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.

 

EXCLUSIVE "What in The World Are They Spraying" Chemist talks to ATS about Geoengineering.

page: 8
53
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
I feel sorry for the good doctor having to wade through all this drivel.
How in the hell is he supposed to find the questions without doing so?
Could the O.P maybe post a list of questions that the doctor (and us) can find easily?
Thanks in advance.




posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Flighty
 


I'd be tempted to start a whole new thread..



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
BTW, your talk of altitudes is mere speculation on your part..




Wind is surely the most important. It may cause irregular coverage of the treated plants and may cause the spray or dust to drift beyond the treated area. The amount of loss by drift will not depend on the wind velocity alone, however. Size of the drops and altitude of flight also affect the loss. For example, in a wind of I mile an hour, a 200-micron drop released 10 feet above the ground will drift about 6 feet. But if the drop is released in a 10-mile-an hour wind from an altitude of 50 feet it will be carried about 300 feet. Under the same conditions, a 20-micron drop will travel some 3.5 miles. Aside from reducing the amount of insecticide reaching the insects, drift may cause most of the material to strike the plant horizontally. That may result in an uneven distribution on the foliage of plants or trees.

So if a 200-micron drop of aerosol is dropped from an aircraft in a 10mph wind at an altitude of 50 feet it carries on the wind 300 feet. That certainly limits the altitude that you can do spraying at any higher level of altitude with any type of accuracy. This is especially true when you consider that wind speed tends to increase with altitude. So the same particulate dropped from say 18000 feet msl is going to travel many miles outside the intended drop zone. Something dropped above 18000 feet is going to carry on the upper level air currents and may not come to the surface for hundreds to thousands of miles later, if it does not evaporate completely during that time.

If you noticed, even the spraying of the oil dispersants over the Gulf oil spill were done under 100 feet msl. Optimum altitude is very low if get a concentrated swath of chemical on a specified target area.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I know what you mean. Sounds like a good idea.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


But you whole theory is based on contrails..
We know the conditions,including altitude and temp required to produce contrails due to precipitation.

But if chemtrails are real, do they need the same conditions?
What's to say they have to be at the same high altitude.??

As many have pointed out, it's very hard to determine altitude from the ground..



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Not speculation, they've already done lots of tests and figured it out:

The effectiveness of geoengineering is strongly dependent on the type or particle and the particle size deployed. Most studies of geoengineering focus on the release of SO2 or H2S gas into the stratosphere where over time (~1 month), they are converted to condensable H2SO4. Recent work by Pierce et al has shown that directly emitting H2SO4 allows better control of particle size6 and therefore more effective reflection of incoming flux. For the purposes of this study, we have assumed the geoengineering payload is a liquid with a density of 1000 kg/m3 (In gas pipe analysis, a density of 1.22 kg/m^3 is assumed), emitted as a vapor. The larger geoengineering particles, the faster they settle out of the atmosphere. If they are too small, they do not effectively scatter incoming solar flux. The peak scattering effectiveness of H2SO4 aerosols is about 0.2 microns (Mie theory). To achieve the proper particle size, the vapor must be emitted at a rate that prevents particles from coagulating into large particles. Analysis7 has shown that a release rate of 0.1 to 0.003 kilograms per meter travelled by the aircraft limits coagulation. For the purposes of this study, concepts of operations are designed around a release rate of 0.03kg/m. However, in some cases higher rates are required due to limitations on airplane range or dispersal method.

PDF report

ETA... no on the start a new thread, this is the third one, and any new one would just degenerate also. Let's all just stick to the facts please.

edit on 5-3-2011 by pianopraze because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


If you manage to get Dr. Lenny Thyme to agree to a live radio show I really hope the questions go both ways..
It would be good if Lenny could ask questions of our "so called" experts and see if they can answer without research and quick copy/paste jobs...



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Both the producer Murphy, and Dr. Thyme will be on there. Nef is an avid anit-chemtrail person. His arguments seemed thought out and researched before. He's talked about his position on the show a few times adn I was nodding along.

However, after actually looking into this topic I'm changing my mind. I'm not sure whether or not is is currently going on (and there seems to be some evidence, mostly circumstantial, but not conclusive inho, that it is going on).

The biggest thing to me is whether or not it is currently in operational is the FACT... absolute uncontrovertibly FACT is they are planning this. They have tested this. And they are ready to go on command.

We must stop this from happening. Period. No if ands or butts.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Well I think ATS must do the right thing and ensure the program is mediated by a wholly unbiased person..
Anything less would be tainted..



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


lol.. i'm not sure ATS will be able to produce such a thing. I might be the closest as I see both sides and am pretty close to the middle willing to let the evidence sway my view. Right now BurnTheShips has produced the best evidence.

