It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:01 PM

Originally posted by ChemBreather
So, are the artists and the movie capitol of the world just Cashing in on this, or is it more to it than just, 'bunk' ??

To borrow a phrase.....ChemBreather has just "jumped the shark".....

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:07 PM
I really don't understand why folks that believe in chemtrails can't use a modicum of common sense.

Again.. can one of you answer this for me please?

If spraying is happening this heavily, why isn't it showing up in the daily soil and water samples taken across the country? These occur in populated areas, the areas you claim are being sprayed. And yet nothing is found!

Digging up a barium sample from years ago proves nothing. If this spraying was happening as widespread and as often as you say it is, these chemicals would be showing up in the sampling, and it isn't.

I work for a company that does a ton of sampling. They are not finding deadly or dangerous chemicals other than expected results based on a site, even in ppms amounts.

WHERE ARE THEY?! If this is happening constantly, it HAS to end up in our soil, and HAS to end up in our water, and it would be traceable, sampled, found, divulged.

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:10 PM

Originally posted by elfulanozutan0
if you take a look at the legislation. in the beggining it says that spraying chemical agents are illeglal. then later on it goes to include "exceptions" which these exceptions are exploited

Glad you brought it up , have a looksie

Newscast's Chemtrail Investigation Reveals Dangerous Aerosolized Compounds

From source .. Read It !

Even more shocking, KSLA reports that secret biochemical experimentation was allowed by law"until nine years ago", but is still permitted in at least in some instances. See:

PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79] TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 1520 "CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM" "The use of human subjects will be allowed for the testing of chemical and biological agents by the U.S. Department of Defense, accounting to Congressional committees with respect to the experiments and studies." "The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States]." -SOURCE- Public Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 91, page 334, you will find Public Law 95-79. Public Law 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1882. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 96, page 1882, you will find Public Law 97-375.

KSLA's probing report left open the question of whether biochemical testing was currently underway, but raised a number of disturbing parallels and reason for suspicion.

Ohh, did I mention hollywood is on this now?

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:14 PM
reply to post by fleabit

Every time I see a reputable test for tap water, there IS tons of dangerous chemicals in it!
What wonderful, pure water and soil are you testing???
Under the Arctic?

Edit to add:
My thread about the Mile-Thick Pollution Covering Our Planet!

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Clearskies]

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Infadel
yea, you people can say whatever you want. but im here to tell you that its more than plausible, it IS happening.

2 years ago every time it snowed (i live in north central British Columbia) it was a nice and fresh white color, it packed into perfect snowballs that still broke on impact and the snow only refracted a portion of the light that it does now.

in the last 2 years the color of the snow has slowly been going blue, it refracts HUGE ammount of light, to the point that i can still hardley go out without my oakley maddogs (100% UV protection). when making snowballs you can REALY see the blue, and the snowballs pack to be way more dense than normal snow.

THIS is just the circumstantial evidance, i'll try and find the toxicolagy report for my DEAD DOG who died of aluminum hydroxide poisoning and the toxicolagy report of the "snow" in my back yard that is 1/8 aluminum hydroxide. basicley my dog died from eating the snow.

say whatever you want about chem trails, but know that your merley being ignorant.

Your dog died from eating antacid. Sorry to hear about your dog but let me ask this isnt it much more likely your dog raided your antacids? Second if you did have an analysis done by a lab and they would never say 1/8th only ppm (part per million) and third the snow would actually turn yellow with that high a mixture of of aluminum hydroxide and you know what they say dont eat the yellow snow.

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:29 PM
reply to post by Clearskies

Thank you for pointing out that the biggest source of pollutants on that chart is INDUSTRIAL. That is the biggest source of Barium and Aluminum right there.

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:31 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:34 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

'Industrial' pollutants from the air?
Like acid rain?
I guess the EPA can pinpoint which ones?

Nah, why get all worried!
It's in what we breathe AND drink.

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Chadwickus
... It's to help out those that are on the fence about the whole subject and to quell the fear mongering and paranoia.
Because that's all it is.
Fear Mongering.

Aaah, dear Chadwickus, we get your message: LIFE IS SO EASY, DON'T THINK, DON'T WORRY, BE HAPPY ... to die!

[edit on 16-3-2009 by MyNameIsNobody]

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:42 PM
reply to post by Clearskies

Of course from the air. A lot of the pollutants are released into the air. I'll try to find one of my threads about coal plants I did to show how much radiation and other toxic materials are released into the air from a coal plant.

I haven't said we shouldn't be worried about them. Of course we should be worried about them and trying to change things, but industrial sources are a hell of a lot more likely culprits for the samples and increases in metals we're seeing in the ground water and soil than something supposedly sprayed by an airplane flying 5-6 miles over our heads.

