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.


The Planetary Population Protection & Atmospheric Air Purity Act: No More Chemtrails?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:42 PM

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
Your opinion that they do not exist cannot be proven.

It's not an opinion. It's a fact that the mere word "chemtrail" isn't even a real word. I even posted a screenshot of it above. Further, had you even looked at my thread that I also posted above, I requested that someone take some swabs of various things outside and have them tested in a lab to prove that chemicals are being sprayed. If something is being sprayed, that chemical will be all over everything outside.

If nobody can do this most simplistic scientific task of testing some swabs in a lab, then the credibility of anyone who professes "chemtrails" is automatically suspect.

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:10 PM
reply to post by _BoneZ_

chemtrail lap results
^ Proof, and much more if you just take the chance to do some research

edit on 1/7/11 by kyeleigh because: edit

Peep the suurounding videos...
edit on 1/7/11 by kyeleigh because: edit 2

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:15 PM
i have been trying to avoid joining in but feel i must act
does anyone realize that the defence department of my country
has investigated the chemtrails over auckland in 1999 and found it credable
they also monitered the hospitals and noted a massive increase in DEATH
in the elderly and asmatic populations
SO I AM PERSONALLY offended by the claims of no proof because i lived through this ATTACK
on peiceful new zealand citizens
and mark my words if our defence forces consider it a real threat so do i

sorry bout shouting but the ignorence is over wealming
AS IS THE EVIDENCE (the dead citizens of my country)

this is no joke

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:29 PM
reply to post by Gab1159

could you please link this to the actual bill.

It appears this is a large hoax. Without some sort or proof, I am afraid it belongs in the hoax forum.

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:31 PM
I don't think the idea of chemtrails is absurd as people make out. It's been stigmatized as "conspiracy theorist" for years (in my opinion inappropriately) and brushed off as meaningless piffle. The IPCC have hinted (albeit tangentially) at the proposed idea of implementing geoenginering in the form of particulate spraying from aircraft to reduce levels of incoming solar radiation in order to ostensibly arrested catastrophic global warming, stating in their AR4 report: "the mean effect on the earth surface energy balance from a doubling of CO2 could be offset by an increase of 1.5% to 2% in the earth's albedo, i.e. by reflecting additional incoming solar radiation back into space". If chemical spraying is already being implemented clandestinely I think the idea of manipulating the planetary environment to counteract climate change could be used as a pretext for something more sinister.
edit on 7-1-2011 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:47 PM
reply to post by Gab1159

OP everyone gets suckered sometime but this is ridiculous. Do you have no BS meter or any critical thinking skills. If I were you I'd run away and come back and re-register with a new username tomorrow. I wouldn't be able to take the embarrassment if it were me.

At this link it states a Ron Paul supporter is trying to propose it and is soliciting support from Joe Public to be directed at Ron Paul, and I'm not even sure that link can be trusted because they later call this supporter an advisor to Ron Paul.

Don't get me wrong I'd love this to be true. I know chemtrails are real.

Surely the second word of the bill's title should have alerted you. How many US bills/acts would have planetary in their title. The US would have no right to restrict chemtrailing anywhere other than the US.
edit on 7-1-2011 by spookfish because: to add that I am a chemtrailer

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:49 PM

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Gab1159

could you please link this to the actual bill.

It appears this is a large hoax. Without some sort or proof, I am afraid it belongs in the hoax forum.

It is a hoax, as confirmed by the Paul web site. The text in the OP is a whitepaper rant by a self-styled Paul supporter. See, . There is no bill. Ron Paul didn't sponsor anything having to do with chemtrails. Also read the Daily Paul and his Liberty newsletter for a discussion of the hoax.
edit on 7-1-2011 by 4nsicphd because: errant quote mark

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:51 PM
You obviously haven't read the Ron Paul website. The emails from people outside his constituency are usually thrown out of the queue. All of our reps are that way.
That said, it is obviously a hoax, intentional or not. It's not a bill, it would never even get into committee to discuss before making the floor. It's an idiotic rant, by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
"Chemtrails" are not real. If you say they are, you need to prove it. I say they are known atmospheric phenomena. I don't need to prove it, science already has and has been doing it for over 80 years (and that is just what is available on the internet).
And, while I agree that "chemtrailers" need to run tests, they already run ground level testing on air, water, and earth. Because of the ground level has so many chances to contaminate any sample and there is on way possible to prove that anything found in any of the tests done came from a trail, the only valid tests are those run on the trails themselves. This is done, and nothing has been found but exhaust.
So show me some test of air at flight altitude from a trail, and I'll listen. Until then, "chemtrailers" are deluded.

