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 brainstorm.

page: 11
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Piztonzor, afermative reaction, iblis,


Why have you guys not posted on here insted?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Obviously that thread is more suited for you guys, i have no idea why you come on this thread insted of that debate thread, well actually i do have an idea why but i will get a warning again if i say it.




posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   
can we stop bickering please as it is getting very boring and for those of us who WANT to debate and ask questions ,it is proving v difficult as by the time a question or statement has been made about 5 other posts of people having a go at each other appear.

thanks
snoopyuk



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopyuk
even if you take into account the rise in the number of aircraft flying compared with say ten years ago.....
do you not find it strange that sights like that of your picture are now common place and that before 10 years ago it wasn't a commonplace sight and contrails didn't hang around for hours and spread out into big sheets of cloud.

is it poss. that the atmosphere has changed and that is why they now behave like they do ? i.e.. in composition or temps or poss. pollution.


Not thought of that before...

It is indeed quite possible that in some parts of the world, changing weather patterns - possibly connected with global warming, possible a natural cycle - could be resulting in the conditions necessary for contrails to perist to occur more often.

But I think it's mainly a matter of memory - and the fact that many of us looking at the skies today weren't necessarily doing so 10 years ago.

I'm personally sure that if there had been a really big increase in such phenomena over the past 10 years then someone like Roger Brugge (who runs the British Climatological Observers Link or Philip Eden (who has an encyclopedic knowledge of past weather events) would have noticed. And if they or any of the other long time meteorological observers in the UK had noticed something of that nature, they'd heve written about in by now. Meteorologists love reading about such changes in weather patterns.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   
hi Essan

many thanks for the reply

it is strange that it `seems` as if it has only just started happening,
I have spoken to several meteorological observers who have stated that it is because of the increase in air travel combined with pollution in the amotsphere.
I feel however that cannot explain fully the reasons behind it.
several people whose jobs involve staring at the sky all day have also said that they have not seen this kind of thing before 1999 and that it is getting worse.
I know that even just a few years ago you never got the entire sky covered in a manmade haze after an afternoon of planes going over,.......yet now it seems commonplace. they even show up clearly on sat images
www.flickr.com...

(see more pics in link Below)

thanks

snoopyuk
www.flickr.com...


(edit for link)

[edit on 10-10-2006 by snoopyuk]

[edit on 10-10-2006 by snoopyuk]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Can someone explain to me why a none commercial jet in the sky does not show contrail whatsoever and then out of no where release a big trail of smoke and then stop releasing it and that trail of smoke turns into a big layer of cloud that lasts all day long.

Meanwhile there is a comercial jet near by that release a constant flow of contrail that dissapate a few seconds after it's released and does not interact with the atmosphere the same way the previous plane's smoke did?

This happens all the time, logicaly i would think that all planes at the same altitude would release the same type of contrails but they do not.

I would like to point out that i do not want chemtrails to be real because i don't want to be sprayed with a chemical substance from the sky but i can't denny what i see. I wish i could but it doesn't work that way.... i would be in denial not to accept the possibility of chemtrails from what i see.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by selfless
Obviously most of us here on ATS knows that we are being sprayed by chemtrails right?


I keep hearing this, but I don't have any proof, nor has anyone presented any here of which I am aware.

[edit on 2006/10/7 by GradyPhilpott]
You must not have looked very hard.
Right here at ATS we had a debate about this and I won the debate in the end with hard proof that they exist via a bill proposed that listed them as an exotic weapon.

The thread can be found Here!.

Okay.. I don't know how I can get any more official than a proposed bill on a government website.
thomas.loc.gov...:chemtrails

Space Preservation Act of 2001 (Introduced in House)

HR 2977 IH

quote: H. R. 2977

To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.

SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--

(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;

(ii) chemtrails;

(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;

(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;

(v) laser weapons systems;

(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and

(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.

(C) The term `exotic weapons systems' includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.


That link at the beggining of the quote takes you to the library of Congress.. I don't think you can get any more VALID than that.




[edit on 10-10-2006 by NephraTari]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
Can someone explain to me why a none commercial jet in the sky does not show contrail whatsoever and then out of no where release a big trail of smoke and then stop releasing it and that trail of smoke turns into a big layer of cloud that lasts all day long.

Meanwhile there is a comercial jet near by that release a constant flow of contrail that dissapate a few seconds after it's released and does not interact with the atmosphere the same way the previous plane's smoke did?


