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.

 

Former FBI Chief Ted Gunderson Says Chemtrail Death Dumps Must Be Stopped

page: 25
278
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by wcitizen
 


since this is your thread, maybe you can clear something up for me. Are all lines in the sky that last longer than 20 minutes chemtrails?

thanks in advance for your yes or no answer.

no.


thanks for answering that.

How do you or anyone else determine which or how many are chem trails as opposed to con trails?
(I am trying to understand not insult)




posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by listeningintently2728
 



Thoroughly, properly debunked utter nonsense.....The "chemtrail" claims have to keep moving the goalposts, as they get revealed as utter crap rantings, each time. As you can see, back in 2007 they decided to hitch their wagons to HAARP (yet another NON-conspiracy red-herring!). Oh, and the "Tesla" baloney, for good obfuscation measure.....

Read through that fantasy.....that HAARP can "cause earthquakes" and "x-ray the earth for underground bases"!!! Ridiculous. Yes, tin-foil-hat kind of stuff, sorry. The ONE thing correct, is the mention of the IONOSPHERE. Read up on the facts about HAARP.

Oh, and BTW....you might want to learn about the structure of our atmosphere...and just HOW HIGH the ionosphere is!!


(Airplanes....fly at normal MAXIMUM of about 40,000 feet. Commercial airliners....only very few military exotics go higher. The Concorde used to, for its Mach 2 cruise...about 55,000. But, it was the only passenger airliner ever to normally cruise that high).

Oh yeah, the ionosphere...because I'm generous: en.wikipedia.org...


The ionosphere is a shell of electrons and electrically charged atoms and molecules that surrounds the Earth, stretching from a height of about 50 km to more than 1000 km. It owes its existence primarily to ultraviolet radiation from the sun.



50 kilometers, the lower limit.
Let me convert 40,000 FEET to Kilometers for you: 40,000 ft = 12.192 km






edit on 17 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

We've had this before too Weed,
HAARP is a different thing altogether, you could have said just that, or you could have enlarged a little instead of the usual silly buggers. The Magnetosphere is the area involving HAARP. This does not mean that all particles remain trapped in the Magnetosphere forever, they can be blasted back into the atmosphere if the Magnetosphere is breached by Solar winds and Cosmic winds. That means "stuff" aka, anything trapped in the Magnetosphere at the point of breach, can be returned into the lower atmosphere. I suppose it all depends on who you ask. Somone dealing in Cosmology will happily tell you that the Earth is covered in Cosmic dust. Someone at HAARP will tell you that the Barium they use copiously, is trapped in the magnetosphere or away off into outer space. It's not really very funny is it?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
(And, no....there is no material that could be "spiked" into the jet fuel, as often suggested).

Such a substance -- if any existed that would survive the incredible heat of the combustion of the fuel -- would, again due to the undeniable physics of material properties, ALTER the fuel in undesirable, and quite noticeable ways.


References from wiki (today) on the subject of "carbon nanotube"
nanotube wiki

# ^ Vander Wal, R.L. (2002). "Fe-catalyzed single-walled carbon nanotube synthesis within a flame environment". Combust. Flame 130: 37–47. doi:10.1016/S0010-2180(02)00360-7.
# ^ Saveliev, A.V. (2003). "Metal catalyzed synthesis of carbon nanostructures in an opposed flow methane oxygen flame". Combust. Flame 135: 27–33. doi:10.1016/S0010-2180(03)00142-1.
# ^ Height, M.J. (2004). "Flame synthesis of single-walled carbon nanotubes". Carbon 42: 2295–2307. doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2004.05.010.
# ^ Sen, S.; Puri, Ishwar K (2004). "Flame synthesis of carbon nanofibers and nanofibers composites containing encapsulated metal particles". Nanotechnology 15: 264–268. doi:10.1088/0957-4484/15/3/005.



Flames offer potential for synthesis of carbon nanotubes in large quantities at significantly lower cost than that of other methods currently available

science direct



The diversity of formed nanomaterials is attributed to the strong variation of flame properties along the flame axis including temperature, hydrocarbon and radical pool. This provides strong selectivity for formation of different nanoforms even without adjustment of catalyst properties.


science direct 2
I believe nanofibers are actually easy to manifest in a flame environment such as that of a jet propulsion system by injecting precursors (such as barium) into the burn.

Sri Oracle

edit on 17-1-2011 by Sri Oracle because: I added "such as barium" for clarity



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Generally speaking, top-ranked FBI guys, even retired ones, are reasonably reliable. If anything, they can be much more conservative than your typical cop and not generally given to flights of fancy.

I have previously worked with the mentally ill, and earlier, in support homes for the elderly. It was how I partially paid for school.

