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.

 

Whatever they are, they are not normal cloud formations

page: 13
22
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 02:19 AM
link   
a reply to: awareness10

No. I meant that your concern seems to be based more on that than reality.
Clouds aren't the way you remember them.

edit on 6/28/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Op3nM1nd3d

I didn't say just because it's there it is...it has been discussed here also.

But here is a better debunking for you from metabunk...

www.metabunk.org...

You really need to do your research because as I said this is nothing new to us who have done our research.

We also have threads as far back as 2010 discussing this...maybe you should check them out before posting BS like case orange thinking you have something when you don't.
edit on 28-6-2016 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Op3nM1nd3d

So your saying chemtrails are contrails...here you go show where one person has tested a chemtrail while it was in the air, can you do that as it should be easy since you are so positive they are real?

Btw contrrails have been tested and are just that contrails...can you provide evidence to back your claim they are the same, because I guarantee you can't.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 05:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: network dude

Thankyou Sargent Begruntled, i'll try to THINK better next time.





not sure how you took that post as offensive. I'll try to be more gentle next time.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 05:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: network dude

Thankyou Sargent Begruntled, i'll try to THINK better next time.





not sure how you took that post as offensive. I'll try to be more gentle next time.


I wasn't really offended at all by it, but you know, not everyone believes what you believe. That's all i'm trying to say.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 05:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: awareness10

No. I meant that your concern seems to be based more on that than reality.
Clouds aren't the way you remember them.


Phage, i said this, to no one in particular. I was only a passing memory i had and chose to post it:

Perhaps its me... but i remember as a child the clouds not looking quite so fluffy and animated as they are now. Just an observation.

How did you get, 'oh wrong forum must be thinking of the mandela effect one. To you feeling my concern seemed based more on that than reality?



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: awareness10

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: network dude

Thankyou Sargent Begruntled, i'll try to THINK better next time.





not sure how you took that post as offensive. I'll try to be more gentle next time.


I wasn't really offended at all by it, but you know, not everyone believes what you believe. That's all i'm trying to say.


Sorry, I believe in peer reviewed science. Call me crazy.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: awareness10
What's interesting is 'what' is being sprayed into the Atmosphere, anyone paying attention to this?

Barium and Aluminum are two of the most common elements to be found in chemtrails (3-D holographic display using Strontium Barium Niobate).

And not only they use chemtrails, also they fire high power radio waves into the skies which create artificial glowing plasma patterns causing glowing dots to appear around these patches. But why would they use high power radio waves and why would they project 3D holographic images in the sky?

ufosightingshotspot.blogspot.ca...

Here is a chemtrail footage that proves contrails are a red herring excuse to fool people into thinking chemtrails are not real. Along with the orbs (plasma balls) this plane disappears - literally.


Can you please show multiple legitimate studies where someone went up in the air, tested a "chemtrail", and found Barium and Aluminum (I asked the question on page 11)?



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: nancyliedersdeaddog

originally posted by: awareness10
What's interesting is 'what' is being sprayed into the Atmosphere, anyone paying attention to this?

Barium and Aluminum are two of the most common elements to be found in chemtrails (3-D holographic display using Strontium Barium Niobate).

And not only they use chemtrails, also they fire high power radio waves into the skies which create artificial glowing plasma patterns causing glowing dots to appear around these patches. But why would they use high power radio waves and why would they project 3D holographic images in the sky?

ufosightingshotspot.blogspot.ca...

Here is a chemtrail footage that proves contrails are a red herring excuse to fool people into thinking chemtrails are not real. Along with the orbs (plasma balls) this plane disappears - literally.


Can you please show multiple legitimate studies where someone went up in the air, tested a "chemtrail", and found Barium and Aluminum (I asked the question on page 11)?


And why would i do that?



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: awareness10

originally posted by: nancyliedersdeaddog

originally posted by: awareness10
What's interesting is 'what' is being sprayed into the Atmosphere, anyone paying attention to this?

Barium and Aluminum are two of the most common elements to be found in chemtrails (3-D holographic display using Strontium Barium Niobate).

And not only they use chemtrails, also they fire high power radio waves into the skies which create artificial glowing plasma patterns causing glowing dots to appear around these patches. But why would they use high power radio waves and why would they project 3D holographic images in the sky?

ufosightingshotspot.blogspot.ca...

