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.

 

Chemtrail pics 11-10-06

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
I have no problem with contrails as i keep trying to tell you and i saw nothing suspicious or out of the ordinary on those pictutes. Certainly not what we now call chem trails...


So what exactly makes a Chemtrail if this is true then? Their ability to persist? Came across this last night, perhaps you can explain it:


WWII Contrails
"We often said that we created weather over Europe. They would persist for many hours, maybe days. "

Jay Reynolds
===========================================
Jay,
Yes, we certainly did. Contrails were so thick that they became clouds. We often said that we created weather over Europe. They would persist for many hours, maybe days. We flew a different route coming back than going in partly to avoid the contrail clouds that we created. There are some pictures of contrails on my web site - none of these are shown to be very heavy but there were time when we were near the end of the bomber stream and the contrails were so dense that it was no dfferent than flying in clouds. A thousand or more planes (4000 internal combustion engines) can make a lot of contrail at 25000 feet or more.
Hope this helps.
Willard Reese- 457th Bomb Group



Lets just call this what it is, a hoax...
Then lets be done with it.




posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
So what exactly makes a Chemtrail if this is true then? Their ability to persist? Came across this last night, perhaps you can explain it:


A chemtrail is a single contrail that lasts for longer than contrails regularly should under normal atmoshperic conditions as clearly suggested in these two extracts.


One unique type of cloud is manmade. Contrails occur when exhaust from jet engines condenses. A narrow line of moisture makes up the contrail. Winds eventually dissipate it; in some instances conditions permit the contrail to survive for many minutes (their straight lines do distort). Contrails are believed to affect weather by raising both short and long-term temperatures (one estimate is for about a third of a degree per decade). Here is a MODIS image taken over the southeast U.S. on January 29, 2004 showing a large number of contrails (at times more than 2000 planes are over the North American continent at any one time):

rst.gsfc.nasa.gov...



The condensation trails (contrails) that form in the wake of high-flying jets are another interesting example. These cylindrical clouds have variable lifetimes and water concentrations depending on environmental conditions. In some cases the contrails can persist for many minutes. But they do slowly diffuse, much like the smoke plume emitted by an acrobatic aircraft.

www.sciam.com...


And i can even accept the following even if i think some liberties were taken....


Contrail formation typically occurs in the upper Troposphere between nine and twelve kilometers is height with temperatures ranging between -35ƒC and -55ƒC (Jensen e. al. 1998, Schrader 1997). Most contrails last on the order of seconds to a few minutes and only a small minority will last for hours as in the contrails photographed (Jensen et. al. 1998). A newly formed contrail will be approximately one kilometer wide and one-half a kilometer tall. As a contrail evolves, it grows greatly in the horizontal plane sometimes extending over 20 kilometers in width (Spinhirne et al. 1998). Examples of this horizontal evolution is shown in the photograph. Contrails can also be 100ís of kilometers long given the right atmospheric conditions and a plane on a steady course.

Long lasting contrails like the ones observed usually occur in parts of the sky that have preexisting patches of cirrus clouds. Since the cirrus clouds are formed of ice crystals like the contrails, cirrus clouds in a region of the sky suggests supersaturation with respect to ice and sufficient heterogeneous nuclei for ice crystals to form (Jenson et al. 1998). The GOES-8 satellite photographs, Figure 3 and Figure 4, taken at approximately at the same time as the contrails were present shows significant cirrus clouds around the Norman area providing a condition necessary for contrail persistence.

students.ou.edu...



WWII Contrails
"We often said that we created weather over Europe. They would persist for many hours, maybe days. "

Jay,
Yes, we certainly did. Contrails were so thick that they became clouds. We often said that we created weather over Europe. They would persist for many hours, maybe days. We flew a different route coming back than going in partly to avoid the contrail clouds that we created.
Willard Reese- 457th Bomb Group


I don't quite understand how single trails in the sky are related to massed bomber formations during world war two but if you find this sufficient to disregard all the conflicting things we see today i can't do much other than disagree if i notice you presuming your opinion to be fact.



Lets just call this what it is, a hoax...
Then lets be done with it.


Well i have no objection if that's what you think this is but i for one don't think this is a hoax or anything to do with nature.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Yes, what I said about aviation is true. The Chemtrail Hoax started between the two times that I worked an airport job. In the late 80’s to early 90’s there was barely an internet for these topics to be discussed on. Later in 2000 I was not a member of a site such as this, so I did not pay any attention to the topic. Though I had seen it mentioned on one site and dismissed it as some guy that was crazy.


I never suggested what you said about fuel to be untrue as i don't think this is yet a commercial operation. I don't yet know enough about the fuel issue to prove or suggest otherwise but who knows!


What I did not realize at the time was that there was a whole community of folks that believed in this untruth.


Thanks for assuming stupidity instead of intelligence.
Why exactly do you believe so many US citizens to be wrong about something so easily observed as different than it used to be?


