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.

 

Chemtrailers: Your time is NOW!

page: 5
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
What weak arguments.

Three posts in a row suggesting that certain members, gee I wonder who you're talking about?? Are disinfo.

Looks like you can't argue the evidence, since calling names is now the only comeback.




I didn't suggest a single thing my friend. Go ahead, read my post again. I'll wait...

OK, back? I merely pointed out how it appears to be. People can read that how they wish, and make up their mind how they wish.

[edit on 28/5/10 by GobbledokTChipeater]




posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


How about reading the whole thread before running your mouth.

If you had, you would see that I mentioned that the average Joe can't do it but there is no stopping someone like Cliff Carnicon is there?

I'd do it if I could, but all the chemtrailers would just claim that the data was manipulated or have some other weak excuse.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


So are you suggesting that a 757's contrail is completely different today compared to a 757's contrail 12 years ago?

Yeah, keep trying to shoot me down with you logical fallacies, it's funny


It's unbelievable the amount of resistance this thread is getting.

I have provided the means to prove chemtrails exist and all I'm getting is cries of disinfo and people discrediting a research paper because it's too old!

What a joke!



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 





How about reading the whole thread before running your mouth. If you had, you would see that I mentioned that the average Joe can't do it but there is no stopping someone like Cliff Carnicon is there?


No response to the fact that the info you based your thread on, is over a decade old?

Noted. So you have no way to counter my observation that your thread is an epic fail?

You have no recent studies to post? I wonder why.



If you had, you would see that I mentioned that the average Joe can't do it


Could you quote the piece where you actually say that average Joe can't? edit: Never mind, found it.

And if you feel that way, why do you say this:




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 is not aimed at regular Joe chemtrail believer? If it was aimed at this Cliff Carnicon dude, you should've sent him a letter, not post on a public forum.







[edit on 28-5-2010 by Point of No Return]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 





So are you suggesting that a 757's contrail is completely different today compared to a 757's contrail 12 years ago?


They used two planes in their research, I don't think these were randomly picked, so off course all parties involved knew these two planes were going to be tested.

Off course these two planes weren't spraying chemtrails.

Like I said, I don't see how a study of the trails of two planes, over a decade ago, is proof for anything that's going on these days.

Especially since most chemtrail claims are from within the last decade.

add:

Since you ask people to get up there and do scientific research right now, in 2010, is it to much to ask that you do the same, and come up with recent investigations?

add2:

You always claim to be scientific, but that's a joke.

If you think the investigation of a mere two planes in '98, somehow represents the whole amount of planes flying in 2010, you are a joke.

Wich you are.

Talking about logical fallacies. Lol.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by Point of No Return]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus

So are you suggesting that a 757's contrail is completely different today compared to a 757's contrail 12 years ago?


Perhaps chemtrails didn't exist in the same capacity 12 years ago? How would we know? The data certainly doesn't make any distinction either way.




Originally posted by Chadwickus

Yeah, keep trying to shoot me down with you logical fallacies, it's funny


It's unbelievable the amount of resistance this thread is getting.

I have provided the means to prove chemtrails exist and all I'm getting is cries of disinfo and people discrediting a research paper because it's too old!

What a joke!


I can't speak for anybody else, but the reason I am 'resisting' this thread is because, in my opinion, you are misrepresenting yourself. You are pretending to be helpful and caring, when in reality you simply want to prove your point of view and/or change peoples minds, probably amongst other reasons.

Now I am not accusing you of this, I am making an observation. There is a distinction.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Alo ha,
OK. I see a lot of people here still don't get it.
Some one repeated we are living longer now-
FALSE.
Lifespans are decreasing.
In 1970 the number 10 cause of death in the US was lung disease,
this year it will be number 1.
Lungs-air, anyone care to make the connection.

Cliff has studied air quality independently for over a decade at his own expense.
So have many others, including myself.
Chemtrails chemical mix of insanity doesn't just contaminate the air you breath, it falls on the food, and in the water.
No one probably knows the true level of damage this has done,
and I will never understand such a wicked deed.
I see a lot of mis-info and head wagging here.
Get yourself a cheap microscope and go for it,
or borrow one from the local high school.
Then come back and tells us chemtrails are a figment of our paranoia.
Bill



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 





I have provided the means to prove chemtrails exist and all I'm getting is cries of disinfo and people discrediting a research paper because it's too old!


