Chemtrail believers have no idea!

reply to post by stars15k


Carbon monoxide by itself can be poisonous which is the inefficient burning of fuel during combustion. So even if no other chemical additives were added to the fuel it does not mean airline exhaust plumes are healthy.

Pollution is always bad and the last two or three decades the plumes are bigger and longer which should raise an eyebrow or two.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/03340b7b0383.jpg[/atsimg]

I am not saying we are being gassed to death because that would be an exaggeration but I am still curious why we can't cut down on pollution and the theories of weather manipulation with aluminum and barium cloud seeding are "interesting" as well.

That is an Airbus A340 airliner, by the way.

Do you really think airplanes flying up high, are responsible for ground level air pollution? Aircraft flying at that altitude, are actually at their least polluting point I would think. And "chemtrails" is not about normal airplane exhaust either

Nobody does cloud seeding with barium or aluminum either, its done with small amounts of silver iodide inside of rain/snow storms, and not with visible trails.

reply to post by Over140


You will never learn anything about the atmosphere if you keep using only "chemtrail" sites for your information. Try finding out about contrails and free yourself from the fear that "they" are out to get you. Your images:
First one is a plane with four contrails. They are large, which means there was a lot of moisture in the atmosphere where the plane was flying. It is used often because of the volume of condensation shown. If you notice the sky and the small portion of cloud showing in the upper right corner, you will see no blue sky. There is quite a lot of cirrus clouds at and below flight altitude. Which is why there are contrails--they form and persist like the cirrus clouds around them.
Second one, is cloud iridescence. See my previous post to you. Not unusual if you know about the atmosphere and optics. Here's a link that will explain it more up to date.
Atmospheric Optics
Look through the entire site. This is a professional photographer who needs to know about the atmosphere and how it works to do his job. Absolutely more expertise than me, and probably you, too.
The third picture is used a lot among "chemtrailers". It further shows that people have no idea about distance and the make up of the atmosphere.
Distance (and altitude) is very hard to judge without specialized training and practice. Do you have this training? One way that you can tell distance is size of the object will be smaller. Another way to tell distance is knowing how to recognize perspective in a curved space over a curved earth. The farther away an object is in the sky affects how you perceive it's motion. This picture shows a plane flying "up". Things close to the horizon will look to be flying up on one side and down on the other. Remember the flap about the "missile" over California? It wasn't a missile, it was a far away plane flying the same altitude over a curved earth. With those two clues alone, the plane labeled as "contrail" is very far away from the contrail labeled "chemtrail". You can also tell by the depth of focus, but that's something some people can "see" and some can't.
So the "contrail" plane and trail is far away.
The atmosphere is not homogenous. There are layers and pockets of differing conditions all over the place. There is no "same" sky, ever. In any column of air, the humidity will be different in layers, as will the wind direction. The temperature will get colder as you go up, except for an inversion, which is a layer of warm air on a layer of colder air. As the two trails are miles apart, all it shows is that there are two different conditions where each plane released a contrail. The farther contrail is being released into a drier atmosphere, so the contrail will sublime quicker than the contrail in the foreground, which has spread, showing persistence. Two different areas in the atmosphere, two different sublimation rate, persistence, and spread.

When you know what you are looking at, you can see that the "chemtrail conspiracy" is baseless and just a replacement some people choose instead of learning about the atmosphere. I suggest getting a weather guide and learning.

