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.

 

Are They Spraying Anything?

page: 13
50
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thank you for the reply.

I think that weather modification has direct ties to the origins of the chemtrail idea. This is why I post information on cloud seeding. I noticed that the area of the study was in the mountains, hence Mt. Shasta. I know that the vid talks of aluminum and such but I believe that the disinformation has hit an all time high in this topic. I believe that people are confusing quiet projects, such as weather modification with some diobolical plan to kill the masses.

I believe that there is a direct link and I will still look for the facts.

Thank you.




posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 

I agree there is much confusion.
The more people who really look for information and at the same time realize that not all information is factual, the better.

The term is critical thought.
edit on 3/3/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I forgot to ask you about geoengineering.

Could it be argued that weather modification could be done to counter anthropogenic effects due to climate change? If "we"(or them) believe that climate change is a direct effect of manmade activities then weather modification would be used to directly counteract the changes. Is this not geoengineering? This can change the water ecosysyem of a particular environment if done right.

I know that weather modification is localized, but if done in a wide enough area, or field, it could be regional or national. I am not trying to be off topic. I just wanted to see what you have to say on geoengineering and weather modification because I can kind of see a link, (or is it just me).


EDIT: If my question is not clear, then I apologize.
edit on 3-3-2011 by liejunkie01 because: EDIT



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 

I think you're getting into a matter of semantics. The term geoengineering really was coined to apply to efforts to mitigate climate change (global warming if you prefer). There is a difference between weather and climate.

Beyond that, yes, you're right. Large scale application of weather modification may have the potential to affect weather on a greater scale (climate). And like geoengineering, the full ramifications of it are very poorly understood. One of the controversies involving cloud seeding is the "stealing" of rain that would have fallen in the next county.

Since we're talking about it, it should be noted that the efficacy of weather modification is very difficult to demonstrate. The guys that do it say it works great but it's pretty hard to tell weather (pun intended) that particular cloud would have rained all by itself or not.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thank you for the information and your insight on this topic.

It is late and I need sleep. I am looking forward to reading up on this thread tomorrow.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   
thank you page, now i know how a pretzel feels
from what i have gathered it depends on what group of researchers you are referring too cloud, weather, seeding, or geo, and last stratosphere or atmosphere, MIT will call it one thing Caltech (i will leave NASA out for they have there own ,set of terms), will say some thing else but it all comes back to the "albedo et al" That is the only defining link.
edit on 3-3-2011 by bekod because: word corection



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
www.lakescientist.com...
Although they have 4 stations on the ground,strategically placed around the Tahoe basin,they also have a plane that it used. I have contacted them direct,and NO they do NOT know what the additional spraying is.

They admit it is something other then a "contrail" but will not even remotley try and speculate what IT is.
REAL nice guys..Just won't comment on what it is or is'nt.

When asked if they thought it had the possibility of being used for additional weather modification,blocking satellite signals from seeing ground movement,or even as a satellite signal to "bounce"signals at higher elevations..all questions are answered the same.
We have no clue...and don't use us for quotes on anything please. We just seed clouds.

They sound sincere too. But I believe ATSers,so I'm pretty gullible anyways.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Novatrino
If I can get factual evidence of why a 2 engine TUTOR aircraft creates 4 contrails I would be very interested. Seriously I would. As well these white jets do not have any markings on them for some reason.


If I ever saw evidence of a TUTOR aircraft making any contrails, I would be absolutely astonished. The Tutor is a single engine (not 2 engine as you misrepresented) propeller driven English RAF training aircraft made by Grob Aircraft. It has an anemic Textron Lycoming AE-360-B 4 cylinder piston engine, which at full power can put out 180 horsepower. The Tutor can struggle up to 10,000 feet, far, far short of the altitudes needed for supercooled moisture contrail formation. For the Tutor specs, look at www.raf.mod.uk...

I don't suppose you have a picture of this mysterious plane that magically sprouted another engine and somehow exceeded its maximum service ceiling by 400 or 500 percent, do you? I doubt it, because at contrail producing altitude there simply isn' t enough oxygen to sustain anything near stoichiometric combustion, without super- or turbocharging, which the AE series of Lycoming engines don't have. Your mysterious 4 contrail producing aircraft doesn't even have fuel injection. And the magneto driven ignition system would arc out and not fire. Simply put, you are asking for evidence to support an impossible misrepresentation.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


So, that's the extent of your response? That's all you got? The source you provided is something that I already have, but, thanks for the supposed "effort."

So, where are the degrees that I asked for regarding your experience in any of the following areas?
1. Degree in Physics
2. Degree in Chemistry
3. Degree in Geoengineering?
4. Or how about a degree in Meteorology?
If you can provide nothing in the way of experience or an education in this field, why on EARTH should we take your opinion, which is all you have provided, as truth about the existence of chemtrails?

