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.

 

Aluminum & Bees - Further Evidence

page: 8
18
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   
So there is me here and all of you jumping up and down on what you perceive as my lifeless carcass. Well it is not lifeless, and apparently there are none others here to consider my view, so what exactly is the point? Fee free to be constructive.




posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 04:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: waynos

Well first of all I am not willing to accept a comparison with the rotary aircraft engines of WWII and modern jet aircraft, though your work was well done.


I don't know why not? I don't know why you think that burning fossil fuel in a reciprocating engine is somehow chemically different to burning it in a turbine? It's the engineering that is different, not the chemistry.


However you do go on to say that you are not attempting to say it is all harmless, so I would have to say at this point that we have overcome our primitive human emotions and are discussing this on an intellectual basis, which is absolutely great. Thank you.


Yes, it is far better to do that. We can still disagree without being twats about it 👍👍


When I refer to the fact that the skies and trails are different than they were in the past I am referring to the 70's and 80's and 90's.


Yes, I referred to WW2 contrails merely to show their existence. The first jetliners appeared in 1949 (DH Comet and Avro C102). I specifically included the airliner census from 1980 to show the growth of air traffic and shift in engine types since that time, so your point is already covered in my post.


This has allowed me to spend a lot of time looking upward and noticing the sky and to my recollection, these things have only come onto the scene recently.


Yes, quite so, I have been studying aviation for over 40 years and basically lived the growth in air traffic and changeover to newer more efficient engine types that resulted in more and more visible contrails. I'm also an amateur photographer with a special interest in Aviation (the last photo in my post is one of my own) so am perfectly happy that I know what I'm looking at, and it's exactly what I would expect to see. I've also made special trips when I know conditions are right for me to capture some contrail activity at low level. That's why I'm comfortable that I know my subject. Here are three examples of shots i knew i'd get because i knew the conditions were right;






These are transient aerodynamic contrails and the A330 is the only one that is actually trailing, but the causation principles of moisture and pressure apply in exactly the same way, maybe we could discuss that specifically if you wish?


You will probably never convince me other than I believe on this subject, but that should not mean that we cannot exist in peace despite this fact.


That's probably true, but we should never be convinced by something that someone online told us anyway, that's why Facebook is such a mess, lol. I only hope to give you some wider perspective that you may take into further research. Your conclusions must always remain your own.

If someone tells you about something that you didn't know existed, you need a reason to believe what they are telling you. I came to this place because I'd heard mention of "chemtrails" among friends online (but never once in 40 years in aviation circles you'll notice) but didn't know anything about them and wanted to learn. When I saw them, I thought they looked exactly like contrails, which I already know about. So, I thought, what are they and how can we tell when we see them? People like Dane Wigington and sites like geoengineeringwatch told me that any persisting trails must be a chemtrail because contrails cannot persist, I know that's a lie. They told me that X and grid patterns in the sky are a sign of a government spraying operation, but I've known for decades that it's just commercial air routes intersecting and it seemed very bizarre to me that anyone would fall for those lines. Moving on in my research I found that rense showed me a photo of a chemtrail pod on a spray plane that I immediately recognised as a Cobham Mk10 hose drum unit on a French Air Force KC-135 tanker, another lie. Then they splashed a big expose where they showed actual photographs of an actual chemtrail plane interior with all the tanks lined up. I recognised this to be the water ballast test set up of a commercial airliner and a quick bit of research showed it was a photograph of the test rig inside the 777-300 prototype. Do you see a pattern here? A that's why people react when you cite these "sources" in your posts to support your argument as happened a while back in the thread. Its not provable that something like chemtrails don't exist, my position is based on the fact that I'm still waiting to see, not proof, but simply evidence, that is actually what those sites say it is. When I know the protagonists actively pushing the chemtrail meme have consistently lied about their reasoning and evidence for the whole of the 20 years this has been going, i'd be an idiot to just believe them, wouldn't I? For someone else, without that background and experience, it may well appear more credible, but thats not me.
edit on 13-6-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 04:38 AM
link   
I'd also like to pick this up from a reply you posted to zap;


Well with all due respect, I would argue that if they were actually more efficient, they would create less byproducts


They do. Look again at the cutaway image in my other post of a trent engine. I already touched on this a little, but you may not have grasped the significance. Turbojet engines could not be allowed to get much bigger and more powerful than they were in the early 1960's the sheer amount of fuel needed would make flying unaffordable and the noise created intolerable. Fuel prices went through the roof in the 70's and environmental groups were giving the airlines all sorts of headaches, which between them drove the development of the quiet, efficient turbofan for all classes of aircraft.
Aircraft like the 707, Trident etc were incredibly thirsty and noisy. 90 per cent of the air that goes through a Trent and comparable engines goes around the outside of the combustion core and contains no byproducts at all, thrust is derived from the big fan acting like a ducted propeller, the other 10% is what contains any byproducts, compared with 100% of the exhaust of a Spey or JT8D as fitted to those earlier types.

