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.

 

The Chemtrail Myth

page: 25
24
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by sarcastic
 


No it doesn't


There is no evidence whatsoever that any substances found on the ground came from clouds in the upper troposphere - indeed, all rational, logical and meteorological knowledge suggests such an idea as being impossible.

The suggestion is a non seqitur logical fallacy.




posted on May, 16 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Wait! But rain comes from clouds, right? And if any cloud seeding does contain barium, aluminum, etc., then wouldn't the bad stuff end up on the ground in concentrated levels over a long period of time?

There are also runoffs from snowmelt and other sources, such as agriculture and cities like oil, poop, etc. But that's pollution issue to address in another thread.

[edit on 2008-5-16 by pikypiky]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by pikypiky
 


Thankyou for aother post from here: www.abovetopsecret.com... where I get this info called bill HR 2977 IH

www.fas.org...
taken from here (full link wont work)
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.2977.IH:

"Space Preservation Act of 2001 (Introduced in House)

HR 2977 IH


107th CONGRESS

1st Session

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.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 2, 2001
Mr. KUCINICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
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.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Space Preservation Act of 2001'.

SEC. 2. REAFFIRMATION OF POLICY ON THE PRESERVATION OF PEACE IN SPACE.

Congress reaffirms the policy expressed in section 102(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451(a)), stating that it `is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.'.

SEC. 3. PERMANENT BAN ON BASING OF WEAPONS IN SPACE.

The President shall--

(1) implement a permanent ban on space-based weapons of the United States and remove from space any existing space-based weapons of the United States; and

(2) immediately order the permanent termination of research and development, testing, manufacturing, production, and deployment of all space-based weapons of the United States and their components.

SEC. 4. WORLD AGREEMENT BANNING SPACE-BASED WEAPONS.

The President shall direct the United States representatives to the United Nations and other international organizations to immediately work toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing a world agreement banning space-based weapons.

SEC. 5. REPORT.

The President shall submit to Congress not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, a report on--

(1) the implementation of the permanent ban on space-based weapons required by section 3; and

(2) progress toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing the agreement described in section 4.

SEC. 6. NON SPACE-BASED WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.

Nothing in this Act may be construed as prohibiting the use of funds for--

(1) space exploration;

(2) space research and development;

(3) testing, manufacturing, or production that is not related to space-based weapons or systems; or

(4) civil, commercial, or defense activities (including communications, navigation, surveillance, reconnaissance, early warning, or remote sensing) that are not related to space-based weapons or systems.

SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) The term `space' means all space extending upward from an altitude greater than 60 kilometers above the surface of the earth and any celestial body in such space.

(2)(A) The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following:

(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by--

(I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;

(II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;

(III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or

(IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.

(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)--

(I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);

(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or

(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.

(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."

It doesn't state they knowingly produce them, however they at the very least acknowledge their existence of what they are. Note it is an offence to produce chemtrails, therefore anyone caught making these chemtrails must be prosecuted under that bill.

I guess the hard part is for someone that has the means to actually capture, and analyse these chemtrails we see now, so has anyone got the means to do this?

watchZEITGEISTnow

[edit on 16-5-2008 by watchZEITGEISTnow]

[edit on 16-5-2008 by watchZEITGEISTnow]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by pikypiky
reply to post by Essan
 


Wait! But rain comes from clouds, right? And if any cloud seeding does contain barium, aluminum, etc., then wouldn't the bad stuff end up on the ground in concentrated levels over a long period of time?

There are also runoffs from snowmelt and other sources, such as agriculture and cities like oil, poop, etc. But that's pollution issue to address in another thread.

[edit on 2008-5-16 by pikypiky]


Your right there pikypiky, rain does come from clouds, but it comes from low level clouds, under 7000ft (or a tad higher for the tropics). Contrails/ chemtrails occur much higher at the cruising altitude for planes, the clouds at this height are ice crystals and occasionally fall as virga (precipitation not reaching the ground), bnut never reach the ground due to them falling into drier air.

