Chemtrail discussion: ethics, psyops, and stuff

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Essentially George a leasing company which is basically a bank will agree a negotiated price for lets say 6 of the latest generation 747 with Boeing Company and a big announcement will be made at the Paris or Farnborough Air Show.


The leasing company will in turn have airline customers throughout the world and so the aircraft hull only will be leased to British Airways in our example for perhaps 300,000USD per month.


Then you need to consider maintenance and so the cost of tooling up and keeping spare engines, staff training specialist equipment all costs mouthwatering sums of money. Therefore in our example British Airways who partner with Rolls Royce will insist that the new aircraft is fitted with RR engines.


Four of the latest Trent engines will be shipped to Boeing and fitted onto the Jumbo. Rolls Royce will charge British Airways 100 USD per engine per operating hour in what is called “Power by the Hour” Depending on the deal that might be as much as 150,000 USD per month.


Finally British Airways will say we want a Honeywell Avionics package installed in the cockpit and that might come to 70,000USD per month.


Therefore at least three different banks will be involved in the deal. The banks may in turn sell or spread the risk of this investment by involving other banks.


So its a complicated deal involving huge sums of money. The banks in turn will want to have confidence in who is going to be operating the aircraft that they have a major stake in and so you can see that some serious due diligence will be conducted.


British Airways will never own the engines they just rent them by the hour. Rolls Royce are responsible for all major overhaul and so they keep constant around the clock watch on the health and operating performance of the engines installed on all BA aircraft. Basically an on-board computer system records the key operating parameters and performance of the engine. Once the aircraft is airborne every 15 minutes data is transferred via an uplink to a satellite and a downlink to Rolls Royce in Derby England where its evaluated by a local engineer who may be monitoring hundreds of engines at any one time.

Ok . . . so you are saying no one buys 747s or other heavy lift aircraft out right . . . if one wanted to remain below the radar they would purchase a few each year through different front corporations and then re-sell it to another . . . eventually, they could control the use of 9 to 24 heavy lift aircraft under several different paper owners . . . you think the black operations people cannot launder funds and purchase and operate almost anything on the sly . . . ?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
An outright sale would be very big news.

Countries purchase them like China . . . why couldn't you get a country to front for such a purchase . . . a few extra millions or billions in the right pockets can do a lot . . . ships are purchased by corporations and placed under the liberian or Panama flag of registry all the time . . . a good analogy is shipping

Flag of convenience

The modern practice of flagging ships in foreign countries began in the 1920s in the United States, when shipowners frustrated by increased regulations and rising labor costs began to register their ships to Panama. The use of open registries steadily increased, and in 1968, Liberia grew to surpass the United Kingdom as the world's largest shipping register. As of 2009[update], more than half of the world’s merchant ships were registered with open registries, and the Panama, Liberia, and Marshall Islands flags accounted for almost 40% of the entire world fleet, in terms of deadweight tonnage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience

Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FreiZeitGeist

Senior Member.
Countries purchase them like China . . . why couldn't you get a country to front for such a purchase . . . a few extra millions or billions in the right pockets can do a lot . . .

Don´t forget the thousands of Planespotters worldwide. For example, they uncovered the hidden CIA-Prisioners Fligths:

The hobby of planespotting--watching and recording information about planes that take off and land--led a few individuals to deduce that planes spotted at "Base Camp" in Nevada were being used by the CIA to transport prisoners to locations in eastern Europe and the Middle East. Individuals correlating data with each other over the Internet and comparing to flight logs and testimony from released prisoners yielded very specific results. Civil Air Landing Permit data was used to identify obscure companies with clearance to land anywhere they want, including restricted military bases--such as One Leasing, Richmor Aviation, Stevens Express Leasing, Tepper Aviation, Path Corporation, Rapid Air Trans, Aviation Specialties, Devon Holding and Leasing, Crowell Aviation, and Premier Executive Transport Services. The planes owned by some of these companies were found to be visiting military bases, Guantanamo Bay, Morocco, Romania, Poland, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

http://lippard.blogspot.de/2006/10/how-planespotting-uncovered-cia.html
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Countries purchase them like China . . . why couldn't you get a country to front for such a purchase . . . a few extra millions or billions in the right pockets can do a lot . . . ships are purchased by corporations and placed under the liberian or Panama flag of registry all the time . . . a good analogy is shipping

Why is it a good analogy? Flags of convenience do not operate in aviation - at least not yet - you have to register your a/c with an ICAO compliant state (which is esse3ntialy all of them) in order to operate internationally.

