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.

 

Chemtrails 101

page: 8
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I am so sorry, gentlemen, but I must take you to task on this image...




Is this what you are using to show that what we have been seeing in the sky for the last 13+ years dates back to 1921?

Because all that this document from the U.S. Air Service proves is that one supercharged Liberty aircraft left multiple 'streamers' and one of them spread out for twenty minutes in July of 1921.

What really makes what you posted interesting is that it is from the Military. Someone was sent out to perform detailed observations from the ground and report. Is that not why we are reading it in such great detail? That would lead me to believe that is because it was an unusual occurrence and they wanted it documented.

You are the one drawing a correlation here, Fellows. What does it have to do with the phenomenon we have been experiencing for the last 13+ years? Go ahead and stretch.

It helps with the suction we need for the vacuum.

I think you guys could use three months off as well




posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frater210
I am so sorry, gentlemen, but I must take you to task on this image...




Is this what you are using to show that what we have been seeing in the sky for the last 13+ years dates back to 1921?

Because all that this document from the U.S. Air Service proves is that one supercharged Liberty aircraft left multiple 'streamers' and one of them spread out for twenty minutes in July of 1921.

What really makes what you posted interesting is that it is from the Military. Someone was sent out to perform detailed observations from the ground and report. Is that not why we are reading it in such great detail? That would lead me to believe that is because it was an unusual occurrence and they wanted it documented.

You are the one drawing a correlation here, Fellows. What does it have to do with the phenomenon we have been experiencing for the last 13+ years? Go ahead and stretch.

It helps with the suction we need for the vacuum.

I think you guys could use three months off as well



Yes, it was an unusual occurance THEN. Can you figure out why??



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
0.1 percent of the sky and yet the chemtrail somehow mixed in with it indistinguishably ??

Propeller planes cause chemtrails too ?? No Phage we don't need to see your one video of air-force chemtrailing.

The debunkers seem to think this guy can tell how high up a plane is from the ground, and tell everyone else that they cannot...weedwhacker tells us that chemtrails cannot form under 30,000 feet so someone is lying here.

How is it i have never seen a chemtrail coming out of any Air Force fighter jets ??

Perhaps they stay at elevations where they won't occur !!


Dam fool bombers back in world war 2 huh, if only they had flown higher or lower they would have had far better success, i guess they just didn't know about chemtrails like we all do now.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 

That's .1 of the sky, that would be 10 percent.

Yes internal combustion engines emit hot water vapor which causes contral formation.

Because it was an altitude test the altitude was reported by the pilot.

How do you know you haven't seen a persistent contrail from a fighter jet? If it's persistent the plane would be long gone and the contrail still there.

Smart bombers in WWII. Flying lower would put them in the range of German fighters. They couldn't get much higher.

edit on 5/30/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 



Propeller planes cause chemtrails too ??


The big, high-horsepower types of yesteryear....before jets were invented....yes.
.


...weedwhacker tells us that chemtrails cannot form under 30,000 feet ....


NO, he DOES NOT.....now, we know who is lying, here.....



How is it i have never seen a chemtrail coming out of any Air Force fighter jets ??


You don't get out much?? Because, OTHERS see them. Just because YOU don't is not *proof*...except, that you don't understand, and lack comprehension and experience?


Oh, well.....since I looked for videos....this one, of some F-16s. CONtrails....the uploader's comments:


F-16 pilots of AFB Leeuwarden and AFB Volkel are chasing and fighting eachother in the bluesky.
have missed the contrails in the contrailsless days,very boring.
F-16 Dogfight contrails over Friesland,Netherlands




F-18.....Fighter Jet!! Woo Hoo!!:






Dam fool bombers back in world war 2 huh, if only they had flown higher or lower they would have had far better success, i guess they just didn't know about chemtrails like we all do now.


Huh?? Do you even learn history?

And, yes...THEY knew about CONtrails...not "chem"-trails.

MOSTLY, in early parts of the war in Europe, bombing missions by the Allies were at NIGHT (**). Also, they had to fly as high a possible, for better range (fuel conservation) and flak avoidance. (Anti-Aircraft, 'AA' guns).

Gee....might want to read up on this, there aremany books about it.


(**) Should mention, it was later years....forget when, exactly....partly, the lead-up to D-Day...that those Generals in charge decided to begin daytime bombing missions. Was not popular with the crews. Look for the book "The Bomber Boys" --- chronicles B-17 crews. That, just from memory....or, Google for many more examples, in order to educate yourself, on the history and facts....

Here's a website, also about the book, linked above: thebomberboys.com...


I have not yet seen THIS video series......but, here it is, in case it's interesting....:






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



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frater210

Is this what you are using to show that what we have been seeing in the sky for the last 13+ years dates back to 1921?

Because all that this document from the U.S. Air Service proves is that one supercharged Liberty aircraft left multiple 'streamers' and one of them spread out for twenty minutes in July of 1921.


Oh, there's more:

consci.s3.amazonaws.com...





The point is that persistent contrails are nothing new. They have been observed since before 1921, and even back then scientists had a reasonable understanding of how they formed, and turned into clouds.



edit on 30-5-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


As much as I am interested in the mechanics of fluids and moisture at high altitudes and low temperatures I am more interested in how you all correlate 13+ years of all these people witnessing this to a supercharged Liberty in 1921.

What you are really doing is cherry picking the ancient and venerable 'Argonne Battle Cloud' weather journal for little tidbits that don't logically support your argument that what we have been experiencing for the past 13+ years is 'normal'.

