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.

 

William Thomas' Chemtrail Lie Exposed

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr




You do realize the compounds in jet exhaust are comprised of… chemicals?





Interestingly enough this isn't about jet exhaust...it's about the man who started this hoax and got caught in the chemtrail lie.




posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Your box of straws is to small. Finding out about the health effects and pollution from jet exhaust is buried under a ton of straws.. More like trying to find a needle in a stack of needles.

Thats what disinformation is all about.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   

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?



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


Try and look closer at that, though.

Start a thread on YOUR topic.



The door keepers are there to steer the conversation away.

You're the one steering away from the topic here.
edit on 19-1-2016 by DenyObfuscation because: wrong your



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   

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


So this whole conversation has had absolutely nothing to do with "chemtrails" or William Thomas?

I feel well and truly trolled.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Diesel engines are cleaner than cars now. With the new DEF system the exhaust of a truck is broken down into almost nothing but water. And that's without a catalytic converter.

And pollution from planes is still a tiny fraction compared to ground sources.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   

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.

That's not the topic and there's no "mis / dis info" from me. Lot of distraction from you though.

What do you have against discussing Thomas' lie, aka the topic?



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79




Factories, cars, trucks and a whole lot of other things make up way more pollution that planes.


Here you go...






posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   

NOTE:

PLEASE stay on the topic, which is never each other or tit for tat about something.

Do not reply to this post.


Blaine91555
Moderator



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: DJW001

Chemtrails exist.



And here we have the chemtrail believer or "chemmie" in its native habitat. Internet conspiracy forums....notice how he totally ignores the long article showing how he is being lied to. This is a skill that is honed over the years of pouring over youtube videos and avoiding discussions. Our fine specimen here is a mature adult chemmie and as such doesnt feel the need to dispense with any words other then "chemtrails exist".

Chemtrail belivers can usually be distinguished by his repeated cry of "i know they exist"(North American Chemie) or "just look up"(European Chemmie).

There seem to be a distinct lack of Asian Chemmie....perhaps because they actually tend to pay attention in science classes.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 03:08 AM
link   

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.


An outright lie born of your ignorance. Have you learned NOTHING posting on here?



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 07:56 AM
link   

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.


The nucleation that takes place need aerosols. Some may indeed come from the engine, most, are already up there in the sky. (hint, it's how clouds become clouds)

But the fact that you seem to understand that planes pollute the entire time the engines are running, yet you feel the need to attack the logical side of the chemtrail debate goes against logic itself. The only thing we argue about is that those puffy white lines aren't anything but man made clouds. The pollution you worry about is invisible in the sky, just as it is at take off and landing. What is it that you hope to accomplish in these threads with your misdirection?



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   

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.

Just a little correction:

A contrail is not "jet exhaust" -- i.e., the majority of the material in a visible white puffy line in the shy that follows a jet is not the stuff left over from burning jet fuel. What it is is water vapor (which is invisible as water vapor) that condenses and freezes into ice crystals -- crystal that are visible.

Granted, a small percentage of the water vapor that form the ice crystals comes from the burning of jet fuel (the hydrogen in the jet fuel bonding with oxygen in combustion to make water); however, the bulk of the water vapor that freezes into crystals did not come from the jet fuel -- it came from the air that was already there before the jet flew through it. That water vapor comes from both the air being sucked into the intake in the front of the engine, and it comes from the ambient air around the back of the engine as the plane passes.

It is mostly that ambient water vapor (not the hydrogen in the jet fuel) that is the source of most of the ice crsytals that become a contrail.

So the term "contrail" works perfectly fine to describe those vapor trails. "Chemtrail" is an unneeded term in this case; "chemtrail" makes it seem the materials that form the trail is mostly from the jet fuel. In fact, most of the material in a spreading persistent contrail was already in the air to begin with before the jet flew through it.



HAVING SAID THAT...
It is accurate to say that jets are causing the contrails, and the contrails DO IN FACT fact block sunlight. But that's a different issue that what the "chemtrail" crowd says. The chemtrail argument is that some secret spraying program is underway. In the case of contrails blocking sunlight, it is not a secret at all.

Ever since the beginning of the jet age in the 1950s and 1960s, people have been openly studying the exact same thing you are talking about here -- and that is the effects that contrails have on the dimming of the sunlight that reaches earth. It's been an openly discussed topic for decades, and you can find a lot of research that has already been done on the subject -- plus ongoing research into whether or not the blocking of the sun causes an overall cooling effect, or if the trails act like a blanket, giving an overall warming effect; there are competing hypotheses about that.

But this is a very very different issue than what chemtrailers are saying. Including the real effect water vapor freezing out of the air has on the climate or weather in a discussion about secret programs to spray chemicals from airplanes just serves to confuse the issue.


edit on 1/20/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
To add to my post above...


Maybe you (intrptr) should start a thread in the science section about all of the research done on how contrails can create a cloudy haze that blocks sunlight and may blanket in the heat, and the implications of those effects. Just be sure to call the trails in question "contrails", because that's what they are. Calling the chemtrails would just cause confusion into what it is you are trying to say in your thread.

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. Sure -- contrails may be bringing about a climate change (although nobody is sure what that change is), but it that change is a byproduct of another factor, not an intentional effort to bring about change. So, the "contrails-blocking-sunlight" issue is not geoengineering in the same way that pollution from cars is not geoengineering.


edit on 1/20/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   
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."
edit on 20-1-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   

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."


To me it seems that the subjects of geoenginnering and chemtrails are tightly knit though. Geoengineering is just the reincarnation of 'chemtrails' after it was realized by some clever people that they needed to invoke some credibility to their scam. The subject of 'chemtrails' is seen to be untenable in it's old form where chemtrails were supposedly for mind mind control, a slow death, spreading disease, and other flights of fancy which lack any kind of credible support whatsoever.

But since it's apparently too hard to part with the conviction that 'the gubment' (or some dark owls) is behind everything, and since some people are making a nice buck out of this whole charade, and since they love the attention, and since it makes them feel very special to be involved in some movement, most of the former chemmies have now bought into the geoengineering 'theory'.

Of course some are lagging behind and still believe in one of the old versions of chemtrailism.

A recent development seems to be the version where the regular pollution that aircraft generate are being rechristened as 'chemtrails', since after all they contain chemicals! See, that way you still get to call them chemtrails, and that just may make you feel like you were right all along, and you don't have to damage your ego by admitting that 'chemtrails' as proposed by frauds like Will Thomas were pure nonsense.

Of course you will never hear that out of the mouth of such a chemtrail believer..

Ah yes.. the human mind and it's agile efforts at damage control.. it's fascinating

edit on 1201620 by payt69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   

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."


Try to start a geo-engineering thread. Then, wait for the crickets, as they will be along shortly. Most of the chemtrail believers/pushers have no desire to learn anything, or understand anything other than what they were told to believe by the chemtrail officials, and then taught to never engage in debate. Actual geo-engineering is of no interest to most anyone it seems. The fantasy version is sooo much sexier.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join