Jeah that's a joke indeed. You have provided nothing, except for old, non-representative research.




I'd do it if I could,


You can't, so what did you provide that enables others here to do so?

I can say that you could flap your arms and jump off a cliff, but did I provide you with the means to fly?

Also, I'm not quite sure why this Cliff Carnicom should be able to do this, you can't just charter your own jumbo jet and start flying test runs to collect samples on random days from random airplanes at high altitudes.

I think you would need a lot of money and permission for that.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrgalleria
Some one repeated we are living longer now-
FALSE.
Lifespans are decreasing.

Sorry, its actually true…

en.wikipedia.org...
Life Expectancy:
Upper Paleolithic = 33
Neolithic =20
Bronze Age and Iron Age = 35+
Classical Greece = 28
Classical Rome = 28
Pre-Columbian North America = 25-30
Medieval Islamic Caliphate = 35+
Medieval Britain = 30
Early Modern Britain = 40+
Early 20th Century = 30-45
Current world average = 67.2



Originally posted by mrgalleria
In 1970 the number 10 cause of death in the US was lung disease,
this year it will be number 1.
Lungs-air, anyone care to make the connection.

No, I don’t think so…
BTW, they still have nothing listed for 2008 or 2009 yet, but they will be almost identical. So, according to the CDC 2006 and 2007’s leading causes of death were:


The 10 leading causes of death in 2006:
1) Heart disease: 631,636
2) Cancer: 559,888
3) Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
4) Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
5) Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
6) Diabetes: 72,449
7) Alzheimer's disease: 72,432
8) Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
9) Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
10) Septicemia: 34,234

The 15 leading causes of death in 2007 were:
1. Diseases of heart (heart disease)
2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
3. Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke)
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries)
6. Alzheimer’s disease
7. Diabetes mellitus (diabetes)
8. Influenza and pneumonia
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease)
10. Septicemia
11. Intentional self-harm (suicide)
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension)
14. Parkinson’s disease
15. Assault (homicide)


In case you did not realize this, Chronic lower respiratory diseases means diseases such as MERSA and pneumocystis pneumonia. AKA… Stuff that causes the lower lungs to fill with fluid:

While often used as a synonym for pneumonia, the rubric of lower respiratory tract infection can also be applied to other types of infection including lung abscess, acute bronchitis, and emphysema. Symptoms include shortness of breath, weakness, high fever, coughing and fatigue.
Lower respiratory tract infections place a considerable strain on the health budget and are generally more serious than upper respiratory infections. Since 1993 there has been a slight reduction in the total number of deaths from lower respiratory tract infection. However in 2002 they were still the leading cause of deaths among all infectious diseases, and they accounted for 3.9 million deaths worldwide and 6.9% of all deaths that year.

And they are declining since 1993, about the time that the Chemtrail hoax started out on the net…


Originally posted by mrgalleria
Cliff has studied air quality independently for over a decade at his own expense.
So have many others, including myself.

The best thing cliff could do is go get an aviation job…
But then again, since it’s a hoax and he knowingly uses it earn a living, maybe its better that he continue being ignorant of the way aviation works.


Originally posted by mrgalleria
Then come back and tells us chemtrails are a figment of our paranoia.
Bill

I own several microscopes and have since I was a kid in school, and I am telling you that it’s a figment of paranoia intertwined with ignorance of both how the upper atmosphere works and the aviation field.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by Chadwickus
 





So are you suggesting that a 757's contrail is completely different today compared to a 757's contrail 12 years ago?


They used two planes in their research, I don't think these were randomly picked, so off course all parties involved knew these two planes were going to be tested.

Off course these two planes weren't spraying chemtrails.


How does that answer my question?

In fact it has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed.

And here is where I think you've totally missed the point as well, No where have I suggested that the planes were spraying chemtrails.

Quite the opposite in fact.

What I am suggesting is that these results represent what can be typically found in a NORMAL CONTRAIL...In this case a 757, which is still in use today.

The engine configuration has barely changed either, so it doesn't matter that it's 12 years old, it still represents a craft that is still current.



Like I said, I don't see how a study of the trails of two planes, over a decade ago, is proof for anything that's going on these days.


And like I said, the data comes from a plane that is still in use today!