What I can say for certain is that nothing changed in between those times except what I mentioned. Aircraft types, engines, and amount of traffic.


Thanks for giving your opinion which i will disregard in the same manner you disregard those of others who have little reason to make this up.


Well if you can recall everything that has been written on this site about the topic, perhaps you know were to find the chart that either Howard or OTS


Howard is a known liar who deliberately indulges in misdirection.


used to post showing the increase in air traffic. Even if we follow your estimate of 3%, that is 3% over at least 10 years, meaning a 30% increase in traffic.


3% per decade ( in American skies and it's no more than that) or over the last three decades; feel free to do some research of your own.


Another thing that changed is that airlines such as SouthWest sprung up in that time. SouthWest airlines, was a volume carrier, ever at a small airport they add a huge amount to the traffic.


3% added air traffic in American skies per decade; them seems to be the facts. One can simply not explain the sudden increase in persistent contrails based on increase in, declared, air traffic volumes.


Add to that the fact that they only allow 30 minutes ground time (normally 30 minutes is minimum ground turn time on a 737 that has arrived late, what we would call a burn-turn) on every flight and you can see how this is going to exponentially increase traffic. Other airlines started to follow suit to compete offering more flights that cost less and turning those flights faster, meaning more time in the air for that aircraft during the day.


A reasonably intelligent educated person, who wants to believe what suits him, can deny what he observes in a hundred 'logical' ways.


Essan, has knowledge of meteorology and a limited knowledge of aviation, and I have knowledge of aviation and a limited knowledge to meteorology.


Well this is about meteorology so beside your objection that it's not 'technically' possible in a simple engineering sense why are you objecting?

Since the air traffic only increased by 3% in ten years this 'hoax' have been going how does one explain the following?



It will be noted that in October of 1997 a change in the reporting system of visibility data was reduced from a former maximum of 40 miles to a limit of 10 miles. It is a reasonable question to ask as to why that change was made, and whether or not it was made in anticipation of certain events to follow that involve large scale aircraft aerosol operations over large scale geographic regions.

It is observed that there are highly significant degradations in the visibility data immediately following this change in the reporting method. Immediately after this change, the dramatic increase in visibility reports of less than 10 miles is quite apparent.

The graphs shown are taken from climatic archive data available for Santa Fe, NM from Jan 1994 to Mar 2001. Three different time periods are shown to aid in demonstrating the magnitude of change which has occurred in visibility. The first graph shows all data available inclusive from Jan 1994 to Mar 2001. The second graph shows the transition zone during which the visibility standards were altered. This graph showns a period from Jan 1996 to Dec 1998; the change in reporting standard was made in Oct 1997. The third graph shows recent data, where visibility below 10 miles is now a regular occurrence. This graph shows the period from Jan 1999 to Mar 2001.

www.carnicom.com...



The proposed revisions address two categories of particulate matter: fine particles (PM2.5), which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller; and inhalable coarse particles (PM10-2.5), which are smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter but larger than PM2.5. EPA has had national air quality standards for fine particles since 1997 and for coarse particles 10 micrometers and smaller (PM10) since 1987

EPA last revised the particulate matter standards in 1997. Under terms of a consent decree, EPA agreed to propose whether to revise the particulate matter standards by December 20, 2005; and committed to finalizing any revisions to the standards by September 27, 2006.

Proposal to Revise the National Ambient Air Quality


Is it not obvious that something has changed in American skies and how can that be if the fuel has not changed and the air traffic volumes have not increases significantly?


Your comparing apples and oranges. So posting questions to me on the subject of anything about the weather would get you an educated guess, but not a fact, you would have to take up that kind of thing with someone like Essan.


I noticed and Essan does not seem to be responding to my post's. I will presume that his duties elsewhere are keeping him busy?


Airlines can literally spring up overnight, I have seen it happen: Branif, JetBlue, SouthWest, AmericanWest, Spirit, etc… Branif is a classic example, I have personally seen them file bankruptcy and come back again out of the clear blue multiple times.


But since Americans can't fly much more than they do and still work 10 hours a day one supposes that the traffic just shifts between different airlines all the time? How else can one explain the 'fact' ( feel free to check) that air traffic volumes have only increased by the margin i previously stated?


Then you get airlines that fail and their newer more efficient aircraft are bought off by other airlines to replace an older aircraft. So the short answer is yes, compared to other large companies, airlines can phase out their older aircraft at a surprisingly rapid rate.


But since the fuel all stayed the same one still have to explain the massive visibility standard fluctuation. Can such a small increase in air traffic really acount for such a large change in America's skies without some other things taking place?


Probably the best-known of the aerial geoengineering proposals was that put forward in 1997 by Edward Teller and entitled ‘Global Warming and the Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Change’ subsequently popularised in the Wall Street Journal in an article entitled ‘The Planet Needs a Sunscreen’.

