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.

 

The United Nations Exposes Chemtrails: 100% PROOF We Are Being Poisoned

page: 7
44
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Yes it does. And there are a lot more emissions at ground level than we'll ever see at altitude.

You just deflected again…


Had my say.
edit on 22-3-2015 by intrptr because: bb code




posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

It's not a deflection. It's a fact. People are freaking out over a small amount of pollution that is miles over our head and ignoring much more pollution around us.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MALBOSIA

The RHI was almost to the point that a cloud would form. After the plane flew over, the RHI was pushed over the point that a cloud would form. If the RHI wasn't already close to that level the contrail wouldn't form.


Yes, you said that the first time. The plane causes the cloud. I don't understand why you cannot just say that.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: SyxPak
a reply to: payt69

You must have missed even clicking thisLINK PLUS NOT READING what was written on top of that page. THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT HUMIDITY IN THE AIR TO EVEN SUPPORT A CONTRAIL< OR TO LET ONE BE CREATED!!!!!! I am going to agree that we disagree. Live and let live. Someday when this crap smacks you right in the face, remember this Thread. Have a good one, Syx.

"And Remember, It's Just a Ride..."


I've seen that page, and all I can say is that I can't verify the accuracy of the dates on those pictures or the data in those charts. Is there any way we can still look up that data ourselves?

What I CAN do is see that the weather conditons over parts of Arizona seem favorable for contrail formation right now, so it's not that rare of an occasion for those circumstances to occur.

earth.nullschool.net.../wind/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=relative_humidity/orthographic=-118.33,42.44,1134



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MALBOSIA

More common, but almost identical.


But there IS a difference. What caused them.

It feels like a bit of a trick of vocabulary. There is no term or word in the English vocabulary to define the difference between an cirrus clouds and by-products of commercial airlines.

Admitting it exists but not giving it a name seems like the ultimate exercise ignorance.

This might help you on a long long road,

www.ipcc.ch...



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


I don't think they're really freaking out over the pollution from jet engines. It's just the straw that's getting clutched at to hang onto the chemtrail meme. If pollution was REALLY the problem in their minds they'd include all sources, certainly the closer and more perilous ones, as well as aviation sources and the discussion would be about carbon emissions and not about chemtrails at all.

IMO of course.

edit on 22-3-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: payt69

Points well understood and taken.
Time allowing, I will try to find some back up(s) to verify that data.
Perhaps You may do so Yourself? Then we might be able to sort this all out.
Or at least take a bite out of it, for varification, either way...

Later, Syx.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: SyxPak


I was just trying to do that also. There seems to be a mismatch (I'm no expert on the geography of Arizona tbh). There is a clear discrepancy between the data and the photos. Whether this is because the point is valid, or because deception is being deployed, I simply cannot say.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Well all I have to say is that planes leaves behind three forms of pollutions: emissions from combustion, persistent condensation formed by the jet engines and noise pollution.

We don't know how these artificially created clouds are affecting the planet. Not to mention if the emissions are caught in the ice crystals or some how stay with the cloud to fall back down on us.

The noise is not the focus of this thread, so I will not address it except for now.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos

Since I think it's an interesting subject, I've also started a thread about it on metabunk:

www.metabunk.org...

Mick West replies that the radiosondes used to collect such data often don't work below -40C/F, and even IF they did, it's just a snapshot of that point in the sky at that moment, and often more than 100 miles from where the contrails are.

So I have to wonder.. how many times did the creator of the chemtrail page check the weather conditions vs. the trails, how many times did they correspond, and did he only post pictures of the times when there seemed to be a discrepancy? That would be falsification of data.. It'd be great if we could see ALL the data to get a more complete picture of what's actually happening.

ETA: checking the chart for today's circumstances reveals that conditions would be good for contrails today over Flagstaff, with some 86% RH at 9975 meters

weather.uwyo.edu...

More data here: weather.uwyo.edu...
edit on 22-3-2015 by payt69 because: (no reason given)


And whaddayaknow.. Cirrus clouds and persisting contrails over flagstaff: www.wrh.noaa.gov...
edit on 22-3-2015 by payt69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Because at some point the cloud would have happened either way.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos

From You, " There is a clear discrepancy between the data and the photos." Yah, that is odd. So backing up this data will be very telling, IMO... Certainly can't hurt to get another angle on all this. Hopefully from a reputable source! Later, Syx.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
To have chemtrails would we not need chemicals too? If we are being poison it seems it would be quite easy to identify that poison by testing people, air, soil, water, plants... There are 100s of independent labs/schools that would love to prove something like this....

Can someone explain why there really isn't any chemicals so far?



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: payt69

So I have to wonder.. how many times did the creator of the chemtrail page check the weather conditions vs. the trails, how many times did they correspond, and did he only post pictures of the times when there seemed to be a discrepancy? That would be falsification of data.. It'd be great if we could see ALL the data to get a more complete picture of what's actually happening.



Why would chemicals have any visibility at all...just clear liquid...

When one looks at a contrail/chemtrail if it is not streaming downward it is water vapor, and if it grows it is water vapor. Chemicals are some heavy crap...they would be lines streaming down, well if they are visible at all.



edit on 22-3-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: payt69

I did wonder on this point. Plus the fact that the data was (if I've read it correctly) from noon and midnight while the photos are from various times, none of which seem to correspond with the data.

If the times and locations cannot be tied together, the claim is meaningless. However if they can........?

ETA, which all begs the question. IF the photos and data are completely genuine and accurate;

1 how have the trails formed at all if there is not enough moisture in the air?

2 if these are clouds of chemicals, how do they spread out and cover the sky whilst becoming thicker, rather than dissipating and vanishing as they thin out?

3 what volume of chemical spray would be required to achieve this effect and what type of aircraft are capable of flying thousands of miles hauling such a load?
edit on 22-3-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero


The other really big question I'd like to see addressed by someone who believes in this is, how do chemtrails spread into thick cloud cover if they are NOT just water ice from the atmosphere? What sort of chemical can multiply itself in that way?

I'm happy to debate the potential harm from contrails, but chemtrails defy logic.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
There he is took you enough pages to reply... get em ND...a reply to: network dude



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Obviously this article is debunkable because no evidence given for a stated 100% proof = debunked as far as whether contrails/Chem trails are effecting us still a debatable subject...👍👍👍



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

Wow! Now THAT was an awesome link! Thank you!!



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: gmoneystunt

Yet another "PROOF!" thread where no proof is actually offered, just more of the same conspiracy theorists offered as evidence.

You know, just because ten people all believe the same nonsense doesn't make it true - just look at religion.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join