Undetectable, Invisible, Theoretical, Covert Chemtrail Operations

Looks like what we call two fast movers and a heavy. I'd wager a pair of F15's and a KC10 tanker, not an uncommon sight in the UK. The part where the left hand contrail splits looks like a breakaway after refueling.

Von Braun was promoted three times by Himmler, the last time in June 1943 to SS-Sturmbannführer (major).
 
So when the ocean acidifies and the phytoplankton die, and the forests acidify and they die too, exactly where are we going to get the oxygen we need to live, on this cooled planet?

"They" aren't secretly hiding the delivery of SO2 to the atmosphere, WE ARE ALL publicly burning it in our fossil fuels, George. Your "disinformation" harms us all. Including yourself. All else self-censored.
I never endorsed the strategy . . I am discussing whether it is possible it is being done or could be done in the future . . . I just present what is already published . . . You need to take your distaste for this approach to the scientists who are proposing them as alternatives . . . I don't think they are presenting them except as an option to a crisis or potential crisis . . . they all know the potential unintended side effects. . . .KILL the MESSENGER . . . no don't . . . That's ME! :)
 
Looks like what we call two fast movers and a heavy. I'd wager a pair of F15's and a KC10 tanker, not an uncommon sight in the UK. The part where the left hand contrail splits looks like a breakaway after refueling.

Von Braun was promoted three times by Himmler, the last time in June 1943 to SS-Sturmbannführer (major).

Looks like what we call two fast movers and a heavy. I'd wager a pair of F15's and a KC10 tanker, not an uncommon sight in the UK. The part where the left hand contrail splits looks like a breakaway after refueling.

Looks like what I call a guess. Looks like what I call three fast movers performing a choreographed release of matter making the trails visible.

Von Braun was promoted three times by Himmler, the last time in June 1943 to SS-Sturmbannführer (major).

Yes, major, not colonel. It was the US establishment gave him his last promotion. Something to be proud of.
 
Looks like what I call a guess. Looks like what I call three fast movers performing a choreographed release of matter making the trails visible.

And what are you basing that on?

We know that planes flying though an ice supersaturated region will leave trails. Three planes would leave three trails. Contrails happen all the time. So what about this makes it not look like contrails?
 
i still dont get why all this supposed super secret global geo planning when we burn 20x the sulfur compounds a year mentioned in your paper..... all when a single(according to you) relatively unpredictable geological event(many of which happen every year) will tweak and offset any calculations you have done and based your program off of and perhaps invalidate the whole program. all the while producing acid rain?

While still pushing large industry efforts to reduce sulfur emissions thru the use of hard to produce and expensive to buy catalysts. all while hiding the so2/h2s/oleum production and distribution. not to mention the failure of anyone to have ever produce a single bit of actual evidence? a single telephoto shot thats not of ballast barrels. something. but wait! is it sulfur or Al or barium or titanium? which story is it? this time its sulfur. which will the text thread be?

and why should we take your cited paper as gospel? i was under the impression CT supporters thought the high tech military industrial complex was profit driven and would lie and stretch the truth about anything to get money, regardless of the side effects or if it worked? So why should i believe the numbers in this paper if the numbers in the papers showing why contrails are just contrails are supposedly faked? why is this one valid and not the others?

aside from the fact that it fits your predetermined notion of what you think to be the case.
 
Interesting but its still just a study. They even state they don't really have a feasible aircraft and propose the cost of r&d for a special aircraft. The service ceiling of a Boeing 747-400 is 43,000. It would be very difficult to seed the stratosphere at that altitude, if not impossible. The study was proposed in 2010, I can't imagine anything being attempted for another 10-20 years, strictly speaking from a technology standpoint. If you consider the environmental impact, largely unknown, I see it never being attempted.

