Chemtrails. Why is the movie Toxic Sky BANNED in the USA ?

How high do you think this plane was?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e326e1f6f68e.jpg[/atsimg]

By the way, the movie is pretty good! Has some good action, and the acting is above average.

They contained the chemtrails to one city for the most part, when it is actually a global event.

Entertaining to say the least.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by kingswillquiver]

reply to post by kingswillquiver

How high do you think this plane was?

What a pretty picture! Why not provide more source info?

Oh...you want us to guess its altitude? It is at normal cruise altitude --- how's that?

Based on the blurry portion at the bottom of the photo...it looks like it's part of the glareshield of another airplane's instrument panel.

I'm guessing that photo was taken from the cockpit of ANOTHER jet....on the same course, but obviously several thousand feet below.

Was it over the North Atlantic, on a NAT Track? Because, when I flew the NAT Tracks it was very, very common to see sights like that.

Anyway...you have, there, a four-engine jetliner....dimensions match well with a B747....making contrails, behind each engine, as is expected if the conditions are conducive to contrail formation.

I'm not familiar with what I can see of the paint scheme, perhaps with a little searching I can find a match......to announce what airline it is.
______________________________________________________

After an exhaustive search, I have a possible match. It could be an Atlas jet...they are a cargo/charter company:

www.airliners.net...(SF)/1581728/M/

The distinctive blue engine nacelles I THINK I can see in the photo. The paint scheme on the tail matches too.

ARRRRGGHHH! Seems the (SF) in the url link is screwing it up! Well, if you go to airliners.net and put in the photo number : 1581728 maybe it'll come up...

Here's another one (crossing fingers):

www.airliners.net...


[edit on 24 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


The blurred foreground is the top of the roof on my house.

reply to post by kingswillquiver


OK....then you weren't in the middle of the Atlantic??

Use a telephoto lens? What power? What day, where geographically?

Approximately what direction is the airplane heading?

ALL of that is needed.

(The roofline fooled me...BUT it does slightly resemble certain airplane glareshields...) Here, this is a 747-400 cockpit, see the color and shape of the glareshield?

www.airliners.net...

[edit on 24 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by kingswillquiver


I'd guess it's about the same height as this one

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a580808a166b.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by kingswillquiver
Phage, did you actually watch the movie?

You should if you haven't. Might learn something.

Like moths to light, Phage (along with OzWeatherman and Chadwickus) show up in every chemtrail thread, but they aren't interested in learning anything.

They're only interested in doing their job -- spewing the official PTB line over and over:

"Chemtrails are imaginary -- "persistent contrails" (nothing but frozen water vapor) are capable of spreading out and obliterating clear blue skies in an hour or two."

Yeah, right!

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

Oh please, you playing that tune again?

Government shill
Disinfo agent
Blah
Blah
Blah

Come on then prove your claims.

Put your money where mouth is.

Prove that you're not a government shill/disinfo agent? LOL -- it's painfully obvious.

My post received 7 stars, so it seems a lot of people agree with me.

Anyway, I'm sure you're just a concerned citizen who spends all his free time trying to debunk chemtrails.

Originally posted by kingswillquiver
How high do you think this plane was?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e326e1f6f68e.jpg[/atsimg]

By the way, the movie is pretty good! Has some good action, and the acting is above average.

They contained the chemtrails to one city for the most part, when it is actually a global event.

Entertaining to say the least.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by kingswillquiver]

Obviously a 747, any airplane enthusiast, 5 year old one at that, could tell you that.

But, if you think it is some sinister chemplane out to spray the populace for dark and evil purposes, tell us all why the contrails start slightly behind the engines and not immediately behind the engines, since chemtrail beleivers think jet aircraft turbines are just aeronautical equilvalents of food processors that you dump anything into.

I wonder if anyone has done any correlation on H1N1 infection rates and chemtrail spraying, it would be interesting to see if there's any correlation to the data, or if there's a correlation between spraying and infection rates in general. If Barium is being used in the spray then it serves to reason the population below those sprays would have drastically reduced immune systems. Wouldn't be proof but it would be a strong correlation.

Well just a quick google search and I found these two links, first a map of reported sprayings,

www.flyinhawaiianproductions.com...

It's interesting to note the occurance of spraying alon the eastern seaboard into the ohio valley region and then the western seaboard. High concentrations of spraying there.

Map of the swine flu

flutracker.rhizalabs.com...

Zoom in on N. America an we see a similiar pattern of confirmed H1N1 cases, most are along the eastern seaboard and the west coast with diminishing returns west of the ohio valley.
Confirmation of a link no, interesting correlation, I'll let you decide.

reply to post by gaborn415


that BS??????

Wow!!!!

I try to be polite....but when presented with a link to a very bad site....that demonstrates stupidity....well.....

I would only hope that most ATS members can see BS, when it is blatant.

Originally posted by Phage
Banned?
Or just such a terrible movie it went straight to DVD?

Whoa there man, there are great independent film makers in the world, some of them right here on ATS, and some of them will take that personally phage. There's been thousands upon thousands of great films, yes films, that are released DV or direct to video, it's not some prerequisite to poor quality either. It usually means there isn't a multi-million dollar celebrity starring in it, or the distributor didn't have the multi-million dollar clout to push the film into a theatrical release. Hollywood really has people snowed huh?

reply to post by twitchy

It isn't just independents which don't make it to the theaters. I meant no offense toward independents.

