aerosol attack chemtrail evidence

Warm conditions? Where? At ground level? That has NO effect on the temperature at altitude. The temp at the altitude planes fly at is the same pretty much the world over. You can't really warm it up because the atmosphere there is too thin to hold temperature for long.

[edit on 4/27/2007 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 27-4-2007 by 117113]

take into consideration the following article:




Source

Here are a few WWII pictures of contrails in the process of spreading out.

external image

external image
(Notice in the background they're spreading out. These also fit the "persistence" mentioned by the OP)

external image

external image

Let me guess "Those pictures don't show the same thing at all!" Right?



[edit on 4/27/2007 by Zaphod58]

they are, however, images, those contrails look very recent, and nobody claims contrails dissapate instantly.

Wow, what a double standard. Your videos that show the planes leaving the trails are chemtrails, but THE EXACT SAME THING in those pictures is completely different? I guess that means your video gets thrown out too then. Those are recent contrails in your video and they don't disappear instantly.

Well, it's amazing to see how many will continue to deny.

All we can do is show and tell and one day people will wake up. I actually feel sad for the people who say contrail.

God Bless there little souls... cough, cough.

Deny what? Your total lack of evidence? The only evidence I've seen in EVERY chemtrail thread is "I can tell this is a chemtrail because it looks different." But yet it looks just like every OTHER contrail I've ever seen.

Why do you keep repeating that same canard?

Here's a very quick search of ATS members who claim that, indeed, contrails do dissipate instantly.







Not exactly the definition of "nobody" in my dictionary

[edit on 4/27/2007 by eaglewingz]

Ive been fortunate enough to actually see the unmarked white planes flying in parallel at the same time. I have no doubts they ARE spraying something else into the atmosphere. What they are spraying is another question, but they most definatly are doing it.

Ive seen trails and the general haze they form survive well into the night, and into early morning.. contrails simply don't stay for hours, slowly spreading into a haze that persists even longer.

Yes, they do linger for hours and become cloud layers. They're called Persistent Contrails and they're being looked at as being related with Global Warming. They're normal contrails that form under certain conditions, and they're doing just that.




www.theozonehole.com...

Regarding the Cessna 188, actually, I have done my homework. It's also rather misleading (in the context of this discussion, if not in literal fact) to say that the 188 was first manufactured in 1966, and that, therefore, it can't be a popular spray plane. It's true that the production run started in 1966, but it continued until 1983, and I can tell you from first-hand experience that 188s were still being used as sprayers (at least in southeast Missouri) as late as 2002, as were a few Grumman Ag-Cats.

As for capacity, I'll concede that you have a point...it *is* foolish of me to assume that a chemtrail sprayer would have the same capacity as a "41 year old plane". Given that a 188 with a 280 gallon hopper (the baseline that I used in my post) has to RTB every 15-20 minutes to reload the hopper, and some of these chemtrail sprayers lay trails for several hours, the chemtrail sprayers have to have much larger tanks.


Regarding my assumption that Boeing is making the aircraft, how is that ridiculous? Most of the chemtrail apologists that I've seen claim that the sprayers are commercial airliners (or at least built on airliner frames), and that means either Boeing (7X7 series), Lockheed-Martin (there are a few L-1011s around), or Airbus (French-built, so not likely part of a US government conspiracy...then again, the Templars were French, so maybe this is deeper than we thought). If it's a military plane, Boeing still covers most of the bases for bombers and tankers, with Lockheed-Martin building most of the transports.

Regarding the alleged mechanic who worked on a chemtrail sprayer, his story got shot down because it's not supported. He claims to have seen three tanks, with the largest being 50 gallons. That's not enough spray capacity to run for more than a minute or two...never mind enough juice to produce a trai (chem or con) of any size. There's also the absolute lack of *any* real detail beyond his description of a (too small) spray rig...no name, no airport name, no airliner name...not even an aircraft type, at least not in the version I read. Are you in the habit of believing anything that an anonymous person posts on the web? That's no 'open mindedness', but most of the words that accurately describe it are considered impolite.


As for the pilots, the planes are drone-controlled, or the pilots are silenced? As I mentioned, what about all those *other* pilots...most of whom are trained observers, and most of whom tend to watch out for their fellow crews and report oddities they see on other aircraft? Nobody's noticing these thick, dense, unusual spray fans flying off the wings of that plane over there? Sorry, I don't buy total blindness on the part of every airline and civil-aviation pilot. Either there's nothing to see, or they're all in on the cover-up.

As for efficiency, you mention that chemtrails are sprayed over wide areas...we get back to tank capacity again...oh, I forgot, these are those robot-controlled custom built 757 sized spray planes that just look like commercial airliners, aren't they? As for what I think when I see haze in the air, it's usually "Crap...smog again", or "Wow...light clouds"...not "Holy Bleep! The Gub'mint's been trying to poison me again!"


