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.

 

Chemtrailers, I'm calling you out!

page: 12
21
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by nuttin4U
 


Contrails don't *make* the rain.

The formation of contrails is a sign OF the inbound weather, and rains. Upper air cirrus very usually precede a front, which brings rain and weather changes.

The airplanes fly in the air, contrails form BECAUSE the weather is about to change..they DON'T change it!!




posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by nuttin4U
 


Contrails don't *make* the rain.

The formation of contrails is a sign OF the inbound weather, and rains. Upper air cirrus very usually precede a front, which brings rain and weather changes.

The airplanes fly in the air, contrails form BECAUSE the weather is about to change..they DON'T change it!!


This is proven incorrect. For such an ardent anti chem trailer I would think you would at least know that it is proven contrails have an effect on the weather.

Granted it is a minor effect and also granted this effect would dissipate quickly with air traffic ceasing but come on you can't say a contrail doesn't change the weather in caps without at least qualifying and acknowledging the respected studies showing the do effect the weather.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


The effect IS miniscule. And, still being debated.

But, the specifics, there, were about impending rain.







edit on Mon 30 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


From my understanding the debate isn't about if it is about how much. And both camps are essentially debating over minuscule or less minuscule.


As I've probably stated I am on the fence when it comes to Chemtrails and nothing will pull me off of it. So I have essentially made up my mind to not make up my mind but am entertained by the debate none-the-less.

That said I think it is important in the process of debunking to at least acknowledge that there is likely some impact from a normal contrail. To deny new clouds have an impact is counter intuitive and would require quite a bit of research to show definitively that they don't.

Also to show that the Government or some private entity is actively spraying through fuel additives or whatever else for some nefarious (or other) end result is also counter intuitive. In this instance proof needs to come from the Chemtrail proponents.

I have seen no evidence contrails do not impact the climate and everything I have seen shows that it reduces temperatures in the day time... essentially what clouds do so no surprises passed my logic filter.

I have also seen no evidence there are chemtrails and am only on the fence because every pilot I know is very defensive about them.

I am open to evidence on either side.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrunkNinja

When did spraying chemicals in the air and leaving visible chemical trails stop counting as a chem trail if it isnt over 28 000 feet, and in answer to phages question

Because that's what the topic of chemtrails is all about - it's about the white trails seen over 28k feet.
Please re-read the above sentence.
It's NOT about crop-dusting, firefighting, or cloud seeding in twin Cessna aircraft.


Originally posted by DrunkNinja
... but after people in this thread have made comments that it doesn't and that the technology to spray aerosols from planes doesn't exist it was fitting to use the thread to show that it does.

Once again.... we're not talking about spraying crops or mosquito abatement, or dumping fire chemicals (because it's a dump, not a spray)....of course the technology is there for these things.
We're talking about the white lines at over 28k feet.


Originally posted by DrunkNinja
My entire point this entire time was to show that government's, corporation's and military are dumping chemical's in the air for a lot of purposes and yes these chemicals are harmful according to the msds.

Are these chemicals leaving white lines at over 28K feet , all over the world ?
Bring us that proof.


from the ContrailScience website...
IF you want to be a scaremonger, then perhaps take a look at caffeine vs. Silver Iodine:
www.sciencelab.com...
www.sciencelab.com...
Silver Iodine has an oral LD50 of 2820 mg/kg, caffeine has one of 192. That means caffeine is FIFTEEN TIMES more toxic than silver iodine. So why no outcry over its use in drinks?


(generally over 28k feet...sometimes if the weather in much colder regions is right, contrails will form lower...but not often.)
edit on 30-5-2011 by EyeDontKnow because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrunkNinja
The beginning of the chemtrail debate wasn't whether it was carried out on behalf of evil people bent on population reduction but rather whether dumping chemicals in the air was harmful and should be stopped.


No, it is whether or not those white lines AT OVER 28K FEET, are normal contrails, or something else.


