Who's trying to set off these volcanoes?

by **professorpan** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:58 pm

Starman, A refutation of the barium data can be found here (from Jay Reynolds): <a href="http://www.goodsky.homestead.com/files/bariumreport.html">www.goodsky.homestead.com...eport.html</a> As to the use of retrofitted commercial jets, I just don't buy it. First, the maintenance crews would take notice if *anything* out of the ordinary was detected. Aircraft maintenance is very methodical -- any new apparatus added would be detected immediately. And Iroquois has noted the problem of how you'd load so much extra mass onto an aircraft without detection. If you assume the crews are somehow "in" on the operation, the number of participants expands dramatically -- far too big to be contained. And wouldn't the pilots begin to notice the changes in normal contrails? Commercial pilots would certainly talk, and if the program was as massive as some chemtrail advocates believe, it surely would have broken through into the mainstream by now. It just doesn't add up. If there was a massive program to spray chemicals in the atmosphere, as the chemtrail people contend, someone along the chain of the conspiracy would blow the whistle. Here's the sticky point, though: If there is a covert spraying program, the chemtrail enthusiasts are doing a bang-up job of keeping the *real* spraying hidden because of their lack of rigor and discernment. That would be terribly ironic. Chemtrails are the perfect issue for gullible people because they can see with their own eyes the *evidence.* The problem is, at least in most cases, they don't have the knowledge to evaluate what they're seeing, and are easily led into more speculation and confabulation.

by **StarmanSkye** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:43 pm

Professorpan: Excellant points; Groundcrews would most certainly spot add-on equipment, the added mass and storage of a chemical payload is problematical (unless fuel is modified with metallic ion-salts before it's delivered to airports), pilots would notice any dramatic change in characteristics of contrails, and keeping such a vast conspiracy secret would be impossible. Perhaps what's most noteable about the whole chemtrail controversy is that so many generally reasonable people are convinced their government could and WOULD mount such a huge secret project with serious ethical and environmental implications. Perhaps for many people, the issue of chemtrails keeps their attention focused on the skies and off of the increasingly criminal, fraudulent nature of their illigitimate government acting on behalf of corporate sponsors consolidating a global empire, with a military spread around the world on over 800 bases essentially defending dollar hegemony -- distraction, in other words. Starman

by **Iroquois** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:22 pm

Starman, I considered the contaminated fuel angle myself. I'd want to consult an aeronautical engineer to verify, but my understanding is that modern jet engines are extremely intolerant of pollutants in their fuel. Also, how would the release of the ion-salts then be controlled so that they are concentrated in the desired area? It would also throw off fuel load calculations if we were talking about any serious quantities. I still can't get over the scale that such a delivery system would be trying to take advantage of. I was actually thinking multiple supertanker payloads would be needed for a typical project. Otherwise, why not just use a small plane or even a balloon? <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Perhaps for many people, the issue of chemtrails keeps their attention focused on the skies and off of the increasingly criminal, fraudulent nature of their illigitimate government acting on behalf of corporate sponsors consolidating a global empire<hr></blockquote> I think you really hit the nail on the head here. But, I suppose the same could be said of American Idol and countless other things. At least with chemtrails, people are questioning consesus reality, and I believe that is generally a healthy thing. Though, from what I've seen from the sites I perused, those who do investigate chemtrails need to be much more dilligent in their investigations and far more skeptical of the claims made by those promoting these theories. After all, someone may really be up there spraying something.

by **Darklo** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:29 pm

Chandler's Wobble, Chemtrails, HAARP, all in one thread. Chandler's Wobble? We think its normal to be living in a cloud of gas around a rock hurtling around a supermassive nuclear explosion at a fantastic velocity. Chandlers Wobble not wobbling seems like the least weird thing that could happen. What is HAARP? Dont believe the official story, seems odd that the military are funding scientific research into the ionosphere. A main contractor is BAE Systems, a military contractor. Still, we will never probably know what it is. Chemtrails? Seen them myself, am waiting to be convinced, but unlike towers collapsing at the speed of gravity in NY, evidence supporting chemtrails is a bit sketchy. <a href="http://www.weatherwars.info">www.weatherwars.info</a> is a great website, really captivates me, but I remain unconvinced as Ive seen cloud shapes like this since I was a little boy in Italy 35 years ago. Actually, with all due respect, stop discussing chemtrails just goto <a href="http://www.weatherwars.info">www.weatherwars.info</a> and soak up the paranoia. I just hope that man is insane..... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=darklo>Darklo</A> at: 3/2/06 8:34 pm

by **Qutb** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:38 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I just hope that man is insane..... <hr></blockquote> Don't worry.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:56 pm

