lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 30, 2006 16:44:47 GMT -4
One reason why I discount ‘chemtrails’ is the altitude the planes are flying at, many thousands of feet above the surface of the Earth. I don’t have a scientific background but imagine much (most) of the “chemical” particles would never fall to the surface and if and when they did it would be very far from where they were “sprayed” making targeting all but impossible. Much of what did come down would probably do so in rain drops which most likely would diminish their effect.
If the NWO wanted to dope the populace spiking the water supply would be I imagine much simpler, cheaper and easier to cover up. How would they be able to protect themselves and friends and families from being affected?
I’m just ‘hand waving’ here and would appreciate comments from anyone who knows what they are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 30, 2006 16:57:37 GMT -4
I agree with you, lenbrazil. At that altitude there is no way they could precisely target where the chemicals ended up... they could end up poisoning their fellow Illuminati/Freemasons/Shapeshifting Repiles/etc. Plus, wouldn't the chemicals become so dispersed in the atmosphere that they couldn't possibly be effective anyway?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jan 30, 2006 17:20:03 GMT -4
Another thing is the science behind the formation of persistent contrails has been well understood for decades. Check out this document from 1942. naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1942/naca-wr-l-474/WWII pilots used to complain about the contrails when conditions would cause them to be persistent as that would give away their positions to AAA. Basically contrails and persistent contrails have been in existence since planes could fly high enough. There is no reason to think that the persistent contrails we see today are not the same as the ones from decades before. "Chemtrail" believers conveniently forget that the days they see their "chemtrails" are the same days in which the weather is right for persistent contrail formation. I've seen them post that it must be for weather modification because they always see them in the days before a storm front, ignoring of course that the days preceeding a storm front are conducive to persistent contrail formation. They also ignore that the jet engines on today's aircraft put out a lot more water vapor in the exhaust than the engines of just a decade or two ago. That affects contrail formation as well.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Jan 30, 2006 17:30:39 GMT -4
Then there’s the question of dosage. Some people would get too much and some wouldn’t get any. In the Moscow theatre siege the Russian special forces pumped in some kind of anaesthetic gas. Some people died because they breathed in an unsafe amount.
Is the drug in the jet fuel? If it is then it is hard to see it surviving the combustion. If it is pumped in with the jet exhaust then there needs to be some kind of delivery system. It’s difficult to imagine all commercial jet airliners having this fitted and serviced without any one knowing. Do they have the equivalent of Murray the vending machine guy come round to each plane once a week to fill up the secret drug tank? ;D
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jan 30, 2006 17:35:21 GMT -4
Of course some believers think that it is not a drug being sprayed but rather they are trying to block the sun to prevent global warming or some other absurd variation. These same ones will turn right around and claim the "chemtrail" make them sick when they see them outside.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 30, 2006 18:01:08 GMT -4
Is the drug in the jet fuel? If it is then it is hard to see it surviving the combustion. If it is pumped in with the jet exhaust then there needs to be some kind of delivery system. It’s difficult to imagine all commercial jet airliners having this fitted and serviced without any one knowing. Do they have the equivalent of Murray the vending machine guy come round to each plane once a week to fill up the secret drug tank? ;D I don't think the tinfoil hat crowd think that the chemtrails are comming out the jet exhaust or from commercial planes. But rather are coming out of special tanks (like on crop dusters, fire fighting planes etc) of military planes. This would entail entire squads of pilots, comanders and ground crew etc who would be "in on it" but would some how be kept quiet. You would think knowing about these dangerous chemicals being sprayed they'd want to warn their families and close friends who would then in turn tell their families and close friends, how would the secret be kept? IIRC a summer camp buddy of one of Carl Bernstein's stepsons knew that Mark Felt was "Deep Throat" and that was supposed to be one of the most closely uarded secrects of the 20th century.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 30, 2006 18:17:41 GMT -4
Of course some believers think that it is not a drug being sprayed but rather they are trying to block the sun to prevent global warming or some other absurd variation. These same ones will turn right around and claim the "chemtrail" make them sick when they see them outside. That is another silly theory, but if they were spraying to prevent global warming why would they keep it secret? Aren't these the same people who saying global warming is a myth? Again I'm not a scientist but I doubt a handful of planes flying every once in a while could have much impact. Also since the problem is too many chemicals in the atmosphere already what would be accomplished by adding more? Is there some chemical(s) that could reduce the amount or effect of greenhouse gases? If so would dispersing them from the ground be more effective. Might they be confusing global warming with ozone depletion? In which case I think the planes would be too low.
