Chemtrails Are "Small Reflecting Particles" In The Upper Atmosphere.

page: 1
22
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I have stumbled upon an article which adds credence to my theory which has yet to be shot down by the huge cadre of anti-chemtrailers here on ATS.

Council on Foreign Relations on Planetary Geoengineering: “Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere”


Chemtrails Flights Exposed - Evergreen Aviation (A CIA Front)
I wrote in the above earlier thread about my personal observations of spraying activity AND my theory that Chemtrails (which is a phrase I believed was coined by govt. paid chemtrail debunkers as a misdirect because the trails are not chemicals. The phrase chemtrails then serves to muddy the waters and cause the uniformed to believe the chemtrail conspiracy is about spraying the US population with chemicals designed to harm humans and bring about depopulation. THIS IS WRONG; A red-herring designed by the anti-chemtrail govt agents.)

My chemtrail theory is this... That the spraying is being done by a small fleet of aircraft. 10 or less. They are spraying a substance which is meant to reflect sunlight and alter the albedo of Earth.

A major anti-chemtrail conspiracy argument is: Chemtrails dont exist because SOMEONE would notice the tanks or see something suspicious.
This is false logic.

The chemtrail organizers who are facilitating this operation ARE NOT dumb enough to try and use public commercial aircraft.
So lets put the commercial airliner theory to rest because it is implausible. I, as a trained pilot, have never believed commercial airliners were involved.

It would be much simpler to have a small fleet of government or contract aircraft... I believe 747 tankers, I believe contracted from Evergreen Aviation. Or if not Evergreen, they are perhaps entirely military.
However I believe it would be easier to get contractors to keep quiet than if it was military. My example for this would be the case of the missing nuke from the Base in ND. Word got out. Someone in the chain of command had to report.

OK back to my main point regarding this thread.
I came upon this article: Council on Foreign Relations on Planetary Geoengineering: “Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere”

This council wants MORE I repeat MORE small reflecting particles in the upper atmosphere.

This statement proves a few things....
That we already are putting small reflecting particles in the upper atmosphere.
And that my theory that chemtrails are clouds of reflecting particles designed to alter the ALBEDO of Earth... has proof to back it up.

I encourage Essan, Ozweatherman, and the rest to debunk this particular theory, which they have yet to do in ANY of my or their past threads or posts, involving the chemtrails actually being small particles of reflective material meant to alter the albedo of earth. And please dont misdirect and start talking about other aspects.

I believe that most chemtrail sightings are falsely identified by people without the knowledge to correctly determine what they see and that in fact they are seeing contrails as the chemtrail debunkers so relish. They use this as ammunition to discredit the entire theory.

Can you deny it is possible that a small fleet is spraying a reflective substance in order to alter the albedo in an attempt to control climate change?

HERE IT IS Cryptogon: Council on Foreign Relations on Planetary Geoengineering: “Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere”

AND HERE IS THE ACTUAL PDF from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on Planetary Geoengineering….
PDF from www.cfr.org/content/thinktank/GeoEng_Jan2709

[edit on (3/27/09) by AllSeeingI]




posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
During my research on this topic and source article I am finding that my sources are being removed...

For example initially my main article source was removed from the web and I had to search for another online source covering the same article. After finding one and saving the details to my computer I posted this thread. Suspiciously, after which, my original source has allowed back up online.

HOWEVER the main SMOKING GUN the original PDF file from the CFR GeoEng has mysteriously vanished. When you click the link nothing fully loads. If anyone is finding they can still get to it... please let us know.

So I went to the CFR.org website and searched for the file : GeoEng_Jan2709.

and this is what I found!!!

PDF] Unilateral Geoengineering
Page 1. April 15, 2008 1 Unilateral Geoengineering
Non ... should be pulled. Page 2. April 15, 2008 2 ...

SHOULD BE PULLED?!

are we looking at a cover-up in the making?!

I want to let the PTB (powers that be) and ATS mods & members know that before the PDF was taken down, my being warned by the prior article removal, I immediately saved the entire PDF file to my computer so it would not be lost.
This file is about 600k and 14 pages long with images.

This file I believe is the smoking gun for the chemtrail cover-up.

I want suggestions of how to host this file online in a free way where I can link this thread to it so all can see.

To ATS mods.... is there a way ATS can host this 600k file for me to link to?

[edit on (3/27/09) by AllSeeingI]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by AllSeeingI
 


May I suggest Wikileaks and some of the chemtrail sites, like Carnicom... send them a copy and then it should be available to the masses... I'd love it if you could send me a copy via u2u if possible.

