Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Chemtrailers: Your time is NOW!

page: 1
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+9 more 
posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Since the chemtrail debate (or argument) seems to have picked up, I thought I would share a study conducted on aircraft contrails and discuss the results of this study.

Firstly, a link to the study (pdf):

www.coas.oregonstate.edu...

The article makes for good reading and explains how and why contrails form.

What I'd like to concentrate on though, is this graph:




Two contrail cases are presented here: one contrail generated by the 757 aircraft on 7 may 1996 and one generated by the DC-8 itself on 12 May 1996. Both contrails were visible to the human eye. The 757 contrail was sampled about 22km behind the aircraft, and no natural cirrus was present in the immediate environment.


To keep it simple I'll concentrate on the 757's figures due to the fact that it is a commonly used passenger jet, and has been spotted numerous times as a "chemtrail plane".

SOOT



5.2% of the sample consisted of soot particles.

fairly obvious as to why soot was found coming out a jet engine.

METALS



Metals found consisted of Iron, Chromium and Titanium and made up 12% of the samples collected.

All three of these metals can be found in components of aircraft engines, so again, nothing out of the ordinary.

METALS (MIX)



As the above graph states, the mix indicates sulfur was found amongst the three metal particles.

Sulfur is used in jet fuels to help with lubricity, as a side note, many groups are pushing for fuels which contain little to no sulfur in them due to environmental concerns.

UNIDENTIFIED VOLATILES




Many of the unidentified volatile particles contained carbon peaks with areas at least 2-3 times above background noise level, suggesting that these were organic compounds.


UNIDENTIFIED NON-VOLATILES




Unidentified non-volatile particles often had small amorphous shapes, which could be soot, or large angular planar shapes, which could be silicates (which could not be positively identified since the grids were SiO coated).


MINERALS AND MINERALS MIX



Minerals found consisted of Sodium, Aluminium Potassium and/or Iron and made up 20% of the samples collected, the mix again contains sodium in the particles.

These minerals are all crustal in origin.


 


So what does all this mean?

Well it shows what should be found in a typical sample of an aircraft contrail.

There will be a few variables, such as air borne particles and the like but these figures can be used as a benchmark for other samples of contrails and yes, chemtrails.

As this experiment shows, contrail experiments can and have been done.

Now, why can't any pro-chemtrail people do this?

I speak in particular, about the ones that make money off the chemtrail myth.

Cliff Carnicon and the like.

Photo's and videos aren't proof of anything, patents aren't proof of anything, pseudo-science isn't proof of anything and the words of charlatans aren't proof of anything.

Someone needs to put their money where their mouth is and get up there, after all it's yours and your families lives at stake isn't it??

This poisoning HAS to stop right? That's what most of the chemtrailers say at least...


So, chemtrailers are you all bark and no bite? The above experiment is the only way to prove chemtrails exist.

I repeat:

It is the ONE and ONLY way to prove chemtrails exist



Make it happen!





posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus


It is the ONE and ONLY way to prove chemtrails exist





never happen. Too much like work. It's so much easier to take a few pictures from the back yard and then claim that "they" are poisoning us. "They" are out to get us. When in fact, "we" are living longer than ever before, and the average lifespan keeps increasing every year.

These Chemtrails seem to be helping.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
So, chemtrailers are you all bark and no bite? The above experiment is the only way to prove chemtrails exist.


Yeah, but science is hard and it costs money. A unilateral declaration that "they" are "spraying" us is easy, plus it sets up a big mystery that's easy to exploit in the form of books, youtube videos and forum posts.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by Chadwickus


It is the ONE and ONLY way to prove chemtrails exist





never happen. Too much like work. It's so much easier to take a few pictures from the back yard and then claim that "they" are poisoning us. "They" are out to get us. When in fact, "we" are living longer than ever before, and the average lifespan keeps increasing every year.

These Chemtrails seem to be helping.


And ironically the ultimate EASIER thing to do is to deny them.

It doesn't matter. Chemtrails (which are real but their intent is unclear) will effect all of us anyway.

So let's sit back in two groups; knowers and doubters, and let's watch the sinister show because there is absolutely nothing we can do about this anyway except, argue about it. And that gets old.

So, please pass the popcorn!



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.


+3 more 
posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
What does it matter to you what other people believe?

Why does anyone have to prove anything to you?

