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.

 

Chemtrails Don't Exist? Haha, Explain This.

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Could some one explain to me how one can spray Aluminium powder and the Barium Oxide. And could some one explain the science of how this helps to make clouds? Seriously. I'd like to know.


the guns? obviously used to trigger something.


How vague... Does anyone see guns shooting up into the air, 'triggering' anything at all? Anyone?

I'd also like to see a link to that patent.




posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   
There are reasons crop dusters spray low to ground....

At 20-40,000 feet any aerosol will be blown so far downwind that anyone who thinks they are getting headaches from this stuff (above them) probably needs to get their head examined (or needs to bone up on barrometric pressure and affects on intracranial pressure)....

More flights = more contrails....



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SebAll
Chemtrails exist.

It is a process called geoengineering and you can find a patent for it.



it is interesting how people will now argue points like aerosol spread and guns that shoot crap into the atmosphere, instead of comment on this process of geoengineering...

the part that is interesting is where it says that aluminum powder and other products are sprayed from COMMERCIAL airlines and private planes into jetstream...



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   
The picture above is taken from this site which has quite interesting information about the existence of chemtrails.

www.lightwatcher.com...



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Never seen tanks of aluminum powder or barium oxide that I could buy at the local airports (did say commercial and private in that pic - buy Avgas all the time for the race car)....

I think that pic mocked up from a patent would more properly say "may" and not "are"....

No question that supersaturated H20 and other byproducts of combustion "may" cause localized weather changes it's just there is no active program doing this on a global basis....


apc

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
syrinx high priest,
evidence of cloudseeding to prevent global warming using planes to create an insulating layer IS "CHEMTRAILS!".

I know this is total broken record, but WHAT EVIDENCE. THERE IS NONE. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. NIGUNA. NIET. NEIN. POOP.

Geoengineering? Yes... it's a real field. So was using nukes to build canals. Was it ever put into practice? No of course not... duh.
As anyone who has read my arguments in previous threads knows, I will admit weather manipulation is the one logical probability that exists, however, time and time again, people scream about 'proof' and 'evidence' (see above) however it simply doesn't exist.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Here, we call those funny little critters "clouds." I see them all the time. We're even close to the Redcliffe airport, and there's always planes flying overhead. Funnily enough, I haven't seen any of these clouds follow planes, and they're exactly like the ones you posted.

And I'm not even in the USA where this supposedly happens.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Didn't Clinton talk for a while about some plan to use chemtrails to reduce global warming? I can't remember any details, but I seem to remember the very brief discussion on it.

Also, if stuff is up high enough, it stays up there. I had someone tell me that radiation is still circling the planet from when above ground nuclear tests were taking place ...

So, I doubt anyone would want the drop a lot of stuff from up there since the date it would actually fall to the ground might be far, far into the future - if it ever fell at all.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
Could some one explain to me how one can spray Aluminium powder and the Barium Oxide. And could some one explain the science of how this helps to make clouds? Seriously. I'd like to know.


the guns? obviously used to trigger something.


How vague... Does anyone see guns shooting up into the air, 'triggering' anything at all? Anyone?

I'd also like to see a link to that patent.


i'm not buying the aluminum and barium thing. that's possible, but unecessary. perhaps it's JUST WATER, AHAHAHAHAHAHA! that would make them 'just clouds' after all. however, the contrails of today are much more persistant than the contrails of yesterday. i noticed the change in contrails post nine oneone, when i noticed a bunch of other stuff, too, like illuminati symbolism and banking cartels. and when i searched the internet, i found hundreds of others had also noticed them years before.

i'd wager the guns are to trigger a cloudburst, there, jra.


apc

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   

i noticed the change in contrails post nine oneone

That actually doesnt surprise me. Loving a good conspiracy, I for one mark the WTC attack as classic mind control a la paper clip and typical American warmaking methodology (let things happen to get the people behind it).

And you very well may be correct in the increased number of persistant contrails. Personally I havent noticed any remarkable increase.. I can clearly recall trails lingering all day in the 80's, however if they exist in greater number today I would readily propose an explanation of being caused by a rise in supersaturation, quite possibly a result of global warming or other environmental/climatic changes.

But regardless of intent.. intentional spraying of foreign matter? It doesn't even make sense and in the real world it has been repeatedly shown how immensely complex and widespread of a conspiracy this would have to be. It would be easier to hide an Australia sized hunk of luminous rock within the orbit of the Moon, than to carry out something like this.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   
www.faa.gov...