But whether leased or bought outright, aircraft sales aer big news - there is constant interest in teh value of airliners at all stages of their lives, every transaction is monitored - eg see this thread or if you want to start up an airline you can ask Boeing :)

I didn't say that no-one could purchase an aircraft outright - I said it would be big news. Plenty of airlines do own aircraft - it is not unheard of...but it is not he normal business model any more.

Size of chinese market -

At the China Financial Leasing Summit held in Tianjin on May 5, 2010, Wang Changshun, Vice Minister of CAAC revealed that in 2025, our nation’s civil aviation fleet would have 3000 aircraft, in which 60% were leased, and it means our civil aviation leasing market amount would attain more than US $130 billion. It also indicated that the future China aviation transportation leasing had an extremely large market potential. For people who worked or invested in the aircraft financial leasing industry, this was no doubt the good news.
Content from External Source
You can even buy shares in Chinese leasing companies-

HONG KONG—China Aircraft Leasing Co., the Hong Kong-based lessor partly owned by state-owned conglomerate China Everbright, [0165.HK -0.90%] is planning an initial public offering in the city so it can buy more aircraft at a time when European banks are retreating from the business of leasing jets.
Content from External Source
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Don´t forget the thousands of Planespotters worldwide. For example, they uncovered the hidden CIA-Prisioners Fligths:



http://lippard.blogspot.de/2006/10/how-planespotting-uncovered-cia.html

The point is they would not be hiding anything in flight that anyone could see at 35,000 feet . . . so they would see a 747 or other heavy lift aircraft #cxxooo flying from Maine to British Columbia with a load of mining equipment . . . a legit flight on a registered, numbered aircraft . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Why is it a good analogy? Flags of convenience do not operate in aviation - at least not yet - you have to register your a/c with an ICAO compliant state (which is esse3ntialy all of them) in order to operate internationally.

But whether leased or bought outright, aircraft sales aer big news - there is constant interest in teh value of airliners at all stages of their lives, every transaction is monitored - eg see this thread or if you want to start up an airline you can ask Boeing :)

I didn't say that no-one could purchase an aircraft outright - I said it would be big news. Plenty of airlines do own aircraft - it is not unheard of...but it is not he normal business model any more.

Size of chinese market -

At the China Financial Leasing Summit held in Tianjin on May 5, 2010, Wang Changshun, Vice Minister of CAAC revealed that in 2025, our nation’s civil aviation fleet would have 3000 aircraft, in which 60% were leased, and it means our civil aviation leasing market amount would attain more than US $130 billion. It also indicated that the future China aviation transportation leasing had an extremely large market potential. For people who worked or invested in the aircraft financial leasing industry, this was no doubt the good news.
Content from External Source
You can even buy shares in Chinese leasing companies-

HONG KONG—China Aircraft Leasing Co., the Hong Kong-based lessor partly owned by state-owned conglomerate China Everbright, [0165.HK -0.90%] is planning an initial public offering in the city so it can buy more aircraft at a time when European banks are retreating from the business of leasing jets.
Content from External Source
Hmmmm . . . that is true I am sure of new aircraft but what about those that are ready to retire or be replaced . . . for example, I go around to several airlines and leasing companies and pick up a few over a few years . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Don´t forget the thousands of Planespotters worldwide. For example, they uncovered the hidden CIA-Prisioners Fligths:



http://lippard.blogspot.de/2006/10/how-planespotting-uncovered-cia.html

Good job of data collection and connecting the dots . . . that does not mean they can find patterns if they are not looking for something . . . you are telling me they are trying to determine whether a hand full of logistic flights are sulfur injection flights . . . ?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
If it had a load of legit mining equipment then where would it put all these chemicals?

the point of the plane spotters is that they could spot CIA flights that were "legit" as not actually being legit at all. If you say you have mining equipment but some strucks seem to be pumping some sort of chemical on board then that isnt' going to was.

One thought I had overnight was that although the flights might only be carrying 50-60 tonnes of chemical, the storange and handling equipment for that material is going to take up weight and space too. Simple "gravity drop" systems for agricultural aircraft do not take up much - they are just large tanks with 1 pump and a mechanically operated "hole".

But as the Evergreen 747 and USAF MASS systems show, to spray from a large a/c, espeially a pressurised one, requires considerably more equipment - probably moreso since this proposed system will be operating at high altitude where the aircraft will be pressurised.

MASS carries 2000 gallons and requires a dry weight of 10,500 lbs to do so.

