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.

 

Lets settle contrails vs nano dispersion

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Ok there is a hypothesis the skys are bieng sprayed with nano particles. (reasons why do not matter for this topic) the experiments are done and proven to be theory.(hypothetical) I would like to know where contrails ever has a place on the topic of aerosol spraying? It is apples and oranges. two seperatre things. So instead of trying to prove its existence (nano dispersion) Lets disprove it.. Sounds simple enough using scientific method. I only ask this becuase coming back to this topic after 7 years all the data to nano dispersion programs has disappeared. Plus the fact there is no legal obligation by scientists or news to tell the truth. All the data today seems to be faction little fact with fiction. All the hegelian dialectic, discordia tatics just confuses most of us.. From chaos comes order. Lets bring some order to this topic. Thanks
edit on 17-9-2015 by 2giveup because: (no reason given)


Www. Usasymposium. Com/nano/cfa.php sort of explains why you cant find proof its a secret.
edit on 17-9-2015 by 2giveup because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: 2giveup
So instead of trying to prove its existence (nano dispersion) Lets disprove it. Sounds simple enough using scientific method.


First how about you show us all how to prove a negative, using the "scientific method"!


All the data today seems to be faction little fact with fiction.


There is no data on chemtrails... as they do not exist!
edit on 17-9-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 01:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: 2giveup
I would like to know where contrails ever has a place on the topic of aerosol spraying? It is apples and oranges. two seperatre things.


Exactly, a really good friend of mine is a hardcore chemtrail believer. When he says look up they are spraying us, I'm like, well it's still up there so I'd say we are fine.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 01:29 AM
link   
I knew someone would pick this apart. Guess you missed the point. I want someone to disprove it and specifically asked for it to be disproven, i will edit post to say hypothetically.. Lol thanks.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: 2giveup

Easy the same way i hypothetically) proved it. If we could just get a few people to test the air after heavy persistant lines in the sky. Should prove or disprove this topic. Right?



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: 2giveup




Ok there is a hypothesis the skys are bieng sprayed with nano particles. (reasons why do not matter for this topic) the experiments are done and proven to be theory.(hypothetical)


So is your point that we should argue from the point that the sky is being sprayed with nano particles?
Based on nothing but some hypothetical?



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 02:08 AM
link   
For what it's worth.
I used to carry a telescope to read electric meters.
I saw two planes, big ones, with plain aluminum skin, flying in opposite directions, spraying something from their tails. This was not contrails from the jet engines.
This was over Houston, TX in the mid nineties.
Make of it what you will.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Here's some rather interesting and compelling information on the subject:
www.veteranstruthnetwork.com... =1



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: 2giveup
...no legal obligation by scientists or news to tell the truth.


Didn't this come out due to a milk documentary? The crew were all fired for refusing to lie and when they brought an unfair dismissal case the judge told them the job was to tell the story they were instructed to tell, not the truth.

A journalist I know had a similar experience. After driving almost 450 miles she found the story didn't exist. She phoned the editor who told her, "I sent you to get a story on ............. Get the story or you're out of a job!" She invented the story.

What are the chances of the media talking about the difference between the amount of light reaching the ground during a period of commercial jet grounding and the amount of light available when jet smog clogs the sky? What about the enormous improvement in general mental health experienced by whole populations when the distant roar of jet engines is absent for several days? There are clear indications of the immense harm caused by commercial jet traffic, spraying or not.

If you haven't flown, don't. It's an addictive and very harmful drug. Once a couple of jet flights have been taken the temptation to endlessly repeat the experience seems almost irresistible judging by the antisocial activities of the airborne addicts.
edit on 17 9 2015 by Kester because: change word



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 03:29 AM
link   
to me the issue is simple: when has science and big government NOT used a technology available to them? People who beg for proof are missing the bigger picture of proof history is littered with, namely, that governments always experiment on their people with technologies not proven completely safe. Also, when there is a technology whos basic properties has immediate relevant use in obvious applications the government has never once not used it. Please find an example of any technology that worked that was not put into use......i think youll have a very hard time.

Nano particles is a growing spectre of doom if anyone uses half a brain and spends a few minutes on google. However, as probable as they are dumping particles into the sky there are far better delivery methods like food, packaging and the water supply. Titanium dioxide is in everything and we know next to nothing about its longterm health effects.

So for all you so called skeptics stick a sock in it and go research nanoparticle dangers.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 03:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ratsinacage


So for all you so called skeptics stick a sock in it and go research nanoparticle dangers.

Research dispersion rates and get back to us.
edit on 17-9-2015 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 05:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: skunkape23
For what it's worth.
I used to carry a telescope to read electric meters.
I saw two planes, big ones, with plain aluminum skin, flying in opposite directions, spraying something from their tails. This was not contrails from the jet engines.
This was over Houston, TX in the mid nineties.
Make of it what you will.


Did it look anything like this:


www.nj.com...



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: 2giveup

The chemtrail theory is based on the SIGHT of white lines in the sky. The theory is that any trail that lasts longer than a few minutes MUST be a chemtrails, because contrails can't persist.

We all know that contrails can and do persist, which is why most of us try to get people like you to understand the basic science involved in all this. Once you realize that trails can persist, and there are way more planes in the sky than there were, it becomes easy to see why we have lots of white lines in the sky at times.

None of that negates the fact that spraying is POSSIBLE, it just explains what everyone is seeing.

In your theory, how do these tiny particles turn into white lines in the sky? Please explain the process using science.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:14 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:25 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Oh my poor little boy

Not aware of disinfo people on the Internet

Geez looks like you were born 2 hours ago

Welcome to planet earth

Enjoy your stay



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

No I am not

That us against the rules of this site

Nice try



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: ReadyAREyou
Then who are you accusing? How is your belief relevant to the thread?




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join