Virga is sometimes used as a quick reference to what the wind is doing aloft. Oh sorry just to clarify to avoid confusion, virga appears as thin wispy strands or filaments coming off the main cloud


Pollution does encourage the growth of clouds too believe it or not. Microscopic dust and smog particles collide with water droplets encouraging growth. As the combination becomes larger and heavier, it falls as rain. This is one of the reasons why meteorologists have recently discovered that metropolitan areas are more prone to rain events than sparesly populated areas



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


And no....I do not believe the governments are spraying stuff on unsuspecting citizens.

Putting stuff in a town water supply is much more effective and a hell of a lot easier

Happy now?



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


It’s not so much if anyone has the means to test and analyze these chemtrails. I think people are not truly concerned (or even remotely aware of what is going overhead) otherwise there would be more public outcry and proactive solutions to deal with those ‘chemical or biological agents’.

I’m sure there has to be at least one hotshot billionaire, for example, who could volunteer one of his nice and shiny aircrafts and allow, say, interns to conduct their independent studies and get some real answers for us air breathers and water breathers alike.

Bills


A bill is a proposed new law introduced within a legislature that has not been adopted.


So that means this particular bill has not become a law, but only a proposal into law and (of course) bills go without the necessary enforcement to make sure these ‘acts’ are carried out in the best interest of the international community. But from reading various articles posted into ATS, it appears the courts and police who enforce these ‘laws’ don’t always side serve to protect us.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
 


Virga is sometimes used as a quick reference to what the wind is doing aloft. Oh sorry just to clarify to avoid confusion, virga appears as thin wispy strands or filaments coming off the main cloud


I'm learning new words from you, Oz. First, it's getting late and my mind was playing tricks on me when I saw a different meaning and spelling of the word 'virga'. And I though 'virga' is the tips on the wings of angels found in the clouds.



[edit on 2008-5-16 by pikypiky]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


With the link provided about the history of spraying chemicals on innocent ususpecting citizens in front of you, as well as the US government coming clean on it, you are in denial. I know know exactly what your agenda is. Thankyou for making this clear as day.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

www.whale.to...

www.abc.net.au...

archive.dailypicture.net...

www.cbc.ca...

mediamonarchy.blogspot.com...

and so on.... beware the disinfo, and those that spread it...

watchZEITGEISTnow



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


Okay, now im confused

You're saying I'm in denial, then you say you know exactly what my agenda is which I am assuming you are saying that I'm part of the coverup

All you've done on this thread is throw childish accusations around, try and bait me and others into arguing with you and post links as evidence with no discussion to back them up



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman


And no....I do not believe the governments are spraying stuff on unsuspecting citizens.

Putting stuff in a town water supply is much more effective and a hell of a lot easier

Happy now?



you have read the links provided here...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

your veiwpoint remains unwavered?

and yet you are not in denial?

....



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Zeus187
 


Im not in denial over anything.....why is it that when I disagree with one of you guys you either say im in denial or Im part of the cover up

Its about time you all grew up



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


and so on.... beware the disinfo, and those that spread it...


Okay, okay! I’ll be the first to admit that I too am guilty for polluting the air by using household products in aerosol cans, such as hairsprays, air cleaners, odor eliminators, furniture cares and even for cooking. Are you happy now? So maybe the government is not entirely to blame for ‘chemicals’ of a person.

Do you see those photos? They show people using the DDT. Those same people actually used the stuff on other people. Yet no one questioned how ‘safe’ it was to use and in the end it was later found out to be ‘bad’.

My question to everyone is what can we do to stop spraying any chemicals altogether? I think it really boils down to personal responsibility to find out how dependant we are on these technological innovations to make our lives comfortable at the expense of our health and the environment, whichever comes first.

Yeah, I guess that’s it and maybe it's not too late. We are all accountable for not taking corrective actions.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
With the link provided about the history of spraying chemicals on innocent ususpecting citizens in front of you, as well as the US government coming clean on it, you are in denial. I know know exactly what your agenda is. Thankyou for making this clear as day.


I wonder, rather than bandying those links around so casually, did you read them?



www.abovetopsecret.com...'


Is one of ATS's own, and while it lists many things - and shows that the US government is not above doing nasty things to its troops and people, it does not mention the systematic spraying of anything from 25/30000ft.



www.whale.to...


The DDT being sprayed in those photos - look how high the plane is. Theres a reason for that, and its called DISPERSAL. Much higher than a couple of hundred feet and the chemical spray would drift off its intended target and end up elsewhere.



www.abc.net.au...