Teller proposed deliberate, large-scale introduction of reflective particles into the upper atmosphere, a task he claimed could be achieved for less than $1 billion a year, between 0.1 and 1.0 percent of the $100 billion he estimated it would cost to bring fossil fuel usage in the United States back down to 1990 levels, as required by the Treaty of Kyoto.

Characteristic of the politics of Teller is the fact that he both ridiculed the idea of global warming and at the same time put forward what he represented as a solution to global warming. ‘For some reason,’ Teller observed sarcastically, ‘This option isn't as fashionable as all-out war on fossil fuels and the people who use them.’

www.spectrezine.org...



Several schemes depend on the effect of additional dust (or possibly soot) in the stratosphere or very low stratosphere screening out sunlight. Such dust might be delivered to the stratosphere by various means, including being fired with large rifles or rockets or being lifted by hydrogen or hot-air balloons. These possibilities appear feasible, economical, and capable of mitigating the effect of as much CO2 equivalent per year as we care to pay for. (Lifting dust, or soot, to the tropopause or the low stratosphere with aircraft may be limited, at low cost, to the mitigation of 8 to 80 Gt CO2 equivalent per year.) Such systems could probably be put into full effect within a year or two of a decision to do so, and mitigation effects would begin immediately. Because dust falls out naturally, if the delivery of dust were stopped, mitigation effects would cease within about 6 months for dust (or soot) delivered to the tropopause and within a couple of years for dust delivered to the midstratosphere.

books.nap.edu...



Add to this fact that when an airlines starts to fail the first thing that they do is file with the government under re-organization (I think it called chapter 11), at which time the government hands them a huge sum of money to try and upgrade aircraft, retool their image, and make themselves more profitable.


And one can only wonder how much of their souls they have to sell for these government handouts which i think is very much related to what is happening in your ( our) skies.

I cant see how people that watch the skies can in good faith deny observing large scale changes but if they tell me that it is not possible i know they have not looked at anywhere near the volumes of information i have.

Stellar

[edit on 5-1-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   
"I can see how people that watch the skies can in good faith deny observing large scale changes, they deny far more obvious things, but if they tell me that it is not possible i know they have not looked at anywhere near the volumes of information i have."



Originally posted by defcon5
Jet fuel has a specific weight per gallon (with slight variances for temperature and barometric pressure, which change its density/volume) of 6.84. When a jet is fueled it is done by weight (the aircraft gauges are in weight) and totaled to match the gallons on the Hobbs Meter of the pump. The two numbers have to sync up. Both the weight and gallons are presented to the pilot on a service ticket by the fueler so he can check that on his weight and balance prior to departure.


Is there in your opinion no way that new substances can be added so that the overall balance are not affected? If the numbers look the same and the performance is a little different ( you keep mentioning the new engine layouts and how things have changed so much) who would really take note of such and would they tell us?


This is all tracked very precisely because it not only effects the weight and balance of the aircraft, but also because it has to be billed by the tank farm to the appropriate airline by flight number.


I understand what your trying to say here but such a visibility reduction over so few months could not have come about by using the same old fuel or new engines as far as i can tell. How did the EPA know that this was about to happen and why did they see fit to change their general visibility expectations?


Well considering that you can go to your local airport and buy a couple of gallons of the exact fuel that is used on the aircraft, what would be the point?


Good point but how many do and i am not yet sure that this is a commercial operation on any scale...


Try it yourself, either go to a small local airport that receives their fuel from the same source, or try the tank farm at a major airport. The only problem your might find with a major airport is that they are gong to want to sell it in a greater volume as its not really worth their time over a few bucks. Truth be told though the gas at your local puddle hopper airport is going to be from the same source as your local major airport. Most smaller airports are shipped fuel from the major airport, which receives that fuel from a port and stores it in a tank farm.

So go track down a gallon or so, and have it tested. If you want to save the time, money, and effort, though:


I like saving time, money. and effort so i wont be doing the experiment and will just go on asking you to explain some things that i surely can not.....

Stellar


[edit on 5-1-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Ill have to get to the rest of your questions and comments later on, I just got through making a long post and don’t have the energy to make another. Let me tell you something that I observed the other day though.

Here in Tampa it was extremely cold for Florida. I looked up and noticed that the sky was covered in persistent contrails leading into the flight pattern for Tampa International Airport. These were from commercial flights, and they persisted throughout the entire day and slowly spread out to form cloud cover.

The reason that the trails were so severe at this time was easily to discern though. It was like 60 degrees Fahrenheit on the ground here, making it much colder at higher altitudes and thus the formation of ice particles from the water vapor in the exhaust of the normal commercial traffic that flows through the area on its way to the airport.

Guess what else…
The trails all intersected in big X’s just to the east of I-275. This is due to ATC funneling the aircraft into an approach pattern to the airport to make a southern approach into a northern landing.

Thus here we have all the earmarks of what folks consider Chemtrails, and the only reason that they existed is due to the temperature.


[edit on 1/10/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
A chemtrail is a single contrail that lasts for longer than contrails regularly should under normal atmoshperic conditions as clearly suggested in these two extracts.