Even at the same altitude, there are are pockets of air at different temperatures and with different humdiity levels. Thus it's not unusual to see an airline produce a contrail for a while and for it then to stop doing so. It's also possible in such a case that, indetectable from the ground, the aircraft has actually chnaged its altitude.


This happens all the time, logicaly i would think that all planes at the same altitude would release the same type of contrails but they do not.


Not necessarily. However, it's unlikely these aircraft are at the same altitude - from the ground it may appear they are, but in reality they may be a few thousand feet apart. You'd need to check air traffic control to find out for sure.

Indeed, this would be a possible way to prove chemtrails - if you could show that 2 aircraft flew the same trajectory through the same air at the same altitude only a short time apart and that one produced a persistent contrail and the other did not.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
Piztonzor, afermative reaction, iblis,


Why have you guys not posted on here insted?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Obviously that thread is more suited for you guys, i have no idea why you come on this thread insted of that debate thread, well actually i do have an idea why but i will get a warning again if i say it.
Because our debate thread was between just the two of us and was locked once a decision was made. There was no way for them to post there.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Indeed, this would be a possible way to prove chemtrails - if you could show that 2 aircraft flew the same trajectory through the same air at the same altitude only a short time apart and that one produced a persistent contrail and the other did not.



A good way is to go outside and look right up.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by NephraTari

Originally posted by selfless
Piztonzor, afermative reaction, iblis,


Why have you guys not posted on here insted?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Obviously that thread is more suited for you guys, i have no idea why you come on this thread insted of that debate thread, well actually i do have an idea why but i will get a warning again if i say it.
Because our debate thread was between just the two of us and was locked once a decision was made. There was no way for them to post there.



Oh i see, sorry then i didn't know that could happen on ats.

I still think that the debate forum would be a dream come true for those 3.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Please do not introduce outside arguments to your own thread, Selfless.
We're not here to debate UFO's, and doing so will have the thread locked.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
Please do not introduce outside arguments to your own thread, Selfless.
We're not here to debate UFO's, and doing so will have the thread locked.


Ah you said it right there!!!

it's what you been doing all along, this was originaly suppost to be a brainstorm not a debate, go to the debate forum if you want to win arguments.

I replied to what the person said about ufo's notice the word ''reply'' so you should tell him what you just told me.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   
The debate CYRAX linked to should provide those interested a starting point with which to investigate this phenomena.

There isn't a lot to be added to this thread, that debate, or any other chemtrail thread on ATS just short of chemical analysis. Scientific proof of the harmful effects of these "chemtrails" may exist, but I haven't come across it in my cursory investigations.

If someone in the scientific community, or someone with access to testing equipment has the time I really wish they would look into this to find out. I haven't the time or expertise - none of us apparently do - to investigate something we have now come to agree exists, but the hazards of which, if any, no one as yet knows.

If there is a nefarious purpose behind this program - and there is a program - then we are all the unwiling victims, and it shows just how evil our government, without whom this program could NOT be carried out, can be. It has been proven that there is a program. If it comes to light that these chemicals are dangerous, or a health hazard that will spell doom for this administration, and there will be hell to answer for. This is my contention as to why no one seems to know anything about this program. Officials are running a denial campaign.

My biggest concern is that, despite the absence of material supporting the hazards of these chemtrails, no organization, including the FAA, CDC, World Health Organization and other social health, or other related organizations has acknowledged this phenomena, despite a growing and urgent call to do so. Not even a footnote. The official explanation for these chemtrails is that they are normal condensation. This is incorrect, and shows that learned individuals who specialize in this field responding in this manner are lying. It's not that they don't know - they're lying.

This phenomena is something that 1) Has not heretofore happened in our skies, 2) Is occurring in immense numbers and around the entire planet, and 3) Is observable to anyone on the ground. It's everywhere, and is evidenced in our government's own documents.

Further, if this is a "safe, harmless" program, why is the government not acknowledging it? Why are they acting as though this doesn't exist? Also, why if anyone with an Internet connection can find information on this phenomena, including government documents - and esp. given our own government's verifiable history of testing chemicals and weapons on civilians - has no one in the professional community considered it worthy of any investigation at all?

And especially given the breadth of this activity - this is the largest, broadest coordinated program in the history of mankind. The fact of its existence can be verified by anyone with an Internet connection through government documentation, and it's happening right over our heads. Whether someone "suspects" these emissions are harmful or not is beside the point. The fact that this is occurring over this entire nation, over our entire populace - doesn't that warrant even a small amount of investigation by our health organizations - if just to disprove that this government program has any health risks at all?

