"Why in the World are They Spraying" Official Trailer

reply to post by luxordelphi


Let's agree, for the sake of it, that it IS easy to eliminate contrails completely and ignore any possible cost implications that may come with it.

What difference would this make to the pollution that comes out of the back of jet engines? Do you suppose that non-contrail producing aircraft are leaving fresh air behind them?

Why in the World are They Spraying, Seriously??

Didn't his last video prove he has no idea about what he is talking about?

And yet here we are a thread about the sequel, but who couldn't see this coming??

Originally posted by luxordelphi


Sky grids are pretty alarming and in your face. Both sides in this issue have put up outrageous sky grid pictures. Perhaps you could speak to a motive for sky grids, then, especially since it is so easy to eliminate persistent contrails completely and has been since WWII.

The motive is travel...and profit..its easy to fly at an altitude where persistent contrails don't form...it just costs a lot more $$ in the form of more fuel usage

...there are over 30,000 commercial flight every day in the US- -over 5000 planes in the sky at any given moment...grid patterns are to be expected...

...with so much air traffic, I do not find that claims of people who say there is little or no commercial air traffic over them to be very valid.

Watch a days worth of air travel- can you find many places with no traffic?:

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by drbatstein


Thankyou for your input. That's what the meteorologist in the trailer was saying as well - that the jet trails are part of a weather modification system that causes drought and strange weather events.

In my observations from two different vantage points, one in the high desert and one on the coast, the jet cirrus causes drought. It seems to be an entirely different type of cloud from natural cirrus in the way that it behaves within the same environment.

reply to post by network dude

it's a damn shame he didn't take the money he is spending on this sequel and put it into renting that plane that can sample chemtrails and blow the whole conspiracy wide open.

Because there seems to be an agenda, a conspiracy involving our atmosphere, it doesn't ever really matter what tests show - not the tests from chemtrail advocates and not the tests from independent researchers. Here's an article about a study that found excess sulphur in the atmosphere. We all know that sulphur is a major geoengineering proposal to imitate volcanoes and thereby cool the planet. The drawbacks are that it's extremely toxic and destroys ozone. Rather than look to the geoengineering proponents of atmospheric sulphur injections, the study creates a new scenario wherein now smaller volcanos are contributing more than previously thought in order to explain the excess.

Small volcanoes add up to cooler climate

I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't invent new science before gathering up the usual suspects and drilling them about their activities launched from private land and with private funding and with the government looking the other way.

Cloud seeding is invisible from the ground. it has nothing to do with X's or checkerboard patterns in the sky. Just obfuscation.

Cloud seeding over the last year or so in the U.S. has little to do with rainfall. So you have your problems with it and I have mine. I don't think that either of us know what it looks like or what it actually does other than from the colorful brochures put out by weather modification company's.

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

Let's agree, for the sake of it, that it IS easy to eliminate contrails completely and ignore any possible cost implications that may come with it.

What difference would this make to the pollution that comes out of the back of jet engines? Do you suppose that non-contrail producing aircraft are leaving fresh air behind them?

The toxicity of jet exhaust has never been in dispute. Nor have the harmful effects of invisible (to the naked eye) jet cirrus which, like natural invisible cirrus, is thought to be more abundant than that visible to the naked eye. All pollutants are concerning.

But more concerning is the agenda of wanting cake and eating it too. Of using more pollutants to combat existing pollutants or WORSE - of using more pollutants to combat the effects of existing pollutants without having to curtail their use. And further of having no clear idea of how this will affect the atmosphere.

Global dimming, heat retention, drought, wild weather can all, at times, be traced to jet cirrus. When sky grids were not visible, we were not concerned, for instance, about global dimming.

Of course this doesn't address control of the weather as a motive for chemtrails or, if you don't subscribe to chemtrails, as a motive for sky grids. Because there is a motive. Because we know how to get rid of them.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h

And yet here we are a thread about the sequel, but who couldn't see this coming??

