Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering aka "Chemtrails" DEBUNK THIS !!!!

The dude in this video will no doubt be another example in the long list of loony wackos out spreading hoaxes I'm sure. But I've just seen some of the government documented studies using HAARP to make ionospheric plasma vortex tubes that put holes in heaven. They're going to learn the hard way. I guess we all. This will be one to watch out for.

Benjamin Fulford reports on HAARP from Tokyo
www.youtube.com...
Uh oh this isn't good news. HAARP test malfunction
www.youtube.com...

Call it a chemtrail or call it a contrail ? Who cares either way it's not good

Keep a closer eye on your missles guys
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Seagle


The Lynouth Flood was not, and could, not have been caused by well know, well publicised, cloud seeding attempts

www.weatheronline.co.uk...

But, as Philip says, "never let the truth get in the way of a good story"

reply to post by Essan


That seems to be the theme here amongst all of you "persistent contrails" enforcement officers. I wonder what you're all going to tell you're grand kids when they ask you "why did you spray all that crap into our atmosphere".
You probably will all deny your involvement and switch your opinions by then. When your poor judgement and lack of integrity comes back to haunt you. But by then it will be too late won't it?

www.raytheon.com...

2005_Issue1.pdf
Space and Airborne Sensors
Information gained from sensors in the air and in space has become a fundamental component in planning and forecasting a wide range of civil, military and intelligence activities. For years, advanced visible, infrared (IR) and microwave sensors have contributed to our ability to predict patterns and effects of weather. Such data can be of great value in planning anything from a picnic to a military campaign. Information developed by sensors in space allows forecasters to predict — among many other things — soil moisture content and weather patterns

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Essan

 

That seems to be the theme here amongst all of you "persistent contrails" enforcement officers. I wonder what you're all going to tell you're grand kids when they ask you "why did you spray all that crap into our atmosphere".
You probably will all deny your involvement and switch your opinions by then. When your poor judgement and lack of integrity comes back to haunt you. But by then it will be too late won't it?

I don't fly. I'm not responsible for contrails If I had my way there wouldn't be any.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Seagle

 

As a matter of fact there have been quite a few environmental studies. Do you really think that people would allow it to be done without environmental impact studies?
content.lib.washington.edu...

There are plenty more.

These environmental impact assessments that you have provided are exactly what I was talking about. They site previous tests (which were flawed) to justify only undertaking minimal ground sample testing themselves. As I said before, none of these tests offer an explanation as to what has become of these chemicals once they have been released, if there are only minimal traces in soil and water where did they go? The science suggests that they are back in the atmosphere and we are experiencing a cumulative effect.

If you are actually interested and not just arguing for the sake of it then please read this 2010 report on an operation in Australia which includes four peer reviews, one from the CSIRO. After 60+ yrs of cloud seeding due diligence has still not been done yet the market rapidly expands.

Mid-term review of snowy river cloud seeding

If you look at the example of the report you provided in the washington.edu (link above), you find 192 pages none of which provides physical test report data. However it does include pages of concerns raised by the local community and subsequent defensive response provided by the Interior Bureau of Reclamation. If anyone is still of the belief that the Government has committed all this money on 'earth science' research because they are committed to the protecting the environment and saving the planet then I strongly suggest you read this piece about Dick Chney and the Bureau of Reclamation.

Dick in the enviroment

So given that the science of weather modification is in no way completely understood and the climate change debate rages on, I would like to know how the existence of a privatised weather modification industry can possibly be justified in any way shape or form. Weather as a weapon was banned in 1977 because of the potential global consequences it presents yet apparently we completely trust private corporations to keep this power under control? In the past 5 years the market has expanded at a rapid rate with over 40 countries now actively tampering with the weather. We know that their customers include farmers, insurance companies, on top of the long term government contracts. They are already forcing most States in the US into these 5 year plans because if you don't pay for cloud seeding you can't get access to water reserves should they be needed. Where does it end? manipulating global food supplies to profit from the futures market? Drowning or drying out the competition, sporting events, extinction?

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by Seagle

 

The Lynouth Flood was not, and could, not have been caused by well know, well publicised, cloud seeding attempts

www.weatheronline.co.uk...

But, as Philip says, "never let the truth get in the way of a good story"

Tell that to your Government. The article clearly states that nobody could really know if it was the cloud seeding that caused it. But, what cannot be denied is that the Government was clearly concerned and denied any such programme existed which was a lie. I expect the same questions to start being asked soon in Queensland and rightly so. In 2010 the Queensland Government was about three quarters of the way through 4 year cloud seeding trial the results of which were to be assessed in 2012 and a decision made as to whether or not it was worthwhile. Then in August 2010, before the trial was finished, the Qld Premier signed a 5 year contract with the Royal Rainmaking programme, which had not taken part in any previous trial. They were supposed to start in Spring and all we no at the moment is that Queensland suffered the worst floods in their history and Victoria and central NSW have also suffered from relentless flooding over the same period.

That is the problem with the weather modification industry, if it rains a little they take the credit and use the success to further promote their business. However, when disaster strikes, they deny any chance that it could possibly be their fault. What a fantastic business. Its the exact reason Governments see weather as the perfect weapon.. prove we did it!!

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Since you claim to be such a expert on contrails and apparently you think you're an expert on this whole subject. Let me pose a hypothetical scenario to you and let me hear your response.

If someone was to chemically alter jet fuel with extra particulate matter and those particulates were coated with special polymers so they did not affect the normal functions of the jet engine. How do you suppose those particulates in the exhaust would effect the formation of the exhausts contrails?

Come on someone should be able to answer this question or are you all not as smart as you say you all are? What would the contrails of a Jet with extra particulate matter in the fuel look like ?