I'll see about sending it to a bunch...

This is great information AllSeeingI. I see how this links with some of the recent threads that have proven this... This one clearly provides substantial data within the first page and is a valuable link with yours....

Thanks for the work..
Rgds
S&F

[edit on 27-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 


Thank you for your support.

I am not sure if there is an additive in all jet fuel for commercial airliners which is part of this conspiracy.

In fact I think that commercial airliners are not part of this plan directly.

It is proven however that the increase in air traffic over the last century as a whole has REDUCED the temperature of Earth.

A perfect example of this would be after the 9/11/01 attacks the skies were clear from all contrails due to the flight ban. The global temp. went up as a direct response.

So to say that commercial airliners are not part of the albedo changing of the Earth would be false, yet I think it is more likely that a small fleet of dedicated military or contracted aircraft are responsible for the ... lets call them artificial or intentional contrails, and the commercial airliners only serve the purpose indirectly as a byproduct of their flight.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
ATTENTION.... It is still possible to download the PDF file from the CFR.org website.

This is how....

Go to : www.cfr.org

in the search box put: GeoEng_Jan2709

Now right click it and click save target as.... it will save the pdf file to your computer. Its about 541k

GET IT BEFORE ITS GONE!



[edit on (3/27/09) by AllSeeingI]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Hi, AllSeeingI and all.

I have the 542 K file " GeoEng_Jan2709.pdf " if needed.

And, **small reflecting particles** are ONE of the "things" that are
in those chemtrails. . . B-)

Blue skies.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by AllSeeingI
 

The effects of normal contrails on climate have been under study for a long time. Proposals of various means of mitigating "global warming", should the need arise, have also been on the table for a long time.

The paper you've linked does not prove anything. To the contrary, it is cautionary, pointing out the hazards of such a project. The purpose of the workshop was to:

focus on the question of strategies for constraining and shapin geoengineering. We will explore formal, legal strategies as well as informal efforts to create norms that could govern testing and deployment of geoengineering systems and their possible undesirable consequences. We will probe whether it is possible to limit the use of geoengineering to circumstances of collective action by the international community in the face of true global emergencies and what might happen when there are disputes over when the emergency “trigger” should be pulled.
They are talking about ways to control such measures and to determine when and if they should be taken.



There are a variety of strategies, such as injecting light-reflecting particles into the stratosphere, that might be used to modify the Earth’s atmosphere-ocean system in an attempt to slow or reverse global warming. All of these "geoengineering" strategies involve great uncertainty and carry significant risks. They may not work as expected, imposing large unintended consequences on the climate system. While offsetting warming, most strategies are likely to leave other impacts unchecked, such as acidification of the ocean, the destruction of coral reefs, and changes in composition of terrestrial ecosystems. Yet, despite uncertain and very negative potential consequences, geoengineering might be needed to avert or reverse some dramatic change in the climate system, such as several meters of sea level rise that could impose disaster on hundreds of millions of people.
www.cfr.org...

Sometimes I wonder if people ever read the things they link.

BTW, I don't think you have to worry about the file "disappearing".

[edit on 3/27/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllSeeingI

My chemtrail theory is this... That the spraying is being done by a small fleet of aircraft. 10 or less. They are spraying a substance which is meant to reflect sunlight and alter the albedo of Earth.


There are 2 initial problems with this theory that I can see:

1) I have often seen more than 10 aircraft in the sky at a time laying what some call chemtrails. If only a small fleet is responsible then clearly what people claim to be chemtrails are not chemtrails and are in fact just contrails after all.

2) 10 aircraft could not cover even a tiny fraction of the planet in any one day. The amount of material they could spray would be insignificant in the extreme. Compared with the tens of thousands of commercial aircraft producing normal contrails at the same time, for example - and even they only cover a small percentage of the planet!

The operation you suggest cannot explain what people see and claim to be chemtrails. Which nonetheless does not mean it is not happening.

However, given the amount of continuing research into whether such an operation is a good idea, the fact the US Govt that until recently did not believe any such operation is necessary, and that to be effective it would need carrying out on a much, much, more massive scale, I do not think it's happening. Unless..... there is a small scale test operation being carried out over, say, one area of the USA?

More info on the proposals to counter GW by spraying particles into the atmosphere and the problems they may cause:

www.sciencedaily.com...

www.sciencedaily.com...