Especially since most chemtrail claims are from within the last decade.


You must have been living under a rock, the chemtrail phenomena popped up in the early 90's, if not before.






add:

Since you ask people to get up there and do scientific research right now, in 2010, is it to much to ask that you do the same, and come up with recent investigations?


If I could find a more recent investigation, I would happily post it up for all to see, as of yet, I haven't found anything specifically targeting contrails



add2:

You always claim to be scientific, but that's a joke.

If you think the investigation of a mere two planes in '98, somehow represents the whole amount of planes flying in 2010, you are a joke.

Wich you are.

Talking about logical fallacies. Lol.


I'm a joke??

You can't even comprehend what is being said and you're calling me a joke?




Jeah that's a joke indeed. You have provided nothing, except for old, non-representative research.


Read above.




You can't, so what did you provide that enables others here to do so?

I can say that you could flap your arms and jump off a cliff, but did I provide you with the means to fly?

Also, I'm not quite sure why this Cliff Carnicom should be able to do this, you can't just charter your own jumbo jet and start flying test runs to collect samples on random days from random airplanes at high altitudes.

I think you would need a lot of money and permission for that.



Flap flap:


Requests for access to research flight hours begin with the submission of an Initial Request for Aircraft Support (Word (35kb), PDF (30kb)) to the manager of the facility. Based on information provided on this form, a DOE-empowered advisory panel recommends to DOE an award of flight hours for the proposed use. Then the user completes a more detailed Research Aircraft Deployment Document (RADD: Word (180kb), PDF (85kb)) in coordination with the RAF manager. RAF users not associated with the DOE Atmospheric Science Program will need to work with the RAF manager on an estimate of the cost of offsite aircraft logistics such as 1) landing fees, 2) hangar rental, 3) ground support facilities, and 4) labor and expenses for a PNNL flight crew of two pilots and two scientific support personnel. During the preparation of RADD, schedules are confirmed and safety and environmental compliance requirements are addressed.

The RAF does not cover the cost of engineering studies and airframe modifications needed for custom installation of project-specific equipment and instrumentation. Such costs must be budgeted separately through a contract with PNNL or Battelle. When requested, RAF staff will assist users in estimating these costs.
*



Gulfstream-1 Research Aircraft

The G-1 is a large twin turboprop with performance characteristics of contemporary production aircraft. It is capable of measurements to altitudes approaching 30,000 feet over ranges of 1500 nautical miles, and can be operated at speeds that enable both relatively slow sampling and rapid deployment to field sites throughout the world. The aircraft is configured for versatile research applications. It accommodates a variety of external probes for aerosol, radiation, and turbulence measurements and internal sampling systems for a wide range of measurements. The G-1 has sufficient cabin volume, electrical power and payload capabilities, and flight characteristics to accommodate a variety of instrument systems and experimental equipment configurations. Internal instrumentation is mounted in removable racks to enable rapid reconfiguration as necessary. Data from most systems are acquired on a central computer that is tailored to airborne research data acquisition. In addition to acquiring the various analog and digital input signals, it can be configured to communicate with and/or control other systems onboard, and to provide time synchronization to other computers.
*


Do you really think I would have posted this thread without knowing if such an experiment could be carried out?

So I have to ask.

If you're of the opinion that chemtrails are real.
And believe that they are poisioning you and your family.
And had the means to bust it wide open.

Would money really be a problem?

All someone has to do is get an aircraft like the Gulfstream up testing numerous chemtrails, analyze the data and show what is in these chemtrails, besides the normal particles found in contrails.


It is that simple.



[edit on 28/5/10 by Chadwickus]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Also, I'm not quite sure why this Cliff Carnicom should be able to do this, you can't just charter your own jumbo jet and start flying test runs to collect samples on random days from random airplanes at high altitudes.

I think you would need a lot of money and permission for that.

He can charter a private jet with a pressurized hull that will have no problem reaching that altitude from around $2300 per hour:
www.executivejetmanagement.com...

No permits that I am aware of are required to do it, the pilot of the aircraft would file the appropriate IFR flight plan.

[edit on 5/28/2010 by defcon5]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
He can charter a private jet with a pressurized hull that will have no problem reaching that altitude from around $2300 per hour:
www.executivejetmanagement.com...

