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.

 

Local news covers chemtrails/contrails

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I was just looking over my local news stations website and guess what was there...yep you guessed it an article about the difference between contrails and chemtrails.

Apparently they were getting calls about trails in the sky yesterday (it was a beautiful cloudless sunny day much like today).
link
edit on 5-5-2011 by CajunQueen because: link


He provides a very detailed account of both but once you get to the end he sounds like he may be trying very hard to convince us that we are not looking at chemtrails....
edit on 5-5-2011 by CajunQueen because: added text




posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Although there are pollutants in the exhaust of aircraft, this shouldn't be referred as a "Chemtrail" You may visibly see "exhaust" from an aircraft shortly after takeoff and at landing, but the streaks across the sky yesterday was primarily water vapor and nothing else.


The 1st line is basically saying - pollutants are not chemicals.
Then it says "primarily water vapor" and "nothing else".... primarily means what? A majority, mostly, almost all, yes? How can a majority be the same thing as ALL?
I can't get through this double speak out of both sides of their mouth.
edit on 5-5-2011 by JibbyJedi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


I love the last paragraph...haha



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by CajunQueen
sounds like he may be trying very hard to convince us that we are not looking at chemtrails...

Well, considering there's no such thing as "chemtrails", nor is there any evidence to suggest there are. My post below sums up the whole "chemtrail" thing quite accurately:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by CajunQueen
sounds like he may be trying very hard to convince us that we are not looking at chemtrails...

Well, considering there's no such thing as "chemtrails", nor is there any evidence to suggest there are. My post below sums up the whole "chemtrail" thing quite accurately:

www.abovetopsecret.com...






You forgot to add that there's no such thing as gov't corruption or cover ups during experimentation on the populations. Those declassified documents are just CGI hoaxes.... and if they are true, the gov't or private sources would NEVER do anything harmful to any of us now, that was the past, we should just forgive and forget and never suspect any such things in the future.

/drops Kool-Aid



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by JibbyJedi

Although there are pollutants in the exhaust of aircraft, this shouldn't be referred as a "Chemtrail" You may visibly see "exhaust" from an aircraft shortly after takeoff and at landing, but the streaks across the sky yesterday was primarily water vapor and nothing else.


The 1st line is basically saying - pollutants are not chemicals.


No it doesn't - the first line says that you shouldn't refer to the pollutants as "chemtrails" - there's noting in it at all about pollutants not being chemicals!



Then it says "primarily water vapor" and "nothing else".... primarily means what? A majority, mostly, almost all, yes? How can a majority be the same thing as ALL?


huh? it's common english useage around here to say that something is "mostly A and nothing else" - it means that there's nothing else significant in whatever it is that is being referred to.

In this case the long white lines AREr water vapour - and nothing else - because everything else that is "in" them - CO2, CO, soot, miniscule amolunts of various other stuff - is essentially invisible.


I can't get through this double speak out of both sides of their mouth.


I can't get over how you mis-represent what was said to manufacture "evidence" to support your silly fantasy


It's a news report FFS - not a freakin' scientific paper, and if a news reporter uses informal language then they are doing no more than what we all do every day. Making a conspiracy about it is pathetic.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


lol 'nor is there any evidence to suggest there are' Ok bro, WHATEVER YOU SAY !!!



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Vanishr
 


I reckon the total lack of evidence that they exist at all is pretty good evidence that they are harmless


However back to the topic of the thread - local news cover of "chemtrails"

Here's a couple of good op-ed bits from Athens, Ga:

In theory, bird deaths make for a great conspiracy theory - talking about the mass bird deaths that got people all excited back in January

And The Editor's Desk - a comment he received from another journo about chucking a chemmie out of his office.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by CajunQueen
 


That's actually a very well explained, researched and thought out article, thanks for sharing



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Looks like the chemtrail believers are organising against that person for daring to say they are mistaken - see pag 2 of hte comments section for emails purportedly coming from Michael J Murpy.

I checked google to see if I could find them and sure enough they are on several chemmie sites around the world - eg this one in New Zealand - chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com... - included are veiled threats against the journalist.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Most of these are normal. Investigators need to organize. It's very simple and public knowledge when any of those jets are commercial. They even have apps for this.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join