This is why there are more trails, the cooler exhaust freezes more quickly, and the pressurised air from the fan is immediately depressurised behind the engine releasing its own water vapour. The contrail is not pollution, it is water ice. Although far from perfect, the modern turbofan is the most fuel efficient form of combustion engine in existence. It has to be. The witch hunt that exists over aircraft trails is as ignorant and uninformed as the real witch hunts of the 18th century were, especially with so many ground sources for pollution running rampant.
edit on 13-6-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Good morning good buddies, I see you have been quite busy already, good work. Remember that old saying "if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck" or something like that? Well for what you guys call a real non issue, there sure are a heck of a lot of people, events and legal actions going on to simply just blow the whole thing off.

stopsprayingcalifornia.com...

chemtrailsplanet.net...

www.globalmarchagainstchemtrailsandgeoengineering.com...

Yes, yes I understand they are all liars and thieves, and You Tube is disinformation and the whole nine yards, but the fact is that this issue is not going to go away. Of course the people responsible will never admit anything nor would I expect them to but after all, this is a Conspiracy Site, and this IS the Chemtrail/Geoengineering Forum so all is as it should be and around and around we shall go. On the bright side, it beats the heck out of network TV doesn't it?




posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 05:14 AM
link   
a reply to: BennyHavensOh

Wow, way to slap a broad brush and twist what skeptics say. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true though.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Indeed, like how many still believe that we believed that the world was flat until Columbus "proved" it.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: BennyHavensOh

How disappointing. In your previous post you bemoaned the brief curt responses you'd had and asked for something constructive. I have raised specific points of discussion that directly address your earlier question "why so many trails now but not before?" In a constructive way inviting deeper discussion about the nature of the trails you see in the sky and you simply run away and respond with that? I guess you don't want to think about the chemistry or logistics involved, you just want to believe that "thems chemtrailing us!!!! Instead you appear to be saying that, if somebody made a website it must be real. Never mind the science, someone who knows # all making a claim on the Internet trumps that.

From your link;



April 21, 2015

I have seen them and been aware of them since 1997. From the mountains of Malibu, California, at 8:00 am on Friday, November 18, 2005, I watched jets in the skies over Ventura and Los Angles Counties streaking the skies with chemtrails.


How did he know what he was watching? How is he defining chemtrails vs contrails? Can anyone credibly claim to make this distinction with nothing but their eyes? He goes on explain;




When we see a cloudy tail following a jet streaking the sky and that tail dissolves within minutes, that is a contrail. Contrails form above 33,000 feet when hot engine exhaust momentarily condenses ice crystals into pencil-thin vapor trails that quickly vanish behind a jet. However, chemtrails, looking initially look like contrails, are thicker, remain extended across the sky and are sprayed in varying patterns: x’s, tic-tack-toe grids, cross-hatch and parallel lines. Instead of quickly dissipating, chemtrails expand.


Exactly. The same garbage I mentioned in my last post. You believe this?

.

edit on 13-6-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

I nearly corrected you, til I realised what you actually said. 👍



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 05:55 AM
link   
a reply to: waynos

I had to recheck what I wrote a couple of times to make sure what I said made sense.

I think it does?



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: BennyHavensOh

very glad you cited that link - as it contains the " expert " ooops sorry IDIOT testimonies to the shasta county board

where-in on idiot specifically brought up his ignorance of aluminium toxicity and the need for aluminum tolerant seeds

so is he actually just an idiot - who is clearly termanimlly clueless ??

or a lying hoaxer - who has been educated on aluminium toxicity and tolerant seeds previously in his many encounters with skeptics - but chooses to continue the lie ???

which is it ??????????????/



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

Yes it does. 👍

BennyHavensOh, a question or two for you (though Lord knows you've ignored all my other ones, but here goes anyway)

Why must a contrail dissipate quickly and what prevents it from persisting and spreading?

