I am slightly confused. Looking for Info

reply to post by burntheships


Fantasy. Theory. Speculation done in a study specifically designed to conceptualize the possibilities.....if it is ever deemed necessary to implement:

"A Fleet of airplanes the size of SW Airlines."

Of course, to be clear here -- "SW Airlines" refers to Southwest Airlines......a regional, all Boeing 737 airline in the USA.

Wiki on WN (Southwest Airlines)


Their current fleet, as of the latest writing from Wiki, is a total of 560 airplanes!!

See, a little bit of research cuts through all of the hyperbole. Because, the question is:

Is it your assertion that this mystery "fleet" of 500+ airplanes is already in service, and devoted to nothing else except "spraying chemicals"? If this is going to be the claim, then be prepared to provide supporting evidence.

(You are aware that there are very clear records of every airliner built, correct? Line production numbers, "contract numbers", Serial numbers, etc, etc. And, modern airliners don't come off of the assembly lines as fast as cars, you know. Boeing IS betting big on the 737, and revised models in future.....and ramping up the production schedule, per month.....but these are primarily destined to passenger airlines. You can search the InterWebs to learn more about future orders on the books @Boeing).

reply to post by network dude

Believe it or not, there are as many different ideas of what they are as there are believers.

Really?

At most there are about 10 different theories.

Only about 3 or 4 of those are widely accepted theories by the informed "chemmie"

The other 6 or 7 are mostly associated with the possible side effects of the first 3 or 4

Or they were invented by the co-intel to create confusion and dis-information to cast doubt on the conspiracy theory.

The main theories involve

1) Solar Radiation Management / Geoengineering tests

2) Weather Manipulation for Military purposes

3) Advanced studies of the Earth's atmosphere / HAARP

4) Links to Monsanto and agriculture

Less accepted theories and/or side effects

5) Chemical / Biological weapons tests

6) Public safety experiments for terrorist attack

7) Immunization / innocculation

8) Population control

9) Advanced Flight systems

10) Masking alien activities or astronomical phenomenons


en.wikipedia.org...

There are thousands, if not millions, of people who are involved in chemtrail research, theories and studies.

Please list some of the other theories to support your claim that there are

as many different ideas of what they are as there are believers.

Originally posted by ProudBird

Is it your assertion that this mystery "fleet" of 500+ airplanes is already in service, and devoted to nothing else except "spraying chemicals"? If this is going to be the claim, then be prepared to provide supporting evidence.

My claim? Oh, PB...that is Ms Long from Lawrence Livermore Labs....
I dont know where she got that idea, do you?

I gave the evidence, she said it and she is a scientist working there,
who is on the job as a geoengineer.

Originally posted by ThirdRock69
At most there are about 10 different theories.

be very careful in that large glass house you seem to enjoy.


BTW, did you know that some ATS members think crop dusting is chemtrails, and some think that cloud seeding is chemtrails?

Yea, I didn't think so. Best to look at the rocks and not throw them.

DH

Originally posted by ProudBird
You are aware that there are very clear records of every airliner built, correct? Line production numbers, "contract numbers", Serial numbers, etc, etc. And, modern airliners don't come off of the assembly lines as fast as cars, you know.

Well of course I am aware. But there would be no need to look up that information,
why bother doing that? If its a contract with the Goverment, they could just use military planes,
as suggested in this research paper...

4.1. Airplanes


Existing small jet fighter planes, like the F-15C Eagle (Figure 2a), are capable of flying into the lower stratosphere in the tropics, while in the Arctic, larger planes, such as the KC-135 Stratotanker or KC-10 Extender (Figure 2b), are capable of reaching the required altitude. ......


The Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk can reach 20 km without a pilot but costs twice as much as an F-15C. Current designs have a payload of 1-1.5 tons. Clearly it is possible to design an autonomous specialized aircraft to loft sulfuric acid precursors into the lower stratosphere, but the current analysis focuses on existing aircraft.

Options for dispersing gases from planes include the addition of sulfur to the fuel, which would release the aerosol through the exhaust system of the plane, or the attachment of a nozzle to release the sulfur from its own tank within the plane, .......