Look at that Website, It Explains everything. Sometimes the government is RIGHT!


jra

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
i'm not buying the aluminum and barium thing. that's possible, but unecessary. perhaps it's JUST WATER, AHAHAHAHAHAHA! that would make them 'just clouds' after all. however, the contrails of today are much more persistant than the contrails of yesterday. i noticed the change in contrails post nine oneone, when i noticed a bunch of other stuff, too, like illuminati symbolism and banking cartels. and when i searched the internet, i found hundreds of others had also noticed them years before.

i'd wager the guns are to trigger a cloudburst, there, jra.


This has probably been said before, but I'd imagine that contrails last longer now because of more efficient engines now a days. Meaning the exaust is mostly water. Thus lasting longer in the air.

Have you witnessed any guns shooting stuff into the air though? Or at least heard about anyone claiming to see or hear guns shooting things into the air? I imagine they'd have to be a fairly decent size in order to shoot something fairly high into the air. Not to mention the thing would probably be kind of loud. Not very subtle i'm sure. Plus I think people would definately notice clouds 'exploding' in the air.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
This has probably been said before, but I'd imagine that contrails last longer now because of more efficient engines now a days. Meaning the exaust is mostly water. Thus lasting longer in the air.

Have you witnessed any guns shooting stuff into the air though? Or at least heard about anyone claiming to see or hear guns shooting things into the air?


i didn't know orgone cannons made any noise. doh!

anyway, i have this thing in my kitchen that slices, dices AND juliennes! they may just be dicing, now.

do you believe in global warming, or man's fatally detrimental impact on the upper atmoshpere? or is it hype and conjecture?

and, about the more effecient engines. yes, it has been said before.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 05:09 AM
link   
if you read my previous post on this thread you'll see why you are able to see a so called 'chemtrail' from a plane. I'm not sure if many of you know this but at 37000 ft the temperature is way below zero...about -40 degrees. what you see left behind the plane is the burnt off fuel and ass it is so cold you are able to see it. in the summer you can rarely see emissions from a car, but in the winter you can see them very clearly, hence because it is cold. the same when you breath in the winter when you can also see it because it is cold. if at 37000 ft the temperature was 25 degrees, then there would be very little if any so called 'chemtrail'.

also if this was some secret thing governments were doing and spraying something over our heads, don't you think they'd make it invisible?? also if you sprayed chemicals up there it'd probably end up in our rain, and there are people that have jobs just collecting rain and studying it...how boring i know, but they'd find traces of these chemicals in the rain. also a plane from london gatwick to new york jfk takes around 8 hours...of which 4 to 5 hours are spent over the atlantic ocean. you still get the same trail over that as you do over land...im not sure there is enough room for so much chemicals on a plane. it could be let out as a gas because it would disperse too quickly and too much, therefore it'd have to be a liquid, of which you would need tonnes of to spray for 8 hours. just going through some of these points make the idea insanse, illogical...and a bit of common sense wouldnt go astray when some of you are thinking about this.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SebAll
Chemtrails exist.

It is a process called geoengineering and you can find a patent for it.



Anyone besides me notice that this said commercial airliners. Well unless it’s an additive to the fuel, this was certainly not happening by 2000. Last time I worked the ramp at an airport was back then, and there were no special chemicals being pumped into the planes, and no special tanks to hold said chemicals. Also the fuel weights did not change any so it was not a heavy additive to the fuel as far as I can tell, and I would think Aluminum powder would be a heavy additive. When I worked out there in the late 80’s, and early 90’s the fuel was 6.82 pounds per gallon at this locations average temperature and pressure, and did not change any when I went back there in 2000.

Besides how many delays do you think that the airlines would be willing to put up with by having to wait for an extra chemical to be pumped onto their equipment. Then there is the question of who would be paying for the extra cost of pumping it, storing it, the extra fuel to fly it around, and the installation and maintenance of the equipment for it. Who is footing that bill? There would have to be a huge paper trail pointing from the government to the airlines, and none of them seem to be doing too well as of the moment. Then what about all the disgruntled airlines guys that have been with bankrupt airlines since this rumor originally began, don’t you think they would be out there screaming about this at the top of their lungs?




[edit on 6/15/2005 by defcon5]



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   
To anyone that does not want to be ignorant of certain relevant facts, AND INSIDER KNOWLEDGE.
see this webpage,


same link as above...info

It states very clearly that the picture that you see comes from a proposal to congress and commissioned by a congressional committee to address the recent finding of global warming, and possible solutions.