I also want to mention, just because a commercial jet has a max service ceiling of FL430, that doesn't mean it can reach it. Generally, its assumed it won't unless there is low fuel and little cargo. Usually, the mid 30's is common in the mid lattitudes. Additionally, I don't know of a single FAA part 25 aircraft (i.e., commercial airliner), that is capable of having the engine power to fly in the stratosphere. The temperature inversion is the barrier. If someone can prove me wrong, I'm all ears.
 
I also want to mention, just because a commercial jet has a max service ceiling of FL430, that doesn't mean it can reach it. Generally, its assumed it won't unless there is low fuel and little cargo. Usually, the mid 30's is common in the mid lattitudes. Additionally, I don't know of a single FAA part 25 aircraft (i.e., commercial airliner), that is capable of having the engine power to fly in the stratosphere. The temperature inversion is the barrier. If someone can prove me wrong, I'm all ears.
Good questions . . . number one the stratosphere is not at 43,000 feet in the northern latitudes . . . more like FL350 . . . next, the distance required on the mission is probably half of a normal transatlantic flight . . . also, unlike on a regular flight you get to dump your entire payload off your aircraft . . . this might not help in your ascent but would very much help during the rest of the mission . . . let me get back to you on the temperature inversion barrier issue . . .
 
I also want to mention, just because a commercial jet has a max service ceiling of FL430, that doesn't mean it can reach it. Generally, its assumed it won't unless there is low fuel and little cargo. Usually, the mid 30's is common in the mid lattitudes. Additionally, I don't know of a single FAA part 25 aircraft (i.e., commercial airliner), that is capable of having the engine power to fly in the stratosphere. The temperature inversion is the barrier. If someone can prove me wrong, I'm all ears.

Aircraft flight: Commercial airliners typically cruise at altitudes of 9–12 km (30,000–39,000 ft) in temperate latitudes (in the lower reaches of the stratosphere).[3] This optimizes fuel burn, mostly thanks to the low temperatures encountered near the tropopause and low air density, reducing parasitic drag on the airframe. (Stated another way, it allows the airliner to fly faster for the same amount of drag.) It also allows them to stay above hard weather (extreme turbulence).
Content from External Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere
At moderate latitudes the stratosphere is situated between about 10–13 km (30,000–40,000 ft; 6–8 mi) and 50 km (160,000 ft; 31 mi) altitude above the surface, while at the poles it starts at about 8 km (30,000 ft; 5 mi) altitude, and near the equator it may start at altitudes high as 18 kilometres (59,000 ft; 11 mi).
Content from External Source
 
i still dont get why all this supposed super secret global geo planning when we burn 20x the sulfur compounds a year mentioned in your paper..... all when a single(according to you) relatively unpredictable geological event(many of which happen every year) will tweak and offset any calculations you have done and based your program off of and perhaps invalidate the whole program. all the while producing acid rain?

While still pushing large industry efforts to reduce sulfur emissions thru the use of hard to produce and expensive to buy catalysts. all while hiding the so2/h2s/oleum production and distribution. not to mention the failure of anyone to have ever produce a single bit of actual evidence? a single telephoto shot thats not of ballast barrels. something. but wait! is it sulfur or Al or barium or titanium? which story is it? this time its sulfur. which will the text thread be?

and why should we take your cited paper as gospel? i was under the impression CT supporters thought the high tech military industrial complex was profit driven and would lie and stretch the truth about anything to get money, regardless of the side effects or if it worked? So why should i believe the numbers in this paper if the numbers in the papers showing why contrails are just contrails are supposedly faked? why is this one valid and not the others?