The military has already manufactured more planes than would be required for this geoengineering scenario, potentially reducing the costs of this method. Since climate change is an important national security issue [Schwartz and Randall, 2003], the military could be directed to carry out this mission with existing aircraft at minimal additional cost. ...

Unlike the small jet fighter planes, the KC-135 and KC-10 are used to refuel planes mid-flight and already have a nozzle installed. In the tropics, one option might be for the tanker to fly to the upper troposphere, and then fighter planes would ferry the sulfur gas up into the stratosphere (Figure 2b). It may also be possible to have a tanker tow a glider with a hose to loft the exit nozzle into the stratosphere.

climate.envsci.rutgers.edu...


Or some airline might decide to modify the existing aircraft they have. You know,
as this study outilines, some airlines already have a geoengineering budget.

JetBlue is a low cost airline that operates a fleet of 110 Airbus A320-200s and 41 Embraer
190s. Because of their homogeneous fleet, Jetblue is a good airline for cost comparison.
By assuming a passenger and luggage mass of 113 kg each, JetBlue’s 21.9M
passengers in 2008 equal 2.48 million tonnes flown a year. Multiplying this by
their average stage length of 1,820 km (1,120 mi), JetBlue flew 4,508 million
tonne-kilometers in 2008.

Geoengineering represents 7% of the JetBlue tonnekilometers
per year and this is the factor used to scale JetBlue costs for comparison

people.ucalgary.ca...

reply to post by network dude


not as literal. i believe that contrails can be lasting; however, when there are multiple in a checkerboard pattern, and all last for a day or two...i believe that to not be "normal", but then again, thats why i created the thread. i know there are many threads on chemtrails, but many are plagued with...lets call it "unproductive dialog", in respects to genuinely searching to acquire knowledge. if they are normal, and that conclusion is draw from my own research, then i have no other option than to accept my finding; however, this thread is to gather more avenues for my own (and subsequently any other reader) research so that i can have that opportunity to arrive at the truth. the truth from fact, not another mans word

i hope that helps define my stance a little more clearly

reply to post by burntheships


i would argue for you that who are we to say if they were or were not doing it 10 years ago...

i would bet that most of the people who oppose the idea of "chemtrails" would agree to the notion the government has technology far advanced from what the public is aware of, upwards of 40 years more advanced. i would argue, how does the notion of "chemtrails" not fall into said category.

if they have superior technology that they are slowly entering into the public, why cant the planes and lines be the tech, and the more people discuss the plausibility for this idea, the more than can openly do it (hence the increased amount of the checkerboard patterns in populate areas, and even MSM mentioning the phenomenon), and eventually they have inched their way towards exposure in a manner that when they say it has been done for reason "x", it will be more broadly accepted.

reply to post by burntheships

Or some airline might decide to modify the existing aircraft they have. You know,
as this study outilines, some airlines already have a geoengineering budget.

No.

Because of their homogeneous fleet, Jetblue is a good airline for cost comparison.

people.ucalgary.ca...

The cost analysis had to base its estimates on something. The cost analysis used the the statistics from Jetblue's total operations for a comparison. The cost analysis calculates that the proposed requirements for the cost analysis would amount to 7% of Jetblue's annual load. The study uses that that for its cost estimate. This is not a "budget" for Jetblue.

reply to post by JAsay1LOVE


Cannot possibly be contrails...contrails are condensation basically water vapor eventually evaporating... At high altitudes such as a jet airliner the contrails can spread for a bit of distance behind the aircraft but evaporate as you can see with some airliners.. However, chemtrails do not evaporate, they simply diffuse over a wide area. Some have made claims that it is cloud seeding... I don't believe that to be truth.

reply to post by Phage


Thats your opinion. You dont work for Jet Blue do you?
So you cant prove that Jet Blue does not have a geoengineering budget..

reply to post by Enemyc0mbatant

contrails are condensation basically water vapor eventually evaporating

Incorrect.
Water vapor is invisible. Contrails are clouds of ice crystals just as cirrus clouds are. Just as cirrus clouds can last for many hours, so can contrails.

reply to post by burntheships

Did I say they don't? I just said that what you present as their budget is not. It is part of an independent cost analysis. But no, I can't prove they don't have a budget. I can't prove that unicorns don't exist either.