Interesting to see on this board, of all boards, people using expressions used to dismiss 'conspiracy theorists.' "Surely someone would have talked." "Paranoid..." "Inability to discern..." What a perfect opportunity to divide the various online truth movements between those whove seen and those who haven't. You have read Senate Bill 517, haven't you? What do you make of the NASA disinfo site for kids? It was late last year that I first saw planes right over my head in the SF Bay area drawing the big lines perpendicular to each other. I was pissed all day to have this done brazenly in front of my face and over a major metropolitan area at that. Infuriating. And it was exactly what you see in the pictures on the internet.. I was pumping gas and pointed it out to someone at another pump. As I already posted, lots of planes in and out of Oakland and SFO airports nearby with either no contrails or the normal brief ones. But a sky filled with huge swaths making 'X's and spreading out. It's maddening to not be able to grab you by the collar while pointing and say "see?" Gotta borrow a digital camera. There must be SF area websites with this amazing sight. "Surely someone would have talked." That's a good one. Wonder what a commercial pilot or flight attendent over at Oakland Airport would say if I went over there and asked them? Might be time to do some on the ground interviews... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 3/2/06 8:58 pm

by **professorpan** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:55 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>As I already posted, lots of planes in and out of Oakland and SFO airports nearby with either no contrails or the normal brief ones.<hr></blockquote> This is easily explained by variations in atmospheric conditions. That's the problem with most of the chemtrail research -- the proponents make claims without understanding the science of normal contrails. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What a perfect opportunity to divide the various online truth movements between those whove seen and those who haven't.<hr></blockquote> Or just an opportunity to discern the truth from the untrue. I guess disagreeing will get my branded a "thought cop." Isn't that how these conversations go?

by **marykmusic** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:58 pm

No, you are stimulating a discussion. Who really gets off on preaching only to the choir? --MaryK

by **Connut** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:27 pm

Well, he's not. Scott Stevens is a perfectly normal ex-TV weatherman, and I've heard him interviewed on several different radio shows. Not that I set myself up as a judge of normal, but he certainly sounds WAAAAY more sane than our current POTUS. I've been taking photos of the current and frequent chemtrails they lay down in Austin. Certainly not contrails, too low, crossing over each other, with planes flying in pairs side by side, and these photos were taken a quarter of a mile away from the airport where I can see the real thing take off and land all day. Cheers, Connut

by **marykmusic** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:38 pm

Hey, Connut, you're my homie! I was born in the first-aid clinic at Bergstrom AFB (now the airport.) There are some chemtrail activists in the Austin area and have been for years. --MaryK

