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: 32
43
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


Now now, let's not be difficult. If they can admit that not all persistent contrails are chemtrails, you should should be able to consider the possibility that there are some chemtrails.

They DO have reports of disease outbreaks which coincide with days of "heavy contrails" which disperse into cloud cover.

They DO have some evidence linking Morgellon's disease to fibers & things that reportedly fell from the sky, or clouds, or chemtrails.

They DO have reports of air sample analysis showing bacteria, viruses, heavy metals, and some really bizarre stuff like engineered red blood cells and polymer fibers.

Would it kill you to look at some of that evidence objectively and consider it?




posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


So, do you think it's possible that they are covertly adding stuff to airplane fuel that enhances the heat reflectivity in order to try to combat global warming?

Do you think it's possible that they might be trying some weather modification with chemicals or components other than silver iodide and not telling us about it?

Do you have any alternate theories about where the bacteria and viruses and weird stuff being found in air samples might be coming from?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


So, do you think it's possible that they are covertly adding stuff to airplane fuel that enhances the heat reflectivity in order to try to combat global warming?


Well, it would be hard for me to answer that, seeing as I dont work on the airport tarmac, so I guess its always a possibility

However I wouldnt see the point in putting additives in the fuel to enhance heat reflectivity, as ice crystals, and clouds do this enough anyway. Also, on global warming, I do not believe there is enough historical meteorological climate data, to prove or disprove the theory




Do you think it's possible that they might be trying some weather modification with chemicals or components other than silver iodide and not telling us about it?


Well, they do use dry ice as well as silver iodide, and I doubt that any other chemical would be dared to be used, as most toxins will be picked up the air sampling agencies, including the EPA and DEP.

I would believe that given the recent mixed results of cloud seeding with dry ice and silver iodide, combined with the necessity to already have rain bearing clouds present, there may be other alternatives in the research stages.

Just to add, cloud seeding is done in lower level clouds, such as cumulus and altostratus, where mostly water and super cooled water droplets exist. It would be unfeasible to release something at the height at which contrails form, as the cloud types at this height (cirrus etc), are unable to produce precipitation.



Do you have any alternate theories about where the bacteria and viruses and weird stuff being found in air samples might be coming from?


Yes, I would be looking in a completely different area rather then the upper troposphere though, due to the unreliabilty of the weather patterns. There are many more effective avenues that would be used before, releasing in the atmosphere would even be considered. Also I guess it warrants research, but maybe we should review the chemistry and physical attributes of viruses and bacteria, to see what environments they are able to thrive in?

If I was going to poison or infect someone, a release (covertly)of a virus in a populated area, or in a drinking water supply, or even in food, would be a much more effetive way of doing this.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

I would believe that given the recent mixed results of cloud seeding with dry ice and silver iodide, combined with the necessity to already have rain bearing clouds present, there may be other alternatives in the research stages.


Interesting. So if they were doing some preliminary research with other chemicals, they would be found at ground level, but they would be coming from lower clouds and probably not be very noticeable, not falling from high contrails. Am I understanding you correctly?


If I was going to poison or infect someone, a release (covertly)of a virus in a populated area, or in a drinking water supply, or even in food, would be a much more effective way of doing this.


I don't understand the subject nearly as well as you do, but I think I tend to agree with you on that. I also think that is one of the real questions we should be trying to answer instead of arguing over pictures of contrails/chemtrails.

Why would they choose to disperse this stuff from high (contrail) altitudes if, as you say, that's inefficient, possibly ineffective (don't some viruses and bacteria die pretty quickly in very cold temperatures?), and imprecise in the sense that they can't tell exactly where the stuff is going to reach ground level at.

Who could be doing this using commercial airliners without anyone seeing or noticing the tanks, sprayers, and chemicals?

What could be the purpose, if not weather control? Population control? Seems like a rather expensive and ineffective way to go about it. Bio weapons testing? I wouldn't put it past them on principle, but again it seems like there would be much more effective ways of delivering bioweapons and be sure that they'll hit the intended target area and not end up on "friendly" soil or people.



