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: 9
34
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by OurskiesRpoisoned
 



It's funny how people get stuck, and focused (incorrectly) on numbers, such as you are trying to do here, in order to deflect this discussion (and confuse the readers).


Honestly, I find nothing funny about this subject



ALL machines, when they operate, are subjected to a degree of friction, and thus, wear and tear. They are lubricated, of course, but still....wear happens.


Your saying that extremely hardened bearing, in sealed casings, are creating the metallic particulates in the exhaust??



The way you're tossing about the "17%" (I thought it was 12%?...doesn't matter) makes it seem you are trying to give the impression that 17% (or 12%) of the engine is wearing away on each flight!?!


12% metals + 5% mixed metals + aluminum (unknown amount) is more than 17%. I'm being conservative.

17% of the makeup of the exhaust is metallic particulates. That's truly insane!



The percentage figures are from an EXAMINATION of the components that make up the exhaust, and the actual quantities being discussed are miniscule.


Sorta like how Tony Hayward called the impact to the Gulf, "minimal"?



There are toxic substances in ground-based vehicle exhaust, too....as pointed out....


Is that the subject in the OP. No, it's aircraft. Let's not divert attention here.



BUT, this distraction by shouting "HEAVY METALS", and using the 17% (or 12%) figure, is just that...a distraction. BECAUSE we are talking about extremely small amounts, here. I notice that you aren't paying attention (nor mentioning) figures such as parts-per-million, and such.


Please, show me the ppm and I will show you how they are most likely above EPA standards for human consumption.



Also, you are completely IGNORING other forms of pollution that we exist in, and breathe, day in, day out, from industrial factoires ON THE GROUND. So, it isn't just fossil-fuel-buring vehicles that pollute.....


Not on topic. Again, the study posted is exhaust from AC. I can't debate with everything that pollutes the planet. One source at a time.



ALL of these simple facts are exagerrated by the "chemtrail" hoaxers, because they KNOW how easy it is to manipulate the ill-informed, and under-educate masses of the World, nowadays...especially using the Internet as their 'vehicle' to spread their disinfo.


So everyone that doesn't agree with your flawed theories are ill-informed, and undereducated? What does that make you? God of the universe?



It is encumbent upon those who have a sense of personal pride to take time and study, and actually learn something, rather than immediately jumping on a fake 'conspiracy' bandwagon, just because it is sold to them very cleverly. I'd think people that were fooled that easily should, after learning that fact, feel a little embarrassed, don't you?


Pride....or arrogance?

[edit on 28 May 2010 by weedwhacker]




posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 





Right here your lack of comprehension is showing. Either that or you're deliberately being ignorant to derail the thread.


No Chad it's you again, I responded to the poster that came up with a link to a company that rents out private jets. I merely pointed out that these jets are not equipped for that. I wasn't responding to anything you said, so my comprehension of your posts has nothing to do with it.



I have posted links to a group who owns a jet fitted out with the appropriate testing equipment.


No you posted a qoute about that plane. The Gulf Stream, I didn't see a link, or information about the availability of it.




READ THE BlOODY LINKS I GAVE YOU!


The only link you gave was in the OP.

You clearly have taken my comment out of the proper context, it being a response to another poster's comment, so all of the above is just drama on your behalf, Chad.




Look I'll make it easy for you with a direct link to THE BLOODY APPLICATION FORM!


Now, that's a link, I'd like to see more about that company, any links?




You've obviously got a vendetta from that Skunk Works thread still.


Aw, poor Chad. I just call BS when I see it, that it happens to be you again, is just an extra. Never been a fan btw.

What's the matter, I see you burning down threads all the time, and rightfully so, if the thread premise is flawed, this time your premise is flawed, you get what you deserve.

I don't want to discuss all aspects of chemtrails here, I'm just pointing out that your evidence is not representative of the whole current situation, and therefore, your thread has no further value.

We all know, that normally a jumbo engine isn't supposed to be spewing out the chemicals that are supposed to be chemtrails,

You are saying that because two planes tested in '98, weren't releasing chemtrails, all other planes flying around today, also aren't.

How does one make that leap? I don't see how your "scientific" mind would not have a problem with those claims.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned

Your saying that extremely hardened bearing, in sealed casings, are creating the metallic particulates in the exhaust??


