It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 06:28 PM

Originally posted by laterallateral

Originally posted by blangger
reply to post by pr3l33t

I addressed this in a earlier post. It is not the gov. You think that the gov is allowed to spray worldwide? There are no rules about this when it come to the private sector.

Oh yeah, and this para-governmental org is in cahoots with the HUNDREDS OF THOUSNADS of people involved with every level of aeronautic design, manufacturing, maintenance, operation, storage... The people who make the fuel, the people who fuel the planes. wite collar, blue collar, you name it Nobody talks because they've been threatened or payed off... Please.
edit on 31-12-2010 by laterallateral because: (no reason given)

Are all of your comments smug? This is a conspiracy site so don't please me. Wal Mart owns their own fueling pad at our local airport so what makes you think they can not add something on site. You ask where do they get it? Well I can purchase aluminum dust off of eBay and yes it is tech grade (flows like a liquid and looks like one in a jar) for easy flow in painting and let me tell you it only takes less than a cup (if not way less) to completely cover an entire room (when sprayed by itself). Diluted and one can do the same room with a teaspoon. So unless you have been at one of Greenpeace airports (who I think is responsible) you can NOT ask the question where is it. One guy could do it all and buy the materials from the market and say it is for other uses (but who has to explain themselves when you are rich). Now go out and try to think a little more and ridicule a little less.

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 06:37 PM
Now thats silly, so you think Wal Mart puts stuff in the fuel they buy that goes into their lear jets? Oh come on...
You have absolutely no evidence for that, and its just yet another wacky version of the chemtrails hoax.

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 06:43 PM

Originally posted by firepilot
Now thats silly, so you think Wal Mart puts stuff in the fuel they buy that goes into their lear jets? Oh come on...
You have absolutely no evidence for that, and its just yet another wacky version of the chemtrails hoax.

That is not what I said! I was using that as an example for how easy it would be for another company to do it if they wanted too. so please read the rest of my comment and you can see who I think is involved.
edit on 31-12-2010 by blangger because: haha

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 07:00 PM
Comapny? Think bigger, dude. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY BIGGER.

This is not some guys buying sht off the internet and sneaking it into airport fuel cisterns.
If you buy into your own propaganda, this is happening over almost every landmass enough to cover the godamn sky. This implies everybody knows somebody that knows something about this but isn't talking.
Do you understand how extensive the aeronautic industry is? Have you considered how many people are involved in putting a single plane in the air?

Directing hostile comments at people trying to reason with you is beyond smug. Get a hold of yourself and learn your multiplication tables.

Happy new year ATS!

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 07:01 PM

Originally posted by blangger

Originally posted by firepilot
Now thats silly, so you think Wal Mart puts stuff in the fuel they buy that goes into their lear jets? Oh come on...
You have absolutely no evidence for that, and its just yet another wacky version of the chemtrails hoax.

That is not what I said! I was using that as an example for how easy it would be for another company to do it if they wanted too. so please read the rest of my comment and you can see who I think is involved.
edit on 31-12-2010 by blangger because: haha

And tell us, what is a Greenpeace airport, Lots of things would be easy to do, but that is not evidence it is being done. And there would be no point in putting aluminum powder through an engine. None...

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 07:03 PM
reply to post by laterallateral

I was not saying how this is being done. all I was stating was how easy it would be for it to happen. multiplication tables? Hostility? try to stay on topic.. It is not about how may people it take to put the plane in the air because why would the window washer have anything to do with the refinery process of fuel?
edit on 31-12-2010 by blangger because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2010 by blangger because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 07:03 PM
We are heading for an new ice age and the authorities are trying to induce a real green house effect by using chem trails to deploy a chemical blanket with in the stratosphere. The biological components in the chem trail is meant to produce methane at high altitude. The organisms being used are methanotrophic bacteria and they are suspended with methyl bromide as a food source. Other chemicals and normally toxic naturally occurring elements are being used as preservatives and as controls.

Further to this, developed nations are buying arable land in South America and Africa. Gas fields that are hard to reach are also being tapped and uneconomical oil fields brought online.

Do not be worried about chem trails, you should be worried about purchasing farm land between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 07:14 PM
reply to post by firepilot

Well you responded to my comment about a documentary someone posted, so I thought that was a given. Watch the vid then you will know what the reason is (speculate). It is on the first page of the post.

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Seagle
If you really want proof about the existence of this technology you don't have to look hard. Below is a link to a copy of the patent. While the patent relates to the use of the technology to reduce global warming the company that the patent is assigned to tells a different story.

Patent Here

The aircraft company that filed the patent, Hughes, is a major US airospace and defence contractor that manufactured things like the Hercules and galileo spacecraft. The companies assets were sold to GM in '85 who then sold it to Raytheon which is where things get really interesting.

