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.

 

over kill chemtrails (pics)

page: 17
13
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE
 



an i can see the jets with out binoculars so they'r not that high...


I, too, can see an airliner when it's at 35,000 feet. With my unaided eyes.

Without binoculars.

SO??? They're at 30,000 feet and above, most likely. Heading generally westbound, perhaps??? About to go west over the North Atlantic??? Lots of air traffic across the 'pond', you know.

Oh...and the "pollution" they put out??? You CANNOT SEE IT!!!

You can, however, see the CLOUDS of ice crystals, and water. THAT is all you "see".

If you go over to the airport (where, Dublin? Whatever...) and stand under the arriving/departing jets, you will breathe in MORE pollution (though you won't see it, either) than any that they emit seven miles above your .!!!

Jeez, mate...try to think for a change, OK?


Every internal-combusiton engine makes pollution. Every car (except electrics, of course) makes pollution...it spews from the tailpipes. Can you "see" it??? usually not...unless the thing is buring oil like crazy, or something.....dirty injectors, that sort of thing...

THINK!




posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
So if i was to go a long with you guys it seems modern Jets are more polluting now than in the past


Yes, firstly there are a lot more of them (around 7,500 flying over the British Isles every single day) and secondly modern engines, whilst more efficient in other respects, are also more prone to creating bigger and longer lasting contrails

cat.inist.fr...

(which btw also helps explain why some aircraft produce contrails and others don't - in some cases those not producing contrails will be the ones with older engines!)


Incidently, I've not read it, but this 2007 thesis also looks a useful read:

Contrail and Cirrus Cloud Avoidance Technology



You see the reality is that 'they' are not making chemtrails - instead they are trying to find ways not to make contrails..... Ironic in a way.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I dont believe a word of it, yea know why? because i have lost faith in conventional science fora long time now because there just puppets of TPTB end of story! you go on believing what you want an think that every thing is hunky dory but not me , look around you man are yea happy with what conventional science has given the world? well im not! so dont patronize me about this crap thats shagging up our skys, ps im over 21 an ill make my own mind up thank you an i dont need some over paid white coated boffins to tell me whats all around me , i can see for myself!



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE
 


So....


....because i have lost faith in conventional science fora long time now because there just puppets of TPTB end of story!


Well, there's only one thing for you to do, then. Since you have no "faith" in conventional science.

IMMEDIATELY after reading this, log off...and throw your computer in the bin. All of it.

Throw out ALL of your appliances, too. Anything made by those "evil" sciences...

...stop using electricity. Dig a well, so you can have water to drink. You will have to learn how to live off the land. Hope you can hunt...

You must drop out of society altogether, lest ye be influenced by the "technology" we all take for granted, but that you have lost "faith" in...

...not sure where the cut-off point for you will be....Stone age? Iron? Guess it will depend on your comfort level, and the amount of "technology" and "science" you find acceptable...


Oh, and this is more apropos than ever (my siggy):

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology."

Carl Sagan


And, also:

"We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces."

Carl Sagan


One more:

"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense."

Carl Sagan



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE
 


Have you not listened to anything people have been saying in this thread? Or are you filtering out all information that doesnt scream out "Chemtrail OMG!!!".

Seriously, you have a qualified pilot and a meteorologist here telling you what contrails are, with scientifically supported evidence and you just sit there and say: "Na na na na, Chemtrails, cant hear you, Chemtrails".

Seriously ignorant attitude



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

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

Ok. Ban air travel at altitudes above 25,000.
Problem solved.


It's not up to me is it?

So I assume that you don't see a problem at all with consistent artificial cloud cover created by air traffic?



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Listen man i grow my own food i have chickens that give all the eggs i can eat
i have a beautiful house all paid for by my art! im totally self sufficient! an my computer is the only thing im into no tv an our car runs on chip fat an our house is heated by burning logs from my 38 trees, so whats that you were advising me on?



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return

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

Ok. Ban air travel at altitudes above 25,000.
Problem solved.


It's not up to me is it?

So I assume that you don't see a problem at all with consistent artificial cloud cover created by air traffic?


The idea of restricting air traffic at higher altitudes has been mooted as a possible solution to the contrail problem (though mainly because it's possible contribution towards global warming). However doing so increases fuel consumption (the air is 'thicker') and increases possible noise pollution. So it's not been widely accepted.

Longer Airline Flights Proposed to Combat Global Warming


See also: Comparing the CO2 emissions and contrail formation from short and long haul air traffic routes from London Heathrow



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Thanks for the links.



The idea of restricting air traffic at higher altitudes has been mooted as a possible solution to the contrail problem


The contrail problem.

So there is an acknowledged problem, well that 's a lot more than most have admitted to, sofar.

A few pages back we had some guys saying that nothing even changed compared to 10-15 years ago.




posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Any "problems" are purely localized....IOW, when you take a look at the entire planet, from a distance, and then calculate the total surface area covered by contrails...even in the instances when they contribute to the formation of other cirri-form clouds (which will happen naturally, anyway)...you will see far, far more of the planet is UN-affected by contrails, than IS affected.


They ARE a by-product of our technology -- in this case, airline travel -- but, so are a thousand other "bad" or potentially "harmful" human activities, regarding the Earth's environment.

The extreme proliferation of Plastic Water Bottles comes to mind...why aren't more people in an uproar over those??


THEY didn't exist in such incredibly huge numbers back 10-15 years ago!!!

Here, since the phrase "contrail problem" sounded intriguing, I googled. This guy's blog/thoughts were enlightening.

