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: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mkkkay
reply to post by adeclerk
 


Does this help
By the way i myself just don't know



Lab tests show chemtrails contain aluminum!

In 2008, samples around California's Lake Shasta and the Pit River Arm tributary were tested in a State Certified Lab following weeks of fly-overs and chemtrails. The results of the water samples showed 4,610,000 parts per million of aluminum -- 4610 times the maximum contaminant level! [6]

At another pond, filled with filtered water and confirmed to contain "0" aluminum, test revealed 375,000 parts per million of aluminum (375 times the maximum contaminant level) after only 18 months exposure to the aerial spraying.

The usually pristine snow pack from the Ski Bowl area of Mt. Shasta showed 61,000 parts per million of aluminum!


www.viewzone2.com...


That comes from a site that shows some bias, I'm not saying the results are inaccurate but all it's doing is saying some planes flew over and the lake has a high aluminum content so the two are clearly connected.. that is flawed in so many ways..




posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
there is a HUGE glaring problem with this logic that I always mention and I never get a good response to ... let us not forget that the chemicals allegedly being sprayed into the air by the evil ones.. is all breathed by the pilots flying, the pilots families... the government... the armed services... we share the air..

So the logic of this accusation is just insanely flawed.. it's sort of like being the executioner in a gas chamber, while you're inside the chamber
edit on 28-5-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


Have you seen that commercial for Citibank credit cards??



A high altitude weather balloon with a GPS tracker to find it and an automated air collector should do the trick.





If THEY could do it, just for the photos....surely, one of you "chem"-believers out there could, too.....


Oh, and of course, THESE guys:




Let's face it, the "chem"-believers don't want any facts to interfere with their beliefs....a sort of FAITH....people of faith refuse to listen to reason, this is well-known.

Not to mention, there are companies ALL over the world that are constantly ....daily.... testing air samples, and ground samples.....



edit on Sat 28 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mkkkay
reply to post by adeclerk
 


Does this help
By the way i myself just don't know



Lab tests show chemtrails contain aluminum!

In 2008, samples around California's Lake Shasta and the Pit River Arm tributary were tested in a State Certified Lab following weeks of fly-overs and chemtrails. The results of the water samples showed 4,610,000 parts per million of aluminum -- 4610 times the maximum contaminant level! [6]

At another pond, filled with filtered water and confirmed to contain "0" aluminum, test revealed 375,000 parts per million of aluminum (375 times the maximum contaminant level) after only 18 months exposure to the aerial spraying.

The usually pristine snow pack from the Ski Bowl area of Mt. Shasta showed 61,000 parts per million of aluminum!


www.viewzone2.com...


This is a detail I can't find for large scale jet engines but for hobbyists making home made engines (yes such a thing exists) people often use aluminum liners for the jet exhaust. It wouldn't surprise me if portions of the replaceable liners caused aluminum to melt and atomize in the exhaust.

I can't prove this, just a theory to explain what could cause this other than malice.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


How would a soil sample give any proof that the chemicals came from the air? Your method of gathering data is, for lack of a better word... dumb.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


The results are accurate. The testing is not nor are the conclusions which are made.

That "pristine" snow sample was taken in the middle of the summer of 2008.
www.thetruthdenied.com...

That was a very dry and dusty summer. Dust contamination is the most probably source of the aluminum found.
www.mtshastanews.com...


The "testing" does not test water, it tests mud. The levels found are not unusual.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Actual water testing does not show elevated levels.
www.mtshastanews.com...

edit on 5/28/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mactire
reply to post by adeclerk
 


How would a soil sample give any proof that the chemicals came from the air? Your method of gathering data is, for lack of a better word... dumb.


Quite right... sort of my point... elevated levels and planes flying over do not make a relation



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mkkkay
reply to post by adeclerk
 


Does this help
By the way i myself just don't know



Lab tests show chemtrails contain aluminum!

In 2008, samples around California's Lake Shasta and the Pit River Arm tributary were tested in a State Certified Lab following weeks of fly-overs and chemtrails. The results of the water samples showed 4,610,000 parts per million of aluminum -- 4610 times the maximum contaminant level! [6]



4 million parts per million? What did they test, a damp coke can?



At another pond, filled with filtered water and confirmed to contain "0" aluminum, test revealed 375,000 parts per million of aluminum (375 times the maximum contaminant level) after only 18 months exposure to the aerial spraying.


