Alex Jones On Chemtrails

page: 5
100
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


People HAVE talked about altering the sulphur content of fuel as a way of geoengineering. However the point here is that you can't do it without people noticing.




posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


What's so bad about that though? I mean, oxygen is toxic in high enough quantities. It's why your whole body needs to carefully control and regulate it and your blood dies and becomes rock in it. As long as it's not en mass and managed well, engineer away. We should learn to control the weather.


Sorry, not exactly sure what you're asking. What's so bad about what?

I agree we should learn how to control the weather, I don't recall saying it was good or bad.

I think you may have been thrown off by my response to the gaul's post. He dabbled off topic to another member and I took the bait and here we are



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by Uncinus
 

It's pretty safe to say that they are all linked if you want to get technical


It is also pretty safe to say it is all linked to the gravity of the Andromeda Galaxy too if you want to get technical.

And just as relevant unless you can show just what that link is??


I only brought it up due to your mention of various other methods of geo-engineering. These experiments would fall under your previous definition of geo-engineering. You seemed to qualify geo-engineering under a wide umbrella of actions. Why would your definition work for you but not for me? I find that a little unfair.

The weather is one of many variables measured in geo-engineering. Part of working with the weather is being able to predict it. Geoengineering experiments would be much more difficult if we were not able to predict the weather.

For you to consider yourself knowledgeable in the weather yet not be able to connect the dots and make a link amazes me.

Were you being difficult on purpose or was that just a moment of mental impairment on your behalf?



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 




Since there was no reports (to my knowledge or memory) of a moon-size light, am I to take it the test was never performed?


Sorry I'm unsure of the results of that test from 1991. I did a quick search and did find this test from 1982. It is another example of them using ionospheric and magnetospheric ion cloud release of barium experiments for various purposes, mostly weather and radar related according to what I can tell from reading the article.

Measurement of the line-of-sight velocity of high-altitude barium clouds: a technique


It is demonstrated that for maximizing the scientific output of future ionospheric and magnetospheric ion cloud release experiments a new type of instrument is required which will measure the line-of-sight velocity of the ion cloud by the Doppler technique. A simple instrument was constructed using a 5-cm diam solid Fabry-Perot etalon coupled to a low-light-level integrating TV camera. It was demonstrated that the system has both the sensitivity and spectral resolution for detection of ion clouds and measurement of their line-of-sight Doppler velocity. The tests consisted of (1) a field experiment using a rocket barium cloud release to check sensitivity, and (2) laboratory experiments to show the spectral resolving capabilities of the system. The instrument was found to be operational if the source was brighter than ~1 kR, and it had a wavelength resolution much better than 0.2 Å, which corresponds to ~12 km/sec or in the case of barium ion an acceleration potential of 100 V. The instrument is rugged and, therefore, simple to use in field experiments or on flight instruments. The sensitivity limit of the instrument can be increased by increasing the size of the etalon.


I will make sure to update if I find out the results of that test from 1991 you're wondering about.
edit on 14-11-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: to



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 




People HAVE talked about altering the sulphur content of fuel as a way of geoengineering. However the point here is that you can't do it without people noticing.
Is that because the sulphur would be detected? I have a feeling they aren't even using sulphur, their most earliest ideas involved sulphur, they could definitely know of a better reflective aerosol by now. Perhaps something less detectable or something that we wouldn't usually test for. Just a thought, again, I could be wrong. I'm not claiming an aerosol campaign really exists, but I personally feel there could be something to it.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Who needs to introduce even more aerosols when those from our cars and factories and stoves are already f*cking things up .....


Long-term aerosol pollution affects cloud formation and rainfall, exacerbating extreme weather conditions, suggests a new study.

The study, led by Professor Zhanqing Li, from the University of Maryland, indicates that aerosols affect cloud height and thickness, reducing rainfall in dry times and increasing storm activity in wet regions.]/ex]

www.abc.net.au...



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


maybe thats what this chemtrail myth is all about
leadin atention away from the FACT that pollution by airplanes was already a bigger polluter then all the factories combined... ten years ago
and we all know its groing like crazy, the airplane traffic that is
funny cuz i havent heard didly squad about that for over, lets say nine years



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


As Uncinus pointed out, sulfur (or "sulphur") is already a by-product component that will exist in exhaust gases. It is inherent in fossil fuels.

However, the total amount post-combustion is miniscule. Also as pointed out by Uncinus, the actual implementation of any "change" in Jet fuel content is not going to be "secret".

Sulfur and sulfuric compounds also are already known to the a problem in other types of internal combustion engine exhaust emissions. Been known for many decades...form ground-based sources.

In any case, sulfur is not going to alter the behavior nor appearance of contrails. And, the point made earlier is that 'foreign' products, i.e. not already in the nature of the petroleum product, cannot be added in any sufficient quantity without consequences that must be considered. Even an increase in sulfur content needs to be studied in order to be certain it has no mechanical adverse effects on the engines, their performance, or reliability.


It is a safety concern, and a financial (maintenance costs) concern.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 




Who needs to introduce even more aerosols when those from our cars and factories and stoves are already f*cking things up .....
Well there are different types of aerosols, we are talking about using reflective aerosols to combat global warming by reflecting solar radiation away from the planet, but the concept is still quite absurd. There are still many problems related to reflective aerosols; tests have shown it can reduce rainfall in areas (as you stated) and it does nothing to fix other problems of climate change. This picture sums it up perfectly:



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 




However, the total amount post-combustion is miniscule. Also as pointed out by Uncinus, the actual implementation of any "change" in Jet fuel content is not going to be "secret".
Well as I stated, I don't necessarily think they are using sulphur (non-US spelling). They've had a very long time to research this and develop upon their concepts. I agree that sulphur would be much too detectable, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to consider that they may be trying to secretly combat global warming by using some type of reflective aerosol. And they probably aren't even doing it in normal planes if they are doing it at all.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by thebestnr1
reply to post by Essan
 


maybe thats what this chemtrail myth is all about
leadin atention away from the FACT that pollution by airplanes was already a bigger polluter then all the factories combined... ten years ago


where is that documented??

