Billzilla
Senior Member.
I've already clearly explained how that would happen.
It hasn't, hence the continuing pure fiction of 'chemtrails'.
Undetectable, Invisible, Theoretical, Covert Chemtrail Operations
- Thread starter George B
- Start date
I've already clearly explained how that would happen.
It hasn't, hence the continuing pure fiction of 'chemtrails'.
MikeC
Closed Account
Such as the small transport companies that owned many of the rendition aircraft for example?
You have proposed a "small" company of at least 747'sa/c, flying up to 6000 flights per annum, that have been specifically converted to "spray" a chemical compound.
14 747's are a significant proportion of the total build - about 1450 747's made, total, up to the -400's and many are now out of service - EVERY SINGLE SERIAL NUMBER EVER BUILT (and some yet to be built!!) IS ON THIS PLANE SPOTTERS LIST: 747 production list
14 747's is more than were operated by, say Air New Zealand. Modification of the aircraft will have to be done by someone, somewhere - it is an expensive job and only a limited number of places around the world are going to be able to fit the required equipment - especially the required tankage!
Yet again your "what if" is off on a flight (sic) of your own fantasy based upon your ignorance of how aviation actually works.
I know this theory is a pet of yours, but you would do somewhat better if you did more than just pick up on the headline information and started thinking what is ACTUALLY reuired to accomplish it.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I guess I have more faith in the covert capabilities of the Let us speculate CIA, US Military, KGB or FSB, etc., etc. . . . you think the world is too transparent for an operation and retrofitting of 14 heavy lifters and I do . . .
Billzilla
Senior Member.
The other (crazy) part of that is that to hide a 747 both at an air force base and get it in & out of one is very difficult to do as they are one of the largest aeroplanes ever made.
People tend to notice about 400 tonnes of metal moving around under power.
Yes I know this because I used to Captain them.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So with a few billion dollars . . . over several months or a few years a front corporation couldn't purchase, retrofit, and operate 14 heavy lifters 747s, etc without creating suspicion . . . By the way . . . do spotters observe at night aircraft at high altitude . . .????
MikeC
Closed Account
Yes - they do - with 800-1200mm telescopes......eg here - and you should question how confident you can be about your scenario when you can't even research that!
The CIA couldn't manage to keep he operations of 8 small-medium a/c operating probably only a few thousand flights over several years secret - and yet you think they can keep 14 747's operating 6000 flights per year secret - year in, year out.
The CIA couldn't manage to keep he operations of 8 small-medium a/c operating probably only a few thousand flights over several years secret - and yet you think they can keep 14 747's operating 6000 flights per year secret - year in, year out.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Where does it talk about viewing and photographs at night???
Billzilla
Senior Member.
Have a think, George.
Do the big heavy & loud 747's just magically levitate their way up to 35,000' or do they have to take-off like every other conventional aeroplane ever made?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So . . . hundreds of 747s take off every hour . . .
Billzilla
Senior Member.
Not from air force bases, that's the point, remember?
MikeC
Closed Account
Have a look at the photos!!
TWCobra
Senior Member.
The other point to make here is that CT believers photograph and post videos all sorts of different aircraft, none of them flying in the upper stratosphere, and all of them with a white plume coming out the back. THAT is what they believe is chemtrailing and any other red herring being introduced here should therefore be accorded the appropriate time... i.e. very very little. Hasn't this been done to death on a post you started George?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So you think a sophisticated covert operation cannot overcome that little issue . . . I do . . . one could distribute the aircraft which appear to be for example DHL, FedEx, UPS, or a new charter company to several locations throughout the world . . . as in the proposal above, maybe eight bases . . . they could fly to one or two secure hubs once or twice each operational day . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes . . . I am only answering questions . . . however, these are issues you will eventually have to debunk convincingly as the CT crowd becomes more sophisticated . . . so stop asking questions and I will stop answering them . . .they will eventually realize visibility is the last thing a covert operation would want . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes. . . What I could view on the IPhone . . . I didn't see night high altitude high resolution photos . . . if they are there I missed them . . .
Miss VocalCord
Senior Member.