|
|
|
Post by snakeriverrufus on Jan 30, 2006 21:28:35 GMT -4
The problem with this CT is that it is so "all over the place". These CTs need to sit down and narrow their focus. No two of them seems to make the same claim. Of course I know that the chemicals are to enable HAARP to reprogram our brains.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 31, 2006 11:17:43 GMT -4
If the NWO wanted to dope the populace spiking the water supply would be I imagine much simpler, cheaper and easier to cover up. I work for a construction company that specializes in the construction of water treatment plants, thus I’ve had considerable experience with them. There are many chemicals that are added to water during the treatment process. Some of these chemicals are added just before distribution, such as disinfectants, corrosion-inhibitors, etc. These chemicals are delivered to the plant in sealed drums that the plant operators simply hook up to the chemical metering pumps. The amount of chemical distributed is precisely controlled. If the PTB wanted to drug the populace, it would be fairly easy to spike these chemicals prior to deliver to the treatment plant (the end users wouldn’t even be aware of it). They’d have reasonable control over the dosage delivered and would also know exactly which homes and businesses are serviced by the distribution system. “Chemtrails” seem to me to be a very non-discriminate and extremely ineffective delivery method.
|
|
|
Post by bughead on Jan 31, 2006 11:26:14 GMT -4
Yes, but very visible and easy to speculate about in a vacuum. Unlike water treatment.
But then there's the flouride people:{
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 31, 2006 13:16:58 GMT -4
If the PTB wanted to drug the populace Why would the PTB [Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro (Brazilian Labor Party)] want to drug the US populace? I have a friend who is a PTB city councilman I'll have to ask him about it. Just joking I imagine you meant the "powers that be".
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Feb 1, 2006 2:05:27 GMT -4
I haven't looked into chemtrails very much to date. However, living near a major international airport, I have noticed the increasing number of "trails" which leave very irregular patterns. The oddest ones include single trails which go off at 90 degree angles, and "criss-cross" patterns made by one or two jets. I have no idea if these are considered "chemtrails" or not, but I do know these examples are not normal or within regulation flight paths. Looking for any mention of chemtrails in government sources, I did come across this... Space Preservation Act of 2001 (Introduced in House)
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2977
To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.
(B)Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--
(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;
(ii) chemtrails;thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?c107:chemtrailsI also found that the Bill has been subsequently revised as H.R.3616, the Space Preservation Act of 2002. thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3616.IH:The revised Bill has removed from its "Definitions" most of the details for specific methods the weapons may be used, and specific types of weapons - which had previously included the reference to chemtrails. This isn't to suggest that any reference to chemtrails was removed for some sort of nefarious reason. The main point is that chemtrails have at least been recognized as an existing phenomenon, or in this case as an existing "weapon", not simply the imaginations of any particular "tinfoil hat" cadre. I tend to concur with the opinion of Bob who suggested that aerosol spraying at such high altitudes would be an ineffective method of "poisoning" the populace. It would seem to me that any such plan would be fairly unreliable and take an extremely long time to "take effect". But as I said, I haven't delved into the issue at any length. There may well be something to it considering the fact that it has been recognized as a potential weapon through a Bill introduced to Congress. I think I'll look more into the issue in the future. It does seem interesting, at any rate.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 1, 2006 17:49:35 GMT -4
The original wording was done by Kucinich (did I spell that right?), a representative from Ohio who is considered by many of his peers and coleagues to be more than a little off the wall. The prevailing theory on the rewrite is somebody with a little more common sense took a look at the bill.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 1, 2006 18:43:16 GMT -4
The original wording was done by Kucinich (did I spell that right?), a representative from Ohio who is considered by many of his peers and coleagues to be more than a little off the wall. Just as a side note, Dennis Kucinich was popularly known as "Dennis the Menace" back in his days as mayor of Cleveland. Considering how disliked he was back then, I'm really surprised he managed to get elected to Congress.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 2, 2006 19:29:47 GMT -4
Turbonium said:
I bet they'd look odd. But if you think about it, how could that be a function of the material being sprayed out of a plane? Consider *anything* you chuck out of a plane, and what choices are likely to do something like that? Unless they were nanobots flying in formation, the only logical explanation to me is that what you see is a result of wind.
|
|