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.

 

Why are so many people calling contrails, Chemtrails?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by AllSeeingI
 


Thanks for your input AllSeeingI. I guess we are both completely brainwashed.




The Leeds airborne Volatile Aerosol Concentration and Composition (VACC) is a unique instrument in the UK. It is a proven technique which relies upon the fact that specific aerosol are volatilised using a heater system which is coupled to a PCASP-X aerosol spectrometer (O’Dowd and Smith 1993). Therefore it is capable of producing size distributions as a function of volatility and can thus provide information on the chemical composition in terms both number and size. The system has been used to identify sulphate, sea-salt, soot and methanesulphonic acid (MSA) aerosol components, providing size-differentiated information in near real-time.

homepages.see.leeds.ac.uk...
www.see.leeds.ac.uk...



Abstract : In the report primary attention is given to studying the radar parameters of trails of artificial precipitation obtained from one line of seeding. The investigations made it possible to draw a number of important conclusions for the procedure of isolating the areas of intensified precipitation on the earth's surface and for confirmation of the fact of an increase in precipitation itself.

Descriptors : *Artificial precipitation, *Cloud seeding, Weather modification, Intensity, Numerical analysis, Translations, USSR

Subject Categories : METEOROLOGY

Source




posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctordoom


Abstract : In the report primary attention is given to studying the radar parameters of trails of artificial precipitation obtained from one line of seeding. The investigations made it possible to draw a number of important conclusions for the procedure of isolating the areas of intensified precipitation on the earth's surface and for confirmation of the fact of an increase in precipitation itself.

Descriptors : *Artificial precipitation, *Cloud seeding, Weather modification, Intensity, Numerical analysis, Translattions, USSR

Subject Categories : METEOROLOGY

Source


Cloud seeding is vastly different than so called chemtrails. In cloud seeding you dump a large amount of silver iodide at once. You don't leave a big miles long trail behind the plane. It also requires that you already have cloud cover for it to work. Dropping seeding materials won't create clouds.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by doctordoom
 

Do you have any idea what you just linked to or are you just looking for the word aerosol and posting anything that comes up? You should first look up what the word aerosol means. You should then read the articles you post, before you post them.

The first one is about an instrument which is used to measure and analyze particles in the air (also known as aerosols). Things like sea-salt (carried aloft by the wind) and soot (you know, like from forest fires and stuff). This is important information in the study of climate.

Coupled together the data produced by these systems will culminate in exceptionally powerful tools for increasing our understanding of atmospheric aerosol processes.
homepages.see.leeds.ac.uk...

The second one is about an machine that produces small amounts of aerosols of a specific size to be used to calibrate instruments like the one above.

This instrument is designed for the calibration of CPCs which are capable of resolving particles down to several nanometers in size.

www.see.leeds.ac.uk...

Yes we know about cloud seeding to cause rain. It has nothing to do with contrails or "chemtrails". Cloud seeding is not carried out over wide spread areas and it is not carried out when there are no cumulus clouds around. So tell us, what are the findings of the report?



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I think I've attempted to explain that to him/her in at least two other threads, even posted youtube vid of a plane setting off silver iodide flares whilst inside a cloud, and another of the Snowy hydro project with the land based generators.


Yet they still decide to ignore these facts...





posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


I think I've attempted to explain to you that you are wrong.


Google Video Link


Keep up your debunking attempts though, as pathetic they may seem, they keep the thread alive, an I appreciate it.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by doctordoom
 




Eh, if you want to ignore documented methods of cloud seeding, then go ahead.

Makes you look like a small minded idiot though.


So for old times sake:

CHEMTRAILS ARE NOT FROM CLOUD SEEDING


Have fun with it all.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by doctordoom
 


No, he isn't. The people claiming chemtrails are ignoring little things like facts to make people believe them.


Any technique of cloud seeding depends on the release of millions of tiny particles of dry ice or silver iodide into a cloud. One way of accomplishing that goal is to ignite solid silver iodide in burners on the ground. The smoke thus formed consists of many tiny particles of the compound which are then carried upward into a cloud.

A more efficient way of seeding a cloud is to drop the seeding agent from an airplane onto the top of the cloud. If silver iodide is used, it can be released from flares attached to the wing tips of the aircraft. If dry ice is used, it is first pulverized into a fine powder and then sprayed onto the cloud.

science.jrank.org...


deliberate introduction into clouds of various substances that act as condensation nuclei or ice nuclei in an attempt to induce precipitation. The first experiments with cloud seeding were conducted in 1946; since then seeding has been performed from aircraft, rockets, cannons, and ground generators. Many substances have been used, but solid carbon dioxide and silver iodide have been the most effective; when used in supercooled clouds (composed of water droplets at temperatures below freezing), they form nuclei around which the water droplets evaporate. The resulting water vapour deposits into ice crystals, which build quickly as water droplets attach themselves. Attempts have been made to use these substances to minimize damage to crops and buildings from hailstones.

www.britannica.com...

Cloud seeding requires that there already be clouds in the sky. No clouds, then it won't work. It's been in use since the 1940s to help farmers. Originally they used canons to get the silver iodide up to the clouds.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Why is it that on all these "chemtrail" threads, not one single shred of actual scientific evidence is brought forward by the pro-chemtrail camp to prove their claims and yet when the anti-chemtrail camp does come forward with scientific fact to disprove chemtrails, they are labeled disinfo agents?



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Read on !