[edit on 20-3-2009 by Heike]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Well, they do use dry ice as well as silver iodide, and I doubt that any other chemical would be dared to be used, as most toxins will be picked up the air sampling agencies, including the EPA and DEP.


Yeah, the same agencies who told those near 9-11 affected areas to go back to work, it was all fine!
The same ones who do nothing about the blanket of pollution covering our cities, most of the time?
Population control is already being implemented and the air is a far more secret way to do it.
Since anyone with a little money can test food and water!



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 


You say normal contrails don't last or persist. How come on a flight from Chicago to New Orleans a few years ago as the plane was making a long looping turn around 30,000 feet, I could look back out the window and see a contrail coming from the plane I was on (airbus) that stretched for miles and miles behind us? Now don't tell me they are using commercial flights for this so called spraying.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
I did not say it can ONLY pick up water. I said it does not pick up clouds, and clouds are water, so you are not understanding the concept I am trying to walk some of you into.

Radar is not going to just pick up clouds (with no precip), nor things like pixie chemtrail virus barium magical slyph dust either, but can sometimes pick up birds, bats, and even some insects. There is a reason for it, its designed that way too. Have you picked up on what I am talking about?

And now you think there is some conspiracy that keeps mets from talking about how radar works???? You can look online all over about how precip radars work, its not a secret at all. The company I work for has several of them for sale.

That seems to be another chemtrail believer tactic, just lump everyone into one giant conspiracy of silence. We must be up to several hundred thousand people involved by now if not more.


THE COMPANY YOU WORK FOR EH ? Hmmmm. That was a bit of a slip up wasnt it ? That company has a vested interest I'll wager.....
Welcome to corporate America .

You've already proved in your dialogue with me that your inside knowledge of aircraft has a number of fatal flaws in its logic. Is that why you will not debate with a veteran any more ?


No mate . I have sanctuary . Your goons in military intelligence cant get to me here . They've tried ....

boasting about the b36 when it was such a dog of an aircraft , Ha !
How many times have my family warned armchair experts that they are going down the wrong design path because their ego's got in the way of common sense.

Bit like day light bombing raids . We told you the losses would be severe but no ,you knew better and I watched as thousands of kids got slaughtered from the cockpit of a Mustang which was in truth designed by Sid Cotton and his unit originally for long range recon.

When will you Americans let go of your greed and ego and see whats right under your noses ?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Poisoning water ways would be to obvious mate . And even scumbag pollies drink it so lets be reasonable .

We dont have the same chemtrailing issues down here as the US , thankfully , but then we place more value on our citizens than america does.

Your the same guy that denies our ADF has advanced anti grav craft too ,so your way behind on current technology ,and I mean WAY BEHIND .

So what if you do pump up helium balloons . I can get that done at the fairground....



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
[Interesting. So if they were doing some preliminary research with other chemicals, they would be found at ground level, but they would be coming from lower clouds and probably not be very noticeable, not falling from high contrails. Am I understanding you correctly?


Yep


And the other thing is, that the chemicals they would use, inlcuding the two already used) are not visible to the naked eye. especially given that they are released by a plane actually flying through the lower clouds
A



I don't understand the subject nearly as well as you do, but I think I tend to agree with you on that. I also think that is one of the real questions we should be trying to answer instead of arguing over pictures of contrails/chemtrails.

Why would they choose to disperse this stuff from high (contrail) altitudes if, as you say, that's inefficient, possibly ineffective (don't some viruses and bacteria die pretty quickly in very cold temperatures?), and imprecise in the sense that they can't tell exactly where the stuff is going to reach ground level at.


Exactly my thoughts. Thats why Im surprised that after 32 pages, there has been no challenge on my original post. I did state why the chemtrail theory was not feasible, plus I added reasons, which have yet to be disproven



Who could be doing this using commercial airliners without anyone seeing or noticing the tanks, sprayers, and chemicals?


There are many pilots and even aircraft mechanics here to, but unfortunantly when they speak out about why "sprayers" or "gagdets" are not on the plane, they are (as a defensive mechanism by the other side) labelled as liars or part of the cover up.

