It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Chemtrails Vs Contrails... There's a MASSIVE Difference!!! Check these out...

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 09:11 PM
So we're spraying on Venus now too? This is QUITE the operation

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 09:21 PM

Originally posted by _Del_
So we're spraying on Venus now too? This is QUITE the operation

Nope no 'spraying' by us that I know of
Unless they feel they need to 'adjust' the weather there as well

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 03:03 PM
Maybe they're deploying düppel

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Essan
Maybe they're deploying düppel

Well seeing as your stuck in the chaff mode... lets have a closer look at this shall we?

Maybe what we call 'chemtrails' the military calls 'chaff' but in the following article it seems that the grid pattern is indeed admitted to by the military, only they do call it 'chaff' and they say its not 'harmful'

Chemtrails:GAO report admits "chaff"

Lab report reveals much more

Last May a family in Iowa contacted the office of Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) to report the constant criss-crossing of "chemtrails" in the sky above their neighborhood. They received back from the senator’s office a General Accounting Office (GAO) report on "military chaff" and the material safety data sheet for aluminum-coated fiberglass fibers being spread—seven days a week for several hours each day—in the skies above their home.

The chaff is spread by pilots learning how to mask planes or send false radar images. It was reported that the military also has lead-based chaff, but that it is not being used at this time. Chaff was used by the military in Europe in WWII and, according to the GAO, had been used in training here at home since the 50s.

Once chaff reaches the ground, it breaks down into particles small enough to inhale. Though military spokespeople insist that chaff is not harmful, the GAO report concluded that health effects are unknown and more studies are needed.

Regardless, some members of this family are very sick. On May 23, after a hard rain the day before, they a noticed glittering substance and a pinkish-colored powder substance on the roof of their house. They then noticed the glittering substance on many surfaces, even the dashboard of the family car. Both substances were collected and sent to a lab for analysis.

Among the substances found to be in the samples were several that should simply not be there:

6 bacteria, including anthrax and pneumonia

9 chemicals including acetylcholine chloride

26 heavy metals including arsenic, gold, lead,mercury, silver, uranium and zinc

4 molds and fungi

7 viruses

2 cancers

2 vaccines

2 sedatives

So now we have the military admitting to 'spraying chaff' in grid patterns and independent lab tests showing the ingredients in that 'chaff'

Over the last several months, The IO has received a significant increase in chemtrail-related calls and letters. Most report a dramatic increase in chemtrail "spraying" activity in their areas; some are reporting the development of chronic flu-like symptoms, chronic fatigue and body aches that they have never before experienced.

We intend to expound upon this subject in greater detail—hopefully next month.

If you are seeing the relationship between accelerated chemtrail spraying in your area and symptoms among friends, family and members of your community, begin writing it down and send the information to us by mail or email. Note times, dates and specific symptoms. If you live near a military installation, expect that you are being "sprayed." You may want to contact your senator or rep and, politely (that is how you get the information you are seeking) request the forwarding of any information that may be available on the military chaff being used in your area. After obtaining relevant documents from your rep or senator, consider using it to obtain epidemiological data from your local health department.

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 03:05 AM
reply to post by zorgon

Good Bloody work Zorgon!

You don't give up easly.

I wonder what they will have to say about this?


posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:38 AM
Well, if chemtrails are really just chaff deployed by military aircraft, it means that the vast majority of alleged chemtrails are nothing of the sort (because they are produced by commercial airliners). It also means that chaff looks and behaves exactly like a contrail and aids the development of cirrus clouds.

So the question is, how do you tell the difference between this:

or this

And chaff?

As for substances found on the ground - it's a non sequitur logical fallacy to claim that such substances came from chemtrails. As well as being highly improbable given the height at which such alleged spraying takes place. So lets please stick to verifiable evidence

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 10:17 AM
Of course, if chemtrails are chaff then we can easily identify them by just looking at the radar ..... which means I can categorically state that no chemtrails have been laid over the UK in the past year

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 12:50 PM
Test Complete

[edit on 29-4-2008 by zorgon]

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 10:46 PM
reply to post by zorgon

This thread is done.

Good job Zorgon

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:23 PM
reply to post by Alien Abduct

What, a tag-team? Z and AA??

Look, let's spell it out once more, and stop the obfuscation.