aside from the fact that it fits your predetermined notion of what you think to be the case.
1) My purpose is not to agree or disagree with the Chemtrail Conspiracy Advocates . . . if you think that is what I am doing you are way wrong . . . I don't agree with them nor do I agree with most on Metabunk . . .
2) Why there is a disconnect between the EPA, IPCC and the UN, the Industrial Military Complex and geoengineering advocates . . . that is a most complex question . . . guess like in many examples of complex systems the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing and will never know . . . 3) Since global warming is proceeding along quite well even with periodic volcanic eruptions . . . seems the geoengineers don't think they can wait on mother nature to mitigate the process by herself . . . 4) You are not required to accept the research papers, research proposals, cost analysis as gospel . . . that is up to you . . . it is only evidence and circumstantial at that . . . 5) True most of the stratospheric sulfur comes from mother nature and ground sources and the levels are amazing constant according to the research . . . the difference is Stratospheric Injection of Sulfur is immediate, facile, and theoretically just as effective as a volcanic eruption . . . but we decide when it erupts . . . Take it or leave it . . . your choice . . . :) P.S. 6) Why no pictures . . . all you will see is aircraft flying on normal routes in the northern latitudes and possibly in the southern latitudes in the lower stratosphere . . . nothing unusual . . . probably no contrails either . . .
 
http://www.aviationweather.gov/products/swh/

Click on ICAO area A, and tell me where the tropopause resides for that report.

George, you can argue with me, you can cite wiki all you want, but airliners are not going to fly in the stratosphere.




Aircraft flight: Commercial airliners typically cruise at altitudes of 9–12 km (30,000–39,000 ft) in temperate latitudes (in the lower reaches of the stratosphere).[3] This optimizes fuel burn, mostly thanks to the low temperatures encountered near the tropopause and low air density, reducing parasitic drag on the airframe. (Stated another way, it allows the airliner to fly faster for the same amount of drag.) It also allows them to stay above hard weather (extreme turbulence).
Content from External Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere
At moderate latitudes the stratosphere is situated between about 10–13 km (30,000–40,000 ft; 6–8 mi) and 50 km (160,000 ft; 31 mi) altitude above the surface, while at the poles it starts at about 8 km (30,000 ft; 5 mi) altitude, and near the equator it may start at altitudes high as 18 kilometres (59,000 ft; 11 mi).
Content from External Source
 
While still pushing large industry efforts to reduce sulfur emissions thru the use of hard to produce and expensive to buy catalysts. all while hiding the so2/h2s/oleum production and distribution.

.
1) No one is hiding oleum production and distribution . . . it is shipped without fanfare all over the world . . . a train load going to this complex as oppose to that complex wouldn't even be questioned . . . it is just business easily conducted and paid for without deceit or hiding much of anything . . . 2) Sulfur emissions are directed toward primarily ground pollution in the troposphere to reduce acid rain and smog, in the troposphere if I am not mistaken it is not a cooling agent . . . etc . . . its abundance or lack there of will eventually effect the transport of some from the troposphere to the stratosphere (where it will act as a cooling agent) . . . but this is rather constant and is background noise . . . like 99% of the water in a bathtub . . . it is the last percent that causes the flood of water into the bathroom floor . . . what a mess!!! . . . :) Injected Aerosols containing sulfur compounds primarily SO2 from aircraft can be that 1% that floods the bathroom floor . . .
 
http://www.aviationweather.gov/products/swh/

Click on ICAO area A, and tell me where the tropopause resides for that report.

George, you can argue with me, you can cite wiki all you want, but airliners are not going to fly in the stratosphere.
You will have to help me here . . . the altitudes I see in the northern latitudes are in the 20 to 30,000 . . . if you go down to Miami sure it is in the 40s . . . one would not fly an injection mission with existing heavy lift aircraft ceilings over Florida, Texas, California or the Southeast . . . that is a given . . . that is not optimal but it is still useful for reasons I can detail later if want to hear them . . . we are talking about long haul aircraft . . . are we talking about the same thing . . . ? Tropopause.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My point is the tropopause is extremely variable and generally reacts to the polar and sub-tropical jet stream. You'll note that over New Mexico the tropopause is estimated at FL290 because the jet stream takes a crazy dip south, then back up over the great lakes, while way north in the province of BC and Ontario it resides at FL340. Its all in the link I gave you several posts back, good stuff.

