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.

 

The Chemtrail Phenomenon

page: 13
20
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Correction, a subject you are quite passionate against. You're not defending any particular position of substance, you're always debating against chemtrails.

If you're right and there were no such thing, this distinction is not significant, but if you're wrong, and there are chemtrails out there then it's worth noting that, a priori, before the fact, you're saying there is no such thing, or at least there is very low probability of there being such a thing.

This categorises you as a skeptic and a debunker, because you don't add, you subtract from the topic.




posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by Mindmelding
Correction, a subject you are quite passionate against. You're not defending any particular position of substance, you're always debating against chemtrails.


An interesting choice of words there. I present facts, science and my understanding of the avaiation/miliytary world in general and I do tend to correct the falshoods - and there are many of them - that I see, as I have done with that video.

So if actual facts are not substance, then tell me, what is? Baseless claims?



This categorises you as a skeptic and a debunker, because you don't add, you subtract from the topic.


So actual facts subtract from the topic? I thought we were in the business of denying ignorance here, not openly promoting it?





As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Oh sure, you bring up facts, but it's the correlation to the actual topic that is invalid.

I'll give an example, the constant push of contrail science when people talk about chemtrails. It's irrelevant. We all know there is a science behind contrails. We all know the finer aspects of condensation. We've all gone through it.

None of the above invalidates chemtrails. Two different if visually similar phenomenons. Because people don't accept the fact that we could have this fac simile if chemtrails are real regardless of the validity of contrail science, the debunking is invalid.

It's not your science that is bad, I'm moderately impressed sometimes, it's the correlation that is unsustainable because we end up always talking about two different things.

Besides, you guys always gloss over the official news reports, the weathermen reports, the documents about the science and you always seem to want to classify weather modification as "something else", which it is not, it is chemtrails. We don't need any weather modification.

In short, you and a few other skebunkers (hehe) try to pass the idea that the chemtrails are another phenomenon, contrails. This is the gist of your argument, you don't add much else, except trying to classify weather modification as something else. It dosen't correlate to what most people are experiencing and I have the feeling most of you do it as a thought experiment.

If that last sentence is true you need to get out more.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by Mindmelding
 


OK.

We're back to basics.

Explain to me what the difference is between a "chemtrail" and a contrail, and how you can spot the difference, and why its not a persistant contrail that you are looking at.

Explain to me how you know that something else other than contrail formation is happening - because frankly the science behind the contrails suggests that that is all you are seeing.

And explain to me why so many lies appear in the chemtrail stuff being linked to, that is put across as "fact". I've corrected two very blatant ones in this thread so far. You've not even acknowledged that at all.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Mindmelding
 


What about this? Does it look like chem tracks?





posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mindmelding
reply to post by neformore
 


Oh sure, you bring up facts, but it's the correlation to the actual topic that is invalid.

I'll give an example, the constant push of contrail science when people talk about chemtrails. It's irrelevant. We all know there is a science behind contrails. We all know the finer aspects of condensation. We've all gone through it.

None of the above invalidates chemtrails. Two different if visually similar phenomenons. Because people don't accept the fact that we could have this fac simile if chemtrails are real regardless of the validity of contrail science, the debunking is invalid.

It's not your science that is bad, I'm moderately impressed sometimes, it's the correlation that is unsustainable because we end up always talking about two different things.

Besides, you guys always gloss over the official news reports, the weathermen reports, the documents about the science and you always seem to want to classify weather modification as "something else", which it is not, it is chemtrails. We don't need any weather modification.

In short, you and a few other skebunkers (hehe) try to pass the idea that the chemtrails are another phenomenon, contrails. This is the gist of your argument, you don't add much else, except trying to classify weather modification as something else. It dosen't correlate to what most people are experiencing and I have the feeling most of you do it as a thought experiment.

If that last sentence is true you need to get out more.


But where is the science proving "chemtrails"?
cause so far I have seen absolutely nothing that could be even passed off as proof of anything, besides proving how some dont understand basic meteorological phenomenon. Simply saying, "Oh, I looked up one day, I saw "chemtrails" being made by airplanes, then it got hazy and started to rain. But it was a clear blue sky earlier!" is not proof of chemtrails. Saying its hazy, or cloudy, or a long lasting contrail is actually a chemtrail because long-lasting contrails dont exist, is sheer ignorance of the facts which we provide every time. And yes using meteorology and science to explain is the ONLY way to do so. and finding reports of people "discovering" elements in their backyards, or experiencing breathing ailments and somehow connecting it to "chemtrails" is not proof of anything either.