So the next argument will be the invisible chemtrails?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes . . . IMO . . . if they really thought it out . . .
gisellewilding
New Member
Many substances are invisible. Can you see CO? Of COURSE I have thought it our. But I allege the main reason of chemtrails is to block out rays of the sun so necessary in many area of life and the ecosystem.Keep trying as you will not win.
I doubt if many of you realize the many roles the sun has in the ecosystem. I know invisible substances can and are sprayed because I am smart educated and awake. You will not trap me.Hate me all you like.
Better to have the whole bloody world against you and be right than join the plebs and be wrong.And that I am prepared to be and in God only do I trust.
Plenty of gasses are invisible; it depends on the purpose. I am sure the psychopaths have been spraying them a long long time. The visible ones were necessary to cause the blockage of vital rays from the sun turning the colour of sunlight white rather than golden.
Keep at it blokes as I will not go away. I have knowledge beyond many of you on this site and it is more than plane mechanics......and I am female.
We/I are not going away. I am right. I make my own observations. I am a party of one. I am capable of original thought/
I am a thorn in your side guys.
My purpose in life is exposing the truth. I do not need hedonism and all the other pleasure the sheep need. I can get that anytime I like.I do not want it.And I trust in God.
won't bebunk me mate
I doubt if many of you realize the many roles the sun has in the ecosystem. I know invisible substances can and are sprayed because I am smart educated and awake. You will not trap me.Hate me all you like.
Better to have the whole bloody world against you and be right than join the plebs and be wrong.And that I am prepared to be and in God only do I trust.
Plenty of gasses are invisible; it depends on the purpose. I am sure the psychopaths have been spraying them a long long time. The visible ones were necessary to cause the blockage of vital rays from the sun turning the colour of sunlight white rather than golden.
Keep at it blokes as I will not go away. I have knowledge beyond many of you on this site and it is more than plane mechanics......and I am female.
We/I are not going away. I am right. I make my own observations. I am a party of one. I am capable of original thought/
I am a thorn in your side guys.
My purpose in life is exposing the truth. I do not need hedonism and all the other pleasure the sheep need. I can get that anytime I like.I do not want it.And I trust in God.
won't bebunk me mate
HappyMonday
Moderator
*face palm*
Nessa Celery
New Member
But do you have any evidence? Do you want people to blindly believe you, or is there a way you can convince them that you're right?
Trailspotter
Senior Member.
No, I will not. I have put you in my ignore list and will not see you again.
Belfrey
Senior Member.
That idea has popped up among chemtrails believers for years. Here's an example from 2008. It's a classic logical fail; someone recognizes that the physical symptoms they were blaming on chemtrails are also occurring when no persistent trails are observed. Rather than concluding that their symptoms are unrelated to chemtrails, they conclude that the chemtrails are now invisible!
Recently I noticed accelerated chemtrail spraying. I get get arthritis-like symptoms and muscular pain, depression, nausea, confusion, even when there is no visible chemtrail activity!!! That means the sparying is nearly invisible now.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That is basically an individual suspicion not a generally held belief in the CT community . . .
Belfrey
Senior Member.
Of course. Just pointing out that the idea has come up. As you know, the "community" is frankly a mess with regard to its "generally held beliefs" - they contradict each other endlessly, to the extent that they sometimes accuse each other of being "shills" for promoting different versions.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think the only common belief is a distrust of authority and a suspicion that the atmosphere is being intentionally and covertly tampered with . . .
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
NO!
geoengineeringwatch.org is now saying that non-persistent contrails are "sprayed aerosols" too.
You "chemtrail advocates" have always tried to stack the deck. George, you are a part of that with your stuff.
Don't try and deny it.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I have never denied I think that there is a geoengineering program or significant experimentation of some type going on . . . and that it is covert and doesn't leave (by design) any evidence that easily points to its existence . . . which means no visible evidence . . .
GregMc
Senior Member.
So George, in essence you are suggesting this hypothetical agency you are intuitively suspecting exists has been for perhaps decades secretly and unilaterally acting out of altruism on a global scale to save the world.
Additionally, doing so before even the world's leading atmospheric scientists have agreed based on the available evidence how such a problem should be tackled, with incomplete data sets which failed satellites have been unable to provide.
