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.

 

Evidence for chemtrails? You decide

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   
I was watching this video on youtube, and what is really interesting is the following. You all know, that chemtrails is a touchy subject and is often said to be simple contrails. Contrails are simply condensation. When a plane leaves a chemtrail, it's always said to be a contrail that simply takes long to dissipate. I might have found something that proves this wrong. How?

Well.. There was a chemtrail/contrail (you decide which one) in the sky, and it was already spread out for a good amount. Then comes another plane, and flies through that chemtrail/contrail, but the contrail from that plane, disappears immediately. Now, if the contrail that was already there was simple condensation as often claimed by debunkers, the second plane flying through would leave a contrail just as dense as the first one right? It would condense too and dissipate slowly just like the previous one. It doesn't make sense for a plane to leave a huge a contrail, and when a second one comes along, that that contrail simply disappears within seconds... Or am I wrong?

Here is the video, and the footage is around 8:35 to 9:10



I already sense some arguments coming that the plane was at a different height even though it looks to be flying through the previous "contrail" in the video.. But I'm really curious what you guys think about this one...




posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
I already sense some arguments coming that the plane was at a different height even though it looks to be flying through the previous "contrail" in the video.. But I'm really curious what you guys think about this one...


Well there's no real way to tell what altitude the plane is at.

Having said that, if it was flying through the existing contrail, wouldn't we see it interact with it? You know creating a wake etc.

I don't see such interaction, so if that's your evidence I'm sorry to say but it falls very short.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Wake? What wake? Do you ever see wake in the clouds when a plane is flying through it? Is the contrail of that plane not enough?



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   
I was just yesterday talking with a friend of mine who is serving his military duty at the local airforce. I asked him about the recent chemtrails that have been appearing in our skies lately. He admitted they have nothing to do with normal contrails. He didn't know what is in them but he said that when they form these criss-cross patterns the air force uses them to 'calibrate' their equipment. must be something to do with radar technology?

It is very annoying when somebody starts a chemtrail thread, the same debunkers crawl out of their caves trying to deny perhaps the most obvious 'conspiracy' of all times! even small children know the difference between contrail and chemtrail. The big secret seems to be what is in them and are they harmful to us or not.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


Turbulence created by the engine and velocity of the plane.

Granted it's pretty hard to tell from such a distance, same as it is difficult to tell the height of the plane.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by scordar
 


Can I ask what does your friend do at the Airforce?

And my apologies for 'coming out of my cave' but if you can't handle people not agreeing with your ideas, then maybe human interaction is not for you.

Maybe you should stop hanging around little kids, it seems they're putting silly ideas in your head.


[edit on 21/6/09 by Chadwickus]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Chemtrails are just some crazy US nonsense dreamed up by a wingnut and given credibility by other wingnuts. Lots of anecdotes and You Tube videos isn't evidence. The plural of anecdote isn't data, as they say


Oz Weatherman launched a couple of good threads that fairly nail the idea as being without evidence...

Why the Chemtrail Conspiracy is Unplausible, and Meteorologically Innacurate

Chemtrail believers, I challenge you to debunk contrail science


Chemtrailers always seem to go for NWO, FEMA deathcamps, underground alien bases and wildly implausible conspiracies. OMG! Project Blue Beam and Montauk time holes! OMG! If only Mark Twain was wrong about that lightning...



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by scordar
 
Maybe you should invite your friend to provide the evidence he clearly possesses? It's quite the dark conspiracy when a mate stationed at the local AFB can pass comment on 'chemtrail' secrets with such authority



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


Sorry, vasaga.

You're being duped by a moron with a vid camera, posting on YT.

It is very obvious, at the time indices you refer, that the existing contrail, and the second airplane, are at different altitudes!!!

See, as in the example of the two airplanes earlier, crossing paths, they are separated by 1000 feet vertically. The airmass they are in is saturated with water vapor sufficiently, and for several thousand feet vertically, obviously, for really good contrails to form.

Sometimes, though, an airplane 1000 feet above, or below another
will not produce a contrail. You cannot see water vapor, hence these nutcases and their "chemtrail" conspiracy theories.

AND now, a short entertaining educational video:



I strongly recommend the OzWeatherman threads and his info, it is dead brilliant!

Contrails tend to resemble normal cirrus clouds because they are formed at the same altitudes as cirrus. In fact, whilst cirrus can form naturally, the contrail left behind by a jet simply moves the process along.

Now, if you don't believe that a contrail can 'linger' and become a cloud, then you obviously don't believe that clouds exist!! Because, I do. AND, I happen to see clouds 'linger' almost every day. Does this make me delusional?

Let me use a personal example. As I write it is 0854 Sunday, where I am. I was up and about at 0620. Sun was up, sky was completely clear. NOT a cloud within view. Now, in just those two hours or so, it is completely overcast, with fracto-cumulous, and very light scattered showers.

