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.

 

Chemtrail Debunkers....

page: 33
36
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
maybe its not aluminum dust or chaff

Smart Dust is already in our environment


Smart Dust - D.A.R.P.A. Military Technology


Smart Dust microchip technology is in the air! You're breathing it!




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew


I'm not misleading anyone. The video was not made by me. I didn't want to repost the same link that was posted earlier on Evergreen Aviation and then be accused of spamming by you. So I am only hinting and reminding you of the previous article that was shared by (forgive me if I get the name wrong) ATS member name Toots. I am not here to answer your questions or explain things to you. Especially if you're going to just attempt to disregard my answers without first exploring it and the evidence. In fact I asked that you not interrupt my conversations with other members in the OP. Go ask someone else if you don't get it.


Yes you are, by posting this nonsense. You cant just duck and say its someone elses fault because they made the video. Whether its your content or someone elses, you are responsible for the accuracy of your posts.

fine, dont explain it to me. I think everyone else here thoug is owned an explanation of why you posted a video featuring aircraft missing engines, and why you quoted about rear mounted aerosol tanks that are actually the engines.

Tell everyone else please how a plane without engines will fly. Tell everyone how aircraft parked for years and disassembled, can make a secret chemtrail fleet. Explain to everyone how McDonnell Douglas DC-9/MD-80 series jets actually have rear mounted aerosol tanks for propulsion.


edit on 21-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


Firepilot, for the last time I'm not accepting your opinion as proof that your statements are correct. In fact I am sure that your statements are false and you are not reading and interpreting my statements correctly. If you want me to accept your statement in any way other than it being your biased, closed minded opinions. Then please show me some kind of evidence to back up your statements. Hopefully some evidence with significant proof that your statements are actually more than double talk an mis information.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by firepilot
 


Firepilot, for the last time I'm not accepting your opinion as proof that your statements are correct. In fact I am sure that your statements are false and you are not reading and interpreting my statements correctly. If you want me to accept your statement in any way other than it being your biased, closed minded opinions. Then please show me some kind of evidence to back up your statements. Hopefully some evidence with significant proof that your statements are actually more than double talk an mis information.


Fine, show me anything that is false. I stand by EVERYTHING I post and every statement I make. You should stand behind what you post and not duck responsibility for reposting someone elses nonsense. Try logically explaining things in your own words, rather than trying to let youtube speak for you.

Its not really my opinion that an airliner without engines cant takeoff and go fly, btw.

edit on 21-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

So far you have shown no proof that I am wrong. Like I said before...PROVE IT.


nope.

You are the one claiming something is happening - chemtrails - whatever they are - you prove that they ARE happening.

Otherwise chemtrails are just suppositions.



Otherwise it's just your faith based opinion. Your persistent contrail "religion" is based on faulty predictions, limited study and inaccurate data.


well then, you should be able to PROVE those assertions ..you make them with such surebness that I am positive you can back them up with evidence.


SHow me proof that PERSISTENT CONTRAIL science NOT contrail science is accurate, provable and predictable.


Something like this?


Show me proof that high concentrations of aluminum particulates do not appear visible on radar.


Show me proof that radar returns ARE aluminium please?
edit on 21-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: quoting



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

So far you have shown no proof that I am wrong. Like I said before...PROVE IT.


nope.

You are the one claiming something is happening - chemtrails - whatever they are - you prove that they ARE happening.

Otherwise chemtrails are just suppositions.



Otherwise it's just your faith based opinion. Your persistent contrail "religion" is based on faulty predictions, limited study and inaccurate data.


well then, you should be able to PROVE those assertions ..you make them with such surebness that I am positive you can back them up with evidence.


SHow me proof that PERSISTENT CONTRAIL science NOT contrail science is accurate, provable and predictable.


Something like this?


Show me proof that high concentrations of aluminum particulates do not appear visible on radar.


Show me proof that radar returns ARE aluminium please?
edit on 21-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: quoting

Aloysius,
In response to "nope".......Nope, Firepilot is the one claiming high concentrations of aluminum particulates do not show up on radar. I provided video testimony by meteoroligists that confirmed my theory. He has shown no evidence what so ever that I am wrong.

In response to "chemtrails are just suppositions" ....So are persistent contrail predictions. Do you want me to go hunt down your comments made in the other thread where I was the one who supplied the NASA report to you that you just linked to. Where I pointed out that in the conclusion of that report it states that more study and data is required to make accurate predictions and forcast models? Do you remember agreeing with me that it is a new and speculative theory for predicting when the conditions for persistent contrails might occur and that the predictions thus far have not been proven to be accurate?

The rest of your questions are just repeat rephrasing of the same questions that have already been asked and answered. You're starting to sound like a broken record. And you want me to be the only one with any burden to show proof of my statements. While you think that you are free to make any claim without backing it up and expect me or other people to buy into your false beliefs. I don't think so Mr.
...By the way I'm putting you two on ignore. You're disrupting the flow of the thread IMO and not contributing anything but your same old opinions that you made at least 100 times already.
edit on 21-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add text



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

. Where I pointed out the that in the conclusion of that report it states that more study and data is required to make accurate predictions and forcast models? Do you remember agreeing with me that it is a new and speculative theory for predicting when the conditions for persistent contrails might occur and that the predictions thus far have not been proven to be accurate?


they have a level of accuracy - people are working to improve the accuracy. that is often what science is about - improving accuracy of predictions.

Did you read the paper I linked to?


edit on 21-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: fix silly spelling



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Aloysius,
In response to "nope".......Nope, Firepilot is the one claiming high concentrations of aluminum particulates do not show up on radar. I provided video testimony by meteoroligists that confirmed my theory. He has shown no evidence what so ever that I am wrong.

