gunsmoke on 12/5/2011 at 23:53
But that's not the argument...the argument is whether or not some sort of chemical is being released for an as of yet unknown reason under the guise of 'ololol jets make clouds'.
CCCToad on 13/5/2011 at 00:00
And thats something there's know way of really knowing. Maybe you could float a balloon up to take a sample?
DDL on 13/5/2011 at 00:41
Yeah, but (no offense, gunny) that doesn't really change the fact that the argument is stupid.
I mean, jets already release chemicals: water vapour, carbon dioxide, small amounts of unburned fuel. And yes, these emissions and the conditions under which they're generated cause contrails, which under the right (fairly common) conditions, cause big contrails, and then clouds.
So, you need to come up with a very very good reason why anyone would tinker with a perfectly good jet engine to make it somehow inject mysterious chemicals into the atmosphere, not forgetting to account for the fact that stuff coming out the back of a jet engine is ASTOUNDINGLY hot, so a very high percentage of chemical agents would break down almost instantly. Of course you could tinker further with the engine to make it colder..but then it would be a shitty jet engine. And you're still left with (and this is a massive, massive point): WHY?
I could analogously argue that those bouncy superball things that smell oh-so-wrong are secretly infused with a CIA-engineered libido-repressing chemical that also causes cancer, but at no point would this argument be based on any evidence, justification, or common sense. It's just...tinfoil hattery, basically.
CCCToad on 13/5/2011 at 00:59
There's actually a pretty damn good reason that occurs to me. By now, the United States is not the only country with advanced satellite surveillance systems capable of monitoring even the smallest details, and making it virtually impossible to move sensitive materials between bases without those shipments being monitored.
However, clouds can defeat visual scanning. If those clouds were also infused with metals such as aluminum and barium, they would also do a decent job of blocking out both radar and some radiation outside the visual spectrum. In other words, they're the grand scale equivalent of a smoke grenade. Except that they block satellite surveillance instead of observation by the human eye. Its got some pretty practical applications. For example, we were able to use our satellites during the Cold War to track the usage of Soviet Submarines into and out of their docks. Using an artificial cloud would stop the Chinese from doing that to us. It would also impair some of the applications that high-altutde UAV's and surveillance craft have, which would greatly reduce the situational awareness of any enemy in a HIC fight.
gunsmoke on 13/5/2011 at 02:10
That's one theory. The 'chaff' theory, and honestly it is the most reasonable. Others being as wild as the government poisoning us with mind control chemicals!
And DDL, I don't take offence, I was simply stating something that I personally haven't taken a side in yet.
Rug Burn Junky on 13/5/2011 at 02:37
Quote Posted by gunsmoke
But that's not the argument...the argument is whether or not some sort of chemical is being released for an as of yet unknown reason under the guise of 'ololol jets make clouds'.
You forgot, "...and because the chinese government is batshit crazy enough to think they can control the weather by seeding the clouds, USian's who believe the government is spraying mind control chemicals AREN'T batshit crazy, because, ummm, stuff."
CCCToad on 13/5/2011 at 05:01
Quote Posted by gunsmoke
That's one theory. The 'chaff' theory, and honestly it is the most reasonable. Others being as wild as the government poisoning us with mind control chemicals!
.
The problem with mind control chemicals is that even the ones used in interrogation (a high, controlled dose) don't alter people's views on their own. They just make the victim more vulnerable to suggestion.
Besides, if you wanted to brainwash America it would be more effective to do it with Iphones.
Syndy/3 on 13/5/2011 at 10:47
I'm pretty sure that already happened.
CCCToad on 13/5/2011 at 15:36
exactly.
Sg3 on 14/5/2011 at 09:55
Um, television predates the Iphone by at least fifty years, I think.