Phage's soil sample book is quite good also.

I can't understand why they claim no one is spraying when people know they are spraying... here is a weatherman who is former military showing it on the radar and describing his experience in the military (and note he specifies aluminum):

So to argue this is not happening is a fallacious argument. Notice how much of the state is covered with that. I hear arguments that they couldn't do it so big... and there's your answer. If you care to read it is all over with very easy searches. Just google "geoengineering" instead of "chemtrail". So when debunkers are trying to argue "chemtrails" they are trying to get away from the real argument.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by backinblack
As many have pointed out, it's very hard to determine altitude from the ground..


Yes its hard to tell the difference between an aircraft flying at 20K feet and 30k feet, but its not hard to tell the difference between an aircraft flying 5K feet and 30K feet. Most of your spray applications are going to go on below 5K feet (depending on surface level above sea level of course), about the only thing that wouldn’t is something like cloud seeding. None of these applications, including cloud seeding, leave these streaks in the sky.

But lets just forget all that for a second…
Let me try and explain this from an entirely different angle…


Ok just for argument sake, lets say that they really were spraying these chemtrails in the air. We have neformore from ATS Live Radio getting ready to take off in his little Cessna to give the traffic report for that day. He goes into flight operations and checks the weather, and on that day its unlimited visibility, not a cloud in the sky. There are no restrictions, no NOTAMS, nothing, he is completely clear to go do his traffic report. So he takes off under the VFR rules that he is to steer clear of any clouds, visually watch for traffic, and not proceed above 18K feet msl.

At the same time, the evil chemtrail minions at the local airbase are loading up to go clutter up the same area of airspace where the traffic plane is headed. Now in reality world those planes have rules to follow to prevent this from happening, but lets just say that they don’t and can go anywhere they want to. So they take off planning on building this gridwork of clouds at 10K feet following VFR flight rules, and just happen to be heading where our traffic plane is flying.

So now we have our traffic plane, who was under the impression that he would be flying under ideal VFR conditions, caught in the middle of closing in clouds, low visibility, and other large jets flying through his airspace. How many guesses you want as to how this will end?

Now in reality world, even if there were such a thing an chemtrails, the people laying them down would have to do so within the rules that keep all the civilian traffic out there safe. In following those rules, they make themselves visible to anyone who knows how to look for them. They would have to file a flight plan (altitude reservation), regardless of altitude because they would be laying down low visibility cloud layers requiring them to navigate where they cannot see oncoming traffic. They would require civilian ATC to be aware of the situation so they could advise private pilots on the visibility hazard that was being generated, and the collision risk of the jets that were running a grid to create them. There would have to be NOTAMS issued to warn any airmen of the risks involved with navigating that airspace during those time periods. So lets say that joe vacation pilot who took off 12 hours ago from 7 states away is coming into the area, he has to somehow know that the area is now unsafe for him to enter.

See all these pesky little rules, and minute details destroy the entire chemtrail theory.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


The TwO-Moment Aerosol Sectional (TOMAS) microphysics package was developed for implementation into GEOS-Chem at Carnegie-Mellon University. Using a moving sectional and moment-based approach, TOMAS tracks two independent moments (number and mass) of the aerosol size distribution for 30 size bins. It also contains codes to simulate nucleation, condensation, and coagulation processes. The aerosol species that are considered with 30-bin size resolution are sulfate, sea-salt, OC, EC, and dust.


Jeffery Pierce (as in the referenced article) is on the team.


TOMAS is a simulation type 3 and utilizes 310 tracers. Each aerosol species requires 30 tracers for the 30 bin size resolution. Here is the (abbreviated) default setup in input.geos (see run.Tomas directory):

Tracer # Description
40 H2SO4
41-70 Number
71-100 Sulfate
101-130 Sea-salt
131-160 Hydrophilic EC
161-190 Hydrophobic EC
191-210 Hydrophilic OC
211-240 Hydrophobic OC
241-271 Mineral dust
271-310 Aerosol water

wiki.seas.harvard.edu...

The research is being done with computer models.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze
I can't understand why they claim no one is spraying when people know they are spraying... here is a weatherman who is former military showing it on the radar and describing his experience in the military (and note he specifies aluminum):


There is still no spraying going on, you just don’t understand what chaff is.
Take some aluminum foil cut it into strips about 1/8 wide and about 6 inches long. Take a few thousand of these and put them into an airgun, then shoot them into the air like confetti and you will have something akin to chaff.

It only looks big on radar, its not covering anywhere that amount of sky. Its not sprayed, it does not make a cloud, and you are certainly not going to inhale it without a Herculean effort on your part.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



See all these pesky little rules, and minute details destroy the entire chemtrail theory.