[edit on 3/16/2009 by Zaphod58]

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:43 PM
reply to post by Heike

the purpose is to refract light out of the atmosphere, which they say will help counter global warming.

the thing about aluminum hydroxide (if you know anything about chemistry and neurology....) is that when it enters the body it degrades from AL(OH)3 into AL3+OH. the Hydrogen is absorbed, the Oxygen grabs another Oxygen molecule, and that leaves AL3 which our body can only take so much of.

when aluminum enters the brain it can do various things, the most common is to create fractured synapses in the frontal lobe or memory center of the brain, later resulting in schizophrenia or Alzheimer's.

and just for the record, my dog just loved to eat snow.........he'd rather eat snow than drink see it with alot of dogs when you love as far north as i do........ the square aluminum molecules destroyed his kedneys so we had to put him down.

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:46 PM
reply to post by Infadel

Are you sure your dog didn't lap up some anti-freeze? Ethylene glycol poisoning also destroys the kidneys....and well, it was winter at the time...

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:47 PM
reply to post by dragonridr

why the hell would i even have antacids in the house, i know what the aluminum does to you........and no, it wouldn't turn yellow simpley because the (silver) aluminum and the (clearblue) hydroxide (hydrogen+oxygen), the silver refracts the light+the clearblue.

the only way it could be antifreeze is if it was used for like 2 years (you have to change it every 6 months up here) because of the aluminum content.

one of the best quotes ever....... just because your paranoid doesn't mean the bastards aren't out to get ya.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Infadel]

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:47 PM

Originally posted by MyNameIsNobody

Aaah, dear Chadwickus, we get your message: LIFE IS SO EASY, DON'T THINK, DON'T WORRY, BE HAPPY ... to die!

No, not thinking is accepting things without asking questions.

And you're right, why worry about something that doesn't exist? If you do, you're paranoid

Also, I can guarantee 110% that I won't die of poisoning from chemtrails.

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:51 PM
reply to post by Clearskies

You might like this thread I did then:

Originally posted by Chadwickus

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.

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:53 PM
It appears some here have missed the point of the thread. There is plenty of polution. There is even acid rain. I will even admit that clouds can cary poutants in them and move accross the sky only to dump toxins on an area that had no industry on it. The point is to think that there is a global conspiracy by the governments of the world to distribute fairy dust or whatever you think they are spreading just doesn't make sense. And the proof that keeps showing up is the same old pictures of planes doing balast testing. Please try to pretend to have a bit of grey matter. Don't just parrot what some other bonehead says. Just think for one minute how silly is sounds that a secret elite group within your government is spraying all the helpless people and then go out in public and let their kids breath the same poisoned air. They wouldn't, you wouldn't, and they don't. You should be more worried about those fema camps, or the NWO, or killer clowns from outer space.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by network dude]

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by Chadwickus

So these chemicals being toxic is addressed by EPA, where?
I don't even claim that these are ABSOLUTELY the offending toxins being dumped on us, but they're as good as any and lighter than lead!

Before I worked at a local factory, I called EPA in 2005 and asked them about the horrible chemical haze I was starting to see.(Along with all of a sudden being under an air traffic route, after NOT being for a year.)
The lady said (correctly) that there were only two possible factories that could be polluting locally and their sensors weren't picking up ANYTHING!
I told here they must be messed up and I told her about the planes.
(The sensors)
When I went to work at the factory, they heat treated metal bearings in the back and the fumes from whatever it was was REALLY bad. Cadmium? I don't know, but I had worse headaches and I wasn't going to be a pansy and wear a mask. Even though lots of people (old timers)had been through cancer there.
I just de-toxed at home.

Why wouldn't the EPA be a little more diligent? It's on purpose, by the higher-ups.

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:05 PM
reply to post by Chadwickus

Here's a little more for you.

The US Energy Information Administration reports that a middle-sized nuclear plant produces about 23 tons of waste per year. This material comprises mostly uranium-238, which does not react like it's cousin uranium-235. Since uranium is very dense, 23 tons of waste amounts to one cubic meter, which would fit in the trunk of a car.

A comparable powered coal plant might produce 300,000 tons of ash in a year. About 99.5 percent of ash can be scrubbed from stack emissions, but this requires even greater quantities of limestone and water. The remaining half-a-percent of ash�the mass of the empty space shuttle�is allowed into the atmosphere along with copious carbon dioxide.

Under normal conditions, the public exposure to radiation from nuclear or coal power plants is minimal�far less than the dose from natural radiation sources like radon and cosmic rays, and less than the average personal dose from medical x-rays. But counterintuitively, the radiation dose from coal plants may be a great deal higher! Radioactive metals like uranium and thorium are relatively common in Earth's crust. Burning coal concentrates the metals within, which are then free to roam about the surface in dust or water. The US National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements estimates that the public dose of radiation from coal plants may be 100 times that from nuclear plants.

