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.

 

EXCLUSIVE "What in The World Are They Spraying" Chemist talks to ATS about Geoengineering.

page: 13
53
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by backinblack
I have passes in all subjects to CPL standard and have flown and used sims..
How about you???

Yes, I have taken flight instruction.


Now…
I just want to point out what might be the most important remark made on this thread which disproves the existence of aluminum/barium laced contrails/chemtrails:


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Then, disingenuously, the claim was made to somehow compare that (chaff) to the outrageous claims that they "resemble" contrails!!!! Contrails form at 25,000 feet and UP! Where, do you think chaff is deployed??

Also....contrails do NOT...I repeat, do NOT appear on radar. AT ALL! Neither does ice. Not even snow. The ONLY way that weather is depicted on weather radar is when there is liquid water present. "Dry" snow, no go. "Wet" snow, yes, THAT will return radar "hits". Rain too, of course. Hail, IF it is "dry" (just solid, no coatings of super-cooled liquid water) will ALSO not paint on radar. (**)

Ok, now compare that to this:


So…
If these chemtrails contain aluminum and barium (which is a tracing material used in everything from x-rays to cat scans), then why are these chemtrails NOT showing up as radar returns (ie radar jamming) on either ATC or weather radar, considering they are supposedly made of the same thing as chaff?

With the number of persistent contrails left on the planet on a daily basis, radar would be entirely useless.


Originally posted by ParkerCramer
Perhaps you should look into the flights that are daily flown by the CIA, the NSA, or the State Dept.

of course this may diffucult.............

They have to file a flight plan for flying IFR, just like everyone else. Their trick is to hide their flights in among commercial traffic using charter airline flights. Even the Janet planes have to file a flight plan unless they remain VFR throughout their trip:
Janet Flights
As you can see, there is much know about these “secret” flights, and you can also see that they operate as a charter airlines.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 

That kind of testing is really kind of pointless. Local variations in the makeup of soil would mean that no matter what, the results would vary (even if stuff was falling out of airplanes). Look at the variation in the samples we're shown.

Without a local baseline for a longitudinal comparison and without eliminating surface sources for any measured increase there is nothing to be learned.

What might show something would be a broad spectrum analysis of the snow. To see how the scary stuff compares to the regular stuff. If you saw high ratios of aluminum to silicon you might want to take a second look (after eliminating surface sources).


Maybe someone should do a soil check in the Simpson desert or test Antarctic snowfall?

How about Tierra del Fuego? Here's what a real analysis looks like.
cci.siteturbine.com...

EOF1 accounts for "53% of the total variance in the trace elements and is heavily loaded with the elements Fe, Al, Mn, Cs, Ba, Bi, V, Ti and the rareearth elements (REE) Ho and Er (79–89%). Based on the elemental composition and EF calculations, EOF1 appears to represent a dust source signal.

That's how it's done. Not by testing for 2 or three substances.
edit on 3/8/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 

So is this "military chaff" or "persistent contrails?"




posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by lemmehowdt
I first noticed chemtrails back in the late 1990's and asked some friends, who gave me the full contrail explanation.

You want to know why you first noticed this in the 1990’s?
Besides the increase in the amount of air traffic, the airlines up until the mid 90’s used mainly B727’s as their workhorse aircraft:

Some airlines solely operated B727’s, and nothing else.

In the mid 90’s, aircarriers started phasing out the old B727’s because their airframes were just getting too old to continue to fix them, and because technology had moved on to quieter, more fuel effeciant aircraft. The main workhorse now are 737’s:

Now, here is the difference in the engines, and contrails produced by old 727 style engines (here on a 707), and the newer style of engines:


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by defcon5
 

So is this "military chaff" or "persistent contrails?"


If it were chaff or aluminum laced chemtrails, then all the radars in Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina wouldn't function, and all the airports would've had to be closed and their flights diverted with that much aluminum floating around

In case you did not realize it, that is a satellite photo, not a radar return, but thanks for helping prove my point as I was going to try and track down that photo anyway.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


edit on 3/8/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 

Wow, you're actually an ATS mod who's trying to argue that "persistent contrails" are caused by phasing out 727 engines? Do you have any idea how ludicrous that sounds?