1. To all the "It's banned in the USA? Oh I'm not surprised, they ban everything!" crowd, bite down on it. Say what you want about our government being a bunch of paranoid, power mongering loons as far as public policy and economics goes... but back off on the entertainment issues because you're merely blowing hot air. Our book banning days are largely behind us in the digital age. The only films I'm aware of that are truly banned in the USA are illegal pornography films (ie: underage, forced/rape, etc) something like this Toxic Skies? Pffft! They wouldn't give two flips about it.

2. I own the DVD for this. Bought it used out of the 4 for $20 bin at Blockbuster a while back. Actually not bad for what it is.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


It's easily proven, all you need to do is u2u an admin and tell them that that big mean chad guy is a government shill.

The admin will either tell you to loosen the tinfoil hat and sod off or they will check my IP and find out that I indeed am where I say I am (Western Australia).

No doubt that won't appease you though, because the cover up of chemtrails is so important to the (US) government that they will send their shills and disinfo agents to the far reaches of the globe just so they can look like normal people sharing their opinion and knowledge.

I guess this is where you will say "oh uh you must work for the Australian government then!" even though my IP will say that my ISP is either westnet or telstra (depending if I am browsing on my mobile or computer), this would mean that the government also sets up private internet accounts to cover their tracks... Quite the effort for what? A few posts stating a differing opinion to yours?
Pull the other one mate, you and your 7 star buddies have officially gone past conspiracy theorist and entered delusioned, paranoid theorist.



[edit on 25/9/09 by Chadwickus]

reply to post by Chadwickus


And when the Chemtrails are proven to be right?

Then what. Do you have a cave to hide in?

Current aircraft engines emit aerosol particles and gaseous aerosol precursors into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere that may affect air chemistry and climate. Aircraft engines also directly emit soot and metal particles. Liquid aerosol precursors include water vapor, oxidized sulfur in various forms, chemi-ions (charged molecules), nitrogen oxides, and unburned hydrocarbons

www.ipcc.ch...

Now, this next article explains the toxic exhaust of jet aircraft.

Aircraft emissions vary with the engine type, the engine load and the fuel. Among jet aircrafts there are differences between civil and military jet engines and their fuels. Combustion of jet fuel results in CO2, H2O, CO, C, NOx, particles and a great number of organic compounds. Among the emitted hydrocarbons (HCs), no compound (indicator) characteristic for jet engines could be detected so far. Jet engines do not seem to be a source of halogenated compounds or heavy metals. They contain, however, various toxicologically relevant compounds including carcinogenic substances.

www.sciencedirect.com... &_orig=article&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=20b16915577b6d6f709abc1fb5d8dc3d

Notice how they say that the jet engine doesn't seem to be the SOURCE of heavy metals in contrails.

Certain heavy metals, especially vanadium, were found in jet exhaust and may be useful chemical fingerprints. Analysis of JP-5 fuel standards revealed a suite of alkylbenzene hydrocarbons, which may also aid in fingerprinting aviation emissions. Sediment samples taken at coastal wetlands near airports indicated the presence of the same heavy metals as those found in jet exhaust samples. Field sites exposed to higher volumes of air traffic contained higher levels of sediment heavy metals, supporting the hypothesis that aerial deposition of heavy metals is occurring in areas near some airports

cat.inist.fr...

The question is, where are the heavy metals coming from? The fuel? Some type of exhaust injection device?

This is what the debunker experts should be helping us with. Finding answers.

Not trying to belittle true patriots.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Prove that you're not a government shill/disinfo agent? LOL -- it's painfully obvious.

My post received 7 stars, so it seems a lot of people agree with me.

Anyway, I'm sure you're just a concerned citizen who spends all his free time trying to debunk chemtrails.

Do you really still believe this? Or are you just being immature? If you are still concerned simply report this ro rhe mods.

If I was a government shill....I would simpy have you dissapear if I was so threatened

Seven stars whoop-dey-do

Oh band by the way....if I was a government shrill...why would I be psoting about othe conspiracies which I believe in?

reply to post by kingswillquiver

We can't tell from the abstracts exactly what they were testing. Different tests, different results.But I'm confused by the point you're trying to make. The same report that says there are heavy metals in jet exhaust says those same substances are found in higher concentrations near some airports. That makes sense. Aircraft tend to congregate near airports.

But if "chemtrails" are being sprayed, there is no reason for higher concentrations of these metals be found near airports. The "spraying" is supposed to be going on everywhere, at high altitudes. If contrails are really "chemtrails" why are the higher concentrations only found near some airports, where aircraft take off and land.

[edit on 9/25/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by kingswillquiver

Current aircraft engines emit aerosol particles and gaseous aerosol precursors into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere that may affect air chemistry and climate. Aircraft engines also directly emit soot and metal particles.

Oh MY Gid!!!

You have broken through!!!

(sarcasm)

"Current aircraft engines emit..."

One could easily substitute...."Current automoble engines emit..."

....and be just as true.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOUR ABILITY to understand????

We are describing, in plain English.....

I am trying NOT to be rude....but....really?????

reply to post by weedwhacker


We have put catalytic converters, smog control, fuel restrictions on cars.
We use unleaded fuel. Aviation fuel has lead, amongst other metal and they
are spraying above our heads.

How many cars does it take to make the exhaust output of one jet.

But you insist that there is nothing wrong with this?



[edit on 25-9-2009 by kingswillquiver]

reply to post by kingswillquiver

Ok. You're right.
No more jets. What a good idea. They are bad for the environment.


[edit on 9/25/2009 by Phage]