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.

 

Chemical Trails: Are we being sprayed?

page: 11
12
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones
 


yeah....well, I thought you alluded a bit, since you brought up the "Black Ops".

BTW, Eisenhower I believe was mostly concerned with OTHER aspects of the "M.I.C."

I'm alluding to an entirely different subject, of course, with IKE. And that would be potential ET tech, which is for another thread. At least, that's the rumours about Ike's message, there.

Of course, we could postulate, now, some sort of exotic off-world technology to account for the "chemtrail" distribution program, and merge too conspiracy fields right here at ATS....heck, let's throw Alternate Universes and Time Travel in also, just to stir the pot!!




posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Besides differences you make me LMAO much of the time. Yesterday I was laughing all day long about your hands having to be surgically removed from your face..........now that was funny...


oh, and your wrong about the chemtrails.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Just as a reminder, as to how ludicrous this "chemtrail" concept is, consider the sheer AMOUNT of material necessary to be able to sufficiently contaminate the atmosphere, so much that it actually reaches its intended targets ( people ).

Taken from the Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming...



Mass Estimates
"Ramaswamy and Kiehl (1985) estimate that an aerosol dust loading of 0.2 g/m2 for dust with a radius of about 0.26 µm increases the planetary albedo by 12 percent, resulting in a 15 percent decrease of solar flux reaching the surface. Since an approximately 1 percent change in solar flux is required, and their Figures 13 and 15 suggest that, at these loadings, the dust effects may reasonably be extrapolated downward linearly, estimates will be made by using a dust loading of 0.02 g/m2 with a particle radius of 0.26 µm."
"The dust in Ramaswamy and Kiehl's model is distributed between 10 and 30 km in the stratosphere, uniformly over the globe. The actual effect on radiative forcing of a global distribution of additional dust would be somewhat greater at low than at high latitudes because more of the sunlight is effective there for geometric reasons. This would decrease slightly the equator-to-pole temperature gradients and might have some effect on weather intensity. Presumably, this effect can also be studied with global climate models."


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Please research airborne contaminates, and how many ppm ( parts per million ) of concentration would be necessary, for the poison of your choice, in aerosol form, to affect a Human's respiration, and cause sufficient harm as you are alleging.


The Guardian
In most cases, the trials did not use biological weapons but alternatives which scientists believed would mimic germ warfare and which the MoD claimed were harmless. But families in certain areas of the country who have children with birth defects are demanding a public inquiry.
One chapter of the report, 'The Fluorescent Particle Trials', reveals how between 1955 and 1963 planes flew from north-east England to the tip of Cornwall along the south and west coasts, dropping huge amounts of zinc cadmium sulphide on the population. The chemical drifted miles inland, its fluorescence allowing the spread to be monitored. In another trial using zinc cadmium sulphide, a generator was towed along a road near Frome in Somerset where it spewed the chemical for an hour.
While the Government has insisted the chemical is safe, cadmium is recognised as a cause of lung cancer and during the Second World War was considered by the Allies as a chemical weapon.


As you don't seem to need to research it, I wonder if you could just tell us how many ppm of zinc cadmium sulphide would have been needed to affect a human being o the ground?



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo-V™
 


Nice work on your efforts to expose this sinister crime on mankind.

I'll thank you for my childrens sake.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
How much material can one airplane carry, as payload, on each mission??

Written 17 years ago...


Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming
Delivery Scenarios

"Aircraft Exhaust Penner et al. (1984) suggested that emissions of 1 percent of the fuel mass of the commercial aviation fleet as particulates, between 40,000- and 100,000-foot (12- to 30-km) altitude for a 10-year period, would change the planetary albedo sufficiently to neutralize the effects of an equivalent doubling of CO2. They proposed that retuning the engine combustion systems to burn rich during the high-altitude portion of commercial flights could be done with negligible efficiency loss. Using Reck's estimates of extinction coefficients for particulates (Reck, 1979a, 1984), they estimated a requirement of about 1.168 ¥ 1010 kg of particulates, compared with the panel's estimate of 1010 kg, based upon Ramaswamy and Kiehl (1985). They then estimated that if 1 percent of the fuel of aircraft flying above 30,000 feet is emitted as soot, over a 10-year period the required mass of particulate material would be emitted.

However, current commercial aircraft fleets seldom operate above 40,000 feet (12 km), and the lifetimes of particles at the operating altitudes will be much shorter than 10 years."


Originally posted by weedwhacker
How many airplanes??

For chemical testing, probably not a lot, to cover the atmosphere, a fair few, and remember that geoengineering is a global operation so spraying is happening all over the world.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
How many man-hours??


As many as the flight hours of any plane used.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Where are these "spraying" airplanes coming from?? Being serviced??


Where do airplanes go to and get serviced. Again, the operation, as shown by the information provided 17 years ago wouldn't be that hard, so imagine how easy it would be today.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
AM I MAKING SENSE, yet???