Sorry Stellar, I'm only online when at work, so not always able to devote as much time to this as I'd like


You reference these sites which refer to contrails persisting for several minutes. And it's true that most of the time contrails - if they even form at all - do last for at most just a few minutes. However, I've also linked to meteorological sites which clearly explain that under certain conditions they can persist much, much longer and even spread out to form large sheets of cirrus (which I've seen happen myself). The atmospheric science behind this is well known and well understood - and has been for decades.

Now, if something were being sprayed by commercial air traffic, wouldn't it also only appear to linger in the sky as clouds when the atmospheric conditions were ripe for persistent contrails to exist and spread into cirrus clouds? Thereby making it impossible to differentiate between contrails and chemtrails?


If the purpose of chemtrails was to spray the countryside/populace with something, it would make far more sense to only carry out such operations when persistent contrails are unlikely to form. Therefore ensuring no-one sees you.

If, as some claim, chemtrails are intended to form clouds for some form of climate experiment then nothing would actually need to be sprayed - just an increase in air traffic at the altitude at which atmosphere conditions are ripe for contrails to linger anyway would do the job.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 06:48 AM
link   


My question as always remains why people started observing this in American skies right after Teller proposed that spraying chemicals ( thus aiding in persistence) into the atmosphere could negate any effects human industrial activity might have in terms of warming the planet?


I think that it may have more to do with the coincidental rise of the internet around the same time. To which I would add that if Teller's scheme were implemented, it's clearly having no effect whatsoever.


Do you not find that odd and why did he bother mentioning additional substances ( to be put in the fuel) if regular contrails were already persistent on any regular basis?


I would assume that was because persistent contrails do not form on that regular a basis over the planet as a whole - they are more prevalent in some areas (mid continental regions) where high pressure leads to more frequent occurrences of the necessary atmospheric conditions.

However, is there any reason to believe that Teller's plan was implemented?
Other serious proposals he made - like using a hydrogen bomb to create a deep water harbour in Alaska were not implemented, even though the scheme was accorded a project name (Project Chariot)

It appears to me that it was more of a slightly tongue-in-cheek suggetsion - and in any case, I would hope the US Govt would not start such a scheme based solely on the suggestion of an elderly nuclear physicist - no disrepect to Teller, but there are hundreds better qualified and experienced atmospheric scientists out there.



So i am asking you why did he propose this in 1997 which corresponds with the start of people observing strange happenings in American skies?

Why did they change the mean visibility expectations in the same year? What were they expecting to take place?


I wouldn't have thought such changes were introduced purely on the basis of a scheme proposed at the same time - surely the scheme (if taken seriously) would be investigated further first? And it would take time to set up the manufacturing and distribution of the substances to be sprayed.


Why have you not addressed the claims made in the following two sources i have repeatedly provided you with?


The sites you mention are correct: in some cases contrails can persist for many minutes. But that does not mean that they cannot less commonly persist even longer, nor that all meteorological references stating that they can form into sheets of cirrus are wrong.

After all, the sites do not specify that often contrail don't form at all



Why do these authors suggest that the introduction of additional water vapour by aircraft will not affect the persistence of the contrail?

Why do this supposed scientist then suggest that the water content matters?

Can you resolve this blatant and open contradiction? How often do we find himidty factors of 150% at commercial air traggic altitudes so that the air may become supersatured with ice in the first place?



I think you're confusing the water content of the fuel with the pre-existing humidity level of the air around the aircraft - the one doesn't matter with regards contrail persistence, the other does.

I'm not sure though how common supersaturated air like this is.


... you all will just have to be patient and consider coming up with more than just reasurances that 'everything is ok' as i am long long past being able to believe such vapid nonsense.


I do appreciate that. Even if my responses aren't always that useful ...
'

[edit on 10-1-2007 by Essan]



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Ill have to get to the rest of your questions and comments later on, I just got through making a long post and don’t have the energy to make another. Let me tell you something that I observed the other day though.


Whenever you find the time...



Here in Tampa it was extremely cold for Florida. I looked up and noticed that the sky was covered in persistent contrails leading into the flight pattern for Tampa International Airport. These were from commercial flights, and they persisted throughout the entire day and slowly spread out to form cloud cover.


Will just have to take your word for it but as i understand the odds are still very low that the atmospheric conditions were right for such persistence without 'help' from additives in the fuel. I don' think i can prove this operation is commercial but if you tell me contrails persist for a day and even spreads out to form clouds i must consider that what you say about the fuels are simply no longer accurate.



The reason that the trails were so severe at this time was easily to discern though. It was like 60 degrees Fahrenheit on the ground here, making it much colder at higher altitudes and thus the formation of ice particles from the water vapor in the exhaust of the normal commercial traffic that flows through the area on its way to the airport.


That can result in relative persistent contrails maybe lasting 'many minutes' but still can not result in trails that hangs around for a day and turns into cirrus type overcast.