If a contrail of water ice crystals must dissipate quickly, why does this rule not apply to cirrus clouds?

If a spreading trail is NOT a result of nucleation and freezing of the water vapour already in the air, what chemical or substance in a chemtrail (or just simply in existence) can spread out from a single line to cover the entire sky without thinning out to the point of becoming invisible?

All fairly basic stuff for your average clued up chemtrail expert I should imagine.

edit on 13-6-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Listen guys, I actually respect you all as well as your right to your opinions, even though they are diametrically opposed to mine and always will be. Please understand that if I do not answer any of the "questions" you put to me, it is not out of disrespect, it is just that I have been at this long enough to know exactly what the replies will be if I do, so why bother. All this banter back and forth has really paid dividends in the amount of information that I have been able to dig up on the subject and share with others in face to face situations where there are no debunkers to interrupt. You have all been extremely helpful in motivating both myself and those around me to push this movement towards the goal of the truth and I am deeply indebted to you all for your tenacious defense of your particular stories. Thank you.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: BennyHavensOh




Well first of all I am not willing to accept a comparison with the rotary aircraft engines of WWII and modern jet aircraft, though your work was well done.


Why do they both not burn fuel and fly where the atmosphere is right for them to form contrails?



When I refer to the fact that the skies and trails are different than they were in the past I am referring to the 70's and 80's and 90's.


Here you go...

contrailscience.com...



I played a lot of baseball as an outfielder and have always ridden a motorcycle as my primary form of transportation.


Two things that really don't give you alot of time to look up, but just because you didn't see them...doesn't mean they didn't happen...because they did.
edit on 13-6-2015 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: BennyHavensOh




it is just that I have been at this long enough to know exactly what the replies will be if I do, so why bother.


Great question...could have saved a lot of time had you asked yourself that question before starting this thread.


The problem here is your posting links to what most of us who discuss this topic already know what they do and what they say, especially with one Dane Wigington and his site geoengineeringwatch .crap...I mean org.

So unless you have proof that doesn't come from the pusher's of this conspiracy...you have nothing that indicates proof of what they think is happening.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: BennyHavensOh

It's your absolute right to believe what you want and to choose whether or not to debate your belief. But there is no reason at all for those with opposing views not to debate them.

I felt you may have been out of your comfort zone discussing the points I raised earlier, so those last questions were deliberately about the basic points from a link you yourself introduced to the thread. That you refuse to even engage on those points kind of illustrates the walled garden chemtrail believers often create for themselves. Why is questioning the basics so bad? Why must lies NOT be addressed and acknowledged? You cannot presume to know what my answers will be to something you haven't even written.

It is not the skeptics who have closed minds and have self imposed limits on their ability to think critically. If someone is ever going to expose chemtrails as a truth, then the hard questions must be addressed, otherwise all you have is wilful self delusion.
I may save this thread as an example of someone who believes chemtrails are real and posing questions to which they are sure there is no rational answer that contradicts their belief, getting that answer and not much liking it. Most interesting.
edit on 13-6-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus




Indeed, like how many still believe that we believed that the world was flat until Columbus "proved" it.


Not if you ask some members on here...



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000hyup - we have a new bathch of " flat earthers " - same old arguments



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Here you go boys, have at it:

www.facebook.com...

Go get 'em I'm no fun anymore, but there are countless victims to be had there I betcha!



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Listen guys, I actually respect you all as well as your right to your opinions, even though they are diametrically opposed to mine and always will be.


Well at least you're admitting that there's nothing that will change your mind. I guess you're a true believer then. In essence, 'chemtrails' is like a religion to you, and has nothing to do with evidence.


All this banter back and forth has really paid dividends in the amount of information that I have been able to dig up on the subject and share with others in face to face situations where there are no debunkers to interrupt.


What's wrong with debunkers? I guess you like bunk? Apparently, people asking questions about your beliefs are just a nuisance, interrupting you from erh.. propagating your beliefs?

Anyway, it's been interesting reading your replies too.. very insightful in understanding the mindset of a chemtrail believer.
edit on 6201513 by payt69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
Here you go boys, have at it:

www.facebook.com...

Go get 'em I'm no fun anymore, but there are countless victims to be had there I betcha!


Well thanks for that, but posting as a skeptic on sites like that results in comments being deleted in no-time. Chemmies don't like difficult questions and prefer an environment where their beliefs can fester without interruption, which seems to be a sentiment you've expressed in your own replies over here as well.
edit on 6201513 by payt69 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join