Land-transport still uses many times the amount of fossil fuel as air transport does - Beueau of Transport Statistics tables - in 2009 all of air transport in hte US used almost 13 billion galons of fuel.......in 1999 all of land transport used about 160 billion gallons - over 10 times as much (dunno why the land figures stop at 1999.....)



and we all know its groing like crazy, the airplane traffic that is
funny cuz i havent heard didly squad about that for over, lets say nine years


Well there's been plenty of news about it al ove het place - if you google anything along the lines of airliner fleets increasing you get plenty of hits - eg google search for airlienr fleet predicted to double

but you're not likely to see such articles unless you read aviation media - they do appear occasionally buried in the business pages, but generally are of limited interest to the normal media.
edit on 14-11-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by Uncinus
 

It's pretty safe to say that they are all linked if you want to get technical


It is also pretty safe to say it is all linked to the gravity of the Andromeda Galaxy too if you want to get technical.

And just as relevant unless you can show just what that link is??


I only brought it up due to your mention of various other methods of geo-engineering. These experiments would fall under your previous definition of geo-engineering.


I didn't give a definition??


The wiki definition is:


The modern concept of geoengineering (or climate engineering) describes deliberately manipulating the Earth's climate to counteract the effects of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions.
it says there are other definitions but I dont' know what they are.

I don't see how barium cloud releases back to the 1960's fit this at all - afaik they have been related to pure research - finding out about the upper areas of the atmosphere, communications (the ionosphere was very important to long range radio comms back then), space flight, etc.

perhaps some modern ones are directly related in some way to research into some aspects of geo-engineering, but I dont' see that you have established that being the case either.


You seemed to qualify geo-engineering under a wide umbrella of actions. Why would your definition work for you but not for me? I find that a little unfair.


Because barium clouds are simply not relevant to geo-engineering - you can't jsut say "I think XYZ is geoengineering" and have it be so - there has to be a connection. It is not a matte of fairness - it is a matter of relevance.


The weather is one of many variables measured in geo-engineering. Part of working with the weather is being able to predict it. Geoengineering experiments would be much more difficult if we were not able to predict the weather.


Indeed - so therefore you think that looking outside and predicting clouds is alos geo-engineering??


Lotrs of things are required to make geo-engineering possible - a knowledge of physics, chemistry, potentially flight and space flight, etc. Were the Wright Brothers geoeingineering by flying at Kittyhawk??


For you to consider yourself knowledgeable in the weather yet not be able to connect the dots and make a link amazes me.


I think you are connecting dots that are far too far appart - geoengineering the the actuial manipulation of the climate - not all teh science that has gone before it that is also required.

I think if there is SPECIFIC research that is relevant then it is fair enough to include it, but to say that research into weather is geoengineering is jsut silly IMO.


Were you being difficult on purpose or was that just a moment of mental impairment on your behalf?


Ah - and of course the snide ad-hom.....


No - I'm being specific and precise. As opposed to suggesting that all of human science over the last 400 years has been geo-engineering.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
There are still many problems related to reflective aerosols; tests have shown it can reduce rainfall in areas (as you stated) and it does nothing to fix other problems of climate change.


The amount of uncertainty about the effects of geoengineering is the main reason why nobody has done it yet, and why research is needed, just in case we are forced to use it to prevent a mass global extinction event.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
And here is a land based "chemtrail" plant. Just look at all the chemicals it is spouting into the air!
Oil Sands at night



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


You gave a vague definition by trying to debunk another member on page 2.




Geo-engineering is everything from Carbon sequestration to getting rid of fossil-fuel power plants and cars to painting roofs white to space-mirrors to feeding plankton and various other possible schemes.

Many of these are already in use in various forms.....but most are jsut being talked about - research is being done by looking at records, trying to figure out what the consequences and costs might be, etc. All of them have their proponents, and of course there's many critics too.


You left a pretty broad range of definition. Many of the things I hinted to are linked to some of the things you manged to define as geo-engineering. Some are directly linked, such as the suns effect on plankton to make sure they stay fed. The tests I mentioned were to help them predict space weather which also has a large impact on earth weather which most definitely affects our oceans. I can make many more links between these tests and geo-engineering but I will leave it for now, I'm sure you got it figured out


Starting to make sense yet?
edit on 14-11-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I'm listening to him now, he's presenting the case pretty well.
Enough secondary sources have came out on so many issues that Jones sounds much less crazy as of recently.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


The content in this article concerns the use of rockets, while the other article you proposed discussed the release via satellite...unsure of the connections to each other or, in keeping with the topic of Alex Jones and Chemtrails, either article to the use of planes...article one cited by you had the express purpose of increasing the detection of electromagnetic storms, while the second article deals, I believe, with improving the scientific data retrieval from release of magnetosphere and ionosphere clouds...neither of these areas, the magnetosphere or the ionosphere, are frequented by commercial jet traffic; and for that matter, military aircraft...



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


idk, just as long as it's not exactly bad, why stop it? Then again, something is causing higher cancer rates.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Tht's not a definition - it is a list of techniques!




posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


idk, just as long as it's not exactly bad, why stop it? Then again, something is causing higher cancer rates.


Most types of cancer are in decline. In particular lung cancer, which you'd expect tot increase if you were breathing carcinogens.

www.cdc.gov...

Skin cancer on the other hand has risen, which is the opposite of what you would expect if the sprays are blocking sunlight.





top topics
 
100
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join