Well...a thread about the trailer for the sequel, not the sequel itself. Or did you forget about that part?

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

Let's agree, for the sake of it, that it IS easy to eliminate contrails completely and ignore any possible cost implications that may come with it.

What difference would this make to the pollution that comes out of the back of jet engines? Do you suppose that non-contrail producing aircraft are leaving fresh air behind them?

They will produce more pollution, because flying lower is less efficient and uses more fuel.

I think you may be onto something here - forcing jets to fly lower would result in increased profits for the oil companies!!

reply to post by Thorazine


Thankyou for your response. Which was, basically,: persistent contrails just happen and its' too expensive to do anything about them.

The Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status and Issues/Congress Sept. 11, 2008

The United States had a robust, vibrant research program (the Atmospheric Effects of Aviation Program). This program was discontinued around the year 2000.

In 2008, a report on aviation is given to a House committee. In the report it is mentioned that a 'robust' and 'vibrant' program called 'The Atmospheric Effects of Aviation Program' was discontinued in 2000. This is now 2008.

The report mentions a report in 2004 (4 years earlier) which had this to say about aviation condensation trails:

However, when these effects are taken together, most estimates suggest that the impact of aviation on climate is greater per unit of fuel burn than that from surface-based combustion sources.

As we wrote in the 2004 Report to Congress, this is the area of greatest scientific uncertainty for aviation, and the area with the greatest potential for environmental impacts.

The report continues by saying that the European Union countries are 'vigorously' debating what measures should be taken. They have not been asleep for 8 years but have actually studied the environmental impact of condensation trails. It is admitted that the U.S. seriously trails Europe in knowledgeably addressing this issure. In fact, throughout these years, according to the report, the U.S. is getting its' information from Europe on this 'greatest' environmental concern.

The report goes on to talk about being 'insufficiently prepared to contribute' to this international discussion. And the reason that they were unable to continue sleeping and let Europe feed them information was because the discussion revolved around charging money for these emissions or charging credits (environmental), which translates to money as well, for aviation impact. The talk of money seems to have awakened the sleepers. Individual states, including CA, have also, in this 4 year interim, filed with the EPA to regulate emissions.

So in 2008, per the report, 'The Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative' is launched to deal with these annoyances.

The report continues by making this statement:

The FAA has led the world in supporting research to understand the air quality impacts of aviation resulting in several seminal contributions.

And then begins the report ramp down with this:

Despite laudable efforts this year to launch the Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative on the part of FAA and NASA, the gap in technical credibility with regard to aviation climate impacts has widened between the United States and Europe in the last four years. Most of the significant research findings are coming from Europe.

In the entire report, and it's looong, there is only one mention of any studying of condensation trails. That mention is in the biography/credentials of one of the speakers and mentions that he modelled the costs/benefits of 'aircraft trajectory and routing changes as a means to reduce contrail and aviation induced cirrus cloudiness.' Not an ongoing study, in fact, 'inactive.'

So that should address for you the idea that contrails don't or didn't just happen and to show you that a number of semi-conscious states were required for sky grids, not the least of which was - no testing through traditional channels.

Money I'll address another time.

And, btb, it was in the 2000's, coincidental with the end of the 'robust' 'Atmospheric Effects of Aviation Program', that sky grids and outrageously persistent contrails really began to ramp up.

Originally posted by luxordelphi


The toxicity of jet exhaust has never been in dispute. Nor have the harmful effects of invisible (to the naked eye) jet cirrus which, like natural invisible cirrus, is thought to be more abundant than that visible to the naked eye. All pollutants are concerning.

Indeed they are. But to fly a large transport at an altitude where contrails do not form means flying in denser air lower down, therefore more thrust is need, this is achieved by burning more fuel. Not only do increased fuel cost translate to higher ticket prices, but also result in more pollution being left behind and at a lower level than before. Does this not increase the problem?

But more concerning is the agenda of wanting cake and eating it too. Of using more pollutants to combat existing pollutants or WORSE - of using more pollutants to combat the effects of existing pollutants without having to curtail their use. And further of having no clear idea of how this will affect the atmosphere.