Gunderson doesn't exhibit any signs of senility or being in the early stages of Alzheimers. Maybe he just knows stuff that we don't know. If I had to bet the farm, I would say that he believes what he is saying.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle

Originally posted by weedwhacker
(And, no....there is no material that could be "spiked" into the jet fuel, as often suggested).

Such a substance -- if any existed that would survive the incredible heat of the combustion of the fuel -- would, again due to the undeniable physics of material properties, ALTER the fuel in undesirable, and quite noticeable ways.


References from wiki (today) on the subject of "carbon nanotube"
nanotube wiki

# ^ Vander Wal, R.L. (2002). "Fe-catalyzed single-walled carbon nanotube synthesis within a flame environment". Combust. Flame 130: 37–47. doi:10.1016/S0010-2180(02)00360-7.
# ^ Saveliev, A.V. (2003). "Metal catalyzed synthesis of carbon nanostructures in an opposed flow methane oxygen flame". Combust. Flame 135: 27–33. doi:10.1016/S0010-2180(03)00142-1.
# ^ Height, M.J. (2004). "Flame synthesis of single-walled carbon nanotubes". Carbon 42: 2295–2307. doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2004.05.010.
# ^ Sen, S.; Puri, Ishwar K (2004). "Flame synthesis of carbon nanofibers and nanofibers composites containing encapsulated metal particles". Nanotechnology 15: 264–268. doi:10.1088/0957-4484/15/3/005.



Flames offer potential for synthesis of carbon nanotubes in large quantities at significantly lower cost than that of other methods currently available

science direct



The diversity of formed nanomaterials is attributed to the strong variation of flame properties along the flame axis including temperature, hydrocarbon and radical pool. This provides strong selectivity for formation of different nanoforms even without adjustment of catalyst properties.


science direct 2
I believe nanofibers are actually easy to manifest in a flame environment such as that of a jet propulsion system by injecting precursors into the burn.

Sri Oracle

edit on 17-1-2011 by Sri Oracle because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2011 by Sri Oracle because: (no reason given)

Thank god someone is listening!



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by wcitizen
 


since this is your thread, maybe you can clear something up for me. Are all lines in the sky that last longer than 20 minutes chemtrails?

thanks in advance for your yes or no answer.

no.


thanks for answering that.

How do you or anyone else determine which or how many are chem trails as opposed to con trails?
(I am trying to understand not insult)


If you're genuinely trying to understand, I'm happy to share my beliefs with you. If you're trying to draw me out to shoot me down, I'll know and I'll bow out.

The difference between chemtrails and contrails is how they create cloud cover. Contrails, even those which hang for a good while in the sky, tend do stay the same width and disappear more or less quickly. The sky remains the same as it was prior to the contrail. I have observed this many, many times, even when there are several contrails in the sky at a time.

Chemtrails expand, a bit like expanding spray foam does from an aerosol can. There is never just one of them, there are always many. The planes cross the sky constantly in lines, covering an area, and as the trails expand they remain, they don't dissipate and they create cloud cover which lasts for many hours.

I've observed skies where both are present. The contrails disappear, the chemtrails remain, expand and cover the sky.

I'm sure you've seen the photos of them, so I'm surprised you're asking me this question - I guess I don't entirely trust your motive yet.
edit on 17-1-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


I'll recheck that. Thanks!



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist

Originally posted by crimvelvet
I know of some people who grabbed a sample from military planes on a base near me. The sent the sample out for testing. The crap definitely exists!


So what is it?
What are they spraying and where are the test results?


Watch this video: www.youtube.com...

'POISON EXPERT CLAIM CHEMTRAILS COULD BE SPRAYED TO DESTROY OUR IMMUNE SYSTEMS.'
The test results said it contained a very high level of 'BARIUM'.

Peace be with you.
edit on 17/1/2011 by Triztheone because: Fixed spelling error.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 

I would like to add to your answer if I may?
Chemtrails also show up in mass, far more planes than normal in the area. The paths are unusually patterned, unlike normal flight paths.
Additionally, the cloud exhibits different characteristics as pointed out by wcitizen. Many look like an oily stain, and expand something like a liquid stain might on a fabric...very clearly defined trail as it expands. It does not readily dissipate even at the edges.
Hard to explain, but easy to see. Check it out.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by wcitizen
 

I would like to add to your answer if I may?
Chemtrails also show up in mass, far more planes than normal in the area. The paths are unusually patterned, unlike normal flight paths.
Additionally, the cloud exhibits different characteristics as pointed out by wcitizen. Many look like an oily stain, and expand something like a liquid stain might on a fabric...very clearly defined trail as it expands. It does not readily dissipate even at the edges.
Hard to explain, but easy to see. Check it out.