Edit: What I mean to say is: If someone believes lines behind a plane are chemtrails, and you believe they are contrails, then what's it matter? And why should they feel the need to prove it to you?


[edit on 27/5/10 by GobbledokTChipeater]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
www.youtube.com...

I just have to say you should not trust this "chadwickus" guy...



NWOWILLFALL.....

Defeat the chemtrailers with comedy.....brilliant!

I love it!

I welcome your keen sense of humour in this thread!

Cheers mate!




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 
Like seriously bro I've got no problem with you, you've made me laugh on occasion so I'm not going to say anything more than believe what you will...



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
Edit: What I mean to say is: If someone believes lines behind a plane are chemtrails, and you believe they are contrails, then what's it matter? And why should they feel the need to prove it to you?


Because it is unhealthy for people to believe in unproven things, especially those things that are fear driven, such as the suggestion that "they" are "spraying" us. Paranoia breeds more paranoia.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Because it is unhealthy for people to believe in unproven things, especially those things that are fear driven, such as the suggestion that "they" are "spraying" us. Paranoia breeds more paranoia.


So by proving oneself to the OP, or performing an air sample test or whatever, this stops the paranoia



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   

So let's sit back in two groups; knowers and doubters, and let's watch the sinister show because there is absolutely nothing we can do about this anyway except, argue about it. And that gets old.


i think "dreamers and doubters" would be a more accurate description. You have no more (in fact, definitely less) proof then doubters. So, who are you to say you are in the know? I can say with complete confidence that you "know" nothing about the issue, besides that you see lines in the sky on the occasional sunny day.

Funny how you unknowingly defined yourself as a knower of the unknown... ya know?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 
I certainly have never said that they are spraying "us" but again it's not a contrail (or just a contrail)...This could be a weather modification tool to add credence to their "global warming"



[edit on 27-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SPACEYstranger
 


If you consider someone a dreamer, then so be it. I'm sure people here are bigger then to worry about someone thinking they are a dreamer.


Just because someone doesn't know everything about meteorology, chemtrails, airborne aerosol spraying systems, the atomisation of fluids or can't perform air sample tests behind a moving aircraft, doesn't mean somebody isn't spraying something into the sky for some purpose.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
 
I certainly have never said that they are spraying "us" but again it's not a contrail (or just a contrail)...This could be a weather modification tool to add credence to their "global warming"




Sure. It COULD be anything as long as you have no proof. The sky is the limit with one's imagination. First, one has to determine whether the premise the chemtrail theory operates on is true or false: that is, "it's not a (normal) contrail". Faulty assumptions generate faulty conclusions.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater
 


I don't mean prove it to just me.

I mean prove it, without a doubt, to the world that they exist.

I understand the average Joe can't do this, but as an example they could petition their favourite chemtrail website to do it.

I have to wonder why the negativity in your post?

Your angry that I've provided a way to prove the existance of chemtrails??




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 
Samples have been taken if you do the research (In which you most likely don't) The samples contained barium and aluminum oxide...Aluminum oxide huh? A metal particle...If you were to put the stuff into the upper atmosphere and It could stay there awhile don't you think it would reflect sunlight and make it hotter on the ground?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus

I have to wonder why the negativity in your post?

Your angry that I've provided a way to prove the existance of chemtrails??



No you misread me, I'm not negative at all


I just fail to see why people who believe something, should feel obligated to prove it to you, the next door neighbors dog, the world, or members of the parliamentary committee on the planet Zorg, just to satisfy this thread.

And I don't know what purpose you'd have in asking people to do that.

No negativity, just puzzled curiosity.


[edit on 27/5/10 by GobbledokTChipeater]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
It seems remarkably simple to just go up into the air and grab a sample of a Chemtrail. It'd be a major scoop. Surely someone must of done something like this already?

[edit on 27-5-2010 by BlankSlate]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I will repost this in this thread, since noone cares to answer:

I still feel the chemtrailers missed my question earlier - was right around when the insults started flying around (pun intended)

Would you rather:

Put additives into jet fuel, which is tested, regulated, and used in very sensitive engines flying around at very high altitudes where you would have no control what so ever about where the chems would land due to weather

Or

Just put it in regular gas where it is burnt in engines that can run on anything from veggie oil to methanol, will burn it at street level, and where you have total control of which places it should get burnt at (spiking gas stations)

?

Riddle me this.





new topics

top topics



 
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join