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.

 

Proof that Geoengineeringwatch had been lying all along.

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: JohnTheSmith

No, the first claim was that there were additives in the fuel, coming out of the engines, and therefore that's why the trails appear to come out behind them.

Now the claim is the plane has spray nozzles on it's wing tips.

The goalpost has been moved.


edit on 20/7/15 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: JohnTheSmith
I'm going to regret even replying to this thread, as I have no interest or opinion in/of contrails/chemtrails AT ALL, but it seems to me the premise of your OP is that "A plane can only be rigged to spray 'chemtrails' in one fashion. Let me reiterate that before anyone tries to put words in my (beautiful) mouth.
Are you implying that if plane A is spraying from the vicinity of it's engine(s), then plane B could not possibly be rigged to spray from a different location?

If you can't be civil DO NOT REPLY.


Not at all. I am sure a plane could be rigged any number of ways. But for years and years, it has been noted that contrails, (the ones that persist) were chemtrails. You can see any number of photos and videos showing all the same thing. FOur engines, with four trails. Yet in this recent case, (which is kind of a rare occasion) we have a fuel dump that was made during an emergency, it was filmed, and since it looked like it was spraying, (it actually was, spraying jet fuel) it was latched on to as undeniable proof. I was only pointing out that if all the videos and pictures of the past were right, and those puffy lines coming from the engines were really chemtrails, then this new video, (being vastly different) cannot be proof of the same phenomenon.

If you feel differently, super. We can discuss it nicely and without ridicule.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Ohhh I see. Honestly I couldn't ascertain the premise of thread. (I did try I promise) I think you cleared it up quite nicely.

As a side note, I immediately knew from the picture it was indeed a fuel dump.

ETA: a reply to: Chadwickus

I see. I'm not familiar with the whole 'debate', and apparently that's why I wasn't able to understand the point being made.
edit on 7 20 2015 by JohnTheSmith because: ETA reply



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: mrthumpy


You seem to be trying hard to derail a thread showing that Geoengineering watch has been deliberately dishonest.

Both sides are dishonest.


LOL and yet only one side has repeatedly been caught out lying. Odd that


Both sides accuse the other of lying. The contrail side is accused of covering up (lying about) the mystery spraying.



Is this seriously how you debate? One side can prove the other is lying. The other can only make accusations,



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   
As a side note, that must have been exceptional circumstances for them to allow them to dump fuel over populated area and more inportantly, the guy filming should have gone back out in a few hours to show that nothing landed anywhere near him



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: JohnTheSmith

Yea, you would have to be involved in all this to know why it even matters to bring up another web site.
I just keep hoping that at some point, I will find a way to articulate why contrails being misidentified gets in the way of the very real discussion of Geo-engineering. I have yet to be very successful in that department.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
As a side note, that must have been exceptional circumstances for them to allow them to dump fuel over populated area and more inportantly, the guy filming should have gone back out in a few hours to show that nothing landed anywhere near him


During an in flight emergency, such as this one, the fuel dumping is secondary to ensuring the plane doesn't crash into populated areas, or even underpopulated areas, and turn into a fireball. The emergency protocol involves dumping fuel to a certain level to allow a safe landing.

In this filming instance, it also would have been nice to show how long the trail persisted in the air. (since it was low altitude, even the jet fuel would have dispersed quickly and become invisible after a few minutes.)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
As a side note, that must have been exceptional circumstances for them to allow them to dump fuel over populated area and more inportantly, the guy filming should have gone back out in a few hours to show that nothing landed anywhere near him


During an in flight emergency, such as this one, the fuel dumping is secondary to ensuring the plane doesn't crash into populated areas, or even underpopulated areas, and turn into a fireball. The emergency protocol involves dumping fuel to a certain level to allow a safe landing.

In this filming instance, it also would have been nice to show how long the trail persisted in the air. (since it was low altitude, even the jet fuel would have dispersed quickly and become invisible after a few minutes.)