No, the trails whether con or chemtrails are not enough to effect visibility to that extent..
I don't see your point on VFR at all...



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by backinblack
BS...Your FIRST post was off topic because you asked questions that were not relevant to the video in question..
You later admitted you didn't even watch all of the video..
Get off your high horse and stop blaming me or others for your biased attitude.!!!!!!!!


Actually, the name of the video and the description of the video from writers clearly mark it as a chemtrail video. My question was on the topic of chemtrails.

As I have stated there is no one, at least on this side, being biased.

Now I believe that is the end of the topic as to whether my questions were on topic or not, and as to the fact that I am a moderator of certain forum here on the site (not including this particular one).

Now I believe that is enough truly off topic conversation and attacks about my being a moderator, what actions other moderators have taken, or whether or not you feel that a question about chemtrails is off topic in a chemtrail thread with the quote “What in The World Are They Spraying” in the title.

Thank you…


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by backinblack
 


I am guessing that you have never taken flying lessons.
Aircraft fly at much higher rate of speed then cars drive and they operate in a 3D environment. A large part of a pilots time is spent scanning the sky looking for any crossing or approaching traffic. Pilots are taught to use a search pattern to look both at the controls, and while scanning outside the cockpit, so they can take in everything they have to and not miss anything. What may not seem like a major visibility decrease to you is akin to driving your car in thick fog, down a winding street, with lots of oncoming traffic. That is why the rules for VFR are so specific in regards to steering clear of ANY cloud cover while operating under Visual rules:



US Weather minima for VFR flight outside Controlled Airspace (within Class E Airspace)

At or above 10,000 ft. MSL
5 statute miles visibility, 1 statute mile horizontally from clouds, 1000ft above and below clouds

Below 10,000 ft. MSL
3 statute miles visibility, 2000 ft. horizontally from clouds, 1000ft above and 500 ft below clouds

US Weather minima for VFR flight in Class C and D airspace
3 statue miles visibility, 2000 ft. horizontally from clouds, 1000ft above and 500 ft below clouds


Oh, I also failed to mention that almost every aircraft that I know of has air cooled engines. If you were flying directly through a cloud of heavy particulate such as aluminum, it would quickly clog all your filters, overheat your engine, and cause engine failure.

This is the same reason why aircraft cannot fly through areas that have ash from recent volcanic eruptions.

This just keep falling further and further apart, doesn’t it?


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 3/5/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
The research is being done with computer models.


Phage your full of it. Dis-information. All that presented in a mind-numbing way and saying nothing. Then you end by suggesting it's all computer models when BurnTheShips has been slapping you silly with hard-core research showing it is actually being done in our atmosphere.

Such as this completed study with spraying: link.

The effectiveness of geoengineering is strongly dependent on the type or particle and the particle size deployed. Most studies of geoengineering focus on the release of SO2 or H2S gas into the stratosphere where over time (~1 month), they are converted to condensable H2SO4. Recent work by Pierce et al has shown that directly emitting H2SO4 allows better control of particle size6 and therefore more effective reflection of incoming flux. For the purposes of this study, we have assumed the geoengineering payload is a liquid with a density of 1000 kg/m3 (In gas pipe analysis, a density of 1.22 kg/m^3 is assumed), emitted as a vapor. The larger geoengineering particles, the faster they settle out of the atmosphere. If they are too small, they do not effectively scatter incoming solar flux. The peak scattering effectiveness of H2SO4 aerosols is about 0.2 microns

H2SO4 is sulfuric acid by the way (i know phage knows this as i've pointed it out in other threads)... and they are dropping it in these tests, and proposing it for future geoengineering drops in the megatons the equivalent of a major volcano eruption.

Phage you know about these studies as you've been shown them over and over....and then you come in here and try to pretend it's all "Computer Models"??? Technically you were only referencing that one study, but the good dis-info agent that you are, you know most will think you were saying for all. Thats another slick dis-info trick you use and people fall for.

How much are they paying you anyways?


p.s. Yes they are studying it through Computer Models also. Here is nasa doing the same research with computer: link.

Wigley calculates the impact of injecting sulfate particles, or aerosols, every one to four years into the stratosphere in amounts equal to those lofted by the volcanic eruption of Mt. Pintabuto in 1991. If found to be environmentally and technologically viable, such injections could provide a "grace period" of up to 20 years before major cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions would be required, he concludes.

edit on 5-3-2011 by pianopraze because: typo



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
There is still no spraying going on, you just don’t understand what chaff is.
Take some aluminum foil cut it into strips about 1/8 wide and about 6 inches long. Take a few thousand of these and put them into an airgun, then shoot them into the air like confetti and you will have something akin to chaff.

