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: 33
43
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
How about when Australia tested nuclear weapons and polluted aboriginal tribes?????
The land there is STILL HOT!!!


Point One- We never tested nuclear weapons, we never had the capabilities

Point Two- It was the British

Point Three- It was never done in land that was not populated, it was done in the desert, and an area that was devoid of aboriginal communities

Where's your source for that by the way...im interested in checking that?

[edit on 21/3/2009 by OzWeatherman]




posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


There's a difference between sand and dust from the desert being kicked up and chemical haze.
We have no desert around here.
When these(specific) planes fly over, I get a headache and my children sneeze!



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 

Sorry, I thought it was Australian forces.
Here it is. Maralinga
I saw a documentary on LINKTV or something about a year ago.

[edit on 21-3-2009 by Clearskies]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 

Sorry, I thought it was Australian forces.
Here it is. Maralinga
I saw a documentary on LINKTV or something about a year ago.

[edit on 21-3-2009 by Clearskies]


Yes I remember this, the fallout affected aboriginal communities.

At the met office I work out, we have an air sampler measuring for radionuclei for the International Nulcear Test Ban Treaty, which we are contracted to do as well as our normal duties (will post a picture of the sampler soon hopefully). I had to post this quote, because ARPANSA is the Australian member of the organisation



Dr. Geoff Williams, a senior officer from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) described the 'clean-up' as marred by a "host of indiscretions, short-cuts and cover-ups."


Damn you Britsh



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Wow, finally something we agree on!


But, the Aborigines were only 'savages', right?


My concern now, is that every average human can be considered A useless Eater.



[edit on 21-3-2009 by Clearskies]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
This is not directed toward anyone who has previously posted, it is meant as a personal observation, from years of experience in aviation.

At times, accusations will be leveled at those who speak from experience, labeling us as 'authoritarian'....or some such....but, isn't that what a teacher is? You may certainly disagree with the teacher, but you better darn well have good facts to support your disagreement!

As to 'chemtrails'....COULD there be some Top Secret Government/Military clandestine operation going on?? Certainly...if it's secret, we'll never know.

I was never in the Military. So, I cannot say either way. (I wouldn't discount it, nor would I promote it...) because, I just don't know.

What I DO know, however, is this: Commercial passenger and cargo jets do not and can not be involved, for the various reasons I've already, and others in the business, have already posted as well.

Simple reason?? Airlines are in the business of making money. Any excess weight that is not 'payload' cuts into profits. Payload is, passengers and cargo.

How does excess weight cut profit? One word: FUEL! The heavier the airplane, the more fuel is needed....to carry the weight.

Sidebar....notce how onboard magazines have disappeared in the last few years? Dead weight. Notice how some airlines charge for pillows and blankets? Extra iincremental revenue.

American Airlines uses very little paint....(an average paint job can weigh several thousand pounds...)

At AAL, they still pay, through the manhours needed to polish the bare aluminum, to keep looking spiffy....so, everything is a trade-off. But, that is THEIR image....

Point, again....airlines try to pare costs wherever, when safety is not an issue, they can....there is no way they're gonna be carrying tens of thousands of pounds of 'chemicals'.....not to mention, the equipment ot 'spray' it! The pumps, the tanks, the plumbing....there is simply no way.

A pilot knows every pump and tank and switch on his/her airplane....so, unless you expect that the 20,000+ ALPA pilots in the USA, plus all of other IFALPA pilots around the World are keeping this a secret, then this is a dead issue.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:38 AM
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?

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?


ow 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?



1. How are they adding stuff to jet fuel? Do you think jet turbines are just like one big food processor that you just dump whatever into the fuel? No, jet fuels are stringently tested. What vendor is going to want to sell tainted gas. What pilot is going to want to fly on tainted fuels. Do you have ANY evidence of fuel tampering?

2. Who is "They"?? Except for China, weather modfication projects are done primarily by small companies, not secretive government bodies. Its all in the open. There are thousands of airplane photos of planes equipped for cloud seeding flights. These are general aviation type smaller planes. If you assert there many be other secret weather mod airplanes, give us evidence. Where, who, how what.

3. Show me anywhere that there was an actual lab report of air sampled behind an airplane and the air was found to be tainted. And No, I dont mean miles and miles downwind and below. I could take a ground sample when you drive 10 miles away, would that mean anything? There are no such lab reports of air behind an airplane contrail. Just because a chemtrail website says so, there is not.

Here is something for you. One of the guys who started the chemtrail hoax and of course has chemtrail books for sale, once collected money ostensibly for air sampling behind an airplane. He never did it and kept the money. William Thomas is his name.

4. No, there is not any evidence of disease outbreaks, do you have proof otherwise. And no, a chemtrail website saying it is so, is not proof. And like others said, something sprayed up above a city, means it comes down somewhere else. I do not see how this is so hard to understand. Winds at altitude are often more than 100 knots/hour at 30000 ft.

5. No there is no evidence linking morgellons to airplanes. There is no evidence of viruses and blood cells dropped from airplanes.