They tested the SLUDGE in the pond, not the water.




The usually pristine snow pack from the Ski Bowl area of Mt. Shasta showed 61,000 parts per million of aluminum!


www.viewzone2.com...

Snow sample was taken in July, from here.


So no, unfortunately those do not help.
edit on 28-5-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


WonderLogic Powers .. ACTIVATE


Seriously .. I love these threads that are there to ask people making wild accusations to provide some evidence for their claims, especially on the topic of chemtrails.. the whole idea is rather silly to me



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mkkkay
 

Thanks for that link.
A very thought provoking analysis. Makes a lot of sense.
I predict that one day, this spraying will be common knowledge...old news. In fact, in many ways it already is as more and more people have moved to acceptance and countermeasures of various sorts.
Everyone should read that link, if only to get some balance. It is one of the better chemtrail links that have been posted.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


Laughing at your definition of "better links". It provides another reason for the "chemtrails", one I've seen mentioned only a few times:

In this article you will learn that chemtrails are real and contain aluminum particles. They have been sprayed in the atmosphere in an attempt to protect micro-circuitry and semiconductors -- primarily involved with avionics -- from atmospheric and solar radiation that causes them to fail.


That combined with a picture of the spray end used for testing deicing, makes this article as "good" as any I've read, but hardly "better". It's still speculation based on misinformation using illustrations without the knowledge of what it is actually showing. In other words, typical of any "chemtrail" promoting article.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mkkkay
 


In your "viewzone2" link, is nonsense like this:


"Chemtrails" are something different. They are often formed behind jet aircraft at a much lower altitude and seem to persist in the sky. They often have a different color from contrails and frequently exhibit a rainbow spectrum if lit just right from the sun.



**[color=gold]Chemtrails....formed behind jet aircraft at a much lower altitude...**

NO....this is a lie, and has no evidence....it is merely the ill-informed blathering of this individual.


**[color=gold]They often have a different color from contrails ...**

Nope, not at all. Not even the most ardent "believers" here on ATS say this....they are much too smart.


THIS, though is the most laughable. It is obvious this person is either: Ignorant, or; A shill for the "chem"-trail crowd, hoping no one will check on his ridiculous assertions:

**[color=gold].....and frequently exhibit a rainbow spectrum if lit just right from the sun.**



That is also something the ATS members (even the "believers" in the myth of "chem"-trails) are smart enough to realize is a bogus, unsubstantiated and unscientific claim!!!







edit on Sat 28 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 

Out of courtesy, I will respond ONE more time to you Stars.

As for an explanation, read this link.

Deer Poop

It explains everything.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
You posted 6 threads about chemtrails since the half of May 2011....If you had read half of the threads available on ATS about the subject you would understand there seems to be nobody here who can help you on your quest. Just try to find some peace and quiet, do not ask the same question in a different way over and over again.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
It looks like the Mt Shasta tests are going the way of the KSLA test. News articles presenting the actual facts of the tests taking place are forgotten or ignored in favor of the sensationalistic "chemtrail" assumptions made.
So, since the tests are figured to be wrong in many ways, and the real tests of the toxicity of the water being claimed are amounts of zero or trace, why does the "chemtrail" believers still use it as evidence? Do you not care about facts?
Lying by omission is still lying.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinglelord

Originally posted by Trueman

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by Trueman
Why would I do that? Are you gonna pay me?....or I gotta do it just to have the satisfaction of convincing you?

Let's do the opposite, you go up there with a camera on your helmet and breath the crap behind the planes.


Wow, the air at contrail level is too thin to breath without an oxygen mask. It doesn't surprise me that you don't know that, seeing as you believe in 'chemtrails' with absolutely no evidence.



Exactly, you know you're asking an impossible. Try superman.


Come on guys, this is not impossible just a little pricey. A high altitude weather balloon with a GPS tracker to find it and an automated air collector should do the trick.


Adeclerk, now you know how to do it. Put your money where your mouth is.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 



It explains everything.


It explains that a certain ATS member won't let go of the long-held (and false,unscientific) faith in a myth and hoax....despite ample evidence of the fact of the myth, and the on-going hoax.

There is also no semblance of cohesiveness, in that "deconstruction" rant. Rather, it is quite humorously mistaken, in the attempts at "logic" and examination.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Trueman
 



....breath the crap behind the planes.