Guess what else…
The trails all intersected in big X’s just to the east of I-275. This is due to ATC funneling the aircraft into an approach pattern to the airport to make a southern approach into a northern landing.


I am not sure what this proves but you are as always free to consider the issue closed and leave us bored people to our crazy musings.
I do not require that you believe what i do ( which is why i never create threads titled " CHEMTRAILS: THE TRUTH") but just that you do not act in such a dismissive way when your only worthwhile objection is that the scale of the operation is too extensive for it to be 'true'. If your going to keep on telling people it's a hoax i'm just going to keep pointing out the contradictions neither of us can address or resolve.


Thus here we have all the earmarks of what folks consider Chemtrails, and the only reason that they existed is due to the temperature.


Temperature and supersaturation with respect to ice can result in contrails lasting many minutes at best but it should not be able ( according to at least a few atmospheric scientist) to result in these very very persistent cloud forming trails.

While you keep pretending that there is nothing to worry about we wont get along and i will just keep up pointing out the massive inconsistencies that shows that something very strange is in fact happening in our skies.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Sorry Stellar, I'm only online when at work, so not always able to devote as much time to this as I'd like


No apologise required as i try not to assume anything by your absence...


You reference these sites which refer to contrails persisting for several minutes. And it's true that most of the time contrails - if they even form at all - do last for at most just a few minutes.


Normally less than thirty seconds with a few minutes being the case under very specific and very rare conditions.


However, I've also linked to meteorological sites which clearly explain that under certain conditions they can persist much, much longer and even spread out to form large sheets of cirrus (which I've seen happen myself). The atmospheric science behind this is well known and well understood - and has been for decades.


And i have pointed out my disagreement with why those sites are simply trying to explain away what they never observed before. Scientist do their best to explain observation but obviously that does not make what they observed natural or requiring of a natural explanation. Too many assumptions and contradictions are introduced by those who attempt to explain the changes taking place in our atmosphere.

The atmospheric sciences are not well understood or perfectly explained hence the statement by many that contrail prediction is not much easier now than it was forty years ago. I have provided links in the past saying as much.


Now, if something were being sprayed by commercial air traffic, wouldn't it also only appear to linger in the sky as clouds when the atmospheric conditions were ripe for persistent contrails to exist and spread into cirrus clouds? Thereby making it impossible to differentiate between contrails and chemtrails?


Well as i said i think if commercial planes are every involved they will be specifically fueled for the task ( defcon suggest that the weight and 'energy yield' has not changed but i don't really know how to confirm that) or that the fuel used by commercial planes will only react with the EM waves thus making them observable to us.


If the purpose of chemtrails was to spray the countryside/populace with something, it would make far more sense to only carry out such operations when persistent contrails are unlikely to form. Therefore ensuring no-one sees you.


Which is exactly why i think any health impact on the general population is largely coincidental to their real aims as it's certainly not the best way to go about poisoning people when you have alternative ways such as fluorinated water and food additives state and federal regulations can impose on people. I don't think people are being poisoned deliberately.


If, as some claim, chemtrails are intended to form clouds for some form of climate experiment then nothing would actually need to be sprayed - just an increase in air traffic at the altitude at which atmosphere conditions are ripe for contrails to linger anyway would do the job.


Those atmospheric conditions are simply too scarce ( as far as my reading suggests) to make such a idea cost effective when spraying has been proven to massively assist cloud formation for commercial 'rain making' operations such as the forty year old Utah state program.


Originally posted by Essan
I think that it may have more to do with the coincidental rise of the internet around the same time.


Which happened to coincidence with the drastic reduction in visibility standards? I think that is reaching far beyond what is realistic. The Internet is older than that and while i used to believe in coincidence when i were younger i have found that it's no help in discovering reality.


To which I would add that if Teller's scheme were implemented, it's clearly having no effect whatsoever.


Well we know that global dimming can in great part be 'blamed' on particle pollution which were greatly reduced by the banning of such hence possibly the slight warming trend some have observed. As i said i think a derivative military program are mostly to blame and it's focusing on trying to keep track of active foreign weather engineering over US skies as admitted by defense secretary Cohen in 1997. I obviously think he means state terrorism as no independent group could probably hide their infrastructure from American retribution without the nuclear and ABM defenses Russia still operates today.


"Q: Let me ask you specifically about last week's scare here in Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are to deal with that (inaudible), at B'nai Brith.

A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a false threat under the circumstances. But as we've learned in the intelligence community, we had something called -- and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."

So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.

DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen


www.nbc-2.com... "two in hurricane eye

Personally i don' think the station was advertising as there are just too many instances of geometric shapes in hurricane eyes.














I would assume that was because persistent contrails do not form on that regular a basis over the planet as a whole - they are more prevalent in some areas (mid continental regions) where high pressure leads to more frequent occurrences of the necessary atmospheric conditions.


So you are basically agreeing that the type of persistent contrails we are observing in North American skies are not as natural as advertised?