This IS the plan that is on the books folks...

the only thing in contention is whether it (or parts of it) is already started...

the recently "suicided" inside whistleblower (yes, quite coincidental) said as much... he knew that tests were being performed, but didn't think it was widespread usage yet... (mainly thru military).
he worked at livermore labs,. and apparently was just the cog that ran computer models of effects of these tests...

the webpage explains in detail and scientific accuracy, why certain substances are used, and how they propagate them with polymer strands containing biological material, as well as tests involving mold growth on these biological materials and the subsequent use of mold inhibitors to decrease the chance of health problems when these things eventually settle to the earth...

it also debunks the crap about "nwo population kill offs, and disease vectors and so forth...
it focuses on the very real global warming situation, that congressional committees are addressing and the tests being conducted behind the scenes, to determine the effectiveness of these processes.



[edit on 15-6-2005 by LazarusTheLong]



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Well pretty safe in saying that there is no airline that is going to prescribe to this unless the following:

1) It adds no weight to the operational aircraft.
2) It takes no additional storage facilities.
3) It takes not additional pumping equipment.
4) It does not require major modification of the aircraft.
5) It takes no additional time to load it.
6) It is not a secret.

Unless the government totally foots the bill for the first 4 of these, is flexible on the on-time performance stats for the 5th, and allows the 6th I guarantee it isn’t going to happen. That would include paying for the passenger, freight, and mail tonnage that would have to be left off every flight that was performing this mission.

As to number 6, they just do not have the ability to contain that type of information from the public. There would be too many loose cannons that knew of its existence that are not bound by a top secret clearance situation. Rumors fly through an airport and if anything like this were going on everyone from the Pilots to the guys that sweep the floors at night would know about it.

As far as the storage and pumping goes, Storage of Jet-A and pumping it on the planes is a Multi-Million dollar a year job, and this would fall into the same type of operation. If you don’t believe me, Check who owns almost every business, caterer, and almost all the private facilities at TPA (they may all have different business names, but check where the cash goes to), its all owned by one company that started out simply pumping the fuel at that facility, ASIG (used to be called ASII). They now own the tank farm, the tank farm at the Port, all the lines from the tanks to the gates, and they ship fuel to all other airports from here to Orlando and down to the Keys. So it’s defiantly a HUGE cost business, you think the airlines are going to agree to take a hit like that?

Then we get to the time issue, the FAA fines the airlines for being late too often, many times it’s due to a fuel delay. There are only so many Fuel trucks and Fuelers on a facility at a time, even if plane delays and late planes are anticipated, there are only so many extra held over from the previous shift. Since almost EVERY aircraft wants to be topped off (doubly so if they anticipate delays, gate delays, taxi delays, and rough weather, that go with these situations), and even though they might only require 2K lbs of gas, it still take 15 minutes for the fueler to park, hook up, do the paperwork, and fill up the plane. So if you have 15 Fuelers and 40 planes that all need fuel in the next 30 minutes to turn on time, guess what some are going to be waiting. Now we have a whole bunch of planes also waiting to have their Chemtrail liquid pumped too… Again not very likely unless the government REALLY makes it worth while for the airlines.


[edit on 6/15/2005 by defcon5]



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   
interesting...
the main complaint of the officials from the interview with the industry insider said that the extreme cost and effort of secrecy required was making this project a bust... and it wasn't very effective anyway...

thus the reason that this is probably not in widespread use yet.

but one thing to consider..

the insider source of info was "suicided" once his exact job description was disclosed...
No note... suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning with car in garage...
suspicious... I wonder if someone could search obits for that year and that area, to see if this persons obit is listed...
it would tentatively confirm a lot of his info...
or debunk this story for good...



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I am not sure what you are trying to tell me in that post. That the airlines are going to be pressed into doing this when it would put them out of business, or that I better shut up or I am going to get CO poisoning?

I am sorry but the facts are the facts, it is not feasible for this to occur in civilian aviation unless it is paid for and it’s not a very big secret. What are they going to do threaten a million people that work in the industry or have worked in it, and if they don’t do as told they are going to make a million (most likely many more) people commit suicide?

Even I, though I never ran an airline or cooked their books, can see this.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
my brother in law is a fairly high ranking DEA agent and he told me the DEA began a special program a few years ago that utilizes planes to spray a special chemical into the air. When certain "crops" come in contact with this chemical they will "glow" under a special type of photo lens. So, the plane could very well have simply been part of this program.

might want to pull up your crops and close up shop for a bit.

or, in the very least, stop smoking the plant and reading about ludicrous conspiracy theories. you're beginning to show signs of paranoia.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join