reply to post by firepilot


I suggest this video be standard classroom criteria for the study of earth science. Maybe then some kids will be able to explain to their parents the science they have forgotten.
If the Smithsonian or other Museum ever makes a video time capsule of our culture, this video should be included.....with a laugh track.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Another person who doesn't understand dilution.
CO is toxic in high concentrations, not ppm/gal in exhaust diluted in the atmosphere. Comparing the two is like comparing apples to road apples.
As for things being different, of course they are different! There have been advances in the efficiency of jets and the "cleanness" of the fuel used. And now there are many more planes, flying more people, more places. What hasn't changed in a car in the last 20-30 years?
"Chemtrail blinders" seem to block common sense.
And people do go up and take samples from contrails. It's done quite a lot. You won't find it if you only look for "chemtrails". Try looking at "contrail studies -chemtrails". There's over 80 years of science about contrails on the web; many have a breakdown of the ingredients found.
And you think that Will Thomas, Carnicom, Alex Jones, and Rense can't get together to hire a research plane? Really? The only question about them is why haven't they? Because they wouldn't like the results is my guess. And anything that doesn't go along with a "chemtrailers" theory is ignored or degraded.

Like common science.

Originally posted by firepilot
That is an Airbus A340 airliner, by the way.

Do you really think airplanes flying up high, are responsible for ground level air pollution? Aircraft flying at that altitude, are actually at their least polluting point I would think. And "chemtrails" is not about normal airplane exhaust either

Nobody does cloud seeding with barium or aluminum either, its done with small amounts of silver iodide inside of rain/snow storms, and not with visible trails.

Sure...whatever goes up must eventually come down...how long it takes is irrellevant imo.

As for the cloud seeding theory, if true, they would use specialised airplanes with nozzles fitted somewhere on the airplanes fuselage. I have seen a few pictures of such planes but getting a hold of them has escaped me.

And if you think they don't use barium&aluminum why are large traces of both found constantly at some places? Everyone is so aluminum happy these days..its quite mind boggling! I am old fashioned and prefer steel...

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by firepilot
That is an Airbus A340 airliner, by the way.

Do you really think airplanes flying up high, are responsible for ground level air pollution? Aircraft flying at that altitude, are actually at their least polluting point I would think. And "chemtrails" is not about normal airplane exhaust either

Nobody does cloud seeding with barium or aluminum either, its done with small amounts of silver iodide inside of rain/snow storms, and not with visible trails.

Sure...whatever goes up must eventually come down...how long it takes is irrellevant imo.

As for the cloud seeding theory, if true, they would use specialised airplanes with nozzles fitted somewhere on the airplanes fuselage. I have seen a few pictures of such planes but getting a hold of them has escaped me.

And if you think they don't use barium&aluminum why are large traces of both found constantly at some places? Everyone is so aluminum happy these days..its quite mind boggling! I am old fashioned and prefer steel...

Where did this belief that aluminum and barium should not be found in nature? its part of the soil...Aluminum is approx 8 percent of the weight of earths crust in ore form.

You do not have to have a theory about cloud seeding, you can actually research it. It most always silver iodide, used inside of cloud, trying to get supercooled water droplets to turn to ice.

And yes, aircraft do emit carbon dioxide as a gas pollutant. But there is not soot coming out from modern engines anyways. Your ground level air pollution has a lot of other sources besides aviation. You can ban all of aircraft, and it would not change ground level air pollution much at all.

So far you have thrown out there cloud seeding, aluminum, barium, and pollution, and hoping something equals chemtrails, without knowing much about any one of those, and probably have just read it all from chemtrail sites.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

And if you think they don't use barium&aluminum why are large traces of both found constantly at some places?

Because they are both extremely common crustal elements. Al alone is the most common metallic crustal element. If I remember my chemistry, I think Ba is like the 14th most common element on earth. It would be weird to not find either Al or Ba in any test of earth or ground source water.
Then there are the uses of both elements in industry, construction, agriculture, ground-level transportation, and mining. Without excluding all other sources or finding it in a good test of a trail, you are not able to say any of it has come from a jet's exhaust plume.

reply to post by Over140

They are purported to be aluminum and boron, cloud seeding.

I'm afraid you're terribly mistaken. Your theory appears to be the result of an amalgamation of propaganda promoted by the "chemtrail" websites.

In this one sentence, you have twisted and combined fallacy with reality in a way that most naive laymen would interpret as intelligent sounding fact, thus enticing them into the web of deceit that has become the "chemtrail" camp, encouraging them to spread "the word", (or maybe the more appropriate term would be "misinformation", unless you are knowingly deceiving people, then the correct term would be "disinformation") on internet forums.