However, is there any reason to believe that Teller's plan was implemented?


That depends on whether one believes that contrails lasting days were a natural occurrence over the length and breath of the continental US since the inception of jet travel. I for one believe people who work outside on a daily basis when they say this is a new development that has very little to do with nature or the same old jet fuel.


Other serious proposals he made - like using a hydrogen bomb to create a deep water harbour in Alaska were not implemented, even though the scheme was accorded a project name (Project Chariot)


Sounds like a great idea to me that might very well become standard practice if the requirement for such a harbour ever became critical to national security as i think is the case for contrails.


It appears to me that it was more of a slightly tongue-in-cheek suggetsion - and in any case, I would hope the US Govt would not start such a scheme based solely on the suggestion of an elderly nuclear physicist - no disrepect to Teller, but there are hundreds better qualified and experienced atmospheric scientists out there.


He was most certainly not alone as the articles makes quite clear? Teller may have been a foreigner but was clearly more interested in America's security than most American politicians were in the last few decades consider his long time stance on SDI ( only to catch up to the Russians) and other projects that would have done nothing but aid American security.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Continued..


I wouldn't have thought such changes were introduced purely on the basis of a scheme proposed at the same time - surely the scheme (if taken seriously) would be investigated further first?


When governments start talking about these programs it's not because they think it can not be done but because they can no longer hide their investigation into such areas.There is no doubt that the capability existed since at least the very early 1960's as evident from the spraying of hurricanes which proved to be so effective.


Livingston, 77, moved to Midland with his parents during the Depression. He earned his master's degree in cloud physics from the Naval Weapons Center and Navy Post Graduate School in California, a degree he would use in the battlefields. He seeded clouds and dramatically increased rainfall in his theater of war, creating impassably muddy roads, slowing down the Vietnamese and Korean troops, and saving lives and entire towns from occupation.

He is proudest of his award from the secretary of Navy, which says, "Lt. Livingston directly participated in project flights in a combat zone, in program planning, scientific data collection and evaluation ... his unwavering devotion to duty were major factors in the outstanding success of the project and were instrumental in the development of a unique, major combat capability for the United States."

Before receiving the citation, Livingston was invited to the White House where he briefed President Lyndon B. Johnson on the effectiveness of weather control activities and the resulting slowing of traffic by the military support trucks bringing supplies to Southeast Asian troops.

Livingston works with scientists and pilots at Weather Modification Inc., in Fargo, N.D. His theories also have been verified by staffers there. He has logged 15,000 hours of hurricane reconnaissance experience and all of his penetrations into the eyes of hurricanes were of the low-level variety --

"In the 1960s, a national priority of our government was hurricane control," Livingston said. "Silver iodide is used as a nuclei that causes raindrops to form. The original hypothesis is that if you get enough rain or cool air into a hurricane you can diminish its velocity and strength. When I left the military in the 1960s, we had the ability to do that, and reduce wind velocity in hurricanes by 25 percent and damage caused by a hurricane by 63 percent."

Livingston said his research of hurricane control was confirmed by the Stanford Research Institute. The program of controlling hurricanes, though, was mysteriously dropped by the federal government because of, as he termed it, "politics and professional jealousy." Livingston said powerful Washington lobbies control areas preventing the reinstatement of the hurricane-reduction program, and when asked why it has not yet been resinstated, Livingston cites what he calls an "industry of destruction."

www.mywesttexas.com...


So we know they can do that yet how much discussion do you hear about it in media circle's? As my understanding goes the USSR had the basic technology around 1963 but due to the general superiority of US strategic forces at the time it's deployment against the continental US had to wait till Soviet nuclear and conventional forces were built up sufficiently which turned out to be the case around the mid-70's at which time active weather engineering against the US started. International treaties against the use of such weapons were signed by various countries in 1976.


And it would take time to set up the manufacturing and distribution of the substances to be sprayed.


Once again we know that visibility standards were officially changed, and also declined in practice, at the same time and i do not see how that can be considered mere coincidence.


The sites you mention are correct: in some cases contrails can persist for many minutes.


Well glad i can now use them with greater certainty


But that does not mean that they cannot less commonly persist even longer, nor


Well i don't see how many minutes can be turned into many hours without a rather obvious contradiction becoming evident. It really is either one or the other and one can not argue that atmospheric sciences are well understood when such disparity in 'standards' are still so obvious.


that all meteorological references stating that they can form into sheets of cirrus are wrong.


All meteorological references clearly do not state as much so do no tell me all crows are black when i have already pointed out least two white one's and can present good evidence that white crows are not rare at all.


After all, the sites do not specify that often contrail don't form at all


I think they note that contrails lasting many minutes are rare when they form at all but your 'objection' has been noted.



I think you're confusing the water content of the fuel with the pre-existing humidity level of the air around the aircraft - the one doesn't matter with regards contrail persistence, the other does.


Here is what i quoted from .


