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.

 

FAA Confirms Chemtrails

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
This is a link to a story about the FAA confirming secret operations in whih military planes to part in exercises in which they laid chemtrails.

These trails were laid out and did not disapate, they grew larger and larger then merged together - covering the sky.

This is a pretty interesting read:

gators911truth.blogspot.com...




posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
The linked article states "While air traffic controllers normally ignore air traffic above 10,000 feet..." That is so far from the truth that I stopped reading right there.

YMMV.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Problem here is "Anonymity." I could have been the FAA Controller giving testimony.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by esteay812
 


Does anyone happen to know why they lay chemtrails for in the first place? Is it their method of population control like I read on another thread here?



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I haven't made a decision about chemtrails, yet. However, this article does nothing to make me believe. Like the above poster said, He could have been the FAA Controller giving testimony.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Coincidence?


The Geoengineering Option
A Last Resort Against Global Warming?
By David G. Victor, M. Granger Morgan, Jay Apt, John Steinbruner, and Katharine Ricke
From Foreign Affairs , March/April 2009
Summary: As climate change accelerates, policymakers may have to consider "geoengineering" as an emergency strategy
to cool the planet. Engineering the climate strikes most as a bad idea, but it is time to start taking it seriously.



The odds that the global climate will reach a dangerous tipping point are increasing. Over the course of the twenty-first
century, key ocean currents, such as the Gulf Stream, could shift radically, and thawing permafrost could release huge
amounts of additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Such scenarios, although still remote, would dramatically
accelerate and compound the consequences of global warming. Scientists are taking these doomsday scenarios seriously because the steady accumulation of warming gases in the atmosphere is forcing change in the climate system at rates so rapid that the outcomes are extremely difficult to predict.



The world's slow progress in cutting carbon dioxide emissions and the looming danger that the climate could take a
sudden turn for the worse require policymakers to take a closer look at emergency strategies for curbing the effects of global warming. These strategies, often called "geoengineering," envision deploying systems on a planetary scale, such as
launching reflective particles into the atmosphere
or positioning sunshades to cool the earth. These strategies could cool
the planet, but they would not stop the buildup of carbon dioxide or lessen all its harmful impacts. For this reason,
geoengineering has been widely shunned by those committed to reducing emissions.


Council on Foreign Relations - The Geoengineering Option

Maybe there is multiple reasons for Chemtrails...



Edit: Another Document:
Council on Foreign Relations - Unilateral Geoengineering


Applied to geoengineering, various technologies could be used to loft particles into the stratosphere, such as naval guns, rockets, hot air balloons or blimps, or a fleet of high-flying aircraft. Potential types of particles for injection include sulfur dioxide, aluminum oxide dust or even designer self-levitating aerosols that might be engineered to migrate to particular regions (e.g. over the arctic) or to rise above the stratospher (so as not to interfere in stratospheric chemistry). Because of the relative horizontal stability of the stratosphere compared to the troposphere, the residence time of injected particles is approximately 1-2 years.3 As a result, such a scheme would require only annual or biannual replenishment.



[edit on 7-5-2009 by beebs]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Go to this thread it sums things up.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by FX44rice
 


I like how you divert discussion about this on this thread to another thread. Been destorying people's threads long? j/k

To a previous poster Kreinhard:

I believe what they may have been saying is that air-traffic controllers generelly ignore flights above 10,000ft for landing purposes. Then again I might be wrong.

Whether or not there is any truth in this read has yet to be seen. I thought it was a good read that evokes some ideas. I thought it would be a good topic for discussion and may bring up some ideas that haven't been covered yet (if there are any!)



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by kreinhard
 

Hi, kreinhard & all.

In simple words,
we must know that there are TOWERS and CENTERS.
And that the CENTERS take care of the air traffic, OVER/ABOVE what
the TOWERS do. ( Higher altitude).

Meaning:
The slice of the TOWER is under the BIG sliceS of the CENTER.
And, the slice of the tower has a radius.
Then, the tower takes care of a "flat cylinder", we could say.

