With Only Nine Aircraft . . . . I Can Change The Climate . . . CHEMTRAILS?

And I can attest to intelligence receding in the USA - especially the blue states.

How can it be that we are so willing to give up what made this country, and this world, great?

How can it be that we are willing to drift into the twilight zone with nary a whimper, nor any resistance?

How can it be that we are willing to accept the notion that we are criminals upon this planet and must accept punishment for being human and American at the same time?

We have led the world in improving the standard of living for humanity and now we accept the notion that we suck. How can that be?

Why do you morons buy into that bilge?

Without America and Americans, the entire planet would still SUCK as a place to live. Yet, you chemtards are SOOOO eager to believe that we're actually KILLING the planet and you're doing everything in your power to spread that CRAP.

Fuck you!

I think that was a good 4th of July post.

you truly are a classic glp paranoid egomaniac fuckwit.

If your only argument is...

This site is prolly the oonly site where everyone is still stuck in the are they arn't they loop.
There are several science forums, which I can't mention here (figures they would be ban words!?) where we have gone beyond that old loop and are discussing the reasons why.

oh, poor bannable you, can't say shit, your bannable, ha!

I thought so.

I am an America-loving American and one of the few remaining self-respecting Americans that appreciate and respect how great this country is and has been for all of humanity.

Fuck you.

"I read it somewhere, so it might be true"

^chemtard research^

So . . . if people believe there could be an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program and say so . . . they are somehow un-American ???? Wow! That is very interesting . . .

So, some of the most revered Americans have destroyed the Nation by saying what they think is the truth. . . .speaking publicly about potential evils, injustice, and abuse. . . .I get it !!!!!!!

:Chem Lincoln:
:C - Twain:

Last Edited by George B on 07/05/2012 07:54 AM

"Thus, we have the ability to do away with oil (and other fossil fuels) but it will take 4-6 years and ca. $100-200M to build the full-scale plant and demonstrate it." Dr.Bussard 2006

That is an interesting way of saying it, but . . . YES!!! . . .

"In August 2007, EMC2 received a $1.8M U.S. Navy research contract to continue the reactor development.[23] Before Bussard's death in October, 2007,[24] Dolly Gray, who co-founded EMC2 with Bussard in 1985, and served as its president and CEO, helped assemble the small team of scientists in Santa Fe to carry on his work. The group is led by Richard (Rick) Nebel and includes Jaeyoung Park; (both Nebel and Park are physicists on leave from the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)); Mike Wray, the physicist who ran the key 2005 tests; and Kevin Wray, who is the computer specialist for the operation.
What is now called WB-7, the more robust version of the WB-6 fusion device, was constructed at a machine shop in San Diego and shipped to Santa Fe to the EMC2 testing facility. The device, like prior ones, was designed by engineer Mike Skillicorn. This WB-7 however was not the “square” coil suggested by Dr. Bussard.
WB-7, achieved "1st plasma" in early January, 2008.[25][26]
No specific information has been published as of 2010, due to a publishing embargo on research data maintained by US Navy.[27] The prior project, led by the late Dr. Bussard, had been under an embargo for 11 years between 1994 and 2005 when that series of contracts with the US Navy ended."

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Haarp is connected to chemtrails. I read it somewhere. The purpose of chemtrails may be to facilitate haarp doings. It's all madly connected and evil does exist in the hearts of Americans, it causes unknowable damage. Sort of like poisoning the earth from the sky for purposes of controlling weather and I don't trust a secret program that changes my sky. I think the sky right above me is mine, I own a slice of the sky and it is supposed to be blue with occaisional real clouds.

:peaking:

In agreement with you on this, George B. Great thread by the way.

Same here, 100% stopped. In fact, airtraffic dropped by at least half.... I see far less traffic now than 3 or so weeks ago.

Windy, I think many feel the way you do . . . The problem is we don't have the facts and we fear the unknown . . .

Thankssssssss!!!

LOL!!!

They don't CHOOSE to be insane...

Air quality legislation

Effectiveness

Studies by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Governmental imposition of clean air standards has contributed to an improvement in human health and longer life spans. The EPA reported that the "1990 Clean Air Act amendments will reach approximately $2 trillion in 2020 while saving 230,000 people from early death in that year alone." The study also reports that in 2010 alone, the reduction of ozone and particulate matter in the atmoshphere prevented more than 160,000 cases of premature mortality, 130,000 heart attacks, 13 million lost work days and 1.7 million asthma attacks.[5]

Several lawsuits raised against power plants for controlling emissions and the EPA for not fulfilling their regulatory duties have cited data on increased respiratory illnesses in the region. Diné CARE sued the EPA for not implementing regulations and penalties towards the Four Corners Generating Station, located on the Navajo Indian Reservation in New Mexico, display that the number one reason for admittance at the Shiprock Indian Hospital are respiratory complications.[6]

[edit]


[link to en.wikipedia.org]

This needs to be applied to chemtrails. We have to fight for the freedom to breathe clean air.

The legal system has a hard time denying the existence of power plant. . . .they can deny that chemtrails exist . . . However, they cannot deny jet exhausts exist. . . .