Aside from that we are talking about high-altitude aerodynamics of commercial (long-haul, doesn't matter, more importantly swept wing aircraft) aircraft. As you near the tropopause the temperature ceases to decrease, and may even warm. Therefore, as a jet climbs through this extremely thin layer of atmosphere, it will suffer in performance due to temp stabilization, or temp increase, while air density continues to fall. In addition, there will most likely be apparent some form of turbulence as the jet transitions out of the jet stream into calmer air. Turbulence at or near a jets' max service ceiling is dangerous due to the coffin corner issue, which is the zone where mach and stall get dangerously close together.

Aside from loss of aerodynamic performance, you also increase fuel burn making it pointless.




You will have to help me here . . . the altitudes I see in the northern latitudes are in the 20 to 30,000 . . . if you go down to Miami sure it is in the 40s . . . one would not fly an injection mission with existing heavy lift aircraft ceilings over Florida, Texas, California or the Southeast . . . that is a given . . . that is not optimal but it is still useful for reasons I can detail later if want to hear them . . . we are talking about long haul aircraft . . . are we talking about the same thing . . . ?
 
My point is the tropopause is extremely variable and generally reacts to the polar and sub-tropical jet stream. You'll note that over New Mexico the tropopause is estimated at FL290 because the jet stream takes a crazy dip south, then back up over the great lakes, while way north in the province of BC and Ontario it resides at FL340. Its all in the link I gave you several posts back, good stuff.

So are you saying there would not be any commercial traffic above FL290 over New Mexico that day? Does not sound likely.
 
1) No one is hiding oleum production and distribution . . . it is shipped without fanfare all over the world . . . .

Uh....no!

Oleum is an extremely dangerous substance that is shipped all over the world under dangerous goods regulation with a lot of people noticing it! Some Oleums are slid at room temperatures making them easier to transport - but htey stillhaveto ble laoded and unloaded as liquids, requiring heating and cooling equipment, plus temeprature control while in transit.

As with so much of this pet fantasy of yours you trivialise the real world considerations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My point is the tropopause is extremely variable and generally reacts to the polar and sub-tropical jet stream. You'll note that over New Mexico the tropopause is estimated at FL290 because the jet stream takes a crazy dip south, then back up over the great lakes, while way north in the province of BC and Ontario it resides at FL340. Its all in the link I gave you several posts back, good stuff.

Aside from that we are talking about high-altitude aerodynamics of commercial (long-haul, doesn't matter, more importantly swept wing aircraft) aircraft. As you near the tropopause the temperature ceases to decrease, and may even warm. Therefore, as a jet climbs through this extremely thin layer of atmosphere, it will suffer in performance due to temp stabilization, or temp increase, while air density continues to fall. In addition, there will most likely be apparent some form of turbulence as the jet transitions out of the jet stream into calmer air. Turbulence at or near a jets' max service ceiling is dangerous due to the coffin corner issue, which is the zone where mach and stall get dangerously close together.

Aside from loss of aerodynamic performance, you also increase fuel burn making it pointless.
I had no idea the tropopause was considered such a barrier to pilots . . . seems I have a misconception then . . .
 
1) No one is hiding oleum production and distribution

i was speaking specifically to the point that most(not you) chemtrail supporters believe the planes operate out of their local commercial airports/all day/every day/every where. however since you have stated you have a very specific view on how this would be done ill drop my statement and not group your views with that of the chemtrail theory on a whole.

And i had asked earlier if there was no/limited mixing of sulfur into the upper atmosphere from ground emissions but yea, moot point.
 
Uh....no!

Oleum is an extremely dangerous substance that is shipped all over the world under dangerous goods regulation with a lot of people noticing it! Some Oleums are slid at room temperatures making them easier to transport - but htey stillhaveto ble laoded and unloaded as liquids, requiring heating and cooling equipment, plus temeprature control while in transit.

As with so much of this pet fantasy of yours you trivialise the real world considerations.