Just the fact that there are now verifiable emissions being sprayed over our population and around the entire world should warrant 1) Some official acknowledgement (not just civilian publication of government documents they had to research to locate), and 2) At the very least, some investigation as to what the emissions are composed of, so that we are not playing roulette with our health.

The government, FAA and our health organizations are ignoring the elephant in the room. And they, in particular our health organizations, should realize that they have an obligation to investigate the public's health concerns, and this is a huge one. These organizations should also realize that, if they want to play the denial game, that they are only fueling the fire.

[edit on 10-10-2006 by OnTheDeck]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
Can someone explain to me why a none (A what? –HR) commercial jet in the sky does not show contrail whatsoever and then out of no where release a big trail of smoke and then stop releasing it and that trail of smoke turns into a big layer of cloud that lasts all day long. Meanwhile there is a comercial jet near by that release a constant flow of contrail that dissapate a few seconds after it's released and does not interact with the atmosphere the same way the previous plane's smoke did?


Ice supersaturated regions (ISSR) can vary in size. They can cover vast regions, or as recent research has suggested, there can be numerous small regions only a few kilometers across, and a half kilometer thick.*

In any case, one plane can pass through this region while another plane, that appears to be nearby, but in reality is actually at a different flight level entirely, will not pass through the ISSR.



Originally posted by selfless
This happens all the time, logicaly i would think that all planes at the same altitude would release the same type of contrails but they do not.


What evidence do you have that the planes are at the same altitude? You can’t go by size alone. Do you check on the flight data using “Flight Explorer?”




*Source


Cirrus clouds develop in the upper troposphere at low temperatures of below -30°C and a relative humidity of over 100%. The clouds-of-ice-particles form in ice-supersaturated regions that are about 150 kilometers times 0.5 kilometers in horizontal and vertical extension, respectively.


*Source


ISSR's horizontal sizes and vertical extensions are Weibull distributed. The horizontal sizes are pathlengths from the MOZAIC data. Since shapes of ISSRs are not known, and since MOZAIC aircraft cross ISSRs in a random manner, the pathlength distribution might not be very relevant for the true size distribution of ISSRs. When we assume that all ISSRs have circular shape, we can try to determine a true size distribution from the measured pathlength distribution. However, there is a serious sampling bias: Since the aircraft trajectories are random in the field of ISSRs, it is much more probable that a large ISSR is crossed by a certain trajectory than that a small one is crossed. This selection bias leads to a surprising result: whereas the mean pathlength is 150 km, the average true horizontal size could be as small as 6 km. That is, there might be very many small ISSRs around that however are never crossed by an aircraft since they are too small; only the larger ones are crossed and therefore counted in the statistics.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by NephraTari

You must not have looked very hard.
Right here at ATS we had a debate about this and I won the debate in the end with hard proof that they exist via a bill proposed that listed them as an exotic weapon.



So no one pointed out that Kucinich himself revised the bill, taking out the chemtrail reference stating “Look, I’m not into that.”

He was fooled into putting the reference into his first bill and when people started laughing at him, he couldn’t take it out fast enough.

Why don’t you e-mail him about it?

www.kucinich.us...



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Indeed, this would be a possible way to prove chemtrails - if you could show that 2 aircraft flew the same trajectory through the same air at the same altitude only a short time apart and that one produced a persistent contrail and the other did not.


Not necessarily. Both planes would need to be identical, not only would they need to have the same engines, but they would have to be identical in terms of tuning and performance.



Notice the different contrails produced by the different engines on the same plane.

Notice how the lower planes are barely producing contrails, while the higher ones are spewing them out.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Howard you can't tell much from the bottom of that photo.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Selfless, I'm going to re-direct you to the reply of the moderator you'd wanted so-badly to come visit this thread.

I'll let my reply be what he said to you.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Not necessarily. Both planes would need to be identical, not only would they need to have the same engines, but they would have to be identical in terms of tuning and performance.


Yes, good point.

Still, it'd be a start. I'm just playing devil's advocate and trying to think of something which might act as supportive evidence. So far the chemtrail believers don't seem to have come up with anything .....



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
Selfless, I'm going to re-direct you to the reply of the moderator you'd wanted so-badly to come visit this thread.

I'll let my reply be what he said to you.


I said what i said because it was on the debate forum i think it suites you.

What is so bad about that? you obviously like to debate no?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join