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.

 

Chemtrail Debunkers are Losing.

page: 14
19
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   


I can assure you, we had NO TANKS onboard to carry any sort of odd "chemicals". No switches to activate valves or pumps. No circuit breakers on the CB panel, nothing in the Airplane Manuals, no training on it. And, beleive me, we get a LOT of training, there is NOTHING on the airplnae that we don't understand, or don't know about. THEN, there is the weight issue (and balance). ANY item onboard has weight. Weight is an issue, of course. ALL weight is the enemy, when it is unnecessary. Added fuel burn, contrary to fuel conservation efforts that are so important today, with the high cost of fuel. ANYTHING that is opnboard, and leaves for any reason, also will change the balance. You will notice that fuel on jetliners is concentrated (laterally) mostly where it is closest to the Center of Gravity of the airplane. This way, as fuel is burned, the CG is minimally affected. ALL of the available space inside the airframe is already spoken for, fuel tanks, equipment, passenger and luggage/cargo areas. There simply is NO PLACE to "hide" any "chemical" apparatus



See I never made a reference to the planes being commercial passenger planes. I have continually said they are Black Ops.

I'm sure all pilots know their planes well, but to say carrying chemical is impossible; is a silly argument.

What about military fueling tankers? What about firefighting planes? What about heavy transport planes??

There are plenty of special use planes out there; which would enable the use of Chemical Weapons.

Are they killing left, and right? No, why not? The desired effect is weakening Your immune system. Similar to all the contaminants found in food, and water.

Slow kill; I don't know exact concentrations of materials in the chemtrails, but they don't need much as it is only intended to diminish Ones Immune System.


[edit on 23-8-2009 by sanchoearlyjones]




posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
www.mefeedia.com...
www.anomalies-unlimited.com...
www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

Evidence mounting that government projects causing poison clouds


The second and most secretive project is the United States Navy's, RFMP, Radio Frequency Mission Planner, military program. The RFMP is the system name given to a group of computer programs and one of the supporting, subprograms within the RFMP system is called the VTRPE computer program. VTRPE is an acronym that stands for Variable Terrain Radio Parabolic Equation, It is a computer Radio Frequency propagation program that deals with radio waves and enables the RFMP system to visually see the battlefield terrain in 3 dimensions (3-D) on a television screen. The RFMP system also depends on satellites to feed their images of the battlefield into the RFMP system to be combined with the battlefield picture painted from the ground thus producing 3-D images....
The government and military solved the “ducting” problem by releasing an aerosol, a mixture of barium salts into the atmosphere over America. They made an atmospheric RF duct with a base of barium aerosol from aircraft. The chemical and electrical characteristics of the mixture will cause water moisture to stay in clouds.

proliberty.com...

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
pilotsfor911truth.org...




[edit on 23-8-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   




Slow kill? Yeah I'd say 80 years is a pretty slow kill!

Plus, all the air vehicles you stated are low-altitude planes. Why are they low altitude? Well I'm no aviation expert, but common sense tells me its so they're more accurate and heavy as all hell.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Film the pilot, investigate why and where he is flying, and you'll eventually receive an answer.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   




I am no aviation expert, but the only plane on the list that would be low altitude would be a plane used in fires.

80 years??? Life span??? Last I checked in the States the life expectancy has dropped, and the amount of "odd" immune diseases, cancer, and many more have gone through the roof.

I do believe these things are adding to the increase in cancer amongst other things. I also believe this stuff is what is killing the bats, and bees; which they have no other explanation for.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones
 



I never made a reference to the planes being commercial passenger planes. I have continually said they are Black Ops.


Not sure why you responded with that, to ME, because I never said that you made reference to commercial passenger planes. BUT, others do! They show pictures of jets with airline paint schemes, and contrails, and shout "chemtrails!"


... but to say carrying chemical is impossible; is a silly argument.


Well...I NEVER said carrying chemicals is "impossible". So, why say it to me?


What about military fueling tankers? What about firefighting planes? What about heavy transport planes??


Well, let's take the KC-135, for instance. Let's for fun assume it is loaded with some kind of chemical, instead of fuel, in its fuselage tanks. It has four engines, so engine contrails will be four. It has TWO nozzles for fuel-dumping, which would be used IF it was loaded with "chemicals" to "spray".

SO, one merely has to find an instance of the KC-135 "spraying" a double-trail, instead of forming a quadruple contrail. I know there's a photo floating around, of just such an airplane, dumping fuel from beneath the wings. Of course, people may claim right away thet it isn't fuel....but of course, they'd have no proof either way.