Such as? What are these additional pollutants and what is their function?

Global dimming, heat retention, drought, wild weather can all, at times, be traced to jet cirrus. When sky grids were not visible, we were not concerned, for instance, about global dimming.

I'll let you have that, though I disagree in part, , but why promote a solution that makes thing worse in other areas? Seems a bit half baked to me.

Of course this doesn't address control of the weather as a motive for chemtrails or, if you don't subscribe to chemtrails, as a motive for sky grids. Because there is a motive. Because we know how to get rid of them.

We also know that contrails, the ones you can see often in grids, are trails of water ice that formed in cold air high up, where airliners cruise most efficiently burning the least fuel, in conditions that would not allow the moisture to sublimate due to local relative humidity. You appear to be wanting to change the laws of nature if you aren't talking about flying lower and making things worse. Ever heard of King Cnut?

reply to post by luxordelphi

Well...a thread about the trailer for the sequel, not the sequel itself. Or did you forget about that part?

Whether it is about the trailer or the actual video it is still a video about nonsense much as his first video or did you forget about that one?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Thorazine

 

Thankyou for your response. Which was, basically,: persistent contrails just happen and its' too expensive to do anything about them.

The Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status and Issues/Congress Sept. 11, 2008

The United States had a robust, vibrant research program (the Atmospheric Effects of Aviation Program). This program was discontinued around the year 2000.

In 2008, a report on aviation is given to a House committee. In the report it is mentioned that a 'robust' and 'vibrant' program called 'The Atmospheric Effects of Aviation Program' was discontinued in 2000. This is now 2008.

The report mentions a report in 2004 (4 years earlier) which had this to say about aviation condensation trails:

However, when these effects are taken together, most estimates suggest that the impact of aviation on climate is greater per unit of fuel burn than that from surface-based combustion sources.

As we wrote in the 2004 Report to Congress, this is the area of greatest scientific uncertainty for aviation, and the area with the greatest potential for environmental impacts.

No mention of contrails at all in the section you have quoted.

It is already considered that the general pollution from aviation, which is invisible, has a higher detrimental effect on the atmosphere because it is injected at higher altitude.

The effects of various exhaust gases are not ignored - but that is all they are - exhaust gases - not something nefarious added to the fuel or sprayed from the aircraft.

reply to post by luxordelphi

The Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status and Issues/Congress Sept. 11, 2008

Just wondering if you actually read this report or did you just look for words that may look like they work for your post.

The JPDO envisions that NextGen will be an evolutionary transformation of the Nation's air transportation system that integrates a combination of new procedures and advances in technology to improve delivery of services to both civil and military users. The goal of NextGen, as stated by the JPDO, is to ``significantly increase the safety, security, capacity, efficiency, and environmental compatibility of air transportation operations, and by doing so, to improve the overall economic well-being of the country.'' The JPDO's role is to establish how the air transportation system should be transformed. Part of this transformation involves integrating and reshaping capabilities across all aspects of air transportation so that the entire system operates as an interconnected structure.

The JPDO sees the investments in NextGen resulting in increased system capacity and flexibility to accommodate growing demand for air transportation services and diversity of flight profiles. In its
planning documents, the JPDO describes building NextGen in three phases, which it characterizes as Epochs.

In Epoch 1 [Foundational Capabilities (2007-2011)], focus will be on developing and implementing mature
foundational technologies and capabilities such as Automatic Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast(ADSB) which is the surveillance and navigation technology that will serve as the core of the NextGen system by delivering more timely and precise information to the cockpit while giving pilots and controllers a common operational picture.

In Epoch 2 [Hybrid System (2012-2018)], the required automation and procedures are implemented to allow pilots a more active role in the system through self-separation,merging, and passing. According to the JPDO, by the completion of Epoch 2, operational improvements and fleet evolution will provide a number of environmental benefits such as increased fuel efficiency at 34 FAA-designated airports within the continental United States. For example, in the terminal airspace operations area, NextGen capabilities and improvements in aircraft engine technologies will, according to the JPDO, produce an overall improvement in fuel efficiency estimated at six percent compared to the baseline. This will have a commensurate positive effect on reducing the level of emissions generated.