But it seems this elite group have decided to preemptively save the planet before the science is in (although you have suggested perhaps some science is in but they have decided, in contradiction to the manner in which science is actually conducted, not to share it with their peers for review, verification and checking) and go ahead anyway to save us all from ourselves.
They have extended a helping hand before the world has asked for help.
A secret operation that leaves no verifiable evidence, run by elites with the altruistic intention to protect the globe for the benefit of all humanity and earth's ecosystems.
So WHY covert?
WHY try to hide the fact that they are saving the world.
There seems to be a major disconnect of what you suggest based on a your hunches of military activities and untrustworthy govts or "elites" and the actuality of what you are suggesting is going on.
It seems to be that you are driven by feelings of paranoia that something wrong is going on but from what you suggest , if it were true then they would be trying to HELP .
It's like you think there is some EVIL conspiracy to secretly hand out free prescription glasses, comfy shoes , warm clothes and healthy food to everyone who needs it with the the sole justification in believing such a program being the paranoid feeling that: "don't you think the govt isn't EVIL and untrustworthy enough to do such a thing?"
It's like being paranoid and scared of superheroes existing.
Additionally, doing so before even the world's leading atmospheric scientists have agreed based on the available evidence how such a problem should be tackled, with incomplete data sets which failed satellites have been unable to provide.
But it seems this elite group have decided to preemptively save the planet before the science is in (although you have suggested perhaps some science is in but they have decided, in contradiction to the manner in which science is actually conducted, not to share it with their peers for review, verification and checking) and go ahead anyway to save us all from ourselves.
They have extended a helping hand before the world has asked for help.
A secret operation that leaves no verifiable evidence, run by elites with the altruistic intention to protect the globe for the benefit of all humanity and earth's ecosystems.
So WHY covert?
WHY try to hide the fact that they are saving the world.
There seems to be a major disconnect of what you suggest based on a your hunches of military activities and untrustworthy govts or "elites" and the actuality of what you are suggesting is going on.
It seems to be that you are driven by feelings of paranoia that something wrong is going on but from what you suggest , if it were true then they would be trying to HELP .
It's like you think there is some EVIL conspiracy to secretly hand out free prescription glasses, comfy shoes , warm clothes and healthy food to everyone who needs it with the the sole justification in believing such a program being the paranoid feeling that: "don't you think the govt isn't EVIL and untrustworthy enough to do such a thing?"
It's like being paranoid and scared of superheroes existing.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Seems I have confused you . . . it is like the real world . . . extremely dynamic and sometimes seemingly contradictory . . .
1) The altruism is a possible and likely motive but wrought with difficult choices and potential side effects like benefiting the developed world against the less fortunate under developed world through increasing drought, etc. . . .
2) The decision was possibly made like most difficult decisions (deemed necessary) without complete knowledge . . . not unlike many historical decisions have been . .. like the decision to invade Europe at Normandy or when to detonate the first atomic weapon, etc. etc. . . . remember the decision most likely occurred in the early 1990s when LLNL was the only organization with the ability to computer model the potential effects of geoengineering . . .
3) Evil is IMO any person or organization who feels it necessary to withhold critical information from the public because they feel the public is unworthy to participate or would cause roadblocks to their ultimate goals . . . even if the goal were the saving of the world as we know it . . .
Billzilla
Senior Member.
She has not presented any real evidence in the weeks I have seen her posting here and on Youtube.
Nothing other than "I am smarter than all of you" type stuff.
Jazzy
Closed Account
I don't get it, George.
You are suggesting, perhaps that there is a sufficiency of aircraft to deliver material which doesn't register in anyone's findings or statistics. Commonsense would suggest that an insignificant amount of something has no significance.
A napkin calculation tells me that to cover the Earth's skies with one molecule of Welsbach material per square centimeter would require twenty million tons. To put that as high as possible could provide about a fortnight's, er, moderation, before the stuff washes out and needs replacement. That might be expensive. What do you think?
To put the stuff in the high stratosphere, where it might persist, cannot be done by tanker plane. Ever. Your best bet would be to dot several a-bombs around the Earth, which could "safely" lift sufficient quantities to where it was needed. Although, as far as I'm concerned, they might as well use my sitting room at sea level for that.