Let's start with cloud seeding. Cloud seeding is a very NON secret attempt at weather manipulation. It is done by inserting silver iodide into EXISTING rain bearing clouds. The silver iodide acts as a "seed" for the existing water molecules in an attempt to make them heavy enough to fall to the ground. The two effective methods for delivering the silver iodide are by aircraft or from the ground. Most aircraft equipped for cloud seeding are small (Cessnas, Piper's) and are not even capable of flying at altitudes where contrails can form. From the ground they are usually launched via a flare mortar because of the much lower altitudes rain clouds can occur at.

In conclusion, cloud seeding IS NOT the white lines in the sky purported to be "chemtrails".

Moving on to your next false statement. Aluminum and Boron.

What it looks like happened here, is that you read through several 'chemtrail' sites, and saw the words ALUMINUM and BARIUM, and decided to use that as your next evidence of "proof", but you were unable to even classify the chemicals correctly, and associated them with the false pretense that cloud seeding is in fact proof of "chemtrails".

The aluminum/BARIUM portion of the hoax mainly originates from the fakeumentory "What in the World are They Spraying?" in supposed soil samples. What many believers tend to ignore is that these tests are done with no control, at ground level, and in some cases purposely done in ares that will be known to have higher trace amounts of elements, and are then touted as absolute proof that chemicals are purposely being sprayed from airlines at 30,000+ feet. Aluminum and barium are both very common elements found all over the planet, and are also common byproducts of industrial operations, which also accounts for the the spread of these chemicals in the environment.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Sure...whatever goes up must eventually come down...how long it takes is irrellevant imo.

Well, so much for THAT theory, then!!! "How long it takes is irrelelvant"??? How do you figure?

If something is "sprayed" at 35,000 feet....and it doesn't "come down" (look into the concept of very small masses, and terminal velocity in the atmosphere)...if it doesn't "come down" for 12, or even 24 hours..., where will it be by then??? There are some very, very strong winds aloft, at those altitudes. It is foolish to think that anything could be "sprayed" from a height of seven miles, and then affect anything below with any accuracy whatsoever.

As for the cloud seeding theory...

What "theory"?? It is well-known, and well-documented how it's done, why and where....

if true, they would use specialised airplanes with nozzles fitted somewhere on the airplanes fuselage.

No, for actual "cloud seeding" (and, please....that term seems to make people think that actual "seeds" are spread around, to "grow" clouds!! The "seeding" is talking about adding nuclei into or above cumulus and/or stratus clouds for the water vapor to condense onto, and make rain!!)...that is done by devices mounted on the wings. On SMALL airplanes, that fly low and slow, in majority of applications. NOT commercial airliners.

... I have seen a few pictures of such planes but getting a hold of them has escaped me.

You have probably been fooled by the photos floated out by the HOAXER "chemtrail" websites...that show a proper research airplane (It is actually a Gulfstream I) that is rigged to take AIR SAMPLES...for atmospheric testing purposes. It does not "spray"!! All ofhte external probes face forward!!! They collect samples.....

www.pnl.gov...



www.eol.ucar.edu...

reply to post by Over140


your pictures are interesting. I like the 3rd one. Here are your choices as I see them.

1, some entity is spraying something unknown on you all day, every day, for unknown reasons, and that entity is also spraying the family of every congressman, senator, mayor, and city engineer.

or...

2. Con trails form in the upper atmosphere much more in winter time and much more in high airplane traffic areas during winter time.


Now, given those two choices, which do you think is more likely?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Here's a page of every picture of a "chemtrail" plane I have ever seen, and the real purpose and use of each feature believed to be used.
Are these "chemtrail" planes? No.

And here's a report about similar planes.Sampling Airplanes
Notice, not a US gov or mil source! Wow! It's because contrails and the atmosphere are studied by lots of people everywhere.

www.airliners.net...