The JPDO views Epoch 3 [NextGen Operations (2019-2025)] as the expansion of NextGen into a nationwide system which also allows for more complex, high-density operations across the system to take full advantage of the airspace and the precision provided by satellite-based technologies that will be fully deployed by then.

www.gpo.gov...

So what does this report have to do with this trailer to another poorly made video?

BTW this report has nothing to do with anything related to spraying anything from jet airplanes, maybe you should have read the whole report.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Darn I am a little slow in my response time this morning, but you have seen the exact same thing I did.

Not one single thing in that report that has anything to do with the OP and the video (sorry trailer for the video)but as we have seen in prior posts it doesn't matter as long as there is something that sounds familiar the OP will try to make it work for her/his personal beliefs. No matter what the truth is..

Originally posted by luxordelphi


So that should address for you the idea that contrails don't or didn't just happen and to show you that a number of semi-conscious states were required for sky grids, not the least of which was - no testing through traditional channels.

Money I'll address another time.

And, btb, it was in the 2000's, coincidental with the end of the 'robust' 'Atmospheric Effects of Aviation Program', that sky grids and outrageously persistent contrails really began to ramp up.

Sorry- your logic fails you...

Contrails DO just happen...they are a negative externality of air travel. The grids are merely a result of heavy air traffic and atmospheric conditions...nothing in the report you quoted changes that fact.

The proliferation of "sky grids" and persistent contrails are in direct correlation with the increase in air travel.

Originally posted by luxordelphi


Global dimming, heat retention, drought, wild weather can all, at times, be traced to jet cirrus. When sky grids were not visible, we were not concerned, for instance, about global dimming.

What?? You can't just make things up to fit your belief...I dare you to provide ANY substantive evidence to back up your claim that contrail cirrus lead to drought or "wild weather".

reply to post by Komodo


Thankyou for putting up "What in the World Are They Spraying?". It's a must watch as a beginning to understanding what has been done to our skies and our atmosphere.

At +- 0:06:00, David Keith, Geoengineer: "Nevertheless there might be some good reasons to think about aluminum. Turns out, first of all, there's been a lot of work on the environmental consequences of aluminum in the stratosphere."

David Keith and Bill gates, madness and money, are ramping up to be the Bobbsey Twins of environmental disaster.

Here clandestine experiments with aluminum in the atmosphere are admitted. No wonder there is a glut of this stuff everywhere and GMO producers have been ramping up aluminum resistant seed.

And, if you watch on for a bit, from that point, sulphur is compared with aluminum, so that has, apparently, been clandestinely tested too.

reply to post by waynos

But to fly a large transport at an altitude where contrails do not form means flying in denser air lower down, therefore more thrust is need, this is achieved by burning more fuel.

??? Almost everything that we needed to know about eliminating contrails was learned in WWII. There have been some high tech and chemical solutions and satellite sensors but that's just window dressing for the unhosed and fine-tuning for the military. There is no dilemma.

Such as? What are these additional pollutants and what is their function?

Sulphur, aluminum, barium, strontium, silver iodide, carbon nanotubes...blah blah blah...functions are in the video "What in the World are They Spraying" out of the mouths of the geoengineering gurus. (Hypothetically speaking, of course .)

The last paragraph of your post: ???. Just to be safe, I'm not agreeing to anything.

Just curious: since contrails are so easy to eliminate, what do you think is the motive for filling the sky with them and what do you think the purpose of sky grids is?

reply to post by luxordelphi

Thankyou for putting up "What in the World Are They Spraying?". It's a must watch as a beginning to understanding what has been done to our skies and our atmosphere.

Wow! I am at a loss for words after reading that.... Seriously,do you actually believe that?