No chemtrails neccessary.

Oct 2014
29,419
5,062
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
#91
The documentation doesn't necessarily mean the programs exist. LOTS of projects were planned - but never made it past the drawing board stage. Consider, for example, that the U.S. has detailed plans to invade Canada.

Why? Because the U.S. has detailed contingency plans to invade pretty much every country. These plans are shelved away, but if Canada gets taken over by some foreign entity, and the U.S. moves to invade, we have a preliminary plan already drafted.

So the existence of documentation does not necessarily mean that the corresponding project ever got past the earliest planning stages.
Lmao... Clearly didn't read even one of the links.
 

StanStill

Former Staff
Dec 2013
12,276
13,447
Work
#93
You hear that...

"Did not read" followed immediately with "here's what you got wrong with the contents" (the contents that was admitted as unread.

THIS IS WHAT COUNTS AS LOGIC AROUND HERE.

"I did not read your source, but you are wrong because I said so."
If you refuse to read it (I did, it’s not that long), try the abstract. It’s the first paragraph. It explains in full detail that the paper is a study to calculate what it would cost to amend the atmosphere to slow global warming. Have a look:

Abstract
We review the capabilities and costs of various lofting methods intended to deliver sulfates into the lower stratosphere. We lay out a future solar geoengineering deployment scenario of halving the increase in anthropogenic radiative forcing beginning 15 years hence, by deploying material to altitudes as high as ∼20 km. After surveying an exhaustive list of potential deployment techniques, we settle upon an aircraft-based delivery system. Unlike the one prior comprehensive study on the topic (McClellan et al 2012 Environ. Res. Lett. 7 034019), we conclude that no existing aircraft design—even with extensive modifications—can reasonably fulfill this mission. However, we also conclude that developing a new, purpose-built high-altitude tanker with substantial payload capabilities would neither be technologically difficult nor prohibitively expensive. We calculate early-year costs of ∼$1500 ton−1 of material deployed, resulting in average costs of ∼$2.25 billion yr−1 over the first 15 years of deployment. We further calculate the number of flights at ∼4000 in year one, linearly increasing by ∼4000 yr−1. We conclude by arguing that, while cheap, such an aircraft-based program would unlikely be a secret, given the need for thousands of flights annually by airliner-sized aircraft operating from an international array of bases.​
ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION
19 October 2018
PUBLISHED
23 November 2018
Original content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence.

So what in this convinces you that this program already exists?
 
Oct 2014
29,419
5,062
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
#94
If you refuse to read it (I did, it’s not that long), try the abstract. It’s the first paragraph. It explains in full detail that the paper is a study to calculate what it would cost to amend the atmosphere to slow global warming. Have a look:

Abstract
We review the capabilities and costs of various lofting methods intended to deliver sulfates into the lower stratosphere. We lay out a future solar geoengineering deployment scenario of halving the increase in anthropogenic radiative forcing beginning 15 years hence, by deploying material to altitudes as high as ∼20 km. After surveying an exhaustive list of potential deployment techniques, we settle upon an aircraft-based delivery system. Unlike the one prior comprehensive study on the topic (McClellan et al 2012 Environ. Res. Lett. 7 034019), we conclude that no existing aircraft design—even with extensive modifications—can reasonably fulfill this mission. However, we also conclude that developing a new, purpose-built high-altitude tanker with substantial payload capabilities would neither be technologically difficult nor prohibitively expensive. We calculate early-year costs of ∼$1500 ton−1 of material deployed, resulting in average costs of ∼$2.25 billion yr−1 over the first 15 years of deployment. We further calculate the number of flights at ∼4000 in year one, linearly increasing by ∼4000 yr−1. We conclude by arguing that, while cheap, such an aircraft-based program would unlikely be a secret, given the need for thousands of flights annually by airliner-sized aircraft operating from an international array of bases.​
ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION
19 October 2018
PUBLISHED
23 November 2018
Original content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence.

So what in this convinces you that this program already exists?
Congrats, the first one to have read one of the links.
 
Dec 2015
14,978
10,621
SoCal
#96
The systems you are describing would be readily visibile and discernible on an aircraft. There's no place to hide such large device.
Imagine how many people it would take to participate in such a conspiracy, thousands if not more.

Problem is, it takes two to create a conspiracy, and every person added doubles the chance the conspiracy will be exposed.

That's why I keep my personal conspiracies to one, like my current conspiracy-of-one engineered solely to make conspiracy theorists look stupid.
 
Dec 2014
13,183
10,648
NWOHQ
#98
The links was only sufficient to show that these programs do exist.
None of which, as I have continuously stated have been connected to chemtrails.

The existence of programmes that may have or may have not been implemented does not prove that chemicals exist in the chemtrail format, as described by you earlier in the thread, or by the OP, or by the CT fraternity that has been claiming the NWO are poisoning us from the sky.

Therefore, the whole exercise has been one gigantic non-sequitur.
 
Last edited:
Likes: BitterPill
Dec 2015
14,978
10,621
SoCal
Imagine how many people it would take to participate in such a conspiracy, thousands if not more.

Problem is, it takes two to create a conspiracy, and every person added doubles the chance the conspiracy will be exposed.

That's why I keep my personal conspiracies to one, like my current conspiracy-of-one engineered solely to make conspiracy theorists look stupid.
Dammit!

I just realized I exposed my conspiracy-of-one.
 

Similar Discussions