The Evergreen supertanker is a dedicated tanker, and has a maximum capacity of 20,000 gallons - 1 US gallon = 3.785 kg, so this is about 75,700kg - this is a relatively simple system designed to dispense eth load in various patterns but quite rapidly and at low altitude, but it is still much less than the useful payload of the 747-100 airframe.

Othe large airliner tankers are a DC-10 that carries 12,000 US Gal (45,000 litres), and a BAe-146 that only carried 3100 gallons.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Good job of data collection and connecting the dots . . . that does not mean they can find patterns if they are not looking for something . . . you are telling me they are trying to determine whether a hand full of logistic flights are sulfur injection flights . . . ?

747's carrying out 2-4 flights per day or more are not a "handful of flights" - they are a major operation - something you seem to have a major problem understanding!!

the rendition flights were a "handful of flights" - IIRC 1500 or so in Europe over several years - but your propsed secret operation is running THOUSANDS every year.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
If it had a load of legit mining equipment then where would it put all these chemicals?

the point of the plane spotters is that they could spot CIA flights that were "legit" as not actually being legit at all. If you say you have mining equipment but some strucks seem to be pumping some sort of chemical on board then that isnt' going to was.

One thought I had overnight was that although the flights might only be carrying 50-60 tonnes of chemical, the storange and handling equipment for that material is going to take up weight and space too. Simple "gravity drop" systems for agricultural aircraft do not take up much - they are just large tanks with 1 pump and a mechanically operated "hole".

But as the Evergreen 747 and USAF MASS systems show, to spray from a large a/c, espeially a pressurised one, requires considerably more equipment - probably moreso since this proposed system will be operating at high altitude where the aircraft will be pressurised.

MASS carries 2000 gallons and requires a dry weight of 10,500 lbs to do so.

The Evergreen supertanker is a dedicated tanker, and has a maximum capacity of 20,000 gallons - 1 US gallon = 3.785 kg, so this is about 75,700kg - this is a relatively simple system designed to dispense eth load in various patterns but quite rapidly and at low altitude, but it is still much less than the useful payload of the 747-100 airframe.

Othe large airliner tankers are a DC-10 that carries 12,000 US Gal (45,000 litres), and a BAe-146 that only carried 3100 gallons.
There is no mining equipment . . . that is the cover . . . it could be anything . . . you are saying if I fly from one secure airfield or hanger complex to another secure airfield or hanger complex this can not be done?

As far as equipment . . . oleum is very stable . . . one large tank/bladder with a low heat source to convert the oleum to a mobile state and a route to the exterior . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
747's carrying out 2-4 flights per day or more are not a "handful of flights" - they are a major operation - something you seem to have a major problem understanding!!

the rendition flights were a "handful of flights" - IIRC 1500 or so in Europe over several years - but your propsed secret operation is running THOUSANDS every year.

Sure it is a major operation . . . 747s can easily fly three 1400 km legs at 35,000 feet in a day can they not for say 270 days each year??
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Sure it is a major operation . . .

So why did you try to characterise it as "a handful of flights"?

747s can easily fly three 1400 km legs at 35,000 feet in a day can they not for say 270 days each year??

Easily? I doubt it - 3 fligthts a day is high utilisation for a large aircraft. It would require more maintenance of flight-sensitive items than the usual 1-2 flights per day - IIRC ANA or JAL used to fly 747's on high density high utilisation routes inside Japan and requiresd a specialised maintenance programme to cope with the estra wear and tear.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
There is no mining equipment . . . that is the cover . . . it could be anything . . . you are saying if I fly from one secure airfield or hanger complex to another secure airfield or hanger complex this can not be done?

you do not fly to "hanger complexes", and you still don't be tto hide teh fact that someone has 14+ 747's - ther is only 1 airfield in the USA that I can think of that has no observation of it - in area 51...so here aer you goign to hide these aircraft and their unknown flights so that people do not get curious about them exasctly?

What do you think a "secure airfield" is going to do to hide them??

As far as equipment . . . oleum is very stable . . .

You cannot be serious??!!! :eek::confused::rolleyes: It might be less reactive than sulphuric acid, but it is still as dangerous as heck - it is highly corrosive and fumes in moist air/sucks up any moisture creating a sulphuric acid mist.

It comes in varius concentrations - eg 30%, 65% free sulphur trioxide

MSDS for <30% - Key word: DANGEROUS, wear self contained breathing apparatus, etc.

