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.
…everyone knows planes cause pollution.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: TerryDon79
…everyone knows planes cause pollution.
Try and look closer at that, though.
Might as well ask about Fuku contamination or Gulf Oil Spill health effects…
All three are information vacuums. The door keepers are there to steer the conversation away.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: TerryDon79
…everyone knows planes cause pollution.
Try and look closer at that, though.
Might as well ask about Fuku contamination or Gulf Oil Spill health effects…
All three are information vacuums. The door keepers are there to steer the conversation away.
Try and look closer at plane engine pollution? Factories, cars, trucks and a whole lot of other things make up way more pollution that planes. Not sure what I should be looking closer at?
originally posted by: intrptr
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: TerryDon79
…everyone knows planes cause pollution.
Try and look closer at that, though.
Might as well ask about Fuku contamination or Gulf Oil Spill health effects…
All three are information vacuums. The door keepers are there to steer the conversation away.
Try and look closer at plane engine pollution? Factories, cars, trucks and a whole lot of other things make up way more pollution that planes. Not sure what I should be looking closer at?
Except for diesel like trucking and rail transport, gasoline engines on earth are much cleaner burning than jet engines on the taxi way, on take off or at altitude. I thought I made that clear, "no catalytic converters" on jets?
Thats what I mean, this conversation becomes redundant and repetitive…
(by the way), I agree, coal fired power plants, and spent fuel from reactors is another issue, too. Try bringing that up and the same people will come out to tell you how 'clean' all that is, too.
end of line
Start a thread on YOUR topic.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: DenyObfuscation
Start a thread on YOUR topic.
THE topic (the miasma in the skies overhead) is buried under too much of your mis / dis info.
Factories, cars, trucks and a whole lot of other things make up way more pollution that planes.
originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: DJW001
Chemtrails exist.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: DenyObfuscation
If there was no particulates in jet exhaust we wouldn't see persistency in the vapor trails behind jet engines in the stratosphere.
originally posted by: intrptr
Usually. It's still only the water (ice) that's visible.
Water molecules are too tiny to see with the naked eye. Water 'vapor' only becomes visible because the molecules of H20 aggregate on a particle of something, dust, smoke, and yes, pollution from jet engines. There are no catalytic converters on jet engines. If the fans are turning, hydrocarbons are burning, exhaust is churning on the taxi way, take off and at altitude.
Jet exhaust is much more polluting on the taxi way and take off, yet the arguments presented by both sides only address jet exhaust at altitude.
Theres your sign.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: DJW001
Because you say so? You are being lied to. I just pointed one such lie out to you.
You mean jet exhaust doesn't block the suns light and pollute the Earth?
Glad thats settled.
Also, it should be in the science section to again avoid confusion. It is not really "geoengineering" and it isn't a chemtrail. Geoengineering would be intentional large-scale efforts to bring about climate change or environmental change.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
Also, it should be in the science section to again avoid confusion. It is not really "geoengineering" and it isn't a chemtrail. Geoengineering would be intentional large-scale efforts to bring about climate change or environmental change.
Exactly why I think we should drop the "Geoengineering" from the dedicated "Chemtrail" Forum. Since this forum was started, there have only been about twelve threads that actually deal with geoengineering. The rest have all been about chemtrails and HAARP. Threads about geoengineering and pollution belong in "Fragile Earth."
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
Also, it should be in the science section to again avoid confusion. It is not really "geoengineering" and it isn't a chemtrail. Geoengineering would be intentional large-scale efforts to bring about climate change or environmental change.
Exactly why I think we should drop the "Geoengineering" from the dedicated "Chemtrail" Forum. Since this forum was started, there have only been about twelve threads that actually deal with geoengineering. The rest have all been about chemtrails and HAARP. Threads about geoengineering and pollution belong in "Fragile Earth."