Everything which is a toxic chemical is transported with caution . . . the methods designed for oleum are adequate and efficient enough for oleum to be one of the most common if not the most common chemical substance transported in the entire developed world . . . I stand by my statement . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I must confess to some confusion too - AFAIK density altitude is pretty much all that matters to aircraft performance. Temperature will affect density at a given pressure, and so the cooling temperatuer with altitude to the tropopause will "slow down" the rate of drop in density - and conversely a static or increasing temperatuer above here will not slow it down or will increase it.

But the actual density altitude is what matters, for whatever reason.
 
Everything which is a toxic chemical is transported with caution . . . the methods designed for oleum are adequate and efficient enough for oleum to be one of the most common if not the most common chemical substance transported in the entire developed world . . . I stand by my statement . . .

ROFL - except perhaps for coal, oil, food, steel??

Worldwide Oleum production - 185 million tons in 2002 (pdf document)

Steel: 1300+ million tons
Cement: 3400+ millions tons

Others??....

The fact that it is a common product is not the same thing as it being transported "without fanfare" - if you had any experience of dangerous goods transport you would understand that there is a great deal of "fanfare" involved.

Sorry George - yet again you are making a pronouncement off the top off your head about a topic you evidently know nothing about, because if you acknowledged the reality you would find it that much more difficult to believe this pet project of yours.
 
I never endorsed the strategy . . I am discussing whether it is possible it is being done or could be done in the future . . . I just present what is already published . . . You need to take your distaste for this approach to the scientists who are proposing them as alternatives . . . I don't think they are presenting them except as an option to a crisis or potential crisis . . . they all know the potential unintended side effects. . . .KILL the MESSENGER . . . no don't . . . That's ME! :)
No George.

Sulfur dioxide has been, and is being, introduced into earth's atmosphere by man's combustion of fossil fuels, which contain upwards of 3% SULFUR.

This sulfur dioxide helps to acidify both oceans and forests, progressively killing them, and to reduce atmospheric ozone at the poles, thus increasing skin cancer risks for everyone in high latitudes, progressively killing people, and these effects have been measured.

This real event happening right now is vastly more important than your hypothesis, which has been drawn from a professional's answer to a hypothetical problem.

Your hypothesis merely disinforms everyone, in the search for non-existent motives, when the real motivation behind the real event is elsewhere, to be found and dealt with by people other than you.

Your hypothesis is worse than merely useless. There is harm in it. Stop promoting it.
 
Mick I said stratosphere. Not tropopause sorry if it wasn't clear.

The tropopause is a boundary. You are either above it (in the stratosphere), or below it (in the the troposphere). You can't fly in it.

So if the tropopause is at FL290, then FL300 is in the stratosphere.

I'm wondering if we are talking about different things here, because there seem to be plenty of references to planes flying in the lower stratosphere.

Example:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014006/article
Commercial passenger airplanes, which routinely fly at cruise altitudes between 9 and 13 km, encounter elevated ozone when they cross the tropopause.
Content from External Source


 
ROFL - except perhaps for coal, oil, food, steel??

Worldwide Oleum production - 185 million tons in 2002 (pdf document)

Steel: 1300+ million tons
Cement: 3400+ millions tons

Others??....

The fact that it is a common product is not the same thing as it being transported "without fanfare" - if you had any experience of dangerous goods transport you would understand that there is a great deal of "fanfare" involved.

Sorry George - yet again you are making a pronouncement off the top off your head about a topic you evidently know nothing about, because if you acknowledged the reality you would find it that much more difficult to believe this pet project of yours.

Coal, steel, food, are basically commodities . . . of course everything is a chemical . . . please read below . . . bold type . . .


Through its major derivative, sulfuric acid, sulfur ranks asone of the most important elements used as an industrial rawmaterial and is of prime importance to every sector of theworld’s fertilizer and manufacturing industries. Sulfuric acidproduction is the major end use for sulfur, and consumption ofsulfuric acid has been regarded as one of the best indices of anation’s industrial development. More sulfuric acid is producedin the United States every year than any other chemical;

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/sulfur/sulfumyb03.pdf

Content from External Source
 
I'm not disputing that it is a common substance - I am disputing your claim that it is transported "without fanfare".
 