Raytheon was founded by Vannenar Bush. If you don't know who that is then his bio (link below) will make for interesting reading as Bush was the leading man in the US who brought applications of science to warfare. He is credited with such things as the atomic bomb, the manhatten project and being the director of the Majestic 12. You name it, he was probably involved in it, here is the link -


Now that you are convinced that the technology is real, what can the military possibly want with it? What could they do with it? It takes a bit of research but I think the answer can be found in the discoveries made by Wilhelm Reich. He invented the Cloudbuster which then lead him to the discovery of Orgone atmospheric energy. At this point, the US government went after him, destroying all his research in what is described as one of the worst acts of censorship in US history. He was thrown in jail where he died of a heart attack a short time later. His discovery was apparently too much for the world to handle at the time. Here is a little word from Wilhelm but I suggest you research him and all the above info further and make your own conclusions.


For Aussies on ats you would remember a certain politician (hint - he is also a former ceo of golman suchs) that was taken to task for providing $10mil in research funding to a mate for a new rain making technology. This technology is apparently very similar to Wilhelm Reichs Cloudbuster. Another interesting fact is that the Chairman and major shareholder of Australian Rain Corporation, the company that received the funding, is the rich nephew of Rupert Murdoch.

The mind boggles.

Well since you all seemed to ignore my post earlier amongst the needless bickering I'll copy it again. Read the entire patent linked in my post above and research the company involved and you have your proof.

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 09:13 PM
A patent is not proof of anything, other than an idea is submitted for intellectual copyright. It does not mean it exists, it does not mean it will even work. All it means, is there is an idea, that a person or company feels that it has invented and they want the exclusive rights to it.

Thats it. It can never be made, it may never even work. But this chemmie habiit of throwing up patents, as proof of this vast sprayplane fleet, operating of secret chembases that have somehow never even been found, spraying anything from viruses to bacteria to oil to metals, well sorry, a submited patent is not proof of any of that.

Just go to google earth and find us one of these bases with these secret aircraft. you can blow it wide open...

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 10:28 PM
reply to post by firepilot

Secret bases and factories? Did you even bother to read the patent? If you took the blinkers off for a second you will see that it that the method of dispersing the material into the atmosphere is by adding the particles to jet fuel so that it is released via the exhaust of jet airliners whilst at cruising altitude.

I don't need a lesson on Patents but thanks anyway, I am well aware that a patent doesn't necessarily mean that the idea eventuated into a product. However, the facts are that there is a patent for the exact thing that you deny exists and it was filed by a major supplier of military and space flight aircraft to the US. This intellectual property has since been sold and is now in the hands of the company that designs and manufactures most of the US military's missiles and other hi-tech weaponry. Add to these two facts that people from all over the world have been commenting that they have been noticing that there is something markedly different about some of the contrails they have been seeing then you are at a point where 1 + 1 + 1 usually equals 3.

I don't take anything I am told or read as fact, I research the info myself. Of the thousands of conspiracy theories on this site this is one where there is definitely enough concrete evidence available to give the theory some serious credibility. It would be naive to dismiss it as impossible and if you need more evidence go and find it.

Happy New Year.

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 11:19 PM
]reply to post by naught

Embarassingly enough, I preemptively blocked users like stars15k who I knew would throw evidence at me that I didn't want to hear.

Hello, Happy New Year, and Thanks!
I don't remember your page, but that's okay. I've about given up on YouTube. It was starting to be "chemtrailers" believing because other "chemtrailers" believe. A real, if silly, circle jerk of sorts.
My husband was kind of wondering if I was going paranoid, claiming people were blocking me preemptively; now I have proof!

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 11:29 PM
reply to post by skywatcher87

That video has been thoroughly debunked. It has to do with the reading of the test results shown. The reporter did it wrong, he knows he did it wrong, and the real reading of the results is actually quite small, no where near toxic levels. I know the reporter knows it's wrong because I asked him myself.
And there is a big issue how anyone can say a mayo jar of water left in a backyard in the bed of a pick-up in an agricultural area known to have barium in the soil is going to show anything from 35,000+ ft up.
That same report is also the basis of about 60% of the "chemtrail" websites claim of barium. So those "chemtrail" sites that use it (and Will Thomas, Carnicom, Alex Jones, and Rense) don't know how to read a chemical test, or are being deceptive about the problem with the results of the test. Either way, it doesn't look good for the "chemtrail" people.

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 11:35 PM
reply to post by GrinchNoMore

People have talked about contrails since planes first flew. The first published science available on the web that I've found is over 80 years old, about the contrails effect on air battles in World War 1. There are pictures of contrails from at least as long ago as that.
I am 49, and I saw them as a kid, because I had a reason to notice them. My dad flew to work every week. I looked. There are more now, but more planes.
Really, if you just look, you will find contrail pictures and films. They are not new, and definitely more than just a couple of decades old.

