Chemtrail Central
Login
Member List
Image Database
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Search
Research
Flight Explorer
Unidentifiable
FAQs
Phenomena
Disinformation
Silver Orbs
Transcripts
News Archive
Channelings
Etcetera
PSAs
Media
Vote


Chemtrail Central
Search   FAQs   Messages   Members   Profile
Chemical rain?

Post new topic Reply to topic
Chemtrail Central > Debate and Debunking

Author Thread
Random





Joined: 11 Dec 2000
Posts: 25
Location: Bournemouth, UK
Chemical rain? PostWed Dec 13, 2000 12:00 am  Reply with quote  

The theories on 'chemtrails' all seem to have two things in common : that something is being sprayed from aircraft at high altitude and that the desired effect is to deliver that contaminant in secret to the American population. I would propose that these two facts are mutually exclusive.

It has been noted by Thermit that contrails from certain aircraft last longer than others. This is predicted by meteorologists, but Thermit then corolates this with flights missing from his Flight Explorer - ie military or otherwise restricted.

As far as I see these are then assumed to be chemtrails. If they are persisting in the upper atmosphere, how much damage can they be doing down on the ground?

This thought then lead me to realise what has bothered me since I first heard of chemtrails. It is impossible to predict when and therefore where the chemicals would fall to earth, unless the droplets were large enough to fall as rain. Nothing here has suggested rain as a danger, and rain is in any case regularily tested by many different organisations, including environmental groups. Rain would form very different contrails, if at all, and rain never falls far through clear air, so spraying could not be occuring at the levels suggested here.

So, the aerosol falls in tiny droplets, that may take weeks to reach the ground (certainly those that report correlation between seeing chemtrails and ill effects have no idea how the atmosphere behaves). In order for any significant quantities to reach people the amount released would be vast. Almost incomrehensible. A scratch calculation of the volume of the Earth's atmosphere below 30 000 ft comes up around 41 billion cubic km (about 10 billion cubic miles) and in effect much of this would have to be brought up to harmful levels of toxin (or useful levels of vaccine, for Thermit's theory). This does not come cheaply, nor are the logistics trivial.

This, in short, could not be kept secret.

Q.E.D.

------------------
The truth is out there, but not in here
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Thermit





Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3137
Location: Texas
PostWed Dec 13, 2000 7:05 am  Reply with quote  

I had posted this in the other thread:

quote:

...There are issues of eventual dilution given non low-level application. However, this could work in their favor. This is somewhat experimental, and people have different sensitivities, so a very weak application at ground level would be highly desired. This would allow the body to quietly get used to antibodies at a very very low concentration. This keeps adverse reactions to a minimum, the downside is it would take a long time to achieve immunity at this rate [and also allows continuous exposure without "overdosing".] That winds up working in their favor too, as new people are born each day which need to be treated too. Many have cited the large amount of "solution" that would need to be carried. Perhaps the solution is very concentrated in the onboard holding tanks. This would be more practical, allowing a supply to last longer, as it is very concentrated to begin with.

Granted it will take some time for particles to reach the ground, my estimates, based on the chart, range from 15 hours to several days. Is this a problem? Not really, the "solution" doesn't get stale. It doesn't matter what day it was sprayed on, as long as some eventually reaches the target.

Full Sized Graph and Info







Remember the goal is not to flood the body with massive amounts of "solution", as in the case of a direct shot-in-the-arm vaccine, the goal is to slowly expose the body and gently tickle the immune response into awareness. It might take months and years to bring this state to full semblance of immunity.

