreciate what youre saying about all the young [and very rude usually] members.. who cant string a sentence together without some swearing and insults.. but yknow there are loads of genuine vids on there of news etc... but that 1st one with the guy in his back yard... that looks sick.. really if I saw that in the morning over my house I would think WTF is happening

Theres also a vid saying some Russians [or was it Germans?] admitted spraying... but I'l have to find that vid and watch it again in case its crap.

About the weight issues....... Im no scientist but I understand what youre getting at, if there is supposed to be barium metals in the fuel then yeah it should weigh more etc.... thats too much for me right now its 5am here and boy Im tired so I better go to bed.

I wish I could get to collect some of this supposed STUFF falling out the sky and get it analysed myself. But if I did manage that, and they told me it contained high levels of whatever metals... would you believe me? If I posted the papers?

Not that Im ever going to be able to! just a thought. In another thread somone told me he has been on the E4B plane servicing it... yknow I cant argue I just have to give the benefit of the doubt and trust someone I dont know from adam.

I think if its so common enough then it shouldnt be hard for SOMEBODY to get some of this 'dirt' and get it analysed?

Another thought about the news cast I have to wonder [I guess - if Im honest with myself] if it was true would THEY allow it to hit the local news?


Well... maybe.. maybe not... depends on things we may not even be aware of. Just as with the weight issues they may have a way around that.... but I cant think about it for now so Im going to sleep on it.


posted on May, 25 2008 @ 11:09 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Yeah ok good points I'l see what I can do

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 12:18 AM
reply to post by P-a-r-a-d-o-X-2

Hey, paradox...good, reasoned responses, thank you.

I had seen the 'barium' video before, didn't need to see it again. The thing that stands out in my mind a general hysterical reaction, not based on reason...

I'll have to check my periodic table, but as I recall, barium is in the category of heavy metals.

Suppose, it's possible, as such it could be atomized and survive the 880 degree C temps inside the combustion chamber of a jet engine, and not precipitate onto the turbne blades as it cooled....collecting on the titanium, and thus destroying the efficiency of the engine in the process....

I'm not a metallurgist, nor do I know the melting point of barium...but, again suppose it is atomized in some would not fall directly to would behave as any other microscopic dust carried on the upper winds, buffeted and blown around, to possibly fall somewhere when liquid water formed around it and it made rain.

I took the liberty of looking it up on Wikipedia, and here is just a bit of what I discovered (I love learning)...Ba is number 56 on the Periodic table. It is not found in nature because it reacts in air to form various compounds. (Wikipedia has a full list of variants and applications).

Oh....and Barium melts at 727 degrees Celsius. Seems very unsuitable for surviving the temperatures of a jet engine combustion chamber.

[adding]....I felt I was been generous, with the 880 degree Celsius figure...and, I was. You see, what we pilots see on the guages is actually the EGT, or Exhaust Gas Temperature. And, I'll admit, 880 degrees is usually seen as a maximum for engine start, and then again for take-off power or Max Continuous Thrust settings (the actually numbers vary by engine type, but I chose a high value). BUT...this is the 'exhaust' temperature...much hotter inside the combustion chamber. Just thought I'd clear that bit up.

[edit on 5/26/0808 by weedwhacker]

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 03:02 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Hi mate. Most of what you just said flew right over my head
hehe.. but yeah I get the drift thanks for all your input. I did find out something for you and that is The melting point of Barium is 725 º C.
bet you googled it tho yourself after you posted your last post?

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in