Of course. Thats what i meant, that it must have been a serious emergency'. Nice photos in the article



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

If I was on that plane, any emergency would be considered "serious", at least by me.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

i dont think anyone claims that jet exhausts dont contain " chemicals "

but the chemtrail propnents just " chemicasls " as a loaded word .

now those of us who do not accept the chemtrail proponents claims accept that :

combustion of 1 ton of jet fuel results in :



do you agree or disagree with graphic ???

i accept that lubricant losses etc etc will add small amounts of other compounds to the exhaust

but in general that pic gives a true account of the exhaust composition - and that is chemicals - but its not what chemtrail proonents mean when they use the term

but the chemtrail propenents mike all manner of nonsensical claims of " chemicals " being sprayed - chemicals that CANNOT be in jet fuels



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

God point. But i know you know what i meant



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

sure, just clarifying.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape


i don't think anyone claims that jet exhausts don't contain " chemicals "
.
Every time the chemtrail crowd sounds off with mystery spraying, the contrail crowd says, "its only contrails".


do you agree or disagree with graphic ???

I use it every time the contrail crowds says, its only contrails.

Both sides combine to confuse people who look up and wonder what the hell happened to blue skies overhead. If they even bother to look, what they get is a ton of internet banter burying the truth they are looking for.

The end result of all that crap formed in their mind leaves them with the same unanswered questions.

WTH, what is it, how is it affecting the environment, and my health?

Every day new threads are started about it to that end, shoveling more pro vs. con S***, making bigger mountains of non information to throw people off, giving up in disgust.

I'm attacking this argument overall on the basis it is useless in scope and provides no solution to anything. If we put chem or con to sleep, then people can get about discovering what the real problems are and how to provide solutions.

But for now, its only whether the miasma at altitude are a manufactured mystery, or just a con.

By the way, I'm not that optimistic. Waaay to many people have been programmed beyond realizing the control the media has over their thoughts and opinions.

Same is true with 911 (two camps) and the war on terror (two camps). They've been molded by the constant stream of BS from both sides.

Seeing this is an alternative to the main stream news website, I was trying to show others the uselessness of the never ending arguing back and forth. Some people here start daily 'feeding' threads just to confuse others even more and keep the argument train rolling.

For real? Who isn't tired of one more chem or con trail thread calling out the other sides lies? The only ones not seemingly tired are the ones starting the threads, for or against.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

The dump occurred at 18,000 feet. They're cleared to dump just about anywhere over 10,000 depending on weather and the problem at hand. This appears to have been a relatively minor flap issue.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Could you link me to some of the threads you have started on this subject? It's obvious that you feel very strongly about it.

I guess I am a bit confused as to why your opinion only shows up in threads that try to show the chemtrail fantasy for what it is. I mean, if you truly are of the opinion you claim, then you would be just as vocal berating the chemtrail pushers with your anger correct? Unless of course you are here for a completely different reason. But your threads should clear that up rather quickly.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Never mind.
edit on 20-7-2015 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: network dude

Let me get this straight…

jet exhaust and fuel are not toxic?



originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Did we REALLY need proof that Geoengineeringwatch makes up stuff to push their conspiracy theory?


I thought we need proof that jet exhaust isn't harmful, just water.


I see you are still looking to start an argument over something NOBODY is saying.

Get a grip man.
edit on 20-7-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: network dude


make your own thread about air pollution. if you want to bring all your fears into this forum, to be on topic and not have your posts flagged, you will need to explain why your pollution has anything to do with contrails. (or chemtrails)

Yah, I get that pollution isn't allowed in the debate. But the 'debate' is about the chemicals (or not) in jet exhaust… isn't it?




NO IT ISN'T. It never has been.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
So there can only be one method to disperse substances into the air? Is that the premise of this thread? Not that I'm a believer, but...

Eta- nevermind, i see its been brought up...
edit on 7/20/2015 by 3n19m470 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470
So there can only be one method to disperse substances into the air? Is that the premise of this thread? Not that I'm a believer, but...


not at all. I am just pointing out a fatal flaw in the chemtrail reasoning as it has been sold over the years.
As we all know, if "they" wanted to poison us, they'd just put it in the water.

The thread premise is both videos cannot be proof of the same thing as they show and operate in two completely different ways. Crop dusting is still a reality too.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join