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.

 

Aerial spraying video - or, why white lines in the sky are not chemtrails.

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22


I know this pic I took a few days ago isn't of "contrails".

I notice you didn't answer the poster who asked you earlier, so I'm going to ask again.

How do you know that?




posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bilk22




If I were a chemist I could probably do that for you. I also can't explain how the oil dispersion chemical works, if that's also important to you.

So, you have no idea how it happens. And you have no idea how a contrail can behave exactly as a "chemtrail" supposedly does.
You can't explain much then. Got it.
Nice strawman. I can't explain how planes can lay down a smoke screen that persists either or how the fire retardant works and probably quite a lot of things that happen in our world, but I know this pic I took a few days ago isn't of "contrails".



Nice picture.


What is a contrail and how does it form?


To answer this question, lets first identify what a contrail is. A contrail is the condensation trail that is left behind by a passing jet plane. Contrails form when hot humid air from jet exhaust mixes with environmental air of low vapor pressure and low temperature. Vapor pressure is just a fancy term for the amount of pressure that is exerted by water vapor itself (as opposed to atmospheric, or barometric, pressure which is due to the weight of the entire atmosphere above you). The mixing occurs directly behind the plane due to the turbulence generated by the engine. If condensation (conversion from a gas to a liquid) occurs, then a contrail becomes visible. Since air temperatures at these high atmospheric levels are very cold (generally colder than -40 F), only a small amount of liquid is necessary for condensation to occur. Water is a normal byproduct of combustion in engines.

www.wrh.noaa.gov...

The above explains what you are seeing there. Unless you have a reason to believe it's not. Is there anything incorrect in the above explanation?



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
categorically denying chemtrails is just as ignorant as seeing them in every white line across the sky.


Why? Is categorically denying pink unicorns ignorant? After they MAY exist somewhere, but there is no evidence that they do. No different from chemtrails IMO.

However, you are putting words in my mouth. I already stated that this thread is about understanding why the white lines in the sky are not chemtrails. It doesn't address the separate question of whether some form of chemtrails may exist and what evidence may exist for thinking they do. I haven't seen any evidence for that isn't faked or misrepresented, therefore I think the balance of probability is very strongly that they don't. If you disagree with that, it's OK.


I think there may be possible applications for high altitude chemtrailing the average person researching this topic isn't aware of.


And if that were the case, there'd still be no reason the believe in chemtrails, like I am not aware of any pink unicorns being seen. No harm in looking for them, just stop telling people you've proved they exist when all you've done is photoshopped a picture of a horse, if you get my drift.


if we want to believe in chemtrails, we'll find a reason to.


100% agree. And many do. But these reasons never stand up to scrutiny. Hence threads like this.


or not to, whichever the case may be for the individual. Personally, I'll keep an open mind on this topic. I do think there's more to learn about this than we know at present.


No, you're missing the point. When the evidence is wrong, when the claim is impossible (ie the points in the OP) then it is entirely reasonable to conclude that a contrail is not a chemtrail. Now, if one is being genuinely open minded one will form a conclusion from the evidence supplied, not keep looking for something that justifies clinging to a preconception. One may choose to think "right then, if that's not a chemtrail, what might one look like and how may it be created?" And that looks an entirely reasonable position. But if the start of Chemtrails, as a conspiracy theory, was the premise that they are long lasting white lines drawn across the sky that are sprayed from aircraft on a secret mission, and that they can be identified easily because contrails don't last more than a minute or so (and yes, it really was if you're old enough to remember) then that is patently false.

If the original premise is completely false, then trying to find something else to call a chemtrail or (the point of this thread) clinging to that original and very silly lie and pointing up at the sky at supposed chemtrails is a waste of time and utterly stupid.



Just my 2 cents, but this would have been a good OP if you had left out the condescending attitude in a few places. imho.


I'll give you that. It's definitely there. Even though I really tried.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Tucket

Thank you, but was a proof reader I needed, not a medical professional. The word "may" was left out of the sentence in error. But if someone thought a contrail seven miles up was a deadly spray aimed at them, would you think they may have issues too?



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: JuJuBee
OP: Have you dedicated your life to prove that "chemtrails" are actually "lingering persistent contrails" or is that what you do for a living?


Can you do that? Seriously? WOW, I think I'd enjoy that as I just do it on here as a hobby. Because I hate to see people being hoodwinked into being scared of clouds by liars and scammers. Do you have any details where I can apply?



Let it go, man. LET IT GO! You and the other 4 or 5 members that do the same thing. How many topics, of the same drivel, do you need to make, to continue proving yourselves WRONG????


What did I say that is wrong? Please try and be specific if you can



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Bilk22


I know this pic I took a few days ago isn't of "contrails".

