|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3130
Location: Texas |
 Wed Dec 13, 2000 12:18 am
|
 |
|
Okay, two issues: would they do this and could they do this?
Given the goal of rendering biological weapons useless and given a concerted effort to achieve that goal, there is a need to universally, across the population, "treat" everybody without it generally being known. The common factor everybody breathes the air. So it must be via the air. The obvious choice for distribution is aircraft. The miltary has pilots and jets. So, in a hypothetical, "do or die", they will find a way to make it work no matter what the cost.
But could it really work? 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. 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
Random, I do want you to look at the logistics of this. But don't just approach it from an "It's completely impossible!" standpoint, because that isn't the viewpoint that would be used if Chemtrails are real. The logistics would be approached from a "How can we make this difficult thing happen?" viewpoint. Don't factor in money in your 'can do' approach, just the physical limitations.
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Thermit on 12-12-2000] |
| |
|
|
Random
Joined: 11 Dec 2000
Posts: 25
Location: Bournemouth, UK |
|
Sat Dec 16, 2000 2:48 pm
|
|
|
Don't want to cross-post, so much of my reply under 'chemical rain' would answer this.
Why not factor in money? The money would be of the order US$500 trillion or more for initial application. Coming from a country with an annual government budget of the order US$600 bn, this looks kind of a lot. Even Bill Gates might balk.
How many aircraft would it take to distribute 50 million tonnes of a product, after diluting it in Jet A? 10:1 dilution by weight (conservative), that's 500 million tonnes. Few aircraft have payload greater than 50 tonnes. 10 million flights?
I am a trainee pilot with an Earth Sciences degree. To me this 'plot' looks several degrees of magnitude away from being achievable in the form you are suggesting.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Random on 12-16-2000] |
| |
|
|
djembemon
Joined: 22 Dec 2000
Posts: 89
Location: Atlanta, GA USA |
|
Fri Dec 29, 2000 3:22 am
|
|
|
Sorry to disappoint, but it's HAPPENING. Right over your heads. Right now. 24/7, 365 (hell, Atlanta was a virtual chemtrail central just Christmas Day).
Those of you who are here to "diffuse" the situation and distract will just have to convince the rest of us that the laws of physics are somehow "suspended", arbitrarily, for what you might call "normal commercial traffic".
Also -- 600 million dollars is a drop in the bucket when the US Black Budget alone is fast approaching 10 billion -- all you need is a fast-track rationale, and some "international participation" at that point. The materiel and "delivery system" is practically a done deal.
ONE REASON WHY I BELIEVE DUNCAN KUNZ IS A HOAX:
Let's just say he admits to working for a major airline, then brazenly lies (in print, on the internet, essentially in public for all the world to see) about a simple fact of aircraft cabin filtration -- and then hopes that no one will notice this "omission".
The rest of the "debunking" crew has similar credibility problems, maybe worse.
You boys need more than your eyes checked. |
| |
|
|
defender
Joined: 27 Oct 2000
Posts: 1113
Location: Level 64 |
|
Fri Dec 29, 2000 4:13 am
|
|
|
International weapons/drug smuggling, S&L Rip-off, extortion, blackmail, et al... can pay for a lot of covert/black operations!
(even assuming that randoms 'calculations' are correct)
In case you haven't been paying attention to events in the past few decades, covert operations and operatives do not need to rely on a federal budget.
[note: Senators Heinz (PA) and Tower (TX) were killed in seperate private plane crashes just one day apart, both were members of the Iran/contra senate subcommittee holding hearings during that time.]
[Edited 3 times, lastly by defender on 12-28-2000] |
| |
|
|
djembemon
Joined: 22 Dec 2000
Posts: 89
Location: Atlanta, GA USA |
|
Fri Dec 29, 2000 4:33 am
|
|
|
We discussed this quit a while ago in a thread about jet fuel on Carnicom's board. The numbers at that time SEEMED "expensive", but then, we agreed that "expensive" is relative, say, particularly to civilian ears (history will bear this out).
By all other measures, a continent-wide "saturation plan" of virtually any sort was eminently "do-able" (and our numbers weren't far from random's), considering the "saturant" was not overtly expensive -- so some serious reconceptualizing on the part of certain parties heron may be in order... |
| |
|
|
Sceptic
Joined: 19 Dec 2000
Posts: 46
Location: Ireland |
|
Fri Dec 29, 2000 4:13 pm
|
|
|
'serious reconceptualizing'?
Do you mean a rethink?
You make a wild assumption regarding cost, viz: 'considering the "saturant" was not overtly expensive'. Remember that probably the most expensive commodity in this whole thing would be the secrecy necessary to implement it, and this cost would certainly be reflected in the cost of teh chemicals along with every other cost. You must also factor in the purported 'fact' that many areas are being subject to repeated day-after-day spraying, so the costs must be multiplied many times.
Your figures just don't wash. |
| |
|
|
Random
Joined: 11 Dec 2000
Posts: 25
Location: Bournemouth, UK |
|
Sat Dec 30, 2000 12:45 am
|
|
|
My calculations were not correct, and neither were your quotes of my scratch estimate.