I'm not disputing that it is a common substance - I am disputing your claim that it is transported "without fanfare".
I guess it is a question of the definition of fanfare when it comes to shipping and handling toxic substances. . . a product of the volume (tonnage) represented by oleum obviously has substantial infrastructure and handling procedures to become almost common place. . . that is my point. . . and thereby massive tons being shipped through the normal channels would not be out of place or unusual. . . .
 
No George.

Sulfur dioxide has been, and is being, introduced into earth's atmosphere by man's combustion of fossil fuels, which contain upwards of 3% SULFUR.

This sulfur dioxide helps to acidify both oceans and forests, progressively killing them, and to reduce atmospheric ozone at the poles, thus increasing skin cancer risks for everyone in high latitudes, progressively killing people, and these effects have been measured.

This real event happening right now is vastly more important than your hypothesis, which has been drawn from a professional's answer to a hypothetical problem.

Your hypothesis merely disinforms everyone, in the search for non-existent motives, when the real motivation behind the real event is elsewhere, to be found and dealt with by people other than you.

Your hypothesis is worse than merely useless. There is harm in it. Stop promoting it.
1) Who do you think I could even influence . . . ? No policy wamp or scientist would take the discussion on a Internet Forum as the end all of any significant issue. . . .
2) Open discussion about any published work or endeavor should be censored? I have never heard of such a concern expressed before . . .
 
" normal channels" would be our sticking point here i think. but since you have said you dont think chemtrails have anything to do with the chemtrail CT outside of this thread it makes it a bit confusing. it would not be hard to deliver said product to one or two military air strips since you think only a few planes are making runs in an isolated region.
 
I guess it is a question of the definition of fanfare when it comes to shipping and handling toxic substances. . . a product of the volume (tonnage) represented by oleum obviously has substantial infrastructure and handling procedures to become almost common place. . . that is my point. . . and thereby massive tons being shipped through the normal channels would not be out of place or unusual. . . .

Indeed it would not be unusual or out of place - but building such a facility next to an airport big enough for your small fleet of 747's would be. Even if the airport was already existing there would "suddenly" be trucks full of hazmat going through its gates and unloading into a/c or storage facilities airside - that would be a WTF? moment for quiet a lot of people.

And if you choose to postulate an airport out of the way somewhere you still need enough people to handle a small fleet of 747's, a facility to unload and store and process the oleum and whatever it is turned into to be used on the a/c, fuel tanks for the a/c, etc.

It is simply not something you an trivially dismiss by saying "the TPTB would make it happen in secret"
 
" normal channels" would be our sticking point here i think. but since you have said you dont think chemtrails have anything to do with the chemtrail CT outside of this thread it makes it a bit confusing. it would not be hard to deliver said product to one or two military air strips since you think only a few planes are making runs in an isolated region.
Yes, most Air Force Bases have rail heads . . . especially old SAC bases and underground distribution systems . . . would not be impossible to use a retired base . . . sufficient space and facilities for a few hundred or even thousands of personnel . . .
 
Indeed it would not be unusual or out of place - but building such a facility next to an airport big enough for your small fleet of 747's would be. Even if the airport was already existing there would "suddenly" be trucks full of hazmat going through its gates and unloading into a/c or storage facilities airside - that would be a WTF? moment for quiet a lot of people.

And if you choose to postulate an airport out of the way somewhere you still need enough people to handle a small fleet of 747's, a facility to unload and store and process the oleum and whatever it is turned into to be used on the a/c, fuel tanks for the a/c, etc.

It is simply not something you an trivially dismiss by saying "the TPTB would make it happen in secret"
Remember. . . the process chould have been built up over months or even years . . . frog in a beaker effect . . . touch and goes by large commercial carriers on military fields are not unusual . . . cooridnation of such activities could cover a lot of activities . . .
 