They told us that the government was going to pay our airline, along
with others, to release special chemicals from commercial aircraft.
When asked what the chemicals were and why we were going to spray them,
they told us that information was given on a need-to-know basis and we
weren't cleared for it. They then went on to state that the chemicals
were harmless, but the program was of such importance that it needed to
be done at all costs.


Here is the link
- Clover Leaf -
And now the Chemtrail Debunkers gonna Debunk this page too. Thats theyr 'job' after all... 'Blah , fake letter, another liar etc.' ..
Go head !!!


Cant hurt looking at this site either ! Here is info dating back to the 50's.
And I know they tested this in Canada in 1977. But I'm saving my 'ammo' as I learned here at ATS, dont spill all the beans etc..

The Sheep Killers site

[edit on 14-3-2009 by ChemBreather]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


No offense but how is that website in any way proof as a credible source of information or scientific fact? I can create a website and make statements too but that doesn't mean that they are factual.


you've proven nothing by adding those links to home made websites. Why don't you post a link to an official site to prove that chemtrails exist such as NOAA, Environment Canada, or EPA? im guessing because those sites will actually give you the facts regarding contrails and other weather science.
[edit on 14-3-2009 by QBSneak000]

[edit on 14-3-2009 by QBSneak000]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by QBSneak000
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


No offense but how is that website in any way proof as a credible source of information or scientific fact?


you see, debunk straight away, another proof, not good enuff , nothing is , youre either payd to thrash info about it , or you just dont get it !

You debunkers must provide proof of Contrails contain barium as claimed in Chemtrails...
you people claim Contrail, PROVE IT !



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


No not really trying to debunk, just pointing out that your sites and arguments are based on nothing more than hearsay, fear mongering and private opinion. No scientific fact or evidence at all. If you want to prove your point and present evidence that chemtrails exist , why not post some actual, factual data to support your claims.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
You prove to ME that this is from Contrail, coz if it is, well, the planes must stop flying then since the Extremly high level of Aluminum..

Lab report



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


I'll bite.

Where was the reading taken, exactly?



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Im sorry but as many here at ATS know, RENSE is not a credible source of information or anything else for that matter.

Again, show me a report from the EPA, NOAA, Environment Canada etc. or any other CREDIBLE source and I'll be more likely to believe.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by QBSneak000
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


No not really trying to debunk, just pointing out that your sites and arguments are based on nothing more than hearsay, fear mongering and private opinion. No scientific fact or evidence at all. If you want to prove your point and present evidence that chemtrails exist , why not post some actual, factual data to support your claims.


I know them exist, I have seen with my own eyes so many times now it makes me mad when people say contrail. To me it seems that this 'person' have no clue about that huge planes flying in low altitudes 'dropping theyr load' and take off is NOT natural flying patterns..


As I said before, claiming contrail when you see it is not, it looks more like crop dusting than anything else, you lie, or need to research more ...Frankly, I would say you dont know how a contrail should look like ! ( I dont mean You , but You Alll, as in all people hehe )



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by QBSneak000
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Im sorry but as many here at ATS know, RENSE is not a credible source of information or anything else for that matter.

Again, show me a report from the EPA, NOAA, Environment Canada etc. or any other CREDIBLE source and I'll be more likely to believe.


Hehehe your a waste off time, as many other ppl...Good day sir..
You just trust sources from places you dont trust your self...Ok, I get the Gov. to write me letter of 'confetion', ohh, wiat , it is a cover up ...



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
To answer the OP:

Most people are simply unaware of what a contrail is, how it's formed and "what makes 'em stay up there". These people tend to be quite imaginative when it comes to seeing any "out of the ordinary" cloud formation in the sky.

IMO "chem-trails" is the most absurd conspiracy theories out there because only those uneducated in what contrails actually are even promote the idea. I fly single engine planes and have a few pilot friends so I've brought this subject to their attention and they too found it to be absolutely ridiculous. One even said:

"what would be the point of releasing a minimal amount of substance into the atmosphere at 36,000 feet? It would never reach the ground to have any effect on the population".

I'm sure he meant "minimal" as a comparison to the amount of substance the aircraft could hold vs. the volume of the entire atmosphere.

Diffusion is a tricky subject...

My 2c



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Sure I know what a contrail looks like, I live near an airport. Now depending on the time of year, altitude and temperature they may persist longer than normal. Now a common miss conception is to think that cloud seeding is chemtrailing. See, I was always under the impression that chemtrails were supposed to be biological/chemical etc reagents sprayed over population centers to make people sick and eventually die no? could seeding has been around for a long time to try and induce rainfall in an already cloudy sky.

As for that report, what altitude was the sample taken? I couldn't tell by looking at it. For all you know that sample could have been taken near some kind of factory or at ground level in a busy city. Environment Canada tests air quality all the time.

Air Quality


The site that the report comes from does that kind of thing as well as many other related testing. Maybe its just me but after searching their site I found no area where they specifically were testing for evidence of "chemtrails"

If you can find it on their site please post it here.

The report people



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Have you ever done research into how much barium and aluminum and other chemicals are released from ground sources?

How was this sample taken? Where is it from? Unless it was taken directly from the contrail, then you can't say that it's released from a plane. All of the supposed samples I've seen to date were collected improperly to prove where they were from.

That's the problem with chemtrails. Everyone says that you can see the difference, but they can't show anything that says what's different about them. I spent 25 years working on planes, and live in a very busy air corridor, but have yet to see anything odd about contrails. Where I used to live, I MIGHT have seen one contrail a year. Many years there were none at all. So that must mean that they aren't spraying there.




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join