Do you really think these people on this video have really LIED Phage? Why did you choose to go from the original thread to make this one when there were scientists getting ready to defend their position? Some of the more astute people on this site would call that a "bait and switch tactic." Let me define and explain this a bit further in easy to understand language. You chose to create a diversion. By creating this thread, you took traffic away from the other so that people would not give their attention to pertinent information which would have served as not only a great defense for the existence of geo-engineering and chemtrails, but, a massive attack against anything that you would have to offer as a counterargument.

I also notice how you continue using the word aluminum, but forget the combustible element that is ACTUALLY used in their aerosols, which is ALUMINUM OXIDE. Aluminum isn't the issue my friend...you drink out of that every time you have a coke.

The key word to describe Aluminum Oxide is COMBUSTIBLE. Here's the patent which describes such elements. By the way, SULFUR is also another one of the elements used, as listed in the patent.
www.google.com...
So lets re-phrase a question that someone posed to you earlier...
"Phage, would you be comfortable drinking water that was laden with 3.6% aluminum oxide and sulfur?" This is totally relevant as there were many deflections to this question, so, I feel the need to specify.

I think I already know the answers to the above questions, especially the last one, so, lets get onto the next question.

With all of the information out there that exists that supports the idea of chemtrails, geoengineering, and weather manipulation provided by the government itself, why are you so adamant, despite sound scientific research in support of said category, in trying to disprove a phenomenon that can be seen merely by looking up to the sky? Do you realize that it has become SO incredibly noticeable that a collective of millions in multiple countries world-wide have complained to credible global news organizations which has literally caused the act of anti-legislation? Where were you when that happened Phage? Guys like you are a dying breed who continue to play damage control when the obvious is staring you right between the eyes.

What you refuse to observe as reality has already been accepted as fact by those who have used their skills of observation and research. These are the people whom we can thank for pointing out the obvious to our leaders who have purposely sought to poison the environment. These are the people you can thank for at least attempting to purify the air that YOU BREATHE Phage, without judgement that you are attempting to sell them down the river every time you lie and spread counterintelligence which contradicts the OBVIOUS. (I hope you notice that I am purposefully using the word OBVIOUS repeatedly. I'm sure you are aware of the power of repetition, because you use it often.)

Now, If you are actually this unaware of your surroundings, I guess I will have to suffice to say that apparently, WE SIMPLY KNOW SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T. You're hanging onto your own world-view instead of evolving to reality which prevents your own personal growth, not ours. Additionally, parroting outdated material and lying for any number of purposes only will destroy your credibility in the end-game...you realize that, don't you? Someone of your intelligence is quite aware of the role you are playing. With all of the information and knowledge at your disposal, truly, there is NO REASON why you should still be taking the position that you are with geo-engineering unless there's something on the line...something that you're protecting.


edit on 3-3-2011 by Qcuailon because: Link didn't work...provided another.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Qcuailon
 

Good you have the document. Then why did you say this?

I shouldn't even have to remind you of this, but, the UN just passed resolutions prohibiting certain aerosols that are used for the purposes of Geoengineering.
There is nothing in the document about aerosols.

I use the word aluminum because that is the word used in the movie and the test results.

Aluminum oxide is not combustible.
www.gmaind.com...



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by bernardschnitzelforever
 


I see your back, spreading crap all over the place.

Great job mods, that was fast.

edit on 3-3-2011 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Are you asking me WHY I stated what I did simply because I have the same information that you do? You should know better than to ask such a seemingly naive question.

You're right about Aluminum Oxide by itself (I should have been more specific for you which is the reason I also mentioned SULFUR. Silly me for thinking that you actually had read the links before), however, its the combinations of chemicals that they lace that make it especially volatile...You might want to read ALL of this before commenting. Additionally, a major concern for these agents being sprayed in our environment is that it makes conditions in forests more suitable for forest fires.
www.google.com...
www.google.com...

From Above Patent:
What is claimed is:
1. A combustible composition consisting of a readily oxidizable substance selected from the group consisting of aluminum, magnesium, alkali-metals and alkaline earth metals; an oxidizing agent selected from the groups consisting of:

(a) sulphur and sulphur yielding compounds; and
(b) organic and inorganic nitrates, alkali-metal and ammonium chlorates and perchlorates;
the molar ratio of the oxidizable substance to the oxidizing agent being between 1.5:1 and 3.5:1 and a stable hygroscopic solid to be dispersed which does not directly participate in the combustion process of the combustible composition, said hygroscopic solid being present in an amount up to 40% of the total weight of the combustible composition, the oxidizable substance, the oxidizing agent and the stable hygroscopic solid having a particle size in the range of from -140 to +270 mesh, and a fused compound which burns initiating the combustion of said composition, whereby during combustion, a finely dispersed aerosol smoke consisting essentially of moderately hygroscopic condensation giant nuclei and a non-hygroscopic gas are simultaneously evolved, said gas acting to disperse said nuclei, thereby generating aerosol smoke and a non-hygroscopic gas which control and modify weather conditions.
2. Combustible compositions according to claim 1, in which the oxidizable substance is aluminum and the oxidizing agent is selected from the group consisting of inorganic and organic nitrates which are stable at room temperature.