It only looks big on radar, its not covering anywhere that amount of sky. Its not sprayed, it does not make a cloud, and you are certainly not going to inhale it without a Herculean effort on your part.


You're so blinded by your belief you can't open your eyes. They haven't used that type for years:

There are two types of chaff, aluminum foil and aluminum-coated glass fibers. The foil type is no longer manufactured, although it remains in the inventory and is used primarily by B-52 bombers. Both types are cut into dipoles ranging in length from 0.3 to over 2.0 inches. They are made as small and light as possible so they will remain in the air long enough to confuse enemy radar. The aluminum foil dipoles are 0.45 mils (0.00045 inches) thick and 6 to 8 mils wide. The glass fiber dipoles are generally 1 mil (25.4 microns) in diameter, including the aluminum coating which is 0.12 f 0.06 mils thick. A new superfine glass fiber chaff is being manufactured that is 0.7 mil (17.8 microns) in diameter.

link.

There are lots of disbursement methods and they DO look like contrails with some methods:

Chemtrails:GAO report admits "chaff"

Lab report reveals much more

Last May a family in Iowa contacted the office of Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) to report the constant criss-crossing of "chemtrails" in the sky above their neighborhood. They received back from the senator’s office a General Accounting Office (GAO) report on "military chaff" and the material safety data sheet for aluminum-coated fiberglass fibers being spread—seven days a week for several hours each day—in the skies above their home.

The chaff is spread by pilots learning how to mask planes or send false radar images. It was reported that the military also has lead-based chaff, but that it is not being used at this time. Chaff was used by the military in Europe in WWII and, according to the GAO, had been used in training here at home since the 50s.

Once chaff reaches the ground, it breaks down into particles small enough to inhale. Though military spokespeople insist that chaff is not harmful, the GAO report concluded that health effects are unknown and more studies are needed.


Here is a differnt GAO report saying this goes on worldwide link

GAO noted that: (1) chaff is used worldwide in conjunction with military
training, testing, and other assigned missions


How does the airforce do it? source

The continuous stream technique, called saturation chaff, may be used by aircraft to cover a large area

Here's a former Marine now weatherman commenting:


Are all contrails chaff? No. Does some look like contrails? Yes. Is this admitted by the military? Yes.

Worst part is they also bring down nasty germs from up in the atmosphere:

Once chaff reaches the ground, it breaks down into particles small enough to inhale. Though military spokespeople insist that chaff is not harmful, the GAO report concluded that health effects are unknown and more studies are needed.

Regardless, some members of this family are very sick. On May 23, after a hard rain the day before, they a noticed glittering substance and a pinkish-colored powder substance on the roof of their house. They then noticed the glittering substance on many surfaces, even the dashboard of the family car. Both substances were collected and sent to a lab for analysis.

Among the substances found to be in the samples were several that should simply not be there:

6 bacteria, including anthrax and pneumonia

9 chemicals including acetylcholine chloride

26 heavy metals including arsenic, gold, lead,mercury, silver, uranium and zinc

4 molds and fungi

7 viruses

2 cancers

2 vaccines

2 sedatives

Over the last several months, The IO has received a significant increase in chemtrail-related calls and letters. Most report a dramatic increase in chemtrail "spraying" activity in their areas; some are reporting the development of chronic flu-like symptoms, chronic fatigue and body aches that they have never before experienced.

ibid

Ready to open your mind yet?
edit on 5-3-2011 by pianopraze because: formatting



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



See all these pesky little rules, and minute details destroy the entire chemtrail theory.


To borrow a quote from weedwhacker (posted in response to my hypothetical outline of a UK chemtrailing operation), that's just 'fanciful nonsense'.


You seriously think the people behind such a program are interested in 'playing by the rules'?

Dream on sunshine.



******* ********* ******** ********


On another note:

Pianopraze - I found both weatherman videos very interesting...


I also think you'd be a good mediator in any debate, though prevalent in your thinking is a shade of openness to the idea of chemtrails, which would have every pseudoskeptic screaming that you weren't unbiased (skeptical) enough for the task...



edit on 5-3-2011 by FlyInTheOintment because: spelling



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
You seriously think the people behind such a program are interested in 'playing by the rules'?

Yeah, that’d last right up until the first accident, then you’d see them throwing each other under the bus as to who was going to jail over it. Up to that point you’d have ATC and pilots screaming their heads off because people were being put in harms way.

Pilots are many things, but the type that remains silent isn't amongst them.
They complain about their hours.
They complain about trips.
They complain about the food.
They complain about their hotels.
They complain about the passengers.
They complain about the coffee.
They complain about their fuel loads.
They complain about the seats.
And so on, and so on….


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


edit on 3/5/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join