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.

 

Ever see the interior of a chemtrail spraying plane?

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


I gotta agree with the TS, just because someone claim's to have debunked it does not mean it's been debunked. Millions of people believe the claim of 9/11 being an inside job has been thoroughly debunked, yet millions of others are still convinced of govt involvement.
This doesn't necessarily mean ignorance has not been denied, and to claim so is, well, kinda ignorant.




posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Here is the same photo, minus the photoshop job adding the words “Sprayer OS, Hazmat-Inside”:

Here is the photo as it appears on airliners.net:
Boeing 777-240/LR
Enjoy…



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   
I cannot believe people still do not believe in chemtrails, look at recent atmospheric readings in your area if you have see chemtrails, there will be hill levels of barium in it. I think they are doing this to increase earths electromagnatism, i think they know something about something.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by GW8UK
 


Barium comes from many sources not the least of which are mining and manufacture, you have a lot of proof to cough up to show that it is coming from aircraft. Besides this, hoaxes, like the one in this thread, do not help prove anything more then what many of us have said from the beginning, that Chemtrails are themselves a hoax. Persistent Contrails are a reality, and they are in fact changing our climate without the help of any chemical additives.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Here is some evidence that the metals in rainwater are from the chemtrails specifically, there is also some speculative theories but you may be suprised:
www.rense.com...
www.rense.com...
contrailscience.com...



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by GW8UK
reply to post by defcon5
 


Here is some evidence that the metals in rainwater are from the chemtrails specifically, there is also some speculative theories but you may be suprised:
www.rense.com...
www.rense.com...
contrailscience.com...



Might wanna read your sources before you use them as evidence, particularly the third one from contrailscience.



everything presented in the thread has been discussed numerous times here at ATS before as well.

Why we need another one is beyond me?

Anyway... knock yourself out!

[edit on 29/10/09 by Chadwickus]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Hey.. youve got to present both sides to an argument before you can make a judgement, its to do with human perception, conception and interaction. The decision making process is a long one and i must conceed, the evidence is not particulaly solid in either case although i did state that there was 'speculative theories'



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Testing ballast ? what a complete load of crap, blind freddy could design a system that consisted of weights transferring along rails from side to side that would be a hundred years more prevalent to the testing of an airframe.

A canister like that is obvious pressurized due to the shape and its construction, to have something like this in an airframe is tantamount to disaster if one them ruptures.....those canisters are not ..I repeat not part of some kind of ballast airframe testing.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by mazzroth
 


While you may not believe what that is, it is in fact that. The reason they want to move fluid is because they can move it in various precise increments at a time using pumps to transfer it between barrels. You cannot do that with weights.

Here is the same test on an Airbus:





Here are more from that same 777-300ER:


Including this news article:



Craig Boyden works on water ballast tanks for the 777-300ER that will used for flight testing. Boeing's commercial plants in Renton and Everett will make airplanes with far fewer workers than in the past.

The canisters are obviously not pressurized, hence the fact he is filling them with a hose, despite the fact that they do appear to be pressurized kegs.

You still want to argue over what this is?

Can we get a HOAX tag on this now please?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   
You've got to be kidding Mazzroth. Pumping water around is a heck of allot easier than moving solid weights around. You would need substantial machines to move solid stuff whereas you only need pressure to move water.

I posted at the same time as defcon. Hey defcon, they would actually be pressure resistant to some degree. You just put the lid back on after filling them.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by mrwiffler]

[edit on 29-10-2009 by mrwiffler]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Not big on chemtrails, Especially if you have fluoride in the household water, and with two or four external engines combusting avtag fuel i would say that's more than enough to enough to contaminate the environment..



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by brill
I'm curious to see replies from people with an aircraft background. I'm disappointed to see a mod none the less offer such an arrogant comment like "Denying ignorance one photo at a time" offering no rebuttal.


brill


I love posts like this. I really do.

You assume I don't have any knowledge about aircraft, even though I've told you what the image actually is, and provided links describing it.

I've been looking into this stuff since I got a 'net connection in the late 90's. I've moderated on two conspiracy/paranormal sites because I love the topics, and through 97-2000 used to host two hour conspiracy themed chats in the Parascope chat rooms on AOL.

Did it ever occur to you that I've seen this stuff many times before? Probably not.

A claim was made about a photo.

Simply put, the claim is wrong.

The photo has an explanation. I provided that explanation and backed it up with sources - and yet some how I'm in the wrong and being arrogant because of my comments according to you, while at the same time you try and take a cheap shot because of my moderator status.

We I'm disappointed that when facts are presented and backed up people try and poo-poo them and dismiss them because those facts inconvinently do not match their belief. I'm disappointed that on a forum like ATS which prides itself on clear and critical thought people can't be bothered to look for a proper explanation of somthing before they put it up as a claim that its something else, and would rather take a pop at someone who actually dares to explain it

I'm disappointed that just because I'm a moderator here, you think I'm some kind of easy target to be shot down because you think I offered "no rebuttal" when actually what I did was present the actual facts and truth behind the picture without getting involved in pointless speculation.

Moderators Are People Too. (and they have opinions)



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



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

I love posts like this. I really do.

Thanks I thought I was spot on as well




You assume I don't have any knowledge about aircraft, even though I've told you what the image actually is, and provided links describing it.

I've been looking into this stuff since I got a 'net connection in the late 90's. I've moderated on two conspiracy/paranormal sites because I love the topics, and through 97-2000 used to host two hour conspiracy themed chats in the Parascope chat rooms on AOL.


I assumed nothing. Please show me where I questioned your knowledge of aircraft or how I rebuked your Internet conspiracy theorist status?



Did it ever occur to you that I've seen this stuff many times before? Probably not.

A claim was made about a photo.

Simply put, the claim is wrong.

The photo has an explanation. I provided that explanation and backed it up with sources - and yet some how I'm in the wrong and being arrogant because of my comments according to you, while at the same time you try and take a cheap shot because of my moderator status.


Sounds like an inferiority complex disorder at work here. Look I clearly did not question your abilities, I simply pointed out that the OP made a point regarding a specific part of the picture and no further explanation was given. Obviously you didn't read your link because no where in there does it mention the item in question(hazmat certificate). I would consider that arrogant to the extreme and yes given your a mod on this site the expectations, especially when challenged, should be met to some degree. No you don't have all the answers, neither do I, but to be be so flippant and to further present the woe is me tactic shows poor judgment and weak analysis.

I'll move onto other posts, remembering to take your word as the gospel. Have a nice day.

brill


[edit on 29-10-2009 by brill]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by brill
Obviously you didn't read your link because no where in there does it mention the item in question(hazmat certificate). I would consider that arrogant to the extreme and yes given your a mod on this site the expectations, especially when challenged, should be met to some degree. No you don't have all the answers, neither do I, but to be be so flippant and to further present the woe is me tactic shows poor judgment and weak analysis.


Actually Brill, I didn't answer it because it merited no answer.

If I'd have said "I believe its photoshopped" what I said would have been met with derision, because frankly anything I said would have been met with derision as it didn't fit the "belief" system.

And you know what, it would have happened if I was a moderator or not. Thats not presenting a "woe is me" tactic, thats presenting the sad truth of the partisan state of so called "debate" and "investigation" these days.

But guess what - it is photoshopped, as Defcon's post above clearly shows. Its a fraud. Sadly I didn't have the links he's presented at the time.

As for the inferiority complex jibe - well thats just unnecessary and, frankly, pathetic.




top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join