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.
Originally posted by neformore
Originally posted by Ouroborus2012
Or maybe, just maybe, I understand the dynamics of an aerofoil passing through saturated air?
And maybe you could understand it too, if you did the reading, looked at the science and understood the concept instead of doing the sheep thing of looking up, seeing "lines in the sky" that you don't understand and automatically assuming something untoward is happening?
Maybe you could attempt to understand that the atmosphere is full of pockets of warmer and colder air, and is in constant dynamic motion so that no part of the sky is quite the same as another, so a body moving through the sky can sometimes generate contrails, and other times not?
Is your belief in this subject so blind that you cannot bother to research such phenomena, and instead just choose to follow blindly what people claim about chemtrails instead of reading and researching atmospheric science dating back to WW2 when contrails were first noticed?
Did you ever consider - just possibly - that I might have been studying this kind of thing, and aviation subjects for many many years, and my assessment of the video might be born out of that experience?
By your tone, and your arrogant dismissal of my post those things never even crossed your mind at all. Nope. Its just easier to attack in a snide and sarcastic manner, born out of your own ignorance.
ATS is a conspiracy site. Its also a discussion board. Its also a place for intelligent and critical thinking. Yes, that post was my opinion but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, frankly my opinion of that video is a damned site better informed than yours is and can be backed by actual science, where as yours is based on..... what exactly?
For starters, the "by your tone" paragraph you wrote is exactly what I was referring to about your particular comment. Your comment was EXACTLY what you wrote. A "snide and sarcastic manner" is exactly what you've been using. But, like you said, it's easier huh? Especially when you go in to debunk mode and start pounding your chest and slinging out every big science word you can think of.
You "science speak" sounds like a great idea! Please send me the atmospheric documentation about this particular video that you studied to come up with your scientific conclusion.
I'm correct to assume that you have that data, right? Surely you wouldn't just post a random answer as "fact" based on assumptions from previous incidents? Especially with your extensive scientific knowledge of the subject.
I am most anxious to review the conditions of the atmosphere at that particular flights altitude for that day. It would also be quite helpful if you'd include the planes number and date of this flight. I would like to use that to verify flight paths and speed.
Originally posted by star child
reply to post by Phage
Ok. so that explains the high altitude planes. could you explain the very low altitude ones that constantly fly over where l live causing grids of the things. l am not living anywhere near flight paths.
Well, I haven't found anything about contrails being produced as weather modification experiments
Originally posted by star child
reply to post by Phage
Ok. so that explains the high altitude planes. could you explain the very low altitude ones that constantly fly over where l live causing grids of the things. l am not living anywhere near flight paths.
Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Unfortunately, irrational people keep ignoring scientific evidence & logical thinking, thereby unnecessarily scaring people who are susceptible to such ideas.
There is no such thing as a "chemtrail".
I did mention an admission on video, from the US military, in response to questioning regarding grids of 'chemtrails' around the time period of the late 90's or early 2000's, claiming the trails were the result of 'weather modification experiments'.
No. They are not stabilizers.
..underwing fences on the plane designed to reduce air buffeting..
But what difference does it make?
Currently, cloud-seeding projects designed to increase rainfall from convective cloud towers are conducted in nearly 31 million acres of Texas (or almost one-fifth of the state’s land area). In administering the Texas Weather Modification Act (enacted by the Texas Legislature in 1967), TDLR’s weather modification program issues licenses and permits for these projects, many of which have been in existence since 2000. The projects use specialized aircraft and sophisticated weather radar systems, operated by skilled meteorologists, at sites near Amarillo, Plains, Pecos, San Angelo, and Pleasanton.
The U.S. government routinely conducts experiments on weather modification, and has been doing so for at least half a century. Previously classified under such names as "Project Cirrus" (1947) and "Project Popeye" (1966), weather modification is no longer a secret practice. In fact, a bill (S517) was sponsored in 2005 by Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, a Republican, "to establish the Weather Modification Operations and Research Board, and for other purposes." This bill did not become law. Yet, there is reason to believe that various government institutions are carrying out numerous legal and illegal weather experiments without informing the public.
This isn't just a suspicion of the United States. The Chinese government announced in April the creation of the first-ever artificial snowfall over the city of Nagqu in Tibet. The event was only one in a series of Chinese weather modification experiments that have been going on for years. China, in fact, now conducts more cloud seeding projects than any other nation.
Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Phage
He didn't mention Vortilons or vortices.
He did mention fences and stability though...and he is MUCH less ignorant than the majority of the membership regarding aviation...his words, not mine.
So i guess, we are ALL correct then.
Fences, Vortilons are to aid in stabilizing the aircraft. So they are stabilizers, are they not?
There are plenty of "non-establishment" websites which spout utter nonsense about how it is impossible for contrails to last for more than a few minutes. There are plenty of "non-establishment" websites which spout utter nonsense about "testing". There are plenty of "non-establishment" websites that claim persistent contrails didn't existing until the mid 1990's. There are plenty of "non-establishment" websites which are utter nonsense. I prefer sources ("non-establishment" or otherwise) which make sense and understand meteorology. BTW, I'll ask again for this: I did mention an admission on video, from the US military, in response to questioning regarding grids of 'chemtrails' around the time period of the late 90's or early 2000's, claiming the trails were the result of 'weather modification experiments'.
Originally posted by apexvin
Hi, ive read through the thread, and would like to point out that aircraft regularly dump unspent fuel into the atmosphere.
someone has probably already mentioned it, i apologies if that is so.
Peace
Originally posted by Ouroborus2012
How dare us come to a conspiracy website and think such things when it's so obvious by the data that was given to us about that video that it was "saturated air" etc..
Oh wait, there was no data and it's just his opinion much like everybody else has their own opinions..
Originally posted by weedwhacker
MY GOD!!!
I could only stand to read through two pages...I am sorry to say the level of gnorance was blinding, and here we are at five (!!!) pages so far (with only a few notable exceptions).
Really...don't buy into this "chemtrail" BS. If you want ot believe in it, fine.
I should know....I have several thousand hours flying the DC-10.....
[edit on 18 July 2010 by weedwhacker]