No permits that I am aware of are required to do it, the pilot of the aircraft would file the appropriate IFR flight plan.



So one test will be performed, and prove that the emissions of a current-day 757 are the same as a 757 years ago? Because that's all that would prove.

You are trying to make out that every contrail is claimed to be a chemtrail.

You are trying to make out that if the emissions of one jet are tested, then that would close the case.

That is not so.

[edit on 28/5/10 by GobbledokTChipeater]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 06:02 AM
link   
It's easy, if it's above -35C contrails cannot form. This is based on legitimate contrail formation science.

Check the atmospheric data in your area and use triangulation.



No conspiracy. All fact. OP is disinfo, otherwise he'd promote this chart.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater
 


Well you guys claim that you can tell the difference from the ground, so just pick out your cloud and then fly up there and test it. Either that, or you would have to admit that there is no way to discern the difference between a persistent contrail and a supposed chemtrail from the ground, and all of these videos are of persistent contrails.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by sandwiches
It's easy, if it's above -35C contrails cannot form. This is based on legitimate contrail formation science.

First off it has to be the correct temperature AND the correct humidity levels or they cannot form. You would need to know the exact conditions at the altitude of the aircraft that is supposedly spraying. Also you have to take into account that newer jet engines create contrails over a wider spectrum of atmospheric conditions then the old JT3D-7 type engines (727, DC-9, 737-100, 707):



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Well you guys claim that...


"you guys"? I'm not even sure chemtrails exist, so I don't know what this "you guys" is.



Originally posted by defcon5

...so just pick out your cloud and then fly up there and test it.


Ha. Yeh, easy as that



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 





And here is where I think you've totally missed the point as well, No where have I suggested that the planes were spraying chemtrails.


Where have I suggested you suggested that?




What I am suggesting is that these results represent what can be typically found in a NORMAL CONTRAIL...In this case a 757, which is still in use today.


Yes, and it's stupid. Off course a normal jet, with normal fuel, or without a spraying system will leave a normal contrial.

If chemtrails are real, would those doing it, let anyone test the planes doing it?

The test showed that two planes, 12 years ago, where leaving a normal contrail, how this represents all of today's planes is beyond me.

Just because the same planes are flying doesn't mean stuff isn't added to the fuel now, or that some planes aren't specifically used for spraying.




You must have been living under a rock, the chemtrail phenomena popped up in the early 90's, if not before.


I never claimed they didn't. I said MOST claims are from the last decade, wich is totally correct.




If I could find a more recent investigation, I would happily post it up for all to see, as of yet, I haven't found anything specifically targeting contrails


No you couldn't, so you have no way of knowing what is going on with individual airplanes today.

You base your claim on the test of only two planes, over a decade ago, wich is ridiculous.




I'm a joke?? You can't even comprehend what is being said and you're calling me a joke?


I can comprehend just fine, you just seem to misinterprete me.

Yes, I'm calling you a joke.






Flap flap:


Jeah, I see you falling.

How are those qoutes disputing my words? Like I said, you need permission from the government, and there are costs. The fact that there are planes available for research, doesn't mean anyone will be given premission.

And who owns that research Gulf stream jet? You saying you can rent it?




If you're of the opinion that chemtrails are real. And believe that they are poisioning you and your family. And had the means to bust it wide open. Would money really be a problem?


I don't know if they're real or not, I have never made a statement about that. I'm still undecided.

What I do know however, is that your thread means nothing.




It is that simple.


If it is, and it means that much to you, why don't you do that research, and disprove the chemtrailers?






[edit on 28-5-2010 by Point of No Return]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
"you guys"? I'm not even sure chemtrails exist, so I don't know what this "you guys" is.

As in folks who argue that these videos are of chemtrails.


Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
Ha. Yeh, easy as that

Since the general argument is that these last for hours and turn into clouds, its not that hard to coordinate a group on the ground using a GPS and someone in a private jet.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 





He can charter a private jet with a pressurized hull that will have no problem reaching that altitude from around $2300 per hour: www.executivejetmanagement.com...


Yes you can hire a jet and then? Open the window mid flight and hold out a bag?

You need specialised equipment and a modified plane. You can't just rent these as far as I know.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
its not that hard to coordinate... ...someone in a private jet.


Yeh I just borrow my neighbors




top topics



 
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join