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.
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 ).
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.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
How much material can one airplane carry, as payload, on each mission??
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??
Originally posted by weedwhacker
How many man-hours??
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Where are these "spraying" airplanes coming from?? Being serviced??
Originally posted by weedwhacker
AM I MAKING SENSE, yet???
Originally posted by weedwhacker
THE TWO things you cited, in this one post, are unrelated!!
Originally posted by weedwhacker
AFAIK, there is nothing on the massive scales that "chemtrail" people worry about.
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 ).
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.
I see these debunkers, always the same ones, posting hundreds of replies against chemtrailers
but hardly ever chiming in on a conspiracy
Can't tell whether they work for ATS to keep the conversation flowing
..or for the government, to keep their crimes covered up.
Look it up, folks- it's mostly declassified and rather unsettling to say the least...