In response to "chemtrails are just suppositions" ....So are persistent contrail predictions. Do you want me to go hunt down your comments made in the other thread where I was the one who supplied the NASA report to you that you just linked to. Where I pointed out that in the conclusion of that report it states that more study and data is required to make accurate predictions and forcast models? Do you remember agreeing with me that it is a new and speculative theory for predicting when the conditions for persistent contrails might occur and that the predictions thus far have not been proven to be accurate?

The rest of your questions are just repeat rephrasing of the same questions that have already been asked and answered. You're starting to sound like a broken record. And you want me to be the only one with any burden to show proof of my statements. While you think that you are free to make any claim without backing it up and expect me or other people to buy into your false beliefs. I don't think so Mr.

edit on 21-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: edit text


I am not sure what is so hard about this to explain to you, its not a hard concept, but it consistently goes over your head.

Chaff is not particulate, the video you linked to even talks about the size of the chaff released. Chaff is carefully designed, partially via its size, to be as reflective as possible. Some chaff systems even cut the length of it almost instantly to suit the wavelength of the missle or radar targeting that aircraft.

You keep talking about some kind of aluminum powder reflecting radar signals. And like I have told you at least 5 times if not more, weather radars generally do not reflect particles at all, because they are designed not to. The size of a particle is not big enough to resonate with enough energy. Again, this is why you do not see clouds or dust storms on radar. This can not be that hard for you to wrap your head around.

And if your insistence was aluminum powder should be so reflective, then combat aircraft would just have tanks of aluminum powder in place of the chaff bundle dispensers. However, they dont.


edit on 21-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Perhaps you don't remember but I am the one who supplied that paper more than a few days ago. Yes, I read the paper. Did you ?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


You're again wrong and you're again leaving out important details. In the video the guy talks about paper strips (which you are referring to) and then near the end he mentions "little tiny bits of glass coated in aluminum". Go back and watch it again.
edit on 21-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: edit text



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by firepilot
 


You're again wrong and you're again leaving out important deatils. In the video the guy talks about paper strips (which you are referring to) and then near the end he mentions "little tiny bits of glass coated in aluminum". Go back and watch it again.


No, I am not wrong. You just blindly repost but never comprehend what you are posting.

Chaff is not sprayed particulates, quit misleading people. It is bundles of fibers with aluminum, not a powder.
Again, if your ideas were true, combat aircraft would just have to dump powder out to mislead enemy missiles.
yes, it can also be glass fibers coated in aluminum, and they are still not a powder.

Chaff dispenser on F-5

www.xs4all.nl...

Did you decide yet how to explain how airliners without engines can fly, and how DC-9 airliners actually dont have engines, but rear mounted aerosol tanks?
edit on 21-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 

Why do I get dragged into these pointless arguments with people who are intentionally being ignorant?

Sorry, I just had to vent that for a second. Thanks for the videos you provided. I am aware of some of that nano particle technology. I've also seen that nano technology diluted into water and then re collected through magnetism. Very interesting and kinda spooky too.


Edit: Iron Maiden rocks....

edit on 21-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add text



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 



I have just one question for you Mathias........do you agree or disagree, that persistent contrails can form naturally?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by firepilot
 


You're again wrong and you're again leaving out important deatils. In the video the guy talks about paper strips (which you are referring to) and then near the end he mentions "little tiny bits of glass coated in aluminum". Go back and watch it again.


No, I am not wrong. You just blindly repost but never comprehend what you are posting.

Chaff is not sprayed particulates, quit misleading people. It is bundles of fibers with aluminum, not a powder.
Again, if your ideas were true, combat aircraft would just have to dump powder out to mislead enemy missiles.
yes, it can also be glass fibers coated in aluminum, and they are still not a powder.

Chaff dispenser on F-5

www.xs4all.nl...

Did you decide yet how to explain how airliners without engines can fly, and how DC-9 airliners actually dont have engines, but rear mounted aerosol tanks?
edit on 21-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)


You quit misleading people. I never claimed chaff was particulate. I claimed that concentrated aluminum particulate looks similar to chaff on radar.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

Chaff:


It is not particulate material.
Particles smaller than microwave wavelengths (millimeters) are too small to be detected by radar. That why chaff is the size it is.


edit on 3/21/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 



I have just one question for you Mathias........do you agree or disagree, that persistent contrails can form naturally?


I agree that some persistent contrails do form "naturally". Although they are all formed by Jet exhaust so it's hardly natural. But regardless of that fact, the "natural persistent contrails" do not persist for more than 20 minutes to an hour tops.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 



I have just one question for you Mathias........do you agree or disagree, that persistent contrails can form naturally?


I agree that some persistent contrails do form "naturally". Although they are all formed by Jet exhaust so it's hardly natural. But regardless of that fact, the "natural persistent contrails" do not persist for more than 20 minutes to an hour tops.


Okay, slightly pedantic, but not to worry


second question......do you know how a cirrus cloud forms, and the conditions needed for it to form?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Perhaps you don't remember but I am the one who supplied that paper more than a few days ago. Yes, I read the paper. Did you ?


Since you know it so well why did you ask for evidence of persistant contrail prediction??



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

Chaff:


It is not particulate material.
Particles smaller than microwave wavelengths (millimeters) are too small to be detected by radar. That why chaff is the size it is.


edit on 3/21/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


OK Phage excuse me , but I have been pinned into this corner through the process of trying to clarify my answers with this argumentative bunch. If you go back and look at my previous posts and put them into the correct context. I also had said that the " if " the aluminum particles are in the persistent contrails that form, the they should appear similar to chaff when viewed using infra red satellite and "Dopplar" radar images.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Argyll
 



second question......do you know how a cirrus cloud forms, and the conditions needed for it to form?

Yes, I do know and understand how real cirrus clouds are formed and the conditions for them. So what?



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join