Here is a chemtrail footage that proves contrails are a red herring excuse to fool people into thinking chemtrails are not real. Along with the orbs (plasma balls) this plane disappears - literally.


Can you please show multiple legitimate studies where someone went up in the air, tested a "chemtrail", and found Barium and Aluminum (I asked the question on page 11)?


And why would i do that?


Good point. Why on Earth would anyone want to question a statement like:


Barium and Aluminum are two of the most common elements to be found in chemtrails


Naturally we should just accept this as fact and move on.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Oh boy why do I keep going, I should have ended it a while back but... let`s go for one more final reply, then I`m off


a reply to: network dude



then what is your point? You think you get to reclassify particulates as nanoparticles to make it sound juicy?



No reclassifaction, just a part of the whole. However you want to twist it, you cannot hide from the fact that it is still there.



Yea, because you are just that damn important. Get over yourself.


I wasn`t even talking to you when I said that. Your reply just proves you can`t read properly or you don`t want to. Can`t tell but I had no argument with you, yet here you are...jumping on my back.


a reply to: waynos



Again,you simply assume that manufactured particles are deliberately used. There are lots of examples of studies of contrails and the effects they may have, you've failed to demonstrate how studying incidental side effects equates to deliberate spraying. Your position relies entirely on the massive assumption that someone is spraying deliberately.


Are they not? It`s a simple logic really. Even if they are unaware of the consequences of adding it to fuel, it is still deliberate. Stupid does not make you innocent as far as I know. Oh and they have had plenty of time to study it, rest assured.



You also fail to address why manufactured particles are even required. Do you suppose they would create contrails in conditions where normal jet exhaust would not? Do you suppose they would make a trail persist that otherwise would not? How do you amend physics and chemistry in order to explain this, given that it is well understood that persistence is a function of atmospheric conditions, not the plane flying through them?


They say it is more efficient and good for the environment(from their perspective) which probably is but there is something more they are not telling us.



One basic truism I've noticed, and which no chemmie has ever been able to explain, is that however much you try to promote your own individual take on what chemtrails are, you wouldn't even know the word chemtrail if the paranoia mafia hadn't first started promoting nonsense about contrails not persisting, government spraying ops etc and posting their fake pics and lies, all the while asking for money, back in the 90's.


That`s probably true but it gave me an incentive to do my own bidding so to speak.



As for your attempt to slur me. Knock yourself out, it's strangely satisfying when you see another shyster run out of arguments and start to make it personal. How about answering some questions instead of deflecting?


You guys are attempting to slur me from my post #1 so why the double standards? Not just you and the other you but the admins also....or is that just another you? I have said in the beginning to do your own bidding. We may not have to agree at all and I have no problem with that.


a reply to: payt69



Spraying anything from 30.000 feet and up is just about the most inefficient way of spraying imaginable. There's no control of where the spray goes, and by the time any particles reach the surface (if they ever do, because since they're incredibly light they might as well keep going around in the air indefinitely) everything has been so diluted that an effect can't be measured.


lol, so you think these particles never reach the surface? No rain at your place? Weird. It might not be inefficient, if you want to spray everywhere.


a reply to: tsurfer2000h



But here is a better debunking for you from metabunk...

www.metabunk.org...

You really need to do your research because as I said this is nothing new to us who have done our research.


You do realise that it`s not very wise saying there is a better debunk and then trying to plant the same link I gave in my post? And on top of that telling me to do my research when it appears it is you shooting blanks.



So your saying chemtrails are contrails...here you go show where one person has tested a chemtrail while it was in the air, can you do that as it should be easy since you are so positive they are real?

Btw contrrails have been tested and are just that contrails...can you provide evidence to back your claim they are the same, because I guarantee you can't.


Again, you guys are not reading what is written but what you want to read. Good at twisting my words you are, I`ll give you that. Chemtrails are contrails and contrails only. It is nothing more than BYPRODUCT of combustion of an airplane engine that happens due to specific high altitude conditions. Contrails do have an effect on global climate and they know it. But you are looking at the wrong end of the stick.

It is the nanotech you should be looking at, comprende? It may be responsible for the engine efficiency and perhaps even making contrails look cleanear but that doesn`t hide the fact that it is alien to the whole system or even has a more sinister purpose.

