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 the Chemtrail Conspiracy is Unplausible, and Meteorologically Innacurate

page: 27
43
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Of course, the counter argument is that what I'm seeing are chemtrails ..... to which I guess there's no answer!


Actually, that's rubbish! There's a very good answer.

If what I'm seeing and photographing are chemtrails then it means chemtrails are produced by normal commerical aircraft on routine transatlantic flights. This then raises the question of how they are doing it: how do they carry the chemicals (given that weight is such a major issue for such aircraft) and how is it dispersed? The only logical answer I can see to that is that it's added to the fuel. In which case chemtrails really are just contrails - albeit with the water vapour coalescing around a particle deliberated added to the fuel. Now, this could work 2 ways: is the additive deliberate to spray the populace (or whatever) or it intended to improce engine efficiency and is this additive then, inadvertently making contrails more prevalent? That's one for the aircraft experts. In any case, we do know that most scientific research in this field is looking at ways to reduce contrails, so it would seem if any such additive existed people would be aware of it (after all, they must surely test the fuel and engines if they're trying to reduce contrail formation?).

The alternative, that these contrails are chemtrails produced by military aircraft raises the rather more difficult question of, if so, where have all the commercial aircraft gone and why are they not producing the contrails we'd expect from them? And, indeed, where are all these hundreds of military aircraft taking off and landing from without anyone noticing. I think that's a non starter.

And if I am not seeing chemtrails it means that a) there are no chemtrails over the UK and b) chemtrails look identical to normal contrails and, indeed, cannot be differentiated from them.

And just for fun, some more 'contrails'










posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Here's a list I've drawn up showing the TOTAL amount (in pounds) of barium, aluminium and their alternate forms released over 10 years.

* 1997 - 41,479,841
* 1998 - 273,161,271
* 1999 - 367,405,383
* 2000 - 381,077,404
* 2001 - 300,338,671
* 2002 - 255,367,294
* 2003 - 252,116,329
* 2004 - 283,923,691
* 2005 - 286,765,468
* 2006 - 272,520,410
* TOTAL - 2,714,155,762

2,714,155,762 pounds or 1,231,120,344.6 Kilograms!

From just two chemicals.

Taken from here"

I mean, it looks like it quadrupled in one year! Thats a major difference.

What a coincidence -- 1998 is when the "Project Cloverleaf" chemtrail spraying began.

The question isn't whether chemtrails exist or not -- they obviously do.

The question is, what's their purpose?

A whistleblower who called himself "Deep Shield" had this to say before he "committed suicide" in 2004.

Also interesting:


In reading this page it may be of value to also look at Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Bases where the conclusion by the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research is that the most effective global warming method of mitigation (corrective) is the spraying of reflective aerosol compounds into the atmosphere utilizing commercial, military and private aircraft!


[edit] Hey Essan, do you really think that's just frozen water vapor from "persistent contrails" in your first photo?

That's certainly the most bizarre water vapor I've ever seen!


[edit on 20-3-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


The increase is explained here:
www.epa.gov...


1998-2002 period. Seven industry sectors were required to report starting with the 1998 reporting year, including metal mining, coal mining, electric utilities, chemical wholesale distributors, petroleum bulk storage/terminals, hazardous waste management facilities and solvent recovery facilities. These industries are included for analyses covering the 1998-2002 period, but not for periods covering years prior to 1998.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 

Is that the same EPA that said the air was safe in NYC after 9/11?

Is it the same EPA that allows the highly toxic industrial waste fluoride in the water?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



I guess so...

But just so you know, the factories log all waste themselves and report it to the EPA, so there's no way the figures can be tampered with, unless the factories themselves tamper with them in which case it has nothing to do with the EPA, 9/11 or chemtrails.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:42 AM
link   


Just some more ashes to the fire. Let's discuss contrails instead of course.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   


This is also totally irrelevant. Let's keep talking about the fine details of contrail formation and throw up some more number matrixes to make it look scienty.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 


Oh no, you didn't just bold a portion....you altered the wording. That my good friend is very poor form. I am intolerant of those that have such low standards of discussion and idea exchange that they would stoop to such immature behaviour.

I have zero respect for that kind of nonsense. If you can't stand behind, and defend what you've written....don't write it, or acknowledge the mistake.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   


Oh great, it's just chaff. I'm so happy that at least the military have a stealthy profile while people get poisoned by metallic particulates. Let's change the topic and talk about contrails.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Hey Essan, do you really think that's just frozen water vapor from "persistent contrails" in your first photo?


Yes, I do.

And I've explained the problems if it isn't. I have yet to see an alternative explanation that is both feasible and logical.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   


Is that you OZ? Nice moustache.

I'm sure FOX news sorted out the truth on Contrails in much the same way they sorted it out on WMD's and using the same journalistic integrity that sidelined Ron Paul in the last elections...

See where this is going?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
Oh great, it's just chaff. I'm so happy that at least the military have a stealthy profile while people get poisoned by metallic particulates. Let's change the topic and talk about contrails.


Well the good thing about chaff - both in that accuweather report and the previous German story with the fake subtitles is that although we can't see it, radar can
So we know if it's out there (which, of course, was the point of both videos!).

Anyway, if chemtrails are chaff - or anything else that can be picked up on radar - then we know 100% that none of my pictures show chemtrails.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   
I will probably be shouted off here, but did you know that Germany has become one of the first countries where their military have admitted Chemtrails Ops ?
Watch the video
www.blinkx.com... /germany-becomes-one-of-the-first-countries-to-admit-chemtrails-ops/LqoxSfwk8GRBPBQZrDaNQQ
Hope that works.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
The irony of all my above posts is I didn't actually find the concrete video I was looking for, but I'm sure it will popup somewhere. The point of the exercise is to show that the nature of what is going on, that there is indeed sampling and to show how the media are sidelining and diverting the debate from the questioning of the practice to the acceptance of the necessity.

In my mind there is no distinction whatsoever between climate control and chemtrails.

Forgive me if I ignore contrails in this post.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian


Just some more ashes to the fire. Let's discuss contrails instead of course.



How many times does this one pop up??

Let's get some facts straight here.

Firstly, the collection methods are very poor, dirty old jars in the back of his truck? come on!

Secondly, we need to consider the location of Stamp, Arkansas, it is smack bang in the middle of Arkansas' oil fields as shown on this map here:



And a zoom in of all the active oil wells in and around Stamp:


(each green circle represents an active oil well)

Armed with this knowledge and the knowledge that barium is used in the oil extraction process, why on earth would anyone believe the levels of barium came from chemtrails?


Source:

www.aogc.state.ar.us...

[edit on 20-3-2009 by Chadwickus]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Kenneth John Parsons
 


I already linked that video above with a working link, but thank you for contributing to the right side of the thread



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 

In case anyone missed this news, Germany has become one of the first countries where their military have admitted Chemtrails Ops
Watch the video
www.blinkx.com... /germany-becomes-one-of-the-first-countries-to-admit-chemtrails-ops/LqoxSfwk8GRBPBQZrDaNQQ
Pretty 'concrete' evidence I would say.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Kenneth John Parsons
 


Now, this is wierd posting habits, but strange things happen in chemtrail threads...



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join