by **StarmanSkye** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:13 pm

Good points, Iroquis -- esp. re: jet engines being intolerant of contamination, ie. metallic ion-salts. I don't know, haven't looked into this technical issue. A medium-range large commercial plane like a Boeing 757 can carry about 11,400 US gallons of fuel (about 76,000 lbs with A-jet fuel at 6.7 lbs per gallon avg. -- but of course, commercial fleets strive to not load more fuel than needed plus a small reserve for a given destination and weather/wind conditions). The hypothetical question is -- how much added contaminant of metallic salts in solution of jet fuel would produce claimed chemtrail effects -- and have intended weather-or-atmospheric modification properties? Say, would 500 pounds of barium/aluminum powder per 10,000 gallons (67,000 gallons) of fuel create noticeable or appreciable effects? Or 1000 pounds? Considering that these salts as superfine particulate ion-form would (most likely) remain in suspension -- I doubt they would affect performance of fuel pumps, valves, or injectors. There may even be a claimed or actual performance, lubricant/anti-wear or other fuel-flow conditioning benefit used to nominally justify such a fuel-supply modification. Under certain conditions (say, higher than -25 degrees F) there may not be any noticeable chemtrail-residue properties). While I'm not ready to believe chemtrail spraying is happening, esp. to the large scale claimed, I can't totally dismiss it. So: Anyone want to try and explain this bizarre sequence of cloud development photographed over 2-3 hours in Albuquerque, apparently showing fairly-heavy overcast occurring simultaneous with more than a dozen contrails seeming to spread (not dissipate). This isn't a clear case of clouds 'blowing in', or a mass of high-humidity falling from higher altitude. As the day progresses, one would expect ambient air temperatures close to the ground to increase. Warm air can hold more moisture than cold air. The only thing that MIGHT make sense is moisture-laden air rising as it warms-up and expands (having greater volume thus displacing an equivalent mass of cold dense air). But then, why wouldn't the original vapor-trails dissipate? They seem to have a persistance and even an expansion in-place that sure doesn't act like you'd expect vapor-trails should. <img src="http://www.carnicom.com/abq1.jpg" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.carnicom.com/abq2.jpg" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.carnicom.com/abq3.jpg" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.carnicom.com/abq4.jpg" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.carnicom.com/abq5.jpg" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.carnicom.com/abq6.jpg" style="border:0;"/> Starman

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:11 pm

Contrails: When a few passenger jets at an altitude have nothing behind them and other jets are painting huge expanding 'X's at the same altitude, there is something else going on. No one is dialing in Senate Bill 517 or the NASA propaganda for kids or the 1997 Edward Teller paper from Livermore Labs, too. Lots of dots here even if you haven't seen the phenomenon yourself although skepticism is s.o.p. of course. But so is being rational. I just found yet another dot on a store shelf nearby. I think we know who influences mass culture the most, don't we? To spell it out would only require three letters. Just went and grazed the shelves of the video store to catch up on that 'Social Engineering Through Better Propaganda and Neurolinguistic Programming'- industry's latest releases to see what is being inserted into the minds of Americans. What do you suppose I found there released in 2005, the year of Senate Bill 517 introduced on 3/3/05 with stated purpose "To establish the Weather Modification Operations and Research Board, and for other purposes"? <a href="http://www.theorator.com/bills109/s517.html">www.theorator.com/bills109/s517.html</a> Why look! A movie called...'THE WEATHERMAN,' about a weatherman who wants more out of life and goes off Don Quixote-like to tilt at the windmills of his fantasy life. Can you say DISCREDITING? It stars Nicholas Cage who is now the #1 actor for militarist propaganda films like 'Lords of War' <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399295/">www.imdb.com/title/tt0399295/</a> and 'The Wind Talkers.' <a href="http://www.nfatoys.com/tsmg/tcn/2002/aug/aug02cover.htm">www.nfatoys.com/tsmg/tcn/...2cover.htm</a> Gee, now why would anybody make a movie about boring old weathermen? The topic of how movies are used is a fascinating one. Last year when the animated 'Chicken Little' came out I finally got exactly how movies influence subliminally WITHOUT EVEN BEING SEEN. Billboards and titles. I first saw the 'Chicken Little' billboard from a long distance on the highway and thought it was a Desert Storm type US army helmet with a desert palm tree behind it. As I got closer, I could now make out that it was the rear-end of the alarmist Chicken Little character with his head feather poking up and the joke caption "the end is near." How that relates to the occupation in Iraq, I think you can see. I said to myself "damn, these bastards are too fucking clever but I'm on to them." The shift from subliminal message to overt marketing isn't noticed by many unless you know the history of film as a tool of governance and neurolinguistic programming, along with the topics this board specializes in- emotional manipulation and mind control. I suspect The Godfather was made to make Americans think of the Mafia when they think of criminals, not spooks. The CIA was outed as complicit in many crimes in the few years just before this film came out, especially the murder of JFK. The post-Vietnam Reagan era gave us remilitarized entertainment like 'An Officer and a Gentleman' and the 'Rambo' series. When renewal of the Patriot Act was up last year the billboards for a Jodie Foster movie called 'Flight Plan' were everywhere. Think that was a moneymaker? No, it was a subliminal message probably meant to steer middle-class and elite constituents to demand the elimination of the Bill of Rights so they could fly on business trips without worrying. Interested to hear your comments on my informed hypotheses. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 3/3/06 6:15 pm

by **Floyd Smoots** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 10:01 pm