Due to the physical structure of ice, the humidity level actually has to be higher, about 150 percent humidity level, than it would be for the air to be supersaturated with water.

"The exhaust (jet engine) injects a lot of water into the air," Minnus said.

"The water droplets immediately freeze and you wind up with a contrail."

Minnus said once the contrail is formed in supersaturated air, larger ice particles become nuclei and begin to grow, collecting other ice particles from the surrounding air.

As the particles get heavier, they begin to fall out of the contrail, spreading it vertically, wind shear spreads the contrail horizontally as it continues to collect ice from the atmosphere.

www.journalnet.com...


I may not know much about the atmosphere but i am not so easily confused either.

Here is why what he said seems inconsistent in my knowledge.

Keeping these caveats in mind, the following major results have been obtained from the model simulations described in this paper.


* Long-lived contrails cannot be explained by the amount of water emitted by the aircraft. Although we have not performed a simulation in an atmosphere that is subsaturated with respect to ice, it is quite obvious (in comparing results from runs 3 and 8) that persistent contrails can only form in an atmosphere that is supersaturated with respect to ice.

ams.allenpress.com...(1998)055%3C0796:LESOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2


So this might be the case near major commercial airports but it most certainly does not explain long lived trails in any majority of instances.


I'm not sure though how common supersaturated air like this is.


You would be best qualified to judge in my opinion but based on the following it is indeed a very very rare situation if we left it up to nature that is.

itg1.meteor.wisc.edu...


do appreciate that. Even if my responses aren't always that useful ...
'


I hope you understand my frustration when the same old 'debunkers' attempt to treat me in the same vapid dismissive way that they tend they normally have so much luck with against those who know what they see but do not know what to make of it. I am simply not going to go remain silent when many here pretend there is no contradictions and facts in evidence and if you and others want to silence me it's probably best to just ignore those who also have questions and let them attempt to sort it out for themselves.

I don't mind attempts to point out inconsistencies in my sources as such is best exposed so i can continue my investigation and strengthen my defense of what is observably real.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Those are certainly contrails like I have never seen them before. I have plenty of aircraft traffic where I live and none of the contrails have ever looked like that. Possibly a new type of engine or plane design? Very weird.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 06:57 AM
link   
The chemtrail conspiracy is a hoax to test how much people do believe !!
And that might be the only conspiracy behind this hyphothesis.

Anyone who has slightly a clue about: Airways, Jet Engines, Air Layers,
Athmospheric Pressure, Cargo Volume planes can carry, cloud accumulation
and so on knows that anything we see is an absolute natural phenomenon.

It´s no secret that contrails do influence the weather and can be the seed for clouds. But that´s just normal. Noone denies that and there is no conspiracy
behind it nor is any special chemical substance needed to do that.

It´s really a pitty to see people wasting their time with things like that
while there are so many really interresting anomalies out there !!

[edit on 19-1-2007 by Canopus]



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canopus
The chemtrail conspiracy is a hoax to test how much people do believe !!
And that might be the only conspiracy behind this hyphothesis.


Do believe in what? Is there any specific objections you want to raise to what i have said so far or is this just your opinion?'


Anyone who has slightly a clue about: Airways, Jet Engines, Air Layers, Athmospheric Pressure, Cargo Volume planes can carry, cloud accumulationand so on knows that anything we see is an absolute natural phenomenon.


It's quite insulting when you think blanker denials still carries any weight with me. Either note your objections or explanations to what has been said before or just make it clear you are expressing your opinions.


It´s no secret that contrails do influence the weather and can be the seed for clouds.


Evidently that is not the case as is made clear by the governments research into spraying materials to actually change weather systems instead of just flying numerous planes trough such parts of the sky.


But that´s just normal. Noone denies that and there is no conspiracy
behind it nor is any special chemical substance needed to do that.


So i will presume you have not in fact read anything on the last six pages?


It´s really a pitty to see people wasting their time with things like that
while there are so many really interresting anomalies out there !!


Like aliens and UFOs i suppose
If you want to deal with subject matters that are far more complex and harder to establish factual evidence for feel free but don't come here and insult those involved by pretending that we should focus on more interesting, and mostly pointless, discussions about what is far far harder to discuss in any remotely scientific fashion.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 02:06 AM
link   
the internet spread the rumors of chemtrails alot faster than was originally anticipated

thus the need for a large disinfo. campaign

chemtrails are used to #1. retard the ASCENSION process by weakening the immune system and endocrine system as well in order to maintain the power/ control structure

i recommend taking 4-5 grams of vit C a day preferably the time released variety coupled with crushed garlic for immune system benefits

read the book of life by michael sharp 1/2 the version is free e book do yourself this favor if u believe in chemtrails or not

the elite are getting desperate

[edit on 28-1-2007 by cpdaman]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 03:47 AM
link   
I dont know what these things are but i do know that the con/chemtrails that i see today are nothing like the ones i recall seeing when i was a child.
Those days the trails would normally dissipate within about 10-20 minutes or less. Now i see them last for literally hours.
I see them all the time over the bay i live next to in Texas and they will always form in a cross or plus configuration.
Kinda like X marks the spot but... what is the X marking? lol
I remember working in Florida during the big 2004 hurricane season, the sky was literlly blanketed with these trails.
So there will always be a speculation for me that these are somehow connected to weather.
i know what these trails looked like 30 years ago and I know what they look like today.
Some people say that the burden of proof lies with the "believers". well, i disagree, how about for a change somebody come here with evidence that there is nothing to it.
Other than because the government says so. as far as im concerned there is more proof that there is something being done than there is that nothing is being done.