This happens, every day, somewhere in the world.

Passengers, on airliners. When the jet they are riding on happens to fly through the CONTRAILS left by other airliners, or any jet that made the CONTRAILS.

The external air is introduced to the cabin environment.

Or, are people unaware of how the pressurization system works on an jet???



WW, I normally applaud your ability to state scientific facts but I fear that on this one you are wrong.

Ever since the smoking ban on airplanes the carriers took the decision that they no longer needed to spend money filtering the onboard air and replenishing it with external air. The result is that modern air travel can be one of the most unhealthy experiences you can ever encounter. The reason being that airborne germs are no longer filtered out along with the smoke so people get sick if there is an infectious person onboard.

Oh... and you're right. Chemtrails are bunk.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus
there is a HUGE glaring problem with this logic that I always mention and I never get a good response to ... let us not forget that the chemicals allegedly being sprayed into the air by the evil ones.. is all breathed by the pilots flying, the pilots families... the government... the armed services... we share the air..

So the logic of this accusation is just insanely flawed.. it's sort of like being the executioner in a gas chamber, while you're inside the chamber
edit on 28-5-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)


I've tried that argument time and time again.

Don't expect a reply anytime soon.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MiTS1965
 


Nope, sorry....:


Ever since the smoking ban on airplanes the carriers took the decision that they no longer needed to spend money filtering the onboard air and replenishing it with external air.



The airplane is pressurized by the continuous introduction of air, via the Air Cycle Machines (called ACMs, or alternately Air Conditioning Packs....or, just "Packs". The ACMs are actually components of the entire "Pack" assembly).

The air is "bled" from the engines.....the hot, highly-compressed air from the compressor sections of the engine, upstream the burner/combustion section.


(Other designs and arrangements will occasionally use the "bleed air" from the turbine section, too....for other purposes...NOT for the interior, though....don't want the engine exhaust gases being continually introduced into that air. There are no civilian airplanes that use this, however --- that I'm aware of).

Obviously, the air is drawn from the surrounding environment, and this includes those occasions when the airplane flies through other contrails, of previous airplane passage.

Interestingly, Boeing is being innovative with the new 787 models....going "bleedless", as they're calling it. Using high-capacity, electrically driven compressors, for the pressurization...still, this will be drawing air from outside.

Every airplane has this continuous amounts of air being pumped in.....the pressure levels are regulated by one or more "outflow" valves, located near the rear of the fuselage. (Thus is why, in old days, smoking sections were in the rear.....the smokiest air tended to be drawn aft, and overboard). AS TO your misunderstanding, all that has changed, in more modern designs, is the incorporation of "recirc fans"....this helps, actually, to balance out temperatures, as it moves some of the internal air around...but, the total volume of air is replaced, depending on airplane size and design....


Here, rather than me blathering on, this is from Boeing, and has all the technical details (including schematics, and diagrams...pictures worth a thousand words...)....to explain the B-767, and a study that was undertaken:

www.boeing.com...


(On page #4, near "Fig. 6"):


Air-Conditioning Packs

......The air-conditioning pack provides essentially dry, sterile, and dust free conditioned air to the airplane cabin at the proper temperature, flow rate, and pressure to satisfy pressurization and temperature control requirements. For the 767 (and most modern aircraft), this is approximately 5 cubic feet per minute (cfm) per passenger. To ensure redundancy, two airconditioning packs (two are typical, 747 airplanes have three) provide a total of about 10 cfm of conditioned air per passenger. An equal quantity of filtered recirculated air is mixed with the air per passenger. An equal quantity of filtered recirculated air is mixed with the air from the air-conditioning packs for a total of approximately 20 cfm per passenger. This high quantity of supply air results in a complete cabin air exchange about every two and one-half minutes, or about 25 air changes per hour. The high air change rate is necessary to control temperature gradients, prevent stagnant cold areas, maintain air quality, and dissipate smoke and odors in the cabin. Temperature control is the predominant driver of outside airflow requirements.



I think the Boeing PR Department wanted that "sterile, and dust-free..." bit in there. I know this isn't entirely correct.....any number of times, on the taxiway when in line to takeoff, the exhaust gases (and pungent odor) will enter the cabin, through the engines and the entire Pack System.....and Air Conditioning System....from airplanes in front, when wind blows in right direction...or, when a strong tailwind, even from our own engines, too...has happened....



edit on Sat 28 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join