And you expect NO ONE to notice cars going in and out of a 'closed base'? You expect no one with any shipping company to wonder why chemicals are being shipped to a 'closed base'? You expect folks living close by to NOT NOTICE planes taking off from a 'closed base' ? That NO ONE is going to notice a 'closed base' producing garbage? That no one would report this to the local police and or news media? This 'closed base' is going to need power, water, telephone lines that are active. Jet fuel would need to be delivered.

Have you ever watched touch and gos? They are not the same as a regular flight.

Now we are back at having 1000s of folks in multiple sites NEVER whispering a word. Many of those folks are NOT in the military.
 
And you expect NO ONE to notice cars going in and out of a 'closed base'? You expect no one with any shipping company to wonder why chemicals are being shipped to a 'closed base'? You expect folks living close by to NOT NOTICE planes taking off from a 'closed base' ? That NO ONE is going to notice a 'closed base' producing garbage? That no one would report this to the local police and or news media? This 'closed base' is going to need power, water, telephone lines that are active. Jet fuel would need to be delivered.

Have you ever watched touch and gos? They are not the same as a regular flight.

Now we are back at having 1000s of folks in multiple sites NEVER whispering a word. Many of those folks are NOT in the military.
To answer your questions. . . .all can be accomplished and have before . . . Most closed bases have been turned to alternate projects and missions . . . many have flight missions . . . by-the-way . . . the USA, Canada and Europe are not the only players. . . the old Soviet Empire has the raw materials and tons of remote bases to choose from as well . . . not beyond their abilities at all. . . for example just one Province in Canada produces enough Sulfur by-products to supply the entire operation. . . oil shale or oil productions produce tons of the stuff. . . same in the old Soviet Empire. . . as bad as the economy has been all over the globe . . . you think people are going to ruin a chance to make tons of money as long as they keep their mouth shut . . . most would believe they are saving the world anyway as long as they don't open their mouths and get the operation shut down . . .

I also think the entire operation could be accomplished by way less than thousands. . . more like a few hundred. . . .


Park'n Rides . . . drop of points with group transportation from other states, etc. . . the North Slope operations are run by personnel from the Gulf Coast. . . Four weeks on two weeks off. . .
 
I had no idea the tropopause was considered such a barrier to pilots . . . seems I have a misconception then . . .

Please don't consider it a "brick wall", it's just a boundary layer that decreases performance. Swept wing aircraft can fly in the tropopause. It's simply not efficient.
 
Remember. . . the process chould have been built up over months or even years . . . frog in a beaker effect . . . touch and goes by large commercial carriers on military fields are not unusual . . . cooridnation of such activities could cover a lot of activities . . .

It doesn't matter how long you take to reopen any old SAC base - people are going to notice.

Touch and goes at a previously idle airfield will also generate considerable interest.

Yet again (still!) you are inventing stories and pretending they could happen when you have no actual idea about the practicalities involved, because if you admitted how the real world works you would also have to admit that your pet project is pure fantasy - and you will not allow yourself to do that, regardless of what it takes.
 
It doesn't matter how long you take to reopen any old SAC base - people are going to notice.

Touch and goes at a previously idle airfield will also generate considerable interest.

Yet again (still!) you are inventing stories and pretending they could happen when you have no actual idea about the practicalities involved, because if you admitted how the real world works you would also have to admit that your pet project is pure fantasy - and you will not allow yourself to do that, regardless of what it takes.
Sure people will notice. . . cover stories are not that difficult . . . especially if they make sense . . . remember you are most likely dealing with some of the most capable and covert minded people in the world . . . if you wish to think it is fiction that is fine, you are not hurting my feelings . . .

Bottom line . . . if they have done it there is little way to prove it unless someone talks, if they have not we have outlined a way it could be done . . . according to Jazzy it would be a global disaster if they have already done so or decided to unilaterally do so in the future . . . Me thinks a discussion of this nature is instructive and could warn people if they have such fears . . .THE END. . . .put a fork in it . . . :)
 
Back
Top