Moreover, the Geoengineering paper is merely a record of a discussion of they type of things that could be done and does not in any way suggest any such things are happening today. The reason is says 'more small reflective particles' is the same reason it says 'more clouds'. These already exist naturally. Every time a volcano erupts, for example.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by C-JEAN

And, **small reflecting particles** are ONE of the "things" that are
in those chemtrails. . . B-)



Well yes, they are. In fact that is exactly 'chemtrails' are. Small reflecting particles. Called ice


Unfortunately these small reflecting particles don't just reflect sunlight away from earth, they also help keep heat in and current research suggest the net result is warming.

Were sulphate particles sprayed into the atmosphere we would not be able to see them - any more than we could see the natural sulphate particles from the Pinatubo eruption that led to the idea of adding such things artificially to the atmosphere (Pinatubo caused a temporary 0.5c drop in global temps largely because of the sulphate particles it threw out into the atmosphere.

The idea of spraying glass like particles instead - which I think is what AllseesingI is actually alluding to in this discussion - is more intriguing. It might well produce some odd atmospheric effects if it were visible from the ground. A permanent display of 'diamond dust' high in the atmosphere perhaps? Not sure. I don't think there are currently any serious plans to do this (nor of how we could do it) but I'm happy to be proven wrong!



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AllSeeingI
 

The effects of normal contrails on climate have been under study for a long time. Proposals of various means of mitigating "global warming", should the need arise, have also been on the table for a long time.

The paper you've linked does not prove anything. To the contrary, it is cautionary, pointing out the hazards of such a project. The purpose of the workshop was to:

focus on the question of strategies for constraining and shapin geoengineering. We will explore formal, legal strategies as well as informal efforts to create norms that could govern testing and deployment of geoengineering systems and their possible undesirable consequences. We will probe whether it is possible to limit the use of geoengineering to circumstances of collective action by the international community in the face of true global emergencies and what might happen when there are disputes over when the emergency “trigger” should be pulled.
They are talking about ways to control such measures and to determine when and if they should be taken.



There are a variety of strategies, such as injecting light-reflecting particles into the stratosphere, that might be used to modify the Earth’s atmosphere-ocean system in an attempt to slow or reverse global warming. All of these "geoengineering" strategies involve great uncertainty and carry significant risks. They may not work as expected, imposing large unintended consequences on the climate system. While offsetting warming, most strategies are likely to leave other impacts unchecked, such as acidification of the ocean, the destruction of coral reefs, and changes in composition of terrestrial ecosystems. Yet, despite uncertain and very negative potential consequences, geoengineering might be needed to avert or reverse some dramatic change in the climate system, such as several meters of sea level rise that could impose disaster on hundreds of millions of people.
www.cfr.org...

Sometimes I wonder if people ever read the things they link.

BTW, I don't think you have to worry about the file "disappearing".

[edit on 3/27/2009 by Phage]


Again Phage comes through with correct rebuttal. Even so, this will probably go on for dozens of pages. I agree, do people actually read what they post?

These geoengineering studies are nothing new. The discovery channel even has a whole series dedicated to them.

Personally I am glad groups the CFR are looking at possible corrective measures to out of control climate change. Even if the ideas are a bit fanciful. Better to be prepared.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Evergreen only has a single 747 tanker that has really been on and off as a tanker for the past few years. Half the time it would operate as a tanker, half the time it wouldn't. They modified out of there own pockets for about 15 million dollars, and there is only a SINGLE 747 tanker. Furthermore, the chemicals are dropped out of a single point in the belly; which photo evidence does not match with. The sprayers might be modified aircraft by evergreen; who could be operating them though? USAF aircraft are never white. Some USN tankers such as the "Omega Tanker" DC-10 are though... but that's a one off aircraft (And it still is a commercial aircraft). Who else operates similar aircraft?

[edit on 28/3/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Now ADMITTED in mainstream news articles. Of course the admissions will always be spun.

HERE:

www.guardian.co.uk...

Lets debate the finer points of the issue this time rather than descend into an
Oh yes they are/Oh no they aren't cyclical debate...

Thread derailers are trying to keep this debate on a low intellectual level, in the same way as a lot of UFO debates get ruined.

+ + +

I encourage people to do their own research, and not get intimidated by the pseudo-technical language employed by the debunkers.

Check out Prison Planet and Infowars for starters. Nine times out of ten they will link to mainstream news articles as proof. Someone will come along and dispute what I've said. Who cares? Do your own research. Over and Out.

Taking bets on how long before this thread gets closed.




[edit on 13f20096amSat, 28 Mar 2009 11:26:02 -050002 by HiAliens]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by HiAliens
I don't understand why this debate is going back and forth when it has been ADMITTED in mainstream news articles.