You will notice on aircraft photos though, the contrails originate from the engines. There is also a gap between the engine and the start of the contrail, because it takes a millisecond for the hot exhaust and water vapour to sublimate into ice. Now I am wondering if the others on the opposite side can prove to me that a chemical released at such a height will do this, its common knowledge that hot water certainly does....and Im quite sure barium does not.

If it were are spray, I would expect it to be coming from a different region of the plane, and no gap between the alleged spraying equipment and the stream of the alleged chemical



What could be the purpose, if not weather control? Population control? Seems like a rather expensive and ineffective way to go about it. Bio weapons testing? I wouldn't put it past them on principle, but again it seems like there would be much more effective ways of delivering bioweapons and be sure that they'll hit the intended target area and not end up on "friendly" soil or people.


Thats another thing.

Just before I released my balloon this morning, there was a contrail directly above the met office which stayed for about an hour and a half. Not a good place to spray if Im allegedly part of the cover up, and the other side insists that the nasties, gently floats to the ground, without being affected by the wind.

Also, they cant seem to agree on what the purpose of 'chemtrail release" is and repeatedly contradict themselves and each other.

On this side, we all agree that its water vapour and dust from hot exhaust, which sounds more credible then the multiple theories the opposites are saying its for. Some say its barium, then reply to their own posts and show "evidence" (used very loosely) thats its a biological weapon?

So guys what is it? How can you prove something when you dont even know what you are observing?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by reconpilot

I flew a highly modified spitfire on recon . I was one of cottons clubs pilots .



Was it modified with anitgrav like the vaunted F-22 beating Varks?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by reconpilot
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 

Your the same guy that denies our ADF has advanced anti grav craft too ,so your way behind on current technology ,and I mean WAY BEHIND .


I never denied that...i doubted it seeing as my workplace is situated at Darwin Airport, like all the met offices in oz. Difference is, Darwin Airport is a combined military and civilian airport....never seen any invisible F-111's taking off...even during the Pitch Black Military exercises which take place here...

But what would I know...you are in with the top ranking military officials, and are from another planet arent you? So this makes you know able to debunk persistent contrails how? (and thats according to what you said on this and another thread)




So what if you do pump up helium balloons . I can get that done at the fairground....


Well you continue going to the fair ground and gettng your helium balloons, I will continue to use my hydrogen filled weather balloons and Vaisala radiosondes


[edit on 20/3/2009 by OzWeatherman]

[edit on 20/3/2009 by OzWeatherman]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 


No, AllTied....you're offline, hope you see this someday....

For the umpteenth time, there are NO additives mixed into Jet-A, as used by commercial passenger and cargo jets that would be considered prone to producing a 'chemtrail'. This nonsense is internet paranoia, that continues to make the rounds in a viral way.

ANYTHING that was intended to be introduced into the Jet-A and was intended to survive the heat of combustion to make it to the exhaust would change the specific gravity of the fuel to the extent that the fuel guages would not read correctly.

There would also be a concern about ANY additive, as to how it would affect the turbine blades....would there be a build-up of particulates, for instance.

I'm sorry....the notion of deadly 'chemicals' inserted into the fuel, is completely bogus.

I've tried to keep my tongue, for a while, in order to cool off....but baloney is baloney, and I do not wish to see bad 'science' repeated.

(did edit for spell)

[edit on 3/21/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Mrs. Clearskies,

The 'blanket' of pollution in major cities is not from above. I grew up in LA, it was a problem in the 1960s and onward...cars and factories.

I've tried, so very hard....maybe too hard, to explain the sheer incredible scale of what 'chemtrail' believers just don't get....

The surface area of the planet, in square miles. It is incredibly vast, and unlikely we puny Humans could somehow have enough airplanes to add enough 'chemtrails' to adequately cover enogh surface area to make a difference.

Mother Nature does most of it for us....just look at photos from the Shuttle, and realize how much of the earth is already covered by naturally occuring clouds.

Put another way: From our viewpoint, on the ground, we see a small slice....our angle of view is very narrow.

From an orbital height of, say, 180 miles, the view is much, much, much wider.

It's like the difference between seeing a few trees versus the entire forest....