If the result of changing aircraft was to turn the blue skies above my house into lingering lines of spreading chemcrud, I say bring back those 727 engines!


edit on 3/8/2011 by GoldenFleece because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



I just want to point out what might be the most important remark made on this thread which disproves the existence of aluminum/barium laced contrails/chemtrails:


And then you quote Weedwhacker.???
At least you know how to get a laugh on ATS..



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Wow, you're actually an ATS mod who's trying to argue that "persistent contrails" are caused by phasing out 727 engines?

First off, what does my status as a mod have to do with anything?

Secondly, I have shown photographic proof that there is a difference in the running temps, and therefore the contrails created by the new engines verse the older engines. This temperature difference is part of what makes them run more efficiently. Colder temperatures is part of the reason why pilots will only go to cruising speed after they have achieved altitude, it’s strictly a fuel efficiency issue.


Originally posted by GoldenFleece
If the result was turning blue skies into overcast lines of spreading chemcrud, I say bring back those 727 engines!

JP costs roughly the same as diesel gasoline that you put in a truck, its made of the same stuff (kerosene) with some additional additives (anti-spark, anti-icing, etc), now multiply that by the gallons on say a 737 (5,311gl), and you’ll see why fuel efficiency is a major issue with the airlines. It becomes a simple numbers game:

Passengers fees + freight fees - fuel load - landing fees - ramp costs – maintenance costs – catering – insurance – staff and crew salaries/benefits – FAA fines - other miscellaneous operating fees = profit (if there is any).

Besides fuel efficiency, the newer engines have better noise abatement properties.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


edit on 3/8/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze
 

I saw what Dr. Thyme said about the sample. I don't see anything about a "cap" in that quote but I get the impression he could be talking more about foot, ski, or snowmobile traffic than transported dust (which they couldn't really do anything about).

Interesting though, the snow melt sample posted on line is 368 μg/L.

Probably not chaff. Chaff comes in the form of fibers 0.3 to 2 inches long. If it had been present in the snow melt it probably would have been noticeable as such.
www.globalsecurity.org...



It was said, in the movie I believe.

As to chaff I addressed it already. It breaks down into particles so fine it can be inhaled: post.

Chaff disintegrates on land.
source

Animals can inhale chaff particles, but the particles do not penetrate far into the respiratory system and can be easily cleared out.
ibid
They claim it has no adverse effects... but so does every company dumping toxic crap into our environment.

I have produced conclusive evidence chaff is at least one of the sources for Aluminum on Mt. Shasta.
let's look at those pics again:

Let's examine this meteorologist:

Now let's pause that picture and see where this Aluminum chaff falls:

Hmm... Looks familiar... here's google earth:


Do you really want to pretend this is not so?
edit on 8-3-2011 by pianopraze because: corrected source



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by backinblack
And then you quote Weedwhacker.???
At least you know how to get a laugh on ATS..

Yes, I quoted an ATPL holding pilot who flew for a commercial airlines, and who brought up a very valid point. Aluminum causes radar reflections, clouds do not. If they were “spraying” us with aluminum, it would cause radar returns and show up like the chaff does on weather radar that we can all publicly see.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   
NVM...

edit on 3/8/2011 by defcon5 because: Confused an edit with a repost.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



Yes, I quoted an ATPL holding pilot who flew for a commercial airlines, and who brought up a very valid point. Aluminum causes radar reflections, clouds do not. If they were “spraying” us with aluminum, it would cause radar returns and show up like the chaff does on weather radar that we can all publicly see.


Well first up, prove to ME weedwhacker is a pilot.......

Secondly does aluminum show up on radar?? Really???
Isn't it one of the most common compounds in our soil?
Didn't Phage even quote soil composition that includes aluminum of over 4% as normal ??
Would that not cause a HUGE problem with radar ??

Or are you merely talking about chaff??
Which is actually in large chunks unlike what the chemtrailers are talking about...

I await you informed reply, or maybe you can get weedwhacker to answer for you..



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 

Your argument is akin to saying, just because the WTC towers were designed and constructed to withstand the impact of multiple 707s doesn't mean a 767 (which is similar size, weight and fuel capacity) couldn't have caused the towers to fail.

Wait... you're not a Official 9/11 Fairy Tale advocate, are you?

reply to post by backinblack
 

I concur. Since when does an "ATPL holding pilot" spend his life posting on ATS instead of flying?