Because we're talking about something completely different: whether some of the lines you see in the sky - which some call chemtrails - might be a deliberate exercise to combat global warming.

But, if you like, the first chemtrails were deployed in WWI. Called mustard gas.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by Essan]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Why only spray over populated areas?



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I've been observing these jet-trails now for a few years, and based on my internet reading I had just naturally assumed they were due to some additive in the aircraft fuel ...

After following a few of the recent threads here, my view has moderated somewhat to the following -


If they fly these jets high enough and there's enough humidity ( RH ) present, then and only then is the reflective cirrostratus haze formed.

And according to my observations they can do it pretty much whenever they want to -- so, maybe it's just a matter of finding the atmospheric sweet spot in terms of cruising altitude, where the haze will be formed.

In any case, I'm backing off ( at least for now ) from the additives conjecture.

And, finally, with all due respect to the OP'er, there's a heckuva lot more than just only 10 planes involved ... based on the above, it may be theoretically possible, IMHO, that every jet-liner capable of flying high enough is a potential participant.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by AllSeeingI
 


You're absolutely right. They are a type of aluminum particle designed to reflect sunlight back out into space to combat global warming. I wish I could remember the URL I read the article from. But it was a government site. It's a secret project for the most part, but they do come clean when they have to. I think it's semi-secret because they felt the need to act outweighed by the delays and debate that would take place if it were in the pubic domain. In the end it said it would only reflect about 1% of the sun's rays back into space but that would be enough to keep global warming in check.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
So, isn't it possible that by doing this, aside from endangering and harming humans and all living creatures with heavy metal poisoning, that they may, based on limited knowledge and information, be setting up the planet for an ice age?



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
My take on it is that the situation must be serious enough that increasing the Earth's albido trumps all other considerations ...

For instance, last spring I noticed nearly constant cloud making here in southeastern Michigan, then when there were all those three-thousand year floods about 500 miles to the west of here, I naturally assumed this cloud making activity was going on in other places as well and it was most likely responsible for the highly unusual amount of extremely severe flooding experienced in the central states last spring.

Like they miscalculated it seemed to me ...

This year I am noticing a lot less cloud forming activity relative to last year, and as far as I know only Fargo is having severe problems at the moment ...

In my view it looks like they are learning as they go with this ...

But, again, they must view the situation as pretty dire to be taking these irreversible steps without really knowing for sure what the outcome will ultimately be ...



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllSeeingI
During my research on this topic and source article I am finding that my sources are being removed...
..........
So I went to the CFR.org website and searched for the file : GeoEng_Jan2709.

and this is what I found!!!

PDF] Unilateral Geoengineering
Page 1. April 15, 2008 1 Unilateral Geoengineering
Non ... should be pulled. Page 2. April 15, 2008 2 ...

SHOULD BE PULLED?!

are we looking at a cover-up in the making?!


I have been rather unwillingly pulled into investigating these "theories" as my husband has found a wild array of videos on youtube, most of which seem pretty far fetched... this chemtrail thing is one of these theories.

Interestingly, the drama of the statements, above, can easily be deflated. If you read the actual document (easily downloaded it), at the end of page 1, and I quote:





This workshop will focus on the question of strategies for constraining and shaping geoengineering. We will explore formal, legal strategies as well as informal efforts to create norms that could govern testing and deployment of geoengineering systems and their possible undesirable consequences. We will probe whether it is possible to limit the use of geoengineering to circumstances of collective action by the international community in the face of true global emergencies and what might happen when there are disputes over when the emergency “trigger” should be pulled.
(emphasis is mine)


So that's where the "should be pulled" statement that shows up comes from. Is it really plausible that an "evil" organization would announce on its website that a too-revealing document "should be pulled." *much doubt*

One more thought, and this is at a infant level of science (I'm currently taking first year 2nd term university chemistry - for the fun of it - I also work full-time)...

We were talking in class about the formation of ozone from molecular oxygen, which is a very slow process. From what I understand, ozone is oxidized to oxygen rather easily, but the reverse process takes a very long time. So if a catalyst could be added to speed up the formation of ozone from oxygen, it could help to "mend" the holes in the ozone layer.

So I'm open-minded that there may be some research going on in this way, but I don't buy the hype, such as the statement above that "they" might be pulling the document to hide it.

Unless of course you believe that the CFR is a member of the evil NWO round table, such as is claimed on youtube.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   



May be this video is related?





 
22
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join