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

What I have seen is NOT CLOUDS or even humidity!
I checked the weather!
After 2005 I have seen our pristine mountains become alarmingly invisible through the particulate haze!
The E.P.A. showed nothing on their sensors!!!
Yeah, they're right on top of it.

So tell me why there would be a mile-thick blanket of pollution covering our planet.
and why a trip on the space shuttle would cause me to reconsider the problem we have.
Don'tchemtrailmebro



[edit on 21-3-2009 by Clearskies]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Here's a thought

Next time you see, it take the a photo or a couple of photos, and I will check the meteorological data against your observations. I wont scrutinise your opinion, i just want to merely analyse your observations.

Just, also, just let me know what country or state you are in, which will help determine where I get the data from



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies

So tell me why there would be a mile-thick blanket of pollution covering our planet.


Maybe it has something to do with this (from the article you linked):

Brown clouds are caused by an unhealthy mix of particles, ozone and other chemicals that come from cars, coal-fired power plants, burning fields and wood-burning stoves. First identified by the report's lead researcher in 1990, the clouds were depicted in the report as being more widespread and causing more environmental damage than previously known.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thats a good point Phage

Its alos not unusual to see thick layers of pollution and haze to be trapped under inversions to. The air becomes trapped under the warming air, causing health issues for people on the ground.

Good pic (smoke trapped under inversion) and definition on wiki

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Well, mrs.....not really sure.

I do know, though, since I grew up in the LA Basin, there were reports by Native Americans, as relayed to the early Settlers, of the surrounding mountains being obscured....and, we're talking here about centuries ago.

Depending on terrain, time of year, and possible upper-air inversion scenarios, combined with a dry spell, meaning a lot of fine soil being kicked up into the atmosphere....ALL of these scenarios can combine.

I also lived in Denver for part of my adult life....the 'Brown Cloud' was a constant topic of conversation. This the years 1984-1992, for me.

Both of these instances cannot possibly be related to 'chemtrails', however.

As I said, terrain was a factor, as well as prevailing winds. And temperature inversions, varying moisture content in the airmasses, etc.

On the days, in Denver, when the wind was from the West, over the Mountains....the city was clear, and you'd get that lovely pine scent in the air. But, I digress....

One must always consider the historical records, in a particular city, before jumping to a conclusion such as 'chemtrails' as a culprit.

Trying to remain on the topic....I may have to repeat myself briefly.

There are Two camps, one camp says 'chemtrails' are poisonous chemicals, the other says they are 'weather control'.

Poison from 35,000 feet? Highly unlikely, since it cannot be targeted.

Weather control? Again, see above, and the massive surface area of our planet, compared to what Mother Nature does already....

Just using logic.....





[edit on 3/21/0909 by weedwhacker]

EDIT again!!! OZ, and phage, you both beat me to it!!! Whereas you both are succinct, I just tend to ramble....must check that software between my ears, may need an upgrade.

[edit on 3/21/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by Clearskies

So tell me why there would be a mile-thick blanket of pollution covering our planet.


Maybe it has something to do with this (from the article you linked):

Brown clouds are caused by an unhealthy mix of particles, ozone and other chemicals that come from cars, coal-fired power plants, burning fields and wood-burning stoves. First identified by the report's lead researcher in 1990, the clouds were depicted in the report as being more widespread and causing more environmental damage than previously known.


Yeah, coal-fired power plants, wood burning stoves burning fields
AND NOT A WORD about factories that spew out toxic chemicals, IE, Dow Chemicals, etc...
That right there ought to give you pause as to why they wouldn't mention specific names and be found guilty of LIBEL if they couldn't ABSOLUTELY PROVE it???? But we all know Big Business is one of those NOT required to follow law at times!
But, the EPA will protect us?
Not our air, and not our water. Have you ever seen Texas Gold?
Fascinating stuff!!!
How about when Australia tested nuclear weapons and polluted aboriginal tribes?????
The land there is STILL HOT!!!
Why???? It's like it's been planned or something, when someone like Julia Roberts has to portray a woman who went it alone for water protection. (Erin Brokevitch)
What was that about the Love Canal?



[edit on 21-3-2009 by Clearskies]



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join