"Firefighting planes"? Sure, why not? Load them up with "chemicals" too. Actually, they do already. Thing is, firefighting airplanes (low flyers for the most part, BTW) tend to dump their loads in one big drop, not slowly and gradually.

"Heavy transports" I covered today, looked up the C-5 and C-17 on Wiki. Very informative, I recommend reading the info.

Given their sizes, I reckon they have fuel dump capability, as do almoast all large airplanes, for emergencies requiring a lightening of the loads, engine failures right after take-off, for instance.

Perhaps there are databases showing the numbers of such airplanes currently active, and their missions (of course, troop and equipment transport details may well be classified, for obvious reasons).

Still, usually their assignment to Units, and their roster info is public knowledge.

Finally, all you "chemtrail" lovers...How about investigating at Airbases around the World? LOOK for the loading of strange stuff, get familiar with the airplanes, what they look like, how to identify them.

Should keep you busy, and finally bring "proof"!!
____________________________________________

Edit for pictures:
Lockheed C-5


Status Operational
Active: 33
Reserve: 45
ANG: 30[1]
Primary user United States Air Force
Produced C-5A: 1968-1973
C-5B: 1985-1989
Number built 131 (C-5A: 81, C-5B: 50)

Source

Some info!


Boeing C-17
C-17 landing at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, after dropping humanitarian food rations over Afghanistan
Source



[edit on 23 August 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
See I keep hearing that the amount of chemical needed would be impossible. I don't know if there is an exact type of chemical even used. I think it varies.

What I can equate the chemical to is a tractor, or even an ATV sprayer. I worked on a farm when I was younger, and one tractor could spray for hours with one tank full.

I know two entirely different topics; planes to tractors, but it helps show that chemical sprays can go a long way.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones
 


deltafarmpress.com...




Operators of John Deere's new 4930 self-propelled sprayers may get tired of spraying before the sprayers run out of something to spray. The 4930, the new and improved version of the 4920 model, is equipped with a 1,200-gallon spray tank. The liquid spray tank can be removed and replaced with a 200-cubic-foot dry Ag Leader box for fertilizer or lime applications. With spray boom widths of up to 120 feet and an optional high-flow plumbing system that can deliver up to 50 gallons of spray solution per acre, drivers can cover a lot of ground with the new sprayer — liquid or dry. “We have some guys in Canada and Brazil who can do up to 2,500 acres per day,” says Craig Weynand, product marketing manager for John Deere's Des Moines Works. “It helps that the sprayer has a 140-gallon fuel tank that is designed to allow you to run for 16 hours without re-fueling.


Okay, the point in showing this is that to realize a tractor laying a THICK coating of material, over a wide area will cover 6 acres; it only holds 1200 gallons. Now apply that to an aircraft moving at several hundred miles an hour, and only putting out a 40ft swath; it could very easily have a set up which could be compared to a tractor.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones
 


Yes, a farm. BUT, how many acres?? ALSO, it's a flat sirface you're talking about.

In the air, you have to think in three dimensions. CUBIC feet, meters, whatever of air, not 'square' dimensions.

AND...THOUSANDS of acres...guess I have to find the "square kilometers to acres" conversion program, then make it cubic by figuring a vertical dimension.....
________________________________________

Here it is!! Acres to square kilometers conversion

Enjoy!!!

hint--- 1,000 acres is just over FOUR square kilometers. How long did that tractor tank last, again? How many acres??

[edit on 23 August 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones
 


your really bad at math arent you?
OK maximum cargo wait for a 747 at take off is 248600 lbs.
Now weight if the sprayer yet but a tank capable of holding this much liquid and an engine to spray it ill use the weight of the sprayer for the john Deere you mentioned 30000 lbs.

So now are plane is ready at an adjusted cargo weight of 218600lbs
Liquid weighs ruffly 8.23 lbs per gallon now we take the maximum weight divide by 8.23 we get 26561lbs of liquid we can Carry right converting it back to gallons we get 3227. Now this sprayer you mentioned is a mister which means it takes several passes to complete and doesn't create a cloud so we know where going to have to get something alot stronger.

So i checked out crop duster Nestlé pumps over 450 gallons per minute. So now we have 3227 gallons divide that by 450 a minute equals 7.17 Convert that to time we get 7 min 3 second. That means according to you the longest a plane would be able to create a contrail is 7 min 3 second. Now considering Ive seen contrails on satellite links last hundreds of miles how can that be oh and this doesn't even account for multiple sprayers every time someone shows a contrail theres all ways at least 2 so now were looking at 3 and a half minutes.

a 747 at cruising speed 565 mph in one minute covers 9.41 miles and we times that by say 3.5 we get 32.95 miles. wow that wouldnt even go all the way accross a large city much less all the way to the horizon. Well this isnt looking good for the theory huh?