MSDS for 65% -

Warning Statements:
DANGER! CORROSIVE TO SKIN, EYES AND RESPIRATORY TRACT. CAUSES SEVERE BURNS. MAY BE FATAL IF
INHALED. REACTS VIOLENTLY WITH COMMON MATERIALS INCLUDING WATER, ALCOHOLS, BASES AND AMINES.
STRONG OXIDIZER. CONTACT WITH OTHER MATERIALS MAY CAUSE FIRE. CONTENTS MAY BE UNDER PRESSURE
OF EXPLOSIVE, FLAMMABLE HYDROGEN GAS.
Content from External Source
There seems to be no such thing as 100% Oleum - did you factor that the commercial products are not 100% into the numbers you speculate?

one large tank/bladder with a low heat source to convert the oleum to a mobile state and a route to the exterior . . .

A low heat source?????? Really?

Certain compositions of oleum are solid at room temperature, and thus is safer to ship than when liquid. Solid oleum can then be converted into liquid at the destination through steam heating or dilution or concentration. This requires some care to prevent overheating and evaporation of sulfur trioxide. To extract it from a tank car requires careful heating using steam conduits within the tank car. Great care must be taken to avoid overheating, as this can increase the internal pressure within the tank car to a value exceeding the limit of the tank's safety valve.
Content from External Source
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So why did you try to characterise it as "a handful of flights"?



Easily? I doubt it - 3 fligthts a day is high utilisation for a large aircraft. It would require more maintenance of flight-sensitive items than the usual 1-2 flights per day - IIRC ANA or JAL used to fly 747's on high density high utilisation routes inside Japan and requiresd a specialised maintenance programme to cope with the estra wear and tear.
Considering the magnitude of the objective and the handful of daily flights necessary compared to all the heavy lift flights in the US alone . . . it is a drop in the bucket . . . but 27 flights a day for a fleet of 747s from one or two air centers is not trivial . . . I do not discount that but not impossible with a couple of billion dollars in budget . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
you do not fly to "hanger complexes", and you still don't be tto hide teh fact that someone has 14+ 747's - ther is only 1 airfield in the USA that I can think of that has no observation of it - in area 51...so here aer you goign to hide these aircraft and their unknown flights so that people do not get curious about them exasctly?

What do you think a "secure airfield" is going to do to hide them??



You cannot be serious??!!! :eek::confused::rolleyes: It might be less reactive than sulphuric acid, but it is still as dangerous as heck - it is highly corrosive and fumes in moist air/sucks up any moisture creating a sulphuric acid mist.

It comes in varius concentrations - eg 30%, 65% free sulphur trioxide

MSDS for <30% - Key word: DANGEROUS, wear self contained breathing apparatus, etc.

MSDS for 65% -

Warning Statements:
DANGER! CORROSIVE TO SKIN, EYES AND RESPIRATORY TRACT. CAUSES SEVERE BURNS. MAY BE FATAL IF
INHALED. REACTS VIOLENTLY WITH COMMON MATERIALS INCLUDING WATER, ALCOHOLS, BASES AND AMINES.
STRONG OXIDIZER. CONTACT WITH OTHER MATERIALS MAY CAUSE FIRE. CONTENTS MAY BE UNDER PRESSURE
OF EXPLOSIVE, FLAMMABLE HYDROGEN GAS.
Content from External Source
There seems to be no such thing as 100% Oleum - did you factor that the commercial products are not 100% into the numbers you speculate?



A low heat source?????? Really?

Certain compositions of oleum are solid at room temperature, and thus is safer to ship than when liquid. Solid oleum can then be converted into liquid at the destination through steam heating or dilution or concentration. This requires some care to prevent overheating and evaporation of sulfur trioxide. To extract it from a tank car requires careful heating using steam conduits within the tank car. Great care must be taken to avoid overheating, as this can increase the internal pressure within the tank car to a value exceeding the limit of the tank's safety valve.
Content from External Source
Millions and millions of tons of sulfur compounds especially oleum are transported throughout the industrialized world each year via rail with little problem . . . sure there are engineering and safety issues . . . I didn't make up these numbers (number of aircraft or flights, etc). . . much smarter and informed scientists and engineers than myself made these projections, so if you think they are wrong you need to talk to them at Rutgers University, MIT, etc. my speculation is really how to keep it covert not is the engineering possible . . .


One of the world's leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3639096.htm

TONY JONES: Yes, is there a fear raised by what you're saying that some country, a superpower, China, for example, has been suggested, could actually do something like this unilaterally and thereby create conflict over the whole idea of geo-engineering?


DAVID KEITH: Yes, it's certainly possible. So, there's no question it's technically possible to do it unilaterally. So, the actual materials you need, the aircraft and engineering you need to do this are something that would be in reach easily of any of the G20 states. It's not hard to do. You could buy the equipment from many aeronautical contractors.
Content from External Source
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Rail has much less in the way of engineering limitations than aircraft - just because you can do it with relative ease on the surface of the earth is not a reason to suppose you can also easily transfer the operation to the tropopause!