[edit on 28-1-2007 by Kr0n0s]



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I'm new to this fora's and I quite like it here. I've been reading about those chemtrails and when I saw the pictures I noticed that I've seen these since my childhood. I even can recall asking myself questions back then like: 'What kind of clouds are these? How are they formed?' Of course, my intellectual potential wasn't fully formed at the age of 10 so I got conditioned to these kind of cloudshapes.

So as I said before, I was reading about these chemtrails and just went outside for a sigaret. I scouted the sky and noticed these supposed chemtrails again. I live near Brussels Airport (Belgium) and watched a plain pass by in the far sky, clearly, his trail was a lot different than the trail I spotted a few moments before. I kept thinking and watching the supposed chemtrail when all the sudden something struck me. All the other clouds around were heading for a certain direction (It's a windy day) but the trail I was focusing on just 'stood' there. Barely transforming when other clouds just keep moving at a decent pace. I just wanted to share this, I hope it might help in some way.


Greetz,
Staafke



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Full Story At: www.anomalies-unlimited.com...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"The system had 1 large and 2 smaller tanks. It was hard to tell in the cramped compartment but it looked like the large tank could hold 50 gallons. The tanks were connected to a fill and drain valve that passed through the fuselage just behind the drain valve for the waste system. When I had a chance to look for this connection under the plane I found it cunningly hidden behind a panel under the panel used to access the waste drain."

"I began to trace the piping from the pumps. These pipes lead to a network of small pipes that ended in the trailing edges of the wings and horizontal stabilizers. If you look closely at the wings of a large airplane you will see a set of wires, about the size of your finger, extending from the trailing edge of the wing surfaces. These are the static discharge wicks. They are used to dissipate the static electric charge that builds up on a plane in flight. I discovered that the pipes from this mystery system lead to every 1 out of 3 of these static discharge wicks. These wicks had been "hollowed out" to allow whatever flows through these pipes to be discharged through these fake wicks. "

"I don't know what they are spraying but I can tell you how they are doing it. I figure they are using the "honey trucks". These are the trucks that empty the waste from the lavatory waste tanks. The airports usually contract out this job and nobody goes near these trucks. Who wants to stand next a truck full of sh--. While these guys are emptying the waste tanks they are filling the tanks of the spray system. They know the planes flight path so they probably program the control unit to start spraying some amount of time after the plane reaches a certain altitude. The spray nozzles in the fake static wicks are so small that no one in the plane would see a thing. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Any airline mechanics here on ATS? Maybe we can get someone to independently verify these claims.

[edit on 3-3-2007 by simonmagus]



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by simonmagus
Full Story At: www.anomalies-unlimited.com...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"The system had 1 large and 2 smaller tanks. It was hard to tell in the cramped compartment but it looked like the large tank could hold 50 gallons. The tanks were connected to a fill and drain valve that passed through the fuselage just behind the drain valve for the waste system. When I had a chance to look for this connection under the plane I found it cunningly hidden behind a panel under the panel used to access the waste drain."


This is a hoax…
If you look back at other posts on this topic it has been very thoroughly explained what is placed on commercial aircraft, and that sprayed chemicals is not one of those things. I personally have even gone so far in the past as to show pictures of every piece of ramp equipment that connects to the aircraft via any type of tube, and its function. If you look around the net even further, you can find the version of this hoax that includes pictures. Of course the pictures are really of such things as “heated masts” which have existed since 707’s back in at least the 1950’s. Just this one story alone should show all the Chemtrailers out there that this whole topic is a hoax, and that there are groups/people who find it amusing to perpetrate this hoax.

If you still don’t believe me read this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 04:42 AM
link   




Like aliens and UFOs i suppose If you want to deal with subject matters that are far more complex and harder to establish factual evidence for feel free but don't come here and insult those involved by pretending that we should focus on more interesting, and mostly pointless, discussions about what is far far harder to discuss in any remotely scientific fashion.

You've insulted me three times on the subject of Chemtrails.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
So none of the...prove it *child jumping up and down fists clenched* or I will
throw a fit!

The neo-vaportrails/chemtrails are not for what has been popular belief.

It is a set up for "The Dark Night" Pay attention when the warm weather starts.

I pedict some really wild alien invovement form here unti the apex. All will be
man-made and the sheep will finally be under the complete control of the GOv.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join