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.

 

Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering aka "Chemtrails" DEBUNK THIS !!!!

page: 6
52
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 






So odd....I've been flying for almost forty years, and the sky STILL looks exactly the same to me....because I have the understanding, knowledge and life experience to tell the differences. IF something were "odd", it wold be obvious to me.


You would think so but obviously you need to get your eyes checked because your own industry clearly doesn't agree with you. CONtrails and Aviation induced climate change are the number one topics for just about every governing body of the aviation industry throughout the world. They know the damage that aviation is causing the planet is far worse than any current study has shown because the official studies to date have only been required to measure and report on aerosol particles listed in the Kyoto protocol such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen.

Unfortunately for the aviation industry the Kyoto protocol comes to an end in 2012 which is why the rush is now on to find and approve a less deadly toxic fuel alternative. Otherwise every future report will be highlighting all the 'highly volatile, non-organic aerosol particles' and the nasty chemical reacitions going on in 'normal CONtrail' formation.




posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater
 


A few years ago i wrote to my MP and asked him what these trails in the sky were, he wrote to john prescott and bob ainsworth MP and i had a reply saying it was the HN03 MIXED IN WITH THE JET FUEL.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by B.Morrison
 


Actually it is very easy...


Requests for access to research flight hours begin with the submission of an Initial Request for Aircraft Support (Word (35kb), PDF (30kb)) to the manager of the facility. Based on information provided on this form, a DOE-empowered advisory panel recommends to DOE an award of flight hours for the proposed use. Then the user completes a more detailed Research Aircraft Deployment Document (RADD: Word (180kb), PDF (85kb)) in coordination with the RAF manager. RAF users not associated with the DOE Atmospheric Science Program will need to work with the RAF manager on an estimate of the cost of offsite aircraft logistics such as 1) landing fees, 2) hangar rental, 3) ground support facilities, and 4) labor and expenses for a PNNL flight crew of two pilots and two scientific support personnel. During the preparation of RADD, schedules are confirmed and safety and environmental compliance requirements are addressed.

The RAF does not cover the cost of engineering studies and airframe modifications needed for custom installation of project-specific equipment and instrumentation. Such costs must be budgeted separately through a contract with PNNL or Battelle. When requested, RAF staff will assist users in estimating these costs.
Source



Gulfstream-1 Research Aircraft

The G-1 is a large twin turboprop with performance characteristics of contemporary production aircraft. It is capable of measurements to altitudes approaching 30,000 feet over ranges of 1500 nautical miles, and can be operated at speeds that enable both relatively slow sampling and rapid deployment to field sites throughout the world. The aircraft is configured for versatile research applications. It accommodates a variety of external probes for aerosol, radiation, and turbulence measurements and internal sampling systems for a wide range of measurements. The G-1 has sufficient cabin volume, electrical power and payload capabilities, and flight characteristics to accommodate a variety of instrument systems and experimental equipment configurations. Internal instrumentation is mounted in removable racks to enable rapid reconfiguration as necessary. Data from most systems are acquired on a central computer that is tailored to airborne research data acquisition. In addition to acquiring the various analog and digital input signals, it can be configured to communicate with and/or control other systems onboard, and to provide time synchronization to other computers.
Source



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by dellbboytrotter
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater
 


A few years ago i wrote to my MP and asked him what these trails in the sky were, he wrote to john prescott and bob ainsworth MP and i had a reply saying it was the HN03 MIXED IN WITH THE JET FUEL.


So someone of unknown credentials told someone with political (but presumably no scientific) creds that somebody else somewhere said that some undefined "they" put Nitric Acid in Jet fuel. Actually, given the stuck caps lock key on your keyboard, they must have shouted it.
Too bad, but it looks like someone flunked Chemistry class. Nitric acid decomposes at anything above 0 C to form water, nitrogen dioxide and diatomic oxygen. 4 HNO3 → 2 H2O + 4 NO2 + O2. Jet engines don't run very well on water, so it would be really hard to make trails in the sky at 35,000 feet with an aircraft with dead engines from water ingestion. In any event, the nitrogen dioxide would turn the mixture a dirty yellow and jet fuel is clear with a slight straw color tinge. It would be readily noticeable in the pre-flight inspection.
The fuel quantity weight correlation would also raise suspicions since the acid is 60% heavier per unit volume than fuel. Which also brings up the point that the acid would settle to the bottom of the tanks, and given the extreme reactiveness of nitric acid with metals, would eat through the tank skin and dump 48,445 gallons (for a 747)of really messy stuff on the ramp. Again, it would be a little hard to take off, climb to 35,000 feet and dump stuff with no fuel in the tanks. It would be even harder with no tail, as would be the case on the Boeing 747-400, which has fuel in the horizontal stabilizer.
So, I suggest a PM fail.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Anyone who doubts that the Government is sponsoring a range of atmospheric experiments just needs to look at all the various University research projects that have been fully funded by the Government. Each is just a piece in an overall puzzle.