You're giving a good explanation of how and why it wouldn't be done, all the while ignoring the vast amount of information to suggest, whether testing on us or geoengineering of the atmosphere, is being conducted. I see what you're saying, I really do, but there is too much supporting evidence to suggest there is, and while I'm more inclined to believe it's for geoengineering, it's the affects it may have on us and the environment that is of concern.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Udontknowme
 

My pleasure. Somethings going on, and "blue ice" doesn't explain it for me.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo-V™
 


Sorry, but you're confusing two entirely different things.

The Ramaswamy and Kiehl calculations are interesting, as a possible mitigation for GW, should it be deemed necessary. Their figures on altitude for distribution of dust particles ranged from 10km to 30km. That's quite a range. 30km is higher than any conventional airplane can fly, it's about 98,800 feet. Of course, 10km is roughly six miles, or just over 30,000 feet, so that's a possiblity.

However, some rough math estimates ( I could have misplaced a decimal here ): The Earth's surface is about 510 Million km2, and 1000 meters ( one side of the square km ) squared = 1,000,000 m2. SO, that's 510 TRILLION square meters of Earth surface area. Sure, 0.02 gm/m2 seems small, but multiply that out!

Your next reference was from The Guardian, which was an expose' from some years ago about clandestine germ warfare experiments in Britain during the height of the Cold War. The medium used to simulate a biological weapons attack waas considered to be benign ( perhaps more modern science says otherwise, today ) and was sprayed from low-levels, and even distributed by lorries and "smoke-pots" on the ground.

THE TWO things you cited, in this one post, are unrelated!!



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo-V™
 


THIS post of yours, and the reference to Penner, et al:

In the last paragraph, although the body of their statement mentioned altitudes of 40,000 to 100,000 feet, they correctly note that most commercial air traffic does not go above 40,000.

Also, and coming from the standpoint of having a wee bit of knowledge of jet airplanes and their engines ( I flew them for 23 years ) the idea of "re-tuning" to "run richer" is ludicrous.

Not only does the increase in fuel consumption that they suggest run counter to ALL the efforts, in light of fuel prices, at conservation techniques, the very nature of a jet engine is such that it cannot be "tuned" to "run rich"!!

What they are taling about is dependent on DESIGN of the engine. Older straight turbojets, like the early Pratt/Whitney JT-8D, ran more dirty, you could see a lot more exhaust in the, the dark particulates. Look for MD-80 series airplanes today, they have versions of the JT-8D installed, and they still 'smoke' a little.

Newer, more modern and more prevalent high-bypass turbofan engines are more efficient they combust the fuel almost completely, and are more
economical and pollute less.

But, as I said, it's all about the design, especially in the combustion chamber, the 'plenum', and the arrangement of the fuel injectors in the burner cans. If you look into how jet engines function ( plenty of sources out there on the InterTubes ) it should be clear what I'm saying.

IN ANY CASE, the majority of the concepts being floated are designed to address Globlal Warming. I happen to think these are foolish notions, for various reasons. Mostly because we don't know enough yet to even be certain of exactly what is happening, in terms of climate change.

Other aspects of aerial spraying, as I and others have continually noted, involve lower altitudes, specific-purpose activities. Either weather modification locally ( cloud seeding for precipitation stimulus ) or pesticides/herbicides spraying.

AFAIK, there is nothing on the massive scales that "chemtrail" people worry about. It seems to be an over-reaction by certain individuals to disconnected studies and reports, and it is fueled by ignorance ( not singling out anyone here, but pointing to those who promote these 'theories' via the InterTubes ).

The hysteria generated by just a few individuals initially, combined with the virility of the InterTubes is a fascinating insight into Human psychology, for sure.

Thanks for finding all of this info, but remember to examine it very critically each time, and try to factor out your pre-conceived ideas. NONE of us, singularly, can be a jack-of-all-trades but combining knowledge from different disciplines in life can lead to greater understandings, and fewer misconceptions.

ON TOPIC, I hope, but I just thought again of an event in recent history known as "The Little Ice-Age", when Europe had no summer, I think it was in the 1800s (??) This, due to a large volcanic eruption somewhere half-way 'round the World. The particulates, all from a natural event, behaved just as those scientists in the study you posted above were postulating, altering the albedo of the planet, if only temporarily. It is possible, in our lifetimes, that we may see such an occurence, and be completely powerless to prevent it!!!



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
THE TWO things you cited, in this one post, are unrelated!!


They are directly unrelated yes, but what it shows is that...
A. Chemical testing on the general population by spraying is well documented.
B. It is openly being discussed that spraying the air is a good idea to combat GW.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
AFAIK, there is nothing on the massive scales that "chemtrail" people worry about.