I was making rough assumptions on distribution of a cheap, simple chemical compound (not an expensive mix of chemicals/bioactive ingredients you lot suggest). I was assuming it would remain below 26 000 ft (the tropopause varies between about 25 000 and 55 000 feet).
Even then my figure quoted on the thread 'Chemical rain?' was US$5,000 billion(yes, US$5 trillion  , about 8 times my country's government's annual budget, and we're the 4th largest economy in the world) for the chemicals in the original distribution. As stated above this would require more than 10 million sorties by large aircraft.
If you doubt my estimates, then tell me why. If not, then tell me where the money comes from and how the aircraft manage the job.
------------------
The truth is out there, but not in here |
| |
|
|
djembemon
Joined: 22 Dec 2000
Posts: 89
Location: Atlanta, GA USA |
|
Sat Dec 30, 2000 4:45 am
|
|
|
So then, tell me, boys:
What could $100 MILLION (US) per day purchase over American skies?
[Recent published estimate of the money siphoned off from US taxpayers via Congressional budgeting strictly for "black budget" items. This, in essence, would also NOT include any "agency" funds appropriated by means of profits from the sale of illegal drugs, military "secrets", or even performing other "operations for hire" for foreign or domestic "clients", etc.] |
| |
|
|
elvis lives
Joined: 30 Sep 2000
Posts: 143
Location: Pismo Beach, California |
|
Sat Dec 30, 2000 4:55 am
|
|
|
dj...please, go crawl back under your rock.
If you have proof of what you say drop in and share it with us. If not, your efforts are better spent swarming with your fellow fools on the carnicom board.
|
| |
|
|
djembemon
Joined: 22 Dec 2000
Posts: 89
Location: Atlanta, GA USA |
|
Sat Dec 30, 2000 5:12 am
|
|
|
Herds swarm (something I've noticed during my brief visit to this forum). It's actually very insect-like behavior.
Fools, on the other hand, keep missing the obvious until they eventually (generally, sooner than later) become extinct.
FYI, the $100,000,000 per day figure is not mine, but published research. (Just go through a transcript of the Congressional Budget, add up the total budget, subtract all budget items for which the destination of funding is "known" AND fully listed -- and you'll have a rather large remainder, the "black budget", made all the more obvious by the think, black lines deliberately crossed through it's type in all public appropriations documents.]
Go figure. |
| |
|
|
nodebbunker
Joined: 01 Nov 2000
Posts: 200
Location: Indiana USA |
|
Sun Dec 31, 2000 12:41 am
|
|
|
>(hell, Atlanta was a virtual chemtrail central just Christmas Day).<
Busy little beavers, they were on Christmas morning here at 39/86 leaving some magnificent trails, that is flights from the south onward to ORD. Checking Carnciom Board reports for 12/25, seems they were in alot of places.
BTW, are you sure it's not Uncle Ted Turner picking up the tab? Seems he has some disposable income too. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/12/22/203525.shtml
------------------
just a housewife from Indiana |
| |
|
|
nodebbunker
Joined: 01 Nov 2000
Posts: 200
Location: Indiana USA |
|
Sun Dec 31, 2000 6:10 am
|
|
|
>"FYI, the $100,000,000 per day figure is not mine, but published research."<
>" . . . an investigation by Mother Jones magazine that documents $100 million-a-day "back door" transfers of tax dollars used to fund the Pentagon’s black operations. None of this money - or the projects it funds - are accountable to Congress or the American people."<
Is this your same published research, DJ or do you have another resource? Please specify.
I requested William Thomas to do the same.
------------------
just a housewife from Indiana |
| |
|
|
Random
Joined: 11 Dec 2000
Posts: 25
Location: Bournemouth, UK |
|
Mon Jan 01, 2001 8:56 pm
|
|
|
US$ 100,000,000 per day seems a little OTT (this is similar to the UK defence budget) but is still not enough. That's still US$36bn per annum, which will not even cover my extremely conservative estimate once. In the twenty years and more this would require to distribute the substance then it would be gradually removed from the atmosphere!
The 10s of millions of flights would also need to be explained! |
| |
|
|
kevinalfred
Joined: 01 Jan 2004
Posts: 162
Location: Tamaqua, Pa, USA |
|
Sat Mar 20, 2004 8:43 pm
|
|
|
All I have to say is, there is no area 51, and they are not experimenting with HAARP.
kevinalfred;
antihaarpmon@yahoo.com
p.s. aliens; are the return of
the nephilim; and they're extra
dimensional, not extratarestrial !!!!
------------------
|
| |
|
|
JerseyBluEyz
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast |
|
Sun Mar 21, 2004 2:39 am
|
|
|
Hey! Does anyone know why this thread is blue? Is it because it's so old???
kevinalfred: Just so you know, if you were responding to anyone in particular in this thread, they are all long gone other than Thermit (the board owner).
It's ok that you believe there is no Area 51, but it would he helpful if you would say WHY you believe this to be fact. I know two people that could verify that Area 51 exists, so I would have to totally disagree with you on that point.
Same thing with HAARP. Why do you say they are not experimenting with it? Have you researched the subject enough to feel that to be true? If yes, then your opinion is simply that - your opinion. 
|
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:30 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