Metaphysical/philosophical/contemplative/hippyish, but a fairly pleasant read, and good, solid scientific explanations of contrails, too:

Notes on the Subject of Contrails











[edit on 26 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Oh it is just a "localized" problem.

For many threads now you give off the impression that it is not a problem at all, that they are normal and should be embraced literally.

Our main concern with it all has been that we did not see any trails like these before 10-15 years ago, you say they are not chemtrails, but contrails and are just water vapor, now you say that we cannot see pollution coming from the plane so i gather none of it gets trapped in these trails.

I can see exhaust coming from the lower flying planes much of the time.

It has taken till this thread for anyone to even acknowledge that engines are different and contrails are way bigger, thicker, and for some reason lasting far longer than before.

Why would we take a look at the planet from a far distance to judge if there are contrails ?

Why so much defense of air pollution and trying to get me to think about plastic bottles instead, that by the way are not way more prevalent than 10-15 years ago, glass went out of style way before then.

Yes most air pollution we cannot see, but this stuff we can see it, and we wonder why alot of it is so dam pronounced and ruins the skies daily, WHEN it did NOT before. DID NOT BEFORE, no , no , NO!



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return

So there is an acknowledged problem, well that 's a lot more than most have admitted to, sofar.


Yes, some including myself acknowledge a problem and would like to see a solution. Though its a very different problem to that promoted by chemtrail believers.

I don't like the way contrails spoil my skies and I also think they may have an impact on global warming - though I accept it's not the biggest concern in that area.

Incidently, another mainstream news story on the subject:

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


You haven't been paying attention, or have been sturggling with miosconceptions...which is common to the "chemtrail believers".



It has taken till this thread for anyone to even acknowledge that engines are different and contrails are way bigger, thicker, and for some reason lasting far longer than before.


NO. Other way 'round.

It was the "khemtrailers krowd" who were trying to say that the larger, more durable and different contrails were "evidence" of "chemtrails".

Yet another misconception, explained. Not a surprise to those who understand these things -- only to the "khemtrailers".


I can see exhaust coming from the lower flying planes much of the time.


Sigh....yes, WHEN they're low...or taxiing, taking off/landing...and again, ONLY certain engines, therefore certain jets.

The most modern, latest high-bypass turbofan engines are much, much "cleaner" burning, with very little visible "soot and smoke" any more.

Compared to a turbojet, like the JT-9D (still in use on DC-9s, MD-80s, to name a few). THEY are dirtier. As are many engines used on military airplanes. Fighters too.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
When you see trails that you did not see before, that are lasting incredible amounts of time much more frequently, it will raise suspicion.

When this phenomena appears out of nowhere it causes even more, when people question governments and weather reporters and get no answers it continues to build.

When weather forecasts become less accurate than before one shakes the ., and wonders how this can be possible.

These new engines that emit less pollution, why are there contrails not getting smaller since there is nothing to "cling" too.

A misconception that you have is that we all believe that constantly planes are trying to poison us.

Your article you posted last post the guy mentions how "minims" are also in the trail, clearly that is not water vapor alone, omg its just minims.

I find it interesting how he explains it holds radiation in, so this should be considered the largest threat to climate we can see !

Why would water vapor allow radiation in but not out, i have no idea but it sounds like this should be looked into as being an amazingly harmful occurence.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 





you will see far, far more of the planet is UN-affected by contrails, than IS affected. They ARE a by-product of our technology -- in this case, airline travel -- but, so are a thousand other "bad" or potentially "harmful" human activities, regarding the Earth's environment. The extreme proliferation of Plastic Water Bottles comes to mind...why aren't more people in an uproar over those??


Well I happen to live in the affected part of the world.

Me personally, I've bought stainless steel drinking bottles, I don't drive a car, just my bicycle, and I'm looking into solar and wind energy.

I'm in uproar about lot's off things.

But I guess the things you mention aren't right before our eyes, there's huge "islands" of plastc floating in the oceans, but who sees that?

But you just have to look up at the sky.

I still think that more is going on than just contrails. It at least seems that these normal planes with normal contrails are actually making an intended effort to cloud or haze up our sky, with normal contrails.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by Point of No Return]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
Why would water vapor allow radiation in but not out, i have no idea but it sounds like this should be looked into as being an amazingly harmful occurence.


Atmospheric science 101

ie water vapour and the greenhouse effect

Also

CO2 isnt the most important greenhouse gas

and

Water vapour caused one-third of global warming in 1990s, study reveals

Although this is probaby going a bit off topic



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by fallinstar

Originally posted by steve_oZ



Anyone who looks at this photo and doesn't see something wrong with it; their eyes are firmly closed.


seriously look at that photo, its not a flight path so what is it!


Tell us what a flight path is, and how this is not one?



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return


A few pages back we had some guys saying that nothing even changed compared to 10-15 years ago.



And for all of these pages, none of you have offered ANY PROOF that anything has changed. You are the one claiming the skies are different, so provide proof of you assertion.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 

ok i will,
there is an airport close to me and for this to be a flight path fit would be extremely lower. the plane cannot drop 30,000ft in the air to land so abruptly.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by fallinstar
reply to post by firepilot
 

ok i will,
there is an airport close to me and for this to be a flight path fit would be extremely lower. the plane cannot drop 30,000ft in the air to land so abruptly.


No, but just because there is an airport nearby doesn't mean lots of aircraft don't overfly you - just as hundreds of aircraft fly over London every day en route from Europe to America without ever coming anywhere close in terms of altitude to Heathrow or Gatwick.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join