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.

 

What I think Of Chemtrails

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
I live in an area where I can go weeks without seeing a single contrail of any kind and the weather doesn't change very much at all, then one day I can wake up and the entire day I will see them all over the place. I know they are not contrails and I have tried this type of thread before only to get trolled to death, so have fun and good luck.


I know and thanks.
It's not about being right OR wrong, it's about what I have to see, if I look up in the sky.
And that, my friend, is something that can't be denied.
I know I'm not the only one (Oh, thank God I'm not blind yet), because I talk to alot of people about it.
I think it's amusing how some are so quickly to defend otherwise.
Shows true colors IMO, sit back and enjoy




posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Tyrion79

Look at the picture of the radar image I posted earlier. Explain how you're NOT going to get grids and patterns with that much air traffic flying at the same time.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: raedar
a reply to: Zaphod58

And nobody here is denying contrails.

The difference is that contrails dissipate, whereas chemtrails are formed using grid patterns and they spread out to form clouds that remain for hours blocking the sun and making the sky look dirty.




originally posted by: raedar
a reply to: Zaphod58

Many soil samples and snow samples have been conducted and show increased barium and aluminum.




originally posted by: raedar
And they have admitted to Geoengineering, they just slipped it in like it was some "new" thing, what, like a year ago? NOT NEW.


Ya know, I love Groundhog Day as a movie, but I don't want to live it.

How many more gullible people will believe the utter nonsense quoted above? Does nobody actually THINK anymore?

For example;

Quote 1: WHY must contrails dissipate? What prevents them from spreading out into cloud cover that makes some people so confident that when this happens, it's a chemtrail instead?

Quote 2: HOW does one determine that *anything* found in a soil, or snow, sample got there by means of aerial spraying?

Quote 3: WHO has "admitted" to geoengineering? When was it done? Where? What method was used? Did it bear any resemblance to contrails at all?

I have no sympathy for anyone who takes empty-headed sound bites like those from the Internet and runs with them without doing some very basic fact checking to see if those Chem-sites are having them over or not. If you are so willing to look foolish, you deserve all the scorn you get.

Now, a PROPER debate with someone who has actually thought a little about it (like the OP clearly has, even if some answers are missing) is another thing entirely. Can it happen? Maybe I've been here too long, but I doubt it, sadly.
edit on 20-10-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: Vector99

You can't, however if the sun is at the right angle, you can see the shadow overcast on trails, therefore seeing differences in height.

Trusting your eyes again, when all they want to do is lie to you!

Which monster is bigger?



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Tyrion79




Oh really...
What kind of Cirrus clouds do you mean?
Cirrus fibratus
- Intortus
- Radiatus
- Vertebratus
- Duplicatus
Cirrus uncinus
Cirrus spissatus
Cirrus castellanus
Cirrus floccus


Aren't they still cirrus clouds, as you may want to put them in a sub category that doesn't change the fact they are still just cirrus clouds.

Here enjoy the articles.

docweather.com...

commons.erau.edu...

people.atmos.ucla.edu...&_Climate.pdf



If I look at the pictures of most of them I would call them Cirrus Exhaustus (specifically from Aeroplanus).
Care to explain the extensive grid patterns as described by raedar?


Care to watch the video I posted in a prior post that explains that?

Again you can call contrails whatever subcategory of cirrus you would like they are still just cirrus clouds.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Tyrion79




I know and thanks.
It's not about being right OR wrong, it's about what I have to see, if I look up in the sky.


And you believe your eyes more than actual facts and science?

You see contrails are known because of that...chemtrails are not, as they are known by those looking to make money off the gullible.



And that, my friend, is something that can't be denied.


And yet it is.



I know I'm not the only one (Oh, thank God I'm not blind yet), because I talk to alot of people about it.


Your not blind...just misinformed.



I think it's amusing how some are so quickly to defend otherwise.


It's just as amusing watching people make claims that have no evidence scientifically, or any that shows they exist.



Shows true colors IMO, sit back and enjoy


Because someone doesn't fall for the chemtrail crap they show their true colors...truly amazing.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 03:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tyrion79

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: raedar




What I have observed and am speaking to is the grid patterns made by one or two that spread out over hours and form clouds that block the sun.


They call them Cirrus Clouds.


Oh really...
What kind of Cirrus clouds do you mean?
Cirrus fibratus
- Intortus
- Radiatus
- Vertebratus
- Duplicatus
Cirrus uncinus
Cirrus spissatus
Cirrus castellanus
Cirrus floccus

If I look at the pictures of most of them I would call them Cirrus Exhaustus (specifically from Aeroplanus).
Care to explain the extensive grid patterns as described by raedar?


Cirrus aviaticus



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 03:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: Zaphod58

Ok, somehow I knew this would go into a technical direction, which I didn't rule out in my OP.
I admit, I simply don't have the know how.



Well make your mind up


I was NOT born out of an egg, as we say here in Holland, cause I'm aware of basic physics and warmer airpockets and such, however scientific twist you give this, the skypainting I see today, is NOT normal, not in the past and not in the future.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 04:28 AM
link   
And the thread goes round and round and round again..