Thanks Stewie. Yes, always more planes than normal.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Triztheone

The test results said it contained a very high level of 'BARIUM'.


Barium is one of the catalysts that can be used to produce nanotubes and nanofiber in a flame environment.

Sri Oracle



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


I've noticed something different. I've noticed several debunkers, being insulting and stereotypically grouping ALL Chemtrail researchers as some kind of total hive mind, and treat us like we cannot think for ourselves.

All chemtrail people believe this, or that. Claim this or that. Don't know this or that.

Many of the debunkers on this very topic are really just being polite stereotypers, and some...not so polite. Your own post is full of it as well. Putting ALL of us under one big roof, while pretending to be some kind of peaceful criticizer.

Your view on the matter is quite clear. You wanna feign constructive criticism while hurling veiled insults at people who think Chemtrails are real. Any proof shown to you would simply fall on blind eyes.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Byteman
 


You see, you are most of the problem.... Once upon a time, ATS members were allowed to disagree respectfully while voicing their opinion.....

People that believe in the "chemtrail dilusion" (notice the low blow) That is the same way that "Govt. paid agent" or "sheep" is received from our end...

People that believe, say that us "non believers" are "small minded", "sheep", blind followers, when in fact, I feel we are just better investigators.. We were able to look at the information available, and come to a logical conclusion.

It may not be the right conclusion for you, but it is for us.

If by NOT believing that the govt. is spraying (What exactly are they supposedly spraying?) a toxic agent over all of us... (including themselves) this means I am a sheep.... Bahhhhh Bahhhh Bahhhh!
edit on 1/17/2011 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Phenomium
 


I believe him just as much as I believe Rosalind Peterson..




Rosalind Peterson of California Skywatch was a certified U.S.D.A. Farm Service Agency Crop Loss Adjustor working in more than ten counties throughout California


So I guess you can be an expert on a subject even though you haven't worked in that field of study. Just because someone has worked for the gov't that doesn't automatically make them an authority on things.

Please note that this interview was from none other than are good friend Alex Jones and prison planet tv.


since he was on doing an interview with Alex Jones.That alone has me questioning the validity of what he say's.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jameshawkings
 




To all those who doubt chemtrails, spend some time watching them being sprayed in the sky, make a diary, take photographs. If you have the patience to do this you will learn a lot.


Since you have been watching these planes spraying chemtrails then maybe you can help me out with the pic below...



Now before you answer all I ask is be sure to take a good look so that you can give me a good answer as to what we are seeing in the photo.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Sri Oracle
 



Quite a stretch, there. And, a jump....from carbon nanotubes, and what looks like the need for them to be formed in a CONTROLLED manner of some sort....now, claims in the fuel...AND, somehow (magically??) barium is...what? ALSO in the fuel? Or, was the idea that it was "Injected"?? How would it be done, exactly?

I mean...backing up for a minute, first.....ANY additional substance of any significant amount, introduced into the fuel....would have mass, right? (Yes, even "nanotubes" have mass. Not much singly, but you want a LOT of them, right??). Added mass in the fuel, even in solution, will alter ITS mass, and density and specific gravity. Do you understand HOW fuel quantity levels are measured, on jets? Devices that read the fuel density. Fuel is delivered, measured in gallons (in the U.S.) by conventional means, as at a petrol station. BUT, not IN the fuel tanks. And, fuel flow rates are monitored as well, by various methods. FINALLY....you have to review the refineries, storage and distribution of the aviation fuel...AND its continued quality control monitoring.

What, NO "whistleblowers"?? Not even one??

Now, the "injection" part....again, in EVERY case of alleged "chem"trail "spraying" that is offered as "evidence", it is showing a normal passenger airliner making contrails. Now, you wish to JUMP into the realm of fantasy, and suggest an "injector" mechanism, along with all the associated hardware, is somehow installed on these jets....and, NO ONE notices??

That is called a "Tall Tale"....also, has evidence of a bit of goalpost motion underway......

....a tactic seen A LOT in the "chem"trail claims....and their most basic flaw. That, and the ever-increasing outlandish ideas, all created out of the mind. With NO evidence of any sort, just pure speculation. Speculation that fails, BTW, on a serious examination of the science and technical details.

Not to mention, the complete lack of any credible eyewitness testimony..at all.
edit on 17 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by allprowolfy
 


Okay then, here we go.


This is huge, for all the debunkers that say there is no knowledgable truth to chemtrails and the government involvement, i say come and debunk this man that has his fill of the shill game that we live in.


So I am to believe the man that says this...



Bono, an experienced skier, was ambushed on the slopes by hired hitmen, who beat him to death and then staged a tree collision, Mr. Gunderson said.





After reviewing the shocking secret documents, former FBI agent Ted Gunderson tells GLOBE: "The official version of Sonny Bono's death is hogwash. It's nonsense for anyone to now try to suggest that Bono died after crashing into a tree.