Where the heck do you come up with this. There is no evidence for any of this, other than someone makes a chemtrail website and says so. You keep saying there is evidence to consider, and all you typed is just stuff you read.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Chemtrail believers fail to do so, and seem to count as evidence, what another chemtrail believer says.

You are welcome to post actual evidence, and not just stuff you read and hear. And I am still waiting for photos of chemplanes. Cant any chemtrail believer find any photos?



[edit on 21-3-2009 by firepilot]

[edit on 21-3-2009 by firepilot]

[edit on 21-3-2009 by firepilot]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Wow, finally something we agree on!


Hey, I dont like anything nuclear being pumped into the atmosphere, low level or high level, its still not a good thing



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Cant disagree with anything you said in your last post . Its all sober well reasoned and to the point . Its a military operation .

The reasons are many and varied according to national defence policy and its mostly classified still. Some of it is relatively innocuos . Some of it is borderline and some of it is downright disgusting .

Unfortunately ,like you said , until its common knowledge or declassified its not officially happening .

Realistically though , if your really honest with yourself at least , you can deduct that mil tech both on and off world is way beyond flying a Bus .
And it eats you that your not in on it .cant blame you for that.

And yes ,I agree that many chemtrail guys are mistaking con for chem .

BUT unless you are personally sampling all your fuel payload ,you cannot say that small percentages of 'additives' are not being put in your fuel.
It may be only 1 percent oil/emulsion in which case you will not notice any significant power loss . Metal particulates no , but chemical ones , That is open to question. No pilot can micro manage fuel composition.

I remember watching all the contrails over Geneva airport last time we went skiing . Some of it just looked a little bit sticky and oily to me .
And you know even small percentages of unburnt or partially burnt fuel/oil is going to leave particulates . You really cannot deny that.

What Im saying is there are many degrees between pure innocent con and climate management through a bit of smoke generation. If it reduces global temps or at least keep it in check , you will at least get one or two more seasons in Zermatt .

The skiing was okay by the way , but the cover not nearly as good as it used to be.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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]


So your telling these people that you personally are absolutely sure that no additives are put in Jet -A . You know ,like flash point modifiers , cetane/octane improvers ? Just pure Kero ? Come on mate . youll be telling us next its organically grown with no pesticides !

There's no such thing as 'pure' fuel . Everytime your airborne your
turbine blades are assailed by particulate CONSTANTLY .

Its all a matter of percentages yes but pollution does not go away just because its incoveniant to your turbine blades.

You fly ,you produce carbon emmisions at the very least ,as well as water vapour and other small amounts of residue .

Im not saying your guilty of chemtrailing at all .What I am
saying is the primitive technology your aircraft uses to get from a to b does have an effect on the atmosphere and if only small percentages of additive are put in your fuel they can combine with preexisting atmospheric polutants to exaserpate the problem.

Ever driven an old car with spent rings or valve seals ? You know what happens . Diesel trucks with clogged injectors smoke up a storm. It all releases particulates .

The earthis not so big that you can continue to breath when all the trees that produce oxygen and consume carbon dioxide are cut down .

Humans ,you just dont get it do you . No matter how hard we try to reason with you , you always know better .Right up to the point where your planet is collapsing around your ears .



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Moderators log......five days into the thread.....33 pages now. The discussions been intense....

You know, I'm starting to think that there is something in the air thats affecting peoples memory.....best make another public announcement...

 


AHEM

So, as we appear to be in goldfish land, once again, the topic of this thread is

Why the Chemtrail Conspiracy is Unplausible, and Meteorologically Innacurate

Nothing to do with Raptors and Aardvarks, or needlesly sniping at each other.

 


Donuts.....must go in search of donuts.... Will check back in later and hope that I don't have to repeat the above.....



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


Dude ... you seriously need to chill, and stop and think about your attitude and approach.

I don't believe anything one way or the other. I live in a rural area and I've never seen anything that I would call a "chemtrail" or seen anything fall out of the sky. If asked to get off the fence, I'd have to come down on the contrail side.

But I see hundreds, maybe thousands of people concerned and worried about this issue, and talking AT them with thinly veiled ridicule like you just did to me is not going to help anything, it will just cause more anger and frustration.

You guys who know about aviation and meteorology, you have an opportunity to help some worried, anxious people here by civilly answering their questions and addressing their concerns. Why not do that instead of treating them like they're stupid and crazy?

These days UFO observers and ghost hunters get more respect than you're giving the people who are concerned about them and their families being sprayed with harmful chemicals and getting sick because they don't understand what they're seeing as well as you do. Or hey, perhaps some military contractors ARE conducting experiments with weather control stuff or testing dispersal patterns for potential bio-weapons. Are YOU on top of every thing that's happening everywhere in the world? Didn't think so.

So why not take people who have questions and concerns about what they've seen and read seriously, and try to help them with your knowledge, and take their concerns seriously because obviously THEY believe it if you don't. Here you have an opportunity to answer questions and possibly change opinions with knowledge and logic, and instead you want to go verbally slapping people in the face because they don't know everything and have questions. That will accomplish exactly nothing except keeping this thread full of strife, anger, sniping, and mod interventions.