Hugh, I'm beginning to belive that the only thing upon which you and I might possibly disagree is the existence (or not), of God. Otherwise, I'm as suspicious, if not moreso, as you are concerning the "wise benevolent policies" of our current (or is it recurrent?) gang of verkakte Nazi Rat Bastids who are raping (even literally, at times) our country and our people. Good post. Give 'em hell. Or, as the old Air Force theme song says, "at 'em boys, give 'em the gun"!!! (Hey, it warn't me whut wrote those old-timey "sexist" lyrics!) <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> Old Floyd

by **Iroquois** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:10 pm

Starman, I appreciate the extra refinements <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> to your fuel additive theory. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The hypothetical question is -- how much added contaminant of metallic salts in solution of jet fuel would produce claimed chemtrail effects -- and have intended weather-or-atmospheric modification properties?<hr></blockquote> I suppose that's the question about chemtrails that I'm really keyed on, with the additional qualifications that the additives do not significantly throw off fuel load calculations and they aren't either found or reported by fuel quality inspectors. Another question I have is do the ionic salts have to dispersed at a certain concentration or can they be built up slowly over time? If so, and if ionic salts merely encourage persistent contrails but are not necessary to produce them, the levels of ionic salts in fuel could be much lower. I don't really have enough knowledge to comment on any further just yet. But, I'll try to keep an open mind and offer whatever critiques or insights I am able.

by **rocco322** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:55 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"I don't believe in chemtrails. I grew up near an airport and have seen airplane contrails all my life -- the alleged "chemtrails" are exactly like the contrails I've seen since I was a child. And, yes, I have read plenty of pro-chemtrail arguments, but I don't think they hold up to scrutiny."<hr></blockquote> Hmmm. So contrails when you were a child stayed visible in the sky for hours? <blockquote>Quote:<hr> "I think this site is quite good: goodsky.homestead.com/files/"<hr></blockquote> You must be kidding. I've been told by many that he is a paid debunker cointel man who heads a group of guys funded by NASA who go out and terrorize people who investigate chemtrails and/or aerosols. I myself was recently harrassed for simply researching. Look at his page, it's mainly attacks on Will Thomas, Carnicom, and others. Why should he care what they say? It seems very strange. Apparently, his crew spend all their time dissuading people from research on this issue, including national radio DJ's... Edit add- Here's a bit of what info I received on Reynolds... I HAVE been majorly harrassed, threatened, arsoned, hacked, & discredited.... for speaking out about Chemtrails. If you google jack Blood - among all the BS anti - jack blood websites, you will see at the top of the list a PAID ad by one of the "Chem - boys" as we call them. It has been sponsored for over a year now. Jay Reynolds is their ring leader, and I believe he gets his orders from NASA / FEMA / Shadow Govt types. He used to work for Bill Cooper. Now is a professional Debunker, terrorist, and cointelpro man. He is not very good at it either IMO.... I found plenty of research info detailing NASA'a role in the intimidation, and funding to shut us up. (The links are somewhere on my forum summer of 04. It should google up under NASA Scientist debunks Chemtrail research. OK, Yet we look up and even a neophyte knows something is horribly wrong! Duh. What I'd like to know is why would anyone bother to spend 100's, if not 1000's of hours "debunking" and/or terrorizing fellow Americans for looking into this issue? Needless to say, I've dropped the issue. Its not worth the grief. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rocco322>rocco322</A> at: 3/4/06 3:12 am

Who's trying to set off these volcanoes?

Re: Chemtrail

Re: Chemtrail

Re: Chemtrail

Re: Chemtrail

Re: Chemtrail

Wow. Wait till you're seeing it yourself.

Re: Wow. Wait till you're seeing it yourself.

Re: Wow. Wait till you're seeing it yourself.

Hope He's Crazy?

Re: Hope He's Crazy?

Variations in Atmospheric Conditions

Re: "normal TV weatherman."

Or Sixties Terrorist Group, The Weathermen???

Re: Or Sixties Terrorist Group, The Weathermen???

Re: Or Sixties Terrorist Group, The Weathermen???

Who is online