Now, can you provide an actual budget from Jetblue? Can you prove that they do have such a budget? You said they do. Prove it.

reply to post by ThirdRock69


i personally humor: 1,2,3,7, and 8, those seem to have the most plausibility imo. i do believe, if i am not mistaken, that it has been proved through government documents that they do practice cloud seeding and weather manipulation. Not to call those chemtrails, but...

even if a person calls cloud seeding and weather manipulation, "chemtrails", while agreeably they are wrong in the terms usage, but they are associating the word "chemtrail" as something negative and harmful. so even if they call it "chemtrail" while noticing some sort of weather modification, they are in principle correct, if not at least on the right path i would believe. i stated before i have no bias towards any theories of humanitarian efforts, or nwo depopulation, so to say weather modification and cloud seeding is negative (in theory it could be very beneficial) would to me be an exaggeration, but we are noticing something different going on in the sky. i believe that to be a fair statement

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

Or some airline might decide to modify the existing aircraft they have. You know,
as this study outilines, some airlines already have a geoengineering budget.

No.

Because of their homogeneous fleet, Jetblue is a good airline for cost comparison.

people.ucalgary.ca...

The cost analysis had to base its estimates on something. The cost analysis used the the statistics from Jetblue's total operations for a comparison. The cost analysis calculates that the proposed requirements for the cost analysis would amount to 7% of Jetblue's annual load. The study uses that that for its cost estimate. This is not a "budget" for Jetblue.

fair enough... when reading i began to draw the same conclusion for that 7%

reply to post by burntheships



Sigh....this is so freaking simple:

So you cant prove that Jet Blue does not have a geoengineering budget..

Sorry, but this is a really specious claim to make....JetBlue is a publicly held company, accountable to its shareholders.

Therefore, it produces an Annual Report, per the corporate regulaitons that govern such companies.


And no, airlines (ALL of them) operate on an extremely fine edge of profit/loss margins. There is no room for a "geoengineering" budget!! LOL.


Oh and here.....I looked, and lo and behold, their Annual Reports examples are available online!!

Well, since that first link only went to 2007, and I expect a complaint, here is another source for JetBlue

Now......where is the 'proof', please, of active "geoengineering" underway currently by airlines, airliners, or anything else?

Originally posted by Phage
I can't prove that unicorns don't exist either.

lol, man you like those unicorns dont you lol

reply to post by JAsay1LOVE

Yes.
They remind me of other mythical things.

reply to post by JAsay1LOVE


This thread might help you with your confusion...www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by network dude

Yea, I didn't think so. Best to look at the rocks and not throw them.

What rocks did I throw?

I asked you a question. I asked you to back up your statement.

Either admit you were EXTREMELY EXAGGERATING or list the other examples.

You listed 2 more examples that are not part of the accepted theories.

I posted the wiki link on chemtrail conspiracy theory

en.wikipedia.org...

The term chemtrail is derived from "chemical trail", in the similar fashion that contrail is a portmanteau of condensation trail. It does not refer to other forms of aerial spraying such as crop dusting, cloud seeding, skywriting, or aerial firefighting.[7] The term specifically refers to aerial trails allegedly caused by the systematic high-altitude release of chemical substances not found in ordinary contrails, resulting in the appearance of characteristic sky tracks. Supporters of this conspiracy theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical release may be for solar radiation management, population control,[1] weather control,[2] or biological warfare/chemical warfare and claim that these trails are causing respiratory illnesses and other health problems.[8][9]

This is the main widely accepted definition. Other theories are more of a fringe minority that are either misinformed or purposefully trying to cast out dis-info to create confusion and ridicule upon the researchers.

I am not in a "glass house" as you put it. I am basing my opinions on a strong foundation that I will back up and support with physical scientific and circumstantial observational evidence.

Feel free to cast any stones you like. I am confident that my house will still be standing unharmed.

reply to post by ProudBird


Only for the sake of clarity... not all publicly held company reports are 'complete' despite their 'obligations'... for example

Some ostensibly publicly traded and owned companies... among others