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.

 

still think chemtrails are not real?

page: 14
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Wow, just wow.

Tanker Enemy is like the Pied Piper for chemmies. After it has been pointed out how they misled you all in that prank video from an ATS member and Tanker labels flap hinges as nozzles, and after a video is posted where Tanker also says that WW2 photos have been altered...

Guess what, another Tanker Enemy video! Wow!

And the very first shot, is an Virgin Airlines Airbus A340. I stopped watching after that.. Didnt another person in this thread tell us it was not the airlines?




posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


How sad....yet MORE ignorance displayed on YouTube.

Just watching that vid.....OK, opens with a Virgin Atlantic A-340. AND, around 00:25 as the jet flies into air that is MORE HUMID, the contrails begin to form. And, as expected....there are FOUR, one for each engine...and directly IN LINE with each engine.

Bit later.....the mist in the center? THAT is from the drains.....from the galleys most likely (the lavatories and galleys all drain to the same place). There are drainmasts on the belly of the fuselage, in the center.

On and on that video goes, showing everything that EVERY airline pilot sees and understands as normal activity.

Sad that the YouTube perpetuates such ignorance......



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Also sad that your posts promote such ignorance.

You still haven't proved Chemtrails don't exist and you never will.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

edit on 18-1-2011 by dplum517 because: double post



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


The notion that something can be proven to not exist is ridiculous. Prove a gigantic squash is not hell bent on world domination via lobster sterilizations. See how ridiculous it is for me to postulate that and then say disprove me? There is no possible way you can disprove what I have said however given I have the opinion of imminent squash hostility I should easily be able to show why what I say is true. I did after all have some reason to arrive at a point where I would postulate such a plot and it is my responsibility to prove myself.

The folks that wish for all the concrete evidence, empirical science, and rationality to be discarded in favor of the acceptance of what is currently best coined as "the chemtrail belief" are the one's responsible with the burden of proof. You obviously are a proponent of "the chemtrail belief' and therefore I implore you to recognize that the burden of proof rests with you; and what you must prove is that "chemtrails" do exist.

It is a well accepted cornerstone of debate and discourse that one must prove one's own assumptions, theories, and postulations to others and not expect others to disprove those assumptions, theories, and postulations etc. etc.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by AllSeeingI
 


The way these people are 'proving they don't exist' is simply by denying them.

Don't you see?
Denial is as convenient as pleading insanity at a murder trial.

Here's a challenge. I would LOVE to see a random photo from the 60's-70's and/or 80's showing this type of cloud/trail coverage. Just one photo will suffice.

But I'll spare you the embarrassment because when you CAN'T (because they don't exist) you simply then turn your argument into "there were less planes back then'.

You can't have it both ways (although you love flipping that debunking-coin though).

All it takes is ONE plane. Show me ONE plane (surely they had planes back in the 60s, 70's and 80's....right?) that made a 'con'trail which dispersed into a thicker trail after a few minutes.
Go ahead Weed (and his disciples).
You claim to be a pilot. I'm sure you have many pilot-like photos stored on your computer.

We anxiously await with bated breath (and poisoned lungs).



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


But when air samples and water samples (devoid the thousands of photos and videos) are offered up as proof yet STILL denied, what do you expect? Or want?

How do you prove 'air'?


What you REALLY want is someone of authority to announce it. That's the ONLY proof that you're looking for. Admit it.
And you know as we all do, at the moment, it ain't happening.

We have them admitting to cloud seeding, chaffing and geo-engineering the weather but that TOO.....you don't allow into the mix.
If they're doing that and admitting it, them why can't you allow for the fact that that might be what we're witnessing?

I'll back off on the 'poisoning us part' if you admit they're up there doing something. And if you DON'T admit it, despite the fact that THEY have admitted to it then, your true colors will shine and we'll all know what your motives are.