At my airport, CYHU, the ATC in the tower has to take care of
a slice/zone 2000' high, and +-5 nm in radius. (Nautical miles).

Our slice/zone is "that" low, because CYUL CENTER is over us.
And I don't talk about TERMINAL, here. . . B-)

! ! SO, YES, a **tower** may ignore stuff over 10,000' ! !

Blue skies.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by esteay812
 


Actually no. Suggestion was made so others could view some input to bring back to your thread for enhancement.

I apologize if it offended you. No intent to kill your thread.

However, the article you posted has no validity.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
So the link to the so called FAA worker exposing all is to a 911 conspiracy site.
Uh huh, And the Anon FAA worker has to be legit because we all know the journalistic integrity on a conspiracy blog site is a must. Pffffft. Ok.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Spoonz
 


I don't think you can take anyone for truth or lies without reading what they say. Simply saying that they are lying because of the type of site they are posting on isn't always the best thing to do. Truths have came out of much shadier places and lies have come out of much holier places.

We are on a conspiracy forum. Is there that much of a difference between a conspiracy forum and a conspiracy blog?



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by esteay812
 


Uhhhhhh, contrails either disappear or expand due to temperature and pressure aloft......



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by habu71
 


When you are at a campfire or a controlled burn, or at an incinorator and you see the material being burned, does is dissapate into the atmasphere or does it expand so much that it covers much of the sky directly above?

I was just wondering what your take was on why the contrail from a jet stay in the air so long without dissapating or being swept away by the jet stream.

They seem so much different than regular exhaust, in that they expand to a large coverage area.

I have been out early in the morning, playing golf, and noticed a single jet fly-by over head and leave a trail of exhaust. Before the fly-over the skies are a beautiful blue and very clear. By the end of the round of golf the sky is completely saturated in cover from an expanding contrail.

How is this possible without dissipation and removal by airstream?

It just doesn't make sense to me, generally because of my lack of knowledge on the topic.

It seems that regualr exhaust would be gone in a matter of a few minutes.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by esteay812
 


Most of the contrail that you see is water vapor being frozen into cryatals because of the temperature at that altitude. During the non winter months, the winds aloft (in the altitudes that commercial airline aircraft fly) are not strong, so the contrails linger for longer.

The inside of a turbofan engine is spinning at a very fast rate, so when the exhaust comes out, it is a rapidly spinning cylinder of water vapor, carbon and other substances that are the result of combustion. As the cylinder slows down, the ice crystals are still expanding outward until either the disappear through sublimation or fall into warmer air and melt.......



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by esteay812
reply to post by habu71
 


When you are at a campfire or a controlled burn, or at an incinorator and you see the material being burned, does is dissapate into the atmasphere or does it expand so much that it covers much of the sky directly above?



Well actually, particulates in the atmosphere accelerate the growth of ice crystals and water droplets, by attracting moisture thus producing visible cloud.

Its exactly the same as what happens in cloud seeding, except they use silver iodide crystals and dry ice.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Contrails are not chemtrails. I grew up on Air Force Bases and never ever saw a contrail that spread out and covered the sky. They dissipate in a minute or less. Whatever you want to call the "trails" that remain for hours, spread out and co-mingle with other "trails" which eventually block out the sky are very real. never mind that the planes themselves are unmarked and fly at extremely high altitudes and make no sound whatsoever.

The planes start in the morning flying from east to west. As the day progresses, the planes follow the sun's ascent, forming criss-cross patterns and giant X's. The "trails" shine unnaturally, almost like an oil spill in the sky at sunset.

No matter what anyone (authority or novice) says about them, some people will insist that those "trails" are normal. They are not. The Chemtrails are exactly that. Chemical trails left in the sky by planes following an abnormal flight path. They are coordinated and executed with exacting precision.