A contrail is (sometimes) produced by the passage of a jet, through air that has sufficient relative humidity (water vapor present) so that the hot exhaust gases, disturbing this air, will result in the formation of ice crystals....these contrails bear a striking resemblance to naturally forming cirrus clouds. This is commonly a result of regurlarly scheduled commercial jet traffic.

IF the Military is using 'chaff' as part of their various training exercises, then I would suggest that would be happening in Restricted Airspace or an MOA. IF this is going on, then it is not a co-ordinated attempt to 'poison' any particular target, since it's obvious that high, upper-level winds are not that predictable!!! They change, constantly!!!!!

Why to you think the various weather services send up weather balloons??

Why do you think we pilots get asked by ATC what our current Winds Aloft are? It's all to continually update the Prognosis Charts, to help the forecasters!!! For Aviation Weather forecasting, primarily, but also for your local weatherman on the six o'clock news!!!!

Alien Abduct....., heavy stuff dropped from 35,000 feet will fall....stuff that is atomized in a spraying pattern, will act the same way clouds do! So, aluminum pieces of 'dust', or even strips, will flutter in the winds, and disperse in a fashion that cannot be pre-determined....well, maybe if it rains, then the heavy drops of water might bring them right down....but, I've seen rain going sideways, haven't you?

I'm just saying, if you want to cropdust, you do it from about 5 feet off the ground. NOT 35,000 feet!!

Finally, AND I WANT THIS TO BE UNDERSTOOD!!!! Commercial passenger jets DO NOT spray any chemicals, other than the normal consequences of the engine exhausts. The fuel, Jet-A, is NOT pumped onto a jet from a tanker truck, it is pumped VIA a truck that pulls it up from pipes in the ground, then it is metered through the truck's system and uploaded onto the airplane.

The last, best suggestion that comes up now, is..."well, something is put into the fuel"....that is NONSENSE!!! Anything in the fuel would change its specific gravity, and would affect the Fuel Quantity systems. When we get a fuel upload, we get a fuel slip, with the number of gallons pumped in, from the fueling operator. We then multiply that number of gallons by 6.7 (average) because one gallon of Jet-A weighs 6.7 pounds, at standard temps. (the variance is only 6.6 to 6.8, depending on prevailing temperature). We have to have the gallons, times the 6.7, equal the weights we see on the fuel guages...(See, fuel quantity in a jet is measured in POUNDS, not gallons). SO, the upload amount, added to 'fuel on board' at the start, must be checked, and must be accurate, or else we need to look deeper into it....jet's quantity can be manually checked, using 'drip-sticks', from under the wings....the mechanics will do this, and use their charts to verify...., anything foreign in the fuel, would change its density, and I explained how that won't work. Now....the temperatures in the engine, during combustion, will exceed 800 degrees Celsius. Tell me what sort of foreign material will survive those temperatures?

ps...Zorgon has access to another retired airline pilot, who would be able to verify all that I have written here......unless they wish to continue to obfuscate.

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:05 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

you continue to use the same argument about your precious 'commercial flights'.

But you changed it here a bit tho and I will answer it for you.

"I'm just saying, if you want to crop dust, you do it from about 5 feet off the ground. NOT 35,000 feet!!"

They aren't in my opinion trying to purposely hurt people or "crop dust " people.

They are using these Chemtrails for weather modification.
Most chemtrails are found at or about 12-25k feet not 5 feet.


[edit on 4/30/2008 by Alien Abduct]

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:07 AM

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
reply to post by zorgon

This thread is done.

Good job Zorgon

A standing ovation is in order, let me get out of my chair!!!

Excellent work Zorgon.

If you have any complaints about how this went down I would suggest you and any other interested party go back and read page NINE of this thread why it was like being in a cheesy chatroom. Take those games to BTS please, we have higher standards here on ATS.'

[edit on 30-4-2008 by interestedalways]

[edit on 30-4-2008 by interestedalways]

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:17 AM
reply to post by interestedalways

Interested....'cheesy'? I like cheese, especially Roquefort!!

Page nine....ah! Those were the Days!! I thought they'd never end....those were the days, my friend......

Harumph! Heck, a few like-minded individuals, who happened to come along and see when and what to plan, no coercision(sp?)....and a spot of humor along the way.