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 11:50 PM
reply to post by Stewie

I'm sure she is very smart about somethings, but on the "chemtrail" part she is not very bright. There are on the homepage of her website, CaliforniaSkyWatch a lot of pictures of clouds and considers an "X" to be something unusual and a sign of being "man-made" as well as iridescence in clouds.
An "x" means simply two planes leaving contrails were traveling in different directions.
Iridescence does not require chemicals or any other help from man. They are totally natural, known and studied. Here's a link to a report about how it occurs:
On the Cause of Iridescence in Clouds
Funny thing about this, it was published in 1887.....years before the first plane flew.

Anyone who is not able to correctly figure out natural clouds and normal navigation doesn't get my vote of confidence for being able to tell what is in a cloud 35,000+ feet over her head.

Oh, and she doesn't know there is no way to project a black line in a sunlit sky. She has pictures of "black chemtrails". They can only be shadows of the contrail. Unless there are some really small obedient black holes being used at will.....
edit on 1-1-2011 by stars15k because: forgot about the dread "black chemtrails".

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 01:24 AM
What exactly is the purpose of these Chemtrails? Seriously. Weather patterns? Distribution of viruses or something similar? I've heard both theories. However, the distribution of viruses or something like that seems a bit absurd to me. Why would they crop dust (essentially) from 30,000 ft., when they can just put whatever they want into the water supply? Hell, they put fluoride and God knows what else in there already. And, if it's weather patterns, that doesn't make much sense either. What good is making a few thin clouds? I don't see where a bit of vapor is going to make much of a difference against the friggin' SUN!!!

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 03:28 AM

Originally posted by vermonster
Oh they're real alright. I sat and watched planes turn a perfectly blue sky in to haze today in northern VT.

For any who doubts the exhistence of chemtrails I highly suggest this film.

edit on 30-12-2010 by vermonster because: fixed link

edit on 30-12-2010 by vermonster because: fixed lin again

I Live Near The Boarder of Vermont and I Know what your Talking about for Sure !

72-Degree Day Breaks Record in New York

There Been a lot of Weird # Going on In Northern Upstate NY along the Border of Canada
2007 January 6th 70 degrees

Global Warming January 2007

Global Warming: 2007 Winter is Cold

Well Something is Changing if not Chem trails


Global Temperature Anomalies: 2007

and right now at 4;19 AM in Upper State NY its 46 Degrees (F) at usually the average is in the 20s
New Years Day 2011 was 51 (F) the Records was 56(F) in (1966)

THE CLIMATE OF NEW YORK(Cornell University)

In January, the average mean temperature is approximately 16° in the Adirondacks and St. Lawrence Valley,

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 03:49 AM
reply to post by gateway30

Are you fluking for real. You have no data to back up your claim..NO DATA.

You are exiting fear by ignorance.

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by 4nsicphd

Thanks for the reply!
You do civilian aircraft?

Do you expect me to analyze or even be able to recognize the difference between nano-particles and dust? Or be able to reproduce the science that makes these artificial contrails possible? I think not.

But, thanks for the reply.

You're welcome. We do all sorts, including civilian. So far since 12/1 we have been retained in connection with a Air Force Special Ops training mission O-2/Cessna 337 crash in Central Florida, a Raytheon 390 in Bever Switzerland and a Beech95-B55 outside of Brasilia, among others.
And I didn't suggest you reproduce any nano particles, just that you learn enough basic science to be able to compute what would be necessary to produce visualizable trails with the required opacity. You have already asserted, in your question, that the particulates are nano-sized, without, of course, providing any evidence of a measurement being taken. For comparison, the ice crystals that make up cirrus clouds are not nano sized. They are measured in micrometers, and range from 5 micrometers at -75 degrees C to 30 micrometers at freezing. See,
Of course, opacity would depend on scattering characteristics, which, in turn, would depend on shape like whether the particle was oblate, spheroidal, or even hexagonal, like some larger ice crystals. Here, I'll give you a hint as to methodology. Look at So it would take , as a first order estimate, roughly 10^27 particles per cubic foot to produce a visualizeable trail. Earlier in this thread someone commented that the trails went from horizon to horizon. The line of sight from 40,000 feet (12,192 meters) is 283 miles (455 km) so horizon to horizon is 910 km. The standard definition of 20/20 vision is the ability to resolve a spatial pattern separated by a visual angle of one minute of arc. So, to even be visable, the trail, at 40,000 feet must be 11.64 feet wide, ( giving a trail cross-section of a little over 425 square feet, and with a trail 566 miles long, the result is a volume of 1,270,104,000 cubic feet, so we have, as a first order estimate, 1.3x10^36 particles in a "chemtrail". If each particle has the same density as water and weighs a nanogram, that still means the trail weighs about 3x10^25 pounds, or the equivalent of 3x10^19 fully loaded Boeing 747s. That's 30 billion billion 747s for 1 trail.
So there's my science. I'll wait for yours.
And to anticipate an argument: To make a contrail, the jet doesn't have to carry everything. The heaviest part, oxygen, is just sitting there already waiting for the hydrogen in the kerosene carried by the jet.
And since the visual spectrum albedo of ice is so high (.96alpha for dry), far far fewer particles are needed. See,
edit on 1-1-2011 by 4nsicphd because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:46 AM
reply to post by 4nsicphd