There are 2 airports nearby. One is large the other small. The planes that take off and land at these airports do not leave any trail at all. I know because I watch them every single day. Also, normal aircraft make sounds. The ones that leave the lingering trails make NO sound.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hazelnut
They dissipate in a minute or less. Whatever you want to call the "trails" that remain for hours, spread out and co-mingle with other "trails" which eventually block out the sky are very real. never mind that the planes themselves are unmarked and fly at extremely high altitudes and make no sound whatsoever.


Ok, explain the scientific method by which the atmosphere cant sustain contrails for longer than a few minutes. I can explain why they (contrails) do persist.....its part of my job


Depending on atmospheric conditions, contrails may be visible for only a few seconds or minutes, or may persist for many hours




The "trails" shine unnaturally, almost like an oil spill in the sky at sunset.


The colours are most probably iridescence, when the sunlight is refracted and diffracted by water droplets or ice crystals, causing rainbow like effects

www.atoptics.co.uk...



No matter what anyone (authority or novice) says about them, some people will insist that those "trails" are normal. They are not. The Chemtrails are exactly that. Chemical trails left in the sky by planes following an abnormal flight path. They are coordinated and executed with exacting precision.


Simply stating this without evidence doesnt show you have a strong argument. Perhaps you should do some research into basic meteorology before coming to a conclusion based on assumption



Also, normal aircraft make sounds. The ones that leave the lingering trails make NO sound.


Thats probably because the planes are flying in excess of 23-24 thousand feet, which coincidently is the approximate crusing altitude and contrail development heights.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by Hazelnut
They dissipate in a minute or less. Whatever you want to call the "trails" that remain for hours, spread out and co-mingle with other "trails" which eventually block out the sky are very real. never mind that the planes themselves are unmarked and fly at extremely high altitudes and make no sound whatsoever.


Ok, explain the scientific method by which the atmosphere cant sustain contrails for longer than a few minutes. I can explain why they (contrails) do persist.....its part of my job

Ok, explain it then since its part of your job. I'd really like to know.


Depending on atmospheric conditions, contrails may be visible for only a few seconds or minutes, or may persist for many hours


Which atmospheric conditions exactly? The wind was blowing in excess of 40mph on Saturday, the skies full of clouds and above them were the usual Chemtrails being laid by two identical white, unmarked planes flying in opposite directions - toward each other.



The "trails" shine unnaturally, almost like an oil spill in the sky at sunset.


The colours are most probably iridescence, when the sunlight is refracted and diffracted by water droplets or ice crystals, causing rainbow like effects

www.atoptics.co.uk...

Then why don't we see them during the heat of the day? Only at sunset.



No matter what anyone (authority or novice) says about them, some people will insist that those "trails" are normal. They are not. The Chemtrails are exactly that. Chemical trails left in the sky by planes following an abnormal flight path. They are coordinated and executed with exacting precision.


Simply stating this without evidence doesnt show you have a strong argument. Perhaps you should do some research into basic meteorology before coming to a conclusion based on assumption

My eyes are my evidence. What is yours? You sound like you know what you are talking about so convince me.


Also, normal aircraft make sounds. The ones that leave the lingering trails make NO sound.


Thats probably because the planes are flying in excess of 23-24 thousand feet, which coincidently is the approximate crusing altitude and contrail development heights.


Probably? Probably? Not convincing.

I see what I see. Until someone provide undeniable evidence to the contrary I'll keep my current opinion.

I appreciate that you are not a chemtrail believer. Neither is my husband. But saying its normal and proving it are two different things. You have your opinion. I have mine. Since the experts, including you, aren't able to convince me, I'll stick with my own thoughts and observations.

When I watch the skies being covered with (whatever you wish to name them) spray from airplanes, I am concerned. The extreme amount of "trails" alone is alarming. No matter what they are called or consist of. Polluting the sky is not one of the smarter human tricks.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Can any of you out there explain this?

If the video doesn't work click on the link to see the video.

www.youtube.com...




Is this a plane set up to deliver chemtrails?

www.youtube.com...




I am horrible at embedding videos on here. Sorry. Click the link that I have added above the video window, not the youtube link below the window

[edit on 11-5-2009 by esteay812]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join