This is called normal weather!!! It is the nature of meteorology. It changes. We've all seen clouds form, and stay for hours, yes? Because, clouds move with the wind...and the velocity of the atmosphere is always varying, and variable. AND different at different altitudes.

How do I know this? Because I've been a pilot for over three decades.

AND, I don't come 'out of the woodwork' here just to be a so-called "debunker"! I come to deny ignorance. You can't "debunk" something that isn't true in the first place! You can, however, spread knowledge.


And, just for a laugh (because it's always fun to laugh in the same spirit as "America's Funniest Home Videos" and their genre:



(I blame the Public School system for leading the USA into Idiocracy!)

[edit on 6/21/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by scordar
I was just yesterday talking with a friend of mine who is serving his military duty at the local airforce. I asked him about the recent chemtrails that have been appearing in our skies lately. He admitted they have nothing to do with normal contrails. He didn't know what is in them but he said that when they form these criss-cross patterns the air force uses them to 'calibrate' their equipment. must be something to do with radar technology?

It is very annoying when somebody starts a chemtrail thread, the same debunkers crawl out of their caves trying to deny perhaps the most obvious 'conspiracy' of all times! even small children know the difference between contrail and chemtrail. The big secret seems to be what is in them and are they harmful to us or not.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Im sorry, but my daughter's father is USAF (and used to work around these jets and knows everything and anything about every military jet) and what you say is just NOT TRUE.

And yep, I crawled out of my cave - I tend to avoid these topics now due to trolls calling us "debunkers" names for lack of real comments.....but I had to address this comment.

It is very annoying when people make comments regarding the military, who are 100% clueless about what they are talking about.

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



[edit on 6/21/2009 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Why don't you ask your daughter's father why they keep painting these checkerboards in the sky? are they really that bored and have nothing else to do? I don't think so.

Do you seriously think these are water wapor and stay up in the sky for an hour spreading slowly with the wind?






[edit on 21-6-2009 by scordar]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I hope that chemtrails are a myth, just some wild imagination from a fellow conspiracy theorist. Then I run across a story like this, and I'm not so sure.

Clouds of secrecy.

I'll withhold judgment for now. I'm still not sure.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I simply cannot believe what I see happening in this thread and how the OP is treated. If this kind - and amount - of disinformation continues, as seems to be the case in more and more threads, ATS will in the long run lose any significance as to being a site/source of alternative INFO-rmation.


[edit on 21-6-2009 by CoolBlackHole]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
((script error double post))

[edit on 21-6-2009 by CoolBlackHole]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by mrwupy
 
Hiya, those incidents gave me quite a fright when I first read about them. It seems like Intelligence had a free for all for a few decades and weren't answerable to the Ethics Committees used by BMC or BPS! The things done in the name of 'National Security' are very dodgy indeed. Much like the forthcoming inquiry into the 'War in Iraq,' any inquiries were conducted in camera (private) and documents sealed for a 100 years...

For those that read the link and don't know about it...Porton Down conducted the experiment to assess the potential impact a biological attack could have on the country. They used a ship off the coast and a box van to release an infectious (though fairly tame) bacterium into a northerly wind to chart it's spread. IIRC their conclusion was that it was inefficient means of delivering a biological contagion due to inaccuracy and dispersal being dependent on meteorological conditions beyond our control.

I could provide a number of quotes that are associated with the experiments but none of them can be accurately sourced.

I'm curious as to who originated these ideas of chemtrails? Or even the earliest known reference to them? An original source would probably indicate their agenda...good or bad!



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mrwupy
 


mrwupy, I got part way through Part 1 (dodgy internet) but when the bloke said the spraying was 'quite a lot', then quantified it as 'almost a pound for every mile' (roughly the 3:50 point) I began to wonder about what he thinks is 'a lot'.

I found this at:en.wikipedia.org...


Production and structure

Since cadmium compounds are often found in association with zinc ores, cadmium oxide is a common by-product of zinc refining. It is produced by burning elemental cadmium in air. Pyrolysis of other cadmium compounds, such as the nitrate or the carbonate, also affords this oxide. When pure, it is red but CdO is unusual in being available in many differing colours due to its tendency to form defect structures resulting from anion vacancies. Cadmium oxide is prepared commercially by oxidizing cadmium vapor in air.

Uses

CdO is used as a transparent conductive material. CdO was first prepared as a transparent conducting film in 1907. Cadmium oxide in the form of thin films has been used in applications such as photodiodes, phototransistors, photovoltaic cells, transparent electrodes, liquid crystal displays, IR detectors, and anti reflection coatings. CdO microparticles undergo bandgap excitation when exposed to UV-A light and is also selective in phenol photodegradation.