Originally posted by DrunkNinja
Now a chemtrail classification has to meet a height requirement, has to be carried out by certain individuals and not other's. It's also these requirement's that stop people from understanding that yes there are some chemicals being dropped out of planes and yes they are not healthy to breathe.

Just because you noted "there are chemicals dropped out of planes", (at low altitude) does in no way describe the white trails at over 28k feet.
You can't claim to "win" an argument by not addressing the question at hand...and that is... (sigh) ....white trails left by aircraft at over 28k feet.
edit on 30-5-2011 by EyeDontKnow because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by adeclerk
 


Have Government ever sprayed dangerous chemicals deliberately on unsuspecting civilians??

The answer is a resounding 'YES'...

The only question is, are they still doing it ??

We know they have the capability..
We know they don't care about our well being..
We know there's enough black ops funds to cover it..


YES they have...but to simply say 'the Government' is a bit misleading...it was smaller groups assigned by the Government, not some over-all far reaching conspiracy from the head down....just thought I'd clarify that point.
"We know they have the capability"...NO they most certainly do not. You do realize how HUGE of an ordeal it would be to spray all of, even just North America, right? You'd need Trillions of Dollars, Thousands upon Thousands of Jets all with covert ops teams flying them...and all disguized to look like normal everyday planes. There simply no possible way we would either have the money, or the resources...

"We know they don't care for our well being"....Are you meaning that such an ENORMOUS group of people are all completely and ALL that totally Black-Hearted and Evil?!?!?! It would literally take almost every single person in the airline industry, from maintanece men that look after the planes, to pilots, to airline controlers being in on the scam...Not to mention nearly every single Government Official would have to know about it in order to hide the ENORMOUS amounts of funds it would take to do something like this.....It simply makes no logical sense whatsoever. Not to mention, do you think this HUGE group of people would all be willing to breath the same air constantly every single day that you do, if there was some sort of conspiracy to poison it?


"We know there's enough black ops funds to cover it"
Did you really think about that line when you wrote it? Think about what I said above and, just try to use some logic for a single second....does it seem even the SLIGHTEST bit plausible that we could afford something like this? If your answer is yes.......well......I don't think I can say what I think about that without insulting you.....Just don't insult yourself. Use your Brain....that's the only advice I can give you, friend. Don't believe something just to jump on a conspiracy bandwagon of blind faith. There are plenty of REAL conspiracies out there...ones that make sense. Ones that can be proven, or at the very least remain logical plausible. This particular theory simply is not one of them.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jinglelord
That said I think it is important in the process of debunking to at least acknowledge that there is likely some impact from a normal contrail. To deny new clouds have an impact is counter intuitive and would require quite a bit of research to show definitively that they don't.


Debunkers do acknowledge normal contrails have an impact. It's well known, and a subject of extensive study. Nobody denies this. Just look at the Wikipedia article:

en.wikipedia.org...


Vapour trails or contrails, by affecting the Earth's radiation balance, act as a radiative forcing. Studies have found that vapour trails or contrails trap outgoing longwave radiation emitted by the Earth and atmosphere (positive radiative forcing) at a greater rate than they reflect incoming solar radiation (negative radiative forcing). Therefore, the overall net effect of contrails is positive, i.e. a warming.[5] However, the effect varies daily and annually, and overall the magnitude of the forcing is not well known: globally (for 1992 air traffic conditions), values range from 3.5 mW/m2 to 17 mW/m2. Other studies have determined that night flights are mostly responsible for the warming effect: while accounting for only 25% of daily air traffic, they contribute 60 to 80% of contrail radiative forcing. Similarly, winter flights account for only 22% of annual air traffic, but contribute half of the annual mean radiative forcing.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 


Did I mention any scale in my post??

I'm just pointing out that they have done this in the past..
I didn't say there was 3000 planes up there spraying now..

Please read my post properly...



