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.

 

Is The Government Poisoning Us From Planes?

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   


I am north of atlanta, and I see it cloud up every day. I lived by an airport in Tanzania in E. Africa for months. Never saw a single trail. Not once. Everyday they flew over, and I never saw a single chem trail. Here I see them all the time. A couple of days ago I was looking up in the morning at a plane spraying, and I watched it stop spraying. Change tanks I guess, and start up again. I was in denial for a long time, but sadly it is happening. Check out this youtube channel. He has patents, and lots of very clear evidence.
What it is for is unclear. I am not inclined to jump to population control, but I do not know. It is like 911. Can you handle the truth even if it means shattering your reality?




posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Once again another thread ruined by the same posters who pounce on every Chemtrail thread saying the SAME BS every time.... linking the SAME BS websites every time....



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Thats not a chemtrail video, it was video shot by a ATS member who is a flight engineer on KC-10s. How many times are people going to repost his prank video?

Its not spraying you can see its going through areas of cirrus, and you can see condensation OVER the top of the wing surface when that happens.

And btw, "Tanker Enemy" is lying to you all, when they know full well those are not nozzles, but fairings for the flap hinges.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by stephinrazin
 


Sorry, but you have fallen for the MOST hoaxed video of so-called "chem"-trails, there!!!

The person who actually did the original filming was a USAF crew member, on another KC-10 flying in formation.

The ignorant person on YouTube who made that version ("tankerenemy") is totally clueless.

BTW, the man who made the video came here to ATS, and posted about it. It was a JOKE!! He wanted to pull the legs and twist the tails of "chem"-trail believers! He actually took it down from his YouTube channel, but too late!! People like "tankerenemy" grabbed it, altered it, and posted it up....gone viral.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Really? I guess I was hoodwinked.


Are you familiar with geo-engineering? Or cloud seeding?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by stephinrazin
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Really? I guess I was hoodwinked.


Are you familiar with geo-engineering? Or cloud seeding?


It hoodwinked a lot of people. Tanker Enemy knows full well what it is, but refuses to correct it. They have other videos too that are completely wrong.

Geoengineering has plenty of proposals, but they are nothing more than that. Lots of ideas that have been tossed around for decades really. Even some patents too, but neither ideas or patents are proof. lots of people think patents are proof something has been made and is workable, when its just a trademark of someones idea.

As for cloud seeding, yep, extremely familar with it. Its done with small planes inside rain/snow storms usually to try to increase precipitation in a localized area. Even flown cloud seeding myself in twin Cessnas and Pipers



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by stephinrazin
 



Are you familiar with geo-engineering?


"Geo-engineering" is still just a bunch of concepts, proposals, theories.


Or cloud seeding?


"Cloud Seeding" is a real process. Not always 100% successful.....and has NOTHING to do with contrails!!

Contrails....CONdensation TRAILS....all form at high altitudes, from the moisture present, both already in the atmosphere (relative humidity) and added to by the combustion of the jet fuel. H2O is a by-product of the burning of kerosene.


Trying to induce a cloud to precipitate rain (or snow) is done at MUCH lower altitudes....in the troposphere, usually below freezing levels (heights) and in the types of cloud suitable for producing rain. Cumulus and stratus.

At high altitudes, you have CIRRUS. Which, BTW, are really what contrails are. They are composed of ice crystals, no "wet" water up there, too cold. AND, cirrus clouds never, ever produce precipitation.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by stephinrazin
 


No ....they don't acknowledge that.. Do not attempt to converse with weedwhacker firepilot or stars15k ...... they are all in the business of refuting that Chemtrails are even possible.

Just cause there is a hoax video and people fall for it does not mean Chemtrails don't exist. They are very real.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by stephinrazin
 


The ability of stratospheric sulfate aerosols to create a global dimming effect has made them a possible candidate for use in geoengineering projects[2] to limit the effect and impact of climate change due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.[3] Delivery of precursor sulfide gases such as hydrogen sulfide (H2S) by artillery, aircraft[1] and balloons has been proposed.[4]

Tom Wigley calculated the impact of injecting sulfate particles, or aerosols, every one to four years into the stratosphere in amounts equal to those lofted by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991,[5] but did not address the many technical and political challenges involved in potential geoengineering efforts.[6] If found to be economically, environmentally and technologically viable, such injections could provide a "grace period" of up to 20 years before major cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions would be required, he concludes.

