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.

 

New World Order, China, Chemtrails and Big Business.

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


So what you are telling me now is that contrail's coming from the jet plane in that vid will look similar to the trail's left by a plane that is "SPRAYING CHEMICALS" but the jet plane is not spraying chemical's.

Is it just me or dose that statement seam to be the most stupid statement seen in these threads to date.
Come on even a 13 year old could see straight through that one




posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I have shown that some of the information on his site especially the
Quote:Sometimes [contrails] are ephemeral and dissipate as quickly as they form; other times they persist and grow wide enough to cover a substantial portion of the sky with a sheet of cirrostratus“
This came from a book that was written by Vincent Schaefer who headed 2 major project's.
project Cirrus and project Stormfury both weather modification projects.
He also holds a no. of patient's one of which is very interesting.
He worked on many black ops project with government and other agency's throughout his working life and after his retirement.
Given his history do you think he is then reliable?


Who is "he"? Uncinus, or Vincent Schaefer?

I suspect you mean Schaefer - just clarifying.

I see nothing in your post to make me suspect the statemetn is false - indeed he's probably studied weather a lot more than you or I from his asociation with Cirrus and Stomfury.

Is the statement actually wrong??

Many other places make similar statements as to the persistence of contrails - for example this article from deHavilland in 1942 makes the point that long contrails can ensue - what are exhaust and wingtip contrails?

And similarly many studies since.

the whole point of scientific evidence is that it can be replicated - Scaefer's statements hold not because Schaefer made them - but because lots of pther places independantly confirmed them.
edit on 28-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Uncinus
 


So what you are telling me now is that contrail's coming from the jet plane in that vid will look similar to the trail's left by a plane that is "SPRAYING CHEMICALS" but the jet plane is not spraying chemical's.

Is it just me or dose that statement seam to be the most stupid statement seen in these threads to date.
Come on even a 13 year old could see straight through that one


It is jsut you - there are many stupider statements made in this forum


He said "a bit similar" - and they do - they are whitish trails coming behing an aircraft.

And that's abot the end of the similarity IMO - trying to say that their slight similarity is proof that they are exactly the same is much sillier than saying they look a bit simiar but are not the same.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I have shown that some of the information on his site especially the
Quote:Sometimes [contrails] are ephemeral and dissipate as quickly as they form; other times they persist and grow wide enough to cover a substantial portion of the sky with a sheet of cirrostratus“
This came from a book that was written by Vincent Schaefer who headed 2 major project's.
project Cirrus and project Stormfury both weather modification projects.
He also holds a no. of patient's one of which is very interesting.
He worked on many black ops project with government and other agency's throughout his working life and after his retirement.
Given his history do you think he is then reliable?


Reliable enough to write a simple text book that just reflects known science. Look at the (1981) quote:

"Sometimes [contrails] are ephemeral and dissipate as quickly as they form; other times they persist and grow wide enough to cover a substantial portion of the sky with a sheet of cirrostratus“

What is suspicious? Is there anything there that you disagree with? Anything that is contradicted by science or history? Can you find ONE SINGLE SOURCE in all the science books before 1980 that disagree with what he said?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Uncinus
 


So what you are telling me now is that contrail's coming from the jet plane in that vid will look similar to the trail's left by a plane that is "SPRAYING CHEMICALS" but the jet plane is not spraying chemical's.

Is it just me or dose that statement seam to be the most stupid statement seen in these threads to date.
Come on even a 13 year old could see straight through that one


dj, do you understand what an aerodynamic contrail is? What one looks like at over 30,000 feet?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Given the time frame from then to now do you think that they would use same methods or perhaps use newer tec like the many patients filed on spraying methods for use with faster jet planes.
After all its illegal to have a project like this implemented do you think they want to advertise the fact or make it as invisible as is possible its the trail's that are the give away here.
As many have said the way in which the trail's stop as a plane turn's round and returns the way it came and the trail starts once again perhaps there is an on off switch [wouldn't be hard to make one].



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeNergy
Great thread. i believe in chemtrails also they need to stop this crap asap. I just wanna know why they are doing this?


Nanochip technologies Chemtrails
Aluminimum Chemtrails
Barium Chemtrails

Do your research from there


Why do they do it?

Cuz they are insane psychopaths hell bent on a new world order

LONG LIVE GREECE
LONG LIVE PALESTINE
LONG LIVE ENGLAND



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Given the time frame from then to now do you think that they would use same methods or perhaps use newer tec like the many patients filed on spraying methods for use with faster jet planes.


why do you keep spelling patents as "patients"? Just curious.


After all its illegal to have a project like this implemented do you think they want to advertise the fact or make it as invisible as is possible its the trail's that are the give away here.


So what tech do you think could be used that would not be visible?

I'm not aware of any - putting anything on the top of a wing of a large jet such as a KC-10 would be a huge modification - for it to be invisible it would ahve to be something like a porous surface with a heap of pluming underneath it supplying the substance.

I've been part of the workforce replacing wing surfaces on jets and turboprops - it takes weeks, and dozens of mechanics and massive, massive amounts of documentation - and that's just for replacing straight aluminium skins, let alone also fitting plumbing, pumps, tubes, electrical connections, switches, circuit breakers and the like.

there's a reason they use slow and low planes to spray AO and not the fast jets that also cross over in the video - because spraying has to be done slow and low to get decent coverage and concentration.




As many have said the way in which the trail's stop as a plane turn's round and returns the way it came and the trail starts once again perhaps there is an on off switch [wouldn't be hard to make one].