What makes contrails (flight, air traffic) chemtrails (the phenomena) is that they are doing something to the earth`s ecosystem (which includes us) that they are not telling us. Remember, its not the trails as contrails that matters, it`s flight.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Op3nM1nd3d

Have you got a shred of proof that contrails are chemtrails?

It's been asked countless times and you've deflected each time. How about this time?



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: NewzNose

And yet, after years of repeating that, no one has been able to provide any conclusive evidence that they do.


That seems likely because the target is always moving. I have lurked this subject quite awhile. I have seen people come out saying

"Prove it, let me see it.." so the videos came out.

Some criss-crossed tic tac toe looking skies. Next it was

"I want samples..."

Samples were taken on cars right after low hanging product was filmed - still not good enough.

"Where did the samples on the car dust come from... certainly not the sky..."

Even though the people filmed it and took samples. NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Then, we hear arguments of.

"You know how big that plane would be?"

All the while it is obvious it would be as big as a plane, because, look how it is ALREADY leaving all the benevolent 'things' behind regardless of its make up - exhaust is exhaust and adds no more to the plane then the plane was already designed to accommodate.

The U.S. government banned Lead in gas because of accumulation in soil samples on road-ways, and, we were not talking a lot - primarily for lubricant in the combustion chamber - but I digress. So, the big aircraft needed for tons o'chemicals is kind of facetious - I guess it would be as big as a firefighter tanker.

Which brings us to the old...

"No way can they cover that much ground blah blah blah."

But, they can. They do. Naturally, through combustibles - before or after the chamber - both are patented. Again, I will point back to the Lead Ban and the lowly auto. Enough toxins released to actually ban. The cars 'putted' that poison in minutia compared to the MASSIVE fuel and exhaust flow a jet engine requires.

Let's look at those Fire Tankers. They actually put out huge fires with them. Saturate the area with that Red Fire Retardant. So, instead of a ton of chemicals released every foot, how about a teaspoon. Dusted, spread by exhaust. Super nucleic actuators, not a lowly rain drop, but, metal dust. Aluminum. Barium.

What will the proof required be next. A baggy held in the jet wash?
edit on 28-6-2016 by Newt22 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2016 by Newt22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Op3nM1nd3d

ultra fine particles. Can you point to where it said "nano particles" ?

And when you resort to claiming anyone is paid to disagree with you, it only shows that you are a complete and total idiot. You are not mentally equipped for the discussion at hand. It's time to leave, educate and come back when you can talk with the adults. (call it a pet peave)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Newt22

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: NewzNose

And yet, after years of repeating that, no one has been able to provide any conclusive evidence that they do.



"You know how big that plane would be?"

All the while it is obvious it would be as big as a plane, because, look how it is ALREADY leaving all the benevolent 'things' behind regardless of its make up - exhaust is exhaust and adds no more to the plane then the plane was already designed to accommodate.



You've missed the point here. Contrails can be that big because over 99.99% of the ice in them comes from water vapour ALREADY IN THE ATMOSPHERE. If it was a trail of chemicals then THE ENTIRE TRAIL would need to come from the aircraft.

Do you see the difference?



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: awareness10

originally posted by: nancyliedersdeaddog

originally posted by: awareness10
What's interesting is 'what' is being sprayed into the Atmosphere, anyone paying attention to this?

Barium and Aluminum are two of the most common elements to be found in chemtrails (3-D holographic display using Strontium Barium Niobate).

And not only they use chemtrails, also they fire high power radio waves into the skies which create artificial glowing plasma patterns causing glowing dots to appear around these patches. But why would they use high power radio waves and why would they project 3D holographic images in the sky?

ufosightingshotspot.blogspot.ca...

Here is a chemtrail footage that proves contrails are a red herring excuse to fool people into thinking chemtrails are not real. Along with the orbs (plasma balls) this plane disappears - literally.


Can you please show multiple legitimate studies where someone went up in the air, tested a "chemtrail", and found Barium and Aluminum (I asked the question on page 11)?


And why would i do that?


Good point. Why on Earth would anyone want to question a statement like:


Barium and Aluminum are two of the most common elements to be found in chemtrails


Naturally we should just accept this as fact and move on.


If that's what you believe sure.

Why do you care what anyone else believes, will it alter your Life in some way?

btw sorry for the star.
edit on 6/28/2016 by awareness10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Newt22

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: NewzNose

And yet, after years of repeating that, no one has been able to provide any conclusive evidence that they do.