And you are right, it isn't really a secret. No secret to many. Although, I guess you are really refering to a whistleblower. I don't see why someone charged with keeping a secret to protect national security and the public calm, would have any desire to risk the reprisals of breaking their oath of secrecy. To what end? Who would benefit? Surely not the whistleblower. No one. Maybe it has already happened that the secret has been shared, but I don't expect the one sharing to make a big production out of it.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
BEE





Joined: 13 Dec 2000
Posts: 23
PostWed Dec 13, 2000 9:45 pm  Reply with quote  

OK, let's assume for a moment that there is indeed an agency conducting a vaccine inoculation program by spraying at high altitudes across the country. This is absolutely the stupidest, most inept, most wasteful agency that ever existed!!! Why would anyone spray something at 30,000 feet to have any intended effect on the ground? Have you ever seen crop-dusters, aerial pesticide spraying, or aerial fire-fighting operations. These are all known spraying operations that exist and they are all conducted at very low (100 feet or less) altitude. This is so the material they spray actually reaches the ground! Plus, they can control where it reaches. Spraying at 30,000 feet or above leaves absolutely no way to control where the material winds up. Thermit mentions this may be because they only want very low-level concentrations on the ground. But, why would they want to waste spray on vast areas of land and the ocean which are not populated, plus spray at an altitude where you can't be sure the material will reach the ground at all (gravity is not the controlling factor here, dispersion and airflow are)? There are numerous reports of Chemtrails from people in New Mexico. Have you ever been to New Mexico? The population density is very low and most material sprayed would land in areas where no one would ever be exposed to it, even if it did reach the ground. Thermit also postulates the operation would be done, no matter what the cost. Thermit has obviously never worked in a government agency! Everything that's done has to consider cost. And a proposal to conduct an operation this inefficient, ineffective, and stupid would never "pass the giggle test" in any agency, no matter what the purported benefits.

P.S. I saw one post that mentioned the modified C-130 used to support fire-fighting operations as a possible way to support the spraying of chemtrails. This is not possible since that system dumps its entire load in 6-8 seconds.
 View user's profile Send private message
Thermit





Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3137
Location: Texas
PostWed Dec 13, 2000 10:06 pm  Reply with quote  

Bee,

I'll certainly admit that high-level spraying isn't the most desired or most direct, but if they sprayed at 100 feet (or 10,000 ft.) then they would really be blowing their plausable denyability, now, wouldn't they?

As to why there would be spraying in low population density areas, that actually makes sense, because they would want to provide protection to everybody. It would take the same amount of exposure to an inoculation solution for a person in rural NM as it would in Houston, TX, right? And I don't believe they are spraying the ocean, unless it happens to be just upwind of the coast.

And, actually, I have worked for a government agency (and was throughly disgusted with the waste of budget money I saw). But this isn't your typical military operation, do you realize how much of our tax money is spent on black ops from black budgets?

I also think that the factors you mention ("inefficient, ineffective, and stupid") while not necessarily correct, are indeed a common perception, and go a long way to protecting the operation from wide-spread awareness.

I agree completely with your C-130 comments.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
LTC8K6





Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 267
Location: Tar Heel State
PostThu Dec 14, 2000 2:25 pm  Reply with quote  

Why not say you are spraying for mosquitoes or fruit flies or whatever fits the area you need to spray, and just include the inoculant? There are lots of legitimate reasons to spray things, anyway. Much simpler and easier.

Why not use the water supplies?

Why not add it to the annual flu shot that a lot of people take voluntarily?

If they can put it in jet fuel, why not put it in gasoline or diesel? If it would not survive combustion, then set up your sprayer so it mixes with the vehicles' exhaust stream out of the tailpipe. Spray right at ground level out of cars or trucks.

Why not put it into the chickens or the cows?

Why don't they add it to the most common pesticides sprayed on the nation's crops?

Why not enlist the nation's doctors in the plan, and have them administer it in whatever way is easiest for them? They should be easy to convince if it's a national emergency.

Why not include it in the many government food handouts that occur across the nation? Wouldn't want to leave the poor out.

Why not treat our paper money with it? Cocaine residue is found on a lot of our paper money.

How about finding out the ten or twenty most common OTC medicines taken in this country and then adding in a little something extra to them?

This aerial inoculant should be found in any old jar of air anyone cares to grab. So, what, and where, is it? It should be readily indentifiable if it is to combat a biowar attack.
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Thermit





Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3137
Location: Texas
PostThu Dec 14, 2000 4:32 pm  Reply with quote  

quote:

Why not say you are spraying for mosquitoes or fruit flies or whatever fits the area you need to spray, and just include the inoculant? There are lots of legitimate reasons to spray things, anyway. Much simpler and easier.