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Well if it was commonly acknowledged by all debunkers I would imagine Weedwhacker wouldn't have said:



The effect IS miniscule. And, still being debated.


The important part being the last of that sentence. When you say something is being debated it infers that you don't agree with it or that there is enough evidence in your opinion to show it incorrect. Last I checked he is the loudest and most ardent Chemtrail debunker on ATS. Where there is a Chemtrail thread there is the Whacker to knock it down.


Either way I do not think it is commonly accepted and is an important part of the myth which should be brought up as in my opinion this is where a conspiracy would exist if one really did...



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 


Did I mention any scale in my post??

I'm just pointing out that they have done this in the past..
I didn't say there was 3000 planes up there spraying now..

Please read my post properly...


Forgive me if I misunderstood you, but for the most part the arguments I've seen go like this. "To know Chemtrails are real all you have to do is look up in the sky!...The Chemtrails are EVERYWHERE zig, zagging their poisons all across the sky every day". I did make an assumption, that this is what you were speaking of when you say 'Chemtrails', and that is what I was referring to. Such a radical program would indeed cost, and take the manpower that I suggested. What is it exactly that you mean by 'Chemtrails', and what is your evidence, if not suggesting that 'contrails' are in reality 'Chemtrails'. Without a definitive definition it's hard to discuss these matters, though I do believe the criteria I suggested matches the great majority of people's meanings when they speak of 'Chemtrails'. I'll look forward to hearing your definition of the term, and what you think is going on.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


I said "miniscule" based my understanding that the actual data is in dispute.

"miniscule" in the sense that it is localized, and not a general effect on Global climates. Not based on how I observe the paucity of actual coverage, on a Global scale. Just look at any number of satellite photos, or those taken by Astronauts in LEO.


Also, from what I read RE: the few days of USA airspace shut-down, in 2001....the temperature "difference" data was minimal...and, certainly could have been result of other factors, besides absence (or, presence) of contrails.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinglelord
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Well if it was commonly acknowledged by all debunkers I would imagine Weedwhacker wouldn't have said:



The effect IS miniscule. And, still being debated.


The important part being the last of that sentence. When you say something is being debated it infers that you don't agree with it or that there is enough evidence in your opinion to show it incorrect. Last I checked he is the loudest and most ardent Chemtrail debunker on ATS. Where there is a Chemtrail thread there is the Whacker to knock it down.


Either way I do not think it is commonly accepted and is an important part of the myth which should be brought up as in my opinion this is where a conspiracy would exist if one really did...


What is being debated is the net magnitude of the effect. Current science suggests a net warming effect, with some uncertainty as to the amount. In the grand scheme of global warming, it's a minuscule contribution. See "Cloud formation from aviation" here:
www.garnautreview.org.au...


The thin black lines with bars at the end are the range of uncertainty.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by EyeDontKnow
 


No the debate isn't solely about chemical dispersal over 28 000 ft, its anywhere in the air. That's where this whole thing started very very long ago when the debate was whether or not silver iodide and barium are safe to release into the atmosphere. Its not about who's doing it, It's not about what type of plane is outfitted to do it, Its not about elevation levels. Its about safety.

Fact
Silver Iodide is a dangerous chemical that is released into the atmosphere and the delivery vehicle is an airplane.

Material Safety Data Sheet for Silver Iodide
www.sciencelab.com...

Potential Acute Health Effects: Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation

Skin Contact:
After contact with skin, wash immediately with plenty of water. Gently and thoroughly wash the contaminated skin with running water and non-abrasive soap. Be particularly careful to clean folds, crevices, creases and groin. Cover the irritated skin with an emollient. If irritation persists, seek medical attention.

Inhalation: Allow the victim to rest in a well ventilated area. Seek immediate medical attention

Ingestion:
Do not induce vomiting. Loosen tight clothing such as a collar, tie, belt or waistband. If the victim is not breathing, perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Seek immediate medical attention.