And yes, of course any G20 country could "do it" fairly easily - as long as by "do it" you do not include the ridiculous assumptions that it is all going to be competely undetectable.

Even if it required 30, 40, 100 747's - enough money can run an operation that size - that has NEVER neen the problem!
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Rail has much less in the way of engineering limitations than aircraft - just because you can do it with relative ease on the surface of the earth is not a reason to suppose you can also easily transfer the operation to the tropopause!

And yes, of course any G20 country could "do it" fairly easily - as long as by "do it" you do not include the ridiculous assumptions that it is all going to be competely undetectable.

Even if it required 30, 40, 100 747's - enough money can run an operation that size - that has NEVER neen the problem!
I guess that is where we disagree . . . I think people who can pull off the Manhattan Project and a few others (not as large) are quite capable of a covert stratospheric sulfur injection program . . . I am just speculating how it might be done . . . I might be right about some concepts and I may be way off on others but I have confidence in their capabilities . . .
 

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
The Manhattan Project wasn't a complete secret. There were people who thought it was their patriotic duty as good communists and world citizens to pass this on to the Russians. And you could talk about things in science fiction that you couldn't say on the news. My Dad, a navy radio tech, knew exactly what had happened when he heard the news of a large explosion in Hiroshima. Given the moral issues involved with geoengineering, you would expect more whistleblowers.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The Manhattan Project wasn't a complete secret. There were people who thought it was their patriotic duty as good communists and world citizens to pass this on to the Russians. And you could talk about things in science fiction that you couldn't say on the news. My Dad, a navy radio tech, knew exactly what had happened when he heard the news of a large explosion in Hiroshima. Given the moral issues involved with geoengineering, you would expect more whistleblowers.
That is not a bad argument; however, the leaks to the Russians were not known to the public until after the detonations . . . it was in the interest of the US Government to eventually publicized this fact as well as significant information about the entire Manhattan Project . . as might be true in the future about geoengineering experimentation and possible operations . . .

PS . . . I bet your Dad didn't go on the Internet (or his equivalent) and spill the beans either . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That is not a bad argument; however, the leaks to the Russians were not known to the public until after the detonations . . . it was in the interest of the US Government to eventually publicized this fact as well as significant information about the entire Manhattan Project . . as might be true in the future about geoengineering experimentation and possible operations . . .

PS . . . I bet your Dad didn't go on the Internet (or his equivalent) and spill the beans either . . .

There's a vast difference between wartime with no internet and peacetime with internet and ubiquitous digital cameras.

Back in 1945, how exactly would someone spill the beans? Even if you copied all the documents at Los Alamos and sent them to the newspapers, then they would not publish them, as that would be treasonable.

Now, everyone is a publisher, and it takes 20 minutes to distribute the documents so widely that they can never be redacted.

Plus, in wartime, well, we are at war, and pretty much everyone in the US believed it was a just war (against the Japanese at least), so the number of possible whistleblower is going to be tiny.

But now you are suggesting something that all climate scientists say we should not be doing, something dangerous and risky. Something that should be very easy to at least get out a little evidence of (hey whistle blowers, just email me, MJM, and Russ Tanner).

So why not? Where are these emailed documents? Photos of planes? Plane registration numbers?

Really, all someone needs to do to blow this wide open is to send an anonymous email with a plane registration number.

So why don't they? A number can't be traced back to any individual. Anonymous email is pretty easy. Why has nobody done this?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
There's a vast difference between wartime with no internet and peacetime with internet and ubiquitous digital cameras.

Back in 1945, how exactly would someone spill the beans? Even if you copied all the documents at Los Alamos and sent them to the newspapers, then they would not publish them, as that would be treasonable.

Now, everyone is a publisher, and it takes 20 minutes to distribute the documents so widely that they can never be redacted.

Plus, in wartime, well, we are at war, and pretty much everyone in the US believed it was a just war (against the Japanese at least), so the number of possible whistleblower is going to be tiny.

But now you are suggesting something that all climate scientists say we should not be doing, something dangerous and risky. Something that should be very easy to at least get out a little evidence of (hey whistle blowers, just email me, MJM, and Russ Tanner).

So why not? Where are these emailed documents? Photos of planes? Plane registration numbers?

Really, all someone needs to do to blow this wide open is to send an anonymous email with a plane registration number.