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:03 PM
reply to post by stars15k

Not as deluded as someone who believes in 3 tiers of heaven or a Book of Mormon.....

Cmon.... you say you don't have to prove it but we do? Your close mind and ignorance is astonishing. Just as you say that we can't say Chemtrails are real, you cannot say they aren't real. Prove they aren't real. SHOW me the proof that they are not real. You CAN'T. You are not the only one who knows about weather and contrails and all of the above...

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:31 PM

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by stars15k

Not as deluded as someone who believes in 3 tiers of heaven or a Book of Mormon.....

Cmon.... you say you don't have to prove it but we do? Your close mind and ignorance is astonishing. Just as you say that we can't say Chemtrails are real, you cannot say they aren't real. Prove they aren't real. SHOW me the proof that they are not real. You CAN'T. You are not the only one who knows about weather and contrails and all of the above...

OK, this should settle the proof issue. Each of you get access to a visible light photospectrometer and look at a trail with it. If you get an optical absorbsion spike at about 1 picometer, it's water - a contrail. If you get other spikes (or valleys in some instruments) eliminate CO2, NOx, and SOx, and see what else is there. Or, rent a Learjet at about $2500.00 per hour, fly through a trail (It will be a pretty rough ride), land, swab the static wicks and run an HPLC or GC/MS. Until you do that, debate is a fruitless exercise. It's just a battle between real science and junk science.

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by 4nsicphd

How true. I appreciate your bluntness. If only I had the resources to do that.

BTW .. for some reason you made me chuckle.

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:13 PM
reply to post by dplum517

I don't believe in the chemtrail theory that is portrayed here. I think it's possible that there have been some experiments done with relation to spraying above clouds, but the whole "if it lingers for more than 20 minutes, it chem!!!" is pure BS. It has most likely been years since anything was sprayed, if it ever was. But since this will never stop being a hot button issue here, I wish you and your fellow believers would all come together and fund the research that is needed to prove/disprove this once and for all. You can't tell me that every chemmie is a poor internet dweller who hangs our on conspiracy sites whining about how the bad man is spraying toxic soup on them can you? Somewhere there has to be a well funded chemmie. Find him and prove this right or wrong. Writing blogs will not fix anything.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:31 PM
reply to post by kyeleigh

So in the video you linked to I see something that well let's look here shall we..

Aluminium is the most abundant metal in the Earth's crust, and the third most abundant element, after oxygen and silicon. It makes up about 8% by weight of the Earth's solid surface.

Despite its prevalence in the environment, aluminium salts are not known to be used by any form of life. Also in keeping with the element's abundance, it is well tolerated by plants in soils (in which it is a major component), and to a lesser extent, by animals as a component of plant materials in the diet (which often contain traces of dust and soil). Soluble aluminium salts have some demonstrated toxicity to animals if delivered in quantity by unnatural routes, such as injection. Controversy still exists about aluminium's possible long-term toxicity to humans from larger ingested amounts.

So could that be a reason that soil samples showed aluminum in it?

In this video it talks about entire regions contaminated with Aluminum oxide. Now I find that to be an interesting allegation because this seems to contradict that...