[edit on 8/23/09 by dragonridr]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Well, first off the weight of the pump on that tractor doesn't weigh 30k lbs. That's the entire tractor weight.

Redo Your math, and I'll point out more mistakes.

Another thing, all the math I've seen to date is using cubic volume as though the chemtrail is supposed to poison a box, but all it has to do is lay a fine mist out; that then falls to the ground.

I never claimed to be an expert. All I know is what I'm looking at in the sky is NOT normal.

I keep hearing different altitudes this, or that; sure, no problema, but the anomalies that keep the debunker's stumped, and the chemies going is what drives me. There are many anomalies, and a lot of disinformation out there.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones
 


I just used that as an example but the crop duster i looked up weighed 31600 lbs for the sprayer and tank after i removed the weight of the aircraft so it would only make things worse for you trust me.

Ps truly you cant believe this can you the sprayer idea is just totally oof the mark come on. That would mean all those planes up in the air arent carrying passenger there carrying chemicals and what happens to all those people that go to the airport are they in on it too?

[edit on 8/23/09 by dragonridr]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones
 



...using cubic volume as though the chemtrail is supposed to poison a box, but all it has to do is lay a fine mist out; that then falls to the ground.


Firstly, your "lay a fine mist" idea doesn't work in the air, as it would on the ground. THAT'S why I pointed out the fact that you have to take into account the volume of air as well. ALL of that three-dimensional air, in cubic meters, means that your "fine mist" will be terribly doluted, very quickly.



...that then falls to the ground.


Could you show ANY examples of such "stuff" falling to the ground? The "chemtrails" that everyone points to are very, very obvious, at least that's why they think they see "chemtrails". I've seen plenty of YT videos showing clouds in time-lapse, never ever see anything, like aan entire cloud, or a "fine mist" descend to the ground.

It just doesn't make any sense.

here's another time-lapse video...shws a LOT of different cloud conditions, as it was also made whilst driving along highways...so, the scenery changes a lot, but it shows NO clouds, ever, descending to the ground.

Still, it's kinda cool...



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


We get it. You don't agree. Move on.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones
 




Last I checked in the States the life expectancy has dropped, and the amount of "odd" immune diseases, cancer, and many more have gone through the roof.



When was the last time you checked? US life expectancies have been steadily increasing for quite a while.
www.cdc.gov...

U.S. Life Expectancy Rises to Record Level
Life Expectancy for Babies Born in 2006 is 77.7 Years
www.webmd.com...



The report also shows the nation's top 15 causes of death, 10 of which had declines in their age-adjusted death rate in 2006, as this list shows:

1. Heart disease: down 5.2%
2. Cancer: down 1.7%
3. Stroke: down 6.4%
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases: down 6.3%
5. Unintentional injuries: up 1.8%
6. Diabetes: down 5.3%
7. Alzheimer's disease: down 1.3%
8. Influenza and pneumonia: down 12.3%
9. Kidney diseases: up 1.4%
10. Septicemia: down 1.8%
11. Suicide: unchanged
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis: down 2.2%
13. Hypertension: down 6.3%
14. Parkinson's disease: down 1.6%
15. Homicide: up 1.6%


[edit on 8/23/2009 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by brocket99
 


Gee. Angry.

The title of the thread is "Chemtrail Debunkers are Losing".

That allegation is incorrect. Showing WHY it is incorrect is certainly my right? I suppose if an Admin member told me to stop posting here, then I would heed that advice.

In the meantime, why not find a way to prove some of us wrong?

"Chemtrails", as claimed by various sources are simply untrue, and the intent is to show WHY...by that criterion, it certainly shows that "debunking" the bunk is alive and well. Thread at ATS are meant t o stimulate discussion.

Would you rather see threads where everyone agrees?? That would be very ignorant.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Sigh...

Once again....

Other Members are NOT the topic here...

On Topic or not at all

Semper



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Hi phage,

You presented good figures provided by the govt.; say haven't they raised the age limit for social security also? When those numbers came out I believe the qualifying age for social security jumped fom 65 to 72, or there abouts....no connection though.

Here's a link to study regarding Latin Americans getting cancer once in the US. The Dr interviewed puts it off to not getting the American Diet, and lifestyle down here, but that's wrong. I live here much of the year, and these People have WAY adopted the American lifestyle, and their wasteline shows it. Also, from Mexico, Cuba, and the CA4 all have state paid health insurance; so People do get checked here..... by state of the art equipment.

I think it shows if not by chemtrails severe poisoning of the American People.

Cancer rates rise for Hispanics once they reach U.S., study finds
bulletin.aarp.org...



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join