More problems of 'overdosing'. Better to have a weak homogenious mix.

quote:

Why not use the water supplies?



You drink tap water?
Not universal enough, more and more people are drinking spring water. Also provides an easy to test medium.

quote:

Why not add it to the annual flu shot that a lot of people take voluntarily?



You take that shot?
Not universal enough.

quote:

If they can put it in jet fuel, why not put it in gasoline or diesel? If it would not survive combustion, then set up your sprayer so it mixes with the vehicles' exhaust stream out of the tailpipe. Spray right at ground level out of cars or trucks.



I don't believe they "put it in jet fuel". I don't think that idea makes much sense.

quote:

Why not put it into the chickens or the cows?



Hey vegetarians deserve protection too. Silly idea.

quote:

Why don't they add it to the most common pesticides sprayed on the nation's crops?



Gross. More and more people are going organic.

quote:

Why not enlist the nation's doctors in the plan, and have them administer it in whatever way is easiest for them? They should be easy to convince if it's a national emergency.



I tend to avoid the doctor. Not universal enough.

quote:

Why not include it in the many government food handouts that occur across the nation? Wouldn't want to leave the poor out.

Why not treat our paper money with it? Cocaine residue is found on a lot of our paper money.






Nothing is more universal than the air we breathe.

No method gives the military more control than via the air.

More direct methods are more detectable.

 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
LTC8K6





Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 267
Location: Tar Heel State
PostThu Dec 14, 2000 5:00 pm  Reply with quote  

Anything sprayed at 15 or 20K feet would nearly circle the globe before it landed. What kind of control is that?

They could spray anywhere they wished without you having a clue, so why give you unnecessary ones? Why don't they make their spray clear so you wouldn't see it? Why wouldn't nightime spraying suffice for your low level doses? What lab is manufacturing these incredible quantities of vaccine when they can't even make enough most of the time?

The whole idea of immunizing the population by aerial spraying is so farfetched as to be laughable. It is entirely unworkable. Where are these inoculants? If they are in the air, then get an air sample out your front door and tell us what's in it.

What! You say it's full of all kinds of stuff! All sorts of chemicals and virii and bacteria! You say there are even, oh my gosh, fungi in our air! How will I go on! How will I know what's supposed to be there and what's been added? I guess I'll quit breathing.

I guess Sore Throat will start hollering about the influenza epidemic next? No wait.....ooops, broken record.

How convenient for your conspiracy to be totally undetectable!

The air is infinitely variable from point to point. A contrail can appear in any formation you can think of and some you can't. The movement of air is also infinitely variable in 3 dimensions and can bend, break, twist, and distort contrails and clouds into any sort of shape. Add to this the also infinitely variable humidity levels from point to point, and any formation including morse code and Roman numerals is possible. The air can also remain still and affect contrails very little. Please stop showing pictures of contrails and asking how they can be normal. They can be normal no matter what they look like. Live with it, please.

 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
BEE





Joined: 13 Dec 2000
Posts: 23
PostThu Dec 14, 2000 6:36 pm  Reply with quote  

Thermit states that low-level spraying gives too high a concentration and it's better to have a weak homogeneous mix. There is no way that spraying at high altitude will ever result in a weak homogeneous mix. Unless you think "they" are actually spraying enough material to actually establish a concentration of material throughout the atmosphere?!!! This boggles the mind. Calculate the volume of air in the atmosphere contained from 30,000 feet down. There is no way that anyone could mount an operation to pump enough of anything into the air from aircraft at 30,000 to create an ambient concentration at all places across the nation.
 View user's profile Send private message
LTC8K6





Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 267
Location: Tar Heel State
PostThu Dec 14, 2000 7:03 pm  Reply with quote  

Anything released at 30K would circle the globe 2 or 3 times.

The whole idea has been silly since it was first conjured up by William Thomas et al to make money selling vitamins, colloidal silver, Bandit charcoal treated scarfs, etc. etc., to protect us from "IT".
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
LTC8K6





Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 267
Location: Tar Heel State
PostThu Dec 14, 2000 7:07 pm  Reply with quote  

Lest you think I'm joking:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/4809/just-do-it.html

There is quite a little cottage industry making money from chemtrails.