 


Mod Edit - Removed inflammatory comments


[edit on 21/3/09 by neformore]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by reconpilot
 


Yes, reconpilot, with apologies to nefermore....(I went for a bagel and cream cheese)...

To reconpilot, I cannot say with absolute certainly that Jet-A is not being tampered with. I am addressing a part of your question, in the post referenced above.

However, I can give my opinion.

One of the several instruments pilots use to monitor engine performance and power output is the EGT, or 'Exhaust Gas Temperature'.

Note, it is 'exhaust' temperature. Depending on the engine, we see various maxima....won't bore you with details...but, they are in the order of 800 to 850 degress Celsius....in the EXHAUST!!!

These temps are measured just after the last turbine stage....they are designed to indicate what is happening inside the engine, so as not to exceed internal temps, and cause damage to the internal parts.

Now....my point should start to become more clear....IF you can design a biological agent, or some chemical, that can survive at a temperature of 850 degrees Celsius...not to mention that this fuel, and any alleged 'additives', still have to go through the combustion process, where temperatures are far higher....well, if you can patent such a product, you well should.....because you will then be very wealthy.

Any questions???



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   


It may be only 1 percent oil/emulsion in which case you will not notice any significant power loss . Metal particulates no , but chemical ones , That is open to question. No pilot can micro manage fuel composition. I remember watching all the contrails over Geneva airport last time we went skiing . Some of it just looked a little bit sticky and oily to me . And you know even small percentages of unburnt or partially burnt fuel/oil is going to leave particulates . You really cannot deny that.


Okay, but where is EVIDENCE of it? What you are doing is speculating whether something could be done, but that in itself is not evidence though. There is not just one worldwide jet fuel refinery, but lots and lots of them. Why would some refinery want to risk massive lawsuits against them by tainting the fuel? Or do we have to now include the hundreds or thousands of refineries and pipeline operators too?

How does something way up in the air look sticking and oily? Sticky is something regarding touch, not appearance.

And as for "oily", now lets go back to meteorology. What happens to oil at -40, its not oil anymore, it solidifies. Nothing is oily at those altitudes, its way too cold. Its too cold up there for much of what chemtrail believers claim.

Anyone with a basic understanding of biology would laugh at the other chemtrail believers claim of airplanes spraying down red blood cells and viruses, since well the cold would kill anything within seconds.

For those who spout the "red blood cells" nonsense, here is the background on that. It was Clifford Carnicom who claimed that, not that he had anyone else look at it though or had it tested. He alone made that claim, and when he posted the photos online, it was not red blood cells, it was POLLEN GRAINS.

There are so many completely impossible claims being made by chemtrail believers, just like some chemtrail believers claiming airplanes are spraying AIDS. AIDS is a medical condition brought on by HIV, AIDS is itself not a virus.

So we are up to 33 pages and still no photos of these legendary "Chemplanes" that would would need to be hundreds or thousands of. No evidence, no lab reports - just claims of them along with many other impossible claims, and lots of people who do not understand basic meteorology or biology, or aviation.

Here is a question I have. Why do chemtrail believers who see refraction and colors in cirrus ice crystals and claim that means spraying, not make the same claims about colors from rainbows during rain showers? It is the same meterological phenomina.




[edit on 21-3-2009 by firepilot]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Well there's the thing, the bees aren't dying because of deliberate pesticide poisoning, they die from indirect poisoning, because the pesticides kill the vast majority of insects, including bees. It is a serious problem, being the main pollinators of the world.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
Here is a question I have. Why do chemtrail believers who see refraction and colors in cirrus ice crystals and claim that means spraying, not make the same claims about colors from rainbows during rain showers? It is the same meterological phenomina.





posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Wow, thats insane. Crazy Rainbow woman.

And yes, she believes in chemtrails.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
Here is a question I have. Why do chemtrail believers who see refraction and colors in cirrus ice crystals and claim that means spraying, not make the same claims about colors from rainbows during rain showers? It is the same meterological phenomina.
[edit on 21-3-2009 by firepilot]


Thats one thing Ive always wondered to.

The rainbow colours seen in clouds are a weather phenomemen known as iridescence, and sometime irisation. Im sure I explained it before, but for others bennfit, it occurs when ice crystals or water droplets of the same size, diffract and refract sunlight. It occurs very commonly in altocumulus, altostratus and cirroform clouds.


www.atoptics.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by reconpilot
I remember watching all the contrails over Geneva airport last time we went skiing . Some of it just looked a little bit sticky and oily to me .
And you know even small percentages of unburnt or partially burnt fuel/oil is going to leave particulates . You really cannot deny that.


Perhaps that would be due the extremely high density of European and other airlines in the region. Switzerland is a high traffic area.



What Im saying is there are many degrees between pure innocent con and climate management through a bit of smoke generation. If it reduces global temps or at least keep it in check , you will at least get one or two more seasons in Zermatt .


Are you saying smoke will warm the temperature of the earth, causing the snow caps to melt?

Please clarify




top topics



 
43
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join