Nothing in "chemtrails" has ever been thought through. []*
You are suggesting, perhaps that there is a sufficiency of aircraft to deliver material which doesn't register in anyone's findings or statistics. Commonsense would suggest that an insignificant amount of something has no significance.
A napkin calculation tells me that to cover the Earth's skies with one molecule of Welsbach material per square centimeter would require twenty million tons. To put that as high as possible could provide about a fortnight's, er, moderation, before the stuff washes out and needs replacement. That might be expensive. What do you think?
To put the stuff in the high stratosphere, where it might persist, cannot be done by tanker plane. Ever. Your best bet would be to dot several a-bombs around the Earth, which could "safely" lift sufficient quantities to where it was needed. Although, as far as I'm concerned, they might as well use my sitting room at sea level for that.
Nothing in "chemtrails" has ever been thought through. []*
MikeC
Closed Account
If you get to a real computer have another look - mean time see if you can view this page - http://www.skystef.be/contrail-special.htm
It has several night time contrail shots, and shots at ranges of up to 260km.
Jazzy
Closed Account
Last edited by Mick; Today at 09:45 PM. Reason: * politeness snips.
* Gosh. I'm gonna be polite no matter what. Can't remember what I wrote now... LOL
Seriously, I wasn't being impolite to George because I believed him to be a devil's advocate, and not a chemtrailer. My error, I think.
* Gosh. I'm gonna be polite no matter what. Can't remember what I wrote now... LOL
Seriously, I wasn't being impolite to George because I believed him to be a devil's advocate, and not a chemtrailer. My error, I think.
HappyMonday
Moderator
Fantastic!
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I don't doubt everything has not been thought through however, that is not a bar from a decision being made to proceed especially 10 years ago when much of the present research and computer modeling was not available . . . Also, there have been numerous papers written which indicate the amount, of for example, SO2 per annum needed to slow or even stop warming range between 1.5 and 7 million tons injected into the stratosphere . . . likewise the altitude and injection locations are a point of debate . . . however, it is my contention one uses the lift capability and ceiling available if one chooses to act . . . it is called compromising . . .
SULFURIC ACID DEPOSITION FROM GEOENGINEERING
Journal of Geophysical Research, in press February, 2009
Revised May, 2009
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate change/Data sources/Robock aciddeposition.pdf
Page 6
In addition, we used two ensembles, each with three members of 20-year climate simulations, covering the same time period. One involved daily injections of SO2 into the tropical lower stratosphere (longitude 120°E, latitude 0°, 16-23 km altitude) for a total of 5 Tg per year in addition to the forcing prescribed by the A1B scenario, and one involved daily injections of SO2 into the Arctic lower stratosphere (longitude 120°E, latitude 68°N, 10-15 km altitude) for a total of 3 Tg per year in addition to the forcing prescribed by the A1B scenario.
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/civil-an...fall-2009/projects/MIT1_018JF09_sw_paper4.pdf
The Unintended Consequences of Sulfate Aerosols in the Troposphere and Lower Stratosphere
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
11/29/2009
." Aerosols have a much longer residence time in the stratosphere than they do in the troposphere. A residence time of several years as opposed to several days means that fewer aerosols need to be introduced into the stratosphere in order to maintain the climatic effects (Rasch et al., 2008). The characteristics of the stratosphere lead to the dispersion of the aerosols over an area larger than the launch site, causing a global, rather than local, effect, an important aspect of geoengineering. Figure 2 shows the location of the stratosphere, troposphere and the tropopause, the layer separating the two. Any sulfate aerosol geoengineering scheme would aim to launch aerosols into the lower stratosphere, between 10 and 15km above the surface of the Earth.
In an effort to confine the climatic response to geoengineering, a lower rate of injection is used, and again, following the simulation of Robock et al.(2008), the sulfate aerosols will be injected at a rate of 3 Mt/annum. This is suitable for an experiment, because it is equivalent to a Pinatubo eruption every 6.67 years, and would cause a sulfate level that would not overburden the Earth's natural capacity. The experiment will be continued for 10 years, long enough to see a decrease in global average surface temperature according to Robock et al. (2008). This would mean over 10 years, a total of 30 Mt SO2 will be introduced into the lower stratosphere.