I notice you didn't answer the poster who asked you earlier, so I'm going to ask again.

How do you know that?


Good catch. I was about to do the same. bilk22, your claim that you KNOW that the picture you posted isn't of contrails is exactly the sort of misinformed opinion that my first post is aimed at (no wonder you didn't like it)

So please answer the question, how do you know?



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22




Means and methods. Do you know what that terminology means? The OP used a fire retardant dump and you used the spraying of oil dispersion chemicals to make a false argument.


Well yes I do, but you seem to really miss the point of the OP, and my post...not surprising.



The DWH plane didn't spray fire retardant on the oil spill just as the plane addressing the fire didn't dump oil dispersion chemicals over the fire.


And I never said it did.

I was showing that aerial spraying( which this thread is about )will not produce the same white lines that are commonly mistaken for the elusive chemtrail.



Chemtrails are designed to be sprayed at altitude and obviously have a different structural as well as chemical composition to meet the intended purpose, just as aerial smoke screens are different from fire retardant and oil dispersion chemicals.


And who is designing these so called chemtrails?

First try showing anything scientifically verified that shows they exist...then you can discuss their chemical make up.

And what is your point about smoke screens as this is about aerial spraying...whether it be fire fighting, or spraying oil in the gulf they are both considered aerial sprayers, so why is it you think I am trying to compare it to the OP when I am not?



Nice fallacious argument you and the OP attempted though.


Raally , because if you remember correctly this thread is indeed about aerial spraying...which he showed in the form of a fire fighting tanker...and I showed one spraying in the Gulf of Mexico, so where is the fallacy?



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax




How do you know that?


Take your pick.

Just look up.

I saw a you tube video that says they are.

I just know.

Those seem to be the easiest explanations from those who believe chemtrails exist.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
It's very easy to dismiss a point as "fallacious" or say it is wrong, it's much harder to attempt to explain why it is wrong or what the correct point would be. That's why that's all you ever get in response, but we keep trying.

It must be extremely obvious to the genuinely curious people who may drop by here which explanation is given in detail and backed up with factual info and links and which side "just knows".



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   
And I promised myself I would stop reading chemtrail threads!


Can I suggest to all chemtrail adherents that if they see a plane making what they consider to be a deliberate chemtrail that they look at this site immediately:

www.flightradar24.com...

Just click on the plane you think is the culprit and it will tell you the airline name and call-sign of the suspected poisoner.

You can then call the airlines and ask them to explain themselves.

Good luck with that!



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: PheonixReborn



You can then call the airlines and ask them to explain themselves.


I would love to hear that call.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

You obviously have no clue what means and methods refers to or you wouldn't have said your post and the OP represented the same thing. Neither are interchangeable and represent two very different methods. The only thing similar between the two is the use of a plane to dispense material.

The fire retardant and the chemical used to disperse the oil slick are obviously different chemicals with different properties and require different means of addressing a need. The same goes for chemtrails. Certainly they are designed to be dispensed at a much higher altitude than the other two and certainly they're designed on a different molecular level so they can remain suspended for a longer period of time.

Their purpose? I cannot say. Maybe it's benevolent. Maybe they're trying to alter the effects of global warming. I never claimed to know their intended purpose, but I've been around the block long enough to recognized something that isn't what it's purported to be.

Have a good night and breath deeply for it's only CO2 they're ejecting from the rear end of those high flying planes.

edit on 01217Sundayk22 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

Ah, so you're still on the thread.

Would you please answer the question: how do you know the trails in your pictures are not ordinary contrails?

Your refusal to answer suggests strongly that you don't know anything of the kind.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

So, are you ever going to tell us just how you know when a contrail is not a contrail,or why your picture that you posted is not a contrail?

Also, the first point of my OP, that they aren't aimed at anyone specifically, doesn't appear to be what you are arguing with, and I've never seen you claim that they are.

However the second point stands. The spray planes I showed in that video ran out of material in seconds. It's got nothing to do with what they are carrying it for, it's the volume and mass of material that matters. Please explain how a chemtrail plane can carry thousands of times more payload than a firebomber can, or a chemical can be sprayed in tiny amounts over a vast distance and replicate itself out of nothing to create a thick visible plume wider than the planes wing span. If those lines are really chemtrails, one of these two things has to happen. If you can't, please still answer the first question as you are very certain on this point.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 04:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22




You obviously have no clue what means and methods refers to or you wouldn't have said your post and the OP represented the same thing.


Yes they do it's called aerial spraying...what isn't clear about that?

Isn't this thread about aerial spraying?



The fire retardant and the chemical used to disperse the oil slick are obviously different chemicals with different properties and require different means of addressing a need. The same goes for chemtrails. Certainly they are designed to be dispensed at a much higher altitude than the other two and certainly they're designed on a different molecular level so they can remain suspended for a longer period of time.