Direct delivery of precursors is proposed by Paul Crutzen.[1] This would typically be achieved using sulfide gases such as dimethyl sulfide, sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbonyl sulfide, or hydrogen sulfide (H2S).[4] These compounds would be delivered using artillery, aircraft (such as the high-flying F15C)[1] or balloons, and result in the formation of compounds with the sulfate anion SO42-.[4]

According to estimates by the Council on Foreign Relations, "one kilogram of well placed sulfur in the stratosphere would roughly offset the warming effect of several hundred thousand kilograms of carbon dioxide."[7]




Various techniques have been proposed for delivering the aerosol precursor gases (H2S and SO2).[3] The required altitude to enter the stratosphere is the height of the tropopause, which varies from 11 km (6.8 miles/36,000 feet) at the poles to 17 km (11 miles/58,000 feet) at the equator.

* Aircraft such as the F15-C variant of the F-15 Eagle have the necessary flight ceiling, but limited payload. Military tanker aircraft such as the KC-135 Stratotanker andKC 10 Extender also have the necessary ceiling and have greater payload.[1]



Possible side effects

Geoengineering in general is a controversial technique, and carries problems and risks, such as weaponisation. However, certain problems are specific to, or more pronounced with this particular technique.[19]

* Drought, particularly monsoon failure in Asia and Africa is a major risk.[20]
* Ozone depletion is a potential side effect of sulfur aerosols;[21][22] and these concerns have been supported by modelling.[23]
* Tarnishing of the sky: Aerosols will noticeably affect the appearance of the sky, resulting in a potential "whitening" effect, and altered sunsets.[24]
* Tropopause warming and the humidification of the stratosphere.[22]
* Effect on clouds: Cloud formation may be affected, notably cirrus clouds and polar stratospheric clouds.
* Effect on ecosystems: The diffusion of sunlight may affect plant growth.[25][26][27]
* Effect on solar energy: Incident sunlight will be lower,[28] which may affect solar power systems both directly and disproportionately, especially in the case that such systems rely on direct radiation.[29]
* Deposition effects: Although predicted to be insignificant,[30] there is nevertheless a risk of direct environmental damage from falling particles.
* Uneven effects: Aerosols are reflective, making them more effective during the day. Greenhouse gases block outbound radiation at all times of day.[31]

wikipedia



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by stephinrazin
 



Yes.....so? Seen it, read it on Wiki (and elsewhere).

Like has been pointed out, MANY people are discussing it. MANY different plans and theories for delivery methods, and STILL the consensus is, "keep studying"....because no decision as to its necessity has been made, yet.

Will require a very, very dire need. Will be very public, and will involve a great deal of effort...International cooperation effort.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


Still waiting for your "proof"? Whre is it??


.... Chemtrails don't exist.


Correct. Not in the sense that the "chem"-trail believers say. They mistake normal contrails for something else....and make up "reasons" out of thin air.


They are very real.


Contrails are. Contrails WILL have "chemicals" in them, as a matter of the consequence of burning the jet fuel. It's called "air pollution", and there is no debate on that. Cars and trucks pollute too, for the same reasons.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by stephinrazin
 


No ....they don't acknowledge that.. Do not attempt to converse with weedwhacker firepilot or stars15k ...... they are all in the business of refuting that Chemtrails are even possible.

Just cause there is a hoax video and people fall for it does not mean Chemtrails don't exist. They are very real.


Well, if basic information about weather and aviation refutes chemtrails, then so be it. Isnt the motto of ATS "Deny Ignorance" after all? You bring no information to the table, just accusations, insults and conspiracies, not to mention more than a bit of profanity that your mother would not like.

I would never tell anyone to ignore someone else. Someone should use all the resources they can, and look at all sides and gather knowledge. Its people like you who promote ignorance, by just wanting others to only talk to other chemtrail believers, and how many times has everyone had to correct you in your misconceptions? And didnt you a while back refer to knowledge as "BS". Knowledge is never BS, you should consider being more open to learning new things.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
When there is 100% proof I sure as hell don't care about showing it to you (weedwacker). There is plenty of "evidence" you and your agent friends just can't explain. You make sad attempts to but you don't.
Your explanations sound unintelligent and desperate. You lack just as much proof saying chemtrails don't exist. Prove they don't exist. There is mountains of evidence supporting Chemtrails...so the burden of proof is on you to prove they don't exist.

link contrailscience.com again so I can laugh too. That site is pitiful.


lololol @ firepilot Practice what you preach!
edit on 4-2-2011 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Are they sending up planes to spray? Probably not.

Are they mixing their own formula into jet fuel? Most likely.

They could be attempting to repair the atmosphere after tearing a hole in it during weapons research; but of course they won't tell us. Wouldn't want to scare anyone.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
When there is 100% proof I sure as hell don't care about showing it to you (weedwacker).