That is the original 777 photo, without the editing. Who knows whether it was a chemmie, or someone playing a prank on a chemmie, that added the "sprayer 05" and hazmat text, to the photos that the chemtrailers pass around as proof.

And no chemtailers, it is not a sprayplane, no matter what aircrap or other chemtrail sites tell you. Do your own research

And here is more chemmie shenanigans, its amazing how so many of these sites play fast and loose with the truth and catch many unsuspecting people.

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

Does a C-5 really look like an aerial refueling tanker to these people? And these contrails from the engines are about as textbook of contrails as can be, they start some distance behind as the air cools...

I have yet to see a chemtrailer ever criticize one of these sites for wrong information, its like some unspoken code they have, not to criticize each others ideas or statements or websites, no matter how wrong they may be.

reply to post by firepilot


Wow, did you see there little promo video towards the bottom of the page?

Talk about disinformation and fear mongering at its best

Originally posted by firepilot
I have yet to see a chemtrailer ever criticize one of these sites for wrong information, its like some unspoken code they have, not to criticize each others ideas or statements or websites, no matter how wrong they may be.

That is definitely a big part of the problem. Here is a conspiracy, with no direction, flopping in the sun with the river right next to it. Nobody will talk to each other unless it's back slapping for how they were able to throw some insults towards another member. When the guy starts posting his theory on glowing nanobots being sprayed on everyone to crawl into their brains, he is not questioned at all. I don't believe in this theory at all, but I feel down right sorry for the few of them who have put some effort into looking for evidence. They get laughed out of the thread by most when they might at least deserve to be heard.

Chemtrails...eh, I have a hard time grasping this because who would orchestrate chemtrail spraying knowing they're killing their own family.

I honestly believe that if they are real, they're being forced upon us by an outside force...

Originally posted by network dude

I'll make a deal with you. If you honestly care to learn, I will put you on to a weatherman who can interpret weather balloon data and tell you if you will see contails and at what altitude before you say weather you have seen them. Is that fair enough?

You have a deal. In fact, with all the weather data in I would like to know if the science supports contrails for today Saturday, Jan 22, 2011.

Originally posted by network dude
I have been amazed at the varying answers I get when asking about chemtrails. These people cannot agree on anything. I guess since science seems to be on the side of sanity and that the lines in the sky are called contrails, it stands to reason that the story might change a bit from person to person.

For those who don't know about this myth, here is how it goes:

If a line left behind a plane lasts for longer than 20 minutes, it's a chemtrail. It if dissipates before the 20 minute mark, it's a contrail.

But when faced with facts about weather conditions, this theory falls apart. Once that is gone, exactly what is left of this theory?

I have asked countless numbers of people who believe in this myth to share their views with me. Some say that it happens in every major city in the world. I have even been told of the exact year this phenomenon started. Unfortunately, that date changes from person to person. By 10-15 years. The amount of spraying varies from almost every day in every major city, to only sometimes.

What do they do? That seems to be the million dollar question. nobody can pinpoint any affects. Do they cause mass illness? nope, not that anyone can verify. Do they kill people? nope, not that anyone can verify. Are they to combat global warming? well, I think we should first agree if global warming is man made, or a natural cycle before we try to adjust mother nature. Is that the reason they exist? some might say so. some may not.

There is no uniformity with this conspiracy. Nobody seems to be able to agree on anything other then someone must be hiding something. When I look up the word paranoid, it's definition sounds eerily familiar.

You objection isn't valid. Just because there is disagreement does not mean that there isn't an objective truth to the matter.

For example, I say the sky is red and you say the sky is yellow...we disagree, however there is an objective truth to the matter and that would be that the sky is blue, for the most part anyways .