As for the "warm conditions" you talk about....it's a lot of things at 25,000 feet. It tends to be quiet, it tends to be beautiful....but it's not warm, and it doesn't get any warmer as you move up to 45,000 feet...or did you think that B-17 and B-24 crewmen wore "bomber jackets" and heated flight suits to ward off the chill of the British summers?

Yes, Let's get a few things straight:

"Evidence", and Proof, can be visual

"Evidence" can be gathered using the net, otherwise you too can forget trying to link in anything to prove your argument

Government documentation can provide both evidence and proof. Gov doc's are "official" and often contain admissions and lies and half-truths.

Firs thand knowledge / witness accounts can provide both evidence and proof.

"Evidence" is actual research using the scientific method to prove your assertions.

You're a tad off here. Evidence is used in actual scientific research. Assertions should only be made from the findings of the evidence and proof.

Ignoranceisntbliss, whats your take on chemtrails? You seem to be able to convey your point well, im interested as to what you have to say.

when i asked a question, posting evidence as support, your reply was to counter-question and THEN say i have no evidence, do some backtracking

The problem with the chemtrails claim is that contrails exist, so therefore we have little way of knowing for sure which are indeed chemtrails. I have seen rather official evidence that commercial industries of used them for various purposes, none necessarily sinister of course. This leaves us again with we don't know if the chemtrails we're seeing (which we don't even know if they aren't just contrails) are "bad" chemtrails.

If "good" chemtrails in fact do exist, I do find it quite alamring if they refuse to give us every detail about what's involved.

As the person claiming they're real, the burden of proof is on you, yet you sit there and tell me that pictures of planes leaving contrails aren't good enough, but the exact same thing by YOU is evidence of this big conspiracy.

Your "evidence" is paper thin, and easily seen through. All you've shown is evidence of planes leaving contrails as they fly across the sky.

So basically you want me to waste my time linking you to the obvious even though other people already have?

Right-o.


www.ozone-sec.ch.cam.ac.uk...

Essan is also a meteorology specialist, so if you want more proof, read some of his posts.

No....... Planes must be seperated by atleast 1000 feet vertically or if they are closer together than 1000 feet, they must be sperated by a few miles horizontally. If a plane is 1000 feet above another plane then there is no threat.

Doesn't really matter anyway. I have already linked you to a picture were two planes are 1000 feet vertically seperated while right ontop of eachother.

www.airliners.net...


Well what manufacturer DID do it then? It doesn't really matter who did do it, as everything that applies to Boeing aircraft still applies to any other airplane.


Maybe because any moron could of written it? If I wrote a story about how I worked on Chem-planes, would you beleive it? I think you would.

I would only beleive that story if:
A: He had pictures
B: It made sense
C: He showed who he was and where he worked.


Actually, the Chemtrail HOAX, is about just about anything.


You COMPLETELY misread his post; re-read it.


Planes do not usually fly over deserts / Oceans in the same volume as in Urbanised areas, so no, not all areas would get the same amount of chemicals.

Originally you linked us to an article of someone discovering Chem-spraying equipment in an AIRLINER. In AIRLINES, the pilot DOESN'T have to sign Non-Disclosure-Agreement forms, and the pilot WILL report any anomaly that arrises.


So 100 000 people carrying a secret is efficiant? So spraying chemicals over an area so that all of it misses is efficiant? Tell me, what is your definition of efficiant?

Why cannot Contrails persist? All you've done so far is tell us things we've heard over and over and over and over and over and over, and then you will contradict yourself numerous times.

You linked us to a 'mechanic story' who told about the extra equipment in an AIRLINER. Someone else said a Cessna 188 has more tanks than the chem-plane in the story, so you then say that it's ignorant to think it has the same volume tanks as the chem-plane. You also said it's ignorant to think that Airliners are doing the spraying even though you just told us that they did.

You also continue to argue that AIRLINERS were about to hit, even though they CLEARLY wern't.

Then someone else said that pilots always look out for anomalies, so you next say that they're UAV's, or the pilots are getting kept quiet.

If you keep changing your story, do you think that will make people beleive you? Or will it only show that you are consistantly getting proved wrong so then you just change your story?


[edit on 27-4-2007 by PisTonZOR]

If persistent contrails are not a natural consequence of aircraft exhausts creating man-made cirrus clouds, would someone please, please, please contact the World Meteorological Organisation, NOAA, UK Met Office, NASA, MOD and all other such organisations and leading climatologists who a) think they are and b) are looking at both their impact on global warming and into ways of reducing them.

It's so gratifying to know that here on ATS we have people who know so much more about atmospheric science than anyone in those organisations .....

For info, here's some typical disinformation peddled by those who clearly don't have a clue what they're talking about

www.ozone-sec.ch.cam.ac.uk...

www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...

www.livescience.com...

Don't forget about Greenpeace ("terrorists") and all of the other major ("terrorist") environmentalist organizations.

[edit on 28-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]