Cadmium oxide is used in cadmium plating baths, electrodes for storage batteries, cadmium salts, catalyst, ceramic glazes, phosphors, and nematocide. Major uses for cadmium oxide is as an ingredient for electroplating baths and in pigments. Most commercial electroplating of cadmium is done by electrodeposition from cyanide baths. These cyanide baths consist of cadmium oxide and sodium cyanide in water, which likely form cadmium cyanide and sodium hydroxide. A typical formula is 32 g/L Cadmium oxide and 75 g/L sodium cyanide. The cadmium concentration may vary by as much as 50%. Brighteners are usually added to the bath and the plating is done at room temperature with high purity cadmium anodes.


It goes on:


Health Risks

Cadmium oxide is a known carcinogen and inhaling fumes or vapors may be fatal. Cadmium compounds are considered carcinogenic. Consult MSDS.


I checked the MSDS : www.jtbaker.com...


11. Toxicological Information

Toxicological Data:
Oral rat LD50: 72 mg/kg; inhalation mouse LC50: 250 mg/m3/2-hour; Investigated as a tumorigen, mutagen, reproductive effector.
Reproductive Toxicity:
Reproductive effects recorded on humans. May cause teratogenic effects.


'LD50' means 'lethal dose 50%' Still, 72mg per each kg of rat body weight seems like 'a lot'!

'LC50' is the 'lethal concentration' causing 50% death, of test subjects. So, 250mg per cubic metre over a 2-hour period.

I don't know if it's cumulative, or if the body will flush it. One First Aid suggestion for Humans was to get into fresh air...

Now, if this MoD spraying in the early 1960s is true (and I'm not saying it isn't) it could be just what they claim: Testing how a possible biological agent would disperse, if used. Maybe they thought the compound was safe, back then. We certainly used DDT and Alar for decades!!!

Also, the 'spraying' then certainly wasn't conducted from over 30,000 feet altitude, as is claimed today!!

Honestly, for today, I just cannot fathom a possible use for spraying chemicals that are toxic (in sufficient dosages) on the public, and politicians and military alike.

Too many Advil are toxic! Too much water can be fatal, too (Acute water poisoning).



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by vasaga
 


Sorry, vasaga.

You're being duped by a moron with a vid camera, posting on YT.

It is very obvious, at the time indices you refer, that the existing contrail, and the second airplane, are at different altitudes!!!

I knew this argument was coming. But really, look closely. At the beginning of that footage the plane/contrail seems either above the current "cloud" or through it because there's interruption of the visibility of the plane and its contrail. 8:54 is a good point to pause it and see that the cloud is disrupting the visibility of the plane.

And after a few seconds it seems pretty much below the "cloud" because it's completely visible and it's clear the "cloud" is above it (9:02 and on). This would actually mean, that the plane was flying through it one way or another, because it can't be above the "cloud" at one point and below it at another point without going through. Or you would have to argue that it was below it the whole time, but that would be against 8:54. Unless the user cut the video and filmed another plane, which would be weird because the shape of the cloud is still the same....

Just making an observation. Until you actually show that the planes are at a different altitude I won't believe you. Your conclusion is backwards. The way you think is: if it was the same altitude the contrail would not disappear so fast, and therefore it must be on another altitude. But that's the whole point of the argument.. If you look closely at the video, you can see the plane is actually going through (at least, that's what I see, if you see something else, let me know), which would make it an odd case and might suggest there's more to chemtrails than people think.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Just some stuff to point out.

The guy in the video lives in Cuddington, in Cheshire.

Thats about 10 miles from where I grew up.

Its within the vicinity of Liverpool John Lennon Airport, Manchester Airport and Birmingham Airport, and there are associated civil/commercial airfields at Wharton, Woodford and Broughton, with RAF Valley some 50 odd miles to the west as the crow flies.

Its also slap bang under the main north/south air corridor in the UK.

I also know, from my own personal spotting experience, that there is a military air corridor running across from west to east across Cheshire, and have observed several large military transports, B52's and tankers pass over.

Is this guy going to see lots of planes? You betcha bottom dollar he is. And as air travel has increased, its not suprising he's seeing even more of them.


[edit on 21/6/09 by neformore]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


I watched it. I went to the link, went full screen.

Watch carefully, the airplane is obviously above the existing contrail, around 8:53

Seconds later, the image cuts to another view of the airplane (or, a different airplane)

The zooming in, and out, is the telltale to the deception.

Actually, it's not a deception, just an idiot bloke who doesn't know what he's looking at.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mrwupy
Forun Moderator.
 

Hi, mrwupy.

Very good find ! !
I can't beleive it ! ! Those b*st*rds are protected in rubber suites,
because the stuff is SOOOOOOOO dangerous, and people a few
feet away are EXPOSED !! ! ! ! !
! ! Totaly arogant, those chemtrail and stuff sprayers ! !

You said:

I'll withhold judgment for now. I'm still not sure.

Often, **common sense** reveals the suspicious stuffs, and then,
leaks and research show/expose the truth ! The same as 9/11 !
The common sense of Building-7 exposes ALL the rest ! !
TRUST your gut instinct, at first ! ! B-)

Blue skies.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join