Now, I believe you are ill-informed and the fact is that there are many people out there that believe in conspiracy theories for the sake of sensationalism, the whole teenage fiasco of hating the government, authority, etc. for rebellion and shock value. So, people go on and preach about these trails overhead without doing the adequate research to really find out what they are. There are some people out there that have done the research and there has been substantial proof that whatever it is has high amounts of aluminum, exactly why...well the general theory has to do with geo-engineering, but the better point is that aluminum has detrimental health affects, despite their motive it is not good. It messes with pH, in water and soil, and further hurts the delicate balance of the ecosystem.

reply to post by issaiah1332

Now, I believe you are ill-informed...there has been substantial proof that whatever it is has high amounts of aluminum

Good evening and welcome to ATS issaiah,

It looks like you have been taken by the various "chemtrail" sites, and are helping to perpetuate the hoax even more by spreading disinformation, perhaps unknowingly, but seeing that you are new here, I would love to take the opportunity to help clear some things up for you.

There has NOT been any substantial proof that whatever "it" is has high amounts of aluminum. This has become a common fallacy within the"chemtrailers" arsenal of "proof".

Let's take for example the "Holmstead" soil test report which has been a pretty popular one within "chemtrail" circles.

As part of the normal farming routine there have been soil tests carried out to determine if there should be any corrective measures taken to adjust the soil conditions.

Our interest in the level of aluminum is related to the fact that there have been numerous reports of various aluminum compounds being found in the "chemtrails" that are being constantly sprayed. Just search Google for chemtrails + aluminum or aluminium: Google search - the list of results is extensive!

Now they don't actually publish the actual test results, but a sample report, although the author does state the results in a paragraph.

The aluminum reading that had been reported in our ten local soil tests ranged from a high of 1692 ppm (parts per million) to a low of 712 ppm - and that lowest one happened to be the Holmestead field. The average of all ten fields was 1247 ppm which is in the "Very High" range of the above published Aluminum Rating.

Now lets take a look at the average number there, 1247ppm. We'll come back to this in just a second.

Here is a quote from the author himself regarding what the average worldwide percentage of aluminum occuring in soil is.

The typical range of aluminum in soils may be from 1 percent to 30 percent on a worldwide basis with naturally occurring concentrations varying greatly.

Now lets go back to that average number the author was talking about being "very high".

1247ppm

1247ppm is .1247%

That is well below the 1 percent to 30 percent range!

Now if you read the whole article, you maybe wondering why I brought this up, because the article states that 1247ppm is very high for soil for growing crops.

This same agronomist seemed unable to give a simple, direct answer to my question of what is considered to be the traditional historical background level of naturally occurring aluminum in agricultural soils although one page on the web site of his laboratory had the following statement along with an illustration with specific figures: "Aluminum greater than 400 ppm is a problem for most growing plants. The primary target for aluminum is the root cap. Therefore, it has a major impact on root growth and efficiency."

As a side note, whenever labs are referring to aluminum, they are actually referring to aluminum oxide, or as its better known in its natural state Corundum.

Some history regarding corundum in the Ontario area, where Holmstead is, where the samples were taken.

Corundum for abrasives is mined in Zimbabwe, Russia, and India. Historically it was mined from deposits associated with dunites in North Carolina, USA and from a nepheline syenite in Craigmont, Ontario.

This soil test is completely moot to being anything even close to proof of "chemtrails", as I have shown that the chemicals being purported to be from "chemtrails" are already naturally occurring, especially in the area where the test was performed.

Now here's the funny part where the author of the Holmstead article debunks his own article.

The subject of natural occurring aluminum (oxide) is complex as aluminum is the most commonly occurring metallic element and it is estimated to comprise eight percent of the earth's crust. It is a major component of almost all common inorganic soil particles, with the exceptions of quartz sand, chert fragments, and ferromanganiferous concretions.

Besides soil tests, there is no other correlations between aluminum and "chemtrails".

Also, if you are under the impression that aluminum has been a nuisance for crops only recently as a result of "chemtrails", please take a look at this excerpt from The Botanical gazette, Volume 71 published in 1921.

Now, I believe you are ill-informed

You were saying...