So why don't they? A number can't be traced back to any individual. Anonymous email is pretty easy. Why has nobody done this?
Good points . . . all I can say is my experience with the 117a stealth fighter while I was on active duty in the AF throughout its development and operational testing, etc . . . I heard of public rumors, even spent weeks with an engineer who worked on the stealth technology, had a subscription to Jane's Aerospace Magazine and read it cover to cover each issue . . . but didn't know it existed or saw hard evidence it existed aside from speculation until it was officially disclosed to the public . . .

PS . . . The climate mitigation debate to some may well be like a war footing . . . people involved believe what they are doing is necessary and needs to be done in secret or they will be prevented from saving the world . . . strong reasons to keep your mouth shut . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Good points . . . all I can say is my experience with the 117a stealth fighter while I was on active duty in the AF throughout its development and operational testing, etc . . . I heard of public rumors, even spent weeks with an engineer who worked on the stealth technology, had a subscription to Jane's Aerospace Magazine and read it cover to cover each issue . . . but didn't know it existed until it was disclosed to the public . . .

But the 117a didn't have any entries in public databases like your supposed fleet of 747s. So how could someone get the info out to the public? And why would they?

Somewhat of an aside (but still noting that people notice things that are out of the ordinary), did you know that over 50% of all UFO reports from pilots in the 1950 and 1960s were caused by the U2 and A-12 spy plane test flights?
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-.../the-cia-and-the-u-2-program-1954-1974/u2.pdf

Pages 72-63 (pdf 84-85)



Again though, covering up obvious military programs during wartime against a clear enemy is different from covering up some mad scientist scheme to alter the planet.
 
Last edited:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I was on active duty in the AF.
George, if you really are a retired military man, surely you know that the chemmies are pointing at your people. You need to realize that your people are targeted. The worst outcome would be an experienced operator with a missile but that limits the pool of candidates. The most likely target for a rogue chemmie will be a ground attack at a military base, either sabotage of some sort or personal violence like Major Nidal. What are you going to do about that, besides a continuing intellectual exercise? Have you any ideas about how you might protect your people?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
But the 117a didn't have any entries in public databases like your supposed fleet of 747s. So how could someone get the info out to the public? And why would they?

Somewhat of an aside (but still noting that people notice things that are out of the ordinary), did you know that over 50% of all UFO reports from pilots in the 1950 and 1960s were caused by the U2 and A-12 spy plane test flights?
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-.../the-cia-and-the-u-2-program-1954-1974/u2.pdf

Pages 72-63 (pdf 84-85)



Again though, covering up obvious military programs during wartime against a clear enemy is different from covering up some mad scientist scheme to alter the planet.

PS . . . The climate mitigation debate to some may well be like a war footing . . . people involved believe what they are doing is necessary and needs to be done in secret or they will be prevented from saving the world . . . strong reasons to keep your mouth shut . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George, if you really are a retired military man, surely you know that the chemmies are pointing at your people. You need to realize that your people are targeted. The worst outcome would be an experienced operator with a missile but that limits the pool of candidates. The most likely target for a rogue chemmie will be a ground attack at a military base, either sabotage of some sort or personal violence like Major Nidal. What are you going to do about that, besides a continuing intellectual exercise? Have you any ideas about how you might protect your people?
Comes with the territory . . . I have been much more concerned about my safety in uniform within the US than overseas . . . there are kooks and lunatics in almost every community . . . A unit I worked in had every headlight and windshield smashed in on government vehicles on a regular basis . . . I am not arguing against your desire to inform and educate or challenge misinformation and your desire to disarm potential violence . . I am only saying there are legitiment differences of opinion and room for debate regarding the entire Chemtrail Conspiracy . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
PS . . . The climate mitigation debate to some may well be like a war footing . . . people involved believe what they are doing is necessary and needs to be done in secret or they will be prevented from saving the world . . . strong reasons to keep your mouth shut . . .

To some, maybe, but not to:

A) Just about all the climate scientists in the world
B) The workers who fly, fuel, load and maintain the planes.
C) Congress
D) The FBI
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
To some, maybe, but not to:

A) Just about all the climate scientists in the world
B) The workers who fly, fuel, load and maintain the planes.
C) Congress
D) The FBI

Hmmmm. . . the question would be . . . how would one know an individual's position except through public debate or observed behavior . . . there are many ways to hide ones true nature from public disclosure . . .

