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
B-2 Bomber used to spray!!

Post new topic Reply to topic
Chemtrail Central > CT Science

Author Thread
HatchetML





Joined: 14 Apr 2003
Posts: 174
Location: NW Florida
PostWed Sep 17, 2003 10:41 pm  Reply with quote  

Well obviously the interaction of a Dry air mass and westerly shear usually result in the weaking of a Cane.My point of view of that which is in question is pretty much right on with the current models and forecasts. It wont suprise me any at all if that Front pushes Isabel right back out to sea, I also see it has begun moving back into the gulf stream so chances are still good for further development....that front is stalled out from maine to south florida, its times like these that scientist rewrite their knowledge of how these features interact with each other, FYI on teh other board someone had suggested that the decrease in strength was due to CHem spraying....LMAO....the whole board jumped on me for doubting the crazy theory....sad sad sad, PPL can be so delusional to common sense that I see it as very frightning...you know the ole saying, You can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink....

You can also lead a horse to water and if he doesnt wanna ride you into the water get off the horse walk around to his head and punch the stubborn animal real hard between the eyes and he'll do anything you want....whahahahahhaha
 View user's profile Send private message
Chem11





Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
PostWed Sep 17, 2003 11:59 pm  Reply with quote  

It doesn't sound like you're disagreeing with me at all, msu94. My point was not that the majority of trails were 'aerodynamic' in origin, it was that the focus of the majority of R&D in no-con technology is on aerodynamic modifications to the aircraft itself (due to the handling problems associated with the additive in question).

FK, please re-read my original post; the name of the chemical additive is included therein. It is available in the public domain, so I doubt anyone is going to be in jeopardy of losing their retirement benefits by discussing it.


quote:
FYI on teh other board someone had suggested that the decrease in strength was due to CHem spraying....LMAO....the whole board jumped on me for doubting the crazy theory.


Hurricane supression through aerial inejction of chemicals via aircraft is hardly some 'crazy theory', Hatchet. Just ask Dyn-o-Mat, the USAF and Peter Cordani.

But that's a different thread, and a very old one at that.

[Edited 2 times, lastly by Chem11 on 09-17-2003]
 View user's profile Send private message
Feelin Kocky





Joined: 07 Jan 2003
Posts: 537
Location: Underground Weather Control Bunker
PostThu Sep 18, 2003 12:30 am  Reply with quote  

>>Wow, your buddy is risking a lot just to supply you with a little bit of ammo for a fairly obscure BB. He must be very stupid to release info that must at least be FOUO<<

The name of the chemical is not classified. If the contrail suppression system or the name of the chemical were classified he would not have told me about it in the first place. Because he, in fact, is not stupid.

Who he is and where he is is none of your buisness.

F.K.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Feelin Kocky on 09-17-2003]
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail
Feelin Kocky





Joined: 07 Jan 2003
Posts: 537
Location: Underground Weather Control Bunker
PostThu Sep 18, 2003 12:37 am  Reply with quote  

>>FK, please re-read my original post; the name of the chemical additive is included therein. It is available in the public domain, so I doubt anyone is going to be in jeopardy of losing their retirement benefits by discussing it.<<

Found it thanks. Where did you find that info by the way? I must have been using the wrong words on goolge to find anything.

F.K.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Feelin Kocky on 09-17-2003]
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail
Feelin Kocky





Joined: 07 Jan 2003
Posts: 537
Location: Underground Weather Control Bunker
PostThu Sep 18, 2003 12:45 am  Reply with quote  

>>Hurricane supression through aerial inejction of chemicals via aircraft is hardly some 'crazy theory', Hatchet. Just ask Dyn-o-Mat, the USAF and Peter Cordani.<<

Here is a great link to SRSO images of Isabel.
http://hadar.cira.colostate.edu/ramsdis/online/RSOgeflt.html
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail
HatchetML





Joined: 14 Apr 2003
Posts: 174
Location: NW Florida
PostThu Sep 18, 2003 12:57 am  Reply with quote  

Hey if you wanna live your life in a glass jar its fine with me, I suppose you can look at everything out there and come up with something crazy that the Gov is doing to you...Better have that jar of peanut butter analized, MR. Carter might be putting arsenic in his crops now in Southern GA, better check that Gallon of milk, COws could be eating themselves now, better check that toothpaste and make sure nothing else is in there that shouldnt be, Better get that monitor checked might be emmitting too much Gamma for you nimble body, But i do have one question maybe you can help me, Would that be KC-135's doing that storm patrol? whahahaha
 View user's profile Send private message
Chem11





Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
PostThu Sep 18, 2003 1:47 am  Reply with quote  

Arsenic? Peanut Butter? We're talking about chlorosulfonic acid and a trademarked moisture absoring gel and you're talking about Jimmy Carter Conspiracies? Weird, man.

I'm thinking I first stumbled upon CA while researching UAV's and advanced propulsion prototypes some time ago, FK. I didn't know the extent of it's use, at the time (and still don't).

I do recall that it works by diminshing the size of the hygroscopic aerosols being emitted by the aircraft (despite noted NASA 'contrail' expert Pat Minnis' assertion on this forum that aerosol content does not influence contrail frequency).

I guess the USAF experts are more knowledgeable when it comes to 'contrail generation' than the NASA boys, lol.

Of course, they've had a lot more practice...