MIT study finds aircraft emissions at cruise altitude contribute to 8,000 premature deaths per year worldwide

[link to www.greenaironline.com]


(graphic: Christine Daniloff, MIT)
Fri 8 Oct 2010 – Findings from a new study show that around 8,000 premature deaths a year can be attributed to the effects of oxides of nitrogen and sulphur (NOx and SOx) emissions from aircraft at cruise altitude, reports Morgan Bettex. Most of these emissions are caused by aircraft over North America and Europe but prevailing winds take them eastwards, where they can form a deadly mix with ammonia released from farming. Nearly half the total premature deaths occur in India and China. Up till now, regulation has only applied to such emissions up to the 3,000-feet level, the take-off and landing cycle, but the researchers recommend that cruise emissions be explicitly considered in the development of policies, technologies and operational procedures designed to mitigate the air quality impacts of transportation. Similar emissions from shipping are believed to be responsible for around 60,000 premature deaths annually.

To study the effects of cruise emissions, Barrett used a computer model that combined data about plane trajectories, the amount of fuel burned during flights and the estimated emissions from those flights. He combined that with a global atmospheric model that accounts for air-circulation patterns in different parts of the globe and the effect of emissions to determine where aviation emissions might cause an increase in fine particulate matter. He then used data related to population density and risk of disease in different parts of the world to determine how the change in particulate matter over certain regions might affect people on the ground – specifically, whether the air pollutants would lead to an increased risk of death. 

Since it is done with planes a law to control the exhaust contents might help. That would work wouldn't it? Fines for planes not complying. Would that help? Seems like it.

Possibly, seems the regulations only apply to altitudes below 3,000 feet . . . Everything else is voluntary. . . .

"Up till now, regulation has only applied to such emissions up to the 3,000-feet level, the take-off and landing cycle, but the researchers recommend that cruise emissions be explicitly considered in the development of policies, technologies and operational procedures designed to mitigate the air quality impacts of transportation."
[link to www.greenaironline.com]

Last Edited by George B on 07/05/2012 09:08 AM

Wow! 8,000!!!???

How many premature deaths can be attributed to automobile use?!

I guess we need to ban all cars from the roads...huh?

Fucking idiot...

BTW..

Contribution and causation are two VERY different things...

Last Edited by Noble on 07/05/2012 10:01 AM

Evergreen International Airlines, based in McMinnville, Ore., currently operates 10 747s, including one 747-400 Freighter and nine 747-200 Freighters.

[link to boeing.mediaroom.com]

Payload for one flight . . . Around 250 Tons. . . .

Hmmmmm . . . Only 160 tons per flight are required to meet the nine aircraft requirement . . . Seems we may be able to do the trick with way fewer than nine aircraft. . . .
:C - Gun:

Last Edited by George B on 07/05/2012 12:13 PM

Seems in Canada . . . A 747 can easily cruise in the stratosphere. . . .

"The 747 has a service ceiling of flight level 430 or 43,000 feet. This is the highest altitude that the aircraft can attain and still keep a climb rate of 100 feet per minute. Most other airliners have a similar ceiling ranging from 40,000-45,000 feet. However, commercial aircraft do not typically cruise at their service ceiling as this is not always economical. 

In my experience flying the 747, the average cruising altitude is usually about 35,000 feet. When loaded with full fuel, passengers (or cargo in my case) it is very difficult and wastes a lot of fuel to climb to 40,000+ feet. Oftentimes, large airliners like the 747 will take off and climb to 35,000 and cruise for a few hours then climb to 38,000 or 39,000 feet. "

[link to www.answerbag.com]

So sue the Canadians.

It costs too much money and burns too much fuel to climb that high on a daily basis. Jets you see flying over your head are in the troposphere, no the stratosphere.

Let's do some math. . . .the cost of climbing to an extreme altitude is weight . . . so if I load my craft to only 160 tons instead of 250 tons of cargo the burn would far less. . . . And of course if I unload my cargo in flight my weight is even more reduced. . . .airliners usually frown on dumping their passengers and cargo in flight. . . . But I don't have that problem . .

Also, I don't need maximum fuel either. . . .wow!!!! . . . Even more cost effective. . . .how about that?????

Last Edited by George B on 07/05/2012 12:28 PM

Let's do some more math. . . I need a flight crew of four times nine . . . 36 total crew members. . . ground crew can be contracted at different airfields. . . .probably need another 30 or so people to load and clean the aircraft. . . .a few here or there to pick up and deliver industrial grade sulfur compounds. . . .the most common of all substances transported in the world. . . .

I would say I need about 100 people or so for the operation and another 50 for security. . . .

Total of 150 people and I can change the rate of climate change. . . .of course I need 1.5 Billion dollars as well. . . .

Last Edited by George B on 07/26/2012 11:13 AM

You're once again demonstrating your acute need for professional help, George.

Please focus on, and try to remain within, reality.

It costs fuel to carry fuel, but you see cargo and passengers are what pay for it, so leaving that shit on the ground just to be able to climb into the stratosphere to satiate YOUR INSANE NEED to make a worthless point is not practical for anyone in the real world.

You live in a fantasyland of your own creation.

Again, please seek professional help,soonest. I believe there are meds out there that can help, but they're not OTC.