Reading your reply, it is clear to me that you are not seeking a productive exchange. Your "science" is not meant to inform me on what is being sprayed overhead, but only an attempt to lead me into a debate in a field I have no expertise. I never pretended to be a scientist, and I do not have the background to judge YOUR comments in that regard.
Having said that, I have my reasons for believing what I do, and I will bring my "science" as you call it.


"The signature is significant" commented one radar operator, referring to trails clearly visible on his scope extending for miles behind the KC-135s. In contrast, a commercial JAL flight on the same display left no visible trail. Going outside, Dickie and several controllers scanned clear blue skies over the northern Canadian city. Visibility was outstanding. They easily located a KC-135 leaving a lingering, broad white plume. They could also clearly see the JAL airliner at a similar flight level. It left no contrail at all. On other occasions, Dickie has watched KC-135s on Edmonton radar leaving lingering trails as low as 18,000 feet. "We see these guys up here a lot," radar techs told Dickie, explaining that the USAF tanker flights originate in Alaska and continue on into the States - after gridding the Edmonton area with emanations clearly visible on radar."


Assuming that unusual metal content in the soil could be causing the high electrical conductivity readings, Dickie collected samples of a fresh snowfall for the city, and took them to Edmonton's NorWest Labs for analysis. This reporter has obtained copies of lab tests conducted on snow samples collected by the city of Edmonton, Alberta between Nov. 8 - 12, 2002. The tests show unaccountably elevated levels of aluminum and barium. Norwest Labs lab report #336566, dated Nov. 14 2002 found: * aluminum levels: 0.148 milligrams/litre * barium levels: 0.006 milligrams/litre Acting like the electrolyte in a car battery, barium chemtrails developed at Ohio's Wright Patterson Air Force Base are routinely sprayed into the atmosphere to "duct" or bend military radio and radar waves over-the-horizon, instead of continuing straight beyond the Earth's curvature into space. "Wright Pat" is also closely connected to HAARP Experiments employing tightly focused, extremely high-energy radio frequency beams to alter the weather, disrupt communications and "X-ray" bunkers deep underground thousands of miles away the transmitter array in Gakon, Alaska.

This is only one example, and you probably already know there are many others that are making similar reports. I suppose would discount them all, but I don't.

The U.S. military has been spraying chemical and biological weapons in open air testing over civilian populations since the 1940’s. They are called “vulnerability tests”. This is not a controversial statement. The military has admitted to this practice on many occasions and there’s plenty of documentation from the government to corroborate it. There is also documentation of intentional, experimental releases of radiation on civilian populations. Unfortunately, this information tends to surface long after it could have saved lives, or eased the suffering of victims.

Now, this is only a snippet from the website. You may be aware of the fact that the U.S. military has a history of subjecting the population, both military and civilian, to all sorts of experimental tests which, of course, they are usually unaware of.

G. Edward Griffin did a video documentary, "What in the World Are They Spraying"?. I would link it, but it is easy enough to find, and I don't want to waste too much time, as I suspect that is what this is anyway. His bio:

G. Edward Griffin is a writer and documentary film producer with many successful titles to his credit. Listed in Who’s Who in America, he is well known because of his talent for researching difficult topics and presenting them in clear terms that all can understand. He has dealt with such diverse subjects as archaeology and ancient Earth history, the Federal Reserve System and international banking, terrorism, internal subversion, the history of taxation, U.S. foreign policy, the science and politics of cancer therapy, the Supreme Court, and the United Nations. His better-known works include The Creature from Jekyll Island, World without Cancer, The Discovery of Noah’s Ark, Moles in High Places, The Open Gates of Troy, No Place to Hide, The Capitalist Conspiracy, More Deadly than War, The Grand Design, The Great Prison Break, and The Fearful Master.

Of course, he is no scientist, but I would be willing to bet that most discoveries of illegal activities done by our government are not uncovered by scientists, but people like Griffin. But, that is speculation on my part, and that of course is not allowed.

Another interesting link:

Of course there are others, but I have a water softener to install. I will put some more info. together at a later date.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in