The entire argument is . . . are there enough resources, capability, motive and security to pull off a major on-going geoengineering program for several years without being discovered . . . I say there is a small chance (30%) and you think it is impossible . . . I think it is even possible it was started and stopped several times and maybe even thought to be a failure much like SDI . . . so it is technically possible, within the budget, but how can you hide it?? I think time and history will eventually tell . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Hmmmm. . . the question would be . . . how would one know an individual's position except through public debate or observed behavior . . . there are many ways to hide ones true nature from public disclosure . . .

The entire argument is . . . are there enough resources, capability, motive and security to pull off a major on-going geoengineering program for several years without being discovered . . . I say there is a small chance (30%) and you think it is impossible . . . I think it is even possible it was started and stopped several times and maybe even thought to be a failure much like SDI . . . so it is technically possible, within the budget, but how can you hide it?? I think time and history will eventually tell . . .

I don't think it's impossible. It think there's a small chance (about 0.0001%).
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Effectively impossible that is . . . robot cats can fly or at least stuffed ones can . . .

No, just highly improbably. Not the same thing. I'm quite open to evidence that there's covert geoengineering, or robots cats. Less so to evidence of Ancient Aliens vibrating our DNA to the 23rd dimension, etc.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No, just highly improbably. Not the same thing. I'm quite open to evidence that there's covert geoengineering, or robots cats. Less so to evidence of Ancient Aliens vibrating our DNA to the 23rd dimension, etc.
LoL!! I understand . . . I guess my disconnect here is . . . to debate or even to debunk one needs a few contrary positions . . . for all to agree is not always desirable or even healthy and I think if you disagree too much you are not necessarily welcome . . . that being said you have a mission to debunk bunk I understand . . . Also, sometimes I think you miss the contribution of the subjective nature of human behavior and the mystery of things . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
LoL!! I understand . . . I guess my disconnect here is . . . to debate or even to debunk one needs a few contrary positions . . . for all to agree is not always desirable or even healthy and I think if you disagree too much you are not necessarily welcome . . . that being said you have a mission to debunk bunk I understand . . . Also, sometimes I think you miss the contribution of the subjective nature of human behavior and the mystery of things . . .

But I think that holding a contrary position just because you feel sorry for the underdog is not going to advance the common good. Surely there comes a point when you can see the theory holds no water, and you are just debating for the sake of debate, not truth.

At that point you are not even really debating, just blindly promoting.

Sometimes a position is the underdog position just because it is wrong. Championing that underdog just propagates falsehoods.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
But I think that holding a contrary position just because you feel sorry for the underdog is not going to advance the common good. Surely there comes a point when you can see the theory holds no water, and you are just debating for the sake of debate, not truth.

At that point you are not even really debating, just blindly promoting.

Sometimes a position is the underdog position just because it is wrong. Championing that underdog just propagates falsehoods.

Let me chew on your comments for a while . . .
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
Perhaps these programs are funded with the Trillions of dollars that were disappeared from the Pentagon on 9/11? Oh sorry...that's an entirely different subject.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Perhaps these programs are funded with the Trillions of dollars that were disappeared from the Pentagon on 9/11? Oh sorry...that's an entirely different subject.
Funding is no problem . . . just the will to act . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Funding is no problem . . . just the will to act . . .

The problem is being able to justify that act to everyone else in power, and getting them to keep quiet about it. The science is just not there. If there's this huge level of uncertainty and debate NOW among the world's leading climate scientists, then how on earth do you think someone justified it 20 years ago, and managed to convince the PTB (and/or the illuminati) that it was a good idea?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The problem is being able to justify that act to everyone else in power, and getting them to keep quiet about it. The science is just not there. If there's this huge level of uncertainty and debate NOW among the world's leading climate scientists, then how on earth do you think someone justified it 20 years ago, and managed to convince the PTB (and/or the illuminati) that it was a good idea?
Seems to me there was likely less resistance in the past . . . you had the success of Mt Pinatubo . . . you didn't have the pesky computer models you have now and you had a group of aggressive science/policy wamps headed by the likes of Dr Teller who were use to more action and less discussion as in SDI . . .
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
....
I think time and history will eventually tell . . .