Fact
This stuff is put into clouds that then become rain and fill our groundwater and end up in the public water system, it also gets on crops and on animals.

Fact
Silver Iodide Is a chemical introduced to the atmosphere via an airplane

Are these facts ?,,,,,, YES or NO ????? Answer for once instead of sidestepping the obvious

Your about to say it doesn't count because it's weather modification and it isn't being performed over 28 000 ft ....
What does that change ? Nothing its still a chemical being delivered to the atmosphere by an airplane.

That's what I'm saying but instead of addressing this straight on you would rather post video's of cloud seeding and then say see it's low altitude completely missing or avoiding the point and people are starting to see that despite the obvious you will say anything and do anything to maintain your position, which amount's to nothing more than stupidity on your behalf. I have not said anything more than that planes are introducing chemicals to the atmosphere nothing more nothing less and even though your posting pictures of airplanes dumping jet fuel into the skies you still tell me I'm wrong....... you can't see the idiocy in that ?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by DrunkNinja
 


Silver Iodide amounts, used for cloud seeding, are measured in a few pounds, per application.

A diesel train locomotive likely puts out more pollution, and *dangerous* compounds in a cross-country journey, than a seeding session, in a small airplane.

There are a lot more trains...and semi tractor-trailers....and automobiles in existence than airplanes cloud-seeding....


Now...."cloud-seeding", just to be clear, has NOTHING to do with contrails. Con trails, that are mistaken by the "chem"-crowd for something they call "chem"-trails. At high, cruising altitudes for jets.

Too bad, most "chem"-trail believers confuse the situation, and bring up cloud-seeding. Well, let's take a look at some truth:


6. Is there a large amount of silver iodide, or other material, in the rainfall that reaches the ground from seeded clouds?

Actually, the amounts of silver detected from rainwater samples collected in Texas have been quite small. The typical concentration of silver in rainwater, or snowfall, from a seeded cloud is less than 0.1 micrograms per liter (one part in 10 billion). That concentration is well below the acceptable concentration of 50 micrograms per liter as established by the U. S. Public Health Service.....


www.license.state.tx.us...







edit on Tue 31 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
No, chemtrails is not about silver iodide. Thats just reaching and redefining, trying to grasp onto something in order to hope the chemtrail religion is real.

Small planes releasing small amounts of silver iodide, inside of precipitating storms, is not the same as airliners at high altitudes making large trails, and you know that quite well. But you are hoping beyond hope, but sorry, it doesnt work out that way. Do you really think large aircraft are releasing silver iodide into blue skies, at altitudes that it would be worthless, and outside of storm systems? You arent thinking, you are just speculating and hoping.

And the idea that we take barium out of the ground, put it in planes and then drop it out of planes, is just silly too, and there is ZERO evidence of that. Its just that your chemtrail sites tell you that. Lets hope they dont start talking about unicorns too, since all of you would lap that up too

edit on 31-5-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


Are planes being used to deliver the chemical agent silver iodide into the atmosphere or not ? ANSWER THE QUESTION
edit on 31-5-2011 by DrunkNinja because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Are planes being used to deliver the chemical agent silver iodide into the atmosphere ? Yes or No?


Limits for exposure of silver iodide according to the material safety data sheet

Exposure Limits:
TWA: 0.01 (mg/m3) from ACGIH Consult local authorities for acceptable exposure limits
edit on 31-5-2011

Your snippet is wrong again
edit on 31-5-2011 by DrunkNinja because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrunkNinja
reply to post by firepilot
 


Are planes being used to deliver the chemical agent silver iodide into the atmosphere or not ? ANSWER THE QUESTION
edit on 31-5-2011 by DrunkNinja because: (no reason given)


Yes, is there a trail visible from the ground, in large aircraft, in blue skies?

NO, and you know that too. You know its small planes delivering small amounts of it into storms, its been explained to you.

Whats next, are you going to say that the exhaust from engines equals chemtrails too?
edit on 31-5-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join