Of course it wouldnt' be hard to make an on-off switch - but that is still not evidence that anything nefarious is being sprayed.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

Why would a long defunct company be posting to the web an internal memo of sorts from 1942 in 2006? Why would a company in the throes of a war effort be stopping to consider how long or short contrails are? Is this memo based on the Goblin engine plane or the Comet that the company was testing and flying around that time which later broke up in the air? The memo goes on to say that a noise was normal, implying that airshow attendees should not be alarmed. Maybe the contrail part was generated for the airshow attendees as well to explain the extra smoke coming from the aircraft prior to breaking up in the air.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Here is more info. Ted Gunderson had an article on how to spot a plane out of place with the plane finder. But now since he is in the hospital with cancer, the article on the flight numbers and which one's you can tell are chemtrail planes is gone. But I did find his web site and decided I'd add more here. Thanks everyone who appreciates the info, that is why I put it out here.


aircrap.org...

tedgunderson.net...
Here is the plane finder, it has the registration number and destination etc. You can compare the commercial flights to the chem sprayers. Dang, wish I could find his instructions, he wanted investigators to track and take pics and report your findings.

planefinder.net...

This is another site I go to, and there is a radio station broadcast about the chemtrails they are seeing.

theintelhub.com...

Enjoy.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


The article is posted in Flight Magazine's archives, in which it was originally published, and which go way back to 1913 (IIRC).

The article was posted because of lots of speculation as to what was going on with those weird trails in the sky (sound familiar??) that people started noticing during the Battle of Britain (1940).

If you go to the Flight archive and search for "vapour trails" (note the English spelling) from 1940-1944 you'll find some articles and letters to the editor on the topic.

Comets broke up in normal scheduled service, killing many people, and long after this was published.
edit on 28-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


The article is posted in Flight Magazine's archives, in which it was originally published, and which go way back to 1913 (IIRC).

The article was posted because of lots of speculation as to what was going on with those weird trails in the sky (sound familiar??) that people started noticing during the Battle of Britain (1940).

If you go to the Flight archive and search for "vapour trails" (note the English spelling) from 1940-1944 you'll find some articles and letters to the editor on the topic.

Comets broke up in normal scheduled service, killing many people, and long after this was published.
edit on 28-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


So you're comparing Battle of Britain airspace with current day airspace?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


It's just planes, burning hydrocarbons, flying through air. Exactly the same principle.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


It's just planes, burning hydrocarbons, flying through air. Exactly the same principle.


Thankyou alternate gun but I don't think too many would agree that Battle of Britain airspace and todays' airspace are the same.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


It's just planes, burning hydrocarbons, flying through air. Exactly the same principle.


Thankyou alternate gun but I don't think too many would agree that Battle of Britain airspace and todays' airspace are the same.


What, do you think they were flying out in space during WW2?

Its the same atmosphere



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Ok here is a question for the more scientific minded members on the contrail's side [phage would be the best but if he is not available i will make do]

Lets say that there was such a [so say] geoengineering program involving the spraying of aluminium and barium into the atmosphere what effects would it have on the light spectrum as light from space passed through it.
Maybe i can explain that a little better we all know that light has a wide spectrum one end gamma rays and am radio waves at the other end but my question relates to ultra violet, visible spectrum and infra red.
Would such a filter [aluminium/barium] block out any of the visible light spectrum and if so would it be the blue/indigo/violet part of the spectrum[light with shorter wave lengths]?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


Just wondering if you checked out the link that was provided? Because you made this statement correct?




yet the picture SHOWS the after effects of a days worth of Chemtrails.....


Why not do yourself a favor and check this link out, then compare it with your after effects comment? Guess what you saw, a solar halo, and not something caused by chemtrails.

www.google.com... &sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBUQ_AUoAQ



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by stardust1955
 


Ted Gunderson tells it like it is and he knows the truth!

Here's a couple videos that are really interesting.

Here is a meteorologist talking about chemtrails.



Here is a good video explaining chemtrails.



Space Preservation Act of 2001 HR 2977 IH 107th (B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as (i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons; (ii) chemtrails; (iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems; (iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons; (v) laser weapons systems (vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and (vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 

Gas, petrol, radial, piston driven WWII engines obviously were not jet propelled. They also burned different fuel. If I threw jet fuel into my car it would burn up. It burned at cooler temperatures and less efficiently. It's the difference between driving a smoker and a BMW that does 180 on the autobahn. They were primitive. You are right in that they didn't fly at altitude. My point: there's a difference in something being a smog producer (what they call a gross polluter in cars) and being a jet aircraft. You know the drill with the rest of what I would say here but even with all the above aside it is ludicrous to compare the look of the skies during the Battle of Britain with the skies now. And my exception was with the memo brought from the depths to make a statement about business as usual in the skies today which we've already discussed and gentlemanly agreed to disagree.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by firepilot
 

Gas, petrol, radial, piston driven WWII engines obviously were not jet propelled. They also burned different fuel. If I threw jet fuel into my car it would burn up. It burned at cooler temperatures and less efficiently. It's the difference between driving a smoker and a BMW that does 180 on the autobahn. They were primitive. You are right in that they didn't fly at altitude. My point: there's a difference in something being a smog producer (what they call a gross polluter in cars) and being a jet aircraft. You know the drill with the rest of what I would say here but even with all the above aside it is ludicrous to compare the look of the skies during the Battle of Britain with the skies now. And my exception was with the memo brought from the depths to make a statement about business as usual in the skies today which we've already discussed and gentlemanly agreed to disagree.


No, if you threw jet fuel into your car, it would stop running.

And actually if you put gasoline into a jet engine, it would run just fine. Actually some of the early jet engines ran on gasoline, since the aircraft had both piston engines and jets and they could not carry two kinds of fuel.

The principles are the exact same for combustion, even though you all try to insist it something different. Hydrocarbon fuels burn, creating Carbon dioxide, water and heat. Whether it is jet fuel or gasoline.

And there were jet aircraft during WW2 also.

edit on 28-6-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join