Is a story that touches on what I mentioned above. 24D is a herbicide - you can google it. Obviously the duster in question was either flying too high, and missed his target, or the wind carried the spray. Either way, it has nothing to do with "chemtrails"



archive.dailypicture.net...


Has been debunked so many times on ATS that its laughable. Its a Gulfstream air SAMPLING plane, owned and run by the US Department of Energy Brookhaven



www.cbc.ca...


Refers to the spraying of a military base with herbicides at low level



mediamonarchy.blogspot.com...


Refers to Gulf War syndrome, which may or may not be down to a number of factors such as the use of Depleted Uranium in shells or the combination of drugs given to allied soldiers in the Gulf Wars to counteract the potential effect of nerve agents that it was feared the Iraqi's might use.



and so on.... beware the disinfo, and those that spread it...


Sound advice - but given that not a single link you posted here refers to the mass spraying of chemicals supposedly all across the world by jet aircraft flying at altitudes in excess of 20,000ft and you choose to attack professional meteorologists and aviation experts by saying they are disinformation agents and in denial, I have to ask just who am I supposed to be watching, because those you attack have provided facts, evidence and science, and you have provided hearsay, lies and speculation, as I've just shown above.

We're here to Deny Ignorance. That means looking at things in proper detail, not pointing upwards and proclaiming that "the sky is falling, chicken little"

[edit on 16/0508/08 by neformore]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Sorry if i rubbed you up the wrong way OZ,

You know where i stand regarding Chemtrails and i have to commend your efforts on the topic of chemtrails.


you have enlightened me on a number of things regarding "chemtrails" and are part of the reason im comfortably sitting on the fence instead of taking photos of every contrail i see... (not that i ever would have been) www.abovetopsecret.com...

the one thing about you that puzzles me, is that for someone who is obviously intelligent,
and who has been presented huge amounts of evidence proving that governments and military sections, have indeed been spraying unwilling people with various toxins for decades.

still finds it so hard to admit that these "chemtrails" are even a possibility...?

[edit on 16/5/2008 by Zeus187]



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   
I believe chemtrails/HAARP is oxidizing the atmosphere, in addition to fossil fuels.

www.chrisspages.co.uk...

I believe we are about to suffocate from lack of oxygen in the air.

You believe what you want.







posted on May, 17 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by sarcastic
 


sarcastic.....interesting link...but it has nothing to do with suffocating!!

Did you see anything I've written, about how MUCH air there is???

Do you not realize that chlorophyl produces oxygen?? As long as we have green plants, we will have O2.

Sheesh! There are far worse 'doomsday' scenarios to consider!



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sarcastic

I believe chemtrails/HAARP is oxidizing the atmosphere, in addition to fossil fuels.

www.chrisspages.co.uk...

I believe we are about to suffocate from lack of oxygen in the air.

You believe what you want.


Well whats the oxygen oxidizing with then?

The oxygen is still present in the atmosphere even if oxidization occurs, so how can there be a lack of oxygen?


[edit on 18/5/2008 by OzWeatherman]

[edit on 18/5/2008 by OzWeatherman]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zeus187
Sorry if i rubbed you up the wrong way OZ,
the one thing about you that puzzles me, is that for someone who is obviously intelligent,
and who has been presented huge amounts of evidence proving that governments and military sections, have indeed been spraying unwilling people with various toxins for decades.

still finds it so hard to admit that these "chemtrails" are even a possibility...?

[edit on 16/5/2008 by Zeus187]


Yeah and the evidence points to the fact that contrails exist and chemtrails are a myth, started by Art Bell a few years back

There is no evidence to suggest that a contrail in the sky is anything more than ice and dust/ exhaust particluates (dust and particulates enhances cloud development)

I find it difficult to believe that people make assumptions based on people with no scientific background and take stuff they read on the internet as proof of chemtrails



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Flannery proposes 'global dimming' to save planet - alternative news thread


View the source article - pretty amazing disclosure!

[edit on 2008-5-19 by primamateria]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by primamateria
 


Well, prima....the scientist says we 'may' want to spray sulphur (?!?) not that we 'are' doing it yet. Sulphur??? That sounds worse than global warming! (smells worse too)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join