And yes, weather modification is not chemtrails related, and is not secret. Its been going on since the late 40s and its been written by NASA, AF, NOAA, and numerous other weather organizations around the world. Heck I was reading about weather modifications in science books written from the 50s and 60s. So far, there is no evidence that we are being sprayed by anything.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by wonderworld
 



Wow, I beg to differ with you on Grid patterns a Contrail will dissapear in 5 minutes. They dont stick around for the next few planes to fly by.


wonderworld, I'll try to be gentle. I will definitily beg to differ with that statement. I've been flying for 30+ years, and have seen many, many different examples of contrails.

Unfortunately, we must remember to take some of these 'chemtrail' conspiracy sites with a good dose of salt. THEY have a certain agenda, it would seem..and they don't bother to let actual facts get in the way, when they can say something outlandish and inflammatory.

I'll refer back to two pictures, very pretty pictures, BTW, of airplanes producing normal contrails, as the exhasts from the engines interact with the air they are flying through. Air can hold a LOT of moisture....held in a state of vapor, and still be completely transparent. It is when the vapor condenses, into water or ice droplets, that you begin to see the clouds...which, basically, descripe the contrails. Please note, ALL THREE airplanes are showing the contrails starting at approximately the same distance from behind the engines.

Have you ever seen a fuel leak? Kerosene is nearly colorless (a slight almond color), yet when it is sprayed, either from leaks or intentional dumping, it atomizes instantly from the orifice, and looks white....and it disappates rapidly.

Here:




posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by wonderworld
 


wonder, for that picture (and one of a nice sunset you posted earlier) just consider the effects of sunlight. Look at the shadows....look at other clouds, notice how dark and light plays off of them.

THEN, go out and see, again, at sunset (or rise) how clouds (and contrails) turn orange.

That's all you're seeing...tricks of light and shadow.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by wonderworld
 


That actually happens when an aircraft descends through or flies through the cloud layer. The engine exhaust cuts through the cloud creating a line like that. The heat disperses the are and causes the cloud droplets to turn to vapor again, creating this. I have seen this when airplanes are on final approach to O'Hare Intl when they fly through a low cloud deck or through stratus clouds. Cool effect, but chemtrail effect no.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


When I was a skeptic I originally believed these were only fuel dumps.

Do you fly a crop duster, private, military or commercial aircraft?

Thanks about the pictures. I have no doubt about contrails. What do you make of this. I'm not 100% convinced on this picture?

What kind of plane is this?




[edit on 3-6-2009 by wonderworld]

[edit on 3-6-2009 by wonderworld]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


O.K I can buy that. Some of these images need a lot of explaining. Some still consider it a chem track.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by wonderworld
 


That is a B-52 Stratofortress bomber. Eight engines. Flying at cruise level I believe. The contrails are thicker because there are two engines hanging from one pylon. The engines were also notorious on takeoff because they produced a lot more exhaust and were very smokey, especially during the earlier years. That was because of the water injection system that was used to help the bombers get extra power on take off.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


How do I know? Oh c'mon.

I know because I've been under them for years, because I remember what the sky was before this started happening in the mid to late 90's. I know because I've read up on the technology being used, the barium salts, the cement dust, the microwaves, the fuel aditives, the multitude of artificial cientific meddling that the hubris of scientist have thought up in the last few decades. I know because it's so obvious, only the young who haven't seen anything else don't know. Perhaps it's them that some skebunkers want to really keep ignorant? A whole generation that dosen't know what the natural sky used to look like before the sky sludge?

I know because I can cloudbust a normal cloud and feel more energy, and when I cloudbust the chemtrail results I feel physically sick.

I know because I know of Wilhelm Reich.

And so on... I'm not going to give my whole life experience in a forum post, suffice to say there's enough there for me to know a whole lot of things, some of which would surprise you.

*****

And yes, of course there are lies on both sides of the argument. It's entropy to truths order, can't have a positive without the negative being around somewhere. If you corrected them, good on you. But it dosen't change the overall picture.

Again, we won't resolve this here. This issue will just be skebunked exaustively and selectively, and disinformation will be inseminated and the usual dance will go on. TPTB would rather we, the people, know nothing about anything, so we are more pliable. So people should, imho, from now on trust their experience more than anything else.

It's harder to lie to yourself than it is to lie to others or be lied to...



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by wonderworld
 


Well, like I said, a lot of is being purported as "chemtrail" evidence, is really nothing more than just pictures of contrails and other weather phenomenon. If you need any help with trying to understand or need clarification of what you are seeing by all means, I 'd like to help! I'm sure others here would also like to help, like Essan and Oz and Weedwacker.

I'm not in the business of deceiving people on such things, and I'm pretty sure essan, oz and weed, arent either. I see enough ignorance of basic sciences and a lack of enthusiasm for the natural sciences in schools. It breaks my heart when people just dont care about the world around them and would rather watch reality TV and other garbage rather than the Discovery Channel or the History Channel or other education shows and ignore education. The only time they start to pay attention is when such sensational claims emerge by people who are interested in either making a quick buck or just to screw with people and deceive them. Which is whY i got interested in the chemtrail debates, because ever since I started looking up the "Pro-chemtrail" sites, I kept seeing the same nonsense being pushed by people who have zero clue about meteorology or aviation. So like I siad, if you have any photos you need analyzed or looked at, please put them up. I'm will to help deny ignorance!