Can you provide what the chemtrail is made up of and who is producing the chemicals?

Certainly you should prove chemtrails actually exist before you say they designed to do anything...can you do that?




Their purpose? I cannot say. Maybe it's benevolent. Maybe they're trying to alter the effects of global warming. I never claimed to know their intended purpose, but I've been around the block long enough to recognized something that isn't what it's purported to be.


Or maybe they aren't real and what your seeing is...wait for it...contrails.

So they aren't normal yet they have been since they were first seen in the early 1900's, but since you have been around the block you know more than those who study them for a living...maybe you should leave your block and see what is in the real world, and chemtrails aren't in the real world.



Have a good night and breath deeply for it's only CO2 they're ejecting from the rear end of those high flying planes.


Imagine that CO2 coming from a plane 35000 ft above my head is going to cause me not to sleep...what about those things closer to the ground that release CO2 such as these...


The main human activity that emits CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) for energy and transportation, although certain industrial processes and land-use changes also emit CO2. The main sources of CO2 emissions in the United States are described below.

Electricity. Electricity is a significant source of energy in the United States and is used to power homes, business, and industry. The combustion of fossil fuels to generate electricity is the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the nation, accounting for about 37% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 31% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2013. The type of fossil fuel used to generate electricity will emit different amounts of CO2. To produce a given amount of electricity, burning coal will produce more CO2 than oil or natural gas.
Transportation. The combustion of fossil fuels such as gasoline and diesel to transport people and goods is the second largest source of CO2 emissions, accounting for about 31% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 26% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2013. This category includes transportation sources such as highway vehicles, air travel, marine transportation, and rail.
Industry. Many industrial processes emit CO2 through fossil fuel combustion. Several processes also produce CO2 emissions through chemical reactions that do not involve combustion, for example, the production and consumption of mineral products such as cement, the production of metals such as iron and steel, and the production of chemicals. Fossil fuel combustion from various industrial processes accounted for about 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 12% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2013. Note that many industrial processes also use electricity and therefore indirectly cause the emissions from the electricity production.


www.epa.gov...

Yep a plane is my biggest concern for CO2.


(post by Bilk22 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

Hi, there. I'm glad to see you're still on the thread.

You don't really know that the picture you posted is anything but a contrail, do you?

You've been asked at least four times. How come you haven't answered?

If you're so sure of it, surely the answer is easy?

If chemicals are being sprayed from aircraft and you can identify the spray, shouldn't you be sharing that information with the world? You would be a great hero and benefactor of mankind. Your name would go down beside that of Julian Assange and other famous whistleblowers.

Besides, the sooner and more widely you share your knowledge, the less the danger of being silenced by those who want to keep the 'chemtrail conspiracy' a secret.

If you know, there are compelling reasons to tell what you know. I can't see any reason to hold back.

But you refuse to answer.

You refuse even to acknowledge the question.

To me that says just one thing:

You. Don't. Know.

But you said you did.

What does that make you?



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Bilk22

Hi, there. I'm glad to see you're still on the thread.

You don't really know that the picture you posted is anything but a contrail, do you?

You've been asked at least four times. How come you haven't answered?

If you're so sure of it, surely the answer is easy?

If chemicals are being sprayed from aircraft and you can identify the spray, shouldn't you be sharing that information with the world? You would be a great hero and benefactor of mankind. Your name would go down beside that of Julian Assange and other famous whistleblowers.

Besides, the sooner and more widely you share your knowledge, the less the danger of being silenced by those who want to keep the 'chemtrail conspiracy' a secret.

If you know, there are compelling reasons to tell what you know. I can't see any reason to hold back.

But you refuse to answer.

You refuse even to acknowledge the question.

To me that says just one thing:

You. Don't. Know.

But you said you did.

What does that make you?
You don't know or have any proof that any emmissions from any aircraft you see are not chemtrails. You don't know with any certainty they are just mere CO2 emissions. You are going on the same information that the rest of us are. So back at you. You believe everything you're told by authority? The governments have done things without our knowledge or consent and that is indeed irrefutable. Try to deny that. Have a nice day.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22


You don't know or have any proof that any emmissions from any aircraft you see are not chemtrails. You don't know with any certainty they are just mere CO2 emissions. You are going on the same information that the rest of us are. So back at you. You believe everything you're told by authority? The governments have done things without our knowledge or consent and that is indeed irrefutable. Try to deny that. Have a nice day.

I have said nothing about CO2 emissions. In fact, I have made no claims at all.

I merely asked you a question. I asked you to explain why you said you know the photos you posted were not ordinary contrails. You obviously have no explanation, which means you were making a nonsensical, false claim. Which everybody knew from the start anyway.

'Bye till next thread!



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join