Aluminium oxide is used for its hardness and strength. It is widely used as a coarse or fine abrasive, including as a much less expensive substitute for industrial diamond. Many types of sandpaper use aluminium oxide crystals. In addition, its low heat retention and low specific heat make it widely used in grinding operations, particularly cutoff tools. As the powdery abrasive mineral aloxite, it is a major component, along with silica, of the cue tip "chalk" used in billiards. Aluminium oxide powder is used in some CD/DVD polishing and scratch-repair kits. Its polishing qualities are also behind its use in toothpaste. Alumina can be grown as a coating on aluminium by anodising or by plasma electrolytic oxidation (see the "Properties" section, above). Both its strength and abrasive characteristics are due to aluminium oxide's great hardness (position 9 on the Mohs scale of mineral hardness). Most pre-finished wood flooring now uses aluminium oxide as a hard protective coating. In dentistry, it is used as a polishing agent to remove stains. It is an alternative to sodium bicarbonate, for patients that have high blood pressure.

and I found this to...

Niche applications and research themes

In lighting transparent alumina is used in some sodium vapor lamps.[12] Aluminium oxide is also used in preparation of coating suspensions in compact fluorescent lamps. In chemistry laboratories, alumina is a medium for chromatography, available in basic (pH 9.5), acidic (pH 4.5 when in water) and neutral formulations. Health and medical applications include it as a material in hip replacements.[3] As well, it is used as a dosimeter for radiation protection and therapy applications for its optically stimulated luminescence properties. Aluminium oxide is widely used in the fabrication of superconducting devices, particularly single electron transistors and superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUID), where it is used to form highly resistive quantum tunneling barriers. Insulation for high temperature furnaces is often manufactured from aluminum oxide. Sometime the insulation has varying percentages of silica depending on the temperature rating of the material. The insulation can be made in blanket, board, brick and loose fiber forms for various application requirements.

So if Aluminum oxide is so dangerous then why use it in the applications mentioned above? IMO the allegations in the video holds no merit. Aluminum oxide is not going to contaminate much of anything as it is in use by practically everyone.So how can anything in that video be taken as fact,because if you are going to try and say it is contaminating entire regions and not know that we use it in so many different applications is sad.I wonder why that info wasn't mentioned in the video?

edit on 12-1-2011 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:42 PM
hmmm after having read in the sidelines on various subjects on this site, I've finally decided to open an account in order to reply.

First off it appears no one (especially the poster of this article) took the time to contact Ron Paul to verify the validity of it.

"Please contact Ron Paul's office at:

Or call toll free 1-866-220-0044 if you would like a Committee set up to investigate this issue or would like to submit your comments"

Also noted it was stated "if you would a committee set up...", here is a couple of links that explain the legislative process a bill or various types or resolutions must go through.

A good explanation
"How are our Law's made" Library of Congress Thomas Law, with a PDF attachment

Having been an active supporter during the last presidential campaign, I am a current subscriber to his "Texas Straight Talk" articles. So when I got this email from a radio host (who also tends to not validate these things before forwarding them), and I'd not received anything from Ron Paul regarding this matter I followed the link, which took me to his congressional page where you can register for updates and his opinion on current issues and legislation. I also googled and scroogled the suggested stated Act, and nothing officially linked to Ron Paul himself about this. Only to sites like ATS, the good news being this site was #1. I then took the time to call the phone number (which may be a good idea for anyone interested in contacting their representatives on issues may want to keep handy, as it's a toll free number to do so), and a DC operator transferred me to Ron Paul's office. I spoke with an aide, who stated it was a hoax, and Ron Paul had no part in it.

It seems to be something that happens with extreme regularity on the internet, sending unfounded and unvetted emails around that espouse an ideologue we might agree with and be very passionate about, yet without any supporting documentation as to what's being stated. I have been guilty of this in the past, and BURNED, and we only hurt the cause as well as our own credibility by doing so.

If the person who created the article in the first place, as well as any who've helped spread this disinformation truly cared about the efforts Ron Paul is involved in with trying to expose the International gangster bankers who control most of the World's economy through the Federal Reserve systems etc., they would've taken the time to verify and validate the information before sharing and posting. This type of activity is damaging, and may have even been created to do so in the first place.

Now I hope you will be as involved in damage control as much as you've been in helping spread the damage.