The one resounding factor in regards to this issue is health.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
It seems to be an over-reaction by certain individuals to disconnected studies and reports, and it is fueled by ignorance ( not singling out anyone here, but pointing to those who promote these 'theories' via the InterTubes ).

There is nothing wrong with being concerned over your health, and assuming that the Government may be doing what it has been documented to have done before is not an over reaction.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo-V™

They are directly unrelated yes, but what it shows is that...
A. Chemical testing on the general population by spraying is well documented.
B. It is openly being discussed that spraying the air is a good idea to combat GW.



It's a classice example of non sequitur reasoning

Like, for example:

A. We went to the Moon in 1969
B. It is openly being discussed that we should build a base on the Moon

Therefore there large numbers of people living on the Moon today.

Do you see the flaw in that?


And in any case, what has any of this to do with the lines of deadly dihydrogen monoxide crystals which is what most chemtrail believers claim to be chemtrails? Nothing at all.

All you have shown is that if spraying of some sort does take place, it's not visible and it is not masquerading as contrails. Unless of course we're being sprayed with dihydrogen monoxide crystals?



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   
I see these debunkers, always the same ones, posting hundreds of replies against chemtrailers, but hardly ever chiming in on a conspiracy, and when they do, it's usually at a skeptic level.

Can't tell whether they work for ATS to keep the conversation flowing, or for the government, to keep their crimes covered up.

Anyways, a video I haven't seen posted in a while.




posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   
I quite like this story I came across earlier today:

Mountain Mists and a Rainbow Conspiracy




posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Udontknowme
 



I see these debunkers, always the same ones, posting hundreds of replies against chemtrailers


Well, I see these "chemtrailers", always the same ones, posting hundreds of replies against science...


but hardly ever chiming in on a conspiracy


BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING THERE!! This nonsense distracts from real conspiracies that should be looked into, it is pure noise and no foundation whatsoever, except in imagination.

The first five minutes of that silly video up there is a prime example.

LOOK at it!!! If you want to see the "conspiracy"----the conspiracy is the efforts of whowever is being this garbage to get you to believe that normal contrails are "chemtrails", because if they can get people to believe, they can sell stuff to them. THAT is your "conspiracy"!!!



Can't tell whether they work for ATS to keep the conversation flowing


??
"work for ATS'....
That is the height of idiocy, and unfortunately demonstrates a level of understanding that is slighlty sub-par, but is EXACTLY the mindset that is being fostered in ORDER to promote this "chemtrail" baloney. *cough* conspiracy....


..or for the government, to keep their crimes covered up.


Level 2 of the self-deception. "keep their crimes covered up"??????

According to the "chemtrail" promoters, the "crimes" are everywhere, in plain sight!!!! HOW can they be "covered up"??? It is so laughable, perhaps some of YOU are working for a group or groups who are spreading disinfo for the purposes of generating traffic to certain websites, and generate income through "chemtrail" promotional sales?

Yup!! That's the conspiracy, and I see how clear cut it is. Paid "chemtrail" promoters, who help to get their message out via a free website chat board...wow, the conspiracy even spreads to YT (another free video-sharing site) to give them the hint of crediblity.....ingenius!



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Udontknowme
 


Here, Udontknowme, here's a video gift.

I suggest watching in full-screen, HD. It's a real flight in a real U-2 "spyplane" up to 70,000 feet.

Please, after watching and having a great view of the extensive "chemtrails" that are claimed to exist nearly everywhere, please point them out to us all.

Thank you in advance.

Enjoy!




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones
 


Amen, brother. And if anyone wants to find out more, go to Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio's website- they discuss it rather freely. Also, lok up HAARP in Alaska. The ELF microwaves being released into the ionosphere bounce back at precisely the frequency of neurological EM impulses- 10Hz. Tweak the pulse by a hertz or two and you can pacify or enrage an entire population. Meant to be "weather modification studies" the HAARP program is a tool of electronic warfare- both against our enemies, and used on our own people. Add chemtrails- the compositions of which are barium and aluminum, as well as bacterial, viral, fungal and other debris, and you have a metallic population- literally - and because of the intake of these metals in conjunction with the ELF from HAARP make us tools of the government's wishes. Tune to 6.6 Hz and you get depression- sell more Prozac, etc.

Look it up, folks- it's mostly declassified and rather unsettling to say the least...



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by CultureD
 



Look it up, folks- it's mostly declassified and rather unsettling to say the least...


How's about YOU look it up and provide relevant links, sounds fascinating. HAARP is right up the alley of ATS user wonderworld, you can see threads with references by that user. Of course, most of the conclusions drawn are erroneous, but it's still a good yarn.

OK. so NOW it's all declassified!! Good, you can gather all of your outraged friends and DEMAND Congressional oversight! See? Easy-peazy, it's not a "clandestine" operation, no top-secret boogeymen anymore, so it's gonna be easy to blow the whistl......oh,, whistle's been blown? Well, All Aboard!!!



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join