Just wondering, how much time do you think is needed to either prove that it isn't happening or that it is?
If it's been supposedly going on for x number of years, how much time needs to pass without results to tell that it wasn't happening, and what do you expect to happen in time that would prove it was happening?
If time DOESN'T tell in 20 years, won't you just say it's still being covered up?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West GeoengineeringWatch Chemtrail Posters fly-posted in Sydney Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West Do Polls and Google Trends show Chemtrail Belief Declining? Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Mick West TFTRH 9: Joe - Former Chemtrail Conspiracist, Current New World Order Conspiracist Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 51
Mick West YouTube adds Encyclopedia Britannica article on Contrails to "Chemtrail" Videos Contrails and Chemtrails 18
StratMatt777 How to effectively talk to chemtrail folk Practical Debunking 9
Leifer Claim: magnetic dust on cars proves chemtrail fallout Contrails and Chemtrails 11
cmnit Malpensa technician whistleblower on chemtrail activities in airport Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Mick West A Conversation with "Chemtrail" activist Patrick Roddie Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Trailblazer Explained: Vatican "chemtrail spraying" coin [part of set depicting Pope's travels] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
deirdre J.Marvin Herndon tries to pass off Bird Poop as evidence of "chemtrail" spraying Contrails and Chemtrails 24
TEEJ Claim of "UFO" interacting with "Chemtrail", Paris, France, 28th September 2016 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
JRBids "Chemtrail off your left wing": Air Traffic Controller Contrails and Chemtrails 18
MikeG Debunked: Air Force Verifies Chemtrails are Real Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Why "Chemtrail" Tests on the Ground Find Metals That Don't Occur Naturally Contrails and Chemtrails 14
MikeC New Zealand Ministry of Environment reply to "chemtrail" query Contrails and Chemtrails 6
MikeG Debunked: Geoengineering Killing Great Barrier Reef Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Tapir-mâché Curious-- how low can persistent contrails form? Contrails and Chemtrails 25
Trailblazer Chemtrail response from Swiss Federal Office of the Environment Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Persistent Trails Survey Shows Chemtrail Believers Only Recently Noticed Persistent Trails Contrails and Chemtrails 32
MikeC Aircraft weight and balance in the real world Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Trailblazer Another photoshopped chemtrail poster: Michael J Murphy Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Jay Reynolds Chemtrail Believers' predictions of "years left" before disaster Contrails and Chemtrails 6
A Augie Snyder's contrail/chemtrail questions Contrails and Chemtrails 18
Mick West Debunked: Rise In Respiratory Mortality from 4th to 3rd Cause of Death. "Chemtrail Flu" General Discussion 13
Mick West How Rogue Scientist J. Marvin Herndon Disproved the Last Resort of the Chemtrail Theory Contrails and Chemtrails 31
Trailblazer Photoshopped "chemtrail" images on Geoengineeringwatch.org Contrails and Chemtrails 76
JFDee New fuel dump "chemtrail" video [Munich, Thai Airways Flight 925] Contrails and Chemtrails 33
Critical Thinker Why we debunk and who do we reach. Practical Debunking 2
Trailblazer Identified: Chemtrails Project UK's "chemtrail plane" (Air France A340) Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Debunked: Kylie Jenner's Chemtrail Meme Tweet Contrails and Chemtrails 54
S Contrail shadow Contrails and Chemtrails 15
Trailblazer Video of helicopter leaving "chemtrail"? Contrails and Chemtrails 8
TEEJ Chemtrail Fleet - Peter A. Kirby Contrails and Chemtrails 10
cmnit Chemtrailists articles on Las Vegas Tribune (in 2005) Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Critical Thinker San Diego Chemtrail group to 'educate' & Protest Scientists/Doctors Contrails and Chemtrails 3
TWCobra Madisonstar Moon posts 59 year old photo of B47's contrailing. Contrails and Chemtrails 0
S Black exhaust, contrail, or chemtrail? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Mick West The Best Book for Explaining Contrails to Chemtrail Believers Contrails and Chemtrails 39
Husband of chemmy Help me! Wife is Chemtrailing... Contrails and Chemtrails 69
Jacob Aman J. Marvin Herndon's chemtrail letter to San Diego City Council Contrails and Chemtrails 39
A Dr. Kirkby 2009 CERN presentation: "Clouds Seeded by Jets" [Misunderstanding by Chemtrail Theorists] Contrails and Chemtrails 28
TWCobra Chemtrail evidence that would stand up in court Contrails and Chemtrails 20
Whitebeard Claim - 'Orbs Killing Chemtrails' Contrails and Chemtrails 29
Trailblazer Debunked: "The Snake" non-commercial chemtrail plane (China Eastern A330) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 33
Chemtrail_Follower Chemtrail Follower Escaping The Rabbit Hole 70
Peter How 'alive' is the topic of chemtrails nowadays? Contrails and Chemtrails 32
MikeC Homeopathic chemtrail detox formula Health and Quackery 25
TWCobra Very good question asked by Madison Star Moon Contrails and Chemtrails 27
Gundersen Debunked: Australian Rainwater "Chemtrail" test Contrails and Chemtrails 11
M Four Jets in Formation, Leaving Contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top