But tell you what....before I jump on the shill-wagon, tell me what PROOF do you want? You tell me (us) and I'll see if I can meet your demands.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by AllSeeingI
 

Here's a challenge. I would LOVE to see a random photo from the 60's-70's and/or 80's showing this type of cloud/trail coverage. Just one photo will suffice.

But I'll spare you the embarrassment because when you CAN'T (because they don't exist) you simply then turn your argument into "there were less planes back then'.


Could you explain why "there were less planes back then" isn't a useful explanation, please?

You know what I'd really like to see? A chemical analysis of the contrail (or "chemtrail") at the source, ie, 10km up. If someone does that and finds that it isn't just CO2 and H2O, then you'll have some proof.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Also a good thing to note:

Some pictures have been manipulated and put on the one of the most well known disinformation sites out there.
contrailscience.com A couple look like modern pics with a "black and white" effect.

The site is a text book example of a government propaganda campaign against Chemtrails. It is full of half truths. Not to mention the domain goes through a private proxy company insuring that the owner remains anonymous or secret.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by AllSeeingI
 

Here's a challenge. I would LOVE to see a random photo from the 60's-70's and/or 80's showing this type of cloud/trail coverage. Just one photo will suffice.

But I'll spare you the embarrassment because when you CAN'T (because they don't exist) you simply then turn your argument into "there were less planes back then'.


Could you explain why "there were less planes back then" isn't a useful explanation, please?

You know what I'd really like to see? A chemical analysis of the contrail (or "chemtrail") at the source, ie, 10km up. If someone does that and finds that it isn't just CO2 and H2O, then you'll have some proof.



Because I am asking for ONE photo of ONE plane doing this ONE act of leaving ONE thick trail that turns into ONE huge plume that sometimes lasts for ONE hour.
That's why.

I won't make it difficult and ask for 8 planes criss-crossing and leaving lattice-artwork in the skies because I KNOW you'll all say "there wasn't that much air traffic back then'

So in order to expiate matters (and move pass the rhetoric lame excuses) I cut to the chase.

ONE plane from the 60s-70s-80s leaving one cloud.
I think the odds are in your favor seeing I'm giving you 30 years to produce one photo



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 



Whoops. Sorry, I misread your post. But let me leave this up for the others who will use the opposite argument you just shared. Again, sorry dplum. I read your post too fast





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh for the love of insanity! Are you kidding me?

My eyes and my skies here in southeast Florida are being manipulated too?????????????????


Um, "check please cause I am out of here!" You people are desperately trying to make this go away aren't you.

Hey, how's your sinuses and upper respiratory system doing lately by the way? (oh I know, 'fine', right)


edit on 18-1-2011 by Human_Alien because: apologized



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Might not be exactly what you are after, but it has a contrail in the background, and it goes quite a long way. It is dated 1974 - though the 707 operated by Pan Am dates it quite well by itself, anyway.

Link
edit on 18-1-2011 by apex because: broken link



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
To stay completely on topic:

No. I KNOW "chemtrails" are not real.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k
To stay completely on topic:

No. I KNOW "chemtrails" are not real.


What else do you KNOW?

Is Jesus your savior too?

You contribute nothing to any threads. You have provided zero evidence and your claims are as ignorant as your beliefs.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


Paranoid a bit? Really, that would just add a couple more tens of thousands of people to go back into all books, photos, films, etc. to manipulate the pictures. Then these same pictures, books, etc. would have to be removed from every library shelf, website, movie, etc. all over the world.
So far, that is one of the dumbest things I've seen online in a while. Now millions of librarians, bookstore workers, webmasters, etc. are part of the NWO TPTB elitist "chemtrail"network? Add all these millions of people to the millions already needed to just get a plane maintained, fuel, supplied, and flown, all with no credible whistleblowers?
And the only people that know about it all are those found on the internet conspiracy forums?
Right...........



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


Once again you provide no useful information and dodge my questions.

