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.

 

I was in Palmdale and the Chem-trail pollution was off the charts

page: 22
19
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy


Why stop at blue?




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




These are microscopic size particles, which allows spraying over large areas.

So if they are microscopic how can you see them from 35,000 feet?



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 03:09 AM
link   
the " solution " to ATS member " turbonium1 " is simple :

fight fire with fire

it will not accept that the flight tracking apps data demonstrates aircraft position - hey fine

lets go back and establish where the aircaft that are alledgedly " over the city " acording to " witness annecdote " actually are :

we need the actual data and calculations to support the claims :

altitude

compass bearing

elevation bearing

exact location of " witness "

time

etc etc

turbonium1 claims that aircraft were " over the city " - lets have the evidence - we want data not claims



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 05:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
the " solution " to ATS member " turbonium1 " is simple :

fight fire with fire

it will not accept that the flight tracking apps data demonstrates aircraft position - hey fine

lets go back and establish where the aircaft that are alledgedly " over the city " acording to " witness annecdote " actually are :

we need the actual data and calculations to support the claims :

altitude

compass bearing

elevation bearing

exact location of " witness "

time

etc etc

turbonium1 claims that aircraft were " over the city " - lets have the evidence - we want data not claims





Actually, YOUR side first claimed that these planes were "over the city", so If anyone would need to prove this claim, it is your side. Ouch.

From the video, nobody really needs to prove where the two planes are, since it is very evident.There was never any dispute as to where the planes were, at the time, within a few miles variance. Therefore, data was not required to prove it.

Why do you need the data for it, when nobody else does, seems very odd. It is not my problem, or anyone else's, to explain. How about that?



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


So we are back to these two blasted planes again. Seriously, does anyone care about them?

You are flip-flopping again. I will leave you to your delusions and bid you good day.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 05:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
the " solution " to ATS member " turbonium1 " is simple :

fight fire with fire

it will not accept that the flight tracking apps data demonstrates aircraft position - hey fine

lets go back and establish where the aircaft that are alledgedly " over the city " acording to " witness annecdote " actually are :

we need the actual data and calculations to support the claims :

altitude

compass bearing

elevation bearing

exact location of " witness "

time

etc etc

turbonium1 claims that aircraft were " over the city " - lets have the evidence - we want data not claims





Actually, YOUR side first claimed that these planes were "over the city", so If anyone would need to prove this claim, it is your side. Ouch.

From the video, nobody really needs to prove where the two planes are, since it is very evident.There was never any dispute as to where the planes were, at the time, within a few miles variance. Therefore, data was not required to prove it.

Why do you need the data for it, when nobody else does, seems very odd. It is not my problem, or anyone else's, to explain. How about that?


No, YOU claimed that you saw flights overhead and claimed that flights shouldn't pass that way. Other members were simply showing you that flights did indeed pass by that area.

You've yet to show any evidence that you saw any flights overhead so we can only conclude that the ones you saw were the usual air traffic in that area and weren't overhead as you claimed



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Well get out there and film these aircraft that you see directly over the city. Film them in combination with flight tracking software on your mobile or tablet. Other chemtrail believers can do it so there is nothing to stop you from doing it.

Mike Decker in Wyoming - You Tube link

Dan Dapper in Southern California - You Tube

Or is it going to be a tale of they have stopped doing it ever since you "outed them"?

Just think what you could capture? Look what is coming out of the tail!




Look "Full Wing Chemical Dispersal"





posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

please dont lie - its undignified

also embarassing - that i know your posts better than you


so - we can now conclude that your contribution to this thread = trolling idiocy

as you were the one insisting that data for aircraft positions was supplied on your demand

but hey - now you dont REALLY want it

game over



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 06:02 AM
link   
It's not actual data.

I'm asking for the actual data, which proves where these two planes really were.

Apparently, you think this is actual data...so please show me their positions, at each point, shown by their actual data...


It's not like you'd lie about having the actual data, right?



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Are you aware what latitude and longitude are? The position, heading and speed of the planes is there at each point. Flightaware. Use it.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 08:28 AM
link   
here is a fun thought experiment.

What volume of liquid would be necessary to produce a "chemtrail" of any significant length, say horizon to horizon as is posted in many photos and videos by the believers, compared to the internal volume of a plane?

Quite a lot, I would guess.

Plus you have the manufacture and shipping of said "chemtrail" chemicals......where is the evidence of that?



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: MasterAtArms


The answers to those two questions would be:

1. Too much.
2. There isn't any.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
here is a fun thought experiment.

What volume of liquid would be necessary to produce a "chemtrail" of any significant length, say horizon to horizon as is posted in many photos and videos by the believers, compared to the internal volume of a plane?

Quite a lot, I would guess.


Well this is what nearly twenty thousand gallons looks like




posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   
ITT: Spotting chemtrails is super easy. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for there to ever be chemtrails and millions of people not notice.

Reality: It would be very easy to do and would look similar to other artifacts already in the sky. But most likely it would go unnoticed all together.


The majority of the evidence that this doesn't happen is from counter evidence that contrails aren't chemtrails. They could be spraying invisible chemicals, so lets not exaggerate that water vapor evidence means it's true that they're not.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: SoDumb
They could be spraying invisible chemicals, so lets not exaggerate that water vapor evidence means it's true that they're not.


Yes it's possible that they could be carrying out a super secret spray operation that leaves no visible evidence in the sky, zero physical evidence in the environment, that nobody involved ever talks about and has zero noticeable effects.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: SoDumb
They could be spraying invisible chemicals, so lets not exaggerate that water vapor evidence means it's true that they're not.


Yes it's possible that they could be carrying out a super secret spray operation that leaves no visible evidence in the sky, zero physical evidence in the environment, that nobody involved ever talks about and has zero noticeable effects.


My skyz iz blue...Invisible Chemtrails!



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People


What? The sky is blue? I distinctly remember it being pink. Must be ME.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: SoDumb
They could be spraying invisible chemicals, so lets not exaggerate that water vapor evidence means it's true that they're not.


Yes it's possible that they could be carrying out a super secret spray operation that leaves no visible evidence in the sky, zero physical evidence in the environment, that nobody involved ever talks about and has zero noticeable effects.


My skyz iz blue...Invisible Chemtrails!



What more proof do you need. Look Up



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy


that is precisely the point I was making !



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   
I remember Turbonium''s thread where he claimed a photo of Astronaut John Young showed him with no glove on - bare handed - therefore proof the moon landings were hoaxed.

He was then forced to concede that he clearly was wearing a glove and then moved the goalposts completely by going on about whether the glove was pressurised or not and demanding to see before and after pressurisation photos etc, etc.

So, a bit of a pattern emerging here.

Has he gone, yet?




top topics



 
19
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join