3. A combustible composition according to claim 1 in which said stable hygroscopic solid is selected from the group consisting of metal halides.

4. Combustible compositions according to claim 3 in which the oxidizable substance is aluminum, the oxidizing agent is selected from the group consisting of sodium and potassium nitrates, the stable hygroscopic solid is selected from the group consisting of sodium and potassium chloride, and wherein the weight percentage of the chloride in the mixture is in an amount up to 40% of the total weight of the combustible composition.

I especially like this patent which is quite descriptive. They call it a "warfare cloud."
www.google.com...

Think what you want, but, its apparent...More people are beginning to question your motives and are starting to understand that NO ONE would spend this much time on something that they find to be silly.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by niceguybob
Laff My ASS off. Phage is one of the best debaters on ATS period.
I'd put him up against anybody...cept maybe Zargon or Skeptic himself.

Know what a debate is? Phage does.

I'd bet on him anytime you guys. Irrelevent the topic. He's THAT good.


Do you have any idea of how you sound? Is that what you've got to offer this thread? Save your lips for what they may be needed for besides...well, I'm not going there.

Try to contribute to the thread and get off your knees.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Qcuailon
 

We have discussed cloud seeding, which is what that patent you are talking about is for, but it really has nothing to do with geoengineering or "chemtrails". It is also no secret. You can hire them yourself if you like.
www.weathermodification.com...

You might want to check with the licensing board in Texas for more information about cloud seeding.
www.license.state.tx.us...

I see no test results showing increased sulfur levels in the Lake Shasta area in the movie. If you could provide some it might be relevant to a discussion about the undesireble effects of cloud seeding but not this thread.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Qcuailon
 


I can't speak for "motives" for anyone else (and Phage has clearly shown, yet again, the mistakes people make in confusing ordinary, well-known cloud seeding for the non-existent "chem"-trails):


...More people are beginning to question your motives and are starting to understand that NO ONE would spend this much time on something that they find to be silly.



For me, I am just ticked off that charlatans like Carnicorn, Griffin, and similar ilk, are profiting off of the gullibility and ignorance of so many people. AND, that such ignorance, in vast quantities, is spread so easily, thanks to our modern era (and the "Internetz"). At first, as I pointed out in other thread, elsewhere....it was somewhat amusing. Perhaps being patronizing to otherwise intelligent adults is rude, but there's a definite forehead-slapping point where, after several attempts at education .... (to explain that, despite the many idiotic YouTube videos they fell for, "2 + 2 ≠ 5").


But, later on? One begins to see a disturbing trend, in the rhetoric of some "believers" out in the blogosphere. Unnerving calls to violence, against the (non-existent) "perps"....of this complete hoax, and practical joke gone viral!

Secondly, I remain completely gobsmacked at the utter lack of science education, and critical thinking skills displayed on this subject. Bad enough (not going off-topic, but to illustrate) the plethora of stupid "nibiru", "2012" and "expanding earth" nonsense threads and (apparent?) beliefs, just to name a few.

It is gut-wrenching to see the levels of general knowledge sinking, before my very eyes....it is not pointing towards a bright future for Humanity, at this rate.......or even worse! Maybe that same rampant ignorance was always there, but is only more evident, now, beause of the Internet??

Hmmmmmm......



edit on 3 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
A quick scan of my news blog (see link below) - a good source IMO of weather, climate and related news stories (though of course I would say that) reveals, for example:


What impact would sun dimming have on Earth's weather


Geoengineering to mitigate global warming may cause other environmental harm.

rainmaking a failed experiment?

And my good friend Tom: Can we really control the weather?

And who here can say they are better qualified in the subject than he is?



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZombieJesus
reply to post by CapnCaveman
 


Persistent contrails are normal.

What is your general location? I can help get you the weather soundings for your area that day to find out if conditions were conducive to contrail formation.
edit on 1-3-2011 by ZombieJesus because: (no reason given)


Hello Zombie, Network Dude tried to make the same claim and has not gotten back to me. I live in Los Angeles County, between three major airports. There is always heavy air traffic. If you think you can predict chem trails or contrails lets play. I will back it up with pictures. Please also post the data you are using for each day, and the time. Let us do a week from March 4 to March 10. Otherwise please stop with your pseudo-science.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 

The upper air observations which are used to determine if conditions are conducive to contrail formation are not predictive. They are actual observations obtained by releasing a balloon with an instrument package.

But I'll take a stab at it (I'm not in California) Looking at the observations from Edwards at 12:00 UTC there's a very good chance that you are seeing contrails forming from aircraft flying above 34,000 feet. Even though the relative humidity is not very high, the temperatures are very cold (-53.4C and lower).



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Ther is a site that provides some data on upper air conditions for various places across the USA up to 36 hrs ago at 12 hr intervals - Unisys weather




top topics



 
50
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join