Due to the dark Arctic winter, the frequency of injections through the fall and winter would not need to be as great because aerosols have no effect in the dark winter (Robock et al.,
page 14
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Ok . . . you can get some fantastic photos of high flying aircraft leaving contrails across the moon . . . how does that help you find aircraft flying normal routes injecting invisible gasses or injecting SO2 in the exhaust wakes . . .????
Jazzy
Closed Account
The lower stratosphere happens to be where 17% of Earth's atmosphere is supersaturated. That will automatically and instantly remove 17% of any delivered material into downwards falling ice crystals, which will evaporate in the tropopause, liberating the materials back as dust (ah, in your proposition, gas*) which will nucleate raindrops and fall to earth...
The lower stratosphere is also the address of the jet stream which lashes through our circulatory shell like an unrestrained power hose.
Those materials will be back to earth within a fortnight.
* Gases like SOx and NOx, or powders will work in the higher stratosphere, above the jet stream, because water vapor molecules and their activities are rare. Unfortunately, when in this position, those gases migrate to the poles where they serve to widen the Ozone Holes by catalysis. They are eventually brought down by few and far-between water vapor molecules, and so have a limited life compared with CFCs, which persist for much longer because they have no affinity for water... ...collision with hard radiation first, with the broken product either leaking into interplanetary space or colliding with a water molecule**, to fall, is their eventual outcome.
** Water is being continually being lost into space. Not enough to worry about, though.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I don't deny your analysis . . . however, many proposals suggested such a strategy as late as the late 1990s to mid 2000s and the mind think in the early 1990s may have been let's go for it . . . while the lower stratosphere maybe wetter than the rest of the stratosphere it is still much dryer than the higher troposphere . . .
Clouds are found almost exclusively in the troposphere. The stratosphere is very dry, because vertical transfer is limited by the high stability and because any transfer would have to occur through the tropopause, which is so cold that the saturation vapour pressure is negligibly small. Yet on occasion thin veils of clouds are observed above the tropopause. Presumably these clouds consist largely of ice, although their exact composition is not known.http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap08/noctilucent.html
Jazzy
Closed Account
You are correct about it being drier than the troposphere, but about the rest you are apparently misinformed.
For "on occasion" read "continually, with few exceptions".
Stratospheric clouds called CIRRUS CLOUDS are observed. They are made of ice: there is no presumption to it. They have always lived at their stated address*. Their exact composition is known, and has been known ever since lasers were first used from ground and space to assay their contents and composition.
The link given is for noctilucent clouds, which are clouds up in the high stratosphere of elemental particles in association with ice. These are much less substantial or understood.
I live on Tenerife at Latitude 27 degrees. It is VERY sunny here, but there is never a day that passes without some cirrus visible somewhere, even on the clearest, bluest day.
The vertical upward transfer of water vapor** through the apparently impermeable tropopause has TWO mechanisms:
- The quasi-biennial oscillation, where Hadleigh Cell boundaries mix twice a year, and
- Aircraft.
The proportion of the latter is beneath the resolution of monitoring. If aviation expands at its current rate for a further forty years then this proportion will achieve significance. That isn't very likely.
* If 17% of the lower stratosphere is known to be fully saturated with water vapor, then any reduction in temperature anywhere (possibly caused by falling over a tropospheric "bulge", or by vertical standing waves) will cause ice crystals to nucleate out, and cirrus cloud appear. As this occurs in sheets and layers all over the Earth, then cirrus clouds will be everywhere, over 17% of the earth's surface. The ice crystals composing cirrus clouds are often very temporary indeed... ... a lenticular cloud is a form of cirrus. It appears stationary while its component ice crystals are forever coming into and winking out of existence, much as a rainbow appears stationary when it is being continually remade with falling drops of water - although one is real, the other virtual, of course.
Also jet streams are visible - though more easily visible from space. they can travel much faster than laminar flow will allow, and become turbulent at their edges. This turbulence produces ice clouds by stirring with colder material, which is normally beneath it.
There is enough water in a jet stream to wash out anything which has an affinity with water. The energy of such streams derives itself from the heat stored in the ice crystals and water vapor, and hardly at all from atmospheric air molecules. If water were not to be there, such flows would STOP. Or at least slow right down to a crawl...
** The downward is of course gravity, upon ice crystals, and the QBO.
Similar threads
