It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chemtrail pushers/believers: you should be ashamed of yourselves

page: 5
40
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014


Clearly you Dont follow things like you think you do. People have already done this.

shasta ca climate debate


And seriously? You're trying to put people in a guilt trip for what? Not breaking into high security airports in the mists of preppetural terrorist fear?.. Yea.. We should feel real stupid..




posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
The real conspiracy here is that JET FUEL IS USED ABOVE OUR HEADS. A nasty toxin is showering down upon everyone. Everyone wants to get all bent over Chem Trails but never stops to think about what actually is coming down on their heads like fuel. It's real, it is provable, and it is a threat to good health.



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Ah, but when I was a child in the 60's, contrails never lingered. Never.



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Had to jump back on. Sorry for my short, sleepy post last night. It was bed time.

Why "They couldn't keep it secret" is a red herring:

Military and intelligence agencies keep a lot of things secret. That's a big part of their job. The way this is achieved is through compartmentalization. Take the Manhattan Project for example, which was kept secret from the public (though not competing intelligence agencies). It was achieved because guy who made widget A didn't know what guy who made widget B was doing. He didn't have the whole picture. Very few would understand the full scope of the project. And those that did would be fully on board and no risk to secrecy. How do you think they got in that position on the first place?

The argument that they wouldn't do this because it may harm them as well is silly. This is the nature of war. Some risk to self is undertaken for the bigger agenda.

Now if one really wanted to blow the whistle and was actually in a position to do so, most wouldn't. When facing down the grim reaper almost all men buckle to the pressure. Even if you were able to get info out, thus jeopardizing yours and your whole family's life, it is doubtful that TPTB would not be able to marginalize and ridicule it. You would get no cover from MSM, who wouldn't even pay attention to it. (Recent vaccine revelations are a great example of this) So after all that risk, what would come of it? Even if it ended up being revealed in its full scope, well it was always for your own good anyway. They were just saving you from your killing of the planet called global warming. So why risk it. Just be a good little soldier and keep your head down.

As I said before. I am a long time farmer and outside all the time. This never used to happen in the skies above me. You cannot convince me with "experts" that what I am seeing is not happening.

Google "experts say" sometime for a good laugh. It's a fun game and different everyday. Leadership by scientific elite experts is a way to stop people from thinking for themselves.

Even if this is from airplane exhaust alone, don't you think the fact that the sun is being dimmed and we are being covered in cirrus clouds would have some impact on climate change and we would hear some discussion of it in the mainstream media? Yet it is never discussed except in obscure NASA papers which I believe to be an obvious cover. NASA, part of the military industrial complex, is not known for their candor.

Anyway, just a few more of my cents. Fun discussion and I look forward to more!



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ZzurvanN

Even if this is from airplane exhaust alone, don't you think the fact that the sun is being dimmed and we are being covered in cirrus clouds would have some impact on climate change and we would hear some discussion of it in the mainstream media?
Not really, there is a lot of science which the MSM ignores (when it doesn't get it completely wrong). The effect on climate, according to the studies which have been done, is if anything a very slight warming effect. Cirrus clouds have occurred since long before there were airplanes. Planes do add to the amount of them, but compared to the vast expanses of land and ocean which are not affected (where I live for example), not so much.

edit on 12/6/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Thanks for your excellent ideas. I have actually thought many of the same things as you. But I also have a family to support and have been told that it is important that I not get arrested or deliberately look at classified material. It doesn't bother me too much, since I already know most everything I need to know. But I cannot spend the time and money doing what you suggest and survive. Also, no matter how well I would prove things, it does not matter if people ignore or deny what I discover and officials do nothing, as has been the case lately with too many things.

I have in the past year been convinced that there is something real to this chemtrail issue, in particular due to one or more military whistleblowers who are being ignored or lost in the noise. I think it, like too many things, is too complicated to call it a conspiracy. Some of it are poorly controlled, non-secret weather modification attempts by localities, some of it are secret experiments by the military. I do not know whether any of it is being done by commercial passenger aircraft. Most of it is done by people who either have no regard to the possible effects of what they put in the air, or don't think it matters.

I have a degree in physics. That doesn't mean I understand everything, but I am not a scientifically illiterate dimwit. I also have lived and work in a gray area that makes it possible for me to know first hand how the targets of conspiracy theories actually work. I would like to point out to anyone who does not already know that the CIA officially uses the term "conspiracy theorist", along with the natural tendencies of people to deny inconvenient facts and ridicule others who try to make them see those facts, as a major and very effective way to keep secrets. It works well on intelligent people with egos.

edit on 6-12-2014 by sorgfelt because: grammar



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




The effect on climate, according to the studies which have been done, is if anything a very slight warming effect.


Please point me to these studies. It may not effect the area where you live in (where, I'm curious) but it definitely effects mine. Gray hazy skies in the middle of summer in northern California is abnormal Our climate is excellent for wine and cannabis growing because of our hot dry summers. It literally will not rain AT ALL for 6-8 months of the year, and very rarely will you see a single cloud in the blue sky. The decreased sunlight from planes must have some effect (it definitely does on the output of my solar panels) and I have never seen this addressed, so please, a link to these studies would be great.



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Ah, but when I was a child in the 60's, contrails never lingered. Never.


Using your logic, contrails/chemtrails don't exist, because where I live, I never see them.

But I know that's not true, just because I don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist, right?

Same goes for you, I can assure you.

They lingered in the 60's, as they did since the 40's.