For the record, I do believe chemtrails exist, and have seen the difference between the normal jet expulsion, and those that spread out across the sky. I've seen actual video footage from local news broadcasts reporting on it. Anyone who trusts and quotes the FDA or EPA to be looking out for our safety and protection is seriously deluded. Just because they say something is safe of harmless at the levels they deem acceptable, doesn't make it so. I think there's enough information available for either side of any argument to justify one's opinion on any given belief or subject to obscure the facts.

One thing that does seem to be prevalent here as well as many other similar sites is the amount of emotion involved in the posts. If we really are seeking the truth about these or any subjects, we need to remain objective, and be willing to see all evidence presented from all sides of an issue, and be willing to accept new evidence presented with factual documentation. I think we all know something presented as fact isn't always necessarily proof beyond doubt, and can't be disproved as a new false doctrine as well, which is why people keep digging and researching.

I personally hope this will put an end to this post, and any chemtrail topic will be conducted elsewhere, and without the use of Ron Paul or anyone who hasn't been a party to it without their knowledge or consent.

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 09:26 AM
reply to post by wecanthandlethetruth

For the record, I do believe chemtrails exist.....

Nope. You are wrong.

.... and have seen the difference between the normal jet expulsion, and those that spread out across the sky. saw a combination of contrails, and cirrus clouds that formed too. Usually, spurred by the passage of the airplane(s) that MADE the contrails in the first place. "insist" on so-called "chemtrails" existence is to deny that normal cirrus clouds ALSO exist! It really is that simple. Furthermore, why is it that your so-called "chemtrails" look exactly like...well, like cirrus clouds??? IF you thought they actually WERE "spraying" something (other than the water and normal engine exhaust pollutants) then, what do you think the "stuff" would/should look like?? Certainly, would NOT look just like normal cirrus clouds! (Would either be invisible to the naked eye, or a different color).

The best way (other than taking classes on meteorology) to understand clouds and their behaviors is by watching them in time-lapse. Since they normally form, grow and evolve very slowly, the Human mind doesn't recognize it as it's happening.....

...look, watch, you can see perfectly normal cirrus cloud formation, spreading and thickening as they pass overhead. NOTE how, in time-lapse, they pass right by, not remaining over "your" area for very long at all.....:

Those were cirrus clouds. Compare to this brief video of cumulus clouds (the sort that, when big enough, will make precipitation): IS normal for cirrus to spread across the sky....stratus (at lower altitudes) do also.

I've seen actual video footage from local news broadcasts reporting on it.

Oh, I doubt that very much. Whatever you "saw" was likely misinterpreted/filtered by your perceptions and biases.

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:06 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

You in no way prove that me wrong with your videos, nor do you prove your right. I have watched contrails from behind jet planes since I was a kid growing up in Colorado back in the early 60s, and I watched them dissipate not far behind the plane as it flew high above in the sky. These don't dissipate. The video you show with cirrus clouds forming do not come from a straight line after watching it come from behind a plane on a clear blue day with no other clouds in the sky. Show me a video that does that?

I stated I believe, which is my personal opinion based upon that which I've seen and witnessed. The videos of newscasts are at least bringing the issue to light, and maybe out into an open forum where it can be discussed, like this one from NBC 4 news in Louisiana suggests. Sorry, haven't spent the time to figure out how to post videos to view on site yet, so only providing the links to youtube of broadcasts.
Here’s another one from LA, KHL 12

You certainly have the right to your beliefs as I do mine, and I've seen no conclusive proof from either side of what is actually being sprayed, and as I stated in my post, there's enough information out there for all of us to use to prove our points of views or biases, which you have shown you obviously have as well by posting these two videos, that really have no correlation to my post, or disproving chemtrails exist.

My post was more in reference to the original post, which should have proven it was a hoax simply contacting the source it was attributed to Ron Paul through the information provided therein, and which it appeared no one who posted took the time to do. It was also in hopes any continued conversation and debate would continue elsewhere concerning the chemtrial/comtrail issue, and not surrounding a hoax about a purported piece of legislation that was attributed to someone who had nothing to do with it, and which for some reason you have chosen not to do, WHY?

Kelly E. Griffin

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in