And, the best humorist of all.....Zorgon!! First, on page nine, he mentions, obliquely, that the contrails might be a protection form 'out there'....then, of course, later, brings in the chaff argument, to agree with another poster that it is designed to fall to about flip-flop!!!!!


posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 02:17 AM

Originally posted by weedwhacker, anything foreign in the fuel, would change its density, and I explained how that won't work.

unless of course... the additive is of the same density as the fuel... then all your data would be out the tail pipe... so to speak

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 02:23 AM
My post on page 9 is the closest thing I'll ever say (barring some new interesting data) about the existence of chemical trails

Seriously, chaff does not equal chemicals or contrails. I'm not sure where the connection is being made here...

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 02:34 AM
…because there is no connection between chemtrails and contrails. Currently, there is no ‘scientific theory’ supporting chemtrails, which is being passed off as pseudo-science from the general trend of this thread.

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 03:08 AM
reply to post by zorgon

Zorgon....if the 'additive' was of the same density as the fuel, as you supposed.....then the density would double, n'est pas?

Or....I see your other idea, not plausible....if your alleged 'additive' matched the density of Jet-A, then it would have to be a 50/50 ratio...or 40/60, or 30/70.....etc.....but, what is this 'MAGIC' additive of which you speak??

This is a common tactic....jump in, flame....sometimes, I'll admit, Zorgon jumps in WITH VERY BIG FLAMES!!!!!!.....but it is smoke and mirrors, folks.....smoke and mirrors.

Ever seen a magic show? I mean, a Las Vegas Style, over-the-top Magic Show?

heck, doesn't have to be a magic show....just go see 'Cirque du Soleil', at Caesar's Palace, in Las's not magic, but looks like it...

Illusion...mis-direction...people lap it up.

But, my original point, about fuel additives, get muddled, by the 'flame' of a poster who just wants to confuse the issue.

Imagine an additive, as ZORGON did, with the same 'density' as the fuel....but this 'additive' could miraculously withstand temperatures of over 800 degrees Celsius....some would have you believe that biologically harmful agents are being sprayed on you, out of passsenger jets' engines, because they are in the fuel!!!!!!. BALONEY!!!!!

Oh....and, this alleged 'additive' would not substantially change the way the engine responded???? If the fuel is adulterated, in any way, it shows in the engine readings.

So....It is somewhat sick, maybe a more acceptable word is, disengenuous, for certain 'members' to come into a thread and post nonsense.

Others call it 'flaming' can decide for yourselves....


posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 07:40 AM
Originally posted by weedwacker

No, defcon....never had my hand up JL's ass!

Can I say 'ass'? Should I have said 'butt'! Oh dear, I am in deep doodoo....

But....the word 'but', not the word 'butt' least it was funny, when JL was here, don't you agree????


Page 9 and many other posts by you are nothing but this kind of nonsense. I don't see how you have managed to slip through the T&C. For one thing leave JL out of it. I haven't seen him post in this thread, have you? For another thing watch the cussing, we don't discuss preverse sexual acts on this site you nasty thing.

And for the record, ATS has a chat room, keep your fun chat for that please, we come here to ATS not BTS to discuss on a more serious level. These posts are full of people being made fun of. Not cool, making fun of our fellow members of this community that stood long before some of you hot shots wandered in.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by interestedalways]

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 08:09 AM
Weedwhacker, you mean to tell me that there is no way to modify fuel while mitigating changes to performance? Hmmmm....that honestly seems ludicrous on the surface. You may make me buy into a belief that you would reduce relative fuel efficiency by offsetting the weight of the particles added to the tanks. I mean, replacing 8 lbs of fuel with 8 lbs of nanoparticles would likely yield a results of 8 lbs less relative efficiency compared to unadulterated fuel. OK, i got that.

But i do not believe you have it right when you imply that the engines just won't run on adulterated fuel.

Regarding the possibility of nanoparticles surviving the trip through a jet engine....give me some time. I can come up with a solution for you, certainly. Materials science has come up with some amazing advancements, and this likely doesn't really need any amazing advancements to solve.

But consider things on a nanoscale. That is where the answer is.

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 10:38 AM
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

BFFT, nanoparticles, that's an interesting notion. I'm supposing you refer to something man-made, and slipped into the fuel on the down-low...

I would expect, in small enough quantities, any nanoparticle addition wouldn't substantially affect the fuel let's do this. let's get a scientist and lab to randomly sample some Jet-A from around various airports and provide the results.

There likely are 'nanoparticles' being emitted....the unburned various hydrocarbons in the exhaust.


top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in