And if you aren't familiar with the Globe it is a supermarket tabloid much like the National Enquirer. I know that is where I go to get my news.


Now this is what really got my attention..



SONNY Bono, former husband and singing partner of superstar Cher, was clubbed to death by hitmen on the orders of drug and weapons dealers who feared he was going to expose them, a former FBI agent claims.


Well then, this seems to speak for itself when it comes to the validity of what he claims.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


Well let's see now...


Chemtrails also show up in mass, far more planes than normal in the area. The paths are unusually patterned, unlike normal flight paths. Additionally, the cloud exhibits different characteristics as pointed out by wcitizen. Many look like an oily stain, and expand something like a liquid stain might on a fabric...very clearly defined trail as it expands. It does not readily dissipate even at the edges.


You say that the paths are unusually patterned unlike normal flight paths..Something like this.



or maybe this...



I know how much you liked these in the other, figured I would post them here for you too..Enjoy.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 




You see, you are most of the problem.... Once upon a time, ATS members were allowed to disagree respectfully while voicing their opinion.....


I didn't say people couldn't disagree. I said that this poster gimme_some_truth (and certain others, not ALL) are flinging around stereotypes. You wanna disagree with my stance on Chemtrails, that's fine...you wanna group me in with others in some kind of thinly veiled insulting stereotypes...no thanks I decline to be insulted in that fashion and will say so. Thanks for dishonestly putting words in my mouth though, I never said people couldn't disagree.

If you had actually read his post, you'd see it's full of stereotypical claims that ALL the "believers" are being insulting and making ridiculous claims without proof. Then you'd see him double-speak and claim he doesn't want proof, only evidence...WTH? Then he says he won't accept the most readily available evidence, visual study of the trails themselves. More double-speak. All this from someone who claims to not be on either side of the debate, but they act like they are....more double-speak.

Of course, you would have to "investigate" his post to learn that.



People that believe in the "chemtrail dilusion" (notice the low blow) That is the same way that "Govt. paid agent" or "sheep" is received from our end...


It's funny you sarcastically use an insult against me. I never used any insults in the post to which you are responding. Those insults you keep putting quotes around are YOUR words you are dishonestly trying to associate with me. I never said them, they come from your fantasies about what I said...not reality.

I never called him a sheep or government agent. This is another attempt to dishonestly associate me with something I didn't say.



People that believe, say that us "non believers" are "small minded", "sheep", blind followers, when in fact, I feel we are just better investigators.. We were able to look at the information available, and come to a logical conclusion.


I never called anyone any of that, I said some people were being insulting by grouping ALL "believers" in with each other, and claiming they all had the same invariably incorrect beliefs or views of Chemtrails.

Is this all you have?
Putting words in my mouth, and trying to associate me with words or statements I didn't say?

You call yourself a "better investigator", I have my doubts. The person I was posting a response to, doesn't even consider himself a believer or a denier by their own words. If you had "investigated" and read his post you would have seen that, and avoided an embarrassing claim that you are fellow chemtrail deniers.



It may not be the right conclusion for you, but it is for us.


Us who? Again, the person I was addressing doesn't consider themselves a Chemtrail denier like you, by their own words. The words you obviously didn't "investigate" or read despite your claims of being a better investigator.



If by NOT believing that the govt. is spraying (What exactly are they supposedly spraying?) a toxic agent over all of us... (including themselves) this means I am a sheep.... Bahhhhh Bahhhh Bahhhh!


I never said or implied that anyone was being a sheep in any capacity or manner. I however will call you dishonest for putting words in my mouth and trying to associate me with something I haven't said....SEVERAL times and then sarcastically acting like you've got one over on me. Maybe next time you can try without the multiple attempts at dishonestly lying and putting words in my mouth.

And you called me most of the problem.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by RobertMBlevins
Generally speaking, top-ranked FBI guys, even retired ones, are reasonably reliable. If anything, they can be much more conservative than your typical cop and not generally given to flights of fancy.

I have previously worked with the mentally ill, and earlier, in support homes for the elderly. It was how I partially paid for school.

Gunderson doesn't exhibit any signs of senility or being in the early stages of Alzheimers. Maybe he just knows stuff that we don't know. If I had to bet the farm, I would say that he believes what he is saying.


Are you basing this only on the video posted or on a general observation of him? For i have witnessed senile people shine with clarity when under the spotlight (their birthday parties etc) when they are the center of attention but then sadly fade into the dark knowing not their closest relatives only moments later. A "moment of clarity" i think they call it. I am sure you would have witnessed such things yourself given your background.

Cheers
edit on 17-1-2011 by Lansky because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
278
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join