It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Udontknowme
Why don't you help all of us here, do us a favor and find actual proof of these "chemtrails".
Check this website, it's associated with the G1:www.pnl.gov...
NOW, after reviewing that, please focus in and show us where it says they do any sort of "chemtrail" work.
It would be helpful.
[edit on 29 July 2009 by weedwhacker]
Nancy Pelosi knows about the secret Chemtrail program, the one Panetta recently freaked out about, but the media buried.
Faced with the potentially devastating consequences of climate change -- including sea level rise and an ice-free Arctic -- some scientists and policy experts have begun to consider an equally drastic countermeasure: geoengineering.
By physically altering the planet on a global scale, geoengineering projects would theoretically offset warming caused by the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The concept was dismissed as fringe science when it was first introduced in the 1960s. Now, what once seemed like science fiction is not only being deemed feasible, but necessary
A temporary cooling period created by the launch of 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere.
Exactly how the material would be delivered isn't clear -- cannons, balloons and high-flying military planes are some "highly speculative" options, he says.
This is just one more example of how our government plays God with the air we breathe and Global environmental Health....
As shocking as it is to admit there are indeed Chemtrails, Geoengineering, bioengineering, bio-warfare, Ionospheric manipulation and other EXPERIMENTS going on in our skies.
Originally posted by wonderworld
I get the feeling you are nervous about my recent spraying mechanism images and Historical data.
1) What exactly do you consider Chemtrails, anything put in the air, or stuff that looks like your photos in the first post?
2) What do you think is in chemtrails?
3) Do you believe that there are fibers in chemtrails?
4) Do you think that supposed “Angel Hair” is from Chemtrails?
5) Do you believe that there are Nano-bots or whatever in them?
6) Do you think that there is a link between these and Morgellions?
7) Do you think that all photos of "supposed" chemtrails are in fact chemtrails?
8) If not how do you differentiate?
9) Do you believe in Persistent Contrails?
10) Are private or commercial pilots in danger from flying through them?
11) Would it pose an aerial hazard to other aircraft?
1) How widespread do you think that chemtrails are?
2) How much Chemtrail coverage do you estimate around the world in a day?
3) How many aircraft do you think are involved in this?
4) How much material would each aircraft have to carry?
5) What types of Aircraft are involved?
6) Where do they fly from?
7) Do you think ATC is involved?
8) Do you think Commercial Airline personnel are involved?
9) Do you think that Private Pilots are involved?
10) Where is this stuff manufactured?
11) How is it shipped to its distribution point?
12) Where is it stored until loaded on the aircraft?
13) Is it a liquid, powder, or what?
14) Would ground crews be in danger from handling this substance?
15) How is it loaded on the aircraft?
16) What apparatus is used to disperse it?
17) Estimate the number of people who would have to be involved with this substance to manufacture, ship, distribute, store, load, and disperse it?
Antony D. Clarke*, Kevin J. Noone†, Jost Heintzenberg‡, Stephen G. Warren§ and Dave S. Covert†
†Environmental Engineering and Science Program, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
‡Department of Meteorology, University of Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden
*Hawaii Institute of Geophysics, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, U.S.A.
§Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
Received 30 January 1986;
revised 1 August 1986.
Available online 14 April 2003.
A controlled study was carried out to evaluate three measurement techniques used for the determination of aerosol light absorption coefficients from aerosol samples collected on various filter substrates. These techniques were found to agree within about 10–30% when applied to a range of filter loading obtained for a laboratory generated calibration aerosol. Microphysical properties of the calibration aerosol were used to model its optical effects using Mie theory. The measured and modeled optical properties were found to differ by less than 30%. Qualitative and quantitative agreement of these techniques indicate that they provide a reasonable indirect method for the determination of atmospheric aerosol absorption coefficients and the related concentration of elemental carbon aerosol.