To be fair, FAA requirements dictate mandatory total rebuild every 500 hours, thus, turbines are always breaking in during operation, rendering high wear metals. The metal primarily ends up in the lube sump, but 5 micron and lower metal particulate does migrate to the combustion area and will be ejected through the exhaust.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned
reply to post by stars15k
 


What is your deal? I thought you were on my side...I notice the three other debunkers have logged off. Are you one of them??

I'm really having trouble debating with someone that makes absolutely no sense, and can't even use quotes correctly.

The samples were taken 22 km back from point of release. 17% was metal (plus aluminum). Are you arguing with that??



I hate code and with all the programs available wish we still didn't use it. So sue me. I also do not have a mental calendar and mix up just the numbers 4 & 7. I can read and understand a science chart and know to read the legend, so I guess I'm one up on some of the people here.

I know "chemtrails" is a hoax with no credible proof around. Just a bunch of gullible people who would rather speculate about intrigue than learn about science.

As you are stuck, wrongly, on your 17% number I think you are being deliberately obtuse. If you aren't, you need to learn before trying to make a cognisant debate.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by stars15k]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k

I know "chemtrails" is a hoax with no credible prove around. Just a bunch of gullible people who would rather speculate about intrigue than learn about science.


Please show me absolute, irrefutable proof, preferably of the "genuine visual" variety, that people who believe chemtrails are gullible


Learn about what science? That contrails exist naturally? No-one is refuting that....



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k
I can read and understand a science chart and know to read the legend, so I guess I'm one up on some of the people here.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by stars15k]


Since your so good at reading the chart, you tell me what percentage of the exhaust sampled is metal.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


His science mind, mine, and any of the other people here you would call debunkers.

It's not on us to prove there are not "chemtrails", it is up to you to prove they are. The OP gives a reading from a non-"chemtrail" study. So to prove your point, you need to counter with a similar study to show there is something extra. Or you need to prove that there are planes just spraying for spraying sake. Or that even one of the videos or pictures are of something besides what science explains well as a contrail.
Something real, that can withstand critical thinking.
So far, there is one person who doesn't understand what "residulal particles" are, and you, providing ........?
Insults and deflection? Sure sign the debate is over.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k

Insults and deflection? Sure sign the debate is over.


Yes I agree. When people start calling people "gullible", "ill informed" and "under-educated", the debate is well and truly over



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater
 


An infant is born "gullible", "under-educated" and "ill-informed".

The infant is also 'ignorant'.

These are not pejorative terms. To call someone "ignorant" carries, unfortunately, the mantle of 'insult' in popular vernacular toady.

What this 'battle' is, here, is an attempt to dispel the mass quantities of BAD pseudo-science, insinuations, and outright LIES that have been peprpetuated, and become a part of, this "chemtrail" movement ever since its inception.

The entire fringe 'conspiracy theory' relies on people NOT knowing any better, and on their ignorance of a great deal of sciences, and other knowledge, and their lack of experience in these things, too.

Perhaps the people who mount these websites truly believe what they write, and the junk they post...BUT, I think whenyou dig deep enough, you find a circus-like atmosphere down at the bottom, as the original 'seed' of this nonsense. "Circus-like" in the grand style of Barnum and Bailey, and their motto: "A Sucker Is Born Every Minute".



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater
 


Look at any video or picture claiming to be a "chemtrail". There is your proof. There is no way possible to look at something and conclude it's chemical content is somehow different than what science calls a contrail, a conclusion studied for over 70 years.

It's on you to prove they do, not on me to prove what science has shown is a visible plume from a passing jet.

Provide something of the same for "chemtrails". Something that withstands critical thinking. I've been doing this for a couple of years now, and no one has provided anything concrete yet. It the are real, if there truly was a test that proved it, wouldn't it be broadcast?
And, thiking a. a bit, if you think it is because of a cover-up, please provide something that proves the who, what and why that is so. It gets tiring having to weed through the "nothing is out there because "they" don't want it to be" when no one can actually say who the "they" are. If you can't prove the "them", how can you believe "they" are covering up something so very visible.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

What this 'battle' is, here, is an attempt to dispel the mass quantities of BAD pseudo-science, insinuations, and outright LIES that have been peprpetuated, and become a part of, this "chemtrail" movement ever since its inception.


And here I was thinking the OP wanted someone to get the air tested



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater
 


An infant is born "gullible", "under-educated" and "ill-informed".

The infant is also 'ignorant'.