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Chem11 on 09-17-2003]
 View user's profile Send private message
msu94





Joined: 16 Feb 2002
Posts: 207
Location: Tucson, AZ
PostThu Sep 18, 2003 3:31 am  Reply with quote  

Actually Chem11, I am glad a chemtrail believer does acknowledge that there are situations that cause airframe induced contrails to happen. Ignorance of that unusual but occuring phenomena is what led Carnicom to coin "Megasprayer". I wish he would have done a little more research into aviation and contrails first.

Actually I wish a lot of chemtrail activists would do that too. Then we wouldnt have silly statements like the the DC-10s with the spray gear (KC-10 refuelers), and about why Bolling AFB didnt launch fighters (it doesnt even have a freaking runway).
 View user's profile Send private message
Chem11





Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
PostThu Sep 18, 2003 4:05 am  Reply with quote  


quote:
Ignorance of that unusual but occuring phenomena is what led Carnicom to coin "Megasprayer".


I suspect that Mr. Carncicom turned the phrase after viewing activity very similar to what eyesopen has documented with his videography. I don't know that even the most 'optimistic' of skeptics would be willing to call these enormous plumes 'aerodynamic' in origin.

I also find it curious that sightings of these monstrous plumes have literally become nil since they became publicized. In fact, the whole trend over the last two years has been towards shorter trails that disperse into phony cirrus much more quickly than they did in, say, 2000.

Awfully willful for mere contrails whose characteristics are supposedly solely dependant on atmospheric conditions, IMO.

[Edited 2 times, lastly by Chem11 on 09-17-2003]
 View user's profile Send private message
PHXPilot





Joined: 05 Jan 2003
Posts: 800
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA
PostSat Sep 20, 2003 6:22 am  Reply with quote  

...contrails whose characteristics are supposedly solely dependant on atmospheric conditions

This is not completely accurate. While it's true that much of a contrails characteristics are dependant on outside environment conditions, there are many factors that you havent taken into account that arent atmospheric.

Take fuel for example. Different grades and types of fuel used in aircraft have been observed to cause different types of contrails to be created.

Also consider the engine equipment and/or performance differences. Its known that different types of jet engines trail different types of contrails when put into the same outside conditions. I have seen a situation where an old 707 with aged turbofans did not create contrails at all while a brand new A340 with modern turbofans was trailing very nicely formed trails.

These 2 changes, among many others, could be accountable for why we see what we do in the sky. Engine types, fuel types, and many other things have changed over the years. And the contrails we are seeing change over the years.

This may be to blame.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail
halva





Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 515
Location: Greece
PostSat Sep 20, 2003 6:27 am  Reply with quote  

PHX pilot, why do you never take into account indisputable realities like this:
http://hdgc.epp.cmu.edu/publications/abstracts/geoengineering.htm

??
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail
halva





Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 515
Location: Greece
PostSat Sep 20, 2003 6:37 am  Reply with quote  

Or this?
http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2003archive/05-03archive/k051503.html

Official accounts which are preparing the ground to make your kind of disinformation obsolete.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail
PHXPilot





Joined: 05 Jan 2003
Posts: 800
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA
PostSat Sep 20, 2003 6:38 am  Reply with quote  

Oh gee, how can I possibly refute that. I mean, its wrought full of hardcore evidence.

Maybe I should go write a paper about Waffle-engineering. It'll be about building houses out of waffles to make the most efficient and biodegradable homes possible. And since its in the form of a research paper, I can send it to various websites where they will post it for all to see, and then tell skeptics that if you dont believe that the government isnt making houses out of waffles, you must be insane. I mean, they have a paper! Sure I dont know anything about waffles or cooking or house construction, but apperantly I dont need that. I just need to have a website.

Again, I will say it. If they are spraying poison/chemicals into the atmosphere, they havent impacted me in the SLIGHTEST. That could be because its just ice crystals, or maybe it really is barium and aluminum. Apperantly that makes me healthier. I havent been sick in many years. I gotta go get me some of that.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail
PHXPilot





Joined: 05 Jan 2003
Posts: 800
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA
PostSat Sep 20, 2003 6:42 am  Reply with quote  

And the second paper just tells how various gases given off in normal life build up and reflect light, etc, etc...

Your just taking an obvious point and stapling a crazy government plot onto it.

I am, and we all are, aware of how the climate is affected by various substances. The question is, and has always been, whether that contrail you see in the sky is a normal contrail. You seem to think that this has been answered with a resounding "no". In what I have seen on here, I have seen nothing to back that up.

For what would be the largest and most complicated organized "crime" in history, there is a HUGE gap in evidence backing up its existance.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by PHXPilot on 09-20-2003]
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail
halva





Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 515
Location: Greece
PostSun Sep 21, 2003 5:02 am  Reply with quote  

It is because you see it as potentially the greatest crime in history that you want either deliberately to cover it up or sincerely to convince yourself that it is not happening.

That was the advantage of the some of the information we got from people actually involved in the scheme, and believers in in it (or at least in the climate-modification aspect of it). Their scientific knowledge was of some use to us because they weren't mentally blocked by the cognitive dissonance of having to believe that a government which one supports as a matter of principle is engaged in criminal activity. They didn't believe that it was criminal activity so it was possible to talk objectively with them.

Your waffles example is just that, waffle.

By the way what do you think of Jay Michaelson's support for what you describe as the greatest crime in human history,
on the grounds of reasoning that no other way of dealing with the problem of global warming is politically feasible?


[Edited 1 times, lastly by halva on 09-21-2003]
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail

Post new topic Reply to topic
Forum Jump:
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  
1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are GMT.
The time now is Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:04 am


  Display posts from previous:      



Conspiracy List | Arcade Webmaster | Escape Games


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