The 9/11 Forum recently found out what happened when a REAL retired Navy Commander, current airline pilot and crash investigator showed up!


edit on 3/8/2011 by GoldenFleece because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Your argument is akin to saying, just because the WTC towers were designed and constructed to withstand the impact of multiple 707s doesn't mean a 767 (which is similar size, weight and fuel capacity) couldn't have caused the towers to fail.

That is not the same thing.
There is a picture above showing the old engines flying next to the new engines, in the same air mass, and only the new ones are generating contrails. That photo comes from a scientific research paper on the increase in persistent contrails.


Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Wait... you're not a Official 9/11 Fairy Tale advocate, are you?

Do I believe that a 767 could bring down the World trade center, then the answer is yes. Though its really off topic. Do I believe that there are mistakes in the OS, then the answer is again yes. Too many variables for ANY paper to get everyone of them correctly.

Edit to add:
A 767 is not the same as a 707, a 767 is a widebody aircraft and a 707 is a narrowbody aircraft. A 707 is closer in size to a 727. a 767 is closer to a A300.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 3/8/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Aluminum is used in chaff. It creates radar reflections. Chaff is designed to confuse radar homing missiles. Thats why fighter planes use it. Its not rocket science.

Aluminum is a common element in soils, however radar looks at the sky, not the ground. Unless somone is throwing soil up in the air, the ground doesn't tend to cause massive problems to ground based radar looking at the sky.

Both of those are common sense things. A little common sense is required when thinking about this subject.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by backinblack
Secondly does aluminum show up on radar?? Really???
Isn't it one of the most common compounds in our soil?
Didn't Phage even quote soil composition that includes aluminum of over 4% as normal ??
Would that not cause a HUGE problem with radar ??

Why, are we shooting radar into the ground now?
Any ground objects pose a problem for radar, they call it “ground scatter” or “ground clutter”.


Originally posted by backinblack
Or are you merely talking about chaff??
Which is actually in large chunks unlike what the chemtrailers are talking about...

A large amount of aluminum particulate in the atmosphere, such as you claim is being sprayed, would work in the same manner as chaff, and be visible on radar.


Originally posted by backinblack
I await you informed reply, or maybe you can get weedwhacker to answer for you..

You know that I cannot speak for another member. From what I know, myself, Weedwhacker, Zaphod, and another mod all worked for the same airlines, and have discussed this in the past. That is as far as I can go to “prove” it to you. If you are wanting some type of personal information, then you should know that it’s a violation of the T&C and STOP soliciting it.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 

Excuse the O/T, but may I refer you to one of my proudest and best researched threads?

Please see FEMA 707/767 comparison halfway down first post.

A 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767.


edit on 3/8/2011 by GoldenFleece because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


There is a big difference in the diameter of the fuselage of a widebody aircraft vs. a narrowbody aircraft. Widebody aircraft are containerized, and narrowbody aircraft are not. Wingspan and length are not as big a factor in damage as weight and fuselage diameter.

However, this is not the place to discuss this.

Edit to add:
Think about it like a bullet. If you want to do more damage you increase the caliber, or the diameter of the bullet. Everything else being equal the bullet with the larger caliber is always going to do greater damage then one of a smaller caliber.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


edit on 3/8/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by backinblack
 


Aluminum is used in chaff. It creates radar reflections. Chaff is designed to confuse radar homing missiles. Thats why fighter planes use it. Its not rocket science.

Aluminum is a common element in soils, however radar looks at the sky, not the ground. Unless somone is throwing soil up in the air, the ground doesn't tend to cause massive problems to ground based radar looking at the sky.

Both of those are common sense things. A little common sense is required when thinking about this subject.



No problems Nef..
Spread your "common sense" and tell me the average size of chaff..
Then use that same "common sense" to tell me the particle size of aluminum..

Then, if you have enough "common sense" left, please tell me if aluminum can really be detected by radar or is it merely chaff, made with aluminum that radar detects.??

BTW, your stance/bias on this subject is well known but I'm just asking sensible questions.


Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.
edit on 3/8/2011 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Attention

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

Any more "mistakes" in quoting another Members name or posts designed to denigrate or insult, no matter how subtle, will be removed and the Member warned..

If you can not post politely and intelligently, I suggest you move on.

Thank you

Semper




top topics



 
53
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join