An infant is anything but ignorant. Anyone who has had children, could tell you that. I'm sorry, but I find your condescending attitude highly offensive, and have pushed the alert button on you.

I feel that I can't even debate with you, because your posts make me angry, as they are filled with vitriol and sarcasm.

I have no clue how you have managed to keep an account here for so long.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned

Your saying that extremely hardened bearing, in sealed casings, are creating the metallic particulates in the exhaust??


To be fair, FAA requirements dictate mandatory total rebuild every 500 hours, thus, turbines are always breaking in during operation, rendering high wear metals. The metal primarily ends up in the lube sump, but 5 micron and lower metal particulate does migrate to the combustion area and will be ejected through the exhaust.


Please show me the schedules maintenance card that requires a complete rebuild every 500 hrs. That would be interesting to me.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k

Look at any video or picture claiming to be a "chemtrail". There is your proof.


Wait, what? I'm not the one asking for proof




Originally posted by stars15k
It's on you to prove they do, not on me to prove what science has shown is a visible plume from a passing jet.


It's up to me?? Why me? I'm just a user on an internet forum. That's a lot of responsibility. I feel overburdened frankly.



Originally posted by stars15k
Provide something of the same for "chemtrails".


Why do I have to? I have made no claims whatsoever.

To be honest, I think you expect too much from the internet.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by OurskiesRpoisoned
 

http://
Will you please read the chart? It's analysis is not about the contrail, it's about the "residual particles" found in a tested contrail.
Which part of that don't you understand?
It's not the total mass of a contrail they tested, it's the residual particles. That is very plain to see.
The vast majority of a contrail is water. Remove the water and you get "residual particles".
That clinches it. You either cannot understand what you read or you are actively trying to derail the thread. Or both. Take a breath and read all the words on the chart.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned
Please show me the schedules maintenance card that requires a complete rebuild every 500 hrs. That would be interesting to me.


I am not your secretary, sir. You are perfectly capable of using Google on your own. Your education is not my responsibility



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Your education is not my responsibility


You seem to act like it is



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater

Originally posted by stars15k

Look at any video or picture claiming to be a "chemtrail". There is your proof.


Wait, what? I'm not the one asking for proof




Originally posted by stars15k
It's on you to prove they do, not on me to prove what science has shown is a visible plume from a passing jet.


It's up to me?? Why me? I'm just a user on an internet forum. That's a lot of responsibility. I feel overburdened frankly.



Originally posted by stars15k
Provide something of the same for "chemtrails".


Why do I have to? I have made no claims whatsoever.

To be honest, I think you expect too much from the internet.


Yep, actively trying to derail by deflection.

You have asked me to provide visual proof "chemtrailers" are gullible. I complied.
As you have provided nothing to the conversation, and have mentioned that at least twice, I think you are just actively trying to cause drama.

I, too, am just a user on an internet forum. Yet you ask me to refute your opiniion, and I shouldn't do the same?

I don't expect too much from the internet, it's people who choose the internet as their sole source of "truth" who are expecting too much. And the people who come onto forums and debate passive-aggressively, asking for answers and never giving any yourself.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned
Please show me the schedules maintenance card that requires a complete rebuild every 500 hrs. That would be interesting to me.


I am not your secretary, sir. You are perfectly capable of using Google on your own. Your education is not my responsibility


In other words, you have nothing to back up your claim?

Replacing an engine every 500 hrs is laughable. But if you can show
me proof, I would have to eat my words.

Heck, I might even apologize.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k

You have asked me to provide visual proof "chemtrailers" are gullible. I complied.


Oh that, well thankyou




Originally posted by stars15k

As you have provided nothing to the conversation, and have mentioned that at least twice, I think you are just actively trying to cause drama.


No, I am not trying to cause drama, you have misread me. I am actively urging people to have an open mind. I have not once told anyone what to think, unlike some people appear to be doing.



Originally posted by stars15k

...it's people who choose the internet as their sole source of "truth" who are expecting too much.


I know better than to trust the opinion and incomplete science of people on internet forums who use questionable tactics to push their overly-pushy point across whilst claiming to be acting for the wellbeing of everyone.



Originally posted by stars15k
And the people who come onto forums and debate passive-aggressively, asking for answers and never giving any yourself.


I'm sorry, but that's the way I debate best. Whilst not giving any answers myself, my point is always made.

[edit on 28/5/10 by GobbledokTChipeater]



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join