And millions of books? Where? What? Show me.
You are just upset because you have been dooped by that website and don't want to think it's possible you are wrong.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
As to a reasonable explanation for why this is really quite ridiculous, I will no present the following information. This is only assuming you want to add more water to the cloud produced, not for any other chemicals. However, They would work out similarly, and in any case the storage of them is an issue, as will be described later.

Now, assuming that a contrail is infact just water forming a cloud, and that the typical aircraft is a 747-400 using General Electric Turbofans, I have found the following information:
Specific Fuel Consumption = 17.1g/kN s
Maximum thrust = 276kN (Takeoff thrust; I could only find these numbers unfortunately)

Now, four engines gives 4 x 276 x 17.1 = 18,878.4 g/s of fuel being used. Assuming kerosene burns cleanly and completely, and consists of dodecane, one mol of which weighs 170g, combustion formula gives 234g water produced (1 molecule dodecane gives 13 water molecules).
So, multiplying 234 by 18874/170 gives 26kg/s of water. Quite a large amount. I don't know what cruise thrust will be, but taking it as maybe half of this, 13kg/s (most likely still an overestimate), it will take 8661.5 seconds (2 hours 24 minutes) to reach the total payload of a 747-400F, 112.6 tons.

So if you are adding extra water to your jet exhaust, or that whatever is added has a similar effect to water for a given mass per second, you'll run out of cargo capacity quite quickly. Of course, the 400F will only be carrying freight, so won't have any passengers on it. For a passenger carrying aircraft you would have even less spare capacity to put this chemical in.

IIRC, the assumption when designing an aircraft is that 1kg extra mass in the design (eg an extra seat, support, black box) will be 10kg less cargo capacity when extra fuel is considered.

Now, as to volume issues, well water has a convenient density giving 1 ton per metre cubed, so you would need quite a lot of tanks to store all that.



So, I really wonder what could be added to the exhaust to cause those massive trails, especially as it apparently goes through the engines too, which means it would need to withstand temperatures around 1000 degrees C in an oxygen rich environment....

Anyone who knows what the fuel consumption of a 747-400 is during cruise, feel free to correct me.
edit on 18-1-2011 by apex because: Spelling



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


That's good but I'd prefer ones away from the airport


Also, I do appreciate your effort but proof (such as uniforms, clothing, cars, hair styles etc ) will have to accompany said-photos so to show they're from the past. Thanks apex



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


No one is arguing the fuel consumption of jets. I notice that some people like to come in here even though they have not read all there is to read or do all the research.
Show me a VIDEO of a commercial craft leaving a horizon to horizon "contrail" as you say. Shouldn't be that hard since according to some folks all the chemtrails are simply commercial liner contrails. A still image will NOT do. I want a video of a clear commercial craft leaving the horizon to horizon "contrail."



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by apex
 


That's good but I'd prefer ones away from the airport


Also, I do appreciate your effort but proof (such as uniforms, clothing, cars, hair styles etc ) will have to accompany said-photos so to show they're from the past. Thanks apex


So, the 707 (now no longer used) and the fact it's operated by Pan Am (went bankrupt in early 90's) isn't proof enough? And So what if it's at an airport, the important part (the contrail) is nowhere near the airport, and is still going to have been 10 km up.


Originally posted by dplum517
No one is arguing the fuel consumption of jets. I notice that some people like to come in here even though they have not read all there is to read or do all the research.


Maybe you should re-read my post, it isn't about the fuel consumption, it's about the water vapour production (which is tied in very closely with fuel consumption). If you assume that a small, few seconds lasting contrail is produced by 13 kg of water per second being expelled from the engines, then what this asks is how much chemical do you supposedly need for a much larger and longer lasting 'chemtrail'? And as I described, assuming you need 13kg/s of chemical, that fills the entire capacity of a 747-400f in 2 and a half hours.
edit on 18-1-2011 by apex because: extra reply

edit on 18-1-2011 by apex because: Spelling, capitalisation issues



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join