 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Random





Joined: 11 Dec 2000
Posts: 25
Location: Bournemouth, UK
PostSat Dec 16, 2000 2:36 pm  Reply with quote  

Um, yes, that table of droplet settling rates is reasonable. In a perfectly stable atmosphere. On a cloud-covered day*. In an atmosphere saturated in the chemical of which the droplet is formed**.

What you haven't taken into account is that these rates of descent are much lower than the common rates of air movement (why do we only get drizzle from stratus in a very stable atmosphere?). The smaller particles would not land where you wanted them to, except by purest chance. So you would have to saturate the atmosphere. This table actually supports my original post.

For a reminder the atmosphere to about 8km (26 000 ft) is about 41 billion cubic km, or 41 billion billion cubic metres. You want a concentration of 1 part per billion? 41 bn km^3 of gas, even if the molecular mass is similar to air (wold be much more)(about 28, being mostly nitrogen molecules) that's 1.2 kg/m^3 at sea level. For a guess let's use this figure as an average, as the extra molecular mass would balance the effect of lowering pressure. That's nearly 50 billion kg. 50 million tonnes. At a very conservative estimate. Vaccines and pesticides are not cheap (remember this is completely undiluted and pure). If they were cheap, US$100 per kg say, then US$5000bn. Before we have the logistics of distribution. This is then filtered out by rain and as the air is used by plants and animals, so must be continuously replenished.

Daft idea. Not the daftest ever to come out of the USA, but daft all the same.

* To prevent low-level, thermal rising air. So we wouldn't see the 'chemtrails', would we?
** to prevent the droplet evaporating.

------------------
The truth is out there, but not in here
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Random





Joined: 11 Dec 2000
Posts: 25
Location: Bournemouth, UK
PostSat Dec 16, 2000 2:52 pm  Reply with quote  

LTC8K6

Agreed, and in addition the site you signposted is selling activated carbon capsules for human consumtion. Never mind that burnt toast would have the same effect, carbon is carcinogenic. Has the FDA or the EU approved this product, I wonder?
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
M. Magoo





Joined: 16 Nov 2000
Posts: 14
PostSat Dec 16, 2000 5:16 pm  Reply with quote  

And for a little gratuitous side-humor...how serendipitous is it that the site owner guy's last name just happens to be "Fortune".
Heh.

Good skeptical link here on many various claims and New Age antics in the alternative health enterprises:
http://www.discord.org/skeptical/Alternative_Medicine/

Another good discussion about pseudo-science, (around which so much conspiracy theory seems to hinge)in general is here:
http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studycrthk/study_pseddoscience/study_factpseudo.htm

Great Critical Thinking website, among its offerrings a 5-part essay on pseudo-science.

This is just a small excerpt:

"PSEUDOSCIENCE begins with a hypothesis--usually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausible--and then looks only for items which appear to support it. Conflicting evidence is ignored.

Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to investigate and find out what's actually going on, or to test various possibilities.

Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to "congenial conclusions," grinding ideological axes, appealing to pre-conceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings."

The ardent disseminators of the "sickness" element of CT conspiracy are keenly essential to keeping these websites and their promoters alive..
 View user's profile Send private message
LTC8K6





Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 267
Location: Tar Heel State
PostMon Dec 18, 2000 1:50 pm  Reply with quote  

Chemtrailers, lay your money down!
http://members.tripod.com/~e2012/index.html

 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Thermit





Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3137
Location: Texas
PostWed Dec 20, 2000 7:25 pm  Reply with quote  

Random,

quote:

For a reminder the atmosphere to about 8km (26 000 ft) is about 41 billion cubic km, or 41 billion billion cubic metres. You want a concentration of 1 part per billion? 41 bn km^3 of gas



Is this for the whole earth? If so, what are the calculations for a limited area, like 100 square miles?
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Forum Jump:
Jump to:  
Goto page
1, 2  Next

All times are GMT.
The time now is Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:35 am


  Display posts from previous:      




© 21st Century Thermonuclear Productions
All Rights Reserved, All Wrongs Revenged, Novus Ordo Seclorum, All Your Base