"You know how big that plane would be?"

All the while it is obvious it would be as big as a plane, because, look how it is ALREADY leaving all the benevolent 'things' behind regardless of its make up - exhaust is exhaust and adds no more to the plane then the plane was already designed to accommodate.



You've missed the point here. Contrails can be that big because over 99.99% of the ice in them comes from water vapour ALREADY IN THE ATMOSPHERE. If it was a trail of chemicals then THE ENTIRE TRAIL would need to come from the aircraft.

Do you see the difference?


No, I understand your argument - I never said it had to be 'a lot' of chemical.

What if the phenomenon doesn't need 'a lot' of stuff... After all, the contrails don't... they seem to form just fine.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude



ultra fine particles. Can you point to where it said "nano particles" ?

And when you resort to claiming anyone is paid to disagree with you, it only shows that you are a complete and total idiot. You are not mentally equipped for the discussion at hand. It's time to leave, educate and come back when you can talk with the adults. (call it a pet peave)


What do you think ultrafine particles are?



Nanoparticles are particles between 1 and 100 nanometers in size. In nanotechnology, a particle is defined as a small object that behaves as a whole unit with respect to its transport and properties. Particles are further classified according to diameter.[1] Ultrafine particles are the same as nanoparticles and between 1 and 100 nanometers in size, fine particles are sized between 100 and 2,500 nanometers, and coarse particles cover a range between 2,500 and 10,000 nanometers.


Encouraging me to educate myself...lol. Ignorance and arrogance, sums up your behaviour pretty well, of a brainwashed adult.

Insulting me, where are the admins now? Like I said, double stadards for everyone to see. And a information flow control comes when this comment gets a snippet for no reason aka manners violation. What a load of crap.

I`m leaving anyway...



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Newt22

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Newt22

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: NewzNose

And yet, after years of repeating that, no one has been able to provide any conclusive evidence that they do.



"You know how big that plane would be?"

All the while it is obvious it would be as big as a plane, because, look how it is ALREADY leaving all the benevolent 'things' behind regardless of its make up - exhaust is exhaust and adds no more to the plane then the plane was already designed to accommodate.



You've missed the point here. Contrails can be that big because over 99.99% of the ice in them comes from water vapour ALREADY IN THE ATMOSPHERE. If it was a trail of chemicals then THE ENTIRE TRAIL would need to come from the aircraft.

Do you see the difference?


No, I understand your argument - I never said it had to be 'a lot' of chemical.

What if the phenomenon doesn't need 'a lot' of stuff... After all, the contrails don't... they seem to form just fine.


Well it would have to be a lot of chemical to cover thousands of square miles of sky the way a contrail can.

Contrails don't need a lot of stuff coming from the aircraft because it is already in the atmosphere. The frozen water vapour in the exhaust just provides the nuclei for the ice to deposit on.
edit on 28-6-2016 by mrthumpy because: typo



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Newt22

it depends on which angle you look at this from. The initial claim is made that the lines in the sky that form behind planes cannot persist for more than a few minutes or they are chemtrails. If they go away quickly, they are contrails.

If that is incorrect, please correct it.

It has been known and widely accepted (even among some chemtrail pushers) that contrails can persist just as clouds do, for just as long.

Then comes the "barium, strontium, aluminum", and whatever chemical is claimed to be in them. (Never mind that the reason they are there is still widely speculated on)

The studies that have been done to date include placing a bowl outside and letting rain water collect in it. I doubt you need super brain power to realize that what will end up in that bowl could come from a multitude of terrestrial based sources, such as roadways (car brake pads have barium in them), industrial mining (the Earths crust is about 7% aluminum and strontium is also a naturally occurring element), Coal fired power plants, local industry (generic). Or it could come from planes in the sky. But there is just no way to determine where anything originated from. This is basic common sense.

What has been said is a direct air sample of a trail proposed to be a chemtrail would be a 100% effective way to prove EXACTLY what is in the trail. As most here see it, aside from showing a chemtrail plane on the ground being loaded with chemicals (something that has not happened in over 20 years of this conspiracy), that would be the only way to conclusively prove this.

The entire theory is based on circumstantial speculation. And the story changes to suit the parts that are easily explained away. It's comical to see what the next claim will be.

If you disagree with anything above, please explain why. Thanks.
edit on 28-6-2016 by network dude because: bad spler



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join