Here is a pretty staggering statistic - The link below is to a website that is like a national register for aircraft owners, manufacturers, suppliers etc. You can search via company, Government dept, etc etc. I used the Government database and typed in University and was shocked because if I am seeing it right then US Universities own and operate a combined total of around 700 aircraft.


US National Register Airplane Owner/Supplier



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
MathiasAndrew, you get a star for one of the best links I've seen on ATS.

Thanks.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
 



Did I just hear Mel Brooks open up a can of sweet refreshing air?

Does anyone realize that those individuals "responsible" for "chem-trails" breath the same air you do?

Is it asinine to believe that anyone would knowingly alter/poison the atmosphere for the purpose of soft kill population reduction/control while being fully aware that they are part of said population?



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Dude, there's a helluva lot more to be concerned about than some stupid conjecture about what turns out to be CONtrails. Sourcing another ATS thread doesn't cut it as evidence.


I have supplied about 20 pages of valid evidence in this thread. I am hardly sourcing from a different thread.
I'm just tired of the same dis-info agents maligning and ridiculing all the valid, credible evidence that is available. I at least would like to give some of you other dis-info agents a chance to debunk what I have found.
Go ahead and take your best shots at this video.



This video shows several commercial craft flying normal parallel flight routes leaving CONTRAILS in their wake. I am not sure what part of this video is proof of "CHEMTRAILS". Most often, commercial jets fly in almost identical direction and altitude, every day, even with the same flight numbers. The only variations occur would be with respect to weather conditions at that altitude that time of day, which vary day by day, hour by hour.

You have shown nothing.

Bring me ONE pilot...of the THOUSANDS that would exist if this CHEMTRAIL HOAX were real. Bring me one.

Just one...please....



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Dis-info agens paid by the post.

How do I get this job? Can someone please contact me because I guarentee I can convince the sheep that chemtrails don't exist. I just want like $400/ a post.
A++++ for persuasive writing! Zombie sheeple unite!




posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   



Bring me ONE pilot...of the THOUSANDS that would exist if this CHEMTRAIL HOAX were real. Bring me one.

Just one...please....



There you go. now. One pilot from a team of 30 that average 5500 flights per year dumping a variety of chemicals simultaneously from three different altitudes.

One Pilot For You



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by phantomjack

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 



This video shows several commercial craft flying normal parallel flight routes leaving CONTRAILS in their wake. I am not sure what part of this video is proof of "CHEMTRAILS". Most often, commercial jets fly in almost identical direction and altitude, every day, even with the same flight numbers. The only variations occur would be with respect to weather conditions at that altitude that time of day, which vary day by day, hour by hour.
You have shown nothing.
Bring me ONE pilot...of the THOUSANDS that would exist if this CHEMTRAIL HOAX were real. Bring me one.

Just one...please....


you asked for a pilots perspective?
Here you go...
www.nmsr.org...

and should you want to do more due diligence, simple google "pilots against chemtrails"



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Your wasting your time, those who believe know the truth those who don't well.....just to say when I was in Europe
in the mid 90's I was involved with a joint exercise with American and British troops. They used chem trails during
that operation, they were not called chem trails, I do not remember them calling it by any name. I was told that it was done to test blocking out certain types of satellite imagery so they could basically block the enemy from seeing the battle field. I thought, at the time this was common knowledge, if I only knew what I know now I would have taken photo's of that OP.When I see them doing the same thing over my city, It looks the same to me now as it did back then, except the reason for doing it must be different, what that reason is I do not Know? Sorry that all I have to offer is my own personal testimony and not any real proof. Good luck with the masses.



P.S. This information is completely hypothetical and I will plead the 5th on this.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seagle
Anyone who doubts that the Government is sponsoring a range of atmospheric experiments just needs to look at all the various University research projects that have been fully funded by the Government. Each is just a piece in an overall puzzle.

Here is a pretty staggering statistic - The link below is to a website that is like a national register for aircraft owners, manufacturers, suppliers etc. You can search via company, Government dept, etc etc. I used the Government database and typed in University and was shocked because if I am seeing it right then US Universities own and operate a combined total of around 700 aircraft.


US National Register Airplane Owner/Supplier


/facepalm

And why did you not tell people what kind of aircraft those were? Oh yeah, that would debunk yourself. You had some alarmist statement but withheld the actual data.

I looked, and saw lots of Cessna 172s, Cessna 152s, Beechcraft, etc. I think the vast majority of that list is going to be training aircraft for university flight programs.

So, the question begs, why did you not tell people that part of it all, that the list is made up mostly of single engine prop planes.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
SF Good thread. I don't know why debunkers keep going on about this subject because it is hands down proven to be fact that chemtrails are existant. We just don't know what there purpose is. I don't have time right now but there is a, I think 2 hour video that aired on the History channel that proved hands down that chemtrails are fact, but just couldn't say what the full purpose was. LOOK IT UP



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Seagle
 


DOUBLE /facepalm...yet again!!!