Coal is made up of uranium, thorium, aluminum, sulfur, iron and other materials. Coal ash contains oxides of silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium, magnesium, titanium, sodium, potassium, arsenic, mercury, and sulfur plus small quantities of uranium and thorium. A 1984 study puts the Uranium quantities at 1.3 ppm, and Thorium at 3.2 ppm.

IF a coal plant scrubber is working at optimum conditions, it will remove 99.5% of efficiency. This captures the "fly ash" instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. However, even the small portion that is released has radioactive materials in it. And those small quantities add up, and the number of coal plants is expected to increase. Nuclear power plants are actually expected to be replaced with coal plants over time.

Using data from 1982, based on 154 coal plants in the United States, 616 million short tons of coal were burned. Each of these plants released 5.2 tons of Uranium, including 74 pounds of U-235, and 12.8 tons of Thorium. For the entire United States that comes to 801 tons of Uranium (11,371 pounds of U-235) and 1971 tons of Thorium. Worldwide in 1982 there were 3640 tons of Uranium (51, 700 pounds of U-235) and 8960 tons of Thorium released.

I suggest you read that thread and see some of the numbers that are in it coming just from coal plants. There are some truly frightening numbers there.

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Chadwickus
... Also, I can guarantee 110% that I won't die of poisoning from chemtrails.

Sure, but don't wear the gas mask all too often.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by MyNameIsNobody]

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:06 PM

Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by ChemBreather
Yes and he is FULLY briefed on EVERY THING hes airline DO ? Fat chance my friend !!! And how can you say we should crawl in under an commercial plane? we get arrested for trespassing and/or terrorism as fast as Zapp !

You seem to be forgetting that everything has a certain weight. For an airline, that is a rather large consideration, and an extra system to spray things, out of the engines no less, would add a lot of weight that only costs an airline money. In addition it would reduce the range, take up a lot of space (seriously, you are suggesting all that is chemical, for almost the entire flight range, that is almost as much as they carry fuel). All in all, no commercial airline would do such a ridiculous thing, it would waste their time. Oh, and funny thing, all these chemicals would surely be a massive hazard if something goes wrong, as well as some very suspicious looking wreckage in case of, say, controlled flight into terrain.

No one speaks the truth, just official websites where truths are distorted and hidden...

But clearly, you believe everyone else must be telling the truth. Thats an interesting standpoint, and rather naive, considering you are telling us we are naive for believing actual scientists.

Here is an webpage explaining the 'cost' issue for you.
Here is the link
- Clover Leaf -

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.

I am abit naiv maby, but I come to learn that what is revealed to the public by Gov.controlled media cant be trusted all that well.

I dont belive that all in the link here is a lie either, do you ? is it ALL made up stories?
Chemtrail reports

I now have lab samples from a lab that tested "chemtrail" fallout without being told what it was. Among other nasties, the lab results show three distinct pathogens, air-dropped on a garage in the USA - probably from leaking nozzles on an approach to a nearby airport. A neighboring house was also splattered. The woman whose place was hit go sick and suffered a severe heart attack a few months later. No, it wasn't from too much cholesterol. It was caused by bacteria eating the walls of her heart.

On this page there is I like think Pro and Cons,a little bit for both sides.
Hall of Shame

It has been eight long years since phantom spray planes first appeared in the skies above our heads. This was in summer of 1998. Since then, there has been a ongoing high level campaign of discreditidation and ridicule directed at anyone who points out the strange anomalies occurring above.

Dr. J. Michael Pece

This letter is from Dr. J. Michael Pece who I talked to on the 8/24/02 and who is a heck of a nice guy
The bolded test is my emphasis. These facts Dr. Mike talks about here are - please note - documented chemspray related illness and effect. Documented by a doctor and lab reports. I am in awe that Dr. Mike has the guts to come forward with this, and what impressed me was why. Not for attention. Not to sell books or some personal cure. Only because he is stunned that this is going on and that it is making people very ill. And he would like to know what the hell is going on. Imagine if more doctors had the balls to help find the facts and ask questions..and why aren't they?

I am just going to quote this, atleast there were some response from EPA back then..

EPA Letter
(What follows is part of a response from the EPA dated June 20, 2001, 18 months after the initial request and after a third contact to request EPA examine and identify materials found after an aerosol operation at Aspen, Colo.)

"Thank you for your letter of Jan. 12, 2000, and a related correspondence of May 30, 2000, concerning your request for us to examine and identify a ‘Fibrous substance Sample.’ " ... "We would like to take this opportunity to inform you that it is not the policy of this office of EPA to test, or otherwise analyze any unsolicited samples of materials or matter."

According to the EPA’s Mission Statement: "The mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment -- air, water, and land -- upon which life depends."

[edit on 16-3-2009 by ChemBreather]

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in