Well, for everyone else, show it.


There is mountains of evidence supporting Chemtrails...so the burden of proof is on you to prove they don't exist.


99% of which is photos of high altitude clouds with a caption of "This is a chemtrail", or films of aircraft (which are never proven to be non civil airliners). That isn't proof or evidence, unless it is to be evidence of people's gullibility.


link contrailscience.com again so I can laugh too. That site is pitiful.


That would be exactly what I think about sites with pages of the above mentioned pictures with captions of "chemtrails" and general scientific drivel.
edit on 4-2-2011 by apex because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
Prove they don't exist. There is mountains of evidence supporting Chemtrails...so the burden of proof is on you to prove they don't exist.


This is hilarious, especially after calling people "agents". Do you understand burden of proof? Do you understand that nobody can prove a negative?

It's sad that Altanta (or any) news would consider anything like this a valid story. However, they are definitely trolling the chemtrail believers in an appropriate city. Atlanta has the largest and busiest airport in the nation. I live in the area and am quite accustomed to heavy air traffic and its effects. The chemtrail enthusiasts love this city.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


Ya ... I would love to if I had 100% proof. Notice I said "When."

I never defended certain Chemtrail websites.... of course there are ridiculous sites out there... on both sides...
Again....that doesn't mean Chemtrails don't exist.


@traditionaldrummer I suggest you do more homework.... none of those Chemtrails came from planes going to ATLs aiport.
edit on 4-2-2011 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Zomar
 


Rubbish, sorry:


Are they mixing their own formula into jet fuel? Most likely.


THINK about that. What happens if you add too much foreign material to your fuel? Does it still work the same? Does it alter its specific gravity and density? Any ideas how HOT it burns, inside the combustion chambers of the engine? (Remember....the air is compressed through multiple axial compressor stages, enroute to the combustion area...where fuel is injected through very fine nozzles that produce a mist, and ignited).

Stuff in the fuel? Would clog the many filters it must pass through, and would clog the injectors.

Finally, because of the increased pressure, it burns much, much hotter than in normal air pressures. Temperatures up to 1,600 to 1,700 degrees Celsius. Name material that can withstand that much heat?

AS TO fuel density....the fuel quantity in jets is measured by devices that are submerged inside the fuel, in multiple locations, that gauge its density. NOT using float-type devices, like in your car's gas tank. SO, altering the density would be immediately obvious and noticeable, as it would throw off the calculations.

About the heat in the engine. Some (not all) display various temps inside, on instruments in the cockpit. Essential readings, for power setting reasons, for pilots. TIT (turbine inlet temperature) is usually used on turbo-prop engines. Large jet engines don't display that (although the computer monitors read it, and use it for their purposes). EGT (exhaust gas temperature) is common on all large jet engine displays, and power is defined by either the N1 rotation speed (the big fan, provides the majority of thrust) or EPR (engine pressure ratio) which looks at specific places and compares compression air versus exhaust air pressures.

More on internal temps:


Flame temperature has been measured in some machines at nearly 3000 deg F, and a large portion of the axial compressor discharge pressure is used to cool and dilute the combustion gas temperature before it enters the first stage turbine nozzles because most materials used in turbines today cannot withstand such a high temperature (for very long).


www.control.com...


NOW....think what happens to your car's engine if you put a little bit of sugar in the gas tank?? (Don't do it, not even as a prank....very bad, will destroy the engine).












edit on 4 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


AS SHOWN in every video claimed by the hoaxers (because, THAT is what they are) as "chem"-trails, guess what???

Each and every time, the CONtrails are seen forming directly. . .and I mean directly behind the engines. NO exceptions. (Well....One instance, used as so-called "proof", laughingly, shows liquids being dumped from the center-line water drain masts, located on the bottoms of most airplanes' fuselages. Brief in duration, of course....since it is only some coffee, or other liquids, like water, being poured down the galley drains).

There is NO WAY anything unusual can be included into the fuel. Not in the required amounts (the de-static agents, and other anti-bacterial agents are in VERY minute amounts....fractions of parts per million).

The entire "chem"-trail hoax is revealed, every time, as the junk and "pseudo-science" it is.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Finally, because of the increased pressure, it burns much, much hotter than in normal air pressures. Temperatures up to 1,600 to 1,700 degrees Celsius. Name material that can withstand that much heat?


Well, one presumes that would be some sort of nickel-titanium alloy, as that would be what the engine would be made of.

Now, suggesting that a small powder suspension in the fuel of such could somehow be contaminant, well assuming it got through the filters, I would guess anything small enough to do so would probably ruin the engine in a way similar to volcanic ash.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join