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Ah, but when I was a child in the 60's, contrails never lingered. Never.


They did when I was a child in the 60's - they were new when Boeing 737's started flying in New Zealand in 1968 - the fist jets on domestic routes here. I lived in Christchurch - half way between Wellington and Dunedin - saw long sky-spanning contrails regularly - often they would still be there when the jet flew back in the opposite direction.



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
David keith on geo engeneering.


Did you try to comprehend what he ACTUALLY says - that these programmes are theoretical, etc??


theres no reason to try to debunk this anymore,


Certainly it is being talked about.


its being done. its not a secret.


See now this is where my problems start - the video yo have linked to does not say it is beign done - it says exactly the opposite - it is NOT being done.


the UN has recognized it,


The UN has certainly recognised that it COULD be done - I don't know where they have said that it is being done - can you back that up with some evidence please.


Russia has recognized it,



I don't know anything about this - can you elaborate.


we know how and why it is being done and by whom it is being done. david keith is as far as you gotta look.


So I look there and he says....er...nothing of the sort!!

You seem a little confused by "these programs are theoretical" - that means they are NOT being done - but the theory of how to do them does exist - I hope that helps clear up your misunderstanding.



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ZzurvanN
scholar.google.com...

As far as doing something about contrails? I think there are a couple of articles about that in there but what it gets down to is problems with predicting when and where persistent contrails will occur and diverting around those areas. Of course, planes could be forced to fly lower but that would burn a lot more fuel, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and making the real problem worse.

edit on 12/6/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 09:49 PM
link   
I don't have much experience with chem-trails so there is only so much I can say. However, it seems that the implication of chemical distribution seems to be tied to aviation fuel. I would doubt that very highly. Why couldn't the planes just be spraying something from a system separate from the fuel system? Many years ago I worked line service for a medium size airport. I know jet fuel. I know the smell of it and the feel of it. In fact most aviation fuels are meant to have distinct aromas so they can be identified in darkness. Various fuels have different octane, and therefore, different chemical properties. Not all fuels work in all airplanes. It is important to be able to tell them apart, not just by the color (av-gas is also color coded) but by the scent.

That having been said, there was one occasion when a jet flew overhead near my home with a very large and obvious chem-trail behind it. Within a few minutes there was particulate matter coming down. It was not jet fuel. It was not any kind of av-gas I have ever seen before. I don't know what it was.

I should also note that I work in R&D for a major military contractor and one of my division's key projects is bio-fuels. As such, I am constantly around various fuel, fuel components, etc. What came out of the sky that day was not like any fuel or fuel related chemical I have ever been in contact with. That doesn't necessarily mean it was something evil or dangerous. Just unknown to me. Make of that what you will.



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Many years ago I worked line service for a medium size airport.
Did you see any special "spraying" apparatus?


All commercial jet aircraft use one of two fuel types. There is no "octane" involved and jets can use either type with no ill effects. Basically, kerosene.

edit on 12/6/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




That having been said, there was one occasion when a jet flew overhead near my home with a very large and obvious chem-trail behind it. Within a few minutes there was particulate matter coming down.

Really? Particulate matter dispersed 6 miles overhead fell directly downward, through varying wind directions and speeds, and landed around you within a few minutes. Must have been some very heavy particles.

www.goes-r.gov...
edit on 12/6/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

And what led you to believe that it was six miles overhead? There are two major airports within a 30 minute drive from my home. Planes going over and much lower than six miles.
Because that is more or less where "chemtrails" form. The only thing I've seen produce trails at lower altitudes are crop dusters and aerobatic aircraft leaving smoke. Neither fits the definition of "chemtrail" and only one leaves something that falls to the ground.


Of all the stupid things posted on this site you chose that to nit-pick about?
It's not a nitpick at all. It calls into question the validity of your observation or your connecting it to "chemtrails." You stated unequivocally that you had been sprayed by a jet leaving a "large and obvious chem-trail", something that was not fuel.
edit on 12/6/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Jet A, Jet A-1, and Jet B, the most common jet fuels, are types of aviation kerosene. If you think people are putting the same kerosene you put in coleman lanterns in jet engines you are even more ignorant than I imagined.

There are four types of jet fuels being used today, not two. Jet A, Jet A-1, Jet B, and Bio-fuel. And no, not all jets can use the same fuel with no ill effects. Some are designed for cold weather applications, some require anti-biological additives to prevent clogging injector nozzles with biologic cultures which cause the fuel to become thick and syrupy in higher concentrations.

As for prayer nozzles...it could be as simple as an orifice on the underside of the nacelle.

Now let me ask you this: does the absence of proof forego the possibility of its existence?



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel




Now let me ask you this: does the absence of proof forego the possibility of its existence?


No. Does the lack of evidence for unicorns imply they exist?

The driving meme behind "chemtrails" is the notion that they persist and spread. This supposedly demonstrates that they are not contrails. The trouble is, the science, and history, shows that contrails persist and spread. In fact, it's difficult to figure out how "chemtrails" would behave the way contrails do. What physics would allow a "chemtrail" to spread out and cover the sky? Are the particulates magically reproducing themselves?

Ever seen a crop duster? Ever seen an aerobatic plane with smoke? How about an aerial fire fighter? Do the trails have the slightest resemblance to "chemtrails?"

edit on 12/6/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


(post by Vroomfondel removed for a manners violation)

posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

I asked does the absence of proof forego the possibility. Meaning - does a lack of proof mean it is impossible, or just not proven yet?
I answered you and asked a similar question in return.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join