How about this: I have access to a governmental airport, to every location on this base. I can take a look at everything (job-based).

Would you believe me if I told you that at least at this base there is no, not a single unidentified tank for unusual liquids. Or a place where those liquids could be stored. Or that I can see the insides of the planes' wings in the raw, disassembled state?

And there is not a single thing that would point to these machines to be prepared for chemtrails?

Okay, there are two bases I have access to. But one is for turboprops only. And I have never heard that those are producing chemtrails.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 04:29 AM
link   
A new question: does someone have pics of turboprops who produced chemtrails?
THAT would be suspicious to me! Or shouldn't it?



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

They CAN, but it's rare for one to get high enough to get info conditions where contrails form. They're usually short to medium range routes, so they don't go high.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 05:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tyrion79

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: raedar




What I have observed and am speaking to is the grid patterns made by one or two that spread out over hours and form clouds that block the sun.




Care to explain the extensive grid patterns as described by raedar?


The "grid patterns" of which you speak result from a couple of factors. The most important is the fairly recent change in the mode of electronic navigation. It used to be that there were strictly defined "highways" in the sky which were defined by low frequency radio ranges and VHF Onmidirectional ranges (VORs), sometimes combined with Tactical Air Navigation stations (VORTACS) The VHF airways for low altitude were called Victor Airways; for high altitude, they were Jet Airways. Before the implementation of modern ATC radar with Mode C and S transponders, you had to stick to the airways. It was the only way to ensure adequate separation between aircraft. Now, however, since the widespread use of TSO Certified Inertial Navigation/Ring Gyro Systems, Global navs and GPS, you can file a flight plan to go direct, and you can ignore the highway system with ATC permission. A second factor is the increase in traffic. There are FAA designated preferred routes for traffic but there is so much traffic that not everyone can fit on the route and still maintain the required vertical, lateral and in-trail separation, so it is common to be given an "offset, where you fly a course parallel but offset some distance from the route. The congestion got so bad that the FAA reduced the required vertical separation of cruise altitudes from 2,000 to 1,000 feet for aircraft that receive RVSM certification relating to autopilots and instrumentation.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 05:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tyrion79

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
I live in an area where I can go weeks without seeing a single contrail of any kind and the weather doesn't change very much at all, then one day I can wake up and the entire day I will see them all over the place. I know they are not contrails and I have tried this type of thread before only to get trolled to death, so have fun and good luck.


I know and thanks.
It's not about being right OR wrong, it's about what I have to see, if I look up in the sky.
And that, my friend, is something that can't be denied.
I know I'm not the only one (Oh, thank God I'm not blind yet), because I talk to alot of people about it.
I think it's amusing how some are so quickly to defend otherwise.
Shows true colors IMO, sit back and enjoy



What flight tracking app do you use on your phone?



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Tyrion79

Look at the picture of the radar image I posted earlier. Explain how you're NOT going to get grids and patterns with that much air traffic flying at the same time.


Sure, it would seem logic in busy air corridors, but what about area's where there is hardly any traffic?
You could factor wind direction, which blows the grids to clearer skies, however wouldn't that clear up busier area's as well?



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

Would it be at all possible to modify the engines and put additives in the fuel instead?
(Therefore removing the need for extra tanks and not raise suspicion)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

Basic physics or knowledge of jet engine propulsion hardly fall in the same category, don't you think?



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Why if there's so much airtraffic in the sky all the time, are there days that have no contrails at all?
Wouldn't all the conditions for forming them still apply?



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 06:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tyrion79
Why if there's so much airtraffic in the sky all the time, are there days that have no contrails at all?
Wouldn't all the conditions for forming them still apply?


Seriously? Remember we're talking about clouds here and have a think about what you're asking



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 06:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: ManFromEurope

Would it be at all possible to modify the engines and put additives in the fuel instead?
(Therefore removing the need for extra tanks and not raise suspicion)


If that were the case, then why wouldn't such planes produce trails from take off to landing?



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Tyrion79

That would raise suspicion, and lead to prosecutions, as the chemical make up of jet fuel is very strictly governed and always tested. Anything there that isn't supposed to be will very quickly wreck a £20m engine.

In addition, anything added, if it were so, would need to survive the extreme temperatures inside the combustion chamber.

Apart from all that, there is no reason to look for other things that the trails may be simply because we already know that water condenses out of air when you get depressurisation. The depressurisation you get behind a jet engine may be the most extreme on earth, so it's gonna appen a lot. We know that in sub zero temperatures water freezes. This explains how contrails are made. Add in a little understanding of relative humidity and nucleation and we know how trails linger and spread.

The chemtreil mene was started by people who knew none of that. Those of us who did, laughed at them, but that's not to mock everyone, some of us have been round planes most of our lives and have a reason to 'get it'. Most people who aren't in that position don't o round making silly claims. I like that even though have leanings towards believing, you are at least asking questions and considering the answers. This is as it should be, your conclusions always remain your own.


edit on 21-10-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join