The request was for a professional pilot who agreed about "chem"-trails!!! And what did you link to?? A guy in Thailand who flies....>drumroll



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by AnnunakiRageTheChosenPeop
 



Dis-info agens paid by the post.


Yes, indeed....good you pointed it out. The OP of this thread, especially. Of course, once HE started it, the normal crew of DIS-info agents swooped in too, starring every post that pushes the "chem"-trail myth and HOAX....because, as you said, it PAYS WELL!!!

Umm...should say, it pays well for those at the top, anyhow....like Carnicorn, and others behind the scenes, keeping this idiocy alive, and fooling the gullible en masse. I suppose the posters who keep shoving the "chem"-trail nonsense out get a small pittance....a sort of "trickle down effect"???



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Have read the entire thread up to this point - let's look at what we know and don't know. We know that some planes leave short trails called comtrails and others leave long trails that turn into clouds called chemtrails. We know that we have chemistry data from both air and water samples that have anomalous readings for barium, aluminum and strontium. We know that there is a whole field of science called geo-engineering. Is there an MSDS on the field?

There is a lot going on - the sun has been particularly active in sending out cosmic radiation. There are reports that we have moved into a cosmic cloud. The pace of life makes it seem that time is speeding up. 2012 is only a year away. The tensions are rising, because this topic is shrinking at some of the basics of the belief system. It is all breaking down and we are arguing semantics.

I agreed to be on ATS radio to talk about the chemistry of the alleged chemtrails. If you watched the movie, i tried to explain the toxicology of the materials in question there. The word expert is made of two parts - ex means former and we all know what a spurt is. I try to think in all fields using chemistry as a basis. If anyone on this thread wants to formulate good questions - we can address them live on air and really push the state of the myth forward.

Don't blindly trust the scientists. Think the answers to the questions through for yourself - in your personal world view. Does it all add up? What is it that we don't know. BTW - the holographic projection idea is a new spin to me - it really sounds like a viable alternative - how many more can we come up with?

Anyone want to help a chemist debunk all of chemistry?



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by lemmehowdt
Have read the entire thread up to this point - let's look at what we know and don't know. We know that some planes leave short trails called comtrails and others leave long trails that turn into clouds called chemtrails. We know that we have chemistry data from both air and water samples that have anomalous readings for barium, aluminum and strontium. We know that there is a whole field of science called geo-engineering. Is there an MSDS on the field?

There is a lot going on - the sun has been particularly active in sending out cosmic radiation. There are reports that we have moved into a cosmic cloud. The pace of life makes it seem that time is speeding up. 2012 is only a year away. The tensions are rising, because this topic is shrinking at some of the basics of the belief system. It is all breaking down and we are arguing semantics.

I agreed to be on ATS radio to talk about the chemistry of the alleged chemtrails. If you watched the movie, i tried to explain the toxicology of the materials in question there. The word expert is made of two parts - ex means former and we all know what a spurt is. I try to think in all fields using chemistry as a basis. If anyone on this thread wants to formulate good questions - we can address them live on air and really push the state of the myth forward.

Don't blindly trust the scientists. Think the answers to the questions through for yourself - in your personal world view. Does it all add up? What is it that we don't know. BTW - the holographic projection idea is a new spin to me - it really sounds like a viable alternative - how many more can we come up with?

Anyone want to help a chemist debunk all of chemistry?


Sure and what in that "movie" do they never mention the fact that 8 percent of the weight of the earths crust, is Aluminum and that soil be can 10 percent aluminum without being abnormal?

Why do they not mention in that, that most any soil sample will have aluminum in it?

Why do they not mention, that strontium is also used in toothpaste, and that aluminum is a major part of Mylanta?

Why do they take a solid sample test result and pass it off as water quality?

Why do they not mention how Al and Ba and many metals/elements/minerals will be normally present in dust, and will accumulate in any open test subject, such as a closed water body, or surface of snowpack?



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
 


Well, then. You can do what EVERY other Chemtrail-denier FAILS to do.

Go find a video or a series of pictures that conclusively prove persistent spreading CONtrails. These materials must be from before 1990, in order to thoroughly avoid the period widely believed to be the start of CHEMtrails.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
 


Well, then. You can do what EVERY other Chemtrail-denier FAILS to do.

Go find a video or a series of pictures that conclusively prove persistent spreading CONtrails. These materials must be from before 1990, in order to thoroughly avoid the period widely believed to be the start of CHEMtrails.


Oddly enough - as I'm sure you're aware - youtube was not around in the 1960s and thus such footage is not readily available. However, we do have photos and, more especially, testaments from scientists who were studying the effects of persistent, spreading, contrails. ie:

Peter Kuhn 1970

Debunk that


Edit: this paper has been posted on ATS numerous times in numerous threads and no chemtrail believer has ever been able to answer the obvious problem that what you call chemtrails were being observed, described, photographed and studied long before chemtrails supposedly existed.
edit on 5-3-2011 by Essan because: added comment



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join