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.




Originally posted by Mindmelding
I know because I've been under them for years, because I remember what the sky was before this started happening in the mid to late 90's.


To save me typing this out again, I'm going to quote a couple of things I wrote in a debate post;



In 2007 29.5 million commercial flights took place. Thats roughly 80,000 flights a day globally. Add to that military traffic (which on global terms I estimate will be less than 1% of the commercial flights figure) and Thats an awful lot of things in the sky.


and



Air travel has increased an average of 4.38% a year in the past 20 years (Heres the maths, in 2007, there were 29,500,000 commercial flights, that means that in 1987, there were "only" 12,596,447 flights - less than half the 2007 figure). More planes = more chances for contrails = more observation of contrails. Its not rocket science (its meteorology!)


both from this debate

Now I realise that what I've just done is probably very narcissitic, but I'll live with that - given the above is it any suprise that there are more observable contrails now?



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Hmm from what you say it makes me think there is something in the fuel mixture. I also have a close family member who is Knowledgeable about this. I’ll try to contact him.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   



Local news station confirms Barium in Chemtrails


www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by wonderworld
 


Answer to question above, I am all civilian. Flight Instructed for several years, everything from Private to Commercial/Instrument to Multi-engine ATP. Then, worked for several commuter airlines, one touur company.

Then a major US Airline (23 years) until a forced early retirement (medical).

Passenger jets I know: B727,B737,B757,B767. DC-9/MD-80 and DC-10. And about a year in an Airbus widebody, A300. Didn't get around to flyhing all of the jet models at my airline, and regret that. Missed out on the B747 and B777.


Forgot your second question...EDIT, you were wondering about fuel additives. Not an expert on all things they iinclude....there was experimentation with trying to make the fuel less explosive, in accidents. Essentially, they tried to reduce it's atomization ability, at low pressures (jet engines use very high pressure pumps into the combustion chamber...just think of fuel injection on a grander scale than your car).

Other additives I've heard of are to prevent bacteria from growing, when fuel is stored. Water will colect, due to condensation, anywhere fuel is stored and sits idle. Even airplane tanks. In small airplanes, fuel systems will have various sump points, a low point, where as part of your pre-flight you extra a small sample to look for/and or drain any water.

In jets, fuel is passed through a water separator (really just a very fine filter) and, of course, due to the heat of combustion any of the additives are unlikely to survive to the exhaust. Little bits of hydrocarbon particles emerge -- and become nuclei for the contrails.

As a guy who used to work on the ramps pointed out, lots of ground support equipment are diesels....so, they use the jet fuel in them. And breathe sometimes, that exhaust, with no obvious side effects. AND people have raw fuel spill on them...even I've been exposed...but nothing in the "chemtrail" sites' claims would account for my medical...type II diabetes. It is congenital, my father developed it at about the same age I did.

[edit on 6/3/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thank you, you seem well educated in flying.

I know a lot more than I am willing to say on this thread but chemtrails do exist. I do have one connection that I can not disclose.

For now we can simply discuss images and how chemtrails affect clouds I guess.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Feel free to quote yourself, there is nothing wrong with that and it gives context.

Yes, and for every chemtrail flight I have seen hundreds of commercial ones. Your point? The changes in the atmosphere are not caused by the commercial flights or by some sort of mass effect, at least not the specific cloud cover I see after specific chemtrail flights.

Again, nothing wrong with your science. It's just irrelevant because I can make the distinction and that is not what I am talking about.

I think chemtrail flights are specific, while I'm open to the hypothesis that someone might be spiking the fuel with some sort of additive on commercial flights, what I am seeing and talking about seems to be some sort of specific program seperate from commercial operations.

It's not all the time. It's only a few airframes. It's not normal commercial air routes. It's not the same type of trails and the effects are different. It's not usually admitted and ATC are cagey about talking about it. This sort of scenario.

So while you're speaking truth you're also out of context imo. I think these birds are military and/or specific airframes flown by discrete corporations. I think it probably ties into some intergovernmental project and the NWO, so I'm thinking UN. I'm thinking a few psychopaths, per ponerology, are lieing to a lot of people to keep this program moving.

Does what I say make sense to you, at least as a concept? Because this is what my experiences have lead me to, not the idea that it's just more planes and slightly different technology and climate change and all that. All that may well be true, but chemtrails are still something else you need to acknowledge, imo.

Again, if you're talking from a thought experiment perspective, please get out more. This has to be experienced to be discussed.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join