Here is another 'unusual occurrence' from the 'Argonne Battle Cloud'...




Descriptions of unusual clouds that were formed in the in the autumn of 1918 has since been published by eyewitnesses. &. G. B. Vaughn wrote as follows:

We were passing through a little town * * * when we noticed three parallel lines of clouds or smoke stretching far across the sky. They looked as if they had been made by three planes passing, throwing out smoke and cutting stunts, for the lines were far from straight. Through these lines were waves which ran perpendicular to the earth, with a drift from left to right. They looked most like waves of heat one sees rising from the earth, but they traveled with a shifting motion somewhat like the flickering of the northern lights.

THE ARGONNE BATTLE CLOUD. By B. M. VARNEY. University ofCalifornia, June, 1921



They would not be writing about this if weren't out of the ordinary.

Better get some new .jpegs

Or I would be happy to email you copies of the Argonne Battle Cloud.

Everyone Who Is Down With STS1,

Do Not Feed Them

Flag The Heck Outta This Thread. Keep it at the top.



What you are really posting is evidence that, yes indeed, people notice it when strange stuff happens in the skies. Thank you for re-affirming that we all have this power.

BarfingUnicornOut
edit on 30-5-2011 by Frater210 because: Muahahahahahahahhaha ha (ahem) ha (cough) ha (heh, heh)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
No, its not cherry picking.

Chemtrailers assert that persistent contrails did not happen prior to (insert year of choice which depends on the imagination of the chemtrailer) to "chemtrails" starting.

So if persistent contrails were being noticed starting in 1920, that totally destroys the whole argument that persistent contrails are proof of spraying.

And yes it was unusual then because aircraft engines were just then getting enough power to fly up that high.

Its chemtrailers who cherry pick and ignore incidents like this, which are rather inconvienent to their meme that persistent contrails never happened until recently.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Frater210
 


They would not be writing about this if weren't out of the ordinary.

Planes were out of the ordinary in 1918. Much less planes flying high enough to produce contrails.

edit on 5/30/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Frater210
 


I'm posting the 1921 accounts because they were THE FIRST. It's to show how far back persistent contrails go. The accounts are mostly from the article Wakes of war: contrails and the rise of air power, 1918-1945 Part I–early sightings and preliminary explanations, 1918-1938, (Air Power History. 54.2 (Summer 2007): 16(16).), Donald R. Baucom)

findarticles.com...

Would you prefer I just quote something from the 1970s that says persisting spreading contrails were a familiar sight? Would that pertain better?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRealMrX
reply to post by sonnny1
 

I just gave you a 2000 lb. bunker busting bomb of truth, buddy. It's called Chemtrails 101!


No ,you gave me NO proof. What type of plane did you fly in to take air samples? What samples,if any showed,chemicals being dumped? How long did your study last? Is it ANY scientific journal? Peer discussion? Heres mans way of dumping chemicals in the air. They are not EVEN hiding it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I will ask you one question.
Why do they need to drop CHEMICALS onto the worlds population again with aircraft,especially if its even more convenient to do it out in the open ?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I am so sorry, my esteemed friend, but I believe that you will have to take that up with B. M. Varney.

And the Argonne battle Cloud.

docs.lib.noaa.gov...






posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Frater210
 

Why?
You made the statement. I suppose it was just a throwaway comment.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
Propeller planes cause chemtrails too ?? No Phage we don't need to see your one video of air-force chemtrailing.


How about these privately owned P-51 mustangs then?




Dam fool bombers back in world war 2 huh, if only they had flown higher or lower they would have had far better success, i guess they just didn't know about chemtrails like we all do now.


They had to fly at the altitues they were allocated in order to maintain formations of hundreds of aircraft - the Appleman chart for predicting contrail formation wasn't around until 1953 - in WW2 whether contrails formed or not was largely a matter of luck...or lack of it.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

It would be a waste of my time. You will never be satisfied.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 

Follow the money.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 

I have no access to these test results. I am presenting the evidence to which I have had access. You seem to be telling me that every environmental services company in the country and the world that tests air, soil and water for Aluminum, Barium and Strontium never finds any of these toxins anywhere. You aren't one of these conspiracy theorists I've been hearing so much about are you? What you are talking about opens up a whole other can of worms, but I doubt I will ever have full access to this data. Nice data if you can get it.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRealMrX
reply to post by jdub297
 

Follow the money.



It apparently leads back to coal companies supporting chemtrails sites, and speculation that this is because hte chemtrail hoax takes pressure off them from activists who would otherwisse be protesting the REAL pollution they pump out by the million tons every year - see www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRealMrX
reply to post by jdub297
 

Follow the money.


I followed the money right to Carnicorn and the guys from WITWATS. Do you realize that 'chemtrail' websites make money on people's fear and ignorance?

They probably know that 'chemtrails' aren't real, but the kind of people who believe in 'chemtrails' are fearful, distrustful of the government, and take things on faith. Those people flock to 'chemtrail' sites and bring in the ad money.

Sorry my friend, you've been played. It's cliche...but there literally is a sucker born every minute.

(Take a look at www.contrailscience.com, notice the lack of ads?)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRealMrX
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

It would be a waste of my time. You will never be satisfied.



I can be completely satisfied by science that proves your case - I have said so many times.

Show me some real verifiable evidence and I will ahve to change my mind - as will at least most of the debunkers here IMO - we are driven by logic, evidence and rational thought.

Show us atmospheric samples, equipment fitted to planes, credible whistle blowers, fuel analysis, maintenance or operating manuals, heck show us anything factual and verifiable at all!!




top topics



 
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join