It wouldn't look like anything. To have water vapor containing exhaust, the engine would have to keep running. All modern turbofan engines have very efficient fuel filtration systems to keep particulates from reaching the fuel controller. They are usually located just downstream of the low pressure fuel pump and upstream of the controller and nozzles which feed the fuel into the combustion section. The normal filter has a nominal (98% efficiency) particle filtration medium at 10 microns. That is just slightly bigger than a red blood cell. Now people have been hypothecating particles with a polymer coating. Such particles would be trapped in the filter, blocking the flow of fuel and *poofing* the engine, unless it is equipped with a psid triggered bypass valve. Triggering such a valve results in the illumination of a warning light in the cockpit and, on airliners having an automated mechanical discrepancy reporting system, the transmission of a report to the airline maintenance department. If such a dirty fuel were being used, there would be a lot of big black smoking holes in the ground from fuel starvation crashes. In 2010, there were none. Run a query for Part 121 operations and the search words fuel starvation at www.ntsb.gov...

Originally posted by Seagle
But, what cannot be denied is that the Government was clearly concerned and denied any such programme existed which was a lie.

It can be denied, because the fact such weather mod tests were being conducted was widely reported at the time. There was no govt denial.

That is the problem with the weather modification industry, if it rains a little they take the credit and use the success to further promote their business.

I agree. And meteorologists point out that in fact it's unlikely their efforts had any effect at all

However, when disaster strikes, they deny any chance that it could possibly be their fault. What a fantastic business.

And the very same meteorologists again point out that in fact it's unlikely their efforts had any effect at all.

So who do you believe?

The cloud seeders? The government? Or meteorologists?

Edit: none of which has anything at all to do with what people call 'chemtrails'. Although I suppose that last question might be asked likewise - who do you believe there?

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


I saw the exact thing yesterday while watering my garden. The sun was setting and they were glowing an orange color, got some nice pics of it..I would also see the plane, not a jet...plane. I guess it was how it was almost dawn..same plane circling around and around. Got some great pics tho...my camera is pretty cheap so you cant really see the plane. Going to make a thread about it soon.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


It looks more like a contrail to me...maybe it's a missle test?

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Call it a chemtrail or call it a contrail ? Who cares either way it's not good

Keep a closer eye on your missles guys
www.youtube.com...

It is a Roll Cloud. You are so eager to look for a sinister reason behind anything you do not understand, and attribute it to a conspiracy.

OMG they're putting something in the water now!

www.youtube.com...

(sorry, totally OT and been seen many times before, but I couldn't resist )


Edit: sorry can't remember how to embed videos

reply to post by Essan


O...M...G.
It pains me the claim that woman as a fellow American.

I know none of you contrail con-artists like to accept patents as acceptable evidence. So don't bother repeating your same old dis-info lines from your little guidebooks. I just will let this speak for itself.

geoengineeringwatch.org...
HAARP PATENT
( 1 of 1 )
United States Patent 4,686,605
Eastlund August 11, 1987
Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere


CONTRAIL POWDER FORMULATION Ingredient % by Weight TiO2 (e.g., DuPont R-931) 85 median particle size 0.3µ Colloidal Silica (e.g., Cabot S-101 Silanox) 10 primary particle size 0.007µ Silica gel (e.g., Syloid 65) 5 average particle size 4.5µ

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Why do you combine Eastlund's patent with a patent for making visible trails for aerial target practice?
www.freepatentsonline.com...

The two things are not related. Aircraft do not fly in the ionosphere.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Of course patents are acceptable evidence - another example of you lack of comprehension I'm afraid!!

Patents prove that someone has thought of something - there has never been any doubt about it.

What htey do not prove is that the something is being used in any particular manner.

And, as is so often teh case, you aer not posting the whole truth.

Here's the whole patent - linked to a conspiracy site!

check this bit, right at he start:

A method for altering at least one region normally existing above the earth's surface with electromagnetic radiation using naturally-occurring and diverging magnetic field lines of the earth comprising transmitting first electromagnetic radiation at a frequency between 20 and 7200 kHz from the earth's surface, said transmitting being conducted essentially at the outset of transmission substantially parallel to and along at least one of said field lines, adjusting the frequency of said first radiation to a value which will excite electron cyclotron resonance at an initial elevation at least 50 km above the earth's surface, whereby in the region in which said electron cyclotron resonance takes place heating, further ionization, and movement of both charged and neutral particles is effected, said cyclotron resonance excitation of said region is continued until the electron concentration of said region reaches a value of at least 10.sup.6 per cubic centimeter and has an ion energy of at least 2 ev

did you notice the altitude?? AT LEAST 50KM.

That is 50,000 metres......164,000 feet - at the LOWEST.

Now can you explain again which civil airliners fly at 164,000 feet and above??

AND the patent does not contain anythign about contrail powder at all - you have added that youself to make it look like it does - fabricating lies as evidence??.

You have lowered yourself to patent dishonesty!! Geddit...PATENT dishonesty

Busted dude - you shouldn't resort to lies!

reply to post by Essan


That was pretty funny. But with the amount of government cover ups and the factual basis for what she was saying about "what's in the water and in the air" The rainbows in the sprinkler is not the important part.

The important part is that there is a real need for concern about what pollutants and contaminants are getting released into the water supply and the air. Regardless of the source.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You're the liar and dishonest one here. They can use that formula where ever they want. Just because they list it's use for one thing in the patent appplication doesn't mean that they can't use it other places. Don't be so stupid.
I thought you guys don't believe that patents have any credibility anyway. Why are you taking that patent and saying that word for word that patent is the truth?

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Essan

 

The important part is that there is a real need for concern about what pollutants and contaminants are getting released into the water supply and the air. Regardless of the source.

Absolutely - and distracting people with chemtrail fantasies is, at best, a needless distraction from real problems!