As an introduction to this article, we will first cover information to familiarize the as to the core facts and information so that a more complete understanding is possible, given this complex issue.
Originally posted by tinhattribunal
reply to post by binkbonk
maybe they are immune to it.
maybe they have an agenda that we are unaware of.
maybe they have an antidote for it.
whatever the case may be, i don't consider ignorance (or ridicule, i know it's coming) to be a persuasive argument against geo-engineering by chemtrails.
“Existing aircraft are evaluated based on cost of acquisition and operations. An in-depth new aircraft design study and cost analysis was conducted to determine the cost of developing and operating a dedicated geoengineering airplane type. Similarly, an airship design study and cost analysis was conducted. Finally a survey of non-aircraft systems was conducted to determine how their costs compare to aircraft and airships. Yearly costs of 1M tonne geoengineering operations for all the systems examined are presented in Figure 2. Some systems are easily written off due to extremely high costs. Rocket based systems are not cost competitive due to the large number of launches required and the impact of occasional rocket failures on required fleet size. A system based on 16Σ” naval Mark 7 guns was analyzed and compared to previous work by the National Research Council.4 This system requires large numbers of shots increasing projectile costs and driving yearly costs over $100B. Gun costs become more competitive if the projectile payload fraction can be increased from about 10% for a standard shell to 50%. With this and a few improvements over the 1940-era Mark 7 gun yearly costs are still in the $20B range….The primary vehicles examined to lift particulate to stratospheric altitudes and disperse them at a predetermined release rate are airplanes and airships; rockets and other non- aircraft methods such as guns and suspended pipes are also surveyed.” –Aurora Flight Sciences: Geoengineering Final Report (p.5)
Originally posted by rickymouse
The naysayers won't believe that this is happening no matter how much evidence is given. I would be disappointing if the government wasn't testing this. The negative side effects seem to be overwhelming though. It is not the right approach though, lowering emissions worldwide is the right approach. Everyone using less fuels and buying less material things would be better. The solution will not be implemented though